Schiller Instituttets konference i torsdags i New York City, “At bygge en Verdenslandbro – og realisere en ægte menneskelig menneskehed”, markerede en succes for Lyndon LaRouches idé. Selvom flere og mere fyldige rapporter vil følge, så kan så meget allerede nu siges med sikkerhed; nærværende rapport reflekterer kun en del af begivenhedsforløbet.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche åbnede konferencen med en omfattende og inspirerende tale med titlen, ”Hinsides geopolitik og polaritet: En fremtid for den menneskelige art”, i hvilken hun blotlagde den umiddelbare trussel om en udslettelseskrig og viste, at alene idéen om Verdenslandbroen, som hun sammen med sin mand udviklede i perioden under Warszawapagtens sammenbrud, kan tilvejebringe en varig garanti for fred. Hun gik videre med at skitsere en dialog mellem civilisationerne, hvor alle civilisationer i verden vil blive repræsenteret ved deres historiske, kulturelle højdepunkter, så som Weimar-klassikken for Tysklands vedkommende og et USA, som det først blev udtænkt til at være af Benjamin Franklin og Alexander Hamilton.
Helga efterfulgtes som taler af den tidligere amerikanske justitsminister Ramsey Clark (1966-67), der sammenvævede sin egen mangeårige erfaring til en redegørelse om den nyere verdenshistorie, og som understregede et alternativ til den krigspolitik, som de fleste amerikanske regeringer efter Kennedy-tiden har ført.
Den næste taler var en aldeles enestående person fra Kina, nemlig landets ledende professor i journalistik og tilligemed leder af meget andet, Li Xiguang. Professor Li har anført en pilgrimsfærd, der har varet i årtier, for Silkevejen – tværs over Centralasien og ned langs hver af de tre nord-syd ruter, og tilbage igen. Ikke færre end 500 af sine studerende har han siden 1990 ført med sig på denne pilgrimsrejse, og han har skrevet et tobindsværk om den Nye Silkevej. Skønt hans mål med Silkevejen ikke er af religiøs karakter – hans mål er de samme som LaRouche-bevægelsens – så modellerer professor Li sig selv efter de store kulturelle, kinesiske helte, buddhistmunkene Xuanzang (602-664) og dennes forgænger Faxian (337-422). Begge foretog vidstrakte og anstrengende rejser langs Silkevejen og bragte den første, reelle viden om meget af verdenscivilisationen, der især omfattede sanskrit-sproget og kulturen, samt originale, buddhistiske skrifter, med tilbage til Kina.
Xuanzang tilbragte intet mindre end 16 år på denne rejse og vendte tilbage med 600 indiske tekster. Efter ønske fra Tangdynastiets kejser, færdiggjorde han i 646 sit 12-binds værk, ”Krøniken om det store Tangdynastis vestlige områder” der er blevet en af hovedkilderne til studiet af Centralasien og Indien i middelalderen, og som danner grundlag for romanen fra det 17. århundrede, ”Rejsen til Vesten”, en af de fire store, klassiske, kinesiske romaner.
Der vil senere komme rapporter fra eftermiddagens session, der satte fokus på rumprogrammet, og som blev indledt af Kesha Rogers med en levende præsentation. Sessionens højdepunkt var en spørgsmål-svar-session over Skype med Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche førte de fleste af spørgsmålene tilbage til kardinalspørgsmålet, nemlig, at forandringer i det fysiske system, og i menneskehedens fremtid, skabes af selve det tænkende menneskelige intellekt; det er der intet dyr, der er i stand til. Menneskeheden organiseres gennem sine egne handlinger af denne art; det er disse, der leder til enten succes eller fiasko. Dette er kendetegnende for den sande videnskabsmands intellekt, som Einstein eksemplificerer. Men denne redegørelse er blot en karakteristik; de faktiske svar bør studeres i detaljer.
Flere end 200 mennesker var mødt frem, kernemedlemmer ikke medregnet. Omkring et dusin fremmede lande fra Europa, Asien og Afrika var repræsenteret, enten ved diplomater, kulturelle forbindelser eller på anden vis. Mange musikere deltog, og mindst fem mennesker fra Brooklyn kirken, hvor vi opførte Messias i påsken. Dette er muligvis den største konference, vi nogensinde har holdt.
Som konklusion skal det siges, at denne konference markerer en sejr for en af Lyndon LaRouches ideer: nemlig Manhattan-projektet, som han præsenterede tilbage i oktober 2014. Og dog blev han dengang, i lighed med Einsteins berømte udtalelse om Kepler i 1930 på 300 års dagen for dennes død, ”ikke støttet af nogen og kun forstået af ganske få”. Lyndon LaRouche, der skabte det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ og senere sammen med sin kone skabte den Eurasiske Landbro, har endnu engang skabt en ny og fuldstændig anderledes original idé. En idé, som atter har vist sig at være gyldig.

Klik her for videoerne og afskrifterne på engelsk.

København d. 6. april, 2016 – Ved et seminar i København i tirsdags, med titlen ’Udfordringer for Tunesiens demokrati’, der blev holdt ved det Danske Institut for Internationale Studier (DIIS), gav Mahmoud Ben Romdhane, minister for sociale affærer i den siddende tunesiske regering og tidligere menneskerettighedsaktivist udtryk for en politik, der hænger sammen med den Nye Silkevej/Verdenslandbro. Til trods for det faktum, at Schiller Instituttet ikke blev opfordret til at stille spørgsmål, sagde ministeren i respons til et spørgsmål fra en kinesisk fotograf om forskelle mellem de tunesiske og den kinesiske økonomier (frit oversat):
Verden er under forandring. I løbet af de næste 20 år vil verdens centrum bevæge sig fra det Atlantiske Ocean til Stillehavet. Kina og Indien, begge nøglenationer, er allerede de største lande. På grund af vores gode relationer med Europa kan vi blive en platform for forbindelser mellem Indien, Kina, Asien, Europa, Afrika og den arabiske verden. Vi skulle begynde at undervise i kinesisk i vore skoler, og jeg er frustreret over, at vi ikke allerede er startet. Vi har haft møder med kinesiske firmaer, og vi diskuterer mange projekter, overvejende om infrastruktur. Kineserne udtrykker deres ønsker, og vi er åbne over for deres forslag. Vi ser frem til muligheden for investeringer og jobskabelse.
Et andet højdepunkt under seminaret var da Houcine Abassi, formand for Tunesiens indflydelsesrige fagforening, UGTT, en af de fire organisationer, der har modtaget Nobelprisen, angreb ”stormagterne”, der står bag terrorismen. Som svar på et spørgsmål om hvorfor økonomien ikke er blevet bedre siden revolutionen for fem år siden sagde han (frit oversat):
Arbejdsløsheden er 15 %, hvilket skaber vrede blandt ungdommen. Det skyldes en fejltagelse af den tidligere regering. Om Gud vil, vil vi finde løsninger. Men vi kræver hjælp fra verden udenom os. Hvad er grunden til, at terroren har ramt vores land? Vi lykkedes med at udvikle en forfatning. Verdens stormagter skabte terroristerne. De mente at de kunne gøre situationen værre. Vi ændrede spillet. De lande, der skabte terroristerne, er nu selv under angreb fra terrorister. Hvad vil det internationale samfund forpligte sig til at gøre? De sydlige middelhavslande vender sig til Europa. Se på de flygtninge, der kommer fra Syrien. Hvis det samme sker i Tunesien, vil der komme millioner af flygtninge til Europa. Europa må arbejde sammen med Tunesien om at forsvare Europa. Det ser vi intet af på nuværende tidspunkt.
Minister Mahmoud Ben Romdhane sagde videre, at revolutionen var en kamp for jobs, værdighed og frihed, men folket har kun fået frihed. Han pegede også på problemet med at leve som nabo til det største våbenlager – i Libyen, hvilket får tuneserne til at øge deres forsvarsbudget, og truslen om terrorisme har påvirket deres økonomi. Dette skal ses i en geopolitisk sammenhæng, sagde Abassi, og påpegede stormagternes rolle. Det er i hele verdens strategiske interesse at forhindre Tunesien i at blive et nyt Libyen.
Seminaret blev også adresseret af en leder fra en industri-sammenslutning, der også har modtaget en Nobelpris; han sagde, at der aldrig kom direkte europæiske investeringer til Tunesien. Tunesien behøver Europa, og nu, efter terrorangrebene i Frankrig og Belgien, er det klart, at vi alle er i samme båd.
Ved den efterfølgende reception blev de to første talere præsenteret for den nyligt trykte arabiske udgave af rapporten om Verdenslandbroen, og de øvrige deltagere blev inviteret til det kommende Schiller Institut-/EIR-seminar om udvidelsen af den Nye Silkevej til Mellemøsten of Afrika.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Det seneste eksempel på denne, Den nye Silkevejs større tiltrækningskraft i forhold til den geopolitiske konfrontation med Rusland og Kina, har vi netop set i form af den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings besøg i den Tjekkiske Republik. Præsidenterne Xi og Zeman undertegnede en omfangsrig liste af aftaler inden for områderne højteknologi, infrastruktur og realøkonomi og fejrede den »Gyldne Stad« Prags rolle som »porten« ind til samarbejdet mellem Kina og Europa.

Netop dette samarbejde er ligeledes nøglen til løsning af flygtningekrisen, der blot har bragt frem for dagens lys, hvilket skrøbeligt fundament, EU er bygget på.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Foto: Prags astronomiske ur er et af de ældste og mest omfattende ure, der nogensinde er bygget. Det blev først installeret i 1410, og senere genopbygget af Mester Hanus i 1490. Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings besøg i den Tjekkiske Republik, med underskrivelse af mange aftaler om samarbejde, fejrede den »Gyldne Stad« Prags rolle som »porten« ind til samarbejdet mellem Kina og Europa.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video:
2. del (5 min)

Lydfil:

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

21. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Finanssystemets kollaps kan ikke længere skjules for befolkningerne i Europa og USA. Bankerne er gået i panik – med en udvidelse af den kvantitative lempelses pengetrykning, negative rentesatser, banker, der opkøber deres egne aktier for at bevare skinnet af solvens, og snak om »helikopterpenge«, som om penge var problemet. Det handler ikke om penge, men om realøkonomiens sammenbrud. Selvmordsraten blandt tidligere beskæftigede specialarbejdere handler ikke om penge – det handler om, at de er blevet skubbet til side af en satanisk politik, der kun er interesseret i penge, ikke mennesker.

Og alligevel accepterer de fleste mennesker det, af frygt – frygt for, at FBI og NSA skal »fange dem«, hvis de taler offentligt, hvis de taler om det, der er en åbenlys kendsgerning. USA og Europa er i forfald, i færd med at dø, mens Kina og Rusland vokser og lægger vægt på deres befolkninger, og verdens befolkninger, og de rejser ud i rummet, mens Obama lukker NASA ned; de bygger jernbaner i hele verden, mens Obama lukker dem ned, og de udvider uddannelse, mens Obama legaliserer narkotika.

Den amerikanske kulturs død kan ikke udtrykkes bedre end gennem den kendsgerning, at Obamaregeringen fremlagde en »Ven af retten«-brief (Amicus curiae) i en sag, der blev anlagt af Colorados nabostater for at standse Colorados legalisering af marihuana, som gør det umuligt at begrænse den narkotika, der strømmer over grænsen. Den største heroinepidemi i amerikansk historie, der nu berører hver eneste kommune i landet, stammer direkte fra legaliseringen af narkohandlen – eftersom netværkerne for pot er de samme som dem, der spreder heroin og kokain. Narkohandler George Soros var henrykt, da Højesteret i dag dømte til fordel for Obamas narkohandel og afviste at lade sagen mod Colorados narkopolitik komme for retten.

Chefen for Indiens centralbank, Raghuram Rajan, advarede i dag om, at verden befinder sig i en »voksende farlig situation« pga. de vestlige bankers tiltag med at trykke penge, mens deres fysiske økonomier er ved at kollapse. »Det internationale samfund har et valg«, fremførte Rajan. »Vi kan lade som om, alt står vel til med det globale, monetære ikke-system og håbe på, at der ikke er noget, der går helt galt. Eller også kan vi begynde at opbygge et system, der passer til det 21. århundredes integrerede verden.«

Wall Street og City of London, der meget vel ved, at deres finansimperium er ved at smuldre, er af den mening, at det eneste svar er krig for at bryde den »trussel« mod deres magt, der kommer fra Kina og BRIKS-nationerne. Befolkningerne i USA og Europa bliver således tvangsfodret med en daglig dosis hysteri om »russisk aggression« og »kinesisk aggression«, i et desperat forsøg på at forhindre befolkningen i at se, at det nye paradigme, baseret på videnskab, udvikling og menneskeligt fremskridt, der er centreret omkring Kina og Rusland, er en kendsgerning. Selv, når amerikanere hader deres præsident og væmmes ved det klovneshow, der kaldes præsidentvalget, så forstår de ikke, hvorfor 80 % af det russiske folk støtter Vladimir Putin, og at over 90 % af kineserne støtter Xi Jinping.

Det er der en grund til. Det er baseret på at give befolkningen en fornemmelse af en fremtid, i en mission, der indbefatter fremskridt for hele menneskeheden – en vision, der engang var kendt som Det amerikanske System. Det må genoplives i Vesten og erstatte det døde pengesystem og den døende kultur. Alle borgere har ikke alene en andel i denne mission; de har også et ansvar for at virkeliggøre den.

Foto: Den tidligere bilfabrik Packard i Detroit, Michigan. Da fabrikken blev bygget, var den verdens mest moderne bilfabrik.

Info: Indbyggertallet i byen Detroit er faldet betydeligt fra slutningen af det 20. århundrede og frem til i dag. Mellem 2000 og 2010 faldt indbyggertallet med 25 procent. I 2010 havde byen et indbyggertal på 713.000, et fald på mere end 60 % fra byens top-indbyggertal på 1,8 mio. ved folketællingen i 1950. Faldet skyldes, at Detroits industri, primært bilindustri og maskinværktøjsindustri – realøkonomien – gradvist er blevet afmonteret, med den heraf følgende enorme arbejdsløshed. I 2013 blev byen erklæret konkurs, med en ubetalelig gæld på 1,8 mio. dollar.

Lyndon LaRouche har foreslået, at byens fabrikker ombygges – gennem Franklin Roosevelts politik med statslig kredit til investering i den produktive økonomi, i traditionen efter USA’s første finansminister, Alexander Hamilton, også kaldet Det amerikanske System – til at deltage i produktion i forbindelse med LaRouche-bevægelsens foreslåede NAWAPA-projekt, samt i forbindelse med opbygning af et højhastigheds-jernbanenet i USA, og mens der endnu findes faglærte arbejdere, der kan være med til at videreføre deres knowhow til den unge, arbejdsløse generation, der aldrig fik chancen for at tilegne sig faglige, produktive færdigheder.

Se også: LPAC’s digitale brochure: The US joins the New Silk Road 

Se også: Brochure (dansk): Hvorfor USA og Europa må gå med i BRIKS

21. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Kollapset af de transatlantiske landes finanssystemer er nært forestående. Det er netop blevet signaleret i Den europæiske Centralbanks chefs meddelelse om, at de nu undersøger at kaste »helikopterpenge« ind i bankkonti i hele Europa; og i den tyske Centralbanks chefs eksplosive offentlige udbrud imod denne inflationsskabende plan. Centralbankerne har forsøgt enhver form for bailout i syv år, og finanssystemerne er nu ved randen af et gennemgribende kollaps.

Nationerne må nu dramatisk og omgående ændre deres politik for at redde deres økonomier og befolkninger fra Wall Streets og City of Londons kollaps.

Og der er kun én kurs for ændring, der vil lykkes: den politik, der er modelleret efter præsident Franklin Roosevelts politik – med nedlukning af Wall Streets kasinoer og udstedelse af statslig kredit til produktive formål – men koordineret på globalt plan.

Til at gennemføre dette kan lederskabet kun komme fra Asien: fra Kina, Rusland og Indien.

Kina er i færd med at bygge landbroer tværs over Eurasien og ind i det kollapsede Europa, og endda muligvis ind i USA via Beringstrædet. Inden for to år planlægger Kina at landsætte et rumfartøj på Månens bagside og observere og undersøge universet på måder, der hidtil ikke har været muligt fra Jorden eller fra fartøjer i kredsløb. Kina og Indien er nu verdens mest dynamiske rumnationer.

Kinas »Nye Silkevejspolitik« med udstedelse af kredit og opbygning af broer, der spænder over kontinenter, med ny, økonomisk infrastruktur, står måske også på randen af at bringe økonomisk udvikling til Mellemøsten og Nordafrika. Dette er fundamentet for en varig fred og stabilitet. At føre den Ny Silkevejs udvikling gennem Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, og erklære ørkenen krig, er det eneste udviklingsperspektiv for hele denne region. Og det er den eneste basis for at vende Europas »flygtningekrise« omkring.

Vladimir Putins initiativ i Syrien har vendt kursen for anliggender i Mellemøsten hen mod en forhandlet fred og stabilitet, for første gang, siden George W. Bush’ katastrofale krig i Irak.

Dette er lederskab.

Den ganske lille styrke, der har katalyseret dette lederskab, har været LaRouchePAC og Schiller Instituttet. Hen over 30 år er Lyndon og Helga Zepp-LaRouches politik med den »Eurasiske Landbro« blevet Kinas politik, især over for Rusland og Indien. I et gennembrud i sidste uge i Cairo blev det offentligt Egyptens politik, gennem en konference med repræsentant for Schiller Instituttet Hussein Askary og Egyptens transportminister som hovedtalere.

Ved afgørende konferencer 23. marts i Frankfurt og 7. april i New York City vil denne politik blive forelagt europæiske nationer og USA: Gå med i Den nye Silkevej, tag lederskabet i Asien og samarbejd med det, eller gå ind i en håbløs bankerot. Alt afhænger af disse begivenheders succesfulde indflydelse.

Foto: Begyndelsen af Silkevejen, Xian, Kina. Kinas nye økonomiske Silkevejs-udviklingspolitik, »Ét bælte, én vej«, er åben for tilslutning fra alle nationer. (CC BY-SA 2.0)      

Jeg mener, at det nye paradigme allerede er synligt; jeg mener, at samarbejde om menneskehedens fælles mål om at overvinde sult og ophøre med ideen om krig som et middel til løsning af konflikter i en atomvåbenalder, er et ’must’, hvis man ønsker at eksistere. Der er andre områder, f.eks. samarbejde om udviklingen af fusionskraft, som ville give menneskeheden energisikkerhed, ressourcesikkerhed; det fælles arbejde i rummet; jeg mener, der er så mange fantastiske områder, inden for hvilke vi kan blive virkeligt menneskelige, så jeg tror, vi må vække befolkningerne til at se hen til disse løsninger.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Alt dette er et mål for det faktum, at det transatlantiske område er dødt; og det vil kun begynde at vende denne død omkring, hvis der finder en revolutionær, fundamental forandring sted i politikken. Denne alternative politik gennemføres i det eurasiske og asiatiske Stillehavsområde, anført af Kina, af Rusland, og er reflekteret i den måde, hvorpå præsident Putin har navigeret den strategiske situation.

Så den store trussel kommer fra det faktum, at et døende Britisk Imperium – der er uigenkaldeligt dømt til undergang – kæmper for sit liv og forsøger at bevare noget, der ikke længere kan bevares.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Engelsk udskrift: I denne uge får vi en opdatering fra Kesha Rogers i Texas, som anfører en politik for en genoplivelse af det amerikanske NASA-rumprogram; Jason Ross fortsætter sagaen om Gottfried Leibniz; og Jeffrey Steinberg giver os Lyndon LaRouches analyse af betydningen for fredsprocessen i Syrien af de seneste udviklinger, med den russiske militære tilbagetrækning.

– DELIGHT IN CREATING SURPRISES! –

International Webcast March 18, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Evening! It's March 18th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to thank you for joining us
for our weekly Friday evening broadcast, here, on
larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey
Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}; and Jason Ross,
from the LaRouche PAC science team; and we're joined via video by
Kesha Rogers, multiple-time candidate for Federal office from the
state of Texas, and leading member of the LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee.
All of us had a chance to meet with Mr. LaRouche, both in
person and via telephone connection (in the case of Kesha),
earlier this morning. Mr. LaRouche had some very definite and
specific ideas which he wished for us to convey. Mr. LaRouche was
{emphatic} when we met with him earlier today, that the global
agenda right now is being set by Russia and by China, and their
allies. He said that the initiative in creating the future and
shaping present global policy, lies with those two countries,
strategically — in the case of Russia, as is very clear with
what is occurring in Syria right now; and economically and
scientifically — in the case of China.
You can see very clearly that the outdated and archaic
methods of the trans-Atlantic system are proving to be impotent,
both in the case of resolving the current grave crises which are
facing mankind as a planetary species right now, but also
impotent in setting the agenda and fulfilling and laying out the
vision for the future of mankind. The mission which has been
undertaken by China, in terms of their objective to explore the
far side of the Moon — something which is going to be unfolding
over the coming two years — exemplifies the necessary identity
which mankind must have in order to affirm and to fulfill our
true nature as a creative species.
Mr. LaRouche stated that something that we should develop,
in dialogue with him and with each other, is to think about the
open questions, the unanswered questions about how is mankind, a
species, reflective of a much larger, and as yet not fully
understood, creative characteristic of the galactic system as a
whole. This is a relationship which Johannes Kepler drew out in
very unique detail in terms of his discoveries about our {Solar}
System, but we have many, many large and unanswered questions of
what is the role of the human species in our relationship to the
galactic system as a whole, and then the complex of galactic
systems as a much, much larger whole.
Mr. LaRouche said that this mission to explore the "dark
side" of the Moon, so-called, is a pathway in order to begin to
understand even the opening of the questions along these lines.
The dark side of the Moon, his hypothesis was, is where you can
find some of the shadows of this much larger system, have insight
into it, and also to begin to understand mankind's role as
reflective of these broader creative processes which are involved
in these great astronomical systems.
This is the spirit of the United States at our best. Our
republic was founded on these kinds of unique ideas, as we've
discussed here in previous weeks. The role of the great
philosopher and scientist Gottfried Leibniz is a major
contributor, a "founding father", or "founding grand-father" of
our republic. This is something which I know Jason Ross has
presented multiple times and is in the process of having a series
of developing classes on that subject; and I'm sure we'll be part
of his discussion later today.
But also, this is what you can see in a great statesman,
such as Abraham Lincoln — very, very much so. Franklin
Roosevelt; and John F. Kennedy. Tragically, that spirit in the
United States has deteriorated drastically. We see now that the
leadership does indeed lie with China and with Russia; and this
is something which Kesha Rogers, who is joining us here today,
wrote about in an editorial which is appearing in this week's
edition of the {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine. Kesha's
editorial is titled, "To Save the United States Economy, Revive
the Space Program."
Kesha and I had a brief conversation earlier this afternoon.
I know she has some broader ideas to develop on this subject, so,
without further ado, I would like to hand over the podium to
Kesha Rogers.

KESHA ROGERS: Thank you, Matt. I think I'd like to start,
first of all, by continuing to develop what has and must be the
focal point by which we come to understand the necessity for the
revival and the defense of, not just the American and U.S. space
program, which I have continued to be a leader in championing the
development and the necessity of our space program and what it
truly represents for the progress of all mankind. But just on the
editorial that I wrote, I think, to understand it, it's not just
from the standpoint of looking at the economic conditions of the
United States and some practical applications to economics that
the space program will provide; but we also have to look at it
from the standpoint of is, the space program as a true conception
of real economic value. This is what's actually missing from our
thinking and what has been attacked by the current Wall
Street/British imperial system, is that economic value is based,
from {that} standpoint, on monetary value and not on the creative
powers and progress of the human mind.
The real question at hand right now, is to bring about — as
we're seeing and will be developed further in these discussions
today — a new conception of what is the identity and what is the
purpose of mankind. I have continued to use the example and the
works of the great pioneer of space flight, space pioneer Krafft
Ehricke; and looking at his conception of mankind as a
space-faring creature, as the understanding of mankind's
"extra-terrestrial imperative," as that which must be identified
and understood.
If you look at the conditions of the space program and why
it's so important, you take the example, for instance, of what
China is doing now, as completely rejecting this monetarist
policy; that the space program is not how much money you're going
to put into pet projects and specific projects. It is creating
something that's never been created before, to actually create a
new conception and identity of mankind, from the standpoint of
the idea of acting on the future.  That's what this idea and what
is being developed, for instance with China in their
investigation of the far side of the Moon.
People may look at this, "Well what is this going to
benefit us? How is this going to improve the economic conditions,
in terms of monetary value, or any of this?" But that is the
wrong way to look at it; because the problem right now is that
what you have seen is two different opposing conceptions of the
view of mankind. One coming from the trans-Atlantic system,
coming from a collapsing imperial system that has been based on
money and monetary value that is dying; and the other is
represented by what Russia and China are doing. And as Matt
emphasized and what I developed in my recent writing, was that
this was the mindset of the great leaders of our nation,
represented by the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, of Franklin
Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, [and] John F. Kennedy. It wasn't just
on the creating of new projects per se, but on a whole new
different conception of the identity of mankind.
And so, you take for instance, the example of what we
accomplished in the United States, of landing a man on the Moon
— the idea that Kennedy put forward, that by the end of decade
we would land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth.
What was the vision and intention behind that? Was it just the
idea that we would go and plant our flag on the Moon? This would
be some short-term gratification and so forth? Or, was it a
forward-thinking outlook, in terms of the direction of mankind in
recognizing what Krafft Ericke, the great pioneer of space
flight, recognized, that mankind was not just a creature of the
planet Earth. We were not just a part of, as he called it, a
"closed system," and so it was our responsibility to go out and
to do what no other animal had the capability of doing; of
actually conquering and developing, coming to understand what is
the purpose of mankind and what is the development of mankind in
the universe as a creature of our solar system and of the galaxy
as a whole.
One thing that I thought was very insightful, is that Krafft
Ericke wrote about the understanding of the Renaissance, the
Classical Renaissance, as an achievement of human progress. And
also the Classical Renaissance is something that contributed to
the development of what became our space program and what was the
intention that guided the direction of space travel and the space
program.
I'll just read a quick quote from what he expressed on this
idea. He says, "The development of the idea of space travel was
always the most logical and most noble consequence of the
Renaissance ideal, which again places man in an organic and
active relationship with his surrounding universe and which,
perceived in the synthesis of knowledge and capabilities, its
highest ideals."
So you look at this from the standpoint of Krafft Ericke
understanding that the Renaissance that was guided by the
scientific breakthroughs which I'm sure you'll hear a lot more
from my colleague Jason there, of Brunelleschi, or the
breakthroughs that came about from the works of Kepler. That the
idea of mankind, is to create something fundamentally new,
something that had never been created before, and increasing the
relationship of mankind to the Universe.
Now that's economic value! That is not what is being
discussed when you look at these debates going back and forth
from the standpoint of these Congress Members to the space
community, and what budgets are being cut and should not be cut.
But the reality is, as I stated before, we have to have, in the
defense of the space program, a new conception of the direction
of mankind. That means we're removing all limitations to
progress, all limitations that are put on mankind's ability to
continue to understand how to make new discoveries in the
principles scientifically of what's out there. Why should we
actually investigate the Solar System? What is our mission in
doing so? And it's not about a money-making short-term
gratification. And so, I think this emphasis that Krafft Ehricke
put on the renaissance as an ideal of looking at why we have, as
a human species, an extraterrestrial imperative, is really a
continued expression of what you're seeing coming from China; not
just in their space program, but in the development of the
win-win strategy of cooperation for all mankind, for every nation
to come to join together. And to further the progress of
addressing the necessary challenges to the economic condition of
the planet by actually recognizing that the solutions do not lie
right here on planet Earth.
So, I think that's the conceptions I wanted to get across;
and what I hope to have further discussion on as we continue this
fight to identify what is the real mission of the space program,
and how we come to rid the world immediately of this current dead
system that's keeping us from advancing in the way that we should
be.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Kesha; and I can recommend that
people read what you've written in the current edition of
{Executive Intelligence Review}. I also know that you're planning
on making a video statement — which will be posted on the
LaRouche PAC website and available for people — developing some
of these ideas a little bit more in detail.
So, if people have been watching this website, you know that
Jason Ross has also been working very closely with Kesha to
develop some of these ideas with their implications from the
standpoint of a scientist, whom I hope you are becoming more
familiar with by now — Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. As we
discussed last week on this webcast, I think if you begin to
consider this question which Kesha just laid on the table for us,
about how do you create a future for mankind. How do you initiate
the creation of something which is completely new, as we move
into the future? Now, this can never be done through the
replication of the past; there's no precedent for a discovery. A
discovery is something which is always new, and is created {de
novo} and is introduced, which changes the course of human
history. Obviously, there is a lineage that goes back to
Gottfried Leibniz, and many Leibnizians who have lived since him:
Karl Gauss; Bernhard Riemann; Albert Einstein; and I would even
include Mr. Lyndon LaRouche in that lineage.
So, without further ado, I'm going to ask Jason to elaborate
a little bit more; picking up on what Kesha just left off on.

JASON ROSS: Thanks, Matt. Well, I think if you consider how
to conceptualize the value of the kinds of programs that Kesha
was discussing that we're promoting today, you reach a
contradiction if you try to approach them from a monetarist
standpoint. That is, the kind of economics that's generally
taught today, the kind of economics practiced as a religion —
well, I was going to say as a religion on Wall Street; the
primary religion on Wall Street is stealing — but, in general,
the basis of thinking is that economy is about money; we can
measure things in terms of money. How much is somebody willing to
pay for something? That's how valuable it is. That isn't. Money
doesn't measure different qualities; money doesn't measure the
future potential that something is able to create. And if you
base money on how much somebody's willing to pay for something,
you don't distinguish between things that are good and useful
versus bad and vices. People are willing to pay for heroin;
people are willing to pay for other opioids if they're addicted
to it. Does that mean that those drugs, as used by those people,
are valuable, or worth something because they're willing to pay
for them? Quite the contrary. So, we need a different way of
thinking about how we can measure economic value if we're going
to be human economists, instead of Wall Street magicians or
Satanists.
So, the reason we have economy is that we aren't animals;
animals don't have economies. Animals don't change what they do
from generation to generation; they don't improve, they don't
develop. We do. We create a new kind of time for ourselves. In a
very real way, humanity is a totally new and totally distinct
force of nature from anything else. Over geological time,
geologists describe to us how the Earth has changed, or how a
planet has formed; this is over hundreds of millions of years.
Over evolutionary time, perhaps tens of millions of years, we're
able to see transformations in the kinds of life that exists on
the planet. Over biological time, we have short-term periods of
the life of an organism, of its respiration, very much tied to
the daily cycle of the Earth, for example. And with humans, we
have a different kind of time. We create time. The flow of
history isn't always the same speed.
During the Dark Ages, when not much happened, you might say
that human time slowed down. And with the Renaissance, and with
the ability to discover more about nature by having a more
powerful way of thinking about it, and a more powerful conception
of us as human beings interacting with it; you could say that
time sped up. We create a certain time in that we create new eras
of humanity; not in the way that geology or evolution does, but
willfully by developing new principles that if we were animals,
you would say this is a whole new type of life all together. Life
moving from the oceans onto land; that's a totally different
quality of life. Life having developed photosynthesis and using
the Sun as a power source; that's a totally different kind of
life. But we're still human beings after the discovery of the
combustion engine, for example; the use of heat-powered
machinery. We create in ourselves the change that's comparable
only to large-scale evolutionary changes when we look at life in
general. So, we're distinct.
Now, how do we understand this? Both how do we understand
that world around us that we act on and interact with; and how do
we understand our thoughts about it and our ability to progress
and use the practice of science itself? What sort of terrain is
it? What sort of world is it? The physical world and the mental
world.
Well, here's where I'd like to take up some concepts that
Mr. LaRouche has been bringing up recently about Bernhard Riemann
and about Gottfried Leibniz, and a bit about Einstein, too, who
got the verification of his hypothesis of gravity waves announced
very near his birthday this year — which was on Monday. So,
let's think about it. Is the terrain that we're operating on, one
which is steady and indifferent to our actions? Or, is it one
where what we do and what we discover and how we interact with
it, changes that world around us in a way that the world is not
fixed; either in ourselves or in our understanding of it? And,
that is the case; we transform the world in changing our mental
understanding of it. The math that we use in understanding how do
we conceptualize that world; that changes our interaction with
it, and we're a force of nature. We change the operation of the
forces of nature by improving our understanding of the world
around us and of ourselves and our ability to discover such
things. How can we possibly think about that quality of change?
As a couple of other examples, think about the difference
between what you might say is a fixed object — let's say iron
oxide. Iron oxide is basically rust; it's a mineral that's rust.
It's reddish brown, it's not terribly useful; but with the
development of metallurgy, instead of being a deposit of some
compound, it's now a resource. It's an ore from which we can
create iron and steel. The substance itself, did it change
chemically? It did in terms of the potential of what we could do
with it. And remember, we're a force of nature; we changed what
it was. It has to be thought of that way.
Or, what's the value of a technology? How does it change
over time? In the 1400s, windmills were a great invention; they
were somewhat new on the scene. They allowed pumping water, they
allowed grinding grain. That's excellent; that's a breakthrough.
Are windmills valuable today for making electricity? I don't
think so. Consider helium; helium is an interesting element. It
was first discovered in the Sun, not on Earth. It was discovered
in the Sun by the kind of light that came from the Sun when that
light was broken up into a rainbow with a prism, and certain
bands of the absence or presence of color were the clue that
there was a new element out there named helium, after Helios, the
Sun. That element, what's it used for? You might think of it's
being used to fill up balloons for children; you might think of
it being used as a gas for cooling for physical purposes or for
experiments. It's also, as Helium-3, an ideal fuel for fusion.
So, this substance transforms its meaning based on our developing
understanding. How can we think about this?
Well, let's take the example of Bernhard Riemann. In 1854,
Bernhard Riemann delivered a presentation and a paper on the
subject of the hypotheses that underlie geometry. That might
sound like a dry title; it might sound like it has nothing to do
with physical economy or anything that we'd want to be doing
right now. But this paper is very important in the view of Lyndon
LaRouche for his own development and as a way of understanding
economics. So, let's say why. Very briefly, Riemann points out
that our conception of space itself and of the way things operate
in space is taken for granted. The ideas that we use to
understand it, they don't really come from experiments per se, or
from physical theories; they come from our thoughts about space.
For example, the idea that space has no particular
characteristics of its own; that was the view of Isaac Newton.
Newton said space is uniform, it's out there; things occur within
space. Space is there first, it's just space; it has no
characteristics in particular. Newton said the same thing about
time; that time flows on uniformly. That's what time is; it's
really not much of a definition, or an understanding.
Geometric ideas that people had, for example, are the idea
that if you add up the angles in a triangle, you get 180 degrees.
Now, if you're drawing triangles on flat paper, yes that's true;
if you draw them on a curved surface like a sphere, it's not
true. Triangles on a sphere have more than 180 degrees in them.
If you then ask, "What if I draw a triangle in space?"; that's a
tough question. When we connect points in space, is the space
between them flat, is it curved? How could we discover that, and
what would be the basis of it having a curvature if it wasn't
flat?
What Riemann does, is he discusses through all the possible
ways that this could come about. He discusses in general,
curvature — both of surfaces and of space; how a space could be
curved. He works out in general how you could do that; but he
can't answer the question. He says, to answer the question,
"What's the nature of the space, and which processes unfold?";
you have to leave the department of mathematics and you have to
go to the physics department. You can't answer questions like
that just be pure reasoning; you got to have a hypothesis —
"What physically makes space?" And in this way, he's coming back
to the view of Gottfried Leibniz, who, just to say very briefly,
Leibniz and Newton totally disagreed on a number of subjects.
People may have heard of the dispute over their invention of the
calculus; did Leibniz steal it from Newton, or vice versa? But
there's a lot more there.
One of the major disputes they had was about space. Newton's
view was that space and time were absolute; and Leibniz's view
that space was a way of understanding co-occurrences. The
relationship of things that are here at the same time — that's
space; and for Leibniz, time was the evolution of things, how
things change. But time didn't have its own existence. Now,
that's precisely what Einstein took up in his theories of
relativity; he did what Riemann said had to be done. He didn't
finish the job; but he did what Riemann said had to be done.
Einstein overthrew, in a very specific way, the outlook of
Newton; Einstein showed that space was not flat, that it was bent
in special relativity, that it was curved in general relativity.
And very importantly, the basis of its shape, the basis of how
things interact over distances — that sense of space — was
based not on what a mathematician might imagine, but on what a
physicist hypothesizes. Einstein hypothesized an equivalence
between different observers that the laws of nature shouldn't
depend on whether you're moving; something that Leibniz also said
very explicitly. Einstein considered that light moved at the same
speed to any observer; something he had been pondering since he
was a pretty young man. And he hypothesized that gravitation
would transform the shape of space; that straight lines wouldn't
be straight to the extent that gravity is affecting them. This is
what was seen with the experiments about the position of stars
around the eclipse of the Sun, performed earlier during
Einstein's life; and it's seen in the recent verification of
gravity waves.
So, most people acknowledge that Einstein, OK, this is
physically important; this is a scientist, he discovered things.
What does it have to do with this other point, though, about
understanding humanity, and our role in economy, and our creation
in economy? Well, what Riemann did was, he made it possible to
say that human discovery is a force of nature; it reshapes
nature, it transforms our understanding about the objects around
us. And the basis of that world outside of us, can't be
considered independently of our increasing knowledge about it.
What we know about the world around us changes it, in that it
changes our ability to interact with it.
So, if we're looking for a real idea of what economics is,
throw away any sense of monetarism that says money made in a
whorehouse is just as valuable as money made in a steel plant;
and instead say, "How do we foster scientific discovery? How do
we foster its social implementation through technologies that
physically improve our power over nature and our ability to
provide improving standards of living and promote the general
welfare of human beings?" If this is our basis of economics,
fostering that kind of outlook, then I think we can say that
Gottfried Leibniz was the first physical economist in that sense.
I'll just reference to the show on Leibniz from earlier this
week, and one of the documents I cited there; Leibniz's paper on
the creation of a society for science and economy in Germany. And
I think if you read that paper, you'll be astonished at how
Leibniz pulls together both promotion of discovery, how that
works, what kind of thoughts are needed, how people should work
together, and how to implement those thoughts to improve people's
lives to the betterment of mankind. And that really has to be the
basis of our economics.
One simple rough measure, proposed by LaRouche to measure
this, is the potential population density. How many people can be
supported in a given area? That's a measure that is fixed for
animals. For a certain kind of environment, the number of deer
that can live there; deer don't change that. Human beings do. And
as a rough measure of economic progress, we could take that
value. What's the potential population that we're able to
support? The ability to use these thoughts is one that is not
being expressed in the trans-Atlantic at present. In our
discussion today, Mr. LaRouche talked about the positive impact
that Riemann had had on Italian science. Riemann had
tuberculosis, and spent a good deal of time later in life — he
didn't live that long — but later in his short life in Italy;
where thoughts from Riemann influenced the development of
hydrodynamics, stretching all the way into the time of airplanes
and the consideration of getting out into space.
Today, this overall outlook is best represented by Russia,
and especially at present, by China. So, this doesn't have to be
a purely Chinese development; this is clearly something that we
can take up as a mission for ourselves to contribute to here in
the United States and in the nations around the globe. And we've
got very special and precious people in the past that we can look
to for insights in how to make the next breakthroughs in
developing our understanding of what it is to be human, the basis
of human culture, and how best to advance human economy.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jason. Now, as Jason just
mentioned, and as I said in the beginning, really right now you
do see the initiative — the economic and the scientific
initiative — being taken by China to lead mankind into the
future; especially with the space program. You also see the
initiative being taken by Russia; and this is very clearly
illustrated this week with the actions that have been taken by
Russia in Syria. The strategic initiative lies in Putin's actions
there. As Mr. LaRouche emphasized, Putin is setting the agenda;
he is constantly on the flank. You can see this going back to the
chemical weapons, where Putin took the initiative to say fine, we
will help Assad dismantle these chemical weapons. It can be seen
with the decision to intervene, a few months back, by Putin into
the situation in Syria; and then with the pull-out that happened
earlier this week. What's clear is that every step along the way,
Putin's actions have caught Washington and Obama by surprise;
constantly breaking profile. And this is what's called "taking
the flank" in a military sense. There's clear precedence, as Mr.
LaRouche always uses the example, of Douglas MacArthur's actions
in Inchon. You always, always act on the surprise.
Now, this was illustrated I think just anecdotally very well
in an article that was published March 15th — Tuesday of this
week — in the {New York Times}, with a very apropos headline
which read "Putin's Syria Tactics Keep Him at the Fore, and Leave
Everyone Else Guessing". I just want to read the first paragraph
of that article, actually, because I think it just describes very
vividly what we mean by this:
"President Vladimir Putin's order to withdraw the bulk of
Russian forces from Syria seemingly caught Washington, Damascus,
and everyone in between off guard; just the way the Russian
leader likes it. By all accounts, Mr. Putin delights in creating
surprises."
So, this is the subject of our institutional question for
this week; which Mr. LaRouche had some very specific words to say
in response to, which I'm going to let Jeff elaborate on for us.
But let me just read the text of this question to start off.
"Mr. LaRouche, as you know, earlier this week, at the start
of the Geneva Peace Talks, Russian President Vladimir Putin
announced that he ordered the withdrawal of some of the Russian
military forces in Syria. The withdrawal of Russian fighter
planes began the next day and has continued. A residual force
will remain at the naval base at Tartus and at the air base in
Latakia. How do you view Putin's decision? How might it impact
the Russian, American, and United Nations efforts to bring the
Syrian war to an end, now underway in Geneva?"

STEINBERG: Of course, we've taking up the bulk of this
week's report with a discussion about man's extraterrestrial
imperative; the need for man to get off of the planet Earth,
because man was never an Earthbound creature. So, we're at a
point right now where Mr. LaRouche was delighted in our
discussion earlier today at the prospect of over the next two
years, China going through the preparations for the launching of
an orbiter that will be hopefully landing on the back side of the
Moon. And will for the first time, give mankind a window into the
Solar System and the Galaxy beyond. And this is something of
enormous importance and enormous excitement, because it puts this
nature of man as an extraterrestrial creature capable through
creative discovery, of not remaining Earthbound, but of exploring
the near Solar System and beyond. And it reminds me that
virtually every astronaut and cosmonaut who has travelled in
space, has remarked at one point or other, that having the
vantage point of looking down on Earth, you become at one point
overwhelmed with the fact that so much of what goes on, on the
planet of Earth, is trivial relative to the challenges that are
very obvious when you look at man from the standpoint of man's
ability to explore the Universe and make these kinds of
discoveries. And it was that approach that actually informed our
discussion about the Syria situation per se. Because as Matt
said, Russian President Putin has demonstrated once again that he
has a certain understanding that at the core of grand strategy is
always the idea of continuously moving; continuously flanking;
continuously confusing your adversaries by constantly being on
this kind of offensive.
So, we do have the developments of the past days, where at
the very moment that the Geneva second round of peace talks were
beginning, President Putin announced a draw-down of the Russian
military forces inside Syria. And in fact, the very next morning
— Tuesday morning of this week — the first Russian bombers and
other air force equipment and personnel began leaving. Now, the
Russians are there still; make no mistake about it. Russia has
established a fundamental change in the situation on the ground,
which is both a military shift and a shift at the diplomatic
table taking place right now in Geneva. Russia has a permanent
naval base fully established and more secured than at any time
previously at the port of Tartus; and it has now a major air
force facility in the Latakia province. And more recently this
week, yesterday President Putin issued a statement where he said,
if the circumstances change, if the peace process does not go
forward, then Russian forces can be reinforced in Syria, not in a
matter of days, but in a matter of hours. And quite clearly, the
infrastructure is in place for that to happen.
But Mr. LaRouche wanted to make a larger and much more
fundamental point about what is going on here. What he emphasized
is that you can't lose sight of the fact that the war is still
going on. We don't know how things are going to play out; what we
do know, is that there has been a change of conditions. In fact,
there was a major change of conditions beginning on September
30th of last year, when the major Russian military presence
began. And when the situation systematically shifted from that
point on, and yet at the same time, certain leading political
figures around the world — the spokesman for the Jordanian
government; Steffan de Mistura, the UN representative for Syria
— they all said, "We're not surprised by President Putin's
announcement this past Monday." In the case of the Jordanians,
the chief of staff of the Jordanian military, the chief of staff
of the Syrian military, were both in Moscow last October; and
they met with Russian Defense Minister Shoigu, they met with
President Putin. And they were told quite clearly that the
Russian mission was not a permanent mission; but was a limited
mission in both size and in time duration. And that when the
circumstances reached the point where it was feasible to reach a
diplomatic solution to the Syria crisis, that the Russian forces
would begin to be withdrawn.
As Matt pointed out with the {New York Times} coverage,
people in the West were scratching their heads, because they
refused to take note of the fact that Putin is a strategic
thinker. And very often, what he says — in most cases, in fact
— is exactly what he intends to do; but he's not going to do it
in a predictable fashion. He's going to do it in a way that will
catch you by surprise. And the biggest surprise is that most
political thinkers in the West, most officials in government in
the West, are ignorant and prejudiced. So, their own prejudices
prevent them from understanding how Putin thinks about these
things. Their own prejudices prevent them from understanding
because they're incapable of thinking in this kind of a strategic
fashion. Now the problem is, that we're still in a state of
warfare; and that state of warfare will continue until certain
things occur that go way beyond the borders of Syria.
Until the British Empire ceases to exist, there will be a
condition of warfare on this planet. We see it, not necessarily
in the form of warfare that most people think about — soldiers
shooting, artillery pieces firing, bombers dropping bombs. Look
what's happening right now in Brazil. The British Empire is
waging a war against the new emerging Asia-Pacific-centered
global system. They're trying to destabilize Brazil, which is a
founding member of the BRICS. There's a similar effort underway
to destabilize the Zuman government in South Africa; because
South Africa is the latest country to join in the BRICS
initiative.
So, there are all kinds of problems going on; you can't look
for a simply linear expectation or projection of what's going to
happen by the situation now ongoing on the ground in Syria or in
Geneva. Another example: President Obama is taking a series of
measures that will lead unavoidably — unless they're reversed —
to a major confrontation between the United States and China. We
had a report earlier this week from David Ignatius in the
{Washington Post}, who is very often a kind of reliable leak
sheet for what's going on inside the administration. And the
Obama administration is preparing for confrontation with China
over the South China Sea; they're waiting for a ruling from the
World Court in the Hague on a complaint filed by the Philippines.
So the United States is preparing contingencies for poking China
in the eye, for carrying out new provocations against China. The
sanctions that President Obama announced this week, ostensibly
against North Korea, are in fact sanctions against China; they go
way beyond what was agreed upon by China and the United States at
the United Nations.
So, if you take all of these factors into account, and if
you think of them as a process, not simply as a series of
discrete events, then you get a very clear idea of what Mr.
LaRouche means when he says that the planet, in general terms, is
in a state of war. Now, ultimately what this state of warfare
comes down to, is the fact that you have a new emerging
Asia-Pacific-centered future. It's defined by the economic
initiatives of China, by the One Belt-One Road policy, and most
emphatically by China's systematic plan for collaborating with
other nations on the kind of space exploration that once was a
hallmark of American policy; but has not been abandoned.
President Obama has spent the last seven years systematically
taking down and dismantling America's space capability; and Kesha
is leading the fight to reverse that process.
Over the last 15 years, if you look at the Bush/Cheney
administration followed by the Obama administration, the United
States has been under British occupation. Both Bush/Cheney and
Obama were each, in their own way, governments that were at the
beck and call of the British Empire, of the policies of the
British financial oligarchy operating through Wall Street. And as
the result, the United States, really the entire trans-Atlantic
region, is dead. Germany was once a great prospering economy; the
result of the "economic miracle" that Franklin Roosevelt
envisioned for the post-World War II period; no replay of
Versailles, but a completely different approach. Germany has now
been destroyed by the policies largely coming from the British
Empire. All of continental Europe is hopelessly and irreversibly
bankrupt; and Mario Draghi's announcement of an expansion of
quantitative easing and a zero interest rate policy is a
reflection that certain people are desperate over the fact that
Europe is doomed, that the United States under present
circumstances. We've talked in recent months on this broadcast
about the death rate increase in the United States; the true rate
of unemployment; the epidemic of heroin addiction and heroin
overdose deaths; the declining life expectancy in the United
States. These are all measures of the fact that the
trans-Atlantic region is dead; and will only begin to reverse
that death if there is a revolutionary, fundamental change in
policy. That alternative policy is being carried out in the
Eurasian and Asia-Pacific region; led by China, led by Russia,
reflected in the way that Russian President Putin has navigated
the strategic situation.
So, the great threat is coming from the fact that a dying
British Empire — which is irreversibly doomed — is lashing out
and is trying to preserve something that can no longer be
preserved. There was a time when the British Empire could impose
petty tyrannies on countries around the world and achieve a
certain limited degree of stability. That's over with. All of the
efforts within the framework of the mindset of the British
Empire, the mindset of the Obama administration, the mindset of
virtually all European leaders — the French probably the worst
of the bunch on the continent — is doomed; it doesn't work. Yet,
there is an opportunity; and opportunity for all of mankind in
what's going on in the Asia-Pacific region, led by China, by
Russia. India is clearly stepping in to play a significant role
in this new emerging combination, cooperation among nations for
purposes that go beyond national interests, but address the
interests of all of mankind. Egypt is fully established as
orienting towards that new Asia-Pacific combination.
So, this is the larger picture; this is the framework for
judging the initiative taken by President Putin this week. And it
must be judged from the standpoint of the global consequences;
and not just simply the consequences for the immediate
negotiations around Syria. Although his actions this week have
certainly greatly improved the possibility of bringing that
five-year tragedy to an end.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. I would just add, the
initiative being taken by these countries also very much has to
do with the decades-long work Mr. Lyndon LaRouche and Mrs. Helga
LaRouche have undertaken. The One Belt-One Road policy that China
has adopted, is the Eurasian Land-Bridge policy which the
LaRouche movement uniquely championed in the beginning of the
1990s. Now, you have an evolution of that to the World
Land-Bridge; and this is what is documented so thoroughly in the
350-page Special Report that was issued by {Executive
Intelligence Review} called "The New Silk Road Becomes the World
Land-Bridge". One very exciting announcement, because you
mentioned Egypt, just this week there was a very high-level event
which was sponsored by the Transportation Ministry in Cairo;
featuring a LaRouche collaborator, Hussein Askary, to announce
the formal publication of the Arabic language of this full,
350-page World Land-Bridge Special Report from {Executive
Intelligence Review}.
So, you can see that at the very highest levels of
government around the world, this is what is shaping the
discussion; the initiatives that the LaRouche movement have taken
for decades. And one final note along those same lines, as we
announced last Friday, Mrs. Helga LaRouche just got back from a
very important trip to India; at which she was one of the
featured speakers in a very prominent, very high-level dialogue
— the Raisina Dialogue. And if people have not seen it yet, a
wonderful half-hour interview that Jason Ross conducted with Mrs.
LaRouche was posted on the LaRouche PAC website earlier this
week. So, if you haven't watched that yet, I would really
encourage you to watch it; and to just think about everything
that has been said here today. Think about these initiatives that
are being taken by some of the world's leading countries to
create the future; and think about the role that the LaRouche
movement has played over years and decades in shaping the
possibility of these initiative being taken today.
So, thank you all very much for joining us here today. I'd
like to thank Kesha Rogers for joining us over video; and I would
like to thank Jeff and Jason here in the studio. Please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Lyd:

16. marts 2016 – I dag udgav Washington Post en artikel af David Ignatius, der var bygget op omkring et interview med Kurt Campbell, og som advarede om muligheden for et »Augusts kanoner«-øjeblik i uoverensstemmelsen mellem USA og Kina over det Sydkinesiske Hav. Ignatius rapporterede, at »det Hvide Hus har en intens planlægningsproces i gang mellem diverse afdelinger, som forberedelse til den truende konfrontation«. Det, som Ignatius refererer til, er den sag, der verserer ved den Internationale Domstol i Haag om Kinas krav om suverænitet over øerne i det Sydkinesiske Hav, der refereres til som Kinas »ni streger linje« (demarkationslinje). Ifølge tidligere viceudenrigsminister for det asiatiske Stillehavsområde, Campbell, vil domstolen sandsynligvis afgøre til fordel for Filippinernes protest over Kinas krav på rækken af øer, og dette kunne udløse en kinesisk reaktion og muligvis en ADIZ-erklæring (luftforsvars-identifikationszone) over det Sydkinesiske Hav. Ignatius bemærkede, at USA kunne respondere ved at foretage overflyvninger med B-52-fly ind over ADIZ, eller ved at arbejde sammen med Filippinerne, Vietnam og andre nationer omkring det Sydkinesiske Hav om at opbygge deres egne ø-forstærkninger eller indgå i fælles overflyvninger. »Det her er ikke Pearl Harbor, men hvis ikke folk på alle sider er forsigtige, så kunne det blive til ’Augusts kanoner’«. Regeringen, advarede Campbell, er ved at nærme sig »endnu et rød-streg-øjeblik, hvor den skal finde ud af, hvordan den vil forholde sig til tidligere advarsler«. Med andre ord, så sidder Obama med skægget i den postkasse, han selv har skabt, og er vadet direkte ind i midten af noget, som kineserne vedholdende har hævdet er en uoverensstemmelse mellem suveræne stater, der bør forhandles på bilateralt grundlag uden indblanding udefra, fra hverken USA eller den Internationale Domstol.

16. marts 2016 – Den kinesiske premierminister Li Keqiang holdt den endelige pressekonference efter de to sessioner i den Nationale Folkekongres og CPPCC (Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference). I besvarelse af et spørgsmål fra en reporter fra Reuters, der fremførte den angivelige ’krise’ i den kinesiske økonomi, skitserede Li den grundlæggende idé, der lå til grund for Kinas økonomiske reform.

»Finanssektorens topprioritet er at støtte udviklingen af realøkonomien«, sagde Li. Han opsummerede dernæst nogle af tallene vedr. gældsraten i kinesisk industri, som, endskønt høje, ligger langt under det internationale gennemsnit. Han indikerede, at Kina, med udviklingen af nye finansformer, havde den opgave at udvikle et »fuldkomment udviklet finansielt regelsæt«. »Finanssektoren må tjene realøkonomien bedre«, sagde han og bemærkede også, at en dysfunktionel realøkonomi også vil give signifikant genlyd i finanssystemet. »Finanssystemet opererer også ud fra sine egne love«, bemærkede han. »Vi må derfor holde øje med mulige risici. Vi må beskytte imod risici og moralfare[1]«, sagde Li.

Senere, som svar på et spørgsmål fra Xinhua, gav Li udtryk for tillid til, at Kinas økonomi fortsat ville udvikle sig. »Min tillid er ikke begrundet i overfladiske betragtninger«, sagde Li. »Der ligger et stort potentiale i vores situation. Reformer på forsyningssiden vil stimulere markedsudviklingen. Vi vil opgradere de traditionelle drivers for vores vækst, alt imens vi implementerer nye. Der er et stort område for mere investering i de vestlige områder. Selv om der er usikkerhedsfaktorer i den globale situation, så har vi stadig redskaber i vores værktøjskasse til at imødegå alle uforudsete udviklinger«, sagde Li. »Vi har valgt en vej med strukturreformer«, sagde han. »Vi har bestået stresstesten. Og i takt med, at vi forener folk omkring vores vision, kan vi bibringe verden en stærk, frisk vind.«

[1] beskriver det problem, der opstår, hvis to parter indgår en aftale om risikodeling, hvor den enes indsats vil påvirke sandsynlighedsfordelingen for udbyttet for den anden part.

16. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Skribent på Daily Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, er blevet fuldstændig hysterisk over sin seneste »opdagelse«, nemlig, at det transatlantiske område nu går ind i en hyperinflations-nedsmeltning. I realiteten burde enhver, der er ved sin fornufts fulde fem, for længst have indset, at USA og Europa allerede er dømt til undergang. USA’s økonomi er håbløs, og intet, undtagen et totalt skifte i politik – der går bort fra troen på penge over menneskelig kreativitet – kan forhindre den totale ødelæggelse. Ingen økonomisk genoplivelse, eller blot økonomisk overlevelse, kan forekomme under den aktuelle politik. Det er et under, at USA stadig eksisterer på dette tidspunkt, da der ikke er nogen mekanismer til at redde økonomien.

Krisen kommer til udtryk på en mere grafisk måde, når man ser på de himmelstormende rater for selvmord, dødsfald som følge af narkooverdosis og den faldende forventede levealder i USA.

Vi står på randen af et globalt kollaps, som det transatlantiske område umuligt kan overleve. Krakket kan komme, hvad dag, det skal være, og det er denne realitet, der har udløst hysteriet fra sådanne som ECB-chef Mario Draghi og bladsmører for den britiske krone, Evans-Pritchard.

Eneste mulighed for det transatlantiske område er at annullere Wall Street og [City of] London – udslet dem totalt, og gennemfør så en total ændring af konceptet for det økonomiske system.

Der er to, uforenelige koncepter for økonomi. Der er det britiske/Wall Street-koncept om penge, penge og atter penge. Penge i sig selv, har intet med virkelig værdi at gøre. Det alternative system, Hamiltons system, som FDR forstod og gennemførte, afviser penge; afviser Wall Street. Dette system bygger på menneskelige opdagelser, der omsættes i videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt, som skaber virkelig rigdom og fremmer menneskets vækst.

Præsident Franklin Delano Roosevelt havde disse koncepter og omsatte dem til praktisk handling som præsident – indtil FBI og Republikanerne lukkede Roosevelt-programmet ned, selv inden hans død i utide. Intet som helst system, der bygger på penge og finans, kan fungere, og dette var, hvad FDR forstod.

Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin opererer ikke ud fra et pengeorienteret system. Det kinesiske lederskab under Xi Jinping opererer ikke på basis af et pengeorienteret system. Eurasien er i færd med at blive organiseret på basis af helt andre principper, anført af Kinas bestræbelser for at realisere menneskets udenjordiske forpligtelse. Denne idé blev fremvist på den sidste dag af den Nationale Folkekongres, der netop er sluttet i Beijing, da en af de delegerede fra Folkets Befrielseshær, Kinas første, kvindelige astronaut, gav et magtfuldt interview til CCTC om udsigterne for Kinas rumprogram. Kina er også godt på vej til at bygge verdens første, kommercielle højtemperatur-gasafkølet reaktor. Det er realøkonomi – og ikke det vanvid med penge, penge og flere penge, der har plaget USA, siden FDR’s død, med ganske få, momentvise undtagelser.

På en anden måde personificerer den russiske præsident Putin det samme princip: Nøglen til alt, hvad Putin har gjort for at vende situationen i Syrien, er, at han altid er i bevægelse, altid finder på en overraskelsesflanke – på det strategiske niveau. Putin er sig udmærket bevidst, at han ikke handler alene, men at han opererer på vegne af et partnerskab med Kina. Dette gjorde Li Kiqiang klart i sin afslutningstale til den Nationale Folkekongres: Ingen tredjepart vil få lejlighed til at ødelægge det strategiske partnerskab mellem Kina og Rusland. I Indien har premierminister Modi lanceret en revolution i landbrugssektoren, som er fuldstændig afgørende for Indiens fremtid. I sit nye budget har han annonceret en 84 % ’s forøgelse af investeringer i landbrugssektoren – oveni i relaterede investeringer i veje, jernbaner og produktion af kemiske produkter og gødning.

Putin drives af en dyb, personlig erfaring. En stor del af hans familie døde under nazisternes invasion af Sovjetunionen under Anden Verdenskrig. Denne erfaring former hans tankegang. Uden en erkendelse af, hvem Putin er som verdensleder, og hvor han kom fra, er det umuligt at forstå hans handlinger. Det er grunden til, at det store flertal af de såkaldte »strateger« i Vesten er forvirret over hans flankeoperationer.

Interviewet, som EIR's Tom Gillesberg lavede, fandt sted den 15. marts 2016 i København. Ambassadøren talte på persisk, som blev oversat til engelsk.

English:
Interview with Iran's ambassador to Denmark, H.E. Mr. Morteza Moradian about Iran's relations with Russia and China, and Iran's role in the New Silk Road, after the P5+1 agreement with Iran. The interview was conducted on March 15, 2016 in Copenhagen, Denmark by EIR's Copenhagen Bureau Chief Tom Gillesberg. Ambassador Moradian spoke Farsi, and his statements were translated into English.

Audio:

Interview with H.E. Mr. Morteza Moradian, the ambassador from the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Kingdom of Denmark, about Iran’s relationship with Russia and China, and Iran’s role in the New Silk Road, from a vantage point after the P5+1 agreement with Iran. The interview was conducted on March 15, 2016 in Copenhagen, Denmark by EIR’s Copenhagen Bureau Chief Tom Gillesberg. Ambassador Moradian spoke in Farsi, and his statements were translated into English. Video and audio files are available at: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=12299
EIR: Mr. Ambassador, thank you so much for agreeing to this interview, to give us an opportunity to hear what Iran’s views are on some extremely important questions, not only for Iran, but, I think, for the whole Middle East region, and, also, for the world. When Chinese President Xi was in the Islamic Republic of Iran, there was a lot of discussion with President Hassan Rouhani, and others, and agreements signed, aimed at reviving the ancient Silk Road, which the Chinese call the "One Belt, One Road."  Greek Prime Minister Tsipras was also in Teheran, and spoke about Greece's role as a bridge between Europe and Iran.
After years of war and lack of economic development, many countries in Southwest Asia are completely destroyed. What is urgently needed is the extension of the OBOR/New Silk Road policy for the entire region, as well as the Mediterranean countries — a Marshall plan, but without the Cold War connotations.
Do you see a potential for that, and if so, what are your ideas about it?
H.E. Mr. Morteza Moradian: In the name of God, the compassionate and merciful, I would also like to thank you for arranging this session for me to be able to air my views on the issues of the region, and others. Both Iran and China have high ambitions regarding transportation issues. I think that there is extreme potential for economic development, arising from the idea raised by the Chinese president. Iran is situated at a very important juncture from a transportation point of view. This has nothing to do with the issues of today or yesterday, but it is an historical issue. Iran, and the region around it, are located along a very, very important corridor.
If we look at the important corridors in the world, there are three important ones. We can see that the North-South corridor, and the East-West corridors, all pass through Iran. The important thing is that transportation corridors necessarily need lead to the growth of economic development, and also, when economic development takes place, what follows that is peace and stability. Our country, and all of the countries of western Asia, are trying to find and develop these transportation routes. In this regard, the idea raised by China can have important consequences for the region. Just to sum it up, this idea of reviving the old Silk Road, would have a very positive influence on development.
As far as Iran is concerned, Iran enjoys a very good position in regard to all forms of transportation – air, sea and land. Iran has always followed up on the issue of reviving the old Silk Road, with China. We now see that the Chinese idea, and the Iranian idea, are now meeting at some point. I think that within the framework of two very important agreements, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and, also, the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), we can have very, very good cooperation. I will give more explanations later about the importance of the SCO and ECO cooperation. These are both in our region, and they can have cooperation with each other.

EIR: You have personally been involved in your country's relations with, especially, Russia and China — two countries which are playing leading roles in today's world, with Russia taking leadership in the fight against Daesh/Islamic State, and China pursuing an inclusive, multi-national, economic development strategy, which is an alternative to the transatlantic monetarist policy leading to economic collapse. Now, starting a new chapter after the sanctions against Iran have been lifted, how do you foresee the future of Iranian relations with Russia, and China, and what benefits will that bring to Iran and the rest of the world?

Ambassador Moradian: As you pointed out, I think the conditions are now conducive for good cooperation and development. During the years of the sanctions, we had extensive relations with China. There is now about $50 billion of trade between Iran and China. This has fluctuated some years, but it is between 50-52 billion dollars. China is the biggest importer of Iranian oil. We also had extensive relations with Russia during the years of the sanctions. It's natural, now that the sanctions have been removed, that the relationship between these three nations would develop further.
The important point that I would like to point out is that the three countries have common interests, and common threats facing them. We are neighbors with the Russians. We have common interests with Russia regarding the Caspian Sea, transportation, energy, the environment, and peace in the world. So, we have quite a number of areas where our interests coincide. Other there areas where we have common interests are drug trafficking, and other forms of smuggling, combating extremism and terrorism, and, also, our views on major international issues converge.
We also have quite a number of common interests with China. They include energy, in the consumption market, reviving the Silk Road, combating terrorism, the transportation corridors, and, also, in the framework of the SCO –- quite a number of areas where we have common interests. China needs 9 million barrels of oil on a daily basis. As I said, our trade relations amount to about $52 billion.
Iran enjoys some very important factors. First of all, it has enormous amounts of energy resources. Its coastline along the Persian Gulf runs up to 3000 kilometers. We are neighbors with 15 countries in the region. So these are very, very important points for Iran to be in the hub. I think that cooperation between these three powers, namely Russia, China, and Iran, can ultimately lead to stability and peace in the region. So the four areas — the combination of economics, trade, energy and transit — these are areas that can lead to the ideas that I mentioned. I think that effective cooperation between these three powers can lead to peace and stability, important in western Asia, and in the Middle East.
The revival of the old Silk Road, at this juncture of time, would be very meaningful. During the recent visit to Iran by the Chinese president, the two sides agreed to increase the volume of trade between the two countries, in the next 10 years, to $600 billion.
Also, in the recent visit to Iran by President Putin, there was also agreement on Russian investment in Iran. It has to be said that our trade relations, economic relations, with Russia is not as much as it should be. But among the topics discussed when President Putin visited Iran, was to make sure that the volume of economic cooperation increases between Iran and Russia.
Just to sum up our relations with Russia and China regarding economic cooperation, we think that with Russia, it is not enough, and we want to increase that. With China, it has been very good, but we still want to develop that further. Overall the situation is promising.
You are well aware that from the point of view of stability, Iran is unique in the region, and that actually prepares the ground for this cooperation to continue.

EIR: There is already progress on extending the New Silk Road from China to Iran. On February 15, 2016, the first freight train from Yiwu, China, arrived in Teheran. The 14-day-trip covered over 10,000 km. (about 6,500 miles), travelling through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, saving 30 days compared to the former route. What are the plans to extend this line, and how will that improve economic relations along the New Silk Road? And what new agreements were just made between Iran and China to develop the New Silk Road?
Ambassador Moradian: President Rouhani has very clear views on the Silk Road. In fact, President Rouhani is a specialist in transportation routes and communication. He believes that the basis for development lies in the development of transportation infrastructure. He and the Chinese president have talked over the revival of the Silk Road on a number of occasions.
There was a discussion that deviated from the main subject of the Silk Road, being propagated during the past few years. That was the idea of the new Silk Road, or the American Silk Road, so to speak, and it was not based on an historical issue. Basically, they wanted to bypass Iran, and deviate the route to bypass Iran, in effect. No one can fight against economic and geographical realities on the ground. When the route through Iran is the shortest route, and the cost effective route, then nobody can go against that. And because the Chinese ideas were more realistic, then Iran and China were able to come to some sort of understanding on the development and revival of the Silk Road.
There is also emphasis on the development of sea routes. We witnessed good investment by the Chinese in this regard, in the recent years. China has invested heavily in Pakistan, in the Gwarder port.
If I want to just come to the issue regarding Iran, then I can go through the following issues. The railroad between Khaf in Iran, and Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif in Afghanistan, is an important connection. The Khaf-Herat section has been completed, but the Herat-Mazar-i-Sharif section is still to be constructed. I think this is an important route that we believe, in my opinion, China would be advised to invest in. Also, within the framework of Danish development aid to Afghanistan, I think a portion of funds to the Herat-Mazar-i-Sharif railroad link would be an important factor.
If this route between Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif were to be completed, then from there, there are two routes — one leading to Uzbekistan, and the other leading to Tajikistan, and that can be an important connection. At the moment, China is making good investments in both Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, in order to establish the links. In fact, the link between China, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Iran, is one of the most important links of the Silk Road. And there is a missing link between Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif, as I said, and I hope that the countries concerned, especially China, can help establish that link. Over the past two years, the corridor between Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Iran has now borne fruit, and is now connected. In fact, the train that you mentioned, that arrived in Teheran, actually came through this route, and this corridor has extreme potential. I hear that quite a number of countries in the region are interested in joining this corridor. We have another corridor linking Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran and Oman, which is called the fourth corridor. And this has also come into operation over the past year-and-a-half.
We also have other corridors, which I call subsidiary corridors. All of these subsidiary corridors can actually enhance and complement the main East-West Silk Road. One very important corridor, that you are aware of, is the North-South corridor, and a section along this corridor is now under construction — the connection between the city of Rasht, and Astara on the Caspian coast. In fact, we have reached agreement with Azerbaijan on the connection between the two cities of Astara in Iran, and Astara in Azerbaijan. This corridor also needs some investment, and we hope that countries like China can help us in developing this.
Just to sum up regarding the corridors, there are two routes which need investment: Herat to Mazar-i-Sharif; and Rasht to the Asteras in Iran and Azerbaijan.
Regarding the third part of your question, about the agreements reached by Iran and China during the Chinese president's visit in Iran, 17 agreements were signed during the visit. The areas included energy, financial investment, communication, science, the environment, and know-how. Specifically, on the core of your question about the Silk Road, the two countries agreed to play a leading, and a key role, in the development and operation of this link. They agreed to have cooperation on infrastructure, both railroad and road. For example, electrification of the railroad link between Teheran and Mashhad, is part of this connection of the Silk Road that was agreed to. The other important thing is cooperation on the port of Chabahar in Iran. The two sides agreed to have cooperation in this, and the Chinese agreed to invest in Chabahar. Regarding industry and other production areas, they agreed that the Chinese would cooperate and invest in 20 areas. Regarding tourism and cultural cooperation, the two sides also agreed to develop cooperation in this regard, within the framework of the Silk Road. I think you can see that within the framework of the Silk Road, there are quite important agreements between the two countries.

EIR: Building great infrastructure projects is a driver for economic growth, and increasing cooperation among nations. Now, after suffering under the sanctions, Iran has an opportunity to build up its infrastructure, as is going on, in cooperation with other countries, to help create the basis for Iran to play in important, stabilizing role in the region.
The P5+1 agreement also cleared the way for Iran's peaceful nuclear energy program, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was just signed with China, to develop peaceful nuclear energy. What were the highlights of the agreement, and what are the plans for Russian-Iranian civilian nuclear cooperation?
Ambassador Moradian: Between Iran, Russia, and China, there has been good cooperation through the years regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
32:36
Because of the reneging of the Western governments, the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant was left unfinished, and after the Russians agreed to pick up the pieces, we reached an agreement, and were able to develop, and make this very important plant operational. The cooperation between Iran and Russia on peaceful nuclear energy has been very constructive. All of Iran's atomic activities have been under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). As we have had no deviation from our peaceful nuclear program, after 10 or 12 years, the Western countries, the P5 + 1, finally came to the conclusion that Iran's nuclear program has always been peaceful. I believe that they knew this at the beginning, as well. This was just a political game. We have also had some kind of constructive cooperation with China over the past two decades on peaceful nuclear energy. During the recent visit to Iran by the Chinese president, an agreement was also signed in this regard. In the implementation of the cooperation agreement, China, Iran and America are also the three countries forming the committee for the implementation of the agreement. It was agreed during the recent visit that China will reconfigure the Arak heavy water plant. The Chinese and the Iranians have also agreed to have cooperation on the building of small-scale nuclear power plants. This, I think, is very important for Iran, in terms of producing electricity, and the Chinese welcome this. We have also signed a number of agreements with China on the construction of a number of nuclear power plants in the past. Iran, because of its extensiveness, has always welcomed cooperation on the development of peaceful nuclear energy for the production of electricity, and other things. In fact, based on the cooperation agreement between Iran and the P5+ 1, there will be agreements with a number of the members of the P5+1 regarding the nuclear issue.

EIR:  You already mentioned the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), linking India, Iran, and Russia with Central Asia and Europe. Is there anything more you would like to say about this project, and the benefits that are envisioned?

Ambassador Moradian: I explained about the corridors in my previous answers, but the North-South corridor is one of the most important corridors in the world. If this corridor were completed, it would be very effective in three most important areas — it would be a contributing factor in security, speed, and cost. This corridor starts in Finland, comes through Iran, then on to the Persian Gulf, from there to India, and then towards Africa. If we look at the present route now, it takes 45 days, but if we use the North-South corridor that I just mentioned, this would reduce the time to 20 days. The route will be 3,000 kilometers shorter. This can be a very important factor from a world economic point of view.
We are faced with realities, with situations, that nobody can ignore. For this reason, during the past few years, Iran has made endeavors, extensive efforts, to actually complete what I call the subsidiary corridors. Right now, in Iran, we have 10,000 kilometers of operational railroad lines. For our present government, the further development of railroad links is very important. We have plans to build another 10,000 kilometers in the future. It is my view, that in the next couple of years, we will see a revolution in transportation.
There are some missing links, which we think should be completed as soon as possible. As I said, from our point of view, the section between Rasht and Astara is very important, and it has to be completed very soon. In fact, during the recent visit of the Danish foreign minister to Teheran, this issue was also brought up. The Iranians announced that if the Danes are prepared to do so, they would be welcome to invest in this section. And we have that link to the Chabahar port. If this port is developed to utilize its full capacity, then this will serve as an important link in the North-South corridor. In the Persian Gulf we also have an island called Qeshm, which has an extreme potential. In fact, because Qeshm, itself, also has gas, and has a strategic location in the Persian Gulf, it can play an important role in the North-South corridor. We are seeing that various countries, like China, Japan, and South Korea, are interested in entering into these areas. In fact, there was a seminar on shipping in Copenhagen, a couple of weeks ago, and I said that to the Danish participants there, that this condition is conducive to involvement for mutual benefit. The benefits to be accrued from the North-South dialogue are global. Iran is making all efforts to complete this corridor.

A lot can be said about the North-South, and East-West corridors. Just to point out, very briefly, on the East-West corridor, some very important developments have taken place. We have had good negotiations with the Turkish side. One of the most important links in the East-West corridor, is the link between the cities of Sarakhs and Sero. Sero is located on the border with Turkey, and the Turks and the Iranians are now in very extensive negotiations to develop this route. The other route is the railway link between Iran and Iraq, and this is also being constructed on an extensive level. As I said, the subsidiary corridors – the one from Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan to Iran; and the one from Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran and Oman – are now operational, and we are also planning on development, and making other subsidiary routes operational.

EIR: What about cooperation on water desalination, and nuclear fuel?
Ambassador Moradian: Iran is faced with a shortage of water. We have quite a number of projects for water desalination in the Persian Gulf. In fact, one of the main reasons that we wanted nuclear power plants in the Persian Gulf, was to use that energy to desalinate water. Currently, a number of Iranian companies are engaged in this. One of the very big projects came on stream during the past couple of years. Regarding the desalination plants, there is good cooperation between Iran and foreign countries. I think that this is another area where Danish companies can enter into the competition. President Rouhani made a trip to the city of Yazd, in the center of Iran, and he said there, that transfer of water from the Persian Gulf to the center of Iran, to the city of Yazd, is one of the important projects that the government has in mind.
Regarding nuclear fuel, within the framework of the P5+1 agreement with Iran, it envisages extensive cooperation between Iran and  these countries on nuclear fuel. Iran is now one of the countries that have the legal right to enrich uranium, and this has been recognized. So, based on the capacities that Iran has, we can exchange nuclear fuel. Within this framework, we have exchanged quite a lot of fuel with the Russians, and we have cooperation plans with China on the heavy-water plant in Arak.

EIR: Can you speak about cooperation on fighting terrorism and drug trafficking?
Ambassador Moradian: On the issues of combating extremism and terrorism, and trafficking with drugs, and otherwise, there is extensive groundwork for cooperation. The development of extremism, and the instability that follows, is extensive in the CIS countries, and part of China. Iran has extensive experience and knowledge about combating terrorism, and in this regard, Iran can cooperate with those countries regarding this menace. Afghanistan is the world's biggest producer of narcotic drugs. In fact, unfortunately, after Afghanistan was occupied by the ICEF coalition, led by America, the level of production of narcotic drugs in Afghanistan has increased extremely violently.

EIR: While the British in the Danish troops were in the Helmand province, I think the production went up about 20 times.

Ambassador Moradian: Exactly. In that region, Helmand, in particular, there was an incredible increase in the amount of production. In fact, in combatting smuggling drugs to come to Iran, to this side, Iran has been a sturdy wall, and we have unfortunately lost quite a number of our security forces in that region, bordering on 4,000. Just something on the sideline which is very important. In fact, Iran is on the frontline in combatting drugs. When Europe talks about helping other countries stem the tide of immigrants to Europe, I think that stemming the tide of narcotic drugs coming to Europe, also requires the same sort of agreements. Iran is very active in combating and preventing drugs coming this way, and the death penalty, the capital punishment we have for the warlords of the drug traffickers, is, actually, in the pursuit of this policy of trying to prevent drugs from reaching outside of the region. Just imagine if Iran would stop cooperating, stop combatting these drug traffickers? The road would be an open highway, and just imagine how much drugs would then come across. There already exists very good cooperation between Iran, China, and Russia on combating drug trafficking. We have had multi-lateral sessions in the field of combating drug trafficking. I think that within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Iran can play a leading role in combating drug trafficking, extremism and terrorism. In the recent session of the SCO, it was agreed that after the sanctions were lifted against Iran, that Iran's status would be lifted from an observer to a full member. In the next session, which is planned in Uzbekistan, I think that this issue will be raised.

EIR: I think we have covered a lot of very many essential things. Is there anything else that you would like to say to our readers?

Ambassador Moradian: I would like to refer to a few points in this interview, which is about the cooperation between Iran, China, and Russia. The cooperation between Iran, Russia, and China is very important. The more this cooperation increases, the more it can help peace and security in the region. The revival of the old Silk Road is a very important issue. Within the framework of the revival of the Silk Road, the strengthening of the SCO cooperation, and the ECO cooperation is very important. In fact, the cooperation between ECO and SCO is also very important, and has to be developed.
Other very important issues that I would just like to briefly mention are — the first thing is that Iran's full membership in the SCO is important. In fact, in the area of security, SCO needs Iran’s experience and influence in this regard. The next thing is that cooperation within the framework of the SCO, can enhance security and peace in the region.
The next thing, is that China must make more investment in Iran. In order to actually develop the Silk Road, it has to invest more in Iran. China must also make more investments in the port city of Chabahar, and also in the Iranian island of Qeshm.
The other point I would like to mention, is that the Eastern SWIFT (financial transaction network) is also an important idea. I think that the important countries in the East, like China and Russia, should have an alternative financial connection. And the other thing is, the monetary exchange between these two countries is important. What I mean by this, is that these countries can conduct their transactions in the local currencies of the Iranian Rial, the Chinese Yuan, and the Russian Ruble.
The other thing I would like to point out, is that China is the number one country in the world that needs energy, and Iran is one of the leading producers of such energy. But the important point to be born in mind here, is Iran's independence in its decision making regarding its energy resources — oil and gas. In fact, if you look at its record, Iran has never played games with its energy policy. Any country that wants to have economic cooperation with Iran, must take this aspect into consideration, and it is an important consideration. Other countries in our region do not operate in this way.
Finally, I am very pleased that this opportunity arose for me to air my views on economic development in the region, and very important issues that will have global consequences. Thank you.

EIR: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

End

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

13. marts 2016 – Det atomkraftdrevne hangarskib USS John C. Stennis ankom til Busan i dag, som en del af Obamas massive magtopvisning over for Nordkorea og Kina. Stennis har kapacitet til 90 kampfly, med et mandskab på 6.500. Angrebsgruppen J.C. Stennis omfatter fire ledsagekrigsskibe – tre destroyere med guidede missiler og en krydser med guidede missiler.

Korea Times bemærker, at JCS-angrebsgruppen er hovedomdrejningspunktet i den »Store Grønne Flåde«, et initiativ, der har stået på i et års tid, og som har sat fokus på den amerikanske flådes indsats for at transformere sit energiforbrug til at forøge sine operationelle evner. Man ville kunne spare en hel masse energi ved at afslutte Obamas krigsprovokationer.

RT’s dækning af Obamas interview i Atlantic i denne måned fokuserede på Obamas krigsplaner mod Kina. Under en titel, der siger, at Obama »siger, at en konflikt med Kina er en mulighed«, citerer de chef-dræberen: »Hvis det [Kina] kun anskuer verden som regionale indflydelsessfærer, så ikke alene ser vi potentialet for en konflikt med Kina, men vi finder også, at vi har flere vanskeligheder med at håndtere disse andre udfordringer, der vil komme.«

Foto: USS John C. Stennis

»Dette er en uforbeholden katastrofe«, sagde Helga Zepp-LaRouche, formand for partiet Borgerrettighedsbevægelsen Solidaritet (BüSo) i Tyskland. »AfD er et beskidt, afskyeligt fænomen. Det var sådan, det skete i 1930’erne«, sagde hun og bemærkede ligeledes, at sådanne ekstreme højrefløjspartier eller endda fascistiske partier eksisterer over hele Europa. Denne fare, sagde hun, er resultatet af den fejlslagne politik i Europa mht. både flygtningekrisen og den økonomiske krise, og markerer slutningen på EU, der ikke længere har nogen som helst enhed.

13. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Valgene i tre tyske forbundsstater søndag resulterede i en enorm kindhest til kansler Angela Merkel, iflg. meningsmålinger fra valgstederne, med det ekstreme højrefløjsparti Alternativ for Tyskland (AfD), der bygger på at fremme anti-flygtningehysteri, der kaprede 11 % og 12,5 % i hhv. Baden-Württemberg og Rheinland-Pfalz i vest, og ikke mindre end 23 % i staten Sachsen-Anhalt i øst. »Dette er en uforbeholden katastrofe«, sagde Helga Zepp-LaRouche, formand for partiet Borgerrettighedsbevægelsen Solidaritet (BüSo) i Tyskland. »AfD er et beskidt, afskyeligt fænomen. Det var sådan, det skete i 1930’erne«, sagde hun og bemærkede ligeledes, at sådanne ekstreme højrefløjspartier eller endda fascistiske partier eksisterer over hele Europa. Denne fare, sagde hun, er resultatet af den fejlslagne politik i Europa mht. både flygtningekrisen og den økonomiske krise, og markerer slutningen på EU, der ikke længere har nogen som helst enhed.

Ledende økonomiske og politiske personer i hele Europa, men i særdeleshed i Tyskland, har åbenlyst advaret om, at den sindssyge politik, der i sidste uge blev annonceret af Den europæiske Centralbanks, ECB’s, præsident Mario Draghi, både er et tegn på total desperation og en garanti for et totalt kollaps i allernærmeste fremtid. Draghis 33 % ’s forøgelse af den allerede massive pengetrykning under ’kvantitativ lempelse’, op til 80 mia. euro om måneden, parret med lavere negative rentesatser, er, som Zepp-LaRouche sagde i sidste uge, simpelt hen mere af den samme medicin, der forårsagede sygdommen. Hele det transatlantiske finanssystem er håbløst bankerot, og intet som helst, undtagen en politik for genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling for at lukke »for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned«-bankerne ned og afskrive den spekulative gæld, kan forhindre et ukontrolleret kollaps.

I USA er fascismens realitet endelig ved at blive tvunget ind i offentlighedens bevidsthed af den farlige hofnar Donald Trump. Men, som Tim Stanley fra det britiske Telegraph skrev i dag, alt imens det er sandt, at Trump gør fremstød for ulovlig og hadefuld demagogi: »Han tog ikke Amerika i krig i Irak på baggrund af usaglige beviser, etablerede Guantanamo i modstrid med menneskerettighedslove eller autoriserede tortur af fjendtlige kæmpere, stod i spidsen for den gigantiske NSA-operation med indsamling af data, lancerede en beskidt krig med droneangreb mod både terrorister og dem, der havde det uheld at leve i deres nærhed, underminerede den religiøse frihed hos ansatte, der ikke ønsker at støtte deres arbejderes sexliv, underkendte staternes ønsker mht. giftermål, tvang borgere til at købe sundhedsprodukter eller deporterede tusinder af illegale immigranter ved aggressivt at genne dem sammen.« Alt imens dette tydeligvis er en anklage mod Obama, så er det Trumps sandsynlige demokratiske modstander Hillary Clinton, der fører valgkampagne på baggrund af dette generalieblad med mord og kaos.

Hvor efterlader dette så USA? En ægte revolution af tankegangen kræves af dets borgere, omgående, hvis verden skal undfly det fremstormende helvede med global krig og økonomisk kaos. Lykkeligvis har Kina og Rusland søsat en redningsflåde og en mission for menneskeheden gennem BRIKS, Den Nye Silkevej, et internationalt rumprogram, en tilbagevenden til klassisk kultur, og »win-win«-relationer nationerne imellem.

Schiller Instituttets konference i Manhattan den 7. april må bringe verden sammen på baggrund af disse principper. Det er den opgave, som denne organisation kan og må gennemføre.

Vi står på randen af det totale sammenbrud, og det er absolut utilgiveligt, at regeringerne giver mulighed for, at dette system, der er baseret på bedrageriske intriger og fusk, kan opretholdes så meget som en dag længere. Storspekulanternes kasinoøkonomi må øjeblikkeligt lukkes ned gennem en streng Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling! Der findes en løsning, men den kræver, at man på dramatisk vis går bort fra den nuværende, neoliberale model og genindfører realøkonomi og økonomisk genopbygning.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Engelsk udskrift: Matthew Ogden kommenterer Helga Zepp-LaRouches besøg og tale i Indien om behovet for en Marshallplan/Silkevej i Sydvestasien; Jeffrey Steinberg giver os Lyndon LaRouches meget skarpe kommentar om EU’s korrupte aftale med Tyrkiets Erdogan om mod betaling at tage syriske flygtninge tilbage, og Jason Ross fra LPAC Videnskabsteam taler om Gottfried Leibniz og nødvendigheden af kreativ nytænkning, som Kina i dag legemliggør.

WE NEED THE NEW SILK ROAD NOW FOR ALL OF MANKIND! –
International Webcast for March 11, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon. It’s March 11, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly Friday
night broadcast from LaRouche PAC.com. I am joined in the studio
today by Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC Science Team and Mr.
Jeff Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}, and the
three of us had the opportunity to have an extensive discussion
with both Mr. LaRouche and also Helga Zepp-LaRouche earlier
today.
Now, as you know, Helga Zepp-LaRouche has just recently
returned from an extraordinary trip that she took to India. This
is the first time that either one of the LaRouches has been to
India since I think at least 2003; so this was a very important
trip, and during that visit to India, Helga was a featured
speaker on one of the keynote panels at a discussion in New Delhi
called the Raisina Dialogue Forum. This was a major conference
which included international representation, former prime
ministers, former heads of state, finance ministers, elected
parliamentarians, and so forth.
Now during that speech, Helga LaRouche focused her remarks
on the necessity for a new win-win, Marshall Plan development
project for the Middle East and North Africa. She remarked that,
in the wake of Xi Jinping’s visit to Iran, to Saudi Arabia, and
to Egypt where he brought the development vision of the Chinese
New Silk Road, that now was the time to adopt what she’s been
calling for, for years: which is, a New Marshall Plan to develop
that region of the world and to create a new era of peace and
prosperity for a region of the world that has suffered so much
under perpetual war, and a total breakdown of society.
Now this is very relevant, because obviously, as a
representative of the Schiller Institute from Germany, Helga
LaRouche was speaking directly from the standpoint of the
perspective of a European, who is witnessing the unprecedented
refugee crisis of millions and millions of refugees fleeing the
Middle East and North Africa, and flooding into Europe.
Our institutional question for this week actually focusses
directly on that topic, and what I’m going to do is read the
institutional question, and then give Jeff Steinberg and
opportunity to go through, both specifically and more in general,
what both Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche’s remarks were concerning this
question, and some broader questions as well.
So the question is as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has blamed

European nations for
unilaterally shutting the Balkan route for migrants. She said
that this has put Greece in a very difficult situation, and such
decisions should be taken by the whole of the EU. Austria,
Slovenia, Croatia, and non-EU member states — Serbia and
Macedonia — have all acted to stem the migrant flow. The
European Union and Turkey — from which migrants reach Greece —
have set out a plan to ease the crisis from their perspective.
Under the proposals that have been hammered out at a summit that
occurred in Brussels on Monday, but still to be finalized, all
migrants arriving in Greece from Turkey, would be sent back. For
each Syrian returned, a Syrian in Turkey would be resettled in
the EU. European Council President Donald Tusk has said that the
plan would spell the end of ‘irregular migration to Europe.’ What
is your view on the EU’s new migrant policy?”

So, Jeff.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: To put it very mildly, Mr. LaRouche was
extremely blunt. You’ve got to start from the standpoint that
this is a rotten deal; it’s not going to work. And furthermore,
that nobody has any business making any kind of backroom deal
with President Erdogan of Turkey. Here’s somebody who has been a
principal sponsor of the jihadist terrorism, including the
Islamic State and the Nusra Front; who has robbed his country
blind; he’s one of the most notorious thieves on the planet. He’s
killed his own people. He shut down the entire opposition
newspaper, and, quite frankly, he’s carried out a 6 billion euro
extortion operation against the European Union.
So the problem, in fact the disease that we’re dealing with,
is the tendency that’s rampant in the entire trans-Atlantic
world, to make these kinds of rotten deals with people who have
no business being allowed to remain in power. You have an entire
trans-Atlantic system that was really, in effect, characterized
this week by two developments. Number One: this rotten deal with
Erdogan, which should never be allowed to happen. And number two,
by the announcement by the European Central Bank head, Mario
Draghi, that the ECB was going to replicate the insane policies
that were carried out in the United States under the Quantitative
Easing, bail-out, and Dodd-Frank bill, all of which are
universally known to have been complete and total failures. So,
Draghi announced zero interest rates, and announced that the QE
policy of the ECB would be extended up to $80 billion euro a
month, and furthermore, that the ECB would begin purchasing
absolutely worthless private sector bonds to keep what one
columnist called the “zombie banks” in business.
Now, there’s been an absolute revolt in Germany, in
particular, against this Draghi policy, because the net effect is
that, with zero interest rates, people are going to be pulling
their money out of the actual savings banks and regional
commercial banks, through which all of the lending into the real
economy takes place. And as the result of that, you’re going to
see rampant bankruptcies on top of the already advanced complete
breakdown of the European real economy. All of the European
too-big-to-fail banks are already hopelessly bankrupt.
So you’ve got these two examples of absolute policy
insanity, of attempting to operate and make compromises and
“reforms,” within a system that is already dead. As Mr. LaRouche
said, you don’t make deals with dead people; there’s nothing in
it for you. There’s no future in it. Yet that’s exactly what
we’re seeing as the dominant phenomenon throughout the
trans-Atlantic region.
Now the fact of the matter is that there are viable
solutions. In the case of the United States, you could just
simply say, the Wall Street debt is unpayable, and we’re going to
just simply cancel it, and we’re going to go back to the
traditional American, Hamiltonian credit system, and we’re going
to just simply let Wall Street sink, period. It’s already
bankrupt. The people involved in it are absolutely correct —
they should have been frog-marched off to jail a long time ago.
So, by and large, when you talk to people in the political
system at a relatively high level, you’re dealing with a system
that is absolutely paralyzed with fear, and overwhelmed by
corruption. Because you press the issue, and you’ll get
widespread admission that the system is doomed, we’re headed for
another blow-out far worse than 2008; it could happen any moment
now. It could happen Monday morning when you wake up. And
furthermore, you could cancel this rotten debt, wipe out those
cancerous aspects of the whole system, and you could go ahead to
rebuild, but based on a completely different set of premises.
Same thing with the arrangement with Turkey. There’s no
grounds whatsoever for paying 6 billion euros in extortion,
knowing that a character like Erdogan is going to come back again
and again and demand more, and will continue to threaten to
unleash massive waves of migration, while at the same time Turkey
is trying to sabotage the efforts of Lavrov and Kerry to bring an
end to this five-year monstrosity of a war that’s been going on
inside Syria.
So, if you operate within a dead system, you are doomed to
go down with it. Now there are things that are working in the
world today. Putin is functioning. Putin is carrying out very
effective flanking operations in Syria. China is functioning, and
is in fact functioning at a much higher level from the standpoint
of real economic growth. And China is willing to invest in real
physical economic growth all across Eurasia, down into Africa,
into Latin America. And furthermore, China is leading a global
science driver policy. The plans to actually land an orbiter on
the dark side of the Moon have been discussed frequently in
recent weeks on this broadcast. China is now the leading R&D
nation on the planet, and they embody the principle of human
creativity. They’re not trying to draw deductive, pragmatic,
practical conclusions from policies that have failed. You can
never derive success by trying to scrutinize and analyze
systematic failure. You need human creativity, and you see that
in China.
Increasingly, there are nations that are grouping around
these opportunities that are posed for real development, centered
around China. Russia has taken certain measures to assure that
Russia survives, and that Russia has the military and material
resources to be able to conduct the kind of flanking operations
that may very well save Syria and the Middle East, and major
parts of Africa, from the genocidal destruction that will occur
if the existing trans-Atlantic forces, led by the British Empire
and stooges that they’ve got at their disposal like President
Obama, with his Dodd-Frank madness; like Mario Draghi; like the
corrupt Erdogan.
So, anytime that there’s an offer to make a rotten deal with
a rotten SOB like Erdogan, the obvious answer should be, run in
the other direction. Don’t do it. And so, in response to the
question that’s been posed, this is a rotten deal that is doomed
to failure, but it’s typical of a much larger problem, which is
the tendency to be stuck thinking inside the deductive box when
the only avenue for survival for mankind is to think creatively,
and align with those people who’ve demonstrated that they’ve got
a viable commitment to the future.
You find that in China. You find that in many of the actions
taken by Putin in Russia, and it’s pretty scarce everywhere else.
And it’s certainly virtually nonexistent in the entire
trans-Atlantic region.

        OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. I also neglected to
mention in my remarks in the beginning that, coinciding with
Helga’s trip to India and these very important developments with
Xi Jinping’s visit to the Middle East. The Arabic version of the
EIR Special Report, “The New Silk Road Becomes the New
Land-Bridge,” which was available in English and also has been
translated into Chinese; has now been translated into Arabic. And
I think Helga LaRouche’s foreword or preface to that will put it
very appropriately; that “either this is an extraordinary
coincidence or an act of divine intervention” that this would be
available at a time like this, when this is precisely what you
need. This sort of vision for a new Marshall Plan, the World
Land-Bridge, to bring development to this part of the world which
is in such dire need of it.
Now, as Jeff summarized quite succinctly, what Mr.
LaRouche’s focus in our discussion was, is that we are on the
edge of a total implosion of the trans-Atlantic system. That you
have a community of nations which is, in its present form, dead,
because of its own behavior; it has brought this upon itself. On
the other hand, you have nations such as China and others, who
are engaged in a process of real physical economic progress. And
this was a willful choice that was made by China to invest in
exactly the types of things that would create a future potential
of growth, scientific development and otherwise. So, Mr.
LaRouche’s question was, why would you associate yourself with a
dead system, when the alternative is immediately at hand?
So, Mr. LaRouche had a much more developed idea, however, of
what it is that brings success to a nation and to the human race
in general. And he was very specific to say that real creativity
is never a replication of the past; real creativity depends on
new ideas that are new in a very real sense. That creativity is
always {ad novo}, he said; and it’s not achieved through the
reform of a bad system. But it is only achieved through the
introduction of an entirely new principle which is truly new. He
said, Einstein is a good example of this; the personality of
Brunelleschi is an ideal example of this. But the goal is never
to deduce what the solution to a crisis must be from some sort of
precedent; but rather, to ask the question, “What is it that we
actually wish to accomplish for the future of mankind?” And, with
that question in mind, therefore, what must be done? What must be
done to achieve that future? And we tend to fail to ask that
question, and we get too consumed by the details of the present;
when we should be thinking from a total global standpoint about
what we wish to achieve in the future.
Now, I think at a time like now, where it’s very clear that
the nations of Europe and the United States are imploding,
socially, economically, politically; what brought us to this
point? But also, more significantly, what must be done to save
civilization now? And we discussed, I think very appropriately,
that when a nation loses its {raison d’etre}, when a nation loses
its mission, it tends to implode and fall in upon itself. And we
can learn a lot from the mission that China has, and the
optimistic vision of the future which is shared by all of its
citizens. So, with that said, I would like to invite Jason to
come to the podium. As you know, Jason Ross has been conducting a
many-part series of presentations, classes on the LaRouche PAC
website on the unique genius of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz; this
is a series which will continue. But I would like to invite him
to the podium now.

JASON ROSS: Well, this year, 2016, is the 300th anniversary
of Leibniz’s death in 1716. Leibniz lived from 1646 to 1716. And
a number of the disputes that he was in, the discoveries that he
made, are very freshly relevant for us today. Both historically
from the standpoint of understanding where we came from, and
because there are disputes that continue to the present. Disputes
over the nature of the purpose of the nation, disputes over the
nature of the Universe, disputes over the nature of mankind.
To discuss one of those, I’d like to frame it by contrasting
the views of Gottfried Leibniz and Isaac Newton. Many people are
probably familiar, certainly if you’ve been watching this
website, with the concept of the dispute over the calculus. That
Leibniz plagiarized the calculus from Newton, as Newton and his
friends said; no. Did Newton steal the calculus from Leibniz, who
invented it first? Let’s leave that aside; that’s really not at
issue for what I want to talk about today. Let’s consider the
dispute that was represented between the British outlook of
Newton and the outlook of Leibniz in terms of the purpose for
humanity, as seen in their views of creation and of the Universe
as a whole. In the very last years of Leibniz’s life, he was
engaged in a dispute via letters with a follower of Isaac Newton,
Samuel Clarke. And in this discussion, one of the primary topics
that came up was the basis of considering God to be great. On
this, the two differed in a very fundamental way. Newton, via
Clarke, said that God’s greatness came from his power; Leibniz,
while not disputing that, said that God’s wisdom is also one of
His perfections, and that in leaving this out, you have a total
misunderstanding about God.
Now, I’m not going to make a theological point about this
today. I want to look at this in terms of the existence of the
nation-state. While Newton said that because God can do anything,
that shows how wonderful He is; and while this same outlook — a
religious outlook — was applied to man and society by John Locke
and Thomas Hobbes, who said that a powerful ruler of society
really exists for himself, and that people form a society through
a compact to not infringe upon each other, not with the idea to
have a mission together, but simply to get along as a way of
putting under control the impulses of people to steal from each
other and this sort of thing. So, on the one side, you have the
notion that the state exists, the ruler exists and is justified
in existing to maintain power; that that is the basis of
legitimacy of a ruler — holding power. It’s a somewhat circular
reason.
On the other side, you have Leibniz, who — in keeping with
his view of God being worth reverencing, respecting, loving
because of His wisdom; and having chosen in making the Universe,
to make it the best of all possible universes that could be
created. Leibniz applies that idea as well to society; saying
that the justification, the legitimacy for a ruler for a nation,
lies in how it is creating a happy society. And how it is imbuing
its people with wisdom, and developing science and economy to
create a more productive and a happier future. Happiness is an
important thing.
So, if you consider that today, and you look at — Matt had
brought up where is the {raison d’etre}; what is the
justification for the United States, for example, right now? What
is our {raison d’etre} right now under Obama? We don’t have one.
Obama’s destruction of the space program, which as a policy
better encapsulates an attack on the future than anything you can
imagine, has left us without a future in the stars; contrasted
with other nations, being led by China, with a serious,
comprehensive, really breath-taking mission of advancements that
they have been making towards reaching out into the heavens, and
the potential of developing new scientific breakthroughs in that
way.
So, as Jeff and Matt said, LaRouche, in the discussion that
we had with him today, was stressing that, in creating the
future, it is made {de novo}; it isn’t something we deduce from
the past, although we can certainly learn from the past. The
essential characteristic is making something where nothing of
that sort existed before. He had singled out Brunelleschi and
Einstein in this regard. Einstein, who made breakthroughs
scientifically that did not follow from, or result from, the
thoughts of his day; but rather, contradicted and overthrew them.
This is an example of the kind of thinking that’s necessary. In
the United States in our most recent history, the time under the
Apollo program, as launched in its strength by Kennedy to go to
the Moon and back; this was in recent times, probably the most
singly powerful example of a potential to reach that. That
program didn’t result in Einstein’s per se; it didn’t have that
kind of effect. Amazing technological developments were made. The
potentials that the space program has as a whole to make new
scientific breakthroughs, however, is absolutely tremendous.
So, consider China. China, which has brought hundreds of
millions of people out of poverty in just the past few decades.
China, which currently lends out more internationally in
investments in nations than the whole World Bank does. China,
which has played a major role along with Russia in setting up the
BRICS; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization for Peace and
Stability; the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, to address
the $5 trillion or more needs for infrastructure within that
region of the world; offering loans that are without the
conditionalities that are the hallmark of the World Bank. This
ability to put into very specific practice a concept of “win-win”
cooperation, as it was put by President Xi; these specific ways
of cooperating with neighbors, with other nations for development
projects. As for example, the railroad operating in Ethiopia at
present, allowing the transport of food to the interior of the
nation in a timely fashion; preventing the intensity of
starvation that would otherwise be likely given the agricultural
disasters they’ve faced recently.
Take a look at space and science. China’s East Tokamak, a
super-conducting tokamak, recently had a 50 million-degree plasma
held for 100 seconds; a breakthrough for them on their way
towards developing fusion. Their space program — that was the
first soft landing on the Moon in decades — the Chang’e 3 with
the Yutu rover. Planning to come out next year, Chang’e 5, a
sample return mission to the Moon; again, the first time in
decades, and they’ll be only the third nation to have done this.
And then in a few years, a space first — not only for them, but
for the world — the Chang’e 4 mission, to land on the far side
of the Moon. The first time ever; this is something new that
mankind has never done before. It opens up new windows
scientifically in terms of the potential the far side of the Moon
offers for different types of telescopes — such as radio
telescopes.  They’ll be able to show us things that no other —
it’s the most convenient place to be able to do these things. It
simply is impossible from here on Earth, or in orbit; you need a
body to place these things on.
So, I think when we think about what’s the purpose of a
nation, it can’t be a short-term survival; it certainly can’t be
dominance per se, or maintaining a place in the world. For
example, the United States; there’s an unfortunate form of
thought that the United States should be first in everything.
Well, how did the United States become such a powerful nation?
The policies that made that possible, the outlook that made that
possible, the sense coming from the American Revolution that
there’s a mission for the nation that is beyond having
sovereignty itself, per se; but lies in a mission for development
and for the pursuit of happiness — as it’s put — that’s the
concept that has to guide us today. Now, if we were to adopt this
in the United States, which we must, as we force the adoption of
this policy in our own nation, we have the potential for the US
to play a very important role among other nations internationally
in reaching these objectives. And there’s really no reason for
conflict among nations; it’s simply not necessary at this point.
There might be some specific examples, but on the whole, by
throwing out the British-led creation of conflicts, and putting
the US on a path towards cooperation, participation, and
leadership on these sorts of ventures, we can regain in terms of
history, the right to exist, or reason for existing; a mission
for the nation.
So, if we’re going to turn around our domestic conditions,
as we see frighteningly in the dramatic rise in deaths by drug
overdoses or suicides in other forms that are increasing
dramatically; if we’re going do this, we have to have a mission.
We have to have a vision for the kind of future that we’re going
to make that doesn’t exist a present. The opportunities for this
exist; there are plenty of the particular policies that are
needed. These things are known. What is necessary is a demand and
a change in direction in the United States without Obama, to
adopt this orientation as our own. And if we do that, we can look
to the future with the knowledge that there is a reason for the
existence of the nation; and there’s a purpose to be fulfilled,
and that we’re taking up that purpose in our future which lies
beyond the Earth and out in the stars.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jason. And I think we can use
that as a promotional to encourage you to tune in to all of his
classes, which are available and will continue to be available on
larouchepac.com. And I’d like to thank Jeff for joining us here
as well, today. So, that’s what we have to present to you here
today; short and sweet. And we thank you for tuning in; and we
encourage you to please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good
night.

Der er intet grundlag overhovedet for at betale 6 mia. euro i afpresserpenge, når man ved, at en karakter som Erdogan vil komme tilbage … og vil fortsætte med at true med at udløse massive flygtningestrømme samtidig med, at Tyrkiet forsøger at sabotere Lavrovs og Kerrys indsats for at bringe en afslutning på denne fem år lange monstrøsitet af en krig, der har raset i Syrien.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

10. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Under en diskussion den 9. marts med LaRouchePAC’s Komite for Politisk Strategi karakteriserede Lyndon LaRouche kampagnen for at bryde BRIKS-gruppen op som følger:

»Det er britisk. Se på omstændighederne. Der er visse kendsgerninger her, der er meget klare. For det første står briterne bag alt dette, og briterne triumferer over den fordærvelse, de har været i stand til at indføre i USA og i den amerikanske befolkning. Det er et faktum. Når man lige har fordøjet dette, så må man se på, hvad det er for problemer, der findes i Europa, og så bliver man virkelig lidt skræmt, for man ser hele områder af Europa, der disintegrerer for øjnene af os, og især dem, der er på den forkerte kurs.

Det, Putin gør, er virkelig godt; det er meget effektivt – det er rigtig godt. Og det er succesfuldt, og det hænger sammen med Kina og andre former for operationer omkring dette, der bygger det op. Så det er en god situation for os mht. tingenes udsigt. Der er ikke noget problem her. Der er bekymring, men ikke noget virkeligt problem.

Vores problem ligger hovedsageligt i USA. Det er den kendsgerning, at USA’s befolkning er blevet gjort sindssyge, voldsomt, af Bush-familien, og nu af Obama. Det har været en degeneration. Disse ting er så åbenlyse, at det må siges højt, fordi det er så åbenlyst. Kongressen er i et forfærdeligt rod.

Hvis man indser disse ting, og man laver en liste med en sammenligning af det ene mod det andet, finder man ud af, at tingene ikke står så dårligt til i det ene kvarter, men at de er forfærdelige mht. USA og den amerikanske befolkning. USA er i en tilstand af desperation. Desperation, fordi de accepterer spekulativ investeringsbankvirksomhed, men de accepterer ikke Glass-Steagall, der automatisk ville hjælpe udviklingen. Sådan står det til. Vi har i virkeligheden ikke noget andet problem end dette. Vi har Wall Street, som er rådden, FBI er råddent, og en masse mennesker er ikke andet end de rene svindlere. Og vores befolkning er på både kunstig vis, men også aktivt, blevet demoraliseret. Demoraliseringen af den amerikanske befolkning er en meget farlig ting.

I Sydamerika ser man også, at udsigterne er ved at blive forfærdelige. Det behøver de ikke at være, men det er de. Så vi må virkelig samle vore tanker og ikke udbrede sygdomme, der ikke er virkelige.

LaRouchePAC-leder Kesha Rogers er ved at komme tilbage, og det er vigtigt. Hendes rolle med udgangspunkt i Texas, og i baggrunden dernede, er meget styrkende mht. hele situationen.

Wall Street og Washington ved, at Dodd/Frank-loven har været en total fiasko. De ved det! De er rædselsslagne. Folk har tendens til at være bange; en meget stærk frygt. Men det bliver bare til hysteri. Det politiske system er råddent: der var nogle styrkeområder, men det meste af det er råddent. Demoralisering er nøglespørgsmålet; situationen er forfærdelig, men der er noget, der er værre: demoralisering. Og demoralisering kan selvfølgelig ikke bekæmpes, med mindre der er reel styrke bag; man kan ikke bare bluffe det.

Dette er en ekstremt dødbringende situation. Spørgsmålet er, om hele USA’s økonomi vil kollapse, før balladen virkelig begynder. Kina befinder sig i en god situation; Putin er i en god situation, relativt set, og der finder en opbygning sted i visse dele af planeten.

Vi har endnu ikke fået kontrol over tingene. Vi har udsigter, men ingen kontrol. Og denne kontrol må vi selv levere.«

Rachel Brinkley (fra LaRouchePAC Policy Committee, -red.) fra Boston sagde, at befolkningen er rasende over, at økonomien er i færd med at kollapse, og at ingen gør noget ved det.

LaRouche svarede:

»De tror ikke på, at de kan gøre noget ved det; det er derfor. De tror på, at det er noget, der overgår dem; ikke noget, som de gør.

Jeg håber på, at vi kan bryde igennem med noget her, for der er gennembrud i ting, der er internationale faktorer. Men jeg har ingen præcise beviser, så jeg er lidt forsigtig. Jeg mener, at der er muligheder; helt bestemt i Kina og Rusland og så fremdeles, er der gode tegn. Men en stor del af det transatlantiske område og relaterede tilfælde er en stor katastrofe. Det vil formentlig vedblive at være en katastrofe, endda forværrende. Så vi står ved et punkt lige nu, hvor vi ikke har nogen præcis konklusion om noget som helst; vi har en masse tilkendegivelser.

Det kommer til at handle om globale faktorer; jeg tror ikke, der er mange chancer i lokale områder; jeg tror, at globale faktorer er de eneste, der virkelig er signifikante. For se på økonomien, se på moralen osv., som vi ser generelt. Der er intet at hente her. Der er visse udviklinger, der omfatter nogle af problemområderne og giver folk en vis fornemmelse af et optimistisk syn. For situationen er ikke så dårlig, som mange mennesker tror, hvis den blev håndteret korrekt. Eller den er værre – hvilket er mærkeligt. Man har noget, som folk tror, vil være godt for dem, når det er ubrugeligt. Men de får også undertiden et frisk pust af at se frem til noget.

Det er vores job at blive ved med at kæmpe og opbygge ting, som vi kan opbygge. Vi ser ingen mirakler lige nu, undtagen når vi en gang imellem får en smule fordel – og det må man arbejde videre med. Og der kommer nogle lyspunkter her og der.«

Titelfoto: Lyndon LaRouche fortsætter med at arbejde for Det britiske Imperiums afslutning og for udløsningen af menneskehedens kreativitet.

.

7. marts 2016 – Kinas landbrugsminister, Han Changfu, talte i dag om Ruslands og Kinas planer om et samarbejde omkring opdyrkning af Ruslands enorme fjernøstlige distrikt. Han talte på en pressekonference på sidelinjen af den Nationale Folkekongres’ årlige møde i Beijing.

Kinesiske firmaer er allerede aktive inden for landbrug på mere end 600.000 ha i det fjernøstlige område. Nu vil der, sagde Han, blive kinesisk-russisk samarbejde for at udvide dette gennem fælles landbrugsmæssig forskning og udvikling, samt uddannelse i agronomi og dyrkningsmetoder. Han opfordrede flere kinesiske landbrugsvirksomheder til at blive involveret.

Det russiske, fjernøstlige distrikt, der udgør to tredjedele af USA, har store, frugtbare områder og en befolkning på kun 6,3 million (omkring to tredjedele af den amerikanske stat New Jersey).

Foto: Sceneri fra Amur regionen, der har grænser mod Kina, ikke langt fra hovedbyen Blagovesjtjensk. Denne region med sit areal på 363.700 km² (Danmarks er 43.094 km²) og en befolkning på ca. 810.000 er blot en lille del af Ruslands enorme fjernøstlige distrikt.