Wiesbaden, 30. juli 2016 – Det tyske luftvåbens webside rapporterede i går om, at general Harald Kujat (pens.), tidligere formand for den tyske Forbundshærs generalstab (2000 – 02) og tidligere formand for NATO’s Militærkomite (2002 – 05), for flere uger siden holdt en tale til en forsamling på flere hundrede personer ved de det Tyske Luftvåbens Skole for Officerer uden Kommission, i hvilken tale han opfordrede til en Marshallplan for Syrien. General Kujat sagde: »Det er nødvendigt at stabilisere landet, etablere en overgangsregering med frie valg og støtte demokrati og genopbygning, i lighed med Marshallplanen for det tidligere Tyskland efter krigen.«

General Kujat samt en anden taler, Wolfgang Kubicki, næstformand for partiet Frie Demokrater, besvarede begge et spørgsmål om faren for krig i Europa, med »der er ingen, der vil have én«. Dernæst tilføjede general Kujat: »Men en utilsigtet handling kunne eskalere, og dernæst forårsage en krig«, og at konflikter i århundreder er begyndt på denne måde. Rapporteringen fortsætter, med en parafrase af Kujat, med, at »NATO-øvelserne, der finder sted på Ruslands vestlige grænser, bidrager ikke til at lette spændingerne, og de stempler Rusland som en modstander. Kubicki talte om en upassende ’raslen med lænkerne’«, der underminerer indsatsen for en fælles sikkerhedspolitik med Rusland, som blev påbegyndt i 1990. Kubicki trak paralleller til den tyske udenrigsminister Steinmeiers tidligere angreb på »NATO’s raslen med sablerne«.

Begge talere afviste også at bruge Bundeswehr internt i Tyskland imod terrortruslen og påpegede behovet for at udvide politiets kapaciteter. De står fast på den tyske forfatnings klarhed omkring magtens deling, som ikke bør undermineres.

General Kujat er meget kendt for at være streng i spørgsmålet om, at Forbundsdagen er den instans, der kan bemyndige militære deployeringer til udlandet Anvendelsen af NATO AWACS-fly, som til dels bemandes af tyske tropper, til indsats i Syrien, hvor potentialet for hændelser med russiske luftstyrker kunne finde sted, er en sådan principsag. Den tidligere statssekretær til Forsvarsministeriet og tidligere OSCE-vicepræsident, Willy Wimmer, sagde i går til Sputnik Tyskland, at et amerikansk NATO AWACS-fly og et saudisk AWACS-fly muligvis havde været involveret i det tyrkiske luftvåbens nedskydning af et russisk Su-24 bombefly i november 2015. Agenturets engelske tjeneste, Sputnik International, rapporterede i dag om Wimmers bemærkninger.

Foto: Harald Kujat.

30. juli 2016 – Den Europæiske Banktilsynsmyndigheds (ECA/ECB) stresstests bestod i at udregne, hvor meget kapital, banker ville tabe i tilfælde af et »negativt scenario« med »fald i reel EU-bruttonationalprodukt (BNP) på 1,2 % i 2016, 1,3 % i 2017 og 0,7 % i 2018«, gennemsnitligt, ifølge Financial Times. De enkelte landes scenarier synes imidlertid at være forskellige. For eksempel forudser et negativt scenario for Italien et fald i reel BNP på næsten 6 % i de tre år 2016 – 2018. I 2018 ville resultatet være 10 % lavere end i 2007, det laveste siden Anden Verdenskrig. Desuden antager man en stigning på 100 basispoint for afkast af statsobligationer, hvilket vil sige en 12 % ’s nedskrivning af disse obligationers værdi.

Desuden har EBA tilsyneladende ikke taget en »negativ kreditbegivenhed« (betyder almindeligvis, at låneren ikke kan betale, -red.), og en global finanskrise, i betragtning.

De ti banker, der havde de dårligste præstationer (i stresstesten), er: Monte dei Paschi di Siena, Reiffeisen (Østrig), Banco Popular (Spanien), UniCredit, Barclays, Allied Irish Banks, Commerzbank, Bank of Ireland, Deutsche Bank, Société Générale. Det var imidlertid kun Monte dei Paschi, der havde en negativ CT1 (dvs., under et »negativt scenario, en kapitalrate på under 7 %).

Kritikere af stresstesten understreger manglen på en passende estimater af bankregnskabets aktivside, der er fyldt op med derivater. Men selv EBA/ECB’s fup-estimater er nok til at udløse frygten for et jordskælv på finansmarkederne således, at resultaterne af stresstesten ikke blev offentliggjort, før markederne havde lukket!

30. juli 2016 – Ved at udstede garantier på Trin 2 af redningsplanen for Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS) er den italienske regering de facto i færd med at gennemføre bailout af de banker, der vil blive en del af Trin 1, som er en kapitaltilførsel på 5 milliarder euro. Fakta er, at disse banker skal opkøbe for op til 5 milliard euro af nye MPS-aktier på den betingelse, at banken kommer af med for 27 milliard euro lån, der ikke betales på (NPL; ’non-performing loans’), og således lover ’profitabilitet’ på markedet. Dette vil finde sted via en fond ved navn Atlante, som vil opkøbe disse NPL’er til 30 % af deres ’værdi’ og udstede værdipapirer, der garanteres af den italienske stat, til en rente på 6 %.

Medlemmerne af det konsortium, der deltager i Trin 1, er: J.P. Morgan, Mediobanca, Goldman Sachs, Santander, Citi, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank og Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Selv om det endnu ikke vides, hvem, der skal købe disse værdipapirer, kan det meget vel være, at nogle af, hvis ikke alle disse banker vil blive en del af spillet. Foreløbig er det blevet meddelt, at italienske private pensionsfonde vil købe for en halv milliard værdipapirer. Sammenslutningen af Skatterådgivere (ADC) har imidlertid trukket sig ud af operationen. ADC sendte et brev til premierministeren, hvori der stod, »Vi vil ikke tillade, at én eneste cent tages ud af vore pensionsfonde til andre formål end at betale vore pensioner. … Vi er ikke køer, der kan malkes.«

Eftersom proceduren for at opnå statsgaranti for Atlantes præference-værdipapirer (seniorpapirer) tager nogen tid, overvejer den italienske regering at udstede et overgangslån.

Da vi bad om en kommentar, sagde Lyndon LaRouche: »Annuller disse statsgarantier.« Han sagde desuden, … »Spillet er i færd med at kollapse, fordi de spillede spillet for længe. Det havde de ingen ret til, men de prøvede alle sammen at opnå en satsning, og de fandt ud af, at de ikke kunne få én. Der var nogle andre, der klagede over, at deres planer havde forårsaget, at systemet ikke virkede. Det er, hvad der skete.«

Stresstestene »behandler ikke problemets virkelighed. De fornægter virkeligheden. Tag denne italienske ting, som er rædselsfuld. De siger: Vi, de rige, bliver mere rige. Og den anden del af de almindelige rige vil ikke længere være rige.«

29. juli 2016 – Det er rimeligt at antage, at mordet på Deutsche Banks Alfred Herrhausen den 30. november 1989 ikke fandt sted som en pludselig indskydelse, men blev planlagt og forberedt over flere uger. Den tale, som Herrhausen ifølge planen skulle holde i New York den 4. december samme år, »Nye horisonter i Europa«, med dens indhold af en direkte udfordring af destruktive transatlantiske bankmetoder, var sandsynligvis ukendt på det tidspunkt, hvor morderne gik i gang med jobbet; man kendte imidlertid til to erklæringer, som Herrhausen kom med i juni og september, og som indeholdt kerneelementerne til det, han ville have sagt i New York, hvis han ikke var blevet myrdet.

I en lang artikel, »Tiden er inde – gældskrise ved et vendepunkt«, som blev udgivet af Tysklands førende erhvervsavis, Handelsblatt, den 30. juni 1989, fordømte Herrhausen især de amerikanske bankers gældspolitik som en politik, der ikke fungerede, men blot gjorde skyldnernationernes, såvel som også selve udlånsbankernes, situation værre. I stedet, skrev Herrhausen, ville generelle gældsafskrivninger på op til 70 %, inklusive nedskæring af renterne på disse lån på op til 50 % for en periode på 5 år, og en forlængelse af lånenes løbetid til 25 til 30 år, være det eneste, der ville fungere. Denne fremgangsmåde, insisterede han, ville »gøre det muligt for nævnte skyldnernationer at omdirigere betragtelige ressourcer, der hidtil var blevet brugt til at servicere gælden, til i stedet at blive anvendt til sådanne formål, der ville servicere genrejsningen af skyldnernes nationaløkonomier«. Herrhausen tilføjede, at det, som skyldnernationer virkelig havde brug for, var ikke friske penge, dvs. ny gæld, men »det ville være bedre at sige, at de har brug for ressourcer«. Denne »omdirigering af ressourcer kunne, i løbet af de første fem år, være større, end de indsprøjtninger af friske penge, som de hidtil har haft brug for«. Herrhausen henviste ikke direkte til det, men det, han foreslog, var den fremgangsmåde, som man anvendte i London Gældsaftalen fra 1953, der skabte en enorm gældssanering for efterkrigstidens Vesttyskland, så det kunne komme op at stå igen og ikke kollapse under vægten af den gamle, ophobede gæld.[1] Denne aftale blev forhandlet af Deutsche Banks Hermann Josef Abs – den fremragende, konstruktive bankier, der ligeledes spillede en rolle i promoveringen af Herrhausens karriere, da denne endnu var en ung bankier i banken.

Ved en pressekonference den 25. september 1989 i anledning af Verdensbankens møde i Washington, D.C., fremlagde Herrhausen de samme argumenter og påpegede, at han inderligt håbede, at andre banker ville følge Deutsche Banks eksempel som en »gældsreducerings-bank«.  Skyldnernationernes uløste betalingsproblemer, sammen med problemer, der hidrørte fra gældsubalancer i selve USA og Europa, advarede Herrhausen, udgjorde en systemisk risiko. I sammenhæng med visse problemer, der ikke var løst i Sovjetunionen, selv under »Glasnost«-reformerne, og med generel uro, nationale gnidninger og »optrappede konflikter, der udsprang heraf«, kunne det føre til meget dystre konstellationer, advarede Herrhausen. Han foreslog dernæst, i særdeleshed for det ustabile Polen, skabelsen af en ny, særlig bank i Warszawa, et »Agentur for Genopbygning«, der ville sikre, at nye lån til den polske økonomi ville blive anvendt ligesom de penge fra Marshallplanen blev anvendt til veldefineret genopbygning i Tyskland og Europa efter Anden Verdenskrig.

Hermed havde Herrhausen med sine egne ord udtalt det, som Lyndon H. LaRouche havde fremlagt i sin egen, historiske tale på Kempinski Hotel i Berlin den 12. oktober 1988. Denne tale blev studeret af mange politiske beslutningstagere og bankierer i de efterfølgende måneder, og det er rimeligt at antage, at også Herrhausen på et eller andet tidspunkt havde teksten liggende på sit skrivebord.         

29. juli 2016 – Når vampyrerne først selv begynder at donere blod, ved man, at hele systemet er dødt. I en sidste-minut-manøvre, der blev annonceret her til aften, har man arrangeret en nødredning af den italienske bank Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS), som involverer et konsortium af banker og pensionsfonde, der opkøber en del af bankens dårlige lån, der ikke betales på, til en værdi af henved 10 milliarder euro, til en pris af 30 cents på dollaren; samt et kapitalindskud i MPS på henved 5 milliard dollar. »Atlante« [sic] er navnet på denne nye redningsenhed, hvis deltagere omfatter Deutsche Bank – som selv har behov for en redning – Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs og andre. Det italienske Finansministerium har udstedt en erklæring, der siger, at de er ’tilfredse’ med planen. Den logiske følgeslutning af denne manøvre fra private kilder er, at det skulle afværge gennemførelsen af EU’s regler for bail-in (ekspropriering af kunders bankindskud).

Denne såkaldte redning af MPS blev meddelt få minutter før resultaterne af de latterlige ’stresstests’ af 51 eurobanker, udført af den Europæiske Bankmyndighed, blev offentliggjort. I realiteten behøver man ingen udspekulerede stressprøver og risiko-scenarier for at bevise, at selve systemet er kaput i den transatlantiske banksektor, med banker, der sidder på et bjerg af lån, der ikke betales noget på, til flere hundrede milliarder, og værdiløse derivater og andre toksiske fordringer til billioner. Resultaterne af stresstestene blev først offentliggjort efter kl. 22 i Europa, efter, at markederne havde lukket, så spillere i finansverdenen havde weekenden til at finde ud af, hvad deres næste træk skal være!

Alt dette sættes fokus på det faktum, at den eneste, fornuftige løsning er den, som Lyndon LaRouche foreslog tidligere på måneden som »Herrhausen-interventionen« til at varetage behandlingen af Deutsche Bank ved at give den en likviditetsindsprøjtning, der ledsages af en omstilling af bankens mandat og aktivitet til at udstede kredit til den produktive økonomis sektor. Dette forklarer Helga Zepp-LaRouche med al ønskelig klarhed i sin appel fra 12. juli, »Deutsche Bank må reddes, for verdensfredens skyld!«

Lyndon LaRouche understregede dette i dag og sagde, at dette er den opgave, som vi skal løse. Ikke noget med at ’teste’ – hvilket vil garantere, ikke forhindre, krakket.

I den fortsatte saga om Deutsche Bank, så var bankens aktier her til morgen faldet med 8 %, blot siden i onsdags. Prisen lå og fluktuerede omkring 12 euro pr. aktie. Her til aften steg prisen så en smule, efter at MPS-planen blev kendt. I denne uge nedgraderede Merrill-Lynch Deutsche Bank til »lav præstationsstatus«.        

Lyndon LaRouche:

»… Det er os, der skal få dette til at ske. Der findes intet andet alternativ. Hvorvidt Kongressen vil handle eller ej er højst usikkert, for der er intet forudsigeligt i dette politiske system. Det, der må ske, er, at der må være en massiv bevægelse, der må have et lederskab, og som må gennemtvinge denne forholdsregel (Glass-Steagall, -red.), og som vil medføre, at visse kendsgerninger kommer for dagens lys – dvs., systemets totale bankerot.«

Glass-Steagall er imidlertid kun det første skridt. Jeg mener, at vi har sagt dette gentagne gange, men det vil blive aftenens store debatemne: Den form for initiativ, som hr. LaRouche har taget mht. Deutsche Bank, med et krav om en tilbagevenden til arven efter Alfred Herrhausen, den sidste, fornuftige bankier i Deutsche Bank, og som blev myrdet i koldt blod den 30. november 1989, netop på det tidspunkt, hvor den fremtidige verdenshistorie stod over for en kæmpe chance.

Uddrag af LaRouchePAC Internationale fredags-webcast, 29. juli 2016:

Virkelighed er, om folk i dag har modet til at indrømme, at LaRouche har ret!

Matthew Ogden: Jeg mener, at vi bestemt kan sige, at vi står ved afslutningen af en gammel æra. Vi har et helt, paradigmatisk system, der er i færd med at kollapse totalt omkring os, og vi kan forhåbentlig sige, at vi står på tærsklen til en ny æra. Vi stirrer direkte ind i ansigtet på det transatlantiske finansielle systems totale opløsning. Dette ses ikke tydeligere end gennem den kendsgerning, at man har disse såkaldte ’stresstests’, som finder sted i dag i alle de større europæiske banker. Resultatet af disse stresstests skal efter planen offentliggøres senere i aften; men, som hr. LaRouche har sagt, »Man behøver ikke at teste disse banker. Man ved, at hele banksystemet er totalt bankerot«.

Især to af disse banker har fået meget udstrakt mediedækning. Den ene er Monte dei Paschi-banken, der er verdens største og ældste, uafbrudt fungerende bank, og den største bank i Italien, og de vil næsten med sikkerhed dumpe til stresstesten, sammen med praktisk talt alle andre banker i Italien, som samlet set rapporteres at sidde på gæld, der ikke betales på, for mellem 210 – 360 milliarder euro, som umuligt kan reddes gennem bailout (statslig redning; ’bankpakke’ med skatteborgermidler, -red.) af Italiens bankerotte økonomi, eller af EU’s ditto, for den sags skyld.

På den anden side har vi Tysklands største bank, Deutsche Bank, der af IMF er blevet beskrevet som den mest risikobelagte, mest sårbare bank i hele systemet. Vi har på det seneste dækket Deutsche Banks bankerot med den forbløffende statistik, at Deutsche Banks nettoprofit nu vitterligt er nede på næsten nul, med et af Deutsche Bank rapporteret 97 % ’s kollaps i nettoprofitten blot det seneste år. Deutsche Banks eksponering til derivater er massiv. Hver eneste større bank i verden er indviklet i Deutsche Bank som en modpart (i derivatkontrakter, -red.). Hvis Deutsche Bank går ned, vil man få en smitteeffekt, der er langt, langt større end i september 2008. Bare fra i onsdags er Deutsche Banks aktier faldet med 8 %. Merrill Lynch har nu nedgraderet banken, og det samme har Frankfurts aktiebørs.

Som det ses, så kan både den ene og den anden af disse banker dumpe til stresstesten. Stresstest eller ej, så kan hele dette system gå op i røg, hvornår, det skal være, og alene dét kan udløse en massiv panik i hele den transatlantiske verden. Det kan ikke understreges tydeligere. Det her er langt, langt værre end den situation, vi befandt os i, i dagene før krakket i 2008.

Det må siges højt og tydeligt, at dette er den drivkraft, der ligger bag truslen om en verdenskrig på dette tidspunkt. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche gentagne gange har understreget i de seneste uger, så findes der ingen garanteret strategi for at afværge en sådan krig, med undtagelse af at tage roden til denne krigstrussel under behandling, hvilket vil sige en total, systemisk reorganisering af hele det transatlantiske finanssystem. Dette betyder en reorganisering fra øverst til nederst sådan, som Franklin Roosevelt gjorde det i sit embedes allerførste dage, som præsident for USA.

Det afgørende, første skridt i denne totale reorganisering er selvfølgelig en genindførelse af Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov, i sin helhed, fra 1933, ikke blot i USA, men i hele den transatlantiske verden. Dette er faktisk emnet for det spørgsmål, vi har fået fra institutionelt hold i aften, og som hr. LaRouche kort kommenterede. Spørgsmålet lød:

»Kære hr. LaRouche, kravet om en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall er nu inkluderet i både det Republikanske og Demokratiske partis valgprogram. Hvor sandsynligt er det, efter Deres mening, at Kongressen vil vedtage Glass-Steagall?«

Lyndon LaRouche:

»Ja, vi satser selvfølgelig ikke alt på denne sandsynlighed. Det er os, der skal få dette til at ske. Der findes intet andet alternativ. Hvorvidt Kongressen vil handle eller ej er højst usikkert, for der er intet forudsigeligt i dette politiske system. Det, der må ske, er, at der må være en massiv bevægelse, der må have et lederskab, og som må gennemtvinge denne forholdsregel (Glass-Steagall, -red.), og som vil medføre, at visse kendsgerninger kommer for dagens lys – dvs., systemets totale bankerot.«

Glass-Steagall er imidlertid kun det første skridt. Jeg mener, at vi har sagt dette gentagne gange, men det vil blive aftenens store debatemne: Den form for initiativ, som hr. LaRouche har taget mht. Deutsche Bank, med et krav om en tilbagevenden til arven efter Alfred Herrhausen, den sidste, fornuftige bankier i Deutsche Bank, og som blev myrdet i koldt blod den 30. november 1989, netop på det tidspunkt, hvor den fremtidige verdenshistorie stod over for en kæmpe chance.

Denne form for aktion, som hr. LaRouche har krævet – interventionen i Deutsche Bank – er paradigmatisk for den absolut nødvendige tankegang. Hvad betyder det for os her, i dag? Det er, mener jeg, den form for diskussion, som er blevet genoplivet med ideen om De Fire Love [til USA’s (og verdens!) omgående redning] for en reorganisering af finanssystemet. Dette er ikke blot en samling opskrifter, eller en vasketøjsliste over skridt, der må tages, men, som folk også har erkendt, så udgør De Fire Love sådan, som hr. LaRouche har udtænkt det, en enkelt, sammenhængende principerklæring, der bygger på en enkel, fundamental sandhed om den virkelige videnskab om fysisk økonomi. Denne enkelte, fundamentale forudsætning er den, at mennesket er en art ulig nogen anden. Mennesket er fuldstædigt unikt blandt alle andre levende væsener deri, at udelukkende kun mennesket er i stand til at skabe fuldstændigt nye måder for eksistens, der ikke har nogen forudgående manifestation, ingen afledningseffekt, der stammer fra tidligere erfaringer, men som er en fuldstændig ny, menneskelig adfærdsform. Udelukkende kun mennesket har evnen til viljemæssigt at skabe fremtiden.

Denne, menneskets absolut unikke egenskab, eksemplificeres i en meget destilleret og dybtgående form gennem nogle meget betydningsfulde personligheder, der stadig findes i mands minde hos mange nulevende personer: Albert Einstein er én af dem; og den store, visionære rumforsker, raketingeniøren Krafft Ehricke, er en anden. Jeg tror, dette vil være optakten til, og ligesom skabe en ramme for, aftenens fortsatte diskussion. Men lad mig blot gentage: Jeg tror, vi med sindsro kan sige,

»Dette gamle system er dødt, og det er vores ansvar at bringe menneskeheden over tærsklen til en helt ny æra.«

(Se det engelske udskrift af hele diskussionen her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=13902)

Virkelighed er, om folk i dag har modet til at indrømme, at LaRouche har ret!

Jeg mener, at vi bestemt kan sige, at vi står ved afslutningen af en gammel æra. Vi har et helt, paradigmatisk system, der er i færd med at kollapse totalt omkring os, og vi kan forhåbentlig sige, at vi står på tærsklen til en ny æra. Vi stirrer direkte ind i ansigtet på det transatlantiske finansielle systems totale opløsning. Dette ses ikke tydeligere end gennem den kendsgerning, at man har disse såkaldte ’stresstests’, som finder sted i dag i alle de større europæiske banker. Resultatet af disse stresstests skal efter planen offentliggøres senere i aften; men, som hr. LaRouche har sagt, »Man behøver ikke at teste disse banker. Man ved, at hele banksystemet er totalt bankerot«.

Engelsk udskrift:

»Standing at the Threshold of a New Era« 

REALITY IS WHETHER PEOPLE HAVE THE GUTS TODAY TO ADMIT THAT LAROUCHE IS RIGHT!
International LaRouche PAC Webcast July 29, 2016
        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Evening! It's July 29th, 2016. You're joining us for our weekly webcast here from LaRouchePAC.com on Friday night. I'm joined in the studio today by Megan Beets; and joined via video by two members of our Policy Committee: Kesha Rogers, who's joining us from Houston, Texas; as well as Rachel
Brinkley, who's joining us from Boston, Massachusetts.
        I think we can certainly say that we are standing at the end of an old era. We have an entire paradigmatic system which is completely collapsing around us, and hopefully we can say that we are standing at the threshold of a new era. We're staring in the face of a complete disintegration of the trans-Atlantic financial system. This could not be seen more clearly [than] by the fact that you have these so-called bank “stress tests” that are taking place today in all of the major European banks. The results of these stress tests are due out later this evening; however, as Mr. LaRouche [has] said, "You don't need to test these banks. You know that the entire banking system is completely bankrupt."
        Two of these banks, most notably, have been receiving very wide coverage. One of them is Monte dei Paschi Bank, which is the largest and the oldest continually-functioning bank in the world, the largest bank in Italy, will almost certainly fail their
stress test, along with virtually every other bank in Italy, which [all together] are reported to be holding between EU210-360 billion in non-performing debt, which could not possibly be bailed out by the bankrupt economy of Italy, or the EU for that
matter.
        On the other hand, you have the largest German bank, Deutsche Bank, which has been described by the IMF as the riskiest, most vulnerable bank in the entire system. We've been covering the bankruptcy of Deutsche Bank recently with the
stunning statistics that the net profits of Deutsche Bank are now virtually down to almost zero, with a 97 % collapse in just the last year of net profits being reported by Deutsche Bank. The derivatives exposure by Deutsche Bank is massive. Every single
major bank in the world is tied in to Deutsche Bank as a counterparty. Were Deutsche Bank to go under, you would have a contagion far, far wider than September 2008. Just since Wednesday, Deutsche Bank shares have fallen by 8%. Merrill Lynch has now downgraded it, along with the Frankfurt [Stock] Exchange.

        As can be seen, either one of these banks could fail the stress test. Stress test, or no stress test, this entire system could go up in smoke at any given moment, and that alone could trigger a mass panic across the entire trans-Atlantic. It can't be emphasized more. This is far, far worse than the situation we found ourselves in, on the eve of the Crash of 2008.
        What has to be said is that this is the major driver behind the threat of world war at this time. As Helga LaRouche has emphasized repeatedly in the recent weeks, there is no guaranteed strategy to avoid such a war, other than addressing the root
causes of this threat of world war, which is a complete systemic reorganization of the entire trans-Atlantic financial system. This is a top-down reorganization, in the way that Franklin Roosevelt did it in his first days in office as President of the United States.
        The critical first step to this is, obviously, the restoration of the full Franklin Roosevelt [1933] Glass-Steagall Act, not just in the United States, but throughout the entire trans-Atlantic region. This is actually the subject of the institutional question that we received for this broadcast tonight, which Mr. LaRouche had a short comment on. The question was: "Dear Mr. LaRouche, The call to reinstate Glass-Steagall is now included in the platforms of both the Republican and Democratic parties. In your view, how likely is it that Glass-Steagall will be enacted by Congress?" Mr. LaRouche said, "Obviously, we're not banking on the likelihood. We have to make this happen. There is no other alternative. Whether or not Congress will act, is highly debatable, because there's nothing predictable in this political system. What has to happen is a major movement, which we must lead, to force this measure
through, which will induce certain realities to come to light — that is, the total bankruptcy of the system."
        Glass-Steagall, however, is only the first step. I think this is something which we have repeatedly said, but will be the subject of much of the discussion of our broadcast tonight. The type of initiative that Mr. LaRouche has taken, in the case of
Deutsche Bank, the call for the return to the Alfred Herrhausen legacy, the last sane banker at Deutsche Bank, who was assassinated in cold blood on November 30, 1989, right at the critical moment of opportunity for the future of world history.
        This type of action that Mr. LaRouche has called for – the intervention into Deutsche Bank — is paradigmatic of the type of thinking necessary. How does this apply today? This is the type of discussion which, I think, has become revived, with the concept of the Four Laws, Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws for the reorganization of the financial system. This is not just a series of recipes, or a laundry-list of steps that must be taken, but rather, as people have recognized, the Four Laws, as conceived by
Mr. LaRouche, is a single, coherent statement of principle which is premised on a single, fundamental truth of the real science of physical economics. That single, fundamental premise is that mankind is a species like no other. Mankind is completely unique among all other living things, in that only mankind has the
ability to create entirely new modes of existence that had no antecedent, no derivative effect from past experience, but an entirely new mode of behavior. Only man has the ability to willfully create the future.
        This absolutely unique character of mankind is typified in a very distilled and profound form by some very significant personalities within the living memory of many people who are living today: Albert Einstein, for one; and the great visionary
space scientist, Krafft Ehricke, as another. I think that will carry us into the remainder of our discussion here and sort of set a framework. But I'll just reiterate: I think that with confidence that we can say, "This old system is dead, and our responsibility is to bring mankind onto the threshold of an entirely new era."

KESHA ROGERS: I think that is absolutely the starting point of what is the new paradigm that we must bring into existence at this present moment. The discussions we've had with Mr. LaRouche on the conceptions presented by his "Four Laws to Save the United States", are absolutely pertinent, because these Four Laws represent a move away from monetarism and probabilities of what is acceptable or presentable for the future based on numbers and statistics.
        We're not waiting on the numbers and statistics and on the horoscopes to tell us what that future is going to be. We actually must live in that future and create that future. That has been the unique role of Mr. LaRouche and his uniqueness in
forecasting economics. He's not just talking about something that can be brought into existence based on figures that are already presented to you, but that the numbers have to be thrown out.
We're not waiting on the figures of the IMF or the stress tests or anything like this. The Four Laws represent a new direction for mankind that we now have to act to bring the future into existence. If you're going to do that, that means you have to
live in the future.
        I was thinking and very struck by Mr. LaRouche's works going back to his Presidential campaign in 1988. At that time, it's very pertinent to what is necessary for thinking about the future existence which we have to create, now, once and for all, that during that time, he presented in a TV broadcast called The Woman on Mars a vision for thirty-nine years from then, looking at the future in 2027 AD. [It opens with] the voice of a woman from Mars saying, "I have the announcement for which you have been waiting. As of five minutes ago, our environmental systems were fully stabilized. Man's first permanent colony on Mars is now completely operational." Mr. LaRouche comes on and he says, "Many of you are shocked. Some of you are saying, 'Why is this old geezer taking about a permanent colony on Mars, 39 years from
now, with the major budget problems in Washington today?'|"
        At that point in time, what he was actually presenting, was the greatest economic recovery plan for the nation and the world.
That is what these Four Laws today represent. They're not just Glass-Steagall, or something based on the current trends of monetary policy; they go outside of the current trends of thinking, into a new domain of human existence that has not yet
been created. I think that that is very important, because that's what we've lost sight of. In this day and age, too many people are living their lives based on their current state of existence — what they think is possible. You know, "Am I going to survive,
day to day? Where am I going to get my food from? How am I going to pay my next light bill?" And so forth.

        That is not the new paradigm that you want to live in. You want to actually be thinking about creating that future. This is the unique role that Mr. LaRouche's life and his contributions to true human economy have played, and the very critical role that great visionary scientists such as Krafft Ehricke, have really brought into existence.
        The fact of the matter is that, as you said, Matt, the current era of this British Empire, of this anti-growth system, is coming to an end. This monetary policy is not going to be the determining factor of the future. What is, is going to be the creative mind of man, unlike any other [species] to actually determine and act to bring about that future. Right now, none of the current existing trends, election process, candidates, or monetary policy mean one thing whatsoever in terms of the real
universe that we live in.
        I think that that's what we really have to get across to people; that people don't need to live discouraged about "Oh, what is life going to bring me? Am I going to be dealt a bad hand or a good hand?" Well, you better figure out what that hand is going to be, and determine it for yourself!

        OGDEN: One thing I wanted to just pick up on, what you said, Kesha. The idea of "willful action" is something which is inherent in the concept of the American republic. Citizens are not subjects. Just as we are not subjects of a king or a queen,
which was the consequence of the American Revolution, we're also not subjects of some hidden hand, "invisible hand" of fate or economics or statistics. This has been a problem in our population, where people have given up hope that their actions
can actually have a meaning. So, it's the decision to willfully create a future, and say "Despite the fact that the entire system — politically, socially, economically, financially – is crumbling around you, you have the presence of an entirely
different system which has already come into existence; has already materialized on this planet."  The most populous nations in the world are now leading that New Paradigm.
        We have news that Helga Zepp-LaRouche, president of the international Schiller Institute, has been a featured guest at a very important conference that happened in China just this week. This is the T-20 conference, or so-called "Think 20", which is
happening in the context of the G-20; it's a sort of think tank of private sector representatives from around the world.  And it was co-sponsored by the Chinese Academy for Social Sciences — actually a representative of that think tank spoke at the recent Schiller Institute conference that happened in Berlin; Ren Lin, on the subject of the One Belt, One Road policy.  But Helga LaRouche's presentation was to say that we need to now take the concept of the One Belt, One Road — the New Silk Road idea — and expand this to the entire planet.  This is the foundation for a New Paradigm of thinking, a New Paradigm of international relations, and a new idea of mankind's role in the Universe. It's founded on the win-win concept which is fundamentally different than what has reigned over the last 100 years virtually, as British imperial, winner-take-all kind of thinking.
So, the fact that this now exists as an option for mankind, is not an accident; this is the result of willful action that was taken by Helga LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche at the time that the Soviet Union collapsed, to put this option on the table.  This is
the direct outgrowth of what was proposed at that time when Alfred Herrhausen was picking up on this idea of the Productive Triangle; using the reindustrialization of Eastern Europe, the former Soviet space, as the driver, as the engine for a revival
of the great economic powerhouse of the German economy and the rest of Western Europe.  This was expanded to the Eurasian Land-Bridge; and now exists in actuality — not just as future potential, but as actuality — in the form of this New Silk Road
idea.
        And the American people could so easily say, "We reject this system which is being forced upon us with both of these failed parties; and we are now going to say, 'We insist that our nation is going to become a member of this New Paradigm of relations among nations.'  And we will build the New Silk Road across the Bering Strait into the United States, and down into the entirety of the Western Hemisphere."

BRINKLEY:  Just to follow up on this discussion, Mr. LaRouche was discussing with us yesterday the question of the development of mankind; as Kesha was really emphasizing.  As we come right to the end of this system, what is missing?  A lot of people will say there's a problem; [but] it's beyond a problem, this is a total systemic breakdown.  So what is missing?  LaRouche really pointed to Einstein in particular and said, "For Einstein, he didn't use numbers to measure the Universe."  He said, "The creative powers of mankind are located in the same kind of thing Einstein used to measure the Universe."  If he didn't use numbers, what did he use?  This is a question where the same question is, where does a new idea come from?  What Einstein generated, no one had thought before him; so where did he come up with the means to make that hypothesis?  Something that, based on all human sense perception in previous human existence, no one had ever perceived anything that would tell them this concept, this new idea that Einstein generated.  Where did he come up with it from?  It's really the idea of getting rid of the standards of
measurement that were used generally by empiricism, by sense perception, by describing the Universe via senses.  Einstein said, I want to get beyond this and see what unifies these things; he used a principle of the Universe itself to measure. In so doing, he created a whole new level of power for mankind.
        So, this came from his mind; there wasn't even the ability to perceive what he hypothesized.  To test it experimentally did not even exist at the time; it's now being proven true 100 years later.  But this shows that the power of a human economy really doesn't come from the external sources people would think about it.  It obviously doesn't come from money; it doesn't come from petroleum; it doesn't come from helium-3; it doesn't come from nuclear fuel.  The power of an economy doesn't come from these objects; it comes from the new discovery generated in a mind to
utilize this new power.  This obviously is what has been attacked.  It was also the idea of Nicholas of Cusa, who generated the Renaissance; that is the quality of thinking we need now.
        Not business as usual, as you see at the Democratic or Republican conventions; we don't need to debate minimum wage or something like that.  We've discussed what the problem is with this discussion of minimum wage.  Even if you pay people more, do they have the ability to purchase the goods they need to survive?
Are the goods even there, available to be purchased?  Healthcare — it's not there; transportation — no, it's completely falling apart.  Our nation is really a disgrace compared to what's happening in Asia right now.  I think China's building over 100
nuclear plants in the next 10 years; while we've just shut down about 4. There's more that could be said, but maybe for now we should just open up the discussion; but I just also want to bring up again a Krafft Ehricke quote.  He also recognized the moment of change that mankind was in, even back in the 1970s, when we began to really adopt this environmentalist empiricism, lack of science, lack of intention towards growth.  He said, "To cease growing means to make the grim past the future's only option."
That's what we're living today; we're living the grim past. What he also said is that no growth goes with tension, it goes with conflict, and it goes with war. I think if people look around at the state of conflict on the planet, it's pervasive; this is a result of this lack of a sense of progress, and lack of a sense of mission.
        So, I'll just leave it at that; we can discuss it more.

        MEGAN BEETS:  Well, just to pick up, Rachel, on what you were just discussing, and also Kesha was pointing to in the fundamental principle underlying Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws; which is the fundamental distinction of the human mind from all other forms of existence.  I think it can be seen in the personality of Einstein, as you were saying Rachel; I think it can also be seen in the insights and the actions of Kepler.  Kepler said, in a very provocative letter to a patron of his, he said, "Not every hunch is wrong.  For man is in the image of the Creator, and it's very possible that in matters which pertain to the organization of the Universe, man thinks like the Creator."  And I think that really does get to what Einstein was able to do, and Kepler
himself did this with that principle as a foundation, generating from his mind a notion unique to his mind, of the principle which was organizing and governing our Solar System.  It was a completely new idea; he had never observed anything that clued
him into this.  This was a completely new notion; he discovered the principle of universal gravitation and completely revolutionized the powers of a kind. Mankind now lived in a new Universe.  That's the basis of economics.
        And I think it does get exactly to what Mr. LaRouche has been saying in the face of the collapse of this financial system. Nothing that would be attempted now to save the system – no bail-out measures, no bail-in measures, none of this will work; you cannot save an inherently valueless system.  You have to reorganize it upon the true principle of the source of value, which is the human mind's ability to discover new principles which create a new species.  And that's why you, Kesha, obviously know this first-hand; that's the importance of the space program. That's the importance of declaring that the space program is the number one commitment of the nation; to actually put this challenge to man's mind to go right up to the new frontier to
discover what we have not yet discovered in the forefront.  That then as the boundary, then reorganizes all the other relationships within your economy.  We saw a hint of that in the 1960s, under the influence of people like Krafft Ehricke with our space program here; although that was shut down.  Now, with the crumbling of this British Empire system, we have the opportunity — but also a very real responsibility with people who are around Mr. LaRouche and get this principle — to insure that this is the
direction humanity goes in now; this is not a foregone conclusion.

        OGDEN:  I liked this quote that was featured in what we have as the lead to the LaRouche PAC website today; a quote from Krafft Ehricke, I believe from a paper he wrote in 1966 – I might be wrong.  He is discussing the thrill of what it felt like to be standing on the threshold of a new era; recognizing when they first launched the successful launch of the most rudimentary, basic rocket, that this new era of rocket science was carrying mankind off of the planet.  Or had the potential to carry mankind off of the planet Earth and to open up an entirely new evolutionary moment, phase for the human species.  He compared it to Columbus discovering the New World; it actually reminded me of that poem "On First Looking into Chapman's Homer" by Keats, where he describes the awe of Cortez standing on the cliffs of Darien and looking at the Pacific.  The first European who had seen the Pacific Ocean from crossing over the territory of North America.  He also used the comparison of the astronomer who is the first to discover a new planet coming across the sky. So that thrill of discovery, not just the personal act of discovery of something new; but the recognition that this is a transformative moment for the human species, and that this is what makes us human.  It's those discontinuous moments from the
previous state to the future state, which have no logical consequence one from the other; but that moment, that transition, is the moment of humanity.  And that's what separates us from the animals.  Krafft Ehricke's description of that was the roar of
those engines, the recognition that mankind was about to become a space-faring creature; and it was the experience of what it means to be human itself.

        ROGERS:  And yes, once again, living in the future; creating the future.  Remember, Krafft Ehricke writing in 1966, looking back from the year 2000; he died in 1984.  This was a vision that was being brought into existence that had not yet happened; but was in the mind of Krafft Ehricke as a living principle, as a living idea.  Now, as you said earlier, Matt, that vision is now being brought into reality by the New Paradigm that's being created by Russia, by China.  It is the United States that now has no excuses not to join aboard and join with that New Paradigm that is already at our fingertips.  It's very fascinating to see.
This is the economic recovery; this is the largest economic recovery program — the space program.  It's much greater than anything that even John F Kennedy thought about; Kennedy wasn't the be all and end all with the Apollo missions, and he wasn't
going to stop there.  He had a greater vision; just as Krafft Ehricke, just as LaRouche, based on a human economy.  And this idea of the imagination and what was created in the mind of Krafft Ehricke with the colonies [on the Moon], the nuclear power
systems, the development of fusion economies and helium-3 systems on Mars and Venus and other places.  This is the basis of a real economy; a human economy from that standpoint.  It's very much what our conception and idea has to be based on. And that's the Four Laws; that's the principle of the Four Laws that we really have to get across to people.
        It's good that Glass-Steagall is being implemented in both parties' platforms; but now what are people willing to do?  Are you still going to accept the policy economically of zero growth? Are you still going to accept the policy of fascism, of war? What does Glass-Steagall mean when you actually are going along with this insane policy; when you're not thinking about your children's and your grandchildren's futures?

OGDEN:  One thing that came out of the Schiller Institute Berlin conference that we've been discussing — it was about a month ago if not more now — Helga LaRouche keynoted it, obviously, and said, Look, we're at a time in history where an entirely new principle of action is operating; it's a principle of history which is not understood by most people.  She characterized it as the Erinyes, or the principle of nemesis; where all of the failed axioms that have been enforced over the last decades in a system which is now crumbling in on itself, are taking down the very people who enforced those failed axioms.  This was seen with Tony Blair with the release of the Chilcot Report; the major victory with the release of the 28 pages, which is something which goes back even before 9/11 to Mr. LaRouche's broadcast in 1999 of the "Storm Over Asia" broadcast.  This made very clear that there was a very high-level nefarious apparatus that was being run by the Anglo-Saudi nexus, using these mercenary forces for irregular warfare against countries around the world.
        Now, you see that playing out; and I think it's very significant that there's been a drastic shift in the situation on the ground in Syria.  Aleppo, which was actually the subject of a video presentation which was shown at that Schiller Institute, it's one of the most ancient cities; a UNESCO World Heritage site.  It was the crossroads of the old Silk Road; it's situated right in between the three continents.  Aleppo had obviously been held by these terrorists for years; and the action in just the last days by the Syrian government with the back-up of the Russian air force, stationed at Latakia, to be able to come in and begin liberating that city of Aleppo in the same way that Palmyra was liberated, is a real turning point in the war on the ground against the outgrowth of this very mercenary Army-type of irregular force that Mr. LaRouche was warning about all the way back in 1998-99.
        Again, the role that Vladimir Putin is playing in this regard, is a critical role.  I kind of want to link these two things together a little bit.  Mr. LaRouche's prescription for how Europe could possibly survive this entire blow-out of these
completely over-leveraged banks and the disintegration of the political situation itself with the aftermath of the Brexit, was that there needs to be a close collaboration between Germany and Putin in Russia.  What Putin is doing in Russia is the pathway
forward for Europe.  An entire integration of the Asian Economic Union, the New Silk Road, and what remains of the mittelstand, or the industrial sector of Germany, which is viable.
        As you're looking at this complete meltdown, this complete disintegration which could come within days or hours, of Deutsche Bank — the biggest bank in Germany; Monte dei Paschi, the oldest bank in Italy; action must be taken in the very short term.  Not just from the standpoint of stabilizing a collapsing financial system and transforming it into an entirely new system of economics; but also as a critical war avoidance measure.  If these steps are not taken, and Germany is allowed to disintegrate under the weight of a collapsing Deutsche Bank, for example; there will be no pathway forward for the kind of collaboration between sane factors in Germany for example, and what Putin is doing in Russia.  And the force for stability and peace that Russia has represented will not — the access will not be there. So, I think you have to take all of this strategic picture together, and not separate any element of it; and be able to see it from the top down as Mr. LaRouche sees it, and say "Necessary
actions must be taken to resolve the root crises, the root causes of the crises that we now face."
        I'll stress again, this factor of what has been occurring inside of Syria, as these series of regime-change wars, this is the evidence of the breakdown of a system which is evil; a system which is creating the possibility for failed states across that
region.  This is driving millions of refugees out of their homelands into Europe; it cannot be sustained.  An entirely New Paradigm — it can't be resolved piecemeal, which is the point. You can't just say we're going to address this situation here and
address that situation there; but new axiomatic approaches to the entire concept of the system must be in place, and it must be premised on this central feature of what the Four Laws are a derivative of — which is this unique character of man to willfully create new modes of existence for the human species.
        BRINKLEY:  Any type of practical discussion as opposed to that, just needs to be gotten rid of.  We really do need a quality of courage.  It's obvious out there right now what Obama has been doing in promoting and protecting terrorism.  We now
have the 28 pages out, and the Democrats are still kissing Obama's butt; and the Republicans are going over to Trump.  This is crazy, given the truth which has come out that one of our so-called allies, including the British Empire, attacked our
nation in an act of war; and the President who covered that up is still being allowed to be President.  So, this is the question of practicality; which is another symptom of this higher question involved in the discussion of the creation of new states.  You have to be bold; you have to be able to take bold actions as well.  One thing LaRouche said that was insightful about the practical man, he said, "The practical man created nothing but his own noise and fools who believed in his noise."  I think people can think of a few examples of that today; but definitely Wall Street for one.  Anyone protecting Wall Street and anyone saying you've got to go along to get along with party politics or something like this; that's all dead, that's all obsolete at this moment.
        OGDEN:  Just returning to what Mr. LaRouche said about the actions that must be taken around Glass-Steagall, this is the result; the very fact that this is in both party platforms is the result of the leadership that I think both of you have represented over the course of the last almost decade.  Both you, Rachel, and Kesha have run very prominent campaigns for Federal office; and the fact that Rachel, you took on Barney Frank and really refuted all of his arguments against Glass-Steagall on live television; this is what made this a household word.  And then Kesha, your campaign around NASA in Texas was a transformative campaign; it was national in scope and
international in its effects.  The reason why we have the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, which both Kesha and Rachel are representatives of, is that you do have the deliberative body existing in this country — represented not exclusively by
members of the Policy Committee — but represented by the type of thinking that this Policy Committee has been able to achieve over the course of the last several years as public figures in your own right.
        People must not despair; the belief in the kind of party politics and go along to get along pragmatism is what demoralizes people in this country.  But every time the kind of leadership which Rachel and Kesha represented in their campaigns is
exhibited, you see the American people wake up, just light up. Because that's reminiscent of the kind of leadership that used to be quintessentially American:  John F Kennedy; Robert Kennedy; what Franklin Roosevelt was able to do to draw people from the depths of not just an economic depression, but a widespread emotional depression that had taken hold of the American people in the aftermath of the '29 stock market crash.  And to pull those people up and to turn that generation into the most productive generation that this country had ever seen, that should be enough to give us confidence that through the bold and assertive implementation of the principles behind these Four Laws, not just the words in the effect, but the principles which these are hinged upon; rooted deep within the American System ideas of Alexander Hamilton.  Through the application of this, we could see — this generation of Americans could actually see themselves as becoming once again the most productive, most optimistic, most creative generation that this country has ever seen; in collaboration with what's coming out of China in that regard and all of the other countries that have been touched by this vision.
        So, it's not abstract that we're discussing the figures of Krafft Ehricke or Albert Einstein; who themselves were critical personalities in the context of what Franklin Roosevelt was accomplishing or what John F Kennedy was accomplishing.  It was
that spark of creative optimism which, coming from a few individual geniuses such as that, actually lit the fires of optimism and creativity throughout the entirety of the American people.  That can be done again.
        ROGERS: Yes, and all these figures who you just named, who at a very young age, dedicated their lives to a mission, just as LaRouche did. And right now, we're recruiting people to our team; we need the young people to actually take responsibility and dedicate their lives to this very mission of acting to shape the future.  Because the reality is, the people who are being strongly affected by this destructive policy under Obama and Bush that we've been seeing for far too long, are particularly the young people.  They have to not accept this; and they have to make the determination that they're going to be a part – as others throughout the nation and the world — of shaping and bringing about the future that they want to see.

OGDEN:  Megan mentioned the person of Johannes Kepler. This was Einstein's inspiration; he wrote this paper on the 400^th anniversary of the death of Johannes Kepler.  It was exactly Kepler's ability that nobody else had seen; or to see the
Universe from an angle which nobody else had even attempted to see it from, was the type of thinking that Albert Einstein practiced as almost a religious devotion.  It's the ability to say, "No; mankind does have the ability not to look up at the world from the standpoint of the animals that crawl on the ground, but to look down at the Universe through the eyes of the Creator." To be seeing the world through the eyes of the Creator means to see the infinite potential; there is no limit in terms of what's possible in terms of growth and potential in a creative Universe. You can guarantee that a Creator of that Universe, who does not live in time but lives outside of and above time – as Einstein himself was enabled to do; sees, that that infinite potential is there.  But it hinges on the willful ability of a species such as man to act to unlock that creative potential; to unlock the future.  So, the vision and the faith that comes with that kind of way of thinking is what carries great geniuses such as Einstein, Kepler, Krafft Ehricke, others to be able to see the world from the standpoint of not the extrapolated future; but a future which nobody else have ever dreamed of existing.
        Kesha, you might want to bring this up. You have mentioned earlier that there was this conference that took place in Germany, celebrating the legacy of Gottfried Leibniz and some of the remarks that were made there.  Maybe that would be important.
        ROGERS:  Unfortunately, I don't have those remarks right in front of me; maybe Megan does.  This was a conference on the 370th birthday anniversary of Leibniz, that was being discussed today from developments that we heard of today.  One of the representatives was a Chinese Leibniz scholar, and he was
actually expressing the idea of Leibniz's conception of happiness.  Megan, do you have that there?  Because I though it really encapsulates what we've been speaking of here.
        BEETS:  So this was a gentleman named Wenchao Li, who is from the University; he's a China-born Leibniz specialist at the University of Hannover. He said, "For our own happiness, or the happiness of others, we can only be happy if others are happy, too. What it is about is human beings; other cultures. It is about the common good of all." That was actually how they opened this conference commemorating Leibniz.  I think it's significant, because often times these conferences can be sort of insular and limited to a certain academic community.  But this clearly reflects the principle of humanity that Leibniz represented; and it's also clearly resonating with the potential of the New Paradigm today.
        ROGERS:  Over 400 scientists from around the world, and this is an expression of what the space program truly exemplifies; it is the expression of happiness, of an end to conflict, an end to wars, and a true expression of what it is to be truly human.
Right now, if we're going to put an end to the hostilities and war drive and so forth, the greatest basis that we have to do that is through cooperation in space exploration.  That is the means of happiness that we can bring about to the existence of all mankind. I thought that that was clearly expressed in that quote and in the theme that was brought up in that conference.
        BEETS: I think this really is the challenge to the American people. Everything we've been discussing is couched in how you opened, Matt, with the financial meltdown. What was brought up about the very real danger of the war being driven by the British Empire as their system comes apart. I think the challenge to the
American people is the issue of courage; of realizing that what we've been discussing here today as the true nature of the human mind. That is reality; the Presidential election is not reality. Voting is not reality; it's whether people have the guts today to
admit LaRouche is right. And to stand and organize with us. And I think the call is put out to everyone to stand and organize with us now; now is the moment to bring this New Paradigm into existence in the United States, which is really the lynchpin in
the entire global picture right now.
        OGDEN: OK. That's a conclusion that we can take as the final word here. I would like to ask everybody to please subscribe to the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel; there are actually two channels. This is the LaRouche PAC Live; there's also a channel [called] LaRouche PAC videos, which has a lot more of the substantial, lengthy presentations that we've put together. So, if you haven't subscribed to either one of those yet, please subscribe to both. This is really central to our ability to build the kind of mass movement of intellectual courage which will continue to place LaRouche PAC in the center of creating the vision for the future of the United States.
        So, I'd like to thank you both, Kesha and Rachel, for joining us via video here today; and thanks to Megan for joining me in the studio. Thank you for tuning in. 

Please stay tuned, and we'll see you next Monday. 

Good night.

27. juli, 2016 (Leder) – De mere betydningsfulde finansielle medier i Europa og USA advarer for tiden om, at det europæiske finansielle system er på randen af en nedsmeltning, hvad enten udløseren, som del af et generelt bankkollaps i Italien, er verdens ældste banks, Monte die Paschis, kollaps, eller det er en nedsmeltning af derivaterne i Deutsche Bank, som af IMF for nylig blev beskrevet som verdens mest »systemisk risikable« finansielle institution. Hele det transatlantiske finansielle system har nået et kritisk punkt, og af denne grund vokser der nu en panikkonsensus frem blandt nogle af nøglespillerne i det britiske spil – Den Europæiske Centralbank, IMF, JP Morgan Chase og Goldman Sachs – der går ud på, at en midlertidig ophævelse af bail-in-loven (ekspropriering af visse typer bankindskud) er af afgørende betydning for at muliggøre en bail-out (statslig bankredning) af de italienske banker, der vurderes at sidde inde med dårlig gæld for mellem 210 og 360 milliarder euro. Deutsche Bank holdt onsdag en spontan pressekonference ved en af sine direktører, for »særdeles kraftigt at afvise« at banken skulle være i færd med at overveje en opdeling mellem sine London-centrerede kasino-operationer (Deutsche Bank har en derivateksponering på $55 billioner (55 tusinde milliarder, -red.), og sine andre enheder, selv efter, at DB havde offentliggjort et fald i profit på 97,5 %, og en 20 procents nedgang i indtjening i forhold til samme kvartal i 2016.

Det episke sammenbrud af det transatlantiske finansielle system, er, netop nu, den væsentligste faktor bag driften hen imod faren for krig – atomkrig – som Obama og NATO har fremprovokeret mod Rusland. Den seneste provokation kommer fra den bulgarske regering, der har beskyldt Rusland for at krænke et opdigtet »NATO-luftrum« under bulgarsk kontrol.

Kendsgerningen, som Lyndon LaRouche udtrykte det under diskussion med kolleger i dag, er ganske enkelt den, at »Deutsche Bank er død. Dette skal siges ligefremt og åbent.« Han tilføjede, at tyskerne burde »bede om Putins råd«.

Mens Wall Street forsat er ekstremt rasende over det faktum, at både det Republikanske og det Demokratiske parti har sat en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall på deres valgprogram for præsidentvalget i 2016, tog LaRouche spørgsmålet et skridt videre. Alt imens Glass-Steagall er fuldstædigt afgørende, så det nødvendigt med yderligere tiltag. Man må påkalde den tidligere formand for Deutsche Bank, Alfred Herrhausens forbillede. Under Herrhausen var Deutsche Bank en industribank, der investerede i realøkonomien. Selv på højdepunktet af den Kolde Krig investerede Deutsche Bank massivt i den sovjetiske økonomi og tilvejebragte lån til olierørledninger, kraftværker, veje og jernbaner. Mordet på Herrhausen den 30. november, 1989, faldt sammen med den iscenesatte fængsling af Lyndon LaRouche, iværksat af de samme kræfter – George H.W. Bush/Margaret Thatcher/ Francois Mitterand – der påtvang Tyskland Maastrichttraktatens spændetrøje og således aflivede Herrhausens planer om at integrere nationerne i den tidligere Warszawapagt i et forenet europæisk-eurasisk, økonomisk rum.
Den tyske økonomi står på randen af kollaps, som der er garanti for, hvis Deutsche Bank går ned. Det må forhindres for enhver pris, men de umiddelbare forholdsregler må omfatte en tilbagevenden til den form for bankvirksomhed, der blev praktiseret af Herrhausen. Hvis Tyskland går ned, er der så godt som garanti for, at vi får en atomar Tredje Verdenskrig, og det må forhindres gennem nødforanstaltninger.

Endnu en manifestering af den dødbringende krise, som menneskeheden i dag står overfor, er den fortsatte spredning af den blinde terrorismes pest, hvad enten der er tale om grusomheder begået af Islamisk Stat og andre jihad-kulter, skabt af anglo-saudierne, eller det drejer sig om den »nye vold«, vi på det seneste har set i Tyskland og Japan, og som involverer unge, der, gennem deres afhængighed af sigt-og-skyd-videospil, hjernevaskes til at begå voldelige handlinger.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger af og præsident for Schiller Instituttet, har opfordret til en international, koordineret indsats for at knuse denne terrorsvøbe – i tæt samarbejde med Rusland. Sidste september opfordrede den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin i sin tale til FN’s Sikkerhedsråd til en international indsats, med Anden Verdenskrigs alliance mellem USA og Sovjetunionen som forbillede, for at besejre jihad-terrorismen. Onsdag den 27. juli holdt Putin en tale ved et møde for topplacerede folk inden for russisk sikkerheds- og ordenshåndhævelse, hvor han gentog denne opfordring til en global krig mod terrorisme, der nu udgør en civilisationskrise, som alle nationer må bekæmpe.

Det eneste, der stadig står, er kravet om Glass-Steagall, som i Kongressen og internationalt anerkendes som resultatet af Lyndon LaRouches ubøjelige kampagne hen over de seneste årtier, for at opdrage og mobilisere befolkningen og de politiske institutioner til at forstå, at udelukkende kun en tilbagevenden til den amerikanske præsident Franklin D. Roosevelts krig mod Wall Street kan omstøde det igangværende kollaps af de vestlige økonomier.

26. juli 2016 (Leder) – Blodige massedrab fylder nu hver dag medieoverskrifterne i alle den »avancerede sektors« nationer:

* En afsindig, tidligere ansat på en japansk institution for mentalt handikappede angreb og skar halsen over på 19 beboere og sårede yderligere 26 alvorligt, efter at han havde skrevet et brev til parlamentet, hvor han forklarede, hvad han havde til hensigt at gøre, som et udslag af »velgørende« medlidenhedsdrab;

* To terrorister angreb en kirke i Frankrig, hvor de skar halsen over på en præst og en nonne, før de selv blev dræbt af politiet. IS tog ansvaret for angrebet og bar således ved til det opildnede anti-muslimske bål i pressen.

* To selvmordsbombemænd fra al-Shabab sprængte deres køretøj i luften uden for en FN-fredsbevarende base i Somalias hovedstad, hvorved de dræbte 12 personer;

* To teenagere blev dræbt og 16 andre såret i Ft. Myers Florida, USA, da tre andre teenagere åbnede ild mod en gruppe mennesker uden for en natklub;

* Og i Tyskland fandt den femte drabsepisode på en uge sted, da en mand dræbte sin læge og sig selv på et hospital.

Dette er blot dagens tabstal. De er ikke alle terrorangreb, da nogle af dem er udført af mennesker, der er drevet til vanvid af deres håbløse situation i samfundet, eller voldskulturen, eller af de psykose-inducerende videospil og »populærunderholdningen«, eller af narkotika, eller af alle disse ting.

Det er et symptom på en døende kultur. Alt imens millioner drives fra deres hjem i Sydvestasien af Obamas politik for evindelige krige for »regimeskift«, og alt imens medierne i Vesten hyper Obamas løgn om, at Rusland og Kina er »aggressorstater«, der styres af diktatorer, som må konfronteres militært, så får befolkningen besked på at slutte sig til de politiske konventioners Romerske Cirkus og samle sig til støtte for ledere, der kun har mere økonomisk ødelæggelse og global krig at tilbyde dem.

Men, hjernevasken er ved at falde fra hinanden. I USA har begge de politiske partiers konventioner været fiaskoer, der har frembragt kandidater, som et flertal af befolkningen hader, og som efterlader deres partistruktur i total forvirring. Det eneste, der stadig står, er kravet om Glass-Steagall, som i Kongressen og internationalt anerkendes som resultatet af Lyndon LaRouches ubøjelige kampagne hen over de seneste årtier, for at opdrage og mobilisere befolkningen og de politiske institutioner til at forstå, at udelukkende kun en tilbagevenden til den amerikanske præsident Franklin D. Roosevelts krig mod Wall Street kan omstøde det igangværende kollaps af de vestlige økonomier.

Roosevelts berømte udtalelse, »det eneste, vi har at frygte, er selve frygten« er arbejdsprincippet i mobiliseringen af befolkningen til at gøre en ende på denne galskab – sammen med LaRouches advarsel imod enhver form for pragmatisme. Ingen delvise forholdsregler er mulige i en verden, der står ansigt til ansigt med termonuklear krig. Lederne af Det forenede Kongerige (UK) og De forenede Stater (USA) er, af deres egen regering, blevet bevist at være krigsforbrydere, gennem udgivelsen af Chilcot-rapporten i England og de hidtil hemmeligholdte 28 sider af Den Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, 2001, i USA. Blair, Bush og Obama er blevet bevist skyldige i at lancere illegale aggressionskrige og i samarbejde med (eller kontrol over) terrorister, der skulle forfølge disse krige. Og alligevel er de fortsat på fri fod, og Obama sidder stadig i Det Hvide Hus, med fingeren på atomknappen.

Obamas fremstød for krig med Rusland og Kina er også i fare. Putin og Lavrov har trukket Tyrkiet ud af mobiliseringen for krig med Syrien og Rusland, mens Kina har trukket hele Sammenslutningen af Sydøstasiatiske Nationer (ASEAN) ud af mobiliseringen for krig med Kina. Verden ser hen til Rusland og Kina for lederskab og udvikling, i stedet for Vestens nedskæringspolitik og krig. Selv de europæiske nationer begynder at se vanviddet i fremstødet for krig med Rusland, og i stedet se det gavnlige i fred og udvikling gennem samarbejde.

Det Nye Paradigme, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har foreslået, baseret på menneskehedens fælles mål, er inden for rækkevidde, hvis Vestens borgere har modet til at følge Schiller Instituttets lederskab med »Den Nye Silkevejs« udvikling for hele verden, og med Friedrich Schillers vise ord om, at vi både må være patrioter i vore nationer, og samtidigt være verdensborgere.

Foto: Den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry og den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov den 26. juli 2016, før en bilateral samtale på sidelinjen af ASEAN. (Foto: USA’s Udenrigsministerium)

Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin til FN's Generalforsamling i 2015: »Det, vi i realiteten foreslår, er, at man lader sig lede af fælles værdier og fælles interesser i stedet for af ambitioner. Inden for rammerne af international lov må vi forene vore anstrengelser for at overvinde de problemer, der truer os alle, og skabe en virkeligt bred international koalition mod terrorismen … «

Download (PDF, Unknown)

I kølvandet på den britiske beslutning om at forlade EU står ikke blot Det Britiske Imperium og EU’s drømme om et imperium for fald, men hele det defekte paradigme, den vestlige verden har været præget af. Deutsche Banks krise er en sammenbrudskrise for hele finanssystemet, og Deutsche Bank må reddes for at undgå kaos – men samtidigt må banken bringes tilbage til Alfred Herrhausens politik for realøkonomisk vækst. Frigivelsen af de 28 sider må betyde afsløringen af Saudi-Arabiens og Storbritanniens støtte til international terrorisme og en fælles front med Rusland for at udrydde den. Chilcot-kommissionens rapport om Storbritanniens deltagelse i Irakkrigen afslører ikke blot Tony Blair som en løgner, men er en opfordring til et skifte fra det vestlige paradigme for permanent krig tilbage til respekt for FN og national suverænitet. Det mislykkede kupforsøg i Tyrkiet, som kom efter tyrkiske tilnærmelser til Rusland, vil fremskynde Erdogans planer om total magt, men kan være med til at stoppe hjælpen til IS gennem Tyrkiet. Udtalelsen fra Den Internationale Voldgiftsdomstol i Haag øger faren for krig i Det Sydkinesiske Hav. Danmark og Europa må gå med i Kinas og Ruslands nye paradigme for fredelig sameksistens og fælles udvikling.

Dette er en redigeret version af en briefing af Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet, den 18. juli 2016. Den kan høres på http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=13685

Download (PDF, Unknown)

26. juli 2016 – George Soros og andre gribbe har i flere uger været i gang med ’shorting’[1] af Deutsche Banks aktier og har tjent masser af penge og tvunget DB-aktier ned i værdi. Edward Misrahi, tidligere partner i Goldman Sachs og en ledende hedgefund-direktør (Ronit Capital), har ikke alene indrømmet, at han bedriver shorting mod Deutsche Bank, men rådede investorer til at gøre det samme, med det perspektiv, at Deutsche Bank bliver nationaliseret, og at alle kan få en bid af kagen. Misrahi kom med sine udtalelser i et interview med Raoul Pal fra Real Vision TV.

Raoul Pal: »Hvis du skulle vælge én short, hvor ville den så være?«

Edward Misrahi: »Det her kan skabe vanskeligheder for mig. Der er én handel, som jeg tror, du vil synes om. Jeg mener, at den bedste forsikring for at gardere sin ryg, som findes lige nu, er at satse på Deutsche Bank.«

Pal: »Jeg mener, at de er ved at gå ned med flaget.«

Misrahi: »For resten, så mener jeg, at de (DB) vil blive nationaliseret. Jeg tror, at det, for mig at se, er den bedste gardering (hedge), nogen portefølje kan tilbyde.«

[1] Shorthandel: At shorte aktier er en mulighed for at tjene penge i et faldende marked eller ved kursfald i enkelte aktier. At shorte indebærer at du som kunde sælger aktier som du ikke ejer. 

26. juli 2016 – EIR har på et tidligt tidspunkt afsløret, at den europæiske lov om bail-in, Direktivet for Genrejsning og Opløsning af Banker (BRRD), udelukker derivater. En forklaring på bail-in, der i 2015 blev udgivet af den tyske Føderale Finansielle Tilsynsmyndighed, eller BaFin, bekræfter dette med sine egne embedsmænds ord. BaFin indrømmer ligeud, at derivater er så komplekse, og at det ville tage så lang tid at udrede, at en bail-in-procedure ikke vil være i stand til at håndtere dem. Ergo vil de ikke medgå til bankopløsningen.

»Eftersom de (derivaterne) er baseret på så komplekse kontrakter, er det knap nok muligt fyldestgørende at udregne disse posters forpligteler og regnskabsmæssige værdi således, som en bail-in-procedure kræver det.« Det »giver derfor mening først at ignorere forpligtelser, der er forbundet med de nævnte vanskeligheder og risici. Kun, hvis de øvrige forpligtelser ikke rækker til at dække tab og genkapitalisering, bør man inkludere dem.«

EIR har yderligere afsløret, at BRRD indeholder en klausul, der sluttelig ekskluderer fra bail-in enhver forpligtelse, hvis annullering ville udgøre en fare for »systemets stabilitet«.

I går gav Süddeutsche Zeitung, med citater fra BaFin-rapporten, en idé om, hvad dimensionen af en bail-in ville være under en stor bankkrise. Hvis man havde gennemført en bail-in i tilfældet Commerzbank i 2008, ville det have involveret en ekspropriering af aktieindehaveres, obligationsindehaveres og bankindskyderes penge til en værdi af 80 milliard euro.    

26. juli 2016 – NatWest, der ejes af Royal Bank of Scotland (og derfor af den britiske regering), har advaret sine kunder i et brev, der siger, at den kunne introducere negative rentesatser for indskud (NIRP). Ifølge avisen The Guardian sagde NatWest i brevet: »De globale rentesatser er fortsat på meget lave niveauer, og er på nogle markeder i øjeblikket negative. Afhængig af de fremtidige markedsbetingelser kunne dette resultere i, at vi tager renter for bankindeståender.«

Det vil sige, at I skal betale os for vores ret til at bruge jeres penge. Var der nogen, der sagde ’stormløb på banken?’

NatWest er den første britiske bank, der overvejer at tage renter for indskud, men de er ikke de allerførste; i sidste sagde ABN Amro, en stor hollandsk bank, til sine kunder, at det, pga. exceptionelle markedsbetingelser, kunne blive nødvendigt at pålægge negative rentesatser engang i fremtiden.   

Foto: Stormløb på en bank i Berlin, 1931. (Bundesarchive).

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.«