Jeg ønsker at skrive skøn musik – musik, som gør verden bedre. – Alma Deutscher.

… Vores politiske bevægelse (Schiller Instituttet og LaRouche-bevægelsen) er dedikeret til ideen om, at alle børn kan blive genier, hvis deres kreative potentiale udvikles. Dette er Alma et bevis på.

Vi er overbevist om, at menneskehedens vigtigste udfordring består i at udvikle en strategi for udløsning af kreativiteten hos alle mænd, kvinder og børn, og at en afgørende metode til at opnå dette er gennem at genopleve fortidens kreative opdagelser. Også dette er Alma et bevis på.

Og vi er fast besluttet på at skabe en ny, global renæssance, for hvilken renæssance nye musikkompositioner, baseret på principperne for den mest storslåede, klassiske musik, vil være med til at vise vejen. Og igen, Almas unge, musikalske sind og sjæl beviser allerede, at dette er muligt. 

See also the english version of the article here.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Det, vi besluttede at gøre her fra Schiller Instituttets Venners side, hvor vi stiller op her i København, og også i Brøndby, Aarhus og Randers, var at tage disse større spørgsmål, som virkelig er det, der kommer til at afgøre fremtiden, og forsøge at bringe dem frem i den offentlige debat; forsøge at bryde igennem den mørklægning af virkeligheden, der alt for længe har fundet sted her i Danmark, såvel som også i Europa og i vid udstrækning i USA; og forsøge, i denne konsensus om politikker, der ikke virker, at introducere, præsentere folk for et glimt ind i det nye paradigme, som findes derude i verden med Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ som drivkraft, men ikke kun som et kinesisk program; men dette omfatter allerede omkring 100 nationer i hele verden, og så grundlæggende set lægge det frem på bordet og sige, dette er beslutningen, dette er, hvad Danmark, og København, selvfølgelig, også må blive en del af.

Tom Gillesberg, kandidat til borgmesterpost i København og regionsråd i region Hovedstaden for Schiller Instituttets Venner; formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark:

God eftermiddag og velkommen til alle, der kunne komme til denne særlige begivenhed; særlig i den forstand, at vi blander forskellige kategorier her, idet vi både har inviteret ambassadediplomater til at komme og være med i vore diskussioner om det, vi i den danske valgkampagne præsenterer, her i København; men som også er omfattet i det globale, overordnede spørgsmål, der netop nu ligger foran os; nemlig, hvordan tackler vi sammen verden? Det faktum, at vi står over for nye, desperate tider i den finansielle verden, i form af et krak, der vil blive værre end det, vi så i 2007-08; men samtidig står vi også over for muligheder for menneskeheden, som er ekstremt spændende.

Det, vi besluttede at gøre her fra Schiller Instituttets Venners side, hvor vi stiller op her i København, og også i Brøndby, Aarhus og Randers, var at tage disse større spørgsmål, som virkelig er det, der kommer til at afgøre fremtiden, og forsøge at bringe dem frem i den offentlige debat; forsøge at bryde igennem den mørklægning af virkeligheden, der alt for længe har fundet sted her i Danmark, såvel som også i Europa og i vid udstrækning i USA; og forsøge, i denne konsensus om politikker, der ikke virker, at introducere, præsentere folk for et glimt ind i det nye paradigme, som findes derude i verden med Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ som drivkraft, men ikke kun som et kinesisk program; men dette omfatter allerede omkring 100 nationer i hele verden, og så grundlæggende set lægge det frem på bordet og sige, dette er beslutningen, dette er, hvad Danmark, og København, selvfølgelig, også må blive en del af.

I dag er også en særlig dag, den 10. november; det er Friedrich Schillers fødselsdag, den berømte tyske, men også universelle digter, »Frihedens Poet«, som han også kaldes, og efter hvem vi har vores navn, Schiller Instituttet, og som også reflekteres i Schiller Instituttets Venner. Schiller var en meget enestående filosofisk person, der i sig også havde stor passion og stor kærlighed til menneskeheden, og ikke kun til sin egen nation. Han havde denne idé, at man både kan være patriot for sin nation og samtidig en verdensborger, og at de to ikke bør være en modsigelse.

Så jeg mener, der er meget passende, før vi om lidt skal høre Helga Zepp-LaRouche online – jeg introducerer Helga, når vi kommer dertil – og senere vil jeg, og andre kandidater fra Schiller Instituttets Venner, diskutere kampagnen; men før vi kommer til det, mener jeg, det er passende, at vi får nogen skønhed. I har måske set, at én af de ting, vi har forsøgt at introducere i denne kampagne, er spørgsmålet om klassisk kultur; spørgsmålet om at give alle børn adgang til klassisk kultur; at alle børn burde lære at synge, spille et instrument, være med i et orkester og gøre denne fantastiske kultur til deres egen. Og det er sådan, man får virkelige renæssancer.

Så, for at introducere denne meget smukke del af menneskets aktivitet, klassisk musik, vil vi indlede med to arier fra Shakespeares skuespil Othello, sat til musik af Verdi i operaen Othello, som er et skuespil og en opera, alle burde se med jævne mellemrum for at blive mindet om, hvordan historien fungerer; mindet om, hvordan det var en tradition i Venedig, men i dag er en tradition i London, at spille folk ud mod hinanden således, at folk, som det var meningen, skulle leve sammen i perfekt harmoni med hinanden og udvikle hinanden og elske hinanden; hvis der så er en tredje stemme, der stikker til dem og skaber jalousi mellem dem og spiller dem ud mod hinanden, så kunne det, der skulle have været et frugtbart samarbejde, meget nemt blive til strid og krig og ødelæggelse og død. Og dette er præcist, hvad Shakespeare, men også Verdi, ønskede at vise med denne opera, hvor den onde Jago virkelig demonstrerer sine mesterlige evner i ødelæggelsen af Desdémones og Othellos lykkelige forening. Disse to arier er mod slutningen; den første er, da Desdémone sidder på sin sengekant og er bange for, hvad der næst vil ske, for Othello har bedt hende tage sin bryllupskjole på, og hun har bange anelser om, hvad der vil ske. Den anden arie er ’Ave Maria’, som er der, hvor hun beder sin bøn, og jeg mener, det også er meget passende, for netop nu har vi et så opportunt øjeblik for menneskeheden, for vi må have den ånd, som Verdi her præsenterer, hvor vi virkelig tager hele verden ind i vore hjerter, både den nuværende og fremtidige menneskehed.

Jeg vil gerne bede Lena Malkki [sopran, Sverige] synge og Dominik Wizjan [pianist, Polen] akkompagnere på klaver, disse to meget smukke arier.

[Lyt: 7:45 min]

Tom: Mange tak, Lena og Dominik.

Jeg mener dette, er en passende introduktion til det, der kommer nu. Vi har, som I ser, Helga parat online, og jeg vil blot sige et par ord for at introducere hende.

Hvis I ikke allerede kender hende, vil jeg foreslå, at I googler hende og finder en masse af hendes skrifter, for de er derude[1], for hun er en meget inspirerende kraft, men hun er også meget intimt knyttet til den proces, der netop nu finder sted i Kina og internationalt, og som kendes som Bælte & Vej Initiativet.

Helga stiftede Schiller Instituttet i 1984, men var allerede inden da meget politisk aktiv. Hun var én af lederne i LaRouche-bevægelsen og blev mere udtrykkeligt leder, da hun i 1977 giftede sig med Lyndon LaRouche, og hun har siden da været drivkraften i en masse projekter for at forandre verden. Hun er også meget nært, personligt knyttet til Kina, da hun rejste til Kina som ung journalist og så ting i Kulturrevolutionens mørke tid, og i takt med, at der opstod nye muligheder, var hun i 1970’erne sammen med Lyndon LaRouche en førende kraft i at skabe en ny, retfærdig, økonomisk verdensorden, også sammen med Den Alliancefri Bevægelse i 1970’erne. Da der, i 1989 med Berlinmurens fald, opstod en mulighed for at få en helt ny verden, grundlæggende set, men også en helt ny, strategisk situation i Europa, var hun meget aktiv i at forsøge at ændre dynamikken; først, og også sammen med Schiller Instituttet, var hun en ledende kraft i en masse konferencer for at forsøge at få en massiv udvikling af Europa, fra Centraleuropa og mod øst, og dette blev i stigende grad saboteret, kan man sige, af de gamle magter. Hun var dernæst en førende stemme i at forvandle dette projekt til Verdenslandbroen; og Helga rejste meget til Kina for at understrege nødvendigheden af denne Verdenslandbro, for at forbinde Kina med Europa gennem infrastrukturkorridorer, det, hun også kaldte Den Nye Silkevej, og af denne grund blev hun i Kina kendt som Silkevejslady’en. Der skete dernæst det, at det på dette tidspunkt blev delvist stoppet pga. krisen i Asien i 1997, men med krisen, der kom i 2008, gjorde Kina noget helt andet end det, der foregik i Europa og USA, og de ændrede politikken og begyndte massivt at transformere den kinesiske politik med udvikling af infrastruktur, og de lod det ikke være godt med det, med at løfte 700 mio. kinesere ud af dyb fattigdom; men i 2013 initierede Xi Jinping også politikken med Bælte & Vej Initiativet for at sprede denne politik internationalt.

Så Helga er blevet en meget citeret person og en hyppig gæst i de kinesiske medier, hvor hun taler om disse spørgsmål. Hun var også i Beijing, hvor hun var inviteret som repræsentant for Schiller Instituttet til Bælte & Vej Forum, der fandt sted i maj måned i Beijing, som en del af konferencens indbudte tænketanke.

Vi er meget glade for at høre hendes stemme her og høre hende præsentere, hvad det egentlig er, vi mener med vore valgplakater, hvor vi siger, at Danmark – København og Danmark og Europa – bør tilslutte sig Bælte & Vej Initiativet / Den Nye Silkevej. Så vi er meget glade for at have dig med os, Helga, og høre, hvad du kan fortælle os.

Min. 24:05.

(Engelsk udskrift af Helgas indlæg)

[1] Se engelsk: http://newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com/

dansk: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/

 

 

Så jeg mener, at det, der tydeligvis er ved at vokse frem, er et mere og mere integreret, nyt økonomisk system, hvor det grundlæggende set er meget klart, så længe, europæerne, eller i det mindste EU og den tyske regering, fortsat har en kold og uvenlig holdning, så er det, som en erhvervsmand for nylig sagde, »hvis de ikke springer på toget, vil de se lysene fra den bageste vogn forlade stationen, og de bliver stående tilbage«.

Centrum for strategisk betydning bevæger sig tydeligvis over mod Asien i øjeblikket. Og denne amerikansk-kinesiske relation vil forhåbentlig fortsat udvikle sig, og så er jeg meget optimistisk mht., at mødet mellem Trump og Putin også vil blive succesfuldt. Jeg har faktisk grund til at tro, at dette også vil blive et stort gennembrud, og så vil disse journalister fra denne sensationspresse simpelt hen rive sig selv midt over, ligesom Rumleskaft. Og det er, hvad de burde gøre.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

8. nov., 2017 – Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets internationale formand, leverede den 7. nov. via video et budskab til et seminar i Sana’a, Yemens krigsfarlige hovedstad. Seminaret, der havde titlen »Fra Sana’a til Beijing: Det første diplomatseminar«, havde som taler, og var sponsoreret af, Yemens udenrigsminister Hisham Sharaf, med Institut for Diplomati i Sana’a som vært. Seminarets tema var Kinas dokument for politik over for den arabiske verden, og hvordan Yemen ville tilslutte sig Bælte & Vej Initiativet. Fouad al-Ghaffari, formand for Yemens Rådgivningskontor for Koordinering med BRIKS, talte også på seminaret og introducerede fr. LaRouche som den »Nye Silkevejslady«. Banneret for begivenheden viste EIR’s kort over Verdenslandbroen.

Udenrigsminister Sharaf gennemgik de venligtsindede og produktive, historiske relationer med Kina, inklusive mange infrastrukturprojekter, som Kina har bidraget med til det moderne Yemen i årtierne forud for udbruddet af den saudiske krig mod Yemen i 2015. Han udtrykte Yemens totale beredvillighed til at tilslutte sig Bælte & Vej Initiativet og beskytte den Maritime Silkevej ved Bab el-Mandeb-strædet og Det Røde Hav. Han tilskyndede Kina til at spille en konstruktiv rolle i den politiske løsning af krigen i Yemen. Han tilskyndede også Kina til ikke at tage skridt, der kunne føre til en yderligere splittelse af landet mellem nord og syd.

Sharaf henviste her til beskyldninger om, at en kontrakt for nylig skulle være blevet indgået mellem den kinesiske telecom-gigant Huawei og eksilregeringen om at bygge et mobiltelefonsystem i områder i det sydlige Yemen, der kontrolleres af de Forenede Arabiske Emirater (U.A.E.) og saudiskstøttede, bevæbnede grupper. Den kinesiske regering anerkender ikke regeringen i Sana’a, som udenrigsminister Sharaf er medlem af, og anerkender i stedet den afsatte præsident Abed-Rabbo Mansour Hadis regering, der er i eksil i Saudi-Arabien, og som har meget lidt eller ingen kontrol over anliggender i Yemen. Kina hævder, at det følger FN’s Sikkerhedsråds resolutioner.

Det Kinesiske Udenrigsministerium udgav Dokumentet for Kinas Politik over for den Arabiske Verden i januar 2016, et par dage forud for præsident Xi Jinpings besøg til hovednationerne i Sydvestasien: Egypten, Saudi-Arabien og Iran. Under sit besøg udtrykte præsident Xi de samme punkter, som blev omtalt i dokumentet, og som er vigtigheden i at afgøre konflikterne i området gennem en ånd af samarbejde og dialog, og at Kina er parat til at udvide den Nye Silkevejspolitik til området og være med til at genopbygge økonomierne, der er ødelagt af de senere års krige og konflikter, og at Kina tilbyder samarbejde omkring infrastruktur, kernekraft og landbrug til alle områdets nationer.

Yemens officielle nyhedsagentur Saba og andre aviser dækkede begivenheden.

Fr. Zepp-LaRouches videobudskab kan ses på Schiller Instituttets YouTube-kanal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnlHue8UlAo

Michelle Rasmussen, der opstiller til kommunal- og regionsrådsvalg i København for Schiller Instituttets Venner, interviewede Christian Larsen den 3. nov. 2017.

Se alle kandidater i København, Brøndby, Aarhus og Randers: http://sive.dk/

 

København, 21. august, 2017 (Schiller Instituttet) – DR.dk Nordjylland rapporterer, at i Hjørring kommune, der har 65.000 indbyggere, »skal alle børn lære at spille et instrument. I børnehaven skal de lære at spille violin. Derefter skal de, frem til og med 5. klasse, have undervisning i forskellige instrumenter, korundervisning, og så skal de spille i orkester«.

I det kommende skoleår vil 1085 børn deltage i projektet, og på sigt er det hensigten, at alle børn skal deltage. Hjørring Musiske Skole har bl.a. indkøbt flere hundrede violiner og andre orkesterinstrumenter.

Christian Larsen, leder af Hjørrings Musiske Skole, sagde: »Vi gør det, fordi det er sjovt, og fordi børn netop i den alder har et meget stor potentiale til at udvikle hjernen, og når du spiller musik udvikler du dig kognitivt, motorisk og også følelsesmæssigt.«

I en baggrundssamtale med Schiller Instituttet tilføjede Christian Larsen også, socialt. Ideen startede i 2010 med et ønske fra græsrødder om at gentage en dansk version af Venezuelas El Sistema orkester-massebevægelse. Principperne for den danske version var, at det skulle være gratis, åbent for alle børn, med flere timers øvelse om ugen, fokusere på musisk udtryk snarer end teknik, understrege fællesskabet snarere end individet og omfatte »peer-to-peer« undervisning, hvor børn underviser børn ved siden af de voksnes undervisning. Projektet i Hjørring startede i 2011 med et enkelt orkester.

Omkostninger for det aktuelle projekt deles mellem skolesystemet og musikskolen. Samarbejdet er baseret på gensidig værdiskabelse og var ikke afhængigt af »nye penge« i systemet, men krævede blot en ændring i tankegang. De håber, det vil blive en model, som andre byer vil vedtage.

Siden rapporten på dansk fjernsyn, har der været stor, positiv feedback, og der er også flere former for græsrodsprojekter for musik i flere andre danske byer.

Christian Larsen understregede, at musikprojektet udvikler børns evne til at tænke kreativt, uden på forhånd at vide, hvad man skal gøre – at tænke uden på forhånd at få svaret at vide.

En mor, der blev interviewet i DR-artiklen, var også glad for, at hendes barn deltog i klassisk musik, som ikke mange i hendes egen generation i har været udsat for.

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/regionale/nordjylland/i-hjoerring-kommune-skal-alle-boern-laere-spille-musik-fra-de-er-fire

Jeg mener, at folk, der ligesom er hjernevasket af de vestlige medier, og det, vi ofte finder i gaderne, ved vore informationsborde, hvor folk siger, »Åh, jeg stoler ikke på kineserne«; jeg ville bede disse mennesker om simpelt hen at undersøge tingene lidt og gøre sig mere bekendt med det, som er kinesernes overordnede plan, og ikke lade sig nøje med mediernes rapporter imod Kina. Hvorfor skulle folk tro på medierne om Kina, når disse medier så åbenlyst lyver om så mange andre spørgsmål? Så jeg ville ønske, at tilhørerne – I – åbner jeres tanker og åbner jeres hjerter og selv finder ud af det. For jeg mener, at det, vi i øjeblikket er vidne til, er en af de mest exceptionelle forandringer i menneskets historie: For, hvis denne kinesiske model lykkes, så ville faren for krig og faren for den menneskelige races udslettelse gennem anvendelse af atomvåben, f.eks., for altid være overvundet. Og det er ganske bestemt noget, jeg mener, det er værd at forsøge at opnå. …

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Vært Matthew Ogden: Det er den 3. nov., og jeg er Matthew Ogden på LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast. Som man ser af titlen på aftenens udsendelse, så er temaet for vores udsendelse, »Stor grund til optimisme: Silkevejsånden smitter«. Vi har været i nedtælling til præsident Donald Trumps rejse til Asien. Air Force One har forladt Washington, D.C., og han er på vej til sit første stop på Hawaii, hvor han vil besøge Pearl Harbor; dernæst fortsætter han til Asien.

På skærmen her ser vi vores kalender. Her er Helga Zepp-LaRouches citat [Fig. 1]. Hun sagde, »Da Xi Jinping på den 19. Nationalkongres sagde, at Kina ønsker at gøre hele verden smuk frem til år 2050, for alle mennesker, så mener jeg, at dette absolut er opnåeligt. Vi bør alle gå med i denne bestræbelse. Silkevejsånden vokser, når man først kender den.« Det var et citat fra Helga Zepp-LaRouches webcast i går; Schiller instituttet har haft en række webcasts om temaet, »Silkevejsånden«. Denne optimistiske ånd, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche har reflekteret, både i det citat, I netop hørte, men også i løbet af de seneste par uger under vores nedtælling til præsident Trumps potentielt historiske rejse til Asien. Denne optimistiske ånd, Silkevejsånden, smitter virkelig. Vi udfordrer dig til, hen over de kommende par dage, at indfange denne optimistiske ånd, og til at hjælpe os i vore bestræbelser for, at USA skal tilslutte sig dette nye, fremvoksende paradigme, der vokser frem fra Kina.

Her følger resten af udskriftet på engelsk:

On the eve of President Trump’s Asia trip, we’re seeing
efforts from both President Xi Jinping and from President Trump
himself to try to set a very positive tone for this upcoming
summit between President Trump and President Xi.  At a speech at
Tsinghua University, which took place on Wednesday, President Xi
Jinping reiterated his commitment to “win-win” relations between
the United States and China.  He stated the following:  “China is
willing to work with the United States side to look far ahead and
to aim high; to establish a community of shared future for
mankind.”  So, that’s an image [Fig. 2] there obviously from
President Trump’s and President Xi’s last visit, which was them
sitting in the living room of the Mar-a-Lago resort down in
Florida during President Xi Jinping’s visit during the Spring of
this year.  But since that time, their relationship has continued
to be positive and has continued to develop.  That kind of
vision, what President Xi Jinping called working “with the United
States to look far ahead and to aim high”, this is the kind of
statecraft that indeed President Trump should engage in.  To have
an over-arching vision which is built on this idea that yes, over
the coming generation, China and the United States will be two of
the leading economies in the world.  Our task at this point is to
look far ahead into the future and to achieve some visions which
are, indeed, very high; and to establish a community of shared
future for all mankind.
Now obviously, that comes in the form of the United States
joining in with this “win-win” vision of cooperation which China
has built around the New Silk Road, the One Belt, One Road
Initiative.  So that was President Xi Jinping obviously trying to
set a very positive tone for this upcoming summit between him and
President Trump.
Now let’s take a look at what President Trump himself had to
say.  In an interview last night with Fox News, President Trump
went into a long discussion of what he expects from his upcoming
trip to Asia; especially with his upcoming trip to China.  Here
you can see a screen shot [Fig. 3] from that interview subtitled
“President Trump on US-Chinese relationship”.  Here’s what
President Trump had to say about his relationship with President
Xi Jinping [Fig. 4].  He said, “President Xi has been pretty
terrific.  I’ve become very, very close to President Xi of China.
I think a lot of good things are going to happen.  I think it’s a
very important trip.  I think this is one of the more important
trips that a President has made.”  So, that’s President Donald
Trump talking about his upcoming trip to China.  As you can see,
even he himself acknowledges the very historic importance of this
trip that he’s making to China.  So, on both sides you can see
both President Xi and President Trump are trying to set a very
positive tone for this upcoming summit that they’re going to be
having.
Now, what did President Trump say about his relationship
with President Xi Jinping?  He said it’s a very positive
relationship.  Now, he is sticking to that, despite all of the
efforts from the mainstream media otherwise in the United States
and in Europe and coming out of the geopolitical faction in Great
Britain, where they’re trying to say “Oh, we have to try to give
Xi Jinping a bad name, and we have to say that he’s actually a
dictator and a new Stalin and a new Mao.”  Well, in fact,
President Trump is acknowledging that President Xi Jinping has
done some very positive things; saying that he’s a terrific
person and that their relationship is very positive.  In fact,
this is the tone that you’re getting from the Chinese media as
we’re leading into this historic summit meeting.
Now if you were reading all of the US media, you would
definitely be getting a completely different picture.  But what
has the Chinese media been saying?  Well, let’s take a look at an
article that just came out yesterday in the People’s Daily
[Fig. 5].  It’s titled “Trump’s Visit to China to Yield
Significant Outcomes”.  The article begins by saying, “U.S.
President Donald Trump’s first state visit to China is an
historic opportunity to boost cooperation between the world’s two
largest economies, and a chance to tackle the problems that
dampen bilateral ties, said experts”¦.
“In addition to security, the two nations’ trade and
economic cooperation will also become a crucial topic during
Trump’s visit “[E]xperts believe that deepened mutual trust and
profound cooperation will benefit both nations in the long run.”
Then it goes on to quote a very significant person, Wang
Huiyao, who is the director of the Center for China and
Globalization, which is a leading think tank in Beijing.  He
said, “Bilateral cooperation in infrastructure will provide great
opportunities for both nations. Trump has rolled out plans to
upgrade America’s infrastructure, but his $1 trillion plan is as
elusive as ever. On the other hand, China has spent $11 trillion
on infrastructure in the past decade, accumulating rich
experience in building high speed rails, roads, and energy plants
and proving itself to be a strong partner.”  Then he went on to
say the following — the article says:
“Meanwhile, the U.S. can also help China’s Belt and Road
initiative, as the former has rich experience in economic
cooperation with countries along the Belt and Road.
“‘It would be a win-win solution for both nations if the
U.S. is willing to participate in the Belt and Road initiative
and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank,’ added Wang.”
So, that was an article in People’s Daily online.  As you
can see, the Chinese experts are saying look the opportunity is
there for Trump to use this visit to China to announce that he’s
joining the Belt and Road Initiative and joining the Asia
Infrastructure Investment Bank.  Of course, this has been the
theme that the LaRouche organization has had for the last several
weeks, as we’ve been carrying out our ongoing countdown to this
historic trip.  Now the Chinese are saying explicitly that Trump
has got the opportunity to announce that he is joining these
crucial initiatives.  Not only for the Chinese side, but saying
explicitly that this is the opportunity for Trump to use the
expertise and the financing that China is willing to provide to
follow through on his promise here in the United States for
trillions of dollars in infrastructure investment.  Take what
China has already accomplished with roads, high-speed rail, water
management, power projects, domestically within China and also
elsewhere, and bring that into the United States; and modernize
the infrastructure here in the United States with that
relationship.
Another Chinese media outlet has interviewed a US expert,
this is actually an establishment figure; a fellow named Joseph
Nye, who’s the former dean of the Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University.  This is what he had to say.  This is an
article from XinhuaNet [Fig. 6].  “Interview:  Better
Understanding Between the United States and China Benefits Both
Says US Scholar”.  This is his quote:
“I don’t see any reason why the United States can’t have
cooperation with China on many of the types of projects which
will go into the One Belt, One Road.  The One Belt, One Road
should be able to produce global public goods.  I think it can.
Those public goods are good for China, and they’re good for the
United States; but they’re also good for other countries.  So in
terms of producing public goods or global public good, that’s
‘win-win’ for everyone.”
Again, that’s Joseph Nye, former dean of the Kennedy School
of Government from Harvard University.  As you can see, he’s
saying look this is an opportunity for “win-win”.  Not only would
they benefit China and the United States, but he said there are
also third party benefits.  The entire world could benefit from
this kind of “win-win” relationship between the United States and
China.  So, that’s very significant coming from an establishment
figure here in the United States — the former dean of the
Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
So indeed, you have a growing chorus of people who are
beginning to recognize exactly what time it is, and exactly what
the potential benefits would be for Trump to announce that the
United States is joining the Belt and Road Initiative coming out
of China.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche had a very significant appearance —
this was actually last week — but it hasn’t received yet the
coverage that it should, although there is an article that is
forthcoming in the Chinese-language press on this event.  But
Helga Zepp-LaRouche delivered a speech at an event in Paris on
October 24th which was jointly sponsored by the international
Schiller Institute and the Geopolitical Academy in Paris — the
Académie de Gépolitique de Paris.  Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s
speech was titled “Achieving a ‘Win-Win’ Cooperation with China”.
Now, I’m going to play a portion of her speech.  You’ll see that
it’s sort of broken up because there was a simultaneous
translation into French for the French-speaking audience; but
we’ve just selected out the portion of Helga Zepp-LaRouche
speaking English for our English-speaking audience here.  But
it’s a very important strategic overview going into President
Trump’s trip to Asia.  So, I’m going to play that speech for you
now.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Ladies and Gentlemen, Excellencies,
Dear Guests:  I would like to approach the issue of the China
question from the standpoint that there is right now a complete
clash between what I would call the old paradigm and the new
paradigm, and that new paradigm has been very little understood
in the West.  I would like to start by talking about what just
happened, namely the 19th National Congress of the CPC and
especially the perspective outlined by President Xi Jinping for
the next 35 years.
First I want to say, I was in China for the first time in
1971 in the middle of the Cultural Revolution, and therefore, I
basically take credit of having the advantage of having seen
firsthand, the absolutely incredible development of the Chinese
miracle.  China has developed in the last 40 years in particular,
since Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, into the most incredible economic
transformation of any country on the planet.  It has uplifted in
the last 30 years, 700 million people out of poverty; it has now
a growing middle class of people who are economically doing very
well, and it has a perspective of eliminating all poverty by
2020, that is three years from now, of the remaining 42 million
poor people in the rural areas.
What Xi Jinping did first in his speech, was to take a
review of what has happened in the last five years since he
became General Secretary of the CPC, and that was essentially to
develop the inner and western regions of China, which also is
very difficult, because these are mostly deserts, and it’s very
difficult because this is a tremendous challenge.  But China has
done an incredible job in doing exactly that.
One year after Xi Jinping had become General Secretary, he
announced the New Silk Road, the Belt and Road Initiative in
Kazakhstan, and in the four years since this project has been put
on the agenda, again, the most breathtaking development has taken
place where now, about 70 countries are now actively
participating in this project.

By 2020, Xi announced that China should be a moderately
prosperous country; by 2035 China should be fully modernized, and
by 2050 it’s supposed to become a “strong, democratic, culturally
advanced, harmonious and beautiful nation.”  Xi emphasized that
in China’s development, they were adding miracle upon miracle and
basically would draw on the 5,000 years of China’s history, where
China contributed many advances to humankind, and also develop a
spirit of science, of innovation, and excellence for the future.
He mentioned 14 times in his speech that the aim of all of this
is that people would have a better and a happy life.  Now, I have
not heard that said from any Western politician since a very long
time.  It is in the Declaration of Independence that the “pursuit
of happiness” is an inalienable right of all people, but if I
look at the political processes in Europe or the United States,
“happiness” is not a subject of discussion as the purpose of
policies.
What China has done is to take the Chinese economic
miracle, and offer it through the Belt and Road Initiative to all
participating countries, and that has already transformed all of
Asia, much of Europe, Eastern Europe, Southern Europe, Africa,
Latin America.  And at this Party Congress, there were many
leaders who said they will now take the inspiration of the
Chinese model for their own development.
While this is happening in China, you had a peak of
unprecedented attacks on China in the Western media.  Bloomberg,
Time magazine, the Wall Street Journal, you had a barrage of
articles accusing China that this is all just an attempt to gain
global power, to replace the Anglo-American imperialism with a
Chinese imperialism, that it’s a grab for raw materials; that Xi
Jinping would be like Stalin, like Mao Zedong, just nothing which
has not been said.
So, how come the countries that are participating with
China, 70 countries or maybe even more than 100, are all happy,
they’re all praising what China is doing, and how can it be that
there is such a complete difference in perception of what is
going on?  This is what I call the clash between the old paradigm
and the new paradigm, because what China is offering is a
cooperation on the basis of a “win-win cooperation” where
naturally China is pursuing its interests, but it is also at the
same time, giving the interest of the participating countries; so
it’s in a mutual benefit for both sides.
Let’s take it back a little bit:  When the Soviet Union
approached its last phase, in the United States the neo-cons
developed a concept which they called the Project for a New
American Century (PNAC), which was the idea that there should be
only a unipolar world, dominated by the Anglo-Americans.
When the Wall in Berlin came down, the organization around
my husband, Lyndon LaRouche, had an answer:  We proposed the
Productive Triangle economic development Paris-Berlin-Vienna,
which was the idea to transform the Comecon countries with
Western technologies through development corridors.  In 1991,
when the Soviet Union disintegrated, the Iron Curtain was no
longer there, and we proposed the Eurasian Land-Bridge, which was
the idea to connect the population and industrial centers of
Europe with those of Asia through development corridors, and we
called that in ’91 already, the Eurasian Land-Bridge, the New
Silk Road.
We campaigned for this over 26 years, but naturally, if you
go back to ’91, this was not in the interests of the Bush Sr.
administration; or Margaret Thatcher, who called the German
unification the “Fourth Reich”; or even Mitterrand who opposed
German reunification, so there were many geopolitical obstacles
to realize this plan at that time.
So the unipolar world forces pursued their policy which
consists of regime change of any country, any government which
would oppose the unipolar world, color revolution, such concepts
as “right to protect” (R2P), under the pretext of fighting for
human rights and democracy to conduct interventionist wars, which
has given us the mess in the Middle East and the refugee crisis.
This was what ensued over these decades.
That military-strategic policy was combined with an economic
side, which was essentially the lack of development caused by the
IMF conditionalities, which prevented explicitly Third World
development; a policy of the Troika in Europe which prescribed
brutal austerity to Southern European countries such as Greece,
Italy, Spain, Portugal.  And this led to the revolts against this
system which we have been watching for the past almost two years.
That revolt expressed itself in the Brexit, in the election
victory of President Trump and the loss of Hillary Clinton, in
the “no” to the referendum in Italy for the change in the
Constitution; in the recent developments, such as the election
victory of Kurz in Austria, Babic in the Czech Republic, the
eruption in Catalonia, so this is an ongoing revolt.
That policy is now leading to the danger of a new financial
crisis, much worse than 2008, because the causes of that crisis
had not been addressed.  To the contrary, through quantitative
easing, negative interest rates, an enormous amount of liquidity
was pumped into the system which manifests itself now in the form
of a much, much bigger indebtedness of governments, of firms, of
student debt, of car loans, and this is a bubble about to explode
again.
China is not unaware of what is the reaction of the Western
media towards the Chinese model, and I found it very interesting
that in the last days there is a completely new tone in the
Chinese media about this reaction of the West.  They say, with a
very new self-confidence, less diplomatic than the Chinese would
usually speak, that their model is superior to the Western model.
And they talk about the errors of Western conceptions about
China, that the West completely misses the true nature of the
Chinese development, that the West obviously does not want China
to succeed and predicting, that it will not succeed.  One article
says, that the West thinks the closer that China is to the West,
then they’re on the right path; if they are diverging it’s
dangerous; that China should consolidate the interests of the
West, and therefore China’s development is negative and
challenges the world order; and that China should not challenge
what they call “universal values,” but in reality these
“universal values” are just Western interests.  And then, in
several articles, they say, look at the chaos of the West, the
influence of the Western media is shrinking and China should no
longer care about Western prejudices.
So, I’m just touching upon these things, because it is my
firm belief that the New Silk Road dynamic is unstoppable,
because it is the much more attractive model of international
cooperation, and it will eventually also be put on the table in
all of Europe.  I think it would be in the fundamental interests
of European nations to cooperate with China and with Russia, in
the development of Africa:  This is the only human way to stop
and overcome the refugee crisis.  China has offered a “win-win
cooperation” to Mrs. Merkel, to Italy’s Gentiloni, to [former
French Prime Minister] Mr. Raffarin, when he was at the Belt and
Road Forum in Beijing in May, so the offer is on the table.  The
same goes for the reconstruction of the war-torn countries of the
Middle East, where, in the case of Syria, there is already an
emerging tripartite cooperation, where China provides the
infrastructure, Russia the energy, Iran the industrial parks, and
other countries are invited to cooperate in reconstructing Syria;
and also the same goes for Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and other
countries of the region.
Contrary to what you read in most Western mainstream media,
the possibility that it would come to a good relationship between
Trump and Xi Jinping in the upcoming visit of President Trump to
Asia, where he will go to Vietnam, Philippines, South Korea,
Japan, and a state visit to China, are very good.
The whole Russia-gate against President Trump, the idea that
there was collusion between the Trump team and Russia, whereby
Putin would have helped Trump to win the election, is utter
nonsense, there’s no evidence for it, and it was designed
entirely by the intelligence services of Great Britain and the
Bush-Obama administrations, to prevent Trump from having a
positive relationship with Russia and China — and that is not
succeeding.
The United States is undergoing right now a tremendous
economic crisis, a total collapse of infrastructure due to a
non-investment for about 100 years; infrastructure in the United
States is collapsing.  The United States has 150 km fast train
system between New York and Boston, as compared to more than
20,000 km fast train system in China, and there is right now a
very concrete discussion that China would, together with the
Japan, invest in the infrastructure of the United States, and
this could be a subject in the upcoming Trump visit in China.

There are already many strategic realignments going on: I
only want to point to maybe the most obvious case, that of Japan.
Japan right now is seeking a very good relationship with Russia,
they are developing the Kuril Islands together economically.
Because of the strategic close relationship between Xi Jinping
and Putin, the relation between Japan and China is now improving.
I want to just say, that from the standpoint of universal
history, I think that mankind has reached the point where either
we move to a new paradigm of self-governance of relations among
nations, and stop thinking that war can be, in the age of
thermonuclear weapons, a means of conflict resolutions, if you
don’t want to risk eliminating ourselves as a species.
So we have to think about a new paradigm of cooperation, and
it is on the table.  So, I think that the kind of discussion we
need to have in Europe really needs to take on a completely
different shape and form.  I don’t even think multi-polarity is
what we want, because multi-polarity still has the idea of
geopolitical confrontation, that you have one group of countries
who has an interest against another group of countries; where I
think that the idea pronounced by President Xi Jinping of the
“community of a shared future of humanity,” where you start with
the one mankind first, and then you come to the national or
regional interest, is the way we have to think.
As a last comment, I think that the West can only find this
kind of cooperation if we develop or rediscover our best
traditions, like China has revived its Confucian tradition of
2,500 years, and the West has to revive its best Classical
traditions of all our  European cultures.  If we do that, I think
we are at the verge of a new era.

OGDEN:  So that was a speech that Helga Zepp-LaRouche
presented to a joint event in Paris on October 24th, sponsored by
the international Schiller Institute and the Academy of
Geopolitics in Paris.  As you can see, this is a wonderful
overview of exactly the kind of strategic situation that is now
presenting itself as President Trump is flying on his way to this
historic summit in China with President Xi Jinping.
Now, one more item that we need to conclude with, this is
just some breaking news on the so-called “Russia-gate” narrative,
which is now completely falling apart.  Last week on this
broadcast we reported that the news had come out that Hillary
Clinton and the DNC had been exposed as directly financing the
so-called “dodgy dossier” from Christopher Steele, the British
intelligence agent who had put together this so-called dossier on
President Trump.  Now it has come out that that was only the tip
of the iceberg.  What’s now being revealed is that the Democratic
nomination during the 2016 Presidential campaign was completely
rigged – 100 %; even more than we knew at the time.  The facts
have come out that expose the reality that the DNC, all the way
through the primaries, starting a year before the Presidential
primaries even occurred, was in fact nothing but a subsidiary of
the Clinton campaign.  100 % bought and paid for and controlled.
Donna Brazile, of all people, who is a long-time Democratic Party
figure and was the interim chairperson of the Democratic National
Committee, has just exposed in her forthcoming book; this is an
article that was in {Politico} which is quoting an excerpt from
her forthcoming book, but the article is titled “Inside Hillary
Clinton’s Takeover of the DNC”.  Donna Brazile reported that the
Democratic National Committee’s rigging of the party nomination
for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders, also Joe Biden,
Martin O’Malley, and any other Democratic nominee who never had a
chance.  This rigging of the nomination process was far worse
than we even had known before; and far worse than was even
exposed by the DNC emails and the John Podesta emails that had
been published by WikiLeaks.  In fact, it turns out that the
Clinton campaign was in {total} control, a lockdown of the entire
DNC and total control of every aspect of the so-called “neutral”
Democratic National Committee, beginning all the way back in
August of 2015; almost a year before Clinton became the official
Democratic Party nominee.
Here’s how it worked.  Apparently, Obama had left the DNC
deeply in debt; over $24 million in debt after the 2012
Presidential campaign.  He was paying off that debt very slowly,
so under Donna Brazile’s predecessor, former DNC chairperson
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the DNC had signed a secret agreement
with the Clinton campaign which specified that in exchange for
sending money to the DNC, Hillary Clinton would control every
aspect of the Democratic National Committee’s operations — the
party’s finances, the party’s strategy, and all of the money that
was raised by the DNC.  Her campaign would have the right of
refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it
would have the right of final decision on all other staff that
was hired by the Democratic National Committee.  The DNC would
also be required to consult with the campaign about all other
staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and even mailings that were
sent out by the Democratic National Committee.
So, as you can see, what this shows is that the DNC was
nothing but a bought-and-paid-for subsidiary, a completely
subservient part of the Clinton campaign; whereas it is supposed
to be a completely unbiased party organization which gives every
candidate a fair shake.  Additionally — and this is going to be
a much bigger story over the coming days — apparently the
Hillary Clinton campaign was using the DNC as a fundraising
clearinghouse to evade Federal Election Commission regulations;
virtually laundering campaign cash through the DNC, which was
then funneled into the Hillary Clinton for President campaign,
bypassing or evading FEC regulations.  Under FEC law — this is
the law that every candidate in the entire country is supposed to
follow — the Federal Election Commission says an individual US
citizen can only contribute a maximum of $2700 directly to a
Presidential campaign.  So if you wanted to contribute to the
Hillary Clinton for President-campaign, your max is $2700.  But
the limits for contributions are much higher for contributions to
state party organizations and to the party’s national committee.
So, therefore, any citizen, any individual who had maxed out
their $2700 contribution limit to the Hillary Clinton campaign,
could then turn around and write a check to the Hillary Clinton
Victory Fund, which would be an additional check for up to
$353,000; which represents $10,000 to each of the 32 state party
organization, plus $33,000 to the DNC.  So that money was then
deposited in the state party coffers first, but then was vacuumed
into the DNC and then directly to the Presidential campaign.
Apparently less than 1% of that money stayed in the state party
organizations.
Now this information, this bombshell, is coming directly
from Donna Brazile; this is not some sort of disinformation or
fake news that’s coming from some troll in St. Petersburg or
something.  This is contained within Donna Brazile’s own book
about the DNC.  As Elizabeth Warren said in response to a CNN
interview yesterday when she was asked “Was the DNC campaign, was
the Democratic nomination process completely rigged in favor of
Hillary Clinton?”  “Yes, it was.”  No other nominee even had a
chance, despite the fact that there was overwhelming support
within the Democratic base for anybody but Hillary.
What President Trump said in response to this news, in a
series of tweets that he put out over the last 24 hours, is the
following.  He said, “This is real collusion and dishonesty.
This is a major violation of campaign finance laws and money
laundering.  Where is our Justice Department?  Let’s go FBI and
Justice Department.”  Then he also said, “Bernie Sanders
supporters have every right to be apoplectic of the complete
theft of the Democratic primary by crooked Hillary.”
So, this is a bombshell.  This news will definitely develop
over the next few days, and this is going to be a major story as
President Trump leaves on his historic trip to Asia.  We have an
opportunity right now to organize the entire country to say
“Let’s abandon this entire Russia-gate false narrative.  Let’s
focus on the true story.”  Let’s take a look at the opportunities
that are ahead of us for our President as he takes this trip to
Asia, and what all Americans have in common.  We have crumbling
infrastructure, we have an opioid crisis which is unprecedented
in its proportions.  The stories about this are absolutely
unfathomable about how many deaths we’ve experienced over the
last year from opioid and heroin overdoses.  The statistics are
that we have had one September 11th every three weeks in terms of
the number of Americans that have died.  Or, over the past year,
more Americans have died from opioid and heroin overdoses than
died in the entirety of the Vietnam War.  This is the economic
reality that is confronting the American people; and this is the
kind of situation which could be resolved overnight by taking a
completely different turn towards a spirit of optimism which
Helga Zepp-LaRouche has characterized as the spirit of the New
Silk Road.

So, let me put on the screen one more time as we conclude
our webcast, the image of our calendar [Fig. 7].  We’ve been
counting down the days up to today over the course of the month
of October, as we approached the departure of President Trump for
his historic trip to Asia.  President Trump and President Xi
Jinping will be meeting on November 8th and November 9th, so this
is coming up next week.  This historic summit between President
Trump and President Xi Jinping could, indeed, be a
history-changing event.  So as the title webcast stated, “Great
Cause for Optimism:  The Silk Road Spirit Is Contagious”.  We
challenge you to catch the Silk Road spirit over the next few
days, and to do everything that you can to ensure that this
summit is indeed a watershed moment for the history of US-China
relations and the history of the entire human race.
Thank you very much for tuning in today, and please stay
tuned as we follow this important and historic trip that
President Trump is making to Asia as we approach this bilateral
summit on November 8th and 9th next week.

Thank you for tuning in, and stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Med præsident Donald Trump, der er klar til at tage af sted på sin rejse til Asien om få dage, kunne der ikke stå mere på spil. Efter de inspirerende udviklinger på Kinas Kommunistiske Partis 19. Kongres, ringede Trump til præsident Xi for at lykønske ham med resultaterne og bekræfte, at han ser frem til deres møde den 8. november. Trump vil blive ledsaget af flere amerikanske erhvervsfolk og producenter, der håber at udvide handelsmulighederne med Kina og blive deltagere i Bælte & Vej Initiativets (BRI) globale projekter.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche har understreget, at en succes for Trumps rejse ville konsolidere en samarbejdsalliance mellem USA, Rusland og Kina, som ville betyde afslutningen af den unipolære, geopolitiske imperieorden, der køres af neokonservative og neoliberale, og som har bragt verden til randen af et globalt, økonomisk kollaps og en Tredje Verdenskrig.

Desværre er kun få mennesker i Vesten bevidste om dette potentielle, historiske gennembrud. De eneste »nyheder«, der er tilgængelige for folk i det transatlantiske område, er de seneste, forfatningsstridige provokationer fra den juridiske morder Robert Mueller, der er leder af et desperat forsøg fra de London-centrerede oligarkers plan om at stoppe momentum for BRI og forhindre Trump i at lykkes med at bringe USA ind i det, som en partner.

Lyt med på torsdag, når fr. Zepp-LaRouche, præsident for Schiller Instituttet, giver en nødvendig, strategisk korrektion af de ’falske nyheder’, baseret på Den Nye Silkevejsånd.

For det første, så var det, der virkelig imponerede mig meget, Xi Jinpings, og også andre taleres, fokus på formålet med det hele – nemlig, at det er forbedringen af folks liv. At folk skal leve et bedre liv, et lykkeligere liv – og det mangler fuldstændigt i diskussionen i Vesten: At formålet med politik er, at folk skal være lykkelige! Lykke er en umistelig rettighed, som trods alt blev indskrevet i det unge USA’s Uafhængighedserklæring.

Men der er et yderligere aspekt. Især i sine afsluttende bemærkninger talte Xi Jinping om en socialistisk model med kinesiske karaktertræk for en ny æra. Og målet, som blev meget udtrykkeligt formuleret, var, at Kina vil indtage en global rolle i skabelsen af en smuk fremtid for hele menneskeheden. Se, det er virkelig noget! Hvornår har en vestlig politiker haft en vision om at skabe en smuk fremtid for hele menneskeheden? Jeg mener, man skal langt tilbage i tiden for at finde folk, der overhovedet tænkte i disse baner; og jeg mener, at Kina har skabt en model for international styrelse og internationale relationer, baseret på suverænitet, respekt for det andet lands anderledes samfundsmodel, med andre ord, ikke-indblanding; og uden noget forsøg på at ændre systemet til den vestlige model, eller til deres egen model, men derimod respektere de andre landes suverænitet.

Jeg mener, at dette er et utroligt perspektiv, for, hvis man ser på det ud fra menneskehedens lange, historiske bue, så var dette et initiativ, der måtte ske på et vist punkt i menneskehedens udvikling. Der måtte på et givent tidspunkt komme et menneske, der sagde, »vi er den menneskelige art, og den menneskelige art er én«

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Før vi lægger ud, vil jeg blot fremhæve et par vigtige punkter, som præsident Xi Jinping fremlagde i sin hovedtale i onsdags på den 19. Partikongres i Kina, som der har været store forventninger til. Det vil Bill forklare lidt mere om; men blot til jeres almindelige orientering, så er her Xi Jinpings egen stemme. Ét af de betydningsfulde aspekter af hans tale fokuserede på den ekstraordinære rate af udvikling og lettelse af fattigdom, som Kina har været i stand til at præstere i løbet af de seneste fem år, og optrapning af den rate, ved hvilken de har til hensigt fortsat at løfte det kinesiske folk ud af fattigdom i løbet af de næste fem år. Målet er frem til år 2020 at have løftet og totalt udryddet fattigdom fra Kina fuldstændigt. Han sagde, at, med Bælte & Vej Initiativet, som nu er den kinesiske regerings primære politiske initiativ, »Er det kinesiske folks drømme og andre folkeslags drømme i hele verden tæt forbundet«. Han sagde, at Kina stræber efter »menneskehedens fælles skæbne og varig fred og stabilitet«. Hans anden understregning var, at den kinesiske regerings eneste opgave er at fremme det kinesiske folks lykke og velfærd. Og det er gennem dette forpligtende engagement til udvikling, til videnskab, til teknologi og til udryddelse af fattigdom, at den kinesiske regering og præsident Xi Jinping agter at udføre denne opgave.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Dette er en utrolig historie, og på nuværende tidspunkt står det ikke klart, hvilken af siderne, der vinder. Men det forholder sig altså modsat i forhold til den måde, det fremstilles på: Det er nemlig de personer, der går efter Trump, som er dem, der bør efterforskes, og, hvis de findes skyldige, stilles for en domstol. Det er, hvad der virkelig foregår, og formålet er at gøre med Trump, ligesom det billede fra Gullivers Rejser, husker I nok, hvor Gulliver bliver holdt nede af så mange små reb, at han ikke kan røre sig. Og hele ideen bag kampagnen imod Trump er selvfølgelig, at han har så travlt med at forsvare sig, at han ikke kan gennemføre sin faktiske dagsorden.

Dette er den kamp, som USA’s, og gennem implikation, hele resten af verdens, eksistens beror på, i betragtning af USA’s strategiske betydning.

Se webcast her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MslkvEHnOn0

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Vært Matthew Ogden: Som titlen på vores webcast, »Nedtælling til Trumps besøg i Kina: Ny Silkevej, ikke geopolitik«, antyder, så befinder vi os i en nedtælling til en begivenhed, der kunne vise sig at blive et vendepunkt i verdenshistorien; hvis vi gør vores job rigtigt. Om 21 dage, nøjagtig 3 uger fra i dag, vil præsident Trump tage af sted på sit første statsbesøg til Kina; som finder sted i forbindelse med en rundrejse til andre asiatiske lande og Trumps deltagelse i ASEAN-topmødet. Alt imens en stor del af mediefokus har været på Nordkorea, så er de virkelige nyheder, at der foreligger en meget klar mulighed for, at præsident Trump under sit besøg med Xi Jinping kunne bruge denne mulighed til at signalere, at USA er villig til at tilslutte sig Kinas store projekt for Bælte & Vej Initiativet. Selv om præsident Trump tydeligvis fremstillede et billede af sig selv under valgkampen som værende anti-Kina, sandsynligvis under indflydelse af pseudo-højrefløjs-populistiske Kina-angribere som Steve Bannon og andre, så peger præsident Trumps handlinger under sin embedstid på et helt andet billede. Under præsident Xi Jinpings statsbesøg i USA – det såkaldte Mar-a-Lago-topmøde – udviklede han og præsident Trump en meget varm, særlig, personlig relation. Og det var ud af denne konstruktive relation med præsident Trump, at denne gav sit samtykke til præsident Xi Jinpings anmodning om, at der blev sendt officiel amerikansk repræsentation til Bælte & Vej Forum; det storslåede, internationale Silkevejstopmøde, der fandt sted i maj i år (i Beijing). Dette fulgte præsident Trump op på og sendte en særlig repræsentant fra Udenrigsministeriet, Matt Pottinger, som blev særligt bemærket af Kina. Og, som vi har berettet, har præsident Trump, under flere private møder med højtplacerede repræsentanter fra den kinesiske regering – inklusive med statsrådgiveren (Yang Jiechi), som er den tredjehøjest rangerende embedsmand i den kinesiske regering – indikeret sin beredvillighed til USA’s tilslutning til den Nye Silkevej.

Vi ved, det haster med, at disse planer bliver til virkelighed. Det haster mht. den internationale, strategiske situation; det haster mht. USA’s nationale, økonomiske situation; og det haster med endelig at afviste fortidens mislykkede geopolitik og erstatte den med hr. LaRouches økonomiske metode – som vi gennemgår hver onsdag på denne hjemmeside.[1] Vi vil fortsætte med at udvikle disse temaer. Men dette kræver et totalt skifte i tankegang, hvor vi afviser de forfejlede aksiomer med begrænsede resurser og affolkning, som er blevet tvunget ned over os; og at vi erstatter dem med en helt ny idé om økonomi, ja, faktisk hele menneskets forhold til omgivelserne og Universet, som er baseret på en idé om en til stadighed ekspanderende produktivitet i overensstemmelse med menneskets unikke, skabende natur. Dette er faktisk kernen i LaRouches økonomiske metode; og i løbet af disse kommende uger, hvor du, forhåbentlig, deltager i denne undervisningsserie i økonomi, vil du lære, at det er den sande kerne i en aksiomatisk forståelse af, hvad sande »win-win«-relationer må være baseret på.

Det er i denne sammenhæng, at det haster med, at USA tilslutter sig den Nye Silkevej. I løbet af de kommende 21 dage, hvor vi tæller ned til Trumps statsbesøg, kan jeg forsikre jer for, at dette bliver spørgsmålet; det bliver de parametre, der er i færd med at udforme verdenspolitik og verdenshistorie. Spørgsmålet om denne rejse og dens resultat inkarnerer på en meget virkelig måde alt, som er det centrale spørgsmål i denne aktuelle krig, som nu finder sted, over selve det amerikanske præsidentskabs sjæl. Det har mange aspekter. Det omfatter ikke alene det institutionelle kup, som køres mod præsidenten indefra, men vi kan også se virkningerne fra krigsførelsen mht. informations- og mediekrigsførelse, der kommer, ikke alene fra mainstream-medierne, men fra den skændige rolle, der spilles af personer som Steve Bannon og andre, i forsøg på at tvinge Trump ind i en anti-kinesisk dagsorden. Det er vores ansvar at modgå dette og informere det amerikanske folk om, at vejen frem for USA udelukkende ligger i, at USA tilslutter sig den Nye Silkevej.

Dette spørgsmål om, hvorvidt USA afviser fortidens mislykkede, britiske geopolitik og tilslutter sig den Nye Silkevej og vedtager den nye, internationale, økonomiske orden og dette nye »win-win«-system for internationale relationer, som Kina på det seneste har været fortaler for; dette spørgsmål er faktisk på en meget virkelig måde kerneprincippet i alt det, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har kæmpet for i de seneste 40 år. Dette spørgsmål er selve roden i det kup, man forsøger at gennemføre imod vores siddende, lovmæssigt, behørigt valgte præsident. Lad dig ikke narre; det har intet at gøre med Trump personligt. Det har alt at gøre med det potentielle resultat af et skifte i politikken i dette land i løbet af de forestående dage, uger og måneder; med vores beslutning om, hvad vores fremtid vil være i relation til dette Nye Paradigme, dette nye, fremvoksende »win-win«-system for internationale relationer, som Kina er i færd med at opbygge omkring Bælte & Vej Initiativet.

I går beskrev Helga Zepp-LaRouche det under sit webcast; det er som med billedet af Gulliver fra Jonathan Swifts berømte Gullivers Rejser, hvor han bliver bundet til jorden af hundreder eller tusinder af små bitte reb af Lilliputterne, som han møder. Dette er det billede, man må have, når man forestiller sig situationen i Det Hvide Hus; med præsident Trump, der bliver forhindret i at gennemføre nogen af de positive programinitiativer, som fik ham valgt. Infrastruktur; genopbygning af ’Rustbæltet’; genopbygning af amerikansk industri; begrænsning af Wall Street; genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. Som vi har set af dækningen af valgstrategien, så var det dette, som amerikanerne responderede til; dette er grunden til, at folk, der både var konservative og Demokrater, skiftede over og valgte denne præsident. Det var pga. disse spørgsmål, der stadig plager det amerikanske folks hverdag, men vi mangler stadig at se beslutsom handling finde sted mht. disse presserende spørgsmål for det amerikanske folk. I mellemtiden har vi den overhængende trussel om et transatlantisk finanssammenbrud, som, med hensyn til proportionerne, langt kunne overstige det, der fandt sted i 2008.

Som en erklæring, der gik ud til LaRouche PAC’s mail-liste i går, korrekt sagde, så vil udfaldet af denne kamp – det, jeg netop har forklaret – med disse 21-dages nedtælling til Trumps besøg i Kina, og om vi vil lykkes med at guide dette land i retning af at tilslutte sig dette fremvoksende Nye Paradigme; udfaldet af denne kamp vil afgøre, hvad der vil ske med dette land i de næste 50, for ikke at sige 100 år. Det er en sådan historisk skillelinje, vi står ved.

Her følger resten af udskriftet på engelsk:

That statement, which I just referred to, went on to read as
follows:  “The British have a plan.  It is the same one which
they have always used: control political entities, whether it be
the anti-fa on the left, or the alt-right on the right; split the
country in two on issues of identity.  The actual ideas and
philosophical roots of this country, the great republican ideas
of our founders, who built upon the revolution of the
Renaissance, those actual ideas are lost in the heated wars of
fake populism.
“Look at what is missing.  Puerto Rico is a disaster, as its
entire infrastructure was destroyed, not by a hurricane, but by
Wall Street predators.  California is in flames.  Texas and
Florida have not recovered from the manmade disasters which
destroyed whole cities and the livelihoods of thousands.  Day by
day, hundreds of our citizens, particularly in the economically
devastated formerly industrial heartland, are dying of drug
overdoses.  This epidemic is killing more people daily than AIDS
at the height of its devastation.  Wall Street stands on the
verge of another financial collapse.
“President Trump began to move on answers to all of this —
overthrowing the British thinking which had come to govern us.
That is at the center of the whole furor against Trump.  Lyndon
LaRouche has provided a comprehensive solution in his Four
Hamiltonian Economic Laws.  Implementation of these ideas will
actually overthrow the swamp which is in the process of
destroying this country; but only if we go all out right now.”
So that’s the kind of call to action for the next 21 days.
That spells out exactly the parameters within which this fight is
being waged.
Those of you who might now know this yet, there is a new
feature from Helga Zepp-LaRouche which is being featured on the
Schiller Institute New Paradigm website every week on Thursdays,
which is an international webcast on the New Silk Road.  That’s
accessible via the Schiller Institute New Paradigm YouTube
channel, but we’ve also been posting a link to that on the
larouchepac.com website.  This is a very important initiative
from Helga Zepp-LaRouche; and it’s coming from somebody who is
not merely a commentator watching events unfold as if from the
outside, but somebody who is directly at the center of making
history unfold around this direction of the New Silk Road.  As
those of you who have watched this broadcast know, Helga
Zepp-LaRouche herself was personally one of the featured guests
at the Belt and Road Forum back in May in Beijing, China;
speaking at several of the roundtable discussions and sideline
meetings, and attending in person the main event, where she heard
President Xi Jinping’s keynote along with the addresses of all of
the other heads of state who attended that conference.  Helga
Zepp-LaRouche was also featured in a major one-page full spread
article in China Daily just about one month ago, for her
history in terms of her lifetime dedication to fighting for the
emergence of the new international economic order, which is now
taking its form in this New Silk Road — the Belt and Road
Initiative in China.
So, what I would like to do to promote this weekly webcast
that Helga Zepp-LaRouche is doing, and also to highlight some of
the very important strategic insights that she had in her webcast
that she broadcast yesterday, I would like to play just two short
clips for you from that broadcast yesterday.  Here’s the first
one, and I’d like you to listen to her strategic overview, and
also the call to action that she has at the very end of the
remarks that you’re about to hear now.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  As a matter of fact, this
coming trip of President Trump to Asia will be extremely
important, because this trip occurs in the context of a very
dramatic strategic situation.  We have all signs that a new
financial crash is in the workings, and we can talk about that in
a little while.  There is an alternative already in existence,
which is the incredibly dynamic Belt and Road Initiative which
has been initiated by China four years ago.  As we already made
the point before the first summit between President Xi and
President Trump in April, that the best way to solve the
strategic situation is if you could get the United States and
China to work together in the Belt and Road Initiative.  That
would mean Chinese investments in infrastructure in the United
States, which is starting slowly.  There is very good news that
there is a new taskforce which has been formed in California in
San Francisco, which is supposed to make it easier for Chinese
investors to invest in infrastructure in the United States.
There is bidding going on where Chinese railway companies are
trying to win the bid to build fast train systems in California.
So there are promising signs.
But given the enormous destruction of the infrastructure,
both through attrition — because all of this infrastructure in
the United States, much of it is more than 100 years old — so
it’s decrepit already all by itself.  But then you had the
hurricanes in Florida, Texas, Puerto Rico; and now you have the
wildfires in California.  So, there is a gigantic requirement.
We want China to invest in infrastructure in the United States as
part of the Belt and Road Initiative.  On the other side, we want
American firms to be involved in the many, many projects of the
Belt and Road Initiative in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
That must somehow be more on top of the agenda.  We are
right now mobilizing, mostly in the United States, but also
elsewhere, that when President Trump makes this long-awaited and
extremely important strategic trip of a state visit to China in
the context of his Asia tour, we wish very much that the Belt and
Road Initiative is formalized.  I think that there are absolute
potentials that this could occur.  If it occurs, we really are
over the hump of the danger of war; that is my deepest belief.
Because the “win-win” cooperation of the New Silk Road offers a
new model not only of relations among nations in general, but
especially one big component has been the proposal by China to
set up a new model of major power relations.  If there would be
such a transformation, I think the world would really enter a new
era of cooperation in the mutual benefit to end geopolitical
games, to end for sure the policies of the Bush and Obama
administrations of interventionist wars for regime change, of
color revolution.  You would replace that with a system of
sovereign nations working together for their mutual benefit.
So, if we can all work together to accomplish that, and I
appeal to all listeners and viewers of this program to help us;
because the mainstream media are still not reporting the
extraordinary importance of this new dynamic.  Therefore, it is
not generally known enough, but I think this must be changed in
the next three weeks.  So, I’m really asking all of you to help
to spread the message.

OGDEN:  So, as you just heard, that was a direct appeal from
Helga LaRouche to all of the viewers, asking you directly to help
spread the message.  She said, I appeal to all listeners and
viewers to realize the extraordinary importance of the next three
weeks.  This, in fact, could be the beginning of an entirely new
era in terms of international politics and policy; that’s this
kind of watershed moment.
Now, the question of what has prevented these positive
inclinations from coming to fruition up to this point, and what
must be defeated if we are to allow these positive inclinations
of the Trump Presidency to take precedence; that’s the issue
which Helga LaRouche took up next.  I’d like to just play this
clip for you here.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I actually would like to talk about
the battle inside the United States first, because there is right
now, as you say, an attempt to prevent Trump from having a
positive relationship with China and with Russia.  Now the famous
Russia-gate is about to be put where it should have been from the
beginning — in the trash can.  Namely, there is no evidence.
There was a statement by Senator Burr and one other Senator, who
said they investigated all the accusations about collusion
between the Trump administration and Russia and they could find
nothing.  But there is still reason, they say, to assume that
there is Russian collusion because the intelligence agencies are
saying so.  Now this is an incredible story, and we have produced
a dossier about who is the apparatus behind the effort to impeach
Trump or have a coup against Trump; namely, it is all centered
around Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  This dossier is an
absolute bombshell, because it establishes without any doubt that
the same people and the same apparatus which went after my
husband Lyndon LaRouche in the ’80s and after that, is the same
apparatus which covered up the Saudi role in 9/11, and which is
now organizing with the British Intelligence to set up a fake
story against President Trump.  This is a huge battle.  There is
some fight, for example, Senator Grassley and Congressman Nunes
both in their respective committees, pointed to the fact that
there is collusion, yes; but not with the Russians, but with
British Intelligence.  Senator Grassley made a big point that the
so-called “evidence” of Comey and Mueller about Russian
cooperation is actually centered around this firm GPS Fusion,
which hired the former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele who produced
this infamous so-called dodgy dossier about Trump.
Now, Senator Grassley made the point that the FBI was not
investigating this on its own, but they took material from
British Intelligence as evidence.  So, this is an unbelievable
story, and it is at this point very unclear which side will come
out on top.  But it is the opposite of the way it is being
portrayed; namely, it’s those people who are going after Trump
who are the ones who are the ones who should be investigated, and
in the case they’re found guilty, put on trial.  So that is
really what is going on, and the aim is to make with Trump — you
remember this picture in {Gulliver’s Travels}, where Gulliver was
tied with so many little ropes and so forth that he couldn’t
move.  Obviously the whole idea of the campaign against Trump is,
that he is so busy defending himself, that he doesn’t get to his
actual agenda.  So this is the battle on which the existence of
the United States depends, and by implication the rest of the
world, given the strategic importance of the United States.

OGDEN:  So that video is available in full; there’s a link
to it on the LaRouche PAC website, so you can watch Helga
LaRouche’s full strategic webcast from yesterday.  As I said,
this is a new regular feature that she will be engaged in.  What
you just heard Helga LaRouche talk about was this bombshell
dossier which has been issued by LaRouche PAC, and is already
being circulated quite widely in the United States; although we
have the responsibility to circulate far, far more widely over
the coming days.  But it’s been circulated in the US Congress,
among very relevant Congressional committees; it’s being
circulated in various cities across the United States.  We’re
encouraging you to access the digital version of this pamphlet
online.  I’m going to put an image here on the screen for you of
the cover of that pamphlet [Fig. 1]; you’ll see it right here.
This is “Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Illegal Assassin: He Will Do
His Job if You Let Him”.  As it says on the back cover [Fig. 2],
“Robert Mueller has played a central role in three of the most
shameful chapters of our nation’s recent history:  the frame-up
of Lyndon LaRouche; the cover-up of September 11th; the set-up of
President Trump. This dossier exposes the story of deceit that
has been perpetrated against the American people for far too
long.  Read the contents of this report, and help us to stop the
attempted coup now being run against the US Presidency.”  So,
again, that’s available on the LaRouche PAC website —
http:lpac.co/ytdos — the link is available on the screen there.
Now, I’m going to show you one snapshot from the inside of
this pamphlet, this is the next image [Fig. 3].  And this
actually gives you a sense of not just the mechanisms of this
kind of apparatus and how it is utilized to try to suppress
certain tendencies in US policy, as was just documented by Helga
LaRouche; but it actually gives you the sense of what the true
issue at the root of this is, and what links these episodes
together going back to Lyndon LaRouche’s fight for a new
international economic order and going forward to today around
the question of what Trump’s relationship will be to this new
international economic order which has emerged.  What you’ll see
there on the screen, is a snapshot of 1982.  This is another
crucial watershed moment in history, comparable in a very real
way to where we find ourselves now, although things have advanced
much more since then.  But at that period, 1982, which is taken
up in detail by the contents of the dossier, this was a moment in
history where this new international economic order was on the
table in very high-level circles, and was central to many of the
historic events of that period.  So, you’ll see there on this
page, a few pictures of Lyndon LaRouche.  On the top left corner,
this is a picture of Lyndon LaRouche meeting with several leading
policymakers in India, during a trip that he made to India in
1982.  The purpose of this trip was for Lyndon LaRouche to meet
with the prime minister of India, Indira Gandhi, which he did in
1982; he did again the following year in 1983.  They were
discussing exactly the role that India could play in helping this
new international economic order to emerge.  In fact, Indira
Gandhi, when she hosted the Non-Aligned Movement summit in India
in 1983, put this on the table as the central principle of the
Non-Aligned Movement; the emergence of a new international
economic order.  Now tragically, Indira Gandhi was assassinated
less than one year later.
Now the other aspect of that 1982 period was Lyndon
LaRouche’s involvement with another head of state.  This was
Mexican President Jose Lopez-Portillo.  There’s a picture there
also on that page of Lyndon LaRouche and his wife Helga
Zepp-LaRouche at a press conference in Mexico City in 1982;
directly following a personal meeting that they had with
President Jose Lopez-Portillo.  What were they discussing?
Lyndon LaRouche’s policy for a new international economic order.
That was spelled out in detail in a document called “Operation
Juarez”, and this was a proposal for the debtor countries of
Central and South America to use their collective status as
debtor countries as a strategic leverage, and to declare a
unilateral simultaneous debt moratorium which would cause the
reigning IMF and World Bank system to be forced into a new
international economic order.  That was spelled out in detail in
LaRouche’s document “Operation Juarez”, and in fact, Jose
Lopez-Portillo adopted this as his personal policy.  In an
appearance at the United Nations General Assembly in the autumn
of that year — 1982 — Jose Lopez-Portillo called for exactly
this: a new international economic order.  He warned that were
this new economic order not to be adopted, the world would be
facing a new medieval dark age.
So, you can see just in that snapshot of 1982, that Lyndon
LaRouche was central to the policies that were shaping world
history, and this was something which really was a battle for the
very soul of economic policy, both in the United States and
abroad.  Now, at that time, this was the moment in which the
legal prosecution against Lyndon LaRouche was ramped up to a
level that was unprecedented in our republic’s history.  This was
something that former Attorney General Ramsey Clark personally
said, that he had not ever witnessed this kind of government
campaign against a private US individual in his entire career or
elsewhere.  So, it was this question, however, this fight for a
new international economic order.

Now, we are 35 years later, and we’ve fast-forwarded from
1982 to 2017.  Look at how the world has changed; look at the
fact that the world’s leading most-populous country on the
planet, China, has adopted the New Silk Road policy, the new
international economic order which Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have
fought for, for so long.  This is the defining question of
history:  What will our relationship, as the United States, be to
this emerging new dynamic as it’s taken its form?  This is the
question for President Donald Trump.  As we approach this
historic visit, this historic summit between Trump and President
Xi Jinping, this state visit to China, we have 21 days as we
count down between now and three weeks from now when President
Trump departs for this trip.  In a very real way, it will be the
activities of the intellectual leadership of this country, among
those of you who are watching this broadcast, to educate our
fellow Americans and to ensure that the positive proclivities of
this administration are allowed to be fulfilled and are allowed
to take their culmination in President Trump having a very
positive and constructive meeting with President Xi Jinping; and
announcing for the world to hear, that the United States is done
with the failed British geopolitics of the past.  It has only led
to failed states, regime change, and perpetual war.  The era of
the future is “win-win” relations, great projects in the image of
the New Silk Road, and a great power relationship between the
United States, China, and Russia; and as Lyndon LaRouche has
called for, India as well.  These four great powers can revisit
what President Franklin Roosevelt intended to shape the world
into following World War II; as he was intending to take the New
Deal of the United States, the American System, and bring it to
the countries of the world — including the former colonial
countries — to develop them and to bring an end to British
imperial geopolitics once and for all.
So that job has come down to us, and we must shoulder the
responsibility to make the fullest out of this next 21 days as we
count down to what could be a watershed historic moment for the
history of the world.  So, thank you very much for joining us
here today.  Please stay tuned over the next 21 days, as we
proceed through this very important period in history.  Thank you
and good night.

[1] Se tag: LaRouche Economic Class series 

Også danske læsere kan tilmelde sig undervisningsrækken: Meld dig til her: lpac.co/econ2017

Vi befinder os ved en korsvej i menneskets historie, meget mere, end de fleste mennesker er klar over, for vi har lige nu to helt forskellige dynamikker i verden: Den ene er den, vi kender fra USA og de europæiske nationer, hvor vi har et kollapsende paradigme. Vi har et samfund, der tydeligvis ikke fungerer, hvilket reflekteres i mange symptomer, som Brexit, Hillary Clinton, der tabte valget, ’nej’ i folkeafstemningen i Italien for nylig, imod forfatningsændringer, det tyske valg, som er dramatisk, og nu folkeafstemningen i Catalonien – de er alle symptomer på, at der er noget fundamentalt galt. Og det er en kendsgerning, at bestræbelserne fra de neokonservatives side på at etablere en unipolær verden efter Sovjetunionens sammenbrud, gik ind for neoliberale politikker, der har knust mange millioner menneskers levebrød, og der foregår nu et oprør imod hele dette system.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Vært Matthew Ogden: I dag, mens vi taler, begås der en folkemordskrig mod Yemens folk. Denne krig, der nu har raset i godt to år, begås af det saudiske kongedømme, med den stiltiende og direkte støtte fra både USA’s regering og Det forenede Kongerige (UK). Denne støtte omfatter våbensalg for milliarder af dollars, som omfatter kampfly, ammunition og andre tunge våben, samt direkte støtte på slagmarken i form af overvågning og brændstofpåfyldning (i luften). Ifølge den seneste rapport fra FN er over 10.000 mennesker døde i denne krig; flest civile. Andre tusinder er såret. En stor del af dødsfaldene skyldes sygdom, inklusive kolera; og der er mindst 19 millioner mennesker, der har desperat behov for humanitær hjælp. 7 million mennesker har desperat behov for mad. De har imidlertid ikke haft mulighed for at få adgang til de nødvendige forsyninger, fordi saudierne har blokeret alle nødhjælpsforsendelser.

Mange amerikanere er fuldstændig ubevidst om denne menneskelige tragedie, der forårsages af en totalt uretfærdig og ulovlig aggressionskrig imod Yemens befolkning. En krig, der frem til i dag støttes af USA’s regering. For at gøre det amerikanske folk bekendt med dette folkemord, og for at stoppe blodbadet, der foregår, endnu mens vi taler, udstedte LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) en nøderklæring for et par uger siden [17. sept.], med titlen, »Det Nye Silkevejsparadigmes fjende: Saudisk folkemord i Yemen« [dansk, 12. sept.; en senere EIR-opdatering, 17. sept. kan læses her, engelsk].

Indledningen lyder som følger:

»Nye afsløringer om Saudi-Arabiens rolle i 11. september-angrebene mod USA udgør påbuddet: Det igangværende saudiske folkemord mod Yemen må stoppe; de saudiskrelaterede netværk, der udfører sådanne forbrydelser imod menneskeheden, må overvindes. At handle på dette lægger vejen helt åben for hele verden, inklusive Mellemøsten, til at deltage i den Nye Silkevejs – Bælte & Vej Initiativets – fremstød for udvikling, som er den nødvendige proces for »fred gennem udvikling«, som behøves for at gøre en ende på evindelig krigsførelse i området.

Det, der blandt andet kræves, er skabelsen af en kommission til undersøgelse af Saudi-Arabiens handlinger imod Yemen. …

* Stands al udefra kommende indblanding i Yemen for at gøre det muligt at vende tilbage til den forhandlingsproces, der eksisterede, før bombeangrebene begyndte, og gå frem mod en løsning af nationale uoverensstemmelser.

* Levering af omgående mad, vand, sanitet, medicin, energi, sundhedsydelser og anden social nødhjælp, fuldt og helt.

* Levering af al anden humanitær og økonomisk hjælp, der er presserende nødvendig, især til transport, husly og logistik.

* Indledning af beredskab til internationalt samarbejde for at genopbygge Yemen og byde dets deltagelse i udviklingsfremstødet for den ’Maritime Silkevej’ for Eurasien-Afrika, velkommen.«

Erklæringen fortsætter – Endnu mens dette folkemord fortsætter,

»fortsætter UK og USA med at forsyne den saudiske ’koalition’, der begår dette kriminelle overgreb, med våben«.

Siden denne erklæring blev udstedt, er der kommet et meget vigtigt initiativ fra USA’s Kongres. En tværpolitisk gruppe af kongresmedlemmer har introduceret en samtidig resolution med titlen, »H.Con.Res.81«, som påbyder præsidenten, i overensstemmelse med sektion 5c af War Powers Resolution (fra 1973, der kontrollerer præsidentens beføjelser til at forpligte USA til en væbnet konflikt uden Kongressens samtykke, -red.), for at fjerne USA’s bevæbnede styrker fra de uautoriserede fjendtligheder i republikken Yemen. Dette lovforslag har nu 22 medsponsorer, inkl. kongresmedlemmerne Walter Jones, Thomas Massey, John Conyers, Barbara Lee, Tulsi Gabbard, Keith Ellison og flere andre. Dette er en meget vigtig intervention, der møder tiltrækning i Washington. En af de ting, I kan gøre, er omgående at tage kontakt til jeres kongresmedlem; ring omgående til dem og kræv, at de bliver medsponsorer af H.Con.Res.81.

Jeg har i dag en meget særlig gæst; hr. Fouad al-Ghaffari, der er med os fra Sana’a i Yemen, Yemens hovedstad. Hr. Al-Ghaffari er en tidligere diplomat og tidligere chef for kontoret for ministeren for menneskerettigheder i Yemen, og er nu grundlægger af og formand for Yemens Rådgivningsråd for Koordinering med BRIKS.

Det er en ære at have dig med os i dag, hr. al-Ghaffari. Velkommen til larouchepac.com. For det første vil jeg gerne spørge dig, om du kan beskrive for vore seere her, der ser dette interview, hvordan forholdene er på stedet i Sana’a, og i resten af Yemen?

Vi ved fra rapporter, at over 10.000 mennesker er blevet dræbt, og at landet konfronteres med en alvorlig humanitær krise. Hvad har virkningen af denne krig været på Yemens befolkning?

Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af interviewet:

AL-GHAFFARI: First of all, I would like to bring you,
Matthew and the LaRouche PAC team, my warmest greetings from
Sana’a. These days we have been celebrating the third anniversary
of the September 21st revolution, and the 55th anniversary of the
September 26th revolution.
Last week, on September 21st, Mr. Saleh Al-Sammad, the
President of the Supreme Political Council, made a speech in the
center of Sana’a in a celebration attended and followed by
millions of Yemeni citizens. In his speech he praised the
position taken by the BRICS nations on Yemen in their recent
Xiamen Summit in China. He also sent a message to the UN General
Assembly on the occasion of the International Day of Peace.
[Shows video excerpt of Sept. 21 Sana’a speech by President
Saleh, with English subtitles]
Going back to your question, the war of aggression against
Yemen was preceded by different kind of wars launched against
Yemen by Wall Street and the international financial institutions
such as the World Bank and the IMF. Then it was followed by the
move by British Prime Minister David Cameron and President Barack
Obama, who bypassed their Parliament and Congress, to throw their
internal failures and their hatred upon Yemen. While the
operation to destroy Yemen was disguised in complex ways before,
the latter genocidal war is attempting to completely uproot
Yemen’s people and destroy their land. The Revolution of
September 21, 2014 was launched to prevent that from succeeding.
As for the effects of this war of aggression, which is
spearheaded by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, on the
living conditions here, they are really horrible and dark, and
they surpass any human reasoning as the war has turned to the law
of the jungle. The situation is so bad, that it is becoming
difficult to smile, or even remember how to smile. Sana’a,
relatively speaking is better off than other cities, but it lacks
all the ingredients of life and of progress that have been
prescribed by Lyndon LaRouche to the nations of the world. But
that puts us on an equal-footing with other capitals that lack
these same ingredients. But although Sana’a is breathing with big
difficulty, it is looking forward to a reconstruction project
that would become a unique model, if the world starts to realize
the uniqueness of Yemen’s geographic position.

OGDEN: As you know, the LaRouche movement has issued an
emergency statement which has been circulated internationally;
which is titled “Enemy of the Silk Road Paradigm: Saudi Genocide
in Yemen”.  This statement, as I said, has been circulated by the
LaRouche movement, including being distributed in front of the UN
General Assembly meeting and distributed to the missions there.
Now, you met with the Foreign Minister Hisham Sharaf — who
represents the popularly-approved government in Sana’a of former
President Ali Abdullah Saleh — and you delivered a copy of this
statement. What can you tell us about the content of your
conversation with him, and his response to the initiative that
the LaRouche Movement has taken?

AL-GHAFFARI: As you know, genocide is the mother of all
crimes, and we are facing an enemy which is randomly bombarding
our cities and blockading our ports, airports, and territories.
On top of that, the enemy is falsely telling the world that it
has the solution to our problem. Here, I would like to thank the
LaRouche Movement for issuing that statement. It is a reflection
of your well-recognized intellectual and moral principles that
are always thinking outside the box. This feature is really
human.
His Excellency the Foreign Minister Hisham Sharaf is a
follower of your reports. He had sent a letter to Mrs. Helga
Zepp-LaRouche in March this year on the occasion of the Women’s
Day, and invited her to visit Yemen.
On the day the LaRouche Movement’s statement was released,
His Excellency was meeting with the envoy of the UN Human Rights
Commission. And just before the arrival of the with the new
chargé d’affaires of Russia, His Excellency asked me to come to
his office to inform me of his appreciation of the calls in the
statement, the first on stopping the Saudi-led aggression, and
the second on moving towards the reconstruction process along the
lines of the New Silk Road. At that meeting I also presented to
him the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Policy Paper on the Arab
World, because that document, I believe, includes the correct
policy to be followed by the governments of the region.
In the next days, the Minister was following the campaign of
your movement on the streets of the many nations. Therefore, he
immediately sent a letter of appreciation to Mrs. LaRouche and
the entire international LaRouche Movement, assuring them that
Yemen is planning to become an active component in the vision and
the steps of building the New Silk Road to establish world peace.
He also said that Yemen will be a key global partner to
accomplish the UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030.

OGDEN: This meeting that you just told us about was covered
in the press; they covered the meeting that you held with
Minister Sharaf, and the press coverage featured the role of
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche. The article in the {Sana’a News} was
titled “Foreign Minister Receives the Statement of the LaRouche
Movement Concerning Yemen and Calling for Stopping the
Aggression.” How well known are Lyndon and Helga LaRouche in
Yemen?

AL-GHAFFARI: Both my first meeting with the Minister and the
letter His Excellency sent to Mrs. LaRouche were widely covered
in the Yemeni media.
For your question about the LaRouches, this makes me smile,
because Mr. Lyndon LaRouche has been known in Yemen for many
years by both the elites and the laymen. As for Mrs. LaRouche, I
guess I was the first to circulate her name among the elites, but
most importantly among the middle class which means the
intellectuals.
As we say in Yemen, “he who does not appreciate other humans
does not appreciate the Creator.” I therefore would like to say
that [Arabic {EIR} editor] Mr. Hussein Askary has made the
biggest effort and carried the greatest burden to make the ideas
and visions of Mr. LaRouche accessible to the people in Yemen.
The issue was not “do you know LaRouche?” or “have you heard
about him?” The issue is what he is saying in reality, not what
Google says about him. The translation of the {EIR} report “The
New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge” into Arabic, which
was done by Mr. Askary, will be the talk of people in Yemen for
generations to come.

OGDEN: We certainly hope so.
In your view, what is the geopolitical purpose of this war
of aggression being waged against your people, there in Yemen by
the Saudis? Were this criminal war to be ended, how could things
change there, on the ground in Yemen? What could changes in terms
of the conditions of life?  And most of all, what is the role
Yemen could play in the overall New Silk Road?

AL-GHAFFARI: Geopolitically, the enemy wants to create a
breeding ground for terrorism to threaten the world with, and to
pay the financial debts of the evil empire. They also want to
pull Yemen away from the New Silk Road, and thus to destroy the
New Silk Road itself and the aspirations for achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals 2030, which were approved by the
nations of the world.
What Yemen can present to the world is a unique opportunity
to establish a true national credit bank, because the governing
alliance here has the power and authority to make this decision.
This could become, without any doubt, Yemen’s ticket to join the
train of the BRICS nations.
Another reason for this war is that Yemen could become a
strong regional guardian of the New Silk Road in all its three
routes: land, sea and space. The brains and arms of Yemen’s brave
soldiers, combined with modern technology can assure that.
But, in order to turn this situation around, Yemen must
fully join the New Silk Road, and build its own foundations and
structures on its principles and visions. This will give us
credibility in the eyes of our international friends, who will
see that we are as serious as the other nations that have been
admitted to this project. There is no luxury in this issue.
Yemen’s need for the elements of the New Silk Road project is as
greater as Yemen’s need for air to breathe, if we really realized
the dignity and happiness this Silk Road carries within it.

OGDEN: Yes, absolutely.  And we really admire the courageous
actions you have taken there.
Finally, I would just like to say, that the American people
have no idea currently what crimes are being perpetrated there in
Yemen, and the American people have to know that our government
and implicitly, we, ourselves, are complicit in this genocide,
due to our support for the Saudis, through arms sales and our
political alliance with that regime.
As you know, there have been efforts on the parts of
numerous members of Congress to bring a halt to these arms sales,
and also as we mentioned earlier in the show, the House
Concurrent Resolution 81 that has been introduced, to withdraw
the U.S. involvement in this war.  And there’s even been efforts
to bring attention to the Saudi royal family’s role in financing
the 9/11 attacks. There are currently lawsuits that are being
litigates by members of the families of the 9/11 victims.
Let me ask you: What would you say to the American people,
now that you’ve had a chance to show them what the conditions are
on the ground there in Yemen, and what the effects are that our
policy is having on the people of Yemen? What should American
citizens do to an end to this atrocity?

AL-GHAFFARI: We, the BRICS Youth in Yemen, would like to
thank those Congressmen who are our partners in humanity and
development.
Yemen today is paying the bill of the 9/11 terrorist
attacks. We announce our solidarity with the families of the
victims of the 9/11 attacks. We feel that we and the American
people are in the same side, because their conditions are not
pleasing, as their politicians are more interested in enslaving
people around the world rather than solving the crises in Texas,
Florida, and the New York subways. All these policies, that are
crimes indeed, are due to the fact that the main culprit in the
9/11 attacks, the Saudis, have escaped the deserved punishment
until now.
Our advice to the American people is: Follow the wise words
of Lyndon LaRouche and join his movement!
LarouchePAC: Well, thank you so much for that advice, and
thank you so much for joining me here, today.  It was such a
pleasure, and a privilege for me to have had a chance to speak
with you, and it was truly an honor.
I would like to thank all of our viewers, who had the
opportunity to watch this extraordinary interview just now.
Thank you for tuning in.  And again, you can take action to stop
this atrocity right now, by calling your member of Congress, and
demanding that they cosponsor this resolution, House Concurrent
Resolution 81, — H.Con.Res.81.  And you can also help us
distribute this emergency statement which was issued by LaRouche
PAC.  The link to that statement in the description to this
webcast immediately below
[https://larouchepac.com/20170916/enemy-new-silk-road-paradigm
-saudi-genocide-Yemen]
So thank you, once again, to Fouad Al-Ghaffari for joining
us here today, and thank you for tuning in.  Please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.

AL-GHAFFARI:  Thanks to you, Matthew, and regards to Jason
and all.  We’ll see you very soon.

Se webcastet live hver torsdag her.

Torsdag, den 5. oktober, kl. 12 EDT (kl. 18 dansk tid), vil Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og internationale formand, indvie et ugentligt, engelsksproget webcast for at udbrede det, hun kalder den »Nye Silkevejsånd« til hele verden. Fr. LaRouche er en af de mest prominente, intellektuelle forfattere af konceptet »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«. Siden den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping satte den Nye Silkevej, Bælte & Vej Initiativet, som det nu kaldes, på dagsordenen for fire år siden, er det i færd med at løfte millioner af mennesker ud af fattigdom og fastlægger et alternativ til den farlige idé om en geopolitisk opdeling af verden. Internationalt kendt som »Silkevejsladyen«, optræder fr. LaRouche ofte i kinesisk presse for at analysere BRI og den globale, strategiske situation.

Fr. LaRouche vil hver uge fremlægge en kortfattet opdatering af de strategiske udviklinger, samt en strategi for at etablere et nyt paradigme i internationale anliggender, og vil kaste lys over kræfterne bag »Maidan«-kuppet imod præsident Trump, der er et mål, fordi han har lovet at bringe relationen mellem USA på den ene side, og Rusland og Kina på den anden, på et godt fundament. På trods af de transatlantiske mainstreammediernes bestræbelse på at lægge låg på spørgsmålet, så ville befolkningerne i USA og Europa, såfremt de blev tilstrækkeligt informeret om Bælte & Vej Initiativets enorme fremskridt, have et langt mere positivt syn på, hvordan fremtiden kan se ud.

I en tale for et amerikansk publikum sidste lørdag (30. sep.) sagde fr. LaRouche, at, for at bringe USA ind i dette Nye Paradigme, »må man på en eller anden måde udvikle et perspektiv, der ikke er bundet og påvirket af ens daglige omgivelser og ens daglige virkelighed, men at man må oplyse ens vision omkring noget andet: man må have en idé om, hvor menneskeheden skal være om 100 år fra i dag. Man bør have en idé om, hvad Universets fysiske love er, og hvorfor, ens modstandere blot er sølle, påståelige idioter, der ikke kan lykkes.

»Jeg mener, at, hvis man som sit referencepunkt tager et internationalt aspekt, vil man være i en langt bedre position til at være amerikansk patriot, fordi man først er verdensborger … det er sådan, jeg har gjort – og det virker, det kan jeg forsikre jer for.«

Tiden er inde til, at amerikanere og borgere i alle nationer bliver verdensborgere for faktisk at være patrioter! Organisér dine venner, naboer og medarbejdere til at deltage i disse ugentlige webcasts – din fremtid, og dine børns og børnebørns fremtid, er afhængig af, om vi kan bringe USA ind i et aktivt engagement med dette Nye Paradigme.

TORSDAG, 5. OKTOBER, KL. 12 EDT (KL. 18 DANSK TID)

newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com

Sydkoreas præsident Moon Jae-in og Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putin ses her på det Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok, der fandt sted fra 6.-7. september, 2017. Putin sagde på et fælles pressemøde:

»Jeg vil gerne sige, at Rusland stadig er villig til at gennemføre trilaterale projekter med deltagelse af Nordkorea. Vi kunne levere russisk gas gennem ledninger til Korea og integrere Ruslands, Republikken Koreas og Nordkoreas elektricitetskabler og jernbanesystemer. Gennemførelsen af disse initiativer vil ikke alene være økonomisk favorabel, men vil også være med til at opbygge tillid og stabilitet på Koreahalvøen«.

Præsident Moon var enig, i overensstemmelse med sin plan om at genoplive ’Solskinspolitikken’.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Nødvendigheden af en reorganisering af det miserable finanssystem, som er skyld i, at svælget mellem rig og fattig på uacceptabel vis er blevet større, og hvis uretfærdighed har gødet jorden for Brexit, Hillary Clintons valgnederlag, ’Nej’ i den italienske folkeafstemning om forfatningsændring og nu, det elendige valgresultat for den Store Koalition i Tyskland, burde ikke være så svær at indse. De økonomiske nedskæringer i de nye, tyske delstater, der havde indledt Treuhand-politikken (som havde til opgave at privatisere statsejede virksomheder i det tidligere Østtyskland, -red.) under Birgit Breuel, var et udtryk for dette uretfærdige system. Uden denne oplevelse, affolkningen af hele landsbyer og følelsen af at være blevet skubbet ud i samfundets yderkant, på trods af renoverede markedspladser, ville reaktionen på flygtningekrisen i det østlige Tyskland aldrig være faldet så voldsomt ud, og AfD ville nu ikke være det stærkeste parti i Sachsen og det næst-stærkeste parti i de fire andre, nye delstater.

Men uagtet mainstreammediernes omfattende censur, vokser nu et helt nyt, økonomisk system, der beror på helt andre principper – nemlig på menneskehedens almene vel og et win-win-samarbejde mellem de deltagende stater. Det er i Tysklands egeninteresse at arbejde med i dette nye paradigme.

Einstein havde fuldstændig ret: »Man kan ikke løse problemer med den samme tankegang, ved hvilken de er opstået!«

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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!«

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

 

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.

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’.

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.

… 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.