… 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.

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q 3 [cont’d]:  Exactly right.

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

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

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

SPEED:  OK, excellent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Den 24. juli, 2017, offentliggjorde consortiumnews.com et memorandum, som Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, VIPS, havde udarbejdet til USA’s præsident, og til offentliggørelse. I sin artikel, under overskriften, »Intel Vets Challenge ’Russia Hack Evidence«, kommer de med redaktionelle bemærkninger, der går ud på, at VIPS-memoet indeholder to forkerte datoer, som dog ikke påvirkede memoets hovedkonklusion, nemlig, at indbruddet i DNC-e-mails, som Rusland fik skyld for, ikke kunne have været et hack – fra Rusland eller nogen anden. De dele af memoet, der vedrører de forkerte datoer, er blevet rettet (af consortiumnews.com).

Dernæst følger en kort redegørelse for rettelserne:

• Den 14. juni, 2016 (og ikke, som VIPS-memoet fejlagtigt siger, den 15.) var den dag, hvor Crowdstrike sagde, skadelig software var blevet fundet i DNC-serveren og hævdede, der forelå beviser for, at den skadelige software var indført af russere. (Den følgende dag – den 15. – tog »Guccifer 2.0« ansvaret for »hacket« og hævdede at være WikiLeaks’ kilde.)
• Selv om VIPS-memoet korrekt anførte, at, den 15. juni, 2016 udlægger … »Guccifer 2.0 et dokument, som de tekniske undersøgelser viser, var kunstigt manipuleret med ’russiske fingeraftryk’«, så indikerer anden tekst i memoet fejlagtigt, at beviser for sådan manipulation også blev fundet i »Guccifer 2.0« metadata fra kopieringsbegivenheden den 5. juli.

 

 

MEMORANDUM TIL: Præsidenten

FRA: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

EMNE: Var det »russiske hack« et inside-job?

Kort resume

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

Et hovedresultat af de uafhængige kriminaltekniske undersøgelser er den konklusion, at DNC-data blev kopieret over på en lagerenhed med en hastighed, der overstiger kapaciteten ved et udefrakommende Internet-hack. Hvad der er lige så vigtigt, så viser de tekniske undersøgelser, at kopieringen fandt sted på østkysten af USA. Hidtil har mainstream-medierne ignoreret resultaterne af disse uafhængige undersøgelser. [se her og her].

Den uafhængige analytiker Skip Folden, der trak sig tilbage efter 25 år som IBM Program Manager for Information Technology, USA, og som undersøgte de nylige kriminaltekniske resultater, er medforfatter af dette Memorandum. Han har udarbejdet en mere detaljeret teknisk rapport med titlen, »Cyber-Forensic Investigation of ‘Russian Hack’ and Missing Intelligence Community Disclaimers« (Kriminalteknisk cyber-undersøgelse af ’russisk hack’ og manglende dementi fra efterretningssamfundet), og har sendt den til den særlige rådgivers kontor og justitsministerens kontor. VIPS-medlem William Binney, en tidligere teknisk direktør i National Security Agency (NSA), samt andre senior-NSA-»alumner« i VIPS, bevidner de uafhængige, tekniske resultaters professionalisme.

De nylige kriminaltekniske undersøgelser udfylder et afgørende hul. Hvorfor FBI forsømte at udføre uafhængige, kriminaltekniske undersøgelser af det oprindelige »Guccifer 2.0«-materiale, er fortsat et mysterium – og det samme er manglen på ethvert tegn på, at de »håndplukkede analytikere« fra FBI, CIA og NSA, der skrev »Vurderingen fra Efterretningssamfundet«, dateret 6. januar, 2017, ofrede kriminaltekniske undersøgelser nogen som helst opmærksomhed.

BEMÆRK: Der har været så megen sammenblanding af anklager om hacking, at vi ønsker at gøre dette Memorandas primære fokus helt klart. Vi fokuserer specifikt på det angivelige »hack« den 5. juli, udført af Guccifer 2.0, af DNC-serveren. I tidligere VIPS-memoranda adresserede vi manglen på ethvert bevis, der forbinder de angivelige Guccifer 2.0-hacks og WikiLeaks, og vi bad specifikt præsident Obama om at afsløre eventuelt bevis på, at WikiLeaks fik DNC-data fra russerne [se her og her].

Han adresserede dette punkt under sin sidste pressekonference (18. januar) og beskrev »efterretningssamfundets konklusioner« som »ikke endegyldige«, selv om Vurderingen fra Efterretningssamfundet af 6. januar gav udtryk for »stor overbevisning« om, at russisk efterretning »videresendte materiale, det fik fra DNC … til WikiLeaks«.

Obamas indrømmelse kom ikke som en overraskelse for os. Det har længe stået os klart, at grunden til, at den amerikanske regering mangler endegyldigt bevis på en overførsel af et »russisk hack« til WikiLeaks skyldes, at der ikke fandt en sådan overførsel sted. For det meste baseret på den kumulativt unikke, tekniske erfaring hos vore eks-NSA-kolleger, har vi i næsten et år sagt, at DNC-data kom til WikiLeaks via en kopi/et læk fra en DNC-insider (men næsten med sikkerhed ikke fra den samme person, der kopierede DNC-data den 5. juli, 2016).

Ud fra det tilgængelige materiale konkluderer vi, at den samme proces med en inside-DNC-kopi/et læk blev brugt på to forskellige tidspunkter, af to forskellige enheder, og til to klart forskellige formål:

• Et inside-læk til WikiLeaks, før Julian Assange den 12. juni meddelte, at han var i besiddelse af DNC-dokumenter og planlagde at offentliggøre dem (hvilket han gjorde den 22. juli) – hvor det formodede formål var at afsløre en stærk partiskhed til fordel for Clinton-kandidaturet, og
• Et særskilt læk den 5. juli, 2016, for på forhånd at forfalske noget, WikiLeaks senere måtte offentliggøre, ved at »vise«, at det kom fra et »russisk hack«.

 

Hr. præsident,

Dette er vores første VIPS-memorandum til Dem, men vi har en historie for at lade amerikanske præsidenter vide, hvornår vi mener, vore tidligere efterretningskolleger har taget fejl i noget, der er vigtigt, og hvorfor. For eksempel advarede vores første sådant memorandum, en kommentar til præsident George W. Bush om Colin Powells tale i FN den 5. februar, 2003, om, at de »utilsigtede konsekvenser sandsynligvis ville blive katastrofale«, ifald USA angreb Irak og »retfærdiggjorde« krigen ved hjælp af efterretninger, som vi pensionerede efterretningsofficerer let kunne se, var svindel og drevet af en krigsdagsorden.

»Vurderingen fra Efterretningssamfundet« den 6. januar, af »håndplukkede« analytikere fra FBI, CIA og NSA, synes at passe ind i den samme kategori med at være drevet af en dagsorden. Den er i vid udstrækning baseret på en »vurdering«, og ikke støttet af nogen øjensynlige beviser, der går ud på, at en dunkel enhed med tilnavnet »Guccifer 2.0«, hackede DNC på vegne af russisk efterretning og gav DNC-e-mails til WikiLeaks.

De nylige, ovenfor nævnte resultater har slået et enormt skår i denne vurdering og sået alvorlig tvivl om fundamentet for den usædvanligt succesfulde kampagne for at lægge skylden på den russiske regering for hacking. De lærde hoveder og politikere, der har anført angrebet mod russisk »indblanding« i det amerikanske valg, kan forventes at forsøge at så tvivl om disse kriminaltekniske resultater, skulle disse nogensinde finde på at boble op til overfladen i mainstream-medierne. Men de tekniske begrænsninger af nutidens Internet forstås bredt. Vi er parat til at besvare alle substantielle udfordringer på basis af deres fortjenester.

De kunne måske tænke Dem at spørge CIA-direktør Mike Pompeo om, hvad han ved om dette. Vores egen lange erfaring i efterretningssamfundet indikerer, at det er muligt, at hverken tidligere CIA-direktør John Brennan, eller de cyber-krigere, der arbejdede for ham, har været fuldstændig oprigtige over for deres nye direktør med hensyn til, hvordan alt dette fandt sted.

 

Kopieret, ikke hacket

Som ovenfor anført, så fokuserede det netop afsluttede, uafhængige, kriminaltekniske arbejde på data, der var kopieret (ikke hacket) af et dunkelt individ ved navn »Guccifer 2.0«. De kriminaltekniske beviser reflekterer det, der synes at have været en desperat bestræbelse på at »give russerne skylden« for at offentliggøre særdeles pinlige DNC-e-mails tre dage før det Demokratiske partikonvent sidste juli. Eftersom indholdet af DNC-e-mailene stank af partiskhed til Clintons fordel, så hendes kampagne det tvingende nødvendigt at aflede opmærksomheden fra indhold til herkomst – som i hvem »hackede« disse DNC-e-mails? Kampagnen blev entusiastisk støttet af de føjelige »mainstream«-medier; det kører stadig for dem.

»Russerne« var den ideelle synder. Og, efter at WikiLeaks redaktør Julian Assange den 12. juni, 2016, meddelte, »Vi har e-mails relateret til Hillary Clinton, der afventer offentliggørelse«, havde hendes kampagne mere end en måned før konventet til at indskyde sine egne »kriminaltekniske fakta« for at forberede medie-pumpen til at lægge skylden på »russisk indblanding«. Fr. Clintons PR-chef Jennifer Palmieri har forklaret, hvordan hun brugte golfvogne til at foretage runderne under konventet. Hun skrev, at hendes »mission var at få pressen til at fokusere på noget, som selv vi fandt vanskeligt at forarbejde: nemlig udsigten til, at Rusland ikke alene havde hacket og stjålet e-mails fra DNC, men at det havde gjort det for at hjælpe Donald Trump og skade Hillary Clinton«.

Uafhængige cyber-efterforskere har nu fuldført den form for kriminalteknisk arbejde, som efterretningsvurderingen ikke gjorde. Mærkeligt nok stillede disse »håndplukkede« efterretningsanalytikere sig tilfredse med at »vurdere« dit og »vurdere« dat. I modsætning hertil gravede efterforskerne dybt og kom op med verificerbare beviser fra metadata, der blev fundet i registreringen af det angivelige russiske hack.

De fandt, at det påståede »hack« af DNC af Guccifer 2.0 ikke var noget hack, af Rusland eller af nogen andre. Det stammede snarere fra en kopiering (over på en ekstern lagerenhed – som f.eks. et USB-stik) udført af en insider. Data blev lækket for at involvere Rusland. Vi ved ikke, hvem eller hvad, den skumle Guccifer 2.0 er. Vi foreslår, De spørger FBI.

 

Den kronologiske rækkefølge

12. juni, 2016: Assange meddeler, at WikiLeaks står foran at offentliggøre »e-mails relateret til Hillary Clinton«.

14. juni, 2016: DNC-kontrahent Crowdstrike (der har en tvivlsom professionel historie og utallige interessekonflikter) meddeler, at skadelig software er blevet fundet på DNC-serveren og hævder, der er beviser for, at det blev indført af russere.

15. juni, 2016: »Guccifer 2.0« bekræfter DNC-erklæringen; påtager sig ansvaret for »hacket«; hævder at være en kilde til WikiLeaks; og udlægger et dokument, som tekniske undersøgelser viser, er forfalsket med »russiske fingeraftryk«.

Vi mener ikke, at timingen med den 12., 14. og 15. juni var rent tilfældig. Det antyder snarere begyndelsen af et forebyggende træk for at associere Rusland til det, WikiLeaks måske stod for at offentliggøre, og »vise«, at det kom fra et russisk hack.

 

Hovedbegivenheden

5. juli, 2016: I de tidlige aftentimer, Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), kopierede nogen i EDT-tidszonen med en computer, der var direkte tilsluttet DNC-serveren eller DNC Local Area network, 1.976 megabyte data på 87 sekunder over på en ekstern lagerenhed. Denne hastighed er langt hurtigere end det, der er muligt med et hack.

Det fremstår således som, at det påståede »hack« af DNC af Guccifer 2.0 (den selvudråbte kilde til WikiLeaks) ikke var et hack af Rusland eller nogen anden, men snarere var en kopiering af DNC-data over på en ekstern lagerenhed.

 

»Tilsløring & af-tilsløring«

Hr. præsident, den neden for beskrevne afsløring kan være relateret. Selv om det ikke skulle være det, mener vi, det er noget, De bør gøres opmærksom på i denne generelle forbindelse. Den 7. marts begyndte WikiLeaks at offentliggøre en skattekiste af originale CIA-dokumenter, som WikiLeaks markerede med navnet »Vault 7«. WikiLeaks sagde, det havde fået skattekisten fra en nuværende eller tidligere CIA-kontrahent og beskrev den som sammenlignelig i omfang og betydning med den information, Edward Snowden gav reportere i 2013.

Der er ingen, der har sat spørgsmålstegn ved ægtheden af de originale dokumenter i Vault 7, der afslører et stort spektrum af redskaber til cyber-krigsførelse, der sandsynligvis var blevet udviklet med hjælp fra NSA, af CIA’s Tekniske Udviklingsgruppe. Denne gruppe var en del af det vidtstrakte CIA Direktorat for Digital Innovation – en vækstindustri etableret af John Brenan i 2015.

Digitale redskaber, man næppe forestiller sig – som kan tage kontrol over din bil og få den til at køre med over 100 miles/timen, for eksempel, eller som kan gøre det muligt at spionere gennem et Tv-apparat – blev beskrevet og behørigt rapporteret i New York Times og andre medier i hele marts måned. Men offentliggørelsen af Vault 7, del 3 den 31. marts, der afslørede programmet »Marble Framework«, blev tilsyneladende vurderet til at være for delikat til at kunne kvalificere som »nyheder, der kunne trykkes« og blev holdt ude af New York Times.

Ellen Nakashima fra Washington Post, tilsyneladende, »fik ikke memoet« i tide. Hendes artikel af 31. marts havde den opsigtsvækkende (og korrekte) overskrift: »WikiLeaks’ seneste offentliggørelse af CIA’s cyber-redskaber kunne afsløre tjenestens hacking-operationer«.

WikiLeaks’ offentliggørelse indikerede, at Marble var designet til fleksibel og brugervenlig »tilsløring«, og at Marble-kildekoden inkluderer en »af-tilsløring«, der kan omstøde CIA’s tekst-tilsløring.

Hvad der er vigtigere, så skal CIA angiveligt have brugt Marble i løbet af 2016. Nakashima udelod dette i sin Washington Post rapport, men inkluderede en anden, betydningsfuld pointe, som WikiLeaks fastslog; nemlig, at tilslørings-redskabet kunne bruges til at udføre et »dobbeltspil mht. tilskrivning til tekniske undersøgelser« eller operation under falsk flag, fordi det inkluderer prøver på kinesisk, russisk, koreansk, arabisk og persisk.

CIA’s reaktion var skarp. Direktør Mike Pompeo gik til angreb to uger senere og kaldte Assange og hans medarbejdere for »dæmoner« og fremførte; »Tiden er inde til at udråbe WikiLeaks som det, det virkeligt er, nemlig en ikke-statslig, fjendtlig efterretningstjeneste, der ofte tilskyndes af statslige aktører som Rusland.«

Hr. præsident, vi ved ikke, om CIA’s Marble Framework, eller lignende redskaber, spillede en eller anden rolle i kampagnen med at give Rusland skylden for at hacke DNC. Vi ved heller ikke, hvor oprigtige skabningerne i CIA’s Digital Innovation Direktorate har været over for Dem, og over for direktør Pompeo. Dette er områder, der måske ville have gavn af Det Hvide Hus’ snarlige gennemgang.

 

Putin og teknologi

Vi ved heller ikke, om De har haft en grundig diskussion om cyber-spørgsmål med præsident Putin. I sit interview til NBC’s Megyn Kelly synes han ganske villig til – endda ivrig for – at adressere spørgsmål med relation til den form for cyber-redskaber, der afsløres i Vault 7-afsløringerne, om ikke for andet, så for at indikere, at han er blevet briefet om dem. Putin påpegede, at nutidens teknologi gør det muligt at »maskere og kamuflere hacking i en grad, hvor ingen kan forstå oprindelsen [af hackingen] … Og, vice versa, så er det muligt at skabe en enhed eller et individ, som alle vil tro på, er den nøjagtige kilde til dette angreb.«

»Hackere kan være overalt«, sagde han. »Der kunne for øvrigt være hackere i USA, der meget dygtigt og professionelt gav sorteper videre til Rusland. Kan I ikke forestille jer et sådant scenarie?… Det kan jeg.«

 

Fuld afsløring: I løbet af de seneste årtier er ånden i vores efterretningsprofession udhulet i offentlighedens mening til et punkt, hvor man vurderer, at en analyse, der ikke har en dagsorden, er noget nær en umulighed. Vi tilføjer derfor dette dementi, som gælder for alt, vi i VIPS siger og gør: Vi har ingen politisk dagsorden; vores eneste formål er at udbrede sandhed og, når det er nødvendigt, stille vore tidligere efterretningskolleger til ansvar.

Vi taler og skriver uden frygt eller fordel. Som følge heraf er enhver lighed mellem det, vi siger, og det, præsidenter, politikere og lærde eksperter siger, rent tilfældig. Den kendsgerning, at vi finder det nødvendigt at inkludere denne påmindelse, siger meget om disse højst politiserede tider. Dette er vores 50. VIPS-memorandum siden den eftermiddag, Powell holdt sin tale i FN. Links til de forudgående 49 memoer kan findes her.

 

FOR STYRELSESGRUPPEN, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY:

William Binney, tidligere NSA teknisk direktør for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; medstifter af NSA’s Signals Intelligence Automation Research Center

Skip Folden, uafhængig analytiker, pensioneret IBM Program Manager for Information Technology US (Medarbejder VIPS)

Matthew Hoh, tidligere kaptajn, USMC, Irak & Udenrigstjenesteofficer, Afghanistan (medarbejder VIPS)

Larry C. Johnson, CIA & Udenrigsministeriet (pensioneret)

Michael S. Kearns, Efterretningsofficer i Flyvevåbnet (pensioneret), Master SERE Resistance to Interrogation Instructor

John Kiriakou, tidligere CIA-kontraterrorofficer og tidligere seniorefterforsker, Senatskomite for Udenrigsrelationer

Linda Lewis, analytiker af politik for beredskab af masseødelæggelsesvåben (WMD), USDA (Landbrugsministeriet), pensioneret

Lisa Ling, TSgt (Teknisk sergent) USAF (USA’s Luftvåben) (pensioneret), (medarbejder VIPS)

Edward Loomis, jr., tidligere NSA tekniks direktør for Office of Signals Processing

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council, (pensioneret)

Ray McGovern, tidligere U.S. Army Infantry/efterretningsofficer og CIA-analytiker

Elizabeth Murray, tidligere Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Mellemøsten, CIA

Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent og tidligere Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (pensioneret)

Cian Westmoreland, tidligere USAF Radio Frequency Transmission Systems tekniker og Unmanned Aircraft Systems whistleblower (medarbejder VIPS)

Kirk Wiebe, tidligere senioranalytiker, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA

Sarah G. Wilton, efterretningsofficer, DIA (pensioneret); kommandør, US Naval Reserve (pensioneret)

Ann Wright, U.S. Army reserveoberst (pensioneret) og tidligere amerikansk diplomat  

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

            

Det, jeg vil gøre her i dag, er at fremlægge den dokumentation, der viser, at det, vi i realiteten har her, ikke er en russisk indblanding i USA’s interne anliggender; men at det snarere er en særdeles dirigeret indblanding på vegne af Det britiske Imperium. Dette er, hvad man burde efterforske, i modsætning til det såkaldte »aftalte spil« mellem præsident Trumps valgkampagneteam og så russerne. Det er meget vigtigt at dokumentere dette, og det er absolut afgørende, at dette kup stoppes; for, på dette tidspunkt i verdenshistorien, befinder vi os på randen af et nyt finanssammenbrud, langt større end i 2008. Vi befinder os i en situation, hvor briterne, for at opretholde deres bankerotte finanssystem, der har hjemsted i City of London og på Wall Street, har helliget sig til at bringe den amerikanske præsident til fald for at forhindre, at alternativet til dette sammenbrud bliver realiseret. …

 

Lyndon LaRouches indtrængende budskab til USA’s præsident og befolkning: ’Opgiv det britiske system; red folket’

Vært Jason Ross: Det er den 11. aug., 2017 og dette er fredags-webcastet på at larouchepac.com. Jeg er Jason Ross og aftenens vært. Vi har en særlig gæst i dag; Will Wertz, medlem af EIR’s redaktion. Vi hører fra Will om et øjeblik.

I forbindelsen med aftenens show vil vi diskutere noget, vi har talt en hel del om på dette program og denne webside; og det er memorandaet fra VIPS, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, der på en meget afgørende måde, baseret på computerteknisk efterforskning og Adam Carter, viser, at det russiske hack var et inside-job. Dette er forsiden af The Hamiltonian-avisen i denne uge, der kommer direkte til sagen; og denne historie udgives nu af store publikationer, inkl. The Nation ugemagasinet og Bloomberg News. Meget af den måde, dette er blevet præsenteret på, eller meget af den måde, hvorpå Russia-gate-kuppet mod Donald Trump opfattes af folk, der forstår, at det er et kup, er, at ’deep state’-apparatet kører en operation for at afsætte præsidenten og selv afgøre amerikansk politik.

Vi skal i dag høre fra Will Wertz, der vil dykke dybere ned i dette og hjælpe os til at forstå, at der ligger meget mere i dette end det, der kaldes ’deep state’. Roden til denne kup-operation går ud over USA’s grænser og går på fremtrædende vis til Storbritannien, til det endnu eksisterende Britiske Imperium. Lad os gå over til Will: Hvad kan du fortælle os om de dybere følgeslutninger, vi bør træffe ud fra dette kupforsøg mod præsidenten? Hvad betyder det; hvor kommer det fra?

Will Wertz: Lyndon LaRouche kom med følgende kommentar:

»Det amerikanske folk må kræve, at det igangværende, forræderiske, britiske kup mod det amerikanske præsidentskab og selve nationen må stoppes, og gerningsmændene retsforfølges og fængsles. Det britiske system må opgives, og præsidenten må intet middel sky for at redde dette lands befolkning, og resten af menneskeheden, fra yderligere britiskdirigerede afsavn mod deres liv. Opgiv det britiske system; red folket.«

Det, jeg vil gøre her i dag, er at fremlægge den dokumentation, der viser, at det, vi i realiteten har her, ikke er en russisk indblanding i USA’s interne anliggender; men at det snarere er en særdeles dirigeret indblanding på vegne af Det britiske Imperium. Dette er, hvad man burde efterforske, i modsætning til det såkaldte »aftalte spil« mellem præsident Trumps valgkampagneteam og så russerne. Det er meget vigtigt at dokumentere dette, og det er absolut afgørende, at dette kup stoppes; for, på dette tidspunkt i verdenshistorien, befinder vi os på randen af et nyt finanssammenbrud, langt større end i 2008. Vi befinder os i en situation, hvor briterne, for at opretholde deres bankerotte finanssystem, der har hjemsted i City of London og på Wall Street, har helliget sig til at bringe den amerikanske præsident til fald for at forhindre, at alternativet til dette sammenbrud bliver realiseret. Alternativet til dette sammenbrud er det, Lyndon LaRouche har kaldt Firemagts-konceptet; en alliance mellem USA, Rusland, Kina og potentielt Indien, og som repræsenterer den industrielle magt på denne planet og det overvældende flertal af verdens befolkning. Denne kombination kan løse bogstavelig talt ethvert problem, vi konfronteres med på planeten Jord, og hinsides. For eksempel kræver krisen over Koreahalvøen et samarbejde mellem USA, Kina og Rusland; hvor de to sidstnævnte er naboer til Nord- og Sydkorea. Kampen mod terrorisme i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, som strækker sig endnu længere end dette, kræver et sådant samarbejde. Genopbygningen af verdensøkonomien kræver et sådant samarbejde – især gennem, at USA slutter sig til bestræbelserne, som Kina har initieret – den såkaldte Silkevej eller Bælte & Vej Initiativet, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche i årtier har kæmpet for og refereret til som Verdenslandbroen.

Alle disse problemer kan løses med dette samarbejde; og dette samarbejde ville ødelægge Det britiske Imperium én gang for alle. Det er, hvad der i øjeblikket står på spil. Jeg vil også påpege, at Det britiske Imperium rent historisk har været helliget massiv befolkningsreduktion, folkemord, og en reducering af verdens befolkning fra de nuværende mere end 6 mia. og til 1 mia. mennesker. Dette imperium er villigt til at bringe verden til randen af atomkrig med sin geopolitiske strategi mod Rusland og Kina. Det er det underliggende spørgsmål, der ligger bag det aktuelle forsøg på at gennemføre et kup mod USA’s præsident.

Beviserne for den britiske involvering er gennemskuelige. Donald Trump annoncerede sin præsidentkampagne den 16. juni, 2015. Der var en artikel i The Guardian af 13. april, 2017. Her siger de, at »britisk efterretning blev først i slutningen af 2015« – dvs. få måneder efter, at Donald Trump annoncerede sin præsidentvalgkampagne – »opmærksom på det, det kaldte ’mistænkelige interaktioner’ mellem personer med tilknytning til Trump og kendte eller mistænkte russiske agenter«. Artiklens titel lyder, ’British Spies Were First to Spot Trump Team’s Links with Russia’. I artiklen siger de, at disse såkaldte ’interaktioner’ først blev afdækket af noget, der hedder Government Communications Headquarters – GCHQ, hvilket svarer til NSA. De gør meget ud af at pointere, at, »det er klart, at GCHQ på intet tidspunkt udførte en operation rettet mod Trump eller hans team, eller proaktivt søgte information. De angivelige samtaler blev opsnappet ved et tilfælde.«

De siger også, at GCHQ spillede en fremtrædende rolle på et tidligt tidspunkt, hvor de kickstartede FBI’s efterforskning af Trump-Rusland, og som begyndte i slutningen af juli, 2016. Husk, at det Republikanske Konvent, der nominerede Donald Trump, fandt sted fra 18.-21. juli, 2016. Så GCHQ følger Donald Trump få måneder efter hans annoncering af Republikanernes nominering til præsidentkandidat; og GCHQ kickstarter FBI’s efterforskning af Donald Trump, sandsynligvis få dage efter hans nominering i juli 2016. Artiklen siger, »FBI og CIA forstod kun langsomt arten af de angivelige kontakter mellem Trumps associerede folk og russere. Dette skyldtes til dels amerikansk lov, der forbyder amerikanske tjenester at undersøge amerikanske borgeres private kommunikationer uden en retskendelse. De var uddannede til ikke at gøre dette.« Den lov, de henviser til, er selvfølgelig USA’s Forfatning; som amerikanske efterretningstjenester desværre ikke har overholdt så nøje, som Edward Snowden afslørede.

De rapporterer dernæst, at Robert Hannigan, chef for GCHQ, i sommeren 2016 videregav materiale til CIA-chef John Brennan; og at Brennan brugte denne information til at lancere en stor efterforskning på tværs af tjenesterne, af et internt anliggende. Så det er et spørgsmål, om det er en overtrædelse af CIA’s charter, at en sådan efterforskning overhovedet lanceres; og dernæst at briefe lederskabet i de Demokratiske og Republikanske formandsskaber og højtplacerede medlemmer af Husets og Senatets Efterretningskomiteer om denne information, som endnu i dag ikke er blevet bekræftet.

Dette er altså britisk efterretnings indblanding i valgene. Føj hertil dossieret, der blev udarbejdet af den såkaldte »tidligere« MI6-agent Christopher Steele. Dette har fungeret som køreplanen for FBI’s efterforskning. Kopier af det blev givet direkte til FBI, hvis ikke af GCHQ, så af MI-6. Vi ved, at John McCain gav FBI en kopi, da han fik en sådan kopi. Hvad har vi så her mht. Christopher Steele? Han er en tidligere MI-6-agent; han arbejde under dække af det Britiske Udenrigsministerium i ambassaden i Moskva, men var en efterretningsagent. Tilbage i 2009 dannede han et selskab ved navn Orbis Business Executives. Fra mindst 2010 og frem havde han arbejdet med FBI’s Enhed for Eurasisk Organiseret Kriminalitet, med hjemsted i New York City. Samme år, som Orbis Business Executives blev lanceret – 2009 – blev et andet selskab lanceret i USA, ved navn Fusion GPS; samme år. Så tidligt som i 2010, iflg. retslige dokumenter, havde disse to såkaldte selskaber en fortrolighedsaftale. Så selv om den officielle historie er, at Fusion GPS hyrede Orbis Business Executives til at udføre efterforskning af politiske modstandere imod Donald Trump på vegne af Hillary Clinton, så er kendsgerningen den, at disse to selskaber har arbejdet sammen siden deres oprettelse i 2009; og deres fortrolighedsaftale går tilbage til året efter, 2010. Denne fortrolighedsaftale bruges af Fusion GPS som en grund til ikke at overgive information til Senatets Retsudvalg, som har krævet det i forbindelse med dette dossier.

Så hvad har vi her? Vi har GCHQ, der kickstarter en efterforskning gennem international overvågning; vi har tidligere MI-6-agent Christopher Steele, der får information fra russere, som i dette tilfælde ikke er særlig pålideligt; og bruger dette som en køreplan til at lancere en efterforskning af USA’s præsident efter, han var valgt. Det bør påpeges, at en af hovedpersonerne i FBI, der har været involveret i dette, er den tidligere, fungerende direktør for FBI. Han var fungerende direktør efter Comey gik, og han er nu erstattet af Christopher Wray. Men Andrew McCabe var i sin tidligere karriere chef for FBI’s Enhed for Eurasisk Organiseret Kriminalitet i New York City. Senator Grassley har sendt en hel række spørgsmål til vicejustitsminister Rod Rosenstein om Andrew McCabe; for mistanken går ud på, at Andrew McCabe var direkte involveret som Christopher Steeles manager. Det bør ligeledes påpeges, at, på et vist tidspunkt, havde FBI i tankerne at betale Christopher Steele for at fortsætte sin såkaldte efterforskning. Det spørgsmål, som Grassley stiller, er, var McCabe involveret specifikt i denne situation? Man må her forstå, at Andrew McCabe aktuelt er under efterforskning, fordi han var involveret i en beslutning om, at hans kone, Jill McCabe, skulle stille op til delstats-senator for staten Virginia mod senator Dick Black. Dette blev arrangeret gennem guvernør McAuliffe, en nær tilhænger af Hillary Clinton; som på det tidspunkt blev efterforsket af FBI. McCabe menes også at have været involveret i efterforskningen af Hillary Clintons e-mails. Der er her tale om en total interessekonflikt på vegne af McCabe; som måske var hovedpersonen, der arbejde hos FBI med Christopher Steele.

Dette er forbindelsesleddet til Det britiske Imperium, som er direkte involveret i operationen imod USA’s præsident. Dens formål er at ødelægge USA’s præsidentskab, så præsident Trump ikke kan udvikle samarbejdsrelationer med Rusland og Kina i særdeleshed, i kampen mod terrorisme; og ikke kan arbejde på at bringe USA ind i et samarbejde med Rusland og Kina omkring perspektivet for Bælte & Vej, som ville være afgørende for at udvikle USA’s økonomi ved hjælp af det amerikanske systems metoder.

Jeg tror, vi slutter her og hører, hvilke spørgsmål, I har.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

ROSS:  I think you really pulled together the British origin
of the whole Russia story around Trump; and it’s sort of shocking
thing that this dossier of material that was compiled by Steele,
who as you note is a “former” MI-6 agent.  If it’s dirt on Trump
coming from Russians, apparently that’s fine to launch an
investigation about using the CIA and the FBI.  But the mere
suspicion that Donald Trump might have gotten dirt on Hillary
from Russians by any means — regardless of a hack or just
getting information — is considered to be proof of some
nefarious act.
Let me ask you; you had discussed the difference in
orientation between what the motivation would be behind a British
outlook versus what America might do.  Just as a reminder for our
viewers, we’re now four years into a process that was launched in
September 2013 when President Xi Jinping of China, in a speech in
Kazakhstan, announced the One Belt, One Road Initiative; which
has now come to encompass dozens of countries around the world
and hundreds of billions of dollars towards infrastructure and
other cooperative investments.  So there’s really a new game in
town taking shape on the planet.  Could you describe for us or
help us understand how the British view this; or understand the
difference in outlook between British geopolitics compared to
what the United States could adopt as a national policy
orientation?

WERTZ:  Yes.  May I have photo 1?  Now, the British policy
is a policy of geopolitics; and this is a longstanding policy.
In 1919, Halford Mackinder wrote a paper entitled “The
Geographical Pivot of History”.  What he wrote there in summary
is as follows:  Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland.
Who rules the Heartland commands the world island.  Who rules the
world island commands the world.  As you can see from this
graphic, Russia is the pivot area; the heartland.  Surrounding it
is an area which is called the Inner Crescent; which today would
be called the Arc of Crisis, as defined by another geopolitician,
Bernard Lewis.  Who was born in Britain, but later became an
American citizen.  That’s the policy that we’ve been carrying
out.  Who rules East Europe?  Think about the move eastward by
NATO to the very borders of Russia.  Think about the policy of
regime change in the entire Arc of Crisis area indicated here as
the Inner Crescent surrounding Russia.  This is the policy that
was also implemented under Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Carter
administration.  We see it today; it’s continuing today with the
regime change policies in Libya, in Egypt before it was reversed
by el-Sisi against Morsi.  We see it in Iraq beginning in 2003;
we see it today in the attempt in Syria.  Before that, we saw it
in Afghanistan, and that’s still a crisis today.  We see it in
Ukraine today.  This is the geopolitical policy of the British
which led to World War II by the way, because this was the policy
of Hitler.  The Mackinder policy was picked up Haushofer, who was
instrumental in defining Hitler’s policy of marching East to
Russia — the Soviet Union at that time.  So this is the
geopolitical policy which is operative today.
Contrast that now to the World Land-Bridge policy — photo
2, please.  This is the policy proposed by Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche.  As you see, the world island is essentially Asia,
Europe, and Africa.  This policy is not limited to the so-called
world island; this is a policy for all of humanity, extending
into the Western Hemisphere.  The policy is one of economic
development.  As the Chinese say, a “win-win” strategy; peace
based upon economic development.  That is the central conception,
so as to realize the actual potential of humanity for further
improvements in its standard of living, its quality of mentation,
and its ability not only to develop the planet Earth for man’s
benefit, but eventually to colonize outer space; which is man’s
fundamental mission.
So, these are the two contrasting views; and what Americans
and others throughout the world need to know is the British
Empire is alive, and it is carrying out the same policy which it
has carried out at least over the last 100 years, which has led
previously to world wars, and threatens to lead to world wars
today.  But there is an alternative, which is the World
Land-Bridge, the One Belt, One Road policy; the Silk Road, which
has been adopted by a vast majority of countries throughout the
world.

ROSS:  You talked about the British Empire and the
geopolitical objectives of Halford Mackinder.  This is sometime
in the past; you had mentioned its link to Adolf Hitler’s
orientation towards attacking to the East.  But today, I think
that most people believe that there is no British Empire; or that
the power of the British Empire has waned so dramatically from
its peak that it’s hardly a driving force in world affairs today.
Why do you speak about the importance of the British Empire?  How
important is it today?  What’s its power?  How does it exist?

WERTZ:  Please show photos 4 and 3.  Most people don’t
understand that the British Empire is really based upon the
Venetian system.  Venice was not big in terms of military forces,
or geography; it’s a city.  Yet, the Venetian system, as a
financial system, was an imperial system; and the British system
from its inception is modeled upon that financial imperial
system.  The goals of the British Empire are really totally
anti-human.  You could compare it to the Greek mythological
figure of Zeus, who did not want mankind to develop; did not want
mankind to have science; did not want mankind to have technology.
In opposition to that, you had Prometheus, who gave man fire;
science; the means of developing the human mind so as to further
the mission of humanity.  The British policy is fundamentally a
policy of financial imperialism, particularly after World War II;
and it is also a policy based upon a perspective of destroying
the notion of the sovereign nation-state; of reducing world
population from the current levels of over 6 billion to a level
of 1 billion or less, as I said earlier.
I want to just indicate two of the leading figures in
developing the British conception of empire.  One is H.G. Wells,
who wrote a piece called {The Open Conspiracy} in the year 1928.
What he said in that is the following:  “It lies within the power
of the Atlantic communities to impose a world state, a world
directorate upon the world.  The open conspiracy rests upon a
disrespect for national sovereignty.  Its main political idea,
its political strategy is to weaken, deface, incorporate, or
supersede existing governments.  It considers all existing
governments as entirely provisional in nature.”  At one point he
says, “There will be little need for a President.”  That’s the
policy of H.G. Wells.  As you can see, this is the policy of
so-called limited sovereignty; it’s the policy of super-national
institutions.  Like for instance, the European Union has become.
As you can see, the basic idea is to eliminate national
sovereignty, create super-national institutions in which you’d
have no need for a President.  Of course that’s the view that the
British take today.  They would just as soon there not be a
President who would assert the principle of national sovereignty
and develop the people through developing the economy of the
nation, and working with other nations to have the same effect in
respect to the world population.
Bertrand Russell.  Lyndon LaRouche at one point called
Bertrand Russell the most evil man of the 20th Century.  He’s
often known as an advocate of peace.  Well, H.G. Wells made the
same kind of argument for world peace; that was the justification
for dictatorial methods.  In the case of Bertrand Russell, after
World War II Bertrand Russell actually proposed — when he
thought the United States had a monopoly on nuclear weapons —
that the United States threaten to use nuclear weapons against
the then Soviet Union.  He was not able to act on that idea,
because as it turned out, the Soviet Union developed nuclear
weapons.  But let me just read an interchange with Bertrand
Russell on this subject.  He was asked, “Is it true or untrue
that in recent years you advocate that a preventive war might be
made against Communism, against Soviet Russia?”  Russell: “It’s
entirely true.  And I don’t repent of it now.  It was not
inconsistent with what I think now.  There was a time just after
the last war when the Americans had a monopoly of nuclear weapons
and offered to internationalize nuclear weapons by the Baruch
Proposal.  I thought this was an extremely generous proposal on
their part.  One which it would be very desirable that the world
should accept.  Not that I advocated a nuclear war; but I did
think that great pressure should be put upon Russia to accept the
Baruch Proposal, and I did think that if they continued to
refuse, it might be necessary actually to go to war.  At that
time, nuclear weapons existed only on one side, and therefore the
odds were, the Russians would have given way.  I thought they
would.”  Question: “Suppose they hadn’t given way?”  Russell: “I
thought and hoped that the Russians would give way.  But of
course, you can’t threaten unless you’re prepared to have your
bluff called.”
So, this is the policy of Bertrand Russell; to create a one
world directorate as in the case of H.G. Wells, and to threaten
preemptive nuclear war against the then-Soviet Union in order to
enforce such a perspective.  Now we are once again on the verge
of, in this case, thermonuclear war; and that is the policy of
the British Empire.  The British basically view war as one means
by which they can reduce world population.

ROSS:  In going after British policy, this seems to be
something that very clearly the U.S. has been opposed to since
its inception.  The American Revolution, the first of the
complaints in the Declaration of Independence wasn’t about
taxation without representation; it was that the King had refused
his assent to laws that were necessary for the common good.
I think the way that you posed things, in terms of Zeus and
Prometheus,
Between having power by preventing others from developing versus
causing and fostering development is a very good way to look at
the way at the relationship between the British Empire and the
U.S. over our history.
This must have shifted at some point given that there’s so
many factions in the U.S. now who are adopting policies that
sound very much like British policies — the “responsibility to
protect” doctrine, which was announced by Prime Minister Tony
Blair in Chicago a decade ago.  This has become sort of an
orthodoxy almost in Washington, D.C., where it’s considered
perfectly natural to intervene in nations that aren’t posing any
particular threat to the U.S., in order to prevent some internal
calamity, used as an excuse to cause the chaos that we’ve seen in
Libya, the mess that we’ve seen in Syria, etc.  So can you tell
us more about this shift?  Has this always been a fight inside
the United States, or when did the U.S. begin to adopt an almost
British outlook on foreign affairs?

WERTZ:  It’s important for people to maintain a perspective
involving a long arc of history.  People know in this country
that the United States fought, before it became officially the
United States and adopted a Constitution, fought a Revolution
against the British Empire.  In 1812, it was the British who
burned down the White House.  This has been an ongoing conflict
between the British and the United States.  And when I’m
referring to the British, I’m not referring to the British
people, that should be very clear;  I’m referring to the British
Monarchy, the British Empire as a system of government.  Now, the
British also supported the Confederacy in the Civil War.  And
Lincoln was assassinated at the end of that war by individuals
who it is believed were actually funded by the British,
specifically by one James Bulloch, the uncle of Theodore
Roosevelt, who was based in Great Britain during the entire Civil
War, and was essentially the foreign agent of Confederacy based
in Britain.
But the United States was able to proceed after the Civil
War, and I think it became clear to the British that they were
not going to be able to take over the United States by military
means, as in the Revolution, the War of 1812, or the Civil War,
but rather they had to use other means; although those other
means continued to involve assassination.  One of the key
breaking points in the whole process was the assassination of
President McKinley in 1901, and of course the person who became
President at that point was Theodore Roosevelt.  This is in the
period leading into World War I, and under McKinley, and prior to
his assassination, the United States had very close relations
with Germany under Bismarck, with Russia, with Japan.  And this
was reversed by Teddy Roosevelt, who established the so-called
U.S.-British “special relationship.”  And undoubtedly his uncle
and the influence of his uncle on Teddy Roosevelt played a
critical role in his perspective.
Now, Franklin Roosevelt had a completely different
perspective.  He traced his heritage back to Isaac Roosevelt, who
worked closely with Alexander Hamilton, and Roosevelt’s entire
policy was based on the American System of economy, the same kind
of American System of economy which President Trump has, in
recent speeches in Kentucky, Detroit, and elsewhere, advocated,
including Glass-Steagall.
Now, during World War II, the British who had backed Hitler,
had backed Mussolini, had backed Franco, realized when Hitler
turned westward into France and threatened Great Britain, that
they needed the United States to defeat Hitler at that point.
And what you have from that point on, is a situation where the
British operated in the United States to help bring the United
States into that war.  But when Roosevelt died, what happened, is
that the British took over, once again.  Not fully, but you had a
situation where the British began a process of trying to reverse
what Roosevelt had done.  And during World War II there was a
famous meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill.  Do you have
photo 5? [Stalin, FDR, Churchill at Tehran 1943]  There was a
famous meeting between Roosevelt and Churchill [April 1941]
reported by Roosevelt’s son, Elliot Roosevelt, in which Franklin
Roosevelt said, we’re not fighting World War II in order to
preserve the British Empire, but rather, after this war we’re
going to use American System methods of economic development to
develop the entire world and to end colonialism altogether.
When Roosevelt died, the British, through Churchill, through
their intelligence agencies, and through Harry Truman, moved to
begin the process of attempting to bring the United States into
this British Empire orbit, and that has been the ongoing conflict
that we’ve had over the last 70 years or more.  And it’s not
resolved to this day and it has to be resolved by defeating the
British Empire.
During World War II, the British set up intelligence
operations in the United States,  — can I have pictures, 6, 7,
and 8.  There was an individual by the name of Sir William S.
Stephenson, you see him there, Canadian born.  He set up
something called the British covert operations which operated
under the cover of the British Security Coordination, which was
located in Rockefeller Center.  And they ran covert operations in
the United States during this whole period, basically from 1939
through 1944, and he represented both MI6 and MI5; he worked
directly with Allen Dulles who had an office in the same
building, on the same floor as Stephenson.  Dulles, of course,
later became head of the CIA, until he was relieved of duty by
John F. Kennedy.  Stephenson also worked very closely with the
FBI, with J. Edgar Hoover.
So, in a certain sense, this apparatus, from that period,
consolidated after Roosevelt’s death, and for instance, in 1946,
there was something signed called the “U.K.-U.S.A. Agreement” and
it was an agreement to have intelligence collaboration between
the U.S. and the U.K. in respect to the Soviet Union and the East
bloc countries.  This later was transformed into the “Five Eyes,”
which was the United States, U.K., Australia, New Zealand, and
Canada.  So in a very real sense, the United States became a part
of the British Empire intelligence apparatus.  And what we see
today with GCHQ/MI6, their work with Brennan at the CIA, with
Comey and McCabe at the FBI, and Clapper [as DNI], is a
continuation of that U.S.-U.K. Agreement.  The surveillance was
done under the codename “Echelon” and it’s still being done under
that name; even after the Soviet Union collapsed, it’s directed
against the former Soviet Union and East bloc countries.  And
that is what we see today, as I said.  As Snowden, in describing
this relationship said, the Five Eyes are a “supranational
intelligence organization that doesn’t answer to the known laws
of its own countries.”  So that’s the picture I can give you.

ROSS:  This is a you might say chilling picture, a very
scary picture.  What is it that we ought to do?  This is much
bigger I think than people, even those who understand that a coup
is in process or that Russia-gate is a whole bunch of baloney,
this is a lot deeper than what most people believe they’re up
against.  I think you put out a very good picture of what we’re
up against, what the mission is; could you lay out for our
viewers what ought to be done:  How do we fight against this? and
what do we create in its stead?  What’s our objective here?

WERTZ:  Lyndon LaRouche yesterday said that we have to “pour
it on.”  We have to really escalate the mobilization to get a
breakthrough in respect to the VIPS memorandum which we discussed
at the very beginning.  The whole edifice of the lie that the
Russians interfered in the elections, that the Trump campaign
colluded with the Russians, is about to fall.  And we have to
make sure that it falls.  As you indicated in the beginning, the
VIPS memo was produced in July, it was sent to the President,
it’s been sent to the Justice Department, it’s been widely
circulated.  We, in our movement, got out something like 100
copies of the VIPS memo in offices in Washington, D.C. two weeks
ago, concentrating on the Intelligence Committees of both the
House and Senate, as well as the Judiciary Committee.  We also
got this out, this week, at the Old Executive Office Building in
Washington, D.C. and at the Justice Department.
And the story is beginning to break:  You mentioned the
article in {The Nation}.  This is a very powerful article that
just appeared, and what the author, Patrick Lawrence, says is the
following: “Under no circumstance can it be acceptable that the
relevant authoritiesthe National Security Agency, the Justice
Department (via the Federal Bureau of Investigation), and the
Central Intelligence Agencyleave these new findings without
reply.”
[https://www.thenation.com/article/unverified-russiagate-
allegations-promoted-by-an-irresponsible-congress-and-media-
have-become-a-grave-threat-to-american-national-security/]
Now, the company that the DNC hired, CrowdStrike, the one
that claimed that they had evidence that the Russians had hacked
the DNC computers, they just said, “we continue to stand by our
report,” arguing that by July 5th, all malware had been removed
from the DNC’s computers.  But as Patrick Lawrence points out,
“But the presence or absence of malware by that time is entirely
immaterial, because the event of July 5 is proven to have been a
leak and not a hack.”
The point here is, you have {The Nation} article, you have
Newsmax, which gave coverage to this; Bloomberg had an article
yesterday on the VIPS and their conclusions.  What’s required is
for the American people to take back their country and ensure
that the Constitution survives, that the republic of the United
States survives.  We have to mobilize to force a situation where,
instead of investigating Trump, what should be investigated is
the British role in all of this and the role of members of U.S.
intelligence in participating in this attempt at a coup against
the United States of America and against the President of the
United States of America. John Brennan recently argued that if
President Trump were to fire Mueller as Special Counsel, that
members of the Executive should refuse to obey his orders:
That’s a call for a coup by the ex-CIA director.
So as Lyndon LaRouche said at the beginning, we’ve got to
cancel the British system, we’ve got to save our people.  What’s
being run in this country is the equivalent of the British Opium
War against China, from 1800s in the opioid and more widespread
drug addiction that’s destroying this country.  We have to free
the President, to be able to carry out the policies which he at
least has indicated he has an intention to implement, to the
benefit of this country and the benefit of the world.  That’s the
issue that’s before us right now.
So what I would encourage every American citizen to do, is
to contact the President:  Tell him, that he has their support to
move on this issue.  It was not a hack, it was a leak.  A lie has
been used as a pretext for overthrowing the President of the
United States, and it’s being conducted by a foreign government,
in collusion with traitors in the United States like Brennan and
others.  So those people should be investigated; and here you
have a situation where a crime was allegedly committed at the
DNC.  The DNC hired its own private investigator; the private
investigator announced what the conclusion of its investigation
was.  The police were never invited to the scene.  They never
secured the crime scene, they never investigated the crime scene,
the computers have never been seen by the FBI.  This is
completely preposterous!
And the entire country has been put in jeopardy as a result
of something which is unheard of!  Have you ever heard of a crime
where the police were not allowed to secure the crime scene and
investigate the crime?  And the alleged victim of the crime,
who’s now carrying out a campaign against the President of the
United States, is allowed to determine how the investigation is
conducted and also what the conclusion of the investigation is.
So this is intolerable!  And as Patrick Lawrence said, it
cannot stand that there is not a reply.  The forensic evidence is
solid.  It is presented by experts from the NSA itself, who know
how this is done.
So we have to ensure that this lie collapses immediately,
that the people involved in this coup against the President are
investigated and imprisoned if found guilty.  That is what’s
required.  So contact the President, tell him that you support
him, and go in public with this.  Demand that the representatives
of the VIPS be allowed to testify before the various committees
of Congress, to get at the bottom of this crime which has been
committed against our President and against our country.
And if we do that, then we create the basis for
collaboration between the United States, Russia, China, and
India, which, as Lyndon LaRouche said in his four powers concept,
is the necessary means for dismantling the British Empire once
and for all.  What we need to do, is destroy Zeus and free
Prometheus.

ROSS:  Great.  Our viewers have got an opportunity to join
in on this. You’ve mentioned many of the ways that this can
occur, and there’s many things that supporters and activists are
doing — holding rallies at their town hall, going to
congressional meetings or on congressional teleconferences and
bringing up the VIPS memo, bringing up the Russia-gate fraud.
We’re urging people to take pictures of their activities about
this, take pictures of getting out the material about the
Russia-gate fraud, and mark it “#Russia-gate fraud”; let
everybody know and spread the word about this.
We have a petition to the President, where we’re asking
Donald Trump not to try to hope that this Russia thing goes away,
but to take it on directly, to “investigate this British
subversion of the United States.  And as you can see on the
bottom of your screen, you can sign that petition [President
Trump, Investigate British Subversion of the U.S.A.”] and spread
it to others at the link, http://lpac.co/yt17.  We’ll have that
link on the webpage for this week’s webcast as well.
[https://larouchepac.com/20170811/larouchepac-friday-webcast
-will-wertz].
So spread the word.  We’ve got to defeat this coup; it’s
absolutely urgent to free up the United States to have a
functioning Presidency, so we can take on matters that are
actually important to our future, like implementing
Glass-Steagall, putting in place the economic proposals of
LaRouche, the Four Laws, to make it possible to finance an
economic recovery and to do so in conjunction with China, with
Russia, to put the world on a path towards development and
progress.  Help make that happen: Please contribute to the
LaRouchePAC.
Will, I’d like to thank you for being on the show today, I
think you really put together a very comprehensive picture on
this, and we’ll see everybody again, next week.

Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at vi nu er ved et punkt, hvor denne sameksistens, denne symbiotiske relation, som man ser i den amerikansk-britiske »særlige relation«, må ødelægges. Menneskeheden må nå til et voksenstadie, hvor man ikke har denne imperiepolitik, der har ligeværdig status med menneskeheden. Zeus må ødelægges – Prometheus sættes fri.

Renée Sigerson (LaRouche-bevægelsen): I ånden af vor umistelige ret til stræben efter lykke, vil jeg blot tilføje et element til denne diskussion, og vi kan forhåbentlig diskutere dette mere fremover. Men det, jeg gerne vil bringe ind, er, at grunden til, at dette historiske øjeblik er så afgørende, er ikke, at der eksisterer atomvåben; men at atomvåben eksisterer, fordi Det britiske Imperium i løbet af det 20. århundrede, gennem folk som Bertrand Russel og H.G. Wells osv., indså, at, uden sådanne ødelæggende, verdensomspændende supervåben, ultimative masseødelæggelsesvåben, ville de (Det britiske Imperium) blive fjernet fra Jordens overflade; at menneskehedens udvikling var ved at nå et punkt, hvor deres pant var ved at udløbe.

Vi må konstant tale om dette, når vi mobiliserer folk til at gå med i organisationen, og i mine diskussioner med folk er mit mentale billede af Det britiske Imperium en brændende fakkel, hvor – til forskel fra Prometheus – ilden ikke organiseres for at hjælpe menneskehedens fremtid, men at de bliver brændt til sod. Det, de prøver at gøre, er at redde sig selv i tide, før det nye, økonomiske system, som Lyn har skabt, fjerner dem fra Jordens overflade.

Spørgsmålet om Lyns personlige rolle i at bringe historien til et punkt, hvor de, bogstavelig talt, må ødelægge menneskeheden for at de selv … I ved, digteren John Milton (1608-1674) sagde om dette, på tidspunktet for det fremvoksende, venetianske, britiske oligarki, han sagde, de ville »hellere herske i helvede end tjene i himlen«. Og de er virkelig så sataniske. Opiatepidemien, som de har opfundet, som HSBC har opfundet i USA[1] – som vi advarede mod; vi skrev en bog om HSBC i 1979, og vi sagde til folk, hvis I slipper disse svin ind i landet, så har vi inden for én generation en opiatepidemi her i USA. Dette er de folk, der kørte Opiumskrigene mod Kina. Og vi havde desværre fuldstændig ret i, at det skete.

Det fantastiske ved Lyn er, at her stod han i Indien, i 1945-46, og han så alt dette! Og jeg er virkelig overbevist om – han har aldrig sagt det præcist – at det var grunden til, at han besluttede, han måtte blive økonom, for disse unge indere kom hen til ham og sagde, »amerikanske soldat, amerikanske soldat? Efter krigen, vil du så gå ud og skaffe os maskiner? Vil du hjælpe os til at blive industrialiseret? Vil du hjælp os med at afkaste dette åg?« Og han holdt sit løfte til dem om, at han ville hjælpe, men han gjorde det ved at hellige sig opdagelsen af et princip, som er, at roden til økonomisk udvikling faktisk er menneskelig kreativitet. Det er noget ikke-fysisk, som er menneskelig kreativitet, som er den faktiske årsag og rod til økonomisk udvikling.

Og det er spredningen af denne idé i verden, inkl. i det folkerige Kina i dag, som nu er i færd med at bringe Det britiske Imperium, og imperieideen om menneskehedens slaveri, til et punkt, hvor det afgår ved døden.

Så de har intet andet valg end at sprænge os alle sammen i stykker, eller også fortsætte med at drive sig selv bankerot og selv brænde, ligesom denne her bygning, som de nedbrændte i London (Grenfell Tower). I ved, den britiske befolkning har nået enden af sit reb: for, man har disse sociale boligbyggerier, som de beklædte med brandfarlig isolering, så hvis man stryger en tændstik det forkerte sted, brænder bygningen ned på 20 minutter, og 100 mennesker dør. I har sikkert hørt om dette; det er en metafor for, hvor sindssyge, de er! De er fuldstændig sindssyge! Og derfor er de så farlige, men også sårbare.

Og jeg mener, at den ånd, Patrick (en tidligere spørger) eksemplificerer, og som vi alle har i os, er, at vi vil opnå vores stræben efter lykke og bringe disse fyre til fald og blive dem kvit, rent faktisk blive dem kvit, og derfor diskuterer vi dem for at indgyde os selv selvtillid mht., at vi kan formidle dette til folk. Det var, hvad jeg ville sige.

Diane Sare (mødeleder): Virkelig godt. Vil du, Will (Wertz), sige noget som afslutning?

Will Wertz (redaktionen, EIR): Det vil jeg blot støtte. Pointen er, at Det britiske Imperiums eksistens ikke er noget, der bør accepteres som »sådan er tingene«. I så fald har vi det, der hedder et manikæisk (sort-hvidt) univers, hvor godt og ondt sameksisterer. Og der er i realiteten et problem, som udviklede sig efter renæssancen, og som er, at man fik udviklingen af nationalstaten; på den anden side, så fik nationalstaten ikke overherredømmet i hele verden, og imperiesystemet blev ved at eksistere. Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at vi nu er ved et punkt, hvor denne sameksistens, denne symbiotiske relation, som man ser i den amerikansk-britiske »særlige relation«, må ødelægges. Menneskeheden må nå til et voksenstadie, hvor man ikke har denne imperiepolitik, der har ligeværdig status med menneskeheden. Zeus må ødelægges – Prometheus sættes fri.

Hele videoen kan ses her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjttaTmlA9g

Foto: Relief i marmor af ukendt, italiensk kunstner, 3. årh. e. Kr.: Prometheus skaber mennesket under Athenes ledelse. Athene var i græsk mytologi gudinde for visdom. (Louvre-museet).

[1] Se EIR-artikel, februar 2015: Vil HSBC-skandalen sænke Wall Streets Obama-præsidentskab? http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=5202

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, at dette ikke blot er en vedtagelse i Senatet, eller i Kongressen; men dette handler om præsidenten i amerikansk historie lige fra USA’s grundlæggelse. For det, som denne vedtagelse gør, er, at den fuldstændig omstøder den Amerikanske Forfatning, der giver præsidenten beføjelserne til at bestemme udenrigspolitik. I henhold til den aktuelle situation, efter at Kongressen (Repræsentanternes Hus) og Senatet med dette overvældende flertal vedtog at indføre sanktioner, så, hvis præsident Trump ønskede at omstøde dette, skulle han sende et brev til Kongressen; og Kongressen er forpligtet til at svare inden 30 dage for enten at godkende eller afvise det. Det betyder, at Kongressen kaprer beføjelsen til at bestemme politikken fra præsidenten. Jeg tror, det amerikanske folk hellere må se at vågne op til den kendsgerning, at det, der her bliver fjernet, er den Amerikanske Forfatning.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Jason Ross: Godaften. Det er fredag, 4. august, 2017. Jeg er aftenens vært, og vi er meget glade for at have med os i studiet som vores særlige gæst, Helga Zepp-LaRouche via video fra Tyskland. Godaften, Helga.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Godaften, hvordan går det?

Ross: Fint! Som en lille indledning til aftenens show, før vi hører fra Helga, så så vi i denne uge, at Donald Trump underskrev loven om sanktioner, der blev vedtaget af Huset og Senatet – HR 3364 – der indfører sanktioner mod Iran, Nordkorea og Rusland. En del af loven hævder som selvfølgeligt, at Rusland blandede sig i det amerikanske valg; en del af loven siger, at USA aldrig vil anerkende Krim som en del af Rusland; og loven binder præsidentens hænder på mange måder mht. sanktioner mod Rusland og mange diplomatiske prioriteringer, diplomatiske krav, der er vedtaget af Huset og Senatet snarere end gennem den udøvende gren (præsidenten). Donald Trump underskrev i denne uge loven og udstedte en erklæring i forbindelse med underskrivelsen, mht. de dele af loven, han finder forfatningsstridige. I går tweetede Trump, at »Vores relation med Rusland er på det laveste og farligste punkt nogensinde. Et meget farligt lavpunkt. Det kan I takke Kongressen for«, siger han.

Rusland responderede ved at kræve udvisning af et vist antal amerikanske diplomater ned til samme niveau som russiske diplomater i USA; noget lignende det, præsident Obama gjorde med russiske diplomater og russisk diplomatejendom, osv. Det betyder overordnet set, at det virkelig øger presset på de amerikansk-russiske relationer og gør det meget vanskeligt for Trump at gennemføre ét af sine kampagneløfter, som var en potentiel opnåelse af detente med Rusland. Med hans berømte ord, »Det er ikke dårligt at komme godt ud af det med Rusland; det er en god ting.«

Jeg vil gerne have Helga på nu for at tale om vores syn på dette. Jeg ved, din mand, Lyndon LaRouche, har sagt, at, hvis dette kup mod Trump lykkes, så vil det virkelig lægge truslen om atomkrig op på bordet. Hvad er din mening om situationen?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, at dette ikke blot er en vedtagelse i Senatet, eller i Kongressen; men dette handler om præsidenten i amerikansk historie lige fra USA’s grundlæggelse. For det, som denne vedtagelse gør, er, at den fuldstændig omstøder den Amerikanske Forfatning, der giver præsidenten beføjelserne til at bestemme udenrigspolitik. I henhold til den aktuelle situation, efter at Kongressen (Repræsentanternes Hus) og Senatet med dette overvældende flertal vedtog at indføre sanktioner, så, hvis præsident Trump ønskede at omstøde dette, skulle han sende et brev til Kongressen; og Kongressen er forpligtet til at svare inden 30 dage for enten at godkende eller afvise det. Det betyder, at Kongressen kaprer beføjelsen til at bestemme politikken fra præsidenten. Jeg tror, det amerikanske folk hellere må se at vågne op til den kendsgerning, at det, der her bliver fjernet, er den Amerikanske Forfatning. Jeg vil tro, at alle amerikanske patrioter, der elsker Amerika – og jeg ved, at det amerikanske folk generelt er meget patriotisk – de må forstå dette moment. For, dette kan ikke være tilfældet, og forblive ignoreret. Dette har så mange implikationer.

Min mand, Lyndon LaRouche, sagde, at, hvis dette består, er vi tilbage til en umiddelbart overhængende konfrontation med Rusland – og også Kina – som vi var under Obama-administrationen og de neokonservatives kontrol; som har kontrolleret USA’s politik under to embedsperioder under George W. Bush, og to perioder under Obama. Det var disse neokonservative, der var fuldstændig oprørt over, at en systemisk ’outsider’, eller en person, der ikke tilhørte systemet – som Donald Trump – vandt valget. Jeg husker klart, at, den 21. januar, havde den britiske avis The Spectator allerede en overskrift, der lød, at det blot var et spørgsmål om tid, før man ville få Trump ud af embedet gennem impeachment (rigsretssag), gennem et kup, eller gennem politisk mord! Processen frem mod impeachment er helt i gang, som I ved. Det er netop blevet offentliggjort, at Robert Mueller, den særlige rådgiver, allerede har en ’grand jury’ (juridisk enhed, der kan undersøge og afgøre, om der er belæg for at anlægge en strafferetssag, -red.), der angiveligt skulle være hemmelig; men der har igen været et læk til The Guardian og andre medier. Så formålet med dette er tydeligvis at fremme en eller anden historie, der viser bånd fra Trump eller hans team til Rusland.

Lad mig understrege dette helt klart. Sandheden om dette her skal ud. Det er rent historisk af den allerstørste betydning, at VIPS-organisationen – Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity – tidligere højtplacerede efterretningsfolk fra diverse amerikanske efterretningsorganisationer, for omkring en uge siden sendte et memorandum til præsident Trump; hvori de fastslog, baseret på deres indiskutable ekspertise og kriminaltekniske beviser, at der ikke fandt nogen russisk hacking sted. I stedet var der tale om et insider-læk; der var nogen, der simpelt hen downloadede data fra DNC-computerne, og som dernæst maskerede det hele, som om det var blevet udført af russerne. At efterforske dette og diskutere disse resultater fra VIPS-memoet, er den vigtigste måde, hvorpå dette kup kan køres af sporet. Heldigvis har ét af de kongresmedlemmer, der var modig nok til at stemme imod denne uhyrlighed – Dana Rohrbacher – allerede kommenteret VIPS-memoet. Jeg mener, at vi må mobilisere den amerikanske befolkning til at kræve, at Kongressen indbyder VIPS-repræsentanterne til at aflægge forklaring, til at fremlægge deres beviser, og ligeledes bestræbelserne fra sådanne personer som kongresmedlem Nunes, der efterforsker, hvem det var, der afslørede dette, hvem, der lækkede. Og ligeledes senator Grassleys bestræbelser for at gøre det samme; det må støttes. Derudover mener jeg generelt, at denne Kongres fuldstændig har bragt sig selv i miskredit. Kongressens anerkendelses-rate er lige nu, iflg. de seneste opinionsmålinger, kun 10 %; det er ligeledes et historisk lavpunkt, mener jeg.

Men jeg mener, det nu afhænger af det amerikanske folk; og man bør finde alle mulige organisationer og institutioner, der repræsenterer folket, og som støtter præsident Trump. Retfærdigheden må ske fyldest; de, der lækkede, må gøres til genstand for efterforskning; og sandheden må genoprettes. Dette er af den største, strategiske betydning. Dette er ikke blot en intern, amerikansk affære; jeg mener, at russernes karakteristik, at dette er en intern kamp, ikke er korrekt. Jeg mener, at dette er noget langt mere dystert. Den tidligere våbeninspektør i Irak, Scott Ritter, som var våbeninspektør under Irakkrigen, kom med en dybtgående karakteristik. Han sagde, den kendsgerning, at der var denne totale enstemmighed i de amerikanske medier, FBI, andre amerikanske efterretningstjenester og næsten enstemmighed i begge Kongreshuse; hvordan får man en sådan fuldstændig – i Tyskland ville man sige »Gleichschaltung«, ensretning – hvordan får man et sådant enstemmigt kor? Scott Ritter peger på spørgsmålet om, at dette peger på en langt mere generel sammensværgelse, der finder sted i det amerikanske samfund. Jeg ved, at folk normalt bliver meget enerverede, når man nævner ordet »sammensværgelse«, men jeg mener ikke, der findes andre ord, der kan karakterisere det, der foregår. Man har det, folk nu om dage kalder »deep state«, og som forsøger at omstøde valget af en amerikansk præsident; og så har man briternes rolle i alt dette her. Jeg mener, at der er en indsats fra Det britiske Imperiums side, efter en genetablering af kontrollen over amerikanske institutioner, for at gå tilbage til det, vi engang havde med de neokonservative i 1992 – Wolfowitz-doktrinen; og som var ideen om, at USA aldrig skulle give noget andet land eller nogen anden gruppe af lande lov til at overgå USA’s militærpolitiske eller militære magt. Det var et kup, udført af de neokonservative efter Sovjetunionens kollaps, og de gik frem for at forsøge at etablere en unipolær verden. Jeg mener, at dette præcist kommer til udtryk i det, Kongressen gjorde med disse sanktioner, og det betyder gennem implikation, at gå tilbage til konfrontationen med Rusland, og selvfølgelig en genoptagelse af spændingen i relationerne med Kina.

Dette er en krigssti. Dette har utrolige implikationer. Jeg vil blot nævne et par stykker af dem. For det første, så reagerede premierminister Medvedev meget skarpere end præsident Putin. Han sagde, at dette afslutter håbet om en forbedring mellem USA og Rusland. Så var der diverse kommentarer i kinesiske publikationer, der tilbød at hjælpe Rusland mod virkningerne af sanktionerne; og som ligeledes sagde, at dette blot vil betyde en meget tættere forhold mellem Rusland og Kina, og sammen har vi en afskrækkelse imod USA. Det var ikke det, kineserne ønskede; de har tilbudt USA at samarbejde omkring Bælte & Vej Initiativet; men det er, hvad det fører til.

Lad mig blot påpege to yderligere sidevirkninger af dette. Det er relationen med Europa, for sanktionerne har som deres primære mål leveringen af russisk naturgas og ideen om at bygge endnu en gasledning – Northstream II; som Tyskland har brug for, fordi olieforsyningerne fra Mellemøsten er meget lunefulde pga. den ustabile situation dér. Oliereserverne i Nordsøen er ved at være udtømt. Sanktionerne ville selvfølgelig, fordi USA fremfører, at de har ekstraterritorial bemyndigelse, ramme alle de firmaer, der producerer materialer og byggetjenester til projekter med russerne. Dette er fuldstændig umuligt. Det ville f.eks. også ramme europæiske investorer i USA, hvis de gør forretninger med Rusland; de kunne blive eksproprieret i USA, eller deres kapital indefrosset, og sådanne ting. Dette skaber ødelæggelse. Den Europæiske Union og den tyske regering har allerede sagt, at de vil overveje modforholdsregler; at dette kunne føre til en handelskrig. Forbløffende nok har en talsmand for en førende tænketank, der står den tyske regering nær, netop sagt, at dette vil give bagslag, for, hvorfor skulle lande, der rammes af sanktionerne, være med til at gennemføre dem? Så han forudsiger, at der kommer en boomerang-effekt for amerikanerne; men det er selvfølgelig en effekt, der er meget farlig. Forskellige tyske industrisammenslutninger er ligeledes kommet frem og har sagt, at dette er fuldstændig uacceptabelt.

På et mere fundamentalt plan bringer dette hele spørgsmålet om international lov (folkeretten) frem. Hvorfor tror USA, at deres amerikanske lov kan træde i kraft i hele verden? Dette er en krænkelse af international lov, og dette er derfor en krise uden fortilfælde. Den har, som jeg sagde, implikationer for den Amerikanske Forfatning, for international lov, for relationerne med Rusland og Kina; den kan, for første gang, bryde alliancen med Europa. Så jeg tror, folk virkelig forstår, at dette må omstødes.

Ross: Fantastisk! Dette sætter virkelig scenen. Kan jeg bede dig om at forklare et bestemt punkt? Du kom med ideen om, at folk har en »deep state« (omtr. ’staten i staten’,-red.), der kører USA. Hvor det altså ikke kun drejer sig om denne enkelte lov, men, at der igennem længere tid har været en voksende magt fra visse agenters side internt i USA. Lad mig stille dig et spørgsmål om måder, hvorpå folk fortolker disse ting. En måde er, at der simpelt hen er en koldkrigsmentalitet, der ikke er blevet overvundet; folk lever i fortiden og ser stadig Rusland som en trussel, hvor de i tankerne sammenligner Rusland med Sovjetunionen. En anden måde er ideen om »deep state«; at efterretningstjenesterne har udviklet et slags begær efter magt for sig selv. Tag f.eks. eksemplet med J. Edgar Hoover; og at disse tjenester ønsker at køre USA af en særlig grund. Du rejste et spørgsmål, som de fleste kommentatorer ikke rejser, og som er briterne; eller, at der er noget uden for amerikansk indenrigspolitik, der udformer denne opposition til samarbejde med Rusland. Og, med dine mange rejser til Kina og med dit arbejde med Verdenslandbroen – Bælte & Vej Initiativet – har du en meget dyb forståelse af et andet paradigme, der i stigende grad slår rod i verden.

Kunne du sige mere til vore lyttere om, hvad du ser som manglerne i ideen om »deep state« eller den Kolde Krig? Med andre ord, hvad er det, der virkelig promoverer denne opposition til samarbejde med Rusland? Hvad kan vi gøre ved det?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, det er en reminiscens af geopolitik, og geopolitik er den idé, at man har en gruppe nationer eller en nation, der har en fundamental interesse imod en anden nation eller en anden gruppe nationer; og, om nødvendigt, så kan man kæmpe for dette i krige. Det var denne tankegang, der førte til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, og det er indlysende, at, hvis vi ikke overvinder dette i atomvåbenalderen, så taler vi om faren for den menneskelige arts udslettelse, hvis det kommer til krig. Vi er meget nærmere ved dette, end de fleste mennesker bryder sig om at tænke på. Da Sovjetunionen gik i opløsning mellem 1989 og 1991, opstod der muligheden for at få en varig fredsorden. Kommunismen var blevet besejret, og vi foreslog på dette tidspunkt den Eurasiske Landbro; allerede dengang kaldte vi det, den Nye Silkevej. Det var ideen om at etablere et nyt paradigme med samarbejde i alle deltagende landes interesse. Det ville have været en politik, der i høj grad ville have ændret historiens kurs, men, på det tidspunkt havde man Margaret Thatcher, man havde Bush senior, man havde Mitterand; og de besluttede, at, for at forhindre Rusland i nogensinde igen at rejse sig, fra at reducere Sovjetunionen, der var en supermagt, og til at blive et Rusland, der blot skulle være et tredjeverdensland, der producerede råmaterialer. De besluttede, at, i stedet for at få en fredsorden, så lad os satse på den gamle, angloamerikanske politik med at styre verden som et imperium; og lad os gennemtvinge en unipolær verden. Det var politikken i 1990’erne og begyndelsen af 2000’erne; dette var ideen om regimeskifte, dette var ideen om ’farvede revolutioner’. Dette har ligget til grund for krigene, der byggede på løgne, i Afghanistan, Irak, mordet på Gaddafi; disse politikker har ødelagt Mellemøsten. De har været årsag til flygtningekrisen; de har næsten udløst et sammenbrud af den Europæiske Union, for der er ikke tale om nogen Union, som det blev klart under flygtningekrisens forløb.

Denne politik står nu for at eksplodere. Alan Greenspan, af alle personer – den person, der igen og igen advarede mod overstrømmende irrationalitet – er netop trådt frem og har sagt, at der er en ny nedsmeltning af en gældsboble på vej, og at dette vil udløse et krak på aktiemarkedet. Dette imperium er i færd med at kollapse, og jeg mener, det er grunden til, der hersker en sådan desperation for at forhindre Kinas fremvækst; selv om Kina har tilbudt en totalt anden model, der ikke bygger på geopolitik, men derimod bygger på »win-win«-samarbejde; og hvori alle nationer, der samarbejder i Bælte & Vej Initiativet, ville få gavn af det.

Jeg mener, at det, som virkelig står på spil her, er: Går vi tilbage til Det britiske Imperium? Og folk, der kender amerikansk historie, ved meget vel, at Det britiske Imperium aldrig har opgivet ideen om at generobre USA. Kong George III mistede forstanden på tidpunktet for den Amerikanske Revolution, og de forsøgte at vinde Amerika tilbage; først i Krigen i 1812, og dernæst i Borgerkrigen, hvor Det britiske Imperium var allieret med Konføderationen (Sydstats-udbryderstaterne). De finansierede Konføderationen gennem Østkystbankerne. Efter dette indså de, at dette ikke kunne gøres militært, så dernæst forsøgte briterne at underminere det amerikanske establishment og overbevise dem om at styre verden som et imperium, der byggede på den angloamerikanske, særlige relation.

Ser man på hele operationen imod Trump, som i realiteten begyndte længe før Trump vandt valget; det var britisk efterretning, der initierede dossiererne, som fabrikerede efterretninger. Men, de blev så selvfølgelig hjulpet af amerikanske efterretningstjenester, hvor strukturen fra Obama-perioden stadig eksisterede. Så man har virkelig – »deep state« er for kort en formulering, for det inkluderer ikke den kendsgerning, at dette er et britisk kup. Det aftalte spil er ikke med Rusland; det aftalte spil er med Det britiske Imperium. Amerikanere må forstå, at hele deres revolution står på spil; Forfatningen – der stadig, med hensyn til forfatninger, er et af de mest fantastiske dokumenter i verden – den er totalt i fare. Det er allerede blevet overtaget, og dét må det amerikanske folk omstøde.

Ross: Stærke ord. Mange tak. Jeg tror, vores mission står temmelig klart på dette tidspunkt. Vi ser nogle muligheder for, hvad der kan ske, hvis vi skaffer os af med denne mentalitet om global konflikt. Blot et enkelt eksempel ville være, at præsident Trump stoppede Obama-programmet for at bevæbne de såkaldte syriske »oprørsgrupper«. Alene en sådan handling ville være en ændring af den retning, vi har gået i det seneste halvandet årti med de krige for regimeskifte, vi har haft. At sige, det gør vi ikke mere. Vi siger, OK, der kunne blive ting, som hvis vi opgiver dette fremstød for konflikt.

Jeg vil gerne afslutte vores show med nogle ideer til, hvad folk kan gøre, og nogle rapporter om, hvad folk har gjort. Én ting er dette VIPS-memo, som vi har diskuteret og dækket meget på vores webside. Der har været meget aktivitet i landet; vi kan vise jer nogle billeder herfra om et øjeblik, af den form for aktiviteter, vi har været engageret i – stævner på gaden her i New York City. Her er ét til. Det er meget vigtigt, at denne historie kommer ud, for det er absolut eksplosivt; og det virker, det kommer ud. Det er et spørgsmål, som, som vi nævnte, kongresmedlem Rohrbacher har rejst; dette er noget, som bliver rejst af mange af de nye, alternative kilder. Oliver Stone har for nylig igen rejst spørgsmålet, og folk i hele landet rejser det på steder som under møder, der afholdes af kongresmedlemmer. For eksempel havde Ted Lew for nylig et borgermøde i sit valgdistrikt, og han blev af en LaRouche PAC-aktivist spurgt, »Hej, hvis DNC-computerne blev hacket, hvorfor har FBI så aldrig efterforsket dem?« Bare pil denne historie fra hinanden. Der er kommet breve i et pænt antal til avisredaktioner, og som bliver publiceret i aviser i hele landet. Der har været folk, der har indsat annoncer i de lokale aviser, og som siger, at I skal kende til denne historie om, at den russiske hacking var et inside job. Læs VIPS-memoet; gå ind på LaRouche PAC websiden.

Vi har en tilhænger, der har holdt gårdudsalg for at rejse midler til LaRouche PAC. Vi har folk, de afholder stævner i deres hjemby. Et eksempel fra Connecticut, hvor en LaRouche-tilhænger sagde, »Jeg laver et stævne foran mit rådhus«. Det gjorde han, og vi havde et succesfuldt stævne dér, som blev dækket af lokalaviserne og det hele. Byråd, radiointerviews. Der foregår en masse aktivitet. Vi var f.eks. uden for Chuck Schumers kontor i New York; vi spurgte folk, hvor de syntes, vi skulle ’smide’ (chuck) Schumer hen, hvilket ville være en vidunderlig idé. Der er rigtig meget at gøre. Ordet om dette må absolut spredes i sammenhæng med, hvad alternativet kunne blive.

Jeg vil gerne takke Helga Zepp-LaRouche for at være med os her i dag. Jeg vil gerne spørge dig, om du har yderligere kommentarer som afslutning af showet?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, at dette er et af de historiske øjeblikke, hvor det er det enkelte individ, der tæller. Jeg ved, mange mennesker er blevet deprimeret, fordi de ikke tror, man kan gøre noget alligevel; men jeg mener, at vi er lige så tæt på Tredje Verdenskrig lige nu, som vi er på et fuldstændig nyt paradigme. Forestil jer blot en fremtid, hvor Amerika igen vil være venner med andre lande. De fleste folk kan godt lide amerikanere; de kan ikke lide det aktuelle kup, og de kan ikke lide de britiske politikker, der er kommet fra den amerikanske regering i de seneste 16 år. Men, det amerikanske folk har givet udtryk for noget meget vigtigt med valget af præsident Trump. Hvis det amerikanske folk omgående ville gribe muligheden for at støtte denne præsident – Trump har indledt en forbedring af relationen med Xi Jinping; han har fundet et godt samtaleniveau med Putin på G20 i Hamborg. Kina har tilbudt at hjælpe med ved genopbygningen af USA’s infrastruktur og indbudt USA til at tilslutte sig Bælte & Vej Initiativet i hele verden. Hvorfor kan USA, Rusland og Kina, som de tre, mest betydningsfulde nationer, ikke arbejde sammen? Hvis dette kan opnås, kan I så forestille jer, at vi kan få en tryg fred i verden? At vi kan arbejde sammen om at fjerne fattigdom, ikke alene i USA, men overalt? Jeg mener, at dette er de spørgsmål, vi bør tale om, og jeg er enormt overbevist om, at der er noget meget godt i det amerikanske folk, der vil sejre.

Ross: Vidunderligt! Godt. Mange tak. Tak til alle for at være med os i dag. Vi beder om, at I bliver medlem af LaRouche PAC; at I følger denne YouTube-kanal og sørger for at modtage besked om alle vore videoer, alt det, vi udgiver. Og det materiale, vi har diskuteret – VIPS-memoet fra Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, og videoerne, vi har fremstillet om spørgsmålet – kan ses på din YouTube-kanal. I finder mere i videobeskrivelsen, og vi har her et link til en af disse videoer til jer. (dansk: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=20816)

Tak for at se med; lad os se at komme i gang!

Jason Ross: I dag vil vi dække et spørgsmål, der er af største betydning for nationen. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Diane Sare fra New York, fra Manhattan-projektet i New York.

Emnet, vi i dag vil beskæftige os med, er »Russia-gate». Vi har så ofte og så meget hørt sagt om de uigendrivelige, angivelige beviser på, at Donald Trump blev anbragt i Det Hvide Hus gennem Vladimir Putins rænkespil, at det næsten bliver taget for givet. Alle formoder, at det fandt sted; faktisk var det indført i loven om russiske sanktioner, der netop er blevet vedtaget i Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, som en antagelse, at vi ved, Vladimir Putin fik Trump valgt til embedet. At Putin beordrede en indflydelseskampagne mod det amerikanske valg.

Det er ikke sandt.

Mandag i denne uge offentliggjorde en gruppe ved navn Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, eller VIPS, et memo med titlen, »Var russisk hacking et inside job?« I dette memo piller de den centrale påstand om hele historien med Russia-gate ned. Denne centrale påstand er, at russiske hackere var involveret i at få materiale fra Demokraternes Nationalkomite, DNC, materiale, der var meget pinligt for Hillary Clinton, og offentliggøre det via WikiLeaks. Dette har det centrale internet-individ, kendt som Guccifer 2.0, som omdrejningspunkt; den vurdering fra en efterretningskomite, der blev udgivet 6. januar, 2017, i Obama-administrationens sidste dage. Dette er den rapport, som alle har citeret, og som angiveligt alle efterretningstjenesterne er enige i.

Det er ikke sandt.

Kun en håndplukket gruppe af efterretningstjenester var overhovedet involveret i denne vurdering, og deres vurdering er ikke enstemmig. Denne centrale bevisfaktor er, hvad vi i dag, mht. VIPS-memoet, vil tale om.

Vi var så heldige at kunne interviewe et af de stiftende medlemmer af VIPS, Ray McGovern, der er tidligere CIA-analytiker på topniveau, og som i løbet af sin karriere dagligt udarbejdede briefinger til præsidenten, og som talte med os i går aftes. Vi bad ham om at fremlægge, hvad implikationerne af det memo, de har fremstillet, er, og her er, hvad han sagde:

Ray McGovern: Den 12., 15. juni? Så snart, de opdagede, at Julian Assange havde e-mails med forbindelse til Hillary Clinton, hvad gør man så? Jamen sådan, som jeg har rekonstrueret det, så siger vi, »Det kommer fra russerne«. Så Crowdstrike – der arbejdede for DNC – meddeler, »Der er skadelig software, og vi mener, det var russerne«. Dernæst siger Guccifer, omgående, den samme dag, »ja, ja! Vi gjorde det, og vi arbejder for Julian Assange«.

Ideen – det er selvfølgelig, som vi fortolker det – ideen var den, at, eftersom Julian Assange ville offentliggøre e-mails på et eller andet tidspunkt; måske gør han det lige før Demokraternes Nationalkonvent. Gud, det ville være forfærdeligt. Så vi siger, han fik det fra russerne, og på denne måde kan vi aflede opmærksomheden fra det, der står i disse e-mails; for himlen må vide, hvor meget han har; han kunne måske vise, at vi stjal nomineringen fra Bernie Sanders. Det er jo sikkert i materialet. Så lad os foretage dette lille, forebyggende træk; lad os – her i juni, før han overhovedet får dette her ud; før – Julian forfalsker ikke disse ting, han gør det, at han fremlægger dem så man kan søge på dem – det kommer til at tage lidt tid. Så vi har lidt tid, seks uger eller så; de vidste ikke, hvor længe, men lad os gøre det med det samme. Så, når Julian Assange kommer ud med det, er det forberedt til, at de alle siger, »Aha! Det var russerne, der hackede«.

Dette var storslået – jeg husker den gamle film eller bog, Magnificent Obsession (da. Titel ’Den store læge’); dette var storslået afledning. For, så snart Julian Assange kom ud med disse e-mails med relation til Hillary Clinton – det var den 22. juli – tre dage før Demokraternes Nationalkonvent begyndte; så var de forberedt. De var forberedt til at sige, »Aha! Russerne gjorde det; Rusland gjorde det!« Man kan se dem ligesom sidde rundt om et bord. Hillary siger, »Min Gud! Hvad skal vi gøre? Hvad vil Bernie sige? Han har allerede sagt, at han indvilliger, men hvad vil han nu sige?« En eller anden siger, »Jeg ved, hvad vi gør. Vi giver russerne skylden«. »Men det var ikke russerne, det var Julian Assange.« »Det er OK. Vi siger, at Julian Assange arbejdede for russerne.« »Ja, men hvad skulle logikken være?« »Hør nu her! Russerne ønsker, at Trump skal vinde, fordi han har sagt pæne ting om Putin; det bliver nemt at bevise. Nogen bedre ideer?« »OK, det gør vi.« Det virkede perfekt.

Ross: Så her har vi sammenhængen. En kronologi for vore seere, for dette er blevet så tilsløret i tidens tåge, at det ligesom er blevet svært at se de enkelte dele. Vi genopfrisker, at, i juni meddelte Julian Assange, stifteren af WikiLeaks, at han havde fået materiale fra DNC, og at han ville offentliggøre det. I løbet af få dage meddeler DNC’s IT-firma Crowdstrike, at de har beviser på, at Rusland hackede deres computere. Ligeledes er der en internet-hacker, der kalder sig Guccifer 2.0, der dukker ud af det blå og siger, at han er hackeren bag DNC; han kom ind i deres system, og han siger, »Jeg vil bevise det. Her er noget af det, jeg stjal«. I juni blev der offentliggjort dokumenter af denne Guccifer-skikkelse, der omfattede de mest klodsede falske spor, du nogen sinde har set. Disse dokumenter blev med overlæg forfalsket til at indeholde – med kyrilliske bogstaver – »Felix Edmundovich« som dokumentets ’sidst redigeret af’. Se, Felix Edmundovich Dzerzjinskij (død 1926) var stifteren af det sovjetiske hemmelige politi. Man kunne måske mene, at, hvis russiske hackere gør noget, gør de det ikke så åbenlyst som at markere sig på deres computere med dette navn; det er simpelt hen et åbenlyst falsk spor, man skal finde. Der kom yderligere, angivelige beviser med Guccifer 2.0, der forsøgte at skjule sin identitet og foregav at være rumæner, selv om han faktisk ikke kunne tale rumænsk; så folk kunne sige, »Aha! Han skjuler sin identitet. Vi fandt disse absolutte beviser« – som i virkeligheden var ’røde sild’ (misvisende ledetråde) – »disse russiske navne i dokumenterne. Dokumenterne var indstillet til det russiske sprog. Aha! Dette er bevis.«

Det, det i virkeligheden betyder, er, at disse dokumenter blev kunstigt forfalsket. Det er, hvad VIPS gennemgår i dette memo ved navn, »Var det russiske hack et inside job?« Dette memo er tilgængeligt på nærværende videodeskription, såvel som med links på LaRouche PAC’s webside. Som hr. McGovern sagde, så fulgte der en stor udgivelse af dokumenter fra Guccifer engang i september, 2016. Disse dokumenter afslører, iht. de kriminaltekniske analyser, som VIPS har gennemgået, at dokumenterne ikke blev hacket; men de blev derimod lækket; de blev kopieret. Hastigheden i datatransmissionen, hastigheden af skabelsen af filerne, indikerer en hastighed, der overgår, hvad det er muligt at opnå over internettet, hvis man hackede ind i en computer og dernæst udtrak filer. De konkluderer så, at dette indikerer, at disse filer simpelt hen blev kopieret og dernæst offentliggjort, forfalsket med dette Guccifer 2.0 individ for at give det skær af russisk involvering i hackingen. Kendsgerningen er, at der ingen som helst beviser er blevet præsenteret, der kan vise, hvorfra WikiLeaks fik deres materiale. Stifteren af WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, sagde, dette var et læk, det var ikke et hack; det kom ikke fra Rusland, det kom ikke fra en statslig russisk aktør. Det var et læk. Som hr. McGovern sagde, så var der mange mennesker i DNC, der ikke var glade for den måde, man håndterede primærvalgene på. Der mangler ikke motiver for at udgive sandheden om, hvordan DNC havde opereret.

Men, oven i disse fabrikerede beviser, har vi nu en situation, hvor dette anti-russiske hysteri er fænomenalt. I går vedtog man en lov om anti-russiske sanktioner i Huset og Senatet. Denne lov, HR3364, tager det for givet, at Rusland hackede de amerikanske valg og påtvinger meget strenge sanktioner i flere tilfælde, og den forbyder præsidenten at ændre dem. Med andre ord, så fjerner loven præsidentens evne – i dette tilfælde, præsident Trump – til at indlede udenrigspolitik; hvilket rent faktisk er en del af præsidentens job. Sådan arbejder vi i dette land.

Så en af de mest chokerende ting om alt dette er, at denne angivelige handling fra Ruslands side, som er blevet kaldt en krigshandling af flere kongresmedlemmer – folk siger, at, pga. dette, bør Donald Trump afsættes ved en rigsret (impeachment); dette har kongresmedlemmer sagt. For noget af denne størrelsesorden, en krigshandling, der fører til sanktioner og et potentielt udbrud af konflikt med verdens mest magtfulde atommagt ud over os selv, mon dog ikke, man ville have gennemført en solid efterforskning? Det skete ikke. Ja, faktisk, efter DNC-computerne blev hacket, hvem efterforskede dem? Efter den angivelige hacking, hvem efterforskede dem? Ikke FBI. Et privat firma – Crowdstrike – med politiske forbindelser, der gør dets resultater meget mistænkelige.

VIPS afsluttede deres memo med at spørge, hvem er Guccifer 2.0? De siger, »Vi bør måske spørge FBI«. Så jeg spurgte Ray McGovern, »Hvorfor bør vi måske spørge FBI?«

McGovern: Efter det blev afsløret, at DNC var blevet, om jeg så må sige, ’hacket’, ville det, der normalt ville ske, med mindre jeg skulle tage meget fejl, være, at FBI ville blive indbudt til at se på det og finde ud af, hvem, der gjorde det. Eller DNC ville sige, »Vil I ikke nok komme og se, hvem der gjorde dette?« Men ved I hvad? Ingen af dem syntes at være særligt interesserede i at se på det. Så, med al respekt – og vi skylder faktisk ikke meget respekt – James Comey er skyldig i embedsmisbrug, og ikke blot embedsmisbrug. Folk skriger, at dette er en krigshandling, og han læner sig tilbage og siger, »Jeg ønsker ikke at sende mine teknikere ind her«? Hvorfor? Ja, jeg kan fortælle jer, hvorfor. Det ser for mig ud, som om, at, når man er efterretningsanalytiker, så har man tendens til at forbinde punkter; det er, hvad vi kalder en analytiker af alle kilder. Man ser ikke kun på de tekniske detaljer, de kriminaltekniske data, vi nu har, men også på, hvad der sker udenfor; hvad man finder ud af gennem aviserne. Og derfra ved vi, at CIA, med hjælp fra NSA, havde udviklet – det tog dem 15 år – en utrolig evne.

Ross: Denne evne, McGovern henviser til, er det, WikiLeaks afslørede i marts, med Vault 7-programmet. Ét aspekt af dette program hed Marble Framework; noget, CIA udviklede, og som gjorde det muligt at sløre kilden til cyber-angreb. Med andre ord, så havde CIA brugt en enorm indsats – hr. McGovern skønner det til milliarder af dollars, der blev brugt – til at udvikle evnen til at udføre hack, og dernæst at kunne tilskrive dem til andre nationer, til andre aktører. Han siger, at dette Marble Framework gjorde det muligt for CIA med overlæg at plante falske beviser for russisk involvering. De havde tekst med kyrilliske bogstaver, der kunne indsættes; med andre ord, så var det muligt at få det til at se ud, som om angriberne kom fra Rusland. Spørgsmålet er så, er dette blevet efterforsket? Har Trump med sine efterretningstjenester diskuteret en efterforskning for at finde ud af, om denne type evner blev brugt? Hr. McGovern siger, at det er blevet afsløret, at de blev brugt i 2016. Var det dette, de blev brugt til? Det ville en efterforskning kunne vise.

Dette rejser også spørgsmålet: Hvorfor denne fjendtlighed imod Rusland? Er dette en kynisk kampagneplan fra Demokraterne for at komme sig over et valg, som de tabte, og forsøge at afsætte Trump og forsøge at få magten i landet tilbage? Eller hvad andet er der i spil her? Hvorfor blev denne lov om sanktioner vedtaget så enstemmigt, med kun tre kongresmedlemmer (i Huset), der stemte imod, og kun to senatorer? Vi spurgte Ray McGovern, hvad han mente om dette:

McGovern: Det kommer mest fra Demokraterne, sært nok. Og det var oprindeligt, som jeg før forsøgte at forklare, et forsøg på at sværte russerne for at hjælpe Hillary til at blive valgt. Da hun så ikke blev valgt; »Hovsa! Vi kan stadig bruge dette her.« Hvordan kan vi bruge det? Til at vise, at Hillary ikke tabte valget; det kunne ikke skyldes, at hun ikke var en særlig god kandidat, eller at ingen stolede på hende. »Det er russerne!« Så nu tror de fleste amerikanere – ifølge opinionsundersøgelserne – at denne her fyr, Trump, som vi nu har som præsident, er der, fordi Vladimir Putin hjalp ham med at blive valgt. Det er dårligt! Det er virkelig dårligt.

Hvad er så målet nu? Jamen, målet er ikke alene at gøre Trump illegitim, men også at blive ved at fyre op under spændingerne med Rusland, så der ikke kan komme en reel detente; så vi kan sværte russerne og sige, »Se så dér!«

Ross: Det andet mål, eller den anden begivenhed, der forårsagede hele dette Ruslands-hysteri, var det, der skete i Ukraine; hvor et kup i 2014 væltede den valgte præsident af Ukraine og installerede en ny regering. USA’s involvering i dette kup var helt åbenlys; det var klart som dagen. De af os, der så med, så på YouTube videoerne, der dækkede audio-optagelserne af amerikanske regeringsfolk, der planlagde, hvordan den nye, ukrainske regering skulle se ud. Victoria Nuland var involveret i at være med til at etablere en ny regering i Ukraine. Som resultat af hele denne udvikling kom Krims gentilslutning til Rusland. Dette er blevet brugt til at sige, »Vi får aldrig fred med Rusland, før Rusland giver Krim tilbage til Ukraine« – hvilket med sikkerhed aldrig vil ske – »sanktionerne vil fortsætte. Rusland er alles fjende.«

Med dette in mente, at det var USA’s indblanding i Ukraine, der skabte betingelserne for destabilisering i den østlige del af Ukraine, som sluttelig førte til Krims gentilslutning til Rusland, kan vi stille os selv spørgsmålet, »Hvad vej går dette, hvis denne udvikling ikke stoppes?« Her er, hvad hr. McGovern havde at sige om det:

McGovern: Læg alt dette sammen, og man får en syntetisk; en slags kunstig konstruktion af Vladimir Putin som selveste Djævelen. Hele pressen foretager denne ’meme’ (indforstået information), og alle går med på det – især Demokraterne – og det er det mest besynderlige, jeg nogen sinde har set. Her har vi Donald Trump. Han vil gerne tale med Putin; og hvad sker der? De får en aftale om våbenstilstand (i Syrien). Det er ikke det hele, men en lille del af Syrien. Bliver det rapporteret i pressen? Nej, måske på en side inde i avisen.

Ross: De siger, det er at bøje sig for russerne.

McGovern: Så, hvis nogen af os har interesse i at stoppe blodbadet i Syrien, hvilket vi burde gøre; vi burde applaudere Trump for enhver anden indsats for at arbejde sammen med de andre styrker i spil. Ikke alene russerne, men også syrerne, tyrkerne og iranerne. Hvis vi ikke har et fælles mål imod ISIS, hvem har vi så et fælles mål imod?

Så al denne bagtalelse – og det, som nu bliver interessant; Trump besluttede i denne uge, at der ikke kommer mere støtte, ikke flere våben og penge til de såkaldte »moderate« oprørere. De oprørere, som USA har støttet i Syrien. Det er stort! Det er CIA’s pose; det er milliarder af dollar, der er investeret i det. Hvad vil der ske? Jamen, Trump er nu gået op imod CIA i dette spørgsmål. Og jeg genkalder nu, at ingen har arbejdet i Washington længere end senator Chuck Schumer, højest-rangerende Demokrat i Senatet. Han gav et interview til Rachel Maddow –

Rachel Maddow: Han tager disse skud og modsætningsforhold –

Chuck Schumer: Jeps.

Maddow: – som håner efterretningstjenesterne.

Schumer: Lad mig fortælle dig, at, hvis man går op imod efterretningssamfundet, så har de hundrede og sytten måder, hvorpå de kan hævne sig på dig.

McGovern: Rachel Maddow siger, »Åh, vi skal pause.« (McGovern) Giv mig mikrofonen! Hvis det var dig, ville du så ikke sige, »Siger du, at USA’s præsident bør frygte efterretningssamfundet?« Det er selvfølgelig, hvad han sagde. Hvorfor refererer jeg til dette? Juryen er ude. Han er gået lidt op imod dem. Om han gør det mht. det russiske hack, ved jeg ikke. Måske er [CIA-direktør Mike] Pompeo bange for at spørge disse fyre; eller bange for at spørge … Men, hvis han er bange, vil han så følge sin forgængers eksempel? For, Obama var dødsens ræd for John Brennan; det er derfor, han forsvarede ham, da Brennan hackede ind i Senatets computere. Det er derfor, han forsøgte at forhindre offentliggørelsen af memoet fra Senatet om CIA-tortur; for det viste, at Brennan og de andre havde løjet gennem tænderne om effektiviteten af torturteknikker. Så Obama forsvarede i høj grad sig selv, eller forsvarede dem, for sluttelig at forsvare sig. Om Schumer har ret, får vi sandsynligvis at se, snarere før end siden.

Ross: Vi finder ud af det snarere før end siden, baseret på, hvordan præsidenten, og hvordan det amerikanske folk, responderer til dette pres. Prøv lige et minut at tænke: Hvad ville det betyde, hvis Trump blev smidt ud af embedet baseret på noget, vi ved er en fabrikering, en løgn, skabt af efterretningstjenesterne? En løgn, der siger, Vladimir Putin anbragte ham i embedet? Hvis USA’s præsident kan fjernes fra embedet, baseret på nonsens, skabt af efterretningstjenesterne, har vi så en valgt regering i USA? Jeg tror, det er det spørgsmål, som vi må rejse, som en hastesag, ved at få de eksplosive nyheder om dette memo ud, som kommer fra Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

DIANE SARE:  We are going to ask everybody watching this
program to mobilize to break this story.  I first want to address
some of the questions that people may raise:  “Of course we know
the Russians didn’t hack the election. I voted for Trump; and I
wasn’t told to vote for Trump by Vladimir Putin.  So, what’s new
about this?”  Or people say, “We’re used to being lied to all the
time.  Why does this make a difference?”
First I just want to say a little bit about who some of
these people are.  In case you missed it, Ray McGovern is a
former US Army and former CIA intelligence; I believe he is
fluent in Russian and has a great deal of knowledge on this.
Bill Binney, who is the co-author of this report, is the former
NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical and Military
Analysis, the co-founder of NSA Signals Intelligence Automation
Research Center — that is the data-mining.  But he designed in
part the technology to be able to spy on everyone; he knows this
very well.  The expert who did the forensics on these so-called
hacks which turned out to be a leak, is someone named Skip
Holden; who’s a retired IBM Program Manager for Information
Technology.  He’s the one who looked at this, who came to the
conclusion — as has been reported earlier — that there was no
hack.  That what happened was that 1976MB of data were copied in
only 87 seconds; which cannot be done over the internet.  That
cannot be done through cyberspace, but only by using some kind of
thumb drive or USB port, some kind of storage device that is
actually inserted into the computer to copy this data.  And that
this was done by someone operating in the Eastern time zone; so
an insider.  Then this was blamed on Russia.
The point is, we have in hand in this report by a group of
certified experts, proof, the documentation that this thing is a
[inaud; 23:49] fraud from the beginning.  That is extremely
important.  We discovered when going to the Congress yesterday,
four LaRouche PAC organizers took about 1000 copies of the VIPS
report to Congress and discovered that nobody there had heard
anything about this; which is outrageous.  You might remember
before the elections that President Obama and others had promised
there was going to be a classified briefing from the Congress,
presenting the alleged proofs that the Russians were hacking into
the Democratic Party and sabotaging the elections; and then such
briefing never occurred.  There never was any evidence presented.
I just want to take a step back for a second, because on the
other hand, to understand this.  When Lyndon LaRouche heard about
Comey’s testimony and the story about Russia, he said “The people
pushing this want thermonuclear war.  If they succeed, we’re
going to have thermonuclear war with Russia.”  I’d like to remind
people that what happened in Ukraine was the direct result of a
deliberate policy, as Jason said.  You remember it was economic,
in terms of whether Ukraine was going to orient economically
towards Russia or Europe.  They were put in a position where they
were allegedly being forced to choose one or the other; as
opposed to working with both.  So, a false crisis was created in
order to bring in virtual actual Nazis.  We can just show one
picture [Fig. 1], the first one which I think has their Svoboda
party, which looks like swastika armbands.  They violently
overthrew the government with $5 billion laundered through the US
State Department; largely from George Soros.  Victoria Nuland,
who was under Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.  In other
words, we were provoking war with Russia; deliberately moving
NATO eastward, putting Nazis — actual supporters of Hitler and
Stephan Bandera — in power in Ukraine on Russia’s border.  Why?
Because the trans-Atlantic system is on the brink of total
disintegration.  The British Empire, this empire monarchy, is in
its final agony; it will not survive.  They’ve printed trillions
of dollars, they’ve bailed out the banks time and again, they’ve
created a gigantic bubble; it’s going down.  Therefore, there is
a push to expand the ability to loot and to either bluff or
directly have what they think could be  a limited nuclear war
with Russia.
The same thing in Syria. People may remember, Hillary
Clinton was proposing a no-fly zone over Syria so that we could
shoot down Russian planes in defense of ISIS.  As Ray McGovern
mentioned in the interview, one of the positive developments of
the Trump Presidency — a very significant one — is he met with
Putin, got a ceasefire; and we are no longer arming the so-called
“moderate” groups who are running around chopping people’s heads
off and filming it.  It’s a huge breakthrough.
So, I just want to underscore that the fact that we have in
our hands, by a group of highly competent professionals, the
proof that the entire story about Russia hacking the elections
was a fraud, is critical.  What Jason described about this new
round of sanctions against Russia, which is based on crimes that
were never committed.  Russia did not start the violence in
Ukraine; that was launched under Victoria Nuland with funding
from George Soros and the State Department.  It’s a bunch of
Nazis.  They did not illegally annex Crimea.  The people of
Crimea, who are predominantly Russian and Russian speaking, held
a referendum where they voted to leave Ukraine so they wouldn’t
be burned to death in buildings for speaking Russian; which is
what these Nazis did to people in Odessa, for example.  There was
a legitimate vote in Crimea; and there was no hack of the DNC
computers.
The evidence that came out, as Putin said “Why are people so
concerned?  You should be concerned that what was leaked was
actually true”; which was that the Hillary Clinton campaign had
ripped off Bernie Sanders in every imaginable way, and there was
nothing honest or upfront about the way she conducted her
campaign.  People suspected it, and that was then proven.  People
remember that Wasserman-Schultz had to resign.
The point is, we have this in hand; and what we are asking
you to do is several things.  One, obviously the Congress should
stop being a bunch of sold-out, gutless wonders, and they should
hold hearings with the actual evidence.  That is, Ray McGovern,
Bill Binney, Skip Holden; they should be invited to testify in
hearings in the Congress.  You can call into the Congressional
switchboard, which is (202) 224-3121.  You can see on the screen
the petition [Fig. 2] being circulated by the LaRouche Political
Action Committee.  Everybody should sign the petition, but you
should also circulate it on social media.  As I mentioned, what
we discovered in Washington is that no one had even heard of this
report.  We have to change the so-called narrative; that’s one
thing that we’ve run into in DC.  Everyone talks about narrative
this, narrative that, as if there’s no such thing as truth.
Well, the narrative right now is that somehow Vladimir Putin is
responsible for every evil that’s occurred on the planet in the
last 10 years at least; and that therefore, we should impose
sanctions on Russia and even risk a war with that country.  This
is completely insane; it is not true.  The truth of the matter is
that there is a New Paradigm which is being led by China; which
the US can join with China and Russia.  It has the potential, as
President Trump has expressed his intent to make American great
again.  The way we make America great again, is by collaborating
with China, with Russia to go back to a Hamiltonian system of
political economy.
So, our job, as Mrs. LaRouche put it, is we have to get the
truth out on this story.  The Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity — VIPS — have given us a weapon.  She said,  “You
know the phenomenon where people are marching across a bridge at
such a frequency that the footsteps resonate with the
construction of the bridge; and it creates a vibration that
causes the bridge itself to collapse.  What we want to do with
this mobilization is break the back of this lie.”  The American
people have been lied to for a very long time.  We were lied to
about the Kennedy assassination with devastating consequences to
our republic.  We were lied to about 9/11; we were lied to about
the Saudi and British role in 9/11 explicitly.  We are now being
lied to about the election; and these lies could have the
consequence of running a coup d’etat against a legitimately
elected leader and putting us on a trajectory for World War III.
We can break the back of this by circulating this report.
So, I would urge people to take the material from the
LaRouche PAC website, get it out on your Facebook accounts, send
it out through Twitter.  Call the White House and urge President
Trump to appoint special counsel to launch a Presidential
investigation of what happened in the DNC computers.  That we
have evidence that someone, as Ray McGovern asked, What does the
CIA know about this?  What does Brennan know about this?  What
does the FBI know about this?  Who was it who went into the DNC
computer and tried to make it look like Russia had done this?
President Trump, as President of the United States, has a
legitimate right to demand such an investigation.  You should
call the White House and demand this.  Call your Congressman and
say “Have you read the report from the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity?  Have you read that report?  Don’t you
think there should be hearings?  We have to investigate this.”
Get this out to all of your friends; it’s absolutely urgent.
Because when we break the back of this, then we can transform the
nation.
So, I would just say that it is very important that people
take action.  The LaRouche PAC website will be the center of this
mobilization; giving you the ammunition that you need and the
resources that you need to get to your elected officials.

ROSS:  Absolutely!  And that ammunition is available for you
right here.  In the video description you’ll find a link to the
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity memo —
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-
russia-hack-evidence/. The full interview with Ray McGovern
will be available on our website over the weekend; we’ll be
posting it soon.
I just wanted to bring up one more aspect of this in terms
of the coup.  Diane had brought up John Brennan.  Well, John
Brennan, at the Aspen Security Forum just a couple of days ago,
had said that if Trump fires Robert Mueller, the special
investigator, that the intelligence agencies should refuse to go
along with it.  In essence, he’s calling for a coup against the
President based on a political decision that he might make.  So,
ask yourself:  Do you want to have a government?  Or do you want
to have John Brennan and other non-elected people dictating and
determining policy in a way that is to the absolute detriment of
our nation?  If this isn’t removed, the opportunity to work with
Russia, to work with China, and to work towards a better future
as Diane had mentioned, will simply be impossible.  So, get that
memo out; make sure everybody you know reads it.  It’s absolutely
dynamite and it definitively puts to rest the whole Russia-gate
nonsense.  It’ll be great to move on from that, won’t it?
So, thank you for joining us.  I’m looking forward to your
action to make this a reality.  We’ll see you next time.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 25. juli, 2017 – Det ekstraordinære memorandum, fremstillet af Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) i går, demonstrerer endegyldigt, at de såkaldte russiske hack af Demokraternes Nationalkomite (DNC), slet ikke var hack, med derimod læk, udført af nogen, der havde fysisk adgang til DNC’s computere. Dataene blev dernæst manipuleret for at belaste Rusland. Læs hele det eksplosive VIPS-memorandum her.

Video, Jason Ross:

»I går publicerede en gruppe ved navn Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) et memo, der destruerede påstanden om, at Vladimir Putin og russerne ’hackede’ det amerikanske præsidentvalg for at anbringe Donald Trump i embedet. De tilbageviser specifikt vurderingen af 6. januar, foretaget af håndplukkede medlemmer af et par amerikanske efterretningstjenester, der havde påstået, at »den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin havde beordret en indflydelseskampagne i 2016, målrettet mod det amerikanske præsidentvalg«, for at anbringe Donald Trump i embedet. Ifølge dette regeringsmemo af 6. januar, så, udover angiveligt at udløse en drabelig hær af internet-trolde, så vel som også at udløse russisk propaganda gennem den snigende benævnte, russiske Tv-kanal, Russia Today, påstår regeringsdokumentet, at russisk militærefterretning benyttede en hacker, kendt som ’Guccifer 2.0’, til at hacke DNC og udlevere materiale til WikiLeaks. Dette materiale viste sig så at være pinligt for Clinton-kampagnen og afslørede, at DNC havde modarbejdet Clintons modkandidat i primærvalgene, Bernie Sanders. WikiLeaks fastholdt, at det materiale, de offentliggjorde, var et læk, ikke et hack, og at det ikke kom fra Rusland. Dengang insisterede VIPS på, at alle beviser pegede på, at materialet var et læk snarere end et hack.

Kort tid efter, at WikiLeak meddelte, at det havde dette DNC-materiale sidste juni, dukkede dette nye, internet-individ, Guccifer 2.0, op på scenen og hævdede, at han hackede DNC, og omgik WikiLeaks ved at udgive flere DNC-dokumenter. Metadataene på nogle af disse dokumenter omfattede en ’sidst ændret’-bruger ved navn Felix Edmundovich, skrevet med kyrilliske skrifttegn, og opkaldt efter Felix Edmundovich Dzerzjinskij, den første chef for det Sovjetiske Hemmelige Politi. Hovsa! Dernæst afslørede klodsede interviews af ’Guccifer 2.0’, der påstod at være rumæner, at han faktisk ikke var bekendt med dette sprog og måske skjulte sin sande identitet. Disse spor blev præsenteret som bevis på, at det var russisk involvering; at ’Guccifer 2.0’ var et russisk hack, der tilsigtede at influere på det amerikanske præsidentvalg.

VIPS-memoet, der blev offentliggjort i går, i hvilke undersøgelser af sites af en computertekniker og af Adam Carter, giver stærke tekniske beviser, der peger på en overlagt anbringelse af russisk metadata og at kilden til filerne, der kom fra ’Guccifer 2.0’, kom fra en direkte, lokal adgang til DNC-netværket. Ikke et computer-fjernhack. Det tempo, hvormed filerne blev overført og senere offentliggjort af ’Guccifer 2.0’, var alt for højt til, at det kunne være gjort via en Internetforbindelse, men som derimod er i overensstemmelse med at kopiere gennem et lokalt netværk til et eksternt USB-stik eller USB-nøgle. Tider, der er lagret i filernes og arkivernes metadata, peger på, at manipulationen med filerne var udført i Østkyst-tidszone (USA). Dette var ikke et hack. Den senere tilføjelse af russiske metadata, inklusive navnet Felix Edmondovich, skete også med fuldt overlæg.

Hvad betyder så alt dette? Efter WikiLeaks meddelte, at det havde materiale fra DNC, blev der lanceret en operation, der skulle tilføje russiske fingeraftryk og frembringe et angiveligt sekundært læk af materiale. Der er mere i alt dette, som jeg vil opfordre til, at I læser i det komplette memorandum, der opfordrer præsidenten til at efterforske CIA, især tidligere direktør John Brennan, samt FBI, for det falske hack og den falske tilskrivning til Rusland. Husk på, at alt dette sker pga. Donald Trumps kurs mod en detente med Rusland og imod den igangværende krigsførelse, der promoveres af aktører, kendt som ’deep state’ (’staten i staten’) i USA. Præsidenten må slå tilbage mod disse tjenester for at kunne forfølge sin egen politik; og, at slå kraftigt tilbage mod dette ’Russia-Gate’ er altafgørende for at få det til at ske.«

Benjamin Deniston: Vi har et par vigtige afsnit til jer i dag, inklusive annonceringen af en nødmobilisering, der i dag lanceres af LaRouchePAC, med et krav om forebyggende handlinger, der er nødvendige for at standse et nyt finanskollaps – et kollaps, der er værre end krisen i 2008. Det kommer vi til.

Vi vil også afspille en video med en appel fra fr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der taler direkte til det amerikanske folk; med en opfordring til, at det amerikanske folk rejser sig og forsvarer præsident Trump, især med hans løfter om at genopbygge den amerikanske økonomi gennem at vedtage Glass-Steagall og satse på det Amerikanske Økonomiske System. Videoen kommer lige om lidt.

Vi vil afslutte med nogle rapporter direkte fra gaden om LaRouche Politiske Aktionskomite (LPAC) i hele landet. Så bliv her på kanalen, for dette får du med sikkerhed ikke i medierne i dag, og som er en ægte aflæsning af, hvad det faktisk almindelige, patriotiske, amerikanske folk ønsker; hvad de tænker nu, og hvad de ønsker at gøre.

Men før vi kommer til disse to sidstnævnte afsnit, har vi i dag en meddelelse om, at LaRouchePAC udsteder en nødmobilisering og kræver, at de relevante regeringer griber til forebyggende handlinger for at standse et nyt kollaps af det transatlantiske finanssystem. I løbet af de seneste 24 timer har både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche krævet denne nødmobilisering; der skal føres både i USA og i nationerne i hele Europa for at kræve, og gennemtvinge og forlange, at de relevante regeringer – inklusive præsident Trump – griber til de nødvendige, forebyggende handlinger for at reorganisere finanssystemet og reorganisere det økonomiske system. Og at gøre dette, før den nye sammenbrudskrise rammer. Alle, der følger os her på LaRouchePAC, ved, at de forebyggende handlinger, der må foretages omgående, er absolut krystalklare. Vi har LaRouches økonomiske genrejsningsprogram, Fire Love, der begynder med vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall som blot det første, indledende skridt.

Før vi kommer nærmere ind på dette, vil vi belyse den kendsgerning, at der er nye diskussioner og nye bekymringer om mange mulige udløserpunkter for denne nye finanskrise. Vi har f.eks. nye udviklinger i den såkaldte italienske bankkrise; der faktisk ikke er begrænset til Italien, men det er, hvad man diskuterer. I de seneste par dage har diverse finanseksperter advaret om, at 16 ud af 19 italienske banker – det er 85 % af bankerne i Italien, 16 ud af 19 – i øjeblikket ikke kan leve op til de europæiske standarder mht. misligholdte lån (Non-performing Loans; NPL)[1]. Det rapporteres, at disse banker skal rejse $32 milliard for at leve op til EU-standarder. Denne helt nye udvikling kommer i sammenhæng med en igangværende krise i eurozonen. For eksempel har Marco Zanni, både i sine egne interviews med andre publikationer og i interviews med LaRouchePAC, advaret om, at vi nu har kurs mod en ny bankkrise. Han har udtalt sig offentligt imod dette og har meget nøje overvåget situationen med de italienske banker og eurozone-bankerne. Under diskussionen i morges med fr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, kom hun med en meget klar pointe. Hun sagde: »Hvis der er amerikanere, der tror, at dette er et italiensk spørgsmål, eller dette er et europæisk spørgsmål, så må I hellere tro om igen og indse, hvad situationen er.« Det er almindeligt kendt, at amerikanske banker har en derivateksponering på over $2 billioner over for europæiske banker. Det er ikke noget nyt; vi så det i 2007, 2008, 2009. Det transatlantiske banksystem er så indbyrdes sammenflettet og afhængigt, at en nedsmeltning i en hvilken som helst af disse regioner let kan sende hele systemet til tælling.

Det er den situation, vi ser på i Europa. I USA er der signaler over det hele. For eksempel situationen i Texas, hvor, den 11. juli, Houston Cronicle rapporterede, at selskabers misligholdelse af lån i hele staten Texas i dag allerede er højere, end den var under krisen i 2008-2009. Så selv om vi angiveligt ikke er i en krise – det er, hvad man fortæller os – så er graden af selskabers misligholdelse allerede højere i Texas i dag, end den var under krisens højdepunkt, da den sidst voksede frem. Dette omfatter visse helt enestående situationer. For eksempel, en situation, der beskrives som »uhørt«, en begivenhed uden fortilfælde; og det var sammenbruddet af en Houston-baseret, privat kapitalfond ved navn EnerVest, Limited, der vurderedes til $2 milliard. Men, efter dens kollaps, vurderedes den helt ned til nul. Før denne begivenhed ville typiske tab fra denne form for situation, hvor en privat kapitalfond går ned, ende med et tab på 25 %. Her har vi tab på 100 %. Dette bliver åbenlyst indrømmet som en begivenhed uden fortilfælde. Wall Street Journal interviewede under sin dækning af det eksperter, der advarede, »Flere andre energi-fokuserede fonde er i fare for en lignende situation«.

Ud over denne specifikke situation i Texas er det velkendt, at graden af selskabers misligholdelse i hele landet allerede var i støt stigning i hele 2016 og fortsættende i 2017. Der er endnu en situation omkring restancer i billån, der nu er på et niveau, der kan sammenlignes med restancerne i ejendomslån i 2006, umiddelbart inden kollapset af boblen i ejendomslån. Jeg håber, vore seere er klar over, at billån er blevet brugt til en lignende virkning med at skabe værdipapirer og andre bjerge af svindellån på basis af disse oprindelige lån. Man er bekymret for, at restancerne på billånene på samme måde kunne udløse en krise.

Og så har vi selvfølgelig den igangværende saga om de uophørlige bailouts med politikken for kvantitativ lempelse. I Europa sender enhver blot antydning eller diskussion om, at den Europæiske Centralbank skal nedskære deres QE – kvantitativ lempelse – bailout-program omgående markederne ud i uro. Så her otte, ni år inde i dette fortsatte bailout-program, sender den blotte nævnelse af at nedskære dette en lille smule markederne ud i krise; for blot at give jer en fornemmelse af, hvor følsom situationen er dér.

Vi bringer disse punkter frem, fordi de blot er nogle mulige punkter, der kunne udløse denne krise. Jeg vil gerne understrege, at Helga Zepp-LaRouche her til morgen specifikt satte fokus på den italienske banksituation som et kritisk område, man skulle overvåge. Men dette er blot mulige udløserpunkter; ikke ét af dem er i sig selv årsagen. Ethvert af disse punkter kunne gå af, de kunne udløse nedsmeltningen; eller, det kunne blive noget helt andet. Som vi drøftede det med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche, så er årsagen den samme, systemiske fallit i hele det transatlantiske system, der stod bag krisen i 2008, og som ikke blev løst på nogen som helst måde af bailout. Helga understregede her til morgen, at, ikke alene løste bailout ingenting; det førte faktisk systemet over i en fremgangsmåde med reel, accelereret udplyndring af befolkningen i USA og Europa. Udplyndring af det amerikanske og europæiske folk i et desperat forsøg på at opretholde og fortsætte denne boble. Vi har nu nået et nyt vendepunkt i denne krise.

Vi kunne nævne mange ting om dette, men blot et par udviklinger, der er sket i de seneste dage: Nye rapporter om de ødelæggende virkninger af nedskæringer af pensioner, som et resultat af Obamas politikker. Vi har især et tilfælde med Multi-employer Pension Fund Reform Act[2], som Obama underskrev og satte i kraft i 2014; hvilket angiveligt skulle have været et forsøg på at redde mange pensioner fra at gå ned, til trods for, at disse pensioner angiveligt skulle være garanteret til de mennesker, der indbetalte til dem og havde tjent dem. Vi hører nu, at nedskæringer på op til 63 % af disse pensioner er blevet annonceret over for medlemmerne af Cleveland Stålarbejdere Lokal 17. Dette er blot ét eksempel, og det første eksempel, på, hvad der kunne blive en hel bølge af massive nedskæringer af pensioner for denne form for arbejdere, som et resultat af disse politikker fra Obama-æraen. Det er sikkert overflødig at sige det, men det er altså en massiv nedskæring; man tager folk, der har planlagt en anstændig middelklasse pensionisttilværelse, og nu kastes de ud under fattigdomsgrænsen. Dette truer med hjemløshed for mange af disse mennesker.

Det er blot ét eksempel. Mere generelt er det også blevet annonceret, at 33 forskellige stater i hele nationen nu rapporterer om nedgang i deres forudsete indtægter. Hvilket betyder, at vi må være forberedt på fornyet diskussion om nedskæringspolitik i hele landet i diverse stater, som respons hertil. Og, som vore seere er udmærket klar over, så har vi selvfølgelig det igangværende, fysiske sammenbrud af USA; hvilket er et absolut indbyrdes forbundet og indbyrdes afhængigt spørgsmål. Den basale, nødvendige finansiering for blot en minimal, basal vedligeholdelse af vore infrastruktursystemer – de systemer, der holder vores økonomi i gang, der holder folk i live – er blevet nægtet; er blevet fjernet under dette sindssyge, Wall Street-kørte, spekulative system.

Pointen er, at dette system er mere råddent, end det var i 2008. Ethvert af det amerikanske folks fysiske vilkår er værre, end det var i 2008, som et resultat af Bush’ og Obamas politik. Vi er nu ved et punkt, hvor boblen igen er rede til at briste; der er mange mulige udløsere. Som respons til denne situation har Lyndon og Helga LaRouche understreget, at vi må kræve forebyggende handling. Vi kan ikke vente på, at krisen rammer og så respondere i sammenhæng med et krisescenarie. De relevante regeringer må gå ind og intervenere og forhindre et sammenbrud med LaRouches Fire Love-programmet. Hvis vi venter på et kaotisk kollaps, kunne det være for sent.

LaRouches Fire Love-program er ganske enkelt, det er meget klart. Man kan finde mere information på LaRouchePAC-websiden. Programmet begynder med 1) Glass-Steagall; en anerkendt, kraftigt støttet handling for at omstrukturere banksystemet ved at rejse en brandmur mellem legitim, standard, kommerciel bankpraksis og så de mere spekulative hasardspilspraksisser af den type, der praktiseres af investeringsbanker og Wall Street. Simplet hen adskille dem; det er alt, man behøver gøre som første skridt.

Hr. LaRouches trin 2 er at komme ind med et statsligt banksystem i Hamiltons tradition. Skab en ny nationalbank, der kan udstede kredit til disse kommercielle banker og andre banker til at finansiere et finanssystem, der er frit og uafhængigt af Wall Street, City of London og disse internationale finansoligarker. Det er, hvad vor nation har gjort på forskellige tidspunkter i hele vores historie; det er en politik, der er rodfæstet i den Amerikanske Forfatning og vor nations grundlæggelse, for at have statslig, national kontrol over det monetære system, over vores kreditpolitik. For at sikre, at vi kan kontrollere, hvordan vi bruger vores penge, hvorhen vi dirigerer vores kredit, og at vi ikke er prisgivet Wall Streets eller et internationalt finanskartels luner.

Men det bringer os frem til punkt 3, som virkelig er afgørende for hr. LaRouches enestående indsigt i realøkonomisk vækst og genrejsning; og det er at sikre, at vi ikke blot skaber kredit til jobs som sådan, men at kreditten må gå til produktive jobs, der øger arbejdskraftens fysiske produktivitet; der øger den fysiske nettoproduktion af de varer, der er nødvendige for at det amerikanske folk kan opretholde samfundet. Der må være en forståelse og en prioritering af kreditudstedelse til ting, der med garanti har denne fysiske væksteffekt, der vil skabe en anti-entropisk forøgelse af vækst i den amerikanske økonomi. En fremtrædende komponent i dette er infrastruktur; en genopbygning af infrastrukturen; opbygning af en ny infrastrukturplatform for vores land, på et højere niveau. Det er denne form for fysiske investeringer, der behøves. Som et nationalt, højhastigheds-jernbanenet, der helt vil forandre transport i hele landet. Nye vandsystemer, nye energisystemer; sådanne ting.

Det 4. punkt i LaRouches Fire Love er et forceret program for termonuklear fusionskraft; og dens anvendelse til at støtte en ny rummission, med videnskab som drivkraft, for udvikling af Månen og udvidelse af menneskehedens snarlige aktivitet i Solsystemet. Og igen; dette er rodfæstet i hr. LaRouches erkendelse af, at dette er en form for investeringer, der ikke bare koster penge. Men de fremmer og fremtvinger faktisk den form for teknologiske og videnskabelige revolutioner, der rykker hele samfundet opad. Apolloprogrammet, det forcerede Måneprogram, betalte mange gange den oprindelige investering tilbage gennem effekterne af de nye teknologier, der blev udviklet til denne mission, og som dernæst blev benyttet i hele økonomien. Det er basal, økonomisk vækst; og hele denne pakke er nødvendig, som et hele, som en totalitet, for at komme ud af denne krise.

Det er, hvad hr. LaRouche har sagt siden før nedsmeltningen i 2007-2008; og nu siger han det igen. Tiden er nu inde til, at folk lytter og griber til handling omgående, og ikke venter på, at dette her skal ske igen.

Vi ved alle – vi har diskuteret det– at præsident Trump viser en åbenhed over for at satse på dette program. Han har åbent udtalt sin støtte til Glass-Steagall. Han har åbent diskuteret det Amerikanske System for politisk økonomi; noget, der sandsynligvis ikke er blevet omtalt af nogen præsident i godt og vel 100 år. Spørgsmålet er sandsynligvis, om der overhovedet har været en præsident i dette tidsrum, der forstod, hvad det ville sige; vi skal nok tilbage til Franklin Roosevelt. Men Trump har lagt disse ting på bordet; han har opfordret til at støtte disse politikker. Men, det amerikanske folk må indse, at dette er en kamp. Han går op imod Wall Street; han går op imod City of London; han går op imod det britiske establishment med denne politik. Han har brug for den nødvendige støtte til at sikre, at han rent faktisk kan bringe dette program til at bære frugt.

Og vi er nu kommet til en særlig videotale, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche optog tidligere på ugen som en direkte appel til det amerikanske folk om ikke blot at læne sig tilbage og klage eller håbe. Men derimod at gribe til omgående handling for at sikre, at vores præsident har støtten til disse særlige spørgsmål og har mulighed for at gennemføre sit økonomiske revolutionsprogram. Det er ikke nogen let kamp; det er ikke en kamp, hvor hverken det ene eller andet udfald er garanteret. Lige nu er det en kamp, hvor udfaldet er åbent. Så vi afspiller nu Helga Zepp-LaRouches bemærkninger for jer.

(Se: Helga Zepp-LaRouches videotale, med dansk oversættelse: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=20761 )

 

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

 

DENISTON:  So I think that was a very clear and appropriate
message, and I think that transitions us directly to our
concluding brief segment on the show today; which is the response
that we’re getting from the American people when we take this
message to them.  As you hopefully know, LaRouche PAC is not a
news service; we’re not just here providing information.  We are
a political action committee; we are active all around the
country, online, social networks; but also in the streets around
the nation.  What we are getting is a very clear and strong
response when the proper leadership — as Helga just displayed —
is brought to the American people.  Despite all of this crazy
media bombardment and what Helga referenced in terms of the
top-down control of the political parties trying to maintain
these different narratives about Trump, about the election, about
Russia, etc., etc.  The reality is, the common American person
has a very clear and immediate response when the actual issues of
the economic breakdown, the fight against Wall Street, and the
need to rebuild the country along the lines of LaRouche’s Four
Laws are brought to them.  When these points are brought to them,
they respond.  Democrat, Republican, independent, Green,
whatever.  There is a unity in the American people that needs to
be mobilized, built upon, and rallied to support Trump on these
specific measures, so he can take on Wall Street; take on the
City of London; and preempt this crisis with the entire Four Laws
program.  So, with that, we have a very short additional video
report we want to bring to you, featuring LaRouche PAC organizer
Kevin Pearl from the Boston, Massachusetts area.  He has a report
on the activity and response he’s getting from his direct
activity with the American people.

KEVIN PEARL

:  Hi.  Kevin Pearl with the LaRouche
Political Action Committee in Raynham, Massachusetts.  I just
wanted to give people a quick report of the responses that we’ve
been getting out in the streets over the course of the last week;
which is very different from what you might expect from the media
reports.  The reality is, a huge number of Democrats —
particularly blue-collar Democrats — are thrilled to see us out
here defending Trump.  This is not a Republican-Democratic
question.  There’s a division between those who want to
reindustrialize and rebuild the country and are thrilled at the
idea of Trump investing $1 trillion or more in American
infrastructure, versus those who are willing to defend the Wall
Street financial casino at all costs.  People are disgusted by
the propaganda that Russia somehow stole the election.  Many
people sheepishly say, “Frankly, I like Putin.  I think he’s
doing more to stop terrorism than Obama did or Bush did.”  Many
people sheepishly admit that they themselves are Democrats;
because they think that only Republicans support the President,
because of the media brainwashing.  The reality is, Americans
want to rebuild the country along the lines of Republicans that
think like Lincoln and Eisenhower, and Democrats that think like
Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. It’s time to cut the
partisan crap and do that.
So, that’s the sense that we’re getting in the streets out
here. That’s my quick report for today.  Keep in touch.

DENISTON:  So, as you saw there, that’s one taste of what
we’re getting.  We also had similar reports from around the
country.  I’ll just highlight very briefly a fun report we got
from the greater New York Manhattan area; where one of our
organizers was approached by a somewhat suspicious character who
was asking very probing questions and kind of trying to get under
our skin a little bit.  At a certain point, when provoked, she
said, “Well actually, I was told to come down here and harass you
guys, because you have some support of Trump as part of your
presentation here on our street corner.  I was alerted through my
Facebook group that we should go down here and harass you for
being Trump supporters.”  We got into a basic discussion with the
woman; she agreed with us on everything we were talking about.
She wants Glass-Steagall, she wants the Four Laws program, she
wants to rebuild the country.  So, it’s another example of how
thin this propaganda is that’s being put out by the media.  What
cuts through it is the economic reality of the situation and the
actions needed.  So, if we can mobilize the American people —
and that is your job out there as our audience, as our activists,
as our supporters.  One leading item we still have is our
petition, calling on the Congress to support this activity to
rebuild the country.  We need to continue to build support around
that; build support for the Four Laws program as a whole.
Again, just to reiterate, we are now launching an emergency
campaign to call for preemptive action.  There are new signs that
this system, which has been rotted to the core for many years
now, and is only being supported by the looting of the general
population; that this system is now coming to the point where it
is ready to blow out again.  It could be tomorrow; it could be
next week.  It’s not a mechanical scenario where one particular
event is going to trigger it; it could be any event.  The problem
is in the inherent nature of the system itself, not in any of
these particular scenarios we cited earlier — although those
should be watched as potential triggers.
So, that’s our situation now.  That’s our task before us.
We are happy to bring you this show this week, and we will
continue to bring you more information as things develop.  Thank
you for joining us at larouchepac.com.

[1] Et banklån regnes for misligholdt, når der går mere end 90 dage, uden at låneren betaler de aftalte afdrag og renter. Misligholdte lån – NLP’er – kaldes også »dårlige lån«.

[2] Multiemployer Pension Reform Act fra 2014 er en føderal lov, der havde til formål at tillade visse amerikanske pensionsordninger, der har utilstrækkelige midler og dermed risikerer insolvens, at reducere de udbetalinger, de skylder pensions-indbetalerne.

Følgende artikel forekommer som en lederartikel i seneste nummer af Executive Intelligence Review:

EIR, 13. juli, 2017 – Marco Zanni, uafhængigt medlem af Europaparlamentet fra Italien, blev i går interviewet af det anti-etablissement, USA-baserede website, Rogue Money, af sitets stifter »V, Guerilla-økonomen«, sammen med EIR’s Harley Schlanger. Zanni fokuserede på to punkter: EU-bankernes og EU-økonomiernes overordnede svaghed, der kræver bankreform, med begyndelse i en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, og betydningen af den amerikanske præsident Trumps G20-topmøde med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin.

Med hensyn til EU og euroen, gennemgik Zanni Italiens kollapsende økonomi for at belyse det overordnede problem. Han sagde, det er ukorrekt at tale om økonomisk genrejsning i Eurozonen – man kan ikke stole på de erklæringer, der kommer fra den Europæiske Kommission eller den Europæiske Centralbank (ECB). Alt imens ECB’s udpumpning af likviditet midlertidigt kan have reddet nogle store banker fra fallit, så skete det på bekostning af realøkonomien samtidig med, at det ikke gjorde noget som helst for at adressere de systemiske problemer i Europas For-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-banker (’TBTF-banker’).

I Italien og Spanien er den reelle arbejdsløshedsrate 20 %, og realindkomsten er på 1999-niveau. Den nylige bail-out/bail-in (hhv. ’statslig bankredning’ og ’ekspropriering af visse typer bankindskud’, -red.) af to venetianske banker og Monte dei Paschi-banken viser den svindelagtige natur af ECB’s politik og belyste den kendsgerning, at mange banker ligger inde med uerholdelige niveauer af gæld i form af insolvente lån og derivatobligationer. Der er en voksende vrede i befolkningen mod den Europæiske Kommission og ECB, såvel som også mod den italienske regering for at bøje sig for dem.

Zanni sagde, at der er tiltag i Europaparlamentet, og især i det italienske parlament, i retning af at vedtage en politik for bankreform, som omfatter en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, og som hans gruppe støtter. Hvis dette imidlertid ikke sker, forudsiger han en ny, mere alvorlig bankkrise ved udgangen af dette år eller i begyndelsen af 2018 og siger, at dette kunne føre til en italiensk exit af euroen.

Forespurgt om sit syn på Putin/Trump-mødet sagde Zanni, at han har fulgt Putin »med stor interesse«. Han har et »meget positivt syn« på Trump/Putin-mødet. »Det er ikke hele Europa, der er imod Trump, som medierne prøver at få det til at lyde.« Han sagde, at Europa har brug for stærke, økonomiske relationer med Rusland og Kina, og Trump handler i denne retning. Der er nu en stor mulighed for at skabe samarbejde mellem Europa og Rusland, med Trump som drivkraft, og for at forlænge dette også til Asien.

Zanni sluttede med at sige, at Europa må have fungerende, suveræne stater, i modsat fald vil det mislykkes.

Interviewet[1] vil blive opslået i morgen. Rogue Money-websitet følges stærkt af anti-etablissement-netværk, og dets interviews udlægges ofte af andre. Det har et ugentligt, 20 minutter langt interview med Schlanger og opslår hyppigt materiale fra LaRouchePAC, med links til siden.

[1] http://www.roguemoney.net/2017/07/13/exclusive-interview-with-marco-zanni-and-harley-schlanger/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msiF-NVuJGE

(35 minutter).

 

Det er den 14. juli, 2017; og, som de ville sige i Frankrig, »Bonne Fête Nationale!«. Vi ved, at præsident Trump netop er kommet tilbage fra at deltage i fejringen af Bastille-dagen i Paris, Frankrig, hvor han havde et succesrigt møde med præsident Macron, iflg. rapporter. De fejrede mere end 200 års fransk-amerikansk partnerskab, der går helt tilbage til vores alliance for at besejre briterne i den Amerikanske Revolution.

Men, der er gået nøjagtig én uge siden det historiske møde mellem præsident Trump og præsident Putin fra Rusland, på sidelinjen af G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland.

(Her følger det engelske udskrift af webcastet.)

WE NEED A NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM NOW!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening; it’s July 14, 2017.  My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us here for our weekly
webcast on larouchepac.com.  I’m joined in the studio by Paul
Gallagher, {EIR} Economics Editor.
It’s July 14, 2017; and as they would say in France, “Bonne
Fête Nationale!”  We know that President Trump has just returned
from attending the Bastille Day celebrations in Paris, France,
where he had a successful visit with President Macron according
to reports.  They celebrated over 200 years of French-American
partnership going all the way back to our alliance to defeat the
British in the American Revolution.
But it’s been exactly one week since the historic meeting
between President Trump and President Putin of Russia, on the
sidelines of the G-20 in Hamburg, Germany.  We have a picture
[Fig. 1] here I can put on the screen of President Putin’s and
President Trump’s meeting, as you can see here.  As was correctly
cited by Stephen Cohen in an article in The Nation yesterday,
this was a very successful summit.  The achievements included: 1)
formalizing a new direct partnership between the United States
and Russian Presidents — personal relationship; 2. negotiating a
very successful ceasefire in southern Syria, which continues to
hold to this day.  This is part of a more general policy of
coordinating anti-terrorism campaigns; 3. — according to reports
— creating a bilateral US-Russia channel to try to resolve the
ongoing civil war in Ukraine.  But, over the past week, we’ve
also seen an escalation to a real fever pitch of the so-called
“Russia-gate” campaign.  We’ve seen this very rapid escalation of
attacks against the Trump Presidency.  But as Paul Gallagher
pointed out correctly in a lead that was published yesterday on
the LaRouche PAC website, this latest series of frenzied
outbursts against President Trump over the so-called
“Russia-gate” is not due to some sort of 20-minute meeting that
one of Trump’s children had with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower
during the campaign.  But rather, it’s over the fact that
President Trump himself had a very successful 2.5-hour meeting
with President Putin of Russia last week.  This is a meeting that
Trump’s opponents never intended to allow to occur, let alone
turn out as positively and successfully as it did.  This has
been, emphatically, the issue all along in this so-called
“Russia-gate” collusion scandal; going all the way back to before
Trump’s inauguration.
I’d like to put on the screen here a tweet [Fig. 2] that
President Trump tweeted out on January 7th of this year, where he
correctly identifies exactly what the issue here is.  This is two
weeks before the inauguration.  He says, “Having a good
relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing.  Only
‘stupid’ people or fools would think that it is bad.  We have
enough problems around the world without yet another one.  When I
am President, Russia will respect us far more than they do now,
and both countries will perhaps work together to solve some of
the many great and pressing problems and issues of the world.”
So, indeed, that’s what Trump has been able to succeed in
accomplishing; and he’s stuck to this, despite the environment of
Russophobia which far rivals anything that we’ve seen at least
since the Cold War, maybe going all the way back to the infamous
McCarthyism of the 1950s.  You’ve reached a point now where even
Senator Tim Kaine, the former running mate of Hillary Clinton
during the campaign, has openly accused the sitting President of
the United States of treason over the fact that Trump’s son
allegedly met with a foreign national to receive so-called
damaging information against his opponent Hillary Clinton in the
Presidential campaign.  While at the same time, Hillary Clinton
herself had actively solicited damaging, salacious misinformation
against her opponent Donald Trump from a known former agent of
British Intelligence, Christopher Steele.  So, that’s quite the
double standard, if you ask me.
But to make the point, in the face of this entire apparatus,
President Trump’s policy of cooperating with Putin and
establishing a good relationship with President Xi of China is,
indeed, a courageous one.  But as Paul Gallagher made the point
in this same lead which I cited earlier, which he titled “Trump’s
Policy of Peace with Putin and Xi Is Courageous; But His Policy
of Peace with Wall Street is not”.  Very correctly, Paul, you
said “What is not courageous is this President’s inability to
take any steps against Wall Street towards carrying out the
economic recovery policies on which he ran his campaign.  Rather,
Wall Street, led by the likes of Treasury Secretary Steve
Mnuchin, is running all over him.  President Trump is fighting
the British imperial policy and it is British Intelligence which
launched ‘Russia-gate’ against him a year ago, and has driven the
Congressional leadership into McCarthyite madness.  But neither
he, nor either party in Congress, is fighting Wall Street; that
is up to the rest of us, and it cannot be delayed or the next
looming crash will wipe us out entirely.”
So, Paul, that’s what you said in the lead of the LaRouche
PAC website yesterday, very correctly; and I think we’ll get into
that.  But this was echoed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche during
discussions we had with her just a little bit earlier today.  She
said what is clearly urgently necessary and seriously lacking in
the current Trump administration is a commitment to following
through on what she called “an industrial program for the United
States.”  She said we need to get people to focus on this.  The
Trump agenda internationally is fine, clearly; especially Trump’s
stance on Russia, China, US cooperation, which is obviously
positive she said.  And which is the source of the unprecedented
attacks against his administration by those who wish to sabotage
such a relationship.  But domestically, we need a real economic
program.  She said, “As the famous saying goes, ‘it’s the
economy, stupid!’|”  She said that we do expect that sometime
this month, the US-China economic cooperation report is expected
to be published, which was commissioned during President Trump’s
and President Xi Jinping’s summit at Mar-a-Lago a few months ago.
But, as far as can be seen up to this point, there is really
nothing yet happening in terms of Trump’s promised $1 trillion
infrastructure investment plan for the United States.  She said
this is a big weakness, along with Trump’s indefensible cowardice
in the face of Wall Street.  So, it’s our responsibility to
escalate this campaign to get this infrastructure campaign going
in the context of LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws; starting with
Glass-Steagall, which we’re going to discuss more in a minute.
We can use the reconstruction of the New York City region as a
necessary catalyst and a keystone to energize this entire
national infrastructure vision.
So, just to begin with, I’d like to play a short video which
was just posted on the LaRouche PAC website, narrated by Jason
Ross, on this subject.  The title of the video is “What New York
City Can Learn from Africa”.

JASON ROSS:  So, New York City has now officially
entered the “Summer of Hell” created by long overdue maintenance
work around Penn Station.  This work is going to reduce commuter
access to this vital hub by 20% for the half million commutes
daily.  A couple of weeks ago in New York, the derailment of an A
train left dozens injured and disrupted hundreds of thousands of
trips.  In two years, the planned shutdown of the L train will
disrupt 200,000 daily trips for a year and a half.  Today, New
York City’s subway delays are 2.5 times what they were just five
years ago.  It’s clear that transportation in America’s leading
city is at the breaking point.  This should be no surprise to
anyone who has followed the lack of infrastructure investment
over the past decades; particularly to Lyndon LaRouche, who
fought against the 1970s destruction and under investment in New
York City and the Big MAC (Municipal Assistance Corporation)
financial dictatorship that took it over.
Many of the immediately needed fixes are totally obvious to
anyone familiar with the situation.  Replace the 100-year-old
tunnels crossing the Hudson and East Rivers; upgrade the
switching equipment that dates back to Franklin Roosevelt’s
Presidency; and increase maintenance and repair, overhaul of
track and equipment.  But what’s really required is a longer-term
perspective of the next level of infrastructure; the long-term
perspective whose absence caused the crisis that we now find
ourselves in; a crisis in which New York City is merely a leading
example in the United States.  Without fighting to win a
commitment to such a long-term perspective for a new platform,
any short-term fixes — even needed ones — will just be kicking
the can down the road.
To make that long-term perspective clear, let’s look at what
we can learn from Africa and China.  With some exceptions of the
more developed nations such as Egypt and South Africa, African
infrastructure is at a pitifully under-developed level.  Consider
these figures:  The total shipment of freight by rail.  In
Africa, it’s less than 10 % of what it is in the United States,
China, or Europe.  Consider per capita energy consumption in
Africa; only 10% that of the US, only 1/3 that of China.  It’s
more clear, when we focus on the higher form of energy represented
by electrical energy.  Per capita use in Africa is only 6 % what
it is in the United States, and only 1/4 that of China.  In fact,
less than half of Africans have reliable access to electricity at
all.  A typical US refrigerator uses more than double the average
electricity use of citizens of Nigeria or Kenya.  With such an
insufficient infrastructure platform, extensive economic progress
is simply impossible.  Yet, some people — and by some people, I
mean Africa’s colonial masters, led by the British — say that
African development should be through “appropriate” technologies.
That an incremental approach to improvement should be taken; that
foot-powered pumps for water, or solar panels on a hut would be a
useful upgrade.  That is nonsense!
For example, the pathetic Power Africa plan proposed by
President Obama would hardly make a dent in the outrageously low
levels of development.

OBAMA:  It’s going to be your generation that suffers the
most.  Ultimately, if you think about all the youth that
everybody’s mentioned here in Africa, if everybody’s raising
living standards to the point where everybody’s got a car, and
everybody’s got air conditioning, and everybody’s got a big
house, the planet will boil over.”

ROSS:  Africa must leap ahead, not crawl forward; and this
can happen.  The Congo River itself could support an estimated
100,000 MW of electricity; enough for 100 million people or more,
with 40,000 MW from the planned Grand Inga Dam alone.  The
Trans-Aqua water program which would use water from the Congo and
its tributaries to refill and to provide navigation to Lake Chad
which is currently drying up; this would be larger by an order of
magnitude than any other project in the world.  The expansion of
rail lines in Africa is currently at a world-leading level today;
it’s growing.  New transportation routes across Africa will
connect the hinterlands, allowing modern development.  This will
change the situation from the current land-locked regions of the
continent.
To give one example, the freight costs for bringing in a
container of fertilizer from Singapore, to bring that into Rwanda
or Burundi, it’s more than 2.5 times the cost of bringing it to
the port city of Alexandria in Egypt; due to the terrible,
insufficient quality of overland transportation infrastructure
across the continent.  So, by creating access to efficient
transportation, regions benefit from the opportunity to bring in
equipment and supplies; to export their products and ideas; for
residents to travel. With the availability of electricity, higher
productive capabilities are unlocked.  The value of the land and
of the people increases.
Some people recognize this.  Unlike the outlook of the
trans-Atlantic world, China views Africa not simply as a source
of raw materials, as a continent that’s best kept in a state of
under-development; but as an opportunity for massive, rapid,
intense, overall economic development.  As potential partners for
economic prosperity, as new markets, new collaborators.  So,
while US or European stock in Africa is heavily oriented towards
mining and resource extraction, Chinese investment goes primarily
to infrastructure and small- and medium-sized businesses.  Back
in 2010, Chinese trade in Africa overtook that of US trade with
Africa; and it is currently more than double the US-Africa trade
level.  China is financing big projects.  The nearly
500-kilometer, 300-mile standard gauge railway in Kenya; built in
only three years.  The 750-kilometer, 500-mile Djibouti-Addis
Ababa rail line, which will be extended.  It reduces travel time
from days to hours, as it whizzes by at 100mph.
Such major investments, along with the future completion of
the Grand Inga Dam, of the Trans-Aqua water system, they’re going
to completely transform the economy of Africa and each locality
within it.  Bringing water, power, transportation access;
allowing a higher level of industry, mining, agriculture,
scientific and cultural pursuits.  Productivity will grow.
So now, return to New York City.  What has been missing in
New York City?  Maintenance?  No.  What’s been missing is a
commitment to discovering and building the next platform of
infrastructure for the region.  In the context of a national
credit system of Federal high-speed rail authority work, of
upgraded and reliable waterways, of high-tech new designs of
nuclear plants; all of these potentially built with international
cooperation.  In this context, how does New York City fit in this
broader area that it exists in?  Where will the next generation
of transportation and development hubs lie?  And upon what
technologies will they be based?  How can magnetic levitation
technology change our view of transportation?  How will
commercial fusion power, realized within a decade by a fully
funded research program, how could this change our relationship
to power, to materials, to production, to transportation?  How
will the expanded availability of water, power, and transport
open new areas of the country to development; and higher types of
development?  How will the Bering Strait connection change world
freight flows?  Will New York City even still be the nation’s
leading metropolis in a century?

So, sure.  Fix the L train; rebuild the Hudson River
tunnels.  Absolutely.  Redo the disaster known as Penn Station.
But do it all in a national and international context; a context
of a future orientation, of an economic outlook to the value of
leap-frogging to a higher infrastructure platform.  So as in the
future, our national high-speed rail authority builds a 300mph
train system, starting across the Northeast.  As transit in
cities are upgraded to allow for commutes of half an hour rather
than an hour and a half; as the World Land-Bridge connects to
North America, allowing land travel from New York to Beijing;
from North America to Asia.  As all this takes place, what
totally new projects will take place in New York City?  What will
be its future; and what will be its mission?
The mistake of the past was failing to have a future; and
that error must end.

OGDEN:  So, this is clearly the kind of national economic
vision that we need for the United States, and which needs to be
adopted by this administration.  So, I just wanted to ask Paul to
give us a sense of where the fight around this stands, and then
some of the updates in terms of Glass-Steagall, which is the
urgent first step.

PAUL GALLAGHER:  Well, first of all, you’ve already pointed
it out, but I want to point out that some political leaders here,
and most of the media, who are going crazy against since the
meeting between the Presidents of the United States and Russia.
Most of them are directly opposing peace and the potential
economic benefits that follow from the end of the last 15 years
Bush-Obama regime change wars.  As the President pointed out
yesterday, there has been what is already a long ceasefire in
southern Syria, and two other ceasefires being worked on
imminently directly coming out of that meeting that he had with
President Putin of Russia.  That means lives are being saved
there; American lives, Syrian lives, lives of others are being
saved there.  There is also an agreement that came out of similar
negotiations whereby the supply of water for the Palestinian
Authority is being tripled.  This agreement was just announced
yesterday by Jason Greenblatt, the special envoy of President
Trump to the embryonic Mideast peace or Palestinian/Israeli peace
negotiations that are going on.  More importantly, Syria and the
Middle East have become a clear location for the New Silk Road,
the increasingly vast array of infrastructure developments and
projects which include what Jason was just discussing there in
Africa.  The massive investment that China is making with some
other countries as partners in the development of new
infrastructure across Eurasia, now in Africa and into the Middle
East.  There was just a large meeting in Beijing earlier this
week of experts planning the reconstruction of Syria as soon as
the wipe-out of ISIS and the ceasefires now being put into effect
are actually in effect, the reconstruction with large-scale
investment as part of the Belt and Road, as the Chinese call it.
This New Silk Road.
So, there is tremendous potential coming out of these summit
meetings, and the readiness of the President to work with Putin,
with Xi, and the readiness on the other side of the Chinese
leadership to continually expand this tremendous investment that
they have been making in new infrastructure projects across
Eurasia into Africa through the Middle East.  Obviously that
stands ready as well to work in the United States; but that is
where we come to the roadblock that we were referencing earlier,
Matt.  That the Trump administration has been completely unable
up to now, to follow through on the economic promises that it
made to the American people in the course of winning the
Presidency.  Those promises included reinstating the
Glass-Steagall law; putting — for starters — $1 trillion in new
investments.  And everyone thought that meant public investments
into new infrastructure in the United States; including such
things as new ports, new airports, national high-speed rail
networks, connectivity for broken-down transportation systems
like that of New York.  This has not moved at all, because of
tremendous deference to Wall Street and the White House looking
to Wall Street — the worst possible place to look — Wall Street
and environs.  Private equity funds which claim to be setting up
infrastructure funds, all this sort of thing.  Looking entirely
in the wrong place for a large-scale investment in fundamentally
new infrastructure platforms in the United States.
We had a glaring example of this in regard to New York City
and the New York metropolitan area crisis just this week.  It was
announced that what I believe is the very first investment of the
Trump White House under the Transportation Infrastructure
Financing and Innovation Act — it’s called TIFIA.  For the
little bit of public funds from the Federal government that have
been going into transportation projects in the recent years,
TIFIA is a big deal in a very little pond.  The very first TIFIA
investment in transportation infrastructure under the Trump
administration was in Penn Station; and specifically the creation
of a second station across 8th Avenue from Penn Station in New
York.  To make a long story short, this development of a second
station, which is not trains, is not tunnels, is not bridges, is
not new routes, not new connectivity into high-speed rail going
into New England and going into the Northeast corridor south and
going West through New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  It’s not any of
those things; it’s a train station.  It’s only for some of these
lines, and it is merely one small part of what is really the
development of a huge shopping and office mall in this former
Post Office location directly across 8th Avenue from Penn
Station.  This is almost $600 million in this Federal investment
grant being combined with investments more or less ordered by the
various transportation agencies in the New York area, and a
significant investment by the state of New York, essentially in
order to create 850,000 square feet of new office and retail mall
space.
Now what’s going on with malls across the United States?
They’re going bankrupt.  So, what we’re creating here is an
immediate, new potential large-scale bankruptcy like the one that
just occurred with the public/private partnership for the Indiana
Toll Road; like the one that just occurred with the
public/private partnership for Route 130 in Texas, which just —
God bless it — emerged from bankruptcy for the second time under
a new private/public partnership which will soon go bankrupt for
the third time.  These projects which can’t even take tolls; not
even high tolls.  Even with those high tolls can still not meet
the rapacious demands of the private investment banks, private
equity funds, and the other Wall Street which want 10% return on
their investment annually; want all of their capital back in ten
years.  They simply cannot meet these demands, even with tolls
that drivers cannot pay.  This kind of failure is going on all
over the country of exactly this kind of large-scale investment
that we unfortunately just saw go into New York.
What is needed, clearly, is in the trillions; the $1
trillion is a low estimate of what is needed if the United States
were to stop the decline in per capita provision and use of
electricity and instead increase it again.  If it were to stop
the decline in all of the most productive forms of the use of
water, and instead increase it again by new water management,
water transfer, and even at the frontiers of technology, water
creation; that is, storm creation technologies, especially in the
West of the country.  If the United States were to stop the
decline in passenger rail and freight rail travel annually, and
instead build out an entirely new national high-speed rail
network.  If it were really to attack the problems of storm
management, or storm protection; the kind of thing which would
have prevented the ruination of the tunnels in the New York
subway and rail systems in the first place.  If they had been
able to have sea gates to stop the destruction wrought by
Hurricane Sandy, the replacement of water infrastructure
nationally with new infrastructure.  This clearly requires
trillions, and it requires trillions in a short period of time.
There is only one way that this can be attempted, and that is to
create a national credit institution which both attracts new
Federal credit and also attracts the investment of holders of
existing US Treasury debt, the investment of holders of municipal
debts, of state debts who want to put that in the way that
citizens did in the period of World War II into new war bonds;
who want to put that into a new bank created by Congress and make
a bank capable of issuing trillions of dollars in infrastructure
credit; and have it coming from sources already existing within
the Federal government at the same time, as well as the
participation of infrastructure bonding by state and municipal
agencies.  It is only through that kind of Hamiltonian national
credit issuance that, putting aside all the nonsense about
public/private partnerships or the idea that some in the Trump
administration had of an infrastructure bank which was really
more like a private/private partnership, a kind of giveaway to
organized capital in the United States in order to put it into a
bank which would reward them with tax credits equal to what they
were putting in, and then borrow and borrow and borrow on the
debt markets.  This kind of Wall Street scheme absolutely is
destructive, and results not simply in these repeated
bankruptcies, but actual destruction of infrastructure in the
country.
Clearly, that requires that Glass-Steagall be reinstated.
Why?  Take a look at the issuance of credit of China over the
last ten years.  It clearly has been driving the majority, and at
all times over that decade, a third or more of the growth in the
world.  It’s been doing that perhaps on the order of $10 trillion
or more in credit issued by the major public commercial banks in
China; what are sometimes called the policy banks, but they are
public, commercial banks.  Although the Chinese system is clearly
Helsomewhat different than ours, nonetheless commercial banking
is commercial banking; whether it’s being done by
government-backed banks or being done by commercial banks which
are entirely private.  Their publicly-backed commercial banks
have put $10 trillion or more in new credit into the development
of the Chinese economy.  Increasingly in the last two years, into
the projects that I was referencing in the beginning in other
countries along what they call the Belt and Road, the economic
Belt and the maritime Silk Road; which have now crossed into
Africa and are now crossing into the Middle East war zones to
reconstruct them.  Perhaps $400-500 billion is already invested
and committed outside China in the last two years by these major
banks.
Now, how have they done it?  Obviously during this period of
time, there have been some bubbles created in the Chinese economy
in real estate and so forth, bad debt of the same kind which
brought down the banking systems of the United States and Europe.
How have they avoided that?  First of all, the vast majority of
that new credit has gone into the most productive and most
productivity-generating investments; in particular, the platforms
of new infrastructure from nuclear power to fusion power research
to the dynamic space program and to the national high-speed rail
networks, the North-South water transfer, projects which have
changed the availability of water in the Chinese economy.  That’s
first of all.  Second of all, they have operated under a fairly
strict enforced Glass-Steagall regimen since January 1, 1995.
That has also enabled those banks to overcome the formation of
bad debt, the existence of bankruptcies, and to keep on issuing
this productive credit.  They have, despite this huge credit
issuance, stayed below 3% of the world’s banking systems’
exposure to derivatives.  Less than 3% of that exposure is in the
Chinese commercial banking system.  Their income, their revenue
has been overwhelmingly from loans, including 70% to 80% and more
of the annual revenue of all of these banks in comparison to half
or less than half of the income of the megabanks in the United
States coming from interest on loans.  That has indicated the
Glass-Steagall ordering of their banking system, and has enabled
them to keep doing this.
We have to reinstate Glass-Steagall here immediately in
order to put the commercial banking system of the United States
in a condition where it will make productive loans of that kind,
and in order to head off what is clearly now an approaching crash
on the order of, or greater than, 2008.  You have all sorts of
bankruptcies, not just public/private partnerships; all sorts of
bankruptcies rising fairly dramatically in the United States
after a tremendous issuance of credit to the banks, and by those
banks to the largest corporations and on the high interest debt
markets of other corporations, which have set them up for another
crash which is now approaching.  Just to give one example, it was
reported the day before yesterday that in Texas, which of course
brings together the central area of the shale oil and gas boom of
the last ten years and all of the companies associated with that,
along with retail chains and malls.  The rate of corporate
bankruptcies in the first six months of this year in Texas has
been an all-time record; much higher than even in 2009, the real
of the real, total collapse.  It has been about 50% higher than
the same period of time last year.  When you look at the auto
loan delinquencies rising rapidly, the credit card delinquencies
rising rapidly, the fact that the Federal government has just had
to restate its exposure to student debt in such a way that it
suddenly produced a deficit in June of nearly $100 billion in the
Federal budget in a month in which there is usually a surplus,
simply because of the losses coming from the write-off of
defaulted student debt.  This kind of a crash would not only
devastate our economy, it would also cause tremendous for the
international collaboration in development; which is really the
leading and positive feature of these summit meetings which have
occurred.
As the American people have been demanding, we have to
reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act.  Janet Yellen was asked about
this just yesterday again in her Senate testimony; and gave the
usual nonsense explanation that we should value highly the
Lehmann Brothers of the world, because because of Glass-Steagall,
she said, Lehmann Brothers failed.  Because of Glass-Steagall,
other investment banks failed.  Whereas, if we had not repealed
Glass-Steagall, they could be rescued by big commercial banks and
therefore, these Wall Street speculators could keep on doing what
they were doing.  But the question alone indicated that — the
question was from a Senator who asked her “Did we make a mistake
in repealing Glass-Steagall?” — indicates that that question is
still reverberating through Congress.  We have to get that
reinstated in order for the rest of this program which is our
objective, to work.  So, that’s what I would say about it, Matt.

OGDEN:  As you stated correctly yesterday, this is the major
weakness of the Trump administration at this point.  Even the
ability to follow through on these kinds of productive
relationships with China in terms of great projects and
infrastructure development is in jeopardy.  Not only because
you’re missing the entire mechanism to make that work in the form
of a national bank, but also because we’re flirting with disaster
as another financial crisis — potentially worse than 2008 — is
looming over the entire trans-Atlantic.

GALLAGHER: And all of the collaboration of the sort that we
just saw in Africa, if people can actually put themselves in that
situation; all of the collaboration that we saw there could be
replicated in terms of collaboration and development of, for
example, high-speed rail networks in the United States with the
Asian powers which are financing that in Africa and in other
areas of Asia.  But not if our policy is going to be one of no
national public funding, no national public credit institution.
There will be no way for those investments and that engineering
assistance to take place.

OGDEN:  It’s only now that China has actually even been able
to take off in terms of this global infrastructure program in the
way that it has wanted to.  As Bill Jones went through on this
program on Monday, despite the fact that it was all the way back
in 1991, 1994 that the Eurasian Land-Bridge idea was being
discussed in high-level circles in China with Helga Zepp-LaRouche
attending forums on this subject in Beijing in 1994.  We had two
major economic crises in the intervening period:  1997, but then
in a major way, 2008.  It’s only been since 2013 that Xi Jinping
has been able to get this program off the ground.  So, if you
look at this in the long term, you really are at a crucial
decision point for the entire globe on which this decision by the
Trump administration — are you going to follow through on this
promise you made in the campaign?  The future of a lot hinges on
that.  Frankly, with the kind of courage Trump has shown in the
face of the severity of the propaganda and attacks against him on
the Russia question, there is no excuse why he should not have
the same kind of courage in the face of Wall Street.  One
question is, as Mr. LaRouche identified it all the way back in
the transition period, what is the nefarious role that is being
played by Steve Mnuchin, for example, in undermining and
sabotaging what was clearly one of the issues on which the
American people voted in the Trump campaign; which was
Glass-Steagall and finally getting tough on Wall Street.

GALLAGHER:  You’ll remember as recently as a month or so
ago, in an interview, the President said some people want to go
back to the old Glass-Steagall system; we’re looking at that
right now.  That’s what he said.  Clearly, there is also strong
opposition from certain people in Congress who are in Wall
Street’s pocket in the Republican Party, and also from Mnuchin
and others in the administration who want to give Wall Street a
complete deregulation instead.  The President has been letting
those people have their way; and so of course, have the
Republican leadership in both Houses of Congress been kowtowing
in the extreme to the demands of Wall Street to take off
regulations, to let them again leverage up in the way that they
did right before the last crash where they got up to 30:1 and
35:1 debt leverage.  They want to have the capital requirements
lowered so they can leverage up again.  These kinds of demands
are being granted by the leadership in Congress and by the
President, when they have clearly said to the American people, we
want productivity; we want development to return; we want new
infrastructure development to return; we want to rebuild the
country.  They’re not doing it.  I would just emphasize that
those members of the House and the Senate in the order of 50 or
60 total who have put their names on Glass-Steagall legislation,
they have done so with large-scale petition drives being done by
constituency groups with which we’ve been working, which have put
them in a position to say “My constituents are demanding this;
and constituents across the country are demanding reinstating
Glass-Steagall.”  They moved from that, so it’s really up to us
to get this done and break through this combination of money and
fear and cowardice which is really letting Wall Street continue
to run this infrastructure issue.  They will absolutely destroy
what little remains of the infrastructure in the country; they
will make these breakdown crises as in New York and dam that
collapsed in California and the locks that are threatening to
collapse on our major waterways.  They will make them far worse
by their toll-looting schemes and their public/private
partnership schemes.  That’s got to be completely replaced by a
policy of Hamiltonian national credit; that’s the only thing that
will work.

OGDEN:  Exactly.  As Helga was saying when we spoke with her
earlier today, this is the strategic priority in terms of a
breakthrough on the domestic front in the United States; is
securing the kind of momentum necessary to force the
Glass-Steagall measure through, and to create the kind of
political environment in which it’s impossible to oppose
Glass-Steagall.  The kind of situation that is now hitting in New
York, we’ve now come into the official “Summer of Hell” as Jason
said in the beginning of that video; this creates the kind of
political conditions on the ground where you can really catalyze
at least a discussion of the type of infrastructure vision that
you need for the United States.  But this comes in the context of
what could potentially come out of a US-China cooperation on Silk
Road development, or the Belt and Road Initiative development.
As Jason said, you do have to really think in terms of at least
50 years into the future.  What is the kind of economic geometry
in which these current crises, these current projects fit?  And
the only form of economics which is based on that kind of
thinking, is what Hamilton came up with at the origination of the
United States:  This credit system which is fundamentally
different from the kind of monetarism which this public/private
partnership approach is based on. That’s the only kind of
philosophy which thinks in terms of 50-100-year returns in terms
of real physical wealth and real increases of productivity rather
than just accounting.

GALLAGHER:  There are people such as our friend Hal Cooper,
a very experienced and expert railroad engineer and planner, who
have exactly that kind of vision of how the now-collapsing
transit system around New York City could be transformed into
something in which the lines would not all be converging on Penn
Station and stopping there, and then going into tunnels and
gradually going back the other way — all of it at 10mph or less.
But rather, those transportation lines within the city would be
opening up and connecting directly into high-speed lines coming
out of that area, going to New York State and New England, going
west across the belt between New York and Chicago and the whole
high-speed planning area there; going down all the way to Florida
in the Northeast corridor.  That these kinds of directly flowing
connections which would make the transit system around New York
merely the major node, the biggest node in the country in a
continually connected national high-speed transportation network.
These kinds of plans do exist; they require — as I was saying
before — naturally they require a great deal of investment.
They don’t require a few hundred million dollars from here and
there and everywhere else into an office and shopping mall to
make a new train station.  They require serious, long-term, high
productivity building of the kind of transportation
infrastructure that we have nowhere in this country at this time.
That’s where Hamiltonian banking and credit comes in; and it’s
really the only thing that can make that possible.

OGDEN:  Well, thank you very much, Paul.  I know that your
last appearance on this program generated a lot of views on the
internet, and also a lot of questions.  I think a lot of the
viewers appreciated the opportunity to write in via the comments
on YouTube.

GALLAGHER:  I tried to answer some of them.

OGDEN:  You had the opportunity to answer them.  So, we
would invite people again; if you have questions for Paul, go
ahead and write them in the comments section on this YouTube
video.  Maybe we can do another follow-up video where it’s a
question and answer kind of session like that.  This is an
ongoing discussion, obviously; and we’ve got a lot of
responsibility on our shoulders to follow through on this policy
and to make this work.
So, thanks a lot, Paul, for joining us.

GALLAGHER:  Thank you.

OGDEN:  Thank you for watching; and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Det er bestemt sandt, at tiden for den unipolære verden er forbi, men multi-polaritet er stadig ikke løsningen, for det indbefatter stadig geopolitik, der var årsag til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, og denne geopolitik er stadig i operation, i Nordkorea, i Syrien og i Ukraine.

Vi må derfor finde et højere niveau. Vi må få verden frem til at blive det, præsident Xi Jinping altid kalder »et samfund for menneskehedens fælles fremtid«. Et stort skridt i denne retning kunne være mødet mellem præsident Trump og præsident Putin, der mødes i dag for første gang som præsidenter. Dette er selvfølgelig et meget vigtigt skridt, for mellem præsident Trump og præsident Xi Jinping er der allerede etableret en meget positiv relation, så det er meget, meget afgørende, hvad der kommer ud af Trump-Putin-mødet. For de spørgsmål, vi må løse, er presserende og dramatiske.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

Videoklippet med Helgas tale kan ses her, start 15:45 min.: 

 

Vært Matthew Ogden: Jeg vil gerne indlede med at fortælle vore seere, at, i dag er en meget historisk dag. Vi har endnu ikke fået de fulde rapporter om alt, der er sket; men vi har i dag set to meget vigtige konferencer, der finder sted, mens vi taler. Én af dem er naturligvis G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland, og den anden er konferencen (Schiller Instituttet, Kinesisk Energifond, Fonden for Genoplivelse af Klassisk Kultur), der finder sted i New York her i USA. Sidstnævnte er selvfølgelig konferencen med den meget passende titel, »Mad for Fred; Mad for Mennesker; Mad for Tankerne. Det nye navn for fred er økonomisk udvikling«; der, som jeg sagde, er sponsoreret i fællesskab af Schiller Instituttet, Kinesisk Energifond og Fonden for Genoplivelse af Klassisk Kultur. Vi vil i aftenens show vise videoen med Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale på denne konference.

Men før vi kommer til det, så finder dagens anden, potentielt verdenshistoriske begivenhed sted på sidelinjerne af G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland. Selve G20-topmødet er relativt betydningsløst, sammenlignet med det langt vigtigere og større møde mht. potentiel signifikans, der fandt sted lidt tidligere i dag, mellem præsident Trump fra USA og præsident Putin fra Rusland. Og dette er, som jeg sagde, langt større mht. dets potentielle signifikans. Dette var muligheden for, at præsident Putin og præsident Trump kunne have deres første, regulære møde ansigt til ansigt. Ifølge nyhedsrapporteringer varede dette topmøde – der, som jeg sagde, var den første mulighed for disse to præsidenter at mødes ansigt til ansigt – over to en halv time. Det var kun meningen, mødet skulle vare 30minutter; men det faktum, at det fortsatte så lang tid – 2,5 time – er allerede og i sig selv et meget potentielt godt tegn. Det er tydeligvis en lovende udvikling; og uanset indholdet af denne drøftelse – som bestemt vil være meget signifikant; men, uanset dette, så varsler muligheden for USA’s og Ruslands præsidenter at mødes ansigt til ansigt, og at skabe en direkte, personlig relation, godt for fred og stabilitet for hele verden, men også for relationerne mellem disse to lande og for skabelsen af en sund relation uden andres mellemkomst mellem disse to verdensledere. Og på trods af alle forsøg i de seneste uger på at sabotere potentialet for dette møde, så holdt det, og det fandt sted. Vi har endnu ikke modtaget de fulde rapporter om drøftelserne.

Vi ved, at der kun var seks personer, der deltog; så dette var en meget personlig mulighed for Trump og Putin til at udvikle denne form for arbejdsrelation. Mødet bestod af USA’s udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson, Ruslands udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov, de to tolke – den russiske og den engelske – og så selvfølgelig, de to præsidenter. Dette blev tilsyneladende gjort for at gøre det muligt for diskussionen at være meget åben, meget fri, og meget fokuseret på at maksimere det positive potentiale, som denne historiske mulighed bød på. Selve mødet indledtes med korte bemærkninger fra begge præsidenter til pressen, der fik lov at komme ind i lokalet lige i begyndelsen. Der var fotomuligheder, mens de trykkede hinanden i hånden, og de sagde, at de begge så frem til en meget grundig og positiv diskussion. Trump sagde det følgende:

»Præsident Putin og jeg har diskuteret forskellige ting, og jeg synes, det går meget godt. Vi ser frem til, at der vil ske en masse positive ting for Rusland og for USA, og for alle andre berørte.«

Dernæst fulgte præsident Putin op på disse bemærkninger:

»Vi har talt sammen over telefon, men telefonsamtaler er afgjort aldrig nok. Jeg håber, at, som De sagde«, med henvisning til præsident Trumps bemærkninger, »vore møder vil give positive resultater.«

Dette møde mellem de to præsidenter fulgte efter et timelangt møde tidligere på dagen mellem udenrigsministrene Tillerson og Lavrov, hvor de, iflg. rapporter, diskuterede potentialet for en antiterror-koalition mellem Rusland og USA; med nogle detaljer mht. situationen i Syrien og præsident Assad. Nogle af detaljerne i denne foreslåede plan blev afsløret i pressen i går og i dag. Planen inkluderede såkaldte »sikre zoner« og tilsyneladende også en aftale om at gøre det muligt for præsident Assad at forblive ved magten; men dernæst at gå frem med en diplomatisk løsning på situationen dér. Men der er heller ikke blevet rapporteret eller afsløret nogen detaljer om dette møde mellem udenrigsministrene Lavrov og Tillerson. Men det anses selvfølgelig generelt som forberedelse til drøftelserne mellem Trump og Putin.

Bortset fra det, så har G20-topmødet været temmelig domineret af meget voldsomme protester og aktivitet fra uropolitiet uden for topmødet i Hamborg; og, på selve topmødet, af diskussioner om frihandel og klimaforandring. Men betydningen af de bilaterale møder, der finder sted på sidelinjerne, er naturligvis langt vigtigere end nogen diskussion, der finder sted på selve G20-møderne. En positiv indikation er imidlertid, at der tydeligvis er gang i noget mht. relationen mellem Tyskland og Kina. Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, da vi talte med hende for ca. 30 min. siden, at hun ser noget meget positivt, der finder sted i retning af kinesisk-tysk samarbejde om Afrikas udvikling. Kinas præsident Xi Jinping benyttede lejligheden af sit besøg i Tyskland for at deltage i dette G20-topmøde, til at få et regulært møde med Tysklands kansler Angela Merkel, og hvor de underskrev en aftale om i fællesskab at bygge et vandkraftværk i Angola. Under den fælles pressekonference efter mødet sagde Xi Jinping:

»Vi fejrer i år 45-året for relationen mellem Tyskland og Kina. Det er en succeshistorie. Vi står nu over for en ny begyndelse, hvor vi har brug for nye gennembrud.«

Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde:

»Dette er tydeligvis begyndelsen til noget, der potentielt er meget positivt mht. de bilaterale relationer mellem Tyskland og Kina, men også mht. den idé, at Tyskland spiller en meget positiv rolle med at deltage i de udviklingsprojekter, som Kina allerede bygger i Afrika.«

Xi sagde, at Kina er parat til at gå sammen med Tyskland for at konsolidere den gensidige tillid mellem de to lande; opbygge mere konsensus og fremme samarbejde og forbundethed (konnektivitet).

Helga Zepp-LaRouches analyse af dette var, at der tydeligvis var åbnet op for noget; og dette kommer i hælene på Bælte & Vej Forum, der fandt sted i Beijing i midten af maj. Selv om Tyskland ikke spillede noget særlig positiv eller aktiv rolle på dette forum, så sagde Helga, at,

»De er tydeligvis ikke så dumme, at de ikke kan se, hvad vej vinden blæser. Hvis de ikke springer med på vognen nu, vil de blive efterladt i mørket. Udviklingen af Afrika er tydeligvis en mulighed for Tyskland og andre lande i hele verden til at deltage i disse fordelagtige tredjeverdensrelationer med Kina og de afrikanske nationer.«

Én meget interessant udvikling på denne front er et andet topmøde, der finder sted samtidig med G20-topmødet i Tyskland, og det er Schiller Institut/Kinesisk Energifond-konferencen, der finder sted i New York City. Dette er et topmøde under den Afrikanske Union; og hovedtalen på dette topmøde blev holdt af FN’s vicegeneralsekretær, en kvinde ved navn Amina Mohammed, der er tidligere nigeriansk regeringsminister. I sine bemærkninger til denne konference under den Afrikanske Union kom hun med en meget vigtig henvisning til den rolle, som Kina spiller gennem Bælte & Vej Initiativet for at bringe udvikling til det afrikanske kontinent. Hun opmuntrede alle nationerne i den Afrikanske Union til at »benytte sig« af denne massive, kinesiske regeringsinvestering og infrastrukturprojekter, der har gjort det muligt for disse lande at begynde at bevæge sig, med spring fremad, forbi den tvungne tilbageståenhed, der var blevet dem påtvunget gennem århundreders kolonialisme og imperiepolitik. I sin tale roste Amina Mohammed »Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ, der tilsigter at bygge en Ny Silkevej, bestående af havne, jernbaner og veje for at udvide handels-konnektivitet i hele Asien, Afrika og Europa«, iflg. nyhedsrapporteringer. Hun sagde, »Dette er en mulighed for ikke alene at give alternativer for at gøre skydevåbnene tavse for vort folk, men en mulighed, der vil bevare vore aktiver – både menneskelige og naturlige – på kontinentet og bygge vort i morgen, i dag.« Dette er en meget vigtig bemærkning fra FN’s vicegeneralsekretær, og vi ved, at Antonio Guterres, FN’s generalsekretær, havde meget positive bemærkninger, som han udtalte om Bælte & Vej Initiativet på tærsklen til Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing.

Dette fører os direkte til den konference, der finder sted, mens vi taler, i New York City. Denne konference, der fandt sted parallelt med et møde i FN om sikkerhed for fødevareforsyning og bæredygtighed i landbruget, blev adresseret i fællesskab af Helga Zepp-LaRouche – og vi vil afspille hendes bemærkninger om et øjeblik – men også af Patrick Ho, der er viceformand for Kinesisk Energifondskomiteen. Han havde netop talt i FN sammen med en meget stor kinesisk delegation af kinesiske landbrugseksperter, den foregående dag, i går. Han holdt en tale, der stemte meget godt overens med den tale, han holdt tidligere på dagen på denne begivenhed i New York, sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet. Den tale, han holdt, var – iflg. rapporter – en meget anti-Malthus-tale om potentialet for en hurtig udvikling af bæredygtigt landbrug, for at brødføde den konstant voksende befolkning på denne planet. Noget, der naturligvis direkte tilbageviser argumentet i Malthus-traditionen, og som er kommet fra Det britiske Imperium så længe. Men med de rapporter fra denne konference, der stadig finder sted, mens vi taler, så er der 175 deltagere; diplomatiske delegationer fra diverse lande i hele verden via deres konsulater i New York City; aktivister, der deltager; folk fra diverse colleges i omegnen af New York City; og den officielle repræsentation fra den kinesiske delegation og fra en landbrugsdelegation, der er kommet tilrejsende fra USA’s Midtvesten. Denne konference åbnedes med bemærkninger fra den tidligere borgmester af Muscatine, Iowa, som personligt overbragte hilsner til konferencen; men dernæst gav han deltagerne på konferencen en slags lektion i baggrundshistorien om, hvorfor Iowa-Kina-porten er så afgørende for amerikansk-kinesiske relationer. Meget af dette drejer sig om præsident Xi Jinpings personlige relation til staten Iowa og byen Muscatine pga. hans interesse for landbrugsmetoder i USA i den tid, hvor Xi Jinping var provinsguvernør i Kina. Han havde således et personligt bånd til staten Iowa, men også til den tidligere guvernør Terry Branstad, der nu er USA’s ambassadør til Kina. Efter borgmesteren af Muscatines bemærkninger holdt Patrick Ho sin tale; og dette efterfulgtes så direkte af Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale.

Jeg vil nu gerne give jer lejlighed til selv at høre de bemærkninger, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche kom med til denne konference, og som fik en meget varm modtagelse og bragte hele diskussionsniveauet op på et meget højt niveau mht. de muligheder, der ligger forude, for at konsolidere dette Nye Paradigme i internationale relationer; især med muligheden for fuldt og helt at bringe USA ind i en deltagelse i den Nye Silkevej.

Her følger Helga Zepp-LaRouches bemærkninger:

(Her følger resten af webcastet på engelsk).          

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

: Dear conference participants, I feel
very honored to address you, even if it is by video, because I
think we are all aware that we are involved in the historically,
extremely important process of trying to improve the relationship
between the United States and China, in the context of the Belt
and Road Initiative. This is especially important in the area of
agriculture and food production, because this is an extremely
urgent question. Because, while at the G20 meeting in Hangzhou
last year, China and all the other participating nations devoted
themselves to eradicate poverty by the year 2020, we have not yet
reached that goal. Just a couple of days ago, the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization put out a report that world hunger is on
the rise, and that the situation, especially in Yemen, is
terrible: Half or more of the population is in acute danger of
starvation; but also in Nigeria and South Sudan and many other
areas, the situation is worsening.
Well, today, there is also the G20 summit in Hamburg, and
the outcome will be a surprise, either way, because until last
year’s G20 in Hangzhou, which was very harmonious and
characterized by a great optimism for the future of mankind, this
time the tensions are very high. In the last couple of days
however, there was a sort of prelude in the form of a summit
between President Putin and President Xi Jinping in Moscow, which
was really extremely important, and both characterized it as the
most important event of the year for their nation. They deepened
the strategic partnership, they established an even deeper level
of their personal friendship, and they declared that the time of
the unipolar world is over, because of the strategic partnership,
especially.
This is certainly true, that the time of the unipolar world
is over, but multi-polarity is still not the solution, because it
implies still geopolitics, which was the cause of two world wars
in the 20th century, and this geopolitics is still in operation,
in North Korea, in Syria, in Ukraine.
We must therefore find a higher level. We must get the world
to what President Xi Jinping always calls “the community for a
shared future of humanity.” One big step in that direction could
be the meeting President Trump and President Putin, who are
meeting today for the first time as Presidents. Obviously, this
is a very important step because, between President Trump and
President Xi Jinping, a very positive relationship has been
established already, so whatever comes out of this Trump-Putin
meeting is very, very crucial. Because the questions we have to
solve are urgent and dramatic.
The food crisis, the hunger crisis which I mentioned is only
a symptom of the fact that the old economic model is not
functioning any more. We are sitting on a powder-keg crisis which
erupted in 2008, which could come back with a vengeance, only
much, much worse. Because even a slight increase in the interest
rate, moving away from quantitative easing could lead to a
blowout of the corporate debt. Now, the firms which got the zero
interest rate liquidity from the central banks, the quantitative
easing, used this money, not to invest in productive investment,
but for so-called financial engineering by buying up their own
stocks to make it look better on the books, having more nominal
value but also increasing the corporate debt which could now
could blow out if there is an increase in the interest rate.
And that is only one aspect of the systemic crisis which we
still have. The other one is the so-called level 3 derivatives
which many European and other banks are sitting on. Level 3
derivatives are those, which no market … because you can’t sell
them, and the banks still keep them as assets, which really is a
sort of mega-fall [ph 5.03].
So the problem is that just yesterday, the fourth largest
bank in Italy was taken over by the government, and combined with
a bail-in, whereby the customers could only sell their bonds and
stocks at 18 cents to the euro, and that is a threat which is
hanging over the entire banking system.
Now, what could be done to solve that? Well, let’s look at
one other aspect of the crisis: Just a couple of days ago, in one
single day, 80,000 refugees arrived from Libya in little boats,
being picked up by NGOs in Italy. Eighty thousand people in one
day overstretches the capacity of any country, and Italy has
already taken in so many million people. So when they requested
that other countries located on the Mediterranean like Spain and
France should also take some of these refugees, these countries
rejected that.
Now that obviously shows there is no unity in the European
Union on this question.
Now how could you address this whole series of problems?
What should actually be on the agenda of the G20 in Hamburg?
Well, if you would put a global Glass-Steagall separation on the
agenda, doing exactly what Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1933, by
separating the commercial banks and the investment banks, putting
the commercial banks under state protection, writing off the
non-performing the derivatives of the investment banks, and then
going to a Hamiltonian credit system by setting up national banks
in every country and issuing large-scale, low-interest rate
credits, then we could solve the problem.
Mr. LaRouche has defined Four Laws to remedy the financial
crisis and the Fourth Law is the crash program for the
realization of thermonuclear fusion power. And there, the good
news is that China just accomplished a major breakthrough in this
respect, with its [EAST] tokomak in Hefei where they reached a
so-called “steady-state H-mode operation” for 101.2 seconds. This
is a major step towards the realization of thermonuclear fusion.
If such a reorganization according to these Four Laws,
Glass-Steagall, national bank, credit system, crash program for
fusion and space technology would be implemented, then the
trans-Atlantic countries could cooperate with such banks as the
AIIB, the New Development Bank, and others, together with China,
and build up, for example, Africa. China is so far the only
country which has done something to fight the root causes of the
refugee crisis, by investing large-scale in rail lines in Africa,
in dams, in power plants, in industrial parks, and in
agriculture. And this is actually, the only way to solve the
refugee crisis in a human way.
One promising step in this right direction is that between
President Xi Jinping and Chancellor Merkel, yesterday they agreed
that they will build together the hydropower complex in Angola,
and stated that that could be a model for the cooperation between
China and Germany in Africa in general.
Now, the Africans, because of what China has been doing, in
building up huge industrial complexes for the first time in
Africa, they have a new sense of self-confidence and they’re
telling the Europeans, “we don’t want to have your sermons on how
we should have good governance, we want to have investments in
infrastructure, in manufacture, in agriculture, as equal business
partners.”
Can we expect the G20 to do this, to go in this direction of
a global reorganization of the financial system and then go for a
real intervention in the development of Africa? Well, I’m afraid
they will not.
But this will remain the issue which has to be accomplished.
The Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, and to get the United States
and European countries to cooperate with China in the Belt and
Road Initiative, in the New Silk Road, is, indeed, the approach
how you can tackle all problems in the world. But this
conference, the Food for Peace conference is a very important
step in this direction. As a matter of fact, to get the United
States and China to work together on the New Silk Road
perspective, in the New Silk Road spirit, is in my view the most
important aspect in this process: Because if the two largest
economies can work together, I think we are on the right way to
win for all of civilization.
Therefore, let’s work together to join the Chinese dream,
and to revive the American dream, because the American dream
needs to be revived, because it has almost been forgotten. But
together, we can accomplish the dream for all of humanity.

OGDEN:  So, we will have much more coverage of the conference in
New York after it concludes.  That was Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s
keynote to that conference; “Development Is the New Name for
Peace”.  As I said, there is a very significant delegation from
China which attended that conference in New York City.  This just
testifies all the more to the role that the LaRouche movement is
playing here in the United States to being the leading mediator
in terms of the relationship which is being forged between these
two great countries.  The idea originally came out of Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche’s initiative for the Eurasian Land-Bridge; and the
role that the LaRouche movement played could not be any more
critical in terms of making that happen, and making that into a
reality.  We are definitely making steps along that road, but as
you heard Helga LaRouche say, it is crucial that we make some
very important breakthroughs here in the United States in order
to allow that to occur; including a full-scale adoption of the
Hamiltonian economic program that was spelled out by Lyndon
LaRouche in that Four Economic Laws.  This is the prerequisite to
the United States being able to accomplish the kinds of
developmental miracles that China has demonstrated over the last
15-20 years.
Emphatically, that begins with the restoration of
Glass-Steagall.  The news out of Italy with the nationalization
of Monte dei Paschi Bank just emphasizes evermore crucially how
fragile the entire trans-Atlantic system is right now.  We are by
no means in the clear, despite the fraudulent claims that have
been coming out of the Federal Reserve over the last few days.
We are definitely still on the cusp of what could be a far
greater crash than what we experienced in 2008.  As Helga
mentioned in those remarks, a lot of this is coming from the
build-up in the corporate debt bubble and in other means.  You
still have the life expectancy crisis across the United States;
you’ve got the opiate addiction crisis across the United States.
We have some new developments in terms of the statistics in that
regard that have just come in today.  But this is appalling, and
it could not be more urgent that this initiative be taken.
We do know that there was a press availability at 1pm this
afternoon in the break between the two panels at this conference
in New York City.  Diane Sare was representing the LaRouche
movement; and as we have been told, there were some pretty
significant press involvement.  So, we will look forward to
seeing some coverage of this conference that happened up in New
York; and we’ll have a much fuller report for you after that
concludes.
Let me just finish the broadcast here today by paraphrasing
for you some remarks that Helga LaRouche had just about 30
minutes ago when we spoke with her, after she had the chance to
view the proceedings of that conference and also to review some
of the outcomes of the G-20 that have been occurring over the
course of the daytime hours today.  She said look, there are very
clearly positive developments that are occurring.  We could list
them, but as we’ve seen just today, some of these developments
are very positive for the future stability [among] these three
great countries — China, Russia, and India; but also in terms of
the relationship for building the future.  But, she said, people
should be no means become complacent or satisfied.  Things are
very clearly moving in our direction, the direction of the ideas
of a New Paradigm; but we need much bigger breakthroughs in every
respect on the road towards that New Paradigm.  Nothing has been
consolidated.  Clearly the world is inclined in that direction,
and you could read into the relationship between Germany and
China, saying these countries are now beginning to realize what
is the dominant dynamic on this planet.  But, we are by no means
there yet; we have not reached the goal.  There is still a long
ways to go until that new reality is safely and securely
consolidated.  In the meantime, we have a lot of work to do;
especially as we begin to realize the magnitude of the impact
that the ideas of the LaRouche movement have had on world
history.  We also have to become very sober and clear-eyed about
what this means our responsibilities are at this moment.  They
are on a far greater scale than we have ever had, as we reflect
on the magnitude of the opportunities that these recent
developments pose to us as a movement, and to humanity.  She said
this — again — is no time for complacency; everything can fall
into place.  Or, everything could fall apart.
So, I think that’s a very active picture of a very rapidly
changing world situation, as we have it right now.  These
simultaneous summits — the G-20 in Germany and the conference
that’s happening in New York — I think are very important
crossroads; a very important conjunctural turning point in terms
of the opportunity for consolidating this vision of a new
relation between the great powers on this planet.  We have yet
to, I think, have the full report of what has come out of both of
these two summits.  So, on that note, I would like to encourage
you to please stay tuned to the LaRouche PAC website, because we
will definitely have an analysis and a full reading on what has
come out of the events as they’ve proceeded today.  I can let you
know that as we look forward to next week, the Monday update on
this website, our regular Monday afternoon Policy Committee show,
will feature an interview with Bill Jones, who is the EIR
Washington bureau chief and has accompanied Helga Zepp-LaRouche
on many of her trips to China over the recent few months and
years.  So, we’ve invited Bill Jones to come into the studio to
give his exclusive view and perspective on what the outcome of
these events over this weekend will have been as we reach the
beginning of next week.  So, we encourage you to tune in again
for our show here next Monday, and in the meantime, stay tuned to
larouchepac.com and we’ll be sending out updates as we get them.
Thank you for watching here today, and please stay tuned.

Vært Matthew Ogden: Vi har et meget dramatisk billede, der venter os forude, og vi står nu ved åbningen at det, der vil vise sig at blive en meget dramatisk juli måned. Vi er nu præcis syv dage fra G20-topmødet, der finder sted i Hamborg, Tyskland. Selv om indholdet af topmødet sandsynligvis ikke bliver bemærkelsesværdigt i sig selv, så er dette en ekstraordinær mulighed. Det bliver første gang, at præsident Donald Trump fra USA vi få mulighed for at have et bilateralt, regulært, ansigt-til-ansigt møde med præsident Vladimir Putin fra Rusland. Der har i løbet af den seneste uge, tre uger, fire uger, været forsøg på at køre dette potentielle topmøde af sporet og gøre det mislykket selv inden det løber af stablen. Vi må i de næste syv dage holde nøje øje med ethvert forsøg på at sprænge dette i luften eller sprænge muligheden for den rolige og klare, rationelle relation, som præsident Trump og præsident Putin kunne få ved et regulært møde.

Vi har set en række provokationer i Syrien, først og fremmest. Vi så et syrisk fly, der blev skudt ned; vi så et amerikansk militærfly, der chikanerede [den russiske forsvarsminister] Shoigus fly. Og i de seneste dage har vi set forsøget på at sætte en fælde for præsident Trump til endnu en direkte konfrontation med Syrien – og, gennem forlængelse, med Rusland – over såkaldte »kemiske våben«, de angivelige kemiske våben. Dette forsøg døde i fødslen, og der er mange faktorer i dette, vi sikkert ikke kender alle detaljerne omkring. Vi ved, at der finder en intens kamp sted om politikken bag scenerne i Det Hvide Hus. Vi så dette udspilles i forskellige offentlige former; vi så også udgivelsen af denne meget vigtige artikel af reporter Seymour Hersh, der beviste, at disse beskyldninger om kemiske våben i den tidligere hændelse, hvor Trump-administrationen bøjede sig og angreb den syriske flybase, var falske, og blot var operationer ’under falsk flag’.

Og igen, dette er alle faktorer, der er i overensstemmelse med dette forsøg på at køre dette mulige topmøde mellem Putin og Trump af sporet. Men alt peger nu på, at det kører på skinner og kunne vise sig at blive et meget vigtigt møde med det formål at stabilisere og normalisere relationerne mellem USA og Rusland. Vi ser, at ’narrativen’ er begyndt at flosse i kanterne og faktisk er ved at trevle helt op omkring historien med det såkaldte »Russia-gate«. Vi ser nu meget offentlige og fremtrædende tilbagetrækninger, som CNN blev tvunget til at foretage, og vi har set den seneste fra New York Times. Denne medie-narrativ begynder nu at gå i opløsning i kanterne, og det amerikanske folk begynder at gennemskue det. Vi har set forskellige Demokrater i Huset og Senatet sige til det Demokratiske Partis lederskab, vi kan ikke blive ved med at gå ud i valgkredsene og sige »Trump, Trump, Trump; Putin, Putin, Putin. Det hele handler om russerne, der hacker valgene. Vore vælgere er ikke interesseret i denne narrativ. Det, de er interesseret i, er økonomiens kollaps og perspektiverne for beskæftigelse. Hvordan skal vi overvinde krisen med narkotikaafhængighed? Og, meget reelt, USA’s kollapsende infrastruktur?«

Vi vil gå lidt i dybden med dette spørgsmål, men lad mig blot bemærke, at den anden, vigtige mulighed, som vi kunne få at se på G20-mødet, er en opfølgning af topmødet mellem præsident Trump og præsident Xi Jinping. Vi ved, at en meget vigtig relation blev skabt mellem Trump og Xi på Mar-a-Lago-topmødet for nogle ganske få måneder siden, da præsident Xi kom til USA. Men flere dramatiske begivenheder er indtruffet siden da; først og fremmest, Bælte & Vej Forum, der fandt sted i Beijing, hvor præsident Trump traf den meget kloge beslutning at sende en repræsentant på højt niveau – Matt Pottinger. Dette har nu etableret den mulighed, hvor der finder en meget seriøs diskussion sted på meget højt niveau omkring USA’s formelle tilslutning til Silkevejens udviklingsprojekter – Ét Bælte, én Vej-initiativet; og omkring at bringe Kina ind til at assistere med genopbygningen af infrastrukturen her i USA. Der er flere udviklinger, som vi dækkede detaljeret i sidste uge, men den vigtigste af disse var et regulært møde mellem rådgiver Yang og præsident Trump, der fandt sted i Det hvide hus; hvor præsident Trump – iflg. rapporter fra Xinhua – sagde »Ja, vi er meget interesseret i at deltage i en fælles relation med Kina for at bygge Bælte & Vej«. Dernæst var der flere satellitbegivenheder, der fandt sted omkring dette, og som diskuterede detaljerne i, hvad det ville betyde at få en sådan form for fælles samarbejde omkring udvikling både udenlands og herhjemme.

Denne diskussion om USA’s tilslutning til den Nye Silkevej kunne ikke være mere presserende nødvendig. Infrastrukturen internt i USA befinder sig nu ved et punkt, hvor den totalt er ved at disintegrere. Vi har netop haft nyheder fra New York City, som vi har dækket, om, at der har været den ene afsporing efter den anden togbrand, den ene krise i undergrundsbanen og forsinkelse efter den anden i New York City. Det leder alt sammen til det, der bliver kaldt »Helvedessommeren«. Vi har en overskrift her, som jeg viser på skærmen; dette er fra New York Times.

»Guvernør Cuomo erklærer New York Citys undergrundsbane i nødtilstand«.

Guvernør Cuomo har erklæret, at, efter den seneste togafsporing, der skete i onsdags – og som er en temmelig skræmmende oplevelse for alle involverede – med tog, der brændte og forsinkelser, der forstyrrede dusinvis af New York-indbyggeres dagligliv. Dette er blot en af mange i rækken af farlige og ødelæggende katastrofer, der er indtruffet i dette 100 år gamle undergrundssystem i New York. Det, som guvernør Cuomo nu har gjort, er at erklære New York City i en nødtilstand for så vidt angår Metropolitan Transportation Authority [MTA]. Han har givet MTA-formand Joe Lhota 30 dage til at fremlægge en komplet plan for reorganisering. Han har sagt, at staten New York vil bevilge yderligere $1 mia. i midler til MTA’s hovedplan.

Her er et citat fra guvernør Cuomo, som jeg viser her på skærmen, så I kan se, hvad han sagde om denne nødtilstand.

»Forsinkelserne driver New Yorkere til vanvid«, sagde han. »De er rasende over manglen på kommunikation, pålidelighed og nu ulykker. For kun tre dage siden var der bogstavelig talt et tog, der kørte af sporet. Det er en perfekt metafor for hele det dysfunktionelle system. I dag vil staten New York sende penge efter sine ord.«

Det er altså et citat fra guvernør Cuomo i New York.

Så jo, infrastrukturen ikke alene i New York City, men i hele USA er i en nødtilstand. Vi har brug for en nødplan for at udbedre og genopbygge vores eksisterende infrastruktur; meget af den er et halvt, hvis ikke et helt århundrede gammel og er ude over sin naturlige levetid. Men herudover, og meget eftertrykkeligt, kan vi ikke blot have en fremgangsmåde, hvor vi flikker kanterne sammen og kommer plastre på et system, der er i forfald og blev bygget i det foregående århundrede. Vi må også fuldstændig gentænke og danne os nye begreber om, hvordan en fremtidsorienteret, 50-100 årig vision for USA skal være. En vision med et USA, der er integreret i den nye, globale platform med den Nye Silkevej; med Bælte & Vej-initiativet, der er i færd med at forandre plantens fremtræden, mens vi taler.

Som sagt, så handler det ikke om at flikke ting sammen i kanterne og fikse den eksisterende infrastruktur. Det, vi har brug for, er en helhedsvision, en national vision, ikke kun for nutiden, men forlænget 50-100 år ud i fremtiden, og som vil bestemme de nødvendige delelementer, som vi bygger, for at komme derfra og dertil, for at opnå denne vision om en fremtidig platform i USA. Jeg kan godt lide det billede, som kineserne har talt om i Afrika; ideen om at bygge et helt nyt kontinent. Det, kineserne har været i stand til at præstere i Afrika på nogle ganske få år, er forbløffende mht. et økonomisk mirakel, som de bibringer dette kontinent; men det er præcis en sådan fremgangsmåde, som vi har brug for, for kontinental-USA og for hele den vestlige halvkugle – Nord- og Sydamerika tilsammen. En komplet vision for, hvad en kontinental infrastrukturplatform må være, integreret i denne Ét Bælte, én Vej; det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte og den Maritime Silkevej. Og en af hjørnestenene ville være at bygge jernbaneforbindelsen over Beringstrædet, der ville forbinde de to, store, kontinentale landmasser på planeten på en måde, der i geologisk historie aldrig før er sket.

Men, hvordan skal vi gøre det? Dette kan tydeligvis ikke ske ved hjælp af økonomisk frimarkedstankegang. Man må have en vision, der dirigeres fra toppen og ned centralt, af den nationale regering; der blev skabt som en Forfatningsmæssig Føderal Republik af Alexander Hamilton til dette formål. Man må sige, hvilke er de nødvendige projekter? For Alexander Hamilton var det havneprojekter, veje, at åbne op for det indre af kontinentet; at bringe vareproduktion ind i det, der før blot havde været en tidligere landbrugskoloni på det tidspunkt. Men Alexander Hamiltons vision nødvendiggjorde dernæst skabelsen af de nødvendige, statslige finansinstrumenter – den Første Nationalbank – for at bringe denne vision til virkeliggørelse.

Det er sådan, kineserne har diskuteret, hvordan de har bygget den Nye Silkevej. Xi Jinping fremlagde sin vision i 2013, under en tale i Astana, Kasakhstan; og han har nu på fire korte år været i stand til at gøre denne vision til virkelighed. Som han sagde, »fra tanke til handling«. De har nu erklæret, at kineserne har til hensigt om tre år at fjerne fattigdom fuldstændigt fra Kina, og det er en bedrift, vi kan tro på, de vil opnå; som det er blevet demonstreret af det økonomiske mirakel, der hidtil er kommet fra Kina. Men dette er essensen i Henry Clays [udenrigsminister 1824-29 under præsident John Quincy Adams] og Abraham Lincolns Amerikanske System. Dette er, hvad programmet for USA’s præsidentskab bør være.

(Her følger udskrift på engelsk af resten af webcastet)   

We have a very fascinating report just incidentally, that

there is continuing to be discussion around this idea of the

American System; even coming from Republican circles inside

Washington.  Representatives of {Executive Intelligence Review}

attended a briefing in Capitol Hill just a few days ago, that was

sponsored by the American Opportunity Foundation and the American

Public Transit Association.  This drew some leading Republicans

from the levels of Federal and state government, who are strongly

in support of the idea of large public financing of

transportation infrastructure.  This might not seem to fit the

Republican profile, but if you go back to the original Republican

Party platform that President Trump cited from McKinley in the

end of the 19th Century, the idea of the American System was

written directly into the Republican Party platform.  Abraham

Lincoln, after all, was a strong advocate of the American System

and was the founding President of the Republican Party.  In fact,

two speakers at that event, surprisingly former Virginia Governor

Jim Gilmore and then the former Connecticut Department of

Transportation Commissioner Emil Frankel, both referenced by

name, explicitly, the “American System of Henry Clay.”  So, I

would not discount the fact that the ideas that the LaRouche

Movement have been championing along this front for years if not

decades, are becoming very pervasive in policymaking circles in

the United States.  Not only in the Republican Party, but in the

Democratic Party, too.

But it’s our job to consolidate and to pull this together

into a national leadership cadre who understand not just in

words, but in principle, the concept which underlies Lyndon

LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws.  If you start with Glass-Steagall

and return the banking system to what it was originally to be as

a commercial banking system which is able to guarantee credit for

small businesses and for projects of development which have

knowable rates of return, instead of this kind of Wall Street,

Las Vegas-type casino gambling which has been predominant on Wall

Street for the last 17-18 years since the repeal of

Glass-Steagall; that’s the necessary open door that we then

create the possibility to build the Third National Bank or an

equivalent of such.  And to direct large flows of direct Federal,

public credit into infrastructure not just of the 20th Century

variety, but infrastructure projects which have yet to be

conceived of.  The infrastructure of the future; or as Mr.

LaRouche identifies it in his Four Economic Laws, the platform

for creating a higher state of existence for the human economic

system.

So, this is the critical element, and I cannot say enough

how important it is to understand that we’re now at the point

where the United States integrating itself into this New Paradigm

is a very real concept.  This is something which could happen in

a very substantial way.  We have a countdown now of seven days

until the possibility for a sit-down meeting between President

Trump and President Xi, where they can discuss this in much more

detail; and the very strategically important meeting that will

occur between President Trump and President Putin, despite all

attempts to derail, undermine, and sabotage this potential

relationship.

Here in the United States, I think we just have to take a

moment to recognize the leadership significance of what has been

provided on the street level by LaRouche movement and LaRouche

PAC activists across the country; but most importantly, as we’ve

seen recently, in New York City.  We’ve had several on the ground

reports that we’ve shared with you via the LaRouche PAC Facebook

page and the LaRouche PAC website.  We’ve had some very important

insights that the American people are at the point that if you

present this kind of optimistic vision of what could possibly be

achieved if we were to overcome this geopolitics and the

attempted coup against the sitting President of the United

States, it’s a very optimistic kind of picture.  Americans are

ready to participate in that.

The other element of this though, is that there is a certain

element of optimism which has been able to cut through the

pessimism and cynicism that have pervaded the American people for

the last 16 years.  If you look at the two terms of George W Bush

followed by the two terms of Barack Obama, the American people

have become so demoralized and beaten down, and become so

acclimated to the idea that America’s role in the world is to

spread perpetual war; and the Federal government’s role

domestically is to bail out speculators on Wall Street.  But when

they see that someone’s willing to take this establishment on,

the American people have now begun to break out of their shells.

There are many elements of that.

As we’ve cited in recent days on the LaRouche PAC website,

there is a line to be remembered from the famous essay by the

19th Century English poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley, in his essay “In

Defence of Poetry,” where he talks about a time in which people

are able to absorb and communicate much more profound and much

more impassioned ideas about the future state of man and man’s

relationship to the Universe.  This was an insight that Percy

Shelley had as a poet; but as he said, “the poets are the

unacknowledged legislators of the world.”

Now, in a very, very special event that occurred yesterday,

just last night, that I had the great honor and pleasure of

attending, in New York City at the historic Carnegie Hall, there

was a great poet and artist, who was honored on her 100th

birthday:  This was Sylvia Olden Lee, who was born on this date,

June 29th — yesterday — one hundred years ago, in 1917.  She

would have been 100 years of age last night.  And a tribute to

her memory and to perpetuating her living legacy, was sponsored

by the Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture, at

Carnegie Hall in New York City, to an absolutely packed audience,

and an audience which was impassioned in their involvement in the

memory and celebration of the legacy of this incredible woman.

Now, this tribute concert, which was called “Tribute to

Sylvia Olden Lee, Master Musician and Teacher” comprised of arias

that were sung by leading students of Sylvia Olden Lee from

across the United States who are now leading operatic singers,

people who had been touched by her and had learned from her and

who had lived alongside of her, they sang Verdi arias, Donizetti

arias; they sang art songs by Johannes Brahms, by Franz Schubert,

but they also sang the Spirituals, the African American

Spirituals which were so much a legacy of this woman: Sylvia

Olden Lee, who was the first African American vocal coach to be

hired by the Metropolitan Opera.  And she created the opportunity

for Marian Anderson to break the color barrier and become the

first Black woman singer to take the stage at the Metropolitan

Opera, with so many others to follow behind her.

Also was presented choral selections of Spirituals, of these

arrangements of {Lift Every Voice and Sing}, of {Lord, I Don’t

Feel No Ways Tired}, {Go Down Moses}, {Soon I Will Be Done}; but

also the {Ave Verum Corpus} by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and the

Hallelujah chorus from Beethoven’s {Christ on the Mount of

Olives}.

So this was an absolutely stunning musical event, but it was

also an event which testifies to the immortality of the human

soul.  Because I think, as everyone who was present at this

tribute concert can tell you, Sylvia Olden Lee was not just

remembered at this concert; she was not just remembered by those

in the room, but she was physically and spiritually present to

those who were gathered in that room in her honor.  She {was}

there, in person, in a very real way.

Now, along with these beautiful musical tributes that were

sung and presented by all the various musicians that were

involved, there were also an astounding number of written and

spoken tributes that were presented in her honor. Sylvia Olden

Lee’s daughter, Eve, spoke in person at Carnegie Hall. Her former

husband, Everett Lee, spoke via video; and there was even a video

that was played of Sylvia Olden Lee herself speaking at a

Schiller Institute conference in 1994, in which she spoke about

the relationship that she had to the legendary Roland Hayes who

was a close friend of Sylvia’s father.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2pItZ0jIe4]

There were also written greetings from Jessye Norman who is

a world renowned opera singer;  Willis Charles Patterson, a

bass-baritone; George Shirley, also a world renowned opera

singer;  Eugene Simpson, a renowned conductor and music arranger;

Everett Lee III who is the son of Sylvia Olden Lee;  Bobby

McFerrin, who is the godson of Sylvia Olden Lee and the son of

the famous Robert McFerrin, one of the renowned 20th century

African American opera singers.  Bobby McFerrin himself is a

renowned jazz vocalist here in the United States.  A variety of

others: William Ray, Marti Newland from Oberlin; also Jesse

Hamilton, a New York state senator; Blanche Cook, distinguished

professor of history at John Jay College; Gail Robinson, soprano;

Marian Dora Howe Taylor, and many others.  Also there was a

greeting from the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan.

And present at the event, was the biographer of Sylvia Olden

Lee, Elizabeth Nash, who worked so closely with Sylvia to draft

her memoirs, which appropriately were published under the title

{Who Is Sylvia?}, a reference to a famous English-language

Schubert Lied, based on text from William Shakespeare.  That song

was also presented at the beginning of the second half of this

extraordinary, historic concert.

The shocking thing that occurred for the audience, was in

the beginning of the second half, a representative of Mayor Bill

De Blasio’s office came out onstage, and declared that an

official proclamation had been issued by the Mayor of New York

City, declaring that June 29th, 2017 was “Sylvia Olden Lee Day.”

And I’d like to put on the screen the text of this proclamation

from Mayor De Blasio.  It reads as follows:

“Office of the Mayor, City of New York

“Proclamation:

“{{Whereas:}} The creative energy that defines the five

boroughs has long

inspired people from across the world, and generations of diverse

artists and musicians have flocked to our city and shaped our

cultural landscape. As a trailblazing African American vocalist,

pianist, and music educator, the late Sylvia Olden Lee is among

this group of influential performers who advanced the music scene

in the five boroughs and beyond. Tonight, on what would have been

Lee’s 100th birthday, New Yorkers and performing artists of all

backgrounds will celebrate her life and legacy during a concert

at Carnegie Hall, hosted by the Foundation for the Revival of

Classical Culture, the Schiller Institute, and Harlem Opera

Theater.

“{{Whereas:}} Born in 1917, Sylvia Olden Lee was raised in

Mississippi by

parents who were gifted musicians, and she began learning piano

at age five. Equipped with immense natural talent, she went on to

study piano at Howard University and at age 16 she was invited to

perform at the White House for Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s

inauguration. Lee also excelled as a vocalist and she possessed a

deep knowledge of African American spirituals. In 1954, Lee

became the first African American professional hired by New

York’s Metropolitan Opera, where she worked for many years as a

vocal coach and played a key role in coordinating the

groundbreaking debut of Marian Anderson at the Met. During her

long and successful professional career, Lee accompanied and

coached singers throughout the United States and Europe, and she

worked with many internationally-acclaimed artists, among them

Paul Robeson, Jessye Norman, Kathleen Battle and Robert McFerrin.

“{{Whereas:}} As a dedicated vocal coach and a passionate

music educator,

Lee was a mentor to generations of young artists, and her legacy

continues to inspire emerging and established musicians in the

five boroughs and beyond. Through her hard work, enthusiasm,

phenomenal talent and encyclopedic knowledge of spirituals and

classical music, Lee made tremendous contributions to the world

of music, and as a pioneering African American artist, she

fostered diversity in the cultural sector, paving the way for

others. As you gather tonight to enjoy an evening of performances

in Sylvia Olden Lee’s honor, Chirlane and I are pleased to join

in paying tribute to an outstanding artist who shaped the history

of music in New York and around the world.

“{{Now therefore,}} I, Bill De Blasio, Mayor of the City of

New York, do hereby proclaim Thursday, June 29th, 2017 in the

City of New York as:  {{Sylvia Olden Lee Day}}”

So this was an incredible tribute and celebration of Sylvia

Olden Lee Day in the City of New York.  This commemorative

program went out to everybody who was present, with this

beautiful picture of Mrs. Lee on the front of the program.  And

on the back it said, “Lift Every Voice and Sing” which was

appropriate for the concluding piece of this concert, which was a

wonderful and rousing arrangement of that national song of

freedom, {Lift Every Voice and Sing}, which was arranged and

conducted by the famous Roland Carter.  And as soon as the music

began, the audience on its feet, singing along.

Now, Lynn Yen, who is the executive director of the

Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture, invited

everybody present to join the Schiller Institute Community Chorus

and to become part of a growing movement for the revival of

Classical culture in New York City and beyond, setting as a goal,

one year from today, that that community chorus should have 1,500

members.  And I think many members of the audience were so

inspired by that concert that they were very eager to join such

an extraordinary chorus.

The combined choruses of the Harlem Opera Theater and the

Schiller Institute Chorus comprised a chorus of hundreds on the

stage of Carnegie Hall last night.

Now, one more greeting that was written and included in this

commemorative program, was from Helga Zepp-LaRouche, herself, who

is the founder and director of the Schiller Institute.  And I’d

like to put in the screen the tribute to Sylvia Olden Lee from

Helga Zepp-LaRouche.  She said:

“Sylvia Olden Lee was one of those absolutely outstanding

artists, who are capable of crystallizing for her many pupils and

the people she inspired, the essence of a piece of music, the

true idea, only accessible to those individuals, who can read the

intention of the poet and the composer.  She implanted in many

minds throughout her life the knowledge in her students, how the

artists, the singer, the instrumentalists steps modestly behind

the composition, but at the same time adds his or her ennobled

individuality to the performance, to make it both unique and

absolutely truthful.

“In doing that, she was always playful, polemical, full of

humor, profound, loving and with a disarming openness, and by

representing all of these characteristics, she would liberate her

students, as well as the audience out of their normal un-elevated

condition to the higher plane of true art.  She was able, like

only a few, to let those around her participate directly in the

creative process, in the diligent work of the kind of perfection

it takes, to actually produce art, and not just nice sounds.

“The afternoons and evenings she would participate in

{Musikabende} or coaching sessions in our place in Virginia,

together with William Warfield, Robert McFerrin, and numerous

other Classical artists, belong to the fondest memories for my

husband, Lyndon LaRouche, and myself.  Sylvia and Bill [Warfield]

were for many years on the board of the Schiller Institute and

added an invaluable treasure to its work.  In thinking about

Sylvia, one suddenly wishes she would be still there, since what

she taught is so very needed for our humanity. — Helga

Zepp-LaRouche, Founder, Schiller Institute”

Now, I think that spirit was infused in the entirety of the

performers and the audience that was present, and many of them

are gathering again, as we speak today, in New York City at the

Lincoln Center for a follow-up symposium, again sponsored by the

Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture, which is the

conclusion of this two-day tribute to Sylvia Lee, which is

called, “The Aesthetical Education of Humanity through Music,”

and is involving a discussion among many of those performed last

night, and who were teachers and who were touched by Sylvia Olden

Lee; including a presentation on the necessity for a return to

the so-called “Verdi tuning”: This is the A=432 tuning which was

mandated by the great operatic composer Giuseppe Verdi; and a

return to the idea of a discussion for a proposed, new National

Conservatory of Music.

Now, what I’d like to show you, just inclusion for today’s

broadcast, to give you a little bit of a taste of the

extraordinary character of Mrs. Sylvia Olden Lee, as we celebrate

her 100th birthday, is this small video excerpt from the

conclusion of a speech that she delivered at a conference of the

Schiller Institute in February 1994:

“I know from the fact that you’re here, your presence

attests to the fact that you believe in justice and one world.  I

hope you keep persevering and going into the far corners of this

globe, selling it to other people, because {we are one family}.

We all belong to {one God}, no matter what you call Him. And as

such, we should keep in touch with each other, through Classics

{and folk music}. [applause]”

So I think that’s a beautiful rallying call for all who are

believers in justice, as she said “one world,” a cooperation

among humanity, that we all send this message, sell this message

to the ends of the Earth and that we work tirelessly, to achieve

that beautiful vision, and to remain in touch with each other

through music and art, the Classics and the folk songs alike.

So again, this was a beautiful event.  All of those who had

the opportunity to attend, I’m sure, will remember this for the

rest of their lives, and will be inspired to follow in the

footsteps of such a beautiful and inspiring teacher.

As I said in the beginning of our broadcast, we are now in

the eve of the beginning of the month of July, I think we can

expect some very important opportunities, as things continue to

develop, as we look ahead to the July 7-8, one week from today,

summit — the G20, but the important bilateral meetings that will

occur on the sidelines, between President Trump and President Xi,

and President Trump and President Putin.

So we continue our work here in the United States for the

U.S. to join the New Silk Road, and it couldn’t be any more

urgent than it is right now:  Thank you very much for joining me

here today, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com, as we bring

you more updates, in the continuation of our campaign here in the

United States.

Be sure to visit larouchepac.com, subscribe to YouTube

channel, and please become a regular member of the LaRouche PAC,

by joining our email list and by signing up on the Action Center

at larouchepac.com.  Stay tuned, and we’ll see you again.

De nylige trusler mod præsident Trumps liv, der kommer fra mange kendte personer, New York City Public Theatre Company, samt nedskydningen af kongresmedlem Scalise, bør ikke ses som isolerede tilfælde; som forbrydelser, begået af enkeltindivider, der handler af egen vilje. Vi bør snarere af USA’s egen historie lære, at der ikke findes nogen ’enlig skytte’. Det er briterne, der myrder vore præsidenter, af en særlig grund.

Lad os se på de af vore præsidenter, der blev myrdet; hvad er mønstret? Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, JFK og, endskønt han ikke var præsident, men er relevant for os i dag, Alexander Hamilton. Hvad fortæller mordet på disse præsidenter os om vor nations unikke rolle i historien? Hvis man ser på deres handlinger, så anvendte de, eller havde tydeligvis til hensigt at anvende, det Amerikanske Økonomiske System, for at fremme vor nation, og de kæmpede udtrykkeligt mod Det britiske Imperiums gennemførelse af ’frihandel’ i USA. Disse præsidenter vidste, til forskel fra de fleste amerikanere i dag, at Det britiske Imperium er vores fjende, og de vidste, at det var deres job at beskytte vore borgere mod den elendighed, vi ville stå overfor, hvis britisk imperie-frihandel blev praktiseret. Og, hvad der var allervigtigst, så indså de, at britisk frihandel ville kvæle vores mest dyrebare resurse; det amerikanske folks kreative gnist i en naturlig hældning mod at bidrage med vore evner hen imod en positiv og varig virkning på vore efterlevende. Det Amerikanske System opmuntrer udtrykkeligt denne gnist og bruger den til udvikling af gennembrud inden for varefremstilling, landbrug, videnskab og kultur.

I dag henviser præsident Trump udtrykkeligt til Det Amerikanske Økonomiske System som sin politiske programerklæring. Bortset fra Lyndon LaRouche og hans bevægelse, så er der ingen i det 20. århundrede, der har identificeret det Amerikanske Økonomiske System som værende dét princip i vores historie, der fuldstændig adskiller os fra Det britiske Imperium. Trumps plan om at genoplive den produktivitet, vi har mistet i de seneste 50 år, siden mordet på JFK, og hans beredvillighed til at samarbejde med Kina og Rusland om skabelsen af en ny, økonomisk orden, vækker rædsel i briterne. Trumps præsidentskab udgør en trussel mod selve Det britiske Imperiums eksistens. De ved, der ikke er plads til deres Imperium i en ny, international, økonomisk orden på denne planet, og de vil ikke dø uden kamp.

Lær om Lyndon LaRouches fremsættelse af det Amerikanske System, kendt som de Fire Love til USA’s omgående redning, gennem viste videolink, (dansk tekst her) og gå med i LaRouche PAC (Schiller Instituttet, DK!) for at skabe en ny æra for menneskeheden, uden Det britiske Imperium.

Offentliggjort den 24. jun. 2017.     

… Ifølge det Kinesiske Udenrigsministeriums rapport om mødet, responderede præsident Trump til denne udtalelse fra rådgiver Yang ved at sige, at han – præsident Trump – ville være åben over for at samarbejde med Kina om Bælte & Vej Initiativet og hermed relaterede projekter. Han sagde, han er tilfreds med de positive fremskridt, der er sket i de kinesisk-amerikanske relationer, siden sit møde med præsident Xi i Mar-a-Lago. Og han meddelte, at han planlægger at besøge Kina inden for det næste (nuværende) år.

Matthew Ogden: Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Paul Gallagher, redaktør for EIR’s økonomiske stof, og som har været meget aktiv i Washington, D.C., i den eskalerede kamp for genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall og resten af hr. LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love i Hamiltons tradition. Han har mange opdateringer til os på denne front. Og via video har vi Diane Sare, LaRouche PAC Policy koordinator for New York, med os fra Manhattan. Hun har netop skrevet en artikel med titlen, »Gullivers rejse til Manhattan! Kun LaRouches Fire Love og Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ kan løse Manhattans infrastrukturkrise.« (EIR, 23. juni). Som vi alle ved, venter »Helvedessommeren« forude i New York City, mht. transportinfrastruktur.

Jeg vil straks begynde med nogle meget signifikante udviklinger i kampen for at bringe USA ind i den Nye Silkevej, ind i Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ. For det første vil jeg rapportere direkte, at Xinhua, et kinesisk nyhedsmedie, rapporterer, at præsident Donald Trump i går mødtes med Kinas statsrådgiver Yang Jiechi i Det Hvide Hus, og til statsrådgiveren Yang sagde, at USA er villig til at samarbejde om projekter relateret til det kinesiske Bælte & Vej Initiativ. De to havde dette møde i Det Hvide Hus som en del af statsrådgiver Yangs besøg til Washington; dette var et møde på højt niveau. Og, iflg. nyhedsrapporter, sagde Yang til præsident Trump, at Kina var meget tilfreds med, meget glad over og satte meget stor pris på det faktum, at Trump-administrationen havde besluttet at sende en repræsentant på højt plan – Matthew Pottinger – til at deltage i Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing i sidste måned. Vi har rapporteret, at denne repræsentant for USA var en beslutning i sidste sekund fra Trumps side, og at det var en meget god beslutning. Rådgiver Yang sagde også til Donald Trump, at Kina ville være villig til at arbejde sammen med USA om Bælte & Vej Initiativet. Ifølge det Kinesiske Udenrigsministeriums rapport om mødet, responderede præsident Trump til denne udtalelse fra rådgiver Yang ved at sige, at han – præsident Trump – ville være åben over for at samarbejde med Kina om Bælte & Vej Initiativet og hermed relaterede projekter. Han sagde, han er tilfreds med de positive fremskridt, der er sket i de kinesisk-amerikanske relationer, siden sit møde med præsident Xi i Mar-a-Lago. Og han meddelte, at han planlægger at besøge Kina inden for det næste (nuværende) år. Dette blev bekræftet af udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson i en pressekonference, han holdt onsdag. Præsident Trump rapporterede ligeledes, at han ser frem til igen at mødes med præsident Xi Jinping ved G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland, i juli måned. Det var første punkt, og det er naturligvis en meget signifikant udvikling.

Det andet punkt er, at der samtidig, dagen før dette møde mellem præsident Trump og statsrådgiver Yang, var en møde på højt niveau mellem tidligere kinesiske regeringsfolk og amerikanske erhvervsledere på højt niveau, i regi af et bilateralt eller fælles møde, der fandt sted mellem USA’s Handelskammer – der repræsenterer førende, amerikanske erhvervsinteresser – og Kinas Center for Internationale Økonomiske Udvekslinger, der er en regeringstilknyttet tænketank med base i Beijing. Under dette møde udstedte disse to grupper et fælleskommunike, der promoverede fælles samarbejde mellem USA og Kina.

Her følger resten af webcastet på engelsk:

So, I’m going to put on the screen here a picture of this
meeting that occurred [Fig. 1].  As you can see, it’s the 9th
U.S.-China CEO and Former Senior Officials Dialogue; jointly
sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the China Center
for International Economic Exchanges.  What the joint communiqué
reports is that not only would the U.S. businessmen be interested
in joint cooperation on the Belt and Road, but they would also be
interested in cooperation on building U.S. infrastructure here
domestically.  So you can see here a direct quote from their
communiqué.  This is under the subtitle “Strengthening Investment
Cooperation Under the Framework of Belt and Road Initiative and
Through Other Means.”  So, here’s what it says:
“Investment is an important driver of China-U.S. trade
relations and the growth of the two economies.  There is great
potential for the two sides to further expand mutual investment.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which has spurred investment in
infrastructure building, will considerably broaden the space for
Chinese and U.S. investment and open many opportunities for
Chinese and U.S. companies to cooperate in third countries.
Significant participation by U.S. companies, including in
partnership with Chinese companies, can make new contributions to
the furtherance of China-U.S. economic and trade relations.  In
certain areas, U.S. companies can offer the world’s best
technology and management capability, thereby helping to insure
smooth and efficient completion of Belt and Road projects.
Infrastructure building in the U.S. will generate an enormous
need for investment, and the new U.S. administration has
indicated that this is a major priority.  China has strong
capabilities and cost advantages in infrastructure building,
including the building of urban roads, expressways, fly-overs,
high-speed rail, and ports.”
It goes on to say: “Chinese companies and financial
institutions are ready to contribute to this effort through
financing and through the provision of goods and services.
Chinese investment in certain areas of U.S. infrastructure
development has the potential to help strengthen business
relations between the two sides, and in some cases, speed up
completion of the needed projects at lower cost and with greater
efficiency.  Both sides agreed that the two countries can engage
in full cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative and
through a number of other means, including the Asia
Infrastructure Investment Bank, the World Bank, and other
multilateral investment and financing institutions.”
Then it has a subtitle:  “Agreed Action”
“Within the next twelve months, the CCIEE and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce will organize a conference on the Belt and
Road in China or in the United States; which will allow the
Chinese side to brief the U.S. side on the Belt and Road plans,
including initiative content, current progress and projects that
might be appropriate for U.S. company participation, including in
partnership with the Chinese companies.  The U.S. side will brief
the Chinese side on the latest infrastructure developments in the
United States and share reflections on pathways for Chinese
companies to participate in U.S. infrastructure revitalization
initiatives.”
So, this is a very important development.  And now, third,
here’s an article from {China Daily} which reports on a rather
extraordinary forum that happened in San Francisco yesterday,
which was titled “2017: U.S.-China Transportation Cooperation
Forum.”  Before I get to the next slide, just see here, the
beginning of the article.  It’s titled “Chinese Builders Wanted
in the U.S..”  The beginning of the article says, “Chinese
infrastructure techniques are urgently needed to rehabilitate
America’s poorly maintained and in some cases dilapidated bridges
and road system, industry experts from both countries agree.  The
fact that the U.S., the world’s most economically and
technologically powerful country, should import fast-train
know-how from a developing China, reflects a new normal for
China-U.S. cooperation and communication.”  Then, the article
quotes Chinese Consul-General to San Francisco Luo Linquan, who
gave the keynote.  He said, “China and the U.S. cooperation on
the infrastructure front is posed to become the new highlight in
the trade engagement between the two countries.  California along
with its neighboring states has especially close trade relations
with China,” he added. “The import and export volume between this
region and China has mounted to more than $201 billion in 2016.
The One Belt, One Road Initiative was conceived in China,” he
added, “but it provides a global platform for economic
development for all the countries participating.”
So clearly, all three of these are extraordinary
developments, highlighted by this meeting in the White House,
where Donald Trump said — according to Chinese reports — that
the United States would be happy to participate in the Belt and
Road Initiative.  This is clearly coming along very rapidly; and
as Helga LaRouche said when she was briefed on these developments
earlier today, she said “Remember, it was only three years ago,
in 2014, that the LaRouche movement put out the call for the
United States to join the Silk Road.”  I think you can remember
the pamphlet that was printed by the LaRouche Political Action
Committee that was called “A Hamiltonian Vision for the Future of
the United States:  The United States Joins the New Silk Road.”
But Helga LaRouche said, at that point — 2014 — this idea was
almost unheard of.  But now, as you can see from these
developments and otherwise, this initiative has really gained
prominence and is becoming a dominant reality.  It is very
urgently needed.  “We’ve seen a very significant victory,” she
said, “on this front; and we should recognize it as such.”  She
said, “I think an appropriate for this is ‘Ideas Matter; Ideas
Shape History’.”
I think you can really expect the consolidation of this with
the meeting between Trump and Xi at the G20 summit in July.  And
I think we can also see some dramatic developments between the
potential for a bilateral meeting — and this is becoming more
solid as the days go on — between Trump and Putin.  But, as the
lead article on the LaRouche PAC website states very clearly
today, although it’s widely expected that President Trump and
President Putin will meet for the first time on the sidelines of
this G20 summit, it’s very clear that the opponents of this
world-changing event of the United States-Russia-China
cooperation, are doing everything they can in an hysterical
fashion, to try to undermine this before it ever happens, to
force the cancellation, to cause it to become totally hostile, or
to cause there to be no positive progress that can be made out of
such a summit.  You see this crazy Russian sanctions bill that
was rammed through the Senate 98-2; you can see the efforts by
the U.S. forces shooting down this Syrian jet over Syrian
territory, which has the potential to develop very rapidly.  This
forced the Russians to again terminate the non-confliction
hotline between the United States and Russia.  You can see Steve
Mnuchin’s efforts to levy new sanctions against 38 Russian and
Ukrainian firms and individuals.  Then you can see this F-16 that
buzzed the military aircraft that was carrying Russian Defense
Minister Shoigu.  All of these are very dangerous, and are
obviously planned to try to derail any potential for a positive
relationship between the United States and Russia.
One only has to read this hysterical article in the
{Washington Post} today, “Obama’s Secret Struggle to Punish
Russia for Putin’s Election Assault,” which only continues this
false narrative.

PAUL GALLAGHER:  Not so secret.

OGDEN:  Not so secret.  So, that gives you a picture of
where we stand, but a very optimistic picture, as Helga LaRouche
underlined; if we see in terms of the potential for this United
States New Silk Road, New Paradigm consolidation.  But it’s very
urgent that this happen as well.  That was why I asked both Paul
and Diane to join me on the show today.
First, I’d like to ask Diane to go through a little bit of
what you have in this article.  As I said, it’s titled “Gulliver
Travels to Manhattan! Only LaRouche’s Four Laws and the Belt and
Road Can Save Manhattan Infrastructure Crisis.”  So Diane.

DIANE SARE:  Sure.  I was inspired, if one can call it that,
by my attendance at a Cranes, New York real estate conference,
where they had three panels.  The way it was billed was that —
and they had the CEO of the Port Authority, and the building
trades union, and Staten Island and Brooklyn.  And given what’s
about to happen here, which people may or may not be aware of,
basically we are at a total breakdown point in the greater
Manhattan area.  During the day in Manhattan, you have about 3.1
million people; at night, it’s about 1.8 million.  There’s
something between 1.5 million and 1.8 million who commute into
the city to the island of Manhattan on a daily basis.  That’s a
very large traffic flow.  Penn Station handles about 650,000
people a day; I think that’s triple what it was built for.
Similarly, every other major transit point, whether it’s coming
in from Long Island and Brooklyn across the East River, or coming
in from New Jersey on the western side, everything is completely
overloaded; at or well above capacity.  So now, the system itself
is anywhere from 70 to 100 years old, and very little maintenance
or repair or upgrading has been done.  We’re using switching
systems which were built before World War II largely; I think
they’ve modernized one line so far, and another one will be done
in a few years.  It really is insane.
So, I went to this conference, because starting on July 10,
since there were two train derailments in early April in Penn
Station on the tracks there, they’ve decided they cannot put off
repairing those tracks.  But of course, to repair tracks, then
you cannot use them while you’re repairing them.  They’re saying
they’re going to have to reduce the traffic coming in from Long
Island by 20%; I don’t know what the percentage is from New
Jersey, but it’s probably something similar or greater.  I know
the commuter routes from Essex and Morris Counties, which include
commuters coming in from Pennsylvania who go to various places
and then take a train into Penn Station, that’s all going to be
rerouted into Hoboken; the PATH system which is also overloaded.
At any rate, these repairs start on the 10th of July, and they’re
going to be going on for at least six weeks or longer.  Who
really knows, frankly?
There’s no redundancy.  This is a system that any section of
it that you shut down, if you’re talking about transit points
that are already functioning or not functioning I should say, at
over capacity.  And you’re going to add 20% more traffic, or 30%
more traffic, or 50% more traffic to it; you could have a total
breakdown of everything.  None of the plans I’ve seen so far
really are adequate.  I don’t know what they’re going to do as
they get closer; maybe they’re going to have to have people come
into work on rotating shifts, people’s hours are going to change,
I don’t know.  But at any rate, I was hoping that this conference
might address it.  What I heard there — and it’s not as though
these speakers were completely incompetent or were not aware of
the crisis in some way — but what you saw was that people’s
thinking has been so warped.  One, as I said in the article, by
this Bertrand Russell legacy that there’s no such thing as a
creative idea, or a new idea; but that everything is an algebraic
system of linear deduction.  Of course, from that standpoint, you
could never conceptualize where this region should be in 50 or
100 years.
So, the things that they were proposing be done, like
turning Rikers Island into a part of LaGuardia Airport —
LaGuardia Airport, as people may know who have travelled into New
York, is very much overloaded.  They don’t have the space for the
number of flights that are coming in, and they’re projecting that
by 2030 there will be another 30 million people per year trying
to fly into the city.  So, how do you handle this?  They said,
well we need 75 more flight operations per hour.  Taking over all
of Rikers Island for this and a new wastewater treatment plant,
only gives you an increase of 30 more flight operations per hour.
So, why would you do that?  What is the point of investing in
something that doesn’t even meet either the current needs or what
you are projecting?  It’s really insane.  So, you have that
factor; and the other factor is the funding, which I think Paul
may deal with more; but the idea that everything can only be done
through public-private partnerships.  As people know, my
colleague Bill Roberts has an article in the same issue of {EIR}
about the Soo Locks, where of course they figured out in 1986
that this is a key transshipment point for coal and other things
in the United States; and they really needed to be repaired and
modernized.  So, this was approved in 1986, but they concluded
that you’d only make back 75 cents on the dollar of what was
invested.  Clearly by Bertrand Russell-type methods, where it’s
all linear, because if you cause 11 million people to be
unemployed, which is what would happen if this thing wasn’t done,
that’s not taken into account.
Similarly, the speaker at this conference from Brooklyn,
showed pictures of the damage from Hurricane Sandy, which were
horrific; I was here in New Jersey when that occurred.  We didn’t
have electricity for about two weeks; it was very damaging, very
devastating.  There were several proposals made in 2009 at a
conference in Manhattan for storm surge barriers.  My favorite
was a five-mile one that went from Sandy Hook in New Jersey to
the Rockaways.  So you go across the whole area before you even
get to Staten Island, and it would have an underground tunnel and
it would have gates that came up; but normally the ocean would be
flowing through.  I think that would cost something like $6
billion.  I can see these silly accountants with their
mathematical methods saying $6 billion, what’s the profit?  Well,
how about saving $80 billion?  $6 billion versus $80 billion in
damage when you get one of these storms.  But nonetheless, they
decided not to build it, and we got what we got with Hurricane
Sandy.  So, because of the way people think in terms of
worshipping money, as opposed to seeing money as a means of
credit generation, or as a means of figuring out how to measure
the cost of an improvement that you need; which will lead
ultimately to the increase in the productivity of your
population.
What does it mean when you say we want our standard of
living to be higher?  Well, that doesn’t mean having seven
television sets in every room as opposed to one, or something
like that.  When you say the standard of living, we mean things
like life expectancy, being free from disease, being better
educated.  How many Americans speak only one language, and maybe
that’s an exaggeration to say that Americans even speak a
language.  Many people now do not have a very good command of the
English language, which is our language in this country.  In
other words, how many Americans know how to read music?  How many
Americans have conducted basic scientific experiments in school;
have ever tried to make a painting or a work of art or write a
poem?  In other words, by standard of living you mean that
there’s a life expectancy which allows for a young person to be
educated to the age of 22, 25, 28; and then that person has an
adult lifespan in which they’re still developing and learning.
You can get human beings developing a quality of genius which
contributes to the future for all mankind.
The only reason for money, is to create a situation where
you can think in those terms.  That the people living 100 and 200
years from now will live longer, be healthier, be better
educated, and be better; which is what you would want.  Who
really wants to be the best of all time?  That means, in effect,
that your life is meaningless, if everything coming after you is
going to be worse than you.  So, that’s the point of economy; but
none of these people was thinking that way at all.  It really
struck me that here we are sitting on potential complete chaos;
you already had two weeks ago, there was a subway that got stuck,
and it didn’t have air conditioning because the power was out.
So you had people packed in this car, and the temperatures were
getting to 100 degrees, it was like a sauna in there.  No one
could move for 45 minutes and they were on the brink — as you
might imagine — of getting completely panicked.  Happily, no one
had a heart attack or other medical disaster, but it does make
people nervous.  A few days ago, another subway car was stalled
out, so people went out the back exit and got down on the track
and started walking to the station.  That’s extremely dangerous.
What happens if you lose all order because people just panic
because they don’t know if they’re going to reach their
destination?  They don’t want to be stuck in a subway for hours
on end.  We’re really on the brink of a situation like that.
People would be prepared to tolerate hardship if they knew that
there was a plan to actually address it.
For example, if President Trump, as a result of his
dialogues with Xi Jinping and President Putin, were to say “Look,
we actually think the Bering Strait tunnel should be built within
the next decade; and we’re going to launch a crash program with
China and Russia to develop high-speed rail corridors across the
United States.  So that Manhattan really should be connected with
Paris; and that’s something that will happen.  I’m going to
initiate that in my Presidency, and it’s something that will be
completed during a future administration.”  Now knowing Trump,
he’d probably say “Well, it has to be done within my first term.”
But at any rate, what would that mean for Manhattan?  What kind
of infrastructure would you want to have in place?  If you had
high-speed rail connecting Washington D.C., Philadelphia,
Manhattan, New York City, and Boston, then you would know that
you might have a free flow of people in the entire northeastern
coastline — this huge metropolitan area — because you’re
talking about taking an hour to travel from D.C. to New York.
So, what does that mean?  What do you want New York City to look
like under those circumstances?  Maybe we have to consider taking
advantage of this massive 22% of New Jersey’s land areas in the
Pine Barrens, and convert part of that into a large city where
part of the population of New York City could be relocated, while
you build something which is actually appropriate.  But no one is
thinking in this way.
Apparently, plans have been made, as we know with the Soo
Locks, plans have been made.  There are engineers who are highly
competent who are aware of these things, who know that there are
limits on the life expectancy of cast iron and things like that.
They may have long life expectancies, but there is a point at
which things begin to corrode and things like that.  So, plans
have been made, plans exist.  But where do you get the funding to
implement it?  What is the magnitude of these plans?  If the
population were aware that such a thing existed, that is was
going to be set into motion, then people would be prepared to put
up with a certain amount of hardship; probably very happily,
knowing that their children were going to live in a much more
beautiful and functioning location than we currently do now.
So, this is the battle.  And I think Matt, what you reported
just at the beginning of this show, in terms of the commitment of
President Trump to work with the Chinese, the commitment of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce explicitly to collaborate with the Belt
and Road Initiative; this is extremely promising, and should
absolutely be promoted.

OGDEN:  Well, I think those scare stories you have from New
York City should probably encourage people that this is a rather
urgent initiative.  I know from talking to Paul, that you have a
few more scare stories that you might want to share with us.  I’m
going to just let you go through a few of those also.

GALLAGHER:  Well, I’m going to come back to this.  I wanted
to just briefly sketch the fight around Glass-Steagall; but I’m
going to come back to this in particular on the character of the
PPPs — public-private partnerships — as actually “poison pill
policy,” which is really threatening this entire potential for
collaboration, China-U.S. collaboration both on the Belt and
Road, and also starting with the Bering Strait Tunnel.  Also in
regard to infrastructure in North America and infrastructure in
the United States.
But on Glass-Steagall, let me just indicate, you have a very
stark comparison in terms of infrastructure investment between
the United States and China.  In the United States, about $300
billion is invested in infrastructure every year, and that is,
every school, every hospital, every road job, every subdivision’s
new sewer and water and optical fiber, and so forth — that is
absolutely everything, public, private, local, Federal, amounts
to about that much investment.  In China, the four major state
banks which provide the credit for the infrastructure
breakthroughs that have been made in China, those four banks
issue about $140 billion worth of credit annually for high-speed
rail in China alone.  And just that form of advanced
infrastructure and just that public investment by those four
national banks:  the Exim Bank, the China Development Bank, the
other China policy banks, as they’re called.  That investment in
just high-speed rail is half of the total investment made by the
United States — public, private, in every form, on every kind of
infrastructure and every public band-aide that’s put on, and
claimed as infrastructure, every year.
In addition, those banks in China have invested and
committed $300 billion just in the three years since the Belt and
Road Initiative of President Xi began to take off, and that $300
billion invested and committed by those banks is outside China.
So that’s going on simultaneously with the large-scale
investments in completely frontier, including things like maglev
subways, in the major cities of China, and there are many, many,
many major cities in China as people know.
So this is widely in the financial press in the United
States and Europe, the old imperial liberal order defends itself
by saying, “This credit issuance of China can’t possibly be
sustained.  There will be a tremendous, earthshattering collapse
of all of this infrastructure credit, because the banks — it has
dwarfed even what the Federal Reserve has done for the banks
here, and for a good purpose, and it can be sustained; it’ll all
blow up.”  There is a very fundamental difference here, though,
in that China, for the last 20 years has had bank separation; it
has many shadow banks, it has a lot of investment companies
involved in broker-dealers, but they are completely separated
from the both private commercial banking system, which they want
to build up further, and also from this kind of public banking.
So that these banks are not involved in the $550 trillion
derivatives exposure of the banks in London and New York.  These
banks are not involved in securities speculation.  They are able
to handle bankruptcies; they’re able to handle non-performing
loans when they appear in various sectors as the economy
develops.  So, Glass-Steagall, although they don’t call that law
“Glass-Steagall” in China, that bank separation is important to
what they are able to do and the fact that they’ve been doing it
now for 20 years on a level of spending nearly 9% of their GDP on
new infrastructure every year, for more than 20 years.  Compare
that to the United States, which spends about 1.3% of its GDP now
on infrastructure annually. They’ve been able to do that, and
keep it up.
Now, we’ve been fighting for Glass-Steagall in Washington.
It’s really taken on much more of the characteristics of a good
brawl, in the recent weeks.  It’s become a big public fight, for
one thing, where you have on the one hand, especially for the
last two months, three months,  — on the one hand, you have all
the financial press and the major national {Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post, New York Times}, running all kinds of editorials
and op-eds on why Glass-Steagall is not necessary, why it’s
terrible, why it’s completely outdated;  it was only repealed 20
years ago, but it’s completely outdated, practically a relic of
the Middle Ages, why it didn’t have anything to do with the crash
in 2008, and so on and so forth.  You have that going on, you
have think tanks in Washington, like Heritage Foundation and
American Enterprise Institute running whole events which consist
of nothing but examining Glass-Steagall.  I went to one recently,
at the American Enterprise Institute, where six different
speakers were attacking Glass-Steagall.  The only person in the
room who was fighting for Glass-Steagall was me, and I was not
one of the speakers.
So you have these kinds of attacks on it, but also the
sponsors.  The main sponsors of the House bill, Marcy Kaptur (D)
of Ohio, Walter Jones (R) of North Carolina, the Republican main
sponsor, have started to really fight publicly.  They had a
public press conference when they introduced the bill three and a
half months ago with 25 sponsors.  They now have about 55
sponsors as a result of fighting for it publicly since then.
This is a much faster rate of getting sponsors onto the bill than
was the case in the last session, where eventually there were
about 85 sponsors after two years of work.  But in this case, the
week before last they had a congressional briefing for the staffs
of Congressmen throughout the House, about somewhere between 35
and 40 other Congressmen sent their staffs to this briefing, so
it was really quite a packed event in one of the office
buildings, to take notes and report back to their Members of
Congress.  And not only Kaptur and Jones, but also experts from
the AFL-CIO, from the Americans for Financial Reform, from Public
Citizen; Nomi Prins, an independent, former investment banker and
author on banking, independent expert — they all testified.  And
this is causing a tremendous amount of discussion throughout the
House in particular.
On the Senate side, the leading sponsors have all made it a
point to draw out the Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, and make
it clear that what he was advising Donald Trump to do during the
campaign essentially, was not the real Glass-Steagall or anything
like it; but rather Mnuchin’s advice to Trump during his
campaign, was to talk about Glass-Steagall while Mnuchin
privately was designing something which was really Wall Street
deregulation like the bill that recently passed the House.
So the fact that they have really broken Mnuchin down on
this and made him say “No, no, no, I don’t believe in anything
like separating commercial and investment banking.”  This has
also dramatically clarified issues for people in both the Senate
and the House.  And secondly, we have begun to get close to the
mobilization of large organizations, large trade unions,
coalition organizations like Public Citizen, and in this I don’t
mean them endorsing Glass-Steagall, I mean them mobilizing their
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of members to demand this from
Congress.  We’ve come very close to getting to that stage, and in
particular you saw last week a broadcast that Public Citizen ran
on their Facebook page with Rep. Marcy Kaptur, in which they were
motivating and calling on their reportedly 400,000 members to go
after Congress to get this.
So the objective is to get from the 55 sponsors now to 100
— fast.  Because it’s not so important in the Senate, to pile up
a lot of sponsors — there are only a 100 Senators. It’s very
important in the House, when the leadership of both parties is
against Glass-Steagall, which they are: Both the Republican and
the Democratic leadership do not want to see it; the Democratic
leadership wants to cling onto this failed Dodd-Frank Bill, and
pretend that Obama came up with something nice there.  And the
Republican leadership wants to give Wall Street every kind of
deregulation that they’ve ever asked for.
So in that situation, it is crucial to get to 100 sponsors.
This is the stated objective of the major sponsors in the House
and when they do that, then they really want to go public and
start to hold the kind of press conferences and press bugging of
other Members which will get widely covered in the media and
really  make this into a bigger brawl.
So that’s just an indication of some of the things we have
been getting going.  And one of the arguments that Jones and
Kaptur have started to use, for example when they — I didn’t
mention this, but they also went to the Rules Committee when it
was marking up this crazy Republican deregulation bill called the
“Financial CHOICE Act.”  They went to the Rules Committee with an
amendment that said, strike CHOICE Act, take it away, and put
Glass-Steagall reinstatement in its place, and that’s our
amendment.” So they got to make a fight in front of the Rules
Committee on that.
But they’ve begun to make the very coherent argument that
not only did Glass-Steagall’s elimination lead directly to the
crash in 2008; there’s no need to go over this now, it’s the most
obvious thing in the world to most thinking Americans.  It’s like
the guy who ate nothing but McDonalds food for four months and
after four or five months his organs were failing, he was
catastrophically obese, he was near death!  And this is like
saying “there was no connection, there were other factors that
brought this guy into this condition.  It wasn’t the McDonald’s
Big Macs that he was eating.”  That’s what it amounts to to tell
Americans that less than 10 years after getting rid of
Glass-Steagall, the whole banking system blew up simultaneously,
which has never, for all of the major banks to be bankrupt at the
same time, as Ben Bernanke admitted they were, has never happened
in the entire history of the United States.  It took less than 10
years without Glass-Steagall to bring that about.
So they also are now arguing that the period in which
Glass-Steagall was in effect, which is also the period in which
the biggest infrastructure investments in new infrastructure in
the United States were being made, from the ’20s, up through the
end of the ’60s and into the ’70s, that that was a golden era of
productivity in the United States.  We had a banking system then,
which concentrated not only on loaning to  — but you see it in
many examples of the history of that period — concentrating on
making commercial and industrial loans to businesses for
expansion and for participation in major projects.  You don’t
have that kind of a banking system without Glass-Steagall;
instead, you have a banking system which wants to underwrite bond
issues for only the biggest corporations, with which they can
play around with their stock prices and so on.  And it brings the
entire economy down.
It gets us right back — and they’re making now the right
argument and very powerful argument, that if we want to rebuild
the United States, and particularly build new, frontier new
infrastructure in the United States, we have to have a commercial
banking system which is separated from securities broker-dealing
and speculation in the derivatives markets; and which is
concentrating on household lending and commercial and industrial
lending to the companies participating in these great projects.
Now, public-private partnership is, again, back to Treasury
Secretary Mnuchin, the conference that was held in Washington
last week, SelectUSA, which was a conference trying to get
foreign investment in the United States.  So this is the Treasury
Department; you’ve already given the context for this, along with
what Diane reported, in terms of the imminent potential,
absolutely imminent potential for large-scale investment,
particularly from China in an infrastructure build in the United
States.  instead, what the Treasury Secretary went there and
offered was, he said:  We want this kind of investment and
public-private partnerships are critical.
Suffice it to say, never in the United States has a major
infrastructure project or major new element of the infrastructure
of the United States, {never} has such a thing been constructed
with a public-private partnership, let alone by private
investment alone.  The Transcontinental Railroad was by no means
a public-private partnership.  And these things simply don’t
work.  The investors in them want their capital back in 10 years,
and they want 10-12% rates of interest in their invested capital
during that 10 years.  Well, that means they want it back, if
it’s anything major, while the thing is still not finished, and
still not being used to a full extent; and they want to
absolutely rob the public taxpayers whose money is going into
such a project.  It simply cannot work, and it will sabotage
foreign investment in new infrastructure building in the United
States if this method is used.
We have a threadbare public investment in infrastructure
now.  What President Trump has spoken about, the time has run out
for him and for the Congress to implement it.  They have to now
create, immediately, a National Bank on the order of $1-2
trillion in capital, in the way that Alexander Hamilton and his
successors in the American System built such National Banks
starting in 1790, through the 19th century.  They have to create
such a bank {now}, so that there is a credit institution here, to
cooperate with the credit institutions like those in China that I
was discussing earlier.
Otherwise, we are really facing disaster.  I’ll give you an
example:  I went to  a Congressional hearing yesterday and talked
to some of the witnesses who were involved in exactly trying to
organize some of the infrastructure developments that Diane
indicated are so needed in the New York area.  One of them is a
bridge over the Hackensack River near Secaucus, New Jersey,
called the Portal Bridge, which is 108 years old.  It was
designed in the 19th century, completed in 1910.  It has ships go
under it by splitting the bridge, but opening as a drawbridge.
All of the rail traffic, freight and passenger, between Florida
and Massachusetts goes over that bridge — all of it!  And that
bridge, when they open it to get a ship go through, when they try
to close it now, 9 times out 10, according to the fellow who
spoke to me there, 9 times out of 10 it doesn’t close properly,
so that rails don’t align.  And they then send workers out on the
concrete abutment of the bridge with sledgehammers, and they
hammer at the iron trusses of the bridge to get the rails to
align.
All that it would take is for them to be able to unable to
get them to align, once, and as he estimated, that would be a
single-point loss of potentially 10% of U.S. gross domestic
product.  Right there.
And then you have, in the Poe Lock, the potential failure of
the Poe Lock between Lake Superior into Lake Huron, and the whole
Mesabi Iron Range, and all of the ships which are carrying all of
the strategic metals, the iron, the coal coming out of Northern
Minnesota, Ontario, the Mesabi Range, all of that would be
stopped:  another 10% of the gross domestic product of the United
States would be frozen and they estimated up to 11 million jobs
would be lost.
So you say, “well of course, they’re replacing this bridge
at Hackensack,” but actually, they’re not!  They don’t have the
funds!  They have a plan, it’s all worked out, it’s engineered,
but the replacement is not under way.
So you have here, the makings of a movie you could call it,
a suspense thriller: “The Bridge over the Hackensack River.”  But
with 10% of the U.S. economy hanging on the guys banging those
rails back into place, but there is not any funding arranged to
replace that bridge.  And you can multiply that for all the other
things that have to be done.
We’re very far from the frontier, national high-speed rail
network, nuclear desalination plants, the Western water
management systems,  — we’re very far from the frontiers in
space infrastructure that we have to be building. We’re actually
threadbare in terms of just continuing to use, and have an
economy, what we already have.
So there’s no time at all left, for these wonderful
prospects by the discussions with the Chinese now at the highest
level, between President Trump and one of the tope people in the
Chinese government, State Councilor Yang Jiechi, for these
wonderful prospects to be backed up by the institution which
issues credit for the United States, a Hamiltonian bank for
investment.  It must be formed.  It must come out of the Congress
with the drive from the White House in order to get it done.

OGDEN:  As you said, time is running out: We’re five months
now into the Trump administration, and you highlighted the role
of Steve Mnuchin:  I think this continues to be a very bad
element in the Trump administration.  And the kind of support
that Trump gained from his support for Glass-Steagall during the
Presidential election campaign, is something that has now — that
has to become visible.  That has to become a visible, vocal, sort
of element from the population, from the constituency.  And I
just want to put on the screen the URL that we have for the
mobilization that we have for H.R.790: That’s the bill that’s in
the House, the “Return to Prudent Banking Act” —

GALLAGHER:  The Glass-Steagall bill.

OGDEN:  Which was introduced by Marcy Kaptur and Walter
Jones.  This is the return to Glass-Steagall.  As you can see,
this is the website:  http://lpac.co/hr790  And I think that this
goal of reaching 100 cosponsors in a very short amount of time,
is a very tangible goal that we can mobilize for, along with this
vision of, the United States joining the New Silk Road.  But
Paul, as I think you just laid out very clearly, that is
impossible without Glass-Steagall.  You cannot set up the kind of
national credit institutions, the national banking credit
institutions that would channel that kind of joint investment
into this infrastructure in the United States, without this
critical first step of the return to Glass-Steagall.
One thing I wanted to ask you about, Paul, is just the
prognosis on how close we could be to another disastrous blowout
of the trans-Atlantic banking system.  I know Nomi Prins did an
interview a few months ago with you, where she highlighted a few
of these things with the corporate debt bubble.  But that’s
something that Marcy Kaptur cited in her testimony to the Rules
Committee, and I think that element of urgency is also necessary
to put in here.
[https://larouchepac.com/20170319/interview-nomi-prins]

GALLAGHER:  We don’t know how much time, because it’s
impossible to put a finger on a date when a really huge and
increasing unproductive debt bubble, in this case, as
Representative Kaptur identified, the corporate debt bubble in
the United States, when it’s going to blow up.  But, the size of
corporate debt in the United States has doubled in seven years,
from about $7 to about $14 trillion, with really the great
majority of that tremendous debt expansion being used for what
they call “financial engineering” by large companies: Meaning
buying back their own stock, mergers and acquisitions, finding
ways to increase the dividends they give to their stockholders,
increasing their own executive compensation — all of this kind
of financial engineering has used in various years up to 80-85%
of this new corporate debt.
What has really suffered in the process has been business
capital investment and the commercial and industrial lending,
which it depends on. So that that tremendously expanding bubble
has stopped expanding.  And this has been noted  rather suddenly,
by everybody from the IMF to individual bank research teams,
since April of this year, that suddenly that tremendous expansion
has stopped; as happens with an immense bubble that’s about to
explode, and it started to shrink.  And there was a report put
out by UBS bank in Switzerland about two weeks ago which caused a
certain amount of alarm, because they found that what they call
the “credit impulse,” had gone negative in the last six months —
they’re talking globally now — meaning that the second
derivative, the rate of the rate of growth of business lending
around the world had suddenly in the last six months become
negative.  And that is something which virtually always points to
a bubble about to collapse.
This is a very huge one, indeed.  The IMF estimated that if
interest rates were to go up sharply in the United States, 20% of
all the companies in the United States would default.  That’s way
above the rate of defaults on mortgages even at the worst 10
years ago; and the whole thing would come crashing down.
So we need the reorganization of the banking system,
urgently, for that reason, also in order to make the commercial
banking side of it proof against this kind of a blowout.  And so
you don’t have, again, a situation in which the bankruptcy of any
investment bank, let’s say, becomes, almost overnight, the
bankruptcy of every major U.S. based bank as happened in late
September 2008.

OGDEN:  I would say, this is real policy.  This is what
anybody who’s serious is discussing right now.  And the failed
decision by the Democratic Party, for example, to just be the
party of resistance, is increasingly proven to be an increasingly
proven to be very ill-advised policy.  And I think even Sen.
Chris Murphy made some headlines this week where he said:  Look,
none of my constituents are talking about “Russia,” when I go
home.  They’re talking about jobs, drugs, poverty.  They’re
talking about exactly what we’re discussing here!  Hmm, gee,
maybe we shouldn’t be pumping anti-Putin propaganda all day every
day.
So, I wanted to ask Diane, you know, we’ve had some
surprising reports — or surprising for some — from the streets
of Manhattan, where you would assume because of the 24-hour-a-day
anti-Putin propaganda that people are being inundated with, that
this would be the only thing that’s on people’s minds.  But as we
saw, the reality on the ground in New York is the collapsing
infrastructure.  This is what people are actually interested in
talking about.  And we’ve had some rather surprising readings
from the population there in New York and northern New Jersey, in
the recent weeks.

SARE:  Sure.  We’ve had numbers of teams set up by the
roadside in New Jersey or right in the middle of the large
sidewalks in Manhattan, with giant signs saying “Defend Trump.
Stop Here.  Donald can’t do it alone, join LaRouche PAC.  The
U.S. must join the Belt and Road.  Russia-Gate Is a Comey Plot!”
And many people are coming up to our tables and we’re actually
getting a very hot response, much more intense than at any period
since the election, with people coming over saying, “You know, I
thought I was the only one.  The propaganda is so intense, I
don’t dare to say that I supported Trump at my workplace.”
We had a very strong response also in Connecticut, Long
Island, Jersey and Manhattan per se, where we are getting this
type of response.
And I also just wanted to add, in light of this crazy
continuing of the story about the alleged Russian hacking which
somehow caused people to change their mind on how they were
voting.  Remember we did just did have the special election for
Congress, in South Carolina and Georgia, where the Democratic
candidates, one of whom I think spent $33 million or some
absolutely obscene amount of money, and still lost the election.
And it’s not because the Republican candidates were so brilliant;
it’s because the population has really had it and this is where,
if President Trump moves in a very big way, very public way to
embrace the Chinese offer, to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act so
we can have a sane banking system, and to launch some of these
infrastructure projects on a Federal basis, you would just see an
incredible upsurge of support.  And most of this vicious,
including assassination threats and so forth, these attacks on
the President, would simply evaporate and the people that persist
would be shown for the paid agents of the British Empire and
George Soros that they are.

OGDEN:  I think it was clearly said by Helga LaRouche:  We
have a very significant victory to claim, I think both in terms
of the further consolidation of this idea that the United States
should join the New Silk Road, and the fact that these
discussions are now going on at the very highest level between
the United States and China.  But also in terms of this fight for
Glass-Steagall and as Paul said, this is something that LaRouche
PAC has been directly involved in, on the forefront of leading
for year — 2008, 2009?  Lyndon LaRouche’s call at that time was
for a complete bankruptcy reorganization of the economy.  It was
initially the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act and that became
this idea of the Four Laws.

GALLAGHER: August 2007 was the Homeowners and Bank
Protection Act.

OGDEN:  That’s right. So now we’re coming up on 10 years!  I
think that’s widely recognized, the leadership that the LaRouche
movement has played, including on Capitol Hill from the sponsors
of this legislation.  So this decision now to mobilize and to
really enter into a brawl, the fight is on on that front and we
have a responsibility to pour as much as we can, from around the
country, in mobilizing on that front, too.
I think that’s a good conclusion for our webcast here,
today.  Thank you Diane, for joining us from New York, and thank
you very much Paul for joining me here.

GALLAGHER: A pleasure.

OGDEN:  Stay tuned to larouchepac.com and we’ll talk to you
soon.

»Briterne har altid haft magt over os ved at få os ind i krige på steder som Asien. Det er sådan, briterne kører verden; Det britiske Imperium har magten over verden ved hjælp af krige, på samme måde, som de fik imperiemagt, ved at få Europas tåbelige nationer til at gå i krig med hinanden i den såkaldte 70-års krig. Og Europas førende nationer gik i krig mod hinanden i 70 år! Mens briterne stod på sidelinjen og opmuntrede processen og grinede. Og så, i februar af 1763, i Freden i Paris, blev Det britiske Imperium erklæret som imperiet for et privat selskab ved navn Britisk Ostindisk Kompagni (British East India Company), og dette Britisk Ostindisk Kompagni overtog, og blev til, Det forenede Kongerige (UK), og har kørt lige siden frem til dets moderne modsvar – Britisk Ostindisk Kompagni gik selvfølgelig bankerot i en senere periode, der blev indført ændringer, som under Victoria; men princippet forblev det samme: med en maritim karakteristik, det var oprindelig bygget på den maritime magt over Middelhavet og bredte sig senere til Atlanterhavet. En søfartsmagt, der havde skabt magten over brugen af penge. Magtgrundlaget var penge. Magten over penge, som en imperieform. Al europæisk imperialisme, inklusive britisk imperialisme i dag, er ikke baseret på et land-territorium, men er baseret på magten over penge. Disse penge kontrolleres i realiteten af private interesser, af personer, der danner samlinger af private interesser, og som etablerer kontrol over penge, deres skabelse og management. Og nationalstater er underordnet denne internatonale pengekontrol. Det britiske Imperium, der udvikledes ud af denne proces, er intet andet end dette. Det er ikke et imperium, der består af befolkningen i UK. Det er et imperium, der består af et internationalt konsortium for denne type af interesser, hvis brug af magt over penge bruges til at have magt over nationer.«

Offentliggjort den 20. juni, 2017.

Lyndon LaRouche at his best—the only statesman alive today who pulls no punches identifying the British Empire. Here, an excerpt from a September 2009 webcast.
——–
This video is copyrighted by EIR News Service Inc. To encourage the widest distribution possible, we encourage you to spread it, repost it, and use it. We will only enforce our copyright if the video is altered in any way other than strict translation into another language or it is placed in a context, which in our sole judgement is racist or defamatory regarding any ethnic or religious group or person.

19. juni, 2017 – Schiller Instituttets internationale formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, skrev følgende erklæring til EIR Strategic Alert Service den 18. juni, to dage efter Helmut Kohl (CDU), der var Tysklands kansler fra 1982-1998, i perioden for Tysklands genforening, afgik ved døden.

»De forskellige vurderinger af Helmut Kohl som ’faderen af tysk genforening’ og ’den, der forudså et forenet Europa’ lyder mere som en PR-beskrivelse af den politisk korrekte opfattelse, som Kohls samtidige bør have af denne historiske periode, der faldt sammen med hans embedsperiode. Det, der fuldstændigt udelades, er de geopolitiske operationer, der udløstes imod Kohl, især i tiden for den tyske genforening, og som stadig i dag udspilles under andre former.

Det er Kohls fortjeneste, at, med udgivelsen af hans ’Ti-punkts-plan for en konføderation af de to Tysklande’ den 28. november, 1989, tog han det første, spæde skridt hen imod etableringen af tysk suverænitet, et skridt, som han ikke havde koordineret med de Allierede eller med sin koalitionspartner, daværende udenrigsminister Hans-Dietrich Genscher [FDP]. Et sandfærdigt billede må inkludere den kendsgerning, at mordet, to dage senere, på Alfred Herrhausen, daværende formand for Deutsche Bank og en nær rådgiver til Kohl, og som angiveligt udførtes af tredje generations Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF), havde til hensigt omgående at begrænse denne impuls til at opnå suverænitet.

Det, der ligeledes mangler i de mange kommentarer, er Margaret Thatchers hadefulde »Fjerde Rige Kampagne« imod Kohl, så vel som også François Mitterands trusler om krig i tilfælde af, at Kohl ikke var rede til at opgive Deutschmark som nationalvaluta som prisen, der skulle betales for genforeningen, og at acceptere begrænsningerne i Maastrichttraktatens spændetrøje og euroen, som det rapporteres af Jaques Attali i dennes biografi af Mitterand. Kohl beskrev senere det Europæiske Fællesskabs Topmøde i begyndelsen af december 1989 i Strasbourg, hvor han blev konfronteret med disse angreb, som en af hans livs mørkeste stunder. Ifølge hans egne udtalelser var det ikke, før han besøgte Dresden den 19. december, 1989, hvor befolkningen glædesstrålende råbte ’Helmut! Helmut!’, at han indså, at øjeblikket var kommet for tysk genforening.

Helmut Kohl var selvfølgelig også et levende vidne til de løfter, amerikanerne gav Mikhail Gorbatjov, og som blev rapporteret af daværende amerikanske ambassadør til Sovjetunionen, Jack Matlock, blandt andre, om, at NATO aldrig ville ekspandere frem til Ruslands grænser. For Kohl var den Kolde Krig afsluttet med opløsningen af Sovjetunionen, og det er yderst tvivlsomt, om han ville have været enig i den dæmonisering af Vladimir Putin, der har fundet sted i de senere år. Det faktum, at fr. Merkel nu anser sig selv for at være prokonsul for Barack Obamas politik for konfrontation, ville han sandsynligvis heller ikke have syntes om.«

Foto: Storbritanniens Margaret Thatcher; Tysklands Helmut Kohl; Frankrigs François Mitterand.

Storbritanniens ambassadør til Tyskland fra 1988 til 1992, Christopher Mallaby, om Kohl versus Thatcher: ’Det faldt dem ikke naturligt at nyde hinandens selskab’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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