1

Robert Mueller er en umoralsk, juridisk morder:
Han vil gøre sit job, hvis I giver ham lov.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
29. sept., 2017.

Vært Matthew Ogden: God aften; det er den 29. september, 2017. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg William Wertz fra Executive Intelligence Review. Vi vil diskutere den netop udkomne specialundersøgelses-rapport; dossieret med titlen, »Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal Assassin; He Will Do His Job if You Let Him!«

Fig. 1

Jeg viser rapportens forsidebillede her på skærmen [Fig. 1]. Som I ser, så er rapporten nu tilgængelig; den er allerede blevet cirkuleret i over et døgn. Den er allerede i hænderne på folk i hele USA, og man kan se den her: lpac.co/ytdos (LPAC’s hjemmeside; EIR-rapporten findes som pdf på vores hjemmeside).

Rapporten er delt op i tre afsnit og følger tråden af personen Robert Mueller igennem tre af de mest berygtede forbrydelser i de seneste 30 år. For det første, de falske anklager og retsforfølgelsen af Lyndon LaRouche – LaRouche-sagen; for det andet, det aggressive bedrag af det amerikanske folk mht. sandheden om begivenhederne den 11. september, 2001, som dernæst blev brugt til at lancere en række krige for regimeskifte; og for det tredje, det igangværende kup imod den siddende amerikanske præsident, mens vi taler. Og I vil se, forhåbentlig i løbet af denne udsendelse – og vi opfordrer jer til at læse hele dossieret – at tråden til Robert Mueller kan spores hele vejen igennem disse afgørende, historiske vendepunkter. Hvis man trækker i denne tråd, vil hele dette apparat, hele denne operation, blive optrævlet.

Will Wertz er her i dag for at fremlægge nogle af rapportens punkter i en overordnet gennemgang, og for at guide jer gennem rapportens indhold og komme med nogle refleksioner over hvert af disse tre, afgørende knudepunkter, som detaljeret dækkes i rapporten. Og, forhåbentlig også for at lokke jer og tilskynde jer til at læse og studere denne rapport i detaljer. Jeg vil lade Will gå i gang, og vi vil vise noget materiale på skærmen undervejs, men vi vil gennemgå noget af indholdet fra rapporten.

William Wertz: Tak. Matt. Skønheden i denne rapport – som er noget, der omgående må handles på for at redde denne republik og præsidentskabet og bevæge verden ind i et Nyt Paradigme, som det defineres af den kinesiske politik for Ét Bælte, én Vej, og som er blevet vedtaget af mange lande i hele verden, inklusive Rusland, og som USA er blevet inviteret til at tilslutte sig – er, at den identificerer dette angreb på præsident Trump og det amerikanske præsidentskab over en længere tidsperiode; og hvor det fundamentale spørgsmål er, om verden fortsat skal være domineret af et bankerot, finansielt imperiesystem, der kontrolleres af briterne, eller om vi i stedet bevæger os ind i et Nyt Paradigme, baseret på princippet om fred gennem økonomisk udvikling. Det er det fundamentale spørgsmål. Dette er noget, som Lyndon LaRouche har kæmpet for i årtier. Tilbage i 1971, den 15. august, fremlagde han meget klart de alternativer, der ligger foran menneskeheden, og foran dette land, med Nixon, der annoncerede første fase, anden fase, af nedtagningen af Bretton Woods-systemet, som Roosevelt havde indsat efter Anden Verdenskrig. Han (LaRouche) sagde dengang, at vi har et alternativt valg; alternativet er at satse på en politik for økonomisk udvikling på global skala, eller også vil vi blive konfronteret med et forsøg på at gennemtvinge en fascistisk, økonomisk politik i Schachts tradition, som ville resultere i massive dødstal over hele verden. Med ’Schachts tradition’ refererer jeg til Hjalmar Schacht, finansminister under Adolf Hitler, der kom til magten med hjælp fra sådanne folk som John Foster Dulles og briterne.

Det, LaRouche gjorde i 1970’erne efter denne vurdering, var, at han fremlagde mange absolut afgørende udviklingsprogrammer. I 1975 var han fortaler for skabelsen af en International Udviklingsbank. Senere krævede han oprettelsen af en Nationalbank i USA efter samme principper som Alexander Hamiltons Første Nationalbank. Han præsenterede udviklingsprogrammer for områderne i Stillehavsbækkenet og det Indiske Oceans bækken. Han præsenterede et program ved navn Operation Juárez, for Mexicos udvikling, som en model for Nord-Syd-relationer gennem udveksling af mexicansk olie til gengæld for amerikansk teknologi. Senere præsenterede han programmer for den Eurasiske Landbro i samarbejde med sin hustru, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, og som senere udvikledes til Verdenslandbroen. Briterne var totalt modstandere af denne politik – totalt. Vi vil få at se, at dette har været en kamp under hele perioden 1970’erne og 1980’erne og under hele 11. september-perioden, og frem til det aktuelle angreb på Trumps præsidentskab. Det har været en kamp mellem Det britiske Imperium, som har interveneret i USA for at forhindre, at USA gik i denne retning, som Lyndon LaRouche har forsøgt at styre USA i; og som LaRouche er på randen til at styre USA i, i dag, og som er årsagen til, at briterne er så bange!

Tilbage i 1980’erne spillede Lyndon LaRouche en afgørende rolle i udformningen af den tiltrædende Reagan-administration. LaRouche var ophavsmand til det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ, som Reagan senere annoncerede i marts måned, 1983. LaRouche var også modstander mod briterne i krigen om Malvinas-øerne (som briterne kalder Falklandsøerne), og han krævede en gennemførelse af Monroe-doktrinen imod briternes kolonipolitik dér. Som et resultat mødtes LaRouche og hans hustru i 1982 med Indira Gandhi; han og hans hustru mødte Indira Gandhi i april 1982 for at diskutere udviklingen af det indiske subkontinent og Stillehavsbækkenet. I maj 1982 mødtes han med José López Portillo (Mexico) for at diskutere Operation Juárez. Som respons på dette sendte Henry Kissinger, i august 1982, et brev til FBI-direktør William Webster med krav om en efterforskning af Lyndon LaRouche på en anklage om angivelig chikane af Kissinger for at være britisk agent. Der blev ligeledes sendt et brev den 27. august 1982 fra den britiske regering til FBI; som krævede en efterforskning af Lyndon LaRouche og hans organisation. Den 24. september 1982 skrev FBI, i skikkelse af chef for kontraefterretning, James Noland, et svar til briterne.

Matthew Ogden: Vi har faktisk en FOIA-udgivelse (FOIA: Freedom of Information Act) af dette FBI-memo, som vi viser på skærmen [Fig. 2]. I kan selv se det følgende citat, som Will vil læse.

Fig. 2

Will Wertz: Der står, og det er altså fra James Noland til den britiske regering: »Vi vil gerne gentage vores konklusion om, at, alt imens mange af NCLC’s chikane-aktiviteter« – NCLC var Lyndon LaRouches organisation – »og de temaer, som NCLC’s publikationer promoverer, såsom EIR [Executive Intelligence Review] ofte er favorable over for sovjetisk misinformation og propagandainteresser, så er der ingen direkte beviser for, at russerne dirigerer eller finansierer LaRouche eller hans organisation. Det er imidlertid helt igennem sandsynligt, at russerne (sovjet-russerne) har udviklet eller vil udvikle kilder internt i NCLC, der befinder sig i en position, hvor de kan indskyde sovjet-inspirerede anskuelser i NCLC’s aktiviteter og publikationer. Det er sandsynligt, at russerne vil forsøge at drage fordel af eller udnytte NCLC-meninger, der er paralleller til eller fremmer sovjetiske, udenrigspolitiske mål.«

Minder dette jer om interventionen på vegne af Storbritanniens Government Communications Headquarters – GCHQ – eller på vegne af MI6’s Christopher Steele, for at forsøge at få en efterforskning af USA’s præsident Donald Trump, for angiveligt ’aftalt spil’ med russerne?

Alligevel skete der det, at præsidentens Udenrigspolitiske Råds Styrelse den 12. januar, 1983, krævede en efterforskning fra FBI’s side. Robert Mueller kommer ind i billedet i 1982. Han blev en del af USA’s justitsminister William Welds stab i Boston i 1982. Efter valgene i 1984 lancerede Weld en efterforskning af LaRouche; og i 1986 efterfulgte Mueller Weld, da Weld af George Bush – det var faktisk Ronald Reagan, der var præsident, men under indflydelse af George Bush, senior – blev udnævnt til at lede Justitsministeriets Kriminal-afdeling. Mueller bragte dernæst en vis John Markham ind for at udføre retsforfølgelsen af Lyndon LaRouche, der begyndte i Boston. Efter en razzia den 6. oktober, 1986 i Leesburg, Virginia, mod LaRouches hovedkvarter, hvor der var en trussel om, og en faktisk plan for, at forsøge at iscenesætte mordet på Lyndon LaRouche. Dette forsøg blev forpurret, men retsforfølgelsen forsatte i de sene 1980’ere.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

This prosecution was typical of Mueller’s corruption.  For
instance, in Boston itself, the prosecution ended in a mistrial
after government misconduct had been brought to light.  The jury,
when they polled themselves afterwards, having only heard the
complete prosecution case, unanimously said that they would have
voted for acquittal.  The judge in that case made the following
statement:  He said that the government had “engaged in
systematic and institutional prosecutorial misconduct”; this is
Robert Mueller.  The case was then shifted to Virginia, and what
they did there was that they had a judge in the so-called “Rocket
Docket” who made it impossible for the defendants to raise the
fact that the government had illegally put companies associated
with LaRouche into involuntary bankruptcy.  That was a very
significant factor in undermining the defense in that case.
After the case had resulted in convictions, the bankruptcy judge,
Martin Bostetter, ruled that the bankruptcy was a “constructive
fraud on the court.”
Ramsey Clark was the attorney for Lyndon LaRouche in the
appeal.

OGDEN:  Let’s put this quote on the screen, too; we have
Ramsey Clark’s quote [Fig. 3].

WERTZ:  What Ramsey Clark said was that “The LaRouche case
represents a broader range of deliberate cunning and systemic
misconduct over a longer period of time using the power of the
Federal government, than any other prosecution by the U.S.
Government in my time and to my knowledge.”  Later in another
spin-off case in New York State, New York State Supreme Court
Justice Stephen G. Crane said, “The actions of the Federal
prosecutors raise an inference of a conspiracy to lay low these
defendants at any cost.”  This is not just one judge.  We’re
talking about at least two judges, a bankruptcy judge, and the
former Attorney General of the United States Ramsey Clark, who
effectively denounced this so-called honest Robert Mueller for
conducting one of the most incredible corrupt prosecutions in
U.S. history.
If we look forward to the 9/11 period, Lyndon LaRouche
wrongly imprisoned by this apparatus which was launched by the
British and carried forward by the Bush administration.  Bush was
President at the time of the trial and the sentencing.  LaRouche
was out of prison and continued his fight for a policy of
economic development; calling for a New Bretton Woods system to
replace the system which had been abandoned by Nixon in 1971.  He
was working, as he had in the earlier period, on negotiating in
the early 1980s with the Soviets for the National Security
Council of the United States under Reagan for the SDI.  He
continued those discussions with the Russians, this time around a
New Bretton Woods conception under President Clinton.  Clinton
himself, before the impeachment proceedings were launched against
him, called for a new financial architecture at a speech before
the CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] in New York, along the
lines of what LaRouche had advocated.
LaRouche was also at the end of the 1990s, he was warning
about the campaign to create an Arc of Crisis around Russia — no
longer the Soviet Union, but Russia.  He produced a video called
“Storm Over Asia” in which he developed precisely how this
operation was being run against Russia.  Then in January of 2001,
he warned that there could be some sort of terrorist action in
the United States such as a Reichstag Fire [which brought Hitler
into power], which could be engineered under the Bush
administration.  That’s precisely what occurred on September 11,
2001.
Again, what do we have here?  Mueller assumed office as FBI
Director on September 4, 2001, just days before 9/11.  What he
did from that point on, was to carry out what Senator Bob Graham,
who headed up the Congressional investigation of 9/11, has
described as “aggressive deception.”

OGDEN:  Here’s a clip from a press conference that Bob
Graham did a little bit over a year ago at the National Press
Club, where he discusses the role that the FBI played in
stonewalling the Congressional investigation into 9/11; both in
terms of the details regarding San Diego — that’s what was
contained in the 28 pages — but also in an even bigger case of
cover-up, the details of the cell that was located in Sarasota,
Florida.  So you’ll hear Bob Graham talk about what he called
“beyond a cover-up, but an aggressive deception campaign against
the American people.”

SEN. BOB GRAHAM

:  It appeared as if the FBI was
moving from a cover-up which I considered to be a passive
withholding of information, to aggressive deception in the case
of Sarasota — which is one of several examples.  They rewrote
the narrative; they said we’ve finished the investigation, and we
have found no connections.  When in their own files, written by
their own special agent who was from the Tampa office,
incidentally, they had contrary information.  They then, and have
continued, to withhold that information, other than the 80,000
pages from the public.  I consider to justify the categorization
of being aggressive deception.

OGDEN:  Then later in the same press conference, which you
can watch in full there — it’s lpac.co/graham-press-conference.
But later in the same press conference, he talked about how the
Deputy Director of the FBI actually detained him and his wife at
Dulles Airport, and warned them to stop pursuing the truth about
what was contained in these documents about the Saudi connections
to 9/11.  So, here’s a short clip where he talks about that
warning from the FBI to him and his wife.

GRAHAM

:  The question is raised, “Why are you doing
this?  Fifteen years later, what difference does this make?  Get
a life.”  I was told that by the Deputy Director of the FBI.
FEMALE REPORTER:  Just one follow-up.  You were pretty much
harassed by the FBI when you tried to go further in your
inquiries.  Since you went public, have you heard of anybody else
who had that kind of treatment from the FBI?
GRAHAM:  No.  This was a situation which occurred in 2011 as
all this information about Sarasota was starting to come out.  My
wife and I flew up from Miami to Dulles to have Thanksgiving with
our daughter who lives in Great Falls.  We were met at the
airport by two FBI agents.  They said that an official of the FBI
wants to talk with you about the Sarasota situation. Well, I was
encouraged; feeling that maybe some of the questions that we’d
been asking were now going to be answered.  So, we drove with the
two agents to the office at Dulles which the FBI has.  My wife
was put in one room, and she was given as entertainment the FBI
training manual.  If you want to know some arcane aspects of FBI
training, she’s fully prepared.  I was taken into another room,
with the Deputy Director of the FBI, a young female FBI agent,
and a middle-aged lawyer from the Department of Justice.
Essentially, the message was, we’ve done this complete
investigation; everything that’s known is known, and you need to
get a life.  I pointed out what he didn’t know was that I had
actually read two of the investigative reports by their agent,
which contradicted what they had said publicly and what he had
just said to me privately.  He said, “Oh, you don’t understand.
One, that wasn’t a very good agent.”  Well, the idea that has
there been an investigation by the FBI in its history that was as
important to the American people as full knowledge as 9/11?  And
the very fact that they would say they had sent as an
investigation into what I think was an important component of the
total picture, someone that they declare to be less than a fully
capable person was itself revelatory.  And then he proceeded to
say, “And we have other information that puts what you read in
context.  And you will see that in fact what we have said is
true.”  So, I said “Fine.  Could I see the information that will
put it into context?”  And he pointed to the young female agent,
and directed her to assemble the files.  We arranged a time to
meet at the FBI office for the District of Columbia.
So, a few days later, I showed up for our meeting, prepared
to read these files.  The Deputy Director was there, and he said
the meeting is cancelled and we’re not going to reschedule.  And,
since I knew who the agent was who had been described as less
than competent; and I had called him to try to have a telephone
conversation, and he said “I know you’ve been calling Agent ‘X’.
Stop calling him, because I’ve told him to not take your calls.”
That was the last of any official character meeting that I had
with the FBI. [END VIDEO]

OGDEN:  There are more details concerning Mueller’s direct
involvement in this kind of stonewalling around the Congressional
inquiry into 9/11; telling Bob Graham and his other investigators
not to fly out to interview one of the known personalities in San
Diego.  They disobeyed those orders and did it anyhow.  But just
parenthetically, immediately after this press conference that Bob
Graham did in Washington D.C. at the National Press Club, a fight
erupted around the so-called JASTA bill — Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism — which would allow the 9/11 families to
sue Saudi Arabia for their role in financing and coordinating the
9/11 attacks.

CNN coverage.

Yesterday just happens to be the one-year anniversary of the major victory — you can see on the screen
here [Fig. 4] — of the Senate override of Obama’s veto of this
JASTA bill, which was absolutely dramatic.  This was a rally in
front of the White House [Fig. 5] of 9/11 families and activists,
asking the Congress to override Obama’s veto; and then next [Fig. 6], this is an article in one of the Capitol Hill newspapers.
“Senate Poised To Override Obama Veto.”  Then this is the final picture [Fig. 7], this was actually in the cloakroom immediately after the Senate cast their votes.  The cloakroom of the U.S. Senate.  I had the pleasure to actually be there in the gallery with the 9/11 families when the U.S. Senate overrode Obama’s veto of the JASTA bill.  That was the CNN coverage.  This was obviously a major victory, parenthetically.  But it’s part of the story, and the role that Bob Graham had to play in going directly head-to-head with the FBI and others in the Executive Branch who were trying to cover up and protect the Saudis in the 9/11 case.

WERTZ:  Now, there are, along with the statement from James
Noland that I read earlier, in response to the British
government’s request back in 1982 for an investigation of Lyndon
LaRouche, there were two other attachments which were
declassified.  The one basically was an attack upon LaRouche for
having opposed in what they called the Falkland Islands, but
which is the Malvinas Islands.  LaRouche did that from the
standpoint of the Monroe Doctrine.  The second was they objected
to the LaRouche Movement revealing that the policy of the British
was to promote the Muslim Brotherhood.  If we look at the period
after 9/11, in which Robert Mueller is carrying out this
“aggressive deception” as Senator Graham puts it, to cover up the
role of the Saudis.  When you’re talking about the Saudis, you’re
talking about a satrap of the British; that’s what you’re talking
about in this situation.
What follows 9/11?  Regime-change wars.  What follows 9/11
immediately is Tony Blair’s sexed up dossier claiming that Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; which, as it turns out,
he did not have.  And which the British undoubtedly knew he did
not have.  Once again, British intervention.  And after the
invasion of Iraq, you had the effective creation of ISIS; you had
then under Obama, continued regime-change policies under the name
of the Arab Spring, which was just a policy of bringing the
Muslim Brotherhood to power in such locations as Tunisia, Egypt,
Libya, and Syria.  As Lyndon LaRouche said after the
assassination of Qaddafi, the reason they assassinated him was
that they were in a hurry to move into Syria, as part of what he
had earlier described as the “Storm Over Asia”; an effort to
encircle Russia and to ensure that a New Paradigm does not
emerge.
A critical point in this narrative really is in the period
of 2013-14.  I should just say, Mueller stepped aside as FBI
Director on September 4, 2013; and as you know, he was replaced
by James Comey.  James Comey, it should be remembered, was the
Deputy Attorney General under Mueller from December 2003 until
August 2005.
In the year 2013, President Xi of China went to Kazakhstan,
and he announced the Chinese commitment to the Silk Road; a
policy which had been advocated for a significant period of time
by Lyndon LaRouche and his wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who is well
known today as the Silk Road Lady.  The Chinese have an immediate
appreciation of the role that she has played in advocating this
policy.
In the next year, you have the Ukraine coup — February
2014; orchestrated by Obama and by the British and the French,
among others.  But the basic idea here was, again, encirclement
of Russia, in this case with a bunch of Nazis, which is what the
Maidan consisted of.
On July 16, 2014, as the dossier that Barbara Boyd has
authored on Mueller indicates, you had the BRICS organization
meeting in Brazil, and what they formed was the New Development
Bank.  Remember, LaRouche had called for an International
Development Bank, back in 1975: This whole policy that LaRouche
had advocated over these decades, at that point was in the
process of coming into existence, and it was at point,
particularly following the coup in Ukraine, that the operation
against associates of Trump’s began, that is, even before he
announced for President.  We now know, that contrary to the lies
of James Comey and [then Director of National Intelligence] James
Clapper, there was wiretapping of associates of President Trump.
We know for a fact that the dossier indicates that Paul Manafort,
who became Trump’s campaign manager when he announced for
President, was wiretapped beginning in the year 2014; and this
continued through 2016.  It was discontinued for a certain period
of time, and then resumed into 2017 before Obama left office,
including a time period in which it was known that Manafort, even
though he was no longer campaign manager, was speaking to
President Trump.  Manafort had a residence in the Trump Tower all
of this time.
Why was he targetted, initially?  Well, because he had
provided advisory services to the Yanukovych government [in
Ukraine] — this was a duly elected government, which was
overthrown unconstitutionally in 2014, by Nazis.  So, of course,
that becomes grounds for investigating somebody whose client was
overthrown by a bunch of Nazis, by the Obama administration!
The investigation begins there.
Also, in 2014, Michael Flynn was fired by Obama — why?
Because he had opposed the Obama Arab Spring policy, which gave
rise to ISIS, Michael Flynn said at the time.  So you can imagine
that it is perhaps the case that surveillance of Michael Flynn
began at that time as well.
Now, what the dossier on Mueller goes through is that
Mueller should be removed as Special Counsel, and there should be
an actual Special Counsel who investigates the crimes which
Mueller aggressively deceiving the American people about, in his
investigation of President Trump.  And I would also point out,
think of the statements by various judges about the corrupt
investigation and witch hunt directed at Lyndon LaRouche — well,
on June 15, 2017, Trump wrote:  “You are witnessing the single
greatest witch hunt in American political history.”  And I would
say that, the precursor for this was the unprecedented witch hunt
against Lyndon LaRouche, but that President Trump is effectively
getting the same treatment as Lyndon LaRouche did then, from the
same sources, from the British.
Now, there are seven areas, that should be investigated — ,

OGDEN:  We can put this on the screen here.  We have the
list of the seven actual crimes.

WERTZ:  First, instigation of a coup against the United
States by a foreign power.
So, although the charge is that President Trump, or his
associates, colluded with the Russians, the fact of the matter
is, that all the evidence shows that this entire operation has
been concocted by the British, and been carried out by stooges in
the intelligence community under President Obama; who was
particularly happy every time he visited Buckingham Palace.
Now what do we have as evidence?  Well, the {Guardian}
reports that as early as 2015, shortly after he announced for
President, that the British began to surveille Trump and his
associates.  And according to the public account — and this
cannot be taken at face value; this investigation of Trump may
have started earlier.  The communications between the British and
[then CIA Director] Brennan or others in the U.S. intelligence
community, could have occurred before 2016. The report in the
{Guardian} says that sometime in the summer, Hannigan of the
Government Communications Headquarters,  the GCHQ, which is the
equivalent of our NSA, spoke with Brennan about allegations that
Trump was being influenced by the Russians or working with the
Russians.
But the point is, it was the GCHQ which was directly
involved — according to public accounts in the {Guardian}, in
prompting Brennan to create a six-intelligence agency taskforce
to investigate Trump, {during} the Presidential campaign!
And I think the only other case of this kind of thing, was
what happened to Lyndon LaRouche, because Lyndon LaRouche was
running for President, back in 1988, and the investigation of him
was launched while he was a Presidential candidate in the United
States, and — really, actually, an indictment during the
Presidential campaign, which is completely unprecedented.
Additionally, you have the Christopher Steele dossier:
Christopher Steele is allegedly an “ex” MI6 agent.  He headed up
the MI6 Russian desk in Moscow, until 2009.  In 2009, he left
that position and formed Orbis Business at the same time period
Fusion GPS, a U.S. company which was involved in commissioning
Steele’s dossier, was also created.  And these two companies were
working together since at least 2010 when they signed a
confidentiality agreement between them as a shield for revealing
what was actually going on.
So you have the circulation of the Christopher Steele
dossier — and they didn’t just produce this for Hillary Clinton.
They were briefing the press!  They were giving direct briefings
to the press; they were giving it to John McCain who then gave it
to Comey, and so forth.  They were actively circulating this
unverified, so-called “intelligence” against Donald Trump, who
was a candidate for President, then became President.
And it’s very important to understand that Christopher
Steele, it’s public record that he worked with the FBI’s Eurasian
Organized Crime Unit in New York City, from at least 2010. The
former head of the FBI’s Eurasian Organized Crime Unit in New
York City is none other than Andrew McCabe; who for a while,
after Comey was fired, was Acting Director of the FBI, and is
still Deputy Director of the FBI.  And it’s believed that McCabe
was the person who was working closely with Christopher Steele.
It came to light, for instance, that the FBI actually offered to
pay Steele $50,000 to continue with his research, although the
FBI’s been stonewalling on the details on that.
So what you have here is completely a British operation
directed at Trump and his associates; and I’ll get to this in
terms of the wiretapping.
And it’s also believed that the Christopher Steele dossier
provided the roadmap for the FBI’s investigation, and also may
have been used for getting ,” FISA [Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court] surveillance authorization directed at people
such as Manafort.
Second crime is false reporting of a crime: And that’s
precisely what has occurred in the case of the allegation that
the Russians hacked Podesta and the DNC. It has been documented
thoroughly by numerous sources that this was a leak by an
insider, and not a hack by the Russians.  The most definitive
proof of this is the memorandum put forward by the Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).  And these are
top-notch former NSA, former CIA agents such as William Binney
and Ray McGovern.  They prove forensically that it could not have
been a hack over the internet; it had to be a leak onto some sort
of memory device, because of the speed involved [in the data
transfer].
This has been submitted to Mueller; he’s done nothing on it.
It’s been submitted to the President with the idea that he should
ask Pompeo of the CIA to get to the bottom of this.  We don’t
know if anything’s been done along these lines.
They also show that at least the Guccifer 2.0 claimed
hacking, attributed falsely to the Russians, when in fact there
was cutting and pasting to put the Russian language on the
alleged hack trail.  This is something which the CIA has the
capability to do under Brennan; it’s called the Marble Framework.
Assange of WikiLeaks has denied that this came from the Russian
government.  He recently met with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher,
and said that he was willing to provide testimony which would
definitely establish that this was not a hack and that it was not
given to him by the Russians.  Rohrabacher (R-CA) has been trying
to meet with Trump in order to present this evidence, but it’s
been blocked, according to him, by the staff at the White House.
Craig Murray, a U.K. former ambassador to Uzbekistan, has
said it was a leak and he knows it personally, because he met
with a person that he said was the leaker.
Seymour Hersh was taped in a discussion, without his knowing
he was being recorded, and he indicated that he had sources who
indicated that Seth Rich,  a DNC computer technician, may have
been the person who carried out the leak.
So all of this information is not being taken into account,
in continuing with the narrative that this was a Russian hack,
and you’re supposed to believe that.
Then you have the third crime, which is an attempt at
entrapment of Donald Trump, Jr., Manafort, and Jared Kushner,
among others, in a Trump Tower meeting.  The British hand is all
over this: The person who set up the meeting and sent the emails
to Donald Trump, Jr., which misrepresented the purpose of the
meeting, was one Ron Goldstone, a British national.  It should
also be pointed out that one William Browder, who testified
before Congress, in this case against Fusion GPS, because they
were lobbying against the Magnitsky Act, which was the subject of
the discussion at the Trump Tower.  This was a person who
renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1989 and became a British
citizen.
So again, what we’re dealing with here is a complete British
operation. It’s just transparent that that’s the case.  But this
was a deliberate attempt to try to set up a situation which would
involve the Trump immediate circles, in attempting to get
information on Hillary Clinton allegedly coming from the
Russians.
Fourth area: Felonious leaks of intelligence by the Obama
administration.  This has to do with the unmasking, which was
completely out of control, or I guess you could say it was under
very directed control by the Obama administration officials.  For
instance, it’s been revealed that Samantha Power, the Obama UN
ambassador, requested 260 unmaskings of U.S. citizens in the
course of 2016.  And she even tried to get even more unmaskings
before the inauguration of Donald Trump.  What reason does she
have to be asking for such intelligence, from the standpoint of
being at the UN?
Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, it is known
asked for many unmaskings, in this case, her National Security
Council records were transferred to the Obama library, so that
justice could be obstructed, because records at the library are
sealed for a number of years.
This is a deliberate policy of targetting U.S. citizens,
particularly Trump associated by the Obama administration, and
those are two such cases.
You have also the attempted J. Edgar Hoover-style sexual
blackmail of Trump, by Comey:  This is the fifth area that should
be investigated.  Comey met with Trump in Trump Tower on Jan. 6,
2017; he met with him alone.  Other people had come to the
meeting, but he asked them to leave and then met with Trump
alone, and presented him with an aspect of the Steele dossier
which claimed that he had been involved in sexual perversions in
a hotel in Moscow.  Trump has reportedly asked for an immediate
investigation of this fraudulent dossier, which Comey refused to
do.
But this is the kind of thing that J. Edgar Hoover did to
many, to Martin Luther King, Jr., and to many others, as a means
of terrorizing and controlling people to go along with a policy
desired by J. Edgar Hoover’s controllers, which is also the case
with respect to Comey.
A sixth area for investigation is the wiretapping of Trump
associates, and then the lying by Comey and Clapper to the U.S.
Congress. Clapper in particular was asked, was there a FISA
ordered surveillance of Trump or his associates?  He said no.
“Would you know about it if it had occurred?”  “Yes, I would,”
and he left a loophole and said: Well, there may have been some
other jurisdiction was carrying out a wiretap that I don’t know
about.
But this is what he said, and he definitively said there was
no FISA Court wiretap, and yet, that’s precisely what came out:
That Manafort, the campaign manager of Trump, was wiretapped and
he had a resident at Trump Tower, and this is precisely what
Trump had tweeted on March 4th, 2017:  “Terrible! Just found out
that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the
victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”  So that has to be
investigated.
And then the final thing in the dossier, is the attempted
entrapment of the President by Comey himself, into an obstruction
of justice charge:  So you have the head of the FBI who is acting
virtually as somebody who goes to a meeting with wires on, and
goes back to his controllers at the FBI to consult after each
visit with Trump.  And then writes memos, which he illegally
leaked to the press, and he actually said:  “I thought that might
prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”  So he had the
intention of getting a special counsel against Trump, on the
grounds  — one would be to claim that Trump asked him not to
pursue an investigation of Michael Flynn; of course Trump didn’t
do that, as indicated.  He merely said, “I would hope that he
wouldn’t be prosecuted.”  And of course, as has been pointed out,
the President has the right to actually pardon somebody.  So, as
Alan Dershowitz, the civil rights attorney, and Democrat, has
said he had every right to say what he did.
And the other aspect is to say that somehow Trump was
obstructing justice by firing Comey!  So the attempt was set up
to get Mueller to be able to carry out this kind of an
investigation against Trump.
Using methods of entrapment, lying throughout, what you had
is a witch hunt against a President of the United States.  It’s
not the first time that the British have been involved in this,
and their stooges in the United States, but this is really
unprecedented, with the exception of the witch hunt which was
carried out earlier against Lyndon LaRouche.
And it’s time that this be stopped! And that’s the whole
point of this dossier.
The dossier should be seen as a political weapon in the
hands of the American citizenry.  The issue here is what Benjamin
Franklin said after the Constitutional Convention adopted a
Constitution.  We have a republic, the question is, can you keep
it?  And the responsibility rests on the American citizen to use
this dossier to actually force the issue in the country right
now, to stop this British coup.
Robert Mueller’s full name, as the dossier indicates, is
Robert Swan Mueller III.  Our intention is to make this operation
being carried out by Mueller right now, to be his final swan
song.

OGDEN:  As we saw on the screen there, the question that was
asked at the conclusion of this final section of the dossier is
the following: “{Have our intelligence agencies, actually
instigated an Active Measures counterintelligence program
illegally and against a sitting President?}” [emphasis in
original]
So that’s the question and as the dossier states a little
bit later on:  It’s very clear that there has been a foreign
government that has intervened to attempt to sway the U.S.
electoral process and the U.S. democratic process, and that that
foreign government is the British government.  And so if you
follow the thread of Robert Mueller, not just in the attacks
right now against President Donald Trump, but if you follow it
back to the aggressive cover-up of the events of 9/11, and even
the prosecution and witch hunt against Lyndon LaRouche in the
1980s, you’ll see if you pull that thread it will unravel a much,
much larger apparatus, and it will reveal a lot more.
This dossier follows that thread very clearly through these
three crucial inflection points in our nation’s recent history
and the call to action is obviously to access this dossier which
we’re making available and to circulate it as widely as possible.
Will, you made the point that the context for all of this is
much more significant than maybe even all of the mechanisms by
which these crimes have been carried out.  The context is what
reveals and uncovers the true motivation behind this entire
process, and I think if you take the connections between this
dossier, which choose 1982 as a crucial year to examine what
Lyndon LaRouche’s activities were at that time — meeting with
López Portillo, meeting with Indira Gandhi, proposing the
Strategic Defense Initiative, and authoring {Operation Juárez},
and if you trace that forward to the announcement in 2013 by Xi
Jinping of the new Silk Road, the Eurasian World Land-Bridge, and
the new international financial institution of development that
that represents, that’s the unifier for this entire period of
history.
And despite the attempts, over and over, and over again, to
derail that locomotive of world history, we’ve reached the point
where that is the prevailing dynamic on the planet. And the
attempts to try to sabotage that and undermine it continue to
fail.  And so, this is the latest attempt in that, but to look at
what the motivation is — maybe you can just say a little bit
more about what that context is.

WERTZ:  I think the point is, in defeating this British
operation which Mueller is spearheading at this point, we create
the conditions under which President Trump can move to join with
Russia, China, India in the development of the One Belt, One Road
policy.  This is crucial in terms of reversing the destructions
over the recent decades of our industrial capacity in the United
States; it’s crucial in terms of developing world peace, solving
crises such as Korea, solving crises such as the terrorist
onslaught in the Middle East and Northern Africa in particular.
That collaboration is crucial.  Trump has signalled that he wants
to move with such collaboration.
And this is a longstanding fight to bring humanity together,
operating on a common destiny of humanity, what John Quincy Adams
called a “community of principle among a family of sovereign
nation-states.”
The British Empire, as the Venetian Empire before it, has
been opposed to that.  It has operated under the geopolitical of
dividing nations among themselves, creating warfare such as we’ve
seen repeatedly over the last more than a hundred years, with two
world wars, and perpetual warfare ever since.
And so we’re in a situation, where, as Lyndon LaRouche
recently said, “Victory is within our reach,” and you have to
understand this broad arc of history in order to have an
appreciation of what’s occurring in so-called contemporary
affairs.  It’s not what meets the eye:  it’s this broader
question — we’ve got a financial crisis in the world.  The
system is overbloated and ripe for collapse; the problems of 2008
were never solved.  And we have a solution before us which is New
Paradigm:  Peace based upon economic development, cooperation
among nations for the purpose of promoting, as our Constitution
says, the General Welfare, not just of our own population, but of
the population of the entire planet.
And I think that’s the issue between the British Empire
policy of geopolitics, versus the policy of a community of
principle among nation-states, which is a U.S. policy; the policy
expressed by President Xi of China of a “win-win” policy, as
opposed to a zero-sum game — this is what’s at stake right now.
I think the American citizen, as this dossier concludes, has to
take responsibility, circulate this dossier!  We’re going to be
producing a leaflet and maybe multiple leaflets that you can get
from our site and then circulate throughout the country, to bring
people’s attention to this dossier.  We’re not in a position to
produce a large number of these in hard copy, but we do have an
electronic version which will be available on the LaRouche PAC
site.
And by doing this, we can create the conditions under which
not only is the presence of the United States defended against
this coup attempt, and it’s very much like the Maidan in Ukraine
that’s being attempted right now; what’s being done to Trump is
almost precisely modeled on the Maidan that brought about the
coup in Ukraine.  But more broadly than that, by defending the
Presidency was the chance of bringing about a different geometry
on the globe as a whole, and creating the conditions under which
we can move towards what the actual mission of mankind is:, which
is not only to develop this planet Earth, but also to assert
dominion over the Galaxy and eventually the Universe.

OGDEN:  Well, thank you, and let me put on the screen, one
more time, the cover page of this dossier, so you can get a look
at it, and we’ll have the link here on the screen.  You can
access this dossier at lpac.co/ytdos. And again, the title:
“Robert Mueller Is An Amoral Legal Assassin:  He Will Do His Job
If You Let Him.”
You’ll find this report fascinating:  You’ll learn a lot
about history, the history of this country over the last 30, 35
years that you did not know, I guarantee you.  And you’ll learn a
lot about what’s going on right now.  There’s much, much more
than what meets the eye.
Thank you for joining me, Will.  And thank you for tuning
in, and we encourage you, read the dossier and circulate it as
widely as you can.  And stay tuned to larouchepac.com




Evighedens samtidighed kommer for at fejre
Lyndon LaRouches 95-års fødselsdag

English: See below

Kun få mennesker opnår at blive 95 år – så når de gør, er der grund til at fejre dem. Men endnu færre er de, der har brugt deres tildelte år, mange eller få, til at ændre historiens gang, sådan, som Lyn har gjort, og til at inspirere så mange til at handle for også selv at ændre historiens gang. Under festen lørdag, den 9. sept. i Tyskland, i en vindyrkers restaurant i Münster-Sarmsheim an der Nahe, blev der derfor bragt gaver i form af udtryk for menneskelig kreativitet til en mand, der har kæmpet så hårdt, og så længe, for at bringe princippet om menneskelig kreativitet ind i økonomi, ind i politik, ind i kunst og videnskab, til gamle og unge, og i hele verden. Fra poesi til drama; fra Lieder, operaarier og til korværker.

Nogle af Lyns bedste venner fra evighedens samtidighed var særlige gæsteoptrædende for at gøre festivitassen større: Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms og Verdi, og, åh ja, også Schiller. Fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche kom et originalt digt på tysk, og fra nogle af de tilstedeværende medlemmer af LaRouches politiske bevægelse kom der musikalske kompositioner og arrangementer. Kunstneriske værker på tysk, engelsk, italiensk og dansk; værker på kinesisk, koreansk og afrikanske sprog.

Takkeord blev givet til en mand, der har ændret alle vore liv – der har givet os retning, formål og missioner på vegne af hele menneskeheden. Som rent politisk har kæmpet med sit intellekt, som boksere kæmper med næverne, og således anført vejen.

Deltagerne var rejst fra hele Tyskland, fra Frankrig, Italien, Sverige, Danmark, USA og Rusland. Gid vi alle kunne have været til stede.

Men mange af dem, der ikke kunne være til stede, havde skrevet bidrag til et Festschrift, som blev overbragt Lyn af hans hustru og nærmeste medarbejder, Helga. Efter glassene med sekt var blevet hævet til Lyns ære, blev hun lokket til at recitere digtet, hun havde skrevet til sin kæreste mand, og som er det første bidrag i Festskriftet.

Det første musikalske indslag kom fra John Sigerson og Margaret Greenspan, der opførte An die ferne Geliebte (Til den fjerne elskede), og som Lyn virkelig nød. Det skabte en god atmosfære for resten af aftenen. (De var rejst fra USA for at synge og spille for Lyn, foruden også at have givet to koncerter i forbindelse med den aktuelle BüSo-valgkampagne, som køres af den tyske gren af LaRouche-bevægelsen.)

Dernæst fortsatte programmet efter kaffe og kage. Elliot Greenspan, en leder i Lyns Manhattan-projekt, præsenterede Lyn for flere minder fra dette projekt: et billede af aktivisterne, en original tegning af Leibniz med Verdenslandbroen som baggrund, en kalender med billeder af Manhattan-projektets aktiviteter, og et digt, skrevet af et af medlemmerne dér; og han spurgte Lyn, om, da han initierede projektet, havde forudset, at New York City ville producere den næste præsident, Trump. Lyn svarede, at vi ikke ved, hvor langt, Trump vil drive det. Vi har brug for ham nu, men, hvis han mislykkes, er det hans fejl, og det vil være beklageligt, men jeg tror, han kan vinde. Elliot responderede, at vi ikke blot har tænkt os at sidde og vente på at se, hvad der sker. Du sagde, Lyn, at du var for gammel til at opstille til præsident; men ikke for gammel til at forme præsidentskabet. Du gav os Hamilton-princippet og kor-princippet. Gav os, og eksemplificerede, princippet om det menneskelige intellekt, princippet om flanken og Schillers idé om patrioten og verdensborgeren. På vegne af især de amerikanske aktivister, er vi for altid taknemlige og forpligtet over for denne mission. Man kunne måske sige, at Trump er blevet vores Manhattan-projekt, eller, hvis man virkelig ønsker at gøre Amerika stort igen, »Vind med Lyn«. (Her indskød Lyn, mens han selv blev æret, en tanke om at ære de ofre og redningsfolk, der døde i Manhattan den 11. september, 2001.)

Dernæst fulgte Feride Gillesberg, som, akkompagneret af Werner Hartmann, sang en kinesisk folkesang. Hun opførte dernæst sammen med Michelle Rasmussen førsteopførelsen af en sang, som Michelle havde komponeret til digtet, »Kender du den store bog?«, af Hans Christian Andersen. Dette digt beskriver den store bog som værende naturen og det store univers, som mennesket kan læse og udlede visdom af.

Dernæst talte Kasia. Hun havde spurgt flere personer fra evighedens samtid om denne ballademager, Lyndon LaRouche, og hun reciterede deres erklæringer om, hvad egenskaben ved geni er, som sin gave til et nutidsgeni: Man kan kende et ægte geni på mængden af modstand, han får (Jonathan Swift og Einstein); på, hvordan én, der beundres af andre, selv ved, hvor langt væk, han er fra sit mål (Beethoven); menneskets tre moralske egenskaber er visdom, medfølelse og mod (Konfucius); jo mere, vi ved om Guds skaberværker, desto mere erkender vi dem for at være fremragende og i overensstemmelse med vore ønsker (Leibniz); og sluttelig, at længslen efter frihed og menneskets rettigheder er plantet af Gud i alle hjerter (Benjamin Franklin) og du, Lyn, har altid handlet som denne filosof.

Leena Malkki-Guignard fra Sverige fremførte en smuk opførsel af Schubert fra Schwanengesang, Frühlingsbotschaft og Ständchen. Hun takkede Lyn for hans inspiration. Disse to sange var to af de første, hun nogensinde opførte. Hun sang desuden en sang af Haydn, Fidelity.

Wiesbaden-koret, dirigeret af Werner Hartmann, sang et smukt arrangement af ham selv af den koreanske folkesang, Arirang, hvilket bragte en inderlig stemning af forening (idet sangen er en slags nationalhymne for begge Korea’er). Dernæst Berlin/Dresden-koret, der blev dirigeret af Benjamin Lylloff, og som sang tre folkesange, In stiller Nacht, Erlaube mir og All’ mein Gedanken af Johannes Brahms. De afsluttede med Nkosi sikelel’ iAfrika, i Benjamins arrangement. Dette var en glad afslutning på første del af de kulturelle indslag.

Efter buffeten begyndte anden del med en scene fra Schillers skuespil Don Carlos mellem Kong Philip og Elisabeth, spillet af Hans-Peter Müller og Christa Kaiser.

Odile spillede en gigue af Bach på Violin. Det er altid en fornøjelse at høre hende spille.

Under anden del af programmet begyndte Jacques Cheminade (leder af Solidarité & Progrès; det franske parti, der udtrykker LaRouche-bevægelsens ideer) at holde en tale i denne ærefulde anledning. Men den ærede mand, hvis liv er karakteriseret af aktivitet, og ikke passivitet, begyndte at respondere til hver idé, og det, der fulgte, blev transformeret fra en monolog til en dialog, til alles, inklusive Jacques, fryd.

Dialogen frem og tilbage begyndte med, at Jacques erklærede, at Lyns og Helgas vision nu er ved at blive til virkelighed. Under diskussionen sagde Lyn, at hans helligelse, hans livsværk var den faste beslutning om, at mennesket må handle på universet for at løse problemer, og at han en kriger for forsvaret af menneskeheden som menneskehed.

Jacques sagde, at vi fejrer et øjeblik i den fremskridende evighedens samtidighed. Du har givet os en pilgrimsfærd for fremtidens sag – på grund af det, du og Helga har gjort, har vi en chance for at blive en del af fremtiden.

Diskussion inkluderede et enormt angreb mod stupiditeten i de nuværende tyske og franske systemer, og den amerikanske befolkning. Lyn spurgte, om menneskeheden kan forstå, hvad der er galt med den. Det er den eneste måde at løse problemerne på.

Det eneste, der er vigtigt, er opdagelser i universet og om det er sandt eller falsk. Se på det store arbejde, Kina gør. Hvis man forstår, hvad sandheden kunne være, har man en chance.

Jacques konkluderede ved at sige, at fremtidens sange endnu ikke har ord, men at de sange, der er præsenteret her i aften, beviser, at vi har potentialet til at etablere relationer i hele verden. Hvis man kan gøre det, kan man frembringe civilisationens frelse.

Løsningen er at udvikle evnen til at rejse ud i rummet. Jacques sagde, at det var hans rumprogram, der fik den franske elite til at ønske at smide ham ud i rummet. Lyn svarede: Tag det som en mulighed!

Dernæst fulgte Ema Reuter, der meget bevægende fremførte Schuberts Der Wanderer med Benjamin på klaver. Dernæst fulgte kvartetten fra Fidelio, »Mir ist’s so wunderbar«, med Feride som Marzeline, Leena som Leonore, Tom som Rocco og John som Jacquino, og Benjamin på klaver.

Tom Gillesberg fra Danmark sagde, at han håbede om fem år, i anledning af Lyns 100-års fødselsdag, at kunne holde en tale om åbningen af LaRouche Universiteter i mange lande (der var mere herom i hans bidrag til Lyns Festskrift). Vi befinder os i en tid, hvor nødvendighed og mulighed mødes. Lyn svarede ved at sige, at man må gøre det for at opnå sejr. Bringe kræfter i Italien og andre lande sammen om et fælles mål. Det vil gøre det. Det er absolut nødvendigt. Eller, vi mister alt. Man kan ikke have enkeltstående kontorer. Man må satse fuldt og helt. Satse for at vinde, og vinde for menneskeheden.

Herefter sang Leena igen, og hun fremførte Desdemonas sang om Grædepilen og Ave Maria fra Verdis Othello. Dette var en bevægende afslutning på en lang aften, hvor John sammen med Margaret glad sang Das Wandern af Schubert.

Og således blev Lyns 95-års fødselsdag fejret, sammen med nogle af hans mange venner og medarbejdere, både de nulevende og fra fortiden, med opløftende musik og ord, og god mad og vin. Og, ikke at forglemme, den lille hund Holly (Helgas hund), der også var til stede for at lykønske Lyn!

(Den engelske EIR-artikel kan ses her: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/private/2017/2017_30-39/2017-38/pdf/36-39_4438.pdf)

Foto: Lyndon LaRouche og hans hustru, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, på Lyns 95-års fødselsdag.

 Bilag: H.C. Andersens digt: »Kjender du den store bog?«:

Sang ved de skandinaviske Naturforskeres sidste møde den 9de Juli 1840.

Kjender Du den store Bog,
Hvor hvert Blad et Aar omfatter,
Bogen, som til Skrifttegn tog
Skoven, Havet, Skjønheds-Datter,
Edderkoppens fine Spind,
Kloderne i Himmel-Rummet!

Hvo i Bogen trænger ind,
Han Guds stemme har fornummet!

Bogen er Naturens Bog,
Den hver Tanke slutter inde,
Der den Vise Viisdom tog,
Der vi Skjaldens Sange finde;
Som man denne Bog forstaaer,
Har man Rang i Aandens Rige,
Ganske fatte den, det gaaer
Uden for os Dødelige!

Udtal hver da hvad han fandt,
Udtal det paa Mængdens Veie,
Og alt Skjønt og Godt og Sandt
Skal da blive Verdens Eie.
Nordens Sønner, eens i Aand
Og med fælles Sprog og Minder,
Musen Eder Haand i Haand
Granskende om Bogen finder.

Samled´ er de Brødre tre,
Granskende i Guddoms-Værket;
Gran og Birk og Bøg vi see,
Malet staae i Skjoldemærket,
Nordens Stjerne oventil,
Ens det er i Hjerte-Grunden;
Aanden Norden samle vil,
Broder er af Broder funden.

Kilde: H.C. Andersens “Samlede Skrifter” Tolvte Bind.1879.

Oversigt over H.C. Andersen digte – Hans Christian Andersen poems.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




»Drag ikke udenlands i søgen efter uhyrer at ødelægge«.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
22. sept., 2017.

I sin berømte tale til Kongressen advarede John Quincy Adams om, at Amerika »drager ikke til udlandet i søgen efter uhyrer at ødelægge«, men snarere respekterer »andre nationers uafhængighed samtidig med at bevare sin egen … og afholder sig fra indblanding i andres anliggender«. Et ekko af denne principerklæring fra John Quincy Adams kunne i denne uge høres i præsident Trumps tale til FN’s Generalforsamling, hvor han reelt erklærede afslutningen på politikken for regimeskifte og en unipolær verdensorden, som har domineret de seneste to administrationer, og erklærede, »Vi forventer ikke, at forskellige lande skal være fælles om de samme kulturer, traditioner eller endda regeringssystemer« og opfordrede til »en verden af stolte, uafhængige nationer, der … gør fælles sag i den største fælles interesse for os alle: en fremtid med værdighed og fred for befolkningen på denne vidunderlige Jord«.

Men præsident Trump modsagde imidlertid sig selv i selvsamme tale og opremsede bogstavelig talt et litani af ikke mindre end et halvt dusin »uhyrer, der skulle ødelægges«, fra Nordkorea til Iran, til Cuba, Venezuela og Syrien. Denne dobbelthed, som man ikke kan karakterisere som andet end »En fortælling om to taler«, som indeholdt det bedste og det værste, reflekterer den kamp, der nu raser, om dette præsidentskabs sjæl. De positive elementer af denne tale, som åbenlyst reflekterer en hældning mod at arbejde sammen med nationer som Kina og Rusland, må omfavnes. Men de andre, meget destruktive aspekter må opgives og summarisk afvises, og erkendes som det, de er: forsøg på at køre af sporet, det positive potentiale for et nyt system med win-win-relationer, udført af dem, der af geopolitiske grunde er imod det fremvoksende, nye paradigme for fred gennem økonomisk udvikling, som eksemplificeres af Kinas politik for den Nye Silkevej.

Vært Matthew Ogden: Godaften; det er 22. sept. 2017. Tak fordi I lytter til vores ugentlige, strategiske webcast her fra LaRouche PAC.

I denne uge har vi set FN’s Generalforsamling samles i New York City. Lad mig begynde aftenens udsendelse med at citere en stor, amerikansk præsident, statsmand og diplomat, hvis 250. fødselsdag vi fejrer i år: John Quincy Adams sagde det følgende i sin berømte tale til Kongressen den 4. juli, 1821: »Amerika udråbte for menneskeheden de umistelige rettigheder, som er menneskets natur, og de eneste lovlige fundamenter for regering. I forsamlingen af nationer … rakte Amerika det ærlige venskabs, den ligeværdige friheds og den generøse gensidigheds hånd frem til dem. Hun har … respekteret andre nationers uafhængighed og samtidig hævdet og bevaret sin egen. Hun har afholdt sig fra indblanding i andres anliggender, selv, når konflikterne har været over principper, som hun holder sig til, som til den sidste, vitale dråbe, der når hjertet … Hvor som helst standarden for frihed og uafhængighed har udfoldet sig, eller vil udfolde sig, dér vil hendes hjerte, hendes velsignelser og hendes bønner være … Men, hun drager ikke til udlandet i søgen efter uhyrer, der skal ødelægges. Hun er en velynder af frihed og uafhængighed for alle. Hun forfægter og advokerer kun sin egen. Hun vil anbefale den almene sag gennem sin stemmes udtryk og sit eget eksempels venlige sympati. Hun ved meget vel, at, ifald hun melder sig under andre faner end sin egen, er det end fanen for udenlandsk uafhængighed, ville hun involvere sig, så hun ikke kunne vikle sig ud, i alle krigene født af interesse og intrige, af personlige griskhed, misundelse og ærgerrighed, der antager frihedens farver og tilraner sig en frihedens standard … Hendes politiks fundamentale grundsætninger ville umærkeligt skifte fra frihed til magt. Båndet på hendes pande ville ikke længere gløde med frihedens og uafhængighedens uudsigelige pragt; men ville i dets sted snart blive erstattet af et imperialt diadem, der med falsk og uren glans udsender de skumle stråler af herredømme og magt. Hun kunne blive verdens diktator: hun ville ikke længer være herskeren af sin egen ånd.«

Denne principerklæring fra John Quincy Adams, som blev holdt for næsten 200 år siden, og som på mange måder var forudvidende på grænsen til det profetiske i sin advarsel; denne tale bør udgøre grundlaget for vores udenrigspolitik som republik, og er faktisk fortsat i centrum for spørgsmålet og fred og krig den dag i dag. Det er i forhold til denne erklæring, at vores lederes udtryk, siden dengang og frem til i dag, for amerikansk udenrigspolitik må måles og sammenlignes.

Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet:  

Now, let us shift our focus to the speech which President

Trump delivered at the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday

of this week.  I don’t think that there’s any other way of

characterizing what President Trump had to say other than to call

it “The Tale of Two Speeches”.  In some respects, it could be

seen as the best of all possible speeches; but in other respects,

and in a very large way, very substantially so, it was the very

worst of all speeches.  As Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, it was

almost as if he delivered two completely separate and

contradictory speeches at once.  One thing that’s very clear for

the observer, is that there are many opposing interests at work

in this administration, and that there’s a fierce policy war

ongoing right now behind the scenes for the very soul of this

Presidency.  It’s one which it is our responsibility to be very

clear-eyed about, to understand what the factors involved here

are, including the ongoing political coup attempt against this

Presidency from inside many of the institutions of our own

government.  But also to articulate the fact that this war is

ongoing, with sobriety and clarity.  And we must do this if we

are indeed intending to allow the very positive potential which

is reflected in this speech, to defeat the very negative

tendencies which are also very clearly present.

So, let’s take a look first at the positive elements of this

speech.  Granted, if you’ve only been reading the Western media

accounts, you might not have been exposed to many of the parts

which you are about to hear; and you might be very ignorant of

the fact that there was a very substantially positive aspect of

this speech.  For those who were there in the assembly hall

listening to the speech, and then for you who are viewing this

webcast right now, you might be surprised at the positive and

hopeful and clear-headed tone which began this speech.  One which

is perhaps very reminiscent of some of the statements that you

just heard John Quincy Adams make in that speech from almost 200

years ago.

What I’d like to do for you, is just play about seven or

eight minutes of the beginning of President Trump’s speech to the

United Nations General Assembly.

 

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP

:  To put it simply, we meet at a

time of both of immense promise and great peril. It is entirely

up to us whether we lift the world to new heights, or let it fall

into a valley of disrepair.

We have it in our power, should we so choose, to lift

millions from poverty, to help our citizens realize their dreams,

and to ensure that new generations of children are raised free

from violence, hatred, and fear.

This institution was founded in the aftermath of two world

wars to help shape this better future. It was based on the vision

that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their

sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their

prosperity.

It was in the same period, exactly 70 years ago, that the

United States developed the Marshall Plan to help restore Europe.

Those three beautiful pillars — they’re pillars of peace,

sovereignty, security, and prosperity.

The Marshall Plan was built on the noble idea that the whole

world is safer when nations are strong, independent, and free. As

President Truman said in his message to Congress at that time,

“Our support of European recovery is in full accord with our

support of the United Nations. The success of the United Nations

depends upon the independent strength of its members.”

To overcome the perils of the present and to achieve the

promise of the future, we must begin with the wisdom of the past.

Our success depends on a coalition of strong and independent

nations that embrace their sovereignty to promote security,

prosperity, and peace for themselves and for the world.

We do not expect diverse countries to share the same

cultures, traditions, or even systems of government. But we do

expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties: to

respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every

other sovereign nation. This is the beautiful vision of this

institution, and this is foundation for cooperation and success.

Strong, sovereign nations let diverse countries with

different values, different cultures, and different dreams not

just coexist, but work side by side on the basis of mutual

respect.

Strong, sovereign nations let their people take ownership of

the future and control their own destiny. And strong, sovereign

nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life

intended by God.

In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on

anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to

watch. This week gives our country a special reason to take pride

in that example. We are celebrating the 230th anniversary of our

beloved Constitution — the oldest constitution still in use in

the world today.

This timeless document has been the foundation of peace,

prosperity, and freedom for the Americans and for countless

millions around the globe whose own countries have found

inspiration in its respect for human nature, human dignity, and

the rule of law.

The greatest in the United States Constitution is its first

three beautiful words. They are: “We, the people.”  Generations

of Americans have sacrificed to maintain the promise of those

words, the promise of our country, and of our great history. In

America, the people govern, the people rule, and the people are

sovereign. I was elected not to take power, but to give power to

the American people, where it belongs.

In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding principle

of sovereignty. Our government’s first duty is to its people, to

our citizens — to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to

preserve their rights, and to defend their values.

As President of the United States, I will always put America

first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will

always, and should always, put your countries first. [Applause.]

All responsible leaders have an obligation to serve their

own citizens, and the nation-state remains the best vehicle for

elevating the human condition. But making a better life for our

people also requires us to work together in close harmony and

unity to create a more safe and peaceful future for all people.

The United States will forever be a great friend to the

world, and especially to its allies. But we can no longer be

taken advantage of, or enter into a one-sided deal where the

United States gets nothing in return. As long as I hold this

office, I will defend America’s interests above all else.

But in fulfilling our obligations to our own nations, we

also realize that it’s in everyone’s interest to seek a future

where all nations can be sovereign, prosperous, and secure.

America does more than speak for the values expressed in the

United Nations Charter. Our citizens have paid the ultimate price

to defend our freedom and the freedom of many nations represented

in this great hall. America’s devotion is measured on the

battlefields where our young men and women have fought and

sacrificed alongside of our allies, from the beaches of Europe to

the deserts of the Middle East to the jungles of Asia.

It is an eternal credit to the American character that even

after we and our allies emerged victorious from the bloodiest war

in history, we did not seek territorial expansion, or attempt to

oppose and impose our way of life on others. Instead, we helped

build institutions such as this one to defend the sovereignty,

security, and prosperity for all.

For the diverse nations of the world, this is our hope. We

want harmony and friendship, not conflict and strife. We are

guided by outcomes, not ideology. We have a policy of principled

realism, rooted in shared goals, interests, and values.

 

OGDEN:  So, that was the beginning of President Trump’s speech to

the United Nations General Assembly.  As has been reported,

immediately afterwards in a press conference, Foreign Minister

Sergey Lavrov of Russia responded very favorably to that aspect

of the speech.  As he said, “I think it’s a very welcome

statement, which we haven’t heard from an American leader for a

very long time.”  This is true, in this aspect of the speech;

because what you just heard from President Trump was essentially

a declaration that the policy of regime-change was over.  He

said, we’re looking for a coalition of strong and independent

nations that will be sovereign nations, but will exist in shared

security, prosperity, and peace.  So, an end to the so-called

“unipolar” world.  He said, “We do not expect diverse countries

to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of

government.”  He said we should “let diverse countries with

different values, different cultures, and different dreams not

just coexist, but work side by side on the basis of mutual

respect.”  And, he said, these countries can work to make a

better life for all people by working together in “harmony and

unity”.  For the diverse nations of the world, this is our hope,”

he said.  “We want harmony and friendship, not conflict and

strife.”

So, this is a very positive statement of US foreign policy;

and one which could be taken as an end to the commitment to

geopolitics and a unipolar world.  However, from there, the

speech took a very dramatic turn.  Immediately after vowing that

the policy of regime-change was over, President Trump proceeded

to list off no less than half a dozen regimes in this world which

must be changed or overthrown.  Literally, he had a litany of

“monsters to destroy”, in the words of John Quincy Adams.  Apart

from vowing to “totally destroy North Korea”, he also called to

dismantle the Iranian nuclear deal; calling the Iranian

government a “corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a

democracy”.  And he similarly went after Syria, Cuba, and

Venezuela.  Curiously, nowhere did he call out the Saudis for

their genocidal war that’s now being perpetrated against the

people of Yemen, or their support — financial and otherwise —

for the hijackers that attacked the very city in which he was

speaking on 9/11 and killed almost 3000 Americans.  A case which

is now being litigated by family members of the victims of 9/11

in front of US court.

So, after hearing the initial statements of harmony and

friendship and respect for sovereignty and not seeking to impose

our way of life on anyone, but rather letting diverse nations

with diverse values, cultures, dreams, and even systems of

government, not merely mutually coexist but work side by side on

the basis of mutual respect.  After hearing those words —

frankly so reminiscent of what you heard John Quincy Adams say in

his address from 1821 — it was rather shocking to then hear in

exactly the same speech, President Trump proceed with a litany of

threats and regime change which frankly was reminiscent of George

W Bush’s infamous Axis of Evil speech.  We saw how that proceeded

with the case of the regime-change war in Iraq.  So, this is

precisely what John Quincy Adams had warned so strongly against

in the words “Let us not go abroad in search of monsters to

destroy.”

But then, after that litany of threats, President Trump then

proceeded to conclude his speech by saying the following: “Our

hope is a world of proud independent nations that embrace their

duties, seek friendship, respect others, and make common cause in

the greatest shared interest of all.  A future dignity and peace

for the people of this wonderful Earth.  This is the true vision

of the United Nations, the ancient wish of every people, and the

deepest yearning that lives inside every sacred soul.”

So, as I said, it was almost like the Tale of Two Speeches,

which somehow both got combined into one address.  But the kind

of self-contradiction and duality which was on display and came

across almost as being schizophrenic on the part of the speech

writer, taking very due note of the very positive aspects of what

he laid out in the beginning, what maybe could be called the

Trump Doctrine, the end of this unipolar world and the end of

regime change; the very dangerous and negative aspects of what he

then proceeded to say in the very same speech should not be

sugar-coated by any means.

In speaking with Helga Zepp-LaRouche earlier today, she had

the following to say.  She said, “It’s very clear that Foreign

Minister Lavrov responded to the positive elements of Trump’s

speech.  But it’s also clear that there are very negative and

very destructive elements of Trump’s speech which came across as

almost two different speeches.  How can you denounce regime

change on the one hand, and then make a list of half a dozen

regimes that you demand to be changed in the very same speech?”

She said that “The solution here is that Trump has to follow

through on the constructive things he said; but he must also

abandon the policies which are obviously destructive.  This North

Korea thing could blow up at any minute, if this policy

continues,” she said.  “It’s nice that he said the things that he

did in the beginning; but it’s almost like they are two opposing

policies coming out of his mouth.  What’s very clear is that

there are two opposing interests working on Trump.  There’s a war

ongoing for the soul of this Presidency.  The positive elements

of this policy statement must be reinforced and strengthened,”

she said.  “But, the negative elements — such as the verbal

escalation against North Korea — should be recognized as an

effort on the part of certain elements in this administration to

drive a wedge in the potential for cooperation between the United

States and China.  This policy,” she said, “has clearly been

inserted by the neo-con elements which are still influencing this

Presidency.

“What we must do, is demand that Trump stick to his promise

which he expressed in the campaign, to cooperate with Russia and

with China.  This is the world of independent nations united for

‘common cause and shared interests’ which he referred to in the

conclusion of his speech.  This should absolutely be pursued,”

she said, “but what that means is that this other stuff has got

to go.”  She noted that now with the increase in the US military

budget, which is now greater than ever before, we have nearly

$700 billion in our military budget; far greater than the next

seven countries in the world combined.  She asked the question:

How much of this money could be used for infrastructure instead?

She also emphasized that the point is that we have an

extraordinary opportunity on our hands; but there are also very

real dangers facing us as well.

In reflecting on what’s occurred this week, it’s always very

important to approach the situation from above; from the top

down.  The defining question for anybody who’s sober-minded in

international relations today is, will the world unite around the

New Paradigm of development which has been initiated by China in

the form of the New Silk Road policy?  Or, will a continuation of

the perpetual warfare policy and regime-change policy of the past

two administrations be allowed to escalate and to derail this

emerging potential?  Both in terms of undermining the ability of

the United States and countries such as China and Russia to

cooperate, and also in a very real way, threatening to actually

bring the world to the brink of thermonuclear war.  Will the

United States abandon the geopolitics associated with the Cold

War and the British imperial of zero-sum game and unipolar

hegemony, and instead embrace the win-win paradigm of peace

through development and relationships between countries based on

mutual respect, mutual benefit, and mutual gain?

The answer to that question still remains unclear in the

wake of President Trump’s address to the United Nations General

Assembly, either in the positive or in the negative.  But, if you

look at the world stage, we are watching before our very eyes, a

new paradigm in the relations between nations emerge.  This is

seen very clearly in the Belt and Road Initiative and all the

developments that are associated with that — the positive

development projects that China is bringing to central Asia, and

emphatically bringing to Africa, and bringing to Latin America.

Apart from all the political gossip and all the partisan

propaganda and media punditry that you’re exposed to on a daily

basis, the question for an American citizen to ask is, how will

President Trump respond to this emerging new paradigm?  And how

will the United States fit into that emerging new international

dynamic of peace through development?  That’s the measuring rod

against which not only his words but his actions must be judged.

He has some very clear opportunities in the coming months to

follow through on what is clearly his inclination for a positive

relationship with China and with Russia; including his seemingly

very positive personal relationship with President Xi Jinping.

The ASEAN summit is upcoming in less than two months, and it has

been announced that President Trump will be travelling to attend

the ASEAN summit.  As part of that trip to Asia, he will be

making his very first state visit to China.  This has all of the

positive potentials; it implies everything that could occur in

terms of the United States joining the New Silk Road, following

up on the attendance to the Belt and Road Forum by Matthew

Pottinger, who was sent personally by Trump as an envoy of the

United States.  The personal visits that President Xi Jinping has

made to the United States; the very good appointment of Terry

Bransted to be the Ambassador to China, who we know has very

positive views of China-US relations.  Also, emphatically the

question of Chinese investment into rebuilding the infrastructure

of the United States, in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane

Irma, now Hurricane Maria and the destruction that that has

wrought on the island of Puerto Rico.  This question of not only

reconstruction, but construction of an entirely new

infrastructure platform in the United States could not be more

urgent.  President Trump has committed himself to at least $1

trillion in investment in that kind of infrastructure.  We know

that the scale is far, far greater; and that requires a return to

Hamiltonian economics.  But it also requires the United States to

enter into a very decisive and reciprocal relationship with China

in terms of mutual investment and mutual development.  That is

the framework around which the positive opportunities for

cooperation with China can be built.

If we take that kind of approach from above and say it’s not

within the interstices of Congressional partisan politics, or

bickering inside the halls of Congress that we’re going to make

the necessary policy revolution in terms of the economics of the

United States.  But it’s from recognizing that a far greater

global process is now underway; a dynamic which is sweeping the

planet.  It’s sweeping away both the geopolitical paradigm of

British imperial divide and conquer geopolitics; but it’s also

bringing in an entirely new approach to how you construct peace

through economic development.

So, the defining question in international relations is, how

will the United States fit into that?  That remains the

overarching question at the very root of this fight for the soul

of the US Presidency.

As we’ve documented and will be continuing to document in an

exposé which is forthcoming from LaRouche PAC, there is a very

real concerted effort from inside the institutions of the United

States to undermine this Presidency and to box Trump into making

very real strategic mistakes.  The time has come for him to learn

those lessons and to throw that aspect out, and to embrace the

positive aspects as you could hear in the beginning of this

address to the United Nations General Assembly.

So, let me go back to the words of President John Quincy

Adams, who was our chief diplomat as Secretary of State for many

years, who was diplomat to the nation of Russia, and after being

President for one successful term, returned to the United States

Congress and fought a battle against slavery which in turn

inspired Abraham Lincoln.  But in his prophetic and very

prescient speech, he warned that yes indeed, the United States of

America will proclaim the “inextinguishable rights of human

nature”, will abstain from “interference in the concerns of

others”, will “respect the independence of other nations while

asserting and maintaining her own.”  “But America does not go

abroad in search of monsters to destroy.”  He warned that if we

were to do that, the “fundamental maxims of our policy would

change insensibly from liberty to force.  We would no longer beam

with the splendor of freedom and independence, but instead an

“imperial diadem would be substituted, flashing in false and

tarnished lustre in the murky radiance of dominion and power.”

We would become the dictator of the world; “no longer the ruler

of [our] own spirit.”

So, let us take a lesson from the words of John Quincy

Adams.  Let us once and for all abandon the regime-change

geopolitics of the last two administrations; and let us embrace

decisively and fully the new win-win paradigm which has been

spelled out so clearly by President Xi Jinping of China, both in

words and in actions.  And was indicated by President Trump in

the beginning of his speech to the United Nations General

Assembly.  Let us embrace those policies, and let us abandon the

policies of regime change and perpetual war.

Thank you for joining me here today, and please stay tuned

to larouchepac.com.

 




Med Lyndon LaRouches 95-års fødselsdag
har vi den velsignelse at høre de vise ord fra
den Meget vise gamle mand iblandt os. 
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
15. sept., 2017

Vært Matthew Ogden: Aftenens udsendelse er noget speciel. Mange af jer ved, at hr. Lyndon LaRouches 95-års fødselsdag blev fejret for en uge siden, den 8. sept.; 95 år, en moden alder. Jeg lægger et billede op på skærmen af hr. LaRouche ved sin fødselsdagsfest den følgende dag. Det var en meget glædelig fest. Mange af de hilsner, der kom fra hele verden, var varme lykønskninger og hyldest fra mennesker, der har kendt hr. LaRouche, der har arbejdet med hr. LaRouche, og som respekterer hans bidrag til at ændre verdenshistoriens gang hen over disse mange og produktive 95 år. Nogle af disse hilsner er blevet samlet i et Festskrift; heriblandt hilsner fra meget fremtrædende politiske ledere fra USA – valgte repræsentanter og tidligere valgte repræsentanter. Richard Black fra Virginia, tidligere kongresmedlem Lacy Clay, tidligere justitsminister Ramsey Clark har sendt de varmeste hilsner. Tidligere senator Mike Gravel, der ligeledes har været præsidentkandidat og er berømt for Pentagon Papirerne. Der var dr. Hal Cooper, en ingeniør, der har arbejdet meget hårdt på visionen om Verdenslandbroen og har deltaget i nogle af de seneste begivenheder i New York City. Mark Sweazey, der er en leder af UAW (United Automobile Workers) fra Ohio, der har arbejdet med hr. LaRouche for at stoppe nedlukningen af automobilindustrien. Carol Smith, en aktivist fra Kentucky. Ron og Denna Wierczorek, meget kendte aktivister fra South Dakota, borgere i dette land. Så er der kunstnere – Maestro Anthony Morss fra New York City, en fremtrædende dirigent; Alan Leathers, en sanger fra Washington, D.C. Dernæst, politiske, videnskabelige og militære ledere fra hele verden. Latinamerika – fra Argentina, Bolivia, Brasilien, Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru. Der kom hilsner andre steder fra; fra hele Asien, inklusive flere hilsner fra Kina og Rusland. Folk fra Australien, Malaysia, Filippinerne, Thailand. Vi havde en rapport herfra for nylig; hr. Pakdee Tanapura, der arrangerede det meget succesfulde møde om Kra-kanalen, der netop fandt sted i mandags. Fra Spanien, og endda fra Yemen fra hr. Fouad al-Ghaffari, der er præsident for BRIKS’ Ungdomskabinet. Vi håber at kunne udsende et interview med ham i løbet af de næste par dages aktivisme, han vil gennemføre i Yemen for at stoppe saudiernes folkemordskrig mod det yemenitiske folk.

Men, som I ser, så er det kun et lille udvalg af de mange varme hilsner, der er kommet fra hele verden og hele USA i denne glædelige anledning af hr. LaRouches 95-års fødselsdag.

I aften vil vi faktisk gå nogle år tilbage i tiden. Vi vil gå fem år tilbage til hr. LaRouches 90-års fødselsdag. Ved denne lejlighed holdt hr. LaRouche en tale, der nu er blevet temmelig berømt, og hvori han kræver afslutningen af partisystemet; men han fremlægger også programmet for USA’s økonomiske genrejsning og en helt ny vision for det, der må sker mht. internationale relationer og dette lands politik.

Der er sket meget siden dengang, for fem år siden. Det synes næsten at være en evighed siden, mht. verdenshistoriens forløb. Hvis man tænker på, hvad der er sket, så blev denne tale, som vi skal ske et klip fra, holdt før kineserne vedtog den Nye Silkevej som deres officielle politik – Bælte & Vej Initiativet; før overfloden af nye udviklingsbanker, der kom fra BRIKS-landene – den Ny Udviklingsbank og Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank; før alle disse udviklinger fandt sted i udlandet. Og selvfølgelig, før det skelsættende valg i 2016 her i USA.

Hvis man ser på, hvad der er sket i USA, i betragtning af, at denne tale, som vi skal se et klip fra, blev holdt under præsidentvalgkampen i 2012 mellem Barack Obama og Mitt Romney. Men det er næsten fænomenalt, hvor forudvidende, hr. LaRouche var, mht. det, der ville finde sted i USA; noget, som ingen andre så komme og sikkert ikke troede på, da de hørte hr. LaRouches ord dengang. Begge de såkaldte politiske partier i dette forrige præsidentvalg ophørte med at eksistere i deres tidligere form. Der er intet genkendeligt Demokratisk Parti, eller Republikansk Parti. Der er måske nogle af de samme personer, men ikke de såkaldte establishment-partier, vi havde før 2016, før oprøret i det Demokratiske Parti, der formede sig omkring Bernie Sanders, og dernæst oprøret i det Republikanske Parti omkring Donald Trump; før begge disse ting indtraf, fremlagde hr. LaRouche det, han kaldte afslutningen af establishment-partisystemet, der var i færd med at ødelægge selve USA’s sjæl.

Vi har set dette fortsætte i 2016-valget, meget klart. Der var meget mere, der forenede det amerikanske folk end splittede det. Se f.eks. på den brede støtte til Glass/Steagall; noget, vi skal høre hr. LaRouche tale om i denne tale fra for fem år siden. Se på den brede støtte til infrastruktur, til produktive jobs; se på den brede opposition til konfrontationen med Rusland, der ville føre til Tredje Verdenskrig. Det er, hvad Hillary Clintons kampagne repræsenterede i det amerikanske folks øjne. Dette er, hvad det etablerede Republikanske Partis forskellige kampagner repræsenterede i det amerikanske folks øjne. Der var meget mere på det tidspunkt, der forenede det amerikanske folk end splittede det. Det var i realiteten LaRouche-programmet.

Går vi frem til nutiden og ser, hvad der er sket i USA i de seneste par uger, ser vi igen, at det amerikanske folk forenes. Se, hvad der skete i Houston omkring Harvey; den form for uselviskhed og næstekærlighed, som folk viste ved at gå ud for at redde og beskytte folk mod denne naturkatastrofe. Dette kendte ikke til skel; der var ingen partilinjer. Der var ikke noget, »Er du et flertal, er du et mindretal? Er du Republikaner, er du Demokrat? Er du konservativ, er du liberal?« Alle var amerikanere. Den samme stemning skete i Florida i kølvandet på orkanen Irma dér. Vi ser nu, at det endda smitter i politik i Washington. I en meget spirende form, men USA’s præsident har nu virkelig fornærmet establishment-personerne i det Republikanske Parti – Mitch McConnell og Paul Ryan og deres lige – ved at række ud til det Demokratiske Parti for at gennemføre et genrejsningsprogram for Houston og begynde at arbejde på noget af den politik, der burde have været politik fra Dag Ét. Dette skulle have været hans første 100 dage i embedet: Infrastruktur; produktive jobs. Dette begynder nu endelig at vise sig i en spirende form; og det er vores ansvar at forsætte med at lede.

Men jeg vil afspille dette uddrag af hr. LaRouches bemærkninger.

(Se hele LaRouche 90-års tale her (dansk): »Evnen til at gøre det gode – Mennesket har en særlig opgave i universet«)

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

I think you’ll find it fascinating

reflecting on what has happened in the past five years between

Mr. LaRouche’s 90th birthday and Mr. LaRouche’s 95th birthday.

In fact, what is the power of ideas to shape history?  What do we

have to expect in the days, weeks, months, and years to come?

This is the vision that leadership, that statesman-like

leadership that you’re about to hear from Mr. LaRouche.  This is

how history is formed.

 

[BEGIN VIDEO]

LYNDON LaRouche: … The problem is, {the party system}.

Now, George Washington, President George Washington and

others, at the founding of our republic, as an independent

republic, tried to {prevent} the formation of {a party system}.

And I think, the time has come, to eliminate {the party system}.

[applause]  At this time, it’s the only way, formally, through

the legal process, that we could eliminate the possibility of

these two kinds of Presidents.

What’s wrong?  Why should we have {party systems}?  We have

a Constitution, which is defined;  the Constitution is fine, if

it’s carried through, as intended; it is our system.  But why do

we have to have parties intervening in between the process of

selecting Presidential leadership in national government?  Why do

we do that?  What screwball invented this kind of nonsense?

Because that’s what happened:  People become partisan, and say,

“which party wins is going to determine the fate of the nation!”

No party has that kind of right!  There can not be a party,

that has the right, to oversee and control the destiny of the

nation!  You can have a President, there’s nothing wrong with

that.  But you can’t have a President as the President of a

party.  Or, you can not have a conniving, between two

Presidential teams, or two party teams, which connive by special

agreement among themselves, to create the composition of a

national government!  These things are obscenities, which leaders

of our nation, beginning from the George Washington

Administration, recognized as evils!  And the idea of going to a

European kind of government, which is inherently corrupt — by

its very nature, not necessarily by the {intention} of the

people, or the intention of the politicians, {they just don’t

know any better!}

And the only way this can be done, is, if we infect the

population, with the realization, {we do not want a party

system!}  We have state governments, don’t we?  Under our

Constitution.  We have local governments, within state

governments, under our Constitution.  We have bodies which the

nation creates, to perform functions of the Federal government,

the military and the rest of  it. {So we don’t need parties!}

They don’t do any damned good!

I mean, it’s like Franklin Roosevelt:  If Franklin Roosevelt

had just been the President and didn’t have to deal with these

damned parties, we would haven’t the mess we got into.  What we

need, we need to have {not} a contention, over which {party} is

going to win, when the party was {not] inherent in the conception

of nation.  What we need is a Federal Republic, with its state

composition and other local compositions playing their role.

{We don’t need this party system} which is a system of

inherently corruption.  What we need, is the election, due

process election, of a composition of government.  And we don’t

want people diverting the attention of the population, from the

issues of the nation, over the issues of partisanship! {That’s}

where the problem lies!

When you rely on parties, as such, you set up a kind of

controversy, or competition, for power, between or among party

systems.  These party systems then {excite the passions} of the

foolish voters, who now are concerned about voting for the

{party, first}, and the {nation, second!}  When it must be the

{nation, first,} and the not the party.

The voluntary part of the system, that’s fine; the citizen

has a right, to make formations, to make agreements among

themselves, and to cast their votes accordingly, and to discuss

these matters accordingly.  But we don’t want the top-down rule

of a party system, which is controlled by the money sent to them,

by financial interests which control the money which gives one

party advantage over the other!  You want the bare citizen, as a

citizen, to have an equal right, and independence of this party

system.

This has been said, again and again, in the course of the

history of the United States!  That people with insight, realize

the essence of the corruption in the United States, is based in

and derived from the use of the party system.  And you see it

right now:  You have, the nation is now mortgaged, for the

selection of its government, its national government, is

mortgaged to the {party system!}  Everything is stopped, except

which party is going to win!  And one is almost as bad as the

other.

And why should we be spending our time, selecting a

government, of two parties, neither of which is fit to be our

government!  Why don’t we have a national government selected in

the way that George Washington, for example, President George

Washington, had intended?  We would not {have} that mess!  And

the citizen would be called upon, not to decide who’s butt he

wants to kiss, but rather what the issues are and programs that

this citizen wishes to express.  We want to engage the citizen in

the dialogue!  We don’t want to take the competition {between}

groups of citizens.  {We want the citizen to force the reality,

that he or she is voting for the government.}  And what the

citizens do in voting for a government, will determine the fate

of the nation.

We want to {confront} the citizen, with the responsibility

of {his} being accountable, or her being accountable, for the

responsibility of what government is, and what it becomes.  We

have to {force} responsibility upon the individual citizen, as a

citizen, not as a sucker, playing into some kind of game.  And

this has been understood for a long time, by the best thinkers of

the United States, that it is the party system, as typified by

the Andrew Jackson Presidency, one of the most corrupt

Presidencies in our history.  And the corruption that was done,

to the United States, by the election of Andrew Jackson, and the

people who controlled him,  which were British bankers; so,

Andrew Jackson was a tool of British imperial bankers:  They

owned him.  They ran him.  And it was because of the party

system, that this could happen.

And we got the same thing today:  You’re shacked up with a

couple of clowns — Dummo and the Crook, and the Insane Crook.

Now, the only thing we can do, or the only thing I can do,

on this thing right now, apart from telling you about this

wonderful information, is to awaken you to realize what we’re

really up against, to recognize what the real problems are.  If

you’re thinking about looking at this mess out there, from the

standpoint of Democratic or Republican, you’re not thinking!

Because you’re not thinking in terms of the essential interest.

Because what you’re doing, whatever you do, you are imprisoned to

pledging your support, to a party!  Not to the nation.  Yes, you

say, “to the nation,” but it’s the party that controls you.  And

that is how Andrew Jackson destroyed the United States, was with

the party system! That’s what doomed Franklin Roosevelt. Franklin

Roosevelt would never have had this clown, Truman, stuck on him,

except for the party system business.  And that’s where our

problem lies.

And we have to make that clear.  Because we know what the

state of mind is?  What’s the state of mind of the voter?  He’s

playing football, not politics!  He’s playing a version of

football, baseball, whatever — gambling!  Racketeering,

whatever!  And his mind, his passion, is associated with winning

this, for this party, this team, this that, that and so forth —

{not for the nation!}  The objective of our system of government

must be to {force the citizen, as a citizen, to think through

what the national interest is!}  And we don’t do it.  We say,

“Which party are you going to support?”  Well, what’s the party

going to do? “Well, I think it’s a good party,” in other words,

they don’t know what the hell they’re doing — and they’re

passion is involved in being sure they won’t do it. And that’s

where we stand. And that’s the thing we’ve got to think about.

And you’ve got to destroy the self-confidence of those

damned fools, who think that the “party vote,” the vote for the

party {should determine the decision of the nation.}  That is a

false and fraudulent conception, and it’s about time we called a

halt to it.  And right now, would be a very good time.  All

right.  [applause]

Now, what’re we going to do?  Let’s lay out, here, we have

our organization.  We have a conception of how to organize this

nation, how to deal with the great crisis, the financial crisis,

the economic crises, which occur in this nation; and which occur,

also, similarly, in other nations, which I think would tend, at

this time, to look with a friendly eye at what I might propose

here, right now.

All right: First of all, the world is bankrupt.  The

trans-Atlantic region is {totally, hopelessly bankrupt!} Every

part of Western and Central Europe is totally bankrupt!  It’s

{incurably} bankrupt, under its present system.  Nothing be done

to save it in its present form.  There’s no way you can bail it

out!  There’s no way you can take it out of this — except one

way:  Glass-Steagall.

Now, of late, you will have observed that Glass-Steagall has

become increasingly popular, in England, in the continent of

Europe, and other notable places!  So what does Glass-Steagall

do?  Well, essentially it says that the system of government

we’re running under right now, is hopelessly corrupt; so, let’s

shut it down!  Let’s shut down all the bail out.  We’re not going

to pay it!  We jes’ ain’t gonna pay it!  [applause]

So what’re we going to do?  Well, we’re going to have a

grand old time:  We’re going to go to a straight credit system,

which is Glass-Steagall, immediately!  Now, that means, that all

those other guys, the gamblers, Wall Street types and so forth,

are going to find themselves sitting — well:  They have all

these claims.  All these values.  They own all this property, in

terms of title.  But we say, the point is here, with

Glass-Steagall, that you can run your kind of banking system if

you want to  —  under penalties of law, of course! But you don’t

have any right to come to the Federal government, to demand that

the Federal government bail them out, if they happen to go

bankrupt.

Now, I can tell you, as you probably have suspected, that

practically every part of the whole system in the United States,

today, {is already hopelessly, incurably bankrupt!}  And there’s

only one way we can escape from this bankruptcy:  You want to

have some money to live on?  There’s one thing you got to do:

Glass-Steagall!  And that will open the… it won’t solve the

problem, but it will open the gates, to permit the problem to be

solved.

If you take, and say, all these things that are not and

don’t conform to Glass-Steagall, all these things must be

cancelled.  That means these banks can still have their banking

system, as long as they don’t go bankrupt.  We’re not going to

shut them down arbitrarily, we’re just letting them out on their

own, and saying, “this is not our business.  The Federal

government is not responsible for this.”

All right, now that will reduce the debt of the United

States, {tremendously!}  It would have a similar effect in

nations of Europe!  The French banks would not be pleased with

  1. They would probably say some very nasty things about me,

but… things like that.

But the point is, the world now knows, and increasingly in

Europe, and starting in England and other countries in Europe

itself, there’s an understanding that Glass-Steagall is a

necessary alternative.  And these guys are having a terrible

time, in fighting off the Glass-Steagall popularity.  But that

will do it.

The problem is, because we waited so long, since we

cancelled Glass-Steagall, we waited too long, and they ran up a

hyperinflationary debt, which is really beyond even dreaming.  So

therefore, the result is, if we go with Glass-Steagall, we’re

going to have relatively little money, under our Federal system;

because we wasted it by throwing it into the garbage pail, and we

can’t get it back.  So therefore,  we’re going to have to go to

another measure.  Now, I said, national banking.  Now, why

national banking?  Because, unless you create a banking system,

under the U.S. government, under protection and regulation of the

U.S. government, you can’t do anything much with the economy.

We have very little industry left in the United States, it’s

been systematically destroyed.  Especially since the last three

terms of the Presidency.  We have been running a garbage pail;

and therefore, we have no means, by ordinary means, to save the

economy.  We don’t have jobs.  Now, as most of you know, under

NAWAPA, we would create, quickly, {4 million or more jobs} —

real jobs! Really productive jobs.  We would create, at least,

immediately, a couple million more highly skilled categories of

jobs.  We would start the process of a general recovery of the

United States — but oh!  Wait a minute!  Got one more problem.

Where’s the money going to come from, that we’re going to loan,

for NAWAPA, and loan for other high-technology jobs, and certain

other kinds of skilled jobs?  The Federal government is going to

have to {create credit}, which will be run through national

banking system, so that under national banking and Federal

government approval, we can conduit credit into creating these

jobs.

Let’s take the practical question of the food supply in the

United States right now:  As you probably know, food is about to

be cancelled, and the Obama Administration is doing everything

possible to destroy it.  Because they’re doing everything to

destroy food, for fuels.

So therefore, what’re we going to do?  Well, what we’re

going to do, is by giving the Federal credit, into, say, the

NAWAPA system, we’re going to create a flow of credit, into the

various phases of this process, which will immediately charge

NAWAPA, in particular, and other things that go with NAWAPA.  We

have also, we have the lost auto industry, the whole Detroit

system, for example, and we’re going to put that back into work!

So, we’re going to create, instantly, that is, by Federal decree

— instantly create sufficient growth, not only to get rid of

this hopeless debt, which never was really a legitimate debt, at

all, and we’re going to restart the economy, by taking people,

when you have very few people who are actually involved in

productive jobs, they’re not involved in producing things;

they’re mostly employed in various kinds of services, which are

not particularly productive, and do not lend any productive value

to the U.S. economy.  They’re simply pass-outs, under one guise

or the other.

So in this case, we are launching a recovery of the U.S.

economy, by supply the credit, as we did in the beginning of the

development of our economy, after we won our Revolution, we’re

going back to that system of recovery to get things moving, and

it’s going to start immediately.  And the easiest way for us to

do this, is NAWAPA.  NAWAPA is a project, which is relevant,

because it’s focused on {water management}.  And the problem we

have in the United States today, is a water management problem!

In the Central States, we don’t have rain!  We don’t the means to

grow crops.  And we don’t have people who are employed, in

actually productive forms of employment!  Physically productive

forms of employment.

The difference is, with this kind of reform, of three steps:

NAWAPA as a driver, an incentive driver, which will save the

organization of production in the Central and Western States of

the United States!  The going back into the area of the so-called

Detroit area, with several million jobs, immediately, will have a

similar effect.  Which means that we then can use a credit

system, managed under Federal control, as we’ve used credit

systems, like Franklin Roosevelt did in the past, and use that

kind of credit system under a Glass-Steagall type government

system, and we can start the regrowth of the U.S. economy.

We also have, as a byproduct of this:  If we as the United

States {do} this, you will find that the nations of Eurasia, will

join us.  You will find that nations of Europe, who are now being

destroyed by their own system, will now go back into functioning,

and we will use international credit, which is an extension of

the national banking concept, instead of speculation, in order to

restart the economy.  And that can be done.

So there is a practical solution, a {sane} practical

solution, as opposed to the other kind, for this problem we have

as a nation. How far are we from getting it, is the question?

Well, that depends.  It depends how desperate people are,

and how much their desperation is moderated by the sense of

attachment to a solution.  Our job is to present the solutions.

You know, society is actually led, when it’s led, by a tiny

minority of the human race.  We have not, because of our

underdevelopment, we have not built up nation systems, which are

actually rationally, and truly represent {the will of human

beings.} What we approach is the conditional will of human

beings, by providing them with promises, which we hopefully can

keep, and that they will be satisfied by trusting us, by the

means of the measures we offer to them, as suggestions.  A very

tiny minority, of the human population in all nations, actually

has any comprehension, any qualifications for comprehension of

how an economy runs or how it should be run. We have to bring

them to us, to our ideas, our conceptions, based on the fact that

they need precisely the solutions that we present.  It may not

exactly what they would dream for, but it’s what we could

deliver!  And if people understand that that’s what the game is,

they’ll accept it, at least in large part.

It’s what they can believe that we can deliver.  And it’s

our saying that we can deliver this, but we {can’t do that, yet}.

And if you promise everything, they’re not going to trust you,

and for good reason.  If you give specific promises, that {will

work}, and make sense, and can be explained to the people, it’ll

work!  And if they don’t accept it, that’s their fault!

But our responsibility, which is limited — we don’t run the

world; we don’t have powers to supervise the world as a whole. We

can only argue!  We can only argue as an intelligentsia, that we

have done some thinking that the other people have not yet caught

onto, or didn’t know about.  And we can tell them, what [we} can

do!  What {we} understand, what {will} work for them; and say,

“We’re going to have to work harder, and better, in order to

fulfill the kind of promises we wish to deliver.”  And say, we

need their cooperation in doing that.

We’ve got to give them a sense, that whatever we’re

promising them, we’re committed to delivering, and that our

promise of delivery has been made credible to them.  And that

experience, as in the case of the Franklin Roosevelt recovery in

the United States during the 1930s, the same program, the same

policy that Franklin Roosevelt used in reviving the U.S. economy.

But we have to tell these guys, “Stop being the kind of

idiot, who believes in the party system!  That’s number one.

Number two, don’t believe in Obama, get him out of there, and

make sure he’s removed quickly.”  And we’re going to have to

figure out what we’re going to do about this Republican.

[laughter]  Because that’s a real weak point, there.

However, I believe this:  If we can establish a functional

Presidency of the United States as was done in establishing the

United States  under George Washington’s Presidency, if we have a

President, and we use our system of government, our

constitutional system of government, we can solve this problem.

Not the way people would like, by “wish factory” or something,

but by the fact, we can point the direction, and it’s up to the

people to follow the direction, and choose to follow the

direction.

{But we must do what is not done right now}:  The problem

with government now, is that the U.S. government and its

functions, are chiefly one, big, damned lie!  They promise things

that do not exist, or will not exist, and make rules which make

no sense, and are willing to get into wars, by which civilization

and mankind in general, could be destroyed.  And we have to use

that argument and that bill of particulars, as a method of

convincing them, this has to be done.

And the key thing is this, to come back to the theme I

started with:  Space.  It’s obvious, there’s a limited timeframe

within which mankind can continue to live safely under the system

of the Sun, the current Sun system.  The Sun has a limited —

some people say 2 billion years; some would say, well, long

before 2 billion years, the Sun is going to act up, and life is

going to be {most unpleasant} on this planet!

So, we as mankind, have to address this question.  And it’s

obvious that to address this question, we have to give new

attention, to space, the questions of space.  We have to find

ways of intervening in the space system, or the solar space

system and so forth, and this is possible.  But we must turn to

that direction, to think, “well, we can’t stand around, following

a fixed recipe, like a kitchen cookbook recipe, forever.  We have

to  anticipate the problems which face mankind in the future, we

have to search for solutions to those problems, and we’ve got to

convince people.

And the big thing you have to do, is this:  Most people in

the United States today, behave stupidly, and this, of course, is

helped by the educational system, it’s helped by the terrible

conditions of life of children, as well as adolescents, and there

are many things that have to be done.  And our job is, as a

minority in society, and with other minorities in society which

{wish}  to find and initiate true solutions for these problems,

we have to get out, and convince people, and educate them.

And in particular, get them immediately to understand, that

these two Presidencies that they’ve stuck out there for voting,

ain’t shucks! And we’ve got to do something about that, and the

best way, is to go out and say that these guys aren’t fit to run

anything, and give some indications of what we’re thinking.

It can work.  It can work because the situation of all

humanity, on this planet right now, is almost a hopeless one. The

war danger, the thermonuclear war which is hanging over us right

now, is threat number one.  The shortage of food in the United

States, for people, citizens of the United States, is another.

The conditions of health care, are another.  All of these

conditions are intolerable!  {And nobody’s doing a damned thing

about it, from the standpoint of government on down!}  I don’t

hear of any big riots coming out of the Congress, against the

lack of such needed reforms!  They’re going by… the party

system. And I think we have to just treat the party system, as

the kind of fraud that it has always been!

We should have a system of representative government, in

which the citizens can use those other citizens who are the most

qualified, and the most committed, to provide leadership, to

provide the ideas and the leadership which is needed for the

rest.  If you can’t be something, inspire it in somebody else.

Thank you.  [ovation]  [END VIDEO]

 

OGDEN:  So as you can see, this is a speech which remains

very timely in terms of its urgent political importance, and we

would encourage you to watch the speech in its entirety; we’ll

make that available for you.

But if you just thinking about what you’ve just heard, the

economic program, the prescience of what Mr. LaRouche’s remarks

there were, five years ago, our country still finds itself in a

state of dire economic emergency, perhaps even having gotten

worse in the last five years;  and that program is still urgent

in terms of its implementation.

But what {has} changed is, indeed, the party structure as we

thought we knew it at that time, has ceased to exist, in terms of

the two establishment parties — what was the Democratic Party

and what was the Republican Party.  And this is a change,

perhaps, in par with what we saw in the middle of the 19th

century when the two established parties at that time nearly

ceased to exist:  This was a turmoil out of which, perhaps the

greatest President of our entire history, Abraham Lincoln,

emerged.

But our responsibility, and what we have to recognize, is

that the importance of Mr. LaRouche’s leadership and the

importance of the leadership of that small minority which he was

discussing, is perhaps more important now, because of this very

reality, than ever before.  As you just heard Mr. LaRouche

describe, in a very eloquent way, our job is to present the

solution, because society is actually led, by a very tiny

minority of intellectual leaders, and society as a whole invests

their trust in those whom they are confident have their best

interests in mind, and have the unique understanding of what must

be done; a very tiny minority has any qualified understanding of

how an economy actually must be run, and can deliver on that

understanding, which is the crucial ingredient.  That’s where

leadership comes from, that’s what makes leadership qualified,

and that’s what serves as the actual qualified leadership in a

republic such as ours.

Now, speaking of a republic, as my colleague Benjamin

Deniston noted in his {Festschrift} contribution to Mr.

LaRouche’s 95th birthday: “When age is measured, not merely in

years, but in wisdom and in creativity, and especially in

contributions to the progress of society, we can truly say,

taking due note of Plato’s famous {Timaeus} dialogue, we are

truly blessed with Mr. LaRouche’s 95th birthday, to have an old

man among us, a {very} old man among us.”

So we wish Mr. LaRouche a very happy 95th birthday, and we

wish him many more.

Thank you very much for tuning in to this special broadcast

tonight, and we encourage you to watch that address in its

entirety. Thank you and good night.




Hvem forsøger at ødelægge præsidentskabet
og starte en verdenskrig med Rusland?
– Det ’russiske hack’ var et inside-job.
Executive Intelligence Review Konference,
9. sept., 2017

Will Wertz: For mange år siden, faktisk for 2.500 år siden, skrev Platon to dialoger, blandt andre; Timaios og Kritias. Det, han diskuterede i begge disse dialoger, er en oversvømmelse, der udslettede en hel civilisation. I Timaios beretter Platon, at en præst sagde til Solon,

»I hellenere er ikke andet end børn. Der er ikke én eneste gammel mand iblandt jer. Der har været, og vil igen komme, mange ødelæggelser af menneskeheden, der fremkommer af mange årsager. De største er blevet frembragt gennem ild og vand.«

Han påpeger, at grunden til, at disse civilisationer ikke kunne håndtere sådanne naturkatastrofer, er, at

»Gudernes overbærenhed begyndte at svækkes, og de begyndte at opføre sig upassende. De blev inficeret af ondt begær og magtens arrogance«.

Vi har nu heldigvis i USA nogle ’gamle mænd’ – i særdeleshed Lyndon LaRouche; som faktisk er yngre end de fleste mennesker mht. til hans intellekt.

Jeg vil fremlægge præcis, hvad det er, Lyndon LaRouche har kæmpet for, i en kort gennemgang, for jeg har ikke tid nok til at gå i dybden. Men Lyndon LaRouche har, som Dennis antydede, kæmpet imod Det britiske Imperium, en kamp, der mindst går tilbage til hans tid i Anden Verdenskrig på det indiske subkontinent i Burma – som det hed dengang – og Indien. Han så på første hånd briternes folkemordspolitik mod den indiske befolkning. På dette tidspunkt udviklede han et livslangt forpligtende engagement for at besejre Det britiske Imperium, og til at gøre det, Franklin Roosevelt under krigen sagde til Winston Churchill, at han var forpligtet over for at gøre. Roosevelt sagde, vi udkæmper ikke Anden Verdenskrig for at bevare Det britiske Imperium. Efter Anden Verdenskrig vil vi bruge det Amerikanske Systems metoder for økonomisk udvikling til at udvikle resten af verden. Desværre blev denne Roosevelts mission saboteret efter hans død af Winston Churchill og af Harry S. Truman; sidstnævnte var en meget smålig mand. Man fik den første mobilisering mod Rusland, og mere specifikt mod den alliance, som Roosevelt var forpligtet overfor; og som var en alliance mellem USA, Rusland, Kina og andre nationer for at udvikle planeten ved hjælp af det Amerikanske Systems metoder.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

Se hele konferencevideoen her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzJCl1xnvvU

Foto: Den britiske geopolitiker, Harold Mackinders kort. Den grundlæggende idé er, at man ser på Europa, Afrika og Asien, og det er verdens-øen. Den britiske politik var at omringe det, de kaldte omdrejnings-området eller hjertelandet, som er Rusland, med en intern halvmåne. Mackinders grundtema var, at »den, der hersker over Østeuropa, kontrollerer hjertelandet. Den, der hersker over hjertelandet, kontrollerer verdens-øen. Den, der hersker over verdens-øen, kontrollerer verden«. Grundelementet i Det britiske Imperiums geopolitik, og i deres to ‘Verdenskrige’.




Orkanen Harvey var en menneskeskabt
katastrofe; Glass-Steagall og investering i
infrastruktur er hjælpemidlet.
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast,
8. september, 2017

Jeg vil gerne sige, at dette virkelig bør være alarmklokken, der ringer for at vække, ikke alene nationen til at respondere til denne umiddelbare katastrofe, men også til, at vi nu begynder at respondere til det intellektuelle lederskab, som hr. Lyndon LaRouche har demonstreret under hele sin karriere – i 40-50 år, eller mere. I dag er en meget passende dag for denne opfordring om, at tiden nu er inde til at lytte til Lyndon LaRouches vise ord, eftersom det i dag, den 8. september, er hans 95-års fødselsdag. Vi ønsker hr. LaRouche Tillykke med fødselsdagen! Men det er vores mission at tage denne opfordring til efterretning og træffe den beslutning, at det nu er tidspunktet for at respondere til denne historiens alarmklokke og tage de nødvendige skridt til at påbegynde et totalt og komplet paradigmeskifte i den måde, hvorpå vi går frem med nationalpolitik og international politik.

Vært Matthew Ogden: God aften. Det er den 8. september, 2017; jeg er Matthew Ogden, og dette er vores ugentlige fredags-webcast fra larouchepac.com. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Paul Gallagher, EIR’s økonomiredaktør; og via video har vi Benjamin Deniston fra LaRouche PAC-websiden og vores forskningsteam. Vi vil have en meget rig diskussion, tror jeg. Før vi kommer til det, vil jeg blot sige, at vi nu er to uger, mindre end to uger, inde i katastrofen med orkanen Harvey; og vi har udstedt en nøderklæring, som vi har diskuteret i de seneste par udsendelser, med titlen: »Ikke flere Houston-katastrofer! Lyndon LaRouche siger, hvad det er, der nu må ske!«

Jeg vil gerne sige, at dette virkelig bør være alarmklokken, der ringer for at vække, ikke alene nationen til at respondere til denne umiddelbare katastrofe, men også til, at vi nu begynder at respondere til det intellektuelle lederskab, som hr. Lyndon LaRouche har demonstreret under hele sin karriere – i 40-50 år, eller mere. I dag er en meget passende dag for denne opfordring om, at tiden nu er inde til at lytte til Lyndon LaRouches vise ord, eftersom det i dag, den 8. september, er hans 95-års fødselsdag. Vi ønsker hr. LaRouche Tillykke med fødselsdagen! Men det er vores mission at tage denne opfordring til efterretning og træffe den beslutning, at det nu er tidspunktet for at respondere til denne historiens alarmklokke og tage de nødvendige skridt til at påbegynde et totalt og komplet paradigmeskifte i den måde, hvorpå vi går frem med nationalpolitik og international politik.

Før jeg begynder, vil jeg gerne opfordre alle vore seere til – hvis I ikke allerede har, og LaRouchePAC har tweetet et link til det – at se den 8 minutter lange video, der blev produceret af New York Times. Den har titlen »Into the Deluge« (Ind i syndfloden), og er en kort dokumentar om den hærgen og ødelæggelse, som orkanen Harvey har forårsaget i Houston, Texas, og det omkringliggende område. Videoen fortæller historien om Kesha Rogers (medlem af LaRouche PAC Policy Committee) og hendes familie, og hendes far og stedmor, der mistede livet i oversvømmelserne efter Harvey. Videoen starter med et uforglemmeligt smukt soundtrack af Kesha selv, der synger en spiritual, »Walk With Me«, lagt hen over utrolige optagelser af de dramatiske ødelæggelser efter orkanen Harvey og oversvømmelserne. Den fortæller, som jeg sagde, historien om ikke alene hendes far og stedmor, men også andre ofre, andre overlevende og de første nødhjælpsfolk, der trådte til efter orkanen Harvey. Den slutter med et citat af Kesha Rogers, som jeg mener, bør være temaet for vores udsendelse her i aften. Jeg viser det på skærmen [Fig. 1]. Kesha siger,

»Det er denne form for tragedier, der får folk til at komme sammen. Der har været en utrolig respons fra hele nationen og hele verden. Men man har ikke tid til at sidde hjemme og græde. Jeg har en mission«, sagde hun. »Jeg har arbejde, der skal gøres; det har vi alle. Det er pointen.«

På skærmen kan I se citatet af Kesha, og det er også nævnt i videoen fra New York Times, der har titlen, »Into the Deluge«. Jeg opfordrer jer til at finde den online og se den. Vi har tweetet linket til videoen, og I kan finde det på vores twitter-feed.

Men, dette er netop pointen; at vi alle har arbejde, der skal gøres, og det er denne katastrofe, der skete i Houston – men også andre, der nu truer os, inkl. med stor sandsynlighed orkanen Irma, der nu stormer af sted med retning mod Florida. Brug dette som alarmklokken til den ’bratte opvågning’ for endelig at samle denne nation og til at påbegynde den form for presserende nødvendige, økonomiske handlinger, der kan sikre, at denne form for tragedier aldrig mere kan ske. Disse orkaner er muligvis nok naturfænomener, og det vil vi diskutere lidt senere med Ben Deniston. Men den katastrofale hærgen i deres kølvand bør aldrig få lov at forekomme. Og de er virkelig menneskeskabte katastrofer, fordi vi har forsømt at tage de nødvendige skridt, som vi på forhånd er vidende om, for at forebygge og beskytte os mod virkningerne af denne form for naturfænomener. Vi kan gøre disse ting, fordi vi er menneskelige, og fordi vi kan forstå og tøjle naturens kræfter, og faktisk ikke alene mildne de ødelæggende virkninger, men sætte disse naturkræfter til at arbejde for det gode; som det, hævet over enhver tvivl, blev demonstreret med Tennessee Valley Authority. Vi dækkede TVA sidste fredag og viste et kort uddrag af en video; men dette er et eksempel herpå. Vi kan som nation gøre dette, fordi vi har en Forfatning og et økonomisk system, der blev grundlagt af Alexander Hamilton med netop dette formål.

Som jeg nævnte, så udstedte vi en nøderklæring, »Ikke flere Houston-katastrofer! Lyndon LaRouche siger, hvad det er, der nu må ske!«, og den fremlægger et omgående firepunktsprogram: Genindfør Glass-Steagall, bryd Wall Street og dets magt op; skab nationale kreditinstitutioner baseret på FDR’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation og Hamiltons nationalbanker; investér kredit i ny infrastruktur med helt nye teknologier; og vedtag et forceret program for fusionskraft, der kan lade en stor udvidelse af NASA’s rumforskning blive drivkraften bag produktivitet og produktiv beskæftigelse. Selv om dette er en presserende nøderklæring, der blev udgivet for kun en uge siden, og vi vil gennemgå, hvad der er sket på denne front, siden denne erklæring blev udstedt, så er det ikke nyt. Lyndon LaRouche har krævet dette i mindst et årti, eller mere. Så før vi går over til Paul Gallagher og Ben Deniston, vil jeg gerne vise et kort, 3-minutters klip af Lyndon LaRouche selv, i kølvandet på en tidligere naturkatastrofe. Dette var et webcast, som han holdt i dagene umiddelbart efter orkanen Katrina, der ramte New Orleans. Dette er i august, 2005, og her kan I se præcis, hvad Lyndon LaRouche havde at sige dengang, som de nødvendige skridt, der måtte tages, og hvad der er, og ikke er, blevet gjort siden denne historiske storm i 2005. Lad mig afspille dette for jer:

Lyndon LaRouche (video):

»De fleste mennesker forstår ikke arten af situationen, fordi de ikke tænker ud fra standpunktet om, hvad en præsident for USA bør tænke på et sådant tidspunkt. Vi har nu en krise, der hovedsagligt er en menneskeskabt katastrofe i tillæg til det, der ellers ville have været en kontrollabel, men alvorlig, naturkatastrofe. Det er den menneskeskabte katastrofe, som er det hovedproblem, vi må konfrontere og overvinde.

Det, som vi nu må gøre, og årsagen til, at vi nu har denne krise i Louisiana, Mississippi og Alabama, er, at vi opgav politikken om en forfatningsmæssig forpligtelse til fremme af det Almene Vel. Og derfor, fordi vi indførte nedskæringer, nedskæringer af det Almene Vel, med den måde, hvorpå vi udplyndrede de sociale ydelser (til arbejdsløshed, sygedagpenge, sundhedsydelser m.v.), opretholdt vi ikke længere levestandarden og støtten til disse områder, som ville gøre det muligt for dem at håndtere mange af disse problemer. Vi leverede ikke det, der krævedes, i Louisiana, Mississippi og Alabama, selv om vi vidste, det behøvedes, fordi vi ikke ville bruge pengene, fordi vi forsøgte at skære ned på midlerne til vores sociale ydelser, så vi, lad os sige, kunne føre krig i Irak, eller en ny krig, de vil have i Iran – denne form for ting. Vi har nu denne situation for os, som er skabt af vor befolknings lidelser i disse tre stater i særdeleshed. Men det er ikke problemet; det stiller et større spørgsmål til os. Er vi en nation? Hvad definerer os som nation? Vi kan redde denne nation; vi kan bringe dens værdighed tilbage. Vi kan ikke bringe de mennesker tilbage, der mistede livet pga. embedsmisbrug i denne periode, men vi kan redde denne nation. Vi kan sige, at vi vandt denne krig. Det er op til jer. Vi må gå tilbage til Fortalen til USA’s Føderale Forfatning og anerkende, at denne nations grundlæggende lov findes i Fortalen. Ikke alene mht. det nationale forsvar, men også i fremme af det Almene Vel for de levende, og deres efterkommere. Vi har overtrådt princippet om nationens forsvar, åbenlyst. Vi har endnu mere åbenlyst overtrådt politikken for fremme af det Almene Vel. Vi dømmer os selv til foragt, med mindre vi går tilbage, og nu gør fremme af det Almene Vel for de levende og deres efterkommere til regeringsgrundlaget. Tak.«

Matthew Ogden: Dette var altså et webcast med Lyndon LaRouche fra september 2005. Under den efterfølgende spørgsmål-og-svar-tid, forklarede han faktisk mere detaljeret, hvordan man skulle anvende princippet om det Almene Vel for at redde USA. Det kommer her på skærmen [Figurer 2 & 3], to korte klip, og så læser jeg dem. Hr. LaRouche sagde:

»Der er derfor én løsning; og det er at gå til Fortalen for USA’s Forfatning, om nationalforsvar og fremme af det Almene Vel for de nuværende og fremtidige generationer. Regeringer sætter det nationale banksystem under konkursbehandling og bankerot og forhindrer bankerne i at smække dørene i; går igennem en finansiel reorganisering af systemet for at sikre, at folk ikke bliver smidt ud af deres hjem; deres foretagender fortsat er åbne; deres pensioner udbetales; og vi fortsætter med at vokse …

USA er den eneste nation, der har en Forfatning, der pr. tradition kvalificerer os til at gå over til statslig bankpraksis, som det beskrives af Hamilton. De private banker skal under konkursbehandling … de skal reorganiseres. Man rydder op i værdipapirerne, og man skaber ny kredit, der får økonomien til at vokse, gennem investering i infrastruktur og andre ting, der er tilstrækkelige til at sikre, at det, vi tjener om året, overstiger det, vi bruger om året med hensyn til de nuværende regnskaber. Og dét må vi gøre.«

Som I ser, så var dette for 12 år siden; og Lyndon LaRouche var allerede på scenen med præcis den politik, som er fremlagt i denne nøderklæring, som vi udstedte i sidste uge.

Jeg vil nu bede Paul Gallagher om at forklare lidt mere om dette. Hvor er vi nu, siden denne nøderklæring blev udstedt, og hvad mangler der at ske?

Her følger Paul Gallaghers indlæg, der efterfølges af Ben Denistons indlæg, i engelsk udskrift:  

PAUL GALLAGHER:  You mean the emergency statement that we
issued about two weeks or ten days ago.  I’ll come to that, but I
just want to point out, Lyndon LaRouche was making that statement
not only at the end of 2005 immediately after the devastation
from Hurricane Katrina, but also in the then-foreseeable — and
he had foreseen it for sure — preparations for the financial
crash of 2007-2008.  He was saying that in regard to that
oncoming crash and the disaster that had occurred in Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama, the reorganization of the private banks
of the United States under a Glass-Steagall standard, enabling
them to be mediators of credit both from savings and from the
Federal government into the businesses of the economy and also
the creation of national banking and large amounts of national
credit in that way precisely for infrastructure, not just
reconstruction.  Construction of infrastructure that never had
been produced, and had to be produced with new technologies then
in order to prevent future such disasters.  So, he was looking to
both.
There is a memory in the United States obviously of three
major cities being devastated.  And when we put out this policy
statement, we were thinking of the fact that the memory of the
devastation of New Orleans, the devastation of the New York-New
Jersey area a few years later, the devastation now of
southeastern Texas a few years after that, and the threat of
another one in Florida.  These are essentially a single memory, a
single thought in the minds of many millions of Americans about
what has to be done that hasn’t been being done.  When we as a
nation have allowed three of the greatest cities of the country
to be effectively, at least temporarily, destroyed.  In the case
of New Orleans and New York, the long-term damage to their
neighborhoods, to their school systems, to their transportation
systems, is still there.  The long-term damage to their economies
is still there, and it’s getting worse.  So, this has shown
something very clear that if you postpone and do not act on a $25
or $50 billion or even $100 billion infrastructure that must be
made, you will shortly be paying, in one way or another, hundreds
of billions of dollars in economic losses.  Losses of wages,
losses of jobs, losses — tragically — of human lives by the
hundreds and perhaps thousands as in Katrina; because you have
not done that.
In the 1930s, there was a kind of thinking which was driven
by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s leadership.  We’ve seen in the
last ten days the first — as Shelley would say, the locks of the
approaching storm — the first indications of the revival of that
kind of thinking.  The way they thought then about this was made
clear in the government TVA film that you showed on this program
last week, when the announcer said in showing the devastating
flooding, the raging Tennessee River and its tributaries
destroying buildings, destroying agricultural areas, killing
people.  The announcer described it as devastating effects on
human beings of greed and neglect; not of nature, but of greed
and neglect.  And it’s that neglect which LaRouche was speaking
about there, and it’s that neglect which we’ve seen in New
Orleans and the Gulf Coast, then New Jersey and New York, now
again in Texas and the Gulf Coast in the destruction of whole
cities and killing of people, completely unnecessarily.  This was
man-made, and I think there is a video which has come out down in
Houston, put out by the newspaper, the {Houston Chronicle}, of
the former flood control director of Harris County — which
includes Houston — in which he says very strongly right at the
beginning, “This was a man-made disaster”; meaning the flooding
of Hurricane Harvey and everything that it did.  He knew that
because he was personally involved in trying to get one of the
infrastructure solutions — only one of them — right in the city
of Houston that was necessary in order to prevent this kind of
devastating flooding.  He was unable to get it done because of
political and because of greed and neglect.  Neglect of the
Constitution, neglect of the General Welfare of the population,
he was unable to get it done.  He says this was a man-made
disaster.
Now, things are beginning to change.  I was in a meeting
with a senior figure who works for the House of Representatives
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee immediately after
Hurricane Harvey.  He said that they expected that discussion of
legislation on infrastructure funding would start sometime next
year.  This was only ten days ago.  He was saying it would start
sometime next year that they would begin to discuss the
possibility of legislation to fund new infrastructure in the
United States.  We were then in a situation in which the nearly
year-long and in a certain sense with his candidacy year and a
half-long attack on President Trump to attempt to force him out
as a candidate, and then attempt to force him out of the
Presidency.  That attack — the Soros forces, the British
intelligence initiated attack and the way in which the Democratic
Party leadership had gone along with this — had created a
tremendous division in the country; one which people only have to
remember back to the Charlottesville events of a month ago, to
realize how deep and how that implicit racial division in the
country was being pushed at the same time that war was
threatening from many directions.  We have to realize that, going
all the way back to the 1960s when John F Kennedy was
assassinated after having launched this tremendous infrastructure
program known as NASA and the Apollo Project, and having tried to
get started an equally ambitious Earth-based terraforming and
water management project for the entire West of North America —
the North American Water and Power Alliance program.  That it was
war, it was the Vietnam War and the tremendous economic,
budgetary, and political and social effects of that war which
destroyed those things.  It will consider and push them off the
table from then until now — for 50 years.  That kind of
preoccupation with regime change wars, it will push the General
Welfare off the table over and over again unless the American
people realize that, at a point like this, we can’t let that
happen.  Now we have to build.
So, we have seen some changes.  The one that got the most
publicity, of course, was the sudden agreement between President
Trump and the Democrats in Congress.  On the part of the
Democrats, they had already agreed and acknowledged and more or
less admitted in the days before that, that their strategy of
Resist promotes racial divisions.  Resist tried to impeach the
President.  This strategy was a failure and was dangerous to the
country, and they were going to abandon it if Hillary Clinton
would only shut up.  They were going to try and get something
done instead.  That already had dawned on them before the
terrible lesson of Hurricane Harvey and the perhaps $100 billion
in economic losses; clearly more than 100 precious lives being
lost.  This hit them on top of that.  You then had this agreement
that enable $15 billion in a first down payment of recovery aid
to go through, together with a measure to fund the government for
the next three months and a measure to remove the debt ceiling
for the next three months.  Clearing the decks perhaps for
further expansion of what is going to be done to rebuild.  Not
only to rebuild obviously in east Texas, but to rebuild in
Florida and to rebuild in Puerto Rico and some of the smaller
islands.  Puerto Rico has had for some time a very clear
possibility of a development bank needing only the guarantee of
the Federal government in order to turn development of its port
position particularly into development of infrastructure on the
island; electrical and transportation, which is currently in such
bad condition and which has now been knocked out. So, that door
was opened.
Then already yesterday, we saw the President having a
meeting with a large number of members of the Senate and the
House on the so-called Gateway Project, the major necessary
infrastructure step to repair what Hurricane Sandy left behind it
in terms of inoperable or increasingly deteriorating and failing
transportation; subway and freight rail transportation all around
the New York City area, which has famously been turned into the
Summer of Hell this summer in terms of trying to get anywhere.
You’re taking your life in your hands to get anywhere in New
York.
There was a meeting between Trump and the two governors of
New Jersey and New York, the Senators from New Jersey and New
York, a number of members of Congress of both parties, in which
there was a least a tentative agreement made to proceed with this
Gateway Project.  This involves building two new tunnels — each
one way — under the Hudson River from New Jersey to New York in
the general northeast rail corridor of the United States.  Having
done that, then to be able to repair the tunnels which were made
almost inoperable by Sandy; which incredibly have nonetheless
been used in the five years since.  Also, to replace the bridge
which is in such terrible condition in Hackensack, over which all
of the East Coast passenger and freight rail goes from Florida
all the way to New England.  Supposedly, 10% of the GDP is
waiting to fail when that bridge cannot be hammered back into
line so the trains can go over it.  There are other improvements
in this Gateway Project.  It was given a top priority in the
National Governors’ Association list of major new infrastructure
projects in the country, which they issued earlier this year in
January.
The members of Congress coming out of this meeting made
clear that there was an optimism and a thrust, a potential
commitment of the Trump administration to fund all the funding
that remains to be needed for that; this is on the order of up to
$15 billion from the Federal side that needs to be put in that
investment.  They were, at least on the part of the President,
they were ready to make that commitment, and talked about others
as well for that general area; including reconstruction for the
international airports there and connecting those international
airports — which incredibly, are not connected by transportation
now.  This then started people talking about the potentials for
Congress to meet these bills.  There is not a means, and there
hasn’t been a means really since Franklin Roosevelt’s
administration, there hasn’t been a reliable means by which the
Federal government can create this kind of credit that Mr.
LaRouche was talking about, and on that basis actually fund the
new infrastructure that is needed.
Now you have in Texas as well, members of Congress from both
parties talking about a major new building of flood control for
the cities along the southeast coast of Texas on the Gulf.  I’ll
just read you the comment of one Republican member of Congress.
He said, “There’s going to be another Harvey, and we need to
build at least one more reservoir, maybe two or more reservoirs.
We have to figure out how to get the water out of the Houston
area down to the Gulf of Mexico without flooding.”  There have
been plans for at least 50 years which at least expressed in
general, if you have that slide I gave you [Fig. 4], we could
show one of them, which expressed at least in general how this
has to be done.  It’s very small and can only be indicated in the
broadest strokes that what is involved there is, at the lower
right, the construction of an intercoastal canal.  Essentially a
large canal for moving water either from the northeast to the
southwest along the coast, but behind the cities of the coast.
Moving it in either direction by pumping.  Thereby you can see
generally, the numerous rivers which come down to the Gulf, which
are involved always in the flooding of all of these cities
whenever there is a hurricane. What you probably cannot see
clearly on that slide, is that there are nine new reservoirs
specified in that plan on those rivers, which together with the
canal make it possible to control flood waters that are
threatening the cities on the Texas Gulf coast and to move water
in either direction.  Either for drought relief, if that’s
necessary, but more critically here, for flood relief by bringing
the water eventually all the way down to the Rio Grande at the
Mexican border.  This is one element.  At the top of the screen
is shown another main element canal system to bring flood water
from the Mississippi River across northern Texas into the dry
plains where the Ogallala Aquifer is, which could be recharged.
These were plans of the Texas State Water Authority.  These
were state plans typical of those which were made at the time in
Harris County, within which is Houston.  Other plans were being
made for a channel underneath one of the freeways that was being
built, which would discharge water.  A very large underground
channel, tunnel, which would discharge water from those two
reservoirs which everyone heard and saw overflowing ten days ago.
It would discharge and bring that water down to the Houston ship
channel and into the Gulf.  That was, I think, particularly the
plan which the former Harris County Flood Control Commissioner
was referring to in his interview with the {Chronicle} in which
he said, “This was a man-made disaster that we did not get this
done.”
Now these clearly are, as the New York project is, these are
new infrastructure efforts which will require tens of billions of
dollars in investments.  That is exactly what we have been
circulating in Congress, and circulating this statement now with
them in order to get a national bank created, which can generate
$1-3 trillion in national Federal credit for investment in this
new infrastructure.  And in order to get the existing
Glass-Steagall legislation in both Houses to be passed so that
these disasters are not added to by a looming financial crash
which takes the banks to be bailed out again.  But rather, those
banks can be counted on to take part in this kind of rebuilding
effort because they are taking in deposits and they are lending
them into the economy.
Ben is going to talk more about the contributions here of
the space program.  That also must see not just $100 billion or
whatever it’s going to be in recovery aid for Harvey, but a great
deal more money in accelerating and reviving NASA space
exploration, which went the way of the Vietnam War nearly 60
years ago.
So the view of this is changing.  The Texas governor has now
created a commission to rebuild the state.  As a Republican, he’s
appointed a Democrat to head it.  On all of these levels, there
is the potential now that this lesson will actually be learned,
because the country has been put in a different state of mind as
a result of seeing this kind of disaster occur unnecessarily time
and time again, and the tremendous human costs that it has.  So,
let’s really push that to the greatest extent we can, and do it
in exactly the spirit that LaRouche was laying out there 12 years
ago.  He, by the way, is 95 years old today.  He has lived and is
living an incredibly productive human existence, and we wish him
many more.

OGDEN:  And one of the results of what Lyn has done over the
last 40 years alongside Helga is what’s now emerging
internationally.  You can counter pose what hasn’t been done here
in the United States in terms of these great infrastructure
projects with what is being done now by China and the Belt and
Road Initiative.  It’s a necessary counterpoint to draw.  Look at
what Xi Jinping had to say at the BRICS conference which occurred
— this is the 9th BRICS conference — which occurred in China
over the course of last week and the beginning of this week.  You
look at what China is actually now building.  Obviously, the
Three Gorges Dam is an incredible example; that’s the Chinese
TVA, but on an even grander scale in certain regards.  But look
at now what’s being done abroad, including the example of the
Transaqua water transfer program to refill Lake Chad in Africa.
There’s an excellent video update that was published by Alicia
Cerretani on larouchepac.com just a couple of days ago on that
subject.  But that indeed should continue to be the inspiration,
encapsulating the entirety of this emergency program that must be
done nationally, we also have to follow through on the initiative
for the United States to join this great projects dynamic abroad.
What’s being done by China with the New Silk Road and the Belt
and Road Initiative.
What Paul has just been discussing, and even what I
referenced with what China has done, is an element of the
terrestrial infrastructure that indeed must be built, and should
by built by all means.  But there’s an entirely different
dimension that also must be included in this picture when we’re
talking about these great weather episodes and other aspects of
what it means to understand and harness nature.  I decided to ask
Ben Deniston to come on today because he has a bit of an
exclusive breaking report on what the space weather conditions
are right now as we speak, which are coinciding with the
developments around Hurricane Irma and the other approaching
hurricanes that are now tracking across the Atlantic.  So, Ben,
go ahead.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  Thank you, Matthew.  So, we are seeing a
very interesting situation with respect to certain activities of
our Sun, our Solar System, and what you might call the cosmic
environment that we’re watching very closely; because these could
play into a strengthening of Hurricane Irma, which could push an
already potentially dangerous situation into something even
worse.  I’m going to get into that a little bit more in just a
second, but I think first and foremost, coming off of what was
discussed, these events — the tragedy of Harvey, the major
earthquake just off the coast in Mexico, the largest earthquake
in Mexico in 100 years.  We have Irma as we just said, coming
towards Florida, which hopefully will avoid a dangerous situation
there, but it does look like it could be potentially very
catastrophic.  All of these events should remind us that what
we’re dealing with as a single mankind on one small planet in the
Solar System and in this Galaxy.  These are unfortunate events,
but also an opportunity to bring people together as we discussed,
not just in the United States, but internationally.  To realize
what mankind can uniquely do to defend ourselves against these
kinds of situations.  Some of that includes a better
understanding of what factors actually play into these things.
In passing, just because there’s so much crazy propaganda
about supposed man-made climate change being a factor in these
storms, that’s just bunk; that should just be said outright.
It’s unfortunate that we even have to say it, but given the fact
that this is being pushed as a major top-down propaganda
campaign, we should just say outright that there is no evidence
at all that storm systems and extreme weather has been getting
worse as a function of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
There is no evidence of that.  Even just look at the history of
hurricanes in the United States.  Since 1970, we’ve had four
Category 4 or higher hurricanes make landfall on the United
States.  In the 40 years prior to that, we had 14.  So, what’s
all this talk about extreme weather getting worse?  We just
recently exited a very anomalous drought of hurricanes, where we
had no Category 3 plus hurricane make landfall on the United
States for almost 12 years earlier at the turn of this century.
So, there’s no evidence that we’re seeing more extreme
situations; there’s no evidence that human CO2 emissions play any
factor at all.  Again, it’s unfortunate that we have to waste our
time to even address this, but just because it’s being pushed
down the throats of the American people and much of the world
population, we should just make that clear outright.
But what we do have is natural weather and natural storms
and natural extreme events.  Instead of this false blaming of
human CO2 emissions, we should instead be taking a higher
perspective on what factors actually do influence extreme weather
and climate change.  These are factors that go beyond the Earth.
These are factors that go to the Sun, that go to the Solar
System.  That again, forced mankind to realize we are one very
unique species on one very small planet; and we know very little
about what actually determines the conditions we live in here on
Earth.  So, it’s about time that humankind as a whole wakes up,
stops playing these insane geopolitical games to try and compete
over some small amount of wealth developed on the planet so far,
and realizes that if we collaborate as one species, we can uplift
the entire population of this planet to a much higher level.  And
we can collaborate on defending our entire planet from disasters
like this.
So, as Matt mentioned, this is a developing situation that I
briefed him on and Mr. LaRouche and Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche on
earlier this morning about possible space weather effects which
could worsen Hurricane Irma.  Again, this is an ongoing process
that is playing out, so we don’t know exactly what’s going to
happen.  But it is worth highlighting what we know so far.  As we
know, Hurricane Irma is now thought to be a couple of days away
from most likely making landfall on the southern coast of
Florida.  It is already a very extreme and intense hurricane.
Just a few days prior, our Sun — if we can switch over to the
graphic animation [Fig. 5] we have here — our Sun released the
strongest solar flare in about a decade.  This was released on
September 6th.  So that bright flash in the lower right central
region is this explosion on the surface of the Sun.  This was
classified as an X-9 flare; a very strong solar flare.  That was
actually the strongest of a series of intense solar flares that
the Sun has released in the last week.  So, the Sun — despite
going into a bit of a slumber — has decided to send out a
barrage of rather strong outbursts.  These outbursts send a
strong wave of gas and plasma from the Sun barrelling at the
Earth.  As we see in this next graphic [Fig. 6], as is a rather
well-known phenomenon, when the Earth’s magnetic field gets
blasted by these outbursts from the Sun, it causes the Earth’s
magnetic field to begin to fluctuate wildly; what’s called a
“geo-magnetic storm.”  So, a storm in the Earth’s magnetic field.
I’m sure most people know, our entire planet is surrounded
by a magnetic field that is critical to supporting and protecting
life on Earth, providing certain unique electromagnetic
conditions to the biosphere on Earth; it’s part of our regular
Earth system we live with day to day, year to year, etc.  When
the Earth’s magnetic field gets blasted with these outbursts of
solar activity, the Earth’s magnetic field goes into these
fluctuations referred to as “geo-magnetic storms.”  What you’re
looking at here [Fig. 7] is an index provided by NOAA of the
level of geo-magnetic activity over the last three or four days.
As you can see, coming into the night of September 7th and into
the very early morning of September 8th, we saw an explosion of a
very intense geo-magnetic storm, corresponding with these
outbursts of solar activity which are referred to as a “coronal
mass ejection”; an ejection of material from the surface of the
Sun, corresponding with that intersecting Earth’s magnetic field.
As you might intuit from this diagram, what we’ve currently
experiencing is a very intense event; a very intense geo-magnetic
storm classified as severe by NOAA’s metrics.
There’s much that can be said about this.  These
geo-magnetic storms are known to be potentially dangerous to the
Earth’s electrical infrastructure.  That’s something that’s
becoming a very well-known and clear point of concern, that when
we have these types of geo-magnetic storms, this can actually
wreak havoc on our electrical grid.  That’s something we actually
want to keep a very close eye on today and in the coming days.
But another aspect of this, which we see in the next graphic
[Fig. 8] is that when the Earth’s magnetic field is compressed
like this, this actually temporarily increases the shielding of
the Earth from galactic cosmic radiation.  So, we temporarily
have a stronger protection from this continuous flow, this
continuous input of radiation coming from our entire galactic
system.  This is also another well-known phenomenon; this is
referred to as a “Forbush decrease,” named after the scientist
who identified this event whose name was Scott Forbush.  But as
you can see here, from the most recent data being provided, this
is an indication of the level of galactic radiation reaching the
Earth’s atmosphere, and we can see this sharp drop coming
immediately in the context of this geomagnetic storm and the
solar outburst.
These are all well-known phenomena.  These are not
mysterious, these are not unexplained or unknown, but there’s an
element of this that does not yet get enough attention; which is
that, when you have this particular type of activity, geomagnetic
storms, reduction of the cosmic radiation reaching the Earth’s
atmosphere, this is known to very likely be a factor in
potentially increasing the severity and strength of hurricanes
and cyclones.  And what we have on the screen here is one study,
showing that in 2005, this tragic event of Hurricane Katrina
which we heard referenced earlier, was actually partially
strengthened by the activity of the Sun in a very similar way to
what we’re looking at right now. [Fig. 9]  This was a study by
Prof. Sergei Pulinets, and some associates as you can see on the
byline there; where they analyzed a very similar situation where,
when Katrina was a few days off the Gulf Coast for its actually
second landfall, there was a coronal mass ejection, there was a
geomagnetic storm, and that led to a strengthening of Hurricane
Katrina at the time.
What we’re looking at now, today, is a potentially similar
situation, where what we see with these cosmic effects on the
weather system, is that when you have these reductions in cosmic
radiation reaching the atmosphere, that actually can lead to a
greater temperature difference between the surface of the ocean
and the top of the atmosphere, which can lead to a greater rate
of convection and a strengthening of the hurricane.
And so those are the conditions we’re immediately watching
now with Hurricane Irma, which is already a very strong
hurricane.  We’re already seeing a geomagnetic storm. Various
people who are aware of these potential cosmic influences on
these events are watching very closely to see if we will see a
strengthening of Irma in response to these conditions.
This is a developing situation; I’m sure we’ll have more on
this in the coming days, but as I said at the beginning, this is
an unfortunate but valid example of the kinds of lessons we
should take to heart as mankind, and realize that this is for
example the perfect area of study that we, the United States.
should be collaborating on with Russia and with China on
developing greater insights into.
This brings back to mind Mr. LaRouche’s work on the
Strategic Defense Initiative and the revival of that proposal
with the “Strategic Defense of the Earth,” where the same
principle was brought forward; namely, that the United States,
Russia, leading powers need to move beyond a system of conflict
and mutually assured destruction and towards a system where we
realize that mankind as a whole, and especially these leading
most powerful nations, have to come together and provide all the
resources we have available as nations, all of our scientific
capabilities, all of our technologies, and actually bring these
together in joint efforts to defend our planet as a whole from
these types of events.  Better understand these cosmic influences
driving our climate and weather systems, and begin to determine
what we can do to defend our populations from these types of
activities.
So we’ll be watching the situation very closely.  We’ll see
what develops over the coming days, and we’ll certainly have more
on this very dramatic situation with these coming hurricanes as
things develop.

OGDEN:  Thank you, Ben.

GALLAGHER:  Actually, I have two questions, Ben.  The
meteorologists are saying now that there’s an extremely high
temperature differential between the upper atmosphere and the
Earth’s surface in the western Atlantic and the Gulf; they’re
connecting that directly to the great strength of these
hurricanes.  Are you saying this is related? In that work that
you just showed [by Pulinets, et al.], that this is related to
the reduced cosmic irradiation of the upper atmosphere?  That’s
one question.
The other has to do with the space assets that are watching
all this.  Do they need to be increased?  I heard, for example,
that in the case of radar satellite observations of the
development of Harvey, that these were German radar satellites
that were doing this.  Are there missing assets or assets that
should be increased in the U.S., in the NASA program?

DENISTON:  Yes, to take the first question.  Generally, over
time the upper atmosphere will be cooler than the oceans in this
region.  So you have a certain temperature differential that’s
already naturally there.
The role that galactic radiation plays, is that actually
helps to facilitate a higher rate of condensation of water vapor,
and release of latent heat, in this region. So the flux of cosmic
radiation actually helps to facilitate a slight warming of the
upper atmosphere in this region.  If you have that process all of
a sudden halted, you’ll get less warming, and obviously cooling
of the upper atmosphere, which could increase the temperature
difference and lead to an even stronger hurricane.
That process is happening now; the conditions that are being
reported on already are before we’re seeing the effects of this.
Now obviously, this is not a simplistic, mechanical, 1, 2, 3,
process.  There are many factors involved, there’s variations in
the cosmic radiation flux coming in already; there’s many other
factors involved in affecting the hurricane itself.  So we’re not
in a position to absolutely say one way or the other exactly what
the effect of this situation is going to be.  But we can
definitely identify Katrina; and then other hurricanes have been
studied as well, where it’s been shown that there formation or
their strengthening often comes a couple days after these types
of geomagnetic storms and drops in the cosmic radiation flux.
Again, the mechanism, the causal relation that Professor Pulinets
and others have presented, is that relates to this heating of the
upper atmosphere by cosmic radiation flux.
But that directly ties into your second question, is that,
yeah, we need many more satellites and other instruments to be
monitoring these conditions, much more extensively and in real
time around the world.  We do have some very impressive assets up
there;  but much more is needed to really better understand, not
just the Earth’s own atmosphere and weather system, but the
relation to the activity of the Sun and the activity of the
Galaxy.  One of our key assets for directly measuring the
activity coming from the Sun towards the Earth, which is called
the ACE satellite, is already many years past its life expectancy
and expected to fail at any time.  As of now, we have no
replacement ready to send up.  That’s just one example.  That’s a
satellite that sits directly in between the Earth and the Sun,
and intercepts the high-energy radiation, especially the plasma,
coming from the Sun before it reaches the Earth, and at least
gives us a little bit of a warning and analysis of what the Sun
is sending at us.  And that thing is ready to go.  That’s just
one example.
I think this also relates to the question of earthquakes and
earthquake forecasting which we’ve covered on this site before
also. [See interview with Prof. Sergey Pulinets
http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/17944]  We could use
dedicated satellites that could help measure the precursor
conditions, that could alert us to coming earthquakes, like this
devastating earthquake that just hit off the coast of Mexico.
So there are certainly more satellite systems that we could
be developing, more ground-based systems as well,  to get some
better understanding of the intersection of solar activity,
galactic activity, the activity intrinsic to the Earth system
itself;  and actually begin to get a better handle on how all
these factors play together in affecting the climate and
affecting the weather.  And really, to get serious about it,
begin to think about how we can manage these situations and
intervene; and obviously, forecast and give early warning, but
potentially even intervene to change these conditions and defend
life on Earth.
And that should be a top, strategic priority of leading
nations of the world. And I think that just goes hand in hand
with this new paradigm that we’re seeing potentially emerging
with the leadership of China, with its Belt and Road initiative,
and with this idea of “win-win cooperation”; in which we can move
beyond, finally, and put behind us this insane geopolitical games
which you’re still seeing attempting to be rammed down Americans’
throats with this crazy lie about Russian “hacking” and
attempting to make the Russians look like the biggest bogeymen in
the world, and play up this crazy game of conflict against
Russia, economic warfare against China. These are our allies!
We’ve got to put all of this behind us and look at them as
collaborators, for our nation, for other nations in the world
that can help us to defend our species as a whole against these
kinds of conditions.

OGDEN:  Let me pick up directly off what you just
referenced, Ben, and put on the screen the advertisement for the
conference that’s coming up in New York City tomorrow, which will
go directly to that point.  This is a conference as you can see
that’s featuring William Binney, NSA whistleblower; Ray McGovern,
the founder of the Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS) and himself a veteran CIA analyst; and William Wertz from
{Executive Intelligence Review}.  The title of the event, is:
“The Russian ‘Hack’ Inside Job:  Who’s Trying To Destroy the
Presidency and Start a World War with Russia?”  As you can see on
the screen there, there’s still time for you to RSVP and register
to attend, that’s going to be available, http://lpac.co/ytvips .
That link is active now, but it’s going to be available in the
description of the video which is immediately below this video in
the YouTube player.  If you’re in New York City also you can get
in contact, and register for the event in person.
This is going to be an historic event, following up on the
memo, which is becoming a controversial memo which was published
by William Binney, Ray McGovern and others from VIPS, which
documented that according to the metadata the so-called “Russian
hack” of DNC emails could not have been a hack, but was in fact
some sort of inside job, a leak in order to set up the conditions
where, now, you have this so-called Russia-gate, and the mad
drive to undermine the efforts that Trump had at least intended
to initiate to restore the kinds of cooperate relation between
the United States and Russia.
It’s this kind of great powers relationship between the
United States and Russia, the U.S. and China, what we now see
developing in terms of the BRICS, with Russia, China, India,
Brazil and South Africa and other national relationships:  This
is what Lyndon LaRouche has been campaigning for for years, in
that form.  To say, now is the time to abandon and discard this
British Imperial mentality of geopolitics, petty competition over
so-called natural resources, or “limited” natural resources, and
perpetual war; and to initiate exactly what you’re saying, Ben,
this kind of cooperation within the species as a whole: To say,
what are the common aims of mankind and how can we collaborate in
a “win-win” modality to achieve those common aims.
And under that category you would say that common defense of
mankind  from these great natural and terrestrial,
extraterrestrial phenomena, which we see expressed in discrete
ways in the form of these hurricanes, those kinds of natural
disasters; also these earthquakes, which are obviously part of
much broader and much larger kind of terrestrial phenomena, which
we have yet to understand.  And what is the connection of that to
the space weather that our planet exists in?
So that’s a fascinating kind of view.
But just in the same way that we have to abandon those
geopolitics abroad, we also have to abandon the kinds of
British/Wall Street mentality here in the United States, which is
this insane negligence of our physical infrastructure, and in the
interest of mere, monetary speculation; and to return to the
general welfare principle, you heard Mr. LaRouche so beautifully
and emphatically say that, in that webcast excerpt that we have
from 2005, in the aftermath of Katrina; return to the general
welfare and restore the system of Hamiltonian national credit.
So I think that’s a sufficient place to conclude our
broadcast here, today.  I’d like to thank you, Ben, for joining
us, remotely there.  And we’ll stay tuned for developments as
they occur on that front.  And I’d like to thank Paul Gallagher
for joining me here in the studio.
So please tune in on this website tomorrow, at 1 p.m.
Eastern Time, for the historic conference out of New York City,
featuring Bill Binney, Ray McGovern, and Will Wertz; and we’ll be
back with you on Monday for our strategic overview.
Thank you for joining us and please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.




Houston, vi har en løsning:
Hvad der nu må gøres.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
1. september, 2017

… denne orkan Harvey, der virkelig er uden fortilfælde mht. ødelæggelser … dette må være momentet for at initiere en fuldstændig ny holdning hos amerikanerne og vores nationale regerings skifte til en helt anden politik, og det er formålet med den nøderklæring, vi har udstedt.

… det må genkalde en holdning, som vi mistede i dette land, der går tilbage til mordet på John F. Kennedy, men faktisk går tilbage til Franklin Roosevelts død. Og den måske mest signifikante case study, vi kan anvende, er TVA, som du nævnte, Tennessee Valley Authority.

Vært Matthew Ogden indleder webcastet med at oplæse Lyndon LaRouches erklæring, »Ikke flere Houston-katastrofer: Lyndon LaRouche siger, hvad det er, der må ske ’lige med det samme’«

Det efterfølges af en rapport fra repræsentant for LaRouche-bevægelsen i Texas, Brian Lantz, om den aktuelle situation i Houston og en analyse af de nødvendige forholdsregler, der må tages.

Herefter vises et klip fra en film, der blev produceret under Franklin Roosevelts præsidentskab, om det store infrastrukturprojekt, kaldet TVA – Tennessee Valley Authority.

Her følger en dansk oversættelse af dette videoklip og Matthew Ogdens kommentarer.

Efter dette følger komplet engelsk udskrift af hele webcastet.

Min. 31:20 (FDR-klip minuttal 35:15):

Brian Lantz (slutning): Hvor skal pengene komme fra? Det er selvfølgelig det forkerte spørgsmål at stille. Spørgsmålet er, hvad er det for institutioner, vi må skabe? Det er præcist, hvad LaRouche foreslår: Glass-Steagall, statslig kredit, en nationalbank, der kan finansiere strømmen af statslig kredit til at bygge de nye TVA’er, de nye projekter, der kræves for at sikre ikke alene kysten her, men også for at påbegynde en stor, økonomisk genrejsning af USA til dets position i verden.

Matthew Ogden: Netop, og denne orkan Harvey, der virkelig er uden fortilfælde mht. ødelæggelser, som du gjorde det meget, meget klart, Brian – dette må være momentet for at initiere en fuldstændig ny holdning hos amerikanerne og vores nationale regerings skifte til en helt anden politik, og det er formålet med den nøderklæring, vi har udstedt.

Og, som du sagde, så må det genkalde en holdning, som vi mistede i dette land, der går tilbage til mordet på John F. Kennedy, men faktisk går tilbage til Franklin Roosevelts død. Og den måske mest signifikante case study, vi kan anvende, er TVA, som du nævnte, Tennessee Valley Authority.

Hvis vi går tilbage til før Franklin Roosevelt og før New Deal, havde vi hele områder af landet, der var underkastet såkaldte naturkatastrofer, og som simpelt hen var forsømte. Det måske mest signifikante område i landet, det mest bemærkelsesværdige, var den såkaldte Tennessee-dal. Det er meget ironisk, at Tennessee-dalen, der er et helt område ikke blot i Tennessee, men omfatter alle disse tilgrænsende stater, er det område, der har den største totale regnmængde på det amerikanske kontinent.

Og hvad er så den årlige regnmængde i Tennessee-dalen? Den er på 51 inches (ca. 130 cm) om året; det, vi netop har oplevet i Houston, er 51 inches på fem dage eller mindre. Det er simpelt hen en svimlende mængde vand, der kom ned fra himlen! Men Tennessee-dalen var også udsat for meget lange perioder med voldsomme regnmængder, for det meste som følge af orkaner, der spredte sig – virkningen af orkaner, der kom op fra Golfkysten (den Mexicanske) og så fortsatte ind over denne centrale, sydøstlige del af USA.

Hvad skete der? Franklin Roosevelt, der blev citeret i vores nøderklæring, sagde, at det, der behøvedes, er »handling, og handling nu. Nationen kræver handling«. Han sagde: Vi vil ikke tillade denne ødelæggelse, som Tennessee-dalen oplever år efter år, og som skaber et af de mest forarmede områder i hele verden: Dette var Appalacherne – evnen til at læse og skrive var i bund, malaria, det øverste jordlag, der blev vasket bort. Man havde virkelig vilkår som i den Tredje Verden, lige midt i kontinental-USA. Roosevelt sagde, nej, vi vil gøre noget, som ingen før har gjort, og vi vil ikke blot forsøge at kontrollere en enkelt flods strøm, men vi vil tage et helt flodbækken, og vi vil ikke alene kontrollere dette vand hydrologisk, men vi vil indsamle energien fra dette vand og sætte det til at arbejde til gavn for de mennesker, der bor dér.

Jeg har en video, jeg gerne vil vise vore seere, et ca. 4 min. langt klip, som blev lavet af Roosevelt-administrationen. Den blev ironisk nok produceret det år, Roosevelt døde, i 1944. Men den viser, hvad Tennessee-dalen var udsat for, og det bør faktisk minde jer om de videoklip, I netop så fra Houston; men den viser også, hvad der blev gjort fra Roosevelt-administrationens side og filosofien, der lå bag TVA. Her kommer klippet:

Fortæller: Ødelæggelse fra himlen. Sådan var det, år efter år, i et glemt område af USA. Dette var den ødelæggelse, der var forårsaget af grådighed og neglekt, med mænd, der arbejdede alene og uden hjælp mod naturens kræfter. Landbrug, byer, industri – smadret; hundreder druknede, tusinder blev hjemløse. Flodens energi, der gik til spilde – og menneskenes energi ligeså.

[Landmand] Henry Clarks problemer var 3 millioner amerikaneres problemer i Tennessee-dalen. Det blev 130 millioner amerikanere i 48 staters direkte anliggende, en udfordring for demokratiet og dets evne til at drage omsorg for sine egne folk.

Tennesseefloddalen [kort] ligger i det sydøstlige USA. Det dækker et område på 40.000 kvadratmil, næsten lige så stort som England. Det var et problem, der handlede om genopbygning; genopbygning af land og af mennesker. Demokratiet bestod prøven: Det fandt mændene, der kunne overvåge jobbet – James P. Polk, national senator fra det vestlige USA; Harcourt Morgan, præsident for Tennessees Universitet, og som havde udarbejdet et landbrugsprogram for hele området; David Lilienthal, administrator og fortaler for en lov om kooperativ elektricitet; George Norris, en stor, amerikansk statsmand, der længe havde drømt om regional planlægning, om at etablere et nationalt eksperiment i én region, der kunne fungere som målestok for alle regioner. Dette var planen [kort over progressiv udvikling], at tøjle floden gennem en række gigantiske dæmninger, der kunne kontrollere oversvømmelserne, og åbne floden for sejlads fra dens udspring til dens bifloders tilstrømning; at lade fordelene ved moderne videnskab og forskning komme farmerne til gode; at hjælpe dem til at kontrollere vandet på deres jorder og genoprette jordens frugtbarhed, at genbeplante millioner af acres med skov på de hærgede bjergsider, at udvinde områdets mineralresurser; at bruge elektriciteten, skabt af dæmningerne, til at udvikle og rehabilitere industri i byerne, at føre elektricitet til landbrugsejendommene gennem et landligt kooperativ; og frem for alt, at bevise, at menneskelige problemer kan løses gennem fornuft, videnskab og uddannelse.

Tennessee-dalen skulle atter engang blive en fremskudt grænse, denne gang for at blive udviklet, ikke udplyndret; denne gang ikke til fordel for de få, men for de mange, som boede dér. Disse mennesker var de nye pionerer, arkitekterne, forsknings-kemikerne, landbrugseksperterne, elektricitetsfolkene, ingeniørerne, der designede vandkraftværker: Deres metode var at kontrollere naturen, ikke ved at trodse den som i den ødsle fortid, men ved at forstå den og tøjle den til gavn for menneskeheden …

(Slut video)

Ogden: Det var sådan, amerikanere plejede at tænke; dette var Franklin Roosevelt-administrationen, dette var New Deal. Lad mig blot lige gentage for jer, hvad I netop har hørt: Fortælleren sagde, hvad var formålet med Tennessee Valley Authority, dette projekt over alle projekter? »Frem for alt, at bevise, at menneskelige problemer kan løses gennem fornuft, videnskab og uddannelse. Tennessee-dalen skulle atter engang være en fremskudt grænse … for at blive udviklet … ikke til fordel for de få, men for de mange … Disse mennesker var de nye pionerer … Deres metode var at kontrollere naturen, ikke ved at trodse den … men ved at forstå den og tøjle den til gavn for menneskeheden …«

Det er sådan, amerikanere tænker.

Engelsk udskrift:

HOUSTON, WE HAVE A SOLUTION’: WHAT MUST BE DONE NOW

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon.  It’s September 1, 2017.  My
name is Matthew Ogden, and I’d like to welcome you to our Friday
evening webcast here on larouchepac.com; our strategic overview
for the end of this week.
This has been a very dramatic week, and I’ve asked Brian
Lantz, who is a LaRouche PAC organizer in Houston, Texas to join
us for our broadcast here today.  He’s been on the ground; thank
you Brian.  Welcome.  He’s been on the ground there in Houston.
He survived Hurricane Harvey, and he has seen firsthand the
devastation.  Those of you who were on the LaRouche PAC Fireside
Chat last night, got to hear a preliminary overview report from
him.  Also, Brian Lantz will be the featured guest at the
LaRouche PAC Manhattan Town Hall meeting tomorrow afternoon in
New York City on Saturday.  But we’ve asked Brian here to review
with us the extent of the devastation and the necessary solutions
that Hurricane Harvey should prompt us to usher in for the
nation.
Before I get to Brian, I am going to read to you in full the
emergency policy statement that has been issued by LaRouche PAC,
which is available at the LaRouche PAC website.  You’ll see the
text here right on the screen from larouchepac.com [Fig. 1].  The
title of this statement is “No More Houstons!  Lyndon LaRouche
Says What Must Happen Right Now!”  So, the statement reads as
follows:
“The catastrophe in Texas is a man-made disaster
accomplished by the criminal negligence of this nation’s elected
officials, who have continued to support Wall Street’s
speculative economy and imperial ambitions while arguing that the
nation cannot afford to rebuild and replace its ancient and
broken-down economic infrastructure. For the third time since
2005, major American cities have been flooded and their people
devastated, because the plans for new infrastructure to protect
the people, requiring tens of billions in investments, have been
ignored and turned down. Hurricane Harvey now looms as the worst
national disaster in our nation’s history and it is a disaster
which did not have to happen.
“In 2005, Hurricane Katrina killed nearly 2,000 people and
wreaked $130 billion in economic losses. Only then, slowly, new
flood-control and sea gate infrastructure was built — at last —
for New Orleans, at a fraction of the human and monetary costs of
the damage inflicted by the storm. How many unnecessary deaths
and suffering could this project have averted?
“Four years later, the American Society of Civil Engineers
met in Manhattan to discuss several storm surge barrier options
for the New York City region. The estimate for the largest of
these was $9 billion. The government decided to do nothing. Then,
in 2012 Superstorm Sandy killed more than 100 people and caused
$65 billion in economic losses. New York area residents now are
going through a ‘Summer of Hell’ as the 100-year-old regional
transportation system, flooded and damaged five years ago, also
was not repaired or replaced at the necessary pace.
“The staggering economic and human suffering caused by
Hurricane Harvey in the Texas and Louisiana Gulf region are not
yet known, and will grow in magnitude as the water recedes; but,
what has been known for many years, is that Texas Gulf cities are
flood-prone, and have repeatedly flooded. Yet, no flood control
or storm protection infrastructure has been built since the end
of World War II. Plans for a new system for the Houston area had
been drafted, but their $25 billion cost was deemed ‘too high’ a
price tag for our Wall Street-dominated agencies and elected
officials. Now, hundreds of billions of dollars, and priceless
human lives, are lost.
All of these disasters, and others in the recent period, could
have been averted for a fraction of their eventual cost in lost
wealth, let alone in lost lives. The media insist to Americans
that each city’s disaster is caused by its particular economic
habits, its choice of location, its squabbling jurisdictions, its
ignoring of climate change, or its being close to water! This is
nonsense. Wall Street, which has been bailed out repeatedly to
the tune of trillions of dollars, with nothing but increased
impoverishment of the American people to show for it, must no
longer be allowed to dictate the economic policy of the United
States of America.
“|’The nation calls for action, and action now!’ in
President Franklin Roosevelt’s words. During his presidency, and
through the 1940s, the new infrastructure to prevent such
‘natural disasters’ — such as the Tennessee Valley Authority —
was funded by national credit, as through the Reconstruction
Finance Corporation and the Works Progress Authority.
“Hurricane Harvey drowning cities in East Texas should be
the national alarm which ends 70 years in which the country has
been without any such national credit institutions.”
The next subhead is titled “A Sea Change Is Required”.
“Lyndon LaRouche on August 30 called for a ‘sea change’ in
policy ‘right now.’ He called for the immediate creation of a
national credit institution for new, high-technology
infrastructure, like that employed by Franklin Roosevelt when the
vast majority of our current infrastructure was built. There is
no alternative to creating a national credit institution, like
that employed by Alexander Hamilton and in accord with our
Constitution, to fund the necessary trillions in new
infrastructure investment.
There must also be action on reinstating Glass-Steagall banking
separation right now, as a new financial crisis looms and Wall
Street speculation continues to prevent actual productive
investment. Allowing Wall Street to eliminate the Glass-Steagall
Act in the 1990s led to a crash that caused {$10 trillion} in
lost wealth, mass unemployment, and untold loss and shortening of
human lives.
“LaRouche insists that his ‘Four Economic Laws To Save the
Nation’ must be implemented right now if this country is to
recover from Hurricane Harvey and prevent similar disasters
stemming from our rotting physical economy now ticking like a
time bomb:
1. Re-institute Glass-Steagall: break up Wall Street and its
power;
2. Create national credit institutions based on FDR’s
Reconstruction Finance Corporation and Alexander Hamilton’s
national banks;
3. Invest the credit in new infrastructure with frontier
technologies, including high-speed rail, fourth-generation
fission and fusion power technologies, and modern storm
protection and water management systems;
4. Adopt a fusion-driver ‘crash program’: Let a great
expansion of NASA space exploration provide a driver for
productivity and productive employment.”
Then, the final section is titled “A New Paradigm Takes
Hold”.
“China’s Belt and Road Initiative, an international program
of new rail ‘land-bridges’ and great projects of infrastructural
development, offers immediate cooperation for the credit and the
building of a new infrastructure in the United States. This
initiative is now moving on great projects they have long
identified as absolutely essential, such as the Kra Canal in
Southeast Asia, and the revival of Lake Chad in sub-Saharan
Africa; projects long championed by Lyndon LaRouche and his wife,
Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
“Helga and Lyndon LaRouche are leading a national
mobilization focused on moving President Trump to immediately
bring America into the China-initiated Belt and Road Initiative
of worldwide building of new infrastructure. That ‘win-win’
initiative, and the United States joining in its worldwide
projects and also building its own new infrastructure, means the
revival of the United States as an industrial power.”
The statement goes on to quote Helga Zepp-LaRouche in her
speech to the Manhattan conference on August 26th.  Then, after
that quote, it concludes by saying:
“LaRouche PAC has taken the responsibility to drive
President Trump and the Congress into this action. But this is
also the responsibility of all Americans that think of themselves
as citizens: those who have been actively supporting the
President, or supporting Sen. Bernie Sanders; those who supported
no one, out of disgust at the manipulation, and continued
manipulation of the election, but who have wanted a drastic
change in the deindustrialization and Wall Street speculation
policy ruling the country; those who know people killed, or made
homeless and impoverished by Wall Street’s induced ‘natural
disasters.’ All must now act and make their voices heard.
Because, watching what is happening, again, to great American
cities, leads anyone sane to the same conclusion: {There is no
alternative}.”
So, that statement, which is available in full on the
LaRouche PAC website, again, under the title “No More Houstons!
Lyndon LaRouche Says What Must Happen Right Now!” is available
for you to circulate.  That is our call to action, which we’re
here to discuss today.
So Brian, I’d like to just introduce you and give you a
chance to give us an overview of what the conditions are on the
ground in Houston; what the impact is on the national economy,
and what must be done.  While you begin, we’re just going to play
some drone footage that was taken and was posted on Facebook by a
user chaseboogie; and we thank him for the permission to use this
footage.  It will just give our viewers a very visceral
on-the-ground sense of what exactly the conditions look like
there in Houston as you speak.  So, Brian, thank you for joining
us here today.

BRIAN LANTZ:  Good to be here.  I think first of all, I
should emphasize that this hurricane and hydrological disaster is
still unfolding.  Just a matter of a few hours ago, this is
Friday; Mayor Sylvester Turner requested more evacuations from
the Atticks Reservoir area, the Atticks Dam area, because of the
continued releases of water in the spillway.  Uncontrolled
releases into the area, which are necessary to relieve pressure
behind these dams.  These dams are in Houston on the Buffalo
Bayou.  Here today, the sun is out; but that doesn’t change
really the picture you’re seeing in this video, this drone
footage.  Just the extent, and what you’re seeing really is only
a small portion of Houston; the devastation extends over 50
counties — {50 counties}.  An area encompassing some 11 million
people.
Now, besides continued rising water on the Buffalo Bayou —
slowly rising; which runs through Houston itself, right through
the downtown area and so forth.  That’s what this footage largely
covers is the area around downtown.  You also have rising water
still coming down the San Jacinto River, but also from the
broader San Jacinto Basin, draining into the San Jacinto River
and on down to the ship canal.  You have the Brazos River and the
Colorado River on the west side of Houston; these are still
continuing, particularly the Brazos, to rise.  There’s been
ruptures of the levees along the Brazos River; that’s something
they’re combatting.  There are mandatory evacuation orders and so
forth that have been placed in parts of that for days.
This all continues to unfold.  Smaller towns, over 300
smaller towns and cities are dramatically affected.  Off to the
east, roughly let’s call it two hours east of Houston down I-10,
going towards New Orleans, is Beaumont and Port Arthur.  You may
have been seeing some footage from there.  Beaumont lost its
water supply.  This is a city of 120,000 people; they’ve lost
their water supply.  They’re now evacuating their evacuation
centers because of the rising Natchez River.  This is a disaster
that’s still unfolding.  Beaumont is largely under water.  Port
Arthur, next door, is under water.  Rescue efforts are ongoing.
Here in Houston, we have over 30,000 people registered in
various evacuation centers around the city.  But of course, far
more are staying with neighbors or relatives.  You can imagine,
hotels and so on and so forth.  Also, out of some of the
surrounding areas down by the coast; Dickinson, for example.  You
had military cargo planes flying people out of the area through
Galveston up to Dallas.  This is still all unfolding.
I guess I could give a couple of just simple examples.  It’s
thought that at least 500,000 cars are lost in the flooding.  I’m
sure that’s an underestimate when you take in the broader area.
I think those figures are regarding Houston itself.
I think also to go to the heart of this, you’ve got to go to
the industrial side of this picture.  So, I’ll do that in just a
second.  But first, I want to just bring forward the other side
of this; which there has been reporting on.  That is, the
outpouring of aid that Houstonians and Texans have provided to
their fellow citizens and our neighbors from as far away at least
as New York.  I believe the first responders who came into
Houston were from New York City; fire teams from New York City to
take part in the rescue.  So, we have them here from Kansas, we
have them of course Fort Worth, Texas; 4.5 to 5 hours to the
north.  We have them from Dallas.  Hundreds of police have now
come in, arriving really as brigades into the city to relieve
policeman who, up until yesterday, hadn’t slept for days and
days.  A tremendous rescue effort; you might have heard about the
“cajun navy”; loosely organized, bringing over their boats, their
high-rise trucks and behind them pulling their boats.  This is
thousands of people, and hundreds and hundreds of boats coming
in, that have been playing a critical role at the request of law
enforcement, of the mayor, or the first responders here in
southeast Texas.
So, if you go to some of the slides, just the first [Fig. 2]
you have a still of some of the damage in downtown Houston.  I
think if you follow that up, you’ll see what Hurricane Harvey
looked like coming in [Fig. 3].  Partly I’m putting that up just
to give you a sense of the extent of this hurricane in terms of
its length and breadth.  Those outer bands — that picture was
taken basically at landfall down near Rockport, which is just
close to Corpus Christi to the south.  Those outer bands,
particularly as you see them on the east side; this is the “dirty
side” as they say, of the hurricane.  This was coming in
simultaneously more or less into the rest of the coast to the
east of landfall there in Rockport; which was, of course, this
small town just devastated along the coast.
If you go to the next picture [Fig. 4], I’m putting these up
partly to give you a sense of the geography in terms of where
we’re talking about relative.  You see there the state of Texas
off to your left, the broader state of Texas.  You see the swath
of area; that was a prediction early on. You see the top of the
monitor there, the peak they’re expecting is 15 inches [of rain].
Well of course, we got between 30 and 50 inches in rainfall in
the course of just a few days.  The next slide [Fig. 5] gives you
a sense of how this process has then trailed off to the east up
through Louisiana; now moving off into Arkansas and Tennessee.
But again, that’s to give you just a kind of sense of the
geography of this.  And all along there, you’re talking about,
across the bottom, you see the Gulf Coast.
So, having spoken a bit about the tremendous effort and so
forth, I want to return to the physical economic impact of this,
if I can.  Think of a compromised human body from disease or
aging, you name it.  Then think of that body being slammed by
some new effect, a shock to the system.  You have to ask, how
many shocks can that person take?  Well, think of our US economy
and the world economy in a different way, but related, in that
context.  For example, as some of you know, the Colonial
Pipeline, which is the largest pipeline in the United States,
which carries oil and gas and so forth; that an other pipelines
have stopped because the refineries are shut down.  20% to 30% of
the nation’s refining capacity is right now shut down here along
the Gulf Coast.  Particularly in Houston, but extending over to
New Orleans, Baton Rouge, the South Louisiana port — which is
the largest port by tonnage in the United States.  All of these
are affected to varying degrees.
That means that New York right now is not getting oil from
the major pipeline serving the New York area; but also serving
Atlanta, Washington DC, and so forth.  Gas prices are spiking and
so forth and so on as a result of this.  That pipeline, the
Colonial Pipeline, is not going to be back online until at least
the end of the weekend.  So, this is not disconnected; we’re
talking about one systemic process here, already weakened by the
horror stories of the Bush and Obama years, the financial
blow-out of 2008, Wall Street’s predatory speculation. The
British Empire’s choking off of the American System increasingly
since the passing of Franklin Roosevelt in 1944.  So, this is
having consequences across the United States.
Just to give you a sense of this, if you skip forward to the
last slide [Fig. 6], you’ll see a map of the ports along the Gulf
Coast.  Just so you have a fair assessment of this, eight of the
twelve largest ports in terms of tonnage are along this coast,
the third Coast, the Gulf Coast.  You see those in red, but also
now of course, Port Arthur; those ports are all still closed,
including the little barge port of Victoria, Texas.  Corpus
Christi is a major port.  You see Houston, it’s also next to it
in that same block as Texas City, which is a separate port also
on the Galveston Ship Canal to Houston.  So, those ports are all
closed down.  This is a long-term disruption.  Rail lines are
disrupted, the Union-Pacific Corporation, Berkshire Hathaway’s
BNSF — Burlington Northern Santa Fe — they are currently closed
for operations.  Likewise Kansas City Southern or regional
railroad.  This is going to have follow-on repercussions, not
only in terms of cargo moving out of the United States, but cargo
moving into the United States.  The Port of Houston just opened
up today for truck traffic; but this is not easy.  You can
imagine the amount of muck they’ve got to clean out of there.
Containers have shifted; they’ve got to be restacked.  This is
not an easy process to put some order back into this chaotic
situation.
The ship canal itself, the currents coming down the ship
canal are such that that itself interferes with the possibility
of ships coming in.  That’s coming down from the San Jacinto
River and the San Jacinto Basin and so on and so forth.  There’s
debris in the ship canal.  How much has shifted underwater?  The
Army Corps of Engineers has got to go in; they’ve got to make
sure that the ships can get up that canal safely.  Is there going
to be emergency dredging required?  All of these things have to
be worked out.
Corpus Christi has opened up to small traffic today; smaller
ships.  But at last report, you still have a major obstruction at
the port there in Corpus Christi.  A ship that broke loose.  Not
some sailing skiff or something; but a major merchant ship broke
loose and is blocking part of the harbor.  So again, these have
knock-on follow-on effects; and I’m hoping that I’m giving you at
least some sense of that.
In terms of the ranking of ports, the port of South
Louisiana, which is 54 miles long, the breadth of it, between New
Orleans and Baton Rouge, is the largest port in the United
States.  The second largest is Houston, Texas — by tonnage.
Third is New York-New Jersey.  Fourth is Beaumont, Texas; that
wasn’t even on that map.  That’s now also shut down.  Then comes
Long Beach, California; then Corpus Christi, which we mentioned.
New Orleans; Baton Rouge; Mobile, Alabama; Plaquemines,
Louisiana; a little bit further down, Texas City.  So, this is
enormous.  This whole area, this entire area is lowlands; people
live on coasts because it’s close to cheap transport and
communications and all the rest.  If you ask people to move, as
some Greens would like to say, “Well, people should move away.”
Well, excuse me, where are they?  Montana?  What are you
suggesting? The lifeblood of the country, its arteries of its
body are still largely these three coasts; and then of course,
the river systems and the canals and so on, including the Great
Lakes and all the rest.  This is what what’s left of the entire
US economy depends on today.  The compromise that’s been made,
the disastrous bloody compromise that’s been made has been to
withhold the resources to build the kinds of systems that would
protect from storm surges and hurricanes like Hurricanes Sandy,
Katrina, Ike and so forth.  That’s one issue; we can take that
up.
But also what we’re talking about here is not simply
meteorology and storms and hurricanes coming in.  Most of the
damage from Hurricane Harvey has been from rainfall; as we
mentioned, 30-50 inches of rainfall in the course of a few days.
All of these low-lying areas — the high point in Houston is 50
feet above sea level.  A dam built here, say on Lake Conroe on
the San Jacinto River, it holds 14% of what the Oroville Dam
holds in northern California; because it’s built on flat land.
It’s a low-lying dam; broad, but shallow.  The capacities of
these dam structures are limited.  What’s required is an enormous
investment in canal building, retention ponds, and a whole
hydrological approach; which the Army Corps of Engineers has
engaged in, but under increasingly tight budget restrictions.
And of course, with this blind-sided approach of politicians and
policymakers looking the other way and ignoring the consequences.
Well, the consequences are now here.
Maybe I should stop there, and we can have some discussion
on this.  But I hope that gives people an essential overview of
what we’ve got to deal with now as a nation; with the Four Laws
of Lyndon LaRouche, with national credit.  This storm is going to
cost more than Katrina that hit New Orleans in 2005.  That was
$130 billion simply in terms of Federal funds; simply in terms of
Federal funds essentially after the fact.  This is going to
outstrip that by far.
Where’s that money going to come from?  Well, obviously,
that’s the wrong question to ask.  The question is, what are the
institutions we have to create? And it’s exactly what LaRouche
has proposed: Glass-Steagall, national credit, a National Bank to
finance that flow of national credit, to build out the new TVAs,
the new projects required to safeguard not only the coast here,
but to begin a major recovery of the United States to its
position in the world.

OGDEN:  Yeah, exactly, and this Hurricane Harvey, which is
really unprecedented in its devastation, as you made very, very
clear, Brian, this must be the moment of initiating an entirely
new attitude among the American and an entirely new change in the
policy of our Federal government, and that’s the purpose of this
emergency statement that we put out on
https://larouchepac.com/20170831/no-more-houstons-lyndon-larouche
-says-what-must-happen-right-now
.
And, as you said, it must recall an attitude which we lost in
this country at least going back to the assassination of John F.
Kennedy, but really going back to the death of Franklin
Roosevelt.  And perhaps the most significant case study that we
can use would be the TVA, as you mentioned it, the Tennessee
Valley Authority.
Going back to before Franklin Roosevelt and before the New
Deal, you had whole regions of the country which were subject to
so-called natural disasters, and which were just neglected.  And
perhaps the most significant region of the country, the most
notable, was the so-called Tennessee Valley.  And what’s very
ironic is the Tennessee Valley, which is an entire region, not
just in Tennessee, but it’s all of these bordering states, is the
area of the highest annual rainfall total of any watershed in the
continental United States.
Now, what’s the annual rainfall in the Tennessee Valley
watershed?  It’s 51 inches per year; what we just experienced in
Houston was 51 inches in five days or less.  It’s just
mind-boggling the amount of water that came out of the sky!  But
the Tennessee Valley was also subject to very extended periods of
high rainfall, mostly because of the dissipating hurricanes —
the effect of hurricanes that were coming up off the Gulf Coast,
and then going into this Central Southeast region of the United
States.
But what happened?  Franklin Roosevelt, who as we quoted in
this emergency statement, said what’s necessary is “action, and
action now.  The nation calls for action.”  He said:  We’re not
going to allow this devastation that the Tennessee Valley
experienced year-in and year-out, creating one  of the most
impoverished areas of the entire world:  This was Appalachia —
literacy was through the floor, malaria, top soil was washing
off.  You had a really Third World kind of conditions, right
there in the continental United States.  And Roosevelt said, no,
we’re going to do something that has never been attempted before,
and we’re going to not just try to control the flow of one river,
but we’re going to take an entire river basin, and we’re going to
not just control that water hydrologically, but we’re going to
harness the power of that water, and put it to work for the
benefit of the people who live there.
I have a video I just want to show our viewers, a roughly
four minute excerpt, a video that was put out by the Roosevelt
administration.  Ironically, it was produced the year before
Roosevelt died in 1944.  But it shows you what the Tennessee
Valley was subjected to, and it should actually remind you of the
video footage that you just saw from Houston; but it also shows
you what was done by the Roosevelt administration and the
philosophy that was behind the construction of the TVA.  So,
here’s a clip from that video
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfJt-W7fwTY]:

[BEGIN VIDEO]
NARRATOR:  Destruction from the sky.  This is the way it
was, year after year, in a forgotten part of the United States.
This was the havoc caused by greed and neglect, and men working
alone and unaided against the forces of nature.  Farms, towns,
industry — smashed; hundreds drowned, thousands made homeless.
The energies of the river running to waste,  — the energies of
the people, too.
[Farmer] Henry Clark’s trouble was the trouble of 3 million
Americans in the Tennessee Valley.  It became the direct concern
of 130 million Americans in the 48 states, a challenge to
democracy and its ability to care for its own.
The valley of the Tennessee River [map] lies in the
Southeastern United States.  It covers an area of 40,000 square
miles, nearly as large as England.  It was a problem of
reconstruction, reconstruction of land, reconstruction of people.
Democracy met the test: It found the men to supervise the job —
James P. Polk, United States Senator from the West; Harcourt
Morgan, president of the University of Tennessee, who had worked
out an agricultural program for the whole area; David Lilienthal,
administrator and champion of legislation for cooperative
electric power; George Norris, a great American statesman who
long had dreamed of regional planning, of setting up a national
experiment in one region which could serve as a yardstick for
every region.  This was the plan [progressively developing map],
to chain the river through a series of giant dams, checking the
floods, to open it to navigation from its mouth to its
headwaters; to give the farmers the benefit of modern science and
research, to help them control the water on their land and
restore the fertility of the soil, to reforest millions of acres
on the ravaged hillsides, to exploit the mineral resources of the
area;  to use the electric power generated by the dams to develop
and rehabilitate industry in the cities, to electrify the farms
through a rural cooperative; above all, to prove that human
problems can be solved by reason, science, and education.
The Tennessee Valley was to be pioneered again, this time,
to be developed, not plundered, this time not for the benefit of
a few, but for the many who lived in it.  These were the new
pioneers, the architects, the research chemists, the agricultural
experts, the power men, the designers of hydroelectric dams:
Their method was to control nature, not by defying her as in the
wasteful past, but by understanding her and harnessing her in the
service of humanity….
[END VIDEO]

OGDEN:  This is how we as Americans used to think, this was
the Franklin Roosevelt administration, this was the New Deal.
Let me just repeat back to you, what you just heard:  The
narrator said, what was the purpose of the Tennessee Valley
Authority, this project above all other projects?  “Above all, to
prove that human problems can be solved by reason, science, and
education.  The Tennessee Valley was to be pioneered again … to
be developed … not for the benefit of a few, but for the
many….  These were the new pioneers… Their method was to
control nature, not by defying her  … but by understanding her
and harnessing her in the service of humanity….”
That’s how Americans think.
So Brian, what lessons can we learn from what Franklin
Roosevelt did?  What do we have to do right now, what should have
been done before this disaster of Harvey, but what do we have to
do now to rebuild the United States?

LANTZ: Well, we’ve already touched on it in terms of Lyndon
LaRouche’s Four Laws, and that’s what’s required. But
specifically, it is up to us, we Americans who understand
ourselves to be citizens of the United States, to now mobilize at
this moment where there’s a receptivity among Americans to face
what has been building as a crisis across the nation, in many
dimensions,  — the opioid epidemic, the crises generated by
continuing storms — not the storms themselves, but the
inadequacy of our ability to respond and defeat them; all of this
and more requires that we step up to the plate and create a
future looking 50 to 100 years into the future, beyond our own
life spans.
I think we have, in the example of China, China that’s
lifted 700 million people out of poverty in the last three
decades.  Looking at the TVA dam footage, obviously, the Three
Gorges Dam that China built on the Yangtze River, an enormous
project exactly to continue the process of taming that river for
mankind, and the upcoming projects for Lake Chad and related
projects throughout Africa.  This should be an inspiration:  We
can unite with the Belt and Road Initiative  of China.  This is a
very important element.
We now have, with the Trump administration, we have a sea
change, at least relatively speaking, from what we have with Bush
and Obama.  Think back to Bush’s response to Katrina in 2005.
Ike hit here in Texas in 2008.  Trump, working with the governor
of the state, Governor Abbott, enormous resources have been
mobilized.  There’s at least 12,000 National Guardsmen in here,
now; there’ll be as many as 24,000, Governor Abbott has stated in
the coming weeks. I spoke earlier about the influx of first
responders as well as volunteers.
That’s a start, but we cannot allow the United States to now
dish out on itself the Haiti treatment:  Look at the island of
Haiti.  What was proposed there by the Joint Chiefs of Staff at
the time, by the LaRouche organization, by Mr. LaRouche himself,
was a massive mobilization of the Army Corps [of Engineers], C-5
cargo planes to rescue Haiti, move people out of the flood areas,
the earthquake areas in 2010, get them onto high land.  Build new
cities, build new infrastructure that never existed there, and
pick up where Roosevelt had left off with his projects in Haiti
among other nations.  Instead, a cold shoulder was given to
Haiti. Obama turned his back on Haiti, and instead, all we had
was NGOs and various private relief efforts — band aids applied
to Haiti, and it’s arguable that the situation in Haiti today is
no better off, fundamentally, than it was before the 2010
earthquake, perhaps worse.
We have to rectify that.  We have to rectify the situation
in Puerto Rico.
So this is a wake-up call to mobilize a national effort.  If
this is left to sports figures and Hollywood stars and a few
billionaires to wave around their largesse in millions of
dollars, and we have “GoFundMe” accounts and the Red Cross and
that’s the extent of it, the whole nation will be further
damaged!  New Orleans has never recovered, has never been allowed
to recover, much less develop.  So we have to address that, as
you said, Matt:  We have to address this now, the American people
have got to mobilize now:  Our congressmen, our senators,  and
President Trump have got to hear very clearly from the American
people that the Four Laws have to be implemented now.

OGDEN:  Well, the truth is that there is a development
dynamic which is already sweeping the globe and you mentioned it,
it is the Chinese New Silk Road: It’s the Belt and Road
Initiative, which frankly was something which was originally
initiated and conceptualized by the LaRouche movement, going back
30 years.  But this is now the policy of the most populous nation
on the planet, and not only are they using it for the development
of China and for the development of the Chinese people, but it’s
also being something which is for the general welfare of the
people of the planet as a whole!
You mentioned the Three Gorges Dam, this really could be
characterized as the Chinese TVA, but if you look at the history
of China and the amount of devastation that the Chinese people
have suffered because of flooding, exactly what you saw in that
drone footage which is happening right now in Houston, exactly
what you saw in that eerily familiar footage from the Tennessee
Valley, prior to the TVA, that we showed just now  — going back
hundreds of years you had that kind of devastation in China.
There’s a very famous flood in 1954, which was the flood of the
Yangtze River, and you’ll see on the screen here a memorial to
the victims of that flood. [Fig. 7]  The Yangtze River flooded,
and killed 33,000 people and displaced 18 million people!  The
city of Wuhan, which is where this memorial is, was a city of 8
million people, and it was literally under water for over three
months.  So, 1954, that was only ten years after that video that
we just saw about the TVA was made.  But this was an absolutely
unprecedented natural disaster.
There was another flood in 1998 in China, which killed over
1500 people and was equally devastating in terms of the flooding
of the Yangtze River.  But the next item that I just had on the
screen there, this is an image of the Yangtze River, before
[1987] and after [2006] the construction of the Three Gorges Dam,
[Fig. 8]. You can see the extent of the engineering marvels that
the Three Gorges Dam is: This is a picture from space.  There was
another flood of the Yangtze River in 2010, but that time, the
Three Gorges Dam and the reservoir created by it was able to
absorb that excess run-off, and in fact, not only did it
alleviate the flooding and the effects of the flooding
downstream, but it was able to hold that run-off for later to be
distributed downstream during the dry months of the year.  So at
the time there was a drought and a necessity for water, the water
was available, and not only was it available for farming and for
use in the cities downstream, but it was also available to
produce electricity, through this magnificent hydroelectric dam
that’s been built there.  The Three Gorges Dam produces almost
100 terawatts of electric power.
So you’re harnessing the power of this river, which before
was a menace, and you’re putting each one of those little water
droplets to work. There’s no unemployed water in the Yangtze
River any more.  Every single water droplet has a meaningful
purpose to its existence.
But that’s what China has built domestically, and then look
at abroad.  You also mentioned what’s being done in Africa.  I
have a slide here from the proposal which was put together by the
Schiller Institute for the Transaqua program. [Fig. 9]  You’ll
see here, this is the Transaqua water transfer project which
would refill Lake Chad, which has been drying up over the past
several decades, by transferring 100 billion cubic meters of
water, a distance of 2,500 km from the Congo River, all the way
northwest to Lake Chad and replenish Lake Chad.  So this is not
just on the books, but in fact, we’ve had the really optimistic
news over the past few weeks that a deal has been reached by a
Chinese corporation, PowerChina, which was involved incidentally
in building the Three Gorges Dam, and an Italian firm, Bonifica
Spa.; they’re going to conduct the feasibility studies, they’re
going to get started with making this Transaqua project a reality
on the ground.  Again, this is something that the LaRouche
movement has been fighting for for decades.
So these are the kinds of projects that are already ongoing.
We could also take a page out of Japan’s book:  There’s a
wonderful project in Tokyo, which is called the Metropolitan Area
Outer Underground Discharge Channel, and Tokyo is very similar to
Houston, in the fact that urbanization has created a very dense
population, but there’s monsoons which creates these flooding
conditions.  So you’ll see a picture here [Fig. 10].  This is one
of the engineering marvels of the world:  This is Tokyo’s
underground floodwater diversion facility.  You could say it’s
the Notre Dame cathedral of flood-water control infrastructure.
There’s some videos you can watch, but it’s the magnitude of what
Tokyo has built underground, under that city, is amazing.  You
have five concrete containment silos, each one of them
distributed at various strategic points around the city; each one
of them could fit the Space Shuttle inside, or the entire Statue
of Liberty. Those containment silos are then connected by 6.5 km
of underground tunnels that are buried 50 meters under the ground
level of the city and then all of those empty into that chamber
that you just saw, which you could see the proportions of it,
with the human being standing in there; it’s 65 meters high.  And
the magnitude of this kind of containment tank has caused every
storm since it was built in 1992, to be something that could be
— they were still devastating storms, but they could be
controlled, through the powers of science and the powers of this
engineering marvel.
So why hasn’t something like that been built in Houston?
Why hasn’t something like that been built in New York City?  Why
hasn’t something like that been built in the various areas of the
continental United States, which are just as much under threat as
Tokyo was?  So all of these projects, the Three Gorges Dam, the
Transaqua water transfer project, which really should be the
model for what we do with the NAWAPA project — the North
American Water And Power Alliance — which is an equal
water-transfer project; and then this Metropolitan Discharge
project in Tokyo, these are things that can be built!  We’ve
already built them!  This is the power that engineering and
mankind have if we just put our minds to it, and if we direct the
necessary national credit to the construction of these.
So you know, President Trump has called for $1 trillion in
infrastructure in the United States. The magnitude of the
investment should be far beyond that, $8, $9, $10 trillion is the
estimate that some people have given, but it’s not a problem, if
you use Hamiltonian credit.  The question has to be asked, could
we have already built some of these necessary projects and
mitigated the disaster, if you hadn’t had 16 years of failed
presidencies, with the Bush/Obama years, and if you hadn’t had
the full-scale mobilization for a political coup against this
current Presidency, in his six months in office up to this point.
But this is now the point of decision:  We have to make the
decision now, this is a sea change in U.S. policy.  Let’s now get
onboard with the great development dynamic which is sweeping the
planet, and {join} with this One Belt, One Road initiative, not
only to build projects abroad, for the benefit of people across
the planet, such as in Africa, but also to build these great
projects right here at home.
So Brian, is there anything that you want to say just in
terms of maybe the specifics of what could be done in Houston,
but also just some of the broader, actual physical projects that
could be built here in the United States?

LANTZ:  First, thanks for correcting me on Three Gorges as
being on the Yangtze, not the Yellow.  But I wanted to say, this
is what great civilizations do, reaching back to the Grand Canal
that connected the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers back 600 A.D. or
thereabouts.  You can go back further to Egypt.  This is what
great civilizations do as opposed to empires, the defining
distinction, this question of the development of mankind.  When
we look today, at the United States, why not build, as Helga
Zepp-LaRouche has proposed, 50 new cities in the United States,
rather a sprawl of concrete that only increases the dangers?  It
does the opposite, by mitigating the danger of these hurricanes
and storms.  For instance, why not build the equivalent of the
Tokyo facility for the greater Houston area?  Why not really
conquer this problem?  We can channel water, we can store it, but
we’ve really got to move it off the area, fast. And what Tokyo
has done is an exemplar.
Likewise, as we’ve discussed on prior programs, Hurricane
Sandy and what has to be done, not just for New York City, but
for essentially a 100-mile diameter area reaching down to
Philadelphia as one great, mega-city of development, modeled on
similar projects in China.  Their process of building mega-cities
and transforming regions into mega-cities.
This is some of what’s occurred.  All of this requires
energy:  It requires nuclear energy, it requires the development
of fusion energy.  And I just wanted to conclude, if Kesha Rogers
could be here today, she would stress the role of science, as you
brought it up in regard to the approach to the TVA project, but
also brought up otherwise.  This hurricane — just think about it
— this hurricane would have been far worse, if we didn’t have
the kind of satellite capacity that we have, the kind of
resolutions in terms of cameras and all of that:  The whole space
program gave us a capability.  Just imagine if this had hit
without forewarning.
And that leads into the broader question of the broader
development of the U.S. space program and our cooperation again
with countries, including the leading country of China, in
advancing mankind’s knowledge of our relationship to our
planetary system, but beyond that to the galaxy, to these larger
processes that we know are at work, that man needs to gain
control of.  And really, it’s from that standpoint that we can
really begin to measure the projects we need to build now.

OGDEN: And that’s reminiscent of the point that was made in
exactly that video produced by the Roosevelt administration on
the TVA, that our human problems can be solved by “reason,
science, and education,” and we can harness nature, control
nature, not by “defying her, but by understanding her,”  and
harnessing those powers for the benefit of mankind and the entire
planet.  So this is done not just through infrastructure on the
ground,  — which absolutely must be built, the hardcore physical
infrastructure on the ground — but also through, as you
mentioned, understanding what are these meteorological processes,
what are the atmospheric processes, how do you direct these
atmospheric water flows?  Is that possible through ionization and
other ways?  And also, how do you understand how Earth’s weather
is created through our interface with the cosmic environment that
we exist in.  And how does this impact the actual large changes
in cycles in terms of our climate and how climate changes over
time, and the relationship that mankind plays to that, in a
positive way?
And we can see instances of that positive power of mankind
to improve nature, in the Tennessee Valley, in the Yangtze Valley
with the Three Gorges Dam, and now what’s happening in Africa
with the Transaqua project:  That’s mankind’s nature and I think
that’s the ultimate point here:  When will mankind recognize what
we are as a species, and change our view of ourselves, in order
to harness the full powers of that unique creative quality that
mankind as a species possesses, which really lies at the core of
all of the science of economics as Lyndon LaRouche has defined
it.
So I would recall for people, these Four Economic Laws,
which are contained in the emergency statement which I read at
the beginning of this broadcast, this is embedded in a larger
policy document that Lyndon LaRouche wrote in which he explores
exactly this question:  What is the noëtic characteristic of
mankind?  How have we progressed over our history as a species?
How have we harnessed the powers of nature, not just through
water control, but also through different forms of fire and
energy; and what is this Vernadskyian idea, the ideas of Vladimir
Vernadsky, of the planet as a “noëtic planet” — the noösphere —
shaped by the creative powers of man?  How can we initiate that
noëtic age of man through these types of great projects which are
typified by the One Belt, One Road initiative out of China, but
which we must now initiate here in the United States, in the wake
of this {horrible} devastation, wrought by Hurricane Harvey.
So, thank you so much Brian for joining us here today.  I’m
glad that you could join us from on the ground there in Houston,
and give us this very visceral picture  of what’s happening, but
also what must be done.  And I’d like to ask all of our viewers
to take this as your call to action, as was said in the statement
on the LaRouche PAC website:  “No more Houstons.”  We must now
initiate this revolution in U.S. economic policy, we cannot watch
and wait for the next Harvey to happen, but we must act now.
“There is no alternative.”
I’d like to invite people to tune in to the broadcast of the
Manhattan Town Hall meeting tomorrow, where Brian Lantz will also
be the featured guest, and it will be the opportunity for some
dialogue with him if you’re there in person in New York City.
And otherwise, please stay tuned to larouchepac.com, as we
issue marching orders over the coming days and weeks.
So thank you one more time, Brian for joining us.  And we
give our condolences to the family of Kesha Rogers, who lost her
father and her stepmother, tragically, in the floods there in
Houston, in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, and we dedicate our
future mission to the memory of not only her father, but also all
who have been lost in these preventable manmade, natural
disasters.
Thank you for joining us and please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.




Del II af MANHATTAN-MØDE, 26. aug.:
»Bring USA ind i det Nye Paradigme, Nu!«
Spørgsmål til Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Jeg talte med nogle mennesker i Europa i de seneste par dage i forskellige lande, og de siger alle: »Jeres politik vinder. Det kommer. I ved, I var en meget vigtig indflydelse. Dette er jeres politik.« Så folk, der har kendt os længe, ved dette, og derfor skal I blot sikre jer, at mange folk kender til dette alternativ, for når folk først ved, at der er et helt andet system, begynder de at tænke på en helt anden måde, og de bliver vrede over, at man fortæller dem løgne, eller at sandheden holdes tilbage fra dem. I øjeblikket er det væsentlige, at være overbevist om, at, når folk først kender til dette, så forandrer de sig. Jeg mener, vi har et fantastisk moment, for det eneste, der behøves, er, at præsident Trump annoncerer noget stort, som Roosevelt gjorde med New Deal. Jeg ville ikke forsværge, at Trump ikke kan gøre det. Jeg mener, at Trump har karakteren til det, han har temperamentet til at overraske sine modstandere, og jeg mener, at vi skal skabe betingelserne i landet, der kan tilskynde ham til at gøre dette. Vi må øge presset på befolkningen for, at Trump skal satse på et overordnet design for USA, som er større end presset fra Wall Street på ham, for at blive inde i kassen. De ønsker at inddæmme ham. De truer ham; hvis han ikke kapitulerer, så vil de dræbe ham eller impeache ham.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Bring USA ind i det Nye Paradigme, Nu!
Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Jeg er meget glad for at tale for jer, for dette giver mig lejlighed til understrege for mit eget perspektiv, hvorfor jeg mener, at dette er det mest dramatiske øjeblik i historien, i vores levetid. Hvis dette går den rigtige vej, kunne vi være i et fuldstændig nyt paradigme, i en ny form for relationer mellem nationer på meget kort tid. Og, hvis det går den forkerte vej, ville vi meget hurtigt være tilbage i en kurs for konfrontation med Rusland og Kina, som vi havde med den tidligere administration. Og, i betragtning af alle krisepunkterne og situationens drama, kunne det føre til Tredje Verdenskrig og civilisationens udslettelse.

Så imellem disse to muligheder kunne spændingen ikke være større, og det sted, hvor denne kamp udkæmpes, er selvfølgelig USA.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




At bevæge verden i en fuldstændig anden retning.
Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Jeg har flere gange understreget det faktum, at den kinesiske model er meget nærmere ved det oprindelige amerikanske økonomiske system, end folk forestiller sig. Alle Kinas banksystemer er faktisk meget mere ligesom banksystemet efter Hamiltons principper, eller man kunne også sige, ligesom Friedrich Lists rammepolitik; Friedrich List, den tyske økonom, der i øvrigt er den mest berømte økonom i Kina i dag.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Gå fremad for en fælles fremtid for hele menneskeheden.
LaRouche PAC Fireside Chat, 24. august, 2017

Helga Zepp-LaRouche talte om den særdeles dystre og farlige situation i landet; det faktum, at kupoperationen er i højeste gear for at inddæmme præsident Trump til at gøre præcis det modsatte af, hvad han havde lovet (dette vil vi uddybe nærmere under den efterfølgende diskussion), og af hvilken grund han naturligvis vandt valget, nemlig, at genrejse økonomien, og specifikt at begynde med at genindføre Glass-Steagall, og dernæst at standse de forskellige krige; kort sagt, at gøre en ende på den britiske imperiepolitik.

Vært Lynne Speed: God aften. Jeg er Lynne Speed og vil være aftenens mødeleder. Det er torsdag, 24. august, 2017. Jeg vil gerne indlede aftenens telefonkonference med at citere en diskussion, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche havde i går med kolleger, og som blev yderligere understreget i deres diskussion med kolleger i dag.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche talte om den særdeles dystre og farlige situation i landet; det faktum, at kupoperationen er i højeste gear for at inddæmme præsident Trump til at gøre præcis det modsatte af, hvad han havde lovet (dette vil vi uddybe nærmere under den efterfølgende diskussion), og af hvilken grund han naturligvis vandt valget, nemlig, at genrejse økonomien, og specifikt at begynde med at genindføre Glass-Steagall, og dernæst at standse de forskellige krige; kort sagt, at gøre en ende på den britiske imperiepolitik.

Denne situation vil først og fremmest kræve vores energiske aktivitet. Og, som Helga udtrykte det, så er det afgørende spørgsmål fortsat at erstatte det gamle paradigme med det nye paradigme for udvikling og fred. Husk, at Donald Trumps valgsejr den 6. november, 2016, ikke var et nationalt spørgsmål, men derimod et internationalt spørgsmål af stor og historisk betydning. Man må se på nutidens spørgsmål ud fra menneskehedens lange, historiske bue. Faren for et Maidan II i USA er i slægt med faren i USA og Europa på Weimar-republikkens tid. Præsident Franklin Roosevelt fik USA ud af depressionen med sin New Deal, men Europa sank ned, og vi så fremkomsten af fascismen. Folk må lære af historien.

Lyndon LaRouche tilføjede følgende; han udstedte en opfordring til handling og sagde: »Jeg er dybt bekymret over den situation, vi her diskuterer. Men pointen er, at vi må påtage os ansvaret for at bakke det op, vi har talt om, og som mine medarbejdere gør. Vi må vinde dette her. USA’s fremtidige eksistens afhænger af, at vi gør vores job. Det drejer sig ikke om at komme med forslag, men om at vinde en sejr over de ting, der er i færd med at ødelægge USA og forhindre, at det udfører sin mission. Og held og lykke til os alle!«

Så dette var aftenens indledning. Vores emne her i aften er »at tænke på det niveau, der kræves for at vinde«, og vores gæst i aften er Will Wertz. Mange, der er med os i aftenens telefonkonference, er bekendt med hans arbejde. For to uger siden gav han en fremragende præsentation på Manhattan Town Meeting. (https://larouchepac.com/20170805/manhattan-town-hall-event-will-wertz)

Han har ligeledes talt på LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcasts og har givet en dybtgående fremlæggelse af briternes forræderiske rolle i deres forsøg på at underminere præsidentskabet og USA’s Forfatning. (https://larouchepac.com/20170818/charlottesville-was-staged-event

og https://larouchepac.com/20170811/larouchepac-friday-webcast-will-wertz).

Jeg vil stoppe her, og hvis du er på, Will, så fortsæt herfra, og når du er færdig, vil vi fortsætte med spørgsmål og svar.

Will Wertz: Tak, Lynne. Jeg mener, at vi må se på dette historiske øjeblik sådan, som den tyske digter, skuespilforfatter og historiker, Friedrich Schiller, så på perioden med Den franske Revolution. Han skrev et kort digt med to linjer kort tid efter Den franske Revolution, med titlen, »Øjeblikket«; og det lyder som følger: »Århundredet har affødt et stort øjeblik. Men dette store øjeblik har fundet et lille folk.« Og det er netop den udfordring, der ligger foran os på dette historiske tidspunkt: at overvinde en småtskåren tankegang og ikke lade sig opsluge af infantile besættelser, for nu at udtrykke det således. Vi er i en situation, hvor vi har potentialet til at gå fremad for en fælles skæbne for hele menneskeheden. Valget af præsident Trump, især i visse afgørende områder, repræsenterer et potentiale for, at USA kan tilslutte sig denne storslåede strategi for menneskeheden. Og som Lynne Speed netop sagde, så er der især to områder, der er afgørende. For det første, så afviste han hele politikken med regimeskifte, som vi har været involveret i, med evindelige krige, hen over de seneste par årtier, især under George W. Bush og dernæst under præsident Obama. Han afviste krigen i Irak, han kritiserede stærkt indsatsen i Libyen, der resulterede i mordet på præsident Gaddafi; han har, om end langsomt pga. angrebet på ham for hans angivelige ’aftalte spil’ med Rusland, satset på at arbejde sammen med Rusland for at besejre ISIS og al-Nusra i Syrien. Dette er meget positive udviklinger og det er selvfølgelig lydhørt over for det, præsident Putin foreslog tilbage i september 2015 på FN’s Generalforsamling, og som er en forenet, international koalition for at bekæmpe terrorisme i lighed med den koalition, der voksede frem for at besejre nazisterne under Anden Verdenskrig.

Det andet område har han i det mindste givet udtryk for sin forpligtelse til i løbet af kampagnen og siden. Det er at gennemføre Glass-Steagall, der, som de fleste mennesker ved, ville adskille legitim bankaktivitet, der er involveret i investering i reel produktion, reelle samfundstjenesteydelser, fra spekulativ bankaktivitet af kasino-typen, der har ødelagt vores økonomi. Han har ligeledes, siden han blev valgt, holdt en række taler, hvor han har krævet en tilbagevenden til det Amerikanske Økonomiske System, og han har i denne sammenhæng citeret Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay og Abraham Lincoln, blandt andre. Selv her i den seneste situation i Charlottesville kom han med en udtalelse, der sagde, at måden, hvorpå de menneskelige relationer, inklusive relationerne mellem racerne, kan forbedres i dette land, er en reel forhøjelse af levestandarden for alle mennesker i landet, og det forudsætter skabelsen af produktiv beskæftigelse til en højere løn, så folk ret faktisk har råd til at forsørge en familie og har råd til at forpligte sig til en lysere fremtid for den næste generation, der, når alt kommer til alt, er én af de afgørende ting i ethvert menneskes liv; nemlig gennem sit eget liv at bidrage til at forbedre vilkårene for ens børns liv, eller, hvis man ikke selv har børn, for alle børn, for de efterlevende. Dette er altså de to områder, der virkelig er afgørende.

Med hele operationen, der går ud på at udføre et kup imod præsident Trump, har han ikke fuldt ud handlet på disse spørgsmål, og har i visse områder faktisk handlet i modstrid med dette løfte. Det var tilfældet, da han, uden nogen beviser for, at Syrien rent faktisk var engageret i brugen af kemiske våben, som det blev påstået, bombede den syrisk luftbase. Den nylige tale, han holdt om Afghanistan, har tilknyttede farer, fordi der ikke findes en militær løsning i sig selv i Afghanistan, og vi har allerede været der i seksten år uden de store resultater; ja, faktisk er én ting, man har opnået i Afghanistan, at verden er blevet oversvømmet med heroin fra opiumsafgrøden i dette land.

På hjemmefronten er der blevet skabt mange jobs gennem de forholdsregler, han hidtil har truffet, inklusive ikke at overholde frihandelsaftalerne, og andre lignende bestræbelser for at bringe jobs tilbage til USA, i modsætning til at outsource dem under disse frihandelsaftaler, men generelt er situationen ikke forbedret. For at gøre dette må vi vedtage Glass-Steagall, og vi må vedtage Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love, der omfatter Glass-Steagall; som omfatter at udstede statskredit gennem en (statslig) Nationalbank, hvor vægten ligger på kapitalintensive former for varefremstilling, og det omfatter, at vi forpligter os til fremtiden ved at udvikle fusionskraft og ved at genoplive rumprogrammet (der, der i LaRouches Fire Love kaldes en videnskabsdrevet økonomi, -red.). Det er, hvad der er nødvendigt lige nu, og Helga og Lyndon LaRouche har krævet, at vi lancerer en hasteaktion i dette land for at sikre, at disse politikker rent faktisk nu bliver implementeret, for man er i færd med at inddæmme præsident Trump. Han er ganske bestemt kampklar over for sine fjender, men han bliver i stigende grad inddæmmet. Vi har vilkår i landet, som kineserne sammenligner med Kulturrevolutionen under Mao Zedong med hensyn til det tyranni, der etableres af nyhedsmedierne og af de tidligere efterretningsagenter som Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Mueller og hans stilling som særlig anklager, og af Demokrater og også modstandere af præsident Trump i det Republikanske Parti. Vi har betingelser som under McCarthy-perioden, der er i færd med at blive skabt i landet, og som er ekstraordinært farligt, og det forhindrer den form for samarbejde, der kræves, med især russerne og kineserne.

Vi har længe været fortalere for, at USA tilslutter sig BRIKS-nationerne, dvs., Brasilien, Rusland, Indien, Kina og Sydafrika, i forbindelse med det, der nu er blevet kendt som Kinas politik for Ét Bælte, én Vej, eller Silkevejen, eller det, vi har kaldt Verdenslandbroen, og som blev initieret af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche for årtier siden, og som kineserne har vedtaget. Vi må arbejde med på dette projekt, som er et projekt for fred, der er baseret på økonomisk udvikling. Vi ser, at der er mulighed for succes gennem de fremskridt, der nu gøres i Syrien som resultat af det faktum, at USA, efter præsident Trumps møde med præsident Putin, har aftalt at etablere en deeskaleringszone i det sydvestlige Syrien. Og vi har nu en situation, hvor der ganske vist ikke er direkte, fælles militæraktioner mellem USA og Rusland imod ISIS og al-Nusra, men ikke desto mindre, så, som den russiske forsvarsminister netop har udtalt, er borgerkrigen i Syrien de facto forbi. Og vi har nu en meget succesfuld indsats for at udslette ISIS, ikke alene i Irak, men også i Syrien.

Dette er altså et eksempel på, hvad der kan gøres. Tager vi andre områder i verden, Nordkorea, så kunne man få samarbejde mellem Kina, Rusland, Japan og Sydkorea for at løse denne situation, men man må aftale at gøre det, russerne og kineserne har krævet, og som tyskerne faktisk også har været fortalere for, og som er en dobbelt indefrysning, hvor nordkoreanerne indvilger i ikke at afholde flere missiltests, ikke flere atomraket-tests, og USA og Sydkorea indvilger i ikke at afholde flere militærøvelser, som i hvert fald før i tiden omfattede at fjerne den nordkoreanske regering. Dette er de tiltag, man må gennemføre. På samme måde i Afghanistan; se på situationen dér. I stedet for, at USA går sammen med NATO efter seksten års nederlag, så bør man i stedet gå i samarbejde med Rusland, Kina, Indien, Pakistan og Iran for at afgøre krisen i Afghanistan. Det er der en fremtrædende mulighed for at gøre, men det kræver, at man faktisk træffer beslutningen om at gøre det. Lignende kriser, som den i Ukraine, kan løses på samme måde.

Dette repræsenterer altså et Nyt Paradigme for tankegang, hvilket er, hvad Helga Zepp-LaRouche har refereret til. Man har det gamle paradigme, der bygger på geopolitik, bygger på frihandelsøkonomi og en ganske bestemt form for selviskhed. Og så er der det Nye Paradigme, der bygger på det, kineserne kalder en »win-win«-fremgangsmåde. Dette er ikke kun en kinesisk opfindelse; det er faktisk den måde, hvorpå man fik en afslutning på Trediveårskrigen i Europa. Dette var en religionskrig mellem katolikker og protestanter, der lagde Europa øde i 30 år. Den blev afsluttet i den Westfalske Fredstraktat, i hvilken det princip, der afgjorde fredsprocessen, var, at man, når man handler, tager den andens fordel i betragtning. Det er den form for fremgangsmåde, vi må have. Det er en win-win-strategi.

På en vis måde har vi det fænomen, at størstedelen af resten af verden har vedtaget princippet fra den Westfalske Fredstraktat, og som vil sige, at man har en udenrigspolitik, der bygger på den andens fordel, og ikke på ens egen, snævert definerede egeninteresse. Vi har resten af verden, der er forpligtet over for en politik for fred og udvikling, hvilket var den politik, som nu afdøde Pave Poul VI (1963-1978) var fortaler for, i en encyklika (’pavebrev’) med titlen Populorum Progressio, og som grundlæggende set sagde, at det nye navn for fred er økonomisk udvikling. Det er det nye paradigme, og hvis vi ikke gennemfører dette nye paradigme nu, og kæmper for det nu – det er et globalt paradigme, men det må gennemføres her i USA i form af LaRouches Fire Love – men det må være en del af en global strategi for at opnå succes. Det er, hvad vi må mobilisere det amerikanske folk for, for at de forstår, at enten, så gør vi dette, eller også står vi over for en fare for, at situationen vil udvikle sig ude af kontrol; faren for totalt kaos i USA, og fjernelsen af en behørigt valgt præsident fra sit embede, af politiske årsager, ja faktisk af en udenlandsk regering, Det britiske Imperium. Og dét ville betyde faren for atomkrig.

Det er grunden til, at Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har sagt, at dette er en dyster situation, der kræver nødhandling. Og her vil jeg slutte, og vi vil sige mere om det i besvarelse af jeres spørgsmål.

Speed: Fint. Mange tak. Vi går nu over til spørgsmål; folk trykker stjerne 6 for at komme i køen, og mens folk tænker over deres spørgsmål, mener jeg, at det, Will sagde, giver stof til eftertanke; vi må tænke ’ud over kassen’; det er det afgørende netop nu.

Herefter følger spørgsmål og svar i engelsk udskrift.  Telefonkonferencen kan høres her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_4ZjBMcgXk

SPEED: Okay, great. Thanks very much, Will. We will be moving to
the question portion of this.  People hit star 6 to the queue and
while people are thinking of their questions, and I think what
Will said gives a lot of food for thought, we have to think
outside of the box; this is the key thing right now.
We have two important national meetings that are coming up
which will emanate out of Manhattan, but which are really
national and international  meetings to address precisely the
crises we have just been identifying. The first will be this
Saturday and it’s a meeting, “Revive Hamilton’s American System
and the Presidency through LaRouche’s Four Laws.” That meeting
will be keynoted by Helga LaRouche via video on Google Hangouts.
She’ll be joined by Hal Cooper; she’ll be joined by others who
are leading construction managers and engineers in the area, as
well as by Jason Ross from the LaRouche Science Team. Everyone
should tune in for that. And then, in two weeks, we will be
hosting a very special meeting on September 9th, which is of
course the weekend of 9/11, and since we first conceptualized
this meeting the situation has changed rather dramatically. This
is the weekend where it would be very appropriate and lawful to
mobilize people to crush the British Empire by implementing
LaRouche’s Four Laws, and to implement the Four Laws by crushing
the British Empire, so it’s a self-reflexive idea. You can’t do
one without the other. We need everyone who is on the phone this
evening and those who will be listening subsequently to decide in
what way you can best expand the reach of particularly the
Saturday, September 9th webcast, that will be a live webcast.
Once again we will be joined and keynoted by Helga LaRouche, I
believe. Will Wertz, who is with us tonight, will be at that
meeting, and we will also have William Binney from the VIPS
organization and Raymond McGovern from the VIPS organization. Let
me correct that, I don’t know if Helga will be on that, but we’ll
have Will Wertz and the other two that I mentioned. We want to
have standing room only for the event, so any of you who can come
into New York at that time should do that, but we also want to
look into holding a series of satellite meetings around the
country where we could have possibly tens of thousands of people
watching the meeting in real time. And in this way we can create
a kind of surprise effect. Between now and then one of the ways
we could build this is through the gathering of the signatures on
our petition demanding that Trump investigate the charges of the
VIPS, that Russia-gate was not a hack, it was a hoax and to get
many people to subscribe to our publications. So I think this a
very appropriate period and opportunity right now to in fact use
the crisis to wake people up, shake people up and many people are
just disgusted with what is otherwise going on. They are hungry
for solutions and this is certainly what we are seeing in a lot
of our organizing in the field.
We are going to go to the questions that are lined up. Hit
Star 6 to get in the queue. Go ahead, can you hear me?

Q 1: This is Sarah from Indiana.  And I just wanted to make
a comment, but I think it’s very important in light of what the
gentleman was talking [about], is that China has, within three
years raised up 700 million people out of poverty in only 3
years.  There’s a new article floating on the internet that in
the last 15 years, the United States has increased terrorism by
6500%; so kind of a little bit of a difference there.  The fact
that 700 million is over twice the population of the United
States.  So, it is so vital for people to realize that within
three years the United States could be totally out of deficit, if
people choose it.

WERTZ:  Well, I think the other thing to look at is that
China, under Mao Zedong and the Cultural Revolution, was a
horrendous, tyrannical society in which the population was very
much oppressed; particularly intellectuals.  People who actually
thought, and not just the politically correct views of Chairman
Mao and his Little Red Book.  Now what you have is a situation
where, not only — as you point out — over 700 million people
have been lifted out of poverty, but China is playing a very
positive role on a global scale, if you look at what they’re
doing.  They’re a member of the BRICS, which I mentioned earlier,
which is Brazil, Russia, India, China, and the Union of South
Africa; a very unique organization because it represents a wide
range of countries in the world.  They’re committed to a policy
of economic development.  Now the BRICS will have, I think it’s
its 9th annual summit in China in early September; this will be
the 3rd to the 5th of September.  The title of the conference is
“Stronger Partnership for a Brighter Future”.  Of course the
Chinese have invited the United States to join this effort, which
is involved with the One Belt, One Road — or the Silk Road —
perspective.  Obama, of course, refused.  Obama put massive
pressure on other countries, including Japan, Australia, South
Korea, not to work with China in terms of the major development
bank which they set up.  On the other hand, after his meeting
with President Xi, President Trump did send a delegation to the
One Belt, One Road summit which occurred in Beijing earlier this
year.  So, the point here is that you’ve got — and this One
Belt, One Road effort now includes something like 69 countries;
and it’s a conception of nations throughout the world working
together to lift all of their populations out of poverty, and
also to counter the tendency under conditions of poverty for
people to be pitted against each other for racial, religious,
ethnic, tribal reasons.  Not really good reasons, but to be
manipulated against each other under conditions of poverty.
So this, in a certain sense, is a model which we should
absolutely join at this point; and see it along with the
implementation of LaRouche’s Four Laws in the United States as
the means of actually accomplishing rates of growth in the range
of 7%-8% per year, as they have achieved in China previously.
That’s the kind of thing that we have as a potential which we
have to move with right now.  Again, I stress, this is urgent;
it’s not something to be done in the distant future.  It’s urgent
because it will also be a tremendous flank on the current effort
to unseat the duly-elected President of the United States.  If he
moves with that, that will mobilize the entire population — the
forgotten men and women of this country that he references, as
did Franklin Roosevelt.  It’s the way to actually unite the
country, as he said after Charlottesville.  It’s also something
which Andy Young, who worked with Martin Luther King, emphasized
this past Sunday.  He said the biggest problem in the country is
poverty, and that that’s what you have to focus on, as opposed to
turning everything into a race issue.

SPEED:  OK, very good.  If you would like to ask a question,
hit star 6.  If you would like to get in the queue and ask a
question, you have to call in from a line in which your number ID
is registered.  We do not take anonymous calls, and there’s one
caller in here now with an anonymous number, so maybe you could
hang up and call back in on a line that can be seen; and then we
can call on you.  So, it’s star 6 to get into the queue, and
we’ll go to the next question.  Go ahead.

Q 2:  Hi, this is Sherry in New York.  I’m very much aware
of what’s been going on.  I have called into the White House
probably about three times in the last six days.  One young woman
with whom I spoke yesterday had never heard about the program of
what’s been going on against Trump.  What’s wrong with the
Congress; I think they all need Xanax, which is an anti-anxiety
drug.  It’s a joke, I don’t mean it seriously.

SPEED:  Sherry, we have a lot of people in the queue, so I’m
going to ask you and everyone else to be succinct and get to your
question.

Q 2 [cont’d]:  Again, it is the problem that there is such a
barrage against the President.  The fact that he can function at
all is amazing.  Outside of our street demonstrations and calling
the White House with encouraging words, I don’t know what else to
do.

WERTZ:  Well, first on the anti-depression drugs.  I know
it’s a joke, but really what’s required is creativity.  And an
actual passion for the good, which is traditionally been
identified with love for humanity, love for the truth.  That
which goes to the issue of the Treaty of Westphalia again; that
you act to the benefit of others.  But the problem is, we’ve got
a situation where the American people have to realize that they
also have to think out of the box in terms of how they’ve been
conditioned.  I want to give you just one example, which I find
very useful.  It’s the battle of Cannae, which occurred in
2016BC.  This was in Italy, and it was fought between the Romans
and the Carthaginians.  The Carthaginians were led by Hannibal, a
Carthaginian general.  I’m citing this because it’s a good
example; it’s a classical military example.  Of course we’re not
talking about a military implementation in terms of our action,
but we’re talking about a state of mind.  What he did was, he
encircled the Roman troops.  The Roman troops amounted to 85,000
total; Hannibal’s forces were much less — 56,000.  They had
their backs to a river and the Romans were massing for a frontal
assault on Hannibal’s forces.  What he did was, he created like a
V, and he drew the Romans into a frontal assault, just marching
straight into this V.  They actually became entrapped, and they
were so densely packed that they couldn’t even use their own
weapons.  Then what he did was, he used his cavalry to encircle
the Roman forces and to strike them from the rear.  It’s an
enveloping flanking operation.  The Romans were completely
devastated; Hannibal lost less than 6000 troops, and the Romans
— out of 85,000 — lost over 70,000 dead or captured.
What I’m getting at here is an encircling action; I’m
getting at getting outside of the box.  You’ve got to actually
encircle the enemy from the standpoint of the mind, the
standpoint of being creative.  That’s why there are really two
initiatives which we’ve been engaged in.  One is the petition
against the intervention in the United States by the British
Empire to overthrow a duly-elected US President.  Also, to get
President Trump to move on the evidence presented by the VIPS —
the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity — that it
wasn’t a Russian hacking; that it was a leak.  The whole thing is
just a big lie, that’s all this is.  Just like Adolf Hitler, a
big lie; that’s what Mr. Binney said.

Q 2 [cont’d]:  If you’re going to lie, make it a big one.

WERTZ:  Right.  And even Scott Ritter, the weapons inspector
for Iraq said that having read this report, this borders on
sedition against a duly-elected President of the United States.
Now, that’s one initiative.  The second initiative is to move to
get President Trump to realize that he has got to encircle the
enemy and hit them from the rear.  The best way to do that is to
go with LaRouche’s Four Laws and to join the Silk Road; that’s
the policy that he needs to move on.  So, that’s the use of
creativity, and you don’t get boxed in, you don’t operate on the
basis of the options which you think you’re presented with; which
are not good options.  They lead to self-destruction.  So, you
look for the flanking operation.  And these are the two flanking
operations which Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have identified.

Q 2 [cont’d]:  That’s exactly the point I made when I called
the White House.  I think I call them two or three times a week.
I find that the number I use, instead of the 1111, I call the
1414; that’s 202 456-1414.  I always get in on that line.  They
ask me if I want the comment line; I say yes, and I get heard.

SPEED:  OK, that’s good information, Sherry.  We’re going to
go on, because we have a number of other callers, and we want to
get to a lot of people.  It’s star 6 to get into the queue.  One
question I would certainly have for everyone is, what is
happening on the petitioning?  That’s a major flank we had
actually outlined last week.  We got, while we were on the phone
and immediately subsequent to the conference call, we added about
50 signatures.  It turned out that a number of the people who
were on the call had not yet signed, and I don’t know if that is
still the case.  I see some new people on, so if you have not
signed, go to the LaRouche PAC website.  It is the approximately
third item down; “President Trump: Investigate British Subversion
of the US” and click on that and sign the petition.  Also, once
you sign it, you should immediately send it out to others to sign
it.  I believe we’re at about 1381 signatures as of right now, so
it would be good if even during this phone call we can get over
1500.  And then build from that.  I think we certainly should
take as a goal over the period between now and the weekend, of
trying once again to get to 2500 as a basic plateau.  So, people
should definitely sign on to that.  OK, so we are going to go to
the next caller right now.

Q 3:  Hi, this is Dallas in Florida.  Several things.  On
this petition, how many signatures are we looking for on the
petition?

SPEED:  I don’t think we set a certain number, because we
don’t know what it will require to get Trump to move.  He might
move if we have, certainly I would say a plateau of 5-10,000
signatures.  We should be able to do much better than that, but I
think the idea would be to get to some sort of plateau like that
as rapidly as possible and see if we can get some motion, even
before the activities that we have that I mentioned a little bit
earlier that we have coming up on the weekend of September 11th;
that’s the September 9th conference.

Q 3 [cont’d]:  OK, I’d like to suggest, what I do is I put
something up on Facebook, and I put something up on twitter, and
something on Tumblr, and then something on LinkedIn, and then
I’ll put the links let’s say on twitter.  Then, there’s a website
called the 40billion.com; and they’ll get your twitter out to 2.5
million for $20 for a day.  So, that’s an inexpensive way to get
that out there, get the tweets.  I’m not real effective but I’m
up to like 7000 hits on my tweets for the last month.

SPEED:  That’s great.  Have you sent the petition out yet?

Q 3 [cont’d]:  Yeah, I put it on my Facebook, but I didn’t
cross link it.  See, you know, internet kinda goes on about where
you got it over here and over here and over here.  It rises up in
the hits categories, you know?  The search engines.

SPEED:  OK.  The tweet thing sounds great, where you’re
saying you can get it to an additional 20,000.

Q 3 [cont’d]:  No, 2.5 million for $20!

SPEED:  2.5 million, OK!  Sounds great.  You should add to
that, notify people now that they should tune in live on
September 9th, where the authors of the VIPS memo, the leaders
who submitted the report to the President, will be directly
addressing a crowd in New York.  We should see if we can create
the kind of shock effect surprise that I was describing a few
minutes ago; get something like 50,000 viewers all at one time.
Cause it to go viral instantly, and cause all of the people that
are tuning in to get more people to get involved.  So, we will
send out in the follow-up, a link to how people can tune in to
the webcast and so on; and let’s just really build that over the
next couple of weeks and organize like Hell between now and then.

Q 3 [cont’d]:  OK, that’d be good. Now one observation here,
one real quick successful action is, I got friends in Panama, and
there’s a Colonel Prado[ph] down there in Colombia that took out
that 100,000-strong rebel army down there; they call it the
Colombian Miracle.  So, thinking out of the box, you might call
Colonel Prado in, and see what he did down there and solve some
things.
With the British, this is very good.  The main thing that’s
caused me concern in the last 48 hours is this idea that it’s a
civil war that we’re having, and they’re promoting that.  I think
it’s the Trojan Horse.  Trump warned us about having a Trojan
Horse with these immigrants coming in, and I think that’s really
what it is.  We don’t have a civil war, but we have a
Soros-funded mercenary army out there fighting with their
baseball bats and whatnot.  The situation, they upped the ante in
the last 24 hours by saying they’re bringing in the UN, might
come in to protect the anti-fa and the Black Lives Matter as a
matter of human rights in case we got to having an armed conflict
with them, and it looks like they’re going to lose.  So, that’s a
potential flare-up that needs to be squelched, and see what kind
of British influence is influencing the UN, when we’re talking
about getting the British influence out.  Start squelching them
so we don’t have that possibility of a UN invasion.

WERTZ:  I wouldn’t, I don’t think it occurs on that level.
The level on which you’ve got to look at this is how this entire
operation against President Trump started.  It was started by
MI-6, which is the British equivalent of the CIA.  A so-called
“former” MI-6 agent, Christopher Steele, was paid to put together
a dossier of unverified material which he then circulated very
widely to Obama’s intelligence agency stooges like Brennan and
Comey and Clapper.  This is the roadmap on which they’re
operating; so this is straight British intelligence MI-6.  The
second indication of this is something called the Government
Communication Headquarters, which is a pretty dull name for what
is the British equivalent of the NSA.  They were the ones who,
according to the published accounts — and the published accounts
may not be completely true, but what the published accounts say
is that the head of the GCHQ went directly to Brennan.  In other
words, they don’t have to operate under the US Constitution, and
the restraints of the US Constitution surveilling Trump
associates, so they surveilled Trump associates all over the
world.  Then they go to Brennan, the head of the CIA, who’s not
supposed to operate domestically according to the charter; and he
puts together a six-intelligence agency taskforce to begin to
investigate Trump in the middle of the Presidential campaign.
There are various reports as to when this occurred, some say it
was in the Summer of 2016, which is the time of the Republican
convention; others say it was before that.  But the point is,
once Trump was a serious threat to win the nomination, the GCHQ
began to conduct what would be illegal surveillance in the United
States against Trump and his associates.  This is all done in
collaboration with Obama and with Comey and with Clapper, and
with Brennan in particular.  And of course, we’ve gotten
Wikileaks that Brennan put together a cyber warfare unit in the
CIA of over 5000 employees; it rivals the NSA.
So, this is what we’re talking about.  And you see how
prominent Clapper and Brennan — even in the last few days — in
going after President Trump.  So the point is, you’ve got a
Clinton-Obama-Comey-Brennan-Clapper operation, which is in fact,
funded by Soros.  Soros, his pedigree is British; that’s what his
pedigree is.  So, if you go after this and investigate this, then
you will upset the entire coup plot.  But then combine that —
it’s got to be combined with the economic program.  So, that’s
the way we have to do it.  The other stuff becomes a lower-level
fixation which gets you not to think strategically.  That’s what
you’ve got to do.  You’ve got to clear your mind so you can think
strategically and creatively in terms of who the enemy is, and
how to defeat the enemy.  What we’ve defined is two initiatives
which are critical to defeating the enemy right now; and we’ve
got to get President Trump to move on these as quickly as
possible.

Q 3 [cont’d]:  What about Obama giving the internet to the
UN?

WERTZ:  Listen, the UN has got all sorts of problems; but
frankly, it’s not the primary problem in the world.  It’s
basically an assembly of nations; it’s as good as it’s made.
There are good things that are done at the UN when people
collaborate.  When they don’t collaborate, and it’s used for
geopolitical purposes, including by the British, then it’s a
mess.  For instance, the UN has backed all of the initiatives
that have been taken — I mean, look at Syria.  You’ve got Turkey
and Iran working together with the Russians.  A Sunni country, a
predominantly Shi’a country, and they’re working with the
Russians to defeat terrorism and to restore stability and
sovereignty to Syria.  That’s a positive development which has
been backed by the UN Security Council.  The UN as a whole in a
number of cases has actually positively responded to the Chinese
Silk Road, or One Belt, One Road Initiative.  So, it’s really a
question of, do the countries who are members of the UN change
the way in which they function so they collaborate to solve
problems and create a prosperous future for all of mankind?
That’s the real issue.  It has nothing to do with the UN per se
as an institution; it’s as good or as bad as its members make it.
But you have to look beyond the UN to the question of the
British; and you look at it through the whole history.  We’re
talking about two systems, and it goes back before the British.
For instance, the German poet Friedrich Schiller, who I
mentioned earlier, he wrote a piece called “On Solon and
Lycurgus”.  Solon was the head of Athens; Lycurgus was the head
of Sparta.  They had two completely different systems.  Under
Solon, as Schiller wrote, he had respect for human nature and
never sacrificed the people to the state.  Never the ends to the
means; rather he let the state serve the people, and all paths
were open to genius.  And the basic principle was, the progress
of the mind should be the purpose of the state.  So, that’s
[inaud; 53:07], that’s like what our country was designed to be;
it hasn’t always been that, but that’s what we would want it to
be.  That’s what you would want other nations to be like that.
Lycurgus, on the other hand, the way Schiller characterizes it is
as follows:  The laws were iron chains which pulled down the
mind.  All industry was barred; all science neglected.  His state
could only persist under one condition — that the mind of the
people stagnates.  If you look at it, there’s another Greek
mythology.  Zeus on the one hand, was a tyrannical, Olympic
so-called “god”.  He wanted to suppress mankind; he was
threatened by the idea that mankind might actually develop
technology, develop science, educate themselves, learn languages
and so forth.  Prometheus gave man fire; that is, technology.  He
also gave him a Promethean method of thinking, which is the
creative method of thinking.  So, you have two systems.  This is,
in a certain sense, like when Helga LaRouche talks about the New
Paradigm, she’s talking about the paradigm of Solon, the paradigm
of Prometheus; versus the imperial policy of depressing the
mental creative capacity of the population in order to maintain
political control.  The British are like the Roman Empire, like
the Venetian Empire; the British Empire has a policy of reducing
the world’s population and keeping people dumb in order to
politically control them.

Q 3 [cont’d]:  Exactly right.

SPEED:  OK, great.  We’re going to go on to the next
question here.  Once again, hit star 6 to get into the queue.
Just say your first name and what state you’re calling in from.

Q 4:  Hello, this is Wally in Denver.  I was reading on the
computer about a problem.  The Ukrainian government was
complaining that Russia was impinging on its sovereignty by
constructing a road to Crimea.  Do you have any information about
that?

WERTZ:  Yeah, sure.  Here’s the, the picture is just
straightforward.  Obama put Nazis in power in Kiev with the
backing of the British and many of the members of the European
Union.  It’s basically part of a strategy to move eastward to the
borders of Russia.  When the Soviet Union collapsed, it was
agreed upon between George HW Bush and Gorbachev and other
participants, that NATO would not move eastward.  But that’s
precisely what they’ve done, which is part of a geopolitical
strategy.  So, they’re basically moving to try to encircle
Russia, and Ukraine was a critical aspect of that policy.  So
what they did was, they backed Nazi groups in Ukraine to take
power.  Now you had the duly-elected President — Yanukovych —
in Ukraine; and under the Constitution of Ukraine, a President
cannot be removed from office unless he’s impeached.  They never
impeached him; they never brought impeachment.  What they did
was, the thugs in the street who were members of what is called
the Right Sector, and these guys trace themselves back to an
actual Nazi who worked with Hitler, named Stepan Bandera.  During
World War II, his organization was involved in killing tens of
thousands of Poles and Jews, working with Hitler.  That’s what
this group traces its background to.  The US knows that, because
after the war, people like Allen Dulles and MI-6 of Britain
brought Bandera and his top aide to London and the United States.
Because at that point, they wanted to use the Nazis against the
Soviet Union, particularly in Ukraine.  The Soviet Union fell,
but nonetheless, that’s the policy which they’ve continued to
this day.  So, they carried out a coup against the duly-elected
President, and among the things that they were going to do, is
outlaw the use of the Russian language as a second official
language in Ukraine.  So, the people of Crimea voted in a
referendum, called self-determination under the UN Charter, to
sever themselves from Ukraine where a coup d’état had been
carried out by Nazis, and to join Russia.  So, Russia
acknowledged that democratic vote, based on the principle of
self-determination in the face of a Nazi coup.  See, here you’ve
got people in the United States up in arms against Nazi KKK white
supremacists; but in fact, Obama put Nazis in power in Ukraine.
John McCain backed Nazis in power in Ukraine.  The political
establishment in Washington DC is backing Nazis in Ukraine; white
supremacists in Ukraine.  These people who support Nazis then get
upset about a staged incident in Charlottesville, which was
staged probably with provocateurs both among the Nazis and KKK,
and also within the anti-fa — the anti-fascist organization —
the guys with the black masks, black helmets, and black uniforms
who carry out violence in all of these events.
So, this thing was set up.  If you look at the people
involved on the Democratic Party side in Charlottesville, they’re
all former employees of the State Department, they’re all funded
by George Soros.  This is the mayor, Michael Signer; it is the
guy who took the video of the deranged guy who mowed the
protester and injured others — his name is Brennan Gilmore; and
another guy, Tom Periello.  They are all funded by, they all
worked with John Podesta’s Center for American Progress; which is
the center of the so-called Resist movement against Trump in the
United States.  And they were all there, along with McAuliffe,
who’s a longstanding supporter of the Clintons.  They basically
immediately used this to go after Trump; it was like you put two
chemicals together which you know will react with an explosion.
You don’t separate the demonstrators, and then you prepare to use
the incident — whether you planned the specific incident or not
— you use the incident to go after the President of the United
States.  These are the same guys who backed Nazis in Ukraine.
That’s the hypocritical irony of this entire operation.

SPEED:  OK, excellent.

Q 4 [cont’d]:  Then CNN wants to call it civil war, and
we’re calling that fake news; that it’s not civil war.

WERTZ:  Sure.  I mean, it’s like Syria.  It wasn’t a civil
war.  It was a deliberate policy on the part of Obama to carry
out regime change against countries which had nothing to do with
al-Qaeda.  Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda; Libya had
nothing to do with al-Qaeda, except to put them in prison.  Syria
had nothing to do with al-Qaeda.  Saudi Arabia did.  Britain did.
Because Saudi Arabia is just a satrap of the British Empire. But
the point is, that what happened in Syria was that they brought
in terrorists from all over the world — from Chechnya in Russia,
from Europe, from Tunisia, from Libya, and so forth — in a war
of aggression against a sovereign state which is a member of the
UN; and then they call it a civil war.  But this was Obama; this
was one of the great crimes of Obama.  This a guy who committed
extra-judicial murders against — among others — American
citizens after meetings that he held on Tuesdays every week with
Brennan in the Oval Office.  It would be like Caligula at the
Coliseum; he puts his thumb up or down; this guy is to be killed.
And that’s what they did.  So, this is what we’re talking about
here.  This is the real evil in this thing, is people like Obama.
As Lyndon LaRouche has always emphasized, Obama was trained by
his stepfather, who was involved in the genocide in Indonesia
back in the 1960s; that’s where he grew up, with that stepfather.
Obama’s a murderer and a supporter of Nazis.

SPEED:  OK, thank you.  We have quite a few more questions,
so I’m going to move on to the next questioner.

Q 5:  This is Greg from St. Louis.  Just wanted to make a
couple of points for the question out there.  One, obviously the
analysis of the regime change.  The same thing is happening
that’s attacking the Trump administration, is an attempt to have
a regime change, if you will.  We simply call it an
administration change.  So we know all the tools and all the
games that they play are related to that.  My real issue becomes
for me, is the psychosis of Donald Trump himself.  I mean, we’re
putting a lot of marbles in this guy’s basket, so to speak.  We
know he’s a wild card; we really didn’t know, but for me, it’s
important that we say what’s happening with him as well.  It’s
not like he’s not aware of the VIPS report; not like he’s not
aware of many of these things.  My question is, how do we really
get him to understand the need to push that VIPS report and get
that out there so that we can get at the crux of the Deep State
that’s attacking him, as well as pushing for this whole war
issue, not only within the United States, but across the world?

WERTZ:  Well, that’s — it’s not like there’s some
particular series of tactics that will do this.  What we’ve
talked about is two flanks in terms of what he needs to do.  In
terms of going with the VIPS, going after the British, and on the
other hand, going with LaRouche’s Four Laws and the Silk Road.
But what you’ve got to do is, you’ve got to reach a certain
threshold of activity in the country, including among those who
support President Trump; but you’ve also in the process got to
create a situation where it becomes much more difficult as the
truth gets out, for certain Democrats and certain Republicans who
ran against Trump from carrying out the kind of insanity that
they’re engaged in.  So, that’s the only way you can do this.
You have to mobilize people who support Trump to demand that he
take action on these, and that they will support him if he does
that.  And similarly, you’ve got to create an environment in
which these people like Clapper and Brennan and Comey or Mueller,
that they’re not actually — you’ve got to box them in.  That’s
why I raised this battle of Cannae in terms of encirclement.  The
VIPS boxes in Mueller, it boxes in Comey and Brennan and Clapper.
But you’ve also got to box in the Democrats; these people say
they’re for Glass-Steagall — many of them.  They say they’re for
working people, some of them; not all that many of them.
Certainly Clinton wasn’t too interested in working people.  But
the point is, that is the party of FDR, the party of Kennedy; or
it used to be.  So, you’ve got to really create the situation in
which you basically make it clear to them that if Trump takes the
initiative on this, that calls the bluff on these Democrats, who
are running around.  They say they’re for Glass-Steagall, and yet
they’re calling for the impeachment of a President who’s for
Glass-Steagall when Obama was absolutely opposed to
Glass-Steagall; as was Hillary Clinton.  And they know that.
So, they’re engaged in a certain kind of fraud, which needs
to be exposed by calling their bluff.  If they’re real human
beings — and you hope that they are on some level — then
they’ll respond.  So you’ve got to basically do both things by a
mobilization of the population.

Q 5 [cont’d]:  How do we box in Trump?  I understand boxing in
some of those people around him, but Trump himself?  His own
psychosis is, you’re not sure what you’re going to get out of
this guy at any given time, so you have to force the office of
the President to do what you want it to do.  So what is that that
has to box in Trump, so to speak?  I know we’ve talked about
boxing in all these other folks, but he’s going to be the head at
the head of the arrow; so what are we doing to box him in?

WERTZ:  We’re mobilizing in these two respects; which
includes “OK, you said you’re for Glass-Steagall.  You say that
the best way to actually improve human relations, but
specifically race relations in this country, is to create jobs.”
Look at the drug plague.  If you don’t have decent jobs, which we
used to have in urban areas.  Baltimore used to have
shipbuilding; we used to have steel building, steelworks in
Baltimore.  Now they’ve got a tourist harbor, and that’s it.  You
don’t have the high-paying jobs that you need, so that people
aren’t prey to drugs and sales of drugs and so forth, and to
gangs — which are related to drugs.  So, that’s what you’ve got
to actually get him to move on that, but in a certain sense, I
think you’ve just got to convince him that he’s combative, but
he’s not really being combative on the level that he needs to be.
He clearly thinks that he is under complete fire; and you can’t
deny that.  They called for his assassination.  I put together a
list for a webcast last Friday, of the calls for his
assassination, impeachment, or forced resignation, or the use of
the 25th Amendment against him. This started with the
{Spectator}, which is a British paper, started out saying “Will
Donald Trump be assassinated, impeached, or forced to resign?”
That was on January 21st.  You know the other cases:  Johnny
Depp, Madonna, Kathy Griffin.  You can go through the list.  So,
you know that this guy really feels that he is under siege.  So,
he is combative with his tweets and so forth, but the issue here
is, if you put this out on the table, if you get this spread
widely enough, and he sees that there is support for taking these
kinds of actions; and sees that this is an effective flanking
operation against those who would destroy this country, then
you’ve got a shot at actually getting him to move on it.  That’s
the only thing I can say.

SPEED:  Yeah, and if I could just add to that.  That is
precisely what the meeting we’re holding this Saturday is all
about.  You may have gotten on a little after I went through
this, Greg.  This Saturday, we’re having a major meeting on
Hamilton and LaRouche’s Four Laws as a solution for this crisis.
The only way you’re going to be able to crush the British Empire
is with the added flank of the Four Laws and the solution.
Conversely, the only way you’re going to actually get the Four
Laws is by crushing the British Empire.  So, the two things
really work hand-in-glove.  What we have to do, is — and this is
really, we’ve got to go out and we’ve got to just get to the
American population.  The support for Trump from Trump’s base up
until now has been completely inadequate.  People might come out,
but very often these people have to be educated.  They’ll come
out, and they’re talking about a wall or monument; they really
should be talking about Trump joining the One Belt, One Road; the
Silk Road perspective.  That’s what we’ve got to have; and going
after the British.  So, that’s a matter of us educating people.
But similarly, we talked about the Democrats.  Frankly, the
Bernie Sanders supporters, which may have been greater than the
Hillary supporters; let’s bear in mind if anybody stole anybody’s
votes and manipulated the election, it was some things that were
going on around that campaign.  Which, by the way, when that came
out, they’ve never said, “Oh, gee, that’s not true.”  They said,
“Oh, well, the Russians did that.”  So, therefore, yeah, it might
be true, but we can’t listen to it, because it was the Russians.
Why aren’t the Sanders supporters up in arms?  I’m not really
asking that rhetorically; I think that’s a matter of us really
organizing and drawing this out.
Now, that is what we have been doing increasingly in the
streets in New York City; and we should expand this, and also
somewhat in the Midwest.  But I’ll just give you a sense of some
of the results.  On Monday, we had three teams out in Manhattan,
Staten Island, and Long Island which raised $1400; which is
extremely good.  We got out about 500 copies of the
{Hamiltonian}; we collected a number of petition signatures.
What was interesting is that one of these deployments was in the
middle of Manhattan, which obviously did not go overwhelmingly
for Trump; in fact, it went overwhelmingly for Hillary.  So, we
were deployed in front of the Fox News building in midtown; and
pretty much everyone who considered themselves a Trump supporter
who came up to our table had already come to the conclusion that
Russia-gate and Charlottesville were part of the same operation.
We were expecting far more hostility than what existed, and there
were several African-Americans who signed on to the petition.
Some of them had voted for Trump, some people had not, and so on.
And then you got a certain amount of confusion that existed.
We had another deployment, I think this was out in Queens
yesterday, where we actually had a gaggle of these women —
literally witches; they had everything but the black skirts and
broomsticks with them.  They came out with signs and so on.  It
was a very interesting deployment; it was about 10 or 12 of them
who rotated through the day, attempting to yell at people,
dissuade them from signing up, signing the petition and so on.
Their polemic — and this is how you could see it was really
organized — it was not around Trump, it was not around
Charlottesville; it was actually “Oh, Lyndon LaRouche.  You don’t
want to sign up with LaRouche; that’s a cult.  Stop signing up.”
The response by and large from people coming up was basically,
“Get out of my face!  I don’t want to talk with you; I’m signing
up with these people” and so on.  So, we ended up, I believe on
that deployment, getting something like six or seven people got
memberships; lots and lots of people giving their names — over
25 contacts — and so forth and so on.
So, that’s what’s out there, and I think part of it is that
we’ve got to out and tell the population themselves they’re not
doing enough.  That’s how you box in Trump.  We’ve got to
mobilize more of the population; they’ve got to be organized
around a strategic objective.  Stop these wars, and go with the
economic policy.  That’s what Trump was voted in for, that’s what
he’s got to do, and that’s what the American people have got to
demand.  That’s what was put so beautifully and clearly by Andy
Young in his statement on “Meet the Press”.  Everybody should
really read that, and I think that can be very useful in our
organizing.  So, that’s just what I would add to what Will said.

WERTZ:  It’s a very principled issue.  The countries are
destroyed to the extent to which citizens of the countries don’t
take responsibility for the republic, for their Constitution.
That’s why the basic concept expressed in the Declaration of
Independence is the principle of government by the consent of the
governed.  Similarly, what Lincoln said — government of, for,
and by the people.  The basic point is, don’t depend on Congress;
don’t depend on a President.  As good as the President may be,
they very often are going to operate upon pragmatic conceptions,
or what they think is opportune, or what they think is possible
for them to do.  For instance, the Civil Rights movement had a
force.  They had a force with Eisenhower, they had a force with
Kennedy, they had a force with Johnson to take action.  That’s
the way you have to really look at this.  The point is, if you
are operating from the standpoint of the vital interests of the
nation and of humanity as a whole, you’re operating on the basis
of principle and of reason; then you have authority within
yourself as a citizen of a country — and also the responsibility
as a citizen of a country, and as a citizen of the world — to
take action and see that those actions which are required are
acted upon by an elected official.  They’re supposed to represent
us; they get elected by us, and they’re supposed to represent our
best interests.  I think that’s really the issue.  And you have
to educate yourself so that you know for certain with scientific
certainty, that what you’re advocating is actually a policy which
is required and must be implemented.
So, what we’ve defined is a policy that must be implemented.
Take the Four Laws.  You have Democrats who say they’re for
Glass-Steagall, but they’re brainwashed in terms of Green
ideology.  The rest of the Four Laws that Lyndon LaRouche has put
forward, put an emphasis on capital intensive forms of
investment, including nuclear energy, nuclear desalination, the
development of fusion, the expansion of the space program.  Many
of these Democrats say they’re for Glass-Steagall, but what do
they mean by Glass-Steagall if they’re Green?  Then on the
Republican side, many of them are not Greenies, in the sense of
being opposed to technological progress, but they’ve been
brainwashed in respect to a balanced budget or merely reducing a
deficit.  So, they have no conception of the idea of public
credit, and no conception of what Hamilton put forward with a
National Bank, or what Lincoln put forward with greenbacks, or
what Franklin Roosevelt put forward with the bank that he used to
actually engage in investment in the economy — it was the
Reconstruction Finance Corporation.  After the war in Germany,
they had the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, which is the Credit
Institution for Reconstruction; same principle.  But the idea is
that the government can extend credit as a sovereign nation, can
extend credit for productive investment.  The problem here is
that many Republicans have no conception of that.
So, you’ve got to educate both Democrats and Republicans to
understand a scientific conception of economics; which they don’t
have.  It’s not clear exactly whether Trump has it; he may
reference Hamilton and Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln, but it’s
not clear from his actions so far that he has those conceptions.
So, it’s a question of educating, it’s a question of mobilizing
your fellow citizens to ensure that the policies the nation needs
— the world needs — are enacted.  It’s a very basic principle
that the power of government to govern derives from the people;
but it has to be an educated people, not a mob.

SPEED:  OK, great.  Will, we have about five more minutes,
but we have about six more questions.  So, we’re going to try to
get to as many of them as possible.  I want to ask everybody to
keep your questions and comments at this point short and succinct
so we can try to get through as many of these as we can.  OK, go
ahead.

Q 6:  Yeah, this is Ken in Moline, Illinois.  Is the CIA a
subsidiary of MI-6?

WERTZ:  You have to go back to World War II and the
aftermath of World War II.  The British Empire backed Hitler, and
they wanted him to go east against the Soviet Union; but Hitler
at a certain point decided that he was going to go west.
Churchill knew he couldn’t defeat Hitler on the continent, so he
needed to bring the US into the war.  Roosevelt certainly wanted
to defeat fascism, but the British actually set up covert
operations of British intelligence, MI-6, MI-5, in the United
States and Rockefeller Center.  They worked closely with Allen
Dulles who became Deputy CIA Director and then later CIA Director
after Roosevelt died.  So, the point is, in 1946 there was an
agreement signed which was called the UK-USA Agreement.  Then
later it became what’s called the Five Eyes, which is Australia,
New Zealand, Canada, Britain, and the United States.  Basically
the problem here is that our intelligence agencies here in the
United States are working directly with British intelligence and
with other members of the British Empire, or what’s called now
the Commonwealth.
There may be patriots within these intelligence agencies,
many of them have become whistleblowers. But yet, this is how the
British have subverted US intelligence.

SPEED:  OK, very good.  We’re going to take two more
questions now; and in about three minutes or maybe we’ll go a
little bit over.  Go ahead.

Q 7:  This is Steve from Pennsylvania.  What I’ve noticed
with the different organizations I’ve worked with — I work with
several different patriot organizations, including the Oath
Keepers and the Three Percenters and some militia that were there
in Charlottesville the day of that event.  From my different
sources, I understand that these groups on both sides were all
hooked in with State Department and Obama appointees and
employees and Occupy Wall Street and those groups.  Could
Charlottesville be considered like a false flag to try to push
this narrative of this race card thing, since the Russia thing
completely failed and they now want to push the 25th Amendment
thing and they want to push that Trump somehow has dementia?

WERTZ:  You’re right; it’s a false flag operation.  For
instance, one of the things that came out is that one of the
organizers of the demonstrators — a guy named Kessler was
basically, I think it was Charles Grassley who asked the
question, or another Senator — this guy was involved in Occupy
Wall Street.  He was apparently a supporter of Obama.  Then all
of a sudden, you’re expected to believe that there was this
transformation, and he ends up being an organizer of this
demonstration.  So that’s on the one side.  On the other side, as
I said at the beginning — I don’t know if you heard it or not —
all of the key players in Charlottesville are Democrats who have
worked with John Podesta at the Center for American Progress;
which described itself as the institutional center of the Resist
movement against Trump in the United States.  And Podesta, of
course, is Obama, he’s Clinton — both Hillary and Bill.  This is
all funded by Soros.  So, the whole thing was in that sense, a
set-up.  And it’s modelled upon what they did in Ukraine; where
it was the State Department, it was Soros, and so forth.  Think
about how that thing operated.  For instance, when Yanukovych was
forced to flee, he was accused of ordering snipers to shoot
demonstrators.  But he denies that that was the case, and there’s
evidence that the snipers may have actually been members of the
Right Sector, the Nazis; or organized by them.  So, it is a false
flag operation; and it’s like this whole operation was set to
take off after Charlottesville.  Remember, Charlottesville was
declared by the mayor of Charlottesville, Signer, as a capitol of
the Resistance in a speech he gave on January 31st earlier this
year.  The point is, Charlottesville was designed as a center of
the resistance to Trump before this incident occurred.

SPEED:  OK, great.  So, we are going to go to the next and final
question.  We have a few more people in the queue, but
unfortunately we’re running out of time.  So, OK, go ahead.

Q 8:  Hi, it’s June from New York.  My question has to do
with the two petitions and whether or not there’s been an effort
to contact the distribution list for Trump’s PAC from either Eric
or Don Trump?  Maybe you could go through that way to get to them
to get it communicated out to the people who actually support
Trump?

WERTZ:  I can’t answer specifically who we’ve contacted with
this.  I know that we are trying to get the petition into the
hands of people who are close to Trump.  But I can’t really say
whether we’ve gotten to those specific individuals either
ourselves directly, or indirectly through other people who are
supporters of Trump.  But certainly, if anybody knows members of
the Trump family, they should be encouraged to speak to them; to
get this material to them.  In general, we do want to get to
supporters of Trump to really give them a strategic conception of
what needs to be done right now.

SPEED:  We’ve reached out to a lot of groups that are
working closely with Trump.  I think there are people on the call
who are involved in that; who are involved in various networks.
So, if you have such networks, reach out; get in contact with
them, and try to come yourself if you’re based in New York.  Come
to the meeting on Saturday at the Beacon Hotel; we can talk more
about this.  We also are generally out in mid-Manhattan in the
vicinity of the Trump headquarters at least once a week.  A
number of people affiliated and who are very active in his
campaign come by regularly there.  So that’s another good way of
reaching out to people.  We should expand this as much as
possible.  We are doing that, we’re reaching out; and we would
urge anybody else with contacts to do that.
Also, again, I’ll just emphasize, we are just as interested
in those who oppose Trump; because we have to neutralize — or
better, win this group of people over.  They should be fighting
against these foreign wars; they should be working for economic
development.  Therefore, we want to free this President up to do
exactly that.  I think there are a number of these people who can
be approached and recruited.  Certainly the Veterans Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity give us a way that they can understand
this and act on it.  But join us!  Get people to sign the
petition.  Let’s call people out.

Q 8 [cont’d]:  Another question real quick.  Is there a way,
or a contact list that you have for people that are located
within your area?  I’m up in northern, up in Duchess County, and
I don’t know if there are any other people who are members that
are up in Duchess County that you could coordinate with to do
stuff up in this region.  Is there some sort of list, or some way
you could get in contact with them?

SPEED:  Yes, sure.  That’s not too far away, June.  What
we’ll do is, you can contact me; I will text you my cell phone
when we get off of this call, and we can be in touch in terms of
reaching out and contacting other people.  We’ll also put that
out in the email, and other people on the call that have this
same number can contact various people in their regional offices
for further direction in terms of how we can get groupings of
people together.
So, Will, I wanted to invite you to make some final remarks.
This has clearly been an exciting phone call; we couldn’t even
get to all the callers.  Those of you whom we could not get to, I
want to urge you to get on on Monday night.  We’re doing these
activists’ calls now twice a week, on Monday and Thursday nights.
I want to urge everyone on to try to get additional people on the
calls.  But Will, why don’t you give us some concluding remarks?

WERTZ:  I just want to go back to the remarks that you cited
from Lyndon LaRouche at the very beginning to underscore the
urgency of the situation.  Again, what he said is that we have to
win now; if we lose, we are finished because we will be destroyed
by the people opposed to what he is doing in terms of the
initiatives we’re taking.  The existence of the United States
depends upon doing the job.  It’s not making suggestions; it’s
getting victory against the causes of the things that are
destroying the ability of the United States to express itself
properly.
So, I just wanted to end with that.  I thought the questions
tonight were very responsive and showed that people have a sense
of the urgency of this.  So, our job is to organize a lot of
other people.  I just encourage people to do that and just figure
out creative ways in which they can do that.  Like the lady who
just spoke, get in touch with us in terms of what you might be
able to do with us or with others in our movement who may be in
your vicinity.

SPEED:  OK; excellent.  So, that concludes the LaRouche
activist call for Thursday.  We’ll be talking with all of you
very soon.  Hopefully, with lots more results on the petitioning
and other activities.  Good night.

 




EIR: Hvorfor Den barmhjertige Samaritaner?

I vores tid, det 21. århundrede, bragte de nylige præsidentvalg de »glemte« mænd og kvinder i vores samfund, der var ladt i stikken af årtiers neoliberale politikker, som beroede på grådigheden hos et finansoligarki, og hvor Forfatningens grundlæggende tema om »det almene vel« næsten fuldstændigt forsvandt, frem i forgrunden. »Guds veje er uransagelige« og gav os en ny præsident, Donald Trump, der i sin sejrstale sidste november erklærede: »De glemte mænd og kvinder i vort land vil ikke længere blive glemt. Nu lytter alle til jer.« Han opfordrede dernæst til enhed, til, at både Demokrater og Republikanere gik sammen og reddede landet fra den nuværende krise.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Charlottesville var en iscenesat hændelse!
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
18. august, 2017

For at sætte scenen for aftenens diskussion, der vil handle om en ny flanke af kupforsøget mod præsident Trump, vil jeg begynde med meget positive nyheder fra Kina. Her ser vi [Fig. 1] forsiden af en historie, der blev publiceret i China Daily, med titlen, »Identifikation med Kina«. Det er en historie om Helga Zepp-LaRouche og hendes arbejde over mange årtier sammen med sin mand, Lyndon LaRouche, for udvikling, for bedre forståelse og for samarbejde med Kina. Artiklen begynder med Helgas rejse til Kina i 1971 under Kulturrevolutionen, da hun var passager om bord på et svensk fragtskib. Hun så nationer i Afrika, hun så Kina, og hun kom tilbage fra denne rejse med den absolutte overbevisning, at verden måtte ændre sig, at den måtte blive forbedret. 

Vært Jason Ross: Det er 18. august, 2017… Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Will Wertz fra Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), og remote, Diane Sare, medlem af LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.

For at sætte scenen for aftenens diskussion, der vil handle om en ny flanke af kupforsøget mod præsident Trump, vil jeg begynde med meget positive nyheder fra Kina.

Fig. 1

Her ser vi [Fig. 1] forsiden af en historie, der blev publiceret i China Daily, med titlen, »Identifikation med Kina«. Det er en historie om Helga Zepp-LaRouche og hendes arbejde over mange årtier sammen med sin mand, Lyndon LaRouche, for udvikling, for bedre forståelse og for samarbejde med Kina. Artiklen begynder med Helgas rejse til Kina i 1971 under Kulturrevolutionen, da hun var passager om bord på et svensk fragtskib. Hun så nationer i Afrika, hun så Kina, og hun kom tilbage fra denne rejse med den absolutte overbevisning, at verden måtte ændre sig, at den måtte blive forbedret.

I artiklen opstiller China Daily kontrasten mellem det potentielle samarbejde mellem Kina og USA under henholdsvis Obama-administrationen og Trump-administrationen. Artiklen siger, efter at have citeret Helga for at sige, at »Det kinesiske, økonomiske mirakel er virkelig den mest succesfulde model«, og at »i modsætning til Obama-administrationen, der var mere modvillig over for kinesiske initiativer fra Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB) og [Bælte & Vej Initiativet]; så har den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump sat infrastruktur øverst på sin dagsorden og sendt en mellemorganisatorisk delegation under lederskab af Matthew Pottinger, seniorrådgiver i det Nationale Sikkerhedsråd, til Beijing-forummet.« Helga Zepp-LaRouche refererer her til Bælte & Vej Forum i maj måned, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche også deltog i.

Jeg mener, at artiklen virkeligt beviser, hvor stor betydning, Kina tillægger Helgas rolle, og den slutter med et citat af hende. Hun siger: »Vi er meget glade. Det er én ting, at en lille organisation som vores producerer ideer; en ganske anden ting er, at verdens største land begyndte at udføre dem«, med reference til Kinas vedtagelse af Bælte & Vej Initiativet i kølvandet på Schiller Instituttets mangeårige organisering til fordel for den Nye Silkevej og Verdenslandbroen. Hun afslutter med at sige, at hun håber, Lyndon LaRouche vil kunne besøge Kina, og han helt bestemt har stor kærlighed til landet.

Så det reelle potentiale, der eksisterer for et Nye Paradigme i verden, for USA’s tilslutning til Kinas utrolige succes med at komme fri af finansspekulation, fri af Wall Street, fri af London, og for at gå i retning af udvikling i Franklin Roosevelts stil, er enormt. Det er på grund af dette potentiale, at der er en massiv indsats for at afsætte præsident Trump. Vi har været meget aktive i dette, gennem f.eks. vores reklame for Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity’s (VIPS) Memorandum; VIPS har foreløbig udarbejdet 50 memoranda om USA’s politik. Deres seneste memo om, at hele historien om Russia-gate er et svindelnummer, har virkelig haft enorm trækkraft. Det er blevet taget op af Salon, Bloomberg og især The Nation i en meget stor artikel.

Fig. 2

Dette har i de seneste uger fremkaldt angreb fra f.eks. The Hill, som vi ser her [Fig. 2]; der udgav en artikel, »Why the Latest Theory about the DNC Not Being Hacked Is Probably Wrong« (Hvorfor den seneste teori om, at DNC ikke blev hacket, sandsynligvis er forkert).

Fig. 3

Vi så et angreb komme ud i Washington Post [Fig. 3], der sagde, de ikke tror på, at The Nation, det magasin, der udgav en historie om VIPS-memoet; at The Nation er i færd med at revidere deres historie, der sår tvivl om russisk hacking af DNC. Washington Post siger, der virkelig håber, The Nation får »rigtigt fat« på denne historie.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

There has been a response that came out from two media
outlets.  One of them, Disobedient Media [Fig. 4], is the
publication that first put out the results from the Forensicator,
who had analyzed meta-data that came from files released by the
Guccifer 2.0 persona; and also from Adam Carter [Fig. 5], who
maintains a website that goes through the Guccifer 2.0 persona.
I just want to review a few highlights of what these articles
have to say, because I think it’s very important.  The VIPS
memorandum is correct; a deliberate attempt was put in place to
create false Russian footprints, false Russian evidence, to make
it appear that the DNC leaks were actually a Russian hack.  The
fact of the matter is that no actual evidence has ever been
..PAGE
presented showing that Russian actors hacked the DNC and provided
the material that Wikileaks later published, that caused such a
commotion that it forced the resignation of Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz and other top officials in the Democratic
National Committee.
The attacks on the VIPS memo focus on something about data
transfer speeds, which were used to show that the files that
Guccifer 2.0 released, had been copied to a flash drive rather
than being hacked over the internet.  That’s pretty much the only
thing that these articles have to complain about.  They say that
the speed of transfer could have been possible over the internet.
I’ll just review a very few aspects of this, which is that the
information that was processed, the analysis that came from the
Forensicator and from Adam Carter, showed that not only that the
speed was too high for many internet connections but that it very
specifically matched the typical transfer speed of a USB2.0 flash
drive.  They also showed that file manipulation occurred on the
East Coast time zone.  They showed that the files showed evidence
of being used in a FAT file system, which is only used on flash
drives — at least in the past decades; and of course the fact
that there is absolute proof that the Russian fingerprints that
were found and discovered in the documents released by Guccifer
2.0, were put there deliberately so that they could be found.
Those aspects simple are not even touched by the legacy media’s
attacks on the VIPS’ revelations.
So, this whole Russia-gate thing is falling apart.  The
attempts by the {Washington Post}, {New Yorker} magazine to cover
things up, are really a dismal failure if you read the articles.
That brings us to the topic that we’re going to be hearing from
in depth from Will Wertz; which is the latest flank in the
attempt to unseat President Trump — namely, the events and the
reactions to those events in Charlottesville.  So Will, what can
you tell us about this?

WILL WERTZ:  First of all, what I want to point out, is that what
President Trump said in his first press conference following the
Charlottesville event, that there is bigotry and violence on many
sides, is in fact true.  I think that not only applies to the
Charlottesville case per se, where you had Nazis on one side, you
had anti-fa on the other side, which is an anarchist, violent
organization; and it’s most likely that you may have had
provocateurs.  It’s hard to believe that the FBI was not involved
in some way under the guise of monitoring the situation.  But if
you stand back and look at the overall climate in the country,
it’s also the case that there is violence and bigotry on many
sides; and specifically directed at President Trump.  I want to
review some of the highlights of that, which represent an
unprecedented situation in terms of violent threats against a
President of the United States.
First of all, just as he was being inaugurated, the British
publication {The Spectator} wrote “Will Donald Trump Be
..PAGE
Assassinated?  Ousted in a Coup? Or Just Impeached?”  You had a
number of statements from the would-be Hollywood royalty,
including Madonna; who said, “I thought an awful lot about
blowing up the White House.”  Then you had CNN correspondent —
former correspondent now — Kathy Griffin, who held up a mock
decapitated head of the President of the United States.  You also
had, over the summer, Shakespeare in the Park doing a performance
of {Julius Caesar} in which Julius Caesar was portrayed as Donald
Trump and was viciously assassinated on the stage.  You had
another Hollywood actor — Johnny Depp — who joked, “When was
the last time an actor assassinated a President?  It has been a
while, and maybe it’s time.”  In July of this year, there was a
book released by a {Guardian} reporter by the name of Jonathan
Friedland.  It’s entitled {To Kill a President}.  Just within the
last 48 hours, a Missouri state senator, Maria Chappelle-Nadal,
wrote in her Facebook “I hope Trump is assassinated.”  And we
should not forget that on June 14th of this year in Alexandria,
Republican Congressman Steve Scalise was shot while practicing
with 20-25 other Republican Congressmen for a Congressional
baseball for charity.  If the police present on the scene had not
responded appropriately, you could have had a massacre of
multiple Republican Congressmen or Senators.
So, let’s be honest about the threat of violence.  This is
virtually unprecedentedly directed at a President of the United
States, and we have had Presidents who have been assassinated, as
people know.  So this is the actual reality of the situation.
Now what I want to do, is to look at this situation in
Charlottesville, which is merely the most recent escalation of an
ongoing attempted coup against the President of the United
States.  It’s modelled upon what was done in Ukraine — the
Maidan, or the various color revolutions which preceded the coup
in Ukraine.  On January 17th, just before President Trump’s
inauguration, President Putin of Russia said, “I have an
impression they practiced in Kiev, and are ready to organize a
Maidan in Washington” against President Trump.  On February 21,
2017, {Executive Intelligence Review} released a 17-page dossier,
which was entitled “Obama and Soros Color Revolutions; Nazis in
Ukraine 2014, USA 2017?”  If you look at the situation in
Ukraine, you get a direct parallel to what is being orchestrated
in the United States.  In the dossier what we disclose is that
there were more than 2000 non-governmental organizations — NGOs
— in Ukraine; funded by the US government, the United Kingdom,
the European Union, and George Soros’ Open Society.  In fact,
Victoria Nuland, the State Department representative for Ukraine,
testified on December 13, 2014 as follows:  “We have invested
over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in building democratic skills
and institutions.”
The coup that was carried out in Ukraine was carried out by
an organization called the Right Sector, and various other
organizations associated with it.  The Right Sector is an
organization which traces its origin back to Stepan Bandera and
..PAGE
his Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, or the OUN.  Which
organization collaborated with Hitler during World War II, and
carried out mass exterminations of Poles and Jews.  The Right
Sector celebrates Bandera and actually carries out marches in
Kiev and elsewhere in Ukraine celebrating him to this day.  After
World War II, Bandera, this Nazi war criminal, was recruited by
Britain’s MI-6; and his top official, Mykola Lebed, who carried
out the Ukrainian exterminations, went onto a CIA payroll as of
1948, thanks to CIA Deputy Director Allen Dulles.  The intention
was to use the OUN, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists,
to carry out uprisings against the Soviet Union in the post-World
War II period.  People will perhaps recall that Allen Dulles and
James Angleton were very much involved in the Nazi ratlines after
World War II; helping Nazi criminals to escape.  Some to South
America; others like Bandera and Lebed to London or to the United
States.
Soros himself, who helped fund the Ukrainian coup, was 14
years old when the Nazis occupied Hungary, and he has publicly
admitted that during that period, his father and he hid their
Jewish background and worked with the Nazi occupation to
confiscate the property of fellow Jews who had been sent to the
concentration camps.  He actually views this experience very
positively, with no regret whatsoever.
Now, let’s turn to Charlottesville with this in mind.  As I
said, the events in Charlottesville last Saturday, I think are
very clearly a pre-staged event with Nazis on the one side,
anti-fa or anti-fascist violent anarchists on the other side.
Remember in thinking about this what happened in Ukraine.  There
were snipers who fired on demonstrators, and this was blamed on
Yanukovych, the President of Ukraine, who says that he never gave
any such orders.  It is believed that the snipers were actually
organized by a third force, or by the Right Sector itself, or a
combination of the two; in order to carry out the coup by blaming
the violence on Yanukovych.  So that should be kept in mind.
There’s also a longstanding methodology of the British.  This was
formulated in a book called {Gang Countergang} by a British
general by the name of Kitson, who used this methodology in Kenya
as part of a counterinsurgency operation against the Mau-Mau.
Please show graphic #11 [Fig. 6].  If we look at
Charlottesville, what stands out?  It’s that all of the key
Democratic Party operatives involved in the Charlottesville event
have direct connections to George Soros, to the Obama-Clinton
State Department, and to John Podesta’s Center for American
Progress; which has become the center for the entire so-called
Resist Movement against President Trump in the United States.
The Center for American Progress was founded in 2003 by John
Podesta. At the time, George Soros promised to donate $3 million
to its foundation.  John Podesta, of course, was the campaign
manager of Hillary Clinton, and had previously been a senior
counselor to President Obama.
..PAGE
The mayor of Charlottesville, a man by the name of Michael
Signer, gave a speech on January 31, 2017 in Charlottesville in
which he said:  “I am here today to declare that Charlottesville,
the historic home of Thomas Jefferson, is the capital of the
resistance.”  So, this is January 31st; President Trump had only
been in office for about ten days.  It’s obviously several months
before the events which occurred last Saturday.  So, this is what
we’re dealing with in the city of Charlottesville; it is the
capital of the resistance to President Trump.  Mayor Signer had
previously been a senior policy advisor to John Podesta’s Center
for American Progress.  In 2008, he worked with John Podesta on
President-elect Barack Obama’s State Department transition team.
Two years later, he travelled to Panjshir province, Afghanistan
as a member of a USAID-sponsored mission to monitor Afghanistan’s
parliamentary elections.  So what you have is a mayor of
Charlottesville who works closely with John Podesta’s Center for
American Progress, which is the center of the resistance; which
is obviously a Clinton-Obama operation, which is funded by George
Soros.  He’s also someone who has experience with respect to the
State Department.
The individual who took the video of the car driven into the
counter protesters, which resulted in the death of Heather Heyer
and the injury of many others, was an individual by the name of
Brennan Gilmore.  Gilmore is a former State Department employee.
In 2011, Gilmore was deputy chief of mission in the Central
African Republic.  In 2015, he was the top aide to Tom Perriello,
a former Congressman who was appointed by Obama to be Special
Envoy to the Great Lakes Region and the Democratic Republic of
Congo.  In 2016, Tom Perriello ran for the Democratic nomination
for Governor in the state of Virginia; a race which he eventually
lost.  Brennan Gilmore was his campaign chief of staff.  In his
campaign, Perriello received a total of $500,000 from George
Soros personally.  He also received $50,000 from George Soros’
son Gregory.  Two other sons of George Soros, not to be left out,
Alexander and Jonathan, gave a total of $135,470 to Tom
Perriello.  So, Perriello received a grand total of $685,470 from
the Soros family in his campaign.  Perriello also received
$300,000 from Donald Sussman, a hedge fund manager who sits on
the board of directors of Podesta’s Center for American Progress.
Tom Perriello, like Charlottesville mayor Michael Signer, also
worked directly for Podesta’s Center for American Progress.  In
fact, from 2010 to 2014, Tom Perriello was the President and CEO
of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
We know that Brennan Gilmore was present at the scene of the
Charlottesville events, because it was his video which has
circulated very widely.  But Tom Perriello was also present, and
he indicates that with an article which he wrote the day after —
August 13 — for the publication {Slate}.  The article is
entitled “There Is Only One Side to the Story of
Charlottesville”.  Of course, this is also the point made by Joe
..PAGE
Biden, former Vice President, who tweeted at the time, “There is
only one side to Charlottesville,” in opposition to what
President Trump had said.
Perriello is a native of Charlottesville, and during his
campaign for governor, he tried to position himself as the
candidate of the anti-Trump resistance movement.
Let me just add that there were three other organizations
that were present as part of the counter demonstration, all of
which were funded by George Soros:  Progressive Change Campaign
Committee; Standing Up for Racial Justice; and Refuse Fascism.
But what you have here, in summary, is a US State Department,
George Soros-funded nest of operatives who have worked for John
Podesta’s Center for American Progress, which is the
institutional center of the resistance movement against President
Trump.  This is the operation which went into action immediately
after the events in Charlottesville, to escalate the campaign
against President Trump; which we now see spreading throughout
the country.  I would point out that this, again, as I stressed
at the beginning, these personnel — State Department, Soros —
are the same personnel that were involved in the Maidan coup
d’etat in Ukraine against President Yanukovych.  It should also
be pointed out that the only way you can remove a President in
Ukraine, according to the Constitution, is through impeachment.
He was never impeached; it was a violation of the Constitution of
Ukraine.  What happened was, an agreement was reached which was
signed on to by European countries as guarantors.  When it was
presented to the Maidan, they rejected it, and said that they
were going to storm the Presidential residence if Yanukovych
didn’t reverse his position in respect to the EU association.  He
fled the country for fear of his life.
Now we all know what happened to Allende in Chile, so is
that unreasonable for him to have fled?  And yet, there was an
unconstitutional coup and it was backed by the United States; by
Obama, by Hillary Clinton.  These are the people who back Nazis
who are attacking President Trump because he says there’s
violence on both sides; which there very clearly is.
After the incident in Charlottesville, [former] President
Obama tweeted a quote from Nelson Mandela: “No one is born hating
another person because of the color of his skin or his background
or his religion.”  According to twitter, this is the most popular
tweet that has ever been communicated on twitter in its entire
history.  I think that the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman,
Maria Zakharova, gave a very good response to this.  She quoted
from Mandela as follows:  “No country can claim to be the
policeman of the world, and no state can dictate to another what
it should do.  Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies,
have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Qaddafi.
They are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friend of
the past.”  Then Zakharova addresses Obama directly:  “Mr. Obama,
a person was killed with your direct involvement who Nelson
Mandela called his brother and thanked for help in gaining
..PAGE
democracy.  True democracy; not one invented in the Oval Office.”
She might also have pointed out, as implied by President Putin’s
statement, that it was Obama who installed Nazis in power in
Ukraine; and forced a duly-elected President to flee the country
for his life.
So, I think what we have here is a very clear case of a
deliberate policy being carried out in the United States to
overthrow through a coup, through impeachment, or through
assassination as {The Spectator} said, a President of the United
States.  This has to be stopped.  We are circulating a petition
on LPAC, which I would certainly encourage everyone not only to
sign, but to circulate to others.  At this moment in history,
it’s absolutely crucial that Americans stand up and insist that
the President move on an investigation of the VIPS’ charges as
critical to undermining the entire Maidan-style color revolution
which is being attempted against the President of the United
States at this moment.  That is crucial because, as the article
in the {China Daily} indicates, Trump — as opposed to Obama —
is someone who could potentially; and he’s given indications that
he would like to do this; would potentially work with China and
Russia on the One Belt, One Road Silk Road.  At the same time,
work with President Putin in a coordinated campaign to defeat
terrorism.  We just had more terrorist attacks in Spain within
the last 24-48 hours; so this is not a fight which has been won.
Yet, it’s absolutely crucial.

ROSS:  I think that’s a very strong case you pulled together
there, Will.  This is very clear; very clear this is a coup.  In
terms of the response that this type of material is getting,
although the people in the media, or the way that the legacy
media report things, you’d think that everybody believes that
Donald Trump was put in office by the Russians, and that that’s
something thinks is a really important issue; that’s not the
response we’ve been getting when we’ve been talking to the
population more generally.  So, I’d like to bring on Diane Sare
at this point, and ask you, Diane, what can you tell us about the
opportunity to organize people around this One Belt, One Road
Initiative and get past this Trump coup operation?

DIANE SARE:  What I can report is that the American population is
not having any of this psycho Goebbels-style propaganda against
the President.  It is so over the top that it is impelling and
propelling people who were not even Trump voters or Trump
supporters to stop at our tables.  I will also say, as I told Mr.
LaRouche yesterday, that it’s very important to remember in this
context that Lyndon LaRouche has a history in the United States
as being the spokesman, the leader of something known as the
American intellectual tradition.  That is, there is no person
alive today who has a greater understanding of the work of
Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, the fight
for our republic and its roots in the work of people like
..PAGE
Nicholas of Cusa, Leibniz, and others.  Then Lyndon LaRouche.  As
people know, LaRouche has been organizing this fight to get our
republic to live up the principles in the Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence for at least the last 50-60 years;
his entire adult life since he was in the military in World War
II.  So, over these decades, LaRouche has been the founder and
editor of {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine; we had
various newspapers published — {New Solidarity}, the {New
Federalist}.  We have online news services, a Facebook page.  He
ran for President eight times.  As a result, LaRouche has
actually a very large following in the American population, who
remember his work; who remember his taking a principled stand on
their behalf when others would not.  And who paid the price for
that by undergoing a criminal witch-hunt run by exactly the same
people, down to the individuals like Robert Mueller, who are
going after Trump today.
So that combination — LaRouche’s record, his authority, his
voice; and the fact that the American people have suffered
incredible hardship over these last 16 years in particular of
Bush and Obama, and the bail-outs of Wall Street and a perpetual
war policy since 9/11 — the media simply does not carry the
weight.  So what we are getting in the New York metropolitan
area, for example yesterday, we had three teams out across the
area in Westchester County, Long Island, and New Jersey.
Combined, they signed up 32 new members to the LaRouche Political
Action Committee; which also means a financial contribution, etc.
They got probably 80-100 signatures on the petition; that we’ll
just mention.  The kind of things that are happening is that
people are coming up and identifying themselves.  In one case, a
person came up and said “I’m the chairman of the county
Democratic Party.  I don’t want my party controlled by George
Soros.  I know this Russia-gate crap is a lie.”  Republican Party
members are coming up and saying “We think the Republican Party
should get rid of the elephant, and instead have as its mascot
the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz.  Why won’t they stand up
and defend the President?”  People are really furious with both
parties.  They’re furious with the Republican Party for not
taking a stand; they’re furious with the Democratic Party for
taking a stand in the wrong direction.  And they remember Lyndon
LaRouche very well from these years of fighting.
I would say, I think it’s crucial what Will mentioned
earlier, and what Mrs. LaRouche has been insistent on; that if
President Trump were to bring the United States into
collaboration with the Belt and Road of China, which would
require the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, a national banking
system to direct credit into fusion research; things that
generate real growth or a real increase in productivity as Mr.
LaRouche outlined in his Four Laws; Trump would go down in
history as one of the great leaders of all time.  Now so far what
we’ve seen is that he has a very productive relationship with
President Vladimir Putin of Russia; they met for two hours at the
..PAGE
G-20 meeting in Hamburg.  You have a ceasefire in Syria as a
result.  ISIS is getting crushed.  You have his relationship with
Xi Jinping of China, which seems to be productive; it makes it
possible to resolve the North Korea situation without resorting
to war or military action of any kind.  And that’s the potential.
On the other hand, what you have is the death of this
trans-Atlantic system; namely the British Empire, the City of
London, the owners of George Soros — who may think that he owns
the Queen because he handles her offshore accounts, but I would
say it’s the other way around — who are desperate.  If the
United States returns to its American System tradition, which is
what Lyndon LaRouche embodies, then they lose; it’s the end of
the empire.  And it’s an era of a New Paradigm for mankind where
Americans can once again have the dream that our children and our
grandchildren will live longer, be better educated, be geniuses
like Beethoven and Einstein, be free to produce from the
potential of their God-given talents; that’s what the Founding
Fathers intended in our nation.  That’s the potential.
What we’re seeing in the streets — and this is across the
country; you have to think, this is the greater New York
metropolitan area, this is not the part of the country where
President Trump won the election.  We got a report yesterday from
the West Coast; in the San Francisco, a couple set up in front of
a post office.  While the postmaster wasn’t that thrilled, and
had them move their table a little away from the door; they were
with their signs to defend President Trump and got a very
positive response.  Yesterday morning we had organizers up on the
Upper West Side of Manhattan; for people who know what that
means, that’s a liberal Democratic area.  They were getting out
that {Hamiltonian} that Jason, you were holding up earlier with
the big headline “Russia-gate Is a Fraud!”  They said when they
put up the giant sign that said “Defend President Trump”, it got
a little bit testier; but they reported really only 1 out of 15
people getting a look on their face like they just sucked on a
lemon.  Everyone else was either non-responsive or downright
supportive; they got out 400 copies of the newspaper there in
just 2-3 hours’ time.
So, the truth of the matter is, the media has lost its
mandate.  What is published in the {New York Times}, on CNN, the
{Washington Post} is simply no longer credible.  People who took
it upon themselves to watch President Trump’s press conference
with this pack of howling hyenas, saw that he actually did a very
competent job; and therefore the population is prepared for a
fight.  But I would say that it’s very urgent that everyone here
take personal responsibility to not be a coward; to add your name
to the petition; to speak about the coup that is going on against
the President.  There is an attempt by the British to depose
through one means or another, another American President; and
what would be put in place if such a thing were to occur, would
be catastrophic for the United States and mankind.  We cannot
allow this to occur.  I think the American people don’t want it
..PAGE
to occur; this is what we’ve been seeing.  The LaRouche Political
Action Committee and Lyndon LaRouche personally, are at the
leadership of this fight.

ROSS:  I think that’s right on.  Why don’t we take a look at
some of the responses that we’ve been getting from Facebook and
from twitter from the use of this newspaper in particular; that
“Russia-gate Is a Fraud!”  Here we go; have a look at some people
on Facebook [Fig. 7].  And we’ve got some pictures that were sent
into us from twitter as well [Fig. 8].  If you’re organizing
around this, please tweet things out.  #Russia fraud;
#Russia-gate; #Russia-gate fraud; use those hashtags.  Make sure
that people are able to find this material, and make it very
public.  This is a fight that absolutely has to be won to prevent
a coup that will tie the hands of President Trump and prevent us
from being able to have the kind of future that we could have; of
development and growth and cooperation with China.  I guess you
can see a few more here [Fig. 9].
So, get out there!  Do this kind of activity.  Get people
signing up; sign this petition, share it with everybody.  When
you post your picture on twitter, on Facebook, on Instagram, make
sure you’re using the hashtag #Russia Fraud, or #Russia-gate
Fraud, or #Russia-gate, or all three of them.  And include a link
to the petition.  You can contact us for your own personal link;
you can also use the link that we have displayed on the screen
several times during this show — that’s lpac.co/yt17 — to share
that petition with others.  Do outreach.  Do it in this manner,
do it in other ways.  We need to raise this call to President
Trump to take this British apparatus on directly.  Unless it’s
defeated, it’s not just going to give up and go away; it has to
be taken on explicitly and taken down.  That’s the way that we
can insure the opportunity to have a different orientation for
our country.
So, I think that will do it for the show this week.  Very
grateful to have had Will Wertz with us in the studio again for
his very comprehensive look on the theme that Charlottesville was
a very directed operation; staged event.  Also, that we were able
to have Diane Sare with us today, joining us from the Manhattan
area.  Thank you for watching.  Please subscribe to the YouTube
channel; make sure you send out this video as well.  This is a
very comprehensive and excellent statement on the events of a
week ago.  We’ll be seeing more of you here at larouchepac.com.




VIPS Memorandum til præsidenten:
»Var det ’russiske hack’ et inside-job?«

Tekniske undersøgelser af »russisk hacking« af den Demokratiske Nationalkomites (DNC) computere sidste år afslører, at, den 5. juli, 2016, blev data lækket (ikke hacket) af en person, der havde fysisk adgang til DNC’s computere. Efter at have undersøgt metadata fra »Guccifer 2.0«’s indbrud den 5. juli, 2016, i DNC-serveren, har uafhængige cyber-efterforskere konkluderet, at en insiderperson kopierede DNC-data over på en ekstern lagerfacilitet.


VIPS Memorandum til præsidenten: »Var det ’russiske hack’ et inside-job?«

Den 24. juli, 2017, offentliggjorde consortiumnews.com et memorandum, som Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, VIPS, havde udarbejdet til USA’s præsident, og til offentliggørelse. I sin artikel, under overskriften, »Intel Vets Challenge ’Russia Hack Evidence«, kommer de med redaktionelle bemærkninger, der går ud på, at VIPS-memoet indeholder to forkerte datoer, som dog ikke påvirkede memoets hovedkonklusion, nemlig, at indbruddet i DNC-e-mails, som Rusland fik skyld for, ikke kunne have været et hack – fra Rusland eller nogen anden. De dele af memoet, der vedrører de forkerte datoer, er blevet rettet (af consortiumnews.com).

Dernæst følger en kort redegørelse for rettelserne:

  • Den 14. juni, 2016 (og ikke, som VIPS-memoet fejlagtigt siger, den 15.) var den dag, hvor Crowdstrike sagde, skadelig software var blevet fundet i DNC-serveren og hævdede, der forelå beviser for, at den skadelige software var indført af russere. (Den følgende dag – den 15. – tog »Guccifer 2.0« ansvaret for »hacket« og hævdede at være WikiLeaks’ kilde.)
  • Selv om VIPS-memoet korrekt anførte, at, den 15. juni, 2016 udlægger … »Guccifer 2.0 et dokument, som de tekniske undersøgelser viser, var kunstigt manipuleret med ’russiske fingeraftryk’«, så indikerer anden tekst i memoet fejlagtigt, at beviser for sådan manipulation også blev fundet i »Guccifer 2.0« metadata fra kopieringsbegivenheden den 5. juli.

 

 

MEMORANDUM TIL: Præsidenten

FRA: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

EMNE: Var det »russiske hack« et inside-job?

Kort resume

Tekniske undersøgelser af »russisk hacking« af den Demokratiske Nationalkomites (DNC) computere sidste år afslører, at, den 5. juli, 2016, blev data lækket (ikke hacket) af en person, der havde fysisk adgang til DNC’s computere. Efter at have undersøgt metadata fra »Guccifer 2.0«’s indbrud den 5. juli, 2016, i DNC-serveren, har uafhængige cyber-efterforskere konkluderet, at en insiderperson kopierede DNC-data over på en ekstern lagerenhed.

Et hovedresultat af de uafhængige kriminaltekniske undersøgelser er den konklusion, at DNC-data blev kopieret over på en lagerenhed med en hastighed, der overstiger kapaciteten ved et udefrakommende Internet-hack. Hvad der er lige så vigtigt, så viser de tekniske undersøgelser, at kopieringen fandt sted på østkysten af USA. Hidtil har mainstream-medierne ignoreret resultaterne af disse uafhængige undersøgelser. [se her og her].

Den uafhængige analytiker Skip Folden, der trak sig tilbage efter 25 år som IBM Program Manager for Information Technology, USA, og som undersøgte de nylige kriminaltekniske resultater, er medforfatter af dette Memorandum. Han har udarbejdet en mere detaljeret teknisk rapport med titlen, »Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers« (Kriminalteknisk cyber-undersøgelse af ’russisk hack’ og manglende dementi fra efterretningssamfundet), og har sendt den til den særlige rådgivers kontor og justitsministerens kontor. VIPS-medlem William Binney, en tidligere teknisk direktør i National Security Agency (NSA), samt andre senior-NSA-»alumner« i VIPS, bevidner de uafhængige, tekniske resultaters professionalisme.

De nylige kriminaltekniske undersøgelser udfylder et afgørende hul. Hvorfor FBI forsømte at udføre uafhængige, kriminaltekniske undersøgelser af det oprindelige »Guccifer 2.0«-materiale, er fortsat et mysterium – og det samme er manglen på ethvert tegn på, at de »håndplukkede analytikere« fra FBI, CIA og NSA, der skrev »Vurderingen fra Efterretningssamfundet«, dateret 6. januar, 2017, ofrede kriminaltekniske undersøgelser nogen som helst opmærksomhed.

BEMÆRK: Der har været så megen sammenblanding af anklager om hacking, at vi ønsker at gøre dette Memorandas primære fokus helt klart. Vi fokuserer specifikt på det angivelige »hack« den 5. juli, udført af Guccifer 2.0, af DNC-serveren. I tidligere VIPS-memoranda adresserede vi manglen på ethvert bevis, der forbinder de angivelige Guccifer 2.0-hacks og WikiLeaks, og vi bad specifikt præsident Obama om at afsløre eventuelt bevis på, at WikiLeaks fik DNC-data fra russerne [se her og her].

Han adresserede dette punkt under sin sidste pressekonference (18. januar) og beskrev »efterretningssamfundets konklusioner« som »ikke endegyldige«, selv om Vurderingen fra Efterretningssamfundet af 6. januar gav udtryk for »stor overbevisning« om, at russisk efterretning »videresendte materiale, det fik fra DNC … til WikiLeaks«.

Obamas indrømmelse kom ikke som en overraskelse for os. Det har længe stået os klart, at grunden til, at den amerikanske regering mangler endegyldigt bevis på en overførsel af et »russisk hack« til WikiLeaks skyldes, at der ikke fandt en sådan overførsel sted. For det meste baseret på den kumulativt unikke, tekniske erfaring hos vore eks-NSA-kolleger, har vi i næsten et år sagt, at DNC-data kom til WikiLeaks via en kopi/et læk fra en DNC-insider (men næsten med sikkerhed ikke fra den samme person, der kopierede DNC-data den 5. juli, 2016).

Ud fra det tilgængelige materiale konkluderer vi, at den samme proces med en inside-DNC-kopi/et læk blev brugt på to forskellige tidspunkter, af to forskellige enheder, og til to klart forskellige formål:

  • Et inside-læk til WikiLeaks, før Julian Assange den 12. juni meddelte, at han var i besiddelse af DNC-dokumenter og planlagde at offentliggøre dem (hvilket han gjorde den 22. juli) – hvor det formodede formål var at afsløre en stærk partiskhed til fordel for Clinton-kandidaturet, og
  • Et særskilt læk den 5. juli, 2016, for på forhånd at forfalske noget, WikiLeaks senere måtte offentliggøre, ved at »vise«, at det kom fra et »russisk hack«.

 

Hr. præsident,

Dette er vores første VIPS-memorandum til Dem, men vi har en historie for at lade amerikanske præsidenter vide, hvornår vi mener, vore tidligere efterretningskolleger har taget fejl i noget, der er vigtigt, og hvorfor. For eksempel advarede vores første sådant memorandum, en kommentar til præsident George W. Bush om Colin Powells tale i FN den 5. februar, 2003, om, at de »utilsigtede konsekvenser sandsynligvis ville blive katastrofale«, ifald USA angreb Irak og »retfærdiggjorde« krigen ved hjælp af efterretninger, som vi pensionerede efterretningsofficerer let kunne se, var svindel og drevet af en krigsdagsorden.

»Vurderingen fra Efterretningssamfundet« den 6. januar, af »håndplukkede« analytikere fra FBI, CIA og NSA, synes at passe ind i den samme kategori med at være drevet af en dagsorden. Den er i vid udstrækning baseret på en »vurdering«, og ikke støttet af nogen øjensynlige beviser, der går ud på, at en dunkel enhed med tilnavnet »Guccifer 2.0«, hackede DNC på vegne af russisk efterretning og gav DNC-e-mails til WikiLeaks.

De nylige, ovenfor nævnte resultater har slået et enormt skår i denne vurdering og sået alvorlig tvivl om fundamentet for den usædvanligt succesfulde kampagne for at lægge skylden på den russiske regering for hacking. De lærde hoveder og politikere, der har anført angrebet mod russisk »indblanding« i det amerikanske valg, kan forventes at forsøge at så tvivl om disse kriminaltekniske resultater, skulle disse nogensinde finde på at boble op til overfladen i mainstream-medierne. Men de tekniske begrænsninger af nutidens Internet forstås bredt. Vi er parat til at besvare alle substantielle udfordringer på basis af deres fortjenester.

De kunne måske tænke Dem at spørge CIA-direktør Mike Pompeo om, hvad han ved om dette. Vores egen lange erfaring i efterretningssamfundet indikerer, at det er muligt, at hverken tidligere CIA-direktør John Brennan, eller de cyber-krigere, der arbejdede for ham, har været fuldstændig oprigtige over for deres nye direktør med hensyn til, hvordan alt dette fandt sted.

 

Kopieret, ikke hacket

Som ovenfor anført, så fokuserede det netop afsluttede, uafhængige, kriminaltekniske arbejde på data, der var kopieret (ikke hacket) af et dunkelt individ ved navn »Guccifer 2.0«. De kriminaltekniske beviser reflekterer det, der synes at have været en desperat bestræbelse på at »give russerne skylden« for at offentliggøre særdeles pinlige DNC-e-mails tre dage før det Demokratiske partikonvent sidste juli. Eftersom indholdet af DNC-e-mailene stank af partiskhed til Clintons fordel, så hendes kampagne det tvingende nødvendigt at aflede opmærksomheden fra indhold til herkomst – som i hvem »hackede« disse DNC-e-mails? Kampagnen blev entusiastisk støttet af de føjelige »mainstream«-medier; det kører stadig for dem.

»Russerne« var den ideelle synder. Og, efter at WikiLeaks redaktør Julian Assange den 12. juni, 2016, meddelte, »Vi har e-mails relateret til Hillary Clinton, der afventer offentliggørelse«, havde hendes kampagne mere end en måned før konventet til at indskyde sine egne »kriminaltekniske fakta« for at forberede medie-pumpen til at lægge skylden på »russisk indblanding«. Fr. Clintons PR-chef Jennifer Palmieri har forklaret, hvordan hun brugte golfvogne til at foretage runderne under konventet. Hun skrev, at hendes »mission var at få pressen til at fokusere på noget, som selv vi fandt vanskeligt at forarbejde: nemlig udsigten til, at Rusland ikke alene havde hacket og stjålet e-mails fra DNC, men at det havde gjort det for at hjælpe Donald Trump og skade Hillary Clinton«.

Uafhængige cyber-efterforskere har nu fuldført den form for kriminalteknisk arbejde, som efterretningsvurderingen ikke gjorde. Mærkeligt nok stillede disse »håndplukkede« efterretningsanalytikere sig tilfredse med at »vurdere« dit og »vurdere« dat. I modsætning hertil gravede efterforskerne dybt og kom op med verificerbare beviser fra metadata, der blev fundet i registreringen af det angivelige russiske hack.

De fandt, at det påståede »hack« af DNC af Guccifer 2.0 ikke var noget hack, af Rusland eller af nogen andre. Det stammede snarere fra en kopiering (over på en ekstern lagerenhed – som f.eks. et USB-stik) udført af en insider. Data blev lækket for at involvere Rusland. Vi ved ikke, hvem eller hvad, den skumle Guccifer 2.0 er. Vi foreslår, De spørger FBI.

 

Den kronologiske rækkefølge

12. juni, 2016: Assange meddeler, at WikiLeaks står foran at offentliggøre »e-mails relateret til Hillary Clinton«.

14. juni, 2016: DNC-kontrahent Crowdstrike (der har en tvivlsom professionel historie og utallige interessekonflikter) meddeler, at skadelig software er blevet fundet på DNC-serveren og hævder, der er beviser for, at det blev indført af russere.

15. juni, 2016: »Guccifer 2.0« bekræfter DNC-erklæringen; påtager sig ansvaret for »hacket«; hævder at være en kilde til WikiLeaks; og udlægger et dokument, som tekniske undersøgelser viser, er forfalsket med »russiske fingeraftryk«.

Vi mener ikke, at timingen med den 12., 14. og 15. juni var rent tilfældig. Det antyder snarere begyndelsen af et forebyggende træk for at associere Rusland til det, WikiLeaks måske stod for at offentliggøre, og »vise«, at det kom fra et russisk hack.

 

Hovedbegivenheden

5. juli, 2016: I de tidlige aftentimer, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), kopierede nogen i EDT-tidszonen med en computer, der var direkte tilsluttet DNC-serveren eller DNC Local Area network, 1.976 megabyte data på 87 sekunder over på en ekstern lagerenhed. Denne hastighed er langt hurtigere end det, der er muligt med et hack.

Det fremstår således som, at det påståede »hack« af DNC af Guccifer 2.0 (den selvudråbte kilde til WikiLeaks) ikke var et hack af Rusland eller nogen anden, men snarere var en kopiering af DNC-data over på en ekstern lagerenhed.

 

»Tilsløring & af-tilsløring«

Hr. præsident, den neden for beskrevne afsløring kan være relateret. Selv om det ikke skulle være det, mener vi, det er noget, De bør gøres opmærksom på i denne generelle forbindelse. Den 7. marts begyndte WikiLeaks at offentliggøre en skattekiste af originale CIA-dokumenter, som WikiLeaks markerede med navnet »Vault 7«. WikiLeaks sagde, det havde fået skattekisten fra en nuværende eller tidligere CIA-kontrahent og beskrev den som sammenlignelig i omfang og betydning med den information, Edward Snowden gav reportere i 2013.

Der er ingen, der har sat spørgsmålstegn ved ægtheden af de originale dokumenter i Vault 7, der afslører et stort spektrum af redskaber til cyber-krigsførelse, der sandsynligvis var blevet udviklet med hjælp fra NSA, af CIA’s Tekniske Udviklingsgruppe. Denne gruppe var en del af det vidtstrakte CIA Direktorat for Digital Innovation – en vækstindustri etableret af John Brenan i 2015.

Digitale redskaber, man næppe forestiller sig – som kan tage kontrol over din bil og få den til at køre med over 100 miles/timen, for eksempel, eller som kan gøre det muligt at spionere gennem et Tv-apparat – blev beskrevet og behørigt rapporteret i New York Times og andre medier i hele marts måned. Men offentliggørelsen af Vault 7, del 3 den 31. marts, der afslørede programmet »Marble Framework«, blev tilsyneladende vurderet til at være for delikat til at kunne kvalificere som »nyheder, der kunne trykkes« og blev holdt ude af New York Times.

Ellen Nakashima fra Washington Post, tilsyneladende, »fik ikke memoet« i tide. Hendes artikel af 31. marts havde den opsigtsvækkende (og korrekte) overskrift: »WikiLeaks’ seneste offentliggørelse af CIA’s cyber-redskaber kunne afsløre tjenestens hacking-operationer«.

WikiLeaks’ offentliggørelse indikerede, at Marble var designet til fleksibel og brugervenlig »tilsløring«, og at Marble-kildekoden inkluderer en »af-tilsløring«, der kan omstøde CIA’s tekst-tilsløring.

Hvad der er vigtigere, så skal CIA angiveligt have brugt Marble i løbet af 2016. Nakashima udelod dette i sin Washington Post rapport, men inkluderede en anden, betydningsfuld pointe, som WikiLeaks fastslog; nemlig, at tilslørings-redskabet kunne bruges til at udføre et »dobbeltspil mht. tilskrivning til tekniske undersøgelser« eller operation under falsk flag, fordi det inkluderer prøver på kinesisk, russisk, koreansk, arabisk og persisk.

CIA’s reaktion var skarp. Direktør Mike Pompeo gik til angreb to uger senere og kaldte Assange og hans medarbejdere for »dæmoner« og fremførte; »Tiden er inde til at udråbe WikiLeaks som det, det virkeligt er, nemlig en ikke-statslig, fjendtlig efterretningstjeneste, der ofte tilskyndes af statslige aktører som Rusland.«

Hr. præsident, vi ved ikke, om CIA’s Marble Framework, eller lignende redskaber, spillede en eller anden rolle i kampagnen med at give Rusland skylden for at hacke DNC. Vi ved heller ikke, hvor oprigtige skabningerne i CIA’s Digital Innovation Direktorate har været over for Dem, og over for direktør Pompeo. Dette er områder, der måske ville have gavn af Det Hvide Hus’ snarlige gennemgang.

 

Putin og teknologi

Vi ved heller ikke, om De har haft en grundig diskussion om cyber-spørgsmål med præsident Putin. I sit interview til NBC’s Megyn Kelly synes han ganske villig til – endda ivrig for – at adressere spørgsmål med relation til den form for cyber-redskaber, der afsløres i Vault 7-afsløringerne, om ikke for andet, så for at indikere, at han er blevet briefet om dem. Putin påpegede, at nutidens teknologi gør det muligt at »maskere og kamuflere hacking i en grad, hvor ingen kan forstå oprindelsen [af hackingen] … Og, vice versa, så er det muligt at skabe en enhed eller et individ, som alle vil tro på, er den nøjagtige kilde til dette angreb.«

»Hackere kan være overalt«, sagde han. »Der kunne for øvrigt være hackere i USA, der meget dygtigt og professionelt gav sorteper videre til Rusland. Kan I ikke forestille jer et sådant scenarie?… Det kan jeg.«

 

Fuld afsløring: I løbet af de seneste årtier er ånden i vores efterretningsprofession udhulet i offentlighedens mening til et punkt, hvor man vurderer, at en analyse, der ikke har en dagsorden, er noget nær en umulighed. Vi tilføjer derfor dette dementi, som gælder for alt, vi i VIPS siger og gør: Vi har ingen politisk dagsorden; vores eneste formål er at udbrede sandhed og, når det er nødvendigt, stille vore tidligere efterretningskolleger til ansvar.

Vi taler og skriver uden frygt eller fordel. Som følge heraf er enhver lighed mellem det, vi siger, og det, præsidenter, politikere og lærde eksperter siger, rent tilfældig. Den kendsgerning, at vi finder det nødvendigt at inkludere denne påmindelse, siger meget om disse højst politiserede tider. Dette er vores 50. VIPS-memorandum siden den eftermiddag, Powell holdt sin tale i FN. Links til de forudgående 49 memoer kan findes her.

 

FOR STYRELSESGRUPPEN, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY:

William Binney, tidligere NSA teknisk direktør for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; medstifter af NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center

Skip Folden, uafhængig analytiker, pensioneret IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US (Medarbejder VIPS)

Matthew Hoh, tidligere kaptajn, USMC, Irak & Udenrigstjenesteofficer, Afghanistan (medarbejder VIPS)

Larry C. Johnson, CIA & Udenrigsministeriet (pensioneret)

Michael S. Kearns, Efterretningsofficer i Flyvevåbnet (pensioneret), Master SERE Resistance to Interrogation Instructor

John Kiriakou, tidligere CIA-kontraterrorofficer og tidligere seniorefterforsker, Senatskomite for Udenrigsrelationer

Linda Lewis, analytiker af politik for beredskab af masseødelæggelsesvåben (WMD), USDA (Landbrugsministeriet), pensioneret

Lisa Ling, TSgt (Teknisk sergent) USAF (USA’s Luftvåben) (pensioneret), (medarbejder VIPS)

Edward Loomis, jr., tidligere NSA tekniks direktør for Office of Signals Processing

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council, (pensioneret)

Ray McGovern, tidligere U.S. Army Infantry/efterretningsofficer og CIA-analytiker

Elizabeth Murray, tidligere Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Mellemøsten, CIA

Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent og tidligere Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (pensioneret)

Cian Westmoreland, tidligere USAF Radio Frequency Transmission Systems tekniker og Unmanned Aircraft Systems whistleblower (medarbejder VIPS)

Kirk Wiebe, tidligere senioranalytiker, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA

Sarah G. Wilton, efterretningsofficer, DIA (pensioneret); kommandør, US Naval Reserve (pensioneret)

Ann Wright, U.S. Army reserveoberst (pensioneret) og tidligere amerikansk diplomat  

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

            




Et dybt dyk ned i oprindelsen til
Russia-gate. LaRouche PAC
Internat. Webcast, 11/8 2017

Det, jeg vil gøre her i dag, er at fremlægge den dokumentation, der viser, at det, vi i realiteten har her, ikke er en russisk indblanding i USA’s interne anliggender; men at det snarere er en særdeles dirigeret indblanding på vegne af Det britiske Imperium. Dette er, hvad man burde efterforske, i modsætning til det såkaldte »aftalte spil« mellem præsident Trumps valgkampagneteam og så russerne. Det er meget vigtigt at dokumentere dette, og det er absolut afgørende, at dette kup stoppes; for, på dette tidspunkt i verdenshistorien, befinder vi os på randen af et nyt finanssammenbrud, langt større end i 2008. Vi befinder os i en situation, hvor briterne, for at opretholde deres bankerotte finanssystem, der har hjemsted i City of London og på Wall Street, har helliget sig til at bringe den amerikanske præsident til fald for at forhindre, at alternativet til dette sammenbrud bliver realiseret. …

 

Lyndon LaRouches indtrængende budskab til USA’s præsident og befolkning: ’Opgiv det britiske system; red folket’

Vært Jason Ross: Det er den 11. aug., 2017 og dette er fredags-webcastet på at larouchepac.com. Jeg er Jason Ross og aftenens vært. Vi har en særlig gæst i dag; Will Wertz, medlem af EIR’s redaktion. Vi hører fra Will om et øjeblik.

I forbindelsen med aftenens show vil vi diskutere noget, vi har talt en hel del om på dette program og denne webside; og det er memorandaet fra VIPS, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, der på en meget afgørende måde, baseret på computerteknisk efterforskning og Adam Carter, viser, at det russiske hack var et inside-job. Dette er forsiden af The Hamiltonian-avisen i denne uge, der kommer direkte til sagen; og denne historie udgives nu af store publikationer, inkl. The Nation ugemagasinet og Bloomberg News. Meget af den måde, dette er blevet præsenteret på, eller meget af den måde, hvorpå Russia-gate-kuppet mod Donald Trump opfattes af folk, der forstår, at det er et kup, er, at ’deep state’-apparatet kører en operation for at afsætte præsidenten og selv afgøre amerikansk politik.

Vi skal i dag høre fra Will Wertz, der vil dykke dybere ned i dette og hjælpe os til at forstå, at der ligger meget mere i dette end det, der kaldes ’deep state’. Roden til denne kup-operation går ud over USA’s grænser og går på fremtrædende vis til Storbritannien, til det endnu eksisterende Britiske Imperium. Lad os gå over til Will: Hvad kan du fortælle os om de dybere følgeslutninger, vi bør træffe ud fra dette kupforsøg mod præsidenten? Hvad betyder det; hvor kommer det fra?

Will Wertz: Lyndon LaRouche kom med følgende kommentar:

»Det amerikanske folk må kræve, at det igangværende, forræderiske, britiske kup mod det amerikanske præsidentskab og selve nationen må stoppes, og gerningsmændene retsforfølges og fængsles. Det britiske system må opgives, og præsidenten må intet middel sky for at redde dette lands befolkning, og resten af menneskeheden, fra yderligere britiskdirigerede afsavn mod deres liv. Opgiv det britiske system; red folket.«

Det, jeg vil gøre her i dag, er at fremlægge den dokumentation, der viser, at det, vi i realiteten har her, ikke er en russisk indblanding i USA’s interne anliggender; men at det snarere er en særdeles dirigeret indblanding på vegne af Det britiske Imperium. Dette er, hvad man burde efterforske, i modsætning til det såkaldte »aftalte spil« mellem præsident Trumps valgkampagneteam og så russerne. Det er meget vigtigt at dokumentere dette, og det er absolut afgørende, at dette kup stoppes; for, på dette tidspunkt i verdenshistorien, befinder vi os på randen af et nyt finanssammenbrud, langt større end i 2008. Vi befinder os i en situation, hvor briterne, for at opretholde deres bankerotte finanssystem, der har hjemsted i City of London og på Wall Street, har helliget sig til at bringe den amerikanske præsident til fald for at forhindre, at alternativet til dette sammenbrud bliver realiseret. Alternativet til dette sammenbrud er det, Lyndon LaRouche har kaldt Firemagts-konceptet; en alliance mellem USA, Rusland, Kina og potentielt Indien, og som repræsenterer den industrielle magt på denne planet og det overvældende flertal af verdens befolkning. Denne kombination kan løse bogstavelig talt ethvert problem, vi konfronteres med på planeten Jord, og hinsides. For eksempel kræver krisen over Koreahalvøen et samarbejde mellem USA, Kina og Rusland; hvor de to sidstnævnte er naboer til Nord- og Sydkorea. Kampen mod terrorisme i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, som strækker sig endnu længere end dette, kræver et sådant samarbejde. Genopbygningen af verdensøkonomien kræver et sådant samarbejde – især gennem, at USA slutter sig til bestræbelserne, som Kina har initieret – den såkaldte Silkevej eller Bælte & Vej Initiativet, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche i årtier har kæmpet for og refereret til som Verdenslandbroen.

Alle disse problemer kan løses med dette samarbejde; og dette samarbejde ville ødelægge Det britiske Imperium én gang for alle. Det er, hvad der i øjeblikket står på spil. Jeg vil også påpege, at Det britiske Imperium rent historisk har været helliget massiv befolkningsreduktion, folkemord, og en reducering af verdens befolkning fra de nuværende mere end 6 mia. og til 1 mia. mennesker. Dette imperium er villigt til at bringe verden til randen af atomkrig med sin geopolitiske strategi mod Rusland og Kina. Det er det underliggende spørgsmål, der ligger bag det aktuelle forsøg på at gennemføre et kup mod USA’s præsident.

Beviserne for den britiske involvering er gennemskuelige. Donald Trump annoncerede sin præsidentkampagne den 16. juni, 2015. Der var en artikel i The Guardian af 13. april, 2017. Her siger de, at »britisk efterretning blev først i slutningen af 2015« – dvs. få måneder efter, at Donald Trump annoncerede sin præsidentvalgkampagne – »opmærksom på det, det kaldte ’mistænkelige interaktioner’ mellem personer med tilknytning til Trump og kendte eller mistænkte russiske agenter«. Artiklens titel lyder, British Spies Were First to Spot Trump Team’s Links with Russia’. I artiklen siger de, at disse såkaldte ’interaktioner’ først blev afdækket af noget, der hedder Government Communications Headquarters – GCHQ, hvilket svarer til NSA. De gør meget ud af at pointere, at, »det er klart, at GCHQ på intet tidspunkt udførte en operation rettet mod Trump eller hans team, eller proaktivt søgte information. De angivelige samtaler blev opsnappet ved et tilfælde.«

De siger også, at GCHQ spillede en fremtrædende rolle på et tidligt tidspunkt, hvor de kickstartede FBI’s efterforskning af Trump-Rusland, og som begyndte i slutningen af juli, 2016. Husk, at det Republikanske Konvent, der nominerede Donald Trump, fandt sted fra 18.-21. juli, 2016. Så GCHQ følger Donald Trump få måneder efter hans annoncering af Republikanernes nominering til præsidentkandidat; og GCHQ kickstarter FBI’s efterforskning af Donald Trump, sandsynligvis få dage efter hans nominering i juli 2016. Artiklen siger, »FBI og CIA forstod kun langsomt arten af de angivelige kontakter mellem Trumps associerede folk og russere. Dette skyldtes til dels amerikansk lov, der forbyder amerikanske tjenester at undersøge amerikanske borgeres private kommunikationer uden en retskendelse. De var uddannede til ikke at gøre dette.« Den lov, de henviser til, er selvfølgelig USA’s Forfatning; som amerikanske efterretningstjenester desværre ikke har overholdt så nøje, som Edward Snowden afslørede.

De rapporterer dernæst, at Robert Hannigan, chef for GCHQ, i sommeren 2016 videregav materiale til CIA-chef John Brennan; og at Brennan brugte denne information til at lancere en stor efterforskning på tværs af tjenesterne, af et internt anliggende. Så det er et spørgsmål, om det er en overtrædelse af CIA’s charter, at en sådan efterforskning overhovedet lanceres; og dernæst at briefe lederskabet i de Demokratiske og Republikanske formandsskaber og højtplacerede medlemmer af Husets og Senatets Efterretningskomiteer om denne information, som endnu i dag ikke er blevet bekræftet.

Dette er altså britisk efterretnings indblanding i valgene. Føj hertil dossieret, der blev udarbejdet af den såkaldte »tidligere« MI6-agent Christopher Steele. Dette har fungeret som køreplanen for FBI’s efterforskning. Kopier af det blev givet direkte til FBI, hvis ikke af GCHQ, så af MI-6. Vi ved, at John McCain gav FBI en kopi, da han fik en sådan kopi. Hvad har vi så her mht. Christopher Steele? Han er en tidligere MI-6-agent; han arbejde under dække af det Britiske Udenrigsministerium i ambassaden i Moskva, men var en efterretningsagent. Tilbage i 2009 dannede han et selskab ved navn Orbis Business Executives. Fra mindst 2010 og frem havde han arbejdet med FBI’s Enhed for Eurasisk Organiseret Kriminalitet, med hjemsted i New York City. Samme år, som Orbis Business Executives blev lanceret – 2009 – blev et andet selskab lanceret i USA, ved navn Fusion GPS; samme år. Så tidligt som i 2010, iflg. retslige dokumenter, havde disse to såkaldte selskaber en fortrolighedsaftale. Så selv om den officielle historie er, at Fusion GPS hyrede Orbis Business Executives til at udføre efterforskning af politiske modstandere imod Donald Trump på vegne af Hillary Clinton, så er kendsgerningen den, at disse to selskaber har arbejdet sammen siden deres oprettelse i 2009; og deres fortrolighedsaftale går tilbage til året efter, 2010. Denne fortrolighedsaftale bruges af Fusion GPS som en grund til ikke at overgive information til Senatets Retsudvalg, som har krævet det i forbindelse med dette dossier.

Så hvad har vi her? Vi har GCHQ, der kickstarter en efterforskning gennem international overvågning; vi har tidligere MI-6-agent Christopher Steele, der får information fra russere, som i dette tilfælde ikke er særlig pålideligt; og bruger dette som en køreplan til at lancere en efterforskning af USA’s præsident efter, han var valgt. Det bør påpeges, at en af hovedpersonerne i FBI, der har været involveret i dette, er den tidligere, fungerende direktør for FBI. Han var fungerende direktør efter Comey gik, og han er nu erstattet af Christopher Wray. Men Andrew McCabe var i sin tidligere karriere chef for FBI’s Enhed for Eurasisk Organiseret Kriminalitet i New York City. Senator Grassley har sendt en hel række spørgsmål til vicejustitsminister Rod Rosenstein om Andrew McCabe; for mistanken går ud på, at Andrew McCabe var direkte involveret som Christopher Steeles manager. Det bør ligeledes påpeges, at, på et vist tidspunkt, havde FBI i tankerne at betale Christopher Steele for at fortsætte sin såkaldte efterforskning. Det spørgsmål, som Grassley stiller, er, var McCabe involveret specifikt i denne situation? Man må her forstå, at Andrew McCabe aktuelt er under efterforskning, fordi han var involveret i en beslutning om, at hans kone, Jill McCabe, skulle stille op til delstats-senator for staten Virginia mod senator Dick Black. Dette blev arrangeret gennem guvernør McAuliffe, en nær tilhænger af Hillary Clinton; som på det tidspunkt blev efterforsket af FBI. McCabe menes også at have været involveret i efterforskningen af Hillary Clintons e-mails. Der er her tale om en total interessekonflikt på vegne af McCabe; som måske var hovedpersonen, der arbejde hos FBI med Christopher Steele.

Dette er forbindelsesleddet til Det britiske Imperium, som er direkte involveret i operationen imod USA’s præsident. Dens formål er at ødelægge USA’s præsidentskab, så præsident Trump ikke kan udvikle samarbejdsrelationer med Rusland og Kina i særdeleshed, i kampen mod terrorisme; og ikke kan arbejde på at bringe USA ind i et samarbejde med Rusland og Kina omkring perspektivet for Bælte & Vej, som ville være afgørende for at udvikle USA’s økonomi ved hjælp af det amerikanske systems metoder.

Jeg tror, vi slutter her og hører, hvilke spørgsmål, I har.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

ROSS:  I think you really pulled together the British origin
of the whole Russia story around Trump; and it’s sort of shocking
thing that this dossier of material that was compiled by Steele,
who as you note is a “former” MI-6 agent.  If it’s dirt on Trump
coming from Russians, apparently that’s fine to launch an
investigation about using the CIA and the FBI.  But the mere
suspicion that Donald Trump might have gotten dirt on Hillary
from Russians by any means — regardless of a hack or just
getting information — is considered to be proof of some
nefarious act.
Let me ask you; you had discussed the difference in
orientation between what the motivation would be behind a British
outlook versus what America might do.  Just as a reminder for our
viewers, we’re now four years into a process that was launched in
September 2013 when President Xi Jinping of China, in a speech in
Kazakhstan, announced the One Belt, One Road Initiative; which
has now come to encompass dozens of countries around the world
and hundreds of billions of dollars towards infrastructure and
other cooperative investments.  So there’s really a new game in
town taking shape on the planet.  Could you describe for us or
help us understand how the British view this; or understand the
difference in outlook between British geopolitics compared to
what the United States could adopt as a national policy
orientation?

WERTZ:  Yes.  May I have photo 1?  Now, the British policy
is a policy of geopolitics; and this is a longstanding policy.
In 1919, Halford Mackinder wrote a paper entitled “The
Geographical Pivot of History”.  What he wrote there in summary
is as follows:  Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland.
Who rules the Heartland commands the world island.  Who rules the
world island commands the world.  As you can see from this
graphic, Russia is the pivot area; the heartland.  Surrounding it
is an area which is called the Inner Crescent; which today would
be called the Arc of Crisis, as defined by another geopolitician,
Bernard Lewis.  Who was born in Britain, but later became an
American citizen.  That’s the policy that we’ve been carrying
out.  Who rules East Europe?  Think about the move eastward by
NATO to the very borders of Russia.  Think about the policy of
regime change in the entire Arc of Crisis area indicated here as
the Inner Crescent surrounding Russia.  This is the policy that
was also implemented under Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Carter
administration.  We see it today; it’s continuing today with the
regime change policies in Libya, in Egypt before it was reversed
by el-Sisi against Morsi.  We see it in Iraq beginning in 2003;
we see it today in the attempt in Syria.  Before that, we saw it
in Afghanistan, and that’s still a crisis today.  We see it in
Ukraine today.  This is the geopolitical policy of the British
which led to World War II by the way, because this was the policy
of Hitler.  The Mackinder policy was picked up Haushofer, who was
instrumental in defining Hitler’s policy of marching East to
Russia — the Soviet Union at that time.  So this is the
geopolitical policy which is operative today.
Contrast that now to the World Land-Bridge policy — photo
2, please.  This is the policy proposed by Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche.  As you see, the world island is essentially Asia,
Europe, and Africa.  This policy is not limited to the so-called
world island; this is a policy for all of humanity, extending
into the Western Hemisphere.  The policy is one of economic
development.  As the Chinese say, a “win-win” strategy; peace
based upon economic development.  That is the central conception,
so as to realize the actual potential of humanity for further
improvements in its standard of living, its quality of mentation,
and its ability not only to develop the planet Earth for man’s
benefit, but eventually to colonize outer space; which is man’s
fundamental mission.
So, these are the two contrasting views; and what Americans
and others throughout the world need to know is the British
Empire is alive, and it is carrying out the same policy which it
has carried out at least over the last 100 years, which has led
previously to world wars, and threatens to lead to world wars
today.  But there is an alternative, which is the World
Land-Bridge, the One Belt, One Road policy; the Silk Road, which
has been adopted by a vast majority of countries throughout the
world.

ROSS:  You talked about the British Empire and the
geopolitical objectives of Halford Mackinder.  This is sometime
in the past; you had mentioned its link to Adolf Hitler’s
orientation towards attacking to the East.  But today, I think
that most people believe that there is no British Empire; or that
the power of the British Empire has waned so dramatically from
its peak that it’s hardly a driving force in world affairs today.
Why do you speak about the importance of the British Empire?  How
important is it today?  What’s its power?  How does it exist?

WERTZ:  Please show photos 4 and 3.  Most people don’t
understand that the British Empire is really based upon the
Venetian system.  Venice was not big in terms of military forces,
or geography; it’s a city.  Yet, the Venetian system, as a
financial system, was an imperial system; and the British system
from its inception is modeled upon that financial imperial
system.  The goals of the British Empire are really totally
anti-human.  You could compare it to the Greek mythological
figure of Zeus, who did not want mankind to develop; did not want
mankind to have science; did not want mankind to have technology.
In opposition to that, you had Prometheus, who gave man fire;
science; the means of developing the human mind so as to further
the mission of humanity.  The British policy is fundamentally a
policy of financial imperialism, particularly after World War II;
and it is also a policy based upon a perspective of destroying
the notion of the sovereign nation-state; of reducing world
population from the current levels of over 6 billion to a level
of 1 billion or less, as I said earlier.
I want to just indicate two of the leading figures in
developing the British conception of empire.  One is H.G. Wells,
who wrote a piece called {The Open Conspiracy} in the year 1928.
What he said in that is the following:  “It lies within the power
of the Atlantic communities to impose a world state, a world
directorate upon the world.  The open conspiracy rests upon a
disrespect for national sovereignty.  Its main political idea,
its political strategy is to weaken, deface, incorporate, or
supersede existing governments.  It considers all existing
governments as entirely provisional in nature.”  At one point he
says, “There will be little need for a President.”  That’s the
policy of H.G. Wells.  As you can see, this is the policy of
so-called limited sovereignty; it’s the policy of super-national
institutions.  Like for instance, the European Union has become.
As you can see, the basic idea is to eliminate national
sovereignty, create super-national institutions in which you’d
have no need for a President.  Of course that’s the view that the
British take today.  They would just as soon there not be a
President who would assert the principle of national sovereignty
and develop the people through developing the economy of the
nation, and working with other nations to have the same effect in
respect to the world population.
Bertrand Russell.  Lyndon LaRouche at one point called
Bertrand Russell the most evil man of the 20th Century.  He’s
often known as an advocate of peace.  Well, H.G. Wells made the
same kind of argument for world peace; that was the justification
for dictatorial methods.  In the case of Bertrand Russell, after
World War II Bertrand Russell actually proposed — when he
thought the United States had a monopoly on nuclear weapons —
that the United States threaten to use nuclear weapons against
the then Soviet Union.  He was not able to act on that idea,
because as it turned out, the Soviet Union developed nuclear
weapons.  But let me just read an interchange with Bertrand
Russell on this subject.  He was asked, “Is it true or untrue
that in recent years you advocate that a preventive war might be
made against Communism, against Soviet Russia?”  Russell: “It’s
entirely true.  And I don’t repent of it now.  It was not
inconsistent with what I think now.  There was a time just after
the last war when the Americans had a monopoly of nuclear weapons
and offered to internationalize nuclear weapons by the Baruch
Proposal.  I thought this was an extremely generous proposal on
their part.  One which it would be very desirable that the world
should accept.  Not that I advocated a nuclear war; but I did
think that great pressure should be put upon Russia to accept the
Baruch Proposal, and I did think that if they continued to
refuse, it might be necessary actually to go to war.  At that
time, nuclear weapons existed only on one side, and therefore the
odds were, the Russians would have given way.  I thought they
would.”  Question: “Suppose they hadn’t given way?”  Russell: “I
thought and hoped that the Russians would give way.  But of
course, you can’t threaten unless you’re prepared to have your
bluff called.”
So, this is the policy of Bertrand Russell; to create a one
world directorate as in the case of H.G. Wells, and to threaten
preemptive nuclear war against the then-Soviet Union in order to
enforce such a perspective.  Now we are once again on the verge
of, in this case, thermonuclear war; and that is the policy of
the British Empire.  The British basically view war as one means
by which they can reduce world population.

ROSS:  In going after British policy, this seems to be
something that very clearly the U.S. has been opposed to since
its inception.  The American Revolution, the first of the
complaints in the Declaration of Independence wasn’t about
taxation without representation; it was that the King had refused
his assent to laws that were necessary for the common good.
I think the way that you posed things, in terms of Zeus and
Prometheus,
Between having power by preventing others from developing versus
causing and fostering development is a very good way to look at
the way at the relationship between the British Empire and the
U.S. over our history.
This must have shifted at some point given that there’s so
many factions in the U.S. now who are adopting policies that
sound very much like British policies — the “responsibility to
protect” doctrine, which was announced by Prime Minister Tony
Blair in Chicago a decade ago.  This has become sort of an
orthodoxy almost in Washington, D.C., where it’s considered
perfectly natural to intervene in nations that aren’t posing any
particular threat to the U.S., in order to prevent some internal
calamity, used as an excuse to cause the chaos that we’ve seen in
Libya, the mess that we’ve seen in Syria, etc.  So can you tell
us more about this shift?  Has this always been a fight inside
the United States, or when did the U.S. begin to adopt an almost
British outlook on foreign affairs?

WERTZ:  It’s important for people to maintain a perspective
involving a long arc of history.  People know in this country
that the United States fought, before it became officially the
United States and adopted a Constitution, fought a Revolution
against the British Empire.  In 1812, it was the British who
burned down the White House.  This has been an ongoing conflict
between the British and the United States.  And when I’m
referring to the British, I’m not referring to the British
people, that should be very clear;  I’m referring to the British
Monarchy, the British Empire as a system of government.  Now, the
British also supported the Confederacy in the Civil War.  And
Lincoln was assassinated at the end of that war by individuals
who it is believed were actually funded by the British,
specifically by one James Bulloch, the uncle of Theodore
Roosevelt, who was based in Great Britain during the entire Civil
War, and was essentially the foreign agent of Confederacy based
in Britain.
But the United States was able to proceed after the Civil
War, and I think it became clear to the British that they were
not going to be able to take over the United States by military
means, as in the Revolution, the War of 1812, or the Civil War,
but rather they had to use other means; although those other
means continued to involve assassination.  One of the key
breaking points in the whole process was the assassination of
President McKinley in 1901, and of course the person who became
President at that point was Theodore Roosevelt.  This is in the
period leading into World War I, and under McKinley, and prior to
his assassination, the United States had very close relations
with Germany under Bismarck, with Russia, with Japan.  And this
was reversed by Teddy Roosevelt, who established the so-called
U.S.-British “special relationship.”  And undoubtedly his uncle
and the influence of his uncle on Teddy Roosevelt played a
critical role in his perspective.
Now, Franklin Roosevelt had a completely different
perspective.  He traced his heritage back to Isaac Roosevelt, who
worked closely with Alexander Hamilton, and Roosevelt’s entire
policy was based on the American System of economy, the same kind
of American System of economy which President Trump has, in
recent speeches in Kentucky, Detroit, and elsewhere, advocated,
including Glass-Steagall.
Now, during World War II, the British who had backed Hitler,
had backed Mussolini, had backed Franco, realized when Hitler
turned westward into France and threatened Great Britain, that
they needed the United States to defeat Hitler at that point.
And what you have from that point on, is a situation where the
British operated in the United States to help bring the United
States into that war.  But when Roosevelt died, what happened, is
that the British took over, once again.  Not fully, but you had a
situation where the British began a process of trying to reverse
what Roosevelt had done.  And during World War II there was a
famous meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill.  Do you have
photo 5? [Stalin, FDR, Churchill at Tehran 1943]  There was a
famous meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill [April 1941]
reported by Roosevelt’s son, Elliot Roosevelt, in which Franklin
Roosevelt said, we’re not fighting World War II in order to
preserve the British Empire, but rather, after this war we’re
going to use American System methods of economic development to
develop the entire world and to end colonialism altogether.
When Roosevelt died, the British, through Churchill, through
their intelligence agencies, and through Harry Truman, moved to
begin the process of attempting to bring the United States into
this British Empire orbit, and that has been the ongoing conflict
that we’ve had over the last 70 years or more.  And it’s not
resolved to this day and it has to be resolved by defeating the
British Empire.
During World War II, the British set up intelligence
operations in the United States,  — can I have pictures, 6, 7,
and 8.  There was an individual by the name of Sir William S.
Stephenson, you see him there, Canadian born.  He set up
something called the British covert operations which operated
under the cover of the British Security Coordination, which was
located in Rockefeller Center.  And they ran covert operations in
the United States during this whole period, basically from 1939
through 1944, and he represented both MI6 and MI5; he worked
directly with Allen Dulles who had an office in the same
building, on the same floor as Stephenson.  Dulles, of course,
later became head of the CIA, until he was relieved of duty by
John F. Kennedy.  Stephenson also worked very closely with the
FBI, with J. Edgar Hoover.
So, in a certain sense, this apparatus, from that period,
consolidated after Roosevelt’s death, and for instance, in 1946,
there was something signed called the “U.K.-U.S.A. Agreement” and
it was an agreement to have intelligence collaboration between
the U.S. and the U.K. in respect to the Soviet Union and the East
bloc countries.  This later was transformed into the “Five Eyes,”
which was the United States, U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and
Canada.  So in a very real sense, the United States became a part
of the British Empire intelligence apparatus.  And what we see
today with GCHQ/MI6, their work with Brennan at the CIA, with
Comey and McCabe at the FBI, and Clapper [as DNI], is a
continuation of that U.S.-U.K. Agreement.  The surveillance was
done under the codename “Echelon” and it’s still being done under
that name; even after the Soviet Union collapsed, it’s directed
against the former Soviet Union and East bloc countries.  And
that is what we see today, as I said.  As Snowden, in describing
this relationship said, the Five Eyes are a “supranational
intelligence organization that doesn’t answer to the known laws
of its own countries.”  So that’s the picture I can give you.

ROSS:  This is a you might say chilling picture, a very
scary picture.  What is it that we ought to do?  This is much
bigger I think than people, even those who understand that a coup
is in process or that Russia-gate is a whole bunch of baloney,
this is a lot deeper than what most people believe they’re up
against.  I think you put out a very good picture of what we’re
up against, what the mission is; could you lay out for our
viewers what ought to be done:  How do we fight against this? and
what do we create in its stead?  What’s our objective here?

WERTZ:  Lyndon LaRouche yesterday said that we have to “pour
it on.”  We have to really escalate the mobilization to get a
breakthrough in respect to the VIPS memorandum which we discussed
at the very beginning.  The whole edifice of the lie that the
Russians interfered in the elections, that the Trump campaign
colluded with the Russians, is about to fall.  And we have to
make sure that it falls.  As you indicated in the beginning, the
VIPS memo was produced in July, it was sent to the President,
it’s been sent to the Justice Department, it’s been widely
circulated.  We, in our movement, got out something like 100
copies of the VIPS memo in offices in Washington, D.C. two weeks
ago, concentrating on the Intelligence Committees of both the
House and Senate, as well as the Judiciary Committee.  We also
got this out, this week, at the Old Executive Office Building in
Washington, D.C. and at the Justice Department.
And the story is beginning to break:  You mentioned the
article in {The Nation}.  This is a very powerful article that
just appeared, and what the author, Patrick Lawrence, says is the
following: “Under no circumstance can it be acceptable that the
relevant authoritiesthe National Security Agency, the Justice
Department (via the Federal Bureau of Investigation), and the
Central Intelligence Agencyleave these new findings without
reply.”
[https://www.thenation.com/article/unverified-russiagate-
allegations-promoted-by-an-irresponsible-congress-and-media-
have-become-a-grave-threat-to-american-national-security/]
Now, the company that the DNC hired, CrowdStrike, the one
that claimed that they had evidence that the Russians had hacked
the DNC computers, they just said, “we continue to stand by our
report,” arguing that by July 5th, all malware had been removed
from the DNC’s computers.  But as Patrick Lawrence points out,
“But the presence or absence of malware by that time is entirely
immaterial, because the event of July 5 is proven to have been a
leak and not a hack.”
The point here is, you have {The Nation} article, you have
Newsmax, which gave coverage to this; Bloomberg had an article
yesterday on the VIPS and their conclusions.  What’s required is
for the American people to take back their country and ensure
that the Constitution survives, that the republic of the United
States survives.  We have to mobilize to force a situation where,
instead of investigating Trump, what should be investigated is
the British role in all of this and the role of members of U.S.
intelligence in participating in this attempt at a coup against
the United States of America and against the President of the
United States of America. John Brennan recently argued that if
President Trump were to fire Mueller as Special Counsel, that
members of the Executive should refuse to obey his orders:
That’s a call for a coup by the ex-CIA director.
So as Lyndon LaRouche said at the beginning, we’ve got to
cancel the British system, we’ve got to save our people.  What’s
being run in this country is the equivalent of the British Opium
War against China, from 1800s in the opioid and more widespread
drug addiction that’s destroying this country.  We have to free
the President, to be able to carry out the policies which he at
least has indicated he has an intention to implement, to the
benefit of this country and the benefit of the world.  That’s the
issue that’s before us right now.
So what I would encourage every American citizen to do, is
to contact the President:  Tell him, that he has their support to
move on this issue.  It was not a hack, it was a leak.  A lie has
been used as a pretext for overthrowing the President of the
United States, and it’s being conducted by a foreign government,
in collusion with traitors in the United States like Brennan and
others.  So those people should be investigated; and here you
have a situation where a crime was allegedly committed at the
DNC.  The DNC hired its own private investigator; the private
investigator announced what the conclusion of its investigation
was.  The police were never invited to the scene.  They never
secured the crime scene, they never investigated the crime scene,
the computers have never been seen by the FBI.  This is
completely preposterous!
And the entire country has been put in jeopardy as a result
of something which is unheard of!  Have you ever heard of a crime
where the police were not allowed to secure the crime scene and
investigate the crime?  And the alleged victim of the crime,
who’s now carrying out a campaign against the President of the
United States, is allowed to determine how the investigation is
conducted and also what the conclusion of the investigation is.
So this is intolerable!  And as Patrick Lawrence said, it
cannot stand that there is not a reply.  The forensic evidence is
solid.  It is presented by experts from the NSA itself, who know
how this is done.
So we have to ensure that this lie collapses immediately,
that the people involved in this coup against the President are
investigated and imprisoned if found guilty.  That is what’s
required.  So contact the President, tell him that you support
him, and go in public with this.  Demand that the representatives
of the VIPS be allowed to testify before the various committees
of Congress, to get at the bottom of this crime which has been
committed against our President and against our country.
And if we do that, then we create the basis for
collaboration between the United States, Russia, China, and
India, which, as Lyndon LaRouche said in his four powers concept,
is the necessary means for dismantling the British Empire once
and for all.  What we need to do, is destroy Zeus and free
Prometheus.

ROSS:  Great.  Our viewers have got an opportunity to join
in on this. You’ve mentioned many of the ways that this can
occur, and there’s many things that supporters and activists are
doing — holding rallies at their town hall, going to
congressional meetings or on congressional teleconferences and
bringing up the VIPS memo, bringing up the Russia-gate fraud.
We’re urging people to take pictures of their activities about
this, take pictures of getting out the material about the
Russia-gate fraud, and mark it “#Russia-gate fraud”; let
everybody know and spread the word about this.
We have a petition to the President, where we’re asking
Donald Trump not to try to hope that this Russia thing goes away,
but to take it on directly, to “investigate this British
subversion of the United States.  And as you can see on the
bottom of your screen, you can sign that petition [President
Trump, Investigate British Subversion of the U.S.A.”] and spread
it to others at the link, http://lpac.co/yt17.  We’ll have that
link on the webpage for this week’s webcast as well.
[https://larouchepac.com/20170811/larouchepac-friday-webcast
-will-wertz].
So spread the word.  We’ve got to defeat this coup; it’s
absolutely urgent to free up the United States to have a
functioning Presidency, so we can take on matters that are
actually important to our future, like implementing
Glass-Steagall, putting in place the economic proposals of
LaRouche, the Four Laws, to make it possible to finance an
economic recovery and to do so in conjunction with China, with
Russia, to put the world on a path towards development and
progress.  Help make that happen: Please contribute to the
LaRouchePAC.
Will, I’d like to thank you for being on the show today, I
think you really put together a very comprehensive picture on
this, and we’ll see everybody again, next week.




Zeus må ødelægges – Prometheus sættes fri.
Uddrag af Dialog med Manhattanprojektet,
5. aug., 2017:
»LaRouche: ’Faren er atomkrig
– aflys Det britiske Imperium; red folket’«

Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at vi nu er ved et punkt, hvor denne sameksistens, denne symbiotiske relation, som man ser i den amerikansk-britiske »særlige relation«, må ødelægges. Menneskeheden må nå til et voksenstadie, hvor man ikke har denne imperiepolitik, der har ligeværdig status med menneskeheden. Zeus må ødelægges – Prometheus sættes fri.

Renée Sigerson (LaRouche-bevægelsen): I ånden af vor umistelige ret til stræben efter lykke, vil jeg blot tilføje et element til denne diskussion, og vi kan forhåbentlig diskutere dette mere fremover. Men det, jeg gerne vil bringe ind, er, at grunden til, at dette historiske øjeblik er så afgørende, er ikke, at der eksisterer atomvåben; men at atomvåben eksisterer, fordi Det britiske Imperium i løbet af det 20. århundrede, gennem folk som Bertrand Russel og H.G. Wells osv., indså, at, uden sådanne ødelæggende, verdensomspændende supervåben, ultimative masseødelæggelsesvåben, ville de (Det britiske Imperium) blive fjernet fra Jordens overflade; at menneskehedens udvikling var ved at nå et punkt, hvor deres pant var ved at udløbe.

Vi må konstant tale om dette, når vi mobiliserer folk til at gå med i organisationen, og i mine diskussioner med folk er mit mentale billede af Det britiske Imperium en brændende fakkel, hvor – til forskel fra Prometheus – ilden ikke organiseres for at hjælpe menneskehedens fremtid, men at de bliver brændt til sod. Det, de prøver at gøre, er at redde sig selv i tide, før det nye, økonomiske system, som Lyn har skabt, fjerner dem fra Jordens overflade.

Spørgsmålet om Lyns personlige rolle i at bringe historien til et punkt, hvor de, bogstavelig talt, må ødelægge menneskeheden for at de selv … I ved, digteren John Milton (1608-1674) sagde om dette, på tidspunktet for det fremvoksende, venetianske, britiske oligarki, han sagde, de ville »hellere herske i helvede end tjene i himlen«. Og de er virkelig så sataniske. Opiatepidemien, som de har opfundet, som HSBC har opfundet i USA[1] – som vi advarede mod; vi skrev en bog om HSBC i 1979, og vi sagde til folk, hvis I slipper disse svin ind i landet, så har vi inden for én generation en opiatepidemi her i USA. Dette er de folk, der kørte Opiumskrigene mod Kina. Og vi havde desværre fuldstændig ret i, at det skete.

Det fantastiske ved Lyn er, at her stod han i Indien, i 1945-46, og han så alt dette! Og jeg er virkelig overbevist om – han har aldrig sagt det præcist – at det var grunden til, at han besluttede, han måtte blive økonom, for disse unge indere kom hen til ham og sagde, »amerikanske soldat, amerikanske soldat? Efter krigen, vil du så gå ud og skaffe os maskiner? Vil du hjælpe os til at blive industrialiseret? Vil du hjælp os med at afkaste dette åg?« Og han holdt sit løfte til dem om, at han ville hjælpe, men han gjorde det ved at hellige sig opdagelsen af et princip, som er, at roden til økonomisk udvikling faktisk er menneskelig kreativitet. Det er noget ikke-fysisk, som er menneskelig kreativitet, som er den faktiske årsag og rod til økonomisk udvikling.

Og det er spredningen af denne idé i verden, inkl. i det folkerige Kina i dag, som nu er i færd med at bringe Det britiske Imperium, og imperieideen om menneskehedens slaveri, til et punkt, hvor det afgår ved døden.

Så de har intet andet valg end at sprænge os alle sammen i stykker, eller også fortsætte med at drive sig selv bankerot og selv brænde, ligesom denne her bygning, som de nedbrændte i London (Grenfell Tower). I ved, den britiske befolkning har nået enden af sit reb: for, man har disse sociale boligbyggerier, som de beklædte med brandfarlig isolering, så hvis man stryger en tændstik det forkerte sted, brænder bygningen ned på 20 minutter, og 100 mennesker dør. I har sikkert hørt om dette; det er en metafor for, hvor sindssyge, de er! De er fuldstændig sindssyge! Og derfor er de så farlige, men også sårbare.

Og jeg mener, at den ånd, Patrick (en tidligere spørger) eksemplificerer, og som vi alle har i os, er, at vi vil opnå vores stræben efter lykke og bringe disse fyre til fald og blive dem kvit, rent faktisk blive dem kvit, og derfor diskuterer vi dem for at indgyde os selv selvtillid mht., at vi kan formidle dette til folk. Det var, hvad jeg ville sige.

Diane Sare (mødeleder): Virkelig godt. Vil du, Will (Wertz), sige noget som afslutning?

Will Wertz (redaktionen, EIR): Det vil jeg blot støtte. Pointen er, at Det britiske Imperiums eksistens ikke er noget, der bør accepteres som »sådan er tingene«. I så fald har vi det, der hedder et manikæisk (sort-hvidt) univers, hvor godt og ondt sameksisterer. Og der er i realiteten et problem, som udviklede sig efter renæssancen, og som er, at man fik udviklingen af nationalstaten; på den anden side, så fik nationalstaten ikke overherredømmet i hele verden, og imperiesystemet blev ved at eksistere. Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at vi nu er ved et punkt, hvor denne sameksistens, denne symbiotiske relation, som man ser i den amerikansk-britiske »særlige relation«, må ødelægges. Menneskeheden må nå til et voksenstadie, hvor man ikke har denne imperiepolitik, der har ligeværdig status med menneskeheden. Zeus må ødelægges – Prometheus sættes fri.

Hele videoen kan ses her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjttaTmlA9g

Foto: Relief i marmor af ukendt, italiensk kunstner, 3. årh. e. Kr.: Prometheus skaber mennesket under Athenes ledelse. Athene var i græsk mytologi gudinde for visdom. (Louvre-museet).

[1] Se EIR-artikel, februar 2015: Vil HSBC-skandalen sænke Wall Streets Obama-præsidentskab? http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=5202




Det er et internationalt anliggende
at stoppe kuppet imod Trump.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
4. august, 2017

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, at dette ikke blot er en vedtagelse i Senatet, eller i Kongressen; men dette handler om præsidenten i amerikansk historie lige fra USA’s grundlæggelse. For det, som denne vedtagelse gør, er, at den fuldstændig omstøder den Amerikanske Forfatning, der giver præsidenten beføjelserne til at bestemme udenrigspolitik. I henhold til den aktuelle situation, efter at Kongressen (Repræsentanternes Hus) og Senatet med dette overvældende flertal vedtog at indføre sanktioner, så, hvis præsident Trump ønskede at omstøde dette, skulle han sende et brev til Kongressen; og Kongressen er forpligtet til at svare inden 30 dage for enten at godkende eller afvise det. Det betyder, at Kongressen kaprer beføjelsen til at bestemme politikken fra præsidenten. Jeg tror, det amerikanske folk hellere må se at vågne op til den kendsgerning, at det, der her bliver fjernet, er den Amerikanske Forfatning.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Jason Ross: Godaften. Det er fredag, 4. august, 2017. Jeg er aftenens vært, og vi er meget glade for at have med os i studiet som vores særlige gæst, Helga Zepp-LaRouche via video fra Tyskland. Godaften, Helga.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Godaften, hvordan går det?

Ross: Fint! Som en lille indledning til aftenens show, før vi hører fra Helga, så så vi i denne uge, at Donald Trump underskrev loven om sanktioner, der blev vedtaget af Huset og Senatet – HR 3364 – der indfører sanktioner mod Iran, Nordkorea og Rusland. En del af loven hævder som selvfølgeligt, at Rusland blandede sig i det amerikanske valg; en del af loven siger, at USA aldrig vil anerkende Krim som en del af Rusland; og loven binder præsidentens hænder på mange måder mht. sanktioner mod Rusland og mange diplomatiske prioriteringer, diplomatiske krav, der er vedtaget af Huset og Senatet snarere end gennem den udøvende gren (præsidenten). Donald Trump underskrev i denne uge loven og udstedte en erklæring i forbindelse med underskrivelsen, mht. de dele af loven, han finder forfatningsstridige. I går tweetede Trump, at »Vores relation med Rusland er på det laveste og farligste punkt nogensinde. Et meget farligt lavpunkt. Det kan I takke Kongressen for«, siger han.

Rusland responderede ved at kræve udvisning af et vist antal amerikanske diplomater ned til samme niveau som russiske diplomater i USA; noget lignende det, præsident Obama gjorde med russiske diplomater og russisk diplomatejendom, osv. Det betyder overordnet set, at det virkelig øger presset på de amerikansk-russiske relationer og gør det meget vanskeligt for Trump at gennemføre ét af sine kampagneløfter, som var en potentiel opnåelse af detente med Rusland. Med hans berømte ord, »Det er ikke dårligt at komme godt ud af det med Rusland; det er en god ting.«

Jeg vil gerne have Helga på nu for at tale om vores syn på dette. Jeg ved, din mand, Lyndon LaRouche, har sagt, at, hvis dette kup mod Trump lykkes, så vil det virkelig lægge truslen om atomkrig op på bordet. Hvad er din mening om situationen?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, at dette ikke blot er en vedtagelse i Senatet, eller i Kongressen; men dette handler om præsidenten i amerikansk historie lige fra USA’s grundlæggelse. For det, som denne vedtagelse gør, er, at den fuldstændig omstøder den Amerikanske Forfatning, der giver præsidenten beføjelserne til at bestemme udenrigspolitik. I henhold til den aktuelle situation, efter at Kongressen (Repræsentanternes Hus) og Senatet med dette overvældende flertal vedtog at indføre sanktioner, så, hvis præsident Trump ønskede at omstøde dette, skulle han sende et brev til Kongressen; og Kongressen er forpligtet til at svare inden 30 dage for enten at godkende eller afvise det. Det betyder, at Kongressen kaprer beføjelsen til at bestemme politikken fra præsidenten. Jeg tror, det amerikanske folk hellere må se at vågne op til den kendsgerning, at det, der her bliver fjernet, er den Amerikanske Forfatning. Jeg vil tro, at alle amerikanske patrioter, der elsker Amerika – og jeg ved, at det amerikanske folk generelt er meget patriotisk – de må forstå dette moment. For, dette kan ikke være tilfældet, og forblive ignoreret. Dette har så mange implikationer.

Min mand, Lyndon LaRouche, sagde, at, hvis dette består, er vi tilbage til en umiddelbart overhængende konfrontation med Rusland – og også Kina – som vi var under Obama-administrationen og de neokonservatives kontrol; som har kontrolleret USA’s politik under to embedsperioder under George W. Bush, og to perioder under Obama. Det var disse neokonservative, der var fuldstændig oprørt over, at en systemisk ’outsider’, eller en person, der ikke tilhørte systemet – som Donald Trump – vandt valget. Jeg husker klart, at, den 21. januar, havde den britiske avis The Spectator allerede en overskrift, der lød, at det blot var et spørgsmål om tid, før man ville få Trump ud af embedet gennem impeachment (rigsretssag), gennem et kup, eller gennem politisk mord! Processen frem mod impeachment er helt i gang, som I ved. Det er netop blevet offentliggjort, at Robert Mueller, den særlige rådgiver, allerede har en ’grand jury’ (juridisk enhed, der kan undersøge og afgøre, om der er belæg for at anlægge en strafferetssag, -red.), der angiveligt skulle være hemmelig; men der har igen været et læk til The Guardian og andre medier. Så formålet med dette er tydeligvis at fremme en eller anden historie, der viser bånd fra Trump eller hans team til Rusland.

Lad mig understrege dette helt klart. Sandheden om dette her skal ud. Det er rent historisk af den allerstørste betydning, at VIPS-organisationen – Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity – tidligere højtplacerede efterretningsfolk fra diverse amerikanske efterretningsorganisationer, for omkring en uge siden sendte et memorandum til præsident Trump; hvori de fastslog, baseret på deres indiskutable ekspertise og kriminaltekniske beviser, at der ikke fandt nogen russisk hacking sted. I stedet var der tale om et insider-læk; der var nogen, der simpelt hen downloadede data fra DNC-computerne, og som dernæst maskerede det hele, som om det var blevet udført af russerne. At efterforske dette og diskutere disse resultater fra VIPS-memoet, er den vigtigste måde, hvorpå dette kup kan køres af sporet. Heldigvis har ét af de kongresmedlemmer, der var modig nok til at stemme imod denne uhyrlighed – Dana Rohrbacher – allerede kommenteret VIPS-memoet. Jeg mener, at vi må mobilisere den amerikanske befolkning til at kræve, at Kongressen indbyder VIPS-repræsentanterne til at aflægge forklaring, til at fremlægge deres beviser, og ligeledes bestræbelserne fra sådanne personer som kongresmedlem Nunes, der efterforsker, hvem det var, der afslørede dette, hvem, der lækkede. Og ligeledes senator Grassleys bestræbelser for at gøre det samme; det må støttes. Derudover mener jeg generelt, at denne Kongres fuldstændig har bragt sig selv i miskredit. Kongressens anerkendelses-rate er lige nu, iflg. de seneste opinionsmålinger, kun 10 %; det er ligeledes et historisk lavpunkt, mener jeg.

Men jeg mener, det nu afhænger af det amerikanske folk; og man bør finde alle mulige organisationer og institutioner, der repræsenterer folket, og som støtter præsident Trump. Retfærdigheden må ske fyldest; de, der lækkede, må gøres til genstand for efterforskning; og sandheden må genoprettes. Dette er af den største, strategiske betydning. Dette er ikke blot en intern, amerikansk affære; jeg mener, at russernes karakteristik, at dette er en intern kamp, ikke er korrekt. Jeg mener, at dette er noget langt mere dystert. Den tidligere våbeninspektør i Irak, Scott Ritter, som var våbeninspektør under Irakkrigen, kom med en dybtgående karakteristik. Han sagde, den kendsgerning, at der var denne totale enstemmighed i de amerikanske medier, FBI, andre amerikanske efterretningstjenester og næsten enstemmighed i begge Kongreshuse; hvordan får man en sådan fuldstændig – i Tyskland ville man sige »Gleichschaltung«, ensretning – hvordan får man et sådant enstemmigt kor? Scott Ritter peger på spørgsmålet om, at dette peger på en langt mere generel sammensværgelse, der finder sted i det amerikanske samfund. Jeg ved, at folk normalt bliver meget enerverede, når man nævner ordet »sammensværgelse«, men jeg mener ikke, der findes andre ord, der kan karakterisere det, der foregår. Man har det, folk nu om dage kalder »deep state«, og som forsøger at omstøde valget af en amerikansk præsident; og så har man briternes rolle i alt dette her. Jeg mener, at der er en indsats fra Det britiske Imperiums side, efter en genetablering af kontrollen over amerikanske institutioner, for at gå tilbage til det, vi engang havde med de neokonservative i 1992 – Wolfowitz-doktrinen; og som var ideen om, at USA aldrig skulle give noget andet land eller nogen anden gruppe af lande lov til at overgå USA’s militærpolitiske eller militære magt. Det var et kup, udført af de neokonservative efter Sovjetunionens kollaps, og de gik frem for at forsøge at etablere en unipolær verden. Jeg mener, at dette præcist kommer til udtryk i det, Kongressen gjorde med disse sanktioner, og det betyder gennem implikation, at gå tilbage til konfrontationen med Rusland, og selvfølgelig en genoptagelse af spændingen i relationerne med Kina.

Dette er en krigssti. Dette har utrolige implikationer. Jeg vil blot nævne et par stykker af dem. For det første, så reagerede premierminister Medvedev meget skarpere end præsident Putin. Han sagde, at dette afslutter håbet om en forbedring mellem USA og Rusland. Så var der diverse kommentarer i kinesiske publikationer, der tilbød at hjælpe Rusland mod virkningerne af sanktionerne; og som ligeledes sagde, at dette blot vil betyde en meget tættere forhold mellem Rusland og Kina, og sammen har vi en afskrækkelse imod USA. Det var ikke det, kineserne ønskede; de har tilbudt USA at samarbejde omkring Bælte & Vej Initiativet; men det er, hvad det fører til.

Lad mig blot påpege to yderligere sidevirkninger af dette. Det er relationen med Europa, for sanktionerne har som deres primære mål leveringen af russisk naturgas og ideen om at bygge endnu en gasledning – Northstream II; som Tyskland har brug for, fordi olieforsyningerne fra Mellemøsten er meget lunefulde pga. den ustabile situation dér. Oliereserverne i Nordsøen er ved at være udtømt. Sanktionerne ville selvfølgelig, fordi USA fremfører, at de har ekstraterritorial bemyndigelse, ramme alle de firmaer, der producerer materialer og byggetjenester til projekter med russerne. Dette er fuldstændig umuligt. Det ville f.eks. også ramme europæiske investorer i USA, hvis de gør forretninger med Rusland; de kunne blive eksproprieret i USA, eller deres kapital indefrosset, og sådanne ting. Dette skaber ødelæggelse. Den Europæiske Union og den tyske regering har allerede sagt, at de vil overveje modforholdsregler; at dette kunne føre til en handelskrig. Forbløffende nok har en talsmand for en førende tænketank, der står den tyske regering nær, netop sagt, at dette vil give bagslag, for, hvorfor skulle lande, der rammes af sanktionerne, være med til at gennemføre dem? Så han forudsiger, at der kommer en boomerang-effekt for amerikanerne; men det er selvfølgelig en effekt, der er meget farlig. Forskellige tyske industrisammenslutninger er ligeledes kommet frem og har sagt, at dette er fuldstændig uacceptabelt.

På et mere fundamentalt plan bringer dette hele spørgsmålet om international lov (folkeretten) frem. Hvorfor tror USA, at deres amerikanske lov kan træde i kraft i hele verden? Dette er en krænkelse af international lov, og dette er derfor en krise uden fortilfælde. Den har, som jeg sagde, implikationer for den Amerikanske Forfatning, for international lov, for relationerne med Rusland og Kina; den kan, for første gang, bryde alliancen med Europa. Så jeg tror, folk virkelig forstår, at dette må omstødes.

Ross: Fantastisk! Dette sætter virkelig scenen. Kan jeg bede dig om at forklare et bestemt punkt? Du kom med ideen om, at folk har en »deep state« (omtr. ’staten i staten’,-red.), der kører USA. Hvor det altså ikke kun drejer sig om denne enkelte lov, men, at der igennem længere tid har været en voksende magt fra visse agenters side internt i USA. Lad mig stille dig et spørgsmål om måder, hvorpå folk fortolker disse ting. En måde er, at der simpelt hen er en koldkrigsmentalitet, der ikke er blevet overvundet; folk lever i fortiden og ser stadig Rusland som en trussel, hvor de i tankerne sammenligner Rusland med Sovjetunionen. En anden måde er ideen om »deep state«; at efterretningstjenesterne har udviklet et slags begær efter magt for sig selv. Tag f.eks. eksemplet med J. Edgar Hoover; og at disse tjenester ønsker at køre USA af en særlig grund. Du rejste et spørgsmål, som de fleste kommentatorer ikke rejser, og som er briterne; eller, at der er noget uden for amerikansk indenrigspolitik, der udformer denne opposition til samarbejde med Rusland. Og, med dine mange rejser til Kina og med dit arbejde med Verdenslandbroen – Bælte & Vej Initiativet – har du en meget dyb forståelse af et andet paradigme, der i stigende grad slår rod i verden.

Kunne du sige mere til vore lyttere om, hvad du ser som manglerne i ideen om »deep state« eller den Kolde Krig? Med andre ord, hvad er det, der virkelig promoverer denne opposition til samarbejde med Rusland? Hvad kan vi gøre ved det?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, det er en reminiscens af geopolitik, og geopolitik er den idé, at man har en gruppe nationer eller en nation, der har en fundamental interesse imod en anden nation eller en anden gruppe nationer; og, om nødvendigt, så kan man kæmpe for dette i krige. Det var denne tankegang, der førte til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, og det er indlysende, at, hvis vi ikke overvinder dette i atomvåbenalderen, så taler vi om faren for den menneskelige arts udslettelse, hvis det kommer til krig. Vi er meget nærmere ved dette, end de fleste mennesker bryder sig om at tænke på. Da Sovjetunionen gik i opløsning mellem 1989 og 1991, opstod der muligheden for at få en varig fredsorden. Kommunismen var blevet besejret, og vi foreslog på dette tidspunkt den Eurasiske Landbro; allerede dengang kaldte vi det, den Nye Silkevej. Det var ideen om at etablere et nyt paradigme med samarbejde i alle deltagende landes interesse. Det ville have været en politik, der i høj grad ville have ændret historiens kurs, men, på det tidspunkt havde man Margaret Thatcher, man havde Bush senior, man havde Mitterand; og de besluttede, at, for at forhindre Rusland i nogensinde igen at rejse sig, fra at reducere Sovjetunionen, der var en supermagt, og til at blive et Rusland, der blot skulle være et tredjeverdensland, der producerede råmaterialer. De besluttede, at, i stedet for at få en fredsorden, så lad os satse på den gamle, angloamerikanske politik med at styre verden som et imperium; og lad os gennemtvinge en unipolær verden. Det var politikken i 1990’erne og begyndelsen af 2000’erne; dette var ideen om regimeskifte, dette var ideen om ’farvede revolutioner’. Dette har ligget til grund for krigene, der byggede på løgne, i Afghanistan, Irak, mordet på Gaddafi; disse politikker har ødelagt Mellemøsten. De har været årsag til flygtningekrisen; de har næsten udløst et sammenbrud af den Europæiske Union, for der er ikke tale om nogen Union, som det blev klart under flygtningekrisens forløb.

Denne politik står nu for at eksplodere. Alan Greenspan, af alle personer – den person, der igen og igen advarede mod overstrømmende irrationalitet – er netop trådt frem og har sagt, at der er en ny nedsmeltning af en gældsboble på vej, og at dette vil udløse et krak på aktiemarkedet. Dette imperium er i færd med at kollapse, og jeg mener, det er grunden til, der hersker en sådan desperation for at forhindre Kinas fremvækst; selv om Kina har tilbudt en totalt anden model, der ikke bygger på geopolitik, men derimod bygger på »win-win«-samarbejde; og hvori alle nationer, der samarbejder i Bælte & Vej Initiativet, ville få gavn af det.

Jeg mener, at det, som virkelig står på spil her, er: Går vi tilbage til Det britiske Imperium? Og folk, der kender amerikansk historie, ved meget vel, at Det britiske Imperium aldrig har opgivet ideen om at generobre USA. Kong George III mistede forstanden på tidpunktet for den Amerikanske Revolution, og de forsøgte at vinde Amerika tilbage; først i Krigen i 1812, og dernæst i Borgerkrigen, hvor Det britiske Imperium var allieret med Konføderationen (Sydstats-udbryderstaterne). De finansierede Konføderationen gennem Østkystbankerne. Efter dette indså de, at dette ikke kunne gøres militært, så dernæst forsøgte briterne at underminere det amerikanske establishment og overbevise dem om at styre verden som et imperium, der byggede på den angloamerikanske, særlige relation.

Ser man på hele operationen imod Trump, som i realiteten begyndte længe før Trump vandt valget; det var britisk efterretning, der initierede dossiererne, som fabrikerede efterretninger. Men, de blev så selvfølgelig hjulpet af amerikanske efterretningstjenester, hvor strukturen fra Obama-perioden stadig eksisterede. Så man har virkelig – »deep state« er for kort en formulering, for det inkluderer ikke den kendsgerning, at dette er et britisk kup. Det aftalte spil er ikke med Rusland; det aftalte spil er med Det britiske Imperium. Amerikanere må forstå, at hele deres revolution står på spil; Forfatningen – der stadig, med hensyn til forfatninger, er et af de mest fantastiske dokumenter i verden – den er totalt i fare. Det er allerede blevet overtaget, og dét må det amerikanske folk omstøde.

Ross: Stærke ord. Mange tak. Jeg tror, vores mission står temmelig klart på dette tidspunkt. Vi ser nogle muligheder for, hvad der kan ske, hvis vi skaffer os af med denne mentalitet om global konflikt. Blot et enkelt eksempel ville være, at præsident Trump stoppede Obama-programmet for at bevæbne de såkaldte syriske »oprørsgrupper«. Alene en sådan handling ville være en ændring af den retning, vi har gået i det seneste halvandet årti med de krige for regimeskifte, vi har haft. At sige, det gør vi ikke mere. Vi siger, OK, der kunne blive ting, som hvis vi opgiver dette fremstød for konflikt.

Jeg vil gerne afslutte vores show med nogle ideer til, hvad folk kan gøre, og nogle rapporter om, hvad folk har gjort. Én ting er dette VIPS-memo, som vi har diskuteret og dækket meget på vores webside. Der har været meget aktivitet i landet; vi kan vise jer nogle billeder herfra om et øjeblik, af den form for aktiviteter, vi har været engageret i – stævner på gaden her i New York City. Her er ét til. Det er meget vigtigt, at denne historie kommer ud, for det er absolut eksplosivt; og det virker, det kommer ud. Det er et spørgsmål, som, som vi nævnte, kongresmedlem Rohrbacher har rejst; dette er noget, som bliver rejst af mange af de nye, alternative kilder. Oliver Stone har for nylig igen rejst spørgsmålet, og folk i hele landet rejser det på steder som under møder, der afholdes af kongresmedlemmer. For eksempel havde Ted Lew for nylig et borgermøde i sit valgdistrikt, og han blev af en LaRouche PAC-aktivist spurgt, »Hej, hvis DNC-computerne blev hacket, hvorfor har FBI så aldrig efterforsket dem?« Bare pil denne historie fra hinanden. Der er kommet breve i et pænt antal til avisredaktioner, og som bliver publiceret i aviser i hele landet. Der har været folk, der har indsat annoncer i de lokale aviser, og som siger, at I skal kende til denne historie om, at den russiske hacking var et inside job. Læs VIPS-memoet; gå ind på LaRouche PAC websiden.

Vi har en tilhænger, der har holdt gårdudsalg for at rejse midler til LaRouche PAC. Vi har folk, de afholder stævner i deres hjemby. Et eksempel fra Connecticut, hvor en LaRouche-tilhænger sagde, »Jeg laver et stævne foran mit rådhus«. Det gjorde han, og vi havde et succesfuldt stævne dér, som blev dækket af lokalaviserne og det hele. Byråd, radiointerviews. Der foregår en masse aktivitet. Vi var f.eks. uden for Chuck Schumers kontor i New York; vi spurgte folk, hvor de syntes, vi skulle ’smide’ (chuck) Schumer hen, hvilket ville være en vidunderlig idé. Der er rigtig meget at gøre. Ordet om dette må absolut spredes i sammenhæng med, hvad alternativet kunne blive.

Jeg vil gerne takke Helga Zepp-LaRouche for at være med os her i dag. Jeg vil gerne spørge dig, om du har yderligere kommentarer som afslutning af showet?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, at dette er et af de historiske øjeblikke, hvor det er det enkelte individ, der tæller. Jeg ved, mange mennesker er blevet deprimeret, fordi de ikke tror, man kan gøre noget alligevel; men jeg mener, at vi er lige så tæt på Tredje Verdenskrig lige nu, som vi er på et fuldstændig nyt paradigme. Forestil jer blot en fremtid, hvor Amerika igen vil være venner med andre lande. De fleste folk kan godt lide amerikanere; de kan ikke lide det aktuelle kup, og de kan ikke lide de britiske politikker, der er kommet fra den amerikanske regering i de seneste 16 år. Men, det amerikanske folk har givet udtryk for noget meget vigtigt med valget af præsident Trump. Hvis det amerikanske folk omgående ville gribe muligheden for at støtte denne præsident – Trump har indledt en forbedring af relationen med Xi Jinping; han har fundet et godt samtaleniveau med Putin på G20 i Hamborg. Kina har tilbudt at hjælpe med ved genopbygningen af USA’s infrastruktur og indbudt USA til at tilslutte sig Bælte & Vej Initiativet i hele verden. Hvorfor kan USA, Rusland og Kina, som de tre, mest betydningsfulde nationer, ikke arbejde sammen? Hvis dette kan opnås, kan I så forestille jer, at vi kan få en tryg fred i verden? At vi kan arbejde sammen om at fjerne fattigdom, ikke alene i USA, men overalt? Jeg mener, at dette er de spørgsmål, vi bør tale om, og jeg er enormt overbevist om, at der er noget meget godt i det amerikanske folk, der vil sejre.

Ross: Vidunderligt! Godt. Mange tak. Tak til alle for at være med os i dag. Vi beder om, at I bliver medlem af LaRouche PAC; at I følger denne YouTube-kanal og sørger for at modtage besked om alle vore videoer, alt det, vi udgiver. Og det materiale, vi har diskuteret – VIPS-memoet fra Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, og videoerne, vi har fremstillet om spørgsmålet – kan ses på din YouTube-kanal. I finder mere i videobeskrivelsen, og vi har her et link til en af disse videoer til jer. (dansk: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=20816)

Tak for at se med; lad os se at komme i gang!




Brug VIPS-memo til at sprænge
Russia-gate i stykker!
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
28. juli, 2017

Jason Ross: I dag vil vi dække et spørgsmål, der er af største betydning for nationen. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Diane Sare fra New York, fra Manhattan-projektet i New York.

Emnet, vi i dag vil beskæftige os med, er »Russia-gate». Vi har så ofte og så meget hørt sagt om de uigendrivelige, angivelige beviser på, at Donald Trump blev anbragt i Det Hvide Hus gennem Vladimir Putins rænkespil, at det næsten bliver taget for givet. Alle formoder, at det fandt sted; faktisk var det indført i loven om russiske sanktioner, der netop er blevet vedtaget i Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, som en antagelse, at vi ved, Vladimir Putin fik Trump valgt til embedet. At Putin beordrede en indflydelseskampagne mod det amerikanske valg.

Det er ikke sandt.

Mandag i denne uge offentliggjorde en gruppe ved navn Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, eller VIPS, et memo med titlen, »Var russisk hacking et inside job?« I dette memo piller de den centrale påstand om hele historien med Russia-gate ned. Denne centrale påstand er, at russiske hackere var involveret i at få materiale fra Demokraternes Nationalkomite, DNC, materiale, der var meget pinligt for Hillary Clinton, og offentliggøre det via WikiLeaks. Dette har det centrale internet-individ, kendt som Guccifer 2.0, som omdrejningspunkt; den vurdering fra en efterretningskomite, der blev udgivet 6. januar, 2017, i Obama-administrationens sidste dage. Dette er den rapport, som alle har citeret, og som angiveligt alle efterretningstjenesterne er enige i.

Det er ikke sandt.

Kun en håndplukket gruppe af efterretningstjenester var overhovedet involveret i denne vurdering, og deres vurdering er ikke enstemmig. Denne centrale bevisfaktor er, hvad vi i dag, mht. VIPS-memoet, vil tale om.

Vi var så heldige at kunne interviewe et af de stiftende medlemmer af VIPS, Ray McGovern, der er tidligere CIA-analytiker på topniveau, og som i løbet af sin karriere dagligt udarbejdede briefinger til præsidenten, og som talte med os i går aftes. Vi bad ham om at fremlægge, hvad implikationerne af det memo, de har fremstillet, er, og her er, hvad han sagde:

Ray McGovern: Den 12., 15. juni? Så snart, de opdagede, at Julian Assange havde e-mails med forbindelse til Hillary Clinton, hvad gør man så? Jamen sådan, som jeg har rekonstrueret det, så siger vi, »Det kommer fra russerne«. Så Crowdstrike – der arbejdede for DNC – meddeler, »Der er skadelig software, og vi mener, det var russerne«. Dernæst siger Guccifer, omgående, den samme dag, »ja, ja! Vi gjorde det, og vi arbejder for Julian Assange«.

Ideen – det er selvfølgelig, som vi fortolker det – ideen var den, at, eftersom Julian Assange ville offentliggøre e-mails på et eller andet tidspunkt; måske gør han det lige før Demokraternes Nationalkonvent. Gud, det ville være forfærdeligt. Så vi siger, han fik det fra russerne, og på denne måde kan vi aflede opmærksomheden fra det, der står i disse e-mails; for himlen må vide, hvor meget han har; han kunne måske vise, at vi stjal nomineringen fra Bernie Sanders. Det er jo sikkert i materialet. Så lad os foretage dette lille, forebyggende træk; lad os – her i juni, før han overhovedet får dette her ud; før – Julian forfalsker ikke disse ting, han gør det, at han fremlægger dem så man kan søge på dem – det kommer til at tage lidt tid. Så vi har lidt tid, seks uger eller så; de vidste ikke, hvor længe, men lad os gøre det med det samme. Så, når Julian Assange kommer ud med det, er det forberedt til, at de alle siger, »Aha! Det var russerne, der hackede«.

Dette var storslået – jeg husker den gamle film eller bog, Magnificent Obsession (da. Titel ’Den store læge’); dette var storslået afledning. For, så snart Julian Assange kom ud med disse e-mails med relation til Hillary Clinton – det var den 22. juli – tre dage før Demokraternes Nationalkonvent begyndte; så var de forberedt. De var forberedt til at sige, »Aha! Russerne gjorde det; Rusland gjorde det!« Man kan se dem ligesom sidde rundt om et bord. Hillary siger, »Min Gud! Hvad skal vi gøre? Hvad vil Bernie sige? Han har allerede sagt, at han indvilliger, men hvad vil han nu sige?« En eller anden siger, »Jeg ved, hvad vi gør. Vi giver russerne skylden«. »Men det var ikke russerne, det var Julian Assange.« »Det er OK. Vi siger, at Julian Assange arbejdede for russerne.« »Ja, men hvad skulle logikken være?« »Hør nu her! Russerne ønsker, at Trump skal vinde, fordi han har sagt pæne ting om Putin; det bliver nemt at bevise. Nogen bedre ideer?« »OK, det gør vi.« Det virkede perfekt.

Ross: Så her har vi sammenhængen. En kronologi for vore seere, for dette er blevet så tilsløret i tidens tåge, at det ligesom er blevet svært at se de enkelte dele. Vi genopfrisker, at, i juni meddelte Julian Assange, stifteren af WikiLeaks, at han havde fået materiale fra DNC, og at han ville offentliggøre det. I løbet af få dage meddeler DNC’s IT-firma Crowdstrike, at de har beviser på, at Rusland hackede deres computere. Ligeledes er der en internet-hacker, der kalder sig Guccifer 2.0, der dukker ud af det blå og siger, at han er hackeren bag DNC; han kom ind i deres system, og han siger, »Jeg vil bevise det. Her er noget af det, jeg stjal«. I juni blev der offentliggjort dokumenter af denne Guccifer-skikkelse, der omfattede de mest klodsede falske spor, du nogen sinde har set. Disse dokumenter blev med overlæg forfalsket til at indeholde – med kyrilliske bogstaver – »Felix Edmundovich« som dokumentets ’sidst redigeret af’. Se, Felix Edmundovich Dzerzjinskij (død 1926) var stifteren af det sovjetiske hemmelige politi. Man kunne måske mene, at, hvis russiske hackere gør noget, gør de det ikke så åbenlyst som at markere sig på deres computere med dette navn; det er simpelt hen et åbenlyst falsk spor, man skal finde. Der kom yderligere, angivelige beviser med Guccifer 2.0, der forsøgte at skjule sin identitet og foregav at være rumæner, selv om han faktisk ikke kunne tale rumænsk; så folk kunne sige, »Aha! Han skjuler sin identitet. Vi fandt disse absolutte beviser« – som i virkeligheden var ’røde sild’ (misvisende ledetråde) – »disse russiske navne i dokumenterne. Dokumenterne var indstillet til det russiske sprog. Aha! Dette er bevis.«

Det, det i virkeligheden betyder, er, at disse dokumenter blev kunstigt forfalsket. Det er, hvad VIPS gennemgår i dette memo ved navn, »Var det russiske hack et inside job?« Dette memo er tilgængeligt på nærværende videodeskription, såvel som med links på LaRouche PAC’s webside. Som hr. McGovern sagde, så fulgte der en stor udgivelse af dokumenter fra Guccifer engang i september, 2016. Disse dokumenter afslører, iht. de kriminaltekniske analyser, som VIPS har gennemgået, at dokumenterne ikke blev hacket; men de blev derimod lækket; de blev kopieret. Hastigheden i datatransmissionen, hastigheden af skabelsen af filerne, indikerer en hastighed, der overgår, hvad det er muligt at opnå over internettet, hvis man hackede ind i en computer og dernæst udtrak filer. De konkluderer så, at dette indikerer, at disse filer simpelt hen blev kopieret og dernæst offentliggjort, forfalsket med dette Guccifer 2.0 individ for at give det skær af russisk involvering i hackingen. Kendsgerningen er, at der ingen som helst beviser er blevet præsenteret, der kan vise, hvorfra WikiLeaks fik deres materiale. Stifteren af WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, sagde, dette var et læk, det var ikke et hack; det kom ikke fra Rusland, det kom ikke fra en statslig russisk aktør. Det var et læk. Som hr. McGovern sagde, så var der mange mennesker i DNC, der ikke var glade for den måde, man håndterede primærvalgene på. Der mangler ikke motiver for at udgive sandheden om, hvordan DNC havde opereret.

Men, oven i disse fabrikerede beviser, har vi nu en situation, hvor dette anti-russiske hysteri er fænomenalt. I går vedtog man en lov om anti-russiske sanktioner i Huset og Senatet. Denne lov, HR3364, tager det for givet, at Rusland hackede de amerikanske valg og påtvinger meget strenge sanktioner i flere tilfælde, og den forbyder præsidenten at ændre dem. Med andre ord, så fjerner loven præsidentens evne – i dette tilfælde, præsident Trump – til at indlede udenrigspolitik; hvilket rent faktisk er en del af præsidentens job. Sådan arbejder vi i dette land.

Så en af de mest chokerende ting om alt dette er, at denne angivelige handling fra Ruslands side, som er blevet kaldt en krigshandling af flere kongresmedlemmer – folk siger, at, pga. dette, bør Donald Trump afsættes ved en rigsret (impeachment); dette har kongresmedlemmer sagt. For noget af denne størrelsesorden, en krigshandling, der fører til sanktioner og et potentielt udbrud af konflikt med verdens mest magtfulde atommagt ud over os selv, mon dog ikke, man ville have gennemført en solid efterforskning? Det skete ikke. Ja, faktisk, efter DNC-computerne blev hacket, hvem efterforskede dem? Efter den angivelige hacking, hvem efterforskede dem? Ikke FBI. Et privat firma – Crowdstrike – med politiske forbindelser, der gør dets resultater meget mistænkelige.

VIPS afsluttede deres memo med at spørge, hvem er Guccifer 2.0? De siger, »Vi bør måske spørge FBI«. Så jeg spurgte Ray McGovern, »Hvorfor bør vi måske spørge FBI?«

McGovern: Efter det blev afsløret, at DNC var blevet, om jeg så må sige, ’hacket’, ville det, der normalt ville ske, med mindre jeg skulle tage meget fejl, være, at FBI ville blive indbudt til at se på det og finde ud af, hvem, der gjorde det. Eller DNC ville sige, »Vil I ikke nok komme og se, hvem der gjorde dette?« Men ved I hvad? Ingen af dem syntes at være særligt interesserede i at se på det. Så, med al respekt – og vi skylder faktisk ikke meget respekt – James Comey er skyldig i embedsmisbrug, og ikke blot embedsmisbrug. Folk skriger, at dette er en krigshandling, og han læner sig tilbage og siger, »Jeg ønsker ikke at sende mine teknikere ind her«? Hvorfor? Ja, jeg kan fortælle jer, hvorfor. Det ser for mig ud, som om, at, når man er efterretningsanalytiker, så har man tendens til at forbinde punkter; det er, hvad vi kalder en analytiker af alle kilder. Man ser ikke kun på de tekniske detaljer, de kriminaltekniske data, vi nu har, men også på, hvad der sker udenfor; hvad man finder ud af gennem aviserne. Og derfra ved vi, at CIA, med hjælp fra NSA, havde udviklet – det tog dem 15 år – en utrolig evne.

Ross: Denne evne, McGovern henviser til, er det, WikiLeaks afslørede i marts, med Vault 7-programmet. Ét aspekt af dette program hed Marble Framework; noget, CIA udviklede, og som gjorde det muligt at sløre kilden til cyber-angreb. Med andre ord, så havde CIA brugt en enorm indsats – hr. McGovern skønner det til milliarder af dollars, der blev brugt – til at udvikle evnen til at udføre hack, og dernæst at kunne tilskrive dem til andre nationer, til andre aktører. Han siger, at dette Marble Framework gjorde det muligt for CIA med overlæg at plante falske beviser for russisk involvering. De havde tekst med kyrilliske bogstaver, der kunne indsættes; med andre ord, så var det muligt at få det til at se ud, som om angriberne kom fra Rusland. Spørgsmålet er så, er dette blevet efterforsket? Har Trump med sine efterretningstjenester diskuteret en efterforskning for at finde ud af, om denne type evner blev brugt? Hr. McGovern siger, at det er blevet afsløret, at de blev brugt i 2016. Var det dette, de blev brugt til? Det ville en efterforskning kunne vise.

Dette rejser også spørgsmålet: Hvorfor denne fjendtlighed imod Rusland? Er dette en kynisk kampagneplan fra Demokraterne for at komme sig over et valg, som de tabte, og forsøge at afsætte Trump og forsøge at få magten i landet tilbage? Eller hvad andet er der i spil her? Hvorfor blev denne lov om sanktioner vedtaget så enstemmigt, med kun tre kongresmedlemmer (i Huset), der stemte imod, og kun to senatorer? Vi spurgte Ray McGovern, hvad han mente om dette:

McGovern: Det kommer mest fra Demokraterne, sært nok. Og det var oprindeligt, som jeg før forsøgte at forklare, et forsøg på at sværte russerne for at hjælpe Hillary til at blive valgt. Da hun så ikke blev valgt; »Hovsa! Vi kan stadig bruge dette her.« Hvordan kan vi bruge det? Til at vise, at Hillary ikke tabte valget; det kunne ikke skyldes, at hun ikke var en særlig god kandidat, eller at ingen stolede på hende. »Det er russerne!« Så nu tror de fleste amerikanere – ifølge opinionsundersøgelserne – at denne her fyr, Trump, som vi nu har som præsident, er der, fordi Vladimir Putin hjalp ham med at blive valgt. Det er dårligt! Det er virkelig dårligt.

Hvad er så målet nu? Jamen, målet er ikke alene at gøre Trump illegitim, men også at blive ved at fyre op under spændingerne med Rusland, så der ikke kan komme en reel detente; så vi kan sværte russerne og sige, »Se så dér!«

Ross: Det andet mål, eller den anden begivenhed, der forårsagede hele dette Ruslands-hysteri, var det, der skete i Ukraine; hvor et kup i 2014 væltede den valgte præsident af Ukraine og installerede en ny regering. USA’s involvering i dette kup var helt åbenlys; det var klart som dagen. De af os, der så med, så på YouTube videoerne, der dækkede audio-optagelserne af amerikanske regeringsfolk, der planlagde, hvordan den nye, ukrainske regering skulle se ud. Victoria Nuland var involveret i at være med til at etablere en ny regering i Ukraine. Som resultat af hele denne udvikling kom Krims gentilslutning til Rusland. Dette er blevet brugt til at sige, »Vi får aldrig fred med Rusland, før Rusland giver Krim tilbage til Ukraine« – hvilket med sikkerhed aldrig vil ske – »sanktionerne vil fortsætte. Rusland er alles fjende.«

Med dette in mente, at det var USA’s indblanding i Ukraine, der skabte betingelserne for destabilisering i den østlige del af Ukraine, som sluttelig førte til Krims gentilslutning til Rusland, kan vi stille os selv spørgsmålet, »Hvad vej går dette, hvis denne udvikling ikke stoppes?« Her er, hvad hr. McGovern havde at sige om det:

McGovern: Læg alt dette sammen, og man får en syntetisk; en slags kunstig konstruktion af Vladimir Putin som selveste Djævelen. Hele pressen foretager denne ’meme’ (indforstået information), og alle går med på det – især Demokraterne – og det er det mest besynderlige, jeg nogen sinde har set. Her har vi Donald Trump. Han vil gerne tale med Putin; og hvad sker der? De får en aftale om våbenstilstand (i Syrien). Det er ikke det hele, men en lille del af Syrien. Bliver det rapporteret i pressen? Nej, måske på en side inde i avisen.

Ross: De siger, det er at bøje sig for russerne.

McGovern: Så, hvis nogen af os har interesse i at stoppe blodbadet i Syrien, hvilket vi burde gøre; vi burde applaudere Trump for enhver anden indsats for at arbejde sammen med de andre styrker i spil. Ikke alene russerne, men også syrerne, tyrkerne og iranerne. Hvis vi ikke har et fælles mål imod ISIS, hvem har vi så et fælles mål imod?

Så al denne bagtalelse – og det, som nu bliver interessant; Trump besluttede i denne uge, at der ikke kommer mere støtte, ikke flere våben og penge til de såkaldte »moderate« oprørere. De oprørere, som USA har støttet i Syrien. Det er stort! Det er CIA’s pose; det er milliarder af dollar, der er investeret i det. Hvad vil der ske? Jamen, Trump er nu gået op imod CIA i dette spørgsmål. Og jeg genkalder nu, at ingen har arbejdet i Washington længere end senator Chuck Schumer, højest-rangerende Demokrat i Senatet. Han gav et interview til Rachel Maddow –

Rachel Maddow: Han tager disse skud og modsætningsforhold –

Chuck Schumer: Jeps.

Maddow: – som håner efterretningstjenesterne.

Schumer: Lad mig fortælle dig, at, hvis man går op imod efterretningssamfundet, så har de hundrede og sytten måder, hvorpå de kan hævne sig på dig.

McGovern: Rachel Maddow siger, »Åh, vi skal pause.« (McGovern) Giv mig mikrofonen! Hvis det var dig, ville du så ikke sige, »Siger du, at USA’s præsident bør frygte efterretningssamfundet?« Det er selvfølgelig, hvad han sagde. Hvorfor refererer jeg til dette? Juryen er ude. Han er gået lidt op imod dem. Om han gør det mht. det russiske hack, ved jeg ikke. Måske er [CIA-direktør Mike] Pompeo bange for at spørge disse fyre; eller bange for at spørge … Men, hvis han er bange, vil han så følge sin forgængers eksempel? For, Obama var dødsens ræd for John Brennan; det er derfor, han forsvarede ham, da Brennan hackede ind i Senatets computere. Det er derfor, han forsøgte at forhindre offentliggørelsen af memoet fra Senatet om CIA-tortur; for det viste, at Brennan og de andre havde løjet gennem tænderne om effektiviteten af torturteknikker. Så Obama forsvarede i høj grad sig selv, eller forsvarede dem, for sluttelig at forsvare sig. Om Schumer har ret, får vi sandsynligvis at se, snarere før end siden.

Ross: Vi finder ud af det snarere før end siden, baseret på, hvordan præsidenten, og hvordan det amerikanske folk, responderer til dette pres. Prøv lige et minut at tænke: Hvad ville det betyde, hvis Trump blev smidt ud af embedet baseret på noget, vi ved er en fabrikering, en løgn, skabt af efterretningstjenesterne? En løgn, der siger, Vladimir Putin anbragte ham i embedet? Hvis USA’s præsident kan fjernes fra embedet, baseret på nonsens, skabt af efterretningstjenesterne, har vi så en valgt regering i USA? Jeg tror, det er det spørgsmål, som vi må rejse, som en hastesag, ved at få de eksplosive nyheder om dette memo ud, som kommer fra Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

DIANE SARE:  We are going to ask everybody watching this
program to mobilize to break this story.  I first want to address
some of the questions that people may raise:  “Of course we know
the Russians didn’t hack the election. I voted for Trump; and I
wasn’t told to vote for Trump by Vladimir Putin.  So, what’s new
about this?”  Or people say, “We’re used to being lied to all the
time.  Why does this make a difference?”
First I just want to say a little bit about who some of
these people are.  In case you missed it, Ray McGovern is a
former US Army and former CIA intelligence; I believe he is
fluent in Russian and has a great deal of knowledge on this.
Bill Binney, who is the co-author of this report, is the former
NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical and Military
Analysis, the co-founder of NSA Signals Intelligence Automation
Research Center — that is the data-mining.  But he designed in
part the technology to be able to spy on everyone; he knows this
very well.  The expert who did the forensics on these so-called
hacks which turned out to be a leak, is someone named Skip
Holden; who’s a retired IBM Program Manager for Information
Technology.  He’s the one who looked at this, who came to the
conclusion — as has been reported earlier — that there was no
hack.  That what happened was that 1976MB of data were copied in
only 87 seconds; which cannot be done over the internet.  That
cannot be done through cyberspace, but only by using some kind of
thumb drive or USB port, some kind of storage device that is
actually inserted into the computer to copy this data.  And that
this was done by someone operating in the Eastern time zone; so
an insider.  Then this was blamed on Russia.
The point is, we have in hand in this report by a group of
certified experts, proof, the documentation that this thing is a
[inaud; 23:49] fraud from the beginning.  That is extremely
important.  We discovered when going to the Congress yesterday,
four LaRouche PAC organizers took about 1000 copies of the VIPS
report to Congress and discovered that nobody there had heard
anything about this; which is outrageous.  You might remember
before the elections that President Obama and others had promised
there was going to be a classified briefing from the Congress,
presenting the alleged proofs that the Russians were hacking into
the Democratic Party and sabotaging the elections; and then such
briefing never occurred.  There never was any evidence presented.
I just want to take a step back for a second, because on the
other hand, to understand this.  When Lyndon LaRouche heard about
Comey’s testimony and the story about Russia, he said “The people
pushing this want thermonuclear war.  If they succeed, we’re
going to have thermonuclear war with Russia.”  I’d like to remind
people that what happened in Ukraine was the direct result of a
deliberate policy, as Jason said.  You remember it was economic,
in terms of whether Ukraine was going to orient economically
towards Russia or Europe.  They were put in a position where they
were allegedly being forced to choose one or the other; as
opposed to working with both.  So, a false crisis was created in
order to bring in virtual actual Nazis.  We can just show one
picture [Fig. 1], the first one which I think has their Svoboda
party, which looks like swastika armbands.  They violently
overthrew the government with $5 billion laundered through the US
State Department; largely from George Soros.  Victoria Nuland,
who was under Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.  In other
words, we were provoking war with Russia; deliberately moving
NATO eastward, putting Nazis — actual supporters of Hitler and
Stephan Bandera — in power in Ukraine on Russia’s border.  Why?
Because the trans-Atlantic system is on the brink of total
disintegration.  The British Empire, this empire monarchy, is in
its final agony; it will not survive.  They’ve printed trillions
of dollars, they’ve bailed out the banks time and again, they’ve
created a gigantic bubble; it’s going down.  Therefore, there is
a push to expand the ability to loot and to either bluff or
directly have what they think could be  a limited nuclear war
with Russia.
The same thing in Syria. People may remember, Hillary
Clinton was proposing a no-fly zone over Syria so that we could
shoot down Russian planes in defense of ISIS.  As Ray McGovern
mentioned in the interview, one of the positive developments of
the Trump Presidency — a very significant one — is he met with
Putin, got a ceasefire; and we are no longer arming the so-called
“moderate” groups who are running around chopping people’s heads
off and filming it.  It’s a huge breakthrough.
So, I just want to underscore that the fact that we have in
our hands, by a group of highly competent professionals, the
proof that the entire story about Russia hacking the elections
was a fraud, is critical.  What Jason described about this new
round of sanctions against Russia, which is based on crimes that
were never committed.  Russia did not start the violence in
Ukraine; that was launched under Victoria Nuland with funding
from George Soros and the State Department.  It’s a bunch of
Nazis.  They did not illegally annex Crimea.  The people of
Crimea, who are predominantly Russian and Russian speaking, held
a referendum where they voted to leave Ukraine so they wouldn’t
be burned to death in buildings for speaking Russian; which is
what these Nazis did to people in Odessa, for example.  There was
a legitimate vote in Crimea; and there was no hack of the DNC
computers.
The evidence that came out, as Putin said “Why are people so
concerned?  You should be concerned that what was leaked was
actually true”; which was that the Hillary Clinton campaign had
ripped off Bernie Sanders in every imaginable way, and there was
nothing honest or upfront about the way she conducted her
campaign.  People suspected it, and that was then proven.  People
remember that Wasserman-Schultz had to resign.
The point is, we have this in hand; and what we are asking
you to do is several things.  One, obviously the Congress should
stop being a bunch of sold-out, gutless wonders, and they should
hold hearings with the actual evidence.  That is, Ray McGovern,
Bill Binney, Skip Holden; they should be invited to testify in
hearings in the Congress.  You can call into the Congressional
switchboard, which is (202) 224-3121.  You can see on the screen
the petition [Fig. 2] being circulated by the LaRouche Political
Action Committee.  Everybody should sign the petition, but you
should also circulate it on social media.  As I mentioned, what
we discovered in Washington is that no one had even heard of this
report.  We have to change the so-called narrative; that’s one
thing that we’ve run into in DC.  Everyone talks about narrative
this, narrative that, as if there’s no such thing as truth.
Well, the narrative right now is that somehow Vladimir Putin is
responsible for every evil that’s occurred on the planet in the
last 10 years at least; and that therefore, we should impose
sanctions on Russia and even risk a war with that country.  This
is completely insane; it is not true.  The truth of the matter is
that there is a New Paradigm which is being led by China; which
the US can join with China and Russia.  It has the potential, as
President Trump has expressed his intent to make American great
again.  The way we make America great again, is by collaborating
with China, with Russia to go back to a Hamiltonian system of
political economy.
So, our job, as Mrs. LaRouche put it, is we have to get the
truth out on this story.  The Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity — VIPS — have given us a weapon.  She said,  “You
know the phenomenon where people are marching across a bridge at
such a frequency that the footsteps resonate with the
construction of the bridge; and it creates a vibration that
causes the bridge itself to collapse.  What we want to do with
this mobilization is break the back of this lie.”  The American
people have been lied to for a very long time.  We were lied to
about the Kennedy assassination with devastating consequences to
our republic.  We were lied to about 9/11; we were lied to about
the Saudi and British role in 9/11 explicitly.  We are now being
lied to about the election; and these lies could have the
consequence of running a coup d’etat against a legitimately
elected leader and putting us on a trajectory for World War III.
We can break the back of this by circulating this report.
So, I would urge people to take the material from the
LaRouche PAC website, get it out on your Facebook accounts, send
it out through Twitter.  Call the White House and urge President
Trump to appoint special counsel to launch a Presidential
investigation of what happened in the DNC computers.  That we
have evidence that someone, as Ray McGovern asked, What does the
CIA know about this?  What does Brennan know about this?  What
does the FBI know about this?  Who was it who went into the DNC
computer and tried to make it look like Russia had done this?
President Trump, as President of the United States, has a
legitimate right to demand such an investigation.  You should
call the White House and demand this.  Call your Congressman and
say “Have you read the report from the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity?  Have you read that report?  Don’t you
think there should be hearings?  We have to investigate this.”
Get this out to all of your friends; it’s absolutely urgent.
Because when we break the back of this, then we can transform the
nation.
So, I would just say that it is very important that people
take action.  The LaRouche PAC website will be the center of this
mobilization; giving you the ammunition that you need and the
resources that you need to get to your elected officials.

ROSS:  Absolutely!  And that ammunition is available for you
right here.  In the video description you’ll find a link to the
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity memo —
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-
russia-hack-evidence/. The full interview with Ray McGovern
will be available on our website over the weekend; we’ll be
posting it soon.
I just wanted to bring up one more aspect of this in terms
of the coup.  Diane had brought up John Brennan.  Well, John
Brennan, at the Aspen Security Forum just a couple of days ago,
had said that if Trump fires Robert Mueller, the special
investigator, that the intelligence agencies should refuse to go
along with it.  In essence, he’s calling for a coup against the
President based on a political decision that he might make.  So,
ask yourself:  Do you want to have a government?  Or do you want
to have John Brennan and other non-elected people dictating and
determining policy in a way that is to the absolute detriment of
our nation?  If this isn’t removed, the opportunity to work with
Russia, to work with China, and to work towards a better future
as Diane had mentioned, will simply be impossible.  So, get that
memo out; make sure everybody you know reads it.  It’s absolutely
dynamite and it definitively puts to rest the whole Russia-gate
nonsense.  It’ll be great to move on from that, won’t it?
So, thank you for joining us.  I’m looking forward to your
action to make this a reality.  We’ll see you next time.




’Russisk hacking’ afsløret som internt job.
LPAC kortvideo

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 25. juli, 2017 – Det ekstraordinære memorandum, fremstillet af Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) i går, demonstrerer endegyldigt, at de såkaldte russiske hack af Demokraternes Nationalkomite (DNC), slet ikke var hack, med derimod læk, udført af nogen, der havde fysisk adgang til DNC’s computere. Dataene blev dernæst manipuleret for at belaste Rusland. Læs hele det eksplosive VIPS-memorandum her.

Video, Jason Ross:

»I går publicerede en gruppe ved navn Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) et memo, der destruerede påstanden om, at Vladimir Putin og russerne ’hackede’ det amerikanske præsidentvalg for at anbringe Donald Trump i embedet. De tilbageviser specifikt vurderingen af 6. januar, foretaget af håndplukkede medlemmer af et par amerikanske efterretningstjenester, der havde påstået, at »den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin havde beordret en indflydelseskampagne i 2016, målrettet mod det amerikanske præsidentvalg«, for at anbringe Donald Trump i embedet. Ifølge dette regeringsmemo af 6. januar, så, udover angiveligt at udløse en drabelig hær af internet-trolde, så vel som også at udløse russisk propaganda gennem den snigende benævnte, russiske Tv-kanal, Russia Today, påstår regeringsdokumentet, at russisk militærefterretning benyttede en hacker, kendt som ’Guccifer 2.0’, til at hacke DNC og udlevere materiale til WikiLeaks. Dette materiale viste sig så at være pinligt for Clinton-kampagnen og afslørede, at DNC havde modarbejdet Clintons modkandidat i primærvalgene, Bernie Sanders. WikiLeaks fastholdt, at det materiale, de offentliggjorde, var et læk, ikke et hack, og at det ikke kom fra Rusland. Dengang insisterede VIPS på, at alle beviser pegede på, at materialet var et læk snarere end et hack.

Kort tid efter, at WikiLeak meddelte, at det havde dette DNC-materiale sidste juni, dukkede dette nye, internet-individ, Guccifer 2.0, op på scenen og hævdede, at han hackede DNC, og omgik WikiLeaks ved at udgive flere DNC-dokumenter. Metadataene på nogle af disse dokumenter omfattede en ’sidst ændret’-bruger ved navn Felix Edmundovich, skrevet med kyrilliske skrifttegn, og opkaldt efter Felix Edmundovich Dzerzjinskij, den første chef for det Sovjetiske Hemmelige Politi. Hovsa! Dernæst afslørede klodsede interviews af ’Guccifer 2.0’, der påstod at være rumæner, at han faktisk ikke var bekendt med dette sprog og måske skjulte sin sande identitet. Disse spor blev præsenteret som bevis på, at det var russisk involvering; at ’Guccifer 2.0’ var et russisk hack, der tilsigtede at influere på det amerikanske præsidentvalg.

VIPS-memoet, der blev offentliggjort i går, i hvilke undersøgelser af sites af en computertekniker og af Adam Carter, giver stærke tekniske beviser, der peger på en overlagt anbringelse af russisk metadata og at kilden til filerne, der kom fra ’Guccifer 2.0’, kom fra en direkte, lokal adgang til DNC-netværket. Ikke et computer-fjernhack. Det tempo, hvormed filerne blev overført og senere offentliggjort af ’Guccifer 2.0’, var alt for højt til, at det kunne være gjort via en Internetforbindelse, men som derimod er i overensstemmelse med at kopiere gennem et lokalt netværk til et eksternt USB-stik eller USB-nøgle. Tider, der er lagret i filernes og arkivernes metadata, peger på, at manipulationen med filerne var udført i Østkyst-tidszone (USA). Dette var ikke et hack. Den senere tilføjelse af russiske metadata, inklusive navnet Felix Edmondovich, skete også med fuldt overlæg.

Hvad betyder så alt dette? Efter WikiLeaks meddelte, at det havde materiale fra DNC, blev der lanceret en operation, der skulle tilføje russiske fingeraftryk og frembringe et angiveligt sekundært læk af materiale. Der er mere i alt dette, som jeg vil opfordre til, at I læser i det komplette memorandum, der opfordrer præsidenten til at efterforske CIA, især tidligere direktør John Brennan, samt FBI, for det falske hack og den falske tilskrivning til Rusland. Husk på, at alt dette sker pga. Donald Trumps kurs mod en detente med Rusland og imod den igangværende krigsførelse, der promoveres af aktører, kendt som ’deep state’ (’staten i staten’) i USA. Præsidenten må slå tilbage mod disse tjenester for at kunne forfølge sin egen politik; og, at slå kraftigt tilbage mod dette ’Russia-Gate’ er altafgørende for at få det til at ske.«




Stop det næste økonomiske kollaps –
LaRouches Fire Love, NU!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast,
21. juli, 2017

Benjamin Deniston: Vi har et par vigtige afsnit til jer i dag, inklusive annonceringen af en nødmobilisering, der i dag lanceres af LaRouchePAC, med et krav om forebyggende handlinger, der er nødvendige for at standse et nyt finanskollaps – et kollaps, der er værre end krisen i 2008. Det kommer vi til.

Vi vil også afspille en video med en appel fra fr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der taler direkte til det amerikanske folk; med en opfordring til, at det amerikanske folk rejser sig og forsvarer præsident Trump, især med hans løfter om at genopbygge den amerikanske økonomi gennem at vedtage Glass-Steagall og satse på det Amerikanske Økonomiske System. Videoen kommer lige om lidt.

Vi vil afslutte med nogle rapporter direkte fra gaden om LaRouche Politiske Aktionskomite (LPAC) i hele landet. Så bliv her på kanalen, for dette får du med sikkerhed ikke i medierne i dag, og som er en ægte aflæsning af, hvad det faktisk almindelige, patriotiske, amerikanske folk ønsker; hvad de tænker nu, og hvad de ønsker at gøre.

Men før vi kommer til disse to sidstnævnte afsnit, har vi i dag en meddelelse om, at LaRouchePAC udsteder en nødmobilisering og kræver, at de relevante regeringer griber til forebyggende handlinger for at standse et nyt kollaps af det transatlantiske finanssystem. I løbet af de seneste 24 timer har både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche krævet denne nødmobilisering; der skal føres både i USA og i nationerne i hele Europa for at kræve, og gennemtvinge og forlange, at de relevante regeringer – inklusive præsident Trump – griber til de nødvendige, forebyggende handlinger for at reorganisere finanssystemet og reorganisere det økonomiske system. Og at gøre dette, før den nye sammenbrudskrise rammer. Alle, der følger os her på LaRouchePAC, ved, at de forebyggende handlinger, der må foretages omgående, er absolut krystalklare. Vi har LaRouches økonomiske genrejsningsprogram, Fire Love, der begynder med vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall som blot det første, indledende skridt.

Før vi kommer nærmere ind på dette, vil vi belyse den kendsgerning, at der er nye diskussioner og nye bekymringer om mange mulige udløserpunkter for denne nye finanskrise. Vi har f.eks. nye udviklinger i den såkaldte italienske bankkrise; der faktisk ikke er begrænset til Italien, men det er, hvad man diskuterer. I de seneste par dage har diverse finanseksperter advaret om, at 16 ud af 19 italienske banker – det er 85 % af bankerne i Italien, 16 ud af 19 – i øjeblikket ikke kan leve op til de europæiske standarder mht. misligholdte lån (Non-performing Loans; NPL)[1]. Det rapporteres, at disse banker skal rejse $32 milliard for at leve op til EU-standarder. Denne helt nye udvikling kommer i sammenhæng med en igangværende krise i eurozonen. For eksempel har Marco Zanni, både i sine egne interviews med andre publikationer og i interviews med LaRouchePAC, advaret om, at vi nu har kurs mod en ny bankkrise. Han har udtalt sig offentligt imod dette og har meget nøje overvåget situationen med de italienske banker og eurozone-bankerne. Under diskussionen i morges med fr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, kom hun med en meget klar pointe. Hun sagde: »Hvis der er amerikanere, der tror, at dette er et italiensk spørgsmål, eller dette er et europæisk spørgsmål, så må I hellere tro om igen og indse, hvad situationen er.« Det er almindeligt kendt, at amerikanske banker har en derivateksponering på over $2 billioner over for europæiske banker. Det er ikke noget nyt; vi så det i 2007, 2008, 2009. Det transatlantiske banksystem er så indbyrdes sammenflettet og afhængigt, at en nedsmeltning i en hvilken som helst af disse regioner let kan sende hele systemet til tælling.

Det er den situation, vi ser på i Europa. I USA er der signaler over det hele. For eksempel situationen i Texas, hvor, den 11. juli, Houston Cronicle rapporterede, at selskabers misligholdelse af lån i hele staten Texas i dag allerede er højere, end den var under krisen i 2008-2009. Så selv om vi angiveligt ikke er i en krise – det er, hvad man fortæller os – så er graden af selskabers misligholdelse allerede højere i Texas i dag, end den var under krisens højdepunkt, da den sidst voksede frem. Dette omfatter visse helt enestående situationer. For eksempel, en situation, der beskrives som »uhørt«, en begivenhed uden fortilfælde; og det var sammenbruddet af en Houston-baseret, privat kapitalfond ved navn EnerVest, Limited, der vurderedes til $2 milliard. Men, efter dens kollaps, vurderedes den helt ned til nul. Før denne begivenhed ville typiske tab fra denne form for situation, hvor en privat kapitalfond går ned, ende med et tab på 25 %. Her har vi tab på 100 %. Dette bliver åbenlyst indrømmet som en begivenhed uden fortilfælde. Wall Street Journal interviewede under sin dækning af det eksperter, der advarede, »Flere andre energi-fokuserede fonde er i fare for en lignende situation«.

Ud over denne specifikke situation i Texas er det velkendt, at graden af selskabers misligholdelse i hele landet allerede var i støt stigning i hele 2016 og fortsættende i 2017. Der er endnu en situation omkring restancer i billån, der nu er på et niveau, der kan sammenlignes med restancerne i ejendomslån i 2006, umiddelbart inden kollapset af boblen i ejendomslån. Jeg håber, vore seere er klar over, at billån er blevet brugt til en lignende virkning med at skabe værdipapirer og andre bjerge af svindellån på basis af disse oprindelige lån. Man er bekymret for, at restancerne på billånene på samme måde kunne udløse en krise.

Og så har vi selvfølgelig den igangværende saga om de uophørlige bailouts med politikken for kvantitativ lempelse. I Europa sender enhver blot antydning eller diskussion om, at den Europæiske Centralbank skal nedskære deres QE – kvantitativ lempelse – bailout-program omgående markederne ud i uro. Så her otte, ni år inde i dette fortsatte bailout-program, sender den blotte nævnelse af at nedskære dette en lille smule markederne ud i krise; for blot at give jer en fornemmelse af, hvor følsom situationen er dér.

Vi bringer disse punkter frem, fordi de blot er nogle mulige punkter, der kunne udløse denne krise. Jeg vil gerne understrege, at Helga Zepp-LaRouche her til morgen specifikt satte fokus på den italienske banksituation som et kritisk område, man skulle overvåge. Men dette er blot mulige udløserpunkter; ikke ét af dem er i sig selv årsagen. Ethvert af disse punkter kunne gå af, de kunne udløse nedsmeltningen; eller, det kunne blive noget helt andet. Som vi drøftede det med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche, så er årsagen den samme, systemiske fallit i hele det transatlantiske system, der stod bag krisen i 2008, og som ikke blev løst på nogen som helst måde af bailout. Helga understregede her til morgen, at, ikke alene løste bailout ingenting; det førte faktisk systemet over i en fremgangsmåde med reel, accelereret udplyndring af befolkningen i USA og Europa. Udplyndring af det amerikanske og europæiske folk i et desperat forsøg på at opretholde og fortsætte denne boble. Vi har nu nået et nyt vendepunkt i denne krise.

Vi kunne nævne mange ting om dette, men blot et par udviklinger, der er sket i de seneste dage: Nye rapporter om de ødelæggende virkninger af nedskæringer af pensioner, som et resultat af Obamas politikker. Vi har især et tilfælde med Multi-employer Pension Fund Reform Act[2], som Obama underskrev og satte i kraft i 2014; hvilket angiveligt skulle have været et forsøg på at redde mange pensioner fra at gå ned, til trods for, at disse pensioner angiveligt skulle være garanteret til de mennesker, der indbetalte til dem og havde tjent dem. Vi hører nu, at nedskæringer på op til 63 % af disse pensioner er blevet annonceret over for medlemmerne af Cleveland Stålarbejdere Lokal 17. Dette er blot ét eksempel, og det første eksempel, på, hvad der kunne blive en hel bølge af massive nedskæringer af pensioner for denne form for arbejdere, som et resultat af disse politikker fra Obama-æraen. Det er sikkert overflødig at sige det, men det er altså en massiv nedskæring; man tager folk, der har planlagt en anstændig middelklasse pensionisttilværelse, og nu kastes de ud under fattigdomsgrænsen. Dette truer med hjemløshed for mange af disse mennesker.

Det er blot ét eksempel. Mere generelt er det også blevet annonceret, at 33 forskellige stater i hele nationen nu rapporterer om nedgang i deres forudsete indtægter. Hvilket betyder, at vi må være forberedt på fornyet diskussion om nedskæringspolitik i hele landet i diverse stater, som respons hertil. Og, som vore seere er udmærket klar over, så har vi selvfølgelig det igangværende, fysiske sammenbrud af USA; hvilket er et absolut indbyrdes forbundet og indbyrdes afhængigt spørgsmål. Den basale, nødvendige finansiering for blot en minimal, basal vedligeholdelse af vore infrastruktursystemer – de systemer, der holder vores økonomi i gang, der holder folk i live – er blevet nægtet; er blevet fjernet under dette sindssyge, Wall Street-kørte, spekulative system.

Pointen er, at dette system er mere råddent, end det var i 2008. Ethvert af det amerikanske folks fysiske vilkår er værre, end det var i 2008, som et resultat af Bush’ og Obamas politik. Vi er nu ved et punkt, hvor boblen igen er rede til at briste; der er mange mulige udløsere. Som respons til denne situation har Lyndon og Helga LaRouche understreget, at vi må kræve forebyggende handling. Vi kan ikke vente på, at krisen rammer og så respondere i sammenhæng med et krisescenarie. De relevante regeringer må gå ind og intervenere og forhindre et sammenbrud med LaRouches Fire Love-programmet. Hvis vi venter på et kaotisk kollaps, kunne det være for sent.

LaRouches Fire Love-program er ganske enkelt, det er meget klart. Man kan finde mere information på LaRouchePAC-websiden. Programmet begynder med 1) Glass-Steagall; en anerkendt, kraftigt støttet handling for at omstrukturere banksystemet ved at rejse en brandmur mellem legitim, standard, kommerciel bankpraksis og så de mere spekulative hasardspilspraksisser af den type, der praktiseres af investeringsbanker og Wall Street. Simplet hen adskille dem; det er alt, man behøver gøre som første skridt.

Hr. LaRouches trin 2 er at komme ind med et statsligt banksystem i Hamiltons tradition. Skab en ny nationalbank, der kan udstede kredit til disse kommercielle banker og andre banker til at finansiere et finanssystem, der er frit og uafhængigt af Wall Street, City of London og disse internationale finansoligarker. Det er, hvad vor nation har gjort på forskellige tidspunkter i hele vores historie; det er en politik, der er rodfæstet i den Amerikanske Forfatning og vor nations grundlæggelse, for at have statslig, national kontrol over det monetære system, over vores kreditpolitik. For at sikre, at vi kan kontrollere, hvordan vi bruger vores penge, hvorhen vi dirigerer vores kredit, og at vi ikke er prisgivet Wall Streets eller et internationalt finanskartels luner.

Men det bringer os frem til punkt 3, som virkelig er afgørende for hr. LaRouches enestående indsigt i realøkonomisk vækst og genrejsning; og det er at sikre, at vi ikke blot skaber kredit til jobs som sådan, men at kreditten må gå til produktive jobs, der øger arbejdskraftens fysiske produktivitet; der øger den fysiske nettoproduktion af de varer, der er nødvendige for at det amerikanske folk kan opretholde samfundet. Der må være en forståelse og en prioritering af kreditudstedelse til ting, der med garanti har denne fysiske væksteffekt, der vil skabe en anti-entropisk forøgelse af vækst i den amerikanske økonomi. En fremtrædende komponent i dette er infrastruktur; en genopbygning af infrastrukturen; opbygning af en ny infrastrukturplatform for vores land, på et højere niveau. Det er denne form for fysiske investeringer, der behøves. Som et nationalt, højhastigheds-jernbanenet, der helt vil forandre transport i hele landet. Nye vandsystemer, nye energisystemer; sådanne ting.

Det 4. punkt i LaRouches Fire Love er et forceret program for termonuklear fusionskraft; og dens anvendelse til at støtte en ny rummission, med videnskab som drivkraft, for udvikling af Månen og udvidelse af menneskehedens snarlige aktivitet i Solsystemet. Og igen; dette er rodfæstet i hr. LaRouches erkendelse af, at dette er en form for investeringer, der ikke bare koster penge. Men de fremmer og fremtvinger faktisk den form for teknologiske og videnskabelige revolutioner, der rykker hele samfundet opad. Apolloprogrammet, det forcerede Måneprogram, betalte mange gange den oprindelige investering tilbage gennem effekterne af de nye teknologier, der blev udviklet til denne mission, og som dernæst blev benyttet i hele økonomien. Det er basal, økonomisk vækst; og hele denne pakke er nødvendig, som et hele, som en totalitet, for at komme ud af denne krise.

Det er, hvad hr. LaRouche har sagt siden før nedsmeltningen i 2007-2008; og nu siger han det igen. Tiden er nu inde til, at folk lytter og griber til handling omgående, og ikke venter på, at dette her skal ske igen.

Vi ved alle – vi har diskuteret det– at præsident Trump viser en åbenhed over for at satse på dette program. Han har åbent udtalt sin støtte til Glass-Steagall. Han har åbent diskuteret det Amerikanske System for politisk økonomi; noget, der sandsynligvis ikke er blevet omtalt af nogen præsident i godt og vel 100 år. Spørgsmålet er sandsynligvis, om der overhovedet har været en præsident i dette tidsrum, der forstod, hvad det ville sige; vi skal nok tilbage til Franklin Roosevelt. Men Trump har lagt disse ting på bordet; han har opfordret til at støtte disse politikker. Men, det amerikanske folk må indse, at dette er en kamp. Han går op imod Wall Street; han går op imod City of London; han går op imod det britiske establishment med denne politik. Han har brug for den nødvendige støtte til at sikre, at han rent faktisk kan bringe dette program til at bære frugt.

Og vi er nu kommet til en særlig videotale, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche optog tidligere på ugen som en direkte appel til det amerikanske folk om ikke blot at læne sig tilbage og klage eller håbe. Men derimod at gribe til omgående handling for at sikre, at vores præsident har støtten til disse særlige spørgsmål og har mulighed for at gennemføre sit økonomiske revolutionsprogram. Det er ikke nogen let kamp; det er ikke en kamp, hvor hverken det ene eller andet udfald er garanteret. Lige nu er det en kamp, hvor udfaldet er åbent. Så vi afspiller nu Helga Zepp-LaRouches bemærkninger for jer.

(Se: Helga Zepp-LaRouches videotale, med dansk oversættelse: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=20761 )

 

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

 

DENISTON:  So I think that was a very clear and appropriate
message, and I think that transitions us directly to our
concluding brief segment on the show today; which is the response
that we’re getting from the American people when we take this
message to them.  As you hopefully know, LaRouche PAC is not a
news service; we’re not just here providing information.  We are
a political action committee; we are active all around the
country, online, social networks; but also in the streets around
the nation.  What we are getting is a very clear and strong
response when the proper leadership — as Helga just displayed —
is brought to the American people.  Despite all of this crazy
media bombardment and what Helga referenced in terms of the
top-down control of the political parties trying to maintain
these different narratives about Trump, about the election, about
Russia, etc., etc.  The reality is, the common American person
has a very clear and immediate response when the actual issues of
the economic breakdown, the fight against Wall Street, and the
need to rebuild the country along the lines of LaRouche’s Four
Laws are brought to them.  When these points are brought to them,
they respond.  Democrat, Republican, independent, Green,
whatever.  There is a unity in the American people that needs to
be mobilized, built upon, and rallied to support Trump on these
specific measures, so he can take on Wall Street; take on the
City of London; and preempt this crisis with the entire Four Laws
program.  So, with that, we have a very short additional video
report we want to bring to you, featuring LaRouche PAC organizer
Kevin Pearl from the Boston, Massachusetts area.  He has a report
on the activity and response he’s getting from his direct
activity with the American people.

KEVIN PEARL

:  Hi.  Kevin Pearl with the LaRouche
Political Action Committee in Raynham, Massachusetts.  I just
wanted to give people a quick report of the responses that we’ve
been getting out in the streets over the course of the last week;
which is very different from what you might expect from the media
reports.  The reality is, a huge number of Democrats —
particularly blue-collar Democrats — are thrilled to see us out
here defending Trump.  This is not a Republican-Democratic
question.  There’s a division between those who want to
reindustrialize and rebuild the country and are thrilled at the
idea of Trump investing $1 trillion or more in American
infrastructure, versus those who are willing to defend the Wall
Street financial casino at all costs.  People are disgusted by
the propaganda that Russia somehow stole the election.  Many
people sheepishly say, “Frankly, I like Putin.  I think he’s
doing more to stop terrorism than Obama did or Bush did.”  Many
people sheepishly admit that they themselves are Democrats;
because they think that only Republicans support the President,
because of the media brainwashing.  The reality is, Americans
want to rebuild the country along the lines of Republicans that
think like Lincoln and Eisenhower, and Democrats that think like
Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. It’s time to cut the
partisan crap and do that.
So, that’s the sense that we’re getting in the streets out
here. That’s my quick report for today.  Keep in touch.

DENISTON:  So, as you saw there, that’s one taste of what
we’re getting.  We also had similar reports from around the
country.  I’ll just highlight very briefly a fun report we got
from the greater New York Manhattan area; where one of our
organizers was approached by a somewhat suspicious character who
was asking very probing questions and kind of trying to get under
our skin a little bit.  At a certain point, when provoked, she
said, “Well actually, I was told to come down here and harass you
guys, because you have some support of Trump as part of your
presentation here on our street corner.  I was alerted through my
Facebook group that we should go down here and harass you for
being Trump supporters.”  We got into a basic discussion with the
woman; she agreed with us on everything we were talking about.
She wants Glass-Steagall, she wants the Four Laws program, she
wants to rebuild the country.  So, it’s another example of how
thin this propaganda is that’s being put out by the media.  What
cuts through it is the economic reality of the situation and the
actions needed.  So, if we can mobilize the American people —
and that is your job out there as our audience, as our activists,
as our supporters.  One leading item we still have is our
petition, calling on the Congress to support this activity to
rebuild the country.  We need to continue to build support around
that; build support for the Four Laws program as a whole.
Again, just to reiterate, we are now launching an emergency
campaign to call for preemptive action.  There are new signs that
this system, which has been rotted to the core for many years
now, and is only being supported by the looting of the general
population; that this system is now coming to the point where it
is ready to blow out again.  It could be tomorrow; it could be
next week.  It’s not a mechanical scenario where one particular
event is going to trigger it; it could be any event.  The problem
is in the inherent nature of the system itself, not in any of
these particular scenarios we cited earlier — although those
should be watched as potential triggers.
So, that’s our situation now.  That’s our task before us.
We are happy to bring you this show this week, and we will
continue to bring you more information as things develop.  Thank
you for joining us at larouchepac.com.

[1] Et banklån regnes for misligholdt, når der går mere end 90 dage, uden at låneren betaler de aftalte afdrag og renter. Misligholdte lån – NLP’er – kaldes også »dårlige lån«.

[2] Multiemployer Pension Reform Act fra 2014 er en føderal lov, der havde til formål at tillade visse amerikanske pensionsordninger, der har utilstrækkelige midler og dermed risikerer insolvens, at reducere de udbetalinger, de skylder pensions-indbetalerne.




EIR: Ny, værre bankkrise ved årets udgang?

Følgende artikel forekommer som en lederartikel i seneste nummer af Executive Intelligence Review:

EIR, 13. juli, 2017 – Marco Zanni, uafhængigt medlem af Europaparlamentet fra Italien, blev i går interviewet af det anti-etablissement, USA-baserede website, Rogue Money, af sitets stifter »V, Guerilla-økonomen«, sammen med EIR’s Harley Schlanger. Zanni fokuserede på to punkter: EU-bankernes og EU-økonomiernes overordnede svaghed, der kræver bankreform, med begyndelse i en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, og betydningen af den amerikanske præsident Trumps G20-topmøde med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin.

Med hensyn til EU og euroen, gennemgik Zanni Italiens kollapsende økonomi for at belyse det overordnede problem. Han sagde, det er ukorrekt at tale om økonomisk genrejsning i Eurozonen – man kan ikke stole på de erklæringer, der kommer fra den Europæiske Kommission eller den Europæiske Centralbank (ECB). Alt imens ECB’s udpumpning af likviditet midlertidigt kan have reddet nogle store banker fra fallit, så skete det på bekostning af realøkonomien samtidig med, at det ikke gjorde noget som helst for at adressere de systemiske problemer i Europas For-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-banker (’TBTF-banker’).

I Italien og Spanien er den reelle arbejdsløshedsrate 20 %, og realindkomsten er på 1999-niveau. Den nylige bail-out/bail-in (hhv. ’statslig bankredning’ og ’ekspropriering af visse typer bankindskud’, -red.) af to venetianske banker og Monte dei Paschi-banken viser den svindelagtige natur af ECB’s politik og belyste den kendsgerning, at mange banker ligger inde med uerholdelige niveauer af gæld i form af insolvente lån og derivatobligationer. Der er en voksende vrede i befolkningen mod den Europæiske Kommission og ECB, såvel som også mod den italienske regering for at bøje sig for dem.

Zanni sagde, at der er tiltag i Europaparlamentet, og især i det italienske parlament, i retning af at vedtage en politik for bankreform, som omfatter en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, og som hans gruppe støtter. Hvis dette imidlertid ikke sker, forudsiger han en ny, mere alvorlig bankkrise ved udgangen af dette år eller i begyndelsen af 2018 og siger, at dette kunne føre til en italiensk exit af euroen.

Forespurgt om sit syn på Putin/Trump-mødet sagde Zanni, at han har fulgt Putin »med stor interesse«. Han har et »meget positivt syn« på Trump/Putin-mødet. »Det er ikke hele Europa, der er imod Trump, som medierne prøver at få det til at lyde.« Han sagde, at Europa har brug for stærke, økonomiske relationer med Rusland og Kina, og Trump handler i denne retning. Der er nu en stor mulighed for at skabe samarbejde mellem Europa og Rusland, med Trump som drivkraft, og for at forlænge dette også til Asien.

Zanni sluttede med at sige, at Europa må have fungerende, suveræne stater, i modsat fald vil det mislykkes.

Interviewet[1] vil blive opslået i morgen. Rogue Money-websitet følges stærkt af anti-etablissement-netværk, og dets interviews udlægges ofte af andre. Det har et ugentligt, 20 minutter langt interview med Schlanger og opslår hyppigt materiale fra LaRouchePAC, med links til siden.

[1] http://www.roguemoney.net/2017/07/13/exclusive-interview-with-marco-zanni-and-harley-schlanger/

(35 minutter).

 




Vi har brug for et nationalt infrastrukturprogram, NU!
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
14. juli, 2017

Det er den 14. juli, 2017; og, som de ville sige i Frankrig, »Bonne Fête Nationale!«. Vi ved, at præsident Trump netop er kommet tilbage fra at deltage i fejringen af Bastille-dagen i Paris, Frankrig, hvor han havde et succesrigt møde med præsident Macron, iflg. rapporter. De fejrede mere end 200 års fransk-amerikansk partnerskab, der går helt tilbage til vores alliance for at besejre briterne i den Amerikanske Revolution.

Men, der er gået nøjagtig én uge siden det historiske møde mellem præsident Trump og præsident Putin fra Rusland, på sidelinjen af G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland.

(Her følger det engelske udskrift af webcastet.)

WE NEED A NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM NOW!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening; it’s July 14, 2017.  My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us here for our weekly
webcast on larouchepac.com.  I’m joined in the studio by Paul
Gallagher, {EIR} Economics Editor.
It’s July 14, 2017; and as they would say in France, “Bonne
Fête Nationale!”  We know that President Trump has just returned
from attending the Bastille Day celebrations in Paris, France,
where he had a successful visit with President Macron according
to reports.  They celebrated over 200 years of French-American
partnership going all the way back to our alliance to defeat the
British in the American Revolution.
But it’s been exactly one week since the historic meeting
between President Trump and President Putin of Russia, on the
sidelines of the G-20 in Hamburg, Germany.  We have a picture
[Fig. 1] here I can put on the screen of President Putin’s and
President Trump’s meeting, as you can see here.  As was correctly
cited by Stephen Cohen in an article in The Nation yesterday,
this was a very successful summit.  The achievements included: 1)
formalizing a new direct partnership between the United States
and Russian Presidents — personal relationship; 2. negotiating a
very successful ceasefire in southern Syria, which continues to
hold to this day.  This is part of a more general policy of
coordinating anti-terrorism campaigns; 3. — according to reports
— creating a bilateral US-Russia channel to try to resolve the
ongoing civil war in Ukraine.  But, over the past week, we’ve
also seen an escalation to a real fever pitch of the so-called
“Russia-gate” campaign.  We’ve seen this very rapid escalation of
attacks against the Trump Presidency.  But as Paul Gallagher
pointed out correctly in a lead that was published yesterday on
the LaRouche PAC website, this latest series of frenzied
outbursts against President Trump over the so-called
“Russia-gate” is not due to some sort of 20-minute meeting that
one of Trump’s children had with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower
during the campaign.  But rather, it’s over the fact that
President Trump himself had a very successful 2.5-hour meeting
with President Putin of Russia last week.  This is a meeting that
Trump’s opponents never intended to allow to occur, let alone
turn out as positively and successfully as it did.  This has
been, emphatically, the issue all along in this so-called
“Russia-gate” collusion scandal; going all the way back to before
Trump’s inauguration.
I’d like to put on the screen here a tweet [Fig. 2] that
President Trump tweeted out on January 7th of this year, where he
correctly identifies exactly what the issue here is.  This is two
weeks before the inauguration.  He says, “Having a good
relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing.  Only
‘stupid’ people or fools would think that it is bad.  We have
enough problems around the world without yet another one.  When I
am President, Russia will respect us far more than they do now,
and both countries will perhaps work together to solve some of
the many great and pressing problems and issues of the world.”
So, indeed, that’s what Trump has been able to succeed in
accomplishing; and he’s stuck to this, despite the environment of
Russophobia which far rivals anything that we’ve seen at least
since the Cold War, maybe going all the way back to the infamous
McCarthyism of the 1950s.  You’ve reached a point now where even
Senator Tim Kaine, the former running mate of Hillary Clinton
during the campaign, has openly accused the sitting President of
the United States of treason over the fact that Trump’s son
allegedly met with a foreign national to receive so-called
damaging information against his opponent Hillary Clinton in the
Presidential campaign.  While at the same time, Hillary Clinton
herself had actively solicited damaging, salacious misinformation
against her opponent Donald Trump from a known former agent of
British Intelligence, Christopher Steele.  So, that’s quite the
double standard, if you ask me.
But to make the point, in the face of this entire apparatus,
President Trump’s policy of cooperating with Putin and
establishing a good relationship with President Xi of China is,
indeed, a courageous one.  But as Paul Gallagher made the point
in this same lead which I cited earlier, which he titled “Trump’s
Policy of Peace with Putin and Xi Is Courageous; But His Policy
of Peace with Wall Street is not”.  Very correctly, Paul, you
said “What is not courageous is this President’s inability to
take any steps against Wall Street towards carrying out the
economic recovery policies on which he ran his campaign.  Rather,
Wall Street, led by the likes of Treasury Secretary Steve
Mnuchin, is running all over him.  President Trump is fighting
the British imperial policy and it is British Intelligence which
launched ‘Russia-gate’ against him a year ago, and has driven the
Congressional leadership into McCarthyite madness.  But neither
he, nor either party in Congress, is fighting Wall Street; that
is up to the rest of us, and it cannot be delayed or the next
looming crash will wipe us out entirely.”
So, Paul, that’s what you said in the lead of the LaRouche
PAC website yesterday, very correctly; and I think we’ll get into
that.  But this was echoed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche during
discussions we had with her just a little bit earlier today.  She
said what is clearly urgently necessary and seriously lacking in
the current Trump administration is a commitment to following
through on what she called “an industrial program for the United
States.”  She said we need to get people to focus on this.  The
Trump agenda internationally is fine, clearly; especially Trump’s
stance on Russia, China, US cooperation, which is obviously
positive she said.  And which is the source of the unprecedented
attacks against his administration by those who wish to sabotage
such a relationship.  But domestically, we need a real economic
program.  She said, “As the famous saying goes, ‘it’s the
economy, stupid!’|”  She said that we do expect that sometime
this month, the US-China economic cooperation report is expected
to be published, which was commissioned during President Trump’s
and President Xi Jinping’s summit at Mar-a-Lago a few months ago.
But, as far as can be seen up to this point, there is really
nothing yet happening in terms of Trump’s promised $1 trillion
infrastructure investment plan for the United States.  She said
this is a big weakness, along with Trump’s indefensible cowardice
in the face of Wall Street.  So, it’s our responsibility to
escalate this campaign to get this infrastructure campaign going
in the context of LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws; starting with
Glass-Steagall, which we’re going to discuss more in a minute.
We can use the reconstruction of the New York City region as a
necessary catalyst and a keystone to energize this entire
national infrastructure vision.
So, just to begin with, I’d like to play a short video which
was just posted on the LaRouche PAC website, narrated by Jason
Ross, on this subject.  The title of the video is “What New York
City Can Learn from Africa”.

JASON ROSS:  So, New York City has now officially
entered the “Summer of Hell” created by long overdue maintenance
work around Penn Station.  This work is going to reduce commuter
access to this vital hub by 20% for the half million commutes
daily.  A couple of weeks ago in New York, the derailment of an A
train left dozens injured and disrupted hundreds of thousands of
trips.  In two years, the planned shutdown of the L train will
disrupt 200,000 daily trips for a year and a half.  Today, New
York City’s subway delays are 2.5 times what they were just five
years ago.  It’s clear that transportation in America’s leading
city is at the breaking point.  This should be no surprise to
anyone who has followed the lack of infrastructure investment
over the past decades; particularly to Lyndon LaRouche, who
fought against the 1970s destruction and under investment in New
York City and the Big MAC (Municipal Assistance Corporation)
financial dictatorship that took it over.
Many of the immediately needed fixes are totally obvious to
anyone familiar with the situation.  Replace the 100-year-old
tunnels crossing the Hudson and East Rivers; upgrade the
switching equipment that dates back to Franklin Roosevelt’s
Presidency; and increase maintenance and repair, overhaul of
track and equipment.  But what’s really required is a longer-term
perspective of the next level of infrastructure; the long-term
perspective whose absence caused the crisis that we now find
ourselves in; a crisis in which New York City is merely a leading
example in the United States.  Without fighting to win a
commitment to such a long-term perspective for a new platform,
any short-term fixes — even needed ones — will just be kicking
the can down the road.
To make that long-term perspective clear, let’s look at what
we can learn from Africa and China.  With some exceptions of the
more developed nations such as Egypt and South Africa, African
infrastructure is at a pitifully under-developed level.  Consider
these figures:  The total shipment of freight by rail.  In
Africa, it’s less than 10 % of what it is in the United States,
China, or Europe.  Consider per capita energy consumption in
Africa; only 10% that of the US, only 1/3 that of China.  It’s
more clear, when we focus on the higher form of energy represented
by electrical energy.  Per capita use in Africa is only 6 % what
it is in the United States, and only 1/4 that of China.  In fact,
less than half of Africans have reliable access to electricity at
all.  A typical US refrigerator uses more than double the average
electricity use of citizens of Nigeria or Kenya.  With such an
insufficient infrastructure platform, extensive economic progress
is simply impossible.  Yet, some people — and by some people, I
mean Africa’s colonial masters, led by the British — say that
African development should be through “appropriate” technologies.
That an incremental approach to improvement should be taken; that
foot-powered pumps for water, or solar panels on a hut would be a
useful upgrade.  That is nonsense!
For example, the pathetic Power Africa plan proposed by
President Obama would hardly make a dent in the outrageously low
levels of development.

OBAMA:  It’s going to be your generation that suffers the
most.  Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that
everybody’s mentioned here in Africa, if everybody’s raising
living standards to the point where everybody’s got a car, and
everybody’s got air conditioning, and everybody’s got a big
house, the planet will boil over.”

ROSS:  Africa must leap ahead, not crawl forward; and this
can happen.  The Congo River itself could support an estimated
100,000 MW of electricity; enough for 100 million people or more,
with 40,000 MW from the planned Grand Inga Dam alone.  The
Trans-Aqua water program which would use water from the Congo and
its tributaries to refill and to provide navigation to Lake Chad
which is currently drying up; this would be larger by an order of
magnitude than any other project in the world.  The expansion of
rail lines in Africa is currently at a world-leading level today;
it’s growing.  New transportation routes across Africa will
connect the hinterlands, allowing modern development.  This will
change the situation from the current land-locked regions of the
continent.
To give one example, the freight costs for bringing in a
container of fertilizer from Singapore, to bring that into Rwanda
or Burundi, it’s more than 2.5 times the cost of bringing it to
the port city of Alexandria in Egypt; due to the terrible,
insufficient quality of overland transportation infrastructure
across the continent.  So, by creating access to efficient
transportation, regions benefit from the opportunity to bring in
equipment and supplies; to export their products and ideas; for
residents to travel. With the availability of electricity, higher
productive capabilities are unlocked.  The value of the land and
of the people increases.
Some people recognize this.  Unlike the outlook of the
trans-Atlantic world, China views Africa not simply as a source
of raw materials, as a continent that’s best kept in a state of
under-development; but as an opportunity for massive, rapid,
intense, overall economic development.  As potential partners for
economic prosperity, as new markets, new collaborators.  So,
while US or European stock in Africa is heavily oriented towards
mining and resource extraction, Chinese investment goes primarily
to infrastructure and small- and medium-sized businesses.  Back
in 2010, Chinese trade in Africa overtook that of US trade with
Africa; and it is currently more than double the US-Africa trade
level.  China is financing big projects.  The nearly
500-kilometer, 300-mile standard gauge railway in Kenya; built in
only three years.  The 750-kilometer, 500-mile Djibouti-Addis
Ababa rail line, which will be extended.  It reduces travel time
from days to hours, as it whizzes by at 100mph.
Such major investments, along with the future completion of
the Grand Inga Dam, of the Trans-Aqua water system, they’re going
to completely transform the economy of Africa and each locality
within it.  Bringing water, power, transportation access;
allowing a higher level of industry, mining, agriculture,
scientific and cultural pursuits.  Productivity will grow.
So now, return to New York City.  What has been missing in
New York City?  Maintenance?  No.  What’s been missing is a
commitment to discovering and building the next platform of
infrastructure for the region.  In the context of a national
credit system of Federal high-speed rail authority work, of
upgraded and reliable waterways, of high-tech new designs of
nuclear plants; all of these potentially built with international
cooperation.  In this context, how does New York City fit in this
broader area that it exists in?  Where will the next generation
of transportation and development hubs lie?  And upon what
technologies will they be based?  How can magnetic levitation
technology change our view of transportation?  How will
commercial fusion power, realized within a decade by a fully
funded research program, how could this change our relationship
to power, to materials, to production, to transportation?  How
will the expanded availability of water, power, and transport
open new areas of the country to development; and higher types of
development?  How will the Bering Strait connection change world
freight flows?  Will New York City even still be the nation’s
leading metropolis in a century?

So, sure.  Fix the L train; rebuild the Hudson River
tunnels.  Absolutely.  Redo the disaster known as Penn Station.
But do it all in a national and international context; a context
of a future orientation, of an economic outlook to the value of
leap-frogging to a higher infrastructure platform.  So as in the
future, our national high-speed rail authority builds a 300mph
train system, starting across the Northeast.  As transit in
cities are upgraded to allow for commutes of half an hour rather
than an hour and a half; as the World Land-Bridge connects to
North America, allowing land travel from New York to Beijing;
from North America to Asia.  As all this takes place, what
totally new projects will take place in New York City?  What will
be its future; and what will be its mission?
The mistake of the past was failing to have a future; and
that error must end.

OGDEN:  So, this is clearly the kind of national economic
vision that we need for the United States, and which needs to be
adopted by this administration.  So, I just wanted to ask Paul to
give us a sense of where the fight around this stands, and then
some of the updates in terms of Glass-Steagall, which is the
urgent first step.

PAUL GALLAGHER:  Well, first of all, you’ve already pointed
it out, but I want to point out that some political leaders here,
and most of the media, who are going crazy against since the
meeting between the Presidents of the United States and Russia.
Most of them are directly opposing peace and the potential
economic benefits that follow from the end of the last 15 years
Bush-Obama regime change wars.  As the President pointed out
yesterday, there has been what is already a long ceasefire in
southern Syria, and two other ceasefires being worked on
imminently directly coming out of that meeting that he had with
President Putin of Russia.  That means lives are being saved
there; American lives, Syrian lives, lives of others are being
saved there.  There is also an agreement that came out of similar
negotiations whereby the supply of water for the Palestinian
Authority is being tripled.  This agreement was just announced
yesterday by Jason Greenblatt, the special envoy of President
Trump to the embryonic Mideast peace or Palestinian/Israeli peace
negotiations that are going on.  More importantly, Syria and the
Middle East have become a clear location for the New Silk Road,
the increasingly vast array of infrastructure developments and
projects which include what Jason was just discussing there in
Africa.  The massive investment that China is making with some
other countries as partners in the development of new
infrastructure across Eurasia, now in Africa and into the Middle
East.  There was just a large meeting in Beijing earlier this
week of experts planning the reconstruction of Syria as soon as
the wipe-out of ISIS and the ceasefires now being put into effect
are actually in effect, the reconstruction with large-scale
investment as part of the Belt and Road, as the Chinese call it.
This New Silk Road.
So, there is tremendous potential coming out of these summit
meetings, and the readiness of the President to work with Putin,
with Xi, and the readiness on the other side of the Chinese
leadership to continually expand this tremendous investment that
they have been making in new infrastructure projects across
Eurasia into Africa through the Middle East.  Obviously that
stands ready as well to work in the United States; but that is
where we come to the roadblock that we were referencing earlier,
Matt.  That the Trump administration has been completely unable
up to now, to follow through on the economic promises that it
made to the American people in the course of winning the
Presidency.  Those promises included reinstating the
Glass-Steagall law; putting — for starters — $1 trillion in new
investments.  And everyone thought that meant public investments
into new infrastructure in the United States; including such
things as new ports, new airports, national high-speed rail
networks, connectivity for broken-down transportation systems
like that of New York.  This has not moved at all, because of
tremendous deference to Wall Street and the White House looking
to Wall Street — the worst possible place to look — Wall Street
and environs.  Private equity funds which claim to be setting up
infrastructure funds, all this sort of thing.  Looking entirely
in the wrong place for a large-scale investment in fundamentally
new infrastructure platforms in the United States.
We had a glaring example of this in regard to New York City
and the New York metropolitan area crisis just this week.  It was
announced that what I believe is the very first investment of the
Trump White House under the Transportation Infrastructure
Financing and Innovation Act — it’s called TIFIA.  For the
little bit of public funds from the Federal government that have
been going into transportation projects in the recent years,
TIFIA is a big deal in a very little pond.  The very first TIFIA
investment in transportation infrastructure under the Trump
administration was in Penn Station; and specifically the creation
of a second station across 8th Avenue from Penn Station in New
York.  To make a long story short, this development of a second
station, which is not trains, is not tunnels, is not bridges, is
not new routes, not new connectivity into high-speed rail going
into New England and going into the Northeast corridor south and
going West through New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  It’s not any of
those things; it’s a train station.  It’s only for some of these
lines, and it is merely one small part of what is really the
development of a huge shopping and office mall in this former
Post Office location directly across 8th Avenue from Penn
Station.  This is almost $600 million in this Federal investment
grant being combined with investments more or less ordered by the
various transportation agencies in the New York area, and a
significant investment by the state of New York, essentially in
order to create 850,000 square feet of new office and retail mall
space.
Now what’s going on with malls across the United States?
They’re going bankrupt.  So, what we’re creating here is an
immediate, new potential large-scale bankruptcy like the one that
just occurred with the public/private partnership for the Indiana
Toll Road; like the one that just occurred with the
public/private partnership for Route 130 in Texas, which just —
God bless it — emerged from bankruptcy for the second time under
a new private/public partnership which will soon go bankrupt for
the third time.  These projects which can’t even take tolls; not
even high tolls.  Even with those high tolls can still not meet
the rapacious demands of the private investment banks, private
equity funds, and the other Wall Street which want 10% return on
their investment annually; want all of their capital back in ten
years.  They simply cannot meet these demands, even with tolls
that drivers cannot pay.  This kind of failure is going on all
over the country of exactly this kind of large-scale investment
that we unfortunately just saw go into New York.
What is needed, clearly, is in the trillions; the $1
trillion is a low estimate of what is needed if the United States
were to stop the decline in per capita provision and use of
electricity and instead increase it again.  If it were to stop
the decline in all of the most productive forms of the use of
water, and instead increase it again by new water management,
water transfer, and even at the frontiers of technology, water
creation; that is, storm creation technologies, especially in the
West of the country.  If the United States were to stop the
decline in passenger rail and freight rail travel annually, and
instead build out an entirely new national high-speed rail
network.  If it were really to attack the problems of storm
management, or storm protection; the kind of thing which would
have prevented the ruination of the tunnels in the New York
subway and rail systems in the first place.  If they had been
able to have sea gates to stop the destruction wrought by
Hurricane Sandy, the replacement of water infrastructure
nationally with new infrastructure.  This clearly requires
trillions, and it requires trillions in a short period of time.
There is only one way that this can be attempted, and that is to
create a national credit institution which both attracts new
Federal credit and also attracts the investment of holders of
existing US Treasury debt, the investment of holders of municipal
debts, of state debts who want to put that in the way that
citizens did in the period of World War II into new war bonds;
who want to put that into a new bank created by Congress and make
a bank capable of issuing trillions of dollars in infrastructure
credit; and have it coming from sources already existing within
the Federal government at the same time, as well as the
participation of infrastructure bonding by state and municipal
agencies.  It is only through that kind of Hamiltonian national
credit issuance that, putting aside all the nonsense about
public/private partnerships or the idea that some in the Trump
administration had of an infrastructure bank which was really
more like a private/private partnership, a kind of giveaway to
organized capital in the United States in order to put it into a
bank which would reward them with tax credits equal to what they
were putting in, and then borrow and borrow and borrow on the
debt markets.  This kind of Wall Street scheme absolutely is
destructive, and results not simply in these repeated
bankruptcies, but actual destruction of infrastructure in the
country.
Clearly, that requires that Glass-Steagall be reinstated.
Why?  Take a look at the issuance of credit of China over the
last ten years.  It clearly has been driving the majority, and at
all times over that decade, a third or more of the growth in the
world.  It’s been doing that perhaps on the order of $10 trillion
or more in credit issued by the major public commercial banks in
China; what are sometimes called the policy banks, but they are
public, commercial banks.  Although the Chinese system is clearly
Helsomewhat different than ours, nonetheless commercial banking
is commercial banking; whether it’s being done by
government-backed banks or being done by commercial banks which
are entirely private.  Their publicly-backed commercial banks
have put $10 trillion or more in new credit into the development
of the Chinese economy.  Increasingly in the last two years, into
the projects that I was referencing in the beginning in other
countries along what they call the Belt and Road, the economic
Belt and the maritime Silk Road; which have now crossed into
Africa and are now crossing into the Middle East war zones to
reconstruct them.  Perhaps $400-500 billion is already invested
and committed outside China in the last two years by these major
banks.
Now, how have they done it?  Obviously during this period of
time, there have been some bubbles created in the Chinese economy
in real estate and so forth, bad debt of the same kind which
brought down the banking systems of the United States and Europe.
How have they avoided that?  First of all, the vast majority of
that new credit has gone into the most productive and most
productivity-generating investments; in particular, the platforms
of new infrastructure from nuclear power to fusion power research
to the dynamic space program and to the national high-speed rail
networks, the North-South water transfer, projects which have
changed the availability of water in the Chinese economy.  That’s
first of all.  Second of all, they have operated under a fairly
strict enforced Glass-Steagall regimen since January 1, 1995.
That has also enabled those banks to overcome the formation of
bad debt, the existence of bankruptcies, and to keep on issuing
this productive credit.  They have, despite this huge credit
issuance, stayed below 3% of the world’s banking systems’
exposure to derivatives.  Less than 3% of that exposure is in the
Chinese commercial banking system.  Their income, their revenue
has been overwhelmingly from loans, including 70% to 80% and more
of the annual revenue of all of these banks in comparison to half
or less than half of the income of the megabanks in the United
States coming from interest on loans.  That has indicated the
Glass-Steagall ordering of their banking system, and has enabled
them to keep doing this.
We have to reinstate Glass-Steagall here immediately in
order to put the commercial banking system of the United States
in a condition where it will make productive loans of that kind,
and in order to head off what is clearly now an approaching crash
on the order of, or greater than, 2008.  You have all sorts of
bankruptcies, not just public/private partnerships; all sorts of
bankruptcies rising fairly dramatically in the United States
after a tremendous issuance of credit to the banks, and by those
banks to the largest corporations and on the high interest debt
markets of other corporations, which have set them up for another
crash which is now approaching.  Just to give one example, it was
reported the day before yesterday that in Texas, which of course
brings together the central area of the shale oil and gas boom of
the last ten years and all of the companies associated with that,
along with retail chains and malls.  The rate of corporate
bankruptcies in the first six months of this year in Texas has
been an all-time record; much higher than even in 2009, the real
of the real, total collapse.  It has been about 50% higher than
the same period of time last year.  When you look at the auto
loan delinquencies rising rapidly, the credit card delinquencies
rising rapidly, the fact that the Federal government has just had
to restate its exposure to student debt in such a way that it
suddenly produced a deficit in June of nearly $100 billion in the
Federal budget in a month in which there is usually a surplus,
simply because of the losses coming from the write-off of
defaulted student debt.  This kind of a crash would not only
devastate our economy, it would also cause tremendous for the
international collaboration in development; which is really the
leading and positive feature of these summit meetings which have
occurred.
As the American people have been demanding, we have to
reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act.  Janet Yellen was asked about
this just yesterday again in her Senate testimony; and gave the
usual nonsense explanation that we should value highly the
Lehmann Brothers of the world, because because of Glass-Steagall,
she said, Lehmann Brothers failed.  Because of Glass-Steagall,
other investment banks failed.  Whereas, if we had not repealed
Glass-Steagall, they could be rescued by big commercial banks and
therefore, these Wall Street speculators could keep on doing what
they were doing.  But the question alone indicated that — the
question was from a Senator who asked her “Did we make a mistake
in repealing Glass-Steagall?” — indicates that that question is
still reverberating through Congress.  We have to get that
reinstated in order for the rest of this program which is our
objective, to work.  So, that’s what I would say about it, Matt.

OGDEN:  As you stated correctly yesterday, this is the major
weakness of the Trump administration at this point.  Even the
ability to follow through on these kinds of productive
relationships with China in terms of great projects and
infrastructure development is in jeopardy.  Not only because
you’re missing the entire mechanism to make that work in the form
of a national bank, but also because we’re flirting with disaster
as another financial crisis — potentially worse than 2008 — is
looming over the entire trans-Atlantic.

GALLAGHER: And all of the collaboration of the sort that we
just saw in Africa, if people can actually put themselves in that
situation; all of the collaboration that we saw there could be
replicated in terms of collaboration and development of, for
example, high-speed rail networks in the United States with the
Asian powers which are financing that in Africa and in other
areas of Asia.  But not if our policy is going to be one of no
national public funding, no national public credit institution.
There will be no way for those investments and that engineering
assistance to take place.

OGDEN:  It’s only now that China has actually even been able
to take off in terms of this global infrastructure program in the
way that it has wanted to.  As Bill Jones went through on this
program on Monday, despite the fact that it was all the way back
in 1991, 1994 that the Eurasian Land-Bridge idea was being
discussed in high-level circles in China with Helga Zepp-LaRouche
attending forums on this subject in Beijing in 1994.  We had two
major economic crises in the intervening period:  1997, but then
in a major way, 2008.  It’s only been since 2013 that Xi Jinping
has been able to get this program off the ground.  So, if you
look at this in the long term, you really are at a crucial
decision point for the entire globe on which this decision by the
Trump administration — are you going to follow through on this
promise you made in the campaign?  The future of a lot hinges on
that.  Frankly, with the kind of courage Trump has shown in the
face of the severity of the propaganda and attacks against him on
the Russia question, there is no excuse why he should not have
the same kind of courage in the face of Wall Street.  One
question is, as Mr. LaRouche identified it all the way back in
the transition period, what is the nefarious role that is being
played by Steve Mnuchin, for example, in undermining and
sabotaging what was clearly one of the issues on which the
American people voted in the Trump campaign; which was
Glass-Steagall and finally getting tough on Wall Street.

GALLAGHER:  You’ll remember as recently as a month or so
ago, in an interview, the President said some people want to go
back to the old Glass-Steagall system; we’re looking at that
right now.  That’s what he said.  Clearly, there is also strong
opposition from certain people in Congress who are in Wall
Street’s pocket in the Republican Party, and also from Mnuchin
and others in the administration who want to give Wall Street a
complete deregulation instead.  The President has been letting
those people have their way; and so of course, have the
Republican leadership in both Houses of Congress been kowtowing
in the extreme to the demands of Wall Street to take off
regulations, to let them again leverage up in the way that they
did right before the last crash where they got up to 30:1 and
35:1 debt leverage.  They want to have the capital requirements
lowered so they can leverage up again.  These kinds of demands
are being granted by the leadership in Congress and by the
President, when they have clearly said to the American people, we
want productivity; we want development to return; we want new
infrastructure development to return; we want to rebuild the
country.  They’re not doing it.  I would just emphasize that
those members of the House and the Senate in the order of 50 or
60 total who have put their names on Glass-Steagall legislation,
they have done so with large-scale petition drives being done by
constituency groups with which we’ve been working, which have put
them in a position to say “My constituents are demanding this;
and constituents across the country are demanding reinstating
Glass-Steagall.”  They moved from that, so it’s really up to us
to get this done and break through this combination of money and
fear and cowardice which is really letting Wall Street continue
to run this infrastructure issue.  They will absolutely destroy
what little remains of the infrastructure in the country; they
will make these breakdown crises as in New York and dam that
collapsed in California and the locks that are threatening to
collapse on our major waterways.  They will make them far worse
by their toll-looting schemes and their public/private
partnership schemes.  That’s got to be completely replaced by a
policy of Hamiltonian national credit; that’s the only thing that
will work.

OGDEN:  Exactly.  As Helga was saying when we spoke with her
earlier today, this is the strategic priority in terms of a
breakthrough on the domestic front in the United States; is
securing the kind of momentum necessary to force the
Glass-Steagall measure through, and to create the kind of
political environment in which it’s impossible to oppose
Glass-Steagall.  The kind of situation that is now hitting in New
York, we’ve now come into the official “Summer of Hell” as Jason
said in the beginning of that video; this creates the kind of
political conditions on the ground where you can really catalyze
at least a discussion of the type of infrastructure vision that
you need for the United States.  But this comes in the context of
what could potentially come out of a US-China cooperation on Silk
Road development, or the Belt and Road Initiative development.
As Jason said, you do have to really think in terms of at least
50 years into the future.  What is the kind of economic geometry
in which these current crises, these current projects fit?  And
the only form of economics which is based on that kind of
thinking, is what Hamilton came up with at the origination of the
United States:  This credit system which is fundamentally
different from the kind of monetarism which this public/private
partnership approach is based on. That’s the only kind of
philosophy which thinks in terms of 50-100-year returns in terms
of real physical wealth and real increases of productivity rather
than just accounting.

GALLAGHER:  There are people such as our friend Hal Cooper,
a very experienced and expert railroad engineer and planner, who
have exactly that kind of vision of how the now-collapsing
transit system around New York City could be transformed into
something in which the lines would not all be converging on Penn
Station and stopping there, and then going into tunnels and
gradually going back the other way — all of it at 10mph or less.
But rather, those transportation lines within the city would be
opening up and connecting directly into high-speed lines coming
out of that area, going to New York State and New England, going
west across the belt between New York and Chicago and the whole
high-speed planning area there; going down all the way to Florida
in the Northeast corridor.  That these kinds of directly flowing
connections which would make the transit system around New York
merely the major node, the biggest node in the country in a
continually connected national high-speed transportation network.
These kinds of plans do exist; they require — as I was saying
before — naturally they require a great deal of investment.
They don’t require a few hundred million dollars from here and
there and everywhere else into an office and shopping mall to
make a new train station.  They require serious, long-term, high
productivity building of the kind of transportation
infrastructure that we have nowhere in this country at this time.
That’s where Hamiltonian banking and credit comes in; and it’s
really the only thing that can make that possible.

OGDEN:  Well, thank you very much, Paul.  I know that your
last appearance on this program generated a lot of views on the
internet, and also a lot of questions.  I think a lot of the
viewers appreciated the opportunity to write in via the comments
on YouTube.

GALLAGHER:  I tried to answer some of them.

OGDEN:  You had the opportunity to answer them.  So, we
would invite people again; if you have questions for Paul, go
ahead and write them in the comments section on this YouTube
video.  Maybe we can do another follow-up video where it’s a
question and answer kind of session like that.  This is an
ongoing discussion, obviously; and we’ve got a lot of
responsibility on our shoulders to follow through on this policy
and to make this work.
So, thanks a lot, Paul, for joining us.

GALLAGHER:  Thank you.

OGDEN:  Thank you for watching; and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.




»Det nye navn for fred er økonomisk udvikling«
Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale til
Schiller Instituttets m. fl. Konference,
Mad for Fred, New York, 7. juli, 2017. (PDF)

Det er bestemt sandt, at tiden for den unipolære verden er forbi, men multi-polaritet er stadig ikke løsningen, for det indbefatter stadig geopolitik, der var årsag til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, og denne geopolitik er stadig i operation, i Nordkorea, i Syrien og i Ukraine.

Vi må derfor finde et højere niveau. Vi må få verden frem til at blive det, præsident Xi Jinping altid kalder »et samfund for menneskehedens fælles fremtid«. Et stort skridt i denne retning kunne være mødet mellem præsident Trump og præsident Putin, der mødes i dag for første gang som præsidenter. Dette er selvfølgelig et meget vigtigt skridt, for mellem præsident Trump og præsident Xi Jinping er der allerede etableret en meget positiv relation, så det er meget, meget afgørende, hvad der kommer ud af Trump-Putin-mødet. For de spørgsmål, vi må løse, er presserende og dramatiske.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

Videoklippet med Helgas tale kan ses her, start 15:45 min.: 

 




»Det nye navn for fred er økonomisk udvikling«.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
7. juli, 2017

Vært Matthew Ogden: Jeg vil gerne indlede med at fortælle vore seere, at, i dag er en meget historisk dag. Vi har endnu ikke fået de fulde rapporter om alt, der er sket; men vi har i dag set to meget vigtige konferencer, der finder sted, mens vi taler. Én af dem er naturligvis G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland, og den anden er konferencen (Schiller Instituttet, Kinesisk Energifond, Fonden for Genoplivelse af Klassisk Kultur), der finder sted i New York her i USA. Sidstnævnte er selvfølgelig konferencen med den meget passende titel, »Mad for Fred; Mad for Mennesker; Mad for Tankerne. Det nye navn for fred er økonomisk udvikling«; der, som jeg sagde, er sponsoreret i fællesskab af Schiller Instituttet, Kinesisk Energifond og Fonden for Genoplivelse af Klassisk Kultur. Vi vil i aftenens show vise videoen med Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale på denne konference.

Men før vi kommer til det, så finder dagens anden, potentielt verdenshistoriske begivenhed sted på sidelinjerne af G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland. Selve G20-topmødet er relativt betydningsløst, sammenlignet med det langt vigtigere og større møde mht. potentiel signifikans, der fandt sted lidt tidligere i dag, mellem præsident Trump fra USA og præsident Putin fra Rusland. Og dette er, som jeg sagde, langt større mht. dets potentielle signifikans. Dette var muligheden for, at præsident Putin og præsident Trump kunne have deres første, regulære møde ansigt til ansigt. Ifølge nyhedsrapporteringer varede dette topmøde – der, som jeg sagde, var den første mulighed for disse to præsidenter at mødes ansigt til ansigt – over to en halv time. Det var kun meningen, mødet skulle vare 30minutter; men det faktum, at det fortsatte så lang tid – 2,5 time – er allerede og i sig selv et meget potentielt godt tegn. Det er tydeligvis en lovende udvikling; og uanset indholdet af denne drøftelse – som bestemt vil være meget signifikant; men, uanset dette, så varsler muligheden for USA’s og Ruslands præsidenter at mødes ansigt til ansigt, og at skabe en direkte, personlig relation, godt for fred og stabilitet for hele verden, men også for relationerne mellem disse to lande og for skabelsen af en sund relation uden andres mellemkomst mellem disse to verdensledere. Og på trods af alle forsøg i de seneste uger på at sabotere potentialet for dette møde, så holdt det, og det fandt sted. Vi har endnu ikke modtaget de fulde rapporter om drøftelserne.

Vi ved, at der kun var seks personer, der deltog; så dette var en meget personlig mulighed for Trump og Putin til at udvikle denne form for arbejdsrelation. Mødet bestod af USA’s udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson, Ruslands udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov, de to tolke – den russiske og den engelske – og så selvfølgelig, de to præsidenter. Dette blev tilsyneladende gjort for at gøre det muligt for diskussionen at være meget åben, meget fri, og meget fokuseret på at maksimere det positive potentiale, som denne historiske mulighed bød på. Selve mødet indledtes med korte bemærkninger fra begge præsidenter til pressen, der fik lov at komme ind i lokalet lige i begyndelsen. Der var fotomuligheder, mens de trykkede hinanden i hånden, og de sagde, at de begge så frem til en meget grundig og positiv diskussion. Trump sagde det følgende:

»Præsident Putin og jeg har diskuteret forskellige ting, og jeg synes, det går meget godt. Vi ser frem til, at der vil ske en masse positive ting for Rusland og for USA, og for alle andre berørte.«

Dernæst fulgte præsident Putin op på disse bemærkninger:

»Vi har talt sammen over telefon, men telefonsamtaler er afgjort aldrig nok. Jeg håber, at, som De sagde«, med henvisning til præsident Trumps bemærkninger, »vore møder vil give positive resultater.«

Dette møde mellem de to præsidenter fulgte efter et timelangt møde tidligere på dagen mellem udenrigsministrene Tillerson og Lavrov, hvor de, iflg. rapporter, diskuterede potentialet for en antiterror-koalition mellem Rusland og USA; med nogle detaljer mht. situationen i Syrien og præsident Assad. Nogle af detaljerne i denne foreslåede plan blev afsløret i pressen i går og i dag. Planen inkluderede såkaldte »sikre zoner« og tilsyneladende også en aftale om at gøre det muligt for præsident Assad at forblive ved magten; men dernæst at gå frem med en diplomatisk løsning på situationen dér. Men der er heller ikke blevet rapporteret eller afsløret nogen detaljer om dette møde mellem udenrigsministrene Lavrov og Tillerson. Men det anses selvfølgelig generelt som forberedelse til drøftelserne mellem Trump og Putin.

Bortset fra det, så har G20-topmødet været temmelig domineret af meget voldsomme protester og aktivitet fra uropolitiet uden for topmødet i Hamborg; og, på selve topmødet, af diskussioner om frihandel og klimaforandring. Men betydningen af de bilaterale møder, der finder sted på sidelinjerne, er naturligvis langt vigtigere end nogen diskussion, der finder sted på selve G20-møderne. En positiv indikation er imidlertid, at der tydeligvis er gang i noget mht. relationen mellem Tyskland og Kina. Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, da vi talte med hende for ca. 30 min. siden, at hun ser noget meget positivt, der finder sted i retning af kinesisk-tysk samarbejde om Afrikas udvikling. Kinas præsident Xi Jinping benyttede lejligheden af sit besøg i Tyskland for at deltage i dette G20-topmøde, til at få et regulært møde med Tysklands kansler Angela Merkel, og hvor de underskrev en aftale om i fællesskab at bygge et vandkraftværk i Angola. Under den fælles pressekonference efter mødet sagde Xi Jinping:

»Vi fejrer i år 45-året for relationen mellem Tyskland og Kina. Det er en succeshistorie. Vi står nu over for en ny begyndelse, hvor vi har brug for nye gennembrud.«

Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde:

»Dette er tydeligvis begyndelsen til noget, der potentielt er meget positivt mht. de bilaterale relationer mellem Tyskland og Kina, men også mht. den idé, at Tyskland spiller en meget positiv rolle med at deltage i de udviklingsprojekter, som Kina allerede bygger i Afrika.«

Xi sagde, at Kina er parat til at gå sammen med Tyskland for at konsolidere den gensidige tillid mellem de to lande; opbygge mere konsensus og fremme samarbejde og forbundethed (konnektivitet).

Helga Zepp-LaRouches analyse af dette var, at der tydeligvis var åbnet op for noget; og dette kommer i hælene på Bælte & Vej Forum, der fandt sted i Beijing i midten af maj. Selv om Tyskland ikke spillede noget særlig positiv eller aktiv rolle på dette forum, så sagde Helga, at,

»De er tydeligvis ikke så dumme, at de ikke kan se, hvad vej vinden blæser. Hvis de ikke springer med på vognen nu, vil de blive efterladt i mørket. Udviklingen af Afrika er tydeligvis en mulighed for Tyskland og andre lande i hele verden til at deltage i disse fordelagtige tredjeverdensrelationer med Kina og de afrikanske nationer.«

Én meget interessant udvikling på denne front er et andet topmøde, der finder sted samtidig med G20-topmødet i Tyskland, og det er Schiller Institut/Kinesisk Energifond-konferencen, der finder sted i New York City. Dette er et topmøde under den Afrikanske Union; og hovedtalen på dette topmøde blev holdt af FN’s vicegeneralsekretær, en kvinde ved navn Amina Mohammed, der er tidligere nigeriansk regeringsminister. I sine bemærkninger til denne konference under den Afrikanske Union kom hun med en meget vigtig henvisning til den rolle, som Kina spiller gennem Bælte & Vej Initiativet for at bringe udvikling til det afrikanske kontinent. Hun opmuntrede alle nationerne i den Afrikanske Union til at »benytte sig« af denne massive, kinesiske regeringsinvestering og infrastrukturprojekter, der har gjort det muligt for disse lande at begynde at bevæge sig, med spring fremad, forbi den tvungne tilbageståenhed, der var blevet dem påtvunget gennem århundreders kolonialisme og imperiepolitik. I sin tale roste Amina Mohammed »Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ, der tilsigter at bygge en Ny Silkevej, bestående af havne, jernbaner og veje for at udvide handels-konnektivitet i hele Asien, Afrika og Europa«, iflg. nyhedsrapporteringer. Hun sagde, »Dette er en mulighed for ikke alene at give alternativer for at gøre skydevåbnene tavse for vort folk, men en mulighed, der vil bevare vore aktiver – både menneskelige og naturlige – på kontinentet og bygge vort i morgen, i dag.« Dette er en meget vigtig bemærkning fra FN’s vicegeneralsekretær, og vi ved, at Antonio Guterres, FN’s generalsekretær, havde meget positive bemærkninger, som han udtalte om Bælte & Vej Initiativet på tærsklen til Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing.

Dette fører os direkte til den konference, der finder sted, mens vi taler, i New York City. Denne konference, der fandt sted parallelt med et møde i FN om sikkerhed for fødevareforsyning og bæredygtighed i landbruget, blev adresseret i fællesskab af Helga Zepp-LaRouche – og vi vil afspille hendes bemærkninger om et øjeblik – men også af Patrick Ho, der er viceformand for Kinesisk Energifondskomiteen. Han havde netop talt i FN sammen med en meget stor kinesisk delegation af kinesiske landbrugseksperter, den foregående dag, i går. Han holdt en tale, der stemte meget godt overens med den tale, han holdt tidligere på dagen på denne begivenhed i New York, sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet. Den tale, han holdt, var – iflg. rapporter – en meget anti-Malthus-tale om potentialet for en hurtig udvikling af bæredygtigt landbrug, for at brødføde den konstant voksende befolkning på denne planet. Noget, der naturligvis direkte tilbageviser argumentet i Malthus-traditionen, og som er kommet fra Det britiske Imperium så længe. Men med de rapporter fra denne konference, der stadig finder sted, mens vi taler, så er der 175 deltagere; diplomatiske delegationer fra diverse lande i hele verden via deres konsulater i New York City; aktivister, der deltager; folk fra diverse colleges i omegnen af New York City; og den officielle repræsentation fra den kinesiske delegation og fra en landbrugsdelegation, der er kommet tilrejsende fra USA’s Midtvesten. Denne konference åbnedes med bemærkninger fra den tidligere borgmester af Muscatine, Iowa, som personligt overbragte hilsner til konferencen; men dernæst gav han deltagerne på konferencen en slags lektion i baggrundshistorien om, hvorfor Iowa-Kina-porten er så afgørende for amerikansk-kinesiske relationer. Meget af dette drejer sig om præsident Xi Jinpings personlige relation til staten Iowa og byen Muscatine pga. hans interesse for landbrugsmetoder i USA i den tid, hvor Xi Jinping var provinsguvernør i Kina. Han havde således et personligt bånd til staten Iowa, men også til den tidligere guvernør Terry Branstad, der nu er USA’s ambassadør til Kina. Efter borgmesteren af Muscatines bemærkninger holdt Patrick Ho sin tale; og dette efterfulgtes så direkte af Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale.

Jeg vil nu gerne give jer lejlighed til selv at høre de bemærkninger, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche kom med til denne konference, og som fik en meget varm modtagelse og bragte hele diskussionsniveauet op på et meget højt niveau mht. de muligheder, der ligger forude, for at konsolidere dette Nye Paradigme i internationale relationer; især med muligheden for fuldt og helt at bringe USA ind i en deltagelse i den Nye Silkevej.

Her følger Helga Zepp-LaRouches bemærkninger:

(Her følger resten af webcastet på engelsk).          

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

: Dear conference participants, I feel
very honored to address you, even if it is by video, because I
think we are all aware that we are involved in the historically,
extremely important process of trying to improve the relationship
between the United States and China, in the context of the Belt
and Road Initiative. This is especially important in the area of
agriculture and food production, because this is an extremely
urgent question. Because, while at the G20 meeting in Hangzhou
last year, China and all the other participating nations devoted
themselves to eradicate poverty by the year 2020, we have not yet
reached that goal. Just a couple of days ago, the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization put out a report that world hunger is on
the rise, and that the situation, especially in Yemen, is
terrible: Half or more of the population is in acute danger of
starvation; but also in Nigeria and South Sudan and many other
areas, the situation is worsening.
Well, today, there is also the G20 summit in Hamburg, and
the outcome will be a surprise, either way, because until last
year’s G20 in Hangzhou, which was very harmonious and
characterized by a great optimism for the future of mankind, this
time the tensions are very high. In the last couple of days
however, there was a sort of prelude in the form of a summit
between President Putin and President Xi Jinping in Moscow, which
was really extremely important, and both characterized it as the
most important event of the year for their nation. They deepened
the strategic partnership, they established an even deeper level
of their personal friendship, and they declared that the time of
the unipolar world is over, because of the strategic partnership,
especially.
This is certainly true, that the time of the unipolar world
is over, but multi-polarity is still not the solution, because it
implies still geopolitics, which was the cause of two world wars
in the 20th century, and this geopolitics is still in operation,
in North Korea, in Syria, in Ukraine.
We must therefore find a higher level. We must get the world
to what President Xi Jinping always calls “the community for a
shared future of humanity.” One big step in that direction could
be the meeting President Trump and President Putin, who are
meeting today for the first time as Presidents. Obviously, this
is a very important step because, between President Trump and
President Xi Jinping, a very positive relationship has been
established already, so whatever comes out of this Trump-Putin
meeting is very, very crucial. Because the questions we have to
solve are urgent and dramatic.
The food crisis, the hunger crisis which I mentioned is only
a symptom of the fact that the old economic model is not
functioning any more. We are sitting on a powder-keg crisis which
erupted in 2008, which could come back with a vengeance, only
much, much worse. Because even a slight increase in the interest
rate, moving away from quantitative easing could lead to a
blowout of the corporate debt. Now, the firms which got the zero
interest rate liquidity from the central banks, the quantitative
easing, used this money, not to invest in productive investment,
but for so-called financial engineering by buying up their own
stocks to make it look better on the books, having more nominal
value but also increasing the corporate debt which could now
could blow out if there is an increase in the interest rate.
And that is only one aspect of the systemic crisis which we
still have. The other one is the so-called level 3 derivatives
which many European and other banks are sitting on. Level 3
derivatives are those, which no market … because you can’t sell
them, and the banks still keep them as assets, which really is a
sort of mega-fall [ph 5.03].
So the problem is that just yesterday, the fourth largest
bank in Italy was taken over by the government, and combined with
a bail-in, whereby the customers could only sell their bonds and
stocks at 18 cents to the euro, and that is a threat which is
hanging over the entire banking system.
Now, what could be done to solve that? Well, let’s look at
one other aspect of the crisis: Just a couple of days ago, in one
single day, 80,000 refugees arrived from Libya in little boats,
being picked up by NGOs in Italy. Eighty thousand people in one
day overstretches the capacity of any country, and Italy has
already taken in so many million people. So when they requested
that other countries located on the Mediterranean like Spain and
France should also take some of these refugees, these countries
rejected that.
Now that obviously shows there is no unity in the European
Union on this question.
Now how could you address this whole series of problems?
What should actually be on the agenda of the G20 in Hamburg?
Well, if you would put a global Glass-Steagall separation on the
agenda, doing exactly what Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1933, by
separating the commercial banks and the investment banks, putting
the commercial banks under state protection, writing off the
non-performing the derivatives of the investment banks, and then
going to a Hamiltonian credit system by setting up national banks
in every country and issuing large-scale, low-interest rate
credits, then we could solve the problem.
Mr. LaRouche has defined Four Laws to remedy the financial
crisis and the Fourth Law is the crash program for the
realization of thermonuclear fusion power. And there, the good
news is that China just accomplished a major breakthrough in this
respect, with its [EAST] tokomak in Hefei where they reached a
so-called “steady-state H-mode operation” for 101.2 seconds. This
is a major step towards the realization of thermonuclear fusion.
If such a reorganization according to these Four Laws,
Glass-Steagall, national bank, credit system, crash program for
fusion and space technology would be implemented, then the
trans-Atlantic countries could cooperate with such banks as the
AIIB, the New Development Bank, and others, together with China,
and build up, for example, Africa. China is so far the only
country which has done something to fight the root causes of the
refugee crisis, by investing large-scale in rail lines in Africa,
in dams, in power plants, in industrial parks, and in
agriculture. And this is actually, the only way to solve the
refugee crisis in a human way.
One promising step in this right direction is that between
President Xi Jinping and Chancellor Merkel, yesterday they agreed
that they will build together the hydropower complex in Angola,
and stated that that could be a model for the cooperation between
China and Germany in Africa in general.
Now, the Africans, because of what China has been doing, in
building up huge industrial complexes for the first time in
Africa, they have a new sense of self-confidence and they’re
telling the Europeans, “we don’t want to have your sermons on how
we should have good governance, we want to have investments in
infrastructure, in manufacture, in agriculture, as equal business
partners.”
Can we expect the G20 to do this, to go in this direction of
a global reorganization of the financial system and then go for a
real intervention in the development of Africa? Well, I’m afraid
they will not.
But this will remain the issue which has to be accomplished.
The Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, and to get the United States
and European countries to cooperate with China in the Belt and
Road Initiative, in the New Silk Road, is, indeed, the approach
how you can tackle all problems in the world. But this
conference, the Food for Peace conference is a very important
step in this direction. As a matter of fact, to get the United
States and China to work together on the New Silk Road
perspective, in the New Silk Road spirit, is in my view the most
important aspect in this process: Because if the two largest
economies can work together, I think we are on the right way to
win for all of civilization.
Therefore, let’s work together to join the Chinese dream,
and to revive the American dream, because the American dream
needs to be revived, because it has almost been forgotten. But
together, we can accomplish the dream for all of humanity.

OGDEN:  So, we will have much more coverage of the conference in
New York after it concludes.  That was Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s
keynote to that conference; “Development Is the New Name for
Peace”.  As I said, there is a very significant delegation from
China which attended that conference in New York City.  This just
testifies all the more to the role that the LaRouche movement is
playing here in the United States to being the leading mediator
in terms of the relationship which is being forged between these
two great countries.  The idea originally came out of Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche’s initiative for the Eurasian Land-Bridge; and the
role that the LaRouche movement played could not be any more
critical in terms of making that happen, and making that into a
reality.  We are definitely making steps along that road, but as
you heard Helga LaRouche say, it is crucial that we make some
very important breakthroughs here in the United States in order
to allow that to occur; including a full-scale adoption of the
Hamiltonian economic program that was spelled out by Lyndon
LaRouche in that Four Economic Laws.  This is the prerequisite to
the United States being able to accomplish the kinds of
developmental miracles that China has demonstrated over the last
15-20 years.
Emphatically, that begins with the restoration of
Glass-Steagall.  The news out of Italy with the nationalization
of Monte dei Paschi Bank just emphasizes evermore crucially how
fragile the entire trans-Atlantic system is right now.  We are by
no means in the clear, despite the fraudulent claims that have
been coming out of the Federal Reserve over the last few days.
We are definitely still on the cusp of what could be a far
greater crash than what we experienced in 2008.  As Helga
mentioned in those remarks, a lot of this is coming from the
build-up in the corporate debt bubble and in other means.  You
still have the life expectancy crisis across the United States;
you’ve got the opiate addiction crisis across the United States.
We have some new developments in terms of the statistics in that
regard that have just come in today.  But this is appalling, and
it could not be more urgent that this initiative be taken.
We do know that there was a press availability at 1pm this
afternoon in the break between the two panels at this conference
in New York City.  Diane Sare was representing the LaRouche
movement; and as we have been told, there were some pretty
significant press involvement.  So, we will look forward to
seeing some coverage of this conference that happened up in New
York; and we’ll have a much fuller report for you after that
concludes.
Let me just finish the broadcast here today by paraphrasing
for you some remarks that Helga LaRouche had just about 30
minutes ago when we spoke with her, after she had the chance to
view the proceedings of that conference and also to review some
of the outcomes of the G-20 that have been occurring over the
course of the daytime hours today.  She said look, there are very
clearly positive developments that are occurring.  We could list
them, but as we’ve seen just today, some of these developments
are very positive for the future stability [among] these three
great countries — China, Russia, and India; but also in terms of
the relationship for building the future.  But, she said, people
should be no means become complacent or satisfied.  Things are
very clearly moving in our direction, the direction of the ideas
of a New Paradigm; but we need much bigger breakthroughs in every
respect on the road towards that New Paradigm.  Nothing has been
consolidated.  Clearly the world is inclined in that direction,
and you could read into the relationship between Germany and
China, saying these countries are now beginning to realize what
is the dominant dynamic on this planet.  But, we are by no means
there yet; we have not reached the goal.  There is still a long
ways to go until that new reality is safely and securely
consolidated.  In the meantime, we have a lot of work to do;
especially as we begin to realize the magnitude of the impact
that the ideas of the LaRouche movement have had on world
history.  We also have to become very sober and clear-eyed about
what this means our responsibilities are at this moment.  They
are on a far greater scale than we have ever had, as we reflect
on the magnitude of the opportunities that these recent
developments pose to us as a movement, and to humanity.  She said
this — again — is no time for complacency; everything can fall
into place.  Or, everything could fall apart.
So, I think that’s a very active picture of a very rapidly
changing world situation, as we have it right now.  These
simultaneous summits — the G-20 in Germany and the conference
that’s happening in New York — I think are very important
crossroads; a very important conjunctural turning point in terms
of the opportunity for consolidating this vision of a new
relation between the great powers on this planet.  We have yet
to, I think, have the full report of what has come out of both of
these two summits.  So, on that note, I would like to encourage
you to please stay tuned to the LaRouche PAC website, because we
will definitely have an analysis and a full reading on what has
come out of the events as they’ve proceeded today.  I can let you
know that as we look forward to next week, the Monday update on
this website, our regular Monday afternoon Policy Committee show,
will feature an interview with Bill Jones, who is the EIR
Washington bureau chief and has accompanied Helga Zepp-LaRouche
on many of her trips to China over the recent few months and
years.  So, we’ve invited Bill Jones to come into the studio to
give his exclusive view and perspective on what the outcome of
these events over this weekend will have been as we reach the
beginning of next week.  So, we encourage you to tune in again
for our show here next Monday, and in the meantime, stay tuned to
larouchepac.com and we’ll be sending out updates as we get them.
Thank you for watching here today, and please stay tuned.




Et hundrede år med ’vise og skønne’
Sylvia Olden Lee –
’Thi skønhed lever sammen med venlighed’.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
30. juni, 2017

Vært Matthew Ogden: Vi har et meget dramatisk billede, der venter os forude, og vi står nu ved åbningen at det, der vil vise sig at blive en meget dramatisk juli måned. Vi er nu præcis syv dage fra G20-topmødet, der finder sted i Hamborg, Tyskland. Selv om indholdet af topmødet sandsynligvis ikke bliver bemærkelsesværdigt i sig selv, så er dette en ekstraordinær mulighed. Det bliver første gang, at præsident Donald Trump fra USA vi få mulighed for at have et bilateralt, regulært, ansigt-til-ansigt møde med præsident Vladimir Putin fra Rusland. Der har i løbet af den seneste uge, tre uger, fire uger, været forsøg på at køre dette potentielle topmøde af sporet og gøre det mislykket selv inden det løber af stablen. Vi må i de næste syv dage holde nøje øje med ethvert forsøg på at sprænge dette i luften eller sprænge muligheden for den rolige og klare, rationelle relation, som præsident Trump og præsident Putin kunne få ved et regulært møde.

Vi har set en række provokationer i Syrien, først og fremmest. Vi så et syrisk fly, der blev skudt ned; vi så et amerikansk militærfly, der chikanerede [den russiske forsvarsminister] Shoigus fly. Og i de seneste dage har vi set forsøget på at sætte en fælde for præsident Trump til endnu en direkte konfrontation med Syrien – og, gennem forlængelse, med Rusland – over såkaldte »kemiske våben«, de angivelige kemiske våben. Dette forsøg døde i fødslen, og der er mange faktorer i dette, vi sikkert ikke kender alle detaljerne omkring. Vi ved, at der finder en intens kamp sted om politikken bag scenerne i Det Hvide Hus. Vi så dette udspilles i forskellige offentlige former; vi så også udgivelsen af denne meget vigtige artikel af reporter Seymour Hersh, der beviste, at disse beskyldninger om kemiske våben i den tidligere hændelse, hvor Trump-administrationen bøjede sig og angreb den syriske flybase, var falske, og blot var operationer ’under falsk flag’.

Og igen, dette er alle faktorer, der er i overensstemmelse med dette forsøg på at køre dette mulige topmøde mellem Putin og Trump af sporet. Men alt peger nu på, at det kører på skinner og kunne vise sig at blive et meget vigtigt møde med det formål at stabilisere og normalisere relationerne mellem USA og Rusland. Vi ser, at ’narrativen’ er begyndt at flosse i kanterne og faktisk er ved at trevle helt op omkring historien med det såkaldte »Russia-gate«. Vi ser nu meget offentlige og fremtrædende tilbagetrækninger, som CNN blev tvunget til at foretage, og vi har set den seneste fra New York Times. Denne medie-narrativ begynder nu at gå i opløsning i kanterne, og det amerikanske folk begynder at gennemskue det. Vi har set forskellige Demokrater i Huset og Senatet sige til det Demokratiske Partis lederskab, vi kan ikke blive ved med at gå ud i valgkredsene og sige »Trump, Trump, Trump; Putin, Putin, Putin. Det hele handler om russerne, der hacker valgene. Vore vælgere er ikke interesseret i denne narrativ. Det, de er interesseret i, er økonomiens kollaps og perspektiverne for beskæftigelse. Hvordan skal vi overvinde krisen med narkotikaafhængighed? Og, meget reelt, USA’s kollapsende infrastruktur?«

Vi vil gå lidt i dybden med dette spørgsmål, men lad mig blot bemærke, at den anden, vigtige mulighed, som vi kunne få at se på G20-mødet, er en opfølgning af topmødet mellem præsident Trump og præsident Xi Jinping. Vi ved, at en meget vigtig relation blev skabt mellem Trump og Xi på Mar-a-Lago-topmødet for nogle ganske få måneder siden, da præsident Xi kom til USA. Men flere dramatiske begivenheder er indtruffet siden da; først og fremmest, Bælte & Vej Forum, der fandt sted i Beijing, hvor præsident Trump traf den meget kloge beslutning at sende en repræsentant på højt niveau – Matt Pottinger. Dette har nu etableret den mulighed, hvor der finder en meget seriøs diskussion sted på meget højt niveau omkring USA’s formelle tilslutning til Silkevejens udviklingsprojekter – Ét Bælte, én Vej-initiativet; og omkring at bringe Kina ind til at assistere med genopbygningen af infrastrukturen her i USA. Der er flere udviklinger, som vi dækkede detaljeret i sidste uge, men den vigtigste af disse var et regulært møde mellem rådgiver Yang og præsident Trump, der fandt sted i Det hvide hus; hvor præsident Trump – iflg. rapporter fra Xinhua – sagde »Ja, vi er meget interesseret i at deltage i en fælles relation med Kina for at bygge Bælte & Vej«. Dernæst var der flere satellitbegivenheder, der fandt sted omkring dette, og som diskuterede detaljerne i, hvad det ville betyde at få en sådan form for fælles samarbejde omkring udvikling både udenlands og herhjemme.

Denne diskussion om USA’s tilslutning til den Nye Silkevej kunne ikke være mere presserende nødvendig. Infrastrukturen internt i USA befinder sig nu ved et punkt, hvor den totalt er ved at disintegrere. Vi har netop haft nyheder fra New York City, som vi har dækket, om, at der har været den ene afsporing efter den anden togbrand, den ene krise i undergrundsbanen og forsinkelse efter den anden i New York City. Det leder alt sammen til det, der bliver kaldt »Helvedessommeren«. Vi har en overskrift her, som jeg viser på skærmen; dette er fra New York Times.

»Guvernør Cuomo erklærer New York Citys undergrundsbane i nødtilstand«.

Guvernør Cuomo har erklæret, at, efter den seneste togafsporing, der skete i onsdags – og som er en temmelig skræmmende oplevelse for alle involverede – med tog, der brændte og forsinkelser, der forstyrrede dusinvis af New York-indbyggeres dagligliv. Dette er blot en af mange i rækken af farlige og ødelæggende katastrofer, der er indtruffet i dette 100 år gamle undergrundssystem i New York. Det, som guvernør Cuomo nu har gjort, er at erklære New York City i en nødtilstand for så vidt angår Metropolitan Transportation Authority [MTA]. Han har givet MTA-formand Joe Lhota 30 dage til at fremlægge en komplet plan for reorganisering. Han har sagt, at staten New York vil bevilge yderligere $1 mia. i midler til MTA’s hovedplan.

Her er et citat fra guvernør Cuomo, som jeg viser her på skærmen, så I kan se, hvad han sagde om denne nødtilstand.

»Forsinkelserne driver New Yorkere til vanvid«, sagde han. »De er rasende over manglen på kommunikation, pålidelighed og nu ulykker. For kun tre dage siden var der bogstavelig talt et tog, der kørte af sporet. Det er en perfekt metafor for hele det dysfunktionelle system. I dag vil staten New York sende penge efter sine ord.«

Det er altså et citat fra guvernør Cuomo i New York.

Så jo, infrastrukturen ikke alene i New York City, men i hele USA er i en nødtilstand. Vi har brug for en nødplan for at udbedre og genopbygge vores eksisterende infrastruktur; meget af den er et halvt, hvis ikke et helt århundrede gammel og er ude over sin naturlige levetid. Men herudover, og meget eftertrykkeligt, kan vi ikke blot have en fremgangsmåde, hvor vi flikker kanterne sammen og kommer plastre på et system, der er i forfald og blev bygget i det foregående århundrede. Vi må også fuldstændig gentænke og danne os nye begreber om, hvordan en fremtidsorienteret, 50-100 årig vision for USA skal være. En vision med et USA, der er integreret i den nye, globale platform med den Nye Silkevej; med Bælte & Vej-initiativet, der er i færd med at forandre plantens fremtræden, mens vi taler.

Som sagt, så handler det ikke om at flikke ting sammen i kanterne og fikse den eksisterende infrastruktur. Det, vi har brug for, er en helhedsvision, en national vision, ikke kun for nutiden, men forlænget 50-100 år ud i fremtiden, og som vil bestemme de nødvendige delelementer, som vi bygger, for at komme derfra og dertil, for at opnå denne vision om en fremtidig platform i USA. Jeg kan godt lide det billede, som kineserne har talt om i Afrika; ideen om at bygge et helt nyt kontinent. Det, kineserne har været i stand til at præstere i Afrika på nogle ganske få år, er forbløffende mht. et økonomisk mirakel, som de bibringer dette kontinent; men det er præcis en sådan fremgangsmåde, som vi har brug for, for kontinental-USA og for hele den vestlige halvkugle – Nord- og Sydamerika tilsammen. En komplet vision for, hvad en kontinental infrastrukturplatform må være, integreret i denne Ét Bælte, én Vej; det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte og den Maritime Silkevej. Og en af hjørnestenene ville være at bygge jernbaneforbindelsen over Beringstrædet, der ville forbinde de to, store, kontinentale landmasser på planeten på en måde, der i geologisk historie aldrig før er sket.

Men, hvordan skal vi gøre det? Dette kan tydeligvis ikke ske ved hjælp af økonomisk frimarkedstankegang. Man må have en vision, der dirigeres fra toppen og ned centralt, af den nationale regering; der blev skabt som en Forfatningsmæssig Føderal Republik af Alexander Hamilton til dette formål. Man må sige, hvilke er de nødvendige projekter? For Alexander Hamilton var det havneprojekter, veje, at åbne op for det indre af kontinentet; at bringe vareproduktion ind i det, der før blot havde været en tidligere landbrugskoloni på det tidspunkt. Men Alexander Hamiltons vision nødvendiggjorde dernæst skabelsen af de nødvendige, statslige finansinstrumenter – den Første Nationalbank – for at bringe denne vision til virkeliggørelse.

Det er sådan, kineserne har diskuteret, hvordan de har bygget den Nye Silkevej. Xi Jinping fremlagde sin vision i 2013, under en tale i Astana, Kasakhstan; og han har nu på fire korte år været i stand til at gøre denne vision til virkelighed. Som han sagde, »fra tanke til handling«. De har nu erklæret, at kineserne har til hensigt om tre år at fjerne fattigdom fuldstændigt fra Kina, og det er en bedrift, vi kan tro på, de vil opnå; som det er blevet demonstreret af det økonomiske mirakel, der hidtil er kommet fra Kina. Men dette er essensen i Henry Clays [udenrigsminister 1824-29 under præsident John Quincy Adams] og Abraham Lincolns Amerikanske System. Dette er, hvad programmet for USA’s præsidentskab bør være.

(Her følger udskrift på engelsk af resten af webcastet)   

We have a very fascinating report just incidentally, that

there is continuing to be discussion around this idea of the

American System; even coming from Republican circles inside

Washington.  Representatives of {Executive Intelligence Review}

attended a briefing in Capitol Hill just a few days ago, that was

sponsored by the American Opportunity Foundation and the American

Public Transit Association.  This drew some leading Republicans

from the levels of Federal and state government, who are strongly

in support of the idea of large public financing of

transportation infrastructure.  This might not seem to fit the

Republican profile, but if you go back to the original Republican

Party platform that President Trump cited from McKinley in the

end of the 19th Century, the idea of the American System was

written directly into the Republican Party platform.  Abraham

Lincoln, after all, was a strong advocate of the American System

and was the founding President of the Republican Party.  In fact,

two speakers at that event, surprisingly former Virginia Governor

Jim Gilmore and then the former Connecticut Department of

Transportation Commissioner Emil Frankel, both referenced by

name, explicitly, the “American System of Henry Clay.”  So, I

would not discount the fact that the ideas that the LaRouche

Movement have been championing along this front for years if not

decades, are becoming very pervasive in policymaking circles in

the United States.  Not only in the Republican Party, but in the

Democratic Party, too.

But it’s our job to consolidate and to pull this together

into a national leadership cadre who understand not just in

words, but in principle, the concept which underlies Lyndon

LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws.  If you start with Glass-Steagall

and return the banking system to what it was originally to be as

a commercial banking system which is able to guarantee credit for

small businesses and for projects of development which have

knowable rates of return, instead of this kind of Wall Street,

Las Vegas-type casino gambling which has been predominant on Wall

Street for the last 17-18 years since the repeal of

Glass-Steagall; that’s the necessary open door that we then

create the possibility to build the Third National Bank or an

equivalent of such.  And to direct large flows of direct Federal,

public credit into infrastructure not just of the 20th Century

variety, but infrastructure projects which have yet to be

conceived of.  The infrastructure of the future; or as Mr.

LaRouche identifies it in his Four Economic Laws, the platform

for creating a higher state of existence for the human economic

system.

So, this is the critical element, and I cannot say enough

how important it is to understand that we’re now at the point

where the United States integrating itself into this New Paradigm

is a very real concept.  This is something which could happen in

a very substantial way.  We have a countdown now of seven days

until the possibility for a sit-down meeting between President

Trump and President Xi, where they can discuss this in much more

detail; and the very strategically important meeting that will

occur between President Trump and President Putin, despite all

attempts to derail, undermine, and sabotage this potential

relationship.

Here in the United States, I think we just have to take a

moment to recognize the leadership significance of what has been

provided on the street level by LaRouche movement and LaRouche

PAC activists across the country; but most importantly, as we’ve

seen recently, in New York City.  We’ve had several on the ground

reports that we’ve shared with you via the LaRouche PAC Facebook

page and the LaRouche PAC website.  We’ve had some very important

insights that the American people are at the point that if you

present this kind of optimistic vision of what could possibly be

achieved if we were to overcome this geopolitics and the

attempted coup against the sitting President of the United

States, it’s a very optimistic kind of picture.  Americans are

ready to participate in that.

The other element of this though, is that there is a certain

element of optimism which has been able to cut through the

pessimism and cynicism that have pervaded the American people for

the last 16 years.  If you look at the two terms of George W Bush

followed by the two terms of Barack Obama, the American people

have become so demoralized and beaten down, and become so

acclimated to the idea that America’s role in the world is to

spread perpetual war; and the Federal government’s role

domestically is to bail out speculators on Wall Street.  But when

they see that someone’s willing to take this establishment on,

the American people have now begun to break out of their shells.

There are many elements of that.

As we’ve cited in recent days on the LaRouche PAC website,

there is a line to be remembered from the famous essay by the

19th Century English poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley, in his essay “In

Defence of Poetry,” where he talks about a time in which people

are able to absorb and communicate much more profound and much

more impassioned ideas about the future state of man and man’s

relationship to the Universe.  This was an insight that Percy

Shelley had as a poet; but as he said, “the poets are the

unacknowledged legislators of the world.”

Now, in a very, very special event that occurred yesterday,

just last night, that I had the great honor and pleasure of

attending, in New York City at the historic Carnegie Hall, there

was a great poet and artist, who was honored on her 100th

birthday:  This was Sylvia Olden Lee, who was born on this date,

June 29th — yesterday — one hundred years ago, in 1917.  She

would have been 100 years of age last night.  And a tribute to

her memory and to perpetuating her living legacy, was sponsored

by the Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture, at

Carnegie Hall in New York City, to an absolutely packed audience,

and an audience which was impassioned in their involvement in the

memory and celebration of the legacy of this incredible woman.

Now, this tribute concert, which was called “Tribute to

Sylvia Olden Lee, Master Musician and Teacher” comprised of arias

that were sung by leading students of Sylvia Olden Lee from

across the United States who are now leading operatic singers,

people who had been touched by her and had learned from her and

who had lived alongside of her, they sang Verdi arias, Donizetti

arias; they sang art songs by Johannes Brahms, by Franz Schubert,

but they also sang the Spirituals, the African American

Spirituals which were so much a legacy of this woman: Sylvia

Olden Lee, who was the first African American vocal coach to be

hired by the Metropolitan Opera.  And she created the opportunity

for Marian Anderson to break the color barrier and become the

first Black woman singer to take the stage at the Metropolitan

Opera, with so many others to follow behind her.

Also was presented choral selections of Spirituals, of these

arrangements of {Lift Every Voice and Sing}, of {Lord, I Don’t

Feel No Ways Tired}, {Go Down Moses}, {Soon I Will Be Done}; but

also the {Ave Verum Corpus} by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and the

Hallelujah chorus from Beethoven’s {Christ on the Mount of

Olives}.

So this was an absolutely stunning musical event, but it was

also an event which testifies to the immortality of the human

soul.  Because I think, as everyone who was present at this

tribute concert can tell you, Sylvia Olden Lee was not just

remembered at this concert; she was not just remembered by those

in the room, but she was physically and spiritually present to

those who were gathered in that room in her honor.  She {was}

there, in person, in a very real way.

Now, along with these beautiful musical tributes that were

sung and presented by all the various musicians that were

involved, there were also an astounding number of written and

spoken tributes that were presented in her honor. Sylvia Olden

Lee’s daughter, Eve, spoke in person at Carnegie Hall. Her former

husband, Everett Lee, spoke via video; and there was even a video

that was played of Sylvia Olden Lee herself speaking at a

Schiller Institute conference in 1994, in which she spoke about

the relationship that she had to the legendary Roland Hayes who

was a close friend of Sylvia’s father.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2pItZ0jIe4]

There were also written greetings from Jessye Norman who is

a world renowned opera singer;  Willis Charles Patterson, a

bass-baritone; George Shirley, also a world renowned opera

singer;  Eugene Simpson, a renowned conductor and music arranger;

Everett Lee III who is the son of Sylvia Olden Lee;  Bobby

McFerrin, who is the godson of Sylvia Olden Lee and the son of

the famous Robert McFerrin, one of the renowned 20th century

African American opera singers.  Bobby McFerrin himself is a

renowned jazz vocalist here in the United States.  A variety of

others: William Ray, Marti Newland from Oberlin; also Jesse

Hamilton, a New York state senator; Blanche Cook, distinguished

professor of history at John Jay College; Gail Robinson, soprano;

Marian Dora Howe Taylor, and many others.  Also there was a

greeting from the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan.

And present at the event, was the biographer of Sylvia Olden

Lee, Elizabeth Nash, who worked so closely with Sylvia to draft

her memoirs, which appropriately were published under the title

{Who Is Sylvia?}, a reference to a famous English-language

Schubert Lied, based on text from William Shakespeare.  That song

was also presented at the beginning of the second half of this

extraordinary, historic concert.

The shocking thing that occurred for the audience, was in

the beginning of the second half, a representative of Mayor Bill

De Blasio’s office came out onstage, and declared that an

official proclamation had been issued by the Mayor of New York

City, declaring that June 29th, 2017 was “Sylvia Olden Lee Day.”

And I’d like to put on the screen the text of this proclamation

from Mayor De Blasio.  It reads as follows:

“Office of the Mayor, City of New York

“Proclamation:

“{{Whereas:}} The creative energy that defines the five

boroughs has long

inspired people from across the world, and generations of diverse

artists and musicians have flocked to our city and shaped our

cultural landscape. As a trailblazing African American vocalist,

pianist, and music educator, the late Sylvia Olden Lee is among

this group of influential performers who advanced the music scene

in the five boroughs and beyond. Tonight, on what would have been

Lee’s 100th birthday, New Yorkers and performing artists of all

backgrounds will celebrate her life and legacy during a concert

at Carnegie Hall, hosted by the Foundation for the Revival of

Classical Culture, the Schiller Institute, and Harlem Opera

Theater.

“{{Whereas:}} Born in 1917, Sylvia Olden Lee was raised in

Mississippi by

parents who were gifted musicians, and she began learning piano

at age five. Equipped with immense natural talent, she went on to

study piano at Howard University and at age 16 she was invited to

perform at the White House for Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s

inauguration. Lee also excelled as a vocalist and she possessed a

deep knowledge of African American spirituals. In 1954, Lee

became the first African American professional hired by New

York’s Metropolitan Opera, where she worked for many years as a

vocal coach and played a key role in coordinating the

groundbreaking debut of Marian Anderson at the Met. During her

long and successful professional career, Lee accompanied and

coached singers throughout the United States and Europe, and she

worked with many internationally-acclaimed artists, among them

Paul Robeson, Jessye Norman, Kathleen Battle and Robert McFerrin.

“{{Whereas:}} As a dedicated vocal coach and a passionate

music educator,

Lee was a mentor to generations of young artists, and her legacy

continues to inspire emerging and established musicians in the

five boroughs and beyond. Through her hard work, enthusiasm,

phenomenal talent and encyclopedic knowledge of spirituals and

classical music, Lee made tremendous contributions to the world

of music, and as a pioneering African American artist, she

fostered diversity in the cultural sector, paving the way for

others. As you gather tonight to enjoy an evening of performances

in Sylvia Olden Lee’s honor, Chirlane and I are pleased to join

in paying tribute to an outstanding artist who shaped the history

of music in New York and around the world.

“{{Now therefore,}} I, Bill De Blasio, Mayor of the City of

New York, do hereby proclaim Thursday, June 29th, 2017 in the

City of New York as:  {{Sylvia Olden Lee Day}}”

So this was an incredible tribute and celebration of Sylvia

Olden Lee Day in the City of New York.  This commemorative

program went out to everybody who was present, with this

beautiful picture of Mrs. Lee on the front of the program.  And

on the back it said, “Lift Every Voice and Sing” which was

appropriate for the concluding piece of this concert, which was a

wonderful and rousing arrangement of that national song of

freedom, {Lift Every Voice and Sing}, which was arranged and

conducted by the famous Roland Carter.  And as soon as the music

began, the audience on its feet, singing along.

Now, Lynn Yen, who is the executive director of the

Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture, invited

everybody present to join the Schiller Institute Community Chorus

and to become part of a growing movement for the revival of

Classical culture in New York City and beyond, setting as a goal,

one year from today, that that community chorus should have 1,500

members.  And I think many members of the audience were so

inspired by that concert that they were very eager to join such

an extraordinary chorus.

The combined choruses of the Harlem Opera Theater and the

Schiller Institute Chorus comprised a chorus of hundreds on the

stage of Carnegie Hall last night.

Now, one more greeting that was written and included in this

commemorative program, was from Helga Zepp-LaRouche, herself, who

is the founder and director of the Schiller Institute.  And I’d

like to put in the screen the tribute to Sylvia Olden Lee from

Helga Zepp-LaRouche.  She said:

“Sylvia Olden Lee was one of those absolutely outstanding

artists, who are capable of crystallizing for her many pupils and

the people she inspired, the essence of a piece of music, the

true idea, only accessible to those individuals, who can read the

intention of the poet and the composer.  She implanted in many

minds throughout her life the knowledge in her students, how the

artists, the singer, the instrumentalists steps modestly behind

the composition, but at the same time adds his or her ennobled

individuality to the performance, to make it both unique and

absolutely truthful.

“In doing that, she was always playful, polemical, full of

humor, profound, loving and with a disarming openness, and by

representing all of these characteristics, she would liberate her

students, as well as the audience out of their normal un-elevated

condition to the higher plane of true art.  She was able, like

only a few, to let those around her participate directly in the

creative process, in the diligent work of the kind of perfection

it takes, to actually produce art, and not just nice sounds.

“The afternoons and evenings she would participate in

{Musikabende} or coaching sessions in our place in Virginia,

together with William Warfield, Robert McFerrin, and numerous

other Classical artists, belong to the fondest memories for my

husband, Lyndon LaRouche, and myself.  Sylvia and Bill [Warfield]

were for many years on the board of the Schiller Institute and

added an invaluable treasure to its work.  In thinking about

Sylvia, one suddenly wishes she would be still there, since what

she taught is so very needed for our humanity. — Helga

Zepp-LaRouche, Founder, Schiller Institute”

Now, I think that spirit was infused in the entirety of the

performers and the audience that was present, and many of them

are gathering again, as we speak today, in New York City at the

Lincoln Center for a follow-up symposium, again sponsored by the

Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture, which is the

conclusion of this two-day tribute to Sylvia Lee, which is

called, “The Aesthetical Education of Humanity through Music,”

and is involving a discussion among many of those performed last

night, and who were teachers and who were touched by Sylvia Olden

Lee; including a presentation on the necessity for a return to

the so-called “Verdi tuning”: This is the A=432 tuning which was

mandated by the great operatic composer Giuseppe Verdi; and a

return to the idea of a discussion for a proposed, new National

Conservatory of Music.

Now, what I’d like to show you, just inclusion for today’s

broadcast, to give you a little bit of a taste of the

extraordinary character of Mrs. Sylvia Olden Lee, as we celebrate

her 100th birthday, is this small video excerpt from the

conclusion of a speech that she delivered at a conference of the

Schiller Institute in February 1994:

“I know from the fact that you’re here, your presence

attests to the fact that you believe in justice and one world.  I

hope you keep persevering and going into the far corners of this

globe, selling it to other people, because {we are one family}.

We all belong to {one God}, no matter what you call Him. And as

such, we should keep in touch with each other, through Classics

{and folk music}. [applause]”

So I think that’s a beautiful rallying call for all who are

believers in justice, as she said “one world,” a cooperation

among humanity, that we all send this message, sell this message

to the ends of the Earth and that we work tirelessly, to achieve

that beautiful vision, and to remain in touch with each other

through music and art, the Classics and the folk songs alike.

So again, this was a beautiful event.  All of those who had

the opportunity to attend, I’m sure, will remember this for the

rest of their lives, and will be inspired to follow in the

footsteps of such a beautiful and inspiring teacher.

As I said in the beginning of our broadcast, we are now in

the eve of the beginning of the month of July, I think we can

expect some very important opportunities, as things continue to

develop, as we look ahead to the July 7-8, one week from today,

summit — the G20, but the important bilateral meetings that will

occur on the sidelines, between President Trump and President Xi,

and President Trump and President Putin.

So we continue our work here in the United States for the

U.S. to join the New Silk Road, and it couldn’t be any more

urgent than it is right now:  Thank you very much for joining me

here today, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com, as we bring

you more updates, in the continuation of our campaign here in the

United States.

Be sure to visit larouchepac.com, subscribe to YouTube

channel, and please become a regular member of the LaRouche PAC,

by joining our email list and by signing up on the Action Center

at larouchepac.com.  Stay tuned, and we’ll see you again.