27. august 2016 – Kina har inviteret et hidtil uset antal statschefer fra udviklingssektoren til det forestående G20-topmøde, både for at give dem en stemme i global politik og for at placere spørgsmålet om global udvikling som sådan i centrum for de drøftelser, der skal finde sted på topmødet. Blandt de inviterede statschefer er, iflg. Xinhua, statscheferne fra Tchad (formandsskab for den Afrikanske Union), Laos (formandsskab for ASEAN), Senegal (formandskab for NPAD, Nye partnerskab for Afrikas udvikling), Thailand (formandsskabet for G77), Egypten, Kasakhstan o.a.

FN’s generalsekretær Ban Ki-moon roste i går Kina for at invitere så mange udviklingslande til topmødet, og »for at styre G20-topmødet i en succesfuld retning … for at fremme G20’s evne til at gå fra kortsigtet finanskrisestyring og til et langsigtet udviklingsperspektiv«. Ban understregede ligeledes dagsordenens »grønne« og »bæredygtige« elementer og takkede Kina for, med deres handlings-dagsorden for G20-topmødet, at »bringe handlings-dagsordenen på linje med målene for bæredygtig udvikling og aftalen om klimaforandringer«.

Matthew Ogden: I aften har vi en særlig gæst med os, Paul Gallagher, økonomisk redaktør for EIR, og som vil præsentere for os det klare og presserende nødvendige valg, som amerikanere må træffe for at opgive den forfejlede økonomi, som er Obamas politik med nær-nul-vækst, og beslutsomt må tilslutte sig den nye, økonomiske orden, som Kina har indledt. Med det forestående G20-topmøde, der skal finde sted om en uge, har Kinas præsident udtrykkeligt gjort det klart, at det er hans hensigt, at dette topmøde skal bruges til at fremme skabelsen af en »ny international finansiel arkitektur« i samarbejde med Rusland og andre betydningsfulde magter, baseret på videnskabelig og teknologisk innovation og vækst. I mellemtiden konfronteres USA og Europa med det transatlantiske systems fremstormende implosion, der ikke alene skyldes den enorme akkumulering af gældsbobler og eksponering til derivater, men i endnu højere grad årtiers fravær af enhver reel vækst i økonomisk produktivitet. Kinas program for udforskning af Månen tjener til at illustrere kilden til ægte, økonomisk værdi. Kun gennem en omgående vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall og en gældseftergivelse for at afskrive den kolossale boble af fiktive værdier kan USA blive en del af denne nye, økonomiske orden og tage del i udløsningen af menneskets kreative evner.

TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Evening! It is August 26th, 2016. My name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly Friday evening webcast here from LaRouchepac.com. As you can see, I'm joined in the studio tonight by Ben Deniston, from the LaRouche PAC Science Team; and by Paul Gallagher, a special guest today, Economics Editor for Executive Intelligence Review; and we also joined, via video, by Kesha Rogers, member of our Policy Committee, joining us from Houston, Texas. Hi, Kesha!

We are meeting here at the day that the 3rd edition of the LaRouche PAC publication The Hamiltonian is hitting the streets of New York City. This is Edition

3, the August 26th edition, as you might be able to see from this very small edition copy. The very large headline is "Obama is a Failure. The World Needs a New Financial Architecture, Now." That encapsulates the framework of our show today.

I think, as we've said recently over the last couple of weeks, we are highly anticipating the upcoming G-20 Summit, which is going to be held in China, hosted by China, hosted by Chinese President Xi Jinping, on September 4th and 5th — a little bit over a week from now. What's happening in the lead-up to that G-20 Summit is the consolidation of really what is becoming the framework for a new international financial and economic architecture. You have a consolidation of cooperation among countries of Eurasia — mainly China, Russia, and India, but many other countries besides — including moving forward with the development of the [international] North-South Transportation Corridor [instc], and many other economic bilateral and multi-lateral relationships among the countries of that region.

But, what is being stated explicitly by the leadership of China and of Russia is that this framework, this paradigm, must replace the failed paradigm which is now bringing the trans-Atlantic system down with it, and must become the framework for a new international, global economic order. I think it was said, very clearly, by a spokesman for the Russian International Affairs Council, who said in an interview this week, "Russia and China should work together, within the G-20 framework, to secure a new international financial architecture." That's Andrey Kortunov, [Director General at the Russian International Affairs Council]. And then, just yesterday, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Minister, said, "What will happen during the G-20 Summit, is a major change in the world economic landscape."

Now, what we've discussed, including in a discussion today with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, is that it can be seen very clearly that China and Russia absolutely "know what time it is," as Mr. LaRouche has been warning all of you: that we are on the verge, if not in the midst, of a complete implosion of the trans-Atlantic financial-economic-social-political system as a whole. And this is not just because of the debt exposure of the largest banks, or the derivatives exposure, or anything like that, but it is — and I think this is what Paul will get into in much more detail — it is because we have neglected any real economic growth, any real concept of economic value in this trans-Atlantic system for at least the last 30-50 years, and in fact have rejected the very idea of the necessity of productivity and economic progress.

We're going to be discussing that, but also from the standpoint which will be filled out in a little bit more detail in the second half of our show of what isthe concept of real economic value, and how indeed are China and Russia leading mankind toward a revolution in economic productivity, which is centered very prominently around their dedication to a space program, especially around lunar development and lunar exploration. With that said, I'd like to invite Paul to open up the discussion.

PAUL GALLAGHER: Thank you! Let me start by saying we have to relate the American people, American policy-makers, American elected officials emphatically to the September 3rd, 4th G-20 Summit being hosted by China, because just as there was a necessity about a year and a half ago for the United States to become part of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank [aiib] and the other global institutions of new credit for infrastructure which China was initiating, one will remember that at that time, instead, the Obama Administration set its teeth against the AIIB bank, tried in vain to sabotage it and prevent countries from joining it as members. One need only say that as of now, there are 60 nation-members of the AIIB, and of next year it's expected that there will be 90 nations trying to participate in the generation of high technology infrastructure credits in the grand task of the New Silk Road, (or the Eurasian Land-Bridges), across Eurasia, through the Mideast, into Africa — communication, power, transportation being revolutionized in this way. The Obama Administration took the United States to the sidelines, and worst, to the adversarial position, to try to sabotage that.

We have to do differently, in this case, because our economy is completely failing. We have the condition of an imminent second 2008 bank panic, not because of this or that particular deal, or even this or that particular bubble, but because the economies of the United States and Europe have sunk so far in the non-recovery of the 2008 collapse, that even the biggest banks themselves have been destroying their hosts and shrinking, their stocks collapsing, their collapse as a whole emerging from that cause, of the absolute inability to make profits in economies which they have done so much to ruin.

What China is proposing — and remember China has said, that the leading other nation-guest at that G-20 Summit is President Vladimir Putin of Russia — what they are proposing is a "new financial architecture." Now "financial architecture" basically means how do nations regulate their banks, and perhaps in the other order — how do nations create credit for purposes of progress: economic, technological, scientific progress, and direct that credit where it should go. Secondly, how do nations regulate their banks; and thirdly, how do international institutions — particularly international credit institutions, lending institutions — how do they function, in order to make this progress possible for all the nations involved, and in particular allow less-developed nations access to both the credit that they need, the technological development, and the self-development of the skills which are necessary for this kind of progress. That's what a "new financial architecture" means. Clearly, the financial architecture since 1971, when we went to the floating interest rate, and, particularly since the Presidencies of Bush and Obama, this financial architecture has been a complete failure.

So, they are saying, this is not just a two-day summit, but a collaborative process which has to continue among the G-20 nations until a new financial architecture is accomplished. I'll get to what that would mean, particularly on the part of the United States and Europe. But, let me read one thing that a leading scholar in China said, about this September 3rd and 4th G-20. He said, "This is a very important summit for all the countries in the world." This is Su Xiaohui, Deputy Director of Strategic Studies at the China Institute of International Studies. Many scholars of his type might have said this. "China is hosting this summit because it is what other countries wanted. It is the other countries that wanted China to host this event, this growth and innovation summit. In recent years, there have been plenty of problems in the world economy, and all the countries in the world, including G-20 members, are eager to find solutions. Other countries know China can be a leader in addressing the world's economic problems."

What he is saying, in diplomatic terms, is many countries to take the lead in a summit whose purpose is an all-out drive to restore growth and productivity in the world economy, because China has been the driver of growth and productivity in the world economy for the last ten years, joined now by India, and despite crippling sanctions, with some very striking accomplishments by Russia. For example, that Russia has become, as of right now, the world's leading wheat exporter. It has become self-sufficient in many categories of food, in which it was 50% dependent on imports when these sanctions were put on. So, although its economy, under these financial and economic sanctions, is not growing, nonetheless it has successfully grown in ways which prevented literal starvation of its economy and its population, by these sanctions. That's why they have to lead it.

This puts a challenge to China, obviously, to really hold their determination to make this summit a real accomplishment, in terms of growth and progress. Only a couple months ago the Chinese Finance Minister, Lou Jiwei, and the [Minister of Commerce (formerly known as the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation), Gao Hucheng,] made public statements, particularly when the finance ministers of the G-20 met, saying the condition of the world economy is grim. World trade, in un-inflated terms, has essentially stagnated for the last 5-6 years. No growth at all. There are many nations in the world with no growth, they said. It's a grim situation which must be reversed by the G-20. Again, diplomatically, they weren't naming the zero-growth nations. But I will, very shortly.

China, on the other hand, is continuing to put large volumes of combined public and private credit issuance, something on the order of $250 billion a year equivalent, into investments, both within China, across the New Silk Road economic belt, and further afield as well. In comparison to that, you have the United States. Obama. We say he's a failure. No question. One of the things he fails at, is arrogantly bragging that "the United States sets the rules," and China has to follow them; that China is merely a raw-materials-producing and cheap- goods-producing economy, and has to grow up and join the advanced economies of the world. This is one of the sports, in which Obama is a failure, is trying to brag and shine over China. Let's look at it.

U.S. economic growth in the eight years of Obama's Presidency has not equalled U.S. economic growth in the first year of Franklin Roosevelt's Presidency, nor in the second year of Franklin Roosevelt's Presidency. In both of those years, by the way this growth is calculated today, in recovery from the Great Depression, under the impulse of Roosevelt's policies, the growth in the United States was on the order of 10%-11% a year, in '33 and '34, and again in '35.

BEN DENISTON: Each individual year?

GALLAGHER: Each individual year. The total growth of the U.S. economy, by GDP measures, during Obama's entire Presidency, has been 1.1% a year; 8.4% over his entire [tenure]. So, he hasn't equalled, in 8 years of recovery from the Great Recession, the growth of each of Franklin Roosevelt's first 3 years in the recovery from the Great Depression.

Now, the reasons for this are more fundamental than the measures of growth, which include a lot of things, but suffice to say, that Europe whose annual growth per year during the same years that Obama has been President, has been an average of 0.6% per year. China's growth during that same 8-year period has been on average 8.1% per year. So, it's been very similar to the rate of growth which was generated under the impulse of Roosevelt's policies; and not accidentally, because the policies of credit-generation, infrastructure investment, high-technology innovation — in this context particularly space exploration, fusion technology development. In these areas, they have been very similar in the 21st Century context to what Roosevelt did when he became President; and getting similar results and exporting those results to a significant degree to the benefit of other countries.

What lies underneath this, as Lyndon LaRouche has really stressed to the satisfaction of everyone who has listened to him, and should go and look into this; is the loss of productivity — the collapse in the growth of productivity in the United States and European economies during that same period of time. There is a crude measure of productivity which one often reads about in the financial press and in reports from the Commerce Department and so forth. By that measure, which is simply gross domestic product divided by the number of hours worked of the labor force, by that measure, productivity growth during the term of Obama in the White House, has been approximately 0.8% per year. And actually, you can see if you look at the progression, that that growth took place in 2010, 2011, 2012, and part of 2013. Since then, we have seen no productivity change whatsoever; in fact, three of the last four quarters of the year reported by the Labor Department, have seen productivity in the United States go down, not up. So that productivity in the last 12 months of this economy has gone down. I won't go into the European figures.

This is crucial, even though it's a very crude measure, because it indicates that the productivity of labor is not increasing in such a way that labor can get higher wages; so wages stagnate when this is the case. New capital investments by business are not taking place; the rate of new capital investments by business is extraordinarily low. If this is now on the screen [Fig. ?], this shows a more fundamental measure of productivity growth known as technological productivity growth, or total factor productivity growth. Before giving you a narrow definition, let me read a report which was done by the National Bureau of Economic Research about the growth in the 1930s of this total factor productivity in the United States economy; which you can see is the highest of those bars. What the National Bureau of Economic Research said much later in a report written in this century, is that "The extraordinary growth of this technological productivity in the Roosevelt New Deal era, was due to the very strong growth in electric power generation and distribution, in transportation, in communications, in civil and structural engineering for bridges, tunnels, dams, highways, railroads, and transmission systems, and in private research and development." In other words, what happened during that period of time which made it an even greater burst of productivity than we saw during the World War II mobilization which followed it, what happened during that period of time is that the tremendous demands on the economy of the great infrastructure projects of Roosevelt — including the development of nuclear power and the development of all of the huge hydroelectric power sources; was that everything involved in engineering power, in engineering roads, in engineering tunnels, in engineering great civil works of all kinds, was technologically revolutionized. The companies involved and the agencies involved made breakthroughs in research and development in order to do these things more powerfully and more efficiently; and really to conduct projects on a scale that had never been done before, in such a way that there was very rapid technological progress under the impulse of this pursuit. And scientific progress as well, if you think what underlay the development of the nuclear power piles, it was the beginning of particle physics, the beginning of nuclear biophysics, the beginning of plasma physics, and the basis for the attempt to develop fusion energy today. There were tremendous developments going on underneath these great works of the Roosevelt era.

So, if we go back to the slide for a minute, you see that by far the highest rate of yearly growth in this technological productivity; that rate of growth is almost 3.5% a year. That rate of growth is in the 1930s; followed by the 1940s, including the war mobilization when it is about 2.7% per year. And after rather a slump in the Eisenhower 1950s, back up in Kennedy's Apollo project 1960s to 2.7% growth per year in technological productivity; and then look what happened. If I could take you off through the '70s, '80s, '90s, the first decade of this century with the Bush Presidency, 1% per year growth or less. And if I could take you off the end of that graph to the Obama years, it would be 0.53% growth per year, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. So, you see there the under-girdings of the collapse of an economy in the complete loss of real productivity in that economy; and therefore, the ability to launch growth and sustain growth which this represented.

Again, it's very important that this was recovered so rapidly in the 1960s when Kennedy again put great expenditures and great projects at the very frontiers of science in the Apollo project to reach the Moon, but in the broader plans which were then being made and developed for the further exploration of space, which we'll get to. This made a tremendous difference. I should point out that, according to a recent study by the Harvard School of Business of this same factor, in China over the last decade, it has grown at a rate of 3.08% annually; somewhat higher or equal to the highest that the US has achieved, namely that under the Roosevelt period. So that when you have this collapse in productivity in the US and European economies, you have at the same time, de-industrialization of those economies accelerating; with the result of on the one hand, a real destruction of the labor force — the people. We've talked about this, it isn't necessary to go through it again; but we've talked about the connection between this process and the increasing propensity of Americans who were previously productive, to commit suicide in one way or another — by drinking, or drugging, or in other ways themselves to death. The data just keep coming, the studies just keep coming out on this; each one more depressing than the last. That has been the result of this real collapse; and it has even begun — as I indicated at the beginning — to shrink and undermine the biggest banks who have done so much to cause it. So that even the derivatives markets have, in the last few years, have shrunk; and so have the biggest banks, which became even bigger by swallowing other banks in 2008. They have shrunk; they are parasitizing a host which is dying.

The best way to conclude, I think, would be to quote something that Helga Zepp-LaRouche said this morning, which I think is absolutely correct: "If the United States and Europe are to cooperate in 10 days with the purposes of this growth and innovation summit of the G-20, they must do two things, otherwise they're not cooperating. The first thing is they must implement and enforce Glass-Steagall regulation of their banks. And I should point out that China is the only major economy in the world which has a currently enforced efficient Glass-Steagall bank separation law; passed in 1993. It has been much debated since then, but kept intact and enforced. They must pass Glass-Steagall and enforce it; and secondly, they must write off — not just write down, but write off — the nominal values given to the still $500-700 trillion worth of derivatives on the books of their banks. In order that those banks can again, under Glass-Steagall become vehicles for the transmission of productive credit and progress. If the United States and Europe are willing to do that, then the real work can begin, of restoring growth and scientific progress to the world economy. If they're not, then they are effectively to be accounted saboteurs of this noble effort that is being led now by China." So, I'll stop with that.

OGDEN: I do want to add just one quick thing before we get into what Kesha and Ben have to present. I would say, Helga and Lyndon LaRouche are not merely peripherally involved in this process which is now coming out of China; but actually centrally involved, both now and historically. I think it should be remembered that just a few weeks ago, Helga LaRouche was one of the prominent speakers at an event called the T-20, which was a gathering of international think tanks and other persons of that type in the lead-up to the G-20 summit in China. Helga LaRouche was involved in that. Helga has travelled to China I think half a dozen times in the recent several years now; and is a prominent personality in the public discourse there. One other thing that is notable is that the G-20 was developed as the G-22 in 1997-98 at the time that Bill Clinton was making a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City; where he called for a new international economic architecture. That was the framework in which the G-22 was formed. That was exactly the same time that people probably remember the recent webcast where we showed the video clip of Lyndon LaRouche speaking in Washington DC about the development of the New Silk Road, the Eurasian Land-Bridge, and the cooperation between Russia, China, and India in creating a new economic framework for Eurasia. That has now converged; the new international economic architecture and the New Silk Road Eurasian Land-Bridge is one thrust that's coming out of China and Russia. Historically, even rewinding back before that, Mr. LaRouche's proposal — which Bill Clinton did pick up on in a certain way in 1997-98 — was for a New Bretton Woods; a reorganization of the world economic system, which is something which he has been on the record centrally leading for 40 years if not more, going all the way back to some of the discussion among leadership of the Non-Aligned Movement for a New International Economic Order by that name. And also Mr. LaRouche's idea for international development banks, which is exactly what the AIIB or the BRICS new development bank now are echoes of.

So, historically, this is something that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have led from a central position and continue to play a very central role in shaping. And I would just emphasize Paul's point that it is now encumbent upon the United States to take very bold and dramatic decisions to communicate, "Yes, we are no longer going to be Obama failures. We are no longer going to reject these overtures that are coming very explicitly from China for participation in this new system; but we're going to join it, and we're going to show not only our good will, but our intention to do so. By restoring Glass-Steagall immediately and freeing ourselves from the bondage of this dying system which is dragging the entire trans-Atlantic down with it. So, that's an action point that needs to be taken in the days ahead.

GALLAGHER: That's very well added, and I think Lyn and Helga have given the kind of laser focus to this impulse for development, which China, Russia, other countries, India, have shown. That it had to be focussed around not only the frontiers of science, but the frontiers of travel so to speak; of passenger and freight travel, and of crossing the Eurasian continent, which had never been done before. But now, in addition, and particularly recently, Helga has, through a whole series of major conferences, put an additional focus on bringing that development, that Silk Road, through the Mideast; as the only way in which the cauldron of the Middle East could possibly be made into a peaceful and developing area, is through that same New Silk Road process. There's been a great response to that in countries like Yemen, Egypt, other countries of the Mideast.

KESHA ROGERS: I want to take up from there. I think the question at hand is, what is it that fosters this impulse for development that you spoke of, Paul; and what fosters the rapid increase of rate of growth in a society? Mr. LaRouche, over the years, has defined this as the creative development of the human mind and the productive powers of labor of a society to make new breakthroughs and scientific and technological progress that actually improves not just the conditions of mankind on the planet; but improves mankind's ability to actually go out into the far reaches of our galaxy, to develop the resources of our Solar System. This is exactly the discussion that we had with Mr. LaRouche — some of the Policy Committee members and our Basement Team — just recently. His response to the rapid developments of China's leadership in developing the Moon and their plans for going to the far side of the Moon by 2018, that what we're looking at here is not just going to the Moon for the sake of going to the Moon, or finding another landing spot on the Moon. This is critical in a commitment toward international cooperation and a science driver essential for cooperation and development throughout the planet and beyond. Mr. LaRouche recently called for and made the point that we have to have a complete mapping and development of our Moon's surface. He called for the mapping of the Moon's surface being something that we do not and have not fully come to understand. A lot of people will say, "Well, we've already been there, done that." A lot of nations have landed various rovers on the Moon, or satellites on the Moon; or we've had orbiters taking pictures of the Moon. But one thing we have not done, is to go to the far side of the Moon; and recognize the potential that is set to be unleashed from this new feat and endeavor that only China — being the first nation — would be out to present and create.

So, I think when we think about what it is that fosters economic progress, again, we have to look at what China is representing as a leader of the world right now in terms of what they've unleashed in the rapid development of their momentum towards space exploration; and particularly development of the lunar surface. There is so much that we have yet to accomplish right now. We've only touched at a very small surface area of the Moon. It's important to see that the opening of the far side of the Moon represents a vast potential to give us new insights into human growth.

So, we were just a moment ago talking about the negative growth rates under the insane policies of the Obama administration. Well, what has this been caused by? What has this been a result of? This has been a result of Obama's continued murderous policy and spitting on the legacy of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and John F Kennedy, and the visionary legacy embodied by the great German-American space pioneer Krafft Ehricke. What he has done, not just to dismantle the space program, but to dismantle the commitment towards human development and human progress. What has he done in place [of that]? He's actually shut down our Constellation program; the program that had slated us in the trajectory in the United States to be in cooperation with nations around the planet around the commitment to return to the Moon, and eventually to the far side of the Moon. What did Obama replace this policy with? He replaced it with an insane policy of capturing an asteroid, cutting our fusion development program, and continuing to bail out the Wall Street speculators who represent no commitment to human progress and growth.

The American people have to ask themselves how much longer will we put up with this atrocity, this tragedy that has taken hold of our nation? Right now, you look at what was offered to Obama by the Chinese, by the Russians, in terms of "win-win" cooperation; the "win-win" cooperation exemplified by the offer of President Xi Jinping of China to not only work for the common aims of mankind in the development of the Silk Road development plan and projects that were going to benefit the growth of all mankind. To work in collaboration on the exploration of space, which is absolutely crucial to this intention. Obama has refused that. The American people and members of Congress have sat by and done nothing about it.

So, you look at the fact of, this is the reason why we face a negative growth rate in the society right now represented by the United States and the trans-Atlantic financial system. There are a lot of nations right now that are starting to get knocked over the head and recognize that if they don't join with the progress and the New Paradigm being set forth by China and Russia for international cooperation in space development and economic growth, they will be, as the head of NASA in the United States said about the US not cooperating and collaborating with China in space exploration, on the outside looking in. That's where we're going to be if we do not actually take up this full commitment to not just the exploration of space, but truly to what that means. It really can be defined by looking at the vision that was laid out by Krafft Ehricke as a great associate and friend of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche before he passed away. What Krafft Ehricke identified in terms of the importance of lunar exploration in a writing that he provided prior to his death, earlier in his life, called "Lunar Industrialization and Settlement". I want to read from that just briefly, to give you a sense of what it is that is the priority for the development of the lunar surface in the way that Krafft Ehricke envisioned it. It must be taken up as a national and international mission again. So, Krafft says that: "The most important aspect of lunar development lies in the human sector. It bears repeating that technological progress and environmental expansion are no substitutes for human growth and maturity; but they can help the human reach higher maturity and wisdom. He goes on to say that "Human growth is contingent not only on the absence of war, or overcoming war, poverty, and social injustice. But also on the presence of over-arching elevating goals and their associated perspectives. Expanding into space means to be understood and approached as world development. As a positive, peaceful, growth-oriented, macro-sociological project, whose growth is to ultimately release humanity from its present, parasitic, embryonic bondage in the biospheric womb of one planet. This will demand immense human creativity, courage, and maturity."

So, that's what we're discussing here. How do you actually free mankind from this adolescent stage? From the understanding that we are confined to one small planet with limited resources, to the bondage of a biospheric womb on the planet that keeps mankind at states of limited development in a fetal position. When is it that human beings are going to decide to grow up and to leave the nest? That is what is represented by the mapping of the lunar surface; that is what is represented by mankind's reaching out and growing up and going out into the exploration of space. That is the creative process that we must take up right now, which is being denied to us by the attacks on our space program. This is not just the space program as a fun, side project or a hobby; but what is essential to the creative progress of mankind as Mr. LaRouche has clearly understood and has made clear in his development of the Four Laws to Save the United States. The essential aspect of those Four Laws, as was stated by Paul earlier, starting with the Glass-Steagall banking reorganization, going into the progress of re-establishing a credit system, to invest in long-term development projects, has to be centered around a science driver fusion program. This can only be fully developed and fully realized when we realize and bring about our full potential in the exploration of space and everything that represents; including the development of helium-3 on the Moon.

So, as I've said; as Krafft Ehricke, as Mr. LaRouche understands, and as the Chinese and others who are cooperating with them understand, that the most important aspect that we're dealing with right now is the defense of human creative progress. So, I'll just stop right there.

BEN DENISTON: I think that's well said. Maybe the point to be taken through all of this, the focus on the issue of productivity in the beginning, this discussion of the space program, what we really need to push in this context is the realization that this program Kesha's laying out, returning to Krafft Ehricke's vision for lunar development and expansion into space; this is necessary. This is a necessary program, this isn't a cost. These are the kinds of things that actually are the substance of increasing the net total value accessible to mankind as a whole; increasing the productive powers of labor as we're discussing. You hear all this silly talk still about jobs; creating jobs, when we have a net collapse in the productivity of the economy, as we saw with what Paul went through, what Kesha's talking about. This is what actually creates the type of activity that increases the ability for society to sustain itself at a higher standard of living increasingly with less labor input required to maintain the requirements of society. Maybe in the context of Mr. LaRouche's emphasis in the recent weeks, that's also the importance of his focus on Einstein. That also goes to a deeper level of what are the fundamental changes that mankind only uniquely can make that allow us to have these kinds of transformations. We certainly have a clear program before us with what China and Russia are leading.

Just for our viewers, next Wednesday, we're going to be discussing some of this lunar program in a little more detail. So, I would definitely highlight that as a coming episode; we're going to focus a little bit more on this lunar far side program. What China is doing; what's so unique about the far side of the Moon. We just have a clear march from these nations leading in this direction — fusion and space together. This is the driver that's absolutely needed; it's not a cost, it's not an expense. It's a necessary requirement for mankind; especially for the United States in our state right now. That should also be seen as driving to the process of pushing real fundamental breakthroughs in science such as we haven't had since Einstein. I know Jason Ross has elaborated this in recent days to good effect.

With the imminent breakdown of this financial system and the importance of this G-20 focus coming up right now in the context of clear recognition that we're right on the verge of something worse than a repeat of 2008; I think this being the clear message and marching orders for where we need to go, is absolutely critical at this point. It's not enough just to address and reorganize the financial system; that's absolutely required, but to what effect? To actually drive the kind of growth that China's leading; Kesha's leading a revival of that in Texas to get that going in the United States again.

OGDEN: Along those lines, this entire process that I laid out in terms of Mr. LaRouche's advocacy for a new international financial architecture, was never separate from his insistence that it had to be based on fundamental scientific revolutions; the discovery and incorporation of new physical principles into the economy at large. Not let's rearrange just the bureaucracy of how banks work, or something like that. And it was not even just what other people turned it into, which was that we need equal representation for the developing countries; or the Third World is not having the proper voice at the bargaining table at the World Bank or something like that. It was never something at that level; it was always at the level of why did Mr. LaRouche found the Fusion Energy Foundation, for example. Can you imagine what kind of productivity would be unleashed by the development of commercial, controllable fusion power? That would be unequalled by anything that has come heretofore; it would make what FDR achieved look like hardly anything. Mr. LaRouche's emphasis with the Strategic Defense Initiative was always that we need a breakthrough in terms of physical principles; it was hand-in-hand with fusion energy development, but it was also bringing that into the realm of space exploration and harnessing principles which were beyond what man even understood at that point. In the same exact period, he was also discussing how are we going to have lunar colonization and colonies on Mars. This was LaRouche's emphasis all through that time.

So, the new economic architecture is not separate from a fundamental revolution in science on the caliber of what Einstein achieved; and that is what drives economic productivity. Nothing less than that.

GALLAGHER: I wonder if you can get the third graph on the screen. This gives an idea of how — this goes from 1958 over to 2012, and it's the NASA budget. This gives an idea of how rapidly leaderships of the United States abandoned the actual frontiers of space exploration before we had even gotten to the Moon for the first time. Because by the time we did, that tremendous drop was already underway; and it goes all the way to the present day. The same thing could be shown for the United States effort in research on fusion. They just were abandoned in the face of the extraordinarily powerful visions of human future powers that pioneers like Krafft Ehricke had, in terms of covering the Moon's surface with a new human habitation and industrialization as a jumping off point for the rest of the Solar System. All of that — he called it the Seventh Continent — all of that was abandoned along with the tremendous power resources and capacities involved in the fusion technology. Today you can barely find a laser cutting process anywhere in US industry; these things have just been abandoned. If what you see in that graph were reversed very suddenly under the impulse of a desire and a decision that gets rid of Obama and his leadership, and a decision that says we will be part of a team of space-faring nations which in this endeavor would be led by China; maybe in others by us, in others by India, in others by Russia. We'll be part of that overall exploration and this will reverse; this would have a tremendous impact on the entire not only productivity, but the condition of society. This is really the condition of the individual human being, who has these creative possibilities is what LaRouche is always, always talking about; that this is what makes such possibilities of an individual becoming a genius and the fruitfulness of that genius. This expands it to the greatest degree, if leadership will make these kinds of decisions. This decision is right in front of us with this upcoming G-20 summit; and again, I repeat what Helga said. If the US doesn't put Glass-Steagall into law — it's now been adopted by both parties in their platforms; it ought to be law by no later than the end of this year. If the US doesn't put Glass-Steagall into law immediately, and enforce it right off the collapsing derivatives bubbles; then it's sabotaging this process which has to go forward. Then we will see more loss of our population, more suicide, more drug addiction, more hopelessness among the population unless we make this 180 degree turn.

OGDEN: One thing Helga has also repeatedly said upon her return from these trips to China, is that — and I think other people just pick up on this, too — is that the optimism is pervasive; you can sense it among the population. The 3.8% growth rate in productivity, the 8% growth rate, is just a reflection of an attitude that says, "Our job is to create a future. We will give our children a future. Our lives have meaning because we are involved in creating a future which has not, prior to this point, existed." If you contrast that with an increasing pessimism, cynicism, rage — which is clearly reflected in this election process in the United States population — all of those are symptomatic of exactly what is being addressed in this discussion.

One other thing that Krafft Ehricke said which I thought was just well put; he said, "If God had intended us to be a space-faring species, he would have given us a Moon." Well, he did; and that's the launching-off point for mankind to move into the Solar System and beyond. So, if that's not an optimistic idea of the capabilities of the human species, I don't know what is. I know that that's one of the elements that is also being incorporated into the Manhattan Project process.

One more thing I wanted to mention before we close the show today, is the accompanying articles in this week's Hamiltonian are: 1) a short article by Jason Ross on the true genius of Einstein. It's called "Discovering Humanity's True Nature; the Case of Einstein". But then, the back side of the broad sheet is a discussion of 1) an article by Diane Sare, called "2016: America's Moment of Decision, in which she discusses some of the legacy of the optimism surrounding the tradition of Classical music within the United States and the fight to revive that tendency among people who were close friends with Lyndon LaRouche when they were alive: Bill Warfield; Sylvia Olden Lee; Robert McFerrin; and others. And then there's a very short excerpt of an interview with the national music director of the Schiller Institute, John Sigerson, in which he's discussing the significance of the upcoming series of four concerts of Mozart's Requiem over the weekend of September 11th, in the interests of justice and in dedication to the victims of those attacks and everything that has happened since. So, that's another very crucial element in terms of the ability to uplift a population and to give them a sense that a future is possible; and that these kinds of very dramatic changes in policy could happen in a very short amount of time. If we were able to force the declassification of the 28 pagess, which we did; nobody can deny the very significant central role that we played in doing that. People might have said, "This is a hopeless cause." If we were able to do that, then yes, we also can force the passage and enforcement of Glass-Steagall and a radical, dramatic change in policy of the United States in the direction of this new economic architecture which is being led by China and Russia among others.

With that taken as the final word, I'm going to thank everybody for joining me — Paul Gallagher, Ben Deniston, Kesha Rogers; and thank you all for joining us here today. I know we continue to gain new subscribers of the LaRouche PAC live YouTube channel; so I encourage you, if you have not done so yet, to subscribe to this channel. You will get the opportunity to have a notification of this discussion that Ben mentioned next Wednesday, on the further implications of the Chinese lunar program. Thank you for joining us and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.

»Når skibe til at besejle tomrummet mellem stjernerne er blevet bygget, vil der træde mennesker frem til at sejle disse skibe.« (Kepler)                                                   

25. august, 2016 (Leder) – Vi ser på internationale operationer. Internationale faktorer er de væsentligste for os lige nu. Lokale reaktioner kan være mere begrænsede. Verdens nationer ønsker at tilslutte sig, og vil tilslutte sig, Kina med den langsigtede mission at kortlægge Månen i forbindelse med Kinas banebrydende mission til Månens bagside i 2018. Månen er det nødvendige springbræt til hele rummet. Som Krafft Ehricke sagde: »Hvis Gud ønskede, at mennesket skulle blive en art, der færdes i rummet, ville han have givet mennesket en måne.« Men hvordan kan nogen være i tvivl om, at USA skal være fuldt ud involveret i denne proces, ved hvilken menneskehedens fremtid generationer frem i tiden bliver skabt lige nu af dem, der er i live i dag? Ja, dette er selve livets formål. Vil Obama insistere på, at vi ikke vender tilbage til Månen? »Har været der; har gjort det?« Det viser, hvad der må ske med Obama; hvor Obama må gå hen, og hvorfor.

Historien om menneskehedens rumprogram, fra dets begyndelse i Tyskland og gennem alle dets indviklede udviklinger i det 20. århundrede og videre til dets fremtid i det 21. århundrede og længere frem endnu, er et globalt spørgsmål, der skal behandles globalt og især funderes i dets førende ophavsmand, Krafft Ehrickes indsigter. Ehricke arbejdede tæt sammen med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche og delte fuldt ud deres dybe og totale engagement. 

Den dybere forståelse af dette spørgsmål i sit fulde omfang leder ind på mange andre områder, områder, som den dårligt (fejl-)uddannede lægmand forestiller sig at vide noget om, men hvorom han ingenting ved. Ved han sågar, hvad en videnskabsmand er? Er en videnskabsmand en forsker, der finder en bedre formel til at repræsentere såkaldte eksperimentelle resultater? Nej, slet ikke. Og hvad er videnskab? 

Vi må have en generel forståelse af menneskehedens rumprogram, dets historie og dets fremtid, i den form for brede termer, hvori Krafft Ehricke forstod det. Hvilke spørgsmål præsenterer Månens bagside os for nu, i forhold til, hvad Solsystemet vil komme til at betyde for os senere? Vi må forstå disse spørgsmål for at kunne opbygge en rumpolitik for fremtiden.

Fortsatte studier af det, som Krafft gjorde i løbet af sit liv, først i Tyskland og sidenhen i USA, er en solid base for fremtidige fremskridt. Det spørgsmål, som han stillede til Helga Zepp-LaRouche, da han vidste, at han snart skulle dø, satte alting i forbindelse med hinanden. Dette spørgsmål lever stadig videre i dag.

Mere generelt er vi nødt til at lokalisere dette aspekt af historien inden for hele historiens struktur. Vi ser ikke bare på et enkelt aspekt. Vi må tage udgangspunkt i hele planetens histories sammensatte struktur: DET er vores ansvar. Når folk gør det, er de tvunget til at tænke på den måde, og de begynder at producere på den måde.

Obama, og hvad han repræsenterer, skal fjernes – med hvilke midler? Vi ved det endnu ikke, men vi er nødt til at dumpe ham, eller foranledige, at han bliver dumpet. Hvis vi ikke gør det, ved vi ikke, hvad der kan ske. Han må smides ud og klart fordømmes, ellers er muligheden for at redde civilisationen i alvorlig fare. Han må ydmyges og fjernes fra embedet. Hvis ikke vi gør det, står vi i problemer til halsen. 

Vi må fremme processen; vi kan ikke lade processen kontrollere os. Vi er nødt til at drive processen fremad og opnå effekten. Dette vil ikke komme gratis til os; vi må vinde det.

Foto: Den 14. juli 2015 så NASA’s New Horizons-rumfartøj tilbage i retning af Solen, og indfangede tæt på solnedgangen dette billede af de forrevne, isdækkede bjerge og flade is-sletter, der strækker lige så langt Plutos horisont er synlig. [foto: nasa.gov]

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video: 2. del:

Lyd:

Efter mødet på dansk, havde vi en diskussion om menneskets erkendelsesevne på engelsk sammen med vores kollega Flavio fra Italien. Inden optagelsen begyndte, talte Flavio om problemet med videnskabsundervisning, som er baseret på empirisme, der betoner erfaring, i modsætning til tænkning.

Part 1:

Part 2:

25. august, 2016 (Leder) – Den største enkeltstående hindring for, at verden kan bevæge sig ind i det ny globale paradigme for samarbejde om udvikling, videnskabelige fremskridt og en ny æra med rumforskning og opdagelser, er de mange kriser, der er blevet fremprovokeret af den britiske agent Barack Obama i løbet af sine syv-et-halvt år i embedet.      

Det er heldigt, at verdens ledere skal samles ved en række topmøder, der starter i løbet af de næste par uger, og som vil give mulighed for at imødegå disse accelererende kriser og for, under ledelse af personer som Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping og Narendra Modi, at handle med dristighed. Xi Jinping har allerede gjort det klart, at han vil bruge sit formandsskab af dette års G20-topmøde til at genoplive den oprindelige målsætning om at skabe en ny global finansiel og økonomiske arkitektur (G20 udviklede sig fra præsident Bill Clintons G22-initiativ, der skulle finde løsninger på 1997-98-fasen af det fortsat fremstormende, globale finansielle sammenbrud).

Obama-katastroferne rammer i hele verden, herunder i USA, hvor Obamacare er på randen af et sammenbrud med store sygeforsikringsselskaber, der insisterer på præmiestigninger for 2017 på 40-62 procent, og med mange stater, der er ude af stand til at opretholde markeder for sygesikring, som Obama ellers hævdede ville reducere forsikringssatserne og udvide dækningen.

Obamas forfejlede politik i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika fortsætter med at være en hårfin udløser for en større krig med Rusland. Embedsmænd i Pentagon har udstedt direkte trusler om at nedskyde russiske og syriske fly, hvis de truer amerikanske specialstyrker, der opererer med syriske oprørsgrupper inde i syrisk territorium – en åbenlys krænkelse af syrisk suverænitet.  I går nåede den tåbelige Obama-politik et absolut lavpunkt, med amerikanske styrker, der yder støtte til en tyrkisk-ledet invasion af det nordlige Syrien til bekæmpelse af bade ISIS og kurdiske krigere – som også er støttet af amerikansk militærpersonel. Den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov, som skal mødes med den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry i Geneve på fredag og lørdag, har gjort det klart, at der ikke kan blive nogen fælles amerikansk-russisk krig mod Islamisk Stat, med mindre USA gør det klart, at Washington ikke støtter Al Qaeda-Nusra Front, der for nyligt ændrede navn og hævder at have droppet sine bånd til Al Qaeda.

I det asiatiske Stillehavsområde har indsættelsen af det amerikanske THAAD missilforsvarssystem i Sydkorea øget risikoen for krig i dette omskiftelige område. USA og Sydkorea udfører nu fælles øvelser ud for den koreanske kyst, øvelser, der har foranlediget Nordkorea til at udføre en prøveaffyring af et ubådsbaseret missil, der landede i Japans ADIZ i det Østkinesiske Hav (Air Defense Identification Zone; luftforsvars-identifikationszone).

På trods af klare beviser for, at saudierne i deres krig mod Yemen begår folkemord, så fortsætter USA med at levere afgørende støtte til den saudiske krigskoalition og fortsætter med at sælge for hundreder af milliarder dollars våben til kongeriget – selv efter udgivelsen af de 28 sider af den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, der dokumenterede omfattende støtte fra det saudiske regime til de terrorister, der angreb World Trade Center og Pentagon.

Alt, hvad præsident Obama har rørt ved, siden han tiltrådte embedet, har vist sig at være katastrofalt, og den kumulative effekt af hans krigspolitik og hans monetære og økonomiske politik har bragt verden på randen af katastrofe.

På samme tid har Ruslands, Kinas, Indiens og andre eurasiske landes indsats skabt nye muligheder for økonomisk vækst gennem projekter, der er godt i gang, under Kinas program for Ét bælte, Én vej, som nu også er vedtaget af den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, og som ASEAN-nationerne og andre nu også i stigende grad tilslutter sig.
Tiden for at dumpe Obama er for længst overskredet, og sammen med ham også hans britisk-dikterede politik.

Foto: Et nyt paradigme er inden for menneskehedens rækkevidde, hvis Obama endelig fjernes fra embedet før valget. [Officielt Hvide Hus-foto af Pete Souza]

Den 18. – 20. august fandt den 8. årlige konference for Forbundet for Sammenslutninger af Kinesiske Eksperter i Europa (FCPAE) i Danmark sted, med titlen »Nye muligheder for kinesisk-europæisk samarbejde – inkl. initiativet for ’Ét bælte, Én vej’«.

Der var omkring 450 deltagere, med repræsentanter for kinesiske eksperter, der arbejder i Europa, danske, europæiske og kinesiske regeringsfolk, selskabsrepræsentanter, studenter og akademikere.

Schiller Instituttets delegation, der var blevet inviteret til at deltage, havde livlige diskussioner hele dagen med mange af deltagerne i området, hvor man får forfriskninger, i konferencesalens forhal, og fik kontaktinformation fra 85 personer fra Kina, Danmark, Sverige, Tyskland, Belgien, Frankrig og UK. De var meget interesseret, da de hørte, at vi mobiliserer for at få Europa og USA til at arbejde tæt sammen med Kina om bygningen af projektet for ’Ét Bælte, Én Vej’, og for at udvide dette til en økonomisk udviklingsstrategi for Verdenslandbroen i stedet for at forsvare det døende, transatlantiske system og konfrontation og krig med Kina og Rusland. Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale ved T20-konferencen i Beijing og reklamemateriale for Verdenslandbro-rapporten blev delt ud på kinesisk, dansk og engelsk. Dette vil blive fulgt op af en rekruttering af alle til at blive ambassadører for det nye paradigme i Europa.

En kontakt begyndte at forklare, hvorfor det vestlige finanssystem vil krakke, og hvordan dette kan føre til krig gennem provokationer i Ukraine og det Sydkinesiske Hav, og han købte omgående Verdenslandbro-rapporten. Andre gav udtryk for deres forundring over, hvor omfattende Schiller Instituttets vision var, og de kunne på den anden side forstå faren for kollaps og krig. En anden kontakt er endda koordinator for kinesiske børnekor i Danmark.

Selve konferencen blev også arrangeret af Sammenslutningen af Kinesiske Eksperter i Danmark (ACED), med co-sponsorering fra det Danske Udenrigsministeriums departement Invester i Danmark, Konfucius-erhvervsinstituttet i København ved Københavns Erhvervsskole, Hillerød kommune, hvor arrangementet afholdtes, og Københavns investeringsdepartement.

På den kinesiske side sagde den kinesiske ambassadør til Danmark, H.E. hr. Biwei Liu, at, konfronteret med den sløve verdensøkonomi præsenterer det afgørende initiativ med ’Ét bælte, Én vej’ (OBOR), med win-win-samarbejde, en ny mulighed for at revitalisere Eurasien. Det er meget betydningsfuldt for Kina og Europa at bygge OBOR i fællesskab. Han talte om væksten i de dansk-kinesiske økonomiske relationer, og at OBOR vil betyde endnu flere muligheder for samarbejde.

T.v. Den kinesiske ambassadør i Danmark H.E. hr. Biwei Liu, og præsidenten for den Kinesiske Kultur- og Kunstfond, Gu Changjiang, t.h.

Vicepræsidenten for Statens Administration for Udenlandske Ekpert-anliggender i Kina holdt også en tale. Desuden gav præsidenten for Kinas Kultur- og Kunstfond, Gu Changjiang, en meget interessant præsentation af »Ét Bælte, Én vej-museets Uddannelsesprogram«, som arbejder på at forbinde alle verdens museer gennem en internet cloud, og han viste en spændende video om projektet, der viste kinesiske skolebørn, som modtog undervisning af en museumsguide et sted i verden.

Udstrakte danske relationer med Kina tjener som en livline for det nye paradigme, selv, mens landet fortsat støtter sanktioner imod Rusland. Dette kom til udtryk gennem deltagelsen af højtplacerede danskere, inklusive videohilsen fra den danske udenrigsminister, der var i Argentina, og den danske kronprins Frederik fra Brasilien, så vel som også fra chefen for Handelsrådet ved Udenrigsministeriet, der havde været generalkonsul i Shanghai, samt lokalvalgte repræsentanter.

Danmark er det eneste land, der har haft en ubrudt diplomatisk tilstedeværelse i Kina siden 1908 og som var et af de første lande, der anerkendte Folkerepublikken Kina i 1950, og i 2008 blev et strategisk partnerskab etableret. Repræsentanten fra Handelsrådet sagde, at der nu er 500 danske selskaber i Kina, og 100 kinesiske selskaber i Danmark. Førende danske selskaber, der er involveret i Kina, præsenterede deres erfaring.

Der var også en interessant præsentation om det Kinesisk-danske Universitetscenter i Beijing, et fælles forsknings- og uddannelsesprojekt mellem otte danske universiteter, det Danske Ministerium for Højere Uddannelse og Videnskab, det Kinesiske Universitet ved det Kinesiske Videnskabsakademi, samt det Kinesiske Forskningsinstitut ved det Kinesiske Videnskabsakademi.

Alt i alt vil konferencen være med til at forøge de kinesisk-europæiske relationer og Schiller Instituttets kampagne for et nyt paradigme.     

23. august 2016 – Det kinesiske nyhedsagentur Xinhua udgav i dag flere historier, der udtrykkeligt fremstiller den presserende nødvendighed af at »reformere« det internationale finansielle og økonomiske system ved G20-topmødet den 4.- 5. september, konfronteret med sådanne kriser som »et muligt kollaps af eurozonen«, hvilket, bemærker Xinhua, »forventes at kaste en skygge over verdensøkonomien«.

Xinhuas telegrammer henviser til IMF’s nylige rapport, der forudser langvarig stagnation i de udviklede lande under det nuværende system, men citerede dernæst den tidligere formand for USA’s Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspans udtalelse i et interview med Bloomberg Radio, der blev udsendt i weekenden, om, at han forventer, at Eurozonen »vil bryde sammen«, som en måde, hvorpå de påpeger de umiddelbart forestående farer.

»En sådan tragedie kunne blive til virkelighed som et resultat af, at de udviklede økonomier ikke overvinder det stadigt større svælg mellem de rige og de fattige nationalt, reducerer gældsbyrden og fornyer aktivitet og vitalitet i udviklingen, efter den globale finanskrise i 2008«, skrev Xinhua. Denne manglende overvindelse har »ført til tvivl og kritik af neoliberalismen, som USA er fortaler for, og som afslører manglen på både ideer og forholdsregler hos dem for at fremme den globale økonomi«.

Xinhua identificerede monetarismen som en sygdom, der skal erstattes af vækst, og skriver, at »en overdreven afhængighed af en monetær politik, især i nogle udviklede lande, har ført til makroøkonomisk og finansiel ustabilitet andre steder. Anvendelsen af finanspolitik er også begrænset i nogle lande pga. det store gældsniveau … Alt imens finanspolitik og en monetær politik vil adressere fluktuationer på kort sigt, så behøves der en strategi på længere sigt for at ophæve den nuværende sygelighed, der gennemtrænger verdensøkonomien. Reformer og strukturtilpasninger i særdeleshed må inkorporeres i de aktuelle rammer for politikken, for at skabe et frugtbart miljø for vækst«, skrev Xinhua i sin historie, der havde titlen »G20-topmøde i Kina en affyringsrampe for global økonomi«.

Alle G20-nationer – bemærk, at Kina mobiliserer nationer, ikke »markeder«, som løsningen – fortjener at, og må, spille en større rolle i styringen af verdensøkonomien. »Kina vil bruge G20-konferencen til at give stødet til dialog blandt udviklede lande og udviklingslande omkring potentialet for at fremme vækst gennem reformer og innovation … Innovation, der karakteriseres af teknologi og nye produkter og forretningsmodeller, vil skabe nye muligheder for forbrug og strømninger … «

I et andet nyhedstelegram skrev Xinhua, at eksperter forventer, at den nye, økonomisk orden »vil føre til en fair fordeling af goderne fra den globale udvikling, inklusive overførslen af nye teknologier til udviklingslande, og vil skabe kanaler for, at produktionskapacitet og investeringer kan strømme derhen, hvor der er stort behov for dem«.

G20-topmødet vil blot være begyndelsen. »Det bliver en farefuld rejse med forhindringer. For at adressere den lave vækst med held, må nationer sætte deres lid til samarbejde, gennemførelse og, undertiden, smertefulde reformer. Selv om det måske bliver en bitter pille at sluge, så vil resultaterne tale for sig selv« insisterer den kinesiske nyhedstjeneste.     

24. august, 2016 (Leder) – Kinas præsident Xi Jinping har gjort det klart, at han, på det forestående G20-topmøde for statsoverhoveder i Hangzhou, har til hensigt at holde fokus på det presserende behov for en ny global finansiel og økonomisk arkitektur. Faktisk har hele dynamikken i verden flyttet sig til Asien, hvor der tages syvmileskridt hen imod at få den nye finansielle arkitektur på plads. De officielle kinesiske medier, i følge med russiske top-analytikere, har gjort det klart, at et sådant nyt og funktionsdygtigt system må inkludere USA – og det betyder, at USA ultimativt må opgive dets illusioner om at herske over en unipolær verden, der ikke længere eksisterer, og aldrig burde have eksisteret i første omgang.

En særlig indsigtsfuld opfordring fra Andrey Kortunov, generaldirektør for det russiske Råd for Internationale Affærer, dukkede tirsdag op i Xinhua. Her advarede han: »Jo længere, disse reformer udsættes, desto større er risikoen for nye kriser og ustabilitet i verdensøkonomien.« Der er en udbredt overbevisning om, at Europa er på kanten af et økonomisk sammenbrud med alvorlige globale følger. Bloomberg rapporterede tirsdag, at Deutsche Bank, Barclays og Credit Suisse kombineret sidder på $102,5 milliarder i »Niveau 3«-aktiver, der er illikvide og ikke vil kunne dumpes med kort varsel i en krise. The Economist har givet sin udgave 20.-26. august overskriften »Mareridt på Main Street« og advarer om et kollaps af det $26 billioner store amerikanske boligmarked, der igen har et bjerg af derivater og andre ikke-bank sikkerhedsstillede gambling-papirer bygget ovenpå. 

Kortunov sluttede af med at opfordre til, at »både Rusland og Kina konsekvent bør søge fælles fodslag med Washington og undgå kriser, uden dog at gøre indrømmelser på principielle spørgsmål.«

En anden kommentar i Xinhua angreb »den overdrevne afhængighed af pengepolitik« og fokus på »markeder« i modsætning til »nationer« – på bekostning af politikker, der sigter mod reel fysisk, økonomisk vækst, baseret på teknologisk innovation. »Kina vil bruge konferencen til at anspore til dialog mellem udviklede lande og udviklingslande om potentialet for at skabe vækst gennem reformer og innovation«, annoncerede Xinhua.

Grundlaget for en sådan ny global finansiel og økonomisk arkitektur er blevet solidt etableret gennem den voksende integration af Eurasien gennem samarbejde mellem den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen (SCO) og ASEAN. Kinas Ét bælte, Én vej-initiativ baseret på Lyndon og Helga LaRouches oprindelige koncept om den Eurasiske Landbro fra midten af 1990'erne, er det princip, som denne eurasiske udvikling har som sin forudsætning.

På et kasakhisk-polsk forretningsforum i Warszawa, Polen, tirsdag, opfordrede den kasakhiske præsident Nursultan Nazarbayev til en trepartsaftale mellem Rusland, Polen og Kasakhstan om opbygning af transportkorridorer gennem Kaukasus-regionen, som endnu et segment af de samlede eurasiske transport/udviklings-korridorer. Det nye fremspirende samarbejde mellem Rusland, Tyrkiet, Iran og Indien, der i den seneste uge er blevet fremskyndet af en række diplomatiske møder, har et lignende fokus, centreret omkring Nord-Syd-korridoren, der løber op fra den Persiske Golf gennem Rusland og ind i Europa, med sidegrene ind i områderne omkring både Sortehavet og det Kaspiske Hav.

Sådanne »win-win«-ideer kræver intet mindre end et paradigmeskift for tankegang – hvor man opgiver de gamle, døde, britiske imperiekoncepter med del-og-hersk geopolitik, koncepter, der bragte verden et århundrede med to verdenskrige og en 50 årig koldkrigsperiode.

I USA og Europa er konkursen af hele det finansielle og monetære system så fremskreden, at den eneste tilbageværende løsning er en omgående genindførelse af en total, Glass-Steagall bankopdeling i USA og vedtagelse af identiske love i Europa. Glass-Steagall er blot det første, uomgængelige skridt hen imod den form for ny finansiel og økonomisk arkitektur, som Xi Jinping vil lægge frem på bordet ved topmødet den 4.-5. september i Hangzhou.

Foto: Fra det seneste G20-møde for finansministre i Chengdu, Kina, 23. – 24. juli, 2016. Ved mødet blev ministre og guvernører enige om, at den globale, økonomiske genrejsning fortsætter, men fortsat er svagere end ønsket, og at der fortsat er risiko for en nedgang.

21. august 2016 (Leder) – Med USA’s og Europas økonomier, der nærmer sig nulvækst og produktivitets-nulvækst, er der hundredevis af forslag fremme »for at opbygge en ny, økonomisk infrastruktur«, forslag, der næsten alle sammen totalt ignorer videnskaben.

I realiteten var ny, produktiv økonomisk infrastruktur, opbygget i løbet af Amerikas forrige århundrede udelukkende under FDR’s og JKF’s præsidentskaber, opbygget med videnskab som motor: de nye videnskaber atomfission (sprængning af atomkernen) og partikelfysik, udfordringerne med højspændingselektricitet og transmission over lange afstande; og med vandstyring og -omdirigering i stor skala; og med Apolloprojektets udforskning af Månen. Computere? De faldt ud af forskernes baglomme, blot som midler til videnskabelige mål.

I dag bygges og forfølges sådan reel, produktiv »infrastruktur« af Kina. De har planlagt, at netop en sådan »innovation« og vækst skal være temaet for G20-topmødet, som Kina om to uger vil være formand for. Der er intet, der tyder på, at Obama eller Europa er enige; Obama og Hillary Clinton er snarere på den militære konfrontations-sti med Kina, såvel som med Rusland.

De »Fire Nødvendige Love«, som kræves for fremtidigt, økonomisk fremskridt, og som stiftende redaktør af EIR, Lyndon LaRouche, formulerede i 2014, er på enestående vis tilpasset den udfordring, som Kinas lederskab præsenterer for G20-lederne.

De andre, aktuelle forslag om »infrastruktur-finansiering« ignorerer fysisk videnskab, hvis fremskudte grænser skal findes i fusionskraft/plasma og superleder-teknologier, i geo-biofysik og i udforskning af rummet. Og de ignorerer videnskaben om kredit – det område, som Alexander Hamilton lovgav om, og som fandt, at formålet med kredit og bankpraksis var at koncentrere nationens opsparede midler således, at de servicerede videnskabelig opdagelse og teknologisk produktivitet.

I sidste måned blev næsten 1000 amerikanske offentligt valgte personer i Chicago præsenteret – af Wall Street – for en plan for »ny amerikansk infrastruktur«. Den var baseret på de superlave rentesatser, som Federal Reserve (USA’s centralbank) nu i syv år har fastsat. Planen foreslog, at USA’s Finansministerium lånte $4 billion [!] med 100-årige amerikanske obligationer »til infrastruktur«, med en begyndelsesrente på omkring 1 %, der skal tilpasses opad gradvist sammen med inflationen. Nogle af de statslige og lokale valgte blev oplivet over dette.

Obamas »Lov om Økonomisk Stimulering« fra 2010 benyttede sig ligeledes af meget lave rentesatser og lånte næsten $1 billion – og aldrig har den produktive vækst i den amerikanske økonomi været lavere end under de seks Obama-år, de er forløbet siden da.

Det er blot sekundært, at denne nye Wall Street-plan er »helikopter-penge«; men det er en helikopter, som selv Ben Bernanke ikke ville flyve. Patriotiske amerikanere, der evt. købte de 100-årige »infrastruktur«-obligationer, ville omgående se dem falde i værdi, og sælge dem til hedgefunds, der spekulerer i gæld.

Det afgørende er, at Wall Streets »ny amerikansk infrastruktur«-plan – man vil også meget snart få at høre om det fra Hillary Clinton – ikke på nogen måde omfatter rumforskningens fremskudte grænse; ikke omtaler fusionskraft eller plasmateknologier; og ikke overvejer et højhastigheds- og magnetisk levitations-jernbanenet, der spænder over hele kontinentet.

Vi har ikke brug for, at Wall Street opfinder penge. Vi har brug for videnskabelig opdagelse, der udgør drivkraften bag, og som selv får drivkraft fra, infrastrukturbyggeri – det var, hvad vi havde gennem FDR og kortvarigt gennem JFK. LaRouche bemærkede i en diskussion i går: »Det er videnskab. Det er alt sammen videnskab. Det er ikke politik; det er videnskab.«

Foto: JFK besigtiger Wiskeytown Reservoiret ved en dedikationsceremoni for Wiskeytown Dæmning og Reservoir i Californien, 28. september 1963. [foto: Robert Knudsen. White House Photograhs. John F. Kennedys præsidentielle Bibliotek og Museum, Boston]

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

19. august 2016 – En delegation fra Würzburg, Tyskland, der netop er hjemvendt efter et besøg i Kina, rapporterer, at den havde møder i Xi’an med flere ledende kinesiske regeringsfolk og tyskere, der arbejder i byen, om planer om at opføre en helt ny storby ved siden af Xi’an. Dette projekt, »Porten til Silkevejen«, vil involvere deltagelse fra Frankrig og Tyskland, inklusive et museumselement, der skal fremvise udvalgte, vigtige, historiske bygninger i Frankrig og Tyskland, så som f.eks. en replika af Berlins Brandenburger Tor. Så meget for turistattraktioner.

Vigtigere er imidlertid det industrielle aspekt: Den Kinesiske Statskommissions afdeling i Xi’an har bedt et rådgivningsfirma med base i Würzburg, som Kina tidligere har arbejdet sammen med, om at udarbejde en køreplan for lovende investeringer i den nye by, som er attraktive for tyske selskaber, med vægt på den produktive Mittelstand. Selskabet vil især tage kontakt til de selskaber, der gerne vil gøre forretninger med Kina, men som ikke har det. Ud over at være forbundet til den Ny Silkevejs jernbanelinje til Europa vil den nye by også få en lufthavn.

Info: Xi’an er hovedstaden i provinsen Shaanxi i det nordvestlige Kina og én af Kinas ældste byer og én af de fire, antikke hovedstæder i Kina. Xi’an er begyndelsespunktet for den gamle Silkevej, som i århundreder var den tråd, der forbandt øst og vest. Fra så tidligt som år 200 f. Kr. rejste købmænd med deres kamelkaravaner fra Xi’an (Chang’an), Kinas hovedstad dengang, mod vest, så langt som til Konstantinopel, for at sælge silke. Xi’an er hjemstedet for kejser Qin Shi Huangs terrakottahær. Desuden rummer Xi’an bl.a. centrer for Kinas rumfartsindustri. Xi’an har 4,4 mio. indbyggere. De to kinesiske tegn i navnet Xi'an, 西安, betyder 'Vestlig Fred'. 

Würzburg: Med bl.a. Fraunhofer Institut for Forskning i Silikat, som er en del af Fraunhofer-selskabet, Europas største organisation for anvendt forskning.  Det udvikler materialer for morgendagens produkter og tilbyder samarbejde med små og mellemstore virksomheder og med industriselskaber i stor skala.

Universitet for Anvendt Videnskab for Würzburg-Schweinfurt blev grundlagt i 1971 som et teknologisk institut med afdelinger i Würzburg og Schweinfurt. Det er med sine 8.000 studerende det næststørste universitet for anvendt videnskab i Franken i delstaten Bayern, med studiegrene inden for blandt andet arkitektur, civilingeniør, geodæsi og logistik. Würzburg har 125.000 indbyggere. (-red.)  

Lad os sige, at, en skønne dag, f. eks. en søndag morgen, præsidenterne for hhv. USA og Kina og et par andre, efter et weekend-møde siger: »Vi har denne weekend besluttet, at vi, baseret på vore rådgivere samt den kendsgerning, at det internationale finansielle og monetære system er håbløst bankerot, som ansvarlige statsoverhoveder, af hensyn til almenvellet må erklære disse bankerotte institutioner konkurs og sætte dem under konkursbehandling. Og det er i vores interesse, at vi samarbejder om dette som nationer, for at undgå at skabe kaos på denne planet.«

Engelsk udskrift.

WHY HAVE WE ALLOWED AN EMPIRE TO DOMINATE OUR EXISTENCE FOR FAR TOO LONG?

International LaRouche PAC Webcast , Aug. 19, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It's August 19th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden. You're joining us for our weekly broadcast here
on Friday evenings of our LaRouche PAC webcast. I'll be your host
tonight. I'm joined in the studio by Jason Ross, from the
LaRouche PAC science team; and we're joined, via video, by Kesha
Rogers and Michael Steger, both leading members of the LaRouche
PAC Policy Committee.
        As we broadcast this show here tonight, the second edition
— newest copy — of the weekly publication, {The Hamiltonian} is
going to press. This is going to be flooding into the streets of
New York City close on the heels of the first edition, which came
out two weeks ago. Both Kesha Rogers and Michael Steger have
articles that are on the front page of this week's copy of {The
Hamiltonian}. Michael Steger wrote an article called "LaRouche
Was Right. End Wall Street, Now", and Kesha Rogers wrote a very
profound and beautiful article called "A Truly Human Culture —
an Expression of the Creative Human Mind."
        What Kesha addresses in this article is the inner
relationship between the minds of Lyndon LaRouche, Albert
Einstein, and Krafft Ehricke, and their conception of what a
truly human culture is.
        Joining us here today is Jason Ross, who has actually
prepared a condensed presentation on the subject of some of the
unique discoveries of Albert Einstein, which will add to our
discussion here today.
        But before we get to that, we've agreed to begin today's
broadcast with a sort of travel back into time. Now that we are
on the verge of a total consolidation of this new Eurasian
system, which is based around the original idea of the
Russia-India-China Strategic Triangle, which was championed by
Lyndon LaRouche and also championed by Prime Minister Yevgeny
Primakov of Russia in the 1990s, we are finding ourselves in a
completely unprecedented situation. It's, I think, very clear, as
we approach the G-20 Summit, the Vladivostok Economic Forum, and
also the United Nations General Assembly, that the entire
strategic geometry of the planet has shifted and has realigned.
        As is rightly pointed out in the lead of today's LaRouche
PAC website, this is not just a "practical" realignment of
nations, but, since we are talking about Einstein here today,
this is almost the "gravitational effect" of an idea which was
introduced almost 20 years ago by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche.
        The video that you're about to see is a very short excerpt
of a speech that Mr. LaRouche made at a forum in Washington, DC
in 1997 in conjunction with the release of the {Executive
Intelligence Review} {first} edition of the special report on the
subject of the Eurasian Land-Bridge. This was a presentation that
was made as part of a series of so-called "development
conferences" that were held in Washington during those couple of
years — 1996, 1997, 1998 — and I think what you'll see in this
video is the fact that it was Lyndon LaRouche's "marching
orders." It was sort of his creative vision of what the role that
China, with the New Silk Road, and also the role that Russia
would play in completely reshaping the strategic geometry of the
world.
        So, this is a short excerpt of that speech from 1997:
        LYNDON LAROUCHE: There are only two nations which are
respectable left on this planet, that is, nations of respectable
power: that is the United States, particularly the United States
not as represented by the Congress, but by the President. It is
the {identity} of the United States which is a political power,
not some concatenation of its parts. The United States is
represented today only by its President, as a political
institution. The Congress does not represent the United States;
they're not quite sure who they do represent, these days,
[laughter] since they haven't visited their voters recently.
        The President is, institutionally, the embodiment of the
United States in international relations. The State Department
can't do that; the Justice Department can't do it; no other
Department can do it; only the President of the United States,
under our Constitution, can represent the United States as an
entity — its entire personality, its true interest, its whole
people.
        Now, there's only one other power on this planet which can
be so insolent as that toward other powers, and that's the
Republic of China. China is engaged, presently, in a great
infrastructure-building project, in which my wife and others have
had an ongoing engagement over some years. There's a great reform
in China, which is a "trouble reform." They're trying to solve a
problem. That doesn't mean there is no problem. But they're
trying to solve it.
        Therefore, if the United States, or the President of the
United States, and China, participate in fostering {that}
project, sometimes called the Silk Road Project, sometimes the
Land-Bridge Project, if that project of developing development
corridors across Eurasia into Africa, into North America, is
extended, that project is enough work to put this whole planet
into an economic revival. I'll get into just a bit of that, to
make it more sensuously concrete.
        China has had cooperation with the government of Iran for
some time. Iran has actually been completing a number of rail
links which are an extension of China's Land-Bridge program (or
Silk Road project). More recently, we've had, on the side of
India, from Indian leadership which has met with the
representatives of China, to engage in an initial route, among
the land routes, for the Land-Bridge program. One goes into
Kunming in China. I was in that area, in Mishana, during part of
World War II. Out of Mishana we had planes flying into Kunming,
"over The Hump," as they used to say in those days. I'm quite
familiar with that area.
        But if you have water connections, canal connections, and
rail connections from Kunming through Mishana — that area —
across Bangladesh into India, through Pakistan into Iran, up to
the area just above Tehran, south of the Caspian — you have
linked to the Middle East; you have linked to Central Asia; you
have linked to Turkey; you have linked to Europe.
        Then you have a northern route, which is pretty much the
route of the Trans-Siberian Railroad, which was built under
American influence and American advice, by Russia. You have a
middle route, which is being developed, in Central Asia, with
China and Iran.
        India is working on a plan which involves only a few
hundreds of kilometers of rail to be added — there were a lot of
other improvements along the right-of-way — which would link the
area north of Tehran through Pakistan, through India, through
Bangladesh, through Myanmar, into Kunming, into Thailand, into
Vietnam, down through Malaysia and Singapore, across the Straits
by a great bridge, into Indonesia.
        There's a plan, also, for the development of a rail link
through what was northern Siberia, across the Bering Strait into
Alaska, and down into the United States. There's a Middle East
link — several links — from Europe, as well as from China, but
from China a Middle East link into Egypt, into all of Africa.
        So, what we have here, is a set of projects which are not
just transportation projects, like the trans-Continental
railroads in the United States, which was the precedent for this
idea, back in the late 1860s and 1870s. You have "development
corridors," where you develop, on an area of 50-70 km on either
side of your rail link, your pipeline, and so forth. You develop
this area with industry, with mining, with all these kinds of
things. Which is the way you {pay} for a transportation link.
Because of all the rich economic activity. Every few kilometers
of distance along this link, there's something going on, some
economic activity. People working, people building things, people
doing things.
        To transform this planet, in great projects of
infrastructure-building, which will give you the great
industries, the new industries, the new agriculture, and the
other things we desperately need. {There is no need for anybody
on this planet, who is able to work, to be out of work.} That
simple. And that project is the means.
        If the nations which agree with China — which now includes
Russia, Iran, India, other nations — if they engage in a
commitment to that project which they're building every day; if
the United States — that is, the President of the United States,
Clinton — continues to support that effort, as he's been doing,
at least politically, then what do you have? You have the United
States and China and a bunch of other countries ganged up
together, against the greatest power on this planet, which is the
British Empire, called the British Commonwealth. That's the
enemy!
        If on one bright day, say a Sunday morning, after a weekend
meeting, the President of the United States, the President of
China, and a few other people say, "We have determined this
weekend, that based on our advisors and the facts, that the
international financial and monetary system is hopelessly
bankrupt, and we in our responsibility as heads of state, must
put these bankrupt institutions into bankruptcy reorganization,
in the public interest. And it is in our interest to cooperate as
nations in doing this, to avoid creating chaos on this planet."
        The result, then, is that such an announcement, on a bright
Sunday morning, will certainly spin the "talking heads" on
Washington TV. [laughter] But otherwise it means that the entire
system, as of that moment, has been put through the guillotine,
and the head is rolling down the street. Alan Greenspan's head,
perhaps.
        That means we have at that point the impetus for building,
immediately, a new financial and monetary system. Now, in putting
a corporation which is bankrupt, into viable form, what do you
do? You've got to find the business that it's going to do, which
is the basis for creating the new credit to get that firm going
again.
        The Land-Bridge program, with its implications on a global
scale, is the great project which spins off directly and
indirectly enough business, so to speak, for every part of this
world, to get this world back on a sound basis again.

OGDEN: As you can see, this is a very prescient speech, and in
fact it was Lyndon LaRouche's active intervention, travelling to
Russia, his wife travelling to China in this period, the
publication of {EIR} Special Report about the Eurasian
Land-Bridge, which has shaped the current situation we find
ourselves in. One thing that's interesting to point out, is those
maps that you were seeing. At that time many of those rail routes
and other pipeline routes were merely proposals, but now many of
them are actually in the process of being built.
        I think it's clear, 20 years on, this is the emergent
dominant system on the planet. At the same time, the
trans-Atlantic system is in completely blowout mode. You have an
oncoming implosion of trillions of dollars of non-performing debt
and derivatives exposures, which are being projected into every
major bank across the trans-Atlantic system.
        In the meantime, in the build-up to the G-20 Summit and into
the United Nations General Assembly, you've got the role that
especially President Putin is playing, in consolidating a series
of alliances, mainly between Russia, China, and India; but also
this emerging alliance between Russia and Turkey; and, very
significantly, the very strengthened alliance between Russia and
Iran, where Russia is now using bases in Iran as a point of
departure for fighter jets to go in and fight against ISIS in
Syria.
        Putin, who is being honored as the Number One guest at the
upcoming G-20 Summit in China, is certainly at the center of all
of this. His career and Mr. LaRouche's career, over the past
twenty years since that speech was delivered in Washington, have
very closely paralleled each other.
        I think we can open up the discussion with that as a basis.

        KESHA ROGERS: Did you want to start, Jason?

        JASON ROSS: You can go ahead Kesha, or Michael.

        ROGERS: Okay. I think Michael might be having some technical
difficulties, so I will go ahead and get started.
        When we look at Mr. LaRouche has emphasized, first of all,
going back to this video that you just showed, it's extremely
important to look at this video as a characteristic of who Mr.
LaRouche is, and his 40- to 50-year track record in economic
development, and what he has been organizing around, from the
standpoint of the center of economics being based on the human
intervention, the human creative process.  And what actually
distinguishes him from all of the other so-called "economists"
out there, because as you just said Matt, what we're dealing with
right now is a breakdown crisis in the society that Mr. LaRouche
has recognized going back to his first forecast of the late
1960s, 1970s.  What were these forecasts based on?  They were
based on the fact that if you went along with a mathematical idea
about how society should function, then you were completely
misunderstanding — or should I say wrong in your understanding
of what actually fosters progress in society.  What fosters
progress in society is not money per se; and this has been Mr.
LaRouche's focus on the role of Alexander Hamilton. [That’s] why
right now as many people have seen, we've already put out one
edition of a new newsletter that you just showed Matt, called
{The Hamiltonian}.  This is extremely important because now we're
putting out the second edition of {The Hamiltonian}, which is
having reverberating effects, particularly throughout Manhattan;
which is the center of the fight for the nation.  That is the
fight where Alexander Hamilton led the fight for the development
of our US Constitution against the British criminals like Aaron
Burr, and against those who wanted to destroy what the United
States actually represented.
        But it goes deeper than that; because I think what we've
discussed a lot around Mr. LaRouche's current fight in Manhattan
and what we're doing with this {Hamiltonian} is what has defined
the mission for bringing about the new Presidency.  Michael wrote
an article last week on the question of the new Presidency
fostered by Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws and the bringing in of those
Four Laws.  The article that's in this week's {Hamiltonian} is by
Michael around LaRouche's track record in economics and why Wall
Street has to be brought down now.  It is followed by the article
that I wrote on the human creative process.  I think we'll get
more into that, but when we bring up this question of a New
Paradigm for mankind and the identity of a renaissance, some of
it becomes in most people's minds because of the society and
culture we live in, a little superficial.  It is based on this
idea that a renaissance has a different meaning to it.  When we
speak of the idea of creating a New Paradigm for mankind, first
and foremost, it is the idea of creating something that has not
yet existed; something that the human creative mind has to bring
into existence.  When you go back and you start to look at the
idea of what the conception of the Italian Renaissance was based
on historically, it was the idea of putting mankind and the human
creative process at the center of the Universe.
        I think it's important that we'll get into this; that this
is what has shaped the identity of Mr. LaRouche around his
emphasis on the unique creative role of Albert Einstein and the
unique creative of others such as was mentioned earlier — Krafft
Ehricke.  I think it's important for people to look at this,
because the question now is that with the collapse of the society
that we're seeing right now, the detrimental collapse of the
culture, what we're seeing in terms of what's taken over the
thinking of the population.  The population is not capable of
actually making decisions as human beings; they're making
decisions based on what somebody tells them is possible or is not
possible.  I think this is a problem we're running into.  How can
you actually say that you have the ability to make decisions as a
free citizen when you're making your decisions based on what you
think is already possible and has been determined as precedents
set and possibilities that are already a determining factor of
what can and cannot happen.
        So, I think that's important to look at as people are
thinking about this insane election process.  Instead of thinking
about what is going to shape your future; is it going to be
something that happens to you?  Or something that you actually
bring into existence?  That's what Mr. LaRouche has been
completely focussed on.  The population has to have a sense that
you're responsible for your future; you must bring that which
does not exist into existence, based on your understanding that
human beings are not animals.  We don't have to go along with the
insanity of what we're told we have to accept.
        So, I'll start with those remarks for now, and let you guys
go on with more.

        OGDEN:  Well, we just got Michael back, so maybe we should
hear him.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Hi.

        OGDEN:  Great!  Welcome back.  We were just discussing some
of the implications of going back and looking back at that video
of Mr. LaRouche's speech in 1997.  I think you actually had
something to point out about the timing of that speech and what
happened just immediately afterwards.

        STEGER:  Yeah, and part of the dynamic in organizing some of
the layers of China at that time was that it was not clear to
many in China at that time, or in Asia, that the western
trans-Atlantic system had major failings and weaknesses.  It was
just two months after that speech was made that the Asian
financial crisis erupted; dominating Southeast Asia and Japan —
the so-called "Asian tigers".  It really made it very clear that
the entire financial system could go.  It was just a year later
that the whole LCTM crisis happened.  So when Mr. LaRouche is
referencing the bankruptcy of the financial system, that was very
apparent in just months to come to almost everyone on the planet;
as apparent as it was in 2008 when the financial system blew
again.  As we point out in the article in the new {Hamiltonian},
the level of insanity that now dominates 20 years later, creates
what is clearly the largest financial breakdown in modern
history.  This is a kind of financial bankruptcy only comparable
to perhaps the blow-out in Italy in the 1300s; which brought a
Dark Age to Europe.
        But what is remarkable is how much these nations like China
— it's just striking; and maybe this has already been stated —
but the context of China and India collaborating on major routes
is an ongoing diplomatic process today.  Far more engaged, far
more serious than anyone can probably imagine; let alone the
integrations of countries like Iran, Turkey.  Everything that Mr.
LaRouche laid out about 20 years ago, is now on a far greater
active collaborative effort among these nations.  It is somewhat
a testament to the power of ideas and how that can shape history
at crisis moments; as we saw in '97 and what we see today.

OGDEN:  I think one thing that is very clear from just looking at
Mr. LaRouche's role in the middle of this, is his emphasis on the
mission that has to bring nations together.  In other words, this
is not just geopolitics in a cynical sense.  This based around a
concept of what is the human species?  What is real profit?  How
do we create a future for a growing population; and how do we
establish the kind of optimism that mankind has a future towards
which the current generations can work?  It's pointed out, I
think a lot of what we're seeing right now is not just a
projection of the past into the present.  This is a reflection of
a future intention.  You can look at what China is doing, for
example, in terms of their space program.  The fact that two
years from now, you're going to have a Chinese probe going to
where no man has gone before; to the far side of the Moon, to
discover things that perhaps we don't even know are questions
yet, in terms of man's relationship to the Universe.
        When we were discussing some of these questions with Mr.
LaRouche yesterday, he had one thing to say which I just would
like to quote verbatim from him which I think can provide the
basis for a furthering of this discussion.  What Mr. LaRouche
said was the following:  "Mankind is not based on the limitations
of individual human behavior; but, in fact, man as a species is
based on the individual powers of the human mind to go beyond
what mankind had conceived of prior.  Giving mankind a power over
the Universe greater than anything achieved heretofore."  We've
been putting a lot of emphasis on the personality of Albert
Einstein, but for what reason?  For the very reason that Albert
Einstein is paradigmatic of exactly that sort of individual,
revolutionary characteristic of genius.  That the genius takes
what was believed prior to that point and calls it into question,
and overturns major aspects of what mankind had believed and had
put into practice up to that point; and revolutionizes mankind's
understanding of the Universe and of himself.  So, I think that's
sort of a window into why the emphasis on Albert Einstein right
now.

        JASON ROSS:  It's difficult to speak for LaRouche; and he's
got opportunities to speak for himself on this site, too, which
he'll continue doing.  But the example of Einstein as a real
{mensch} you might say, a real human being, what it is to be a
person is essential for a couple of reasons.  One, if you think
about the role of LaRouche in history and the economic
breakthroughs he made several decades ago now, you look at the
courage that he had to stick with what he knew was right despite
whatever opposition might come his way; despite what was
effectively a life sentence in prison, to not compromise in the
face of that.  An economic forecasting record that's unparalleled
and proposals for polices that are now — as you heard in that
video, and as is taking place right now with China's One Belt,
One Road taking the world.  So, in terms of how Einstein fits
into that, I want to take up something that Kesha had brought up
about popular opinion.  Because where do you get a freedom in
your thoughts from?  How are you able to be a free thinking
citizen; or how are you able to come to conclusions that are your
own, as opposed to having a basis in their popularity.  Or
whether you think other people might think them, or whether you
think you ought to look like you think them to get ahead somehow.
Is there an actual standard for whether something is true or not?
Yes, there is; and unfortunately and deliberately, that's really
not part of our culture or our education right now.
        So, LaRouche has emphasized that the general understanding
of Einstein is false; it's wrong.  Most people's images of who
Einstein is as a person, his work to some degree, it's just not
true.  And we've got to clean that up in order to make a case
about what his approach was to the Universe, to mankind, to life;
and how that was important, it made it possible for him to make
the scientific breakthroughs that he did.  But he was a whole
person; he was an entire human being, including the role of his
violin — something that LaRouche has referred to a number of
times.
        So today, I want to go through a few things — somewhat
briefly. We're going to have a "New Paradigm for Mankind"
Wednesday show this coming week on Wednesday after a hiatus of
some period.  So, we'll be able to get into this in a bit more
detail then, but I want to take up three things.  First is
briefly, some thoughts from Einstein; quotes from Einstein.  How
did he think about things beyond his scientific work also.
Second, I want to talk about his most famous discovery —
relativity; and what that implies.  And then third, talk about
quantum mechanics as an example of Einstein's courage against
popular opinion; which is something that he had from a very young
age.  Then we'll see how that plays into these other concepts.
        When he was 67, Einstein was asked to write down a sort of
an autobiography; which he felt was like writing an obituary
before he had passed.  He was a nice guy, so he still did it.
I'm going to read some quotes from this; it's called his
"Autobiographical Notes".  He starts off very early; he says,
"Even when I was a fairly precocious young man, the nothingness
of the hopes and strivings which chases most people restlessly
through life, came to my consciousness with considerable
vitality.  Moreover, I soon discovered the cruelty of that chase;
which in those years was much more carefully covered up by
hypocrisy and glittering words than is the case today."  So, the
vain chase for success, this isn't a real identity.  He says, "It
was possible to satisfy the stomach by such participation, but
not a human being insofar as he is a thinking and feeling being.
Thus, I came — despite the fact that I was the son of entirely
irreligious Jewish parents — to a deep religiosity; which,
however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12.  Through the
reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the
conviction that much of the stories in the Bible could not be
true.  The consequence was a positively fanatical free thinking,
coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being
deceived by the state through lies.  It was a crushing
impression.  Suspicion of every kind of authority grew out of
this experience.  A skeptical attitude towards the convictions
which were alive in any specific social environment; an attitude
which has never left me."  It's not some popular opinion.
        He wrote that, "The contemplation of the huge world, the
vast riddle of the Universe around us," this to him was the
proper goal of life.  And that by considering it, you could be
really liberated from things that are merely personal or
insignificant.  He wrote: "Similarly motivated thinkers of the
present and the past, as well as the insights which they had
achieved, were friends that could not be lost.  The road to this
paradise of knowledge was not as comfortable and alluring as the
road to the religious paradise; but it has proved itself as
trustworthy, and I have never regretted having chosen it."
        In his thinking process, Einstein — who was a musician with
a deep love of Mozart in particular — didn't believe that
thinking required words.  He wrote: "For me, it is not dubious
that our thinking goes on for the most part without the use of
signs or words.  And beyond that, to a considerable degree, it
takes place unconsciously."  He writes that "Through our
experiences as we understand conflicts between our thought of how
the world works and experiences which counter that, we develop a
sense of wonder," which he says is the key to the development of
new thoughts.  So, how can that be developed?  How can that be
fostered?  Well, he complained about the school in his day; he
said there was too much testing and not enough freedom or actual
thought for the students.  I can hardly imagine what he would say
about schools now.  He wrote then that "It is, in fact, nothing
short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have
not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry.  For
this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly
in need of freedom.  It is a very grave mistake to think that the
enjoyment of seeing and of searching can be promoted by means of
coercion and a sense of duty."
        On the kinds of thoughts that make true discoveries, he said
that there are two requirements for such a theory.  One, it can't
be contradicted by observations; and second, he said it has to
have an inner perfection.  About that, he wrote — sounding very
much like Johannes Kepler, the first modern astronomer —
Einstein wrote:  "We prize a value more highly if it is not the
result of an arbitrary choice among theories which — among
themselves — are of equal value and analogously constructed."
That is, to be right, an idea also has to be necessary; not just
in keeping with observations.
        In his life, he was a courageous man; he stood up against
World War I; even when many great scientists like Max Planck had
written a letter supporting the war, supporting Germany's cause
in it.  Einstein didn't; he wrote a letter opposing it, and even
got Max Planck got rescind his support for the war.  He stood up
against racism in the US in many famous cases such as Marian
Anderson, who when she went to perform in Princeton, wasn't able
to actually spend the night anywhere; she was turned away by
hotels.  So, she stayed at Albert Einstein's house, which is
where she'd stay whenever she visited that town.  And his
opposition to the FBI and the thought policing it was doing.
When he was coming to the US, they had a list of questions for
him; they wanted to do an interview, find out what kind of
thoughts Einstein had.  He said, I'm not going to answer these.
If this is the condition for coming to the US, I'm not going to
come; forget it.  They gave in.  So, I'll let those brief words
from Einstein stand for themselves.
        Let's take a look at the second part, which is a few
thoughts about his famous discovery of relativity.  As far as the
context for this, ever since the general hegemony of Newton's
outlook — which didn't have to happen, but it did — according
to Newton, when we make observations, when we do science, things
take place in a space that is indifferent to those things; it's
just there.  It existed before anything was in the Universe.
According to Newton, space existed before God created everything;
it was just the primordial space.  Newton also believed that
there was a time; a single time, a universal time that flowed on
of its own accord, had no particular characteristics and was not
dependent on or related to anything that actually took place over
time.  So, according to Newton, there was an absolute space, an
absolute time; and objects in that space at various times.  Now,
this had already been shown to be wrong by Gottfried Leibniz, who
in a debate with Newton, demonstrated that requiring an absolute
space and then saying that God created everything somewhere in
that space, as opposed to somewhere else; would be a decision
without any good reason.  And that God couldn't do something like
that; everything in the Universe had a reason for it, and that
therefore there couldn't have been this space in the first place.
Newton used the same example to say that shows you how powerful
God is, because He could do whatever He felt like.  So, He put
the Universe somewhere.  Anyway, Leibniz had already shown that
this Newtonian idea was wrong; but Newton gained hegemony.  So,
it has the result that people think of facts, of things taking
place in locations at certain times.  But Einstein showed that
this actually isn't true; that there is no time that any event
takes place.  That the time an event occurs, depends on who is
looking at it.  Not in the way of uncertainties or anything like
that; but the time itself doesn't exist as one thing that's
independent of who's doing the looking, or of their location.
What he did was, he created a new concept that resolved the
contradiction between two concepts that were actually mutually
contradictory.  So, these two concepts were, first off,
relativity; which existed before Einstein as a concept or
equivalence.  Leibniz believed this, for example; which was that
no matter where you are, or how you're moving — any of those
kinds of particular conditions — mind is universal.  Mind is
everywhere; mind is everywhere in the Universe; mind doesn't have
a speed or motion or anything like that.  Concepts that govern
how the Universe unfolds — true physical principles — are
independent of how you look at any particular fact or observation
that's occurring.  So, you can't change mind by moving something
physically — more on that in a minute.
        The second concept was that the speed of light is the same
for any observer; and that's not something that was immediately
apparent.  This was definitely debated.  To contrast that,
imagine that you're driving on a road and there's a car next to
you that's moving at a similar speed.  To you, it looks like the
car isn't really moving; to a pedestrian, the car is moving at
whatever speed you're driving.  Light is different than a car
moving, where you can catch up with its speed and make it look
like it's still.  For light, no matter how you're moving, light
beams to you all appear to move at the speed of light.  So, you
can't put those two concepts together; you can't have relativity
and a constant speed of light if you have one time and one space.
Instead, what Einstein said was that the time between events or
the distance between locations can actually differ based on how
you're looking at them.  So that simply being in motion — it's
not perceptible except at very high speeds — but simply being in
motion changes the lengths of everything around you, the time
between events that take place.
        I'll just briefly outline one example of this — we can get
into it with some pictures and things on Wednesday.  He shows a
lot of examples of thought experiments using trains moving
through train stations or embankments.  He gives one example
which is, let's say that as a train is moving, someone on the
ground sees flashes of lightning hit both sides of the train at
the same time.  For them to say "at the same time", what it means
is if you're standing in the middle, the light from both of those
flashes reaches you at the same time.  You say, "I'm in the
middle between these two points, therefore they must have
happened at the same time and then it took the light a little bit
of time for me to see it."  But you'd also recognize that if
someone on the train was to see those same two lightning bolts,
which to you occur simultaneously, as the train is moving this
way and you picture light moving at a constant speed from your
viewpoint, the light that was at the front of the train is going
to be observed first by somebody standing in the middle of the
train.  Someone on that train would say that those lightning
flashes didn't occur at the same time; that one preceded the
other.  What that means is that there's no simultaneity; there's
no ability to say anything took place at a certain time.  Time
now depends on who's looking at it.  If there's no simultaneity,
then there's nothing instant that can take place in the Universe;
because there's no instant for anything to occur instantly in.
So, for example, gravitational pull can't occur instantly; there
can't be an instant action at a distance.  In fact, nothing, no
effect could go faster than light; including gravitational
changes.  It meant a couple of things.  One is that you can't
separate space and time; but the other thing is that it makes you
really have to reconsider what makes up reality.  The idea that
objects at places in times are facts; that's not reality.  The
thing that's most real is the principles that you're able to
discover that don't change based on how you look at them, or how
you're moving.  Something like the way that light moves — that's
a physical principle; no matter how you look at it, it's the same
thing.  It's a principle.  A distance between two things?  That's
not a principle; that's not invariant.  That can change,
depending on how you look at it.  So that the naïve sense that
we get of the world around us, of our very concept of space, is
just not right.  Even though it seems totally intuitive and very
popular, you have to force a different kind of understanding.
        Now, there's a lot more to relativity than that, that's just
a component of it.  But it's undergone many, many tests over the
decades.  Things like starlight being deflected as it passes
around the Sun; atomic clocks going in airplanes and rockets;
light made by stars being a different color by virtue of their
gravitation.  Gravity waves, recently discovered somewhat
directly by the SLIGO experiment, but a paper written about them
in the '70s; having discovered indirect evidence for them from a
pulsar.  So, his thoughts have definitely stood the test of time
on this.  Nothing shows that he was wrong.  So that says
something about how we think about the world.
        Just to say something about Einstein's courage, on the third
topic is the quantum world.  In 1900, Einstein later colleague,
Max Planck had made a discovery that he was able to explain the
kind of light that hot bodies emit.  Something that's hot and
glowing like the filament in a light bulb; Planck was able to
explain that based on an hypothesis that the way light was
emitted from and absorbed by that hot body took place in pieces.
That the light energy had to interact with that body in
individually in quanta, the plural of quantum.  A few years
later, in Einstein's so-called "miracle year" of 1905, he
generalized this and said that's just how light is; it comes in
pieces.  Light is not purely a wave; light is also somewhat of a
particle.  The field developed, and one of the things that came
out of it that Einstein had realized, was a phenomenon called
entanglement.  To say it very briefly, it's the characteristic
where you're able to make two particles, say two photons that
have characteristics that are shared.  In the case of photons,
they have opposite polarizations.  Or maybe you can make two
electrons that have opposite spins.  After you make them, here's
the thought experiment Einstein would say.  Let's say you make
two of them; you don't look at them, and they go to very
different places.  One's in Tokyo and one's in New York.
According to the theory, once you measure one in Tokyo and you
get some sort of number for whatever its spin is; the one in New
York automatically has the opposite spin.  So Einstein said, does
this mean that measuring something in New York changed something
in Tokyo, or vice versa?  Could it have an instant effect
somehow?  How did it change the other particle that's so far away
from it?  Nothing can occur instantly anyway, because there are
no instants.  What's going on?
        What it came to was a debate over decades, that was
unresolved.  Einstein believed that the way work in this field
was going, was that people were giving up on reality; that they
were saying that all we really ever know is an observation.  That
the world doesn't exist in a certain state independent of our
measuring it.  Not just because our measurements affect things —
especially when they're very small; but that even God himself, so
to speak, doesn't really know the state of say an atom.  It
simply doesn't have one; all that is really real is when you
observe it later.  So, Einstein made a lot of polemics against
this, a lot of pedagogies about it, a lot of demonstrations; and
although there have been experiments since the decades after his
life that shed new light on it, I think the key thing to take
from that is that Einstein recognized that there was something a
bit unsettling about the way science was going.  That people were
willing to give up on the idea that things occurred for a reason.
To Einstein, that was throwing away reality; bidding farewell to
the idea that there is a real world.  Some of his thoughts on
that, you might have heard him say he'd like to think that the
Moon is still there even when he doesn't look at it.  But I think
the thing to take from that is his courage; even when almost
everyone was against him, he stuck to his guns on that.
        So, in terms of concluding on that, or drawing a reflection
from it, it's a constantly under-appreciated miracle that our
minds are able to understand the Universe in a way that gives us
power over it.  That unlike a koala bear or a grasshopper, that
are unable to use their understanding of nature to change their
relationship to it to transform their species, we're able to do
that.  There's something coherent between the way our minds piece
together and understand the world around us through our thoughts,
through our concepts.  There is a harmony between those concepts
and the way the Universe actually operates that gives us access
to act on those principles to bring about new states of
existence; and is the basis of economics.  So, I think that in
addition to a radical transformation and improvement in culture
that's needed, people like to think that they've got a lot of
scientific knowledge these days; because you own a smart phone
and you think you know something about science.  Or you say that
everybody knows there's global warming and only anti-scientific
people disagree with that.  That's not a basis of knowing
anything; and there's a lot of room for a dramatic improvement.
A real renaissance of taking Einstein's identity as an example
and really developing a fresh and powerful view of science to
solve many of the problems that we're confronted with right now,
that without a different approach, might never be solved.
        So, that's a very inadequate beginning about Einstein; but
it's a job for all of us to do.  To figure out who is this man;
what can we learn from his approach?  I think we'll be hearing
more from LaRouche and his thoughts on how he views his
importance as an individual for us today.

ROGERS:  I think that's very important.  What I think is
important to go back to in terms of LaRouche's role and what he
said in the presentation that we showed earlier.  And going to
the understanding of what is actually happening with the role
that Russia, under President Putin, and the role that President
Xi Jinping is playing in relationship to what Mr. and Mrs.
LaRouche had set into motion several decades ago with the
development of the Productive Triangle, of the Eurasian
Land-Bridge, the Silk Road Development Plan.  This coming into
motion now, and at that very time, during that presentation that
we saw in the beginning of this program, made the point that
these nations would be brought together in collaboration and form
a coalition of nations representing nations such as Iran, China,
Russia, India, and so forth, to put an end — once and for all —
to the British Empire.  And the intentions of the British Empire
to destroy this very conception of what is the truly human
identity; the identity of the creative human process.  I think
it's very important to look at that from the standpoint of the
presentation you just gave, Jason.  Because that's what missing.
        What we're talking about is not a political fight from the
standpoint of how do you bring down one political candidate over
the other; but how do you destroy a system, particularly the
British Empire, in all of its facets and what it represents, that
denies this creative human process.  Right now, what we're
looking at from the United States is that as the rest of these
nations are moving in the direction of creating a New Paradigm
for mankind, moving with the Silk Road economic development plan;
where is the United States right now?  The United States is
continuing to go along with the evils and destructive policies of
the British Empire.  This has been the case for decades now; this
has been the case under the murderous, insane agenda of President
Obama, who should have been removed a long time ago.  Or the
policies of the Bush administration, and the lies and the
cover-up.  Now, we have an opportunity.  What we're discussing
here is not just some nice scientific ideas, and let's look at
Einstein and people think they have their different conceptions
and understanding and "Oh, I studied this in elementary school."
No; the idea is, what has been taken away from society?  Why have
we allowed an Empire to dominate our existence and our nation and
culture for far too long?
        So, I think it is the case that in 1997, when Mr. LaRouche
made the point that what we're dealing with is nations have to
come together to bring about that truly human identity to destroy
this empire once and for all; that's what we're going to use
Einstein to do.  I'll just make that point.

        STEGER:  Just to add, because I think it's worth
considering; there are so many developments that we're on the
verge of.  This coming six weeks have such a dramatic nature that
we've already seen a certain sense of in terms of a consolidated
effort to end this British Empire system; the very key emphasis
Lyn took up in 1997.  That there is now an orientation to resolve
the question of the Balkans, the Caucuses, Kashmir, the South
China Sea; even North Korea are essentially on the agenda of
these major nations.  To end the potential of world war, and to
really consolidate a new economic system.  So, it is kind of
striking that Lyn's emphasis is, as Matt you raised, on Einstein.
Why the emphasis now?  But it's clearly because in the minds of
this collaborative effort among these nations and among any
patriotic Americans, as we see in the performances we're
developing in New York around the 9/11 anniversary, the question
has to be the long-term development of mankind.  Not one's
children, not one generation ahead, but the actual ongoing
development that now is possible to embark upon as a human
species on this planet.  And I think Einstein craved and desired
no less.  His discoveries and passion unleashed that kind of
potential, which he probably saw as a young man himself, and that
quality.  It's not just simply a liberal emotion; it is of a
scientific endeavor which Einstein really captured.  I think
Lyn's comments then and today also do as well.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think it's with a full amount of confidence
that we can move forward and understand that the epic
era-changing kinds of developments that are occurring around us
right now, are things that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have been in the
middle of for decades, literally.  They've had their fingers on
the pulse of history right up to this point.  Helga LaRouche
pointed out yesterday that the speech that she gave at the Rasina
Dialogue in India just a couple of months ago, seems like it's
exactly what is now being undertaken by the Indian government in
terms of their collaboration with China and Russia to project the
Silk Road into the Middle East to resolve this terrible crisis
that exists there.  And Mr. LaRouche's continuing role in terms
of the intellectual sounding board around which the rest of
history is continuing to move.  It's with confidence that we can
look back at that speech and everything else that is on the
record in terms of their role.  It's an identity which we need to
maintain within ourselves and those who are collaborating with
us, that yes, your finger is on the pulse of history; the
imagination of what the future can become is what is continuing
to shape the actions in the present.  And it's a moment of
decision; it's the {punctum saliens} moment in terms of which
direction does mankind go right now.  We have a rich potential,
and I think it's extremely clear; but it's also extremely
dangerous.
        I'd really like to thank Jason for giving a little bit of a
foretaste of what's going to be elaborated much more, I'm sure,
on the show next Wednesday.  That's going to be broadcast, and we
would ask you to tune in to that.  I also want to encourage
people to continue to participate in the process of inundating
Manhattan with this new publication, {The Hamiltonian}.  This is
issue 2, and it continues to be the center of our intervention
into shaping the United States and answering the question that
Kesha asked:  Why is the United States not yet a part of this
emerging dynamic on the planet?  What must be done to cause that
to occur?
        So, I'd like to thank all of you for tuning in; and
encourage you to stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  And we'll see
you next week.

18. august 2016 (Leder) – Den nutidige historiske periode er fuldstændig ny i sine karakteristika; den kan ikke sammenlignes med noget andet i menneskehedens hidtidige historie. Af denne grund er det kun nogle få personer, der har været i stand til, i deres intellekt, at frembringe et begreb om, hvad karakteristika er for denne epoke, der intet fortilfælde har: personer som Albert Einstein, Krafft Ehricke og Lyndon og Helga LaRouche. Fordi det store flertal af almindelige dødelige mennesker ikke i deres erfaringsmateriale har noget sammenligneligt, og intet, som de har hørt eller læst om, har de ingen kriterier, ud fra hvilke de kan bedømme eller forstå det; de er på herrens mark. Af denne grund kan grupper, bestående af så få personer som i Lyndon LaRouches Manhattan-projekt, få en afgørende indflydelse netop på dette tidspunkt. Alene de kan se vejen frem, om end denne vej undertiden kan synes utydelig, og de må famle sig frem. De øvrige går i blinde, eller, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche ofte siger, »har ikke den fjerneste idé«.

I 2018 vil en kinesisk mission nå Månens bagside – under forudsætning af, at det inden da lykkes os at besejre Det britiske Imperiums kaosmagter. Denne mission vil blive en del af et helt, generelt program for at opdage og udforske de endnu ikke virkeliggjorte implikationer af Einsteins fundamentale opdagelser, som Lyndon LaRouche har påpeget. Og, som rumforskningsgeniet Krafft Ehricke – sammen med LaRouche – forudså, så vil den aktuelle energigennemstrømningstæthed, der for tiden står til menneskehedens disposition, være en forløber for fusionskraft, og herfra føre til stof-antistof-reaktioner, og herfra atter videre frem til niveauer, som vi i dag ikke engang kan give et navn.

Under forudsætning af, at vi overvinder de aktuelle forhindringer, som repræsenteres af Obama og det Britiske Imperium, så er vi i færd med at glide ind i det, Helga Zepp-LaRouche har kaldt »en æra, i hvilken vi bliver ægte menneskelige«.

På lignende måde er det, man måske kunne have kaldt det »system af alliancer«, der nu spænder over og gennemkrydser Eurasien og breder sig ud herfra, i realiteten slet ikke et »system af alliancer« i den betydning, vi har kendt til fra fortiden. Det er i realiteten snarere en projektion tilbage i tiden og ind i nutiden, fra det fremtidige univers, der inkorporerer de fremtidige opdagelser, der bringes tilbage fra Månens bagside. Putin har, sammen med Kina, inkorporeret principperne fra Den Westfalske Fred, men de er gået langt, langt videre end det. Begynd blot med den ekstraordinære relation, der er opnået mellem Rusland og Kina. Er man klar over, at vi taler om nationer, der så sent som i 1969 udkæmpede en syv måneder lang, ikke-erklæret krig over Ussuri-floden? Nu har de ikke alene regelmæssige topmøder mellem præsidenterne, og regelmæssige topmøder mellem premierministrene; det er det mindste af det. Der er ikke mindre end tretten mellemregerings-kommissioner, der hele tiden er i kontinuerlig kontakt med hinanden. Alle de mange meningsforskelle og uoverensstemmelser – og der er mange – bliver kontinuerligt løst på et både bredt og dybt plan i begge regeringer.

»Og vi finder altid frem til løsninger«, føjede Putin til denne beskrivelse.

Processen med at fuldbyrde denne ekstraordinære relation har været genstand for en dybtgående undersøgelse af Kinas dr. Ren Lin, der talte på Schiller Instituttets konference i Berlin i juni måned, og af mange andre kinesiske og russiske, akademiske lærde.

Fuldbyrdelsen af en sådan relation udgør hjertet af BRIKS-processen og udviklingen af Den nye Silkevej. Det var kernen i Putins forgænger, nu afdøde russiske premierminister Jevgenij Primakovs idé om Den russisk-indisk-kinesiske Strategiske Trekant. Skabelsen heraf går tilbage til ikke alene Lyndon og Helga LaRouches idé om Den produktive Trekant og Den eurasiske Landbro, men endnu længere tilbage, til LaRouches Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ[1], der havde en formativ indflydelse på Rusland til trods for, at Ruslands daværende leder, Juri Andropov, havde afvist initiativet på vegne af sine britiske herrer.

Dette nye system med fremtidens relationer mellem nationalstater, der går ud over nationalstatsbegrebet, som LaRouche længe har forudsagt, går med syvmileskridt hastigt frem hen over hele det eurasiske kontinent og mere generelt på et tidspunkt, hvor vi nærmer os det Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok den 2. – 3. september, FN’s Generalforsamling, der begynder den 13. september, og BRIKS-topmødet i Goa, Indien, den 15. – 16. oktober.

Foto: Portræt af Einstein i 1905, da han offentliggjorde sin opdagelse af den specielle relativitetsteori.[2].

17. august 2016 – Sergei Glazyev, en rådgiver til den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin, gav et interview til det russiske nyhedssite Russkaya Vesna, som blev udlagt i går.

Efter at have beskrevet, at Ukraine kontrolleres af nazisterne, der i realiteten agerer som en besættelsesmagt for USA, samt andre meget barske udtalelser om Ukraine, kommenterede Glazyev Ruslands ekspanderende samarbejde med Tyrkiet og Kina. Han blev spurgt, om de forbedrede relationer mellem Rusland og Tyrkiet »er et strategisk initiativ fra de to landes myndigheders side, og endnu et opportunistisk fænomen? Og hvor store var chancerne for en russisk-tyrkisk økonomisk union på længere sigt?« Glazyev svarede:

»Med hensyn til målene er vore økonomiske interesser i samklang, således, at udviklingen af det russisk-tyrkiske handels- og økonomisamarbejde går rigtig godt. Vore partnere fra Kasakhstan i EAEC (Eurasisk Økonomisk Fællesskab) har fremsat et initiativ om at indgå en præferencehandelsaftale med Tyrkiet. Dette er imidlertid uforeneligt med Tyrkiets aspirationer om optagelse i EU. Hvis Tyrkiet er ude af EU og NATO, kan samarbejdet vokse mange gange, og politiske uoverensstemmelser kan med lethed løses.« [Medlemmer af den Europæiske Union har ikke lov til uafhængigt at tilslutte sig en anden handelsblok. Tyrkiet er selvfølgelig endnu ikke i EU og kan meget let tilslutte sig en hvilken som helst handelsblok eller indgå handelsaftaler med andre lande, hvilket det da også allerede har gjort.]

Forespurgt om sin evaluering af de aktuelle kinesisk-russiske relationer, og om det repræsenterer politik for en total »orientering mod øst«, sagde han: »Dette er et gensidigt ligeværdigt, strategisk partnerskab, i hvilket vore lande har det samme mål. Der har fundet en orientering mod øst sted i den globale økonomi, og vi må aspirere til fuld deltagelse i denne nye orientering i verdensøkonomien, det fremvoksende Kina og andre lande i Sydøstasien.«

Russkaya Vesnas engelske site: http://rusvesna.su/english

Artiklen kan læses her: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/glazyev-ukraine-under-us-occupation.html

Foto: Sergei Glazyev (venstre) med Vladimir Putin.

Alt imens de asiatiske Stillehavsnationer har brug for den videnskabelige viden, teknologi og fordele ved vores form for regering, såsom et statsligt kreditsystem efter Alexander Hamiltons principper, så står det klart, at, med hensyn til inspiration, så må vi nu se hen til Stillehavsområdet.   

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Titelfoto: Helga Zepp-LaRouche på Kinas kyst, »Den Eurasiske Landbros Terminal Øst«, 1996.

16. august 2016 (Leder) – Den Internationale Betalingsbank (BIS) har forberedt et dokument til det forestående G20-topmøde for statsoverhoveder i Kina, med en advarsel om, at en nedsmeltning af derivatmarkedet kunne ske når som helst, og at clearinghouse-systemet (CHIPS) er totalt uforberedt til at håndtere et sådant chok. Husk på, at Deutsche Bank har den største eksponering til derivater af alle banker i verden, og den har modparts-kontrakter med næsten alle TBTF-banker i USA, Europa og Japan – og Deutsche bank er korrekt blevet beskrevet som en »dead bank walking« (en ’bank på dødsgangen’). De bedste estimater lyder, at den globale derivathandel stadig ligger på et godt stykke over en billiard dollar, selv efter tab i år, der allerede har hobet sig op.

På dette sene tidspunkt er der kun én mulighed tilbage for det gennemført bankerotte transatlantiske system: Genindfør Glass-Steagall, afskriv alle derivatkontrakterne, gå tilbage til et fastkurssystem à la Bretton Woods, og lancer en massiv anlægsinvestering i projekter, der understøtter reel produktivitet gennem statslige bankmetoder i traditionen efter Hamilton, inklusive en forceret indsats for at opnå fusionskraft. Dette er hjertet i Lyndon LaRouches Fire Kardinallove.

Det betyder, med hensyn til den virkelige verden, at Vesten må opgive det afdøde, britiske system og endelig tilslutte sig det nye, eurasisk-centrerede system, der hastigt er ved at manifestere sig, under Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putins overordnede lederskab og gennem virkeliggørelsen af Kinas program for ’Ét bælte, én vej’ (OBOR). I mandags startede det første kølegodstog ud fra den kinesiske havn Dailan, med destination Moskva, en rejse på 8.600 kilometer, som vil blive klaret på henved ti dage. Dette er den seneste gren af OBOR og sætter fokus på samarbejdet mellem Rusland og Kina.

Under diskussioner med europæiske kolleger den 15. august erklærede Lyndon LaRouche, at vi befinder os på randen af en stor sejr for menneskeheden. De eurasiske nationer, forklarede han, er i færd med at etablere en gruppering, centreret omkring ledende nationer i det asiatiske Stillehavsområde, nationer, som er i voldsom vækst, i skarp kontrast til andre områder af verden, der er syge og døende rent økonomisk. Sydamerika er blevet overtaget af voldtægtsforbrydere, Frankrig er en fiasko, Spanien er en katastrofe. Fokus må være på de ledende nationer, som har taget initiativet i denne udviklingsproces. Putin, fortsatte LaRouche, er trådt frem som en drivkraft i denne eurasiske alliance. Der er kræfter, der er i bevægelse internt i USA, især i Manhattan, og som kan tilslutte sig indsatsen under anførsel af Eurasien for at knuse det britiske system, der har været menneskehedens fjende i de forgangne århundreder. Tyskland må, hvis det ønsker at overleve, tilslutte sig denne eurasiske udvikling, hvilket betyder at dumpe enhver politik associeret med Merkel og Schäuble.

Den russiske præsident Putin har, i løbet af de seneste år, spillet en afgørende rolle i organiseringen af en magt, hovedsageligt bestående af nationer centreret i Eurasien, og som er i færd med at få karakter af en militærmagt, der kan ændre alt og kan vinde krigen for fred.

I de kommende uger vil denne fremvoksende alliance være i centrum for en række historiske møder: Det Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok, Rusland; G20-mødet for statsoverhoveder i Kina; Kina-ASEAN-mødet for statsoverhoveder i Laos; FN’s Generalforsamling i New York City; og BRIKS-mødet for statsoverhoveder i Indien. Denne aktivitetstæthed fra nu og frem til midten af oktober byder på en enestående mulighed for, at dette nye, fremvoksende, globale lederskab kan fastlægge historiens kurs og gøre en ende på det bankerotte, britiske system.    

Den 28. juli 2016, v/næstformand Michelle Rasmussen.

»Jeg inviterer dig til at lære Schiller Instituttet at kende og til at kontakte os.

Verden er i en dyb krise, en civilisationskrise. Det er en brydningstid. Det kan blive meget værre, med et fuldt finanssammenbrud, måske sat i gang af de italienske banker, som er i krise, eller sågar af Deutsche Bank, som står øverst på listen over de store, systemiske krisebanker, og som teknisk set faktisk er bankerot.

Det kan også være krig med Rusland og Kina, ført af dem, som gerne vil forhindre, at disse nationer fører an i skabelsen af en alternativ økonomisk politik.

Vi oplever efterdønningerne efter Brexit-afstemningen i Storbritannien, og det har rystet hele EU. Men det giver os nogle muligheder. En ting, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche og Lyndon LaRouche har krævet, er en redningsplan for Deutsche Bank, men på betingelse af, at Deutsche Bank vender tilbage til den ånd, der var, da Alfred Herrhausen var chef i 1989, hvor han havde en produktionsbaseret politik for banken, og hvor han kom ud med et krav for gældssanering for de fattigste lande og for udvikling af Østeuropa. Dengang var Berlinmuren endnu ikke faldet.

Vi kan takke ja til samarbejde i stedet for krig med Rusland og Kina, om at bygge en Ny Silkevej hele vejen fra Asien til Europa. Vi kan udvide det til at blive en Verdenslandbro, en bro over land, gennem Sydvestasien og hele vejen ned til Afrika. Vi kan følge den tråd, der for nylig er kommet frem, med Saudi-Arabiens rolle bag angrebene den 11. september 2001, og følge denne tråd helt til det nuværende Britiske Imperiums fraktions rolle bag terrorisme; og så kan vi takke ja til samarbejde med Rusland om at bekæmpe terrorisme.«

Præcisering: Chefen for Deutsch Bank,  Alfred Herhausen, blev dræbt af terrorister den 30. november 1989. Berlinmuren faldt den 9. november 1989. Hvis han, som var en ledende rådgiver til den tyske kansler Helmut Kohl, havde levet, ville verden have set anderledes ud.

Denne video blev lavet i forbindelse med omdeling af Schiller Instituttets materiale i jyske og fynske byer.

Kontakter i Jylland:

Kolding: Preben Samsøe, 4146 4714

Aarhus: Hans Schultz, 4841 4096; 6016 4096

Randers: Poul Gundersen, 2082 0350

Her er nogle vigtige links:

NYHEDSORIENTERING JULI 2016: Sidste chance for at stoppe europæisk bankkrak og krig

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Menneskehedens skønne fremtid – hvis vi undgår dinosaurernes skæbne.

Hovedtale på Schiller Instituttets internationale konference i Berlin, 25. – 26. juni, 2016

Baggrundsmateriale:

Lyndon LaRouches 3-punktsprogram for genopbygning af realøkonomien:

1. Hvorfor en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling ville løse finanskrisen og ødelægge Wall Street

2. Hvordan man skaber ikke-inflationære kreditter gennem et nationalt kreditsystem

3. Infrastrukturprojekter og fusionsøkonomi

Det følgende videoklip er et meget kort uddrag af en tale, som hr. LaRouche holdt ved et forum i Washington i 1997 i sammenhæng med EIR’s førsteudgave af specialrapporten om den Eurasiske Landbro. Denne præsentation var en del af en række af såkaldte »udviklingskonferencer«, der blev afholdt i Washington i løbet af disse år – 1996, 1997 og 1998 – og jeg vil mene, at det, I får at se i denne video, er Lyndon LaRouches »marchordrer«. Det var på en måde hans kreative vision om, hvilken rolle, som Kina, med den Nye Silkevej, og ligeledes hvilken rolle Rusland ville komme til at spille i den totale omformning af den strategiske geometri i verden.

Her følger det korte uddrag: 

Lyndon Larouche: Der er kun to respektable nationer tilbage på planeten, dvs. nationer med en respektabel magt: det er USA, nærmere bestemt ikke det USA, der repræsenteres af Kongressen, men af præsidenten. Det er USA’s identitet, der udgør en politisk magt, ikke en eller anden sammenkædning af dens bestanddele. USA repræsenteres i dag udelukkende af dets præsident, som en politisk institution. Kongressen repræsenterer ikke USA; de er ikke helt sikre på, hvem, de repræsenterer nu om stunder, eftersom de ikke har besøgt deres vælgere for nylig.

Præsidenten som institution er legemliggørelsen af USA i internationale relationer. Det kan Udenrigsministeriet ikke gøre; Justitsministeriet kan ikke gøre det; intet andet ministerium kan gøre det; kun USA’s præsident kan, under vores forfatning, repræsentere USA som en enhed – hele dets personlighed, dets sande interesse, dets hele folk.

Der findes kun én anden magt på denne planet, der kan være ligeså respektløs (arrogant) over for andre magter, og det er Den kinesiske Folkerepublik. Kina er i øjeblikket engageret i et stort projekt for konstruktion af infrastruktur, i hvilket min hustru og andre i en årrække har haft et uophørligt engagement. Der finder en stor reform sted i Kina, som er en »reform af vanskeligheder«. De forsøger at løse et problem. Det betyder ikke, at der ikke er et problem. Men de forsøger at løse det.

Hvis derfor USA, eller USA’s præsident(skab), og Kina, deltager i at begunstige dette projekt, der undertiden kaldes Silkevejsprojektet, undertiden Landbro-projektet, som, hvis dette projekt med udviklingskorridorer over hele Eurasien og ind i Afrika, ind i Nordamerika, udvides, så er dette projekt tilstrækkeligt til at sætte hele denne planet på en kurs for økonomisk genrejsning. Jeg vil gå lidt i detaljer med dette for at gøre det mere konkret.

Kina har i nogen tid haft et samarbejde med Irans regering. Iran har faktisk været i gang med at fuldføre en række jernbaneforbindelser, der er en forlængelse af Kinas Landbro-program (eller Silkevejsprojekt). For nylig har vi fra Indien set, at det indiske lederskab er mødtes med repræsentanter for Kina for at påbegynde en indledningsvis rute, blandt landruterne, under Landbro-programmet. Én rute går ind i Kunming i Kina. Under Anden Verdenskrig, i dette område, Myitkyina (Burma/Myanmar), havde vi fly, der fløj ind i Kunming, »over Knolden«, som de plejede at sige dengang. Jeg er ganske godt bekendt med dette område.

Men, hvis man har vandvejsforbindelser, kanalforbindelser, og jernbaneforbindelser fra Kunming gennem Myitkyina – dette område – tværs over Bangladesh og ind i Indien, igennem Pakistan og ind i Iran, op til området lige over Teheran, syd for det Kaspiske Hav – så har man en forbindelse til Mellemøsten; man har forbindelse til Centralasien; man har forbindelse til Tyrkiet; man har forbindelse igennem til Europa.

Dernæst er der den nordlige rute, der stort set er den samme rute som den transsibiriske Jernbane, der blev bygget under amerikansk indflydelse og amerikansk rådgivning, af Rusland. Så har man en mellemliggende rute, der er i færd med at blive udviklet, i Centralasien, med Kina og Iran.

Indien arbejder på en plan, der blot involverer at tilføje nogle få hundrede kilometer jernbanelinje – der var mange andre forbedringer langs med den lige linje – og som ville forbinde området nord for Teheran, gennem Pakistan, gennem Indien, gennem Bangladesh, gennem Myanmar og ind i Kunming, ind i Thailand, ind i Vietnam, ned gennem Malaysia og Singapore, over stræderne via en stor bro og ind i Indonesien.

Der er ligeledes en plan for udviklingen af jernbanelinjen gennem det, der var det nordlige Sibirien, over Beringstrædet og ind i Alaska, og herfra ned og ind i USA. Der er en forbindelsen til Mellemøsten – flere forbindelser – fra Europa, og også fra Kina; men fra Kina en forbindelsen til Mellemøsten og ind i Egypten, ind i hele Afrika.

Så hvad vi har her er en række projekter, som ikke blot er transportprojekter, ligesom den transkontinentale jernbane i USA, der var forløberen for denne idé tilbage i slutningen af 1860’erne og 1870’erne. Man har »udviklingskorridorer«, hvor man i et område, der strækker sig 50-70 kilometer på hver side af jernbaneforbindelsen, har olie- og gasledninger, og så fremdeles. Man udvikler dette område med industri, minedrift, alle sådanne ting. Og det er sådan, man betaler for transportforbindelsen, pga. al den rige, økonomiske aktivitet, der skabes. Med en indbyrdes afstand på nogle kilometer langs hele denne forbindelse foregår der noget, en eller anden økonomisk aktivitet. Folk, der arbejder, folk, der bygger ting, folk, der gør ting. For at transformere denne planet ved hjælp af store projekter for byggeri af infrastruktur, som vil skabe store industrier, nye industrier, nyt landbrug og de andre ting, vi har så desperat brug for. Der er ingen som helst grund til, at noget menneske på denne planet, der kan arbejde, skulle være arbejdsløs. Så enkelt er det. Og dette projekt er midlet til dette mål.

Hvis nationerne – som nu omfatter Rusland, Iran, Indien og andre nationer – kommer overens med Kina, og engagerer sig i en forpligtelse til dette projekt, som de bygger hver dag; hvis USA – dvs. USA’s præsident, Clinton – forsætter med at støtte denne indsats, som han har gjort, i det mindste rent politik, hvad får man så? Man får USA og Kina og nogle andre lande, der går i samlet flok op imod den største magt på denne planet, som er Det britiske Imperium, kaldet det Britiske Commonwealth (statssamfund). Det er fjenden!

Lad os sige, at, en skønne dag, f. eks. en søndag morgen, præsidenterne for hhv. USA og Kina og et par andre, efter et weekend-møde siger: »Vi har denne weekend besluttet, at vi, baseret på vore rådgivere samt den kendsgerning, at det internationale finansielle og monetære system er håbløst bankerot, som ansvarlige statsoverhoveder, af hensyn til almenvellet må erklære disse bankerotte institutioner konkurs og sætte dem under konkursbehandling. Og det er i vores interesse, at vi samarbejder om dette som nationer, for at undgå at skabe kaos på denne planet.«             

Resultatet vil så være, at en sådan meddelelse en skønne søndag morgen med sikkerhed vil få »snakkehovederne« på Washington Tv til at ’spinne’. Men bortset fra det, så betyder det, at hele systemet, fra dette øjeblik, har været en tur i guillotinen, og at hovedet ruller hen ad gaden. Alan Greenspans hoved, måske.

Det betyder, at vi nu har tilskyndelsen til omgående at opbygge et nyt finansielt og monetært system. Når man skal genrejse et selskab, der er bankerot, til en levedygtig form, hvad gør man så? Man må finde de erhvervsaktiviteter, som selskabet skal gøre, hvilket danner grundlaget for at skabe den nye kredit, der skal få firmaet til at køre igen.

Programmet for Landbroen, med sine globale implikationer, er det store projekt, der direkte og indirekte vil afkaste tilstrækkelig med aktivitet, så at sige, i alle dele af verden til, at vi atter kan få denne verden tilbage på et sundt fundament.

Matthew Ogden: Som man kan høre, så afslører denne tale stor forudviden; og det er i realiteten Lyndon LaRouches aktive indgriben, med rejser til Rusland, med hans hustrus rejser til Kina i denne periode, og med udgivelsen af EIR’s specialrapport om den Eurasiske Landbro, der har formet den nuværende situation, vi befinder os i. En ting, der er interessant at fremhæve, er de kort, I så. Dengang var mange af disse jernbanelinjer og andre olie/gasledninger blot forslag; men nu er flere af dem faktisk under opførelse.

Jeg mener, at det, 20 år senere, står klart, at dette er det dominerende system, der er ved at vokse frem på denne planet. Samtidig står det transatlantiske system foran en umiddelbar nedsmeltning. En umiddelbart forestående implosion af gæld og eksponering til derivater i betalingsstandsning til billioner af dollars projiceres nu ind i alle storbanker i hele det transatlantiske system.

For et engelsk udskrift af hele fredags-webcastet, se http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=14279

Tyskland og de andre europæiske nationer må omorganisere deres rådne finans- og banksystem og derefter, med perspektiverne for den Nye Silkevej, samarbejde om at opbygge verden. For at dette kan lykkes, må vi alle se ud over vores egen, europæiske næsetip og ærligt med hinanden diskutere spørgsmålet om, hvorfor vi er havnet i denne krise, og åbne os for den vision, der ligger i samarbejdet med Den nye Silkevej.

I Friedrich Schillers ånd: Alle kan bidrage med noget!

Download (PDF, Unknown)

15. august 2016 (Leder) – Vil USA genoplive videnskabelig kreativitet og økonomisk produktivitet for på lang sigt at samarbejde fredeligt med Kinas fremskridt?

Vil Europa beslutte at opgive det, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche kalder »selvmordspagten« med Obama og en NATO-ledelse, der planlægger krige med både Rusland og Kina? Hvornår vil Europa i stedet gå med i Eurasiens Nye Silkevej med store infrastrukturprojekter – for ikke at tale om udforskning af rummet og udvikling af fusionskraft?

Dette er de virkelige spørgsmål, som borgere bør engagere sig i – og ikke de katastrofer, der i USA p.t. stiller op til præsidentvalget.

Meddelelsen i dag om, at tyske fusionsforskere går sammen med et statsligt, russisk laboratorium om udvikling af et nyt »polariseret deuterium«-brændstof til fusionskraft viser f. eks. den kreative retning for Europas bedste kapaciteter. Resultatet kan overhale det nylige gennembrud i Tysklands fusionsprogram – men disse resultater er allerede langt overgået af Kinas resultater. Kina gør teknologisk innovation og vækst til temaet for G20-mødet, som det vil være formand for 4. – 5. september i Hangzhou. Det samme gælder for Putins Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok 2. – 3. september.

De eurasiske nationer rykker sammen i en proces, der kan vinde freden så vel som udvikling; og det er lederskabsinitiativer, taget af Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putin, der i vid udstrækning har gjort denne proces mulig.

Det har placeret USA foran et valg – og det er ikke et valg til præsident mellem to Dick Cheney-imitatorer.

Den 12. august forudsagde IMF, at Kinas årlige økonomiske vækst ville falde til 6 % frem til 2020. Hvis dette skulle vise sig at være sandt, så kunne USA – dersom det blev ledet af et revolutionerende nyt præsidentskab, der udsteder statskredit til ny infrastruktur, rumforskning og fusionsteknologier – håbe på til den tid at nå op på siden af Kinas vækst!

Amerikanske regeringsfolk og folk fra Federal Reserve (centralbanken) har langt om længe for nylig indrømmet, at de er bekymret over den amerikanske økonomis meget lave produktivitet, såvel som over økonomiens meget lave vækst. Økonomien under Obama har vist en hidtil uhørt lav vækst i produktiviteten, uanset, hvordan man måler den.

En almindelig måde at måle »produktivitet« på er simpelt hen at dividere BNP med præsterede arbejdstimer. Målt således har væksten i arbejdskraftens produktivitet aldrig nået en årlig rate på blot 1 %, siden Obama i sit første år i embedet underskrev sin »stimuleringslov«. I de seneste 12 måneder har USA’s økonomiske vækst udgjort sølle 1,2 %.

Men reelle forøgelser af arbejdskraftens produktivitet kommer fra videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt, og fra uddannelse. Den rapport, som blev udgivet af Statskontoret for Forskning i Økonomi (NBER) over den meget store vækst i produktiviteten under Franklin Roosevelts præsidentskab, siger: »Dette skyldtes en meget stærk vækst i generering og distribuering af elektricitetskraft, transport, kommunikation, civilingeniørers og strukturingeniørers arbejde inden for broer, tunneller, dæmninger, hovedveje, jernbaner og systemer til transmission; samt privat forskning og udvikling.« Udfordringerne i al dette moderne infrastrukturbyggeri frembragte teknologiske fremskridt inden for et stort antal industrier, og forskning og udvikling blev stærkt forøget.

Økonomer rangerer 1930’erne, ’40’erne og ’60’ernes Apolloprojekt som toppunkterne for reel vækst i produktivitet i USA’s historie – med en forbedring i produktiviteten på næsten 3 % om året.

Ifølge San Francisco Federal Reserve og NBER var der under George W. Bush’ otte år en stigning i denne vækst på 1,0 % om året; og under Obamas snart otte år, 0,75 %.

Tiden er inde til et nyt præsidentskab, og til at indhente Kina.   

Foto: De kinesisk producerede højhastighedstog afventer afgang fra jernbanestationen i Hankow, 19. april 2016.

.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

15. august 2016 (Leder) – »Putin er allerede den fungerende præsident for et nyt univers«, hævdede Lyndon LaRouche i sin ugentlige diskussion med Manhattan-projektet d. 13. august. »Putin har opbygget en meget respektabel organisation, som nu optager en stor del af hele planeten! … Putins indflydelsessfære er ikke kun Rusland; det er andre dele af hele det asiatiske område.«

LaRouche uddybede det med, at Putin, der arbejder i alliance med Kina, Indien og andre nationer, er i færd med at opbygge et alternativ til det rådnende transatlantiske system i form af en global fremgangsmåde efter Hamiltons økonomiske principper. »Man er ved at få noget, der er lig Alexander Hamilton, for Rusland; og ikke kun for Rusland, men for Asien! For hele Asien, praktisk talt. Det er en temmelig stor post.«

De næste 60 dage er fuld af farer, og også muligheder. Vi stirrer nu direkte ned i kanonløbet på en global finanskrise, understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i en diskussion med medarbejdere i dag, en krise, der meget vel kunne komme over os i løbet af september-oktober. Inden for samme tidsrum kommer der en række internationale konferencer – der kulminerer med det 8. BRIKS-topmøde i Indien i midten af oktober – som kan udgøre rammerne for en implementering af det påkrævede, politiske skifte, der er udtænkt af LaRouche, såfremt der mobiliseres tilstrækkelig international politisk vilje for at skabe dette revolutionerende Nye Paradigme.

Kina fortsætter med at udfolde den rigtige fremgangsmåde: »Tiden er inde til at uddanne videnskabelige og teknologiske hjerner,« udtalte Li Zhimin, direktør for Udviklingscenter for Videnskab og Teknologi ved Uddannelsesministeriet, i forbindelse med annonceringen af udgivelsen af Statsrådets plan om dramatisk at forøge proportionen af statsborgere i Kina med videnskabelige færdigheder ved år 2020.

Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping har ligeledes gjort det klart, at hans ven og strategiske allierede, den russiske præsident Putin, vil være æresgæst nummer ét ved det kommende G20-topmøde i Kina d. 4.-5. september – til det Britiske Imperiums og dets stikirenddreng Barack Obamas store rædsel. Kineserne er i færd med, i tæt samarbejde med både Rusland såvel som Indien, at koordinere strategien for G20-mødet og det efterfølgende BRIKS-topmøde i Indien d. 15.-16. oktober. Deres erklærede politik er at imødegå »de udfordringer, som den globale økonomi i øjeblikket står overfor« ved »at sikre en succesfuld organisering af G20- og BRIKS-topmøderne.«

Denne succes vil blive målt på, at man omgående begraver det nuværende dødbringende og bankerotte finanssystem og erstatter det med et system efter Hamiltons principper, der bygger på LaRouches design, som det specificeres i hans Fire Love. 

Det reelle spørgsmål, som USA og verden står overfor i dag, er en omskabelse af det amerikanske præsidentskab omkring denne politik – og ikke den galskab, der finder sted i den amerikanske valgkampagne. LaRouche udtalte:

Vores præsident er Satans stedfortræder. De ledende kandidater er frygteligt korrupte; så I vil bekymre jer om, hvilken kandidat, I skal vælge? Når I ved, at, i hovedsagen, alle de kandidater, der er på tale, er eksemplarer på ondskaben! At de, på den ene eller anden vis, forkaster deres ansvar som menneskelige væsener for denne proces. Så vi må komme ind til årsagen til problemet … og sørge for at fjerne denne årsag. 

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: »Jeg mener, at vi må mobilisere befolkningen til at blive aktiv; for tiden er ikke til at sidde på stakittet og blot kigge på, hvad disse såkaldte ’eliter’ foretager sig … befolkningerne har mistet tilliden til disse eliter, der repræsenterer dette globaliseringssystem. Ansvaret for at finde løsninger på situationen må derfor gå over til dem, der har ideer om, hvordan vi kommer ud af situationen. Hvilket er, hvad vi gør i New York med Manhattan-projektet; det, som det Internationale Schiller Institut gør; men jeg mener, at vi har brug for jeres støtte – I, som ser dette lige nu. Jeg vil gerne appellere til jer om at blive aktive sammen med os og være med til at gennemføre disse løsninger.«

Download (PDF, Unknown)

5. august 2016 – En regeringstalsmand fra Kinas Udenrigsministerium meddelte i går, at den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin vil være ’æresgæst’ ved G20-topmødet i september, som Kina er vært for i byen Hangzhou. Putin er blevet inviteret af præsident Xi Jinping, der vil afholde et fuldt bilateralt møde med Putin i løbet af den periode, hvor topmødet finder sted.

Gui Congyou, direktør for Ministeriets Departement for Europæisk-Centralasiatiske Anliggender, sagde til reportere, at »Ruslands tilstedeværelse ved topmødet er meget vigtigt for Kina, og også for hele verden. Uden Rusland er det umuligt at genrejse verdensøkonomien«. Med en rapport herom den 4. august kommenterede pravdareport.com, at Gui »fremhævede, at Kina og Rusland er de betydeligste magter i Eurasien, og deres strategiske alliance sikrer tryghed og afbalanceret udvikling på hele kontinentet«.

Udover medlemslandene fra G20 har Kina inviteret flere deltagere fra gæstelande. Disse omfatter foreløbig, fra Afrika: Egypten, Senegal og Tchad; fra Sydasien: Pakistan; og fra Sydøstasien: Thailand og Laos.

Den 3. august talte den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi om det, han kaldte for en 30 dages »nedtælling til G20-topmødet, der vil finde sted den 4. – 5. september«. Han sagde, at topmødets tema vil blive »Mod en innovativ, stærk, forbundet og inklusiv verdensøkonomi«. Ved en fælles pressekonference med udenrigsminister Saleumxay Kommasith i Laos, nævnte Wang de dusinvis af formøder, der har fundet sted som optakt til topmødet. Han sagde, at mødet i september vil blive meget produktivt, i modsætning til det foregående møde. Han forudser, at henved 30 betydningsfulde resultater vil blive opnået ved begivenheden.

(Info: G20 er en forkortelse af Group of Twenty Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors, og består af en gruppe af finansministre og centralbankledere fra 20 væsentlige økonomier: 19 lande samt den Europæiske Union, der repræsenteres af præsidenten for EU-rådet og den Europæiske Centralbank. Landenes regeringsledere eller statsledere har også periodevis deltaget i G20-topmøder siden første møde i 2008. Samlet udgør G20-økonomierne mere end 80 % af det globale BNP, 80 % af verdens handel (inklusive intern EU-handel) og 2/3 af verdens befolkning. De udgør 82,2 % af verdens økonomiske vækst, målt i forhold til bruttonationalprodukt (BNP) og bruttonationalindkomst (BNI) i årene 2010 til 2016, ifølge IMF.) 

For at give håb om en bedre fremtid for hele menneskeheden, et håb, der er gået tabt i mange dele af verden, må G20-topmødet fremkomme med en vision, der kan tilbyde en løsning, en vej til at overvinde de nævnte kriser, og en etablering af et højere niveau af fornuft for at realisere menneskehedens fælles mål.

4. august, 2016 (Leder) – Følgende tale blev holdt af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og forkvinde for Schiller Instituttet, den 29. juli ved »Tænk 20 Forum« i Beijing. Forummet var arrangeret af tre kinesiske tænketanke: Instituttet for Verdensøkonomi og Verdenspolitik (IWEP) ved det Kinesiske Akademi for Samfundsvidenskaber (CASS), Shanghai Instituttet for Internationale Studier (SIIS) og Chongyang Instituttet for Finansielle Studier ved Kinas Renmin Universitet (RCDY), med deltagelse af 500 eksperter fra tænketanke og politikere og repræsentanter for internationale organisationer fra 25 lande, med det formål at formulere forslag til statsoverhoveder og regeringsledere i G20-medlemslandene. Fr. Zepp-LaRouche talte på det første panel under den to dage lange konference, dedikeret til »Global Ledelse: Systemforbedring og opbygning af Kapacitet«.

Eftersom G20 repræsenterer den mest magtfulde kombination af industrilande og fremvoksende lande på planeten, er der i øjeblikket ingen anden organisation, der kan adressere de eksistentielle udfordringer, som civilisationen står overfor, og i tide gennemføre løsninger på disse. De fleste landes befolkninger har den meget reelle oplevelse af at være opslugt af frygtindgydende kriser – en international terroristtrussel, der er ude af kontrol, en folkevandring af millioner af mennesker, der prøver på at undslippe krig, sult og død; den resulterende flygtningekrise, der ryster EU i sit fundament; fremgang for anti-etablissement-partier i mange lande: Brexit, som et advarselsskud for den potentielle disintegration af EU; det voksende gab mellem de rige og de stadigt flere lag af samfundet, der har mistet deres velfortjente status som middelklasse, eller som lever i fattigdom; oplevelsen af virkningerne af »uortodokse monetære foranstaltninger« på livsopsparinger og forventninger til fremtiden; grænserne for samfundets acceptabilitet af bailout og bail-in; samt den voksende frygt for, at verden nu er gået ind i en ny kold krig og en atomoprustnings-spiral. Kort sagt, et voksende tab af tillid til etablissementet, i det mindste i den transatlantiske sektor.

Hvis det forestående G20-topmøde afviser at anerkende denne situation; hvis man forsøger at skjule den fremherskende politiks fiasko, i særdeleshed siden 2008, bag retorikken i den offentlige propaganda; samt hvis man ikke bruger det forestående topmøde som en anledning til at fremlægge reelle løsninger på disse kriser, vil det ikke få nogen indvirkning i en virtuel reality, men det vil derimod få en indvirkning på det reelle historiske forløb og milliarder af menneskers liv og lykke.                                                                                                                   

Umiddelbare løsninger er forhånden, men de kræver, at de ledende institutioner er villige til at revidere den nuværende politiks aksiomer og vende tilbage til en politik, der ikke alene har vist sig at være effektive i tidligere situationer, men som også repræsenterer et nyt paradigme, der kan udgøre grundlaget for den menneskelige art i de næste hundrede år, og længere.

For at give håb om en bedre fremtid for hele menneskeheden, et håb, der er gået tabt i mange dele af verden, må G20-topmødet fremkomme med en vision, der kan tilbyde en løsning, en vej til at overvinde de nævnte kriser, og en etablering af et højere niveau af fornuft for at realisere menneskehedens fælles mål.

1. Det eneste »praktiske« udtryk for denne vision – og dette er ikke en selvmodsigelse – perspektivet for den Nye Silkevej, som den kinesiske regering nu i tre år har fremlagt og ført ud i livet. Foreløbig deltager over 70 lande i forskellige aspekter af dette program, samt i programmets infrastruktur- og udviklingsprojekter. Det, som Kina kalder for et »win-win« -samarbejde om sådanne fællesprojekter er ikke alene den eneste effektive måde, på hvilken geopolitiske konfrontationer kan overvindes, der har været roden til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, og ligeledes den underliggende fare for en tredje global krig i dag, som, givet eksistensen af kernevåben, ville blive en tilintetgørelseskrig. »Win-win«-perspektivet er også i overensstemmelse med principperne for den Westfalske Fred, ifølge hvilken enhver succesfuld fredsorden må baseres på »den anden parts interesse«. Konceptet for den Nye Silkevej må derfor udstrækkes til alle verdens områder, som en »Verdens-Silkevej«, som et konkret tilbud om at overvinde underudvikling. Hvis G20-medlemmerne ville afgive et sådant løfte, med en højtidelig forpligtelse til at overvinde sult og fattigdom og tilvejebringe rent vand til alle inden for få år, hvilket rent teknologisk kan gennemføres – så ville det skabe en revolution af håb og optimisme i verden.
2. For at eliminere både årsagerne til massemigrationen fra Sydvestasien og Afrika og grobunden for rekruttering af terrorister, må der i begge disse områder iværksættes en omfattende industriel udvikling, som ikke blot genopbygger de krigshærgede områder, men som også fremlægger en integreret plan for infrastruktur, industri, landbrug og uddannelse, for at transformere disse dele af verden til at blive områder med høj produktivitet af arbejdskraft og fremstillingskapaciteter. Generelt må Verdens-Silkevejens projekter defineres således, at de får optimal indvirkning på befolkningens kognitive evner i de respektive lande, for derved at muliggøre den bedst mulige forøgelse af verdensøkonomiens produktivitet. Fokus må derfor ikke alene ligge på innovation, men på kvalitative gennembrud i forståelsen af kvalitative, nye fysiske principper i vort univers. Eksempler herpå er forcerede programmer for udvikling af termonuklear fusionskraft, der vil tilvejebringe forsyningssikkerhed for energi og råmaterialesikkerhed for menneskeheden, såvel som også udvikling af nye vandressourcer gennem den fredelige udnyttelse af kernekraft til afsaltning af store mængder havvand, ionisering af fugtighed i atmosfæren og andre former for innovativ teknologi. Internationalt samarbejde om rummet, mht. forskning, rumfart og kolonisering, definerer vejen for de kommende, nødvendige gennembrud inden for videnskab og teknologi. Det repræsenterer også en fremtidsorienterede platform for en fredsorden for det 21. århundrede. Og vigtigst af alt, så markerer det transformationen af den menneskelige art hen imod en større bevidsthed om dets egen identitet som den eneste, hidtil kendte, kreative art i universet.
3. Et ukontrolleret kollaps af den transatlantiske sektors finansielle system ville true med at kaste store dele af verden ud i kaos, med uforudsigelige konsekvenser. Den såkaldte »værktøjskasse« med finansielle instrumenter, som man besluttede at bruge efter krisen i 2008 fremfor at gennemføre reelle reformer, er nu opbrugt. De efterfølgende »uortodokse monetære instrumenter,« såsom kvantitativ lempelse (’pengetrykning’), negative rentesatser, og ’helikopterpenge’, har for en stor dels vedkommende produceret det modsatte af de ønskede virkninger. Den kendsgerning, at genindførelsen af Franklin D. Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingslov er blevet vedtaget i både det Demokratiske og Republikanske partis valgplatform i USA, samt den kendsgerning, at der er en voksende diskussion i flere europæiske lande om at reducere de fremtidige risici i det finansielle system ved at indføre Glass/Steagall-kriterier også i Europa, skaber en meget favorabel forudsætning for at indgå aftale om en global Glass/Steagall-lovgivning ved det kommende G20-topmøde. Hvis G20-topmødet sætter Verdens-Silkevejen på dagsordenen, ville den kinesiske drøm blive til en verdensdrøm.