København, 12. december, 2016 – I dag var Helga Zepp-LaRouche særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar i København, med titlen, »Donald Trump og det Nye, Internationale Paradigme«. Otte diplomater fra seks lande deltog, inklusive to ambassadører. Nationer fra Vesteuropa, Sydvestasien, Vest- og Østasien var repræsenteret, samt fra Afrika. Desuden deltog henved 30 af Schiller Instituttets medlemmer og kontakter, såvel som også et par repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.

Arrangementet indledtes af en forestilling, hvor Feride Istogu Gillesberg og Michelle Rasmussen fremførte en kinesisk kærlighedssang. Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ved at beskrive den historiske rolle, hun har spillet i skabelsen af politikken med Den Nye Silkevej.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche indledte sin meget inspirerende og dybtgående tale med den revolution imod globalisering, som Brexit, Trumps valgsejr og Nej-resultatet i den italienske folkeafstemning udgør. Hun kom med en vurdering af potentialet i nogle af Trumps hidtidige erklæringer og udnævnelser og gik dernæst videre med en detaljeret diskussion af de to, modstridende paradigmer, der eksisterer i verden i dag. Dernæst opløftede Helga tilhørerne med Krafft Ehrickes og Nicolaus Cusanus’ skønne ideer. Hun konkluderede med en appel til de tilstedeværende om ikke at handle som tilskuere på historiens scene, men derimod, sammen med os, at gå med i kampen for det nye paradigme.

Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale, der varer omkring 1 time og 20 minutter, kan høres ovenover eller her:

https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/helga-zepp-larouche-in-copenhagen-donald-trump-and-the-new-international-paradigm-1

En dansk oversættelse af talen kommer på torsdag. 

Herefter fulgte en intens, timelang diskussion, hvor der kom spørgsmål fra alle de forskellige grupper, der var repræsenteret. Helga afsluttede mødet med at udfordre tilhørerne til at beslutte, hvad de ønsker at bruge deres liv til; hvilket mærke, som vil være til gavn for hele menneskeheden langt ud i fremtiden, ønsker de at sætte? Et udskrift af Helgas svar vil ligeledes snarest blive udlagt her på hjemmesiden.

Helgas tale og efterfølgende diskussion havde en dybtgående virkning på alle de tilstedeværende. 

Diskussionen findes kun som engelsk udskrift (se nedenfor).

—–

English: Introductory article

Helga Zepp-LaRouche Keynotes Copenhagen Seminar on `Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm'

COPENHAGEN, Dec. 12, 2016 (EIRNS) — Today, Helga Zepp-LaRouche was the special guest speaker at a Schiller Institute/{EIR} seminar in Copenhagen entitled, "Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm." Eight diplomats from six countries attended, including two ambassadors. There were nations from Western Europe, Southwest Asia, Western and Eastern Asia, and Africa. In addition, there were around 30 Schiller Institute members and contacts, as well as a few representatives of various Danish and international institutions.

The event was opened by the presentation of a Chinese love song performed by Feride Istogu Gillesberg and Michelle Rasmussen. Afterwards, Tom Gillesberg, the chairman of The Schiller Institute in Denmark, introduced Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, describing her historical role in bringing about the New Silk Road policy.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche's very inspiring, in-depth speech began with the revolution against globalization represented by the Brexit, the Trump election, and the Italian No vote. She gave an evaluation of the potential represented by some of the statements and appointments Trump has made so far, and then proceeded with a detailed discussion of the two conflicting paradigms in the world today. Zepp-LaRouche then uplifted the audience with the beautiful ideas of space scientist Krafft Ehricke and Renaissance philosopher Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. She concluded with an appeal to those present not to act as spectators on the stage of history, but engage in the battle for the new paradigm with us.

Her speech, about 80 minutes long, may be heard above, or at: https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/helga-zepp-larouche-in-copenhagen -donald-trump-and-the-new-international-paradigm-1

Afterwards, there was an intensive hour-long discussion, with questions from all of the different groups represented. Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche ended by challenging the audience to decide what they want to do with their lives, what mark they will make to benefit all humanity, far into the future.  

Zepp-LaRouche's speech and discussion had a profound effect on all present. 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Discussion:

(There is no video or audio of the discussion period, only this transcript.)

Helga Zepp-LaRouche in Copenhagen December 12, 2016
Discussion
(To facilitate free discussion, the questioners are not identified, and the questions are summarized. The answers are complete.)
Question: Can we be optimistic about Trump’s presidency, because he is skeptical about climate change, is for trade war with China and Mexico, opposes the free trade deals, and has called for tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I said earlier that the potentialities for change are there, but it depends, to a very large extent, upon us – what we do. When Trump got elected, my first response was, this is what I call the ‘dog pull-tail, let-go feeling.’ What I mean by that is that when you pull the tail of a dog, which you should never do, naturally, and you let go, the pain stops. When you pull, there is pain, and when you stop pulling, the pain goes away.
So, in a certain sense, the election of Trump was the tail let-go feeling, because we were on an immediate course toward WWIII, and that was really the primary point, because if Hillary Clinton would have been elected — unfortunately, Hillary Clinton, when she was in the Obama administration, transformed from being a relatively OK person, she was never great, but in 2008, she was relatively decent, compared to what she became, because she capitulated to Obama, and when she made this terrible statement, for example, in Libya, about the murder of Gadaffi, “We came, we saw, and he died.” This is barbarism.
Her behavior in the Ben Ghazi case. There were so many things where she became worse than Obama, almost. So the immediate thing was that that big danger, that she would have continued the policies of Bush and Obama, in the confrontation with Russia and China, that that was stopped is, already, for the survival of civilization, the most important step.
Now, on these other points. Naturally, there is climate change. There is no question about it. But the question is, what is the cause of it? And the Schiller Institute had several conferences where we invited extremely important scientists who presented, beyond a doubt, that if you look at the last 500 million years in the history of the Earth, you have a continuous cycle of ice ages, of warming periods, of small ice ages, and the man-made component of climate change is absolutely negligible. It’s a big fraud, for example, it’s a big business. To sell CO2 omission quotas, is like selling indulgences in the Middle Ages.
Obviously, there are climate changes, and some countries which have low coasts are very much affected, but then you have to adapt to these climate changes with modern technology, and you cannot solve the problem by going to electric cars, or going to decarbonization of the world economy. This is a big fraud, and I am not saying that Trump is saying this for all the right reasons, but the idea to impose measures implied with the “great transformation” Schellnhuber is talking about – I mean these people do not want development.
We have been on this case for the last — as a matter of fact, we, the LaRouche movement, had a conception about the development of the world really starting at the end of the sixties.
I joined Mr. LaRouche because I went to China, Africa, other Asian countries, and I saw the horrible, horrible underdevelopment. So I came back from this trip, and I said, ‘I have to become political, because I want to change this.’ I could give you a long, long story of the many observations, because I went with a cargo ship, and when you go to these countries with a cargo ship, you get a quite different idea than if you go on a 5-star cruise, and hotels. You see how the poverty affects people in their real lives. And I came back, and I looked at all the political movements, and I saw that LaRouche was the only one who said, ‘We have to have Third World development. We have to have technology transfer. We have to alleviate this poverty.’
And we had a positive conception already in the seventies, and therefore, when the Club of Rome appeared, we immediately said, ‘This is a fraud.’ Because the Club of Rome said, ‘There are limits to growth. We have reached equilibrium. Until the year 1972, you could develop, but now, we have reached equilibrium, and we have to have sustainable development. We have to have appropriate technology.’ These notions did not exist before, because before, you had the idea of a UN Development Decade, where each decade, you would overcome the underdevelopment by qualitative jumps. And when we recognized this propaganda by the Club of Rome, we immediately said, ‘This is a complete fraud,’ and the people who wrote the book “Limits to Growth,” Meadows and Forrester …
Q: A followup about the Paris climate summit.
A: I would like to give you written documentation afterwards of the studies that were made by these geologists, which are, without question, the explanation of climate change is not man-made. The anthropogenic aspect of it is so miniscule. Climate change has to do with the position of the solar system in the galaxy, which goes in cycles around a certain axis, and you can see that over 500 million years, the data confirms that you have these wide changes. Greenland is called Greenland, because it was green. There used to be vineyards. You had ice ages which completely covered the Earth, and the reason why I went into this longer history, is to show how the environmentalist movement was created with the attempt to keep development down, and climate change is just another expression of the same effort.
If you look at which firms which are investing in solar parks, in wind parks, who is controlling the CO2 emission trade, you have all the top hedge funds in London and Wall St. I can give you a lot of documentation about it, which does not mean that climate change is not real, because you have the rise of the oceans, and you have climate change, you have extreme weather, but that has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.
And, on the other points you raised, obviously, from our standpoint, the cancellation of NAFTA, is a good thing, because NAFTA did not allow development for Mexico. As a matter of fact, NAFTA is the incarnation of the cheap labor production model of free trade. What you need is – especially countries which are not developed, you need protective tariffs for their own good. They have to develop a domestic market first. The booklet which I emphasized, which you should please read, “Against the Stream,” is one of many, but it is very condensed, and a very good book.
The question is, ‘What is the source of wealth?’ Is the source of wealth cheap labor, to buy cheap raw materials, produce cheaply, and sell expensive? Is that the cause of wealth? No.
The only cause of wealth is the increase in the creativity of labor power. And a good government is, therefore, investing the maximum amount into education, into sponsoring the creativity of youth, of labor, and the more people in the labor force, by percentage, are engineers, scientists, the more productive the economy becomes.
And the free trade system, of which NAFTA is just one example, did exactly the opposite. China, which was part of this in the beginning — the reason why China today has so many environmental problems, like smog, like a large amount of groundwater being contaminated, is the result of the fact that China, in the beginning of its industrialization, accepted being a cheap labor production place for the U.S. and for Europe. When I was in China, even in 1971, I visited some factories which were horrible. They were absolutely horrible. The working conditions were terrible, the labor force, which produced electrical devices for radios, it was horrible. They worked for 18 hours. No health system. It was just terrible. And that is how China developed in the first phase.
But then China, with Deng Xiaoping, started to recognize that that is the wrong way. So China is now on a completely different track. They are putting the maximum emphasis on science and technology, the increase of excellence. Last year, they produced 1 million scientists. That’s double of what the U.S. produced. Obviously China is a larger country, but still. What will finally be decisive is the number of people who are creative. And that is why China, right now, has the best education system, because they have understood that the source of wealth is not raw materials. Is not trade conditions. It is the creativity of their own people. And that it a good thing. If we go to a system where we have a certain amount of protectionism, to protect the development of the domestic market, it is a good thing.
There is no danger of cutting [countries off from one another], because all of these infrastructure projects are connectivity. The world will be more connected than ever before. But this whole myth of free trade is really a very bad thing. It has been coined by the people who profit from it. That’s why the world is in the condition it is right now, where the rich become richer, and the poor become poorer. The middle class is being destroyed all over the world. And I would really like to communicate with you so that we can deepen this dialogue.
On the Iran thing, I don’t think he will break it, but that is my hope. I don’t know.
So, I’m not saying he’s a – as I said, Baron von Knigge would get a heart attack when he hears Trump’s speeches, but the world was in such a grip of evil, satanic evil, that it is a good thing that there is a break, and the unfortunate thing, is that Europe is still in this grip.
You can see it. Von der Leyen, the German Defense Secretary, had the funniest reaction. The day after the election of Trump, she said ‘I am deeply shocked,’ about this election result, because nobody thought this would happen. Now, this same lady is now parading in Saudi Arabia with Crown Prince Bin Salman Al Saud, and she isn’t shocked. So, I don’t know what’s wrong with her. I think that that would be a good place to be shocked, or not even go there.
So, I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the Europeans who react this way to the defeat of Hillary, are obeying another power in their head, and that power I call The British Empire, which is still in place, and it dominates Europe, and that is why they feel – I was asking myself, how come all of these politicians are so arrogant towards the new president of the U.S.? Because they were the boot-lickers of Washington until yesterday, and they would immediately do everything Washington would say and do, so I asked myself, ‘Where is this sudden self-assertedness coming from?’ And the only explanation I came up with, was to say, they must have an idea that there is another power which is more powerful than Trump, otherwise, they wouldn’t have this sudden arrogance.
And it is the British, because you will see tomorrow, because tomorrow, there will be a federal press conference in Berlin, where a number of people will present their contribution to the German chairmanship of the G-20, which will take place in July in Hamburg. This will be Joachim Schellnhuber, the head of the WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change), this is the scientific advisory organization advising the German government. He put out this paper about ‘the great transformation,’ which we wrote about. You can look in the archive. He is the head of the idea of a decarbonization of the world economy.
Now, if you decarbonize the world economy, without having fusion, that would be one thing, to have fusion power in place. Then you can talk about getting rid of fossil fuels, but without having fusion, and being against nuclear energy, fission, it means that you will reduce the world’s population to 1 billion or less, because there is a direct correlation between the energy-flux-density, and the number of people you can maintain. Schellnhuber said that the carrying capacity of the Earth is maximum 1 billion people. He didn’t say that he wants to do with the 6 billion who are already there. If he would be consequent, he should hop away from this planet.
And they will announce a sinister plan, to try to use the fact that many countries have environmental problems, to sneak in their anti-development programs. People should not be naïve, because not everybody thinks that population growth is a good thing. There are many people who think that each human being is a parasite, destroying nature. That is the image of man which many people have. The greenies, for example.
We look at it in a different way. We think that the more people you have, the greater longevity you can have, division of labor, and a modern scientific society needs many people with a long life span. Because if you are in the Third World, and you die, and you have an average life expectancy of 40 years, or less, you cannot have scientists, because the production of a scientist takes 30-35 years, and if people then die right away, then you can’t have a modern society.
So the more creative people you have, the better. Each human being is an incredible addition, because we are creative.
Tom Gillesberg: Schellnhuber, for his services, was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE), and for him, he personally has said, that the highpoint of his existence was that the British Queen, personally, gave him the Order of the British Empire, for his efforts to reduce the possibility for mankind’s survival, you could say, so it is connected with what you said.
Q: This is the best speech I have ever heard in my life.
Is this a second American Revolution, and will the Federal Reserve, which is privately owned, be closed down, and will money be created for the benefit of all people, and not just the private Fed?
A: I don’t know, because, as I said, there are so many unknowns about Trump, and what he will do, and how it will play out. All I can say is, if Trump does not fulfill his promises, the same people who caused his election, will topple him. Because I don’t think that this process, which is now underway, where ordinary people have just had it — If you think about the declaration of Independence, it has this formulation that you will not bring down a government system for light reasons, but, if for a long time, the common good is being violated, I don’t know the exact text, then, people have the right and duty to replace this government with a rightful one, and that idea I call natural law.
It’s the same idea that Friedrich Schiller had in Wilhelm Tell. This is a play he wrote, which takes place in Switzerland. There, the Hapsburg oligarch is also trampling on the rights of the Swiss people, then they unite with the Rütli Oath. There is this beautiful formulation which says, ‘When the rights of people are trampled upon, they have the right to reach out to the stars, and take from the stars those rights which are eternally embedded in these stars. (I am not saying it as beautifully as Schiller does.)
If you compare these two texts, the Declaration of Independence, and the Rütli Oath from Schiller’s play, they are almost identical, and it’s very clear that Schiller was inspired by the American Revolution when he wrote that play, because in his plays, there are many ideas which resonate with the American Revolution, and he actually wanted to immigrate, at one point, to America.
So I think that if Trump turns out to be another fraudster, which we don’t know yet, I think that this process of revolt will continue, because I only mentioned some elements.
I could mention that there are many countries now in realignment. for example, the Philippines, Duterte. This was supposed to be the playground for the conflict with China in the South China Sea. Now Duterte sent his Defense Secretary, Lorenzana, to Russia and China, to buy weapon systems from Russia and China, and to establish a friendship with China, and he said, ‘The Philippines is no longer the colony of the U.S.’
Then you have Japan, which was the junior partner of the U.S. in the Pacific. Abe went to Sochi, meeting with Putin. In three days from now, Putin will go to Japan to have a state visit. They are talking about a peace treaty between Russia and Japan.
All of these are new alignments. There is a shift in the strategic situation, and I don’t think that that shift can be reversed.
Q: About Russia hacking the U.S. election. Why doesn’t the U.S. have anti-hacking measures? Can you explain that?
A: I cannot explain that, for the same reason that I cannot explain why the NSA is surveilling everyone, all their phones, their communications, worldwide. They can observe all of these things, but they don’t know about terrorism. They don’t know about drug trafficking. They don’t know about money laundering. Either their system is not so good, or they are looking in the wrong direction. I can’t answer your question.
Q: Will the result of the Brexit be positive for Europe, to enable continental Europe to become stronger, and to improve cooperation with the eastern parts of Europe?
A: I think that the EU is not functioning, and I think it is not just the Brexit. The “No” in Italy is a reflection of the same dynamic. Now you have Gentiloni, the new prime minister, and they will probably go for new elections. Right now, in the polls, you have the 5 Star Party leading. If they win, and form the new government, they have already said that they would leave the EU, and leave the Euro, and, in a certain sense, it is not functioning.
The reason I was against the introduction of the Euro from the beginning, was because we said that it cannot function. You cannot have a European currency union in something which is not an optimal economic space. You cannot put advanced industry together with an agrarian country, with completely different tax laws, pension laws, and you don’t want a political union, because Europe is not a people. You don’t have a European people. I don’t know what the Danes are saying. I don’t know what is in the Danish newspapers. The people of Slovenia have no inkling of what is happening in Alsace-Lorraine, and so forth, and so on. You don’t have a European people. Esperanto doesn’t function. You have 28 nations, 28 histories, 28 cultures.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t work together. I think that the idea of Charles de Gaulle to work together as an alliance between perfectly sovereign fatherlands, that is a correct idea. And all these fatherlands can adopt a joint mission, like to develop Africa, or other things.
I just think that this European Union is not going to stay forever.
Q: (followup) Will it be easier for Germany and France to promote this development, as the leading countries?
A: Everybody says that Germany is the biggest beneficiary of globalization, the EU, and the Euro, but that’s not really true, because, if you look at it more closely, then you can say that since the introduction of the Euro, the domestic market of Germany has completely stagnated. And the number of people who became poorer has increased.
Q: (followup) What about regarding the dialogue with Russia.
A: Oh yes, that would be much easier.
I do not think that this EU bureaucracy is capable of reform, because by their self-understanding, they are the local pro-consuls of this empire, and I think that it would be much better if Germany, France, and other countries have individual relations. And I don’t think that – this whole idea that you need a European Empire to compete with Russia and China and other emerging countries – The EU, by definition, is an empire. They have said it themselves. Robert Cooper, who has some kind of advisory function [currently serving as EU Special Advisor with regard to Myanmar], he said that the EU is the fastest expanding empire in history. It’s a bad idea.
And the Russians for – I noticed this since the beginning of the year 2000, that the Russians did not make a difference anymore between the EU and NATO. They said that it’s the same thing. And it is the same thing.
Q: You said that the One Belt, One Road was stripped of commercial interests from the Chinese side, as opposed to the IMF, World Bank. On what basis do you say that it is less interest-driven than the Bretton Woods institutions?
A: Well, because, the question is not that I’m saying that China is perfect. I’m not saying that. But when you look at anything, you have to look at the vector of development, is it going upward, or is it going downward? And from that standpoint, I had the advantage that I was in China in 1971, which was in the middle of the Cultural Revolution. This was so different than China today.
The Cultural Revolution was horrible for the people. The Red Guards would take people out of their homes, put them in jail, send them to the countryside, and people were distraught.
And now, people in China are happy. If you talk to students, or to young people, they are optimistic. They say, ‘Oh. I will do this in the future. I have these plans.’ I talked to a group of students in Lanzhou two years ago, and they said, ‘We will go to Africa. We will develop Africa.’ I have never heard a German student say this. Yeah, when I was a student, but that’s a long time ago.
I think that it is very worthwhile to read the speeches of Xi Jinping. There is a book, “The Governance of China,” but that only has about 60 speeches, and there are many, many more. For example, you should read the speeches he gave when he went to France, to Germany, and to India.
For example, when he went to India, he made a speech which was really incredible, because he said that he loved Indian culture from his early youth, and then he gave so many examples of the high points of Indian culture, the Gupta period, the Upanishads, the Vedic writings, Rabindranath Tagore, many predicates which prove that he really knows what he is talking about. He is not just one of these politicians who have a PR advisor about how to make nice bubbles in your speeches, but you could really see that he means it. And the same for Germany. He came to Germany and he emphasized Schubert and Heine, things which I also appreciate about Germany, and he did the same thing in France.
And I don’t think that the Chinese leadership would agree with me when I say this, but I think that they are less communist than Confucians. They probably would not admit that, because they are officially the Communist Party, and that’s OK, but, I come from Trier, and Trier is the birthplace of Karl Marx, so I have studied Karl Marx, and I think that they are still socialist, or communist, or whatever, but they always said that they are communist with Chinese characteristics, and these Chinese characteristics are Confucianism.
And the Confucian idea of man is lifelong learning, lifelong perfection, that everyone should be a Jinzi, a wise man, a noble man, and Confucius said, if the government is bad, then the Jinzi, these wise people, should replace the government. Also the idea that you have to have an harmonious development, starting with the family, continuing in the nation, and then, larger, among the nations.
China is the only country that has not made wars of aggression, colonial wars, in its 5,000 years of history. It was invaded many times, the Opium War, and things like that, but China is not an aggressive nation, at all.
And if you look at what they are doing in practice, the IMF and the World Bank have prevented Third World development, and China is going from one country to the next, building science cities, helping with space cooperation, bringing in developing countries in the most advanced areas of science, in order to not prevent their development. I think this is a completely different approach.
I think that the Chinese have come up with a new model of government, which I have not seen in any place in Europe, the U.S. ever, and it’s a model which is overcoming geopolitics, which is, if you say, ‘I have a win-win for cooperation. Everybody can join.’ Then, if everyone joins, then you have overcome geopolitics.
And geopolitics is the one thing that caused two world wars, and in the age of thermonuclear weapons, we cannot have geopolitics anymore. So I think that these are very important differences.
Sure, China has its own interests. Win-win means that China also has an interest. China has advantages, but, for example, if you ask people from Africa, ‘Would you rather have deals where China gets raw materials for long periods of time, but they build infrastructure for Africans.’ They like that much better than Europeans who come and say, ‘Oh, you should obey democracy,’ and do nothing.
Q: Statement about Chinese infrastructure projects in Morocco. Both are winners, as opposed to projects 20 years ago run by other countries. The Chinese there have learned Arabic. The projects have greatly reduced the travel time. They have a different perspective than the French, and Europeans had.    
Tom Gillesberg: Do you have final remarks?
A: I would just say that people should not just believe, or not believe, what I am saying, but take an active attitude to try to find out what the truth is, for themselves. Because the world is not helped by replacing one ideology by another. The only way you can be certain, is that you become a truth-seeking person yourself. Because the whole question about what went wrong, is that people forgot what it is to be an honest truth-seeking person, taking the truth not as something you reach finally, but something you always improve.
Schiller had this beautiful writing about universal history, where he said that the philosophical mind is the first one to take his own system apart, to put it together more perfectly again.
I think that that quality – and, also, we had two days ago in Berlin, a very important event, which was also about the dialogue of cultures, and every – we had a very important presentation, which you can soon see on our webpage, where we had a double bass player who spoke about the importance of Wilhelm Furtwängler as a conductor, and he gave some musical examples, and he compared the performances of Furtwängler with some modern conductors, and the difference is so unbelievable. The music of Furtwängler is transparent. It is beautiful. It is absolutely overwhelmingly uplifting, and many of the other conductors are just playing along, with no respect for what the composition is.
And he really described, with many quotes from Furtwängler, that what is needed is this inner quality of truthfulness. That you don’t fake it, because if you’re not truthful – for example, you cannot recite poetry, if you’re not truthful. You cannot sing beautifully, if you’re not truthful. Sure, you can sing brilliantly, you can do all kinds of tricks, and it impresses people, but to really produce art, you have to be truthful. You have to try to understand the poetical idea, the musical idea. You have to step back with your ego behind what the composer or the poet wrote. And that’s what is wrong with modern theater. In Regietheater, they just say, ‘I don’t care what Schiller wrote, or what Shakespeare wrote. I just make my modern interpretation. I put Harley Davidson’s into Shakespeare, and it doesn’t matter.’ And that is not art.
And I think the question is, ‘What do you do with your life?’ That is really the question. Are you becoming a creative person, devoted to that with your life, you contribute to enable mankind to move on a little step further, and become better.
Or, are you just eating three tons of caviar, and have 3,000 Porsches. And then, when you die, they write on your gravestone, ‘He/she ate three mons of caviar, and had 3,000 Porsches,’ and that was it.
No, you should try to be an honest person, trying to make human society better with what you do. And, once you do that, you become happy. Then you are free. This inner freedom, is what you should try to find. And that is the only way that we will win that battle. It’s not Trump. It is, can we get enough people to be innerly free.
And then we win.
End of discussion

3. december, 2016 – At der i dag findes to helt forskellige paradigmer i verden, der bestemmer nationers adfærd, bliver klarere dag for dag. Medens modstanden i den transatlantiske verden mod det mislykkede globaliseringsparadigme bliver stadig stærkere, og etablissementet så meget desto mere sammenbidt søger at fastholde det, så satser de stater, der samarbejder med Den nye Silkevej, stadig tydeligere på deres befolknings kreativitet og samarbejdet om menneskehedens fælles mål.
De vestlige politikere og medier, der er vant til kun at betragte Putin gennem dæmoniseringsbrillerne, ville stå sig vel ved for én gangs skyld at gennemlæse Putins årlige ’Tale til nationen’, som han holdt for den russiske Duma, uden fordomme. Efter fravalget af Obama – for det var også, hvad Hillary Clintons nederlag var – og efter Donald Trumps første telefonsamtaler med Vladimir Putin og Xi Jinping, har der åbnet sig en reel chance for at normalisere forholdet mellem de tre vigtigste nationer her på Jorden. Og kun en selvmorderisk nar ville ønske at vrage en sådan mulighed.
Når man tager den samlede kronologi for alle Putins tilbud til Vesten i betragtning, indbefattet hans forhåbningsfulde tale til den tyske forbundsdag i 2001 og talen til München-sikkerhedskonferencen i 2007, hvor han gav udtryk for stærk skuffelse, så burde man tage hans ord for pålydende, når han siger: »Vi ønsker ikke konfrontation med nogen. Det har vi lige så lidt, som vore partnere i det globale fællesskab, brug for. I modsætning til vore kolleger i udlandet, der betragter Rusland som en fjende, søger vi ikke, og har heller ikke søgt, modstandere. Vi har brug for venner. Men vi vil ikke tillade, at vore interesser skades eller ignorereres.«
Længere fremme i sin tale understregede Putin, at kravet om viden og moral i undervisningssystemet, som forudsætning for samfundets levedygtighed, var en prioritet. De unge menneskers interesse for den nationale klassiske litteratur, kultur og historie må vækkes, og skolerne må fremme kreativitet, samtidig med, at børnene lærer at tænke selvstændigt, såvel som også lærer at arbejde både selvstændigt og som en del af et team, løse stillede opgaver og formulere og realisere målsætninger. Godt nok er kravet om begavelse vigtigt, men grundlæggende set må opdragelsen hvile på det princip, at alle børn og teenagere er begavede og i stand til at opnå resultater inden for videnskab, de kreative områder samt i livet. Det er statens opgave at fremme disse talenter.
Putin understregede også den fundamentale betydning af grundforskning, som basis for økonomisk vækst og sociale fremskridt. Over 200 laboratorier er allerede etableret, som, takket være de store statstilskud, de modtager, må blive i stand til at operere på globalt niveau, og som vil blive ledet af videnskabsfolk, der er med til at bestemme retningen af den globale, videnskabelige udvikling. Det er i denne sammenhæng også vigtigt at overvinde de i Rusland siden zartiden eksisterende flaskehalse for, at disse forskningsresultater også kan komme produktionen af forbrugsvarer til gode.
De mennesker, der aktivt dæmoniserer Putin, burde også studere den tale, som Putin holdt den foregående dag ved Det internationale Forum for Primakov-forelæsninger til ære for den tidligere statsminister og ’store tænker’, Jevgenij Primakov, der døde for 18 måneder siden.
Også her stod de amerikansk-russiske relationer højt på dagsordenen. Putin henviste til Primakovs overbevisning om, at, »uden et oprigtigt partnerskab mellem Rusland og USA«, ville det blive vanskeligt at klare de »store udfordringer« i verden – især i kampen mod terrorismen i Mellemøsten.
Primakov havde, ifølge den russiske præsident, haft en »virkeligt strategisk vision«, der havde gjort det muligt for ham »at kigge ud i fremtiden og se, hvor uholdbar og ensidig« modellen om en unipolær verden var. Det var Primakov, der som den første gik ind for et trilateralt samarbejde mellem Rusland, Kina og Indien, og ud fra hvilket BRIKS, »der nu vinder indflydelse og betydning i verden«, har udviklet sig. Primakovs holden fast ved de tætte relationer med partnerne i Fællesskabet af Uafhængige Stater (CIS) »er rygraden i vores integrationspolitik i Eurasien … Vi håber, at dialog med vore partnere, indbefattet en dialog om sammenkoblingen med Kinas projekt om det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte, vil sætte os i stand til at opbygge et stort, eurasisk partnerskab«.

Den umistelige ret til udvikling
Et andet dokument, som de vestlige politikere og medier, med deres geopolitiske tankegang, burde studere, er en ny hvidbog fra den kinesiske regering om »Retten til udvikling: Kinas filosofi, praksis og bidrag«, hvor det bekræftes, at der findes en »umistelig rettighed« for alle lande og folkeslag til at udvikle sig. »Retten til udvikling må tilhøre og være fælles for alle folk. Det er alle landes ansvar at virkeliggøre retten til udvikling, og det er ligeledes det internationale fællesskabs pligt«, står der i dokumentet. »Det forpligter regeringerne i alle lande til at formulere udviklingsstrategier og forholdsregler, der passer til deres egen virkelighed, og det fordrer det internationale samfunds koncentrerede anstrengelser som helhed. Kina opfordrer alle lande til at stræbe efter en ligeværdig, åben, omfattende og innovativ, fælles udvikling, og hvidbogen kræver en fælles udvikling og at der skabes betingelser for, at alle folkeslag kan tage del i retten til udvikling.«
Hvidbogen beskriver imidlertid meget mere – nemlig, at Kinas udviklingsmodel og Kinas politiske og sociale struktur har været en udelt succes. Og, alt imens denne model fortsat udvikler sig, så foregår det i et tempo og på en måde, der bestemmes af det kinesiske folk selv. Det påpeges, at Kina allerede har løftet 700 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom, og at i dag kun 5,7 % af befolkningen lever under fattigdomsgrænsen – hvilket gør Kina til den første nation, som det er lykkedes at nå FN's Millennium-mål for fattigdomsbekæmpelse. Kina er endda fast besluttet på helt at overvinde fattigdom. I marts 2016 offentliggjordes »udkast til den 13. femårsplan for Folkerepublikken Kinas nationale, økonomiske og sociale udvikling«, hvor regeringen fremlægger en strategi for helt at udrydde fattigdom blandt landbefolkningen allerede i år 2020.

»En ny bølge af velstand«
Hvis man ikke ønsker at lytte til Putin eller Kina, kan man også studere en ny hvidbog fra bygge- og anlægsmaskine-producenten Caterpillar om betydningen af »Bælt-og-Vej«-initiativet. Det vil udløse »en ny bølge af velstand« for Kina og den øvrige verden, står der i den. Opbygningen af et infrastrukturnet, som er en prioritet i initiativet, vil muliggøre en fri strøm og en mere effektiv udnyttelse af resurserne, integration af markederne og koordinering af nationernes økonomiske politik.
Opbygningen af infrastruktur vil være med til at sænke transportomkostningerne, øge udviklingslandenes konkurrenceevne og reducere ubalancen landene imellem. Caterpillar betragter »Bælt-og-Vej«- initiativet som en »åben og medinddragende« ramme, der gør det muligt for alle landene langs ruten at tage del i opbygningen af projektet. »Dette bør og kan ikke være en bestræbelse alene fra Kinas side«, står der i dokumentet.
Virksomheden påskønner de forretningsmuligheder, som dette initiativ åbner op for, og håber at kunne deltage endnu mere i projekter langs ruten, forklarede Chen Qihua, vicepræsident for Caterpillar og direktør for Caterpillar Kina.
Og endelig burde de vestlige politikere og medier gøre sig klart, at der i befolkningen er bred opbakning til det internationale samarbejde, netop på områderne for videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt. Den europæiske rumfartsorganisation ESA’s borgerdialog i organisationens 22 lande fastslog, at 88 % af de adspurgte understøttede ledelsens rumprogram, og 96 % følte sig overbeviste om, at verdensrummet frembyder muligheder, der ikke forefindes på Jorden, men som bør udforskes.
I sin rapport om meningsmålingen ved flyvestationen Upjever i Friesland sagde den tidligere ESA-astronaut Thomas Reiter, der nu er ESA’s hovedkoordinator for den internationale rumstations anliggender, at der er grund til optimisme – på trods af den endeløse strid om budgettet på europæisk niveau. De €8 mia., der er blevet brugt i de sidste 5 år, har skabt økonomiske værdier for €14,5 mia. for Europa og dets borgere.
»Det drejer sig også om det politiske aspekt af samarbejdet: Dette fungerer ganske godt, trods konflikterne på Jorden«, sagde Reiter. 95 stater deltager i ISS’ forskningsarbejde, »hvor man deroppe forfølger mål til gavn for alle mennesker«.
Reiter udtalte sig også optimistisk om udsigterne for udforskningen af Månen, især Månens bagside. Herfra vil man senere også kunne udsende missioner til den videre udforskning af verdensaltet.
Bernhard von Weyhe, leder af kommunikationsafdelingen i kontrolcentret (ESOC) i ESA-centeret i Darmstadt, talte i et interview med avisen Allgemeine Zeitung om den »brofunktion«, som rumforskningen har for menneskeheden. »Den fælles bemandede rumfart kræver samarbejde, og gjorde det også under koldkrigstiden. Rumfart har altid været et område, hvor man har haft et intensivt internationalt samarbejde, og brofunktionen består stadig. Rumfart er pr. definition et samarbejdsprojekt.«
Fællesnævneren for alle disse udtalelser er: Menneskehedens fremtid ligger i samarbejdet mellem nationerne om økonomisk udvikling af alle verdens lande og om samarbejdet om menneskehedens fælles mål, især om udviklingen af teknologi og videnskab og menneskenes skabende evner. Det lønner sig stærkt at investere i dette samarbejde. Den, der ikke fatter dette og i stedet blot stræber mod et »sort nul«, kommer i sidste ende til at stå tilbage med tomme hænder.

Foto: I september 2015 blev astronaut Andreas Mogensen den første dansker i rummet, hvor han deltog i forskningsopgaver om bord på den Internationale Rumstation, ISS.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 30. november, 2016 – I denne uge kom delegationer fra Manhattan og flere stater i det østlige USA til Washington, D.C., for personligt at inddrage kongresmedlemmer i nødvendigheden af at tage skridt til at genindføre Glass-Steagall og gennemføre LaRouches »Fire Love«, for at håndtere den aktuelle, strategiske krise. Dette politiske initiativ – sammen med pres på kongressen over hele landet – kommer på et tidspunkt med nonstop mediefiksering på nyvalgte præsident Donald Trumps seneste og eventuelle udnævnelser til regeringsposter. ’Hvem er de?… Hvor dårlige er de?’, osv. Mediernes spærreild, og selv selve udnævnelserne, tjener til at forvirre og demobilisere enhver, der lytter.

Det er vigtigt at modstå alle sådanne, »bottom-up« karakteriseringer, der fremhæver lokale interesser, af det, der foregår. Der er intet lokalt her: »Trump«-valgoverraskelser finder sted i hele verden, og flere vil finde sted i de kommende uger. Vælgere over hele verden afviser nu hele »globaliseringsæraen« til fordel for et nyt paradigme, der fortsat er under udformning. EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, understregede dagen efter præsidentvalgene, at valget af Trump ikke var en »lokal« begivenhed. Afvisningen af Hillary Clinton gik længere end til et spørgsmål om selve personen; den var en del af et globalt, dynamisk skifte. LaRouche manede i dag til forsigtighed: »Det er farligt at gøre det muligt for dette [forvirringen som følge af lokalt fokus] at opstå. Man må frigøre sig fra det. Det ødelægger ens evne til at tænke og løse problemer.«

Undgå derfor vrede over enkeltpersoner; tænk på det mulige.

Dette er virkeligheden. Der er en dynamik i gang på internationalt plan, for et nyt paradigme for hele menneskeheden, og som er legemliggjort i den eurasiske Nye Silkevej. Præsident Vladimir Putin og præsident Xi Jinping leverer et stærkt lederskab for vejen frem, en vej, som i årtier er blevet fremlagt af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche.

I dag holdt Putin en tale i Moskva fra dette udsigtspunkt. Han talte om den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, »der sammenkobles med Kinas projekt for det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte, som vil gøre det muligt for os at bygge et eurasisk partnerskab«. Han talte i anledning af det andet, årlige »Primakov Readings International Forum« i Moskva, for at mindes eftermælet af Jevgenij Primakovs lederskab. Putin sagde: »Hr. Primakov var ligeledes af den mening, at det ville være meget vanskeligt at håndtere nutidens store udfordringer på tilfredsstillende vis uden et seriøst partnerskab mellem Rusland og USA. Ulykkeligvis er de russisk-amerikanske relationer blevet meget forværret i løbet af de seneste år, men dette er ikke vores skyld. Nu, hvor valgkampen er ovre i USA, og en ny præsident snart vil indtage Det Hvide Hus, håber vi, at dette vil skabe en mulighed for at forbedre disse relationer, der er så vigtige, ikke alene for vore to folkeslag, men også for at sikre international stabilitet og sikkerhed … «

Ideen om nye relationer runger over hele Latinamerika, efter Xis seks dages rundrejse i forbindelse med APEC-topmødet tidligere på måneden. Den mexicanske seniordiplomat Sergio Ley har krævet, at Mexico nu »diversificerer« sine relationer inden for udenrigshandel og ikke længere har 80 % af sin handel, der finder sted med USA. Han sagde, at der nu finder »en ekstraordinær dialog på højeste niveau« sted mellem Mexico og Kina.

I opposition til dette aktive, nye paradigme for internationale, gensidigt gavnlige relationer, kommer de sidste, fortvivlede bestræbelser fra geopolitikkens afdankede repræsentanter, på at forårsage mere skade og død. Især Frankrig, Storbritannien og Obama-administrationen mobiliserer imod Rusland over Syrien. I dag meddelte Frankrig, at det vil være vært for et møde den 10. december, som vil omfatte ledere fra UK, USA, Tyskland, Italien, Saudi-Arabien og andre, om, hvordan man skal modsætte sig »den totale krigs tankegang«, som de hævder, Rusland og Syrien forfølger.

Virkeligheden er den, at den syriske regering i Aleppo med held driver terroristerne tilbage; og Rusland er i færd med at mobilisere støtte og nødhjælpsforsyninger – inklusive felthospitaler – til de tusinder af mennesker, der nu er befriet og nødlidende.

Foto: Udsigt over Capitol fra toppen af Washington-monumentet.

Hovedtale ved 23. nationalkongres for Sammenslutningen af Økonomer i Peru, 17. november, 2016. 

Friedrich Schiller, der er en vidunderlig digter, som Schiller Instituttet er navngivet efter, havde den opfattelse, at der ikke kan være nogen modsigelse mellem at være en patriot, og så at være en verdensborger. Jeg mener, at det er muligt at opnå denne idé i vores tid, for, hvis vi giver hvert barn, hver nyfødt på denne planet, en generel uddannelse, der ikke alene formidler generel historie, geologi, musik, videnskab og de skønne kunster, men også en viden om og kærlighed til de andre kulturers højeste udtryk, den tyske klassik, konfucianisme, Gupta-perioden, Cervantes, Goya, hver eneste kulturs guldalder; så ville disse børn være i stand til at udvikle hele det potentiale, som de hver især kan udfolde, og som kun nogle ganske få undtagelser tidligere kunne udfolde.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Etablissementet i både USA og Europa er rystet over Donald Trumps valgsejr, men rystel­serne ender ikke der. I lighed med Reagan efter valget i 1980 vil han indtage Det Hvide Hus med sit helt eget team og egne nye rådgivere. Derfor er en helt ny politik mulig, hvor USA finder sin naturlige plads i et samarbejde med Rusland og Kina – og forhåbentlig dropper Bush/Cheneys og Obamas krigs- og konfrontationspolitik. Danmark og Europa skal dermed også finde en helt ny udenrigspolitik frem. Samtidig kommer Trump så til at skulle slås med et finanskrak større end i 2008, men hvis han lytter til Lyndon LaRouche, som Reagan del­vist gjorde det i 1981, så er der med LaRouches Fire Love en vej ud af moradset. Dette er en redigeret udgave af en tale, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets formand, holdt den 21. november 2016, og som kan høres på www.schillerinstitut.dk.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 21. november, 2016 – Enhver oprigtig vurdering af den globale situation på nuværende tidspunkt må begynde med en klar erkendelse af, at hele det transatlantiske finanssystem er håbløst bankerot og må erstattes af en helt ny arkitektur. Alle for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-bankerne er døde, begyndende med Deutsche Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland, samt alle Wall Street TBTF-institutionerne. Wall Streets bankholdingselskaber sidder med $252 billion i eksponering til derivater, med kun $14 billion i tvivlsom kapital som opbakning til disse flygtige spilleindsatser. De italienske banker styres af et kriminelt oligarki, mens den italienske befolkning er hårdt ramt af morderiske nedskæringer. Det samme gælder for Frankrig og andre steder i hele Europa.

Det, der er brug for, er et helt nyt kreditsystem, der er baseret på de områder i verden – først og fremmest Eurasien – hvor regulær vækst i produktiviteten finder sted. En sådan global reorganisering er den eneste måde, hvorpå man kan redde hele nationer, der nu er ved at dø. Nøglespørgsmålet er: Hvordan vil betydningsfulde magter, især Kina, Rusland og USA, tilpasse sig til det, der nu er muligt med de omstændigheder, der vokser frem efter Obama? Se det i øjnene: Obama er politisk gift, og jo før, han forsvinder fra den politiske scene, desto tidligere kan de nødvendige ændringer lanceres.

Den umiddelbare genindførelse af Glass-Steagall er naturligvis det afgørende, første skridt, men man må indse, at, som et resultat af de seneste årtiers politik – især i de seneste 16 år med Bush og Obama – er der forrettet en hel del skade, og det bliver vanskeligt hurtigt at rette op på det.

Tyskland kan blive et centralt element i disse ændringer, men kansler Merkel må holde op med at beskytte den transatlantiske magts allerede døde system. Hun bør give den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin plads til at operere. Hvis Putin og Trump kan etablere direkte kontakt og udarbejde nogle løsninger, vil det fungere. Eurasien opererer allerede på en måde, der styrker reel produktivitet. En stor del af resten af verden lider imidlertid hungersnød. Putin forstår disse successer i Eurasien – han ved, Asien er langt bedre faren end Europa. Trump har instinktet til den samme forståelse.

Den model, der må vedtages, er de handlinger, som præsident Franklin Roosevelt gennemførte i sine første 100 dage i embedet.[1] Dette vil kræve en del hårde spark fra enige verdensledere. Der er intet alternativ.

Dette var ligeledes et fremtrædende emne under det netop afsluttede APEC-topmøde for statsoverhoveder i Lima, Peru, hvor den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping også i sin rejse inkluderede statsbesøg i Ecuador, Peru og Chile, og hvor der er en mobilisering i gang for at bygge den trans-oceaniske jernbane, der forbinder Brasiliens atlanterhavskyst med Perus stillehavskyst.

(Fra Lyndon LaRouches medarbejderdiskussion, søndag, 20. nov. 2016)   

Foto: Præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt underskriver Bankloven af 1933, Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven, 16. juni, 1933.    

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 20. november, 2016 – Idet Lyndon LaRouche gjorde status over de betydningsfulde, strategiske fremskridt, der i den seneste periode er opnået over hele planeten, og over de fremskridt, der fortsat ikke er realiseret, sagde han i dag til sine medarbejdere, at »det, der finder sted nu, er i vid udstrækning fremskridt, men det er ikke endegyldigt … vi gør fremskridt, men denne form for fremskridt lever ikke op til menneskehedens behov … Spørgsmålet er, hvad menneskeheden kan gøre for at ændre universets adfærd som sådan«.

LaRouches dybtgående diskussion er afgørende for at imødegå de udfordringer, som menneskeheden nu konfronteres med.

Ugen sluttede med endnu et ødelæggende nederlag for Obama, denne gang et nederlag for hans frihandelspolitik ved APEC-topmødet i Lima, Peru, i takt med, at det globale tyngdepunkt skifter over til de succesrige initiativer, som Kina og Rusland tager. Dér, hvor vi nu står, sagde Helga Zepp-LaRouche til medarbejdere, er, at

»Jeg mener, vi nu er vidne til en fortsættelse af det meget høje tempo i den dynamik, der har været den fremherskende i de seneste to en halv måned, eller lidt længere, begyndende med Vladivostok-mødet; integrationen af den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union (EAEU) og Ét bælte, én vej; fortsættelsen heraf ved G20-topmmødet i Hangzhou; og dernæst ved ASEAN-mødet i Laos; efterfulgt af BRIKS-konferencen i Goa, Indien, i oktober måned; og nu, under APEC-mødet i Lima, Peru.

Det, der står helt klart, er, at tyngdepunktet og magtcentret fuldstændigt er skiftet over til denne dynamik, især med integrationen af Kinas og Ruslands politik. Og hvad der hermed følger er en fortsættende eksplosion af infrastruktur og andre udviklingsprojekter, som, hvis man tager dem samlet set, virkelig er en bjergtagende dynamik, der i løbet af de seneste tre år har fundet sted i et stadigt stigende tempo.

Dette er ganske afgjort verdens kraftcenter i øjeblikket, for det står ganske klart, at de transatlantiske etablissementer er fuldstændigt ude af stand til at fatte, at deres model, med globalisering og neoliberal fordeling af rigdom, fra de fattige til de rige, har lidt totalt nederlag. Og de er hverken i stand til at forudsige udviklinger eller håndtere konsekvenserne af sådanne begivenheder som Brexit og valget af Trump.«

Men, den umiddelbart foreliggende udfordring – med at bruge den tidevandsbølge, der nu fejer ind over USA, som det kom til udtryk i præsidentvalget, til endelig at bringe USA med om bord i Verdenslandbroens Nye Paradigme – kræver, at vi erkender og vender vores opmærksomhed mod et langt dybere spørgsmål. I sin diskussion med medarbejdere udtalte LaRouche, i uddrag:

»Jeg ved, at det, vi nu gør, i virkeligheden ikke er så fremragende, selv om det ser strålende ud – For, hvis vi ikke ser disse overliggende overvejelser, som folk forsøger at overse – hvor de siger, ’det når vi til senere, det kommer vi til, lad være med at presse jer selv for meget’ – det er det, der bekymrer mig.

Vi er kommet til noget i denne forandring, der nu finder sted, hvor vi sandsynligvis har fået en misforstået selvtillid. Det betyder ikke, at vi som sådan gør noget, der er dårligt, men det betyder, at vi ikke rigtig har fået fat i, hvad det er for et princip, på hvilket menneskehedens fremtid beror …

Spørgsmålet drejer sig om menneskets iboende natur, som Einstein forstod i visse af sine videnskabelige arbejder. Det gjorde han! Og det er, hvad vi har mistet. Vi gik bort fra denne form for idé og besluttede at satse på en mere økonomisk fremgangsmåde …

Vi har gjort nogle gode ting. Vi har forbedret kvaliteten af menneskeheden generelt, menneskehedens kvaliteter generelt, på basis af visse projekter, visse ting. Men, vi har mistet spørgsmålet om, hvad meningen med menneskets eksistens er. Det vil sige, af hvilken art er selve eksistensen, selve arten af det mulige menneske?

Det, vi gør, er godt, i vid udstrækning; i visse dele af verden og inden for visse af livets aspekter. Men, det er ikke det, menneskeheden rent faktisk har behov for. Mennesket må vide, hvad begrundelsen for mennesker, for menneskelige væsner, er, noget, der aldrig bliver forstået af blot og bart dødelige mennesker, der ser på sig selv i en sådan kategori …

Hvad er betydningen, den iboende betydning, af et menneske? Af ethvert menneskes eksistens? Eller af alle mennesker?

Det, der nu finder sted, er i vid udstrækning fremskridt – men det er ikke endegyldigt …

Det vi har med at gøre, er spørgsmålet: Hvad er skabelsens natur? Spørgsmålet er, hvad er den fundamentale mening med mennesket? Hvad er menneskeslægtens natur, som en universel ting? Universet er organiseret, og man må derfor tænke på et univers, der er iboende organiseret. Ikke praktisk organiseret, men iboende organiseret …

Folk ved ikke, hvad det er, der får universet til at fungere. Hvad er det, der er karakteristisk for menneskeheden, og som gør den overlegen i forhold til alt, hvad vi ved om alle former for dyr …?

Vi gør fremskridt; men denne form for fremskridt er ikke tilstrækkelig til at opfylde det, der kræves af menneskeheden. Der er noget i universet, der kontrollerer og bestemmer universets betydning, som en mission.

Hvad er det, der får universet til at gøre, hvad det gør for menneskehedens funktion som sådan? Spørgsmålet er, hvad menneskeheden kan gøre for at ændre universets adfærd, som sådan?«

Foto: Mennesket og Universet – Universet, og mennesket.      

Den »Marshallplan« på en milliard euro, som udviklingsminister Gerd Müller har foreslået, er et skridt i den rigtige retning, men slår langtfra til. Tyskland kan nu yde et enestående bidrag til det nødvendige epokeskift ved officielt at erklære, at det samarbejder med Kinas Nye Silkevej, frem for alt i genopbygningen af Mellemøsten og Afrikas industrialisering.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Det andet punkt, som står meget klart, er, at LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) har sat dagsordenen; … Glass-Steagall; den omgående nødvendighed af at nedlukke Wall Street; og det faktum, at det amerikanske folk ikke var villigt til at acceptere Obama-Clinton-dagsordenen om at bringe USA ind i Tredje Verdenskrig med en konfrontation med Rusland. Men vi må fortsætte med at sætte dagsordenen. Der er intet alternativ, ingen erstatning for en fortsat mobilisering og en fortsat klarhed i lederskab, som kommer fra LaRouche Politiske Aktions-komite og vore allierede.

specialudsendelsen efter valget, som vi udlagde på denne webside onsdag; med direkte udtalelser fra både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche. Vi har haft mulighed for at tale med hr. LaRouche flere gange siden, inkl. for blot en time siden; og hr. LaRouche fastslår fortsat den pointe, at dette er en højst uafgjort situation; meget udefineret. Vi har endnu ikke fået de fulde fakta om, hvad implikationerne af den tiltrædende administration vil blive, men to punkter står klart. Og jeg tror, at folk meget klart har set, at dette har været en total afvisning af hele Obama-Clinton-Wall Street-apparatet, der havde overtaget det Demokratiske Parti; men også, på samme tid, det Republikanske Partis Bush-Cheney-apparat. Begge partier er nu ophørt med at eksistere i deres tidligere form, og vi befinder os i en situation internt i USA, der ikke har fortilfælde.

»Trumps sejr betyder kun en udsættelse af krigsfaren – med mindre der vedtages en langt mere fundamental forandring«.Den indledes med følgende erklæring:

»The United States joins the New Silk Road« (Se også dansk introduktion ved samme navn). Heri fremlægges det meget klart, hvordan USA kan tilslutte sig dette nye paradigme.

Fire Nye Økonomiske Love, med implikationerne af Alexander Hamiltons økonomiske rapporter, der oprindeligt definerede og skabte USA, og med anerkendelse af, hvad klokken er slået; og med skiftet til en totalt ny, international, økonomisk og strategisk orden, er det vores ansvar at mobilisere USA og bringe det ind i denne nye orden.

WE MUST SET THE AGENDA!
THE UNITED STATES MUST JOIN THE NEW SILK ROAD.

International Webcast, Nov. 11, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening, it's November 11, 2016.  Happy
Veterans' Day!  My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to
welcome you to our regular weekly Friday evening broadcast here
from larouchepac.com.  I'm joined in the studio today by Ben
Deniston, my colleague, as well as Kesha Rogers, member of the
LaRouche PAC Policy Committee and former candidate for Federal
office — United States Congress and US Senate — joining us from
Houston, Texas; and Michael Steger, joining us from San
Francisco, California, also a leading member of the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee.
        I hope everybody had a chance to see the post-election
broadcast special that we posted on this website on Wednesday;
which included some direct video statements from both Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche.  We've had a chance to speak with Mr. LaRouche
several times since then, including just about an hour ago; and
Mr. LaRouche continues to make the point that this is a highly
inconclusive situation; very undefined.  We have yet to get the
full facts on what the implications of the incoming
administration will be, but two points are very clear.  And I
think as people have observed very clearly, this has been a total
repudiation of the entire Obama-Clinton-Wall Street apparatus
that had taken over the Democratic Party; but also, at the same
time, the Bush-Cheney Republican Party apparatus.  Both parties
have now ceased to exist in their previous form, and we are in an
unprecedented situation inside the United States.  The other
point which is very clear is that the LaRouche Political Action
Committee has set the agenda; and this point should have been
clear for years leading into this, including from Kesha Rogers'
successful, highly impactful campaigns for Federal office.  But
we've put on the agenda: Glass-Steagall; the immediate necessity
to shut down Wall Street; and the fact that the American people
were not willing to accept the Obama-Clinton agenda to bring the
United States into World War III with a confrontation with
Russia.  But we must continue to do so, and we must continue to
set this agenda.  There can be no alternative, no replacement for
a continued mobilization and a continued clarity of leadership
coming from the LaRouche Political Action Committee and our
allies.
        Now, I would like to read a short portion of the lead item
which was posted on the LaRouche PAC website today, because I
think it very clearly defines what Mr. LaRouche's current
analysis of this situation is.  And then we can open up the
discussion from there.  But the title is, "Trump Victory Is Only
a Reprieve from War Danger Unless a Much More Fundamental Change
Can Be Enacted".  It begins by stating the following:
        "The election of Donald Trump and the defeat of both Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama has provided a short reprieve in a drive
for World War III against Russia, so long as Obama is prevented
from taking some kind of insane action in his remaining lame duck
weeks in office. The fact that an immediate danger of nuclear war
is off the table for the time being is important; but it does not
address the other grave crises that the world is facing.
        "The trans-Atlantic financial system is still on the edge of
total disintegration, and unless that problem is immediately
addressed, the conditions will soon re-emerge for global war. To
solve that imminent crisis, the US Congress must immediately pass
the pending legislation in both Houses, to reinstate the original
Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks
into totally separated commercial and investment banks. This must
be the first order of business when Congress returns to
Washington early next week."
        This continues by saying:  "Well beyond that urgently
required action, other measures must be taken to forge a new kind
of relations among the leading nations of the planet."  This is
something we will elaborate much more during the course of this
broadcast, but this statement goes on to cite some statements
that were made by Sergei Glazyev, a leading advisor of President
Putin; Chas Freeman, a top and very distinguished diplomat in the
United States diplomatic community; and otherwise, that make the
very clear and correct point that now is the time to realize that
the world is moving into an entirely new paradigm.  And beyond
just a détente between the United States and Russia, which is a
potentially very positive development, the United States must
also reciprocate the offers from China to enter into this New
Silk Road, New Paradigm program; entering into the AIIB, joining
the New Silk Road in a very concrete and definitive way.
        Now, what can be very clearly defined, is that Mr. LaRouche
is the leading statesman on the scene right now in the United
States.  The Four New Laws that we have been repeatedly
emphasizing over the course of the recent several months leading
into this election, continue to be the number one agenda item.
Of course, that begins with Glass-Steagall, but the entirety of
the program is a Hamiltonian renaissance for the United States.
        Now, during a discussion we had earlier today, Helga
Zepp-LaRouche emphasized this supplementary pamphlet which was
issued by the LaRouche Political Action Committee almost a year
ago — "The United States Must Join the New Silk Road; a
Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance".  And this very
concretely lays out how the United States can join this New
Paradigm.
        Now, I'd like to just begin with a few excerpts from these
statements that were made by Sergei Glazyev and Chas Freeman,
which I think clearly get to this point; but I think a lot more
can be said.  This is an interview with Sergei Glazyev from {Itar
Tass} in the aftermath of the Presidential elections:  "According
to Glazyev," this article says, "the result of the US elections
show that 'The American people don't want war. For the first time
in the world's history, there is a chance to a new global
economic order without waging a world war.'|"
        And then Chas Freeman, in a speech called "One Belt, One
Road" which was delivered in Hawaii a few days before the
election, end with the point that "The United States must now
realize that the new paradigm defined by the AIIB and the New
Silk Road, and all of the other initiatives that have been taken
by China, is the new game in town."  And Chas Freeman's point is
that Americans are not in the game.  Now's the time for us to
enter into this and to realize that it's in our interest to join
the One Belt, One Road initiative.  Chas Freeman says, "China's
growing influence is very good reason to seek a seat alongside
it, both in the new and old councils of the emerging multi-polar
world, rather than continuing to futilely try to exclude it. The
United States needs to be constructive and helpful, not negative
and critical — still less obstructive — as all this unfolds.
Americans have a big stake in how Eurasia integrates, and in what
its relationships with other continents and regions become.  Time
to get in the game," he concludes; "time to participate in
crafting the post-Pax Americana order.  Time to leverage China's
initiative to American advantage."
        And I could go on, but I want to just make the point that
now is the time to recognize the full responsibility of the
intellectual leadership that LaRouche PAC has defined and
continues to deliver.  And taking the Four New Economic Laws,
taking the implications of Alexander Hamilton's economic reports,
which defined and created the United States in the first place,
and recognizing what time it is; with the shift to an entirely
new international economic and strategic order, it's our
responsibility to mobilize and bring the United States into that
new order.
        So, I'll just leave it at that; and I think we can explore
some of the implications of this in discussion with Kesha and
Michael.

KESHA ROGERS:  OK, I will start in response by saying that what
has to be recognized is that the fight has never been a matter of
party politics, one party over the other; because as President
George Washington said, "Party politics is the bane of our
nation's existence."  What we saw during my campaigns for US
Congress, was very instrumental in that; because the people I was
able to pull together were people from all different types of
backgrounds.  It was a question not of just what party you
belonged to, or what your race was, or any of that; but this
question of what do we want to see for our nation and for the
future of our nation?  Reviving the vision and the ideas of
President John F Kennedy, President Franklin Roosevelt; people of
all different types of backgrounds — as has been stated — came
together around Glass-Steagall to defy Wall Street, and they
continue to do so.  The Republican Party, the Democratic Party,
and so forth.  So, I think it's important to note that what we
have identified is a question of the direction that mankind has
to take; that the people of this nation have come together on a
few accounts that have been completely against what the
establishment had thought would happen.  During my campaigns, the
victories around the two nominations despite the fact that the
party establishment did everything in their power to create a
divide against the truth that myself, Mr. LaRouche, and our slate
were saying; that Obama represented a threat to this nation.  The
cancelling of the NASA Constellation program, the continued
policies for backing Wall Street against the interests of the
population.  The second time that we saw the population come
together in a real way — as has been said on a number of
occasions here — is the JASTA vote.  The JASTA vote was not a —
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act — was not a Republican
or a Democratic issue; so I think we are now eliminating the
party system.  This has been a big part of what I have been
advocating, what Mr. LaRouche has been advocating is that we have
to have a new conception of mankind brought forward.  I think
it's been very clearly stated in the discussions that we've had
with him, that are really continuing and hopefully we can get
that developed in this discussion today.  The idea that this is
not just a US issue; now we're talking about how do we improve
and develop new conceptions of international relations.  New
conceptions of relations among human beings.
        Just a couple of things I want to start off with to develop
that.  First of all, just in the discussion we had with Mr.
LaRouche yesterday, in response to the election and where we must
go from here, he said we will get a unity among human beings as
human beings.  The US and Russia can work together as human
beings; and we are looking at mankind in a universal way.  We are
going to learn how to apply our minds.  People have to see the
meaning of their existence in a way that most people have not.
If we're really going to conceptualize that idea, I think what
we're going to discuss here today is:  1. The concrete policies
that are needed to bring together the type of collaboration as
we're seeing develop from the development of the BRICS nations —
Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa — and their
cooperation.  The development of the AIIB, and the offer of
cooperation through the Silk Road, by President Xi Jinping to the
United States.  People probably remember that Obama rejected it.
Now, the mission is, we have to reverse the rejection.  We have
to work with Russia; we have to take up China's offer.  But we
have to take it up in a bigger way than just around treaty
agreements or working together on international cooperation of
projects.  Those things will be essential, but the essential is
going to be the development of a new, unified, international
mission of a new direction for mankind in space collaboration.  I
want to develop that a little bit more, but I will stop right
there, because I think we need to pull a few more things together
to come back to that point.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  The underlying ability for the LaRouche
organization and LaRouche PAC to operate as a leading force on
the planet has been something that eludes most people.  It's not
something that's in the predicates of the policies we've been
fighting for directly; there's something philosophically more
profound.  It does stand out, the fact that this election, where
vote came from, what people voted for — whether it be in the
Democratic primary, where we saw Glass-Steagall both by Martin
O'Malley and Bernie Sanders, and again even by Trump at the end
of the general election campaign; where Glass-Steagall came up
again. {We} were the leading factor and force of a political
fight, won in the opposition of Bush and Cheney and the clear
tyranny that they represented, but even more distinctly, because
of the nature of Obama in this last years–which is important
just to take a few seconds, not long, but just to recognize: the
Republican Party for the last eight years worked with Obama.
There was no real opposition to it. That's why the Republican
Party is really in as much of a shambles as the Democratic Party
is.
        The Party system, as Kesha said, is gone, because there was
no legitimate opposition to Obama, except for what we did. And it
started on the Obamacare question. We led the fight entirely. We
defined it as a Nazi program, while the Republican Party was
likely going to adopt it and support it, the same way Mitt Romney
had pushed in Massachusetts. It was generally a kind of Heritage
Foundation, right-wing, healthcare reform. We recognized it to
be, underlying, a fascist program of population reduction, and
we've been relentless with Obama, unrelenting, on the question
that this Presidency was a failure and a very danger to mankind.
        But then you had Lyn's intervention following the invasion
of Libya, and the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, and Lyn's precise
insight that this represented a very accelerated drive for
nuclear war. There was immediate resonance, immediate response
from the leadership in Russia. Like Dmitry Medvedev, [then
President, now Prime Minister]. And we saw an increasing level of
recognition, somewhat slowly, but from key figures, who began to
identify the fact that Lyn was absolutely right. And that again
became a center of the discussion of the U.S. Presidential
election over the last few months.
        So, you have the immediate collapse of the financial system
— which is there, we're on the precipice, this has been in the
financial media now practically for a year, going back to last
December, when the financial markets collapsed then. There's a
very, very imminent breakdown of the trans-Atlantic financial
system. It's an underlying bankruptcy, a deep bankruptcy. Then
you also have the immediate drive for war. Both of those issues
have now been on the table. That's what the American people voted
for. It was a mandate for the LaRouche policy. And for the very
reason that the political establishment in this country
compromised on Lyn, going back to the 1980s, shut down his
efforts for space exploration, for collaboration among nations,
and instead put an FBI attack on him and our organization, they
got this kind of revolt. Had they adopted Lyn's policies then,
you wouldn't see neither the breakdown of our economy and our
society, the threat of nuclear war, or the collapse of a
revolutionary type situation in the United States.
        The only way to really address this problem is to address it
quickly. We are talking about a timeframe where if the new
Administration coming in does not fulfill what the LaRouche PAC
has defined as the "New Presidency," then it will fail, and fail
quickly. There is a quality of crisis in the country, and so
there is a level of urgency that Mr. LaRouche expressed today in
our discussions. We need to get a handle on this. The policy
orientation needs to be very clear. And it needs to be a
comprehensive program. You can't just implement Glass-Steagall,
though that's exactly where you have to start. You've got to go
with the full Hamilton perspective. You've got to look at a full
development of the country. And you can't go with this Wall
Street garbage. It's not going to function.
        A point that Kesha really made an emphasis of, and that Lyn
emphasized on Wednesday following this election, stands out,
because there is clearly — as Matt, you read from the Chas
Freeman quote — at the highest institutional level of
recognition, that this New Silk Road orientation is in depth; it
is not weak; it is not superficial. As someone from the Chinese
Consulate in San Francisco recently said, "This is not on paper.
This is on the ground. This is a real project. This is not the
TPP." The question though, is how is this approached? The
approach of the political establishment may be best indicated by
Henry Kissinger and these types: is to approach it from the
Hobbesian view — an animalistic view of man, where you're
looking for advantages. How do we take advantage of this? How do
we work with this? China is looking to their advantage. How do we
look to our advantage?
        It doesn't mean that one disregards one's own benefit. But
the emphasis that Lyn made, and I think what Kesha was
developing, is that you have to look at the universal nature of
mankind. You have to look at what policies, what approach towards
the relationship among nations is of benefit to mankind as a
whole, or as Helga said on Wednesday in a discussion, what used
to be referenced as the "common aims of mankind." That has to be
then the basis, the philosophical basis for a scientific
foundation, for a new relationship among nations. And that really
then defines how this can be very much a new paradigm or a new
era for mankind. Not only is an immediate action required, but
the potential of action is perhaps greater than it's ever been.

OGDEN: Just to continue to emphasize the point that you, Kesha,
brought up, the first indications, I think very clearly, of what
hit with full force with this election, was what you were able to
generate around your campaigns for federal office.

        BEN DENISTON: Over and over again.

        OGDEN: Three times in a row. Twice the Democratic nominee
for Congress, and then you forced the Senate campaign into a
run-off, in Texas, on precisely this LaRouche PAC program. Every
time that people say, "Oh, we are so surprised, we are so
shocked, none of the polls saw this coming," whether it was in
this general election campaign for President, whether it was in
the Brexit vote — every time somebody tells you that, you say,
"No, that's actually not true."

        DENISTON: Most people probably know, but it's worth
emphasizing: Kesha led with "Impeach Obama." You had a Democrat
leading the Democratic ticket on impeaching Obama, and that was
what shocked. It was national news. It's kind of amazing that the
Democrats are so far behind, so much in this crazy bubble, that
they can't see where the ferment is in the population. Just to
add that in there.

        OGDEN: Absolutely!

        DENISTON: It shocked the country, it shocked the world.
There was international recognition when Kesha won [the
Democratic Party primaries for U.S. House in 2010 and again in
2012; and came in second in a field of five candidates for U.S.
Senate in 2013, but lost in the run-off]. These guys are now
years and years behind the ball on this thing.

        OGDEN: The other element of your campaigns, Kesha, was a
clear vision for the country. This is an element of inspiration
that a population which was, yes, legitimately angry and enraged
against the policies of the last not 8 years, but the last 15, 16
years of both the Obama and Bush administrations, and had been
ground into the dust and left behind, and were literally
suffering from an increase in mortality, and so forth, as we've
spoken about.
        It was not only a rage factor, in terms of that, but it was
also, and it continues to be — and this must be recognized — a
deep desire for purpose, for meaning, for inspiration, and for a
vision of what the future actually can be. And, Michael, as you
were saying, it's a philosophical question: What is the meaning
of mankind? What is this really all about? Why am I struggling,
day in and day out? What's the meaning behind "what it means to
be human?"
        And so, the Number One point of emphasis in your campaigns,
Kesha, and the Number One point of emphasis continues to be, what
is the role that mankind is going to play over the next 100 years
in this solar system and in the universe? It was clear when John
F. Kennedy committed the United States to having a man on the
Moon before the end of the 1960s, that this was the defining
moment in the entire generation at that point. The United States
rose to the challenge because it was a truthful challenge.
        We applied the Hamiltonian principles to make that happen.
You stood up and you said "We're going back to space. China is
doing it." In the years since your campaigns, Kesha, China has
achieved unbelievable feats. There will be a robotic lander on
the far side of the Moon. If we put this on the agenda, and we
say, "We are no longer going to succumb to the backwards agenda.
We're going to join hands, not only on the New Silk Road here on
Earth, but we're going to join hands with China to go back to the
Moon. We're going to go to Mars. We are going in a way which
affirms the true, creative nature of the human species. We're
going into space." That's the other element of this.

        ROGERS: Yeah, that was already defined by Krafft Ehricke. It
was defined by Lyndon LaRouche. It was exemplified, as has
already been stated, in a conception of mankind and the
relationships among human beings, that most people, through the
degenerate culture that we have been immersed in, has yet to
actually, truly experience. It's not just a question of "Well, I
like this policy of going to the Moon," or "Yes, we should do
that," or "Kennedy's idea of going to the Moon was for economic
profits or to put feet on the Moon and then it was going to be
over." We were talking about policy for a 50-year-plus plan, or
should we say, a generational.
        Right now, the problem is that we have lost the conception
of acting for the next generations. Most people say, especially
with space policy, "Well, we'll see what this next President's
going to do, but then after that we have to follow whatever the
next President wants to do, and it's just going to be an
up-and-down cycle. Maybe we'll have a good one who wants a good
policy, and maybe we'll have a bad one." But that's not how the
process works. As I said, this is a question of international
relations, but also, as Krafft Ehricke said, the question of
development of space, and what that represents for understanding
our relationships right here on Earth is a Universal, an
Extraterritorial Imperative.
        I think these conceptions are not just things that are to be
thrown around, but they really have to be conceptualized,
understood, and mastered, just as Lyn's emphasis and very
important call, that the only thing that can save the United
States right now, and for that matter save the entire world
against this economic collapse, is the return to those
Hamiltonian principles — the recognition that we have to restore
an understanding of what Hamilton was developing in his four
reports: "Report on Public Credit;" "Report on a National Bank;"
"Report on the Subject of Manufactures;" and "On the
Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States."
        We've done a number of very thorough presentations on those
points, because that's not just something of the past, or just
"policy issues," but it is the necessary direction that has to be
re-established right now: how are we going to build up our
capabilities on this planet to provide for the needs of every
single human being? We're talking about development around food,
most importantly around fusion resources–LaRouche's Fourth Law.
We have to have a science-driver fusion program. This is the key
aspect of China's policy for their Moon mission, and their space
program — the mining of Helium-3, the development of the far
side of the Moon.
        This is the policy that the United States has gone far away
from. We just have to just put the United States back on course
again, and that the course of action has been clearly stated by
the direction that China's taking with their space program. It's
interesting to note: that was the direction we were going in, or
slated to go in, with the development of the Moon, under not just
President John F. Kennedy, but this was the policy that was being
put forth prior to President Obama cancelling it.

OGDEN: I want to pick up on what you said, Michael. What the
LaRouche Movement — both in the United States, but also
internationally — has clearly been at the forefront of for
decades, is the agenda. The intelligentsia of the planet has
concentrated itself, at key moments of history, around what the
conceptions for the future must be that have been laid forward by
the LaRouche Movement. I just want to bring up one point which
was contained in this report. This is the transcript of an
international conference that took place in June of this year.
Coincidentally, it was literally the day after the Brexit vote
occurred; which had the entire trans-Atlantic expert
establishment on their heels.  Nobody supposedly saw this coming.
But the keynote speaker at this event was Helga Zepp-LaRouche;
one of the other keynote speakers was Ambassador Chas Freeman.
At that point, the point of the One Belt, One Road policy, the
New Silk Road policy was put clearly on the agenda.  The other
major agenda item of this conference was the necessity to work
with Russia to resolve and rebuild the situation inside Syria.
This conference was called in order to discuss the contents of
this massive special report, which was published by {Executive
Intelligence Review}.  This is "The New Silk Road Becomes the
World Land-Bridge"; and with the publication of this, the entire
nitty-gritty aspect of what this New Paradigm really means on the
ground — not on paper, as you said, Michael — was put into
writing.
        At that point, Helga Zepp-LaRouche called for the
publication of a supplementary pamphlet which would concretely
elaborate exactly how the United States would join that New Silk
Road.  And with all of the discussion now in the last few days of
infrastructure and big projects and how to create millions of new
jobs inside the United States, this is clearly the number one
item of relevance.  Now, we're going to play a short excerpt from
a video which was put out by LaRouche PAC about two months ago.
The full video is called "The New Silk Road Becomes the World
Land-Bridge", but this short excerpt from the concluding portion
of that video elaborates exactly how the United States could work
with China and work with these Eurasian countries to build itself
into this New Silk Road.  So, I'd like to play that excerpt for
you right now.

        "As part of the trans-Atlantic, the United States is also
associated with a high standard of living.  However, the Wall
Street-dominated, post-World War II paradigm has taken its toll
on the US economy and its people.  Scrapping its agro-industrial
sector for financial and services industries, with the promise
that it would make for a more competitive economy, high-earning
skilled work was out-sourced to cheaper markets abroad which
provide a living wage for their workers.  This flawed version of
globalization lowered the productivity of the Americas as a
whole, increased the rate of poverty throughout the hemisphere,
and invited billions of dollars of illicit money flows from the
global drug trade, which to this day represent a significant
portion of the cash on hand in the Western banking sector.
        "However, even after the 2007-2008 crisis, when the
bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic financial system could no longer
be covered up and needed an emergency bail-out —
        "|'This is not just about Lehman Brothers; these problems
are not limited to Wall Street or even Main Street.  This is a
crisis for the global economy.'
        "– no serious structural reforms have been made to the
Western financial establishment; putting the West and the rest of
the world at risk of an even greater crisis.
        "No wonder that in recent years, China, Russia, and other
emerging economies have begun to create new international
financial institutions, based on a concept of 'win-win' relations
among nations and created to facilitate economic development and
trade for all participants instead of preserving the hegemony of
some.  Instead of the exclusivity of US trade agreements like the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, China has extended an invitation to
the US and the rest of the Americas to join them in establishing
a new era of global economic development.
        "'I state this very clearly to President Obama that China
will be firmly committed to the part of peaceful development; and
China will be firm in deepening reform and opening up the country
….¦'
        "But can the US envision a world where it is no longer the
sole superpower; and instead shares that responsibility with
other nations?
        "'|..¦.and will work hard to push forward the noble cause of
peace and development for all mankind.' [Chinese President Xi
Jinping]
        "The potential for US participation in the New Silk Road
program is immense.  One key project in EIR's New Silk Road
report is finally connecting the Eurasian continent with North
America at the Bering Strait.  A Bering Strait provides the
needed symmetry to make the One Belt, One Road strategy a global
one; and would transform the two continents the same way the
ancient Silk Road opened up Europe to Asia.
        "Imagine boarding a magnetically-levitated train in downtown
Paris or Berlin, travelling 250 miles per hour across the steppes
of Siberia, through a tunnel below the Bering Strait, emerging on
the other side in Alaska on your way to Manhattan.  Layered with
a freight and passenger rail line running north-south from Alaska
to the lower 48 states from Eurasia, is the construction of the
long-awaited North American Water and Power Alliance [NAWAPA]; an
Apollo-era continental water management system that takes
freshwater run-off from Alaska and Canada, and diverts it
southward for use in the arid southwest United States.
        "And while the average American will tell you these projects
are impossible, the average Chinese today is building them.  In
the last decade, China — comparable in size to the United States
— constructed over 11,000 miles of high-speed rail; and seeks to
triple that number by 2020.  Similarly, China's Three Gorges Dam
and South Water North projects are some of the greatest water
infrastructure projects ever undertaken.  In the new 'win-win'
paradigm, big infrastructure investment is the new normal
everywhere."

        That video is available on the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel
and the LaRouche PAC website.  But I'd like to ask Ben to just
follow that up.

BEN DENISTON:  Off of the discussions that Matt referenced with
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche in the last couple of days, we wanted
to redirect people's attention to this supplementary pamphlet.
Obviously the full report is a little bit hefty for your average
American, we did want to produce this shorter, condensed kind of
organizing report to really grip people and give people a sense
of what it means for the United States to join this New Silk Road
program, this New Paradigm.  We want to make sure people know —
we can bring up on the screen share here — that this full report
is also available on our website.  If you go under "our
policies", "US Joins the New Silk Road" it's available right
there; and the entirety of the report is available here.  As
Matthew said, this was published almost one year ago, so maybe
some of the introduction might be a little bit dated to the
context of the time when we put this out; but the substance, the
content, is still very relevant, very crucial, and integrates
together with the more recent focus Mr. LaRouche has put on his
Four Laws program.
        But just to give people a very quick overview of the report,
we can see here in the table of contents, it's broken into a
series of chapters following the introduction.  The first chapter
really provides somewhat of a sketch, but a real presentation of
what can be done in the United States in the context of joining
this New Paradigm.  So, passing Glass-Steagall; engaging in an
international credit/finance system to facilitate growth,
development.  What does that mean?  Well, as was referenced in
the video, one of the mega-projects that's been on the table for
a century now quite frankly, if not longer, is this Bering Strait
connection; literally connecting, via high-speed rail, North
America into this entire World Land-Bridge perspective.  So,
that's been long recognized as a keystone project.  That can come
together with — as was also discussed in the video — high-speed
rail across the United States.  As Mr. LaRouche, in his work on
the Eurasian Land-Bridge and World Land-Bridge, had developed,
these are more than just rail corridors; this mankind developing
the interior regions of continents.  Moving from a coastal
dominated civilization to one that actually master the interior
landmass of regions.  A lot can be said, but this really goes to
the heart of his science of economics, his insight, his metric of
potential relative population density; how mankind can transform
the so-called "carrying capacity" of a piece of land of society
with this kind of development.  So, bringing in high-speed rail
and all the associated infrastructure to make vastly larger
regions of the territory of the United States inhabitable and
developable.  We have huge amounts of unused land waiting to be
developed.
        In the development of this report, Helga LaRouche also
placed a large emphasis on the development of new cities; new
renaissance cities as she called for as part of the whole
development program.  Bringing rail, water, power to these new
regions of the country to develop new, highly-organized cities;
not just urban sprawl, not just endless unorganized development.
But actual cultural city centers organized around a central
region, focussed on an educational, artistic focus of society;
and you center your activity around that.  That's also discussed
in some detail in this report.
        This is obviously going to create major spin-off effects in
terms of job requirements; rebuilding US industry.  All kinds of
connected jobs required to support that kind of activity.  So,
this talk about creating millions of jobs, this can be done very
easily in the context of this New Paradigm system.  One thing we
fought with in producing this report was actually gripping people
with what this means.  It's easy to go through the figures —
this many miles of rail, this many cities, etc. — but the
American people have suffered so long under a lack of this kind
of development, that it's important to really grip people and
give them a sense that these are not just projects; this is your
future.  This is a return to the idea that every generation is
going to be fundamentally better off than the generation before
them.  That you live your life with the recognition that your
children are going to have a fundamentally better life than you
were able to live; and it was because you and your generation
contributed to creating that.
        It's been recognized — LaRouche PAC may have been the first
to point this out — but it's now generally recognized, the
current youth generation does not have that.  You have the first
situation potentially in American history where the younger
generation is worse off than their parents' generation.  If you
want to talk about the death rates, the drug epidemic, all these
things, that's the substance of what's driving that process.  Not
just poverty per se, but poverty in the context of no future;
complete degeneracy of society.
        So, returning to this idea that there is
to your job, to your employment, to your activity, to your
family's activity, to your neighborhood, your city, your town.
There's a purpose in investing and creating a new, higher state
of living for the nation as a whole; and that's what this really
means.  That's driving inspiration in China, in nations working
with China; in this whole One Belt, One Road program.  That's
what we can revive and return to in the United States; that's
what these infrastructure projects really mean.  It's about
mankind participating in the truly immortal nature of mankind's
creative development.
        And what we also address in this report, just to point this
out to people directly, is an added integral element of that is a
real science driver program.  So, we have on the one hand — it's
not separated, but together with the idea of joining the New Silk
Road, rebuilding the United States on a higher level with new
infrastructure, a new standard of living; also engaging in the
science driver programs and technology driver programs that push
to new frontiers.  Fusion power.  With fusion power, you can
completely transform mankind's capabilities; you can blast
mankind up to a higher level of potential existence.  Both in
making power available, but also completely revolutionizing all
kinds of production, industry, technologies; it's a totally new
stage for mankind.
        This goes directly together with space; the development of
the Moon, the development of helium-3 resources on the Moon as a
key fusion fuel.  So, bringing mankind really into a level of a
Solar System species, a Solar System existence; and learning —
we had some discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier today —
learning what the Solar System is really all about.  There are
some of the most basic things we still don't understand about how
the Solar System works; even how the Moon works.  Our knowledge
is still extremely limited in terms of what mankind is existing
in here in this Solar System; let alone what the Solar System is
doing in the galaxy, and how to understand these kinds of things.
Recognizing that that is kind of the first of the substance of
these kinds of revolutions of mankind's ability to exist.  If we
discover these higher levels of the principles organizing the
fundamental nature of the universe, we can uniquely utilize that
understanding to transform how we act.
        So, it's this intimate connection that Mr. LaRouche, I
believe, is the first to really define scientifically between
fundamental scientific discovery and the crucial rile of real
scientific method in that context, and what people call economic
progress and economic growth.  That's the integrated central
picture that we have to present and break through on; and we have
presented it in a somewhat short but moving and condensed and
illustrated way in this report.  So, Helga had specifically
requested that we draw people's attention again to this important
piece of organizing ammunition that we have; to move people in
this time of ferment, in this time of potential, to not sit back
and wait for something to happen, but to take action.  Realize
this is the future we can create.  We've just had an opening
created that gives us the potential to act; it's not here yet,
but now we have a potential that we have not had for four terms
of the Presidency.  So, I think this is critical that we get all
this on the table and move immediately with the recognition that
this is the true mission of mankind.

STEGER:  I would just like to say, on the Four Laws, which
captured this policy direction, the subtitle is that this is not
an option, but an immediate necessity.  And I think it's worth
making it clear that these are not policy options from the
standpoint of government.  These Four Laws and this orientation
that Ben just laid out, is actually a necessary and integral
functioning of any competent form of government.  Hamilton
uniquely understood that at his time; there was resistance from
the slave-based oligarchy at that time which opposed the
recognition that the economic power to unleash mankind's
advancement, to orient mankind towards this level through
manufacturing, through industry, and especially through the
scientific process.  But that was an integral part of what
government required to fulfill its obligation to the well-being
of its population and its posterity.  So, these Four Laws are a
necessity not simply because of the economic crisis; they must be
adopted by government as laws.  Our government today, to secure
for the first time as Glazyev said, for the first time, world war
is no longer a danger; and for the first time the United States
will set the leading example of a form of self-government based
on the highest scientific conception of mankind based on these
Four Laws; and have the economic power and potential to unleash
that unique characteristic of mankind.  These Four Laws are of
that quality of significance.

        OGDEN:  This is the immediate action agenda.  And as Lyndon
and Helga LaRouche said earlier, there's a lot that's undefined;
there's very inconclusive facts available right now.  But the one
thing that is clear, is that we need a full-scale mobilization
from the people who are involved in the activities of LaRouche
PAC, to immediately force the Glass-Steagall agenda.  Congress is
coming back into session at the very beginning of next week —
Monday and Tuesday.  They need to be confronted with an absolute
torrent, a flood of calls and activity from around the country to
say "There is nothing else; this is agenda point one."  And to
pull out all the stops on this entire program.  We've emphasized
we have the ability to pull together the entire country on the
Four Laws action page; this is action.larouchepac.com/fourlaws.
If you haven't signed up there yet, that's available.  There's
also a place where you can submit your reports.  All of the
material that you need is on that website, including the
Alexander Hamilton four reports and Mr. LaRouche's original
document, "LaRouche's Four Laws".  Then as Ben just showed you,
we also have this supplementary page, a digital pamphlet that we
produced; "The United States Joins the New Silk Road".  This is
also available on the LaRouche PAC website.
        So, we are in undefined and uncharted territory right now; I
think people are recognizing that at the point that the United
States, for example in the 1930s, faced similar situations, it
was only because of the immediate leadership that Franklin
Roosevelt provided with the entire program — this was the
initial Glass-Steagall, this was a reorganization of the entire
bankrupt financial system, this was immediately getting people
back to work — that is the agenda.  At that point, it was
undefined what was going to happen; it was because Franklin
Roosevelt provided the kind of leadership that he did, that
prevented what could have been a very dangerous situation from
degenerating into that.  It's our responsibility to place that
onto the agenda now.  Nobody else is going to do that.  We have a
short reprieve, a short window of reprieve from the danger of
World War III.  You have qualified leadership from around the
world tentatively reaching out and saying we are ready for an
entirely new paradigm of relations with the United States.
Russia, China, other countries around the world.  But the United
States that they want, is LaRouche's United States.
        So, thank you very much for joining us.  I'd like to
especially thank Michael and Kesha.  Kesha, thank you; and I'm
sure we will be looking to you for some more in the near future.
And I'd like to thank Ben for joining me here in the studio.
Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  If you haven't subscribed
to our YouTube channel yet, do so immediately.  And subscribe to
our weekly and daily emails as well.  Thank you and good night.