25. juli 2016 (Leder) – Interessante kommentarer på begge sider Atlanten i løbet af weekenden reflekterede den voksende sandsynlighed for en genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-princippet i den nærmeste fremtid – og som er af afgørende betydning for de transatlantiske økonomier.

Den førende finansavis på det europæiske kontinent, Handelsblatt, udgav den 22. juli en artikel skrevet af avisens Washington-korrespondent, og som udtrykte Glass-Steagalls voksende styrke: »Adskil, hvad ikke bør være sammenføjet«, hvilket vil sige, at man skal adskille almindelig, kommerciel bankvirksomhed med indskud og udlån fra spekulation i værdipapirer.

Handelsblatt tog udgangspunkt i de amerikanske politiske partiers valgplatforme, men støttede af egen kraft Glass-Steagall. Korrespondenten Frank Wiebe skrev, at debatten om genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall ikke er ny i USA, men, »siden Trump og Republikanerne tog spørgsmålet op igen, har Wall Street pludselig taget det alvorligt. Hidtil har Wall Street været overbevist om, at det, på trods af den store støtte til konceptet, sluttelig ikke ville være muligt at skaffe et politisk flertal for det. Nu er de ikke længere så sikre.«

Og i USA skrev en Clinton-demokratisk superdelegeret og mangeårig kampagne-toprådgiver, Elaine Kamarck, på sin Brookings Institute-blog, at noget hen efter Glass-Steagall måtte blive vedtaget af den nye Kongres og præsident. Hillary Clinton var modstander af Glass-Steagall, sagde Kamarck,

Men ved at gå med til at placere en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall i Demokraternes valgplatform, signalerede Hillary Clinton, at også hun ville støtte det … Der har hidtil i Kongressen ikke været megen interesse for dette. Men hvis der var noget, som etablissementet hørte højt og tydeligt i primærvalgene i 2016, så var det, at millioner af amerikanere mener, at de er ofre for Wall Street, og at den næste præsident hellere må høre efter.

Tabet af Wall Streets kontrol betyder, at stiftende redaktør af EIR, Lyndon LaRouches syv år lange kampagne, der kræver Glass-Steagall som den dør, der vil åbne for en politik med statskredit til genoplivelse af den økonomiske produktivitet i USA og Europa, har vundet voksende indflydelse.

Handelsblatts støtte har også spredt spørgsmålet til Tyskland og Europa. »Ville der være begrundelse for at genindføre Glass-Steagall?«, spørger Wiebe. Det nuværende system giver en universel bank flere muligheder, men

Hvad der er vigtigere, så ville konceptet med en bankopdeling sandsynligvis gøre det finansielle system mere sikkert. Det afgørende punkt er, at storbankerne er for store, og at en opdeling ville gøre dem mindre igen. Argumentet er gyldigt for Europa, hvor meget store banker befinder sig i relativt små stater, mere, end det gælder for USA. Deutsche Bank-forretningsmodellen, hvor en stor investeringsbank sidder på fundamentet af en ikke særlig stærk traditionel bank, diskuteres om og om igen.

Da Lyndon LaRouche påbegyndte sin kampagne for en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall i 2009, var de eneste amerikanere eller europæere, der kendte til lovens navn, de Wall Street-folk, der var lovens banemænd. LaRouches indsigt i fremtiden var af afgørende betydning for at vælge denne kamp. Han vidste, at de transatlantiske økonomiers eneste fremtid, deres eneste chance for at genoplive statskredit, produktion og produktivitet efter Hamiltons principper, gik via Glass-Steagall, der ville sætte gigantbankerne på Wall Street og i City of London i globaliseringens æra, på deres rette plads.

At afværge endnu et generelt finansielt kollaps og truslen om verdenskrig kræver, at man nu griber denne fremtid.

Foto: USA: Det var den nyvalgte præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt, der til finansoligarkiets (Wall Street og City of London) rædsel fik Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven vedtaget i 1933. På dette foto fra 1935 ses FDR underskrive og dermed sætte i kraft, Loven om Social Sikkerhed (Social Security Act).

Social Security Act var en lovgivning for social velfærd, der skabte det sociale sikkerhedssystem i USA. Selv om programmet er blevet ændret siden loven blev vedtaget, så var lovens oprindelige formål det at sørge for statshjælp til dem, der ikke kunne arbejde.   

25. juli, 2016 (Leder) – London/Wall Street-banksystemet har kurs mod et krak, og den grundlæggende årsag er den fuldstændige stagnation af den økonomiske vækst, men navnlig stagnationen i produktiviteten i de europæiske og amerikanske økonomier.

Den amerikanske finansminister Jack Lew bragte sit embede i miskredit ved det nyligt afsluttede G20-møde i Kina, da han opfordrede de andre lande til at gøre alt, hvad der stod i deres magt, for at øge deres økonomiske vækst, men sagde, at den amerikanske økonomi ikke behøver nye forholdsregler til kreditudstedelse eller investering. Den økonomiske vækst i USA er så lav, at Lew har behov for at bruge europæisk nulvækst til at puste sig selv op. Kina – hvis økonomiske fremgang og kredit har holdt verden oppe i et årti, og hvis økonomiske vækst er fire gange den amerikanske – sagde sandheden ved dette møde: »Situationen i den globale økonomi er dyster«, som Kinas handelsminister sagde.

Kina fortsætter med at skabe store mængder kombineret offentlig og privat kreditudstedelse (estimeret til $240 milliarder alene i juni) til investeringer såvel i Kina, langs med det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte og den Maritime Silkevej, samt i Afrika, Mellemøsten og Sydamerika – såvel som også til sit rumforsknings- og teknologiprogram, det mest dynamiske i verden i dag. Men de finansielle kræfter i London og på Wall Street, der gør verdensøkonomien »dyster«, skramler fortsat henimod et nyt finansielt krak med en økonomi, der ikke har nogen kapitalinvestering, er uden produktivitet og uden profit.

EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, lagde ikke i fingrene imellem i sin kommentar til Lews forsvar for en død økonomi. »At sætte den form for standard betyder i virkeligheden fallit«, sagde LaRouche.

Den politik må lukkes ned. Produktivitetsraterne for de realøkonomiske aktiviteter skal i vejret igen – ellers vil det hele eksplodere. USA og Europa vil ikke overleve. De kan overleve, hvis man gør, hvad der skal gøres. Og det er at sørge for, at videnskab bliver motoren for økonomiens reelle produktivitet.

Det er ligeledes videnskab, der vil være motor for menneskers og husstandes reelle indkomststigninger.

Studier af USA’s økonomiske historie kalder perioden 1935-1970 for »amerikansk produktivitets guldalder« på grund af den totale produktivitets vedvarende vækstfaktor – en vækst i produktiviteten, der kan tilskrives teknologiske fremskridt snarere end blot anvendelse af flere arbejdstimer og mere kapital. Væksten kulminerede under Franklin Roosevelts New Deal og de store infrastrukturprojekter med benævnelsen »De Fire Hjørner«, der voksede med 3,3 % om året. Det voksede stadig med lige under 3 % om året i 1960’erne under JFK, med det måske vigtigste infrastrukturprojekt af dem alle, nemlig NASA’s Apolloprogram, der bragte mennesket til Månen med et potentiale til at nå endnu længere ud.

IMF, den Europæiske Centralbank og USA’s Nationale Kontor for Økonomisk Forskning taler konstant om den totale produktivitets vækstfaktor og følger den nøje, alt imens de overhovedet ikke er i stand til at frembringe en sådan vækstfaktor. IMF har netop rapporteret, at, i årtierne under Bush og Obama var denne vækstfaktor i USA var 0,5 % om året, og at nu, i 2016, er den omkring nul. I »højproduktive« Tyskland, har den også været på 0,5 % om året.

Kina, som sagde sandheden ved G20 om den globale økonomis »dystre tilstand«, har haft en vækstfaktor i den totale produktivitet på 3,1 % om året siden 2004, ifølge den seneste undersøgelse, der er foretaget ved Harvard. Det er, hvad den Nye Silkevej og det kinesiske måneprogram skaber.

LaRouche har siden 2013 udtrykt dette behov som »de fire love«: Genindfør Glass/Steagall-bankregulering (begge de politiske partier er nu, på papiret, enige med ham). Skab statslige institutioner til udstedelse af ny kredit, der er rettet mod vækst i produktiviteten. Invester i de mest højteknologiske infrastrukturprojekter, med rumforskning i spidsen. Fokusér på at skabe gennembrud i videnskabens fremskudte grænse, som er videnskab og teknologi inden for termonuklear fusion, inklusive fusionskraft og fissions/fusions-fremdrift til rejser i rummet.

»I modsat fald vil det hele eksplodere. USA og Europa vil ikke overleve.«

Kinas forpligtende engagement mht. at forøge hele befolkningens arbejdskrafts produktive evne, som eksemplificeres i bygningen af De Tre Slugters dæmning, som ses afbildet her, har resulteret i en vækstrate fire gange så stor, som den aktuelle vækstrate i USA.

Det er derfor bydende nødvendigt og på høje tid at tage imod det tilbud, som den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin kom med under FN’s Generalforsamling i 2015, og i hvilket tilbud han satte fokus på de fatale konsekvenser af Vestens politik med at uddanne angivelige »moderate« oprørere til at bekæmpe sekulære regeringer i Mellemøsten, som dernæst i stimer hoppede af til ISIS. Helga Zepp-LaRouche fortsætter dernæst med at citere fra Putins tale, hvor han opfordrer til samarbejde mellem alle lande for at bekæmpe dette onde og nævner anti-Hitler-koalitionen under Anden Verdenskrig og understreger behovet for, at muslimske lande spiller en nøglerolle i en sådan koalition, i betragtning af disse ekstremisters korrumpering af deres religion, islam.

23. juli 2016 – Helga Zepp-LaRouche, forkvinde for det tyske parti Borgerrettighedsbevægelsen Solidaritet (Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität, BüSo) og stifter af Schiller Instituttet, skrev en artikel om den strategiske krise og hvad det vil kræve at løse den. Det følgende er en oversættelse af afsnittet om terrorisme, i kølvandet på den dødbringende skudepisode i München den 22. juli.

Hele Helgas tyske artikel kan læses på BüSos webside: http://www.bueso.de/node/8688.

Tyskland blev kastet ud i en choktilstand efter massakren i et indkøbscenter i München, med en 18-årig tysk-iraner som gerningsmand, og som fandt sted kun få dage efter, at en 17-årig afghansk flygtning med en økse angreb og sårede passagerer på et tog i byen Würzburg. Alt imens gerningsmændenes baggrund og motiver stadig er ved at blive undersøgt, så understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i en artikel den 23. juli, at terrorisme, uanset i hvilken form, er blevet en hovedtrussel for hele menneskeheden.

CSU-parlamentsmedlem Hans-Peter Uhl har ret, skrev hun, i at kræve forbedrede forebyggende forholdsregler og øget samarbejdet mellem relevante myndigheder, både nationalt og i udlandet, for at bekæmpe terrorisme. Men, i betragtning af den radikale islams udvikling og måde at operere på, så indebærer dette selvfølgelig samarbejde med Rusland, »det offer, der har den største ekspertise i de tjetjenske netværk og disses forbindelse til Sektor Højre i Ukraine og til ISIS, og som beviseligt, gennem sine militære interventioner i Syrien, er det eneste land, der har haft held til at trænge ISIS’ magt tilbage.«

Det er derfor bydende nødvendigt og på høje tid at tage imod det tilbud, som den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin kom med under FN’s Generalforsamling i 2015, og i hvilket tilbud han satte fokus på de fatale konsekvenser af Vestens politik med at uddanne angivelige »moderate« oprørere til at bekæmpe sekulære regeringer i Mellemøsten, som dernæst i stimer hoppede af til ISIS. Helga Zepp-LaRouche fortsætter dernæst med at citere fra Putins tale, hvor han opfordrer til samarbejde mellem alle lande for at bekæmpe dette onde og nævner anti-Hitler-koalitionen under Anden Verdenskrig og understreger behovet for, at muslimske lande spiller en nøglerolle i en sådan koalition, i betragtning af disse ekstremisters korrumpering af deres religion, islam.

»Siden Chilcot-undersøgelsesrapporten i Storbritannien satte fokus på, hvordan Tony Blair havde iscenesat aggressionskrigen i Irak på baggrund af overlagte løgne«, bemærker Zepp-LaRouche, »og efter afsløringen af de 28 sider af den officielle Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om angrebene 11. september [2001] ikke efterlod nogen tvivl om Saudi-Arabiens rolle i finansieringen af terrorisme, vil en politik med ’mere af det samme’ være det samme som at være medskyldig i alle nye terrorangreb.

»De tyske myndigheder kan ikke længere skjule sig bag de sædvanlige sociologiske sofismer. Troværdigheden hos hr. Uhl og indenrigsminister Thomas de Mazière, hos medlemmerne af Forbundsdagens komité for interne anliggender og selvfølgelig, hos kansler Angela Merkel, vil afhænge af, om de indleder en officiel undersøgelse for så hurtigt som muligt at kaste lys over disse to dokumenters – Chilcot-rapportens og de 28 siders – implikationer og drage konsekvenserne af dem.

»Det er under alle omstændigheder uacceptabelt at bruge angrebene i Würzburg og München som en anledning til at opbygge en politistat sådan, som Erdogan er i færd med, og at samarbejde med netop de lande, hvis rolle er blevet belyst i Chilcot-rapporten og de 28 sider.«   

23. juli 2016 – En artikel om den italienske bankkrise i det tyske Die Welt i dag vil med sikkerhed skabe bølger i Italien, mest pga. artiklens provokerende overskrift: »Italien er på kursen til en ’failed state’ (med ordene ’failed state’ på engelsk; ’statsbankerot’). Den provokerende overskrift bakkes op af noget, man høfligt kunne karakterisere som en vurdering på baggrund af »etniske fordomme« af årsagen til Italiens problemer: »korruption, mafia, sort økonomi, skatteunddragelse, overdreven social velfærd og statsstøtte, dovent bureaukrati og nepotisme«.

Og dog indrømmer Die Welt selv, at Italiens problemer begyndte med euroen (man burde hellere sige: med »konvergens-politikken« efter 1989). Dette demonstreres tydeligt gennem en medfølgende grafisk fremstilling over industriproduktion, der begynder at stagnere efter 1992 og kollapser i 2008, sammenfaldende med kollapset i verdenshandelen. En anden grafik viser kollapset i indkomst pr. person efter 2011, men den siger ikke dette i det år, hvor Monti-regeringen blev indsat for at uddele mere af den forkerte medicin.

Forfatterne rapporterer imidlertid, at Berlin ikke vil behandle Italien ligesom Portugal blev behandlet. Den tyske finansminister Wolfgang Schäuble ved, at »man ikke kan tvinge et stort land som Italien til at indføre ændringer gennem ydmygelse«. Og hvis Italien går ned, går også euroen ned. Ergo må premierminister Matteo Renzi støttes. Han gør det rette job (læs: strukturreformer), men han behøver tid til, at disse reformer virker. Hvis han tvinges til at gennemføre en bail-in (dvs., at de truede banker eksproprierer visse typer af indeståender/værdipapirer i banken, -red.) efter den forestående stresstest af bankerne, vil han tabe den besluttede folkeafstemning i oktober.

Den italienske bankkrises anden vinkel er den, at det ikke kun er italienske familier, der ejer bankobligationer, men også EU-banker og -fonde. »Deutsche Banks og Black Rocks krav om en ny bailout (statslig bankredning, -red.) med skatteborgernes penge er et billigt forsøg på at undgå omkostninger for dem selv«, siger et parlamentsmedlem fra partiet De Grønne.

Desuden er den tyske regering vred over Deutsche Banks cheføkonom, David Folkerts-Landaus krav om en massiv bailout af europæiske banker – inklusive Deutsche Bank. De kalder dette for »et missil uden styring«, der kunne destabilisere banksystemet. Vreden forøges derved, at Renzi på opportunistisk vis har viftet med Deutsche Banks derivat-byrde som et rødt flag. »Det er ikke tilfældet, at denne advarsel fra Renzi til den tyske regering kan ignoreres i Berlin«, skriver de.

Berlin og ECB forventer således, at en kombination af en indsats for Italiens dårlige banker (en fond til 5-6 milliard euro ved navn Giasone) samt en forhandlet løsning med EU-kommissionen om at lette reglerne for bail-in, vil virke. »Man vil ikke få negative ting om Italien at høre fra vores side«, siger kilder i regeringskredse i Berlin. »Italienerne har allerede gjort en masse gode ting. Renzi er en god premierminister og bør beholde jobbet.«

Rapporten i Die Welt bekræftedes af en Bloomberg-artikel, der citerede tre tyske regeringsfolk, der bad om anonymitet, og som sagde, at Merkel ønsker at undgå enhver ustabilitet i Italien og derfor »er parat til at støtte en fleksibel tolkning af EU-reglerne for at hjælpe ham … som kunne betyde at acceptere en eller anden form for kompensation fra den italienske regering til investorer i de kommercielle banker, for at begrænse den negative politiske konsekvens« af en bail-in.

Briefet om dette, var Lyndon LaRouches kommentar den, at, ja, Italien er på vej til en statsbankerot, men »pointen er: Hvordan kan man annullere den tendens, der er i Italien i øjeblikket, og som er at gå i denne fælde? Man har et problem med den britiske indflydelse på det italienske system.«

Om den tyske støtte til Renzis politik sagde LaRouche: »Er de idioter?« Man kan løse problemet »på en anden måde«, forklarede LaRouche. »Man kan flankere det. Man kan sige, vi har denne vidunderlige ting, vi gennemfører dette her, man lægger hele denne såkaldte italienske affære til side, og man har alting samlet her.«

»Det, man virkelig har, er muligheden for en forbindelse mellem den tyske økonomi og andre dele af Europas økonomi. Og Putin er nøglen til dette. Putin må opnå samarbejde med nogle personer internt i det tyske system.«

At komme af med euroen »er en mulighed, men man må have færdighederne og intellektet til at få sat den slags ting i gang. For Italien er ikke det eneste land, der er bankerot. Jeg mener, at Putin kunne være den faktor, som, på den ene eller anden måde, vil forandre tingene. For Putin har gang i en operation, der er meget vigtig, og den er korrekt. Hvis man kan få det tyske system ind i et samarbejde med Putin på en eller anden måde, der vil virke. Det står lige på vippen. Og hvis man bliver ’ladyen’ (formentlig: den britiske Dronning, dvs. monarkiet, -red.) kvit, har man måske mulighed for at gøre noget ved det.«

22. juli 2016 – ECB’s præsident, Mario Draghi, sagde under ECB’s pressekonference i går, at en »statslig stop-mekanisme« til banker, der er i vanskeligheder, er mulig »under ekstraordinære omstændigheder, og når markedet for NPL (Non-performing loans; uerholdelige fordringer) er under pres«. En statslig stop-mekanisme »bør imidlertid aftales med EU-kommissionen«.

Draghi understregede flere gange under pressekonferencen, at EU-kommissionen er den besluttende myndighed, en implicit polemik mod den tyske regering, der ønsker at fjerne magt fra Kommissionen. Med hensyn til bankopløsninger, »har vi regler på plads i BRRD [Direktivet for Genrejsning og Opløsning af Banker], og de indeholder enhver fleksibilitet. Men myndigheden og ansvaret ligger hos kommissionen«.

Han blev også spurgt om Bundesbanks forslag om at forlade Trojkaen og give mere magt til ESM [Den Europæiske Stabiliserings-Mekanisme]. Draghi sagde, at, hertil krævedes der en ændring af EU’s love.

QE (Kvantitativ Lempelse) virker, sagde Draghi, inflationen gik fra -0,1 % til +0,1 %. Og banker er langt mere solvente end i 2009.

Draghi blev spurgt, er det sandt, at din søn handler med obligationer i London, og hvis ja, er dette så ikke en interessekonflikt? Han svarede: »Jeg fik stillet dette spørgsmål for fem år siden, i starten af mit mandat, og mit svar lød: han handler ikke med obligationer i London, men han er handler i London.«

22. juli 2016 – Ifølge Manager Magazine i denne uge, diskuterer man nu internt i Deutsche Bank en strategi for et skifte i bankpolitik, inklusive bankopdeling, under kodenavnet ’Projekt Jade’. Denne nye udvikling finder sted midt i en diskussion om en truende insolvens af Deutsche Bank, og hvordan man skal håndtere det, med indflydelse fra Lyndon LaRouches forslag om at vende tilbage til Alfred Herrhausens bankpolitik. Den medieopmærksomhed, som Projekt Jade får, er især udløst af vurderinger, der siger, at afdelingen Postbank under Deutsche Bank, der var blevet udset til frasalg fra og med 2015, nu er usælgelig.

Ifølge de lækkede informationer stiller man nu internt spørgsmålstegn ved ideen om at holde fast ved den universelle bankmodel, der havde omfattet salget af Postbank-afdelingen. Ifølge magasinet diskuterer embedsmænd fra brancherne Finans, Risiko og Regulering, under hvilke betingelser, banken ville blive splittet op i to dele, en kapitalmarkedsdel, og en privatselskabsdel. Deutsche Bank har afvist at kommentere denne information.

EIR undersøger i øjeblikket rapporten for at finde ud af, hvor langt denne foreslåede opdeling går. En tysk kilde, der i de seneste år har fulgt og afsløret Deutsche Banks kriminelle finansaktiviteter, kom med den kommentar, at rapporten er »spændende«.    

Uddrag af LPAC Fredags-webcast, 22. juli 2016:

Ben Deniston: … for det er, hvad det drejer sig om: Hvordan skaber man fremtiden? Vi har sagt, at, da vi første gang lancerede dette (LaRouche-planen for redning af Deutsche Bank, -red.), så var der stor folkelig vrede over det. »Hvorfor prøver I at forsvare bankerne? Til helvede med bankerne! Lad hele skidtet brase sammen!« Men vi vil ikke have, at det hele skal brase sammen. Vi ønsker ikke en tilbagevenden til det 14. århundredes Mørke Tidsalder. Vi har brug for forstandigt, kvalificeret lederskab; det er, hvad vi diskuterer her, mht., hvordan vi kommer ud af den aktuelle situation og ind i en stabil position, som Franklin Roosevelt gjorde. Hvordan reflekterer og genskaber vi atter denne form for organiseringsproces, i dag, i en situation, der, for at sige det ligeud, er langt værre.

Det, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har påpeget mht. situationen omkring Deutsche Bank, mener jeg, er nøglen og angiver en model, og udgør en afgørende og nødvendig indgriben, men også en model for den form for reorganisering, som vi har behov for. Systemet er bankerot; vi har brug for et fornuftigt lederskab, der kommer ind og siger, »Lad os reorganisere det her. Lad os sørge for, at institutionerne fungerer, sådan, som Franklin Roosevelt gjorde. Lad os finde ud af, hvilke af disse forlorne, fiktive værdipapirer, vi må skubbe til side og glemme alt om; hele denne sindssyge derivatboble.« Men lad os bruge institutionerne sådan, som de var udtænkt at skulle bruges; sådan, som Herrhausen forstod det. En af de sidste bankierer, hvis ikke den sidste, på højt niveau, der rent faktisk forstod dette. [Alexander] Hamilton forstod det, Franklin Roosevelt forstod, at vi behøver disse institutioner til at muliggøre fysisk, økonomisk vækst; til forøgelse af samfundets produktive evne; til forøgelse af arbejdskraftens produktive evne. Det er absolut nødvendigt, at vi reorganiserer det finansielle system således, at det kan gøre dette, og at vi ikke lader det brase sammen i et kaotisk, katastrofalt sammenbrud; hvilket er den trussel, der nu er overhængende.

Jeg mener, at vi må se dette som en del af et samlet perspektiv, for vi diskuterer også alle disse udbrud, der finder sted mht. disse aggressionskrige og terrorisme. Det er i realiteten en del af denne samme sammenbrudsproces. Da Lyndon LaRouche i 2000 kom med den unikke udtalelse, at vi, med Bushregeringens overtagelse af præsidentskabet, havde kurs mod en ’Branden i Reichstag’-begivenhed, og som blev til virkelighed gennem 11. september [angrebet på World Trade Center i New York i 2001], så var ét af hovedspørgsmålene hans vurdering af, at det finansielle system ville bryde sammen. Dette er ikke separate spørgsmål, men del af ét og samme spørgsmål. Det, vi nu ser, som en potentiel eliminering af dette anglo-saudiske, geopolitiske apparat til irregulær krigsterrorisme, er en del af den samme ting, som at gen-overtage det transatlantiske finansielle system og at gen-orientere det mod en sand patriotisk kurs, i ånden fra Hamilton og Franklin Roosevelt. Vi kan, som vi også fremlagde det ved vores seneste Berlinkonference, alliere os med Kina og med Rusland, i skabelsen af dette win-win-perspektiv; dette samarbejdsparadigme. Men sammenfaldet af disse spørgsmål er afgørende; for det drejer sig ikke om terror her og finanssystemet der, om dette eller hint spørgsmål. Det drejer sig om, hvordan vi anskuer situationen som en helhed og griber ind for at tage de nødvendige skridt til at komme ud af situationen.

Se/hør hele webcastet, med engelsk udskrift, her (anbefales)

Titelbillede: Fragment af vægmalerierne i Coit Tower i San Francisco, opført 1933; vægmalerierne udførtes under regi af Projektet for Offentlige Arbejder, det første program for arbejde til kunstnere under Franklin D. Roosevelts statslige beskæftigelsesprogrammer under hans New Deal.  

For fire uger siden afholdt Schiller Instituttets en historisk konference i Berlin. Læs Helga Zepp-LaRouches åbningstale ved denne internationale konference, med deltagere fra mange lande og alle verdens kontinenter. Helga indledte denne tale med en meget præcis erklæring: nemlig, at princippet om erinyerne nu dominerer historien. Denne konference fandt sted umiddelbart i hælene på Brexit-valget. Siden denne Brexit-afstemning fandt sted, har historien bevæget sig i et tempo, en rytme, der i stadigt hurtigere tempo har haft kurs mod det transatlantiske systems totale sammenbrud. Og ikke kun det transatlantiske finanssystem, selv om det udgør en afgørende del af det; men også det transatlantiske politiske system og samfundssystem.  

Engelsk udskrift:

THE THING THAT IS REQUIRED IS FOR DECISIVE ACTION
TO BE TAKEN IN THE UNITED STATES RIGHT NOW!
INTERNATIONAL LAROUCHEPAC WEBCAST July 22, 2016
        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Evening! It's July 22nd, 2106. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you're watching our weekly broadcast here
on Friday evenings from LaRouchePAC.com. I'm joined in the studio
by Ben Deniston, from the LaRouche PAC science team; and then I'm
joined via video by two members of the LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee. We have Diane Sare, joining us from New York City; and
we have Michael Steger, normally from San Francisco, California,
but joining us today from Seattle, Washington, where he's
preparing for a major conference which is coming up this weekend.
We can discuss that further.
        We all had a discussion a little bit earlier today which was
informed by the discussion we had with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche
yesterday. I think one thing that's very clear, is that there's
no other way to describe this current period of history, than the
one that Helga LaRouche has termed it, the Erinyes Principle. The
Erinyes have begun their dreadful dance.
        Four weeks ago was the historic conference sponsored by the
Schiller Institute in Berlin. Go back and look at the keynote
speech with which Mrs. LaRouche opened that entire conference —
an international conference; participants from multiple
countries, multiple continents, all over the world. Helga began
that speech with a very prescient statement: that the Erinyes
Principle is what is now dominating history. That conference
happened right on the heels of the Brexit vote. Since that Brexit
vote happened — which was a shock to everybody; nobody saw this
coming — history has taken on a tempo, a rhythm, which has moved
increasingly rapidly since that time, very clearly in the
direction of a total breakdown of the trans-Atlantic system. Not
just the trans-Atlantic financial system, although that's a major
part of it, but the trans-Atlantic political system, and the
trans-Atlantic social system.
        What Helga Zepp-LaRouche termed the Erinyes Principle —
which is a reference to a very beautiful but very chilling poem,
[The Cranes of Ibykus], by Friedrich Schiller, is also what you
can term the Nemesis Principle. If you look over the last four
weeks, I think that Nemesis is now the principle which is now
dominating the course of history: the Chilcot Report has been
released — an indictment of Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Dick
Cheney for "aggressive war", a real crime under international
law; the 28 pages of the original Joint Congressional
Investigation into 9/11 have been released after years of a
struggle to force their release. Everything that the 28 pages
say is an indictment of this entire Anglo-Saudi-Bush-Cheney-Blair system.
        I think it's worth remembering that the Chilcot Report and
the 28 pages are addressing exactly the same moment in history,
when Bush and Cheney and Tony Blair were lying about weapons of
mass destruction, to so-called "justify" an aggressive war in
Iraq. It's the same time they were suppressing the truth about
their friend, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, channeling tens of
thousands of dollars into a support apparatus made up of Saudi
Intelligence agents inside the United States, to wage the worst
terrorist attack that has ever occurred on U.S. soil.
        Also, the HSBC Report. Right on the heels of the release of
this report by the House Financial Services Committee, top HSBC
executives have been arrested and thrown in jail in New York
City. And you have the fact that Glass-Steagall — which will
bring down the entire Wall Street phony money apparatus — has
now made its way into both of the major party platforms.
        If you look at the directionality of the complete collapse
of this trans-Atlantic system as it is conceived of today, this
is not something which can be controlled by those who sowed the
seeds of this collapse. It's not something that's being
controlled by George Bush, or Barack Obama, or Tony Blair. It is
coming down on their heads as well. I think, maybe, another term
that you can conceive of the Nemesis Principle, is the colloquial
American proverb, "They reap what they sow." That is what is
coming to bear right now. The issue is: they will bring down the
entire system along with them.
        The critical intervention of the recent two weeks by Mr. and
Mrs. LaRouche, to act on the Herrhausen Principle, [is] yet one
more expression of Nemesis or the Erinyes, the still un-solved
assassination of [former Deutsche Bank Chairman Alfred]
Herrhausen: to invoke that principle and to say: We're going to
use the leverage of an intervention with Deutsche Bank as the
vector, to completely reorganize this entire financial system
back towards the productive powers of labor, the identity of
human kind as a creative species, and to use the Hamiltonian
principles of credit as Herrhausen was explicitly discussing them
at the time that he was assassinated; and to transform —
axiomatically — the entire foundations of this collapsing
trans-Atlantic system, to bring the United States, to bring
continental Europe into the New Paradigm that's being expressed
by the win-win New Silk Road program of China, of Russia; and to
act on the solutions that were put on the table at that historic
and very prescient conference in Berlin four weeks ago.
        With the release of the 28 pages, with the political
hegemony now that Glass-Steagall has, with both party platforms
now containing this officially, and the vindication of the fact
that Mr. LaRouche was absolutely right in his indictment of
Blair, Bush, and Cheney at the time, as war criminals, with the
release of this Chicot Report, the authority of the LaRouche
movement and the hegemony of our leadership could not be any more
clear, and I think now is the time, as perhaps, agents of the
Erinyes Principle, to say, "Now the time has come for a complete
reorganization of this system." And to use the fact that the
leadership was very clearly expressed at this conference four
weeks ago, to say, "The solution is very easy. It could occur
overnight. The only thing that is required is the decisive
political action here in the United States, to have a clean break
with the policies of the last 15 years, of the
Bush-Cheney-Obama-Blair regime." And to say, "This is no more.
This is going to be explicitly and publically denounced for what
it is, and we are now going to adopt an entirely new axiomatic
set of principles in order to bring the trans-Atlantic world into
this New Paradigm."
        This is very clearly made, I think, in the lead statement
that is on the website for today at LaRouchePAC.com: "Their Day
Has Come, — And Gone!" Diane, you recorded a statement yesterday
during your big rally at Columbus Circle in Manhattan, which I
think also directly gets at this point — the petition that you
have written that's being circulated. Where do we go from here?
What are the next steps, following the release of the 28 pages?
And also this critical intervention around the reorganization of
Deutsche Bank.
        I'd like to say that, just to start off the discussion.

DIANE SARE: We're at a really amazing moment. I think it's
important for Americans in particular to reflect. This is a very
hard time for Americans, because our nation is at the moment on
the wrong side. We have a killer, still, for President. We have
not yet brought all these characters to justice — Bush, Cheney,
Obama, and some of the others — although we're definitely moving
in the right direction with the 28 pages released, and with
Glass-Steagall being in both party's platform, regardless of
where the candidates may stand on it.
        I was just reflecting on something Mr. LaRouche was
describing many years ago, about a moment of change, a
revolution, when things don't exactly go as expected. You turn
the light switch, and the water starts running; or, you think
you're turning on the faucet and the heat comes on. If you're
thinking about what's happened in the last weeks, for example,
the Brexit vote, which came as a great shock to many people, and
many other people were very cynical, who would say, "Well, if
they can control the vote on everything, how come they couldn't
control the vote on this?" Because the institutions themselves
are so deeply divided and in such an uproar. Or, "Why couldn't
they keep the lid on the 28 pages any longer?" Or, "Why did the
truth come out about Tony Blair?"
        Or, take events like this attempted coup in Turkey, where
every kind of wild conspiracy theory was being bandied around.
LaRouche has pointed to Putin and Putin's role, who really seems
to have had a very level head through all of this.
        I think the way to remain sane, and to also ensure that one
is taking a correct course of action, is to really think about
the future. Mr. LaRouche had said this to us on the Policy
Committee a couple of weeks ago, that it's time for Americans to
assemble themselves, and re-consider their destiny. Perhaps we're
not going to understand every detail of why certain things are
occurring, or what's behind everything that occurs in the moment,
but it is a time when we should consider where we really want our
nation to go. What was the intent of the founding fathers of this
republic? What was the intent of Alexander Hamilton? What are we
prepared to commit, to ensure that our nation actually gets off
of a trajectory of self-destruction, and perhaps annihilation of
the planet, and moves in a direction which would be in keeping
with what Alexander Hamilton or John Quincy Adams or President
Kennedy would have intended?
        I think this is very personal. I also think it's very
important, because you had another one of these mass shootings
today in Munich, Germany. People tend to get unnerved, or they
say things that are criminally insane, like "This is the new
normal. We just have to get used to it, and expect that any time
you go to a public place, someone might have a bomb or start
shooting people." I don't think that's really how mankind should
live.
        The conception of the future, and the conception of a
certain faith that there's a principle of Justice in the Universe
— these things are going to be absolutely key for us to navigate
this period and to successfully maneuver ourselves into the New
Paradigm which is emerging so dramatically in China and in the
nations China's collaborating with.

        MICHAEL STEGER: In that context, both the 28 pages and the
Glass-Steagall fight that we've been waging out, in some cases
over a decade, really in both cases a mobilization of the
political process in the United States, it reminds me of a
similar intervention we made in 2004-5, specifically on the
question of Franklin Roosevelt's legacy. What you see in this
process, both with the Glass-Steagall and the 28 pages, is a
resurgence of what is the last truly defined sense of higher
justice within the United States from a government, which really
was comprehensive, from Franklin Roosevelt's standpoint. It was
not just the foreign concerns of security or the financial
crisis; it was clearly the actual well-being and
future-orientation of the population as a whole.
        With both these campaigns that we have waged, you now see a
coalesced grouping of people who don't necessarily associate
themselves with the higher mission at stake, but yet are clearly
participants in that higher mission: if this nation and the
western civilization can actually find itself capable of joining
in the development and collaboration of Eurasia.
        I think that's kind of a very clear point. That's something
that's coalesced. There is a momentum, there is a morale of
potential victory. This "perp-walk" of this HSBC executive: now
here's a London banker, British subject, grabbed by the police at
the gate of trans-Atlantic flight, and marched into a Brooklyn
jail cell for the evening. I hope we have some pictures of that,
because the American people should get a sense of what this was.
        There's a certain retribution that should be handed down,
but I think most importantly — and what Franklin Roosevelt
really truly grasped, and perhaps both John and Robert Kennedy
had a sense of, as they became leading figures — was this future
orientation over the society. What this conference made very
clear, is that [we’re] moving now into a complete transformative
moment in history, [where] the capability and potentials for
mankind's development are more clear than ever. This process, the
discussion we're leading, is essential, both in the United States
with those campaigns, but also internationally.

        BENJAMIN DENISTON: Well, I think this puts the whole
Deutsche Bank flank that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have defined, in
its proper and important context, because that is the issue: How
do you create the future? We've said that when this was first
launched, there was a lot of populist rage against it.  "Why are
you trying to defend the banks?  Screw the banks!  Let it all
come down."  We don't want to let it all come down.  We don't
want a return of the 14th Century Dark Age.  We need sane,
qualified leadership; and I think that what we're discussing
here, in terms of how do we move out of the present situation
into a stable position as Franklin Roosevelt did.  How do we
mirror and recreate that type of an organization process again
now, in a far worse situation, quite frankly.
        What Lyndon and Helga Zepp LaRouche have pointed to around
the Deutsche Bank situation, I think is key and indicative as a
model, but a critical and necessary intervention, but also a
model for the type of reorganization we need.  The system is
bankrupt; you need sane leadership to come in to say, "Let's
reorganize this thing.  Let's keep the institutions functioning,
as Franklin Roosevelt did.  Let's figure out what of these phony
fictitious assets need to be set aside and forgotten about; this
entire insane derivatives bubble."  But let's use the
institutions as they were created to be used; as Herrhausen
understood.  One of the last, if not the last, high-level banker
who actually understood that.  Hamilton understood it; Franklin
Roosevelt understood that we need these institutions to
facilitate physical economic growth; increases in the productive
capabilities of society, increases in the productive powers of
labor.  It's absolutely necessary that we reorganize the
financial system to be able to do this, and not let it come down
in some chaotic, catastrophic breakdown; which is the threat
looming now.
        I think this needs to be seen as part of a unified
perspective, because we're also discussing all these break-outs
around the issue of these wars of aggression, the terrorism.
Really this is part of the same breakdown process.  When Lyndon
LaRouche {uniquely} said in 2000 that we're heading towards a
Reichstag Fire event with the incoming Bush administration,
forecasting what became 9/11; one of the major issues in his
assessment was the breakdown of the financial system.  These are
not separate issues, these are part of one and the same issue.
What we're seeing now as the potential to really eliminate this
Anglo-Saudi geopolitical irregular warfare terrorism apparatus,
is part of the same thing as retaking over the financial system
of the trans-Atlantic system and re-orienting it to a true
Hamiltonian, Franklin Roosevelt, patriotic orientation.  So, we
can actually ally, what was presented at this Berlin conference,
ally with China, with Russia, in the creation of this win-win
perspective; this collaborative paradigm.  But the convergence of
these issues, I think is critical; because this is not terrorism
here and financial system there, this issue, that issue.  It is
how do we look at the situation as a totality and intervene to
take the necessary steps to move out of the situation.

OGDEN:  Absolutely.  One of the things Viktor Ivanov, who was the
anti-narcotics czar of Russia, said very clearly [was] if you
want to shut down drugs and terrorism, you need to have a global
Glass-Steagall.  What Glass-Steagall is going after is exactly
what HSBC has been engaged in for decades.  LaRouche knew that
originally when he wrote {Dope, Inc.}; saying don't give these
guys a charter in the United States.  Don't let them operate in
the United States; this is a drug and terror money-laundering
bank.  That's exactly what their DNA is.  I think realizing that
these are not all separate issues, but these are one and the
same: what the Chilcot Report is implying; what the 28 pages are
just the tip of the iceberg about; what Glass-Steagall is
intended to shut down.  This {is} the failed system, and you need
to have then a solution that you replace it with.  Diane, that's
what I think was so important about — I mean, you just said
this.  The reaction which the American people could easily fall
into in the present circumstance, would be mass demoralization;
fear of random acts of terror, just sheer emotional exhaustion
because of the struggle to survive on a daily basis economically,
the heroin epidemic that is touching so many families.  Just
disbelief about the place that we've come to as a nation in terms
of political candidates and the political process.

        DENISTON:  I don't know if they deserve that term, even.

        OGDEN:  You could face widespread demoralization.  On the
other hand, you need to have leadership; and that leadership
includes a certain faith in humanity, faith in mankind and faith
in a higher principle of natural law.  This was very much what
was probably on Friedrich Schiller's mind when he wrote that
original "Cranes of Ibykus" poem; realizing that you had a
demoralized population in France which failed in the face of a
great opportunity of that moment.  This was the circumstances in
which Helga LaRouche has raised this continually over the years.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989; the great opportunity
that was presented there.  The great opportunity that we have in
front of us now.  So, that element of a faith or a sense of
higher justice absolutely is the critical element.  Why do we
have these beautiful concerts that accompany every great
international conference that the LaRouche Movement sponsors
around the world?  The Berlin conference ended with an absolutely
unbelievable Classical music concert which included a dialogue of
great cultures; from China, from Russia, from Europe.  We're
building toward a series of very significant concerts in New York
City.  All of those are critical to have a taste of the beauty of
what the New Paradigm represents, in order to re-moralize a
people to have a sense of that faith in the goodness of mankind.

        SARE:  Well, not exactly on the music question, but I think
it's also really important to be concrete with people; because
Americans — like many people in the West — have gotten very
brainwashed about the idea of money.  They think that money per
se has an intrinsic value.  And when you talk about Deutsche
Bank, for example, or you talk about what it would look like to
reinstate Glass-Steagall here, because what we're saying is
emphatically that we don't have a scheme to bail out the
derivatives obligations of Deutsche Bank; that's not what we're
talking about.  We're talking about capital, so the bank is put
in a position to be able to issue credit to be stable and to
create an opportunity for the future; for collaboration with
Russia and China, for great projects and infrastructure and
science, and to be an institution that people have faith in.
Similarly here, if we were to reinstate Glass-Steagall, the first
thing that you would discover is that everything that people
thought had so much value with all this money, really didn't
amount to anything.  What people might think they have in their
pensions, or the stock market, would all be greatly diminished.
That's why the immediate next step is this question of national
banking and Hamiltonian credit; because what you would have to
do, is be able to put credit into those things that would
generate growth, that would actually generate an increase in
productivity of the population.
        So, you take something like the legacy of Krafft-Ehricke,
the question of the space program — man's mission in space; we
said we actually have to have a banking system that supports us
figuring out whether it's feasible in the not-too-distant future
to have a manned mission to Mars, or something else.  What would
be involved in that?  And what you would discover is, unless you
did something about the transportation grid in the United States,
there's no way you could get the bits and pieces and dialogue
between the scientists to come together.  In other words, it
would force an up-shifting of the entire means of society's
functioning.
        If we wanted to develop fusion rockets — we took a trip
here to the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab; and they're on the
PSE&G power grid like all of the residential power.  But when
they're conducting an experiment, I think they by themselves are
using about as much electricity as the entire rest of the state
combined.  It's a massive amount of power to do these things.
So, if we were actually try and do this with our power grid right
now, we'd just blow out the grid.  We just would not have the
electricity to continue to let people have air conditioning or
run their blow dryer or their dishwasher, and figure out how
we're going to launch advanced technology to outer space.
        So, what you're talking about very concretely, are the means
by which you increase the productivity of the population.  And
that in turn inspires a real quality of optimism, because when
one knows that you're going to produce, or you're going to create
something that will live on after you, or you're discovering a
principle which will mean something to future generations, then
you have a real sense of the value in your having lived.  And
today, I think people have been very much robbed of that; in
fact, in a sense — and probably this is why there are so many
suicides — what people see is that in the United States, the
standard of living is collapsing, the ability of people to be
productive is collapsing.  So, you say the sum total of my
existence is that we're worse off than we were before; and that
idea frankly is Satanic.  It's anti-human.  So, we have to
reverse it.
        I think we can; I think we're at a moment where we can.  I
think part of the reason we're getting a phenomenal response on
the music, with people joining the chorus.  People joining the
chorus recently, there is absolutely no standard type of person
who is joining the chorus.  It is people who have never sung in
their life, who cannot read music, who cannot match pitch even;
to people who have professional training, conservatory training.
And they all come together and have a certain quality of
inspiration to work on this mission.  So, I think this is what we
actually can do.  And what I was saying in the statement
yesterday is that my sense — especially after being out at
Columbus Circle in Manhattan — is somehow people are missing
this.  They've become so pessimistic that they're not actually
seeing the enormous potential that exists.  We've all heard the
fable about the goldfish that's swimming in this little teensy
bowl.  You get rid of the bowl, and you put the goldfish in the
ocean; and the goldfish keeps swimming around in this little tiny
circle.  In a sense, a lot of our friends in the American
population are behaving as if they're stuck in this little teensy
world; when the reality of that world has shattered and there's
something much bigger that we can be a part of.  There are
certain concrete steps that have to be taken, but with proper
leadership we are in a position to actually do them.

        OGDEN:  I just wanted to respond to one thing that you
brought up right in the beginning there about how there needs to
be a concrete approach to changing people's concept of economics.
This is absolutely the Franklin Roosevelt element, but he was
explicit; he said, "No longer is it the effervescent pursuit of
profits, but it's the thrill of creative effort."  The paradigm
shift between what came before Roosevelt and what he ushered in
on the day of his inauguration, was driven by that principle; the
Hamiltonian principle.  Driven by the idea that there's a concept
of the productive powers of the human species which is a
completely different measurement than what you think of when you
talk about money.  This gets at the root of what we've been
discussing over the last few weeks with this Herrhausen legacy.
It's not coincidental that at the same time that Mr. LaRouche was
making his 1988 speech at the Kempinski Hotel, forecasting the
collapse of the Soviet Union and the reuniting of Germany; which
frankly came as as much of a surprise as the Brexit vote.  Who
ever thought that Europe would just be completely disintegrated
the day before that happened?  Even as the vote tallies were
coming in, it was the same kind of "nobody saw it coming" moment.
        But it's not a coincidence that at the same time that was
occurring, you had Alfred Herrhausen — who was experiencing
himself a sort of transformational change in his understanding of
what really drives economics in the first place.  I was reading
some of the writings that were published in English; and one
speech that he delivered just shortly before his assassination,
begins in a fascinating way.  Showing you that he uniquely was
ready to reconsider the entire axiomatic foundation of what the
postwar Bretton Woods system was based on; understanding that it
was driving itself towards a breakdown crisis.  This is just the
beginning of what he said.  The speech was called "The Time Is
Ripe"; so he began by saying:  "The time is ripe; ripe for a new
and broader approach to resolving the international debt crisis,
with which major parts of the world have been concerned since
1982.  And this new approach must take into account the meanwhile
changed nature of the problem, and be based upon the structure of
the realities now confronting the several participants in their
various roles.  This applies to creditors, debtors, governments,
and to the Bretton Woods institutions — the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund."
        Then he goes to discuss his proposal for either a moratorium
or a complete writing-off of the debt of the Third World and a
new idea of directed credit towards the industrialization of
Poland and Eastern Europe.  This is the kind of Damascus Road
conversion or you could say "Herrhausen Moment" that we need to
inspire among similar leading layers in our society today; to
realize this thing is gone.  There is no saving the system in its
current form; you can no longer put band-aids and piecemeal
solutions.  You need to reconsider the time is ripe for
reconsidering the entire idea of what we had previously
considered the axioms of this sytem.
        So, in the same way that the 28 pages, the Glass-Steagall
fight, the Chilcot Inquiry, these similar threads; we also need
to have a victory moment on this idea of the Hamilton principle
and the creativity of mankind as the true measurement of economic
value.

DENISTON:  I would just again reference people to Mr. LaRouche's
Four Laws document, which he had issued I think two years ago
now.  We re-featured it in the context of these developments of
recent weeks.  It's a very concise, but very dense presentation
of exactly this issue.  I think for our situation in the United
States, that still stands as the essential policy document to
complement what needs to happen in Europe around Deutsche Bank,
around the breakdown over there and the intervention needed.  To
complement with that with actions in the United States;
Glass-Steagall being part of the party platforms is a good step.
But as you're saying, it's just stopping the bleeding; and if we
don't actually move with the full credit system and the
reorganization of the banking system as a whole and actual
knowledge of where to invest this credit.  It's going to take
serious work after decades of a post-industrial, post-productive,
increasingly insane economy, to actually begin to rebuild a
productive base again.  This is going to be a serious program
that's going to be required; and Mr. LaRouche's document there is
the reference point that people should be looking to.  Obviously,
we have it linked here in the description of this video; that
should be circulated, read and studied, and understood in detail.
That is our roadmap at this point for this full recovery program;
centered around a unified conception unique to Mr. LaRouche about
the real science of human growth, human progress, human
creativity.  His work is essential at this point to overcome the
deep depths of the crisis we face in the United States.  We need
an even better insight into the science of human economic
progress that he's provided with his work.

        SARE:  I met a woman yesterday in the organizing who said,
"Well what do you mean Glass-Steagall?  We can just do work on
Deutsche Bank; we can just do more quantitative easing, that's
what they've been doing.  You just issue the money to cover their
obligations."  And she was serious, so it does show the kind of
job we have to do.

        DENISTON:  Yeah, it worked great for Germany in the 1920s,
right?

        STEGER:  Well, that's the thing, too.  The Americans have
such a small view of history; so much of the here and now.  Helga
has raised this as a subjective factor; but so few Americans
actually have a broader scope of what we're confronting.  What's
brought to mind is Lyn's often-made reference to the Bertrand
Russell dominance of this last century.  I think most Americans
don't really conceive — and I think Alfred Herrhausen understood
this problem — is that Germany never really ever had a chance to
fully embrace itself as a unified oriented towards this level of
scientific advancement.  Apparently, at the major event after the
Napoleonic Wars, it was decided Germany would not be able to
become a nation; as Italy would not be able to.  There was an
attempt to not let these nations or these people become
sovereign, unified countries.  It was only unified in the late
19th Century; and what follows then is Germany is basically
manipulated into a perpetual state of war.  World War I, World
War II, and obviously the dominance of the Cold War; all of which
was a cultural outlook governed by the Bertrand Russell outlook
of a Satanic view of man.  Herrhausen saw with a sense of
optimism, a chance to break from that.  I think that's what's
really missing in the American people today.  The striking nature
of the moment we're in.
        Diane, you raised this question of how do you mobilize the
population.  For too many people, they're waiting; they're
waiting for someone — "I'll know it when I see it" kind of
quality.  Just a lack of real understanding.  But probably the
best expression of this in history, in thinking of the various
moments when there have been major upheavals, is really the
American Revolution.  The unique action by George Washington at
that point, to clearly define a perspective of commitment of his
own identity, his own fortune, his own honor, his own life; but
really to shape an historical period.  That really brought into
bear Hamilton's policies and the whole orientation of the United
States in terms of development.  But the best way to move people
is not to see when they're going to move; but to begin to move
with a very clear campaign of what we intend to build and
construct on the basis of Franklin Roosevelt, but really a much
more advanced conception today because of the space program,
because of what's developed.  We're really at a moment of history
where action of a quality of leadership is required; and to the
extent we can make that clear, the greater chance we have of
being successful.

        OGDEN:  Absolutely.  That's the lesson to be gleaned from
the developments in the recent period; that when we act as true
leaders — in other words, not responding to events as they
unfold over time — but setting the agenda for the future,
history is shaped by that kind of leadership.  That's very clear
from the 28 pages.  If it had not been for the decision by the
LaRouche Movement in collaboration with others, to make this
happen; it never would have happened.  This is not history just
sort of happening on its own; this is a mobilization of the
system of government that we have, that was given to us.  And it
was a decision to force this into being.  If we had not decided
that we were going to force Glass-Steagall onto the agenda and
say this is the defining issue, that never would have happened.
I think you can go back even further and realize that what's
happening now in China and the allied countries of China, with
the adoption by the most populous country on the planet of the
New Silk Road, the Maritime Silk Road; this entire New Paradigm
of Eurasian development, directly came out of a decision that was
made in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union by
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche to say: We are going to use this
opportunity to put on the agenda what the future must become.
The Productive Triangle; the alliance between Russia, India, and
China as the three great powers of Eurasia; and the campaign to
bring Germany and the rest of Europe into that.  That is now
reality; that was the future; that is now the present.
        I think it's that kind of way of thinking that the role of
real leaders is not to say what are the "objective circumstances"
in the present to which you have to respond, and to stake some
sort of political position on, yea or nay.  The real question is,
who has the vision to say this is what the future must become;
and how do we set the agenda according to which history is then
forced to unfold?

        SARE:  I think one thing that Michael and I were discussing
earlier, that would shift things dramatically, is if Americans
would stop pretending that President Obama has any legitimacy in
the White House and doesn't actually belong behind bars for the
crimes that he's committed.

        OGDEN:  Jacques Cheminade said it well in the statement he
issued after the Nice terror attacks.  He said, maybe the Chilcot
Report should send shivers up and down some people's spines to
realize they're not safe.  What are the Chilcot Reports of the
future going to say about you, the people who have been defending
the terrorist networks in Syria — al-Nusra — to overthrow the
Assad regime?  Those who worked with Prince Bandar and the rest
of the Saudi regime?  The people who set up Al Yamamah in the
first place?  When Nemesis comes to judge you, where will you
stand?  I think it's that kind of principle of natural law and
justice which Obama and the rest of that retinue — as Jacques
Cheminade said very clearly — these are the questions which must
be asked.

STEGER:  Then there's a certain lady in France who's facing a
certain threat of that at this moment.  The director of the IMF
now faces prosecution for corruption.  This process is unfolding
and I think the reality of it is, most Americans know Obama is
probably one of the most evil and Satanic people on the planet
today.  The question is, not is he that; but is justice actually
possible.  I think we've entered into a period of time where
things that people thought were impossible have now become
possible.  The question is, are they up to the task of acting
upon that?  That really seems to be the characteristic.  We could
have a major break on Obama; and some people may say, based on
Presidential election timeframes, what difference would it make.
Clearly, at this kind of moment in history, a very clear and
decisive act against the President to expose his crimes; this is
the President, by the way, who lauded himself on returning the
United States to international law.  It's just been made very
clear by a massacre in Syria by US bombing; bombing which
violates international law and Syrian sovereignty.  The case is
building to bring down Obama; and I think there's probably a
little bit of concern in the White House that things might by
changing.  The question is, is there the guts and courage to act
upon it.  Like our friends on the 28 pages, are we willing to
pull a Gravel and really take on the real moment in history?

        OGDEN:  Precisely.  I think that's a very apropos parallel.
Not only was it the fact in very large measure that Steven Lynch
publicly threatened that they were going to have their Gravel
moment; and come to the floor of the House and just read these
into the public record that probably precipitated the decision
that they had no choice but to release the 28 pages in one form
or another.  But also, it's a very apropos parallel, because look
at what effect Senator Gravel had when he took the action to read
the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.  That
precipitated the events that led to the impeachment and disgrace
of the entire Nixon policy, the Vietnam War policy.  What has now
been revealed by the 28 pages goes far deeper than anything that
was contained in the Pentagon Papers at that time.  What this
represents is the tip of the iceberg; and the fact that the
people who have been involved in this are not satisfied.  People
like Congressman Walter Jones, Congressman Steven Lynch, former
Senator Bob Graham, are not satisfied to just sit back and say,
"Well, we just won a victory on the 28 pages."  They all have
been very clear; this is only the beginning.  We know what this
represents; this is the cork that has now come out of the end of
the bottle.  There is far, far more that needs to come out; this
is the tip of the iceberg.
        As we've said repeatedly, if you just follow the money trail
from Bandar to the Al Yamamah deal, you'll see where these
policies were originally born.  It's very ugly; very bad news for
the British monarchy and for the entire Bush/Cheney apparatus.

        STEGER:  Well, there's no envy of Obama here.

        OGDEN:  Michael, maybe you want to say a little bit about
this event that you are going to be involved in this weekend in
Seattle.

        STEGER:  It's indicative.  We've got an event tomorrow in
Lynnwood, near the Seattle area at the convention center there;
and then another event in Belleview on Sunday.  What we're seeing
is an increase in integration between our activity and
institutions who are looking to collaborate on Russia's and
China's intervention today; specifically on this economic
perspective.  What's driving this entire process, this higher
question of justice beyond retribution, is really mankind's great
potential for development.  The space exploration question
probably best qualifies the real nature of mankind's potential
and orientation.  You see that orientation coming from China
probably most and best of all; and of course, the collaboration
with Russia.  So, there are Russian and Chinese networks
throughout the West Coast, both in Seattle and San Francisco and
in Los Angeles, who we find increasingly working with us.  So,
there's going to be a collaboration on Saturday, hosted by Dave
Christie here from Seattle, along with people like Mike
Billington of the EIR staff, a number of speakers from the
Chinese-American community, nuclear engineers, aerospace
engineers from Boeing, people involved in US-China investment
capabilities, the Russian perspective.  And then something
similar in Belleview, with the Belleview Chinese Chamber of
Commerce on Sunday.  So, you see a real potential.  You're
beginning to see the New Paradigm, the win-win orientation of the
New Silk Road; it's creeping in.  There are numbers of
universities now holding events on the One Belt, One Road policy.
I think the leadership of Japan has realized, as perhaps Erdogan
has had a certain Damascus Road conversion; it is clear that with
nearly 5 billion people and the largest growth potential mankind
has ever seen, there's no way any nation can {not} participate in
this orientation.  I think these conferences this weekend will be
a significant part of that.

        OGDEN:  Great.  I think we'll definitely have some coverage
of that, if not some actual video that people can watch.  So, I
think that is a very comprehensive discussion; it sort of touched
all the bases.  I would emphasize that Mr. LaRouche's initiative
and Helga LaRouche's initiative on this Deutsche Bank remains a
forefront item of mobilization.  I think people need to take what
has been said here and develop that in terms of communicating the
credit principle as the foundation for an entirely new paradigm.
We will continue to provide material on that.  I think what comes
out of this conference in Seattle this weekend will also make
that increasingly clear.  I'd like to thank all of you for
watching; again, ask everybody who is viewing this, to please
subscribe to the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel.  This is LaRouche
PAC Live; and we have live broadcasts many times a week, so
you'll be sure never to miss one of these live broadcasts.
Please also subscribe to the daily email, if you haven't already.
You can get the LaRouche PAC lead directly to your inbox every
day.  Thanks a lot for watching, and please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.  Good night.

22. juli, 2016 (Leder) – Det er, hvad de to, offentliggjorte rapporter i denne måned har betydet, den ene, Storbritanniens længe opsatte Chilcot-rapport om Tony Blairs kriminelle ansvar for den ulovlige Irakkrig, og den anden, USA’s længe undertrykte 28 sider af den Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, der dokumenterer den saudiske hånd bag dette slagteri. Det betyder, at, efter femten års krige baseret på løgne, tiden nu endelig er rindet ud for de bloddryppende dinosaurer Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney og Barack Obama. De har ødelagt Mellemøsten, druknet Europa i desperate flygtninge og forårsaget blodsudgydelser på gaderne i hele Europa og USA – alt sammen baseret på løgne.

Og tro endelig ikke, at Tony Blair blot var den dysfunktionelle George W. Bush’ »puddelhund«. Faktisk var det ham, der satte Bush i gang på vegne af den britiske Dronning, som i virkeligheden var den, der gav ordrerne. For eksempel inkluderede den dokumentation, som Chilcot udgav, en note fra Blair til Bush fra 12. september 2001, og som tilskyndede ham til omgående at reagere på masseødelæggelsesvåben«. Skønt han endnu ikke specifikt fremhævede Irak, skrev Blair: »Noget af dette vil kræve handling, som vil få nogle til at stejle. Men vi må hellere handle nu og forklare og retfærdiggøre vore handlinger sidenhen, end at opsætte det, til en yderligere, måske endnu værre katastrofe finder sted. Og jeg mener, at dette er en reel mulighed.« [original understregning]

Deres femten års krige baseret på løgne, deres femten års terrorisme har været en mørk tidsalder for civilisationen. Tiden er inde til at kassere alt dette; tiden er inde til at instituere en menneskelig kurs for menneskelige anliggender, selv om der kun er få mennesker, der i realiteten ved, hvad det vil sige at være menneskelig, og rent faktisk opfatter sig selv som menneskelige væsner, snarere end som smarte, talende dyr. I netop dette øjeblik, på dette tidspunkt, hvor vi trues af, at et ukontrollabelt finansielt kollaps bryder ud, og som muligvis begynder med Tysklands Deutsche Bank, har Lyndon LaRouche fremsat et nødinitiativ til at komme dette kollaps i forkøbet ved, at arbejdskraftens produktivitet næres, og denne næring er menneskelig, skabende opdagelse, eller sand menneskelighed. Han har foreslået, man som et nødtiltag redder Deutsche Bank på betingelse af, at denne omgående og på drastisk vis ændrer sin politik og kommer tilbage til den politik, som førtes under den tidligere formand Alfred Herrhausen, der blev myrdet af stadig ukendte gerningsmænd 30. oktober, 1989.

På det tidspunkt var Herrhausen, i lighed med Lyndon LaRouche og hans hustru Helga Zepp-LaRouche, en af dem, der kom ind for at sikre, at det dengang igangværende fald af det kommunistiske system førte til fælles højteknologisk og højproduktiv udvikling af de lande, der havde befundet sig på begge sider af det såkaldte »jerntæppe«. I oktober 1988 vidste Lyndon LaRouche allerede, stort set før nogen andre, at Berlinmuren ville falde, og at Tyskland kunne genforenes. På det tidspunkt talte han offentligt i Berlin, for at tilskynde Tyskland til at hjælpe med den agro-industrielle udvikling af Polen, og med at lancere en sådan forenet, øst-vest udviklingsproces. Inden for tre måneder blev LaRouche tiltalt på grundlag af falske anklager og blev kastet i fængsel af George H.W. Bush. Et år senere blev Herrhausens dernæst myrdet fem dage, før han var programsat til at holde en tale med det præcis samme budskab, nemlig en opfordring til at etablere en udviklingsbank for Polen, modelleret efter Tysklands genopbygningsbank efter krigen, og som igen var modelleret efter Franklin Roosevelts Finansieringsselskab for Genopbygning.

Se: LaRouche's 40 Year History for a New Economic Order

Hele dette emne er langt mere dybtgående, end det kan fremstilles her, og dets implikationer langt mere vidtrækkende. Men dinosaurerne har haft deres tid. Giv plads til menneskelige væsner.

20. juli 2016 – Hvis man ser bort fra elitens hjernevask af de tre baltiske stater, der har lagt fundamentet for meget af det igangværende anti-russiske hysteri, er den farligste udvikling, efter Maidan-kuppet i Ukraine, den radikale ændring af politikken i Polen. Den nye, ekstremt nationalistiske regerings overtagelse af magten i midten af november 2015 efterfulgtes af angreb i medierne og i retssystemet, samt af et spektakulært angreb i midten af december, som forsvarsministeren beordrede, imod et nyligt dannet NATO-center for indsamling af efterretninger, og forvisning af centrets personale. Den kommanderende polske officer blev arresteret og endda anklaget for forræderi for at arbejde sammen med fjendtlige agenturer (sic – dvs., NATO!). Centeret blev tilsyneladende anset for at være en modstander, der ikke frembragte den form for anti-russiske beviser, som det ønskedes af forsvarsministeren, en paranoid person, der mener, at Rusland har hyret aliens (!) (altså udenjordiske væsener!) til at ødelægge Polen.

Hændelsen skabte stærke modreaktioner blandt flere NATO-medlemmer, inklusive Tyskland, og som krævede, at Alliancen traf foranstaltninger til en disciplinær aktion imod Polen og endda en annullering af det planlagte NATO-topmøde i Warszawa. Det blev dengang antydet, at den nye, polske regering imidlertid havde opbakning, hovedsageligt fra Cameron, men også fra Obama, så der skete intet, og hele den anti-russiske topmødeagenda forblev uændret. På den ene side reducerede tyskerne deres tilstedeværelse ved den nylige NATO-øvelse, Anakonda, men gik på den anden side ind på at overtage kommandoen over en af de ekstra kampbataljoner, som NATO besluttede at stationere i de baltiske stater. Frankrig udeblev totalt fra Anakonda.

En kombination af afpresning fra Obama, Cameron og Warszawa, og en heftig anti-tysk, sort propagandakampagne i de nu regeringskontrollerede hovedmedier i Polen, tvang den tyske regering til at fremvise en vanvittig solidaritet med Polen: der blev ikke afholdt nogen mindebegivenhed i Berlin den 22. juni i anledning af 75-året for Operation Barbarossa; i stedet var der samme dag i Berlin et show fra Merkels side af solidaritet med den polske premierminister Beata Szydlo. En gentagelse af Merkels afvisning af at deltage i paraden i Moskva på 70-års dagen for Wehrmachts kapitulation, den 9. maj, 2015, hvor Merkel hævdede, at hun ikke kunne deltage, så længe der ruller russiske tanks rundt i Ukraine.          

20. juli 2016 (Leder) – For næsten et år siden foreslog den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin en global koalition til bekæmpelse af Islamisk Stat og andre jihadistiske terrorister, en koalition, der er bygget over modellen for den amerikansk- og sovjetisk-ledede koalition til nedkæmpelse af nazismens og fascismens svøbe under Anden Verdenskrig. Nylige begivenheder gør det klart, at tiden nu er inde til netop en sådan kampalliance – rettet mod Det britiske Imperium.

Frigivelsen, efter 14 års lange kamp, af de 28 sider fra den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelse af 11. september [2001] har fastslået det saudiske monarkis indiskutable rolle i historiens værste terrorangreb på amerikansk jord, og en omhyggelig gennemgang af Al Yamama-sagen gør det klart, at saudierne i denne grusomhed handlede som agenter for Det britiske Imperium.

Den ligeledes nylige udgivelse af Chilcot-kommissionens rapport har bevist, at den tidligere britiske premierminister Tony Blair var skyldig i samme klasse af krigsforbrydelser, for hvilke topnazister blev retsforfulgt og dømt ved domstolen i Nürnberg.

I kølvandet på rapporten fra Repræsentanternes Hus’ Komite for Finansielle Tjenester, som afslører den britiske regerings og Obamas Hvide Hus’ rolle i mørklægningen af hvidvask af penge, der stammer fra narkotikahandel og anvendes til terror, og som i enorme proportioner er blevet bedrevet af den britiske krones bank, HSBC, blev to topfolk fra HSBC arresteret af FBI i denne uge på anklager om finansielt bedrageri. Dette er kun toppen af isbjerget.

Taget sammen, repræsenterer disse udviklinger det største dødsstød mod Det britiske Imperium i meget lang tid. Det nylige kup i Tyrkiet kan kun forstås ud fra et standpunkt om den britiske krones rolle i sponsorering og beskyttelse af de tjetjenske terrorister, samt stort set alle andre etniske separatistgrupper på Jordens overflade. Tjetjenerne har udgjort rygraden i al-Qaeda og Islamisk Stat og har nydt godt af den britiske krones beskyttelse, lige siden begyndelsen af den første Tjetjenske Krig i midten af 1990’erne. Tjetjenerne stod bag selvmordsterrorangrebet den 28. juni mod Istanbul Lufthavn, der fandt sted kun kort tid efter, at den tyrkiske præsident Erdogan, under enormt internationalt pres og isolering, udstedte en offentlig undskyldning til den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin for den tyrkiske nedskydning af et russisk kampfly i november 2015. Dette er den afgørende kulisse, på baggrund af hvilken man skal foretage en kompetent vurdering af de igangværende begivenheder i Tyrkiet.

Det britiske Imperium er under angreb, det er bankerot, og det er isoleret. Enhver, der seriøst vil standse det omsiggribende mønster med global, blind terrorisme, bør erkende, at denne kun kan bekæmpes ved at gå helt til toppen, og derfra nedefter – og det betyder, at man må bringe Det britiske Imperium til fald.

I USA er Wall Street, som er en gren af det britiske finansimperium, vågnet op til den kendsgerning, at der finder en fuldt optrappet revolte sted imod deres korruption og tyveri. Denne revolte har omgående taget form af, at man, i både det Republikanske og Demokratiske partis valgplatform, har inkluderet en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, noget, som er kommet totalt bag på Wall Street. Dette har forårsaget en hysterisk reaktion fra finansoligarkiet.

Som Lyndon LaRouche i dag understregede: »Glass-Steagall vil gøre det af med Imperiet. Og USA’s økonomi kan ikke overleve, med mindre man vender tilbage til Glass-Steagall.« 

19. juli 2016 (Leder) – I de seneste to uger har vi – som en uopsættelig aktion, der skal gennemføres nu, i denne økonomiske og kulturelle krise – fremlagt Lyndon og Helga LaRouches forslag til at redde Deutsche Bank fra overhængende bankerot, og til at afværge krig. Fordi Tysklands økonomi er den eneste, der har et produktivt potentiale til at redde vraget af Europa ved at koble sig til Kinas storslåede projekt for den Nye Silkevej til udvikling af Eurasien, Mellemøsten og Afrika.

I modsat fald får vi krig med Kina, eller med Rusland. Obamas Hvide Hus forsøger støt og roligt at fremprovokere krigskonfrontationer med både Rusland og Kina og kræver, at Europa fremmer disse provokationer gennem NATO. Hvis terrorsplinterne fra Obamas krige i Mellemøsten og Libyen er i færd med at bombe Europa ind i en tilstand af chok, så har de hans sympati, så længe, de fortsat går med i militære konfrontationer med Rusland og Kina. Hillary Clinton er lige så fast besluttet på denne krigspolitik.

Der er, især efter Brexit, ingen tvivl om, at Tyskland er Europas fremtid. Men hvis det er Angela Merkels og Wolfgang Schäubles Tyskland, forfalsket med det endnu mere krigeriske Grønne Parti, så får vi verdenskrig.

Derfor foreslog hr. og fr. LaRouche: Det må være Tyskland i Alfred Herrhausens ånd, den myrdede leder af den engang produktive, men nu elendige og kriminelle kæmpe, Deutsche Bank. Mere specifikt den Alfred Herrhausen, der i 1989 var i færd med at lancere en udviklingsbank til at løfte Polen og det sovjetiske Østeuropa økonomisk, mens Sovjetunionen kollapsede – og han blev myrdet.

Herrhausens plan dengang for Deutsche Bank og Tyskland, var et paradigme for, hvad Tyskland atter kan blive, såvel som også for Europas fremtid nu.

Det transatlantiske banksystem og finansielle system er ved at falde fra hinanden. Det er offer for sine egne medlemmer, de City of London-centrerede europæiske storbanker og Wall Street-storbankerne, der har knust de reelle, produktive økonomier under sig i løbet af årtiers globalisering. Det, der udløser det umiddelbart forestående krak, er ikke simplet hen italienske bankers dårlige lån, eller ejendomsfonde i London, der lukker, eller at de store tyske og schweiziske banker er i vanskeligheder, og ikke engang ECB’s og Federal Reserves sindssyge politik; men derimod ødelæggelsen af de underliggende økonomiers produktivitet hen over årtier, mens kasinoet voksede på toppen af dem.

Hvis man skal genkapitalisere de fallerede storbanker i Europa, må de tvinges til at afskrive deres kasinoer som totale tab og genvedtage de produktive formål, som Herrhausens lederskab af Deutsche Bank var indbegrebet af. Så kan man skabe statskreditter på samme måde, som Kina har været alene om at gøre i dette århundrede, til den form for projekter, der genopliver menneskers og økonomiers produktivitet.

I løbet af de to uger, hvor vi har fremlagt dette uopsættelige forslag fra LaRouche, har der været betydningsfulde gennembrud i USA. »Det saudiske kapitel« af 11. september-historien er blevet tvunget offentliggjort.

En genindførelse af Glass-Steagall er inkorporeret i valgplatformene hos både Demokrater og Republikanere.

Men den rette måde at kæmpe for en Glass/Steagall-reorganisering af bankerne på, er ved at bruge den »vægtstang«, som er LaRouches forslag. Så bliver denne kamp en kamp for Europas, og også USA’s, fremtid. 

19. juli 2016 (Leder) – Det europæiske lederskab er i panik over banksystemets hastige kollaps. Italien skyder skylden på Tyskland og Deutsche Bank, Tyskland skyder skylden på Italien, mens Wall Street klager over, at europæerne undergraver det falske »opsving«. Dette er farligt og psykotisk nonsens. Vi er i færd med at opleve sammenbruddet af hele det transatlantiske banksystem og ikke blot dele af det, og der findes ingen anden løsning end omgående at skabe love i Europa og USA, der muliggør en ny finansiel og økonomisk orden efter Hamiltons principper. Derivat-spillegælden på $2 billarder (2000 milliarder, -red.) må afskrives, og det kommercielle banksystem genkapitaliseres, så det kan udføre sit legitime job, som er at kanalisere kredit ind i en genopbygning af verdensøkonomien.

Den kendsgerning, at både det Republikanske og det Demokratiske parti har lagt en vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall ind i deres valgplatform, har sendt Wall Street ud i hysteriske raserianfald, skrækslagne, som Barrons rapporterer, over, »at der er en ikke-vedkendt risiko for, at Glass-Stegall kunne blive genindført i 2017 eller 2018, uanset, hvem der vinder«.  Kendsgerningen er, at et momentum for Glass-Steagall ikke kommer fra de allerede fallerede kandidater eller de svigtende partier, som de repræsenterer, men fra et skifte i befolkningens tankegang, et skifte, der går i retning af LaRouche-bevægelsens årtier lange kamp for Glass-Steagall.

Det samme gælder frigivelsen af de 28 sider om den saudiske rolle i international terrorisme, en kamp, som LaRouche-bevægelsen har anført. Befolkningen er blevet lullet i søvn om faren ved Bush’ og Obamas åbenlyse støtte til terrorister for at opnå deres mål om »regimeskifte«, og ligeledes om virkeligheden omkring den økonomiske disintegration af hele det vestlige finansielle system under en kasino-bankpraksis. Nu, hvor ingen af delene kan mørklægges, er sandheden endelig synlig for offentligheden.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouches kriseerklæring fastlægger om Deutsche Banks overhængende kollaps, så må der ske en »omgående genorientering af banken, tilbage til den tradition, der under Alfred Herrhausens lederskab var fremherskende indtil 1989«.  Fr. LaRouche understregede i mandags, at Herrhausen blev myrdet i 1989, fordi han responderede til det dengang igangværende kollaps af Sovjetunionen med en ny politik, baseret på et højere koncept om mennesket og menneskehedens fælles mål. Han fremsatte forslag til en prompte mobilisering af de vestlige økonomier for at lancere en infrastruktur- og industrigenopbygning af Polen, og med tiden af hele Eurasien – præcis, som Lyndon LaRouche havde identificeret det i sin berømte pressekonference, holdt på Kempinski Hotel i Berlin, oktober 1988.

Det Britiske Imperium og dets vasaller kunne ikke tolerere dette nye paradigme, og, med Herrhausens fjernelse, lancerede de transformationen af Europa til et centraliseret diktatur under Maastrichttraktaten fra 1992, under et banksystem, der satte profitmaksimering gennem spekulation over menneskelig udvikling, samtidig med, at man fremprovokerede evindelige krige. Denne proces har nu lagt hele systemet i ruiner.

Lyndon LaRouche gentog i dag, at Tyskland, USA og alle andre vestlige nationer omgående må skabe ny lovgivning for at ændre systemet – hele systemet – tilbage til en bankpraksis efter Hamiltons principper, sådan, som Herrhausen praktiserede det, og de må øjeblikkeligt begynde at skabe kredit op til det transatlantiske områdes nationale økonomiers fulde bæreevne.

Mens farerne stadig mangfoldigføres – for terrorisme, krig og finansielt kollaps – så mangfoldiggøres gennembruddene ligeledes, som med Glass-Steagall og de 28 sider. Med Kina og Rusland, der fører verden imod et nyt paradigme baseret på global udvikling og samarbejde imod terrorisme, er tiden nu inde til at få USA til at vende tilbage til sine rødder i Hamiltons principper, og til at slutte sig til vore naturlige allierede, Rusland og Kina, som vi gjorde, da vi besejrede fascismen i Anden Verdenskrig, og som vi også må gøre for at besejre den nye fascisme, der i dag kommer fra City of London og Wall Street.

18. juli 2016 – Midt i LaRouche-kampagnen for at redde Deutsche Bank, lukke dens kasino ned og ændre den tilbage til Alfred Herrhausens bank, havde Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) en lang artikel den 18. juli, »Deutsche Banks sidste chance«, med en diskussion om, hvad der er sket med banken, siden Herrhausen blev myrdet i 1989.

Artiklen, skrevet af FAZ’ finansmarkedsredaktør Gerald Braunberger, diskuterer ikke den europæiske bankkrise, verdensøkonomien eller truslen om Deutsche Banks umiddelbart overhængende insolvens, men har et andet formål: at rekapitulere debatten i og omkring banken igennem de seneste 25 år eller mere mht., hvad banken burde være.

I sin egenskab af Deutsche Banks bestyrelsesformand, rapporterer Braunberger, refererede Herrhausen til den »angelsaksiske finansielle kultur« som »det, vi ikke har« i hans bank. En sammenblanding af denne kultur med tysk industriel bankkultur siden Herrhausens død har skabt store spændinger, skriver han, og har haft meget dårlige resultater.

Umiddelbart efter Herrhausens død ønskede Deutsche Bank under formand Hilmar Kopper fortsat at få en stor aktiepost i den store, bayerske kommercielle udlånsbank, Bayerische Vereinsbank, og dermed at forankre DB som en udlånsbank til tysk industri. Den bayerske delstatsregering, under initiativ af Allianz Insurance, der rykkede ind på BV, blokerede for dette. I stedet fik Deutsche Bank i 1990’erne Wall Street investeringsselskabet Bankers Trust – der massivt lancerede DB inden for manipulation af værdipapirer med sikkerhed i ejendom og deres kasino-derivater – og London investeringsselskabet Morgan Grenfell. I 2000 var investeringsbankiererne »stærke nok til at stoppe en planlagt fusion med Dresdner Bank« og en post i postens sparekasse, Postbank.

»Deutsche Bank skilte sig i de følgende år af med sine mange industriinvesteringer i [Tyskland]. Global investeringsbankpraksis opnåede mere og mere dominans.«

Braunbergers pointe er, at den associerede strategi med at blive »verdens investeringsbank nummer ét – oftest offentligt erklæret af Hermann Ackermann som formand – ynkeligt har lidt nederlag, og nu har bragt Deutsche Bank til et absolut lavpunkt. Offentligheden anser nu ikke længere investeringsbankiererne for at være helte, men som plyndrere af en svækket, internt splittet bank.«

Og, konkluderer han, fra 2005 og frem til 2015, har en »opsplitning« af Deutsche Bank ved at udskille investeringsbankafdelingerne altid været drøftet internt, men blev altid afvist af bankens bestyrelsesformænd. Den nuværende britiske formand, John Cryan, har forøget indsatsen og ønsker at koncentrere sig udelukkende om bankens investeringsbankside, selv om det er den side, der har tabt 5,8 milliard euro i 2015.

I mellemtiden promoverer bankens »økonomiske strateger« energisk helikopterpenge som en politik for økonomisk genrejsning.   

17. juli 2016 (Leder) – Verden konfronteres med et Drama Infernale, lyder overskriften til lederartiklen i økonomisektionen af søndagens udgave af det tyske Welt am Sonntag. Ikke alene står det italienske banksystem umiddelbart foran en nedsmeltning, med 360 milliard euro i uerholdelige lån, men hele det europæiske finansielle system er ligeledes bankerot – med den derivat-tyngede Deutsche Bank øverst på listen – rapporterer de nervøst.

Men virkeligheden er langt værre, end selv denne oprørte redegørelse indikerer. Hele det transatlantiske finansielle system er gået op i limningen, bemærkede Lyndon LaRouche i en diskussion med sine medarbejdere i weekenden, og det blev viderebragt ved begyndelsen af udsendelsen den 16. juli, i Dialog med Manhattan Projektet. Dennis Speed fra LPAC opsummerede her LaRouches bemærkninger:

»Systemet giver ikke mulighed for et eneste sikkert punkt. Forlad jer ikke på nogen rationel respons fra nogen gruppe. Dette her står på randen af en generel, global krise. Derfor er folks adfærd den, at de går totalt i panik; man vil ikke få nogen rationel respons på dette tidspunkt. Forsøg ikke at forlade jer på nogen, forsøg ikke at udvælge nogen person. Dette er en nødsituation med et problem, der haster, og vi må håndtere det ud fra dette standpunkt.«

Denne nødaktion er centreret omkring LaRouches krav om at bruge en engangs-redning til at reorganisere Deutsche Bank, baseret den myrdede bankier Alfred Herrhausens principper, for at indlede en transformation, med baggrund i en konkurs, af hele det transatlantiske finansielle system og udløse reel, menneskelig produktivitet.

I en yderligere diskussion i søndags udtalte LaRouche:

»Vi må have en positiv politik med en hyperaktiv produktivitet. Man må skabe produktivitet, reel produktivitet, ikke, at nogen holder på deres penge, eller deres penge til at spekulere for. Og spørgsmålet er: Vil vi skabe de elementer af produktivitet, som behøves for at komme fri af det, der er sket med os, gennem folk, der har forsøgt at undertrykke ting og gå uden om ting hele vejen? Dér kommer problemet ind. Hvis man ikke hævder en politik, baseret på disse principper, vil man igen havne i det samme, gamle rod.«

»Vi må vinde indflydelse på alle personer«, fortsatte LaRouche, »for hvis der ikke er enighed mht. hvad det er, man skal varetage, så får vi anarki. Og det betyder at gå tilbage til nulpunktet, eller under nulpunktet. Det er problemet. Det er spørgsmålet. Dette er, hvad man må respondere til. Hvis man ikke responderer til det, er man ingenting, så har man totalt smidt enhver fornuft ud. Og dette er den eneste måde at håndtere dette på.«

I vores internationale kampagne for at gennemføre LaRouches dramatiske Deutsche Bank-initiativ, bemærkede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, løber vi ind i uventede grader af raseri i befolkningen i hele Europa, imod Deutsche Bank og alle bankierer, et raseri, som står i vejen for deres forståelse af LaRouches krav.

»I Tyskland havde vi en uventet, virkelig uventet bølge af had mod Deutsche Bank«,

bemærkede Zepp-LaRouche.

»Konservative industrifolk, mangeårige tilhængere (som man aldrig ville have forventet ville sige noget sådant), de reagerede totalt voldsomt og sagde: ’Lad dem gå bankerot! Luk dem ned! Hvorfor skulle vi bruge én krone mere på at redde disse kriminelle slyngler?’ Og jeg mener, at det er det, folk ikke rigtig kæmper sig igennem.

For Herrhausen-princippet handler ikke bare om at redde Deutsche Bank; det er, at man har en pistol for panden og siger: Enten accepterer I paradigmeskiftet, eller også går I alle ned, og vi gå ned med jer. Men hvis I vil overleve, må I acceptere dette skifte. Og hvis vi havde en international kampagne – som vi har lidt af – men hvis vi havde en virkelig kampagne, ville presset blive større på den tyske regering, som er dér, hvor presset må ende.«

Lyndon LaRouche understregede ligeledes betydningen af politikken for reorganisering af Deutsche Bank:

»Understreg det igen, for det er historien. Det er præcist, hvad I må håndtere, og det er, hvad I må kæmpe imod.«      

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

16. juli 2016 – Citigroups cheføkonom Willem Buiter sagde på fuldstændig sindssyg vis til Bloomberg den 15. juli, at en »win-win«-politik for Europas centralbanker ville være udstedelsen af helikopterpenge. Buiter gjorde det klart, at han mener den fulde Weimarregerings udstedelse af »evighedsobligationer« til den Europæiske Centralbank, obligationer, der ikke alene ikke har renter, men heller ingen tilbagebetaling af hovedstolen, nogensinde; ECB trykker tilsvarende kontanter og anbringer dem i statslige konti. Dette er potentielt set ubegrænset – som Zimbabwe også opdagede for nylig – især, eftersom Buiter siger, at, mens ECB gør dette, bør de europæiske regeringer afskrive noget af deres gæld.

»Der er indlysende win-win-situationer, som vi kan få«, citeres Buiter. »En gældsomlægning hvis muligt … og så en budgetstimulus med et veldefineret mål, der sluttelig skal finansieres gennem ECB, folkets helikopterpenge. I et land som Tyskland, hvor der er behov for investering i infrastruktur, annoncerer og gennemfører regeringen et storstilet investeringsprogram« og udsteder evigheds-obligationer »til centralbanken, der skaber det om til penge«, sagde Buiter.

Præsident for den amerikanske centralbank, Federal Reserve, i delstaten Cleveland, Loretta Mester, befandt sig i et interview den 12. juli under den samme vrangforestilling: »Vi vurderer hele tiden værktøjer, som vi kan anvende«, sagde Mester til Australiens ABC. »I USA har vi brugt kvantitativ lempelse (pengetrykning), og jeg mener, at det har bevist sit værd. Så det er min anskuelse, at helikopterpenge bliver en slags næste skridt, hvis vi nogen sinde skulle finde os selv i en situation, hvor vi ønskede at være mere imødekommende.«

Og den tidligere vicedirektør i Federal Reserves bestyrelse Joseph Gagnon citeres for den mest fatale udtalelse: »Centralbanker og regeringer er faktisk én og samme ting.«

EIR’s stiftende redaktør Lyndon LaRouche satte dette på sin rette plads. »Disse vild-øjede planer«, sagde LaRouche, »er svindelnumre i en grad, hvor de udelukkende kan forfølges gennem at føre krig. Der er simpelt hen ingen profit i banksystemet nu, og ingen produktivitet. Det kommer der heller ikke, før vi udrenser dem og starter på en frisk. Luk disse svindelforetagender ned – fjern dem. Erklær dem bankerot. Så kan man komme ind med kredit til et nyt system, der bygger på vækst.«

Det er den skarpe vending i politikken, som LaRouche har foreslået omkring tilfældet med Deutsche Banks krav om bailout – genkapitaliser i stedet banken på basis af en tilbagevenden til bankens tidligere formand Alfred Herrhausens politik for udvikling.

Opkomsten af nazismen på baggrund af Tysklands periode med hyperinflation/kollaps illustrerer LaRouches pointe med, at sådanne »vild-øjede planer« som helikopterpenge, blandt stormagter forfølges »udelukkende gennem at føre krig«.

Foto: ’Go Fly a Kite’ – gå ud og sæt en drage op. Som børnene under Tysklands hyperinflation i 1920-erne selv har lavet af værdiløse pengesedler … Helikopterpenge er ingen ny opfindelse. Det er konsekvenserne heller ikke.

16. juli 2016 – »Deutsche Bank må reddes, for verdensfredens skyld«, Helga Zepp-LaRouches chokerende advarsel om det kaos, der lurer bag Deutsche Banks krav om en ny, europæisk TARP-bailout, er i raketfart blevet cirkuleret til højtplacerede bankierer, økonomer og medier i hele Tyskland, Østrig og Italien. En af disse bankierer bekræftede over for Zepp-LaRouche i en diskussion over telefon den 15. juli, at hendes fremsatte krav, der placerer de London-centrerede europæiske banker »i allersidste øjeblik« før et kollaps, er korrekt, og mange bankierer ved det. I interviews til medierne »kaster de sand i offentlighedens øjne«, sagde han, med de ved, hvad der snart vil udløses over dem.

En anden kilde sagde til EIR’s europæiske kontor i Wiesbaden, Tyskland, at behovet for at vende tilbage til Deutsche Banks myrdede, tidligere formand Alfred Herrhausens »traditionelle dyder« inden for bankpraksis, gentagent blev bragt på bane under bankens nylige generalforsamling for aktionærerne i takt med, at bankens marked og øvrige kapitalisering styrtdykkede.  Zepp-LaRouches appel, der bygger på hendes mand, Lyndons LaRouches forslag, kræver, at Deutsche Bank skal genkapitaliseres med statslige midler, men at den skal udrenses ved at afskrive dens enorme mængde af giftige værdipapirer og ved at vende tilbage til Herrhausens politik for bankpraksis til industriudvikling og produktivitet.

Endnu en højtplaceret finansperson udtalte sig offentligt om den ekstreme fare for en europæisk nedsmeltning. Philipp Hildebrand, næstformand for Black Rock (der ejer 5 % af Deutsche Banks kollapsede aktier), sagde til Tageszeitung den 13. juli, at den nuværende krise i de europæiske banker er ekstremt farlig og »kunne føre til det værste«. Hildebrand søgte at lokalisere udløseren for nedsmeltningen væk fra Deutsche Bank og Tyskland, i Italien.

Men Deutsche Bank har et presserende behov for genkapitalisering. Samtidig med, at bankens cheføkonom David Folkerts-Landau kom med sine forslag til euro-bailout, og Angela Merkel og hendes finansminister Wolfgang Schäuble benægtede, at det skulle være nødvendigt at gøre noget, fik Deutsche Bank omkring 1 milliard euro i ny kapital fra Qatars kongefamilie, hvilket gør dem til den største aktieindehaver (10 %), foran Black Rock.

Ydermere har Deutsche Banks supervisionsbestyrelse skaffet sig af med Georg Thoma – der havde presset på for at få forebyggende undersøgelser og udrensninger af bankens illegale/umoralske aktiviteter – og har netop erstattet ham med Qatars fremstillede kandidat, Frankfurt-advokaten Stefan Simon.

Kilder i den amerikanske bankverden siger, at Deutsche Bank har behov for, ikke 1 milliard euro i ny kapital, men 7 – 10 milliard euro. Handelsblatt rapporterede den 15. juli, at Tysklands andenstørste bank, Commerzbank, også er i vanskeligheder. Den har måttet rapportere indtægter, der styrtdykkede hen over det seneste år med enorme marginer, 10 – 15 %, afhængig af bankafdeling. Den europæiske Centralbanks nulrentepolitik har bragt denne forhenværende kraftstation for lån til industrien ud på afgrundens rand.

EIR kæmper for de handlinger, som LaRouche foreslår, i både Tyskland og Italien, som er krisens centrale fokusområder. EIR’s og LaRouche-bevægelsens kamp for at genindføre Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven i USA er ligeledes af afgørende betydning.

Og i Danmark er det naturligvis Schiller Instituttet, er fører an i denne kamp for en bankopdeling, også i Danmark.  

16. juli 2016 – Den russiske militæranalytiker Igor Korochenko, der er medredaktør af det Russiske Nationale Forsvarsmagasin, rapporterer, at NATO faktisk ikke udviser nogen interesse for det russiske forslag om, at alle militærfly skal operere transponders, når de flyver over Østersøen (Det baltiske Hav). Dette var det ene af to punkter på dagsordenen – idet det andet var NATO’s militære oprustning i Østeuropa – som russerne fremførte på NATO-Ruslandsrådets møde i sidste uge, sagde han til Sputnik, men NATO var ikke rigtig interesseret i at diskutere dem.

»Rusland vil gerne vide, hvad grundene er bag NATO’s beslutning om at deployere kampgrupper tæt på Ruslands grænser. Der findes ingen praktisk grund til det«, sagde han. »Men der var ingen dialog. Nato nægtede grundlæggende set at diskutere dette spørgsmål.« Mht. spørgsmålet om transponders, så er det afhængigt af, at NATO gør det samme, dvs., at dets fly også flyver med deres transponders slået til. »Alliancen sagde, at den ville studere Ruslands forslag. Hvad er der at studere?«, spurgte analytikeren. »Det er krystalklart: når transponders er slået til, ser NATO russiske fly, og Rusland ser NATO spionfly, der gennemflyver luftrummet langs med Ruslands grænser. NATO udtrykte ikke noget ønske om omgående at føje blæk til aftalen.«

Foto: Russisk SU-27 kampfly ved Chkalovsk flyvestation i Kaliningrad-området.

16. juli 2016 – Victor Baranets, en pensioneret oberst og kendt russisk militæranalytiker, fremfører i en spalte i Komsomolskaya Pravda (tilgængeligt på engelsk af ’Russia Insider’), at angrebet med lastbil i Nice, Frankrig, viser, at alle må respondere positivt til Moskvas opfordring til en fælles indsats imod terrorisme. Problemet er, at Vesten, gennem NATO, i stedet er besat af tanken om en »trussel« fra Rusland og er i færd med at opbygge sine militære styrker, der intet som helst har at gøre med at stoppe terrorismen. »Jeg mener, at, i dag mere end nogen sinde, må alle lande respondere positivt til Moskvas opfordring til at skabe fælles globale specialtjenester, der kan infiltrere alle terrororganisationer«, skriver Baranets. »Tjenestens specialagenter skal infiltrere selv de mindste grupper, der endnu planlægger et terrorangreb.« I dag banker terrorismen på Frankrigs dør. I morgen er det måske Italien, Spanien eller Portugal. »Verden konfronteres med en verdensomspændende terrorudfordring, og vi må give samme verden et velkoordineret svar. Selvfølgelig er det lovens håndhævelsestjenester, og her først og fremmest specialtjenester, der først skal tale. Jeg mener, at vi må tredoble og afbryde spionringe«, konkluderer Baranets. »Først da vil vi blive i stand til at gå op imod ondskaben.«

16. juli 2016 – Oberst Fletcher Prouty (1907 – 2001; USAF, pensioneret), en legendarisk person inden for det amerikanske efterretningssamfund, og som var den første ’whistleblower’ i forhold til korrumperingen af det amerikanske efterretningsetablissement med sin afslørende bog, Secret Team, skrev i februar 1990 en isnende artikel om det dengang nylige mord (30. nov., 1989) på Deutsche Banks formand, Alfred Herrhausen. Prouty sidestillede direkte mordet på Herrhausen med mordet i 1963 på præsident John F. Kennedy, og han gjorde det ganske klart, at han ikke købte ideen om, at Herrhausen skulle være blevet myrdet af »terrorister« og fremførte i stedet, at morderne var brikker fra en større, statslig efterretningstjeneste.

Prouty skrev:

»Det er fuldstændig forbløffende, at spørgsmålet om det brutale mord på denne mand … Alfred Herrhausen … så pludseligt er blevet droppet i nyhederne. Tysklands Deutsche Bank er uden nogen som helst tvivl én af de vigtigste banker i verden, og bankens bestyrelsesformand Herrhausen var én af bankprofessionen i hele verdens mest betydningsfulde talsmænd. Han ville have været en nøgleperson i alle udviklinger.

Hans død på det tidspunkt … og den slående natur af hans død er hævet over enhver tvivl … kan for nutiden i betydningsfuldhed … sidestilles med præsident John F. Kennedys død i 1963.

I betragtning af tiden … med den enorme kæde af begivenheder, der fandt sted i Sovjetunionen, i Østeuropa og i særdeleshed i Østtyskland … er mordet på Herrhausen en handling, der har enorm betydning. Den kan ikke, og må ikke, blot fejes under gulvtæppet som blot ’endnu en terrorhandling’. Virkelige terrorister myrder ikke bankpræsidenter uden en specifik grund. De fleste terrorister er i virkeligheden blot betalte brikker og ’mekanismer’ for store magtcentre. Et eller andet stormagtscenter ønskede Formanden for Deutsche Bank fjernet på denne dag, af en eller anden grund på netop denne måde, og som en lektion til andre. Der må ligge et stort budskab i den handling, der bragte hans død.«

Proutys syv sider lange artikel gik videre med at citere fra den tale, som JFK efter planen skulle holde i Dallas, Texas, den 22. november, 1963, samt den tale, som Herrhausen efter planen skulle holde i New York City den 4. december, 1989 – kun fire dage efter hans mord.

Den største fare, lige bortset fra en direkte Tredje Verdenskrig, ville være, at den transatlantiske sektor styrtede ud i kaos. Derfor fremkom min mand – der har en unik rekord for at have ret, mht. økonomisk forecasting, og mht. at komme med forslag til, hvordan en situation kan løses – med denne meget overraskende kommentar: at Deutsche Bank, frem for alle banker, skulle udvælges og reddes, denne ene, sidste gang, men ikke uden betingelser: De må omgående sættes under en form for konkursbehandling. En ledelseskomité bør have ansvaret. Og dernæst må banken have en ny forretningsplan, der må gå tilbage til den filosofi, som blev praktiseret af Alfred Herrhausen, der var den sidste, moralske bankier i hele Europa, og som havde en helt anden filosofi.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Paris, 15. juli 2016 – Frankrig er atter blevet ramt af forbryderisk terrorisme.

Og atter udtrykker republikkens præsident, indenrigsminister og premierminister, med alvorsdyb stemme, deres sorg og deres vilje til at bekæmpe terrorisme, uden imidlertid at angribe de sande årsager til dette barbari.

Hovedårsagen er deres medskyldighed, med en politik, der støtter jihadisme som middel til at fremprovokere Bashar al-Assad-regimets fald, en politik, der er udtænkt af USA, UK, Saudi-Arabien, Qatar og Tyrkiet, og som nu vender sig mod os selv.

Hvad er det, der foregår i Nice? Siden 2014 har man vidst, at byen var blevet et rekrutteringscenter for jihadister, der skulle til Syrien. En rapport fra DGSI (Direction Générale de Sécurité Interne) bemærkede endda, at Nice var blevet en »laboratorie-by«, til identificering og håndtering af »radikalisering«.

Det er med base i Nice, at Omar Osman, en fransk-senegalesisk gangster, der konverterede til islam, rekrutterede sin brigade af 50 til 80 franskmænd, der kæmpede i Syrien med al-Nusra (dvs. al-Qaeda i Syrien), om hvilke vores tidligere udenrigsminister Laurent Fabius i 2012, med upassende entusiasme, erklærede, at de »gjorde et godt stykke arbejde« med at bekæmpe Assad.

Det er også i Nice, at potentielle jihadisters færdsel frem og tilbage i saudiarabiske diplomatattachetasker blev afsløret. Den 7. april sidste år erklærede byens borgmester, Christian Estrosi, i et interview til RTL’s radiojournalist, Olivier Mazerolle, at to personer, der stod opført i S-filen over radikaliserede personer, der krævede skærpet overvågning, var kommet ind i Frankrig »i et saudiarabisk følge«, og at »de nød total undtagelse fra inspektion« i Nices internationale lufthavn. Som svar på et spørgsmål fra Mazerolle, om politiet var blevet tvunget til at lade dem passere igennem, sagde Estrosi: »Ja, og jeg ved, at nogle af dem var meget chokeret og lod dette vide, og at de efterfølgende måtte bære konsekvenserne heraf.«

Regeringen kan ikke længere praktisere fodslæb om dette spørgsmål og risikerer således, ligesom Tony Blair, i dag eller i morgen at befinde sig i en situation, hvor de skal stå til regnskab for deres handlinger foran en Chilcot-kommission, eller værre endnu, foran en domstol.

Øjeblikket er kommet til hurtigt at genetablere vore relationer med Bashar al-Assad for at påbegynde en fornyet grundlæggelse og genopbygning af Syrien; til sammen med Rusland i fællesskab at agere for at bekæmpe denne trussel; og til kraftigt at tilskynde USA til at gøre det samme.

Vore politifolk, vort militær, vore folk i reserven og blandt det lægelige personale gav Nice en lektion i solidaritet og borgerånd. Lad os vise os værdige til republikkens værdier og til at vise ofrene behørig respekt ved at standse denne dystre opremsning af angreb og afværge spøgelset af splittelse i vort land, en grasserende radikalisering, der ville kuldkaste vores dybe, ligevægtige vilje til at leve sammen.

Foto: Folk lægger blomster på Promenade des Anglais i Nice.           

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg tror, det er almindelig kendt blandt absolut alle i det internationale finansielle samfund, og i alle regeringer og blandt alle relevante personer i politiske stillinger i den transatlantiske sektor, at det, jeg nu siger her, er absolut sandt. Med andre ord: bankiererne og de ansvarlige personer i det internationale finansielle system alle er klar over, at dette system er absolut bankerot; håbløst bankerot. Det står umiddelbart foran en nedsmeltning, i langt større skala end den, der fandt sted i 2008, af den meget simple grund, at alle de indikatorer, der var til stede, før Lehman Brothers og AIG gik ned, er til stede nu, men i langt større skala.

[Vi arbejder på en dansk oversættelse af hele webcastet. Bliv på kanalen!]  

Engelsk udskrift:

SAVE DEUTSCHE BANK TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT WILL SAVE MANKIND!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast Friday, July 15, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It's July 15th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly webcast on
larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Benjamin
Deniston; and we're joined by a very special guest, via video,
Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Helga Zepp-LaRouche is the founder of
the Schiller Institute, and also Chairwoman of the German BüSo
(Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidaritä¤t, Civil Rights Movement
Solidarity) political party.
        Helga LaRouche is joining us tonight to discuss the
initiative that she and Mr. Lyndon LaRouche have taken this week
to act in a very decisive manner to avert World War III and a
global economic blow-out. This concerns the situation that
Deutsche Bank now finds itself in.
        I would like to begin by reading a Statement that Mrs.
LaRouche issued a few days ago, on July 12th of this week. We
will then follow that Statement by a discussion with Mrs.
LaRouche herself. In the Statement that Mrs. LaRouche issued,
titled "Deutsche Bank Must be Rescued, for the Sake of World
Peace," Helga wrote the following:
        "The imminent threat of the bankruptcy of Deutsche Bank is
certainly not the only potential trigger for a new systemic
crisis of the trans-Atlantic banking system, which would be
orders of magnitude more deadly than the 2008 crisis, but it does
offer a unique lever to prevent a collapse into chaos.
        "Behind the SOS launched by the chief economist of Deutsche
Bank, David Folkerts-Landau, for an EU program of EU¬150 billion
to recapitalize the banks, lurks the danger openly discussed in
international financial media, that the entire European banking
system is {de facto} insolvent, and is sitting on a mountain of
at least EU¬2 trillion of non-performing loans. Deutsche Bank is
the international bank, with a total of EU¬55 trillions of
outstanding derivative contracts and a leverage factor of 40:1,
even outdoes Lehman Brothers at the time of its collapse, and
therefore represents the most dangerous Achilles heel of the
system. Half of Deutsche Bank's balance sheet, which has
plummeted 48% in the past 12 months and is down to only 8% of its
peak value, is made up of Level-3 derivatives, i.e., derivatives
amounting to circa EU¬800 billion without a market valuation.
        "It probably came as a surprise to many that Lyndon LaRouche
called today for Deutsche Bank to be saved through a one-time
increase in its capital base, because of the systemic
implications of its threatened bankruptcy. Neither the German
government with its GDP of EU¬4 trillion, nor the EU with a GDP
of EU¬18 trillion, would be able to control the domino effect of
a disorderly bankruptcy.
        "The one-time capital injection, LaRouche explained, is only
an emergency measure which needs to be followed by an immediate
reorientation of the bank, back to its tradition which prevailed
until 1989 under the leadership of Alfred Herrhausen. To actually
oversee such an operation, a management committee must be set up
to verify the legitimacy and the implications of the obligations,
and finalize its work within a given timeframe. That committee
should also draw up a new business plan, based on Herrhausen's
banking philosophy and exclusively oriented to the interests of
the real economy of Germany.
        "Alfred Herrhausen was the last actually creative, moral
industrial banker of Germany. He defended, among other things,
the cancellation of the unpayable debt of developing countries,
as well as the long-term credit financing of well-defined
development projects. In December 1989, he planned to present in
New York a plan for the industrialization of Poland, which was
consistent with the criteria used by the Kreditanstalt für
Wiederaufbau (KfW) for the post-1945 reconstruction of Germany,
and would have offered a completely different perspective than
the so-called 'reform policy,' or 'shock therapy', of Jeffrey
Sachs…."
        Helga completes this Statement by saying:
        "Herrhausen's assassination has gone unpunished. However,
there exists 'the dreaded might, that judges what is hid from
sight,' which is the subject of Friedrich Schiller's poem {Die
Kraniche des Ibykus}. The Erinyes have begun their dreadful
dance.
        It is now incumbent upon all those who, in addition to the
family, have suffered from the assassination of Herrhausen, upon
the representatives of the Mittelstand, of the German economy and
the institutional representatives of the German population, to
honor his legacy and to seize the tremendous opportunity which is
now offered to save Germany."
        With that said, Helga, would you like to follow up at all
with any opening statements?

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think that it is absolutely
known to everybody in the international financial community and
to all governments and all relevant people in political positions
in the trans-Atlantic sector, that what I'm saying there is
absolutely true. In other words: the bankers and [those]
responsible for the international financial system all know that
this system is absolutely bankrupt, hopelessly bankrupt. It's
about to blow up in a much, much bigger way than 2008, for the
very simple reason that all indicators which were there before
Lehman Brothers and AIG went under, are there, but much more.
        The famous instrument box which they were using, or
pretending to use, in 2008, has been used up: quantitative
easing, zero interest rate, negative interest rate, helicopter
money. Right now you have the situation — and we have this from
extremely reliable contacts in the banking community who agree
with us — where all the central banks are printing money, paper
money, like crazy, because they know perfectly well that
helicopter money is not just electronic, but if you would have a
banking run right now, the whole thing would evaporate within a
very short period of time, in hours.
        This is a situation where if you have an uncontrolled,
chaotic collapse, which is right now eminently possible, because
you have several [inaud 0:07.39]. Not only Deutsche Bank.
You have the Italian Banking sector about to blow. You have the
British situation after the Brexit. The entire European banking
system is absolutely bankrupt. If you had an uncontrolled
collapse, well, as one banker told us, after he read this
statement of mine, he said, "If this is not remedied in the short
term, we are looking towards a Europe of chaos, disorder, and
revolution."
        The biggest danger, apart from World War III directly, would
be a plunge of the trans-Atlantic sector into chaos. Therefore,
my husband — who has a unique record of being right, in terms of
forecasting, and being unique, in terms of coming up for
proposals how to remedy the situation — made this very
surprising comment: that Deutsche Bank, of all banks, should be
singled out, they should be saved, one last time, but not without
conditions: They must immediately be put in a sort of
receivership. A management commission should be in charge. And
then they need a new business plan, which must go back to the
philosophy of Alfred Herrhausen, who was the last moral banker in
all of Europe, and who had a completely different philosophy.
        We had all kinds of reactions about that. It turned out the
banks are much more hated than meets the public eye. People said,
"Let these banks go bankrupt! Why don't you just close them down?
Nationalize them! Bankrupt them!" You had an outpouring of anger
coming from people you would not expect it — conservative
industrialists, politicians who normally are not speaking in
radical tones at all — but what came out was an explosion of
anger.
        It is very easy to be angry about the situation. If this
thing collapses in an uncontrolled fashion, all the life-savings
of people will be ruined. The majority of the people will have to
pay, and this will be associated with poverty. Millions of people
dying. This is not a joke.
        It's not enough to be "against" something; even if banks
have behaved completely criminal and immoral. Deutsche Bank is
spending right now such enormous amounts of money on legal fines
for illegal activity from LIBOR swindles, all kinds of shady
operations, so that they had to write down their profit warnings.
It's not the question of "doing a favor" to Deutsche Bank. Not at
all! The question is: you must find leverage; how to bring this
thing in order, before the whole thing ends up in a collapse,
causing an absolute uncontrollable situation.
        That is why the reference to Alfred Herrhausen is really
extremely important, because he was the head of Deutsche Bank. He
was a banker. Deutsche Bank had a different policy, and
therefore, when you say, "We have to back to the philosophy of
Alfred Herrhausen," at least the older generation knows exactly
what that means. Therefore, I think we should really spread this
and force people to put pressure on the situation, that this is
being done. You have to "unwind" the outstanding derivatives. You
have to deal with the situation that Deutsche Bank has EU¬55
trillion in outstanding derivatives. Half of their balance sheet
is without market valuation, which means that it's practically
worth nothing, because you can't really sell it.
        If you have an uncontrolled collapse, then that could be
really what brings down the whole thing in a chaotic way. If you
go the way Mr. LaRouche has proposed, then you can have an
orderly resolution of this bankrupt system, and replace it with
one which is in the interest of the people. So, it's not just a
technical proposal. Several people, in response to my statement,
said, "This is probably the very last chance we have to prevent a
catastrophe."

        OGDEN: I would like to get a little bit more into the
significance of the role played by Alfred Herrhausen in a moment;
but before we get to that, Helga, maybe you also say a little bit
more about what the strategic context of this intervention is,
especially from the standpoint of the role that [inaud 13:06]
play, not only as the only viable economy in Europe right now,
but also the emphasis that Mr. LaRouche has placed on the
relationship between Germany and Russia, being the only means by
which we can prevent the outbreak of a thermonuclear conflict.

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, people have now all kinds of proposals,
like "Tobin Tax," "tax the speculators" — all these proposals
are floating around. What they don't consider, is that when we're
taking about banking, we're not talking about money or financial
questions; we're taking about the physical pre-condition for a
society to exist. Fortunately, the German economy, despite all of
these paradigm shifts which have occurred in the last 25 years to
the worse, the German economy is still an economic powerhouse.
You still have a very large concentration of very productive
middle-level industry. Middle-level industry is normally where
all the patterns are made, the technological innovation occurs.
That is really the backbone of the productive economy.
        The question is: this German economy, without which all of
Europe would not function, absolutely must be protected, and not
only be protected, because right now, it is already many, many
small firms which are in danger. There are other factors, like
the crazy [nuclear] energy exit of Mrs. Merkel, which has
increased the price of energy tremendously, but the German
economy is sort of weakened; but it is still the absolute crucial
factor because in Germany you have a lot of the industrial
potential which is needed not only for all of Europe, but in
order to get the whole question of Eurasian cooperation on a
sound ground, you need the German economy. The whole question of
the German-Russian cooperation, German-Chinese cooperation in the
development of the Eurasian Silk Road, is absolutely crucial.
        So, the question is the productivity. And what has happened
with the paradigm shift of all the successors of Herrhausen — I
don't want to name all of them — but all of them went into this
high-risk maximization of profit no matter what. Ackermann wanted
25% profit, preferably every month; and they went into these
completely crazy derivative operations, so that Deutsche Bank is
today {the} leading bank in terms of derivative exposure. With
$55 trillion in outstanding derivatives, that's with a GDP of the
German economy of $4 trillion a year; it's more than 10 times
more, even 12 times more the GDP of the German economy. So
Deutsche Bank long has stopped to be Deutsche Bank; it's now
operating from London, from New York. It has become one of the
most aggressive investment banks in the world. But if it goes
bankrupt, which it could at any moment; and that's why the chief
economist Mr. Folkerts-Landau put out every day since Sunday, he
put out an urgent call saying this recapitalization of the
European banks must occur, or else calamity will happen. If
Deutsche Bank would go under, the German economy — and with it,
all European economies — would collapse; and therefore, it's not
a question of choice. Obviously, to just put out more bail-out
packages per se, as the ECB [European Central Bank] and the EU
Commission have done in the past, is completely useless because
it makes the problem worse. Right now, it has reached the limit;
because after helicopter money, what else do you want to do?
        It is not a choice; it is a life and death question, not
only for Germany, but really for the entire trans-Atlantic
sector.

        OGDEN: Now, you have emphasized that the circumstances
around the assassination of Alfred Herrhausen continue to be a
crime that the truth has not yet been told fully about. It's
something that in the United States, we can relate to the
assassination of John F. Kennedy, in terms of the magnitude of
what this meant for the turning point in the policy of Germany at
that time. Obviously, it was in the context of the collapse of
the Berlin Wall in the beginning of November 1989, and just less
than one month later, at the very end of November, November 30th,
Herrhausen was assassinated in a very sophisticated attack on his
convoy as he was travelling from his home to the Deutsche Bank
headquarters. You said, Helga, in an article that you wrote in
1992 titled, "New Evidence Emerges in the Herrhausen
Assassination Case," you said, "The key to the motive behind
Herrhausen's assassination lies in 11 pages of a speech he was to
deliver in the United States only four days after he was
ambushed. The speech contained Herrhausen's vision of a new kind
of relationship between eastern and western Europe, which would
have fundamentally altered the world's future course." And then
you have a quotation from the speech, which I think is shocking
when we go back and read that today, in consideration of what Mr.
LaRouche and you were also both advocating for at that time. What
he said, or what he was to say, in that speech that was never
delivered, was the following:
        "There should be assurances that the new credit will flow
into specific, promising projects. It is therefore advisable that
the export guarantees which the German Federal government wants
to expand, be tied primarily to specific projects. In this
connection, at this year's annual meeting of the IMF and World
Bank in Washington, I proposed setting up a development bank on
the spot; i.e., in Warsaw. Its task would be to bundle the aid
and to channel it according to strict efficiency criteria. My
vision is that such an institution could function somewhat like
the Deutsche Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, which traces its
origins back to the Marshall Plan."
        So, when you compare that speech that Herrhausen was about
to give four days after he was assassinated, to what Lyn said in
his speech in West Germany at the Kempinski Hotel in 1988, when
he forecast the reunification of Germany and the collapse of the
Berlin Wall, he said:
        "Let us say that the United States and western Europe will
cooperate to accomplish the successful rebuilding of the economy
of Poland. There will be interference in the political system of
government, but only a kind of Marshall Plan aid to rebuild
Poland's industry and agriculture. If Germany agrees to this, let
a process aimed at the reunification of the economies of Germany
begin; and let this be the {puntum saliens} for western
cooperation in assisting in the rebuilding of the economy of
Poland."
        So, I think in the context of this speech that Herrhausen
was about to deliver in New York, his cooperation with Helmut
Kohl in terms of the reunification of Germany; and also the fact
that he was on record calling for the debt relief — at least a
partial debt relief, if not a full debt forgiveness of the Third
World countries. He had met with the President of Mexico in 1987;
he had surprised the world by delivering a speech at the World
Bank in 1987 calling for the forgiveness of the debt of the Third
World. All of these are right in parallel with what you and Lyn
were advocating for, going all the way back to 1975, back to the
Operation Juarez and also with this Marshall Plan Productive
Triangle proposal at the fall of the Berlin Wall. So, I think
that certainly puts his assassination in the correct context to
understand {qui bono}. Who benefitted from the fact that he was
killed?

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think I would to take it a little bit
back, because this is not just a question of a murder which
occurred 27 years ago. I want to recall what the period was,
because most people have forgotten that Germany was not always
unified; that the Berlin Wall came down. But this was one of the
most traumatic developments in the post-war period. You remember
that you had the peaceful demonstrations in the G.D.R. [East
Germany], the Monday demonstrations; the Warsaw Pact still
existed, and it was not clear what would happen. Would this lead
to another 1956 like in Hungary, or a new Prague Spring, where
Russian or Soviet tanks come? Then the wall came down, and Mr.
LaRouche had this idea about the German unification which you
referenced, which he presented in the Kempinski Hotel in 1988; so
we had a plan. We put out immediately this proposal for the
German unification, to have a mission; to have the Productive
Triangle to take the region from Paris, Berlin, Vienna — the
economic powerhouse of the world at that time — and develop
corridors into eastern Europe to transform Europe. We were the
only ones who had any idea, because we were the only ones who
even had an inkling that the Soviet Union would collapse; which
Mr. LaRouche had already pronosed in 1984. He said, if the Soviet
Union sticks to their military policy of the Ogarkov plan, which
was basically the idea to gain world dominance; then they will
collapse in five years. And I can assure you, not even the German
government had any idea that unification would be real; even if
that was the primary political goal of the entire post-war
period. Then the Wall came down; and in the official documents
which the German government published ten years later, they
admitted they had no contingency plan for the case of German
unification. Can you imagine that? That was the policy goal
number one to have German unification; and they had no plan. But
we did have a plan.
        So, then developments became extremely traumatic. On the
28th of November, Helmut Kohl did probably the most important
step in his entire political career by putting forward the
10-point program. This was not yet a program for German
unification, but it was a medium-term plan for the moving closer
together of the two German states; the West German and East
German states in a federation. But he did that without consulting
the Allies, and he did it without even consulting the liberal
coalition partner, Mr. Genscher; but it was a first baby step in
the direction of two German sovereignties. We know now that
Francois Mitterand put an ultimatum to Kohl and said, either you
give up the German D-mark and its being replaced by a European
common currency — what became the euro — or we will not agree
to German unification.
        Two days after Kohl had put out this 10-point program,
Herrhausen was assassinated. Everybody in the German elite at
that point — and we talked to many people at that time — said
this is not just an assassination, but since Herrhausen was the
closest advisor to Kohl, this was a message to Kohl. Don't stick
your head out; do not dare to pursue and assert sovereignty.
Because Germany in the entire post-war period was an occupied
country; and at that time the saying went, "The best-kept public
secret of NATO is that Germany is an occupied country and will
remain an occupied country." So by Kohl making this tiny baby
step in the direction of sovereignty with the 10-point program,
that obviously was the contributing factor why this assassination
occurred. As you said, if Herrhausen would have made this speech
in New York in the following week, you would have had a proposal
coming from the leading banker which was practically in principle
identical to what Mr. LaRouche and I proposed at the time;
namely, that the unified Germany should take Poland as an example
for the economic transformation of all the other countries of the
Comecon.
        Then naturally, everything went haywire. The following EU
summit in the beginning of December in Strasburg, everybody
started to attack Kohl; and in an interview later, he said these
were the darkest hours of his life. The circumstances were such
that despite the fact that Kohl knew that the euro would not
function, he said this is against German interests; and he knew
absolutely that you cannot have a European common currency
without political union. So, he knew it wouldn't function; he
knew it was against German interests. But he was forced by the
circumstances to accept it, because you had Bush, Sr. who had the
policy of containment of Germany in the EU. It is well
established that originally Bush was against the German
unification; and only because such more experienced political
advisors like Brent Scowcroft told him if you are now against
German unification, then the United States will lose all
influence in Europe, so we have to basically agree to it. But
let's make sure Germany gets contained. And that is what led to
the infamous EU Maastricht agreement, which was the beginning of
turning the EU into an imperial adjunct of the Anglo-American
system. Helmut Schmidt, the late German Chancellor, in an equally
surprising interview recently before he died, said the whole
Ukraine crisis, which is right now what could be the trigger
point for a war with Russia; really started at the Maastricht
agreement, because this is when the EU decided to do exactly what
NATO has been doing ever since. Namely, to go for an eastward
expansion and move the EU and NATO just up to the borders of
Russia.
        So, the decision which was made in these really traumatic
weeks and month, set the course; and if Herrhausen had been alive
and advised Kohl, these conceptions could have been implemented
and history would not be at the point where we are now. So, the
Herrhausen assassination not only meant the lost chance of 1989;
everybody agreed at that time this was an historic chance that
happens at best once a century. I called the star hour of
Germany, because if you had the unified Germany developing a
peace plan for the 21st Century together with Russia, the whole
world would look completely different. But as I said, all the
successes of Herrhausen went in the direction of high-risk
speculation, globalization, money for money's sake, the rich
become richer, the poor become poorer, and all the problems we
have today. All the problems we have today are not just caused by
this one assassination, but the assassination is symptomatic for
the paradigm shift to the worse.
        It's a murder which is unpunished; the so-called murderers,
the third generation of the Red Army Faction probably never
existed. There was even in the first German TV channel a
documentary which said there has never been any evidence that any
of the persons who supposedly were the murderers, ever really
existed. So, the {qui bono} — well, it's the financial oligarchy
which profited; and it really has the smell of something quite
different — of an intelligence operation — as many of the
leading figures who did not fit the Yalta norm were assassinated.
But with the Herrhausen case, as you said, for Germany this is as
important in terms of paradigm shift as the assassination was of
John F. Kennedy.
        And right now, when the entire banking system is absolutely
at the verge of collapse, it is the last moment to do justice and
really go back to the policies of Herrhausen. Even so, almost
nobody knows anymore what real industrial banking is, because
they are so money-greedy and absolutely suckers for the latest
profit, that it would be a real uphill battle. But that battle
must be fought if Europe and Germany and the rest of the
trans-Atlantic sector are to survive; and probably beyond that,
much of the world.

        BEN DENISTON: Well, I think just looking at this transition
period, I know that you and Mr. LaRouche had both made a warning
that I think is very appropriate just to state in this context.
That around the fall of the Wall, this lost chance of '89, you
had explicitly said to the world, if we attempt this bankrupt,
collapsing Soviet system with an equally bankrupt trans-Atlantic
system, you're going to head to a collapse that's worse than
what's happening now. I'm paraphrasing you; you might know more
exactly how you stated it. But it seems like that really bridges
this whole process from '89 to what we're seeing today as the
culmination, the expression of what you warned of at that time. I
think a challenge we have is to get across the importance of
acting now on the level needed to make this shift we're talking
about. What Lyn has laid out with this reform program for
Deutsche Bank is the beginning out of this new paradigm. I think
it's important to see it as an intervention in this whole
collapse process you both had warned about and forecast this
would be the consequence of failing to act then. That should give
us greater impetus to know how important it is to act now while
we still have the chance.

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I remember that at that time, you had the
problem of the Bush administration, Margaret Thatcher, Francois
Mitterand, who absolutely really ganged up to prevent Germany
from assuming any such role of having an independent policy;
especially in respect to Russia. They were always saying, "Oh,
the West has won over communism." The only other person outside
of us who totally contradicted them was John Paul II, the Pope of
the time; who said, the people who now are triumphant and say the
market economy is winning over communism, are absolutely wrong.
If you don't believe it, look at the condition of the Third
World, to see that the West has not won; because the moral
condition of the developing countries speaks to the contrary.
        Naturally, that is all the more true today; because if you
look at the inhuman treatment of the refugee crisis, for example.
They are still coming by the hundreds, every week by the
thousands, over the Mediterranean; drowning. Even more are
starving and dying of thirst and lack of water trying to cross
the Sahara. That is also the condition of this system. The system
is what causes all of this; and therefore, it is absolutely high
time that we come to the question of how can we — as a human
civilization — give us an economy and a financial system which
is adequate to human beings? And I think it's very important that
we go back to the question of what is actually the creation of
wealth? Is it what Margaret Thatcher said, is it the ability to
buy cheap and sell expensive? The famous speaking of Margaret
Thatcher being the daughter of a grocery trader, or is it the
possession of raw materials? Or is it the control of the
financial system? No; it's not. The only source of wealth is the
creative power of the human being; and when that creative power
is applied, then you have scientific and technological progress.
That is then leading to an increase of productivity in the
economy.
        That has been the battle between the American Revolution and
the British Empire; between the free-traders and people like
Alexander Hamilton who insisted that it is the creative power of
labor which causes the well-being and the living standard and the
longevity of the people. That was the philosophy of Friedrich
List, the great German economist, who is now the most famous
economist in China, by the way. That was the policy of Friedrich
List and Henry C. Carey, the advisor of Lincoln; who both advised
and through such people as Wilhelm von Kardoff, who was the
head of the German industrial association in the time of
Bismarck. Who changed the mind of Bismarck from being a
free-trader into being an absolute believer in a protectionist
system and the idea that you have to further the productivity and
creativity of your own population as the only source of wealth.
        So, there is a lot of history involved; and what we are
really talking about is taking Germany back to the ideas of
Bismarck, of Friedrich List, of Henry C. Carey, of Dr. William
Lautenbach, who in 1932 presented a plan to the Friedrich List
Organization in Germany which was identical with what Roosevelt
had proposed with the New Deal and the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation, Glass-Steagall, Bretton Woods. That was all in these
proposals by Dr. William Lautenbach, who as history knows,
unfortunately were not taken up; but instead you had Hjalmar
Schacht, you had Hitler, you had before Mussolini, Franco,
Petain, and you are in bed with fascists.
        The question today is, can we, in time, go back to those
conceptions which have proven to be productive and valuable for
the economy; or are we plunging into a catastrophe of new fascism
and new wars? So, on this question of Deutsche Bank, most people
are so in the day-to-day making money, profits, and balance
sheets, and having dollar notes coming out of their eyes, that
they have forgotten that there is something much more important
about human life. And that is the happiness of people; the common
good of people.
        The reason why in this call to honor the memory of
Herrhausen, using this crisis of Deutsche Bank now as a real
paradigm shift to go back to these policies; why I mentioned the
great poem by Friedrich Schiller "The Cranes of Ibykus." And by
the way, I would really urge our audience right now, who probably
are not familiar with that poem, we have at translation which we
can put on the website so it's easily accessible. But this poem
is so powerful; it's written by Friedrich Schiller. It discusses
not only the murder of the beloved poet Ibykus, but more
importantly even, it discusses the power of nemesis; the power of
natural law, which is a power which works in reality. It's not
that God punishes every little thief who steals something
immediately by chopping off his hand; but it is a power which
revenges great injustice. And this poem discusses this in a very
beautiful way by resorting to the Greek nemesis, this idea which
was used in great Greek dramas to demonstrate this principle of
the Erinyes. That there is this power that revenges this murder
and other injustices; that there is a higher power than the
arbitrariness of people's will. The poem is very, very powerful.
As a matter of fact, I would even urge you to learn German, just
to read and understand that poem; because it teaches something
about history. I think right now the Erinyes, those goddesses of
revenge which Friedrich Schiller has in this poem marching in the
amphitheater — in circles — they are bringing forward this
higher power by the prism of the poem. It's a very, very powerful
way of reminding people that there is a higher power than what
people think when they read the daily newspaper. So, please make
the effort. Read it; in English if you have to, but read it in
German because there is another dimension to history than what
people think. And only if you bring this forward this inner
strength, this inner power which people have almost lost in the
trans-Atlantic sector because people small. They feel impotent,
they feel helpless. But what we have to unleash is exactly this
inner strength so that people really become truly human again,
and take the history and the destiny in their own hands. And
that's exactly what the message is of Friedrich Schiller; who
always thought that man is greater than his destiny by resorting
to these kinds of inner powers and higher authorities than the
laws of money.

        OGDEN: Well, you cited the Ibykus principle in your keynote
speech to the conference that you hosted three weeks ago in
Berlin; this extraordinary conference. But I thought in that
context also, you made it very clear that history is working
according to a higher law. That conference came just days after
the Brexit vote which shocked everybody and threw all of Europe
in disarray. But you said, this is the Erinyes principle in
action. Tony Blair lied to get us into the Iraq War. The Iraq War
set off a series of regime-change operations in the Middle East
that have completely destabilized this region. That has, in turn,
created this refugee crisis; and now you have the Brexit and the
disintegration of Europe as the Erinyes beginning their dreadful
dance, as you said in this statement once again.
        I think that's also highly relevant in the context of the
anticipated news today, where people have read in the press that
the 28 pages, which we have fought for years to force the release
of these 28 pages; the reports are in the press that these very
well could be released today. In what form, we don't know; how
heavily redacted, we don't know. But again, this is the Erinyes
acting, and it's our responsibility to understand this as a
principle of history; and to continue to understand that the
moral arc of the Universe may be long, but it does bend toward
justice. I think Martin Luther King also understood what
Friedrich Schiller was getting at in this poem, as you said.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think that having said that, I want to
come back to the absolute need to find a handle; because right
now the problem is, nobody has a handle on how to intervene with
this financial crisis. And if the proposal of Mr. LaRouche is
taken seriously, you have a way of dealing with the consequences
of avoiding the dangers of an uncontrollable collapse. You have
to untangle this; you have to shut down this derivative system;
you have to shut down the bubble. You have to do it in an orderly
manner, because there's no point to just say let's just close it
down or tax it or whatever. You have to find a skilled level of
how you take management of a bank — in this case, the Deutsche
Bank; you have to put in a supervisory management commission
which has to evaluate the validity and integrity of the
outstanding obligations. Many of the derivatives have much more
than two parties; they have two, three, four, and more parties.
You have to untangle that. You probably have to write down the
nominal value of these outstanding obligations. That way, you can
put a new basis, a new business plan for the bank which is in
cohesion with the idea of credit policy in general. But you have
to start to do that somewhere. The Herrhausen history and
tradition is exactly what makes it very practical. We are not
proposing something completely outlandish, utopian; this was the
policy of Deutsche Bank at one point.
        So therefore, I want to bring it back to this point; and I
would really urge all the people who are watching to make sure
this proposal is being distributed to all institutions which have
anything to do with the economy, with industry, with people in
political positions who should take care of the common good. And
make sure that we get a serious debate. I know that in both
election platforms of the Democratic Party and the Republican
Party, you have the Glass-Steagall law in the platform. Now that
is very good; we will have the conventions in the next weeks.
This is not necessarily the stated position of the candidates;
but it is in the platform. So there is hope that if we mobilize
in the right way, this change can occur before it's too late. But
it's really one second, or maybe a nanosecond before midnight; so
it's not a time for complacency. It's a time for action.
Therefore, I would really urge you to join us; because we have a
beautiful future ahead of us if we do the right thing. If we miss
this moment, it can be the end of civilization; because the war
danger is very real, not only in respect to NATO against Russia,
but also the escalation around the South China Sea. We are not in
a political void, but we are in one of these moments in history
where a lot depends on the individual courage and the individual
action. Therefore, I really ask you to join us to bring history
in a better direction.

        DENISTON: Absolutely.

        OGDEN: Thank you very much for joining us today, Helga. This
was a special broadcast, and I think a very important and timely
one for the American audience. We're going to make the statement
that you wrote on this subject — which I read from in the
beginning of the broadcast — available in the video description
to this video and also on the website. This is absolutely one of
the key pieces of material that people can use to, as you said,
to do outreach to all the key layers in the United States and
elsewhere to put this proposal very seriously on the table. We
will also make the English translation of "The Cranes of Ibykus"
available to our audience as well.
        Would you like to make any final remarks before we close, or
is that a good place to conclude our broadcast?

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I just would like to really express my hope
that enough people recognize that we have now a point where
history will be either totally a catastrophe — and most people
are already thinking that; the people who are not completely dead
because of drugs or other problems, they know that we are in a
really unprecedented civilizational crisis. Even worse than any
of the prewar situations of the 20th Century. Just yesterday, one
of the key advisors of the Kremlin said, all the signs are of a
prewar period; and that's true. We are in a prewar period; and
unless we remove the real reason for the dynamic for war, which
is the danger of a collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial
system. Unless we remedy that, I'm almost certain that war will
happen; and if that war would happen, it's the logic of war that
in that case all weapons available will be used. In the case of
thermonuclear weapons, that would be it; there probably would not
anybody to even record what happened, because it would be the
elimination of civilization. And therefore, the remedy of the
financial crisis is not just a banking technical affair; it
really is the question of putting society back on a course where
we all can survive as a human civilization. In a certain sense,
it's what {The Federalist Papers} discussed. Can we give
ourselves a political order which is suitable for man to organize
his own affairs and govern according to the common good? So, it's
a much larger issue; and I'm very optimistic that it can be done.
But it requires an extraordinary effort, and it requires all of
you.

        OGDEN: OK, thank you very much for joining us today, Helga.
Hopefully, we can do this at some point again in the future.
Thank you all for tuning in. Please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com; and take this discussion and take what Mrs.
LaRouche just had to say very much to heart. So, thank you very
much and good night.

15. juli 2016 – Her til morgen gentog Deutsche Banks cheføkonom David Folkerts-Landau i et interview på CNBC-TV sit krav om en bailout/genkapitalisering for de europæiske banker og sagde, at centralbankens politik er en fiasko og ødelægger kanalen for kredit til SME-sektoren (Små og Mellemstore Entrepriser). Efter en briefing om dette bemærkede LaRouche, at spørgsmålet er meget fornuftigt, men, af de involverede elementer er nogle kendte, mens andre repræsenterer tvivlsspørgsmål. Han pointerede betydningen af Alfred Herrhausen, formand for Deutsche Bank fra 1971 og frem til november 1989, hvor han blev myrdet.

LaRouche sagde, at kapitalisering som sådan ikke er et effektivt instrument for situationen. De tvivlsomme værdier bør annulleres. Det er den eneste måde at komme ud af dette rod på. Det er ligesom at få en syg person til at blive endnu mere syg, og så kalde ham én, der ’med succes er blevet mere syg!’

Det er selve fremgangsmåden, der er problemet. Deduktiv tænkning er altid problemet. Vi står med et svindelnummer, et system, der er et falsum. Så vi må tilbage til ’Gå’ og starte om igen. Man kan ikke forsøge at ’fikse det’. Det er ikke et ’fiks det’-problem.

Overvej det følgende: Hvad er det økonomiske system? Man må følge det, Herrhausen var i færd med at etablere. Han blev myrdet for at annullere denne indsats, der skabte den ødelæggelse, der fulgte. Det var formålet med mordet. Enhver idé om at »forhandle« et skifte vil være et falsum.

Der må komme en annullering af såkaldt rigdom, der ikke er berettiget til at bære dette navn. Se så på, hvad der er tilbage. Find ud af, hvad der skal gøres. Der må være et selvudviklende program for produktivitet. IKKE en proces, hvor man tinger! Man skal ind på en anden kurs. Kursen kan ikke være forhandling. Man må udvirke produktive evner, og udvirke øget produktivitet på permanent basis.

Graden af produktivitet er den primære skabelse. Man kan ikke »tilføje« noget ved at tilføje det. Man skal bygge noget nyt, til en start. Annuller alle former for forhandling. Man skal acceptere Herrhausens program. Accepter hans program, ikke noget i den retning. Motivet for at myrde ham, øjensynligt af de franske og britiske netværk – var at standse dette system. Vores fremgangsmåde må være den, ikke at tale om »forhandlinger gennem tilpasninger«. Vi må eliminere det nuværende koncept om et finanssystem, ikke »udbedre« finanssystemet. Vi ønsker ikke et »blødere system«. Glem alt om penge, og tænk i stedet på økonomi, hvad det gør for økonomi.

Det, som det britiske/franske system gjorde ved at myrde Herrhausen, var for at forhindre en flugt fra svindelen. Man kan ikke »fikse op« noget, der var et falsum fra begyndelsen. I dag må vi komme op med et godt instrument. Afslutte det, der var forkert dengang, og nu.

Det er simpelt: 1) Herrhausen blev myrdet; og 2) briterne og andre systemer var involveret. De gjorde det for at nedlægge alt, der var forbundet med ham. Gerningsmændene havde til hensigt at forhindre Herrhausen, eller noget som ham, i nogensinde at tage styringen. Se lige på, hvem der stadig er der – George Soros, et førende problem, og britisk.  

Foto: Alfred Herrhausen (1930 – 1989), tysk bankier og formand for Deutsche Bank. Var fra 1971 og frem til sin død medlem af bankens bestyrelse. Rådgiver til kansler Helmut Kohl. Ingen er nogen sinde blevet straffet for hans mord.