Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 11. april, 2018 – Ti tusinder af eksemplarer af LaRouchePAC’s hasteerklæring, »Nu er det nok; Ring til Kongressen og din senator og sig til dem, at de skal lukke Robert Mueller ned, STOP BRITERNES FREMSTØD FOR KRIG« er blevet uddelt og e-mailet i hele landet i de seneste 48 timer. Kredse omkring præsident Trump i særdeleshed bliver advaret om faren. Den totalt gennemskuelige fabrikering af en falsk historie om kemiske våben i Syrien fra de britiske aktiver inden for de jihadistiske netværk, de »Hvide Hjelme«, og som savner ethvert bevis eller endda motiv på vegne af Syrien og Rusland, er blevet brugt til at drive præsident Trump væk fra at udføre sine erklærede planer: at blive venner med Rusland og Kina og trække de amerikanske styrker ud af Syrien og afslutte de sindssyge og folkemorderiske krige for »regimeskifte«, én gang for alle.

Den indflydelse, som LaRouchePAC’s intervention har haft, bør ikke undervurderes. Erklæringen påpeger krigshysteriet og det åbenlyse FBI-raid mod Trumps personlige advokat, under direktion af Robert Mueller, og understreger: »Disse to uhyrlige begivenheder er totalt relateret. Med mindre I nu rejser jer sammen med os, er dette land i alvorlig, alvorlig fare. Det direkte forsøg på at afpresse denne præsident ind i den krig, han blev valgt til at stoppe, er blevet optrappet ud over enhver forstand.«

Præsident Trump har tilsyneladende forstået budskabet – at krigsprovokationerne styres af de samme britiske aktiver, der styrer Russiagate-kuppet imod ham. Selv om han skrev et krigerisk tweet her til morgen, der sagde, at missilerne snart ville flyve, og som fordømte Rusland og Assad for det angivelige angreb med kemiske våben, så fulgte han hurtigt derefter op med endnu to tweets, der sagde, at der »ikke er nogen grund til« den aktuelle alvorlige krise mellem USA og Rusland, og at de to nationer må arbejde sammen om både økonomiske og strategiske spørgsmål. Trump konkluderer: »Meget af det onde blod med Rusland skyldes den Falske & Korrupte Ruslands-efterforskning, under anførsel af de totalt Demokratiske loyalister, eller folk, der arbejdede for Obama. Mueller er den mest inhabile (undtagen Rosenstein, der underskrev FISA & Comey brevet). Intet ’aftalt spil’, så de går amok!«

Præsident Putin talte besindigt med nye udenlandske ambassadører, der ankom til Moskva i dag, og sagde: »Tilstanden i verden giver grund til bekymring. Situationen i verden bliver mere kaotisk, men vi håber ikke desto mindre, at sund fornuft sluttelig vil sejre, og at internationale relationer vil komme ind på en konstruktiv kurs, og at hele det globale system vil blive mere stabilt og forudsigeligt … Med hensyn til Rusland, så vil vi fortsætte med konsekvent at tale for en styrkelse af global og regional sikkerhed og stabilitet og fortsætte med strengt at overholde vore internationale forpligtelser og opbygge et samarbejde med vore partnere på en konstruktiv og respektfuld måde, vejledt af internationale juridiske standarder og FN’s charter. Vi vil fremme verdens positive, fremadskuende dagsorden og arbejde for at sikre menneskehedens vedvarende udvikling, fremgang og velfærd.«

Denne »fremadskuende dagsorden« er nu blevet vedtaget af flertallet af verdens nationer i form af deltagelse i den Nye Silkevej, der er initieret af Kina, og i forsvaret af suverænitet over udenlandsk sponsorerede terrorister – det være sig fra saudierne eller briterne eller de britiske aktiver i USA. At forene verden i den Nye Silkevejsånd, for at afslutte fattigdom og krig, er ikke længere en drøm – det nye paradigme er inden for rækkevidde, hvis Det britiske Imperiums døende uhyre, samt dets finansmagter, endelig kan stedes til hvile og således befri verdens befolkning til at arbejde i harmoni. Det britiske folk er selv i stigende grad klar over denne kendsgerning, med befolkningen, og endda MP’er fra både Labour og Tory’erne, der fordømmer Tony Blairs og Theresa Mays løgnagtige fremstød for krig, baseret på de samme løgne om masseødelæggelsesvåben, som Blair brugte til at lancere Irakkrigen, moder til den nuværende elendighed og det nuværende kaos i hele Sydvestasien.

Spred LaRouchePAC’s erklæring overalt, og mobilisér folk af god vilje i hele verden til at gå sammen med os i dette beslutningens øjeblik, for hele menneskehedens fremtid.

Jeg er Will Wertz fra LaRouche Political Action Committee, og vi interviewer i dag senator fra Virginia Richard Black, der er pensioneret oberst i den amerikanske hær; han var ligeledes chef for JAG (Judge Advocate General’s Corps, United States Army) afdeling for kriminalitet i Pentagon. Han har ekstraordinær stor erfaring især med Syrien, som han har besøgt flere gange. Formålet med interviewet er at få senator Blacks synspunkter om den aktuelle krise omkring beskyldningerne om et angreb med kemiske våben i det østlige Ghouta i byen Douma, Syrien.

Video, engelsk.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 10. april, 2018 – Det betyder ingenting, om så 10 Rod Rosenstein’er i Justitsministeriet »godkendte« de ekstensive FBI-raids mod præsident Trumps personlige advokat; beskyttelsen fra det fjerde og femte tillæg til USA’s Forfatning bliver fjernet fra den amerikanske præsident. Målet er at fjerne præsidenten fra embedet; og det umiddelbare mål, og den umiddelbare fare, er krig med Syrien og Rusland.

USA’s Forfatning bliver tilsidesat med det formål at tage magten over udenrigspolitikken, og selve det Ovale Kontor, fra præsident Trump og føre USA tilbage til Bush’ og Obamas status for »evindelig krig« og »krig for regimeskifte«. De amerikanske vælgere overlades til hjælpeløst at se til – med mindre de handler nu, i stort antal.

Hele optrapningen af dette »juridiske mord« på præsident Trump er den særlige anklager, og korrupte, tidligere FBI-direktør, Robert Muellers værk. Mueller har nu langt, langt overskredet sit mandat til at efterforske valget i 2016, fordi denne »Russiagate-efterforskning« er mislykkedes. Hans mål er nu at anklage præsidenten for hvad som helst for at bringe ham til fald. Mueller overgav ganske enkelt opgaven med at udføre disse raids mod Trumps advokat Michael Cohen til New Yorks distriktsanklager. Denne distriktsanklager, udnævnt af Trump, er allerede blevet tvunget til at redde sig selv – retsforfølgelsen af Cohen er returneret til Mueller, der vil forsøge at tvinge præsidentens personlige anklager gennem 25 år til at vende sig mod Trump.

Hvis Donald Trump var en saudisk prins, ville Robert Mueller nu beskytte ham. Hvis han var administrerende direktør for banken Wells Fargo, ville Mueller nu forhandle en aftale om ikke at retsforfølge igennem med ham. Men Donald Trump er præsident for USA og er imod de britiske geopolitikeres politikker for konstant krig.

Dette nye angreb på præsidenten og Forfatningen fulgte efter Trumps forsøg på, for 10 dage siden, at beordre det Nationale Sikkerhedsråd og Generalstabscheferne til at trække USA’s militær tilbage fra Syrien. Muellers angreb er direkte knyttet til svindelnummeret med angrebet med kemiske våben i Syrien, et svindelnummer udført af den britiskdirigerede, såkaldte organisation for først responderende redningsfolk, de »Hvide Hjelme«, der samarbejder med jihadi-terroristerne i Syrien.

Da præsident Trump, i marts 2017, sagde, at »regimeskifte i Syrien er ikke vores mission«, fandt det iscenesatte angreb med kemiske våben mod børn i byen Khan Sheikoun sted, for at få ham til at skifte mening, og den britiske forsvarsminister overbeviste USA’s forsvarsminister James Mattis om at angribe Syrien med krydsermissiler. Mattis har for nylig indrømmet, at der ikke fandtes nogen beviser. Nu, da præsident Trump siger, »Vi forlader snart Syrien«, iscenesætter de Hvide Hjelme endnu et angreb med kemiske våben, og Storbritannien og Frankrig kræver krig mod Syrien.

Enhver kan se, at dette – fuldstændig grundløst – kunne føre til en ny verdenskrig, som ingen kan overleve.

Denne krigspolitik er det mål, til hvilket den »juridiske lejemorder« Mueller er blevet hvervet, imod præsidenten og Forfatningen. Ledere i Kongressen, såsom senatorerne Chuck Schumer og Mitch McConnell, har reageret ved at forsvare Muellers handlinger. Ethvert medlem at Kongressen, der gør dette, bør smides ud.

LaRouche Political Action Committee mobiliserer for at stoppe Mueller, og stoppe krigsfremstødet, med en presserende national bredside, »NU ER DET NOK! Ring til Kongressen og din senator og sig til dem, at de skal lukke Robert Mueller ned og stoppe briternes krigsfremstød«. Den siger, »I 2013, da Obama truede med krig med Rusland over Syrien, intervenerede det amerikanske folk og løftede taget på Kongressen, og stoppede det. Det er, hvad vi nu har brug for … Stop fremstødet for krig, og luk Robert Mueller ned, NU!«

En af disse amerikanere, der intervenerede højlydt i 2013 for at stoppe krig med Rusland over Syrien, var Donald J. Trump.

Foto: Præsident Donald J. Trump og regeringslederne fra de Baltiske Stater. 3. april, 2018. (Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 9. april, 2018 – Vi befinder os i en situation med rød alarm, i betragtning af mønstret for provokationer fra den britiske, geopolitiske floks side, for at optrappe konfrontationen til et punkt, hvor det udløser generel krig. Mandagens tre timer lange møde i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd reflekterer faren. Det var et frontalt sammenstød mellem UK, USA og Frankrig på den ene side, og hvis talspersoner udspyede løgne, fornærmelser og spydigheder, og Rusland og Kina på den anden. Kina talte for en diplomatisk og politisk løsning. Rusland havde anmodet om mødet, der havde titlen, »Trusler mod international fred og sikkerhed«, og truslerne lå i de vilde anklager fra ambassadørerne Karen Pierce (UK), Nikki Haley (USA) og François DeLattre (Frankrig).

Det umiddelbart foreliggende spørgsmål er den falske påstand om den syriske regerings brug af kemiske våben i Douma, 7. april. Der eksisterer ingen beviser; iscenesatte videoer, udsendt af de berygtede aktører for britisk efterretning De Hvide Hjelme, kører konstant på de store medier. På mødet i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd fordømte Haley Syrien som et »monster« for at udføre dette (fantom)-angreb med kemiske våben; hun fordømte Rusland som et »regime, der ikke kan føle skam«.

Præsident Donald Trump, der er mål for alt dette, talte til sit kabinet her til morgen og sagde, at angrebet i Douma var »grusomt«, og »hvis de [Syrien, Rusland] er uskyldige«, hvorfor vil de så ikke give folk lov til at gå ind og bevise det«. Faktisk sagde både den russiske og den syriske ambassadør til Sikkerhedsrådet: send efterforskningsteams ind omgående. Lige med det samme. Kom i morgen.

Men, som i Skripal-sagen, og som med tidligere, ubegrundede anklager imod den syriske regering om kemisk krigsførelse, så er sandheden irrelevant for dem, der anklager.

Det er pointen. Dette aktuelle svindelnummer er ikke nogen separat begivenhed, men er en begivenhed i et mønster af provokationer i en sindssyg, igangværende strategi for konfrontation, der sætter hele planeten i fare. Er tankegangen den, at det ville være bedre at føre krig nu, snarere end senere, fordi det ville være mindre »kostbart«? Der har for ikke længe siden været en RAND-undersøgelse, som præcist hævdede dette vanvid. Der er galninge, der er tilbøjelige til at tænke på denne måde, især efter den russiske præsident Putins annoncering den 1. marts af nye våbentyper, og som, i stedet for at blive set som begrundelse for nødvendigheden af ægte forhandlinger om international sikkerhed, ses som en slutspilsmanøvre.

Den russiske ambassadør Vasilij Nebenzia talte strengt til sine modparter i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, »Jeg vil stille det retoriske spørgsmål: Forstår I den farlige tærskel, I bringer verden til?«

Helga Zepp-LaRouche opsummerede det mandag: vi sidder på en krudttønde. Hvis Trump går i fælden og går med i dette her, og, f.eks., en russisk soldat i Syrien bliver dræbt på en eller anden måde, befinder verden sig i akut fare for en generel krig.

Tidlig mandag morgen affyrede to israelske kampfly otte missiler mod et mål i Syrien, en flyvebase i Homs, som indtil for nylig blev brugt af russiske styrker. Det syriske luftforsvar skød fem missiler ned, men tre ramte målet og dræbte 14 mennesker, inkl. tre iranere. Ingen russere blev ramt. Israel gav ikke Rusland noget forhåndsvarsel; Israel informerede imidlertid Det Hvide Hus. Hvad sker der nu?

Præsident Trump, der mandag nat skulle mødes med militærrådgivere, gentog om morgenen, at han er 24 til 48 timer fra at beslutte, hvad han vil gøre mht. anklagerne om syrisk giftgas. Han og den franske præsident Emmanuel Macron talte i telefon søndag og sagde, de ville koordinere deres respons, sammenholdt med det, der sker i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd mandag, og udstede deres handleplaner dagen efter, eller kort tid derefter.

Samtidig med, at alt dette finder sted, rykkede FBI mandag ud med endnu et træk mod Trump, på vegne af den britiske Trumpgate-operation, med et raid om morgenen mod Michael Cohens kontor i New York City; Michael Cohen, der er mangeårig personlig advokat for præsident Trump.

I USA kommer der nu nogle responser, inkl. et åbent brev i dag til forsvarsminister James Mattis fra pensionerede oberst i hæren, Pat Lang, der kræver en kompetent efterforskning af, hvad det var, der skete i Douma, med det formål, ikke at blive offer for »et omhyggelig konstrueret propaganda-svindelnummer«. Blandt kongresmedlemmer advarede Thomas Massie (R-KY) om, at kun Kongressen har retten til at beslutte en militæraktion, såsom i Syrien. Han angreb hårdt ideen om »evindelig krig«.

Vær i højeste alarmberedskab; rød alarm. Dette er meget alvorligt. Kontakt alle med sandheden.

Se den nye Erklæring fra LaRouchePAC: »Nu er det Nok!«  

9. april, 2018 – Vi, De forenede Stater, står over for at lancere et angreb mod Syrien, med de russiske styrker, der er til stede dér, baseret på perfide, britiske løgne; baseret på det, der kunne vise sig at være historiens endegyldige og sorteste efterretningssvindel, den, der gjorde det af med den menneskelige race. Samtidig blev præsident Trumps personlige advokats kontor i dag, 9. april, 2018, udsat for et raid, baseret på en henvisning fra den særlige anklager Robert Mueller. Spørgsmålet skulle angiveligt dreje sig om beskyldninger i forbindelse med, at præsidenten skulle have haft en årelang affære med den løgnagtige og afskyelige pornostjerne, Stormy Daniels. Dette anses af Mueller og vores korrupte FBI for at være så alvorligt, at det Sjette Tillæg til USA’s Forfatning også blot kan kastes til side. Disse to uhyrlige begivenheder er fuldstændig relateret. Med mindre I nu rejser jer sammen med os for at stoppe det, er dette land i alvorlig, alvorlig fare. Det kategoriske forsøg på at afpresse denne præsident ind i den krig, han blev valgt til at stoppe, er nu blevet optrappet ud over enhver forstand.

I 2016 stemte millioner af amerikanere for Donald Trump, fordi han sagde, han ville afslutte unyttige, evindelige krige på vegne af et intellektuelt dødt og finansielt bankerot, angloamerikansk system, dette imperium, der går tilbage til tiden umiddelbart efter Anden Verdenskrig. Dette system, centreret omkring Wall Street og City of London, har snydt of bedraget sig til verdens værdier og ødelagt den engang storslåede amerikanske nationaløkonomi, en kendsgerning, der blev fuldstændig indlysende for tænkende mennesker, da systemet krakkede i 2008. Donald Trump søgte bedre relationer med Kina, der nu vokser frem som verdens mægtigste økonomi, samt med Putins Rusland. Trump faste beslutning om at etablere anstændige relationer med Rusland og Kina, og udelukkende kun denne faste beslutning, igangsatte det djævelske kup mod præsidenten, under anførelse af briterne og de mange nyttige idioter blandt vores elite, der er i trældom for briterne.

Dette kup, hvis manifestationer var det falske »beskidte dossier« om Donald Trump, forfattet af MI6’s Christopher Steele og betalt af Hillary Clinton, sang på sidste vers, da Storbritannien indledte sin nuværende offensiv. Senatorerne Charles Grassley og Lindsay Graham havde henvist Christopher Steele til USA’s Justitsministerium, til retsforfølgelse for kriminelle handlinger, og patrioter i Kongressen forfulgte en reel bestræbelse på at identificere og retsforfølge dem, der er ansvarlige for kuppet mod vores præsident. Så, den 4. marts, 2018, blev en russisk spion, der spionerede for Storbritannien, Sergei Skripal, samt hans datter, angiveligt forgiftet i Salisbury, England. Skripal færdes i de samme britiske spionkredse, som Christopher Steele er knyttet til. Premierminister Theresa May proklamerede omgående for hele verden, at Rusland stod bag angrebet, men har aldrig nogensinde fremlagt noget som helst bevis for nogen af sine krigsgale erklæringer. Præsident Trump blev af sine forræderiske rådgivere, inklusive H.R. McMaster, der i hele sin militære karriere var en fange af Storbritanniens Internationale Institut for Strategiske Affærer, hastigt puffet til at støtte Storbritanniens totalt ubegrundede påstande. Budskabet til præsidenten fra vore forrædere er klart: gå med i vores march mod krig og måske; måske, vil vi slække på kuppet.

Sluttelig nægtede Storbritanniens egne eksperter i kemiske våben i Porton Down at sige, at det kemiske stof, der blev brugt mod Skripal og hans datter, var fremstillet i Rusland, på trods af Theresa Mays og hendes vanvittige udenrigsminister Boris Johnsons påstande, uden beviser. Åbenlys tvivl var allerede blevet udtalt af flere europæiske lande, som afholdt sig fra at gå med i dette Storbritanniens opråb til krig. Blandt de kendsgerninger, der står til overvejelse: Den dødbringende nervegift, som Theresa May beskriver, ville omgående have dræbt Skripal og hans datter. Alligevel er de begge i live og ikke længere i kritisk tilstand. Redegørelser for, hvor giften blev givet, har varieret; den seneste lyder, at det blev smurt ud på hoveddøren til Skripals hjem. Alligevel lykkedes det på en eller anden måde for Skripal at forlade huset et par timer og spadsere rundt i landsbyen, spise og drikke på restauranter, indtil han pludselig blev syg. Formlen for den angiveligt anvendte gift var blevet offentliggjort vidt og bredt af dens russiske opfinder, en dissident, der nu bor i USA. Med dette svindelnummer, der nu er i færd med at falde fra hinanden, får vi at vide, at Skripal og hans datter, samt alle tilgængelige beviser, er i færd med at ’blive forsvundet’. Ifølge britisk presse vil Skripal og hans datter komme ind i et vidnebeskyttelsesprogram fra CIA. Deres hus, og alle påståede lokaliteter, der er involveret i dette svindelnummer, bliver nu bulldozet ned og ødelagt. Ingen mulighed for en reel efterforskning af dette svindelnummer må lades åben.

På trods af, at Donald Trump udtalte støtte til Theresa May, søgte han stadig at honorere sit løfte til det amerikanske folk. Han lykønskede Putin med valgsejren og inviterede ham til et snarligt møde i Det Hvide Hus til forhandlinger og nævnte det eskalerende og farlige våbenkapløb mellem USA og Rusland. Briterne og deres amerikanske venner gik, som respons hertil, amok. Man måtte lade en hammer falde på denne præsident, der nu oven i købet talte om at trække amerikanske styrker ud af Syrien og genopbygge USA.

Ind på scenen kommer så endnu et af briterne opfundet forgiftnings-svindelnummer, nu i Syrien, hvor russere, iranere og syrere ikke alene assisterede i besejringen af Isis, men nu var i færd med at feje de sidste tilbageværende jihadister bort, såsom Jaish al-Islam, en omdøbt, salafistisk jihadistisk gruppering, der kontrolleres af saudierne, samt al-Nusra-front, eller al-Qaeda. De endegyldige militære operationer, som konsoliderede sejren, er i løbet af de seneste dage blev afsluttet i Gouta, en forstad til Damaskus. Og efter således at have opnået sejr, lancerede Assad – sådan lyder den narrativ, som vore krigsmagere til medier vil have os til at tro på – et angreb med kemiske våben for at fejre denne sejr, vel vidende, at han således ville udløse helvede over sig selv fra Vesten.

Fotos af døende børn, som præsident Trump reagerede så følelsesmæssigt på for et år siden, da han lancerede missilangreb mod Syrien, er atter blevet præsenteret for ham. Der er al mulig grund til at tro, de er falske. Rusland og Syrien havde netop advaret om et sådant angreb under falsk flag, og som ville involvere kloringas, i over en måned, hvor de kom nærmere til den endelige sejr i Gouta. Den eneste information, der hævder, at et sådant angreb fandt sted, kommer fra De Hvide Hjelme, en nødhjælpsorganisation grundlagt af briterne, og som er involveret i at være involveret militært med al-Qaeda og er dybt involveret i tidligere svindelnumre omkring Assads angivelige anvendelse af kemiske våben. Sy Hersh dokumenterede denne historie fuldt og helt i London Review of Books, med hensyn til de falske nyheder om, at Assad brugte saringas i august, 2013. https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

MIT’s Ted Postal og andre har vist, at det angivelige angreb med saringas, som præsident Trump responderede på med militære midler for et år siden, ligeledes var et britisk svindelnummer. Se Robert Parry, https://consortiumnews.com/2017/09/07/a-new-hole-in-syria-sarin-certainty/

og James Carden, https://www.thenation.com/article/the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria-is-there-a-place-for-skepticism/.

De Hvide Hjelme finansieres i fællesskab af britiske og amerikanske efterretningselementer, der er dedikeret til regimeskifte i Syrien. De har modtaget millioner og atter millioner af dollar til dette formål. De udgør afgørende komponenter i den interventionistiske udenrigspolitik for regimeskifte, som Donald Trump blev valgt til at udrydde.

I 2013, da Obama truede med krig mod Rusland over Syrien, intervenerede det amerikanske folk, løftede taget på Kongressen og stoppede det. Det er, hvad vi nu igen har brug for. Rusland ser, at der fra briterne og deres naive tåber i USA kommer en ubønhørlig offensiv for informationskrig. De ser dette, korrekt, som de første skridt mod krig. Vi må vende dette, med omgående start nu. Ring til din repræsentant i Kongressen eller din senator og sig til dem, at de skal stoppe dette fremstød for krig og lukke Robert Mueller ned, nu. Omstillingsbordet på Capitol Hill har nummer 202-224-3121.

Foto: Den amerikanske præsident Donald J. Trump, vicepræsident Michael R. Pence og deres hustruer byder tidligere præsident Barack Obama farvel under afskedsceremonien efter den 58. præsidentielle indsættelse i Washington, D.C., 20. jan., 2017.  (DoD photo)

 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 8. april, 2018 – Londonmedierne og de britiskskabte »Hvide Hjelme« har i løbet af de seneste 24 timer lanceret et nyt, groft svindelnummer, et »angreb med kemiske våben mod et hospital i Douma«, Syrien, som krigspropaganda rettet mod den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump. Selv om militære efterretningseksperter gennemskuede svindelen, og russiske regeringsfolk havde forudsagt det nøjagtigt, var dagens overskrift i Sunday Telegraph typisk for den britiske fest, »Donald Trump fordømmer Vladimir Putin, efter syriske kemiske angreb dræber dusinvis«. Samtidig indrømmede Reuters og BBC, som var kilden til den opflammende historie, at de ikke havde nogen beviser på, at et kemisk angreb havde fundet sted, bortset fra rapporter og (særdeles tvivlsomme) videoer, der var sendt af den jihadisktiske gruppe, Jaish al-Islam, og de pro-terroristiske »Hvide Hjelme«.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde her til morgen, at dette nye svindelnummer, der følger umiddelbart efter den svigtende, britiske krigspropaganda over sagen med Skripal-forgiftningen, er ekstremt farlig for verden – men kan slås tilbage.

Hun bemærkede ligeledes, at denne propaganda ligger nøjagtig på linje med den åbenlyse opstand, der nu anstiftes mod præsident Trumps offentlige ordre til en snarlig afslutning af amerikanske militæroperationer i Syrien, som det står at læse i Washington Posts lederartikel for søndag, forsiden.

»Storbritannien gennemfører ikke den ene førkrigs-propagandaoperation [Skripal forgiftningsanklagerne], for dernæst at stoppe, når dette svigter og ikke frembringer fuld og hel konfrontation«, sagde Zepp-LaRouche. »Nej, det optrapper den selv samme mobilisering for førkrigs-propaganda. Hvis dette ikke stoppes omgående, kan det få meget alvorlige konsekvenser, inklusive en sluttelig verdenskrig.«

Hun påpegede advarslen fra det Russiske Udenrigsministerium: »Militær intervention [dvs., et nyt missilangreb fra NATO] i Syrien under falske og fabrikerede påskud, hvor russiske militærfolk er stationeret efter anmodning fra den legitime regering, er absolut uacceptabelt og kan udløse meget alvorlige konsekvenser« – og hun påpegede ligeledes udtalelsen fra gen. Evgeny Buzhinsky (pensioneret), nu i Russisk Center for Politiske Studier (PIR-center), der på BBC anklagede Storbritannien for at lyve, som kunne føre til »virkelig krig – den sidste krig i menneskehedens historie«.

Hun pegede også på den amerikanske veteran fra amerikansk forsvarsefterretning, oberst Pat Lang (pensioneret), der kaldte disse kemiske angreb for svindelagtige »nyheder fra rebellernes propagandaapparat, af hvilket meget støttes finansielt af den britiske regerings udenrigsministerium og leveres via MI6. Hvad i alverden motiverer UK til denne djævelskhed?«

Helga Zepp-LaRouche har netop, den 7. april, talt for en Schiller Institut-konference og for udenlandsk presse i New York, hvor hun direkte placerede truslen om et nyt krak i det Londoncentrerede finanssystem som baggrunden for Londons eskalerende krigspropaganda. »Hvorfor«, spurgte hun, »er der denne dæmonisering af præsident Putin, som kommer fra samme hold som også dæmoniserer præsident Trump og præsident Xi Jinping? Dette er den samme form for tåbelighed, der førte til Anden Verdenskrig, og som meget let kunne udløse en Tredje Verdenskrig … Det, der ligger bag, er … desperation, fordi finansmagterne i City of London og hos deres kollaboratører på Wall Street klart ser, at deres system er ved at gå ned …«

»Forestil jer«, sagde hun, »hvis vi kunne mobilisere det amerikanske folk til at udøve pres på præsident Trump … og han accepterede Xi Jinpings tilbud om at samarbejde med den Nye Silkevej … og de europæiske lande ligeledes sluttelig ville indse – de fleste af dem gør det allerede – men selv de tilbageværende lande ville indse, at samarbejde med Rusland, med Kina og de andre nationer, der allerede er gået med i Bælte & Vej Initiativet – at dette ville være langt mere i deres interesse end den aktuelle kurs med britisk konfrontation med Rusland og med Kina.«

Foto:  De syriske ‘Hvide Hjelme’ under arbejdet i Arbin City. 6. feb., 2018. (Qasioun News Agency / Screen Grab)

Introduktion:

Den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump, den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping og den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin kunne, i løbet af de næste par måneder, sammen træffe en række af de absolut vigtigste beslutninger, som ville indvirke på menneskeheden, siden renæssancen i det 15. århundrede. Den mulige løsning på Korea-spørgsmålet er blot et enkelt eksempel. De rette beslutninger, truffet af disse tre nationer og deres allierede i de næste par uger, kunne, i den nærmeste fremtid, begynde at fjerne fattigdom, kolonialisme og krig fra planeten. Løsningerne for at fjerne dette tredobbelte onde ligger både i stjernerne og i os selv.

Britiske imperiekræfter har midlertidigt mistet kontrollen over den svigtende transatlantiske, geopolitiske proces. Nu forsøger de at genvinde fordelen. Ligesom med den britiske efterretningsagent Christopher Steeles Russiagate-svindel, er det nu svindlen med »Rusland forgiftede Sergei Skripal og hans datter«, der efter planen skal drive en kile ind mellem præsident Trump og Vladimir Putin. Hvis denne bestræbelse lykkes, vil alt det arbejde, der er udført af Devin Nunes’ Husets Efterretningskomite og andre, for at afsløre den korrupte rolle, som FBI, Justitsministeriet, Udenrigsministeriet og andre har spillet i det britiskkørte kup imod det amerikanske præsidentskab i 2016, have været forgæves.

Evindelig krig, som de amerikanske administrationer Bush 41, Bush 43 og Obama var fortalere for, kan nu erstattes med en ny økonomisk platform og en ny kulturel platform.

Lørdag, 7. april, er Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche hovedtaler på denne konference, der skal samle amerikanerne omkring dette optimistiske perspektiv. En vedtagelse af de økonomiske forholdsregler og standpunkter, der kendes som LaRouches Fire Love[1] samtidig med en accept af det stående, kinesiske forslag [om USA’s deltagelse i den Nye Silkevej] ville give grundlaget for at skabe en hurtig forøgelse i amerikansk, produktiv beskæftigelse, levestandarder og uddannelse af ungdommen i USA.

Grundlaget for en dialog mellem de »tre store« præsidentskaber er indeholdt i et dokument af Lyndon LaRouche fra marts, 1984, med titlen, »Udkast til aftalememorandum mellem USA og U.S.S.R.«[2]

Indledningen lyder således:

»Det politiske fundament for varig fred må være: a) Alle nationalstaters ubetingede suverænitet, og b) Samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater med det formål at fremme ubegrænsede muligheder for at blive delagtig i fordelene ved teknologisk fremskridt, til gensidig fordel for enhver nationalstat, og alle nationalstater.

Det mest afgørende aspekt ved en aktuel implementering af en sådan politik for varig fred er en dybtgående ændring i de monetære, økonomiske og politiske relationer mellem de dominerende magter og de relativt underordnede nationer, som ofte klassificeres som »udviklingslande«. Med mindre de uligheder, der stadig dvæler i kølvandet på moderne kolonialisme, gradvist afhjælpes, kan der ikke være nogen varig fred på denne planet.«

Sidstnævnte tema vil blive behandlet på mødet 7. april i en præsentation af Jason Ross, medforfatter af Schiller Instituttets Specialrapport, »Forlæng den Nye Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika: En vision for en økonomisk renæssance«.[3] Med en befolkning på størrelse med Indiens og med den yngste befolkning i noget kontinent i verden, ville Afrikas fysisk-økonomiske udvikling gennem fælles arbejde, udført af USA sammen med Kina, gøre de gamle koloniregimers racister tavse for altid. Verdens to største økonomier kunne, ved hjælp af Sun Yat-sens og Abraham Lincolns »Tre principper for folket«[4], udgøre spydspidsen for en anti-koloniudvikling og fjerne den fattigdom, som er udløser af racisme og krig.

Her følger engelsk udskrift af Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale:

 

 Schiller Institute Conference with Helga Zepp-LaRouche
        New York City, April 7, 2018

A DIALOGUE OF THREE PRESIDENCIES:

BENDING THE ARC OF THE MORAL UNIVERSE TOWARD JUSTICE 

DIANE SARE: Good afternoon.  I’m Diane Sare with the
Schiller Institute here in Manhattan and at the conference
called “The Dialogue of Three Presidencies:  Bending the Arc of
the Moral Universe toward Justice.”
Fifty years ago this year, our nation suffered two major
assassinations:  The first, on April 4th, 1968, was that of
Martin Luther King, Jr.,[5] who was gunned down while he was
participating in organizing for a sanitation workers’ strike in
Memphis, Tennessee; then, on June 6th, Robert Kennedy — the
second Kennedy to be assassinated — who was likely on a
trajectory to become the President of the United States.  I think
it’s very important to reflect on that change in the United
States 50 years ago.  I was very struck a few weeks ago, having
heard about a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping, where he
spoke in China of the Century of Humiliation.  Starting in 1840,
the Opium Wars against China, which were absolutely devastating
and destructive, run by the British Empire — which is still the
enemy of civilization today; to the Japanese occupation in the
1940s, under which 35 million or more people died.  What
President Xi said to these young people is that, in effect, we
have to take this as a source of strength; that our sacred honor
is that we will never allow ourselves to be humiliated in such a
way again.  And that we will never impose such humiliation upon
any other human being.
So, I was reflecting on the last 50 years in this country,
what we have tolerated.  And before I came here today, I was
reading a little bit from Martin Luther King’s book about the
process leading into his leadership of what became the Montgomery
Bus Boycott.  He described that the unity of the people —
because people may know, it wasn’t just that Rosa Parks refused
to move to the back of the bus and got arrested and somehow there
were demonstrations.  People went on for nearly a year, refusing
to ride the bus.  That meant that people with the postal service
were organizing all these elaborate carpools; and people in their
60s and 70s were walking 12 miles a day to not take the bus.  And
I was thinking to myself, how many Americans today would be
prepared to walk 12 miles a day until we got the Manhattan subway
system fixed, for example?  Or until we found out who actually
was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks?  Or until the torture of
people, which is completely degrading to man as in the image of
God?  How many Americans would be prepared to do that kind of
hard work over an extended time?  I began to think that this is
the — when Lyndon LaRouche a few years ago, we did a series of
memorial concerts on the 15th anniversary of 9/11; and he talked
about the humiliation of Americans not having done anything.  I
thought that’s kind of an odd term; what does he mean
“humiliation”?  When I was reading what Dr. King had to say this
morning, I thought, “Well, of course.  We should be humiliated.”
In a sense, we should be ashamed that we have allowed our nation
to be in the shape that it is, and not have acted sooner.  If we
would take this opportunity this year, to come to that conclusion
firmly as strongly as Xi Jinping means it in China, then there is
absolutely nothing that can stop us.
The person whom I am about to introduce, has been a very
important leader for 40+ years, 50+ years, in that fight.  It is
a very challenging world right now.  The American people clearly
rejected a continuation of British imperial perpetual war and
Wall Street bail-out policies when they rejected the election of
Hillary Clinton.  Because President Trump represents an
opportunity, as this conference is called “Three Presidencies:
Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping.”  Because there is a potential
represented by this administration to end the long reign of the
evil British Empire; everything is going a bit crazy.  I heard
this morning, apparently there was a car that plowed into a crowd
in Muenster, Germany, killing several people and injuring many
others, today while we’re here.  In the United States, we are
bombarded; the American news media is violent in its coverage,
because what it does to you is, it causes whipsaw.  You’re
reading one thing one day, another thing the other day. President
Trump says he wants to get the troops out of Syria; and then we
hear, “The White House says the troops must remain in Syria.”
Well, who is the White House?  It’s apparently not the same thing
as President Trump.  So, this causes a great deal of confusion
and anxiety among the American people.
Mrs. LaRouche, who not only is the founder and chairwoman of
the international Schiller Institute, is also a brilliant writer
and scholar.  She is an expert on Nicholas of Cusa, who wrote a
very important paper called “The Coincidence of Opposites.”  So,
I am confident that her address to us here today, will help all
of us to make sense of the situation and give us an idea of how
we can conduct ourselves to end this 50 years of humiliation in
the United States.  So, with that, I’d like to introduce Helga
Zepp-LaRouche.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I want to say “Hello” to you, and I’m
very happy to talk to you, at least via video, so I can share
with you my ideas.
I think in the recent weeks, many people in many countries
have been very distraught about the so-called Skripal affair.
This was the assassination attempt, the poison gas attack on the
former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter. Immediately,
the Theresa May government accused Russia that they did it.  I
think that this particular situation has demonstrated in a way we
have not seen it ever, what is the role of the British Empire,
the British government, British policies in the present
escalation against Russia, and in a certain sense against China.
This affair was immediately made an issue of NATO, of the
European Union.  Many EU members immediately declared
unconditional solidarity with Theresa May, and they agreed on the
formulation that there is no other plausible explanation than
Russia did it.  I think this reaction is very telling, because it
shows on the one side, the degree of British control in NATO, and
in part in the European Union.  Fortunately, about half of the
European Union members did not agree.  But it also demonstrated
the incredible Orwellian character of the present Western
democracies of the so-called “liberal” Western system.  Because
the idea that you immediately abandon the principle that {in
dubio pro reo}, that the innocence is relevant until proven
guilty; that this was abandoned and that truth was replaced by a
consensus among countries.  If that is the principle of
international policy, then we are all in very bad shape.
The immediate danger is naturally that this thing is not
just leading to mass expulsions of diplomats.  The United States
expelled 60 diplomats; the British expelled a similar number, and
Germany four.  Altogether, I think 23 diplomats in the other
European countries.  But obviously, this has the implication of
leading to a broader escalation of confrontation with Russia and
possibly even war; because this is a prewar propaganda.  If you
look at the timing of this affair, first of all the two Skripals
fortunately seem to be in much better condition.  That raises a
whole bunch of questions because if it was Novichok nerve gas,
then the question is, how did the British have so quickly an
antidote that they are now happily surviving?  Or, maybe it was
not Novichok.  How could they come so quickly to the conclusion
that it was Russia, when Scotland Yard said it would take several
weeks to find out what really was the nerve gas agent used in
this attack.
The timing was at a point where, in the United States, the
whole focus of Congressional investigations of the House
Intelligence Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, similar
committees in the Senate, was about the role of the British
Empire in the Russia-gate affair, or the Trump-gate, or the
Mueller-gate, depending on how you want to call it.  The focus of
several committees started to really put into the limelight the
role of Christopher Steele, the so-called “former” MI6 agent, the
role of the British government, the collusion not with Russia but
with the British in the whole attempt to make a coup against
President Trump.  So, that was very convenient, because all of a
sudden, it was the Russia issue again.  May, in these days, you
could always say that the days of Theresa May seemed to be
numbered; because she was in such an unstable position.
Now, cui bono?  Who has the motive?  In whose interest
would be such an affair?  Well, Russia really has no motive; why
would this occur just weeks before the Presidential election in
Russia?  Would Putin really want to have such notoriety just
before the election, and just before the World Soccer World Cup?
So, also Russia would have had many opportunities to kill
Skripal; he was, for many years, in a Russian jail, he lived for
many years in Great Britain without any problem.  Nevertheless,
despite that, Merkel and Macron, half of the EU immediately came
out saying, “No, it is the only plausible explanation that it was
Russia.”  Boris Johnson gave an interview to a German radio
called Deutsche Welle, where he said that he had absolute
scientific proof from the scientists of the Porton Down
laboratory, who had definitely said that they had 100 % proof that
it was Russia.  In the meantime, the scientists refused to
provide the after-the-fact evidence, and the head of the lab, Mr.
Aitkenhead, said that they could identify that it was Novichok;
but that they absolutely could not identify the source of the
origin of this poison gas.  This was a very lamentable situation,
so the Foreign Office immediately deleted the tweet in which this
was stated; which now has Boris Johnson’s stand there as a liar.
That does not prevent the Theresa May government from continuing
to push the lie that Russia did it.
Many officials in Russia — Foreign Minister [Sergey] Lavrov; Foreign
Ministry spokeswoman [Maria] Zakharova, the head of foreign intelligence
[Sergey] Naryshkin — the all pointed to the fact that the {cui bono} and
the likelihood, and who has the capacity and motive, actually
points to British intelligence.  This whole operation — and this
was pointed out by many experts and commentators — this
absolutely parallels what the British did in the Iraq case in
2003; where also MI6 produced a dossier supposedly proving that
Saddam Hussein was in the possession of weapons of mass
destruction which could reach every city within 45 minutes around
the globe.  That Saddam Hussein supposedly had absolute
connections with al-Qaeda; which was a blatant lie, because
Saddam Hussein used to throw al-Qaeda people into jail and other
things.  But this was then used as a pretext.  So, Colin Powell
gave the famous speech in the United Nations motivating U.S.
participation in the Iraq War.  Then, the war against Iraq
occurred, with many hundreds of thousands of people losing their
lives as a result.
This is what some people in Russia in the meantime have
called “Goebbels” propaganda.  Why is there such a demonization
of Russia?  Why is there a demonization of President Putin coming
essentially from the same people who are also demonizing
President Trump and President Xi Jinping?  This is the same
foolishness which already led to the Second World War and which
could easily trigger a Third World War.  There is the danger that
these war-mongers are repeating the same methodological mistake,
stupidity, which led to two world wars.
What is behind that is a mixture of desperation because the
financial powers of the City of London and their Wall Street
backers and collaborators see clearly that their system is
failing.  Obviously, they have a complete fear that this would go
with a complete loss of their political and financial power.  But
it is also an obsession that their schemes will function, and if
they just have enough containment and escalation then their
system will be proven superior.  They are confronted with their
system not succeeding, but failing; they don’t have the intended
unipolar world, but they are confronted with the emergence of a
completely New Paradigm in the world.
If you want to understand why Russia is such a focus of
Russophobia right now, you have to take the situation back to the
end of the Soviet Union.  Because in the United States, at a
point when the Soviet Union started to disintegrate and there
would have actually been the possibility for a peace order for
the 21st Century, you had in the United States the consolidation
of the neo-cons.  They revived the American Century doctrine,
which originally was formulated by Walter Lippmann in 1943, when
he published a book with that name which then became the entire
basis for the post-war order; the legitimacy of NATO, the whole
Cold War.  It was the idea to revive that with the project for a
new American Century and the idea that you would replace the two
superpower system with an unipolar world based on the
Anglo-American special relationship, and a neo-liberal monetarist
system.  This was essentially a continuation of the idea that you
would control the developing countries, keep them in relative
backwardness, and deregulate the financial system in order to
bring back the power of Wall Street and the City of London, and
basically control the world that way.
In 1989, when the German reunification happened, this was
actually combined with the promise that NATO would never expand
eastward.  You have to remember that the Soviet Union agreed to
the dissolution of the GDR and German reunification without the
use of force.  You could say, in light of the history of the
Second World War, where the Soviet Union had suffered tremendous
losses of life and naturally had a very terrible memory of Nazi
Germany that it was extremely generous of the Soviet Union to
agree to that.  The promise was clearly given not to expand NATO
eastward; this was emphasized many times by the former American
ambassador in Moscow at that time, John Matlock.  In the recent
publications of the archives from George Washington University,
it was also clear that this was, indeed, a promise made.
In 1990, the General Secretary of NATO at that time, Manfred
Wörner, made a speech in Brussels which is worth remembering.  He
at that time said, “The goal for the next decade is the creation
of a European security structure, including the Soviet Union and
the states of the Warsaw Pact,” and that the Soviet Union would
play an important role in the construction of such a security
system, and that he would understand the wish of the Soviet Union
not to be excluded from Europe.  “The West cannot answer to the
erosion of the Warsaw Pact with a weakening or dissolution of
[NATO]”; and therefore, “the only answer is the creation of a
security framework which includes both alliances” and which
includes the “Soviet Union into a cooperating Europe….  The
very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond the
territory of the Federal Republic [of Germany] gives the Soviet
Union firm security guarantees,” Wörner said.
This is all proven by these new documents which have been
published that the West obviously, or the neo-cons and their
British partners, were clearly promoting a different policy and
making fake promises.  On the surface, the offer to the Soviet
Union continued.  Still in 1994, President Clinton said the NATO
expansion is not anti-Russian; it means inclusion instead of
exclusion.  But then, things became more dramatic.  In 1999,
there was the famous Tony Blair speech in Chicago, which was the
definite elimination of whatever relic of the Peace of Westphalia
system existed; and by that, also the elimination of the
principles of the UN Charter — namely, guaranteeing the
sovereignty of every country.  This was clearly a foreshadowing
of what Blair did later in 2003 with the Iraq War.  What replaced
the idea of respect for the sovereignty of countries was the idea
of “humanitarian” interventions.  Naturally, then in 2001 with
the September 11th attack, which was a complete assault on all
civil liberties and civil rights which had been fought for, for
decades.  And it imposed an international regime with the pretext
of the war against terrorism.
What followed then was regime change, color revolution.  You
had the Orange Revolution in 2004 in Ukraine; you had the Rose
Revolution in Georgia.  In the meantime, both the Russian and
Chinese militaries respectively stated that they regarded color
revolution as an absolute total form of warfare.  Naturally, the
Maidan coup against the Ukraine government belongs in this chain.
Also, already in 2002, the United States abandoned
unilaterally the ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty, and
proceeded to build up a global ABM system, which Russia had said
at the very beginning, they could not tolerate the Phase 3 and
Phase 4 of it to be implemented, because it would completely
undermine the strategic stability and therefore be a threat to
the security interests of Russia.
In the 16 years of Bush, Jr. and Obama, these
interventionist wars continued.  Bush declared the “Axis of
Evil,” and the various wars in the Middle East and northern
Africa started to eliminate governments which were not agreeable
to this idea of a unipolar world.  The world was slowly and
steadily going to more Hell, more refugee crises, more misery;
millions of people dying in the Middle East and northern Africa.
Then, in 2013, the world suddenly changed for the better.
President Xi Jinping announced a new model of international
relationships in Kazakhstan — the New Silk Road.  In the
tradition of the ancient Silk Road, which was an incredible
exchange not only of goods, technologies, cultures, ideas, but
also laid the foundation of a dialogue among nations; this New
Silk Road took on a development which is unprecedented I think in
all of history.  In the last 4.5 years, this new Spirit of the
New Silk Road started to catch on, so that by now, more than 140
countries are cooperating in Asia, in Latin America, in Africa,
even in Europe, with the New Silk Road.  You have a tremendous
sense of optimism in Latin America, where practically all Latin
American countries are now building and planning to build
bi-oceanic projects; bi-oceanic railway between Brazil and Peru,
bi-oceanic tunnels between Argentina and Chile, and many other
projects.  So, the Spirit of the New Silk Road has definitely
caught on in the Caribbean and Latin American countries.  It is
for sure the case in the Asian countries, and many corridors are
being built.  Africa has completely changed with the building of
railways from Djibouti to Addis Ababa; all along the eastern
African countries, the western African countries.  If you look at
the map of Chinese investments in railway systems and industry
parks and hydropower in many other agricultural projects, there
is a completely new spirit and self confidence among the Africa
nations that they can now overcome poverty and under-development
for the first time, in the near future.  Even in Europe, where
the EU has been absolutely blocking any cooperation, the New Silk
Road Spirit has absolutely caught on.  You have the 16+1 Eastern
and Central European countries; you have the Balkan countries.
Italy is now engaged together with China in a major project
called Transaqua, which will change the lives of 12 African
nations and bring industrialization into the heart of Africa. But
also, Portugal and Spain want to be the hubs not only for the
western end of the Eurasian part of the New Silk Road, but to be
also a hub for the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries in
Africa and Asia and Latin America.  So, the New Silk Road Spirit
is absolutely on the agenda.  Also in Switzerland, in Austria,
and even in Holland, Belgium, and some of the Scandinavian
countries.
This is based on the idea of a win-win cooperation of
respect for the sovereignty of the other country and respect for
the other social system.  This has been an incredible
development.  It’s already 12 times larger than the Marshall Plan
was, but the amazing thing is that for 4.5 years where this
project is now progressing, the Western mainstream media and
Western politicians have virtually ignored it; they have not
reported it, and only in the recent period have they suddenly
realized this is unstoppable.  What is now occurring is a flood
of attacks from the main think tanks, saying this is just an
authoritarian effort by the Chinese to replace the Anglo-American
imperialism with a Chinese one, and they want to take over the
world.  It was quite a sudden change in the coverage and in the
comments.
A similar shock happened when they realized that Russia was
absolutely not a regional power as Obama had told, but that
basically it was about to become, under the leadership of
President Putin, a major power again.  So therefore, when Trump
suddenly won the election, the same apparatus which is now behind
the Skripal affair — British intelligence in collusion with the
intelligence heads of the Obama administration — started a
policy of a coup against President Trump.  There was an article
in January 2017 by the British paper {The Spectator}, which said
that President Trump would be gotten out of the White House
either through a coup, impeachment, or an assassination attempt.
That was obviously the policy which these people followed, and
the aim clearly was to prevent President Trump — who had
promised in the election campaign to improve relations with
Russia and bring it back on a stable and good basis — to prevent
Trump from doing it by saying, “If you dare to speak to President
Putin, that just proves you are a Russian agent.”  It took indeed
until the G-20 meeting in Hamburg last year, before Putin and
Trump had a personal meeting and actually hit it off very well.
Also, between President Trump and President Xi Jinping,
contrary to what Trump had said in the election campaign where he
was actually on a quite strong China-bashing mode, he received
President Xi Jinping in April last year at his private residence
in Mar-a-Lago.  And they established a very good positive
relationship between the two of them.  Then, when President Trump
went to Beijing for a visit in October last year, President Xi
Jinping returned this and gave Trump what they called a “state
visit plus.”  President Xi Jinping had the Forbidden City closed
down to visitors for an entire day, and gave a huge long history
lecture on Chinese history to President Trump and his wife.  They
established and deepened their relationship.
In the meantime, also Russia and China established the
deepest strategic partnership in their history.  Putin gave a
speech on March 3, 2018 to the Federal Assembly, where he
announced new weapons systems; basically, a long-range missile
which does not follow the ballistic curve, but is highly
maneuverable. Then also, a nuclear-powered cruise missile which
the West absolutely does not have, and a nuclear-powered
underwater drone which is quicker than above-water ships, and
laser weapons.  This combination of these and other weapons means
that all of sudden, the entire global ABM system the United
States had proceeded to build is obsolete.  President Putin said,
well, the West refused to even respond to all the offers made by
Russia since 2002; but now, they have to respond.  It is quite
amazing that, except the demand of four American ambassadors,
they have not yet responded.  Western media tended to belittle
these new weapons systems, or ignore them for the most part.
[Chinese Foreign Minister] Wang Yi and the Chinese Defense
Minister Wei Fenghe just attended the very large 7th Moscow
International Security Conference, which was attended by 900
guests and 700 media.  Wang Yi said that Russia can pursue its
own interests and play a larger role in the international and
regional stages.  The Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe said he
came in order to send a signal to Washington that the
Russian-Chinese alliance is absolutely the strongest and that
there is a very close cooperation between the Russian and the
Chinese armed forces.
All of these things have to be seen as a dynamic process,
where we are now on the verge also of a full-fledged trade war.
Admittedly, the trade deficit of the United States with China is
untenable; but when President Trump said that he wants to impose
tariffs first on $60 billion trade deficit, and then on another
$100 billion trade deficit, this was met by an unusually sharp
response from the Chinese.  Global Times wrote yesterday that
China will not submit to the U.S. trade intimidation; that China
is prepared to react with a full list of their own tariffs on
American imports; that the trade war will cause pain for China,
but the Chinese society will rally and unite around the
government and the Party; and that they will also present a
detailed plan to respond, and then the Americans would have to
choose if they back their President in doing so, or if they hold
him accountable for the consequences.  China Daily even
mentioned that the Chinese countermeasures could include the
dumping of U.S. Treasuries, of which they have $1.4 trillion as
securities.
All of this comes at a moment where, at any moment, we could
have a new financial crash much worse than that of 2008, because
all the central banks did absolutely nothing to remove the root
causes of the crisis of 2008.  They just did quantitative easing,
zero interest rates, and naturally many corporations took that
gratis money to buy back their own stocks so that their stock
exchange values would go up, but the corporate debt would
increase.  Now, as the Federal Reserve is trying to increase the
interest rate, the blow-out of these corporate debt situations
could trigger a complete systemic collapse.  That is just one of
the many facets of this crisis.
An insider in the banking system, a well-placed one, told us
very recently that there is actually the possibility that some of
the financial forces could even deliberately trigger a crash
which they know is inevitable to come, as a deliberate plan to
pull the rug out from underneath President Trump; to bring back
the neo-cons, and that way to solve the problem which they could
not solve with the failed Russia-gate attempt. One thing is very
clear.  If that would happen and the neo-cons would get fully
back in the United States, World War III is as good as secure and
certain.
In the middle of this Skripal affair, President Trump and
President Putin telephoned; and President Trump absolutely
refused to send out tweets on this affair or otherwise join in
the present Russia bashing.
I want to make the strong point that there is a solution to
all of the problems I just mentioned.  That is, that there are
many possibilities.  For example, when Presidents Trump and Putin
will have a summit in the near future, they could discuss this.
Also, the Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang had recently pointed
to the fact that there is actually another way to solve the trade
deficit; namely, by massively increasing the trade.  President Xi
Jinping has offered to the whole world, including all the
European nations and the United States, that they should
cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative.  China could decide
and choose not to dump U.S. Treasuries as a punishment for the
U.S. trade measures, but they could invest the $1.4 trillion in
U.S. Treasuries in infrastructure in the United States.  Diane
mentioned the Manhattan subway system in her remarks, and if you
look at the infrastructure — not only in Manhattan, but in all
of the United States — the condition of the highways, the
absolute absence of a fast train system; it is very clear that
the United States urgently needs investment in infrastructure.
President Trump had promised in the election campaign that he
would invest $1 trillion in infrastructure build-up; but so far,
he has not been able to find any financing, because the private
investors want an 11 % to 12 % return and a complete return of
their capital within 10 years.  Which means it is not possible to
finance it through private investment.  The neo-cons in the
Senate and in the Congress do not want to spend it in the Federal
budget.  The idea to distribute it to the regional and state
governments is just not practical.
So, if on the other side, China, which has a fantastic fast
train system of I think 25,000 km of fast train, and is planning
to connect every major Chinese city with a fast train system and
build 40,000 km of fast train systems by 2020; China could help
to build such a fast train system in the United States and
connect every major city with a fast train system going 350 mph
and in that way, completely transform the infrastructure of the
United States.  This would help not only to overcome the trade
deficit, but it would open the way for joint ventures between the
United States and China in third countries.  In Latin America
where, contrary to what former Secretary of State Tillerson had
said, China is not trying to build an imperial system in Latin
America.  But China and the United States could join hands in
building up the industries of the Southern Hemisphere.  Also, the
same could happen in Asian countries along the Belt and Road; and
also naturally in Africa.  It could happen in the reconstruction
and economic build-up of the war-torn region of Southwest Asia,
and naturally of Africa in general.
This could even include Great Britain eventually, if they
change their government and if they get their crimes cleared up
which they clearly have committed.  But it would mean absolutely
the necessity to reform the financial system of the United States
and Western Europe.
My husband, Lyndon LaRouche, has already developed several
years ago a package which together would absolutely remedy the
situation.  It would mean that the United States should go back
to a Hamiltonian banking policy, to a banking system in the
tradition of Alexander Hamilton; including the Glass-Steagall
banking separation of Franklin D Roosevelt.  Then, have a
national bank, a credit system, then have a crash program for
thermonuclear fusion and joint space cooperation with other
countries in order to increase the productivity of the economy in
a qualitative way.
What people really don’t realize, or most people don’t
realize, is that the present Chinese model of economy and the
early U.S. republic model are very similar.  They’re based on
Hamiltonian principles.  In China, they have now made a huge
effort to eliminate the speculative area, to forbid Chinese
investors abroad to invest in speculation.  It is very clear that
China, even if they don’t call it way, is actually very close to
the American System.  And it is no coincidence that the most
popular economist in China is Friedrich List, the German
economist who was sort of the predecessor to Henry C. Carey, and
who wrote important writings about the different between the
British and the American systems.  Germany also has a tradition
of that; namely, the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, the Credit
Bank for Reconstruction, which was based on the Roosevelt
Reconstruction Finance Corporation and was the basis for the
German economic miracle in the post-war reconstruction.  So, also
in Europe, you have some relevance and memory of this system.
Now after Xi Jinping had announced the New Silk Road, the
Schiller Institute and our organization published a study which
we had worked on for 26 years with the name “The New Silk Road
Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” which is actually the absolute
blueprint and outline for an international economic cooperation
of all nations overcoming geopolitics.
Now just imagine if we could mobilize the American people to
exert pressure on President Trump and give him backing, and he
would accept the offer of Xi Jinping to cooperate with the New
Silk Road in this way and also the European countries would
eventually recognize — most of them are doing it already — but
even the remaining ones would recognize that the cooperation with
Russia, with China and the other nations who already have jointed
the Belt and Road initiative–that this would be much more in
their self-interest, than the present course of the British
confrontation with Russia and with China.
If such an international economic cooperation could be
realized, it would also be the realistic basis for a global
security architecture which would include among others also
Russia and China.  It would then require that we do exactly what
Xi Jinping has said many times, that mankind needs to move in a
new phase of international cooperation, what he calls the “shared
community of the future of mankind” or a “community of destiny,”
then we could start to focus on the real problems, the common
aims of mankind.  We could build a system to make nuclear weapons
obsolete, a new form of the SDI, what my husband had proposed, in
the end of the 1970s and then it was in the works for several
years; and then on March 23, 1983, President Regan had announced
the SDI as a way for both superpowers to cooperate to make
nuclear weapons obsolete. I think in light of the present danger
of a new arms race and the already-existing arms race and the
danger that this gets out of control, we need such an approach as
a new SDI; and also a new SDE [Strategic Defense of the Earth],
because the planet as a whole is threatened by dangers from
space, from asteroids, from comets, which could really extinguish
life on this Earth.
We should instead concentrate on the common aims of
mankind–the alleviation of poverty, the creation of a living
standard for a decent life for every human being on this planet,
and a system of earthquake precursors and joint space research
and travel.  We should concentrate on space colonization as the
necessary and possible next phase of the evolution of the human
species. I think that if we combine that with a dialogue of
cultures where each nation would emphasize and revive the best
traditions of its own culture, and then have a dialogue among all
of these nations and cultures, we could absolutely create the
basis for a new Renaissance.
Skeptics would say that this is completely unrealistic.  But
I’m saying that the fact that you have these three
Presidents–President Putin, who is obviously recognized and
loved by the Russian people, and has just been reelected with an
overwhelming majority; with Xi Jinping, who is an exceptional
leader who obviously is equally loved by the Chinese population,
and basically they decided to eliminate the limits to his term in
office so that he can guide China in these very, very important
coming years; and President Trump, who is absolutely not what the
media are making out of him, but who has shown again and again
that he has outflanked a pretty difficult factional situation in
his own party, and naturally with a Congress and a Senate which
are very obstructive for the most part.  I think that if the
three Presidents join hands and do what they clearly did very
successfully so far, in the attempt to solve the crisis of the
Korean Peninsula, I absolutely think this is a realistic option.
However, we should not sit on our hands, but we should
really get into an international mobilization to propose this
agenda, and do everything in our means to make it possible.  It
is the life of civilization which depends on it.
Thank you. [Applause]

SARE:  Thank you. We can now take questions from the
audience here. Please say your name, and if you represent an
institution or a press agency, please state what you’re
representing as well.

Q:  I would like to ask you a question on behalf of Weiwei
TV. As you may know, President Donald Trump has already
instituted trade policies on China and China made a serious
response.  So I would like to know how you see the relationship
between the United States and China? And what direction do you
think this relationship is going to?  Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think that we have a very serious danger,
because if it comes to this trade war, as I mentioned, you have
already a collapsing financial system of the trans-Atlantic
region.  And a trade war could easily be one of the elements
triggering a complete meltdown of the financial system and that
would obviously be much worse for the West than for China, which
has taken certain measures to eliminate speculation and put the
whole Chinese economy on a solid ground.  Nevertheless, the
consequences of a financial crash would be potentially extremely
dangerous.  As I said, if the neo-cons would come back and Trump
would be ousted in this context, we would be back to Hell in no
time.
On the other side, the trade war has not yet started.  So
far, it’s just lists, and there is room to put on the agenda a
different proposal.  I think Prime Minister Li Keqiang already
pointed to it, to increase the trade in joint ventures in third
countries.  I think that the more people talk about this idea of
U.S. investments in infrastructure and, for example, Xi Jinping
could reiterate the proposal for the United States to join the
Belt and Road Initiative, I think the trade war can still be
avoided. But it does need determined action.
And I think that the possibility exists simply because the
relationship between Xi Jinping and Trump has so far lasted over
a year, and they have telephoned around many crises; and
basically the Korea situation is on a very good course.  There
will be a summit between [Shinzo] Abe and Trump, who also wants
to play a positive role.  There will be a meeting between Putin
and Trump, hopefully very soon; and Kim Jong-Un and Trump. So I
think there is a diplomatic framework where many initiatives can
be made, and I think the New Silk Road is definitely the answer
to solve all of these problems.

Q:  Hello.  I think what you have said today is just
enlightening.  My name is Alan S.  I’m a screenwriter and
producer of a World War I mini-series, called “The 42nd Rainbow
Division.”  I think history is our greatest weapon and if we
start actually thinking back to what Russia actually did, for not
only World War II, but also World War I.  We would have lost both
world wars. And actually the United States wouldn’t have even
been in World War I, because we would have lost it before we even
got in.  They were a huge ally.
I think history needs to be taught to the young and that’s
why I’m doing this series, is because the younger generations
don’t realize that Russia has been an ally. And now we’re
vilifying Russia and making them into a villain when it should be
the opposite.  How do we actually teach this to the young?  The
younger generations are our hope and they’re our future.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think we need to change the narrative of
the neo-cons. Because when the Ukraine crisis started to develop,
President Putin said if it would not have been Ukraine, they
would have found another way to escalate the confrontation with
Russia. And I think that this is absolutely the case.
I think to change the narrative of the Ukraine, because this
is really when the total escalation against Putin as the demon
started, is a very urgent matter because right now President
Poroshenko has announced that he wants to basically have a
military solution for the east Ukraine, which could easily
provoke a war with Russia.
I think the narrative has to be replaced by the truth.  The
truth is that Victoria Nuland bragged that she and the State
Department spent $5 billion in building up NGOs to cause regime
change in Ukraine.  The former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt–even he
admitted that the Ukraine crisis started with the EU expansion
summit of Maastricht in 1992, when the eastward expansion of the
EU was decided, and the crisis was triggered when the EU wanted
to have the association of Ukraine (basically at the end of 2013,
which was the point when President Yanukovych decided he couldn’t
do it because it would have given NATO access to the Black Sea;
it would have flooded Russia with EU products.  This then
triggered the Maidan, which was immediately supported by these
NGOs financed by Nuland and the West, supported by neo-Nazis
which were then causing the violence, and finally the coup in
February 2014, imposing a fascist government as a reaction to
that. And the threat to forbid the Russian language, the people
in the Crimea decided to hold a referendum and they voted to be
part of Russia, so Crimea was not annexed, but it was a vote for
self-determination of the Crimean people.
I’m telling you all of this because part of the demonization
of Putin, is the Ukraine story and what he supposedly did with
Crimea, and all of this is not true.  I think we have to really
make an effort, to maybe produce many more movies and maybe we
can work together to this effect because we have documented many
of these wrong narratives and we must make them known. Because if
the mass media are just portraying this idea that Russia is about
to do everything, and behind every —  it is worse than the
McCarthy period and people are just hyped up which can only be
characterized as a prewar propaganda. Because why do you build up
an enemy image, because you want to make war against this nation.
This is a mortal danger in which the whole world is. And I think
this Skripal affair–the fact that it backfired, the fact that
the British were caught lying, is really also a chance.
I would suggest that we work together on making more movies.
We have already put out a lot of them, but I think we need and
call upon all of you to help to distribute them, and make them
known to as many young, middle-aged, and old people as we can.

Q:  Mrs. LaRouche.  Thank you very much for your speech.  I
think everyone here–we’re very pleased to hear what you said. My
name is Amber J. I’m political activist right now working with
several groups for supporting Trump and also for the midterm
election.  And also, I’m working for fighting for
Chinese-American minority civil rights kind of thing.
I have a question — I believe everybody came to this
conference understands your speech and understands the principle
of three countries cooperating with each other.  But there are
some Trump supporters, they stand for Trump because Trump is
starting a trade war right now.  How would you persuade those
Trump supporters to understand this win-win cooperation between
these three countries, to maximize the effort for these three
countries to cooperate together?
And also I believe a while ago, I heard India and Japan and
probably the U.S.A. talking about starting another kind of
international cooperation in terms of the infrastructure.  That
is the kind of thing similar to the Silk Road, the One Belt, One
Road.  How would you like to define that, or could you say about
something about it?  Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think this is again another narrative
which needs to be replaced by truth. And that is, what is
actually the Chinese policy?  Part of this problem is that for a
long period of time the Western media and certain political
circles in the United States have also painted a very negative
picture about China.  I think Chinese-Americans, and you yourself
could help to correct that.
I must say, my image of China is incredibly positive;

because I was there for the first time in 1971.  This was in the
Cultural Revolution.  And this was an unbelievable experience
because at that time, the country was completely distraught.
People there were unhappy.  The Red Guards took people out of
their homes in the night.  They painted all the cultural
buildings, the Summer Palace and other places in Beijing, with
red paint.
Anyway, I’m just reporting that to say that when I returned
to China after 25 years, in 1996, already with the idea of the
Eurasian Land-Bridge, the idea of the New Silk Road, where I
attended a major conference on that subject in Beijing as a
speaker, the country had already been completely transformed as a
result of the policies of Deng Xiaoping.
But if you now go to China, it is unbelievable.  The country
is prosperous; there is a large well-to-do middle class.  People
are optimistic about the future.  They have an absolute vision, a
self-confidence about China, about eliminating poverty by 2020.
President Xi Jinping has a hands-on policy, going to the
villages, talking to individuals; finding out what measures must
be taken to eliminate poverty.
It’s just such an incredibly optimistic situation–where
also, culturally, China is pursuing the revival of Confucianism.
Xi Jinping personally has made a big emphasis that Confucian
philosophy is being taught on all levels of society.
I think that if people, especially in the Chinese-American
community would amplify our efforts to show the real, true
picture of China, I think the Trump supporters would absolutely
understand, that it {is} in the best interest for the United
States and China to cooperate.  If you think about it, if the two
largest economies in the world cannot cooperate, the danger of
world war is very big.
Many people have talked about the Thucydides trap.  This
refers to the rivalry between ancient Athens and Sparta, which
led to the Peloponnesian War, and the final disappearance of
Classical, ancient Greece.  If there would be a Thucydides trap
between the United States and China; if the United States would
react to the rise of China by a military confrontation, the world
as a whole would not survive it.
China has (especially the Chinese ambassador in Washington,
Cui Tiankai stressed that it is not the intention to replace the
U.S. as the strongest power, but to have a special great power
relationship, where both of them respect the sovereignty of the
other, respect the different social system of the other, and then
join hands and cooperate in all strategic matters.
I think there must be a very big mobilization where the
image of China in the United States is being straightened out,
because once people know the beauty of Chinese culture, the
optimism of the Chinese population, everything will change.
It is right now that the United States has a big moral and
cultural crisis.  You have for the first time the life-expectancy
going down.  For two years in a row, you have the life-expectancy
of all categories of life in the United States shrinking.  If
there is any parameter for a collapsing economy, it is the
life-expectancy. And that is naturally due to the new opium
epidemic, the rate of suicides because of depression, alcoholism,
and the terrible culture of death, which expresses itself in the
youth culture, violence of the video games, in the whole
entertainment industry, which is contributing to these many
school shootings.
You do have a cultural problem.  And I think you have to go
back to the philosophy of Benjamin Franklin, the founder and
father of America, who used to be a complete Confucian
philosopher.  He recognized the wonderful aspects of the moral
philosophy of Confucius and modeled his own moral system on the
basis of Confucius.  There are many parallels.  You have the
Confucius tradition with Benjamin Franklin, and in China, you
have the American System of Alexander Hamilton in the early phase
of the American republic, and now, in the Chinese model.  And you
have many similarities which, once you see, you can see that
there are universal principles uniting these two countries, which
are much more deep and much more important than the superficial
conflicts.
I would say the best thing one can do to intervene in this
situation is, we have proposed the project for the China
investment in infrastructure.  This has been picked up by a
Chinese professor recently, John Gong.  It has been covered by
CGTN TV.  There is a very famous Trump supporter in California,
who just made a similar proposal.  I think that has to be talked
up. I think we have to talk up the idea of overcoming the danger
of a trade war, by putting instead on the table Chinese
investment in infrastructure, U.S. and China joining in joint
ventures in third countries, and start a real cultural dialogue,
so that the two people start to know each other and know the best
of each other. And that way we can overcome this crisis.

SARE:  Helga, I have a question which I think is related.
You may want to say more.  It comes from Sr. Pat C., of the
Dominican Sisters of Peace who is also a member of the alto
section of the Schiller Institute chorus.
She writes, “In your view, what concrete actions now will
help catalyze the transition from a competition of nations to
cooperation and mutual respect?”
I think you largely have addressed that, but there may be
more that you want to say.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think that the knowledge about the
incredible dynamic of the Belt and Road Initiative, once people
know that, it changes there view.  For example, take the case of
Austria.  Austria is a small country, but they want to take a
leading role in becoming a hub for the New Silk Road.  They just
had a conference planning to broaden the gauge of the railway
from Vienna all the way to Moscow, so that they can be better
integrated in the container trains and similar things.  All the
Balkan countries are completely on board.  The Eastern European
countries, the Central European countries are all planning to be
hubs and bridges.
The excitement in Africa– I mean, if people would know,
there is a completely different spirit!  No longer do the
Africans want to be receivers of donations.  They want to be
treated as equal partners. They want to have investments, and the
spirit of the New Silk Road has absolutely changed the
self-esteem and self-confidence of all the African leaders and
many of the people.
Just take this case of the Transaqua project.  Transaqua is
a project which was originally proposed by Bonifica, an Italian
engineering firm, already more than 30 years ago. And the
Schiller Institute and the LaRouche movement were campaigning for
that for decades, because it is one of the key projects for the
entire continent.  What it would essentially mean is that you
would take about 3-4% of the water from the tributaries of the
Congo River, at a 500 meter height, and then by gravitation, you
can bring this water through a system of canals all the way to
Lake Chad, which is now dried out to less than 10% of its
original volume.  This affects the live immediately of 40 million
people in the Lake Chad Basin.  When you bring this water back
into Lake Chad, not only do you fill up this lake again, and
create large volumes of water for irrigation for agriculture; you
also create an inland shipping system for 12 countries in the
heart of Africa; you create hydropower; you create a system of
industry parks, of industrialization. So you bring in the
industrialization in the middle of Africa, and that with all the
other infrastructure projects, will mean Africa has a future.
By the year 2040, there will be 2 billion people living in
Africa, and they need these jobs, they need education, they need
the kinds of projects, so that people are no longer marching
through the Sahara and dying of thirst, which is happening now
more than people even dying in the Mediterranean–it’s just not
being reported.  These young people would instead help in the
building up of the African continent.
This is such a fantastic development, and if the Americans
would know about it — I mean, I’m only talking about the tip of
the iceberg — but if people would see the sheer volume of change
and the magnitude of change which is already happening, they
would become absolutely optimistic and change their view, and
recognize that in the history of mankind, geopolitics is
something that absolutely has to be overcome, if we are supposed
to survive as a human species.  In the age of thermonuclear
weapons, if you do not overcome geopolitics, we are going to be
the destruction of our own species; and nobody in their right
mind can really want that because even those warmongers, who are
pushing it, would be eliminated themselves, too.
I think that the moment has absolutely arrived.  If we go
into a mass advertising campaign, a mass education campaign,
about the existence of this New Paradigm, I think it can
absolutely inspire the Americans and make the change which is
necessary in the short term.

Q: Hi, I am an American citizen and a Confucian, I believe
in Confucianism.  I’m an independent scholar of language and
civilization.  I was an instructor of Chinese at Harvard
University, in the Department of Eastern Language and
Civilization.
I have the same idea as you that America needs to join
China’s One Belt and One Road plan.  I grew up 10 years ago,
during the age of reform of China. I worked as at the FESCO, the
Foreign Enterprise Service Corporation.  I think more than 20
years ago, many American, European and Japanese companies
invested in China, and gave us was a better economy, and I think
it was very important.
Now, I think in the 21st century, China’s economy is much
improved.  It’s time to bring China’s investments into America
and to help America’s economy.  That’s why in 2016, I was for
Donald Trump.  I want to work with American people; I want to be
the bridge to connect China and America, to bring China’s
investment into America, to best help America’s economy.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Very good!  So many you can join with the
Schiller Institute to help us, to get this message out widely.
Because you know, already now the states which are doing large
business with China, see the advantage.  When President Donald
Trump was in China last November, he had with him delegations
from several states — West Virginia, Alaska, and some others.
And in the case of West Virginia, he brought back trade deals
and investment deals worth $83 billion!  And the governor of West
Virginia is completely optimistic that this will give back hope
to all the people in West Virginia.
And there are many projects, for example, one very exciting
idea is that Beijing, and the region of Hebei province and
Tianjin, this is a region of about 130 million people, and there
is a now a huge project whereby this region will be changed,
where the heavy industry, which still has some environmental
problems, causing smog and pollution is now being outsourced into
Hebei province and modernized; a new city is being built, I think
its name is Xiong’an, which is in the middle between Beijing,
Tianjin and Hebei, and it’s completely modernized.  Beijing on
the other side, will have lots of research and development, which
is much cleaner for the environment, and all of this is supposed
to be connected through an infra-urban modern transport system,
including modern maglev.  And the recent “Two Sessions”
conference and the National People’s Congress in China, the party
discussed building a new maglev system of 600 kph speed, for the
connection between the cities, and an inter-urban slow maglev
system of 160 kph.
This is very good for urban transportation, because the
beauty of the maglev system is that it accelerates immediately:
You are in a few seconds at full speed, with the slow maglev
you’re only going 160 kph, which is enough for inner city
transport; and they want to connect this entire region with this
modern transport system, so that essentially no job will be more
than 20 minutes away from the home of the working person.  So you
save all this commuting time.
And my idea is that this model of the Tianjin-Hebei-Beijing
region could be a model for the modernization of New York, New
Jersey, San Francisco, Los Angeles, the Midwest, and you actually
do something like that inside the United States.  And I think
President Trump is a developer; he knows about infrastructure,
and I think we just have to make sure that the Trump supporters
know about these plans, and that we create an environment where
this is actually intersecting the present crisis and danger of a
trade war.
If you move quickly enough, and get the Trump voters all
inspired with this idea, I think we can do a miracle. And I
definitely believe in miracles, as long as we do them ourselves.

Q: [follow-up] Thank you very much.  I totally agree with
you.  I believe that to bring China’s investment and enterprise
is more important in the trade market.  And secondly, I was a
professional Chinese instructor:  I want to educate more
Americans and Chinese people to understand each other, and make a
friendship to develop together.

Q: I’m José V.: I’m here from New York City.  Earlier you
touched upon the youth culture and the culture of death, and I
was hoping you could touch more upon that, because in my
experience — and I’m only 19 myself, too — but from what I see
of people around me, but also my nephew who will be turning 15
this year, I see he’s more interested in violent video games and
yelling into the microphone to imaginary people who aren’t there,
and spending a lot of money on things that will never really help
him out in life: for example, he brought a $300 belt buckle,
because it said somebody’s name on it, I think it’s Gucci. He’s
more interested in reading violent comic books that display gore
and showing people’s insides — I don’t have to go into that, you
know about that.
My question is, how do we overcome this violence?  How do we
overcome this culture of death, and how do we overcome this
culture of violence?  And more importantly, how do we stop
getting young people wanting to escape from reality by taking
drugs and whatnot?  So that’s my question.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think what we need for that is a mass
movement for development.  Because, first of all, I studied this
question some years ago, when we had some guests and the children
who came with the guests asked me if I knew about Pokémon, and
naturally I had never heard about Pokémon.  And they said:  Oh,
it’s beautiful, it’s violent, it’s fighting.  So I was so shocked,

I started to look into it, and I discovered Pokémon as a sort of

introduction drug to video games, and then naturally, the
evolution, where these video games come from.
Well, they were developed by the military in the postwar
period, because people had recognized in the Second World War,
only 15% of the soldiers were ready to shoot the enemy, because
human beings have a sort of natural barrier inside them, which
they don’t want to overcome, and when they kill somebody it goes
against that.  So many people have a healthy block, — or had a
healthy block. So the military developed these quickly changing
targets, like in target practice, not having just one target but
having many, and they change and move, so that you would learn to
shoot quickly — shooting, shooting, one shot after the other —
in order to train people to overcome the normal adrenalin shock
which happens if you shoot at another person; if you are not
brainwashed, then you have an adrenalin reaction and you start
shaking and so on.  So they wanted to get away from this, by
having these video simulations, where people would learn to
shoot, to increase the killer ratio of the soldiers.
So this is the basis for these video games which then became
commercial.  And while, in the military, and obviously it’s a
terrible thing in the military also, but at least you have an
officer, you have some guidance, you have military discipline;
but when these video games, which have become more insane over
the decades, if they are accessible to young children, and these
young children have not had any kind of an inoculation through a
humanist education, through the recognition of beauty in
Classical culture, through moral guidelines given to them by
their parents, but where you have a culture where everything is
allowed, everything goes — movies become more violent, more
perverse, more pornographic; even snuff movies, where killing is
being filmed, or at least the illusion that people are killed is
being filmed, this is really deadly stuff!  This destroys the
cognition of anybody, but especially of young people.
And when young people, then, children, pupils, students,
become autistic because they are only living in their social
media, and have completely lost the ability to relate to each
other, this is the death of a culture.  And I think this is
what’s happening in the United States.  You would not have these
unbelievable numbers of mass school shootings:  Like after
Columbine in 1999, there were 38 mass shootings. And after the
Parkland shooting, you had 50 alarms in the schools per day,
where pupils would see another pupil having a weapon, or having
crazy messages.
Now, obviously, this brings us to the question of, who is
promoting this?  President Trump had a meeting in the White
House, where he met with the pupils of the school in Parkland,
and the producers of these videos.  So obviously, President Trump
is aware of it, and I think we have to strengthen his resolve to
move against it.  And it happens to be that the Parkland
incident, in particular, was also the work of the FBI, because
they established a system which is run by some uneducated call
center, and so, many of the hints which were clearly given
before, were missed.  And it now turns out that in the Orlando
case, the father of the shooter was a longtime FBI informant.  So
there is a lot of these things to be pursued.
But I think the key thing is a mass movement for
development.  Because, if young people have no hope for the
future, and have no perspective, because it’s now the common view
that the coming generations will be worse off than the present
one — this is the first time ever this has happened; because
it used to be a moral standard for families, for everybody, that
you work so that your children will have a better life than
yourself.  And this has been abandoned for the first time.  So
what will young people have as a perspective?  Well, they have no
future.  And that is a huge difference!  And I can assure you,
I have seen it in all cases: There is a gigantic difference
between the optimism of the youth in China, and the pessimism of
the young people and the population in general in the United
States, and in countries like Germany, for example.
So the absence of a vision, where the future of a nation, of
the world will be, is what is feeding this kind of culture of
death, because then it doesn’t matter, life doesn’t matter, life
is worth nothing, whether you shoot somebody or not it makes no
big difference.
So I think a mass movement for the kind of economic
development which we were talking about before, is an absolute
ingredient, so that people have a reason to study, to develop
their minds, to develop their cognitive powers, to be productive.
If you have the feeling that you can be an astronaut, that you
can be a scientist in the realm of a thermonuclear fusion
economy; that you will travel to the Moon Village in your
lifetime, you have a motivation to study!  And I think without
such a motivation, it is very, very difficult.
So I would not look at it as a separate issue:  I would look
at it as an integral question to the whole discussion we are
having here.

Q: Thank you for your work, today, and throughout all your
time.
I’m Father Richard D., Franciscan Servants of God’s Grace.
My question to you, is we know that the President has written a
book showing that his way of dealing with a problem is to take an
{extreme} view, so he has room to compromise, to come back to
what he actually wants.  Do you believe he’s doing this with the
international trade situation?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I don’t know; it may be.  Because I think
President Trump has said of himself many times, that he knows how
to make deals, that he would get better agreements that most
other people.  And it may very well be that such an idea exists,
that he makes big announcements of tariffs and so forth, and then
in reality, he’s negotiating and has his ambassador and other
people, trade negotiators, making such a discussion.
I don’t know.  I find it a little bit risky, because I saw
some Chinese articles where they said that some people may think
that they can get a better result this way, but that China will
not be intimidated into making compromises and basically will
answer back.
I don’t know.  I think it is not necessary.  I think this
particular idea that you make a huge attack, and then you go for
something less, is still, in my view, — and as you probably have
realized, I’m very positive about the potential of President
Trump; I’ve stuck my neck out a year ago, when I said that if
Trump is able to put the relationship with Russia and China on a
positive basis, he will go into history as one of the greatest
American Presidents, and I stuck my neck out.  And I’m repeating
this, here.  So, as you can see, I’m very optimistic and positive
that it could happen.
But I also think that this particular style of negotiation
is very dangerous, especially in an environment which is fraught
with dangers as I touched upon in my earlier remarks.  A much
better way, in my view, would be to just say, “We want the United
States and China to work together on a New Paradigm.” There is
already the Belt and Road Initiative. The United States could
have some program, they could call it the American Silk Road, or
the American FDR Revival, or the American Founding Fathers
Celebration, if they don’t want to be part of something which
already has been put out by China, it doesn’t matter, as long as
the content of the policy is the same on.
And I think the potential for things to grow into a higher
level of reason — I mean, here we are talking about the one
humanity.  I mean, I think the spiritual dimension, if you want,
has to be brought into this matter, because man is different from
all creatures, because we are gifted by God with creative reason.
And you don’t have to be a Christian, you can be a Confucian
philosopher, you can be a Buddhist, you can be just a good
person, to understand that we have reached a point in human
history, where we either recognize that we are all part of the one
humanity, or we will not make it as a species.
Since Diane mentioned earlier Nicholas of Cusa, I can only
say, that Nicholas developed a way of thinking which  — she
mentioned in the Docta Ignorantia, the “coincidence of
opposites,” which is the idea that because we are capable of
creative reason, we can think the One as having a higher quality
and a higher power than the Many: The one humanity being first,
and then the many nations being also important, but being not in
contradiction to the progress and wellbeing of the one humanity.
So I think if we understand that it is really the question
of addressing that in us, which makes us human, the creative
potential, then I think we can just find a way of shaping a New
Paradigm where mankind is defined from a common future, how do we
want to be existing as a human species, in 100 years from now, in
1,000 years from now, or even in 10,000 years from now?  Because
we can think the future!  No dog, no donkey, not goose can
think the future.  If you tell a dog, “Let’s have a walk
tomorrow,” the dog will hear the word “walk,” which the dog
probably knows, and jump to the door and wag its tail, and be
happy.  But if you say “tomorrow,” it doesn’t mean anything to
the dog!
But I think we need to raise the level of our communication,
and just really do our duty as a human species, and prolong our
existence indefinitely, by working together.

Q: My name is J.  I’m the author of two books, Evidence Not
Destroyed, and Spread Real Love.  I want to thank Mrs.
LaRouche; I want to thank this organization.  You’re some fine
people.  As I travel around America, I see many things:  I just
had to buy a new car, because the one I had had over 205,000
miles on it; and the one before that had 186,000 miles on it. But
I’m going around the countryside, and other countries, also,
spreading, putting this literature out for so many years.  And
I’m impacted with this organization.  It has some very find,
smart brains, that are sitting here in this auditorium today, and
I just thank God for you.
And when we come to a situation like we have today, I want
to know how we can go forward?  How we can promote civilization?
How we can carry on?  But if we have learned anything from our
history, we have to look back and look at our history, and look
at our results.  We have something that’s so profound here
today; we don’t get this kind of information on the TV no more. I
used to watch so much news, but now, they say the news is not
absolutely real! They say something about “fake” — I heard that
over and over again, so I turned my television off from the news.
And when I can come and get this type of real information, in a
setting like this, it makes one want to go forward.
So I’m here to help anyway I can.  I’ll put another 100 and
some thousands miles on the car I just bought, to get this
information out to the people, because if you don’t get it, the
news is not going to give it to you correctly, the way it should
be given.  So, I’m just thanking each one, and all of you that’s
working — just as I am;  Matt Guice, I’ve been working with him
since the ’90s; Lynne Speed and Dennis Speed, I’ve been working
with these people since the early ’90s.  And I’m so proud.
One thing, let me say, I think the reverend right before me,
a religious man — I sit in a church now, and I’m the only deacon
there!  Why is this?  Look where we’re going?  Why is that? We’re
reforming, we’re conforming, we’re complying to every situation
that’s not good.  And I think we have some real strength here,
and we can do some great things.  The main thing is, keep going
forward.  Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I think people have to be courageous,
because the paradigm shift which occurred in the United States,
which you, Diane, referenced in the beginning, which really
started with the murder of John F. Kennedy and then the murder of
Martin Luther King, and the assassination of Robert Kennedy, you
know, we had several years ago, a Mozart Requiem performance in
Vienna, in the suburbs of Washington, and also in the Boston
Cathedral, commemorating the paradigm shift which has occurred in
the last 50 years of America, where, the fact that the Kennedy
murder, and also the murder of Martin Luther King, was really not
avenged — or,  not avenged, but not even investigated, and the
real culprits made known and punished, which has led to people
becoming depressed.  I said many times, the Americans almost have
become like the Germans, because if you ask a German person to do
something, 99 % of the people say “Oh, you can’t do anything,
anyway,” so people are really depressed, and feel that they are
powerless in the face of what is happening.
And that has happened to America as a result of these
unclarified murders.  And since we have this event today, because
of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther
King, I think it’s a very good moment in history, to say, we will
not allow the murderers of King to be successful in eliminating
the hope which he represented.  I mean, Martin Luther King was
murdered at a moment when he had started to pick up many of the
same issues which are now being, in reality, changed by China.
Because he had started not only to take up the question of
economic justice inside the United States, but also he had
started to take on the question of jobs and overcoming poverty in
developing countries.  And that is what China is doing, exactly
today. And in the same way as the Schiller Institute has been
campaigning for, and LaRouche and his movement have been working
for, for almost half a century, is now becoming a reality.
So there is reason for optimism.  And I think that the best
thing we can do in a moment like this, thinking about the memory
of Martin Luther King, is to say, we will pick up the torch, we
will not allow the American people to be passive and desperate
and ignorant and all of these things, but we will all turn into
active members of the Schiller Institute, help to spread the
message; make the Schiller Institute a Renaissance movement, a
moment fighting not only for the economic buildup of the United
States, but also for a cultural Renaissance.  I think the two
things absolutely have to go together.
So I would encourage all of you to absolutely work with us,
because I think the solution to all of these problems are
absolutely within reach.

SARE:  As the next person is coming up I would just tell
everybody, during the break you will have the opportunity to do
exactly what Mrs. LaRouche has said, which is to become a member
of the Schiller Institute at our literature table.  And to
purchase copies of these very important, world-changing reports:
This is the one she mentioned, “The New Silk Road Becomes the
World Land-Bridge,”  which we produced right after Xi Jinping
announced it. And this report, of which Jason Ross is a coauthor
on “Extending the New Silk Road to West Asia and Africa: A Vision
of an Economic Renaissance.”

Q:  Hi, I’m Donald C.  My quick question is about the
liberals.  How are they teaching curriculums to our kids, and
they’re not giving them the chance to learn the right stuff, and
they’re just forcing the kids what their beliefs are?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes, that is a big problem, because it
started with John Dewey, to basically develop this liberal
pragmatic idea of education.  And unfortunately, you have
generations of people who have gone through different phases of
such elimination of Classical literature, of natural science, so
it is a real problem.  And I would think that the best way to
proceed on that, is if you look at the kind of materials which we
present in the present [What Is the New Paradigm?] class series,
which you can find on the LaRouche PAC site, and you can register
to be part of it, this is the kind of curriculum which was
developed especially with the ideas of my husband, Mr. LaRouche,
who did an incredible job, because he revived the best traditions
of the 2,500 years of European civilization, the traditions in
science which were the source of qualitative progress, the great
Classical arts; and this is something which is not taught in
American schools, for the most part.
And I think we have to form, basically, educated people, who
then hopefully, we can influence this present administration to
change that.  I think President Trump has repeatedly shown, at
least for certain areas, an understanding; he talked about the
American System of economy; he talked about Lincoln and Carey, he
talked about Hamilton. So in the economic field there is
definitely something there, which we can build on.  I think there
are many other people are equally concerned about the condition
of the school system.  But I think the best thing is that you
register for these classes [http://discover.larouchepac.com/]. And
if you haven’t already done it, you can also watch some of the
previous classes in the series.[6]  Get yourself absolutely a firm
grip on universal history, of the great advances in science and
culture, and then, you know, basically help us to organize
change.
Because it will come from many places.  There are many
people are realizing that at this point it is the scientists, the
engineers and such people, who will be much more important in the
shaping of things, than many politicians who are part of a party
system and partisan, and therefore, don’t really regard these
issues are the important ones.
But the best advice I can give you right now, is if you join
with our efforts, we find ways to address all of these issues,
and build a growing movement to demand such a change.

Q: Thank you very much.  Your comments were very insightful.
I believe in the paradigm where the United States, Russia and
China, essentially a triumvirate is essentially going to lead the
world, hopefully forward and out of the morass that we’ve been
in. Especially over the prior eight years before this current
President came into office.
The question, I want to ask is, what do you perceive would be
the case — because I don’t believe this economy in this country
would have lasted another year, under the current policies.  We
would have had a significant economic drop which would have led
to, since this country’s GDP is 25 % of the world’s, would have
had a worldwide, negative impact.  Having said that, what do you
perceive would be the consequences in this country, or the for
that matter the world, on the movement forward that has occurred,
if President Trump did not have the position he has?  He may be
President, but he may have a weakened political system, in the
sense of a House and the Senate: Would we be able to move
forward?  And what would be the consequences, and under what
conditions could we move forward?  Could this economy continue to
grow if he can’t implement his policies?  What would be the
international consequences of that, from your perspective?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think the strongest situation is Trump’s
relation with his voters.  That despite all of the attacks by the
FBI, by the British, by the heads of the intelligence services
from the Obama administration, — I mean, he had a pretty tough
environment, and nevertheless, he goes back to his voters, he
holds a rally, and the support for him is actually growing in the
polls.  So I think that that is for sure, a very strong point
which we should build on, because if we keep strengthening that,
and if we keep informing the Trump voters on all the issues we
are discussing here, that can actually help to outdo the Congress
and the Senate.
And since there is a midterm election, there is actually a
very good moment to do that.  I mean, the danger is naturally
that Trump could be convinced that to take an anti-China stance
would help him in the midterm election.  I mean, I’m not sure;
I’m not close enough to the situation to make a judgment on that.
But I think the strong point is, Trump is close to his
voters, the voters still recognize what a change he means, and I
think that we need to have a mass mobilization — I think there
is no shortcut from that; because the danger is very acute. What
I said in my initial remarks, when we talk to some really
well-placed figure in Europe, who said that there is a discussion
to pull the rug out from under Trump with a new financial crash,
and if you think that this is a conspiracy theory — well, maybe
before the Skripal case, you also thought that such things are
conspiracies, but we have just seen a classic example of how you
can manipulate a whole international community of nations to go
into an attack on Russia, based on a lie!  So these things do
happen and they can happen.
Now, there are also many warnings.  Just today, I think some
representative of the firm of Guggenheim put out a warning on
this corporate debt question that a financial crash can happen
at any moment.  And basically, you have the European banking
system, the Italian banks are in terrible shape, you have a
policy where the trigger point of a collapse of the financial
system is many-fold.  It’s also like a minefield where it’s not
clear which mine will trigger the explosion, but once it happens,
you could have a systemic blowout, much worse than that of 2008.
Because the central banks have done absolutely zero, to eliminate
the root causes of the crash of 2008.  They have, instead, used
the so-called tools and instruments — namely quantitative
easing, negative interest rate, money pumping — but this has
reached the point where now the Fed is forced, or think they are
forced, to increase the interest rate, because a negative
interest rate is very bad for the real economy, it’s bad for the
savings of the people, it’s bad for life insurance, it’s bad for
real investment; and the hyperinflationary consequence of such
money-pumping is already visible on the horizon in the form of
the totally overvalued stock market, in the form of real estate
prices, in the form of many other such phenomena.  So the Fed
needs to increase the interest rate, but that is already bringing
the immediate potential for a new crash.
If that happens, I think we are in {real} trouble: So our
whole point, is we need the implementation of Glass-Steagall, and
the Four Laws developed by Lyndon LaRouche, before the crash
happens.  I think this is also a subject — there are these four
dialogues which have been established between President Xi
Jinping and Trump; one of them concerns the dialogue on economic
matters; China has put a lot of emphasis on the dangers to the
international financial system, at the G20 meeting in Hangzhou
[in 2016] and on other occasions.  So I think that this question
needs to be urgently addressed, also between the United States
and China in these negotiations.
And then, if you put the whole package together, the Four
Laws — Glass-Steagall, a National Bank, a credit system in the
tradition of Hamilton, a crash program for the increase in the
productivity of the labor force, and then joining hands in the
Belt and Road Initiative — all of these measures together are a
very, very practical and realistic way to overcome these dangers.
But it is very urgent, because we are sitting on a powder keg,
and I think it can be done, but we need a lot of people of good
will to become active with us.

SARE:  Helga, we’re just about up on time. We have two more
questions.  Do you want to take both, or one, or?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, maybe both together, and then I’ll
answer both.

Q: Hi Mrs. LaRouche.  My question to you is, is that right
after the shooting at Parkland, [Broward County] Sheriff Israel
was all over the news speaking about going to all members of
Congress to use the Baker Act, to detain and profile people that
have experienced some sort of depression.  And that’s of great
concern to me, because there are many people who have experienced
that, and I feel this country is becoming more like Germany back
in World War II.  So I’m kind of scared, and I’d like to know,
what’s your opinion on it?  Thank you.

SARE:  OK, next question.

Q:  Hello, my name is Steve S.  I would just like to ask,
how much of a role do you think that psychological warfare plays
in everything that’s going on?  And how can we counter it?  Are
there people out there who specialize in psychological warfare? I
hear people talk about history being erased; you know, the
projection of violence through videos and commercials and that
matter.
So, a lot of people are very confused, as well as myself,
even when you find something that you believe in sometimes, it’s
presented in a way that you accept it in the beginning, and then
it comes out to be a lie. And right now, clearly, lie is just
pounding on the truth.  I mean, you have one truth, but you have
so many lies that it seems too overwhelming to survive.

SARE: Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think the concerns that both of you
expressed is very real.  I mean, it is the fact that the West is
already living in a police-state.  Just take the recent example
of the Facebook firm, Cambridge Analytica — they sold data on 50
million people for commercial purposes, for election manipulation
and who knows for what else?  If you go on the internet and you
go on any website, you immediately have the advertisement for the
next years of your life of whatever you looked at.
So we are already in a completely surveillance state, where
the NSA and the British equivalent, the GCHQ, are monitoring
everything — your phone, your smart TV, your laptop — it’s
omnipresent.  And obviously this needs to be reversed.
In the time when I was growing up, being a young person, we
had a big concern about data protection.  It was a civil right to
make sure that your privacy was protected.  All of this has gone
out of the window!  And also, naturally, the big change came on
September 11th.  Because September 11th was the pretext for a lot
of the elimination of civil rights which used to be a
constitutional right up to that moment.
And therefore, I think the inquiry of what really happened
on September 11th, is still one of the big tasks to be solved,
because it led to police-state measures inside the United States.
It led to a similar kind of change internationally. And right
now, you have the ongoing trial of the families of the victims of
the World Trade Center suing the government of Saudi Arabia for
their role in the September 11th attacks.  And the Saudi
government tried to appeal against the lawsuit, and a court in
New York overruled that, so the court case can go ahead.
Now, this goes very slowly, but this is a very important
aspect; because eventually, we have to go back to a
constitutional state.  So you are quite right to be concerned,
because there is a lot of this going on.
Again, I think there is no shortcut:  We need more people
taking an active role, and force the coming Congress to pass laws
to protect the rights of the people again. This is absolutely
possible.  The whole argument, for example, that you cannot
control these things, or not control the internet, is absolutely
not true:  You can block certain things, you can prevent things,
you can make laws which prohibit the profiling; you can make laws
which it a criminal act to do all of these things you are worried
about.  So it’s not a self-evident development.
But I think it does require that more people become state
citizens:  A state citizen, I would define a somebody who takes
responsibility not only for his life, his family, his country,
but for the outcome of human history.  And I think to be such a
world historical individual in a moment like that, where the
options are so rich, and so beautiful that there is no reason to
despair, but it is really the individual decision, to be part of
the solution which can and will make the difference. [applause]

SARE:  Thank you.  That was very beautiful and appropriate.
Do you wish to say anything else to us?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, just be happy, and be productive, and
feisty, and courageous, and then you can do everything you plan
to do.

SARE: Thank you very much! [applause]

 

[1] http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/category/nyheder/alle-kategorier/oekonomi/larouches-fire-love-feature/

[2] Kan læses på engelsk her: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2018/eirv45n06-20180209/22-28_4506.pdf  Dansk oversættelse er undervejs.

[3] Læs en dansk introduktion til rapporten af de to forfattere, Jason Ross og Husein Askary, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=23600

[4] Abraham Lincolns Gettysburg-tale: » – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth«.

[5] Martin Luther Kings berømte tale ’I have been to the mountain top’ fra 3. April, 1968, kan læses her: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemountaintop.htm

[6] Se lektionerne i dansk oversættelse her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/category/lpac-new-paradigme/

Introduktion: Den hysteriske og bidende retorik mod Rusland, der kommer fra Storbritanniens imperiale oligarker og deres efterretningstjenester og kanaliseres gennem Theresa May og Boris ’BoJo’ Johnson, narrer ingen. Alt imens nogle regeringer underdanigt er gået med i de farlige provokationer, så er andre, inklusive USA, blot kommet med symbolske handlinger. Mange nationer synes at ligge mere på linje med tankegangen hos den russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov, der om May-regeringens ubegrundede beskyldninger i Skripal-affæren sagde, at det er »kun alt for åbenlyst, at vore britiske kolleger har mistet deres realitetssans«.

De ledere, som derimod ikke har mistet deres realitetssans, har i stedet været engageret i et imponerende opbud af diplomatisk og økonomisk aktivitet og har indgået aftaler om at deltage i Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ (BVI). Parallelt med disse bestræbelser er et russisk initiativ for at bringe fred i Syrien og arbejde sammen med Syriens naboer. De britiskdirigerede geopolitikere har uden tvivl bemærket, at, i takt med, at dette initiativ går fremad, har præsident Trump gentaget sit kampagneløfte om at afslutte al amerikansk militær involvering i Syrien og har gentaget sit ønske om et topmøde med Putin i den nærmeste fremtid.

Det, der ligger bag de britiske angreb mod Putin og Rusland, er ikke den svindelagtige påstand, at Putin beordrede forgiftningen af en tidligere russisk efterretningsofficer, lige så vel som at Mueller-efterforskningen intet har at gøre med »russisk indblanding« i det amerikanske valg. Målet for disse provokationer er det Nye Paradigme, der er knyttet til BVI, som City of London og dets Wall Street allierede korrekt har identificeret som efterfølgeren til deres fallerede system. Hvis USA tilsluttede sig Rusland, Kina og Indien sådan, som Lyndon LaRouche opfordrede det til i kølvandet på krakket i 2008, ville det være umuligt at forhindre fremvæksten af det Nye Paradigme.

 Her følger engelsk udskrift:

 

 

HARLEY SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger

from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to this week’s Schiller Institute

webcast for April 5, 2018, featuring our founder and President

Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

In the last couple of weeks, Helga has spoken about the

potential for a backfire as a result of the Skripal affair, that

Theresa May and her somewhat unhinged Foreign Secretary Boris

Johnson have been using as a way of attacking both Russia and the

United States.  Now, we’ve seen this play out in a very big way

in the last couple of days:  The fact that they came out in their

own name, and the name of their intelligence services and their

government, to attack Russia, has in fact, put “egg on their

faces” as some have said.  So, Helga, why don’t you catch us up

on what’s happened in the last days, because this is quite

significant, in terms of shaping the strategic relationships?

 

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  I think it is incredibly

serious, because now you have a situation where I think the whole

group of nations which committed themselves to sort of

unprincipled solidarity with May and Johnson, they really have to

reflect on what has actually happened.  Just to mention some of

the recent developments:  The head of the research lab Porton

Down, Gary Aitkenhead, came out actually and said they could not

find any proof that the origin of this nerve agent was Russia;

that they could establish that it was Novichok, or belonging to

the group of Novichoks, but that they could not say that it came

from Russia.

This has led to quite a series of events.  One was that the

Foreign Office removed the tweet in which they had said very

clearly that there was no doubt that the origin was Russia, and I

think they even mentioned that the scientists of the Porton Down

lab had said so.  So, they were obliged to remove the tweet,

because that also is evidence that Boris Johnson was lying,

because he had said that he had heard from the scientists that

there was absolutely unrefutable proof that this came from

Russia.  This is the first thing.

Then the London {Times} had a comment about this, where they

say that the statement by Aitkenhead is threatening to bring down

the international coalition against Russia.  Well, that’s indeed

the case, because now naturally everybody is reviewing this, and

I think in the case of the German government, for example, they

gave a  press conference afterwards, in which journalists were

asking, did this statement mean that you’ve changed your

perspective?  And they basically refused to do so, which shows

you really the absolute grip in which these people are in, namely

the grip of the British Empire.

So, I think this is now backfiring very clearly.  The role

of the British government and the British Empire, for that

matter, is completely exposed, but they are not stopping the

confrontation with Russia, so that some of the Russian responses,

for example, people speaking at the Seventh Moscow Conference on

International Security which is now taking place in Moscow,

[Sergei] Naryshkin, who is the head of Russia’s foreign

intelligence [SVR], he said that this is basically as serious as

the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.  Others were saying, this time

these idiots went way beyond any line, and that is clearly the

case.  But you also have a whole series of people who are saying,

look, we cannot continue like that, we have to resume a dialogue

with Russia; we have to go back to straighten out the relations.

And I want to really point to the fact that, despite the

fact that naturally the United States expelled 60 Russian

diplomats, which is clearly part of this escalation, that

President Trump himself, who did not at any point use this

incident to attack Russia as the origin.  And I think this stands

clearly out.  And people who are always totally freaked out about

Trump, they should really review this and ask if their

perspective and their optical approach actually the correct one?

Because in many cases, it turns out that Trump is actually the

one who is not going for confrontation, and some of the people

who are so much for “democracy and human rights” that they can’t

even walk straight, because they’re so heavily burdened with

their responsibilities, that they are the actual warmongers.  So

I think this is really something to reflect about.

But I think the kind of procedure that NATO, however, the

European Union, the German and French government, they were all

immediately jumping on this, without evidence, condemning Russia.

And I think if you look at this, when the dust settles down, it

{is} a blow to the whole Western system, because if there is not

an establishment of scientific fact, first, and the condemnation

first so that basically Russia is declared guilty, and then maybe

you find the evidence sometime down the road, or not, I think

this does big damage to the Western system, because if you play

with these things lightly, it is contributing to the

discreditation of the governments that did that, and that is not

a good thing.

 

SCHLANGER:  Well, minimally, we could say this is a rush to

judgment, but more importantly, this is part of an established

pattern of British intelligence.  We’ve seen it with the repeated

charges, without evidence, that the Assad government was using

chemical weapons against his population; and of course, the

famous case of Tony Blair and Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction,

which turned out to be another fabrication of the highest levels

of British intelligence.

But there’s another aspect of this which I think you may

want to comment on, which is the case of David Kelly, because

this also hits at home, where there was opposition from within

the scientific community in the United Kingdom against the

actions of the government and the intelligence community.

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  This is clearly a pattern.  And

before the statement by the head of the Porton Down lab came out,

the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, had

actually said that he had from high-level sources in the

intelligence community or the science community, that the

scientists would not basically produce the evidence — and they

didn’t.  And [Porton Down weapons inspector] David Kelly, at the

time of the Iraq war, had basically blown the whistle, saying

there were no weapons of mass destruction, and then he found an

early death under extremely dubious circumstances which were said

to be a suicide, but nobody really believes that.

So, I think this is really something — if you think the

Iraq War was based on lies, and I think Willy Wimmer, the former

vice president of the OSCE and former state secretary to the

minister of defense, pointed to the fact that the Iraq war, after

all, has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in Europe, in the

Middle East, in North Africa, and that the Chilcot Commission,

which from our standpoint was a relative cover-up, but

nevertheless, pointed to the fact that Tony Blair had willfully,

intentionally exaggerated the danger coming from Iraq and Saddam

Hussein at the time. And then [Bush Secretary of State] Colin

Powell used the MI6 “dodgy dossier” [on Iraq’s alleged WMD] from

that period, to argue in the UN for the U.S. joining the Iraq

War.

I mean, the fact that governments can do these things which

cost — really — if you look at the totality of these wars,

millions of people’s lives, and then, it just goes by and there

is no accountability.  And it’s a complete hypocrisy and

duplicity, when the people who are saying that they are the

defenders of human rights and democracy, then go around and make

these interventions into sovereign countries, which have these

horrible results.  And then they are self-righteous and pretend

that they are the good ones, and the Russians and the Chinese are

the bad ones.

I think we need to have, really, a review of this, because

this cannot continue.  It is very dangerous to world peace.

 

SCHLANGER:  And another aspect of this is that this was a

major feature of President Trump’s election campaign in 2016,

where he, at a very important debate in South Carolina, openly

accused George W. Bush of lying to create the Iraq War, and he

said that his administration would oppose these kinds of wars.

Now, this week the President announced that he’s preparing

to remove U.S. troops from Syria, despite demands from some in

the military, and the CIA, that the U.S. remain in Syria.

Helga, this is a fairly significant departure from the

standard Bush/Obama policy of pursuing these wars, isn’t it?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Oh, yes!  And, again, you can see certain

representatives of the U.S. military and others, who say, “no,

no, we still have a lot of fighting to do against ISIS,” but

Trump I think is clearly sticking to guns, and he has promised to

stop the interventionist wars, and I think he is going very far

to do so.  Especially, if you consider that in in this middle of

this whole hysteria, he telephoned President Putin, and has

reiterated that he wants to have a summit with Putin in the near

future.  And he was also meeting with the three Presidents of the

Baltic countries, who as everybody knows are extremely

anti-Russians, and he reiterated that to have a good relationship

with Russia “is a good thing and not a bad thing.”

So I think people should really review their slanders, or

their believing the slanders against both Trump, Putin and Xi

Jinping because it comes from the same circles:  it comes from

the neo-con/neo-liberal geopolitical faction who are seeing that

their system is clearly in bad shape and who are obviously

stopping short of nothing, if you look at this recent affair.

 

SCHLANGER:  You mentioned earlier the Moscow International

Security Conference.  Clearly, there’s a discussion going on

there, about something that your husband Lyndon LaRouche brought

up many, many years ago, and that you’ve been calling for, which

is the establishment of a new security architecture.  How is this

proceeding in Moscow?  Do you have some reports on what the

discussion process has been, there?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think it’s an extremely important event.

There are 95 countries represented, 840 guests, 700 media; and

obviously, this  alone speaks to the fact that Russia is very far

from being isolated, as some people in the West are trying to

portray.

The discussions were very focussed on the need to have an

international alliance to combat terrorism.  There was a warning

by the head of the FSB [Alexander Bortnikov], that there are

signs that ISIS and al-Qaeda are merging, and he basically said

this means you will have sleepers and cells in every country

around the globe, and the only way you can defend against that,

is to work together internationally.

Now, another very important aspect of this conference, is

that the Defense Minister of China went to this conference and

made a statement that this was meant as a signal to the West that

the Russian and the Chinese military are in an extremely close

strategic partnership, and that this is meant as a signal to the

West.

So there were many warnings, as I mentioned already, that

the present confrontation is approaching the danger of a Cuban

Missile Crisis, so people are obviously extremely attuned to what

is coming there from the British and their allies.  But on the

other side, it also shows who is talking in favor of

international solidarity, cooperation;  who is addressing the

real dangers of the world:  It is clearly not the West, but it is

clearly Russia, China and the countries that are participating in

this conference.

And again, this is really something people should reflect

about, rather than believing the propaganda.  If you read

{Bildzeitung}, this morning on page 2, they have a picture of

Putin, Erdogan, and Rouhani, and they say this is the “axis of

evil.”  This is ridiculous!  These three countries [Russia,

Turkey, Iran] have collaborated to bring about a solution to the

terrible crisis in Syria, and this is a very good thing.  Now,

not all aspects of the policies of these countries I would

always subscribe to, — I mean, there’s the unresolved tensions

between the Kurds and Erdogan, between Turkey and Greece —  so

not everything is perfect.

But I think on the larger picture, if you think that the

misery of the Syrian people who have had war for seven years [is

being addressed] because of the intervention of these countries,

and not to forget the cooperation between the U.S. and Russian

military under the leadership of Trump and Putin; I think people

should not just fall for these propaganda lines.  Because there

are some people who have suffered with their lives and their

livelihoods and their happiness, as a result of these

[geopolitical] policies, and for Syria, this [intervention] is a

good thing.

 

SCHLANGER:  Especially, this should have meaning for people

in Europe, because in 2015-2016, there was the explosion of the

refugee crisis, and with all the hand-wringing and crocodile

tears that were shed, nothing was done to support the Russian

intervention to stop the war in Syria.  And the fact that the

Russians, the Iranians and the Turkish government were meeting to

discuss this, is something that should be welcomed, as opposed to

a source for criticism.

Now, on the Russia-Turkey cooperation, there was another

aspect to it, because when you deal with these problems in the

real world, there’s always an economic element, and there was

just an agreement between Putin and [Turkish President Recep

Tayyip] Erdogan to move ahead with nuclear energy development.

Helga, this is part of the broader package of the New Silk Road

and economic cooperation that you’ve been talking about, isn’t

it?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.  I think the remarks of President

Putin, who was at the opening ceremony of this [Akkuyu] nuclear

plant was to emphasize the extreme importance of nuclear energy,

giving a country cheap and secure energy, and leading to an

increase in the productivity of the entire economy; which is

absolutely the case.  And you have many, many projects, Russia,

China, India, having with developing countries the building of

nuclear energy in Africa, in Latin America, and in Asia.

So, soon, countries like Germany will be the only ones that

will not have nuclear energy, and if they keep this course, they

will be sidelined at the disadvantage of the population.  So, I

think this is really something we should change.

 

SCHLANGER:  The other story that’s getting a lot of coverage

internationally, and I think it’s being covered typically by the

media as a way of trying to drum up war, is this whole argument

that the discussion and the negotiations under way between the

U.S. and China on tariff policy is nothing but a trade war.  Now,

there’s a danger to this, as the Chinese have pointed out, but I

think it’s important for people to hear your perspective on this:

Because obviously, there are problems in the U.S.-China

relationship, a huge trade imbalance, but it’s not just a trade

war, there’s actually a much broader discussion under way.  How

do you see this evolving, from what you’ve seen over the last few

days?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  There are negotiations going on, and it must

not necessarily come to the execution of these tariffs, which

both sides have now drawn up, up to the value of $60 billion in

terms of products.  One thing is that the Prime Minister Li

Keqiang has pointed out that there is another way to overcome the

trade imbalance: namely by increasing trade, by especially

investments in joint ventures in third countries, that there are

many ways how you can get rid of this trade imbalance.

And there is a renewed discussion, something which we have

brought into the discussion early on, namely, that you have the

possibility of Chinese investments in the infrastructure in the

United States.  And that would also be a way to completely change

this dynamic.  If the Chinese investment in American

infrastructure would create many, many productive jobs for

Americans, it would create the infrastructure precondition for a

real industrial revolution: for the building of new cities,

science cities, connecting all American cities with fast trains

systems.

There are so many ways of changing this dynamic for the

better, and I’m absolutely convinced that China is having this

mind.  There was a program on the Chinese TV channel CGTN,

proposing exactly that, that there should be a dialogue on

infrastructure.  Then you have some Americans, a Trump supporter

who had already made such a proposal early on, also.  So I think

there is a discussion.  And I would imagine that President Xi

Jinping, who will give a very important speech at the “Asian

Davos” as they call it, the Boao Forum for Asia, which will start

in three days, where he is expected to make a major speech on the

continuation on international reforms, and opening up.  So I

think you can expect something important to come from there.

And I think the Chinese are also extremely aware of the fact

that we are sitting on a powder keg in terms the financial

system.  Xi Jinping has defined three priorities:  One, to

overcome the risks of the financial system; to alleviate poverty;

and to get rid of air pollution.  So I think the Chinese are very

much aware of the dangers of this present Western financial

system.  And you know, you had several articles warning that with

the outbreak of a new 2008 could happen at any moment, one of the

many new aspects which were mentioned is the difference between

the LIBOR rate and the Fed rate; and that was exactly the

beginning sign of the 2008 crisis.

So that really requires that the discussion which we and our

colleagues in the United States and in Europe have formulated, to

implement the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche — Glass-Steagall,

national bank, a credit system, and then cooperation of the

Western countries, with the financial systems of the New Silk

Road, the AIIB, the New Silk Road Fund; all of these things need

to be urgently discussed.  Because one danger which is clearly

there, that if you had now a financial crash, and some people are

even speculating that the same people who are making these

provocations against Russia, could also trigger, deliberately,

such a financial crash, to pull the rug out from underneath

President Trump, to bring the neo-cons back in, and just get rid

of this phenomenon of Trump.

So anybody who thinks this is conspiracy theory, or this is

totally over the top, well, look at the Skripal case, and learn

the lesson from that, how things can be manipulated and

orchestrated.

So I think the urgency is really to draw the lesson out from

all of this, and end this system of looting, which is only for

the privilege of the very few rich; it’s destroying the middle

class, it’s making the poor, more poor.  And we need really a

return to Hamiltonian economics.  This is what is the basis of

the Chinese economic miracle, as I have said many times: The

Chinese economic miracle, or Chinese economic model, is much,

much closer to the economic policies of the young republic of the

United States than people think.  It’s no coincidence that the

distinction which Friedrich List, for example, made between the

American System and the British System, that that is exactly what

is playing out today, and we need {clearly} a return to the

American System of economy.

 

SCHLANGER:  It’s also important to keep in mind that

President Trump has repeatedly referred to his great friendship

with Xi Jinping, and the strategic importance of a China-U.S.

relationship is also clear when it comes to the question of the

collaboration to bring a peaceful solution to the Korean

Peninsula. There’s a lot of diplomacy coming up:  The Trump-Putin

meeting; Trump meeting with Prime Minister Abe of Japan; and also

the coming meeting with Kim Jong-un.  So there’s a lot more at

stake here than just the question of a few dollars off the trade

imbalance.

And Helga, just to go back to one final note on the Belt and

Road Initiative:  I’m sure you took note of the importance of the

visit recently of the Swiss government to China and also a very

large delegation heading to China from Austria.  Maybe there’s a

lesson here for Germany, huh?

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, one would hope so!

I mean, I’m very happy, because all the neighbors of Germany

are clearly joining the Silk Road, it increases the pressure on

those who are obviously too stupid or too arrogant to see the

potential for German industry which lies in this initiative.

Now, the Swiss Foreign Minister was just in China and he and

his Chinese counterpart, both [Foreign Minister] Wang Yi and also

[former Foreign Minister] Yang Jiechi, they declared that the

collaboration of China and Switzerland in the New Silk Road is at

the best historical level ever, and both emphasized the

importance of Xi Jinping’s visit last year to Switzerland, where

he addressed Davos as a keynote speaker, and then went to Geneva,

emphasizing the importance of Switzerland.  So they’re deepening

the relationship between China and Switzerland.

And the Austrian government, they have a huge delegation,

the largest ever:  It is President Van der Bellen, Chancellor

Sebastian Kurz; four cabinet ministers, and 170 CEOs from large

corporations, spending five days in China.  And what Kurz said

is, there is no ceiling to improve the relationship between

Austria and China on the New Silk Road.  The same, by the way, is

happening with Zimbabwe, where the new President [Emmerson

Mnangagwa] is going with a large delegation of 12 ministers and

also many, many CEOs.  So, you can see almost every day, a little

breaking development.  And as I have said many times, the Spirit

of the New Silk Road is, in my view, absolutely unstoppable,

except if we have World War III, which obviously some people are

risking.

But nevertheless, the idea of a new relationship among

nations, of respect for the sovereignty of the other nation,

respect for the difference of the social system, the ending of

internationalist wars, the idea of a win-win cooperation, this is

just a new model of international relations and a New Paradigm.

And the biggest problem is that because of the Western media

being so much in control of this geopolitical faction that most

people don’t know enough about it.

So, please, I would appeal to you:  Join the Schiller

Institute, help us to spread the knowledge about the New Silk

Road, and also the options to solve the present financial crisis

and many other crises around the world with such an approach.  I

would really appeal to you:  Don’t sit on the fence.  This is an

incredibly important historic moment, and the British have just

suffered a terrible defeat, which freaks them out, but it’s

visible for everybody and so therefore, it’s a good moment to

move forward and establish a completely different political,

social, and economic system on this planet.

 

SCHLANGER:  And we will be launching a new membership drive

for the Schiller Institute, and if you want to increase the

misery of the British intelligence establishment and the City of

London, become a member of the Schiller Institute, and help us

build the audience for these webcasts, so people have an

alternative to the lying media that otherwise is the only option

they have to allegedly find out about the world.

So Helga, I think that covers quite a bit.  Thank you for

joining us again, and we’ll see you next week.

 

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.  Till next week.

 

 

Tom Gillesberg: Velkommen til endnu et dramatisk kapitel i kampen om verden; kampen om, hvem der skal regere planeten Jorden og dermed også kan få mulighed for at få en betydende indflydelse på det univers, vi befinder os i, på den lange bane. Det er bare så ufattelig spændende, hvad der foregår netop nu, for på den ene side har vi jo de her absurde tosserier, den seneste af hvilke har været denne her kampagne, man har kørt de seneste par uger med den såkaldte Skripal-sag, hvor ud af det blå pludselig fra London tonede Theresa May frem på Tv-skærmene og sagde, ’Der har været et angreb med biologiske våben her på efterretningsagenter, og vi er sikre på, at det kun kan være Rusland, der har gjort det, og derfor kræver vi af resten af verden, at de nu går sammen med os om at straffe Rusland for denne uhørte, ubehagelig dåd, som de har begået’. Det har jo bl.a. ført til, at USA udviste 60 diplomater, Danmark udviste 2 osv., og vi ligesom er i et kraftigt momentum frem til, at nu skal vi have en konfrontation med Rusland.

Igen, det kommer ikke ud af det blå; det kommer efter man har haft et NATO, som har stået på og drevet på og sagt, nu skal vi mobilisere mod den russiske fare; vi skal have en brigade ovre i Baltikum for at kunne beskytte de baltiske lande mod den store russiske bjørn. Igen og igen har Stoltenberg fra NATO’s talerstol sagt, og vi ved jo godt, at vi er under angreb, og frem for alt cyberangreb; men I skal vide derude, frem for alt jer i Rusland, at vi betragter et cyberangreb på et af vore lande som et angreb, der kan udløse Artikel 5 og derfor være et angreb på hele NATO, så hele NATO må svare igen med alt, hvad de har. Og dermed har man i princippet sagt, at, hvis der er et såkaldt cyberangreb på et NATO-land, så kan det være, at vi svarer igen med atomvåben over for Rusland. Det er ligesom det, man har sagt, og det er vildt, og det er farligt! Og det er helt vanvittigt.

Men, når det så er sagt, så er det også et vanvid, der står mere og mere afsløret for hver dag, der går. Dette sidste vanvid kommer jo efter, at vi nu i over et år har haft en ny amerikansk præsident, Donald Trump, som har haft svært ved at regere, fordi der har været skandale på skandale, der har kørt i medierne mod ham; ’Trump-gate’, ’Russia-gate’ osv., med det fokus at få Trump afsat, så man kunne fortsætte den politik for konfrontation og krig, man havde før, og som Hillary havde svoret, at hun ville fortsætte. Men alle disse skandaler har det til fælles, at deres udspring er London. …

Hør hele Toms analyse:

 

 

https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/britisk-pastand-imod-rusland-er-ved-at-smuldre-lnu-kan-vi-besejre-den-britiske-imperium

 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 4. april, 2018 – De britiske, imperiale Lords befinder sig i choktilstand. Deres hektiske forsøg på at redde Imperiet brasede sammen tirsdag, da forskerne på Porton Down nægtede at lyve for Imperiet – nægtede at sige, at nervegiften i Skripal-sagen kom fra Rusland. Husk, at det var David Kelly, chefen for Afdelingen for Mikrobiologi til Forsvarsformål i Porton Down og medlem af inspektionsteamet i Irak, som afslørede Tony Blairs »udmajede« dossier, der hævdede, at Saddam Hussein havde masseødelæggelsesvåben. Som videnskabsmand nægtede han at lyve. Kelly blev »bragt til selvmord« som resultat, og den ulovlige folkemordskrig fortsatte.

Denne gang er hverken George W. Bush eller Barack Obama til stede for at yde tilsløring af Imperiets løgne. Præsident Trump har, til de britiske og amerikanske oligarkers og pressehorers forfærdelse, nægtet at sige (eller tweete) ét ord om russernes rolle i Skripal-sagen. Han talte med Putin efter hændelsen uden at nævne den og sagde så sent som i går, at, at »komme godt ud af det med Rusland er en god ting, ikke en dårlig ting«.

Imperiet er afsløret og alvorligt såret – men endnu ikke dødt og derfor i stand til hvad som helst for at redde sit skind. I halvtreds år har Lyndon LaRouche advaret amerikanerne og andre om, at Det britiske Imperium ikke er et fænomen fra fortiden, men derimod er centrum i den finansielle udplyndring og spekulation, der har drevet det vestlige finanssystem til randen af ruin, mens det samtidigt manipulerer den »dumme kæmpe« i Washington til at udkæmpe kolonikrige på Imperiets vegne, først i Indokina og dernæst i Mellemøsten. Han har ligeledes advaret om, at Imperiet ville foretrække en global krig, selv en atomkrig, snarere end de ville se deres Imperium forsvinde.

I dag fokuserede Helga Zepp-LaRouche opmærksomheden på denne dødbringende kendsgerning. Russiagate-kampagnen kollapsede, og dens gerningsmænd i MI6 og i Obamas efterretningsteam står nu over for anklager om forbrydelser, for deres forræderiske handlinger. Dernæst lancerede Theresa Mays controllers Skripal-hændelsen og krævede, at de vestlige nationer skulle gå med i beskyldningerne mod Rusland, uden noget som helst bevis. Kun halvdelen af de europæiske nationer gik med til det, og, alt imens Trump gav sin administration lov til at udvise russiske diplomater, så lagde han ikke selv nogen skyld på russerne og annoncerede, at Moskva kunne erstatte deres diplomater.

Men nu har UK’s egne eksperter i kemiske våben afsløret de onde og farlige løgne, der kommer fra premierminister May og hendes klovn af en udenrigsminister Boris Johnson. I dag hersker der hysteri i London. Vil Imperiet ty til endnu mere desperate handlinger ved at starte en krig? Vil de bruge det forestående kollaps af den multi-billiondollar store boble i det vestlige finanssystem, som de har skabt, til at gøre dette?

LaRouches politiske platform – for en genindførsel af metoderne i det Amerikanske Økonomiske System og for videnskabeligt fremskridt i USA, og for USA’s tilslutning til den Nye Silkevej, hvor det arbejder sammen med Kina og Rusland i opbygningen af nationer i hele verden, som USA engang erklærede – må vedtages og kæmpes for nu, i dag, af alle mennesker af god vilje. Imperiet er tæt på at lide nederlag, men er farligere end nogensinde før.

Foto: Dr. David Kelly. »Begik selvmord« efter at have aflagt forklaring imod Blairs »udmajede« dossier, som førte til Irakkrigen.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 3. april, 2018 – Forgiftningen af to russiske borgere i England i sidste måned, der fra UK’s May-regerings side på så bombastisk vis tilsigtede at isolere Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putin og indfange det ligeledes britiske mål, præsident Donald Trump, i en fælde, kan ende med at efterlade May og udenrigsminister Boris Johnson med æg i ansigtet.

Situationen er ved at vende. Den nye virkelighed med de store fordele for nationer i hele verden ved Kinas Nye Silkevej, og fordelene ved samarbejde mellem stormagterne for fred sådan, som præsident Trump har forstået det, får nu Mays totalangreb til at give bagslag. Briterne blev allerede stukket, da det viste sig, at kun halvdelen af EU’s lande gik med til at udvise russiske diplomater og andet kaos mod Rusland, og nu er de dybt krænkede over præsident Trumps »mindre end fulde støtte«, som deres medier udtrykker det.

Faktisk har Trumps pressesekretær igen 2. april bekræftet, at Trump har inviteret præsident Putin til et topmøde »på flere forskellige lokaliteter, inkl. Det Hvide Hus«. Præsident Trump har nu tre afgørende topmøder i sigte – med Japans premierminister Shinzo Abe, med Vladimir Putin og med den nordkoreanske leder Kim Jong-un – hvilket kunne vende verdenssituationen til det bedre. Det andet og tredje topmøde imødegås rasende af briterne og alle slags amerikanske og europæiske neokonservative og liberale imperialister. Men også dette giver nu bagslag.

Nu, med dagens rapport fra UK’s eget Forsvarsvidenskabelige og Teknologiske Laboratorium i Porton Down om, at det ikke har fastslået bevis for fr. Mayhems (fr. ’Kaos’) russiske forgiftningssag, er morgendagens (4. april) sammentræde af lederne i Organisationen for forbud mod kemiske våben (OPCW) – hvis regler UK har ladet hånt om, for at skynde sig at »føre an i angrebet« mod Rusland – stillet i et nyt lys. Et par modige briter har sagt, at forskerne ikke var tilfredse med at blive afkrævet at »producere« til en politisk heksejagt, og de havde ret.

Desuden »udvikler Kina og Rusland tættere bånd«, ikke mindst, fordi »vestlige lande lægger politisk pres på Rusland [i Skripal-sagen], og USA provokerer Kina ind i en handelskrig«, skrev Global Times i går. Kina har været fuldstændig upartisk og ønsket, at OPCW’s procedurer blev fulgt, men har sendt en officiel delegation til den Syvende Moskva-konference om International Sikkerhed, der starter 4. april, sammen med 95 andre nationer.

Vi har set, at det forsøgte »Russiagate«-kup mod præsident Trump står til at give bagslag, et bagslag, der er frembragt af den samme, nye virkelighed i kombination med en lang mobilisering fra Lyndon LaRouches bevægelse i USA’s side. Nu bliver FBI, endelig langt om længe, efterforsket og udrenset i toppen.

Men, vi må ikke glemme, at de transatlantiske finanssystemer endnu engang er klar til at krakke. Og, siddende på denne vulkan, kan vi ikke lave langsomme og langsigtede planer for realisering af den Eurasiske Nye Silkevejs nye paradigme. Det skal ligge på bordet, for såvel USA som for Europa, nu. Det starter med at vedtage eller genindføre Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling – som Kina allerede gør med sine kommercielle banker – for at bryde Wall Streets og City of Londons kolosser op, før de trækker os ind i endnu et mareridtskollaps.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag advarede, så udgør de regeringer, der allerede fuldt og helt har bakket op omkring Storbritanniens marts-kaos mod Rusland, en fare for deres egne befolkninger, og for verdensfreden. At præsident Trump går frem med topmøderne, inkl. med præsident Putin, er afgørende og må støttes.

Men de projekter, han har lovet amerikanerne, inkl. nye store infrastrukturprojekter og kolonisering af rummet, kræver, at Lyndon LaRouches forslag for »Fire Nye Love til Nationens Redning«, bliver gennemført.

Foto: Den britiske PM Theresa May besøger Salisbury, stedet for det angivelige »russiske giftangreb«. 16. maj, 2018. (Number 10 / Flickr)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 2. april, 2018 – To udviklinger i denne uge understreger den pointe, at virkeligheden i dag er den »Nye Silkevejsånd«. Alt andet – de geopolitiske og økonomiske konfrontationer – er dømt til undergang, og farlige. Det er vores opgave at organisere for, at denne sandhed lykkes.

For det første, så vil, den 4. april, Organisationen for forbud mod kemiske våben (OPCW) ekstraordinært træde sammen om Skripal-forgiftningssagen i England, midt i voksende international enighed om, at London har forsøgt at tromle hen over hovedet på nationale ledere og tvinge dem til at underkaste sig britisk dominans med det anti-russiske tyranni. Den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov udfordrede udtrykkeligt dette på en pressekonference i Moskva og sagde, »Ledere fra en lang række lande stiller spørgsmål … det er mere end åbenlyst, at vore britiske kolleger har mistet deres virkelighedssans.« Han uddybede deres motiv med, at »Storbritanniens  efterretningstjenester … er kendt for deres licens til at dræbe«; og i øvrigt, at Theresa Mays regering var i vanskeligheder, fordi den ikke kunne levere varen angående Brexit.

Ruslands repræsentant til OPCW Alexander Shulgin sagde i går, at, den 4. april, »er det vores plan at fremlægge endnu et initiativ på det ekstraordinære sammentræde«. Han ville ikke diskutere det nærmere, men det følger efter de 14 spørgsmål om Skripal-affæren, som Rusland stillede Storbritannien i forgangne weekend.

I mellemtiden er London-flokken rasende over, at præsident Trump ikke selv er faldet ind i geledderne imod Rusland, som Storbritannien kræver. Dette kom til udtryk i Londonavisen The Economist i en artikel den 30. marts, som klagede over, at Trumps Twitter »var tavs, med 60 russere, der blev beordret ud af landet. Ja, hr. Trump har faktisk aldrig udtalt ét ord til kritik af hr. Putin«. De skriver, at Trump »fortsatte sin næsten totale tavshed om Rusland« selv, da han holdt »en vidtløftig og vidtrækkende tale i Ohio« i sidste uge. Intet under, at briterne er oprørte; det er nu kommet frem, at præsident Trump endda havde foreslået Washington, D.C., som et muligt mødested, i sin telefonsamtale med præsident Putin den 20. marts.

For det andet, så markerer denne uge et nyt lavpunkt i den forværrede handelskonfrontation mellem USA og Kina, som promoveres af geopolitikerne; den promoveres ligeledes i form af sanktionerne mod Rusland. I dag aktiverede Kina sin indførelse af importtold på 128 amerikansk producerede varer, til en værdi af $3 mia., som svar på USA’s indførelse af importtold i sidste måned på varer af en tilsvarende værdi, på kinesisk stål og aluminium.

Kinas Handelsministerium kom i dag med en erklæring, der understreger, at USA har afvist at forhandle. Efter USA den 23. marts annoncerede importtold på kinesisk stål og aluminium, foreslog Kina den 26. marts forhandlinger om handelsaftaler. På trods af, at finansminister Steven Mnuchin dengang sagde, at der kunne være forhandlinger, skete der intet som helst – hvilket understreges i dagens erklæring fra det kinesiske ministerium. Nu overvejer USA mere anti-kinesisk importtold – til $50-plus mia.

I stedet for denne konfrontation genfremfører Kina i sin erklæring, at forhandlinger må finde sted. Dette er på linje med det, præsident Trump selv har givet udtryk for under sin valgkampagne og de første måneder af sin embedstid, da han indgik en forpligtelse til at afslutte ødelæggelsen af USA’s økonomi, som er blevet udvirket af årtiers dårlige handelsaftaler. Disse blev skabt som et direkte resultat af Wall Street/City of London-praksisser under årene med GATT/NAFTA/WTO, som skadede alle involverede nationer.

Muligheden er nu for hånden, og er presserende, for at bryde med denne ødelæggelse ved at vedtage virkeligheden med den »Nye Silkevejsånd«.

Foto: Ruslands og Kinas præsidenter mødes under APEC-topmødet 2017 i Vietnam. (en.kremlin.ru)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 1. april, 2018 – Den russiske ambassade i London sendte en liste med 14 spørgsmål til det Britiske Udenrigsministerium, som, i sig selv, demonstrerer det totale svindelnummer med den britiske erklæring om, at russerne er skyldige i angrebet med nervegift på to russiske borgere i Salisbury. Blandt disse spørgsmål er: Hvorfor har UK ikke fremlagt nogen beviser; hvorfor har de brudt flere internationale love og protokoller for at forhindre adgang til ofrene; hvilke modgifte havde de på hånden til nervegiften, og hvordan kom de i besiddelse af dem; har de en såkaldt kontrolprøve af den såkaldte Novichok gift; har UK selv udviklet denne gift?

Med i listen over spørgsmål er også den hidtil ikke kendte afsløring, at franskmændene er dybt involveret i efterforskningen. Hvorfor, spørger russerne, og på hvilket grundlag? Hvilken britisk lovgivning eller international protokol giver franskmændene lov til at være engageret i et angreb på russiske borgere på UK’s territorium, og hvad har franskmændene fået adgang til?

Lignende lister over spørgsmål gik til det Franske Udenrigsministerium og til Organisationen for forbud mod kemiske våben (OPCW).

Disse spørgsmål kan og må tages op af alle interesserede parter – og det må afgjort siges, at alle mennesker på Jorden er en interesseret part, når briterne fremprovokerer en konflikt mellem atommagter.

Præsident Trump siger fortsat intet imod Rusland, siden dette fupnummer blev lanceret, inkl. på sit møde i Ohio i sidste uge, alt imens han havde en lang, produktiv telefonsamtale uden nogen som helst omtale af de falske anklager mod Rusland. Selv om han gav sin administration lov til at gennemføre de drastiske tiltag imod russiske diplomater og til at lukke Ruslands konsulat i Seattle ned, så er talsmændene for krigspartiet i begge de politiske partier, samt også pressen, rasende over, at han ikke personligt vil gå med i hysteriet mod Rusland.

Kineserne har bemærket Trumps personlige tavshed, alt imens talsperson for Udenrigsministeriet Lu Kang opfordrede Rusland og USA til at løse spørgsmålet: »Rusland og USA er i verden indflydelsesrige lande, som er fælles om et stort ansvar for verdensfreden og sikkerheden. Vi håber, de på passende vis vil løse uoverensstemmelsen, baseret på ligeværdighed og gensidig respekt.«

De britiske anklagers absurditet, der hævder vished uden nogen som helst beviser, på en måde, der puffer verden ud i en eksistentiel krise, kommer på et tidspunkt, hvor præsident Trump understreger de destruktive resultater af et tidligere britisk fupnummer – Tony Blairs lancering af Irakkrigen, baseret på lignende løgne, som fremprovokerede ødelæggelse i hele Sydvestasien og en masseudvandring fra de mange krigszoner, og som efterlod millioner af mennesker hjemløse og forværrede den økonomiske krise i Europa gennem en massiv flygtningekrise. George W. Bush og Barack Obama åd gladelig de britiske løgne og var villige til at begå forbrydelser mod menneskeheden for at bevise deres troskab over for Moderlandet.

Sådan forholder det sig ikke med præsident Trump, der gentagent peger på de $7 billion, der er blevet spildt på disse ulovlige og uberettigede krige for regimeskifte, med tusinder af dræbte, alt imens USA’s fysiske økonomi rådnede. Han kunne (og bør) tilføje, at spekulanter i London og på Wall Street samtidig plyndrede yderligere billioner fra de vestlige nationers realøkonomier.

Indien samarbejder i stigende grad med Kina og Rusland om produktive investeringsprojekter, både imellem sig og i tredjelande, sær i Afrika. Arbejdet integreres gennem det internationale Nye Silkevejsprojekt, initieret af Xi Jinping og længe promoveret af Lyndon LaRouche.

Den 10. oktober, 2009, holdt Lyndon LaRouche en tale for det syvende, årlige sammentræde af forummet »Dialog mellem civilisationer« på Rhodos, Grækenland, hvor han definerede en aftale mellem de »Fire magter« – Rusland, USA, Kina og Indien – som værende den nødvendige kombination for at afslutte den globale, økonomiske ødelæggelse, der finder sted i hele Vesten. Disse fire store nationer, sagde han, må »som en gruppe af lande, aftale at indlede og gennemtvinge en reorganisering af verdens finanssystem og kreditsystem – med betingelser omfattende langfristede aftaler af samme art som dem, Franklin Roosevelt i 1944 havde udstedt, før han døde, kunne Roosevelts planer, under hovednationer, alle disse år senere have været realiseret, og vi kunne gøre det, i dag.«

Denne indsigt, og dette program, er endnu mere presserende i dag, men det er også mere muligt pga. det Nye Silkevejsparadigme, der fejer hen over verden, og muligheden for, at præsident Trump vil gennemføre sin plan om at arbejde sammen med Putin og Xi Jinping for at opnå dette nye paradigme. Alle patrioter, og alle borgere i verden, må handle for dette formål.

Foto: Under dette møde udvekslede deltagerne detaljerede meninger om udenrigspolitiske spørgsmål, inkl. gensidige forholdsregler mod et antal stater, der udviste russiske diplomater og lukkede konsulater ned. 3/30/2018 en.kremlin.ru

Jason Ross: Ingen forstår briterne bedre end Lyndon LaRouche. Alt imens Storbritannien ikke længere hersker over havene eller verden med skibe, fly og imperiehære, så inficerer deres måde at tænke på kulturer i hele verden og former den måde, hvorpå folk analyserer og opfatter virkeligheden. Storbritannien udøver også magtfuld kontrol over verdens finanssystem gennem City of London og deres indflydelse over Wall Street. De har haft utrolig succes med at bondefange vore eliter til at være overbevist om, at amerikansk råstyrke med britisk hjerne bør kontrollere verden.

Men, hvor mange flere amerikanske liv skal ofres, og hvor mange flere ofre for unødvendige, geopolitiske krige skal dø og lide i hele verden på vegne af britiske, geopolitiske strategier, før vi udrydder dette barbariske system?

Lad os lytte til LaRouche:

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Vært Matthew Ogden: God eftermiddag. Det er den 30. marts, 2018; Langfredag.

Hvis man ser på begivenhederne i verden i løbet af de seneste to uger, kunne man sige, at, på den ene hånd, er vi meget tæt på krig; at truslen om krig er alvorligt forøget. Men på den anden side kan man også sige, at muligheden for en reel, permanent, holdbar fred er meget tæt på. I realiteten er begge disse udsagn sande. Jeg mener, at denne kendsgerning viser os sandheden omkring, hvor, vi står i historiens forløb. Vi er usikkert anbragt på en knivspids og balancerer mellem to, modsatrettede paradigmer, som ikke kan sameksistere. Der er paradigmet for geopolitik og krig, og som desperat forsøger atter at gøre sig gældende på den transatlantiske scene netop nu; men så har vi også det modsatte paradigme for win-win-samarbejde og fred gennem økonomisk udvikling. Det er det Nye Paradigme, der vokser frem og fejer hen over planeten. Det er præcis dette Nye Paradigmes succes, der har sat den geopolitiske gruppering her i det transatlantiske område i alarmtilstand. Det viser os også, at det er absolut nødvendigt, at folk af god vilje, inkl. LaRouche-bevægelsen her i USA og internationalt, intervenerer for fred, og for det Nye Paradigme.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

 

On the one hand, you have this incredible provocation from
Mad Theresa May, or as she’s being called “Theresa Mayhem”; a
very appropriate nickname.  She’s trying to rally an
international war coalition.  She’s going from a very weak
government that was on the verge of collapse three weeks ago, to
now; she’s probably casting herself in the image of Margaret
Thatcher, or even her image of Winston Churchill.  However, while
an unprecedented number of countries have fallen into lockstep
behind the UK in expelling these Russian agents, the more
interesting thing is how many countries did not do so.  Including
nearly a dozen European countries, which include Austria, which
sees itself as a bridge between Europe and Russia; Belgium, the
seat of the EU government interesting; Bulgaria; Cypress; Greece;
Luxembourg; Malta; Portugal; Slovakia; Slovenia.  Then on top of
that, you have Japan — a major US-UK ally; but also under the
recent years under Abe’s government, an ever-increasingly close
relationship with Russia. Then, even New Zealand, which is the
most fascinating of them all.  New Zealand is a member of the
so-called Five Eyes, which is the intelligence sharing group
comprised of the United States, the UK, Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand.  There was an article in the {Guardian} saying this
was a huge surprise that New Zealand, which they characterize as
Lilliputian, would go against the diktat that came from Theresa
May in London.
So, you can see that this is a very precarious and dangerous
situation, and that continues to play out.  But on the other
hand, take a look at the extremely promising developments towards
actual peace and towards averting nuclear war which are now
occurring on the Korean peninsula.  While the geo-politicians
would have you believe that second only to Russia, China is the
biggest global threat that we have to face right now; or perhaps
even more so.  The reality is that China has played a key role
in bringing Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table.  This is closer
to a real peaceful settlement of this crisis than we’ve seen in
many years.  The crucial factor in this has been the close
personal relationship that was forged between President Xi
Jinping of China and President Donald Trump here in the United
States.  So, in an absolutely surprising development which caught
the entire intelligence community here in the United States —
for one — by surprise, Chairman Kim Jong-un made a personal trip
to China; travelling by special train to Beijing on March 25th.
He stayed in the official government guest house, and had a
series of meetings stretching over the course of three and a half
days from March 25th to March 28th, meeting with Chinese
President Xi Jinping in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People.  They
engaged in very serious talks.  According to reports, this is the
first time in his seven years as President of North Korea that
Kim travelled outside of the country.  Now, what President Xi
Jinping said, as was reported in Chinese media about this meeting
during the summit that he had with Kim Jong-un, he said, “The
basics of the traditional friendship between China and North
Korea were founded and nurtured by the elder generations of
leaders of both countries.  This is our invaluable heritage.”
Then, Kim Jong-un, who is slated to meet face-to-face with
President Trump of the United States within the coming weeks in
the next month or so, said that he is ready to conduct this
high-level dialogue with the United States.  He said, “The issue
of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula can be resolved, if
South Korea and the United States respond to our efforts with
goodwill.  It will create an atmosphere of peace and stability,
while taking progressive and synchronous measures for the
realization of peace.  It is our consistent stand to be committed
to denuclearization on the peninsula, in accordance of the will
of late President Kim Il-Sung and late General Secretary Kim
Jong-Il.
According to reports, Kim also told Xi Jinping that North
Korea is ready to make some pretty reforms to its domestic
economic policy.  He’s ready to further open up to a market
economy, along the lines of what China has done over the past
couple of decades, going back to Deng Xiao-ping; what is called
“socialism with Chinese characteristics”.  Also, the reports are
that China, coming out of this meeting, agreed to invest in and
expand North Korea’s two major ocean ports; one on the west coast
of North Korea in Nan Pao, and one on the east coast in Wonsan.
What President Trump had to say following this summit
between Kim Jong-un and President Xi Jinping, he posted on
twitter.  He said, “Received a message last night from Xi Jinping
of China that his meeting with Kim Jong-un went very well and
that Kim looks forward to his meeting with me.  In the meantime
and unfortunately, maximum sanctions and pressure must be
maintained at all costs.”  But I think this shows you very
clearly that this is a joint project between President Trump and
President Xi Jinping personally.  This is an example of the kinds
of benefits that the world can gain if major nations such as the
United States and China work together towards these common ends.
Now, let me play you a clip from Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s
international webcast from yesterday, where she addressed the
very positive outcome that is developing there on the Korean
peninsula.
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Oh, I think this is the
absolute overwhelming event, happening this past week.  Because
the Western mainstream media are again so ridiculous.  They were
saying, “oh, these two dictators meeting…” and so forth, but
this is very, very good, because obviously, both Xi Jinping and
Kim Jong-un recalled the long friendship between the two
countries, North Korea and China, and Kim Jong-un, in particular,
promised to carry on policy in the tradition of his father and
other relatives in the past.  He basically promised that he wants
to work towards the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,
provided that this offer is being met in an atmosphere of peace
and constructive attitude.  Obviously, North Korea will need
security guarantees; without that, he probably will not give up
the nuclear weapons.  But the fact that he first went to China,
and then is going to meet with President Moon Jae-in from South
Korea, at the end of April, and then, in all likelihood, with
President Trump in May, that means that one of the most dangerous
possible points for a World War III scenario could be peacefully
resolved.
And, you know, the fact that, as contacts were telling us in
South Korea, this whole thing had an economic dimension to it.
China  — according to these sources — is going to build ports
in North Korea on the east coast and the west coast, and also
obviously, the whole question of the extension of the Belt and
Road Initiative, involving South Korea, North Korea, Russia, and
China, — that is the framework within which one can get a really
stable development.
So Trump immediately made a tweet, where he said he got a
phone call from President Xi Jinping, who told him that the
meeting went very well, and that he is extremely optimistic,
looking forward; that unfortunately the sanctions [against North
Korea] have to be maintained until the problem is resolved, but
that he is absolutely looking forward towards this coming summit.
So I think this is {really} good, and it shows you that if
you have back-channels and in this case, you had everybody
involved, — Trump, Xi Jinping, Putin, but also Abe from Japan —
so this really shows that if you have this kind of diplomacy and
negotiation, there is no problem on this planet which cannot
solved by people who have a good will. And I think everybody
should be very happy about this development.
OGDEN:  So, exactly as I said, that is a testament that
there are major crises on the planet which cannot be resolved
unilaterally, but if we have this kind of great powers
relationship, these kinds of crises can be confronted, and can be
resolved.  Crises that have hung over our heads for decades.
This relationship between China and the United States through
this close personal relationship between Xi Jinping and President
Trump is already paying dividends, as you can see in the case of
this Korean peninsula here, and the possibility of not just
positive effects abroad, but very positive effects here at home
is also very real if we continue to cultivate this special great
powers relationship between China and the United States.
Now, despite all the talk of trade war, etc., there are very
interesting openings for joint Chinese-US investments and
cooperation in development projects right here in the United
States.  This, of course, is right along the lines of exactly
what LaRouche PAC has been campaigning for in terms of the United
States joining this New Paradigm, joining the New Silk Road, and
also exactly what Lyndon LaRouche has addressed in his Four
Economic Laws for drastically upgrading the productive powers of
the US labor force and lifting the United States to a much higher
platform of high-technology development.  This can be done with
this kind of US-Chinese relationship.  So, some of the very
interesting US to China, China to US relationships, some news on
that front over just the last few days.  Some US Republican
Senators — Senator Danes from Montana, Senator Grassley from
Iowa, Senator Johnson from Wisconsin, Purdue from Georgia, and
Senator Sass from Nebraska — all were in Beijing just a few days
ago this week on March 27th, where they had a meeting with
Premier Li Keqiang.  The Senators called the United States-China
relationship “one of the most important bilateral relationships
in the world.”  So, this is very interesting, especially coming
from Republicans in the US Senate who have been taking a very
anti-China line up to this point.  Of course we see contrary
voices, such as Marco Rubio, who is accusing every Chinese
student in the United States of being a secret Chinese spy.  But
this trip is interesting, and it comes from Senators who are
mainly from the so-called Farm Belt.  I think the involvement of
Senator Grassley is interesting, because of Terry Branstad’s
roots in Iowa.  Terry Branstad, former Governor of Iowa; now the
ambassador to China.
Also, we had news of the mayor of Miami-Dade County in
Florida, Mayor Carlos Jimenez, who just returned from a visit to
China, where he led a delegation of 50 elected officials and
business leaders from Florida.  He met with the mayor of
Shanghai, who stated to Mayor Jimenez, “The bilateral
relationship between China and the United States is the most
important.  It will affect the well-being of the people from both
countries and the world’s peace and prosperity as well.”  So,
interestingly, exactly the same wordings that came out of that
communiqué from the five US Senators, that the China-US
bilateral relationship is one of the most important bilateral
relationships in the world.  The mayor of Shanghai also made the
point very correctly that this is a win-win; the well-being of
the people of both countries — the United States and China —
can benefit out of this kind of bilateral relationship; but also,
the world’s peace and prosperity as well.  So, this is exactly
along the lines that Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been making and has
continued to make this week, as we will see.
Also — this is very interesting — the Governor of Alaska,
Governor Bill Walker, has announced that he will lead a trade
delegation to China in May; which interestingly, he first
proposed during his January 2018 State of the State address.
This is has been subsequently worked out, so this is another
state along the lines of what Governor Jim Justice in West
Virginia has been discussing.  Jim Justice, in his State of the
State, obviously discussed the importance of these $80 billion
Chinese investments into the state of West Virginia.  Now, you
have Governor Bill Walker from Alaska.  This does come in the
wake of Governor Walker personally hosting President Xi Jinping
last April in Anchorage when President Xi was flying back from
Florida, where he had his meeting with President Trump at
Mar-a-Lago on his way back to China; where he took a brief
opportunity to visit Governor Walker in Anchorage, Alaska.  Then
on November 8, 2017, Governor Walker was the only governor to
accompany President Trump on his delegation for the so-called
“state visit plus” to Beijing, where one of the deals that was
signed out of the $300 billion of deals and memoranda of
understanding, one of the deals that was signed was a $43 billion
China investment and purchase deal for an 800-mile Alaska gas
pipeline.  Also, there were important commitments made for
liquefied natural gas sales.  But this pipeline project which is
now being very much emphasized by Governor Walker, is being
characterized by the CEO of the Alaska Gas Line Development
Corporation — one of the parties in this memorandum of
understanding — is being characterized as having the potential
of “turbo-charging” the Alaskan economy.
So, these are states that have been on the margins and are
some of the poorer states.  West Virginia for sure, Alaska very
isolated, who are now developing these relationships with China
and are becoming gateways for the Silk Road spirit to enter into
the United States.  This is exactly what we’ve been discussing in
terms of the crucial importance of the role that China can play;
these mutual investments and joint projects that China is willing
to assist in building here in the United States.  And just the
idea of the United States joining this wave of mega-projects
which is sweeping the globe and upgrading our infrastructure from
the point that it’s now reached, which is a very sorry state of
disrepair and deterioration that has come from decades and
decades of disinvestment.
President Trump was in Ohio just yesterday, where he was
speaking to a room full of union members and building trades
workers.  The point of his trip was to address his so-called
infrastructure plan.  We know that there are many deficits when
it comes to the actual content of what Trump has proposed, but
Trump in this speech made it clear that he is still very clear in
terms of what the urgency of the problem here in the United
States is when it comes to infrastructure.  And also the image of
the United States as a nation of builders, and reclaiming the
legacy that we had over centuries that we were the premier
building nation in the world.  Our infrastructure was second to
none, and other nations were coming to the United States to try
to emulate what we had accomplished.  So, I’d like to just play a
couple of excerpts from President Trump’s address in Ohio
yesterday, and you’ll see that this infrastructure debate is
still very much on the front burner.  It desperately needs the
kind of input that the LaRouche movement is uniquely positioned
to make.
PRESIDENT TRUMP

:  We will breathe new life into your
very run-down highways, railways, and waterways.  We’ll transform
our roads and bridges from a source of endless frustration into a
source of absolutely incredible pride.  And we’re going to do it
all under budget and ahead of schedule.  You ever hear those
words in the public world?  Under budget and ahead of schedule.
We have other things.  Nearly 40% of our bridges were built
before — think of this — before the first Moon landing.  You go
to some countries, they’re building bridges all over the place;
all over you have bridges going up.  One particular country, I
won’t use it because they’re friendly to me, they weren’t
friendly to us as a nation, but now they’re friendly; they’re
building 29 bridges.  We don’t build bridges like that very much
anymore.  A little bit, every once in a while.  But our roads are
clogged, we have average drivers spend 42 hours every year stuck
in traffic, costing us at least $160 billion annually.  Our mass
transit systems are a mess; they’re dilapidated and they’re
decayed.  Nationwide, we average 300 power outages per year;
compared to just five per year in the 1980s.  A total mess.
In recent years, Americans have watched as Washington spent
trillions and trillions of dollars building up foreign countries
while allowing our own country’s infrastructure to fall into a
state of total disrepair.  We spent — and I was against it from
the beginning — they try and say “Well, maybe not ⦔  I was
against it from the beginning.  And by the way, we’re knocking
the hell out of ISIS; we’ll be coming out of Syria like very
soon.  Let the other people take care of it now.  Very soon, very
soon we’re coming out.  We’re going to have 100% of the Caliphate
as they call it, sometimes referred to as land; we’re taking it
all back, quickly, quickly.  But we’re going to be coming out of
there real soon; we’re going to get back to our country where we
belong, where we want to be.
But think of it.  We spent, as of three months ago, $7
trillion — not billion, not million — $7 trillion with a “t”;
nobody every heard of the word trillion until ten years ago.  We
spent $7 trillion in the Middle East.  We build a school, they
blow it up; we build it again, they blow it up.  We build it
again, it hasn’t been blown up yet, but it will be.  But if we
want a school in Ohio to fix the windows, you can’t get the
money.  If you want a school in Pennsylvania or Iowa to get
Federal money, you can’t get the money.  We spent $7 trillion in
the Middle East.  And you know what we have for it?  Nothing.
Stupid!  Stupid!  But we spent $7 trillion, but we barely have
money for the infrastructure.  For most of our history, American
infrastructure was the envy of the world — true.  Go back 30,
40, 50 years.  They would look at us like — now, we are like in
many places a Third World country.  It’s an embarrassment!  And
we’re the ones that had the imagination and the drive to get it
done, but we’ve got that again.  Other nations marveled as we
connected our shores with transcontinental railroads and brought
power to our cities that lit up the sky like no other place on
Earth, and build mile after mile of internet capabilities and
interstate highways to carry American products all across the
country and around the globe.  Nobody did it like us!  We dug out
the Panama Canal; think of that!  Thousands of lives were lost to
the mosquito, to the mosquito — malaria.  We dug out the Panama
Canal.  We transformed our skylines with towering works of
concrete and steel, and laid the foundation for the modern
economy.  To rebuild this nation, we must reclaim that proud
heritage — have to reclaim it.  And we’re on our way.
We must recapture the excitement of creation, the spirit of
innovation, and the spark of invention.  We’re starting!  You saw
the rocket the other day, you see what’s going on with cars.  You
see what’s going on with so much.  NASA, space agency, all of
sudden it’s back, you notice?  It was dormant for many, many
years.  Now it’s back, and they’re doing a great job.  America is
a nation like you, of builders.  It’s a nation of pioneers, a
nation that accepts no limits, no hardship, and never ever gives
up.  We don’t give up!  We don’t give up.  Anything we can dream,
you can build.  You will create the new highways, the new dams
and skyscrapers that will become lasting monuments to American
strength and continued greatness.  You will forge new American
steel into the spine of our country.  You will cement the
foundation of a glorious American future, and you will do it all
with those beautiful American hands.  Powerful hands, powerful
heart, and powerful American pride, right?  Powerful American
pride.
But you’re the ones who are truly making America great
again.  We’re going to work together.  We’re going to work with
the state of Ohio, we’re going to work with everybody.  And we’re
going to bring our country to a level of success and prominence
and pride like it has never ever seen before.  Thank you, and God
bless America.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.
OGDEN:  So you can see, the commitment truly is there.  This
is obviously what got President Trump elected in the first place.
He’s back in Ohio, back in the industrial heartland.  That
commitment to the reindustrialization of the United States, the
reclaiming of the legacy of the great manufacturing power and
returning to that image of the United States as the envy of the
world in terms of builders.  He cited the transcontinental
railroad connecting the sea to the sea, ocean to ocean,
stretching across the United States.  The Moon landing, so many
other things that the United States accomplished.  Now, in his
words, there are parts of the United States that literally have
come to resemble a Third World country.  So, the commitment is
there.
The program is exactly what LaRouche PAC has issued.  This
is the Four Laws economic program, and that’s why it’s so
indispensable that this pamphlet is circulated across the
country, and that this is studied by people in the United States
everywhere.  This should be the material which is being used by
these trade delegations that are travelling to China.  Alaska,
Miami-Dade County, West Virginia; all of these states, all of
these local government officials, all of these governors, all of
these Senators and Congressmen.  If they really want to figure
out what is the policy that the United States should be
discussing, this is the source material.  This is what they
should be studying.  You are the ones who play the critical role
in getting it into their hands and communicating the ideas that
are contained in this pamphlet.
The way that this is going to happen, and this is exactly
what Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have been addressing from the
standpoint of the New Silk Road becoming the World Land-Bridge
and the United States becoming part of this New Paradigm of
development and mega-projects.  One very interesting development,
which is really just a continuation of what has been discussed by
numerous officials coming out of China, and really was originated
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the LaRouche movement when she went to
the Belt and Road Initiative forum last Spring, along the lines
of China actually converting their US Treasury bonds that they
hold into equity in a national infrastructure bank here in the
United States and putting that money in terms of credit into
allowing the United States to capitalize such an infrastructure
fund; and to build these great projects that you heard President
Trump discussing.
So, let me just say, this week, as publicized by CGTN, which
is the China Daily global television network, an organization
called the Center for China and Globalization has reiterated the
idea that the only pathway towards stability in terms of US-China
trade relations, and evening out this so-called trade deficit,
the only pathway should be based on joint economic initiatives
and joint investments.  Instead of tit-for-tat tariff retaliation
this way and that way, the Center for China and Globalization —
according to CGTN — said that China should continue ten measures
that it should take to foster US-China trade ties.  They
recommend, in addition to adjustments that should be made in
areas such as lifting excessive limits on high technology exports
to China, and various other aspects.  The two most important
steps that they propose here are the following:  1. “Consider the
establishment of an investment fund to help the United States
upgrade its infrastructure, capitalizing on China’s advanced
technology and expertise in the field.”  2.  “Enlist the
participation of American companies in Belt and Road projects as
third party partners.”  So again, the establishment of an
investment fund where China can invest in the upgrading of US
infrastructure, and also contribute its significant expertise
that it has developed in terms of the projects that China has
built over the last 10-15 years.  Then, two, enlist American
companies in Belt and Road projects as third party partners.
So, in other words, the United States and US companies
actually join China as third party partners in some of these
development projects in other countries.  Why could the United
States not be participating as joint investors and joint partners
in some of these fantastic rail projects that China has been
building in Africa, for example?  Or some of the water projects,
or some of the power projects?  And this kind of win-win
relationship between the United States and China could then
benefit both China and the United States, but also benefit the
world.  So, in this way, China can continue to adhere to their
professed goal of long-term stable economic and trade relations
between the two nations, but also third party partners can also
benefit.
So, that’s what was proposed by this organization — the
Center for China and Globalization.  And emphatically, this is
not a new idea.  In fact, this idea comes directly from what the
LaRouche movement has been discussing in terms of America’s
future on the New Silk Road.  So, this is a very significant
opportunity, and despite the fact that everything you’re hearing
right now is trade war, tariffs, tit-for-tat, and so forth,
President Trump even in that speech in Ohio that you just heard,
praised what China has been able to accomplish in terms of these
marvels of infrastructure.  Bridge building, so forth and so on,
over the recent years.  It’s exactly that spirit, the spirit of
the New Silk Road that the United States must emulate right now.
We see some very interesting potentials around that sort of
development.  Again, as I said, these are the dividends of the
close personal relationship that President Trump and President Xi
Jinping have forged.  And it’s our job to continue to develop
things along that path.
So, let me conclude here by playing another clip from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s webcast from yesterday, where she addresses this
proposal for the United States joining the Belt and Road
Initiative as a third party partner in development projects
abroad, and also this idea of Chinese investment through an
infrastructure bank or similar investment fund in infrastructure
projects here in the United States.  So, here’s this clip from
Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Well, there is actually a very
interesting response from China, where the Prime Minister Li
Keqiang made a proposal:  He said, rather than reducing the trade
deficit by imposing tariffs, which would end up in a trade war,
and nobody would be the winner in the end, he said, the other way
to  resolve the trade deficit would be to increase the volume of
trade, and that way you could have also joint ventures between
the United States and China and third countries. And that is
obviously the approach which we have been proposing for a very
long time.
There was also an extremely productive approach being
discussed on CGTN, the China Global Television Network, where
they said that the United States and China should start a
dialogue about infrastructure, and that Chinese investors could
invest in the development of infrastructure in the United States,
through a fund.  Now, this is a proposal which we have been
pushing from way back, saying that China has these very large US
Treasury reserves, which if they just sit there, don’t do
anything good.  But if they would be invested in the
infrastructure inside the United States, through an
infrastructure bank or some other mechanism, it could help to
solve the financing problem which President Trump clearly has;
given the fact that presently what is available in terms of
funding, is very far from the $1 trillion he had mentioned during
the election campaign.  And the American Society of Civil
Engineers had said what is needed is not $1 trillion but actually
$4.5 trillion; and some experts have even said, in order to get
modern infrastructure in the United States, you need $8 trillion
in investment.
So, I think there is a situation where you could get rid of
the trade imbalance by really using the Chinese expertise in
high-speed train systems and other infrastructure. And what we
have shaping up from the Schiller Institute was this idea to do
exactly in the United States what China has been doing and will
complete by 2025, or even 2020, to connect all its major cities
through fast train systems.  Now, obviously the infrastructure in
the United States is in terrible shape and needs urgent repair,
most of it is almost 100 years old or even older.  So this would
be an approach to really resolve this on a higher level.
I think many people should discuss this, and there are
already many forces in the United States who have opened channels
with their Chinese counterparts.  The governor of West Virginia,
the mayor of Houston, Texas, the governor of Alaska. Naturally
people in Iowa are very tuned in, because the former Iowa Gov.
Terry Branstad is U.S. Ambassador in Beijing.  So there are
actually other alternatives than going into a trade war, which
nobody would really benefit from.
[T]he world has reached a point where we {have} to
overcome geopolitics.  Because if, at this point, the United
States, or the West in general, would go into the Thucydides
Trap, take the rise of China as a reason to go into war and
confrontation,  this could very easily be the end of all of
humanity, so we have to find a different way.  And China has said
many times, they do not want to surpass the United States and
replace with a unipolar world order, but they want to be in a new
alliance of sovereign countries, and have the idea of the one
humanity first.
And I think this is a new concept of foreign policy, and
people should study it and relate to it, rather than going for
the rather uninformed opinions of such people as Marco Rubio, who
is on a rampage against anything Chinese. But it really is not
going to work, because the rest of the world is very happy with
what China is doing, and I think it would be for the absolute
benefit of humanity if the United States and China could find a
way to cooperate in their mutual interest.
OGDEN:  So there, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, it would be
of the absolute benefit of the people of the United States and of
China and the benefit of all humanity, if these two countries can
find a pathway towards cooperation in their mutual interest.  In
fact, that’s the reality with all countries.  This is the point
of the idea of a great powers relationship.  Russia, China,
India, the United States; and that really is the foundation of
exactly what this idea of a new win-win paradigm of relations
between nations is.  There are problems to be overcome; there are
disagreements that will invariably occur; there are conflicts
that different nations must resolve.  But all of these can be
resolved by elevating the dialogue to a higher level, and to look
at what the common challenges are and what are the avenues of the
common benefit that all nations can work together towards this
idea of a common destiny for mankind.
So, we’re out of time right now.  As I said in the
beginning, if you looked at in one way, you would say the
possibility of war is very near at hand.  But if you look at it
in another way, you say the possibility of a New Paradigm of
peace and mutual development is also very close at hand, and is
right there for the taking.  It is all that much more necessary
that those of us who have this perspective and understand that
the big picture — events on the ground are being dictated and
are being driven by this fight; by this struggle between two
mutually opposing paradigms.  The geopolitical paradigm, that has
brought us to the threshold of this kind of war situation; but
also, this New Paradigm of economic development and
mega-projects.  And the offer, that we will assist you, not
expecting something in return, not trying to impose our will on
you; but just from the standpoint that this kind of cooperation
is in our mutual benefit.  It’s up to us and it’s up to the
elected leadership here in the United States on all levels, to
gain that perspective and to look for those avenues of mutually
beneficial cooperation and win-win relationships that can build
the bridge from now into this future in which the New Paradigm is
dominant.
So, as I said, we have the material which you need, which is
in the contents of this Four Laws pamphlet.  This is “Lyndon
LaRouche’s Four Laws; The Physical Economic Principles for the
Recovery of the United States:  America’s Future on the New Silk
Road.”  This was originally printed many months ago, but it
remains highly relevant and a very timely intervention that we
can use to educate our fellow Americans according to this
potential for the dividends of the New Paradigm of win-win
cooperation and economic development.  With that perspective in
mind, we wish you a Happy Easter, and we thank you for tuning to
larouchepac.com.  Please stay tuned, and we’ll see you on Monday.

Xi Jinping har, i alle sine skrifter, i alle sine taler, understreget, at dette »fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid« er baseret på total respekt for det andets lands suverænitet, total respekt for den andens samfundssystem, og der kommer ingen bestræbelse på at påtvinge noget andet land den kinesiske model. Det er ganske enkelt, at Kina har tilbudt især udviklingslandene at hjælpe dem til at overvinde deres underudvikling. Det er et win-win-samarbejde, hvilket er grunden til, at 140 lande i mellemtiden samarbejder med dette, for det er naturligvis i Kinas interesse – for det er en stor befolkning, et stort land, en meget rig kultur, 5.000 års meget rig kulturtradition, så det er et af verdens store lande, og måske endda det vigtigste, i betragtning af dets befolknings størrelse.

Men de påtvinger ikke nogen det, de anser for at være »kinesiske karaktertræk« – helt forskelligt fra de neokonservative og de neoliberale, der havde regimeskifte, ’farvede revolutioner’, eksport af ’demokrati’ og det, de kalder »menneskerettigheder«. Folk bør virkelig ikke være fordomsfulde, men bør se på det med friske øjne, selv læse Xi Jinpings taler. …

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 28. marts, 2018 – Farcen med premierminister Theresa Mays krav om, at verden skal bøje sig for den britiske krone og acceptere den åbenlyse løgn, at Rusland gennemførte en »ulovlig magthandling« mod UK samtidig med, at Kongeriget nægter at fremlægge så meget som antydningen af bevis, overbeviser ikke mange borgere i USA eller Europa og stort set ingen uden for NATO. Organisatorer fra LaRouche-bevægelsen i USA, Tyskland (Borgerrettighedsbevægelsen Solidaritet; BüSo) og andre steder finder, at der er et dramatisk skift i befolkningens respons, siden PM May lancerede sin kampagne for krig med Rusland. De svigagtige britiske anklager mod Rusland – som minder stort set alle om Tony Blairs løgne om Iraks masseødelæggelsesvåben, og om denne løgns forfærdelige konsekvenser – er begyndt at vække et spirende had til denne imperieholdning, som udstråler fra briterne og fra de spytslikkere for briterne, som i 16 år sad på det amerikanske præsidentskab, før valget af Trump.

Lad os se på timingen i dette fupnummer:

• MI6-kampagnen for at bringe USA’s præsident til fald gennem »Russiagate« er ikke alene kollapset, men dens gerningsmænd i FBI, CIA og blandt de neokonservative i både det Republikanske og Demokratiske parti, står nu selv over for mulige anklager for kriminelle handlinger for deres løgne, læk, ulovlige brug af føderale myndigheder og mere endnu.
• Theresa Mays regering hang i en tynd tråd, alt imens Labour-partiets leder Jeremy Corbyn blev set som en sandsynlig vinder, hvis der blev udskrevet valg.
• De kombinerede britisk/Obama-bestræbelser på at vælte regeringen i Syrien og overgive landet til kaos under krigsførende terrorgrupper, ligesom i Irak og Libyen, er blevet alvorligt undermineret af præsident Trumps åbne samarbejde med Rusland omkring udslettelse af terroristerne.
• Flere europæiske nationer har afvist dæmoniseringen af Rusland, og Italien befinder sig i processen med at danne en ny regering, som sandsynligvis vil afvise europæiske sanktioner mod Rusland i det hele taget.

Så briterne forsøger at gøre det, de plejer at gøre qua deres imperienatur – opfinde en krise, der kan retfærdiggøre krig, få USA til at stå i spidsen og tyrannisere deres fordums »allierede« til underkastelse.

Men, planen virker ikke så godt. Alt imens det er sandt, at Trump-administrationen gik med i masseudvisningen af russiske diplomater, så er det imidlertid klart for briterne, at Trump ikke vil opgive sine planer om at arbejde sammen med præsident Putin. Hans telefonopringning til Putin 20. marts, hvor de diskuterede løsninger på globale problemer uden at nævne den britiske Skripal-sag med ét eneste ord, slog Dronningen og hendes britiske Lords med rædsel, såvel som også den ynkelige Theresa ’M’ May, og som alle ser skriften på væggen: Enden på selve Imperiet.

Næsten et dusin europæiske lande har nægtet at udvise nogen russiske diplomater og har krævet først at se beviser. Briterne har omdelt seks power point-slides som »bevis«, som ikke var andet end en liste over deres svigagtige anklager om russisk »aggression«. Ligesom Christopher Steele-dossieret, vil anklagerne måske narre nogle, for en tid; men briternes troværdighed er slidt ned.

Men, hvad der er meget vigtigt, så har millioner af mennesker i løbet af de seneste halvtreds år hørt Lyndon LaRouche advare om, at USA er blevet holdt for nar af briterne, med at udkæmpe deres kolonikrige siden Vietnam og med at gennemføre deres finanspolitikker med det »frie marked«, på bekostning af det Amerikanske System for dirigeret kredit til industriudvikling. Alt imens mange har fundet dette vanskeligt at tro på, så ser de pludselig de afskyelige løgne og Londons lige så afskyelige politik for anstiftelse af krige, og de reflekterer over, hvem, det var, der i alle disse år fortalte sandheden.

For en gangs skyld er briterne blevet tvunget til at stå i spidsen af deres fupnummer i deres eget navn – og det er deres sårbare punkt. Trumps plan om at arbejde sammen med Putin og med Xi Jinping og afslutte imperie-æraen for krige for regimeskifte og truslen om en atomar udslettelse, må støttes og fuldt og helt gennemføres, og det omgående.

Foto: Dronningen og Prinsen af Wales forlader parlamentet efter dronningens tale, 2017.  Copyright House of Lords 2017 / Photography by Roger Harris. This image is subject to parliamentary copyright. www.parliament.uk

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 27. marts, 2018 – For enhver, der ikke er en sinke, er den modbydelige natur af premierminister Theresa Mays og kohorters Skripal-forgiftnings- og anti-Ruslandsmobilisering en åbenlys »Great Game«-manøvre for at forhindre den potentielle realisering af en amerikansk-russisk hældning over mod »Nye Silkevejsrelationer«, for fred og for udvikling. Hele Mays anti-russiske, internationale mobilisering er blot en ny fase af det igangværende Trump-gate kupforsøg, med det formål at bringe det amerikanske præsidentskab til fald. Briterne er ligeledes i centrum for gennemførelsen af denne fase: MI6, Christopher Steele, Richard Dearlove, Sir Andrew Wood, Robert Mueller og andre håndlangere.

Der er ingen legale belæg for Theresa Mays kampagne for at anklage Rusland for forgiftningen i Salisbury den 4. marts – ingen beviser, ingen analyse, ingen juridiske standarder. May selv var politisk på vej ned og ud, inden for ganske få dage, indtil denne beskidte operation blev lanceret; og nu forventes verden at hylde hende som en »anti-Ruslands-heltinde«.

»Det er modbydeligt; det er usikkert«, sagde Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag og bemærkede, at dette tydeligvis er briterne, der anstifter konfrontation. »Vi kan få det til at give bagslag«, sagde hun. Hold fast i sandheden og brug ethvert middel til at afsløre den onde hensigt og dens gerningsmænd.

Det er rent strategisk meget vigtigt, at den russiske viceudenrigsminister Sergei Ryabkov i dag gentog, at den forpligtelse stadig er aktiv, som fornylig blev indgået af den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin og præsident Donald Trump, til en dialog om stabilitet og sikkerhed. Det forholder sig således, på trods af gårsdagens amerikanske, pro-britiske ordre til udvisning af 60 russiske diplomater og lukning af det russiske konsulat i Seattle. Ryabkov sagde i dag, rapportret i Sputnik, »Vi har brug for denne dialog, præsidenterne for vore lande talte om det i en telefonsamtale for et par dage siden. Vi opgiver ikke denne dialog, vi vil bevare den.« Herudover fordømte Ryabkov USA’s udvisninger.

I løbet af de seneste 24 timer har ledere i andre lande udtalt sig imod denne briternes ’udsmidning af bumser’. Den østrigske kansler Sebastian Kurz sagde i dag, at hans nation ikke ville udvise russiske diplomater. Han sagde, at Østrig traditionelt er et neutralt land; det er en bro mellem Øst og Vest. Diplomater er velkomne og nødvendige i Østrig.

Der høres også udtalelser imod det britiske/EU-fremstød for konfrontation med Rusland internt i selv Tyskland, og ligeledes i Italien. Det rapporteres, at på EU-topmødet for statsoverhoveder i Bruxelles den 22.-23. marts, fremlagde May og den tyske kansler Angela Merkel krav om nye, skrappe sanktioner mod Rusland, men at dette blev blokeret som værende forkert af den italienske premierminister Paolo Gentiloni. Dernæst rejste han hjem, og på trods af, at han er afgående leder, udviste han to russiske diplomater og demonstrerede således det intense pres, der lægges på de europæiske ledere af briterne og deres kohorter internt i USA. Denne handling blev prompte fordømt af andre i Italien som værende forkert og som en »præmatur« dom.

Torsdag vil Trump besøge det nordøstlige Ohio for at tale om infrastruktur. Dette er i hjertet af Rustbæltet, som ville blive transformeret til et kraftcenter under betingelser, der afgøres af USA’s samarbejde med USA og Rusland og Kina under Bælte & Vej Initiativet, og med LaRouches Fire Love.

Foto: Premierminister Theresa May mødtes med præsident Trump på Davos Økonomiske Verdensforum, 25. jan., 2018.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 26. marts, 2018 – Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har hen over de seneste 35 år spillet en hovedrolle i udformningen af relationer mellem nationer til det bedre: gennem LaRouches idé til præsident Reagans Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (SDI) fra 1983, og gennem »LaRouche-doktrinen« for stormagtsrelationer, som ledsagede denne idé; og gennem deres kampagne fra 1989 for den »Eurasiske Landbro«, som sluttelig bidrog til Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ, der nu udvikler mange nationer i hele verden. Hele vejen igennem var fjenderne af disse tiltag hen mod et nyt paradigme for udvikling, City of Londons finansimperium og britisk geopolitik.[1]

Denne tidligere, hyppigt skjulte virkelighed er pludselig, på dramatisk vis, blevet åbenlys. Den britiske premierminister Theresa May og udenrigsminister Boris »bondske« Johnson har tyranniseret USA og 14 europæiske nationer ind i en eskalerende konfrontation med Rusland, der tilsigter at ødelægge stormagtssamarbejde for fremskridt gennem projekterne i Bælte & Vej, og som meget hurtigt kan føre til verdenskrig.

I går understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at London har gjort dette som en reaktion på miskrediteringen af det af britisk efterretning styrede Russiagate-kupforsøg mod præsident Donald Trump. Hun sprængte den udokumenterede sag om »russisk nervegift« som værende intet andet end Russiagate fortsat, genopfundet og genoplivet. Denne sags foreløbige succes, efter at Russiagate mod Trump var slået fejl, er ekstremt farlig, sagde hun. Både Kina og Rusland vil reagere på denne ændrede, transatlantiske dagsorden.

Kina har, gennem sin præsident Xi Jinping og sine partiorganer som Global Times, indset, at Kinas fredelige opkomst, konfronteret med et sandt stormløb af britisk geopolitisk og økonomisk krigsførelse, måske ikke vil få lov at blive let eller fredelig.

Men Kina har udløst en udviklingsdynamik og hæver produktivitet og levestandarder i mange nationer, såvel som i sin egen, og bruger et nyt koncept, som Lyndon LaRouche for 30 år siden kaldte »Verdenslandbro-udviklingen«. Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ tiltrækker nu også nationer fra selv Vesteuropa. Dets lederskab vil ikke lade sig standse af toldkrig eller investeringsembargo; i stedet anvender det dette nye paradigme for at stoppe dem.

Som Helga LaRouche udtrykte det, så er Kina omsider i færd med at feje Londons århundredelange Malthus-politik og nulsums-geopolitik til side; og Kina erstatter det med et Nyt Paradigme for gensidig fordel for nationer, for udryddelse af fattigdom, videnskabeligt fremskridt og for »et fællesskab for en fælles skæbne«. Lyndon LaRouche har i 50 år insisteret på nødvendigheden af denne udskiftning. Hans LaRouche-bevægelse har fremlagt ammunitionen til overvindelse af angrebene mod præsident Trump, som kommer fra britisk efterretning, og for de tiltag for en økonomisk politik, der kan virkeliggøre Amerikas fremtid på den »Nye Silkevej«.

[1] Se Harley Schlangers præsentation af geopolitikken historie, fra serien, ’Hvad er det Nye Paradigme’ (video; dansk pdf.)

Foto: Præsident Donald Trump i samtale med britiske PM Theresa May under et bilateralt møde i det ovale kontor, 27. januar, 2017. Premierminister May var det første statsoverhoved, der aflagde statsbesøg i Det Hvide Hus. (Official White House Photo)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 25. marts, 2018 – I det aktuelle, globale miljø, med undertiden hektiske diskussioner om geopolitiske forholdsregler og modforholdsregler, om handelssanktioner og gengældelse, om udskiftninger af personer og personel i ledende regeringer i verden – side om side med det klare potentiale for dramatiske ændringer, som præsident Trumps nylige, improviserede opringning til præsident Putin var et bevis på – er det nyttigt at træde et skridt tilbage og vende tilbage til nogle grundlæggende spørgsmål, som begynder med et halvt århundredes fundamentale opdagelser af Lyndon LaRouche, især inden for videnskaben om fysisk økonomi.

Denne eneste måde, hvorpå vi kan gøre en ende på det nuværende, geopolitiske mareridt, som er Det britiske Imperiums system, og etablere det politiske fundament for en varig fred, skrev Lyndon LaRouche tilbage i marts 1984 (»LaRouche-doktrinen: Udkast til aftalememorandum mellem USA og U.S.S.R.«), er ved at sikre: »a) Alle nationalstaters ubetingede suverænitet, og b) Samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater med henblik på promovering af ubegrænsede muligheder for at blive delagtig i fordelene ved teknologisk fremskridt, til gensidig fordel for hver enkelt nationalstat, og alle nationalstater.«

Et afgørende spejlbillede af et sådant fremskridt er udryddelse af fattigdom og inkludering af voksende befolkningslag i teknologisk progressive former for produktion. Her har Kina i løbet af de seneste 35 år været ledende i verden og har reduceret sin fattige befolkning fra 875 million i 1981 til i dag 30 million. Tilbage i 1981 husede Kina 46 % af verdens fattige inden for landets grænser; i dag er denne procentsats mangefold reduceret, til 5 %.

Denne udvikling accelererede med begyndelse i 2008, da politikken med at bygge et netværk af højhastigheds-jernbanekorridorer blev sat i gang i Kina og bragte industrialisering og teknologisk fremskridt til alle hjørner af landet. Et resultat har været, at fattigdom i Kina blev reduceret med ikke mindre end 85 % mellem 2008 og 2017 – under et årti.

Med præsident Xi Jinpings lancering i 2013 af Bælte & Vej Initiativet, er denne samme drivkraft for udvikling begyndt at stråle ud over hele planeten – spredningen af den Nye Silkevejsånd, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche så ofte refererer til.

Lad os overveje Kinas præstationer i lyset af de indledende bemærkninger i Lyndon LaRouches artikel, »Om LaRouches opdagelse«, fra 21. november, 1993 (genudgivet i EIR, 11. aug., 2017):

»Det afgørende indhold af mit originale bidrag til Leibniz’ videnskab om fysisk økonomi, er skabelsen af en metode til at behandle det kausale forhold mellem, på den ene side, enkeltpersoners bidrag til aksiomatisk revolutionerende fremskridt inden for videnskabelige og analoge former for viden og, på den anden side, de heraf følgende forøgelser af den potentielle befolkningstæthed i de tilsvarende samfund.«

En lignende fremgangsmåde – om end uden den dybtgående, videnskabelige og filosofiske stringens, LaRouche har skabt – er i realiteten grundlaget for Kinas præstationer. Som præsident Xi Jinping præsenterede sine marchordrer for økonomien i en tale 9. juni, 2009:

»Udløs i størst mulig grad videnskabens og teknologiens enorme potentiale som den primære kraft for produktion … og udvikling, støttet af videnskab og teknologi, og som er rettet mod fremtiden, og fremskynd tempoet for opbygning af et innovativt land.«

Man kunne således udmærket karakterisere Kinas fremgangsmåde i dag som anvendelsen af det Amerikanske Økonomiske System med kinesiske karaktertræk, en fremgangsmåde, der har ført til en succes uden sidestykke i udviklingen af Kinas relative befolkningstæthed, og på det seneste, med Bælte & Vej Initiativet, hele verdens.

Tiden er inde til, at USA atter vedtager denne politik som sin egen og herved omsider gør en ende på fattigdom over hele planeten, og samtidig driver en pæl i hjertet på britisk geopolitik.

Foto: Kinesiske børn hilser præsident Trump med flag under hans besøg i Kina, november, 2017. 

I dag vil jeg guide jer til den fremtidige renæssance af klassisk kultur, som jeg er overbevist om, ikke ville have været mulig uden Lyndon LaRouches opdagelser om kreativitetens forrang, ikke blot i menneskelige relationer, men også i universet som helhed. Jeg træder i baggrunden til fordel for Lyndon LaRouche selv; og til fordel for forskellige uddrag af hans mange skrifter, og ligeledes klip fra video og audio, håber jeg at kunne komme ind på de hovedtemaer, som har optaget ham hele hans liv, som begyndte i 1922. Dette vil også være meget nyttigt, for det vil gøre det muligt for os at fortsætte, hvor Dennis Small slap i den foregående lektion, hvor han talte om den særdeles uheldige David Hume. Jeg vil diskutere den ondartede indflydelse fra den måske ondeste filosof til alle tider, en person, der er baseret på Hume, men som gjorde noget endnu værre; nemlig Immanuel Kant.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Vært Matthew Ogden: Det er i dag den 23. marts, 2018, en meget gunstig dato: Det er nemlig 35 års dagen for en meget vigtig dato, som var 23. marts, 1983, hvor præsident Ronald Reagan annoncerede vedtagelsen af det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ  (SDI; Strategic Defense Initiative). I dag er det et meget passende tidspunkt for at bedømme den stadigt mere presserene nødvendige vedtagelse af en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur for planeten, og den samtidige nye økonomiske arkitektur, som må ledsage den.

Vi befinder os i et meget dramatisk øjeblik i verdenshistorien, og jeg mener, at, hvis vi træder et skridt tilbage og ser på det store billede, så står det klart, at verdensordenen, som vi har kendt den i de seneste 70 år, er i færd med at undergå en total transformation. Og udfaldet af de strategiske kampe, der raser netop nu, både på den nationale scene her i USA, men især på den globale scene; udfaldet af disse strategiske kampe vil afgøre menneskehedes historie i mange generationer fremover.

Med de begivenheder, der har fundet sted i løbet af de seneste tre uger, siden den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin den 1. marts annoncerede, at Rusland havde udviklet en helt ny generation af strategiske våben, baseret på avancerede fysiske [principper], og som er i stand til at gennemtrænge alle kendte forsvarssystemer, har vi set, hvor dramatisk nødvendigt det er, med det presserende i en sådan ny sikkerhedsarkitektur. Ikke én, der bygger på Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD; garanteret gensidig ødelæggelse), men derimod én, der bygger på win-win-overlevelse og økonomisk fremskridt for alle nationer på denne planet; nødvendigheden heraf bliver i stigende grad mere presserende. Jeg vil gerne fremhæve, hvad præsident Putin selv sagde i denne tale 1. marts til den føderale forsamling:

Han sagde:

» … lad os sætte os ved forhandlingsbordet og sammen udtænke et nyt og relevant system for international sikkerhed og bæredygtig udvikling for menneskelig civilisation. … Dette er et vendepunkt for hele verden og for dem, der er villige til, og i stand til, at forandre sig; de, der handler og går fremad, vil tage føringen.«

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56957

Men, snarere end klart og nøgternt at vurdere denne ændrede, strategiske virkelighed, med denne game-changing tale af Ruslands præsident, og besvare dette tilbud for at forhandle, med hans ord, »et nyt og relevant system for international sikkerhed og bæredygtig udvikling for menneskelig civilisation«, for endelig at bringe denne nihilistiske dødsspiral med stadigt mere dødbringende masseudslettelsesvåben til en afslutning; snarere end at gøre dette, har briterne og deres såkaldte »partnere« i Europa forsøgt at oppiske en generel støtte til en krigskonfrontation mod Rusland ved anvendelse af det, Labour-partiets leder, Jeremy Corbyn, meget korrekt karakteriserede som det, han kaldte »fejlbehæftet efterretning« og »uvederhæftige dossiers« af den type, som blev brugt til at retfærdiggøre invasionen af Irak. Og som Jeremy Corbyn advarede om, så bør vi ikke »affinde os med en ny Kold Krig … og en intolerance over for dissens som under McCarthy-perioden«.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche i går understregede i sin internationale webcast, så har briterne og Theresa May, i deres forsøg på at gennemtvinge en sådan krigsprovokation, overspillet deres hånd. Deres metoder og deres mål står nu afsløret for hele verden at se. På trods af Theresa Mays bestræbelser på at presse præsident Trump over i et hjørne, hvor han ikke ville vove at forsøge at tage skridt, der ville gøre det muligt for ham at honorere sin forpligtelse til at forbedre relationerne med Rusland; snarere end at lade sig blive bakket ind i et hjørne, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, så udmanøvrerede præsident Trump imidlertid hele operationen ved at tage telefonen og ringe til præsident Putin og lykønske ham med genvalget og hans næste periode som Ruslands præsident, og fortsatte med en meget sober diskussion mellem de to statsoverhoveder om nogle af de meget vigtige, fælles bestræbelser og fælles udfordringer, som disse to nationer, USA og Rusland, sammen konfronteres med; og som, hvis vi fik lov at gøre det, vi kunne arbejde sammen om at løse, såsom krisen i Syrien; såsom muligheden for et totalt gennembrud for fred på Koreahalvøen; såsom den igangværende situation i Ukraine; og meget signifikant, såsom at forhindre et nyt våbenkapløb.

Umiddelbart efter denne telefonsamtale, blev pressen, som I kan tænke jer, hysterisk, og Det Hvide Hus’ pressesekretær Sarah Sanders holdt en pressekonference i briefing-værelset i Det Hvide Hus, hvor hun ikke mindre end et halvt dusin gange understregede den absolutte betydning af at opretholde en dialog mellem USA og Rusland på lederskabsniveau, omkring fælles interesser og fælles udfordringer.

Jeg vil afspille nogle eksempler på nogle at disse gentagne udtalelser fra Sarah Sanders på denne pressebriefing i Det Hvide Hus.

 

Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet:

 

SARAH SANDERS:  We want to continue to have a dialogue with
Russia, and continue to talk about some of the shared interests
we have, whether it’s North Korea, Iran, and particularly as the
President noted today, slowing the tensions when it comes to an
arms race, something that is clearly important to both
leaders….
We want to continue to have dialogue so that we can work on
some of the issues that concern both countries, and we’re going
to continue to do that, while also continuing to be tough on a
number of things….
The President once again has maintained that it’s important
for us to have a dialogue with Russia so that we can focus on
some areas of shared interests…
These are conversations that sometimes take place, and
certainly the President finds there to be an importance in having
that dialogue with Russia so that we can talk about some of the
big problems that face the world….
We disagree with the fact that we shouldn’t have
conversations with Russia.  There are important topics that we
should be able to discuss, and that is why the President’s going
to continue to have that dialogue.
Again the focus was to talk about areas of shared interests.
We know that we need to continue a dialogue.  It’s important for
a lot of the safety and security of people across the globe.  We
would like to be able to work with them on things like North
Korea, on Iran, and also both countries shared interest in
lowering the tensions when it comes to an arms race, recognizing
that that’s not the best thing for either country, and so we want
to be able to have those conversations and that was the point of
today’s call…. [end video]

OGDEN:  So, that’s a very clear message, obviously.  Now, on
the same day, President Trump himself reiterated exactly the same
points in a couple of tweets that he posted, and I would like to
just read you those tweets.  He said:
“I called President Putin of Russia to congratulate him on
his election victory (in past, Obama called him also).  The Fake
News Media is crazed because they wanted me to excoriate him.
They are wrong!  Getting along with Russia (and others) is a good
thing, not a bad thing.”
“They can help solve problems with North Korea, Syria,
Ukraine, ISIS, Iran, and even the coming Arms Race.  Bush tried
to get along, but didn’t have the ‘smarts.’  Obama and Clinton
tried, but didn’t have the energy or chemistry (remember RESET).
PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH!” he concludes.
Now of course that final phrase is a quotation directly from
President Ronald Reagan.   And this direct reference is a very
timely one, and perhaps is not merely a coincidental one:  As I
said, today, March 23rd, is the 35th anniversary of one of the
groundbreaking moments in modern history, and it’s one which
completely reshaped the global, strategic geometry at that time,
and which remains immediately relevant all the way up to the
present day.
That moment, March 23rd, 1983 was representative of a
complete shock, a shock wave which was felt around the world.
This was the surprise announcement by President Ronald Reagan at
the conclusion of a live, national television broadcast which was
an address to the nation, nominally on national security.  But
what President Reagan did at the conclusion of that broadcast, to
the surprise of almost all of his leading advisors in the White
House even, was to announce what came to be known as the
Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI, what President Reagan
called a “vision of the future, which offers hope.”
In the speech, what President Reagan did was that he
committed the United States to a crash program, a crash
scientific program for the development of advanced technologies
which would be based on new physical principles to
(quote/unquote) “free the world from the threat of nuclear war.”
And so, in so doing, President Reagan completely overthrew the
ideology of retaliatory nuclear deterrence through the threat of
instantaneous, total nuclear response in the event of the
detection of a nuclear attack against the territory of the United
States.  This was what was so-called Mutually Assured Destruction
(MAD).
President Reagan completely rejected the very premise of
Mutually Assured Destruction and in so doing, Reagan shocked the
world, and truly did change the course of world history.  So,
right now, why don’t we wind the clock back 35 years, and listen
to what the world heard on that night, March 23rd, 1983:

My fellow Americans, thank you for sharing your time with me
tonight.
The subject I want to discuss with you, peace and national
security, is both timely and important. Timely, because I’ve
reached a decision which offers a new hope for our children in
the 21st century…
The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple
premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never
be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and
defend against aggression — to preserve freedom and peace.
Since the dawn of the atomic age, we’ve sought to reduce the
risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking
genuine arms control. “Deterrence” means simply this: making
sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States,
or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks
to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he
won’t attack. We maintain the peace through our strength;
weakness only invites aggression.
This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works.
But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one
kind of military force to deter an attack when we had far more
nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now
that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful
nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the
ground. Now, this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning
to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable — quite
the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is
based on being prepared to meet all threats.
There was a time when we depended on coastal forts and
artillery batteries, because, with the weaponry of that day, any
attack would have had to come by sea. Well, this is a different
world, and our defenses must be based on recognition and
awareness of the weaponry possessed by other nations in the
nuclear age….
Now, thus far tonight I’ve shared with you my thoughts on
the problems of national security we must face together. My
predecessors in the Oval Office have appeared before you on other
occasions to describe the threat posed by Soviet power and have
proposed steps to address that threat. But since the advent of
nuclear weapons, those steps have been increasingly directed
toward deterrence of aggression through the promise of
retaliation.
This approach to stability through offensive threat has
worked. We and our allies have succeeded in preventing nuclear
war for more than three decades. In recent months, however, my
advisors, including in particular the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have
underscored the necessity to break out of a future that relies
solely on offensive retaliation for our security.
Over the course of these discussions, I’ve become more and
more deeply convinced that the human spirit must be capable of
rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by
threatening their existence. Feeling this way, I believe we must
thoroughly examine every opportunity for reducing tensions and
for introducing greater stability into the strategic calculus on
both sides….
Wouldn’t it be better to save lives than to avenge them? Are
we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by
applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly
lasting stability? I think we are. Indeed, we must.
After careful consultation with my advisors, including the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, I believe there is a way. Let me share
with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we
embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat
with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very
strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base
and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today.
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that
their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S.
retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and
destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own
soil or that of our allies?
I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may
not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current
technology has attained a level of sophistication where it’s
reasonable for us to begin this effort….
I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations
and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with
offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive
policy, and no one wants that. But with these considerations
firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific community in our
country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great
talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us
the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and
obsolete.
Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ABM treaty
and recognizing the need for closer consultation with our allies,
I’m taking an important first step. I am directing a
comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research
and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of
eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles. This
could pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the
weapons themselves. We seek neither military superiority nor
political advantage. Our only purpose — one all people share —
is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war.
My fellow Americans, tonight we’re launching an effort which
holds the promise of changing the course of human history. There
will be risks, and results take time. But I believe we can do it.
As we cross this threshold, I ask for your prayers and your
support.
Thank you, good night, and God bless you. [end video]

OGDEN:  That was 35 years ago today.
Now, just as a side note, incidentally, President Trump is
not ignorant of this history.  In 1999, far before he ever was a
candidate for President, in a an interview with none other than
Wolf Blitzer on CNN, President Trump actually addressed what he
thought of as the necessity for the Strategic Defense Initiative,
but also the necessity for sitting down and having talks to work
out the tensions between the United States and Russia.  Here’s
just a quick quote from President Trump.  He said:
“As far as nuclear is concerned, this country, us, we need a
shield….”
Wolf Blitzer said, “A Strategic Defense Initiative?”
And Trump affirmed that, saying, “Because Russia is
unstable. We need a missile defense shield.  People used to
criticize Reagan, but now it’s very developable.  We need a
shield…. We need a change.  The ABM Treaty was 1972.  Who knew
what technology would develop?  We have to sit down with the
Russians and many others.”
So, that was just a side note.  That was Nov. 28, 1999.  But
as I think you can see, now-President Trump remains committed to
that inclination to sit down with the Russians and many others —
North Korea, for example; and to resolve these nuclear threats.
If you just go back again to that date in 1983, this was 35
years ago.  In President Reagan’s own words, he said that what he
announced that night would, indeed, change the course of world
history; and it did.  And, it took most of the world completely
by surprise.  But, it didn’t come out of nowhere, and this
history is very important for viewers to understand.
Let me just read you a portion of what Lyndon LaRouche had
to say at that time.  This is a statement that he issued the
morning following that historic speech, so this is from March 24,
1983.  What Mr. LaRouche had to say was the following:
“Only high-level officials of government, or a private
citizen as intimately knowledgeable of details of the
international political and strategic situation as I am
privileged to be, can even begin to foresee the Earth-shaking
impact the President’s television address last night will have
throughout the world…. [T]he words the President spoke last
night can never be put back into the bottle. Most of the world
will soon know, and will never forget that policy announcement.
With those words, the President has changed the course of modern
history.
“Today I am prouder to be an American than I have been since
the first manned landing on the Moon. For the first time in 20
years, a President of the United States has contributed a public
action of great leadership, to give a new basis for hope for
humanity’s future to an agonized and demoralized world. True
greatness in an American President touched President Ronald
Reagan last night; it is a moment of greatness never to be
forgotten.”
So that was Lyndon LaRouche, March 24, 1983.  Now, as
LaRouche alluded to in that statement, he was no bystander or
casual observer of the events of that night President Reagan
announced the SDI.  In fact, the grand idea behind what Reagan
announced that night, came directly from none other than Lyndon
LaRouche himself.  I would like to play for you a brief excerpt
of Mr. LaRouche, in his own words, speaking about the background
to what had shocked the world that night — March 23, 1983.  This
is taken from a video that LaRouche PAC published about ten years
ago, back in 2008, on the 25th anniversary of the SDI speech.
The video was titled “A Brief History of Lyndon LaRouche’s SDI.”
So, let’s listen to what Mr. LaRouche had to say in that video.

LYNDON LAROUCHE

:  I had been organizing the SDI
operation, including initially from 1977, long before it was
called an SDI.  I was the one who said, “We’re going to make a
project of this thing.”  So, I adopted this and stated this as my
program in 1979, when I was running as a Presidential candidate.
Then, I had this conservation with Reagan, and then as a
follow-up after he was President, we had a follow-up with various
people in the Reagan circle; including his National Security
Council.  I was working with the head of the National Security
Council on this operation, and with people from the CIA and this
and that.  I was sworn to this and sworn to that, so I was doing
the whole thing.  The SDI was my work, which they liked.  And
there was a faction, including the President, who liked it.  He
liked it because he was against, he always hated Henry Kissinger;
and he hated Henry Kissinger particularly because of the
so-called “revenge weapons.”  The idea that you build super
weapons, and if somebody throws a bomb at you, you obliterate the
planet.  That is not considered a good defense, and he was
against that.  When he saw from experts that what I was saying
was accepted experts — military and others — and this was
French intelligence, the leadership of the Gaullist faction in
France; this was the leadership of the German military; this was
the leadership of the Italian military, and all over the world.
So, I was the creator of the SDI.  Reagan liked it, he adopted
it.  I was creating the thing in direct cooperation during the
entire period, with the cooperation of the National Security
Council and the heads of the CIA.  People recognized that I was
right; I had the scientific capability and knowledge to do it,
and we were doing it.

OGDEN:  So, that’s the story in Lyndon LaRouche’s own words.
That is merely the tip of a very fascinating iceberg.  We
encourage you to watch that full video that I cited that that
excerpt was taken from.  But also, to visit the page on the
LaRouche PAC website which gives you the full background of this
story.  As you can see there, the link is larouchepac.com/sdi.
That gives you this full, historic background.  But as you heard
Mr. LaRouche say there in that video clip, this effort on his
part to craft the idea of what then became adopted by the
President of the United States in the form of the SDI, this
effort went all the way back to the mid-1970s.  Here’s an image
of a campaign pamphlet which was commissioned by Lyndon LaRouche,
titled “Sputnik of the ’70s: The Science behind the Soviets’ Beam
Weapon.”  In this pamphlet, Lyndon LaRouche called for an
international crash program to develop a space-based missile
defense system based on new physical principles.  A Manhattan
project-style mission which would provide the economic driver to
fuel global development.  The pamphlet proposed .”.. Long-range
economic and scientific collaboration with the Soviet Union,
among other nations, which would eliminate the danger of world
obliteration,” and it emphasized .”.. Tremendous revolutionary
industrial implications available to this nation and the world if
the political will of the United States forces a recommitment to
technological progress in the form of an International
Development Bank and its national concomitant Third National
Bank.”
So, as you can see, Lyndon LaRouche’s idea of this missile
defense system, was always framed around the idea of not
unilateral defense systems, but rather, a joint missile defense
and joint scientific and economic collaboration between the
United States and the Soviet Union.  To do so, would be to
unleash the revolutionary industrial and economic implications of
such technological breakthroughs as the basis for a new
international, economic order; something which he had been
involved in all the way back to at least 1971 when he first
issued the proposal for a new International Development Bank —
the so-called IDB.  So you can see in LaRouche’s idea, the kernel
of what became the SDI, always had with it a new international
security architecture, overthrowing this entire reign of terror
of Mutually Assured Destruction and revenge weapons.  But
concomitantly, a new international economic order, which would be
driven by the revolutionary, unprecedented economic boom that
would come out of the progress associated with such technological
breakthroughs around these new physical principles in the
collaboration of US and Soviet scientists to develop this joint
missile defense to make International Ballistic Missile and
nuclear war impotent and obsolete.
The history is as fascinating as it is extensive.  Here is
not the time or the place to go through every single aspect of
this history; but the full background, again as I said is
available on that webpage — larouchepac.com/sdi.  But if you
fast forward from that pamphlet “Sputnik of the ’70s” all the way
to the lead-up into the 1980 Presidential campaign in which
Lyndon LaRouche himself was a candidate for President of the
United States.  Let’s take a look at a picture here of Lyndon
LaRouche meeting face-to-face with then-candidate Ronald Reagan
at a candidates’ forum that took place in Concord, New Hampshire.
During this face-to-face meeting and in several other
opportunities to interface with the Reagan campaign team, Lyndon
LaRouche presented this idea, in principle and in detail.
Following Reagan’s victory and his election, Lyndon LaRouche and
representatives of his organization, were brought in for meetings
with first the Reagan Presidential transition team, and then with
leading members of the National Security Council and Reagan’s
intelligence community.  They discussed LaRouche’s idea for this
new strategic doctrine, and the related scientific and energy
policies that would go along with it.  So, Lyndon LaRouche
commissioned numerous reports and campaign pamphlets promoting
this idea.  As you can see here, this is from {Fusion}; this is a
special report titled “Directed Energy Beams; A Weapon for
Peace.”  Here’s the next one; this is an edition of the
{Executive Intelligence Review} magazine from November 30, 1982.
Again, before the March 23, 1983 announcement of the SDI.  This
was titled “Beam Weapons: The Science to Prevent Nuclear War.”
Here’s another one; this is a pamphlet.  “How Beam Weapon
Technologies Can Reverse the Depression.”  So, all along, this
was always an economic idea from Lyndon LaRouche’s standpoint.
As you can see, being an American at this point, in the years
preceding the 1980 Presidential election and then coming out of
Reagan’s victory, 1980, ’81, ’82, the idea of this Beam Defense
system which would be based on new physical principles, was
associated — including in the popular mind — it was associated
with Lyndon LaRouche.  And it had been associated with Lyndon
LaRouche for at least half a decade prior to Reagan’s historic,
groundbreaking speech.
The morning after Reagan’s March 23rd address, the media was
scrambling to try to find experts to interview to explain what it
was that Reagan had presented the night before.  Naturally, they
had to turn to representatives of the LaRouche organization.
Here’s a photograph of Paul Gallagher, who was at that time
Executive Director of the Fusion Energy Foundation, appearing on
CBS’ Evening News program on March 24, 1983 — the day following
Reagan’s address — to explain the science behind Reagan’s policy
that had been announced the evening before.
Immediately following Reagan’s address to the nation, Lyndon
LaRouche launched a mass educational campaign to educate the
American people as to what their President had just presented.
He published and commissioned the publication of numerous mass
circulation reports to inform the American people and also
policymakers on the details of how such a program would work.
This image here is an array of different publications that were
issued by the LaRouche movement, supporting Reagan’s announcement
of the Strategic Defense Initiative and detailing the scientific,
the economic, and the military-strategic implications of the
policy.  There you can see one pamphlet — “Support the
President’s Strategic Defense Initiative; Kill Missiles, Not
People.”
As should be very clear, Lyndon LaRouche was in a leading
position of authority following this groundbreaking announcement,
and the influence that his ideas had come to wield put him in a
position of real power inside the political structure of the
Presidency of the United States.  He used that influence to
launch and to escalate on his campaign to completely reorganize
the entire international economic and strategic architecture of
the planet.  Let’s take a look at a document that Lyndon LaRouche
released exactly one year following Reagan’s March 23, 1983
announcement of the SDI program.  This was called “The LaRouche
Doctrine:  Draft Memorandum of Agreement between the United
States and the USSR.”  This was published March 30, 1984.  Let me
read you some excerpts from what Lyndon LaRouche published under
this title “The LaRouche Doctrine.”  He begins by saying:
“The political foundation for durable peace must be: a) The
unconditional sovereignty of each and all nation-states, and b)
Cooperation among sovereign nation-states to the effect of
promoting unlimited opportunities to participate in the benefits
of technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all.
“The most crucial feature of present implementation of such
a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary,
economic, and political relations between the dominant powers and
those relatively subordinated nations often classed as
‘developing nations.’ Unless the inequities lingering in the
aftermath of modern colonialism are progressively remedied, there
can be no durable peace on this planet.
“Insofar as the United States and Soviet Union acknowledge
the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the
planet to be in the vital strategic interests of each and both,
the two powers are bound to that degree and in that way by a
common interest. This is the kernel of the political and economic
policies of practice indispensable to the fostering of durable
peace between those two powers.
.”.. [T]he general advancement of the productive powers of
labor in all sovereign states, most emphatically so-called
developing nations, requires global emphasis on: a) increasing
globally the percentiles of the labor force employed in
scientific research and related functions of research and
development … b) increasing the absolute and relative scales of
capital-goods production and also
the rate of turnover in capital-goods production; and c)
combining these two factors to accelerate technological progress
in capital-goods outputs.
“Therefore, high rates of export of such capital-goods
output to meet the needs of developing nations are indispensable
for the general development of so-called developing nations: Our
common goal, and our common interest, is promoting both the
general welfare and promoting preconditions of durable peace
between our two powers….
“By supplying increased amounts of high-technology capital
goods to developing nations, the exporting economies foster
increased rates of turnover in their own most advanced
capital-goods sectors of production….
“The importer of such advanced capital goods increases the
productive powers of labor in the economy of the importing
nation. This enables the importing nation to produce its goods at
a lower average social cost, and enables it to provide
better-quality and cheaper goods as goods of payment to the
nations exporting capital goods.
“Not only are the causes of simple humanity and general
peace served by such policies of practice; the arrangement is
equally beneficial to exporting and importing nations….
.”.. [T]he general rate of advancement of the productive
powers of labor is most efficiently promoted by no other policy
of practice.”
Then a little later in the report, he reviews the situation
of strategic tensions between the USSR and the United States.  He
says:
“Since the rupture of the wartime alliance between the two
powers, U.S. military policy toward the Soviet Union has passed
through two phases. The first, from the close of the war until a
point beyond the death of Joseph Stalin, was preparation for the
contingency of what was sometimes named ‘preventive nuclear war.’
The second, emerging over the period from the death of Stalin
into the early period of the administration of President John F.
Kennedy, was based on the doctrines of Nuclear Deterrence and
Flexible Response …
“From approximately 1963 until approximately 1977, it might
have appeared, as it appeared to many, that the doctrines of
Nuclear Deterrence and Flexible Response had succeeded in
preserving a state of restive peace, something called ‘détente,’
between the two powers. This appearance was deceptive; during the
period 1977-83, there was an accelerating deterioration in the
military relationships between the two powers….
“Beginning shortly after the inauguration of President Jimmy
Carter, the deterioration of the military situation
accelerated….
“In response to this direction of developments, the U.S.
public figure Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. proposed that both powers
develop, deploy, and agree to develop and deploy ‘strategic’
defensive, anti-ballistic-missile defense based on ‘new physical
principles.’ This proposal was issued publicly by LaRouche
beginning February 1982; he proposed to U.S.A., Western European,
and Soviet representatives that the development and deployment of
such strategic defensive systems be adopted policy, as a means
for escaping from the ‘logic’ of Nuclear Deterrence….
.”.. The true solution must be found in the domain of
politics and economics, and the further shaping of military
relations between the powers must produce military policies by
each coherent with the direction of development of the needed
political and economic solutions….
“On the part of the United States of America, the government
is committed to avoiding all colonial, imperial, or kindred
endeavors in foreign policy, and to establish, instead, a growing
community of principle among fully sovereign nation-states of
this planet. This shall become a community of principle coherent
with the policies of the articles of this draft memorandum. If
any force should endeavor to destroy that community of principle,
or any member of that community of sovereign nations, the United
States will be prepared to defend that community and its members
by means of warfare, should other means prove insufficient. With
respect to the Soviet Union, the government of the United States
offers the Soviet Union cooperation with itself in service of
these principles, and desires that the Soviet Union might enter
fully into participation within that community of principle….
“Under these conditions, provided that all nations share in
development of the frontiers of scientific research, in
laboratories, and in educational institutions, all nations will
be made capable of assimilating efficiently the technological
by-product benefits of the military expenditures on systems
derived from application of ‘new physical principles.’
“To lend force to this policy, the powers agree to establish
new institutions of cooperation between themselves and other
nations in development of these new areas of scientific
breakthrough for application to exploration of space.
“To this purpose, the powers agree to establish at the
earliest possible time institutions for cooperation in scientific
exploration of space, and to also co-sponsor treaty-agreements
protecting national and multinational programs for colonization
of the Moon and Mars.
“At some early time, the powers shall enter into
deliberations, selecting dates for initial manned colonization of
the Moon and Mars, and the establishment of international space
stations on the Moon and in the orbits of Moon and Mars, stations
to be maintained by and in the common interest and use of space
parties of all nations.
“The powers jointly agree upon the adoption of two tasks as
the common interest of mankind, as well as the specific interest
of each of the two powers: 1) The establishment of full economic
equity respecting the conditions of individual life in all
nations of this planet during a period of not more than 50 years;
2) Man’s exploration and colonization of nearby space as the
continuing common objective and interest of mankind during and
beyond the completion of the first task. The adoption of these
two working-goals as the common task and respective interest in
common of the two powers and other cooperating nations,
constitutes the central point of reference for erosion of the
potential political and economic causes of warfare between the
powers.”
That was known as the “LaRouche Doctrine,” published March
30, 1984.  As you can see, what Lyndon LaRouche outlined in that
document was the basis for exactly what we’re calling now a new
international economic and strategic architecture.  In fact, the
one requires the other.  You cannot have a new strategic
architecture without resolving what Lyndon LaRouche characterized
as the root causes behind the conflict between these nations; the
persisting inequalities between nations.  And you cannot have the
kind of cooperation needed for the common, mutual economic
development and the application of these groundbreaking new
physical principles and the technologies that are derived from
those, without the establishment of a new international economic
order.  Elsewhere in that document, Mr. LaRouche described
exactly how such an economic order must take place; with fixed
exchange rates between currencies, massive credits — both
domestically within countries for the upgrading of the
technological and infrastructure platforms within those nations
— but also, international credit treaty agreements in the form
of what he originally described in 1971 as the International
Development Bank, or the IDB.
As you can see, and I think any astute reader of that
document now, almost 35 years later, that document laid the basis
for what we now see as the so-called “win-win” new economic
paradigm.  This idea of the common benefit of all; mutual
cooperation for joint development; the upgrading of the so-called
“developing” nations, which were still suffering under the
effects of colonialism and post-colonial policy.  So, when
President Xi Jinping of China speaks about “win-win” economic
development and a new community of nations with a shared destiny,
I think that the echoes couldn’t be more clear of what Lyndon
LaRouche himself was describing at that time in the middle of the
1980s, almost 35 years ago today.  When Xi Jinping offers the
United States to join this new “win-win” system, the Belt and
Road Initiative, which is already resolving these persisting
inequalities that the world has been suffering, such as in Africa
or Central and South America.  Or, when President Putin offers to
“sit down at the negotiating table and devise together a new and
relevant system of international security and sustainable
development for human civilization,” we should reflect on what
was laid in that document.  That LaRouche Doctrine now almost 35
years ago today, in the wake of that history-changing
announcement by President Ronald Reagan, at which he called a
spade a spade.  The world could no longer survive under the
dictatorship of Mutually Assured Destruction; that reign of
terror that President Kennedy characterized as the Sword of
Damocles hanging by the slenderest of threads over every man,
woman, and child on this planet, threatening nuclear
annihilation.  What Lyndon LaRouche characterized at that moment
as the “LaRouche Doctrine” is the principle behind the new
economic and new security architecture which must be adopted on
this planet today.  Not as a recipe, not taking everything
exactly as it was said, because clearly of course, the world has
changed; and we must apply the principles that lay at the root of
exactly what Lyndon LaRouche had in mind when he proposed the
Strategic Defense Initiative and when he proposed the subsequent
LaRouche Doctrine, and apply those to evolve necessarily to fit
the specific conditions of today.
One thing that Lyndon LaRouche alluded to explicitly in that
document, was the need for joint cooperation in the colonization
and exploration of space.  In fact, that is the form that the
idea of a revived SDI has actually been taken.  The proposal for
not an SDI, but what’s now called an SDE — the Strategic Defense
of Earth — to literally re-tool the strategic nuclear weapons
with these massive payloads that have been accumulated by the
United States, Russia, also other nations — China and India and
other nations.  To re-tool those nuclear weapons and also the
delivery systems, these high-power intercontinental ballistic
missiles, and also the new technologies that Russia has just
announced.  To re-tool these technologies and have what were
offensive weapons become defensive tools against asteroids and
other threats to planet Earth which we may encounter from outer
space.  While this was proposed under that name, the SDE, by
certain individuals inside Russia about five years ago,
coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the original SDI speech.
What this originally actually came out of, had its origins in the
late 1980s and the early 1990s with the scientist Dr. Edward
Teller.  Teller was actually one of the leading scientific
advisors of President Reagan in the 1980s around the SDI
initiative, but following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Dr.
Edward Teller travelled to Russia and visited some of the leading
science cities that had been involved in developing nuclear
weapons and their delivery systems.  He met with some of the
leading former Soviet scientists, the Russian scientists, and
proposed exactly this.  He proposed the idea of the United States
and Russia saying the Cold War is over; let’s now cease this
policy of aiming our nuclear missiles one against the other, and
let’s now aim them against the common threats that mankind as a
whole faces.  Especially with the latest news of an asteroid
which poses a credible threat — what’s called a “non-zero
threat” — to the Earth in the foreseeable future, which was
just discussed in the  media over the past week, this proposal is
all the more timely and all the more relevant today.
So, what I’d like is to just play an excerpt from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s international webcast that she delivered
yesterday.  She takes up exactly this idea, so here’s an excerpt
from Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  I think that the SDI proposal,
which was absolutely not what the media made out of it, calling
it “Star Wars,” and things like that, the SDI proposal of my
husband, Lyndon LaRouche was an absolutely farsighted vision of a
New Paradigm!  And if you read the relevant papers about it,
especially the proposed draft for a dialogue among the
superpowers, which was published one year later, which you can
find in the archives or in the newer {EIR}s. This was a vision
where both superpowers would develop together, new physical
principles which would make nuclear weapons obsolete.  And I
think what Putin announced on March 1st in terms of new physical
principles applied for new weapons systems, is absolutely is in
this tradition. And Putin also asked, now they have to sit down
and we have to negotiate and put together a new security
architecture, including Russia, the United States, China, and the
Europeans.
This was all envisioned by my husband in this famous SDI
proposal, and it was a very far-reaching to dissolve the blocs,
NATO and the Warsaw Pact,  to cooperate instead among sovereign
republics, which is exactly what the New Silk Road dynamic today
represents. And it was also the idea to use a science-driver in
the economy to use the increased productivity of the real economy
for a gigantic technology transfer to the developing sector, in
order to overcome their underdevelopment and poverty.
And this is what we’re seeing today, also, in the
collaboration between China, Russia, and the countries that are
participating in the Belt and Road Initiative.
So I think, in a certain sense, part of this danger of peace
breaking out, that there is right now the very vivid tradition
and actualization of that tradition of the SDI, and I think we
should circulate this proposal by my husband again.  I think we
should enlarge it to become the SDE, the Strategic Defense of the
Earth, because it was just discovered that very soon, another big
asteroid is already taking course on the planet Earth. So we need
to move quickly to the common aims of mankind, and all countries
should cooperate and be a shared community for the one future of
humanity.
This is the New Paradigm which I think is so obvious.  I
mean, if you look at the long arc of history, we {have} to
overcome geopolitics and we have to move to a kind of cooperation
where we put all our forces together to solve those questions
which are a challenge to all of humanity — nuclear weapons,
poverty, asteroids — there are so many areas where we could
fruitfully cooperate — space exploration is one of them.  And I
think we are in a very fascinating moment in history, but we need
more active citizens.  So please contact us, work with us, and
let’s together make a better world.

OGDEN:  So, that was Helga LaRouche’s call to action, and I
think that’s a perfect concluding point for our webcast today, as
we observe this very auspicious date — March 23rd — the 35th
anniversary of President Reagan’s groundbreaking speech
announcing the Strategic Defense Initiative.  Let’s take that
kind of sense of victory and the optimism that indeed, ideas can
change the course of history, and consolidate this New Paradigm;
this new security architecture and new economic architecture for
the planet.  The opportunity is greater than it ever has been
before; but the need is ever more dire.
Thank you for joining me, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Denne artikel vil udforske den strategiske betydning af betydningsfulde begivenheder i verden, med begyndelse i februar, 2018. Vores formål er præcist at placere Theresa Mays sindssyge bestræbelse den 12.-14. marts på at fabrikere et nyt svindelnummer med »masseødelæggelsesvåben« med anvendelse af de samme folk (MI6-efterretningsgrupperingen omkring Sir Richard Dearlove) og det samme manuskript (en efterretningssvindel med hensyn til masseødelæggelsesvåben), som blev brugt til at trække USA ind i den katastrofale Irakkrig. Svindelnummeret med forgiftningen af Skripal involverer ligeledes direkte den britiske agent, Christopher Steele, den centrale person i det igangværende kup mod Donald Trump. Denne gang er den britiske operation for informationskrig direkte rettet mod at provokere Rusland samtidig med, at de fastholder den amerikanske befolkning og præsident Trump som mål for deres angreb.

Som den ophedede, krigstidslignende mediedækning og hysteriet omkring sagen gør det klart, så synes en vist lag i den britiske elite at være parat til at risikere alt på vegne af det døende imperiesystem. På trods af alt ståhejet, så synes økonomisk krigsførelse og sanktioner at være briternes foretrukne våben. Som vi vil få at se, så afslørede Putin for nylig Vestens atomare bluff.[1] Med Russiagate-kuppet mod Donald Trump, der er ved at ebbe ud og eksponerer den britiske agent Christopher Steele og et slæng af hans amerikanske venner til retsforfølgelse for kriminelle handlinger, var der et desperat behov for et nyt værktøj til at drive USA’s præsident ind i det britiske, geopolitiske hjørne, som de har til fælles med det meste af det amerikanske establishment. Dette værktøj er et efterretnings-svindelnummer, et gennemprøvet og pålideligt britisk produkt.

Foto: Den britiske premierminister, Theresa May.  (Photo: EU2017EE Estonian Presidency

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 21. marts, 2018 – Det britiske Imperium har, med truslen om sin endelige død, udløst et desperat kneb i denne måned og uden nogen beviser hævdet, at Rusland havde brugt nervegas til at angribe Sergei og Yulia Skripal på britisk jord. London opfordrede sine betroede allierede – og først og fremmest, USA – til at støtte op omkring dets onde, geopolitiske planer for krig mod Rusland, og sandsynligvis også Kina, og hvis formål er at bevare deres imperieopdeling af verden i Øst og Vest. Dette kneb har trods alt virket så ofte i fortiden. Som the Lord’s elsker at sige: Britisk hjerne og amerikansk råstyrke kan bevare Imperiet, selv om den tid, hvor Britannia herskede over bølgerne, for længst er forbi.

Men, verden har ændret sig. Snarere end pligtskyldigt at følge den »særlige relation« med Moderlandet, ringede præsident Donald Trump i stedet tirsdag, 20. marts, til præsident Vladimir Putin. Lederne af USA og Rusland holdt en værdig, langvarig diskussion om nødvendigheden af, at disse to store nationer, sammen med Kina under Xi Jinpings kompetente lederskab, kan og må gå i gang med at løse de mange eksistentielle kriser, som menneskeheden står overfor. Voksne mennesker, der diskuterer den virkelige verden og præsterer reelt lederskab for en verden, der er bragt ud på randen af et atomart holocaust og globalt, økonomisk kaos af det fejlagtige lederskab, der præsteres af Londons Lord’s og deres satrapper i Europa og Amerika.

Sammen har præsidenterne Trump, Putin og Xi allerede demonstreret, at terrorisme kan besejres, og at verdensøkonomien, gennem økonomisksamarbejde i den Nye Silkevejsånd, kan bringe alle folkeslag ind i et fremgangsrigt og harmonisk paradigme for menneskelig udvikling.

For en gangs skyld må Perfide Albion stå alene, og det bliver i stigende grad åbenlyst for hele verden, at de intet ståsted har. I halvtreds år har Lyndon LaRouche advaret amerikanerne om, at britisk geopolitik og britiske monetære politikker var i færd med at drive USA og verden mod økonomisk ødelæggelse, alt imens USA fører kolonikrige på vegne af Imperiet. Den kendsgerning, at præsident Trump har helliget sig genindførelsen af det Amerikanske System, som Lyndon LaRouche (stort set alene) har været fortaler for i det forgangne halve århundrede samtidig med, at han erklærer, at stormagterne Rusland, Kina og USA må være venner, betyder, at Det britiske Imperium står over for den endelige død.

Dette er selvfølgelig grunden til, at britisk efterretning lancerede Russiagate-kupforsøget mod præsident Trump. Denne kampagne kollapser nu, og dens gerningsmænd afsløres som forrædere, sammen med de korrupte medieselskaber, der har fået et apoplektisk anfald over Trumps opringning til Putin. Med et stærkt svækket Russiagate har præsident Trump vundet styrken til at gennemføre sine oprindelige, diplomatiske planer, som verden så det tirsdag, 20. marts, en dag, som vil gå over i historien. Gennemførelsen af det Amerikanske Systems økonomiske politikker, som fremlægges i LaRouches Fire Love, haster ligeledes, med det forestående kollaps af finansboblen, som kan underminere det nye paradigme.

Tiden er inde til at handle. Verden ser nu Det britiske Imperium for det, det er, og ligeledes alternativet til det, i form af den Nye Silkevej, som skaber en fælles bestemmelse for fremskridt og samarbejde for alle nationer. Fokusér alle bestræbelser på dette strategiske mål. Tillad ingen afledninger. Sejren er for hånden.

Foto: US Marines øver dekontamineringsprocedurer, april 2013. (arkivfoto, US DoD)