Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 15. december, 2016 – Mangeårig medarbejder Harley Schlanger sendte her til morgen følgende rapport:

»Jeg briefede Lyn [Lyndon LaRouche] her til morgen og gennemgik optrapningen af hele anti-Putin-hysteriet. Efter fem minutter eller så, hvor jeg rapporterede om de utroligt absurde historier på NBC (’høj grad af overbevisning om Putins direkte involvering’ i hacking); New York Times’ (’Hvordan Moskva sigtede et perfekt våben mod de amerikanske valg’, og lederartikel, ’Aleppos ødelæggere: Assad, Putin, Iran’), og andre, samt kravet om enten, at Valgforsamlingen (Electoral College) afviser Trump, eller et nyt valg, sagde Lyndon LaRouche,

’Dette er tåbeligt sludder, det er et bedrag’.

»Jeg sagde, jeg ved, det er bedrag, men, mener du ikke, at dette tilsigter enten at fjerne Trump, eller begrænse ham? (LaRouche):

’Nej, det vil aldrig virke. Dette er alt sammen fantasi, det er vrøvl. Det kommer fra den politisk døde Obama. Han er færdig, han burde anklages for sine forbrydelser. Dette er et forsøg på at holde ham fri af fængsel.’

Jeg (Schlanger) sagde til ham, at Roger Stone har kaldt dette for et ’blødt kup’ og mindede om Watergate. LaRouche sagde,

’Nej, det her er helt anderledes, der foregår noget andet’,

hvor han igen henviste til det nye paradigme. Han understregede, efter en briefing om [Janet] Yellens (direktør for Federal Reserve) kommentarer efter gårsdagens møde i Federal Reserve,

’Det er uden betydning; det er alt sammen fantasi. De kan intet gøre.’

Det, der karakteriserer det her, er, at Putin er en

’selvstændig person, der ved, hvad han gør. Det kan ikke stoppes.’

Systemet er færdigt, og det, vi hører, er

’folk, der er skyldige og har et reb om halsen og håber på, at rebet ikke trækker dem ned’.

Han sagde, at vi blot behøver at gennemgå Obamas forbrydelser: han slår amerikanere ihjel med Obamacare (Obamas ’sundhedsreform’: Loven om Beskyttelse af Patienter og en Økonomisk Overkommelig Sygesikring) og sin økonomiske politik, og med sine tirsdags-dræbermøder, burde han sættes i fængsel; han har gentagent begået forbrydelser. Fortæl blot dette til folk – der er ingen substans i det, som efterretningssamfundet, medier osv., siger,

’det er alt sammen sludder’. ’Vi må holde fast ved det, vi laver. Dette er alt sammen hysteri, men intet vil komme ud af det; det vil ikke få nogen effekt’«.

Her sluttede Schlangers rapport.

Hvad dette betyder, er ganske enkelt: Hvem vil yde det amerikanske folk et lederskab for gennemførelse af LaRouches Fire Love, og for at bringe USA med ind i Verdenslandbroen? Bortset fra os, er der ingen. Ingen!

Jeg mener, at vi bør være meget glade, for hvis dette alt sammen går den rigtige vej; og det er for en stor del vores personlige forpligtelse at hjælpe, og jeg beder jer alle sammen om ikke at være passive tilskuere, men gå med i Schiller Instituttet for at være med til at implementere disse visioner og disse ideer, for så vil vi blive meget heldige med, at vi i vores levetid kan leve det nye paradigme. Og det nye paradigme vil blive første gang, menneskets værdighed vil blive virkeliggjort, og jeg mener, at det er en meget, meget vigtig mission, som vi alle bør vedtage.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

(Efterfølgende spørgsmål og svar, engelsk udskrift: Klik her. )

København, 12. december, 2016 – I dag var Helga Zepp-LaRouche særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar i København, med titlen, »Donald Trump og det Nye, Internationale Paradigme«. Otte diplomater fra seks lande deltog, inklusive to ambassadører. Nationer fra Vesteuropa, Sydvestasien, Vest- og Østasien var repræsenteret, samt fra Afrika. Desuden deltog henved 30 af Schiller Instituttets medlemmer og kontakter, såvel som også et par repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.

Arrangementet indledtes af en forestilling, hvor Feride Istogu Gillesberg og Michelle Rasmussen fremførte en kinesisk kærlighedssang. Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ved at beskrive den historiske rolle, hun har spillet i skabelsen af politikken med Den Nye Silkevej.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche indledte sin meget inspirerende og dybtgående tale med den revolution imod globalisering, som Brexit, Trumps valgsejr og Nej-resultatet i den italienske folkeafstemning udgør. Hun kom med en vurdering af potentialet i nogle af Trumps hidtidige erklæringer og udnævnelser og gik dernæst videre med en detaljeret diskussion af de to, modstridende paradigmer, der eksisterer i verden i dag. Dernæst opløftede Helga tilhørerne med Krafft Ehrickes og Nicolaus Cusanus’ skønne ideer. Hun konkluderede med en appel til de tilstedeværende om ikke at handle som tilskuere på historiens scene, men derimod, sammen med os, at gå med i kampen for det nye paradigme.

Herefter fulgte en intens, timelang diskussion, hvor der kom spørgsmål fra alle de forskellige grupper, der var repræsenteret. Helga afsluttede mødet med at udfordre tilhørerne til at beslutte, hvad de ønsker at bruge deres liv til; hvilket mærke, som vil være til gavn for hele menneskeheden langt ud i fremtiden, ønsker de at sætte? Et udskrift af Helgas svar vil ligeledes snarest blive udlagt her på hjemmesiden.

Helgas tale og efterfølgende diskussion havde en dybtgående virkning på alle de tilstedeværende. 

København, 12. december, 2016 – I dag var Helga Zepp-LaRouche særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar i København, med titlen, »Donald Trump og det Nye, Internationale Paradigme«. Otte diplomater fra seks lande deltog, inklusive to ambassadører. Nationer fra Vesteuropa, Sydvestasien, Vest- og Østasien var repræsenteret, samt fra Afrika. Desuden deltog henved 30 af Schiller Instituttets medlemmer og kontakter, såvel som også et par repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.

Arrangementet indledtes af en forestilling, hvor Feride Istogu Gillesberg og Michelle Rasmussen fremførte en kinesisk kærlighedssang. Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ved at beskrive den historiske rolle, hun har spillet i skabelsen af politikken med Den Nye Silkevej.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche indledte sin meget inspirerende og dybtgående tale med den revolution imod globalisering, som Brexit, Trumps valgsejr og Nej-resultatet i den italienske folkeafstemning udgør. Hun kom med en vurdering af potentialet i nogle af Trumps hidtidige erklæringer og udnævnelser og gik dernæst videre med en detaljeret diskussion af de to, modstridende paradigmer, der eksisterer i verden i dag. Dernæst opløftede Helga tilhørerne med Krafft Ehrickes og Nicolaus Cusanus’ skønne ideer. Hun konkluderede med en appel til de tilstedeværende om ikke at handle som tilskuere på historiens scene, men derimod, sammen med os, at gå med i kampen for det nye paradigme.

Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale, der varer omkring 1 time og 20 minutter, kan høres ovenover eller her:

https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/helga-zepp-larouche-in-copenhagen-donald-trump-and-the-new-international-paradigm-1

En dansk oversættelse af talen kommer på torsdag. 

Herefter fulgte en intens, timelang diskussion, hvor der kom spørgsmål fra alle de forskellige grupper, der var repræsenteret. Helga afsluttede mødet med at udfordre tilhørerne til at beslutte, hvad de ønsker at bruge deres liv til; hvilket mærke, som vil være til gavn for hele menneskeheden langt ud i fremtiden, ønsker de at sætte? Et udskrift af Helgas svar vil ligeledes snarest blive udlagt her på hjemmesiden.

Helgas tale og efterfølgende diskussion havde en dybtgående virkning på alle de tilstedeværende. 

Diskussionen findes kun som engelsk udskrift (se nedenfor).

—–

English: Introductory article

Helga Zepp-LaRouche Keynotes Copenhagen Seminar on `Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm'

COPENHAGEN, Dec. 12, 2016 (EIRNS) — Today, Helga Zepp-LaRouche was the special guest speaker at a Schiller Institute/{EIR} seminar in Copenhagen entitled, "Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm." Eight diplomats from six countries attended, including two ambassadors. There were nations from Western Europe, Southwest Asia, Western and Eastern Asia, and Africa. In addition, there were around 30 Schiller Institute members and contacts, as well as a few representatives of various Danish and international institutions.

The event was opened by the presentation of a Chinese love song performed by Feride Istogu Gillesberg and Michelle Rasmussen. Afterwards, Tom Gillesberg, the chairman of The Schiller Institute in Denmark, introduced Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, describing her historical role in bringing about the New Silk Road policy.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche's very inspiring, in-depth speech began with the revolution against globalization represented by the Brexit, the Trump election, and the Italian No vote. She gave an evaluation of the potential represented by some of the statements and appointments Trump has made so far, and then proceeded with a detailed discussion of the two conflicting paradigms in the world today. Zepp-LaRouche then uplifted the audience with the beautiful ideas of space scientist Krafft Ehricke and Renaissance philosopher Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. She concluded with an appeal to those present not to act as spectators on the stage of history, but engage in the battle for the new paradigm with us.

Her speech, about 80 minutes long, may be heard above, or at: https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/helga-zepp-larouche-in-copenhagen -donald-trump-and-the-new-international-paradigm-1

Afterwards, there was an intensive hour-long discussion, with questions from all of the different groups represented. Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche ended by challenging the audience to decide what they want to do with their lives, what mark they will make to benefit all humanity, far into the future.  

Zepp-LaRouche's speech and discussion had a profound effect on all present. 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Discussion:

(There is no video or audio of the discussion period, only this transcript.)

Helga Zepp-LaRouche in Copenhagen December 12, 2016
Discussion
(To facilitate free discussion, the questioners are not identified, and the questions are summarized. The answers are complete.)
Question: Can we be optimistic about Trump’s presidency, because he is skeptical about climate change, is for trade war with China and Mexico, opposes the free trade deals, and has called for tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I said earlier that the potentialities for change are there, but it depends, to a very large extent, upon us – what we do. When Trump got elected, my first response was, this is what I call the ‘dog pull-tail, let-go feeling.’ What I mean by that is that when you pull the tail of a dog, which you should never do, naturally, and you let go, the pain stops. When you pull, there is pain, and when you stop pulling, the pain goes away.
So, in a certain sense, the election of Trump was the tail let-go feeling, because we were on an immediate course toward WWIII, and that was really the primary point, because if Hillary Clinton would have been elected — unfortunately, Hillary Clinton, when she was in the Obama administration, transformed from being a relatively OK person, she was never great, but in 2008, she was relatively decent, compared to what she became, because she capitulated to Obama, and when she made this terrible statement, for example, in Libya, about the murder of Gadaffi, “We came, we saw, and he died.” This is barbarism.
Her behavior in the Ben Ghazi case. There were so many things where she became worse than Obama, almost. So the immediate thing was that that big danger, that she would have continued the policies of Bush and Obama, in the confrontation with Russia and China, that that was stopped is, already, for the survival of civilization, the most important step.
Now, on these other points. Naturally, there is climate change. There is no question about it. But the question is, what is the cause of it? And the Schiller Institute had several conferences where we invited extremely important scientists who presented, beyond a doubt, that if you look at the last 500 million years in the history of the Earth, you have a continuous cycle of ice ages, of warming periods, of small ice ages, and the man-made component of climate change is absolutely negligible. It’s a big fraud, for example, it’s a big business. To sell CO2 omission quotas, is like selling indulgences in the Middle Ages.
Obviously, there are climate changes, and some countries which have low coasts are very much affected, but then you have to adapt to these climate changes with modern technology, and you cannot solve the problem by going to electric cars, or going to decarbonization of the world economy. This is a big fraud, and I am not saying that Trump is saying this for all the right reasons, but the idea to impose measures implied with the “great transformation” Schellnhuber is talking about – I mean these people do not want development.
We have been on this case for the last — as a matter of fact, we, the LaRouche movement, had a conception about the development of the world really starting at the end of the sixties.
I joined Mr. LaRouche because I went to China, Africa, other Asian countries, and I saw the horrible, horrible underdevelopment. So I came back from this trip, and I said, ‘I have to become political, because I want to change this.’ I could give you a long, long story of the many observations, because I went with a cargo ship, and when you go to these countries with a cargo ship, you get a quite different idea than if you go on a 5-star cruise, and hotels. You see how the poverty affects people in their real lives. And I came back, and I looked at all the political movements, and I saw that LaRouche was the only one who said, ‘We have to have Third World development. We have to have technology transfer. We have to alleviate this poverty.’
And we had a positive conception already in the seventies, and therefore, when the Club of Rome appeared, we immediately said, ‘This is a fraud.’ Because the Club of Rome said, ‘There are limits to growth. We have reached equilibrium. Until the year 1972, you could develop, but now, we have reached equilibrium, and we have to have sustainable development. We have to have appropriate technology.’ These notions did not exist before, because before, you had the idea of a UN Development Decade, where each decade, you would overcome the underdevelopment by qualitative jumps. And when we recognized this propaganda by the Club of Rome, we immediately said, ‘This is a complete fraud,’ and the people who wrote the book “Limits to Growth,” Meadows and Forrester …
Q: A followup about the Paris climate summit.
A: I would like to give you written documentation afterwards of the studies that were made by these geologists, which are, without question, the explanation of climate change is not man-made. The anthropogenic aspect of it is so miniscule. Climate change has to do with the position of the solar system in the galaxy, which goes in cycles around a certain axis, and you can see that over 500 million years, the data confirms that you have these wide changes. Greenland is called Greenland, because it was green. There used to be vineyards. You had ice ages which completely covered the Earth, and the reason why I went into this longer history, is to show how the environmentalist movement was created with the attempt to keep development down, and climate change is just another expression of the same effort.
If you look at which firms which are investing in solar parks, in wind parks, who is controlling the CO2 emission trade, you have all the top hedge funds in London and Wall St. I can give you a lot of documentation about it, which does not mean that climate change is not real, because you have the rise of the oceans, and you have climate change, you have extreme weather, but that has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.
And, on the other points you raised, obviously, from our standpoint, the cancellation of NAFTA, is a good thing, because NAFTA did not allow development for Mexico. As a matter of fact, NAFTA is the incarnation of the cheap labor production model of free trade. What you need is – especially countries which are not developed, you need protective tariffs for their own good. They have to develop a domestic market first. The booklet which I emphasized, which you should please read, “Against the Stream,” is one of many, but it is very condensed, and a very good book.
The question is, ‘What is the source of wealth?’ Is the source of wealth cheap labor, to buy cheap raw materials, produce cheaply, and sell expensive? Is that the cause of wealth? No.
The only cause of wealth is the increase in the creativity of labor power. And a good government is, therefore, investing the maximum amount into education, into sponsoring the creativity of youth, of labor, and the more people in the labor force, by percentage, are engineers, scientists, the more productive the economy becomes.
And the free trade system, of which NAFTA is just one example, did exactly the opposite. China, which was part of this in the beginning — the reason why China today has so many environmental problems, like smog, like a large amount of groundwater being contaminated, is the result of the fact that China, in the beginning of its industrialization, accepted being a cheap labor production place for the U.S. and for Europe. When I was in China, even in 1971, I visited some factories which were horrible. They were absolutely horrible. The working conditions were terrible, the labor force, which produced electrical devices for radios, it was horrible. They worked for 18 hours. No health system. It was just terrible. And that is how China developed in the first phase.
But then China, with Deng Xiaoping, started to recognize that that is the wrong way. So China is now on a completely different track. They are putting the maximum emphasis on science and technology, the increase of excellence. Last year, they produced 1 million scientists. That’s double of what the U.S. produced. Obviously China is a larger country, but still. What will finally be decisive is the number of people who are creative. And that is why China, right now, has the best education system, because they have understood that the source of wealth is not raw materials. Is not trade conditions. It is the creativity of their own people. And that it a good thing. If we go to a system where we have a certain amount of protectionism, to protect the development of the domestic market, it is a good thing.
There is no danger of cutting [countries off from one another], because all of these infrastructure projects are connectivity. The world will be more connected than ever before. But this whole myth of free trade is really a very bad thing. It has been coined by the people who profit from it. That’s why the world is in the condition it is right now, where the rich become richer, and the poor become poorer. The middle class is being destroyed all over the world. And I would really like to communicate with you so that we can deepen this dialogue.
On the Iran thing, I don’t think he will break it, but that is my hope. I don’t know.
So, I’m not saying he’s a – as I said, Baron von Knigge would get a heart attack when he hears Trump’s speeches, but the world was in such a grip of evil, satanic evil, that it is a good thing that there is a break, and the unfortunate thing, is that Europe is still in this grip.
You can see it. Von der Leyen, the German Defense Secretary, had the funniest reaction. The day after the election of Trump, she said ‘I am deeply shocked,’ about this election result, because nobody thought this would happen. Now, this same lady is now parading in Saudi Arabia with Crown Prince Bin Salman Al Saud, and she isn’t shocked. So, I don’t know what’s wrong with her. I think that that would be a good place to be shocked, or not even go there.
So, I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the Europeans who react this way to the defeat of Hillary, are obeying another power in their head, and that power I call The British Empire, which is still in place, and it dominates Europe, and that is why they feel – I was asking myself, how come all of these politicians are so arrogant towards the new president of the U.S.? Because they were the boot-lickers of Washington until yesterday, and they would immediately do everything Washington would say and do, so I asked myself, ‘Where is this sudden self-assertedness coming from?’ And the only explanation I came up with, was to say, they must have an idea that there is another power which is more powerful than Trump, otherwise, they wouldn’t have this sudden arrogance.
And it is the British, because you will see tomorrow, because tomorrow, there will be a federal press conference in Berlin, where a number of people will present their contribution to the German chairmanship of the G-20, which will take place in July in Hamburg. This will be Joachim Schellnhuber, the head of the WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change), this is the scientific advisory organization advising the German government. He put out this paper about ‘the great transformation,’ which we wrote about. You can look in the archive. He is the head of the idea of a decarbonization of the world economy.
Now, if you decarbonize the world economy, without having fusion, that would be one thing, to have fusion power in place. Then you can talk about getting rid of fossil fuels, but without having fusion, and being against nuclear energy, fission, it means that you will reduce the world’s population to 1 billion or less, because there is a direct correlation between the energy-flux-density, and the number of people you can maintain. Schellnhuber said that the carrying capacity of the Earth is maximum 1 billion people. He didn’t say that he wants to do with the 6 billion who are already there. If he would be consequent, he should hop away from this planet.
And they will announce a sinister plan, to try to use the fact that many countries have environmental problems, to sneak in their anti-development programs. People should not be naïve, because not everybody thinks that population growth is a good thing. There are many people who think that each human being is a parasite, destroying nature. That is the image of man which many people have. The greenies, for example.
We look at it in a different way. We think that the more people you have, the greater longevity you can have, division of labor, and a modern scientific society needs many people with a long life span. Because if you are in the Third World, and you die, and you have an average life expectancy of 40 years, or less, you cannot have scientists, because the production of a scientist takes 30-35 years, and if people then die right away, then you can’t have a modern society.
So the more creative people you have, the better. Each human being is an incredible addition, because we are creative.
Tom Gillesberg: Schellnhuber, for his services, was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE), and for him, he personally has said, that the highpoint of his existence was that the British Queen, personally, gave him the Order of the British Empire, for his efforts to reduce the possibility for mankind’s survival, you could say, so it is connected with what you said.
Q: This is the best speech I have ever heard in my life.
Is this a second American Revolution, and will the Federal Reserve, which is privately owned, be closed down, and will money be created for the benefit of all people, and not just the private Fed?
A: I don’t know, because, as I said, there are so many unknowns about Trump, and what he will do, and how it will play out. All I can say is, if Trump does not fulfill his promises, the same people who caused his election, will topple him. Because I don’t think that this process, which is now underway, where ordinary people have just had it — If you think about the declaration of Independence, it has this formulation that you will not bring down a government system for light reasons, but, if for a long time, the common good is being violated, I don’t know the exact text, then, people have the right and duty to replace this government with a rightful one, and that idea I call natural law.
It’s the same idea that Friedrich Schiller had in Wilhelm Tell. This is a play he wrote, which takes place in Switzerland. There, the Hapsburg oligarch is also trampling on the rights of the Swiss people, then they unite with the Rütli Oath. There is this beautiful formulation which says, ‘When the rights of people are trampled upon, they have the right to reach out to the stars, and take from the stars those rights which are eternally embedded in these stars. (I am not saying it as beautifully as Schiller does.)
If you compare these two texts, the Declaration of Independence, and the Rütli Oath from Schiller’s play, they are almost identical, and it’s very clear that Schiller was inspired by the American Revolution when he wrote that play, because in his plays, there are many ideas which resonate with the American Revolution, and he actually wanted to immigrate, at one point, to America.
So I think that if Trump turns out to be another fraudster, which we don’t know yet, I think that this process of revolt will continue, because I only mentioned some elements.
I could mention that there are many countries now in realignment. for example, the Philippines, Duterte. This was supposed to be the playground for the conflict with China in the South China Sea. Now Duterte sent his Defense Secretary, Lorenzana, to Russia and China, to buy weapon systems from Russia and China, and to establish a friendship with China, and he said, ‘The Philippines is no longer the colony of the U.S.’
Then you have Japan, which was the junior partner of the U.S. in the Pacific. Abe went to Sochi, meeting with Putin. In three days from now, Putin will go to Japan to have a state visit. They are talking about a peace treaty between Russia and Japan.
All of these are new alignments. There is a shift in the strategic situation, and I don’t think that that shift can be reversed.
Q: About Russia hacking the U.S. election. Why doesn’t the U.S. have anti-hacking measures? Can you explain that?
A: I cannot explain that, for the same reason that I cannot explain why the NSA is surveilling everyone, all their phones, their communications, worldwide. They can observe all of these things, but they don’t know about terrorism. They don’t know about drug trafficking. They don’t know about money laundering. Either their system is not so good, or they are looking in the wrong direction. I can’t answer your question.
Q: Will the result of the Brexit be positive for Europe, to enable continental Europe to become stronger, and to improve cooperation with the eastern parts of Europe?
A: I think that the EU is not functioning, and I think it is not just the Brexit. The “No” in Italy is a reflection of the same dynamic. Now you have Gentiloni, the new prime minister, and they will probably go for new elections. Right now, in the polls, you have the 5 Star Party leading. If they win, and form the new government, they have already said that they would leave the EU, and leave the Euro, and, in a certain sense, it is not functioning.
The reason I was against the introduction of the Euro from the beginning, was because we said that it cannot function. You cannot have a European currency union in something which is not an optimal economic space. You cannot put advanced industry together with an agrarian country, with completely different tax laws, pension laws, and you don’t want a political union, because Europe is not a people. You don’t have a European people. I don’t know what the Danes are saying. I don’t know what is in the Danish newspapers. The people of Slovenia have no inkling of what is happening in Alsace-Lorraine, and so forth, and so on. You don’t have a European people. Esperanto doesn’t function. You have 28 nations, 28 histories, 28 cultures.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t work together. I think that the idea of Charles de Gaulle to work together as an alliance between perfectly sovereign fatherlands, that is a correct idea. And all these fatherlands can adopt a joint mission, like to develop Africa, or other things.
I just think that this European Union is not going to stay forever.
Q: (followup) Will it be easier for Germany and France to promote this development, as the leading countries?
A: Everybody says that Germany is the biggest beneficiary of globalization, the EU, and the Euro, but that’s not really true, because, if you look at it more closely, then you can say that since the introduction of the Euro, the domestic market of Germany has completely stagnated. And the number of people who became poorer has increased.
Q: (followup) What about regarding the dialogue with Russia.
A: Oh yes, that would be much easier.
I do not think that this EU bureaucracy is capable of reform, because by their self-understanding, they are the local pro-consuls of this empire, and I think that it would be much better if Germany, France, and other countries have individual relations. And I don’t think that – this whole idea that you need a European Empire to compete with Russia and China and other emerging countries – The EU, by definition, is an empire. They have said it themselves. Robert Cooper, who has some kind of advisory function [currently serving as EU Special Advisor with regard to Myanmar], he said that the EU is the fastest expanding empire in history. It’s a bad idea.
And the Russians for – I noticed this since the beginning of the year 2000, that the Russians did not make a difference anymore between the EU and NATO. They said that it’s the same thing. And it is the same thing.
Q: You said that the One Belt, One Road was stripped of commercial interests from the Chinese side, as opposed to the IMF, World Bank. On what basis do you say that it is less interest-driven than the Bretton Woods institutions?
A: Well, because, the question is not that I’m saying that China is perfect. I’m not saying that. But when you look at anything, you have to look at the vector of development, is it going upward, or is it going downward? And from that standpoint, I had the advantage that I was in China in 1971, which was in the middle of the Cultural Revolution. This was so different than China today.
The Cultural Revolution was horrible for the people. The Red Guards would take people out of their homes, put them in jail, send them to the countryside, and people were distraught.
And now, people in China are happy. If you talk to students, or to young people, they are optimistic. They say, ‘Oh. I will do this in the future. I have these plans.’ I talked to a group of students in Lanzhou two years ago, and they said, ‘We will go to Africa. We will develop Africa.’ I have never heard a German student say this. Yeah, when I was a student, but that’s a long time ago.
I think that it is very worthwhile to read the speeches of Xi Jinping. There is a book, “The Governance of China,” but that only has about 60 speeches, and there are many, many more. For example, you should read the speeches he gave when he went to France, to Germany, and to India.
For example, when he went to India, he made a speech which was really incredible, because he said that he loved Indian culture from his early youth, and then he gave so many examples of the high points of Indian culture, the Gupta period, the Upanishads, the Vedic writings, Rabindranath Tagore, many predicates which prove that he really knows what he is talking about. He is not just one of these politicians who have a PR advisor about how to make nice bubbles in your speeches, but you could really see that he means it. And the same for Germany. He came to Germany and he emphasized Schubert and Heine, things which I also appreciate about Germany, and he did the same thing in France.
And I don’t think that the Chinese leadership would agree with me when I say this, but I think that they are less communist than Confucians. They probably would not admit that, because they are officially the Communist Party, and that’s OK, but, I come from Trier, and Trier is the birthplace of Karl Marx, so I have studied Karl Marx, and I think that they are still socialist, or communist, or whatever, but they always said that they are communist with Chinese characteristics, and these Chinese characteristics are Confucianism.
And the Confucian idea of man is lifelong learning, lifelong perfection, that everyone should be a Jinzi, a wise man, a noble man, and Confucius said, if the government is bad, then the Jinzi, these wise people, should replace the government. Also the idea that you have to have an harmonious development, starting with the family, continuing in the nation, and then, larger, among the nations.
China is the only country that has not made wars of aggression, colonial wars, in its 5,000 years of history. It was invaded many times, the Opium War, and things like that, but China is not an aggressive nation, at all.
And if you look at what they are doing in practice, the IMF and the World Bank have prevented Third World development, and China is going from one country to the next, building science cities, helping with space cooperation, bringing in developing countries in the most advanced areas of science, in order to not prevent their development. I think this is a completely different approach.
I think that the Chinese have come up with a new model of government, which I have not seen in any place in Europe, the U.S. ever, and it’s a model which is overcoming geopolitics, which is, if you say, ‘I have a win-win for cooperation. Everybody can join.’ Then, if everyone joins, then you have overcome geopolitics.
And geopolitics is the one thing that caused two world wars, and in the age of thermonuclear weapons, we cannot have geopolitics anymore. So I think that these are very important differences.
Sure, China has its own interests. Win-win means that China also has an interest. China has advantages, but, for example, if you ask people from Africa, ‘Would you rather have deals where China gets raw materials for long periods of time, but they build infrastructure for Africans.’ They like that much better than Europeans who come and say, ‘Oh, you should obey democracy,’ and do nothing.
Q: Statement about Chinese infrastructure projects in Morocco. Both are winners, as opposed to projects 20 years ago run by other countries. The Chinese there have learned Arabic. The projects have greatly reduced the travel time. They have a different perspective than the French, and Europeans had.    
Tom Gillesberg: Do you have final remarks?
A: I would just say that people should not just believe, or not believe, what I am saying, but take an active attitude to try to find out what the truth is, for themselves. Because the world is not helped by replacing one ideology by another. The only way you can be certain, is that you become a truth-seeking person yourself. Because the whole question about what went wrong, is that people forgot what it is to be an honest truth-seeking person, taking the truth not as something you reach finally, but something you always improve.
Schiller had this beautiful writing about universal history, where he said that the philosophical mind is the first one to take his own system apart, to put it together more perfectly again.
I think that that quality – and, also, we had two days ago in Berlin, a very important event, which was also about the dialogue of cultures, and every – we had a very important presentation, which you can soon see on our webpage, where we had a double bass player who spoke about the importance of Wilhelm Furtwängler as a conductor, and he gave some musical examples, and he compared the performances of Furtwängler with some modern conductors, and the difference is so unbelievable. The music of Furtwängler is transparent. It is beautiful. It is absolutely overwhelmingly uplifting, and many of the other conductors are just playing along, with no respect for what the composition is.
And he really described, with many quotes from Furtwängler, that what is needed is this inner quality of truthfulness. That you don’t fake it, because if you’re not truthful – for example, you cannot recite poetry, if you’re not truthful. You cannot sing beautifully, if you’re not truthful. Sure, you can sing brilliantly, you can do all kinds of tricks, and it impresses people, but to really produce art, you have to be truthful. You have to try to understand the poetical idea, the musical idea. You have to step back with your ego behind what the composer or the poet wrote. And that’s what is wrong with modern theater. In Regietheater, they just say, ‘I don’t care what Schiller wrote, or what Shakespeare wrote. I just make my modern interpretation. I put Harley Davidson’s into Shakespeare, and it doesn’t matter.’ And that is not art.
And I think the question is, ‘What do you do with your life?’ That is really the question. Are you becoming a creative person, devoted to that with your life, you contribute to enable mankind to move on a little step further, and become better.
Or, are you just eating three tons of caviar, and have 3,000 Porsches. And then, when you die, they write on your gravestone, ‘He/she ate three mons of caviar, and had 3,000 Porsches,’ and that was it.
No, you should try to be an honest person, trying to make human society better with what you do. And, once you do that, you become happy. Then you are free. This inner freedom, is what you should try to find. And that is the only way that we will win that battle. It’s not Trump. It is, can we get enough people to be innerly free.
And then we win.
End of discussion

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 12. december, 2016 – I dag erklærede den syriske hær officielt sejren over terroristerne i Aleppo. Dette sker efter terroristernes fire år lange besættelse af byen; men det sker henved 24 dage efter, at den syriske regering, med russisk støtte, lovede at generobre byen fuldstændigt. De handlede imod hele oppositionen forøvet af London, Paris, Washington og Saudi-Arabien, der støttede »moderate« oprørere på jorden og førte løgne- og chikanekampagner i De forenede Nationer i New York.

SANA, den syriske regerings nyhedstjeneste, sender i aften en video, hvor præsident Bashar al-Assad ønsker syriske tropper tillykke ved deres stillinger i Aleppo. Prisen for denne sejr for principper har været forfærdelige lidelser og tab af liv, men sejren er godt og grundigt vundet. Folk fejrer den nu.

Vi må nu tænke på nødvendigheden af en Marshallplan for området – de ’5 søers plan’, eller »Fønix«-plan, for en genopbygning af Syrien og hele området, som Hussein Askary og Ulf Sandmark har udviklet, og som Schiller Instituttet har promoveret.

 

 

I sidste uge, den 8. dec., midt i de sidste dages kampe om Aleppo, var Kinas særlige udsending til Syrien, Xie Xiaoyan, i Damaskus for at drøfte humanitære hjælpeoperationer, såvel som også andre planer om hjælp til den krigshærgede nation. I mellemtiden, i New York i sidste uge, stod Kina sammen med Rusland og andre nationer om at modsætte sig de svigagtige resolutioner om våbenstilstand og hjælp til Aleppo, der, i et forsøg på at opretholde kampen om Aleppo, var blevet foreslået af aksen bestående af Det Hvide Hus, London, Saudi-Arabien og Frankrig.

I USA foregår der en hysterisk kampagne imod Rusland og præsident Putin, hvor man bruger løgnen om, at russiske, statslige hackere skulle have grebet ind i de amerikanske valg, og også, at det var til fordel for Donald Trump. Dette kommer efter rapporter i medierne i sidste uge om, at CIA er i besiddelse af »hemmelige« beviser for, at Rusland begår disse kriminelle handlinger og er blevet en farlig modstander. Putin er den stærke mand, der udøver trusler, han er en krigsforbryder i Syrien, osv.

Efter at Lyndon LaRouche i dag blev briefet om situationen, bestilte han en kronologi (se nedenfor), der går tilbage til juli 2016, over denne løgnekampagne, og hvor WikiLeaks publicerede e-mails, der afslørede det aftalte spil mellem Hillary Clintons kampagne og det Demokratiske Partis Nationalkomite, om at favorisere Clinton og lægge forhindringer i vejen for Bernie Sanders. Daværende formand for Demokraternes Nationalkomite, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, måtte træde tilbage før Demokraternes partikonvent. Siden da – og især efter at have tabt præsidentvalget – har Obama- og Clinton-flokken bestræbt sig endnu mere på at aflede opmærksomheden fra den folkelige afvisning af deres mange forbrydelser, ved at fokusere på en svigagtig dæmonisering af Rusland og Putin.

Måden, dette skal forstås på, sagde LaRouche, er den, at dette er et britisk svindelnummer, en bestræbelse fra Dronningens side for at beskytte Obama og forhindre muligheden for, at Londons og Wall Streets politik skrottes. De aktuelle ’aggressiv hund’-angreb mod Rusland bør ses i denne globale sammenhæng – med sammenbruddet af det mislykkede system i USA under Bush og Obama, og af selve Det britiske Imperium, og ligeledes i sammenhæng med de brud, der nu kommer fra Europa, og nu, gennembruddet i Aleppo. Vores kamp er en kamp for principper.

Supplerende materiale (engelsk):

Chronology: The 'Blame Russia' Operation for Election
Interference Is a British Fraud

Dec. 12, 2016 (EIRNS)–The current hysteria to blame Russia for
hacking and interfering in U.S. elections is no civic vigilance,
but a classic British fraud operation, for the Queen to protect
her Obama and avert the dumping of his failed London/Wall Street
policies. It should be seen in the widest international context,
of the collapse of the U.S. economic and political system, as
well as the potential break-away from this collapse by
populations around the world, from the Philippines, to Italy, to
Bulgaria, to Moldova, to the U.S., to the Brexit voters, and
more.
        The chronology below shows the beginnings of the fraud, with
the July 2016 Clinton campaign charges against Russia, made after
leaks showed that the Democratic National Committee was secretly
acting in Hillary's favor against Bernie Sanders, her principal
Democratic opponent. Next, the Obama Administration itself jumped
in to make accusations against Russia, as voters started lining
up against Clinton. Then, after the electorate went for Trump,
Obama formally called for an investigation of Russian
involvement. Now there are calls for delaying the Electoral
College vote altogether, and even for a re-election, plus
denunciations of Russian President Vladimir Putin for hijacking
the election.
                       – Spring, 2016 –

JUNE. The Democratic National Committee said that two hacker
groups had invaded its IT systems. The assertion was then later
made by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Obama Administration
that the hacking, and subsequent release of emails, was
"consistent with" Russian tactics, while not denying the illegal
activity that had been exposed by the release.

                       – Summer, 2016 –

JULY. Before the Democratic Party Convention began, WikiLeaks
posted some 20,000 emails from the DNC showing it was favoring
Hillary Clinton, and prejudiced against her primary opponent
Bernie Sanders, a breach of their own rules of impartiality. The
DNC Chairman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was forced to resign
just before the convention due to the exposure. Julian Assange,
head of WikiLeaks, denied that Wiki had hacked the emails, but
said that they came from a leaker.

                       – Autumn, 2016 –

OCT. 7. The Obama Administration formally accused Russia of
conducting cyber attacks aimed at the elections. A statement was
issued by James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, and
Jeh Johnson, Department of Homeland Security, saying that, "We
believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts,
that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized
these activities." Such "belief," and never evidence or proof,
has remained the basis of all charges. The activities referred to
were hacking attempts against state election systems. Clapper and
Johnson, while not blaming the Russian government specifically,
asserted that the patterns of "scanning and probing" could be
traced in many cases to servers operated by a Russian company.
        A careful review of the Clapper-Johnson statement, however,
made clear that there was no unanimous consensus among the U.S.
intelligence agencies that there was adequate proof to accuse the
Russians of being behind the alleged hacking.  In fact, by
October, according to a Dec. 12, 2016, Washington Post account,
quoting FBI officials, the Bureau had greatly scaled back its
five-month long probe of Russian interference and ties to the
Trump campaign, due to lack of sufficient evidence.

OCT. 8. The Russian Foreign Ministry responded that the hacking
accusations lacked any proof, and were intended for the purpose
of inciting, "unprecedented anti-Russian hysteria." Dep. Foreign
Minister Sergei Ryabkov, on the Ministry website, denounced the
U.S. statements as "dirty tricks."

NOVEMBER. During October through Nov. 6, WikiLeaks released
several batches from a trove of over 50,000 emails, from the
private email account of Clinton's campaign manager, John
Podesta. Again, WikiLeaks spokesmen stated that they did not
receive the documents from hackers, but obtained them from
whistleblowers inside the United States.

                       – Winter, 2016 –

DEC. 9. The Washington Post and New York Times reported that
the CIA knew that Russia was behind hacking during the elections.
Naming no sources, nor facts, the Post wrote, "The CIA has
concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in the
2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency … according
to officials briefed on the matter."
        The London Guardian reports the same line full-blast.
However, the Guardian itself quoted an expert debunking this.
ZeroHedge reproduced a Guardian article, featuring a British
diplomat (friend of Assange) who has met and knows the leaker of
the DNC emails. Those who know the leaker know, says the
diplomat, that the emails were leaked, not hacked, and the leaker
is not Russian but American.
        From the Guardian piece: "Assange has previously said the
DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official
cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence
agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was
directing the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from
the Russian government.
        "Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who
is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims
'bullshit,' adding: `They are absolutely making it up.
        "`I know who leaked them,' Murray said. 'I've met the person,

who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian, and it's an
insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
        "`If what the CIA is saying is true, and the CIA's
statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the
Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone
inside the United States.
        "`America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers
and it's not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly
have no knowledge whatsoever,' said Murray."

DEC. 9. Obama ordered a review of Russia's involvement in hacking
to rig elections, going back to 2008.

DEC. 9. Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader, issued a statement,
saying, "Any Administration should be deeply troubled by Russia's
attempt to tamper with our elections."

DEC. 9. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), to CNN, "I'm going after
Russia in every way we can go after Russia….they're one of the
most destabilizing influences on the world stage. I think they
did interfere with our election, and I want Putin to personally
pay a price."

DEC. 10. Sen. Lindsey Graham issued a stream of tweets that
Russia "is trying to break the backs of democracies–and
democratic movements–all over the world." He wrote, "Don't have
to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out what Russia is up to–they're
trying to undermine democracies all over the world."

DEC. 10. Reporter Glenn Greenwald, on Intercept: "There is still
no evidence for any of these [CIA] claims. What we have instead
are assertions, disseminated by anonymous people, completely
unaccompanied by any evidence, let alone proof…. Anonymous
claims leaked to the newspapers about what the CIA believes do
not constitute proof, and certainly do not constitute reliable
evidence that substitutes for actual evidence that can be
received. Have we not learned this lesson yet?"

DEC. 11. Four Senators issued a joint statement calling for an
investigation of Russia's involvement in election interference.
Democrats Charles Schumer (NY) and Jack Reed (RI); and
Republicans John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

DEC. 12. Ten electors in the Electoral College (from six states
and the District of Columbia) released an open letter to Director
of National Intelligence James Clapper, asking for confirmation
of whether Russia interfered in the 2016 elections, as a
condition for the electors to formally cast ballots in the
Electoral College when it meets Dec. 19 in respective states.
This initiative is endorsed by the Hillary Clinton campaign. The
electors' letter says they, "require to know from the
intelligence community whether there are ongoing investigations
into ties between Donald Trump, his campaign or associates, and
Russian government interference in the election, the scope of
those investigations, how far those investigations may have
reached, and who was involved in those investigations." A leader
of this ploy is Christine Pelosi, daughter of Nancy Pelosi.

DEC. 12. John Podesta, on behalf of defeated and conceded
candidate Hillary Clinton's "campaign," of which he was manager,
requested that the CIA or "intelligence community" give a
briefing to the Electors at the Electoral College meeting, before
they cast their votes. Clearly aimed to have an official
executive agency intervene to tamper with the Electors' votes.
        Politico: "In his statement released on Monday [Dec. 12],
Podesta said `The bipartisan electors' letter raises very grave
issues involving our national security,' and added that electors
have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we
support their efforts to have their questions addressed….'
        The statement describes how `we' continually protested that
the Russians were doing it, indicating Podesta is speaking here
for Clinton's campaign. `We now know that the CIA has determined
Russia's interference in our elections was for the purpose of
electing Donald Trump. This should distress every American.'"
        The "bipartisan electors" refers to the 10 led by Nancy
Pelosi's daughter.
        If done, this would be the most serious such executive
interference in elections since Andrew Johnson requested that the
Army help him convene a Congressional session including southern
slave owner "Congressmen" whose entry Congress had rejected.
 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 11. december, 2016 – ISIS er på flugt fra de syriske og russiske styrker; det ene valg efter det andet (Brexit, Filippinerne, USA, Frankrig, Italien, Sydkorea) viser, at befolkningerne føler afsky for det britisk/amerikanske bankimperiums økonomiske diktatur og forsøget på at indlede krige med Rusland og Kina; Kina og Rusland opbygger partnerskaber med over 100 nationer for at samarbejde om store udviklingsprojekter for at skabe moderne nationer og eliminere fattigdom, som Kina næsten har opnået.

Alt dette giver grund til optimisme. Men, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde i dag, så må vi ikke blive selvtilfredse. Det sårede dyr, som er Det britiske Imperium og dets marionet-neokonservative, der især omfatter Obama, i USA, vil ikke sky noget middel for at ødelægge fremvæksten af dette nye paradigme, især i USA. I takt med, at ISIS er i færd med at blive besejret i Syrien, går de saudiskskabte terrorister bersærk internationalt med morderiske selvmordsangreb, der blot i løbet af de seneste dage har dræbt over hundrede mennesker og såret mange andre, i Egypten, Tyrkiet, Yemen og Nigeria. Obama og fraktioner i CIA kommer med vilde påstande om, at de ikke tabte valget i USA, men at det var Putin, der stjal det! Det får på en måde 1940’ernes og ’50’ernes Harry Truman/Joe McCarthy-heksejagt på kommunister til at ligne en barneleg, og Obama har krævet, at James Clapper, direktør for den Nationale Efterretningstjeneste, leder et team, der skal undersøge det såkaldte russiske valg-tyveri til fordel for Trump.

Husk på, at det var Clapper, der for den amerikanske Kongres svor på, at der ikke fandt nogen masseovervågning af amerikanske borgere fra efterretningsvæsenets side sted – en løgn, der var en vigtig årsag til, at Edward Snowden besluttede at afsløre, at det var præcist, hvad de gjorde, og mere til, i hele verden. Set i dette lys var det rigtigt af Donald Trump at afvise denne fraktion af efterretningssamfundets »latterlige« påstand om russisk indgriben (andre fraktioner tilbageviser løgnen), og at minde os om, at dette var de samme mennesker, der lancerede ødelæggelsen af Mellemøsten ved hjælp af den overlagte løgn om Saddam Husseins angivelige masseødelæggelsesvåben, selv, da FN’s team i Irak rapporterede, at disse ikke eksisterede.

På den anden side, så må optimisme ikke blive til selvtilfredshed. Trump er en ukendt størrelse. Alt imens han har omgivet sig med ledende generaler, der har udtrykt stærk opposition mod Obamas risikable militæreventyr i Mellemøsten og ønsker at samarbejde med Rusland om at knuse terrorist-svøben, og ligeledes, at han har krævet en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, så er Trump samtidig omgivet af Goldman Sachs-folk, der har anført udplyndringen af ikke alene USA, men af en stor del af verden, på vegne af finansimperiet i London og New York. Hvilken politik, der vil lede USA og Vesten i de kommende måneder, vil blive afgjort af den grad af mod og beslutsomhed, som mønstres af den amerikanske og europæiske befolkning, der vil gå videre end til at »smide disse uduelige karle ud« og kræve et ægte, nyt paradigme – som vil erstatte City of Londons og Wall Streets herrevælde med Glass-Steagall og Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love samtidig med et krav om, at USA og Europa går med i den Nye Silkevej og samarbejder med Kina og Rusland, snarere end at true med krig mod dem.    

(Se LaRouchePAC-video om LaRouches Fire Love, med fuldt dansk udskrift)

Spørgsmålet om et potentielt Nyt Paradigme, baseret på udvikling snarere end geopolitik, var på programmet i denne uge i Shanghai ved et forum, der var sponsoreret af Shanghai Institut for Internationale Studier og Forskningsinstituttet for Dialog mellem Civilisationer (DOC), hvor man forbereder samarbejde mellem den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union (EAEU), der er lanceret af Rusland, og Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, lanceret af Kina. Som stifter af DOC, dr. Vladimir Yakunin, formulerede det som et spørgsmål, der skal løses: »Hvordan sikrer vi os, at den samtidige udvikling af disse forskellige vækstcentre fører til synergi, og ikke konflikt? Det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte og den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union kunne blive det, der viser vejen.«  

Foto: Syrisk militæroperation for at befri de sydlige distrikter af det østlige Aleppo. (30. nov.) (twitter.com/AlalamChannel)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 7. december, 2016 – På 75-års dagen den 7. dec., 1941 – »en dag, som vil blive husket som en skændselsdag«, som FDR erklærede – breder et lignende chok sig i De forenede Stater, og i verden, med Det britiske Imperium, der står over for sin mulige, endelige død. Politisk, økonomisk og strategisk vakler Imperiet, med Olympens bjerg, der smuldrer under dets fødder.

På den politiske side har den italienske befolknings overvældende afvisning af den EU-dikterede folkeafstemning, der skulle overgive magten til Bruxelles-bureaukraterne, som handler på vegne af bankerne i City of London, føjet yderligere et slag til Brexit, Trumps valgsejr, Fillons valgsejr i Frankrig, Dutertes valgsejr i Filippinerne og den allesteds nærværende fornemmelse af, at den britiske »globalisering« af hele verden under bankierernes kontrol er ved at være forbi.

På den økonomiske side bliver det i stigende grad erkendt, at den hektiske bestræbelse for at holde de europæiske banker oven vande gennem mere kvantitativ lempelse (’pengetrykning’), mere bail-in (ekspropriering af bankindskud) og mere bail-out (statslig bankredning) – de samme, mislykkede bestræbelser, som Bush og Obama har brugt i USA – skal dække over ødelæggelsen af folks levebrød, hvor produktiv beskæftigelse og selve produktiviteten bliver lukket ned for at redde spekulanterne. Og så virker det ikke engang, for at redde bankerne!

På den strategiske side, så er krigene for »regimeskifte«, som Bush, Blair, Cameron og Obama har ført i hele Mellemøsten, og som har overgivet land efter land til bestialske terroristbander, ved at blive nedkæmpet på Syriens slagmarker. Aleppo er næsten blevet befriet fra al-Qaeda og ISIS, disse, de britiske og saudiske monarkiers skabelser. Som oberst Pat Lang (pens.) bemærkede på sin blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis:[1] »Det, der er sket i borgerkrigens heksekedel, er, at en ny magt er opstået i Levanten. En ny, syrisk, arabisk hær eksisterer nu, takket være russisk uddannelse, udstyr og rådgivning.«

Som en yderligere konsolidering af denne afvisning af britisk imperiepolitik, erklærede Donald Trump i går aftes i North Carolina med sin hidtil stærkeste formulering:

»Vi vil ophøre med at fare rundt for at vælte udenlandske regimer, som vi intet ved om; som vi ikke bør være indblandet i. Denne destruktive cyklus med intervention og kaos må omsider være slut … Vi søger harmoni og god vilje mellem verdens nationer.«

Grundlaget for denne harmoni er blevet fremlagt i detaljer i EIR’s Specialrapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«, som nu cirkulerer i hele verden på engelsk, kinesisk og arabisk. I løbet af den forgangne uge fortalte to politiske ledere fra Kina, Patrick Ho, tidligere Hong Kong-indenrigssekretær, og viceudenrigsminister Fu Ying fra Beijing, et amerikansk publikum i Washington og New York, at den nyvalgte præsident Trump har mulighed for at bringe Kina og USA sammen omkring global opbygning af nationer, ved at tilslutte sig Xi Jinpings Silkevejsprojekter, Bælt-og-Vej-programmet, og ved at tage imod det stående tilbud fra præsident Xi om samarbejde, som Obama havde afvist til fordel for militær konfrontation med både Kina og Rusland.

Trump har gjort det ekstremt klart, at han vil arbejde sammen med præsident Putin omkring bekæmpelse af terrorisme, samt inden for andre, endnu ikke afgjorte områder. I dag foretog han endnu en positiv gestus over for Beijing ved at udnævne guvernøren for Iowa, Terry Branstad, som den næste ambassadør til Kina. Branstad er en nær, personlig ven til præsident Xi Jinping, et venskab, der stammer fra Xis mange besøg til Iowa i årenes løb.

For virkelig at bringe Amerika ind i en samarbejdsrelation med Rusland og Kina, må det transatlantiske banksystems bankerot løses, helst før der indtræffer en ukontrollabel sammenbrudskrise. Dette kræver den omgående genindførelse af Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov og afskrivning af boblen med værdiløse derivater, der er i færd med at drive realøkonomien ad Helvede til. I dag er aktivist-teams fra hele USA’s østkyst i Washington, hvor de giver de sædvanligvis totalt idéforladte kongresmedlemmer deres marchordrer om at tilslutte sig den nu på globalt plan gærende revolution, der er i færd med at bringe en afslutning på Det britiske Imperiums finansdiktatur gennem Glass-Steagall og statslig kredit, der, efter Hamiltons principper, dirigeres til opbygning af industri, landbrug, infrastruktur og satsning på fusionskraft og udforskning af rummet. Magten til og muligheden for at gøre dette ligger i dette øjeblik i vore hænder, et øjeblik, der ligeledes vil »huskes som en skændsel«, hvis vi mislykkes. Som i 1941, har alle patrioter i deres respektive nationer, og alle borgere i verden, muligheden for at ændre historiens gang til det bedre, ved at tilslutte sig denne historiske, internationale kamp for at skabe en civilisation, der er i overensstemmelse med alle menneskers værdighed.

Foto: SAA Tigerstyrker og civile i Aleppo, Syrien, 7. december, 2016.  

5. dec., 2016 – For første gang optrådte kinesiske og russiske diplomater til Tyskland på fremtrædende vis sammen på et symposium om »Silkevejsinitiativet«, arrangeret af Berlin Fredags-rundbordssamtaler og den kinesiske ambassade. For et publikum på omkring 200 gæster diskuterede den kinesiske ambassadør Shi Mingde og den russiske viceambassadør Jurij Stetsenko de muligheder, som det økonomiske bælte langs Silkevejen tilbyder. ’Rundbordet’ er en sammenslutning af studenter fra flere europæiske lande, der er indskrevet ved Berlins tekniske universitet for at studere mange felter inden for teknologi.

I sin hovedtale understregede Shi Mingde den lange, historiske forbindelse mellem Kina og Tyskland via antikkens Silkevej, som i dag er genoplivet gennem det »moderne økonomiske bælte« langs den samme rute, som forbinder Kina, som verdens næststørste nationaløkonomi, med Tysklands økonomiske område i Europa. Med et Rusland, der tilslutter sig dette samarbejdsformat, er endnu et »vigtigt økonomiske område« inkluderet, og skaber således de bedste betingelser for et omfattende samarbejde, forklarede Shi Mingde.

Foto: Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har i fire årtier været forkæmpere for en verdensomspændende genopbygning af realøkonomien og holdt utallige konferencer om den Nye Silkevej og Verdenslandbroen på alle kontinenter. Her, konference i Essen, Tyskland, 21. okt., 2016, over temaet, »Tysklands potentielle rolle i udviklingen af Verdenslandbroen«.

    

5. dec., 2016 – I et interview til Ruslands NTV den 4. dec., hvor han talte om den globale, strategiske situation, påpegede præsident Putin, at forsøg på at skabe en unipolær verden »er mislykkedes«. Dette var uundgåeligt, sagde han. »Vi lever nu i nye tider … Rusland har altid holdt sig til et punkt om, at vi må respektere andres interesser samtidig med, at vi forsvarer vore egne. Det er sådan, vi vil opbygge vore relationer med vore partnere«, understregede han.

Som det rapporteres af Sputnik, diskuterede Putin, hvorfor Vesten ofte har vendt det døve øre til Moskvas holdning til løsning af militære konflikter, og nævnte som eksempler det, han beskriver som NATO’s »lovovertrædende bombardement« af Jugoslavien i 1999 og dets operationer i Bosnien og Hercegovina i 1995. Svaret er ganske enkelt, sagde han. »Man lytter kun til de stemmer, der taler højt. Men situation er i færd med at ændre sig, og jeg tror ikke, det er en hemmelighed for nogen, at mange af vore partnere nu fortrækker at holde sig til international lov, fordi den globale balance gradvist er ved at blive genoprettet.«

Ligesom han gjorde i sidste uge ved de Internationale Primakov-Læsningers Gruppe i Moskva, henviste Putin til afdøde premierminister Jevgenij Primakovs tanker om det Arabiske Forår i Mellemøsten. De negative konsekvenser af det Arabiske Forår, sagde Putin, opstod, fordi de afgørende nationer overtrådte normerne for international lov »for at tilfredsstille deres geopolitiske interesser«. Det Arabiske Forår førte til afsættelsen af regeringerne i Tunesien, Egypten og Yemen, forårsagede borgerkrig i Libyen og Syrien og massiv uro i Algeriet, Irak, Marokko, Oman og andre lande. »Med anvendelse af sin viden om området, og især sin viden om Mellemøsten, og ved at bruge erfaring og intuition«, kunne Primakov se, hvad der var på vej, forklarede Putin. »Der er ingen tvivl om, at, hvis man havde taget hans mening i betragtning dengang«, ville situationen ikke have udviklet sig, som den gjorde.

Rusland, sagde Putin, »kunne ikke øve indflydelse direkte og praktisk på begivenhedernes udvikling, eller også var vore muligheder for at øve indflydelse på disse begivenheder temmelig begrænset«. Dette skyldtes især, tilføjede han, at afgørende, internationale aktører »foretrak ikke at følge normerne for international lov, men i stedet … følge deres egne, geopolitiske interesser«.

Foto: Den russiske præsident, Vladimir Putin.       

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 6. december, 2016 – Den formelle overgang til USA’s næste præsidentskab – der er 45 dage til Indvielsesdagen for Donald Trump – får uophørlig opmærksomhed i USA og i andre medier, men, den historisk vigtige overgang i verden som helhed er det følgende: hvor hurtigt og vist vil USA og Europa opgive det geopolitiske, kasino-økonomiske system og gå med i det nye, globale win-win-paradigme? Udfordringen består i at mobilisere folk til at være med til at få dette til at ske. Dette omfatter, at de foretager en personlig ændring og bliver aktive, og ikke længere blot ser passivt og afventende til. Der gives øjeblikke i historien, hvor den subjektive faktor er altafgørende. Vi befinder os ved et sådant øjeblik.

Omstændighederne er dramatiske. Yderligere initiativer for fred og udvikling kommer i denne uge fra Rusland og Kina.

I dag var premierminister Dmitri Medvedev vært for mange møder i Moskva med den tyrkiske premierminister Binali Yildirim, inkl. møder med præsident Vladimir Putin. Sammen med afgørende, økonomiske engagementer, såsom byggeri af kernekraftværker og gasledningen Turkish Stream, bekræftede lederne det, som Yildirim kaldte behovet for en ny, international sikkerhedsarkitektur for at besejre terrorisme, og en ny dialog med vestlige magter på dette grundlag.

I Tokyo fremlagde en kinesisk embedsmand fra den magtfulde Nationale Udviklings- og Reformkommission (NDRC) i går et tilbud om at opkoble Bælt-og-Vej-programmet til Japans og Sydkoreas økonomiske »arbejdsplaner«. Hr. Cao Wenlian, generaldirektør for NDRC’s Internationale Samarbejdscenter, talte om at styrke komplementariteten i de tre nationers økonomiske aktiviteter, der tilsammen allerede udgør 36 procent af verdens BNP. Cao talte i anledning af det Første Forum for Samarbejde om Industrikapacitet mellem de tre lande. Dette fremstød med det kinesiske tilbud tilsidesætter Japans mangeårige underdanighed under transatlantisk, økonomisk og militær, tvivlsom og aggressiv manipulation.  

Selv Henry Kissinger – hvis personlige historie kan siges at indbefatte særdeles uønskede paradigmer – taler offentligt til fordel for samarbejde mellem USA og Kina. Kissinger mødtes den 2. dec. med præsident Xi Jinping i Beijing. I dag mødtes han med Donald Trump i New York City. I går aftes under et Manhattan-arrangement svarede Kissinger på et spørgsmål, der var stillet af LaRouchePAC’s Daniel Burke, som spurgte: »Hr. LaRouche deler stærkt Deres mening om, at USA og Kina må samarbejde. Og han understreger, at USA og Kina kan samarbejde omkring politikken med Ét bælte, én vej; at dette ville være en indlysende vej til at genopbygge USA’s kollapsende økonomi … « Kissinger svarede: »Jeg mener, at konceptet med Én vej, ét bælte [sic] er et vigtigt spørgsmål. Jeg mener, at Kina kan og bør finde en måde at tale om det. Det er et af de spørgsmål, hvor samarbejde sandsynligvis er muligt … «

I denne uge vil LaRouchePAC-aktivister fra flere østkyststater anføre angrebet på Capitol Hill i Washington, D.C., for at lægge pres på virkeligheden og politikken med det formål at få USA til at gå med i det nye paradigmes æra, med start i en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, der følges op af gennemførelse af de handlinger, der fremlægges i LaRouches Fire Love.

Ved et arrangement i går i Washington, D.C., talte både vicepræsident Joe Biden og Thomas Hoenig, vicepræsident for den amerikanske Statslige Indskudsgarantifond, FDIC, offentligt til fordel for Glass/Steagall-loven. Biden fordømte sin egen stemme til fordel for en ophævelse af Glass-Steagall i 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley-loven) som »den værste stemme, jeg nogensinde har afgivet i hele min tid i USA’s Senat«. Men så vendte han rundt og sagde, det er derfor, vi nu »ikke kan tillade en ophævelse af Dodd-Frank«, fordi vi har brug for »en opmand i marken«.  

Hoenig udtalte imidlertid støtte til genindførelse af Glass-Steagall og forklarede, at ophævelsen af denne lov førte til de risikable omstændigheder, der skabte krisen i 2008.

»Man gav de kommercielle banker, der har et statsgaranteret sikkerhedsnet, lov til« at engagere sig i alle former for aktiviteter, og man »forsynede dem endda med udvidet statsstøtte til at handle … « Hoenig er en potentiel Trump-udnævnelse til viceformand for banktilsynet i Federal Reserve (USA’s centralbank).

Hvis man træder et skridt tilbage og betragter historien, ser man, at visse øjeblikke træder frem som tidspunkter, hvor en afgørende, personlig ændring finder sted. I denne uge tænker vi med alvor tilbage på den 7. december, 1941, Pearl Harbor Day, hvor amerikanske borgere, som nation, gennemgik en ændring over en nat.

Vi skal i dag forstå, at vi alle er kaldede til aktivt at intervenere for at være med til at afgøre det historiske udfald.

3. december, 2016 – At der i dag findes to helt forskellige paradigmer i verden, der bestemmer nationers adfærd, bliver klarere dag for dag. Medens modstanden i den transatlantiske verden mod det mislykkede globaliseringsparadigme bliver stadig stærkere, og etablissementet så meget desto mere sammenbidt søger at fastholde det, så satser de stater, der samarbejder med Den nye Silkevej, stadig tydeligere på deres befolknings kreativitet og samarbejdet om menneskehedens fælles mål.
De vestlige politikere og medier, der er vant til kun at betragte Putin gennem dæmoniseringsbrillerne, ville stå sig vel ved for én gangs skyld at gennemlæse Putins årlige ’Tale til nationen’, som han holdt for den russiske Duma, uden fordomme. Efter fravalget af Obama – for det var også, hvad Hillary Clintons nederlag var – og efter Donald Trumps første telefonsamtaler med Vladimir Putin og Xi Jinping, har der åbnet sig en reel chance for at normalisere forholdet mellem de tre vigtigste nationer her på Jorden. Og kun en selvmorderisk nar ville ønske at vrage en sådan mulighed.
Når man tager den samlede kronologi for alle Putins tilbud til Vesten i betragtning, indbefattet hans forhåbningsfulde tale til den tyske forbundsdag i 2001 og talen til München-sikkerhedskonferencen i 2007, hvor han gav udtryk for stærk skuffelse, så burde man tage hans ord for pålydende, når han siger: »Vi ønsker ikke konfrontation med nogen. Det har vi lige så lidt, som vore partnere i det globale fællesskab, brug for. I modsætning til vore kolleger i udlandet, der betragter Rusland som en fjende, søger vi ikke, og har heller ikke søgt, modstandere. Vi har brug for venner. Men vi vil ikke tillade, at vore interesser skades eller ignorereres.«
Længere fremme i sin tale understregede Putin, at kravet om viden og moral i undervisningssystemet, som forudsætning for samfundets levedygtighed, var en prioritet. De unge menneskers interesse for den nationale klassiske litteratur, kultur og historie må vækkes, og skolerne må fremme kreativitet, samtidig med, at børnene lærer at tænke selvstændigt, såvel som også lærer at arbejde både selvstændigt og som en del af et team, løse stillede opgaver og formulere og realisere målsætninger. Godt nok er kravet om begavelse vigtigt, men grundlæggende set må opdragelsen hvile på det princip, at alle børn og teenagere er begavede og i stand til at opnå resultater inden for videnskab, de kreative områder samt i livet. Det er statens opgave at fremme disse talenter.
Putin understregede også den fundamentale betydning af grundforskning, som basis for økonomisk vækst og sociale fremskridt. Over 200 laboratorier er allerede etableret, som, takket være de store statstilskud, de modtager, må blive i stand til at operere på globalt niveau, og som vil blive ledet af videnskabsfolk, der er med til at bestemme retningen af den globale, videnskabelige udvikling. Det er i denne sammenhæng også vigtigt at overvinde de i Rusland siden zartiden eksisterende flaskehalse for, at disse forskningsresultater også kan komme produktionen af forbrugsvarer til gode.
De mennesker, der aktivt dæmoniserer Putin, burde også studere den tale, som Putin holdt den foregående dag ved Det internationale Forum for Primakov-forelæsninger til ære for den tidligere statsminister og ’store tænker’, Jevgenij Primakov, der døde for 18 måneder siden.
Også her stod de amerikansk-russiske relationer højt på dagsordenen. Putin henviste til Primakovs overbevisning om, at, »uden et oprigtigt partnerskab mellem Rusland og USA«, ville det blive vanskeligt at klare de »store udfordringer« i verden – især i kampen mod terrorismen i Mellemøsten.
Primakov havde, ifølge den russiske præsident, haft en »virkeligt strategisk vision«, der havde gjort det muligt for ham »at kigge ud i fremtiden og se, hvor uholdbar og ensidig« modellen om en unipolær verden var. Det var Primakov, der som den første gik ind for et trilateralt samarbejde mellem Rusland, Kina og Indien, og ud fra hvilket BRIKS, »der nu vinder indflydelse og betydning i verden«, har udviklet sig. Primakovs holden fast ved de tætte relationer med partnerne i Fællesskabet af Uafhængige Stater (CIS) »er rygraden i vores integrationspolitik i Eurasien … Vi håber, at dialog med vore partnere, indbefattet en dialog om sammenkoblingen med Kinas projekt om det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte, vil sætte os i stand til at opbygge et stort, eurasisk partnerskab«.

Den umistelige ret til udvikling
Et andet dokument, som de vestlige politikere og medier, med deres geopolitiske tankegang, burde studere, er en ny hvidbog fra den kinesiske regering om »Retten til udvikling: Kinas filosofi, praksis og bidrag«, hvor det bekræftes, at der findes en »umistelig rettighed« for alle lande og folkeslag til at udvikle sig. »Retten til udvikling må tilhøre og være fælles for alle folk. Det er alle landes ansvar at virkeliggøre retten til udvikling, og det er ligeledes det internationale fællesskabs pligt«, står der i dokumentet. »Det forpligter regeringerne i alle lande til at formulere udviklingsstrategier og forholdsregler, der passer til deres egen virkelighed, og det fordrer det internationale samfunds koncentrerede anstrengelser som helhed. Kina opfordrer alle lande til at stræbe efter en ligeværdig, åben, omfattende og innovativ, fælles udvikling, og hvidbogen kræver en fælles udvikling og at der skabes betingelser for, at alle folkeslag kan tage del i retten til udvikling.«
Hvidbogen beskriver imidlertid meget mere – nemlig, at Kinas udviklingsmodel og Kinas politiske og sociale struktur har været en udelt succes. Og, alt imens denne model fortsat udvikler sig, så foregår det i et tempo og på en måde, der bestemmes af det kinesiske folk selv. Det påpeges, at Kina allerede har løftet 700 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom, og at i dag kun 5,7 % af befolkningen lever under fattigdomsgrænsen – hvilket gør Kina til den første nation, som det er lykkedes at nå FN's Millennium-mål for fattigdomsbekæmpelse. Kina er endda fast besluttet på helt at overvinde fattigdom. I marts 2016 offentliggjordes »udkast til den 13. femårsplan for Folkerepublikken Kinas nationale, økonomiske og sociale udvikling«, hvor regeringen fremlægger en strategi for helt at udrydde fattigdom blandt landbefolkningen allerede i år 2020.

»En ny bølge af velstand«
Hvis man ikke ønsker at lytte til Putin eller Kina, kan man også studere en ny hvidbog fra bygge- og anlægsmaskine-producenten Caterpillar om betydningen af »Bælt-og-Vej«-initiativet. Det vil udløse »en ny bølge af velstand« for Kina og den øvrige verden, står der i den. Opbygningen af et infrastrukturnet, som er en prioritet i initiativet, vil muliggøre en fri strøm og en mere effektiv udnyttelse af resurserne, integration af markederne og koordinering af nationernes økonomiske politik.
Opbygningen af infrastruktur vil være med til at sænke transportomkostningerne, øge udviklingslandenes konkurrenceevne og reducere ubalancen landene imellem. Caterpillar betragter »Bælt-og-Vej«- initiativet som en »åben og medinddragende« ramme, der gør det muligt for alle landene langs ruten at tage del i opbygningen af projektet. »Dette bør og kan ikke være en bestræbelse alene fra Kinas side«, står der i dokumentet.
Virksomheden påskønner de forretningsmuligheder, som dette initiativ åbner op for, og håber at kunne deltage endnu mere i projekter langs ruten, forklarede Chen Qihua, vicepræsident for Caterpillar og direktør for Caterpillar Kina.
Og endelig burde de vestlige politikere og medier gøre sig klart, at der i befolkningen er bred opbakning til det internationale samarbejde, netop på områderne for videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt. Den europæiske rumfartsorganisation ESA’s borgerdialog i organisationens 22 lande fastslog, at 88 % af de adspurgte understøttede ledelsens rumprogram, og 96 % følte sig overbeviste om, at verdensrummet frembyder muligheder, der ikke forefindes på Jorden, men som bør udforskes.
I sin rapport om meningsmålingen ved flyvestationen Upjever i Friesland sagde den tidligere ESA-astronaut Thomas Reiter, der nu er ESA’s hovedkoordinator for den internationale rumstations anliggender, at der er grund til optimisme – på trods af den endeløse strid om budgettet på europæisk niveau. De €8 mia., der er blevet brugt i de sidste 5 år, har skabt økonomiske værdier for €14,5 mia. for Europa og dets borgere.
»Det drejer sig også om det politiske aspekt af samarbejdet: Dette fungerer ganske godt, trods konflikterne på Jorden«, sagde Reiter. 95 stater deltager i ISS’ forskningsarbejde, »hvor man deroppe forfølger mål til gavn for alle mennesker«.
Reiter udtalte sig også optimistisk om udsigterne for udforskningen af Månen, især Månens bagside. Herfra vil man senere også kunne udsende missioner til den videre udforskning af verdensaltet.
Bernhard von Weyhe, leder af kommunikationsafdelingen i kontrolcentret (ESOC) i ESA-centeret i Darmstadt, talte i et interview med avisen Allgemeine Zeitung om den »brofunktion«, som rumforskningen har for menneskeheden. »Den fælles bemandede rumfart kræver samarbejde, og gjorde det også under koldkrigstiden. Rumfart har altid været et område, hvor man har haft et intensivt internationalt samarbejde, og brofunktionen består stadig. Rumfart er pr. definition et samarbejdsprojekt.«
Fællesnævneren for alle disse udtalelser er: Menneskehedens fremtid ligger i samarbejdet mellem nationerne om økonomisk udvikling af alle verdens lande og om samarbejdet om menneskehedens fælles mål, især om udviklingen af teknologi og videnskab og menneskenes skabende evner. Det lønner sig stærkt at investere i dette samarbejde. Den, der ikke fatter dette og i stedet blot stræber mod et »sort nul«, kommer i sidste ende til at stå tilbage med tomme hænder.

Foto: I september 2015 blev astronaut Andreas Mogensen den første dansker i rummet, hvor han deltog i forskningsopgaver om bord på den Internationale Rumstation, ISS.

5. dec., 2016 – Her til eftermiddag nedlagde Rusland veto mod et udkast til en resolution om Syrien, som CNN i en tidligere rapport havde påstået, havde til hensigt at gøre det muligt for humanitær hjælp at blive sendt ind i den tilbageværende, belejrede del af Aleppo. Udkastet til resolutionen, som var blevet fremsat af Spanien, New Zealand og Egypten, foreslår en ugelang våbenstilstand, som kunne forlænges med yderligere perioder à syv dage; den kræver, at alle parter i konflikten tillader omgående og sikker humanitær adgang til hele Aleppo for FN og dets partnere.

Den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov angreb kraftigt initiativet under en pressekonference i Moskva her til morgen, for at være en provokation, der tilsigter at underminere forhandlinger om spørgsmålet mellem Moskva og Washington.

»I betragtning af den måde, hvorpå tidligere pauser er forløbet, så er vi ikke i tvivl om, at 10-dages pausen for de militante kæmpere af de ekstremistiske grupper vil blive brugt til at omgruppere og genvinde styrke, og vil derfor forhindre befrielsen af det østlige Aleppo«, sagde Lavrov.

Lavrov rapporterede dernæst, at amerikanske og russiske eksperter siden 3. dec. har arbejdet med problemet med jihadisternes tilbagetrækning fra det østlige Aleppo. Ifølge den plan, de har arbejdet på, vil arrangementet med en våbenstilstand ikke træde i kraft, før man har en aftale om ruterne og datoerne for de militante kæmperes tilbagetrækning, sagde Lavrov. Han udtrykte sit håb om, at det russisk-amerikanske samarbejde om disse spørgsmål vil bære frugt, og at byen bliver ryddet for militante kæmpere. Rusland vil behandle militante kæmpere, der nægter at forlade det østlige Aleppo, som terrorister, og vil støtte den syriske regerings indsats for at bekæmpe dem, sagde han.

Den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry på sin side sagde i går til Saban Forum på Brookings Institution i Washington, at en politisk løsning på konflikten i Syrien stadig er mulig, og at forhandlinger med oppositionen i Aleppo fortsætter. Men efter Kerrys mening vil en politisk løsning for Syrien imidlertid stadig kræve en »overgang«, hvor præsident Bashar al-Assad fjernes fra magten.

Foto: Ruslands FN-ambassadør Vitaly Churkin nedlægger veto mod en tidligere resolution om Syrien, 8. oktober 2016.

3. dec., 2016 – Det Russiske Forsoningscenter på den russiske flybase i Latakia, Syrien, rapporterede den 2. dec., at russiske militærstyrker i Syrien har leveret 5 tons humanitær nødhjælp, inkl. 4 tons til det netop befriede Hananu-distrikt i Aleppo og 1 ton til et område i provinsen Damaskus og tilføjede, at punkter med varme måltider og fornødenheder fortsætter deres arbejde for civile, som flygter fra dele af Aleppo, der kontrolleres af diverse væbnede grupperinger.

På grund af disse leverancer og russernes generelle præstationer i denne henseende, angreb det russiske forsvarsministeriums talsmand, generalmajor Igor Konashenkov, den britiske regering for konstant at tale op ad vægge og ned ad stolper om behovet for at få humanitær hjælp ind i Aleppo, men ikke selv foretage sig noget. »På baggrund af russiskfobi har Storbritanniens regering mistet sin evne til objektivt at vurdere situationen i Syrien, inklusive i Aleppo«, sagde Konashenkov her til morgen. Det russiske og syriske militær, sagde Konashenkov, har leveret humanitær hjælp hver dag til de civile, der er flygtet fra de jihadi-kontrollerede områder af byen, i løbet af den seneste militærkampagne. »I alle årene med krig i Syrien har UK ikke leveret så meget som ét gram mel, en eneste pille eller et tæppe for at hjælpe de civile«, sagde Konashenkov. »Hvis den britiske regering virkelig ønsker at sende humanitær hjælp til indbyggerne i de østlige områder (af Aleppo), så foreligger alle betingelserne for det – bare fortæl os, hvor den i øjeblikket sidder fast. Hvis der ikke findes nogen britisk humanitær hjælp til Aleppo, så lad være med at blande jer i andres hjælpeindsats«, konkluderede han.

Konashenkov responderede her til anklager, der kom fra Downing Street, og som rapporteredes af Daily Mail tidligere på ugen, om, at Rusland standsede strømmen af hjælp ind i Aleppo. En talskvinde for premierminister Theresa May sagde til reportere ved 10 Downing Street, at russerne blokerede for leverancen af humanitær hjælp ved at nægte at gå med til standsning af fjendtligheder og ved at blokere resolutioner i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, der krævede, at der kom hjælp ind i Aleppo og en afslutning på bombardementet af Aleppo.

Den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov fyrede i mellemtiden løs på et britisk aktiv, Syriske Menneskerettighedsobservatører, og på de tal for civile tab, som organisationen udbreder. »Med hensyn til humanitære organisationers data om antallet af dræbte civile i Aleppo, så er vi altid opmærksomme på sådanne rapporter, og vi vurderer dem også, for de fleste rapporter, der fremkalder ramaskrig over situationen i byen, er baseret på den information, der leveres af den såkaldte organisation Syriske Menneskerettighedsobservatører, som er en enmandsorganisation, der har base et eller andet sted i London i en toværelses lejlighed«, sagde han under en fælles pressekonference den 2. dec. i Rom med den italienske udenrigsminister Paolo Gentiloni. »Alle ved det, men fortsætter ikke desto mindre med at citere observatørerne som en pålidelig kilde til information.«

Rusland, sagde han, gør meget ud af at lindre menneskelig lidelse. »Verdenssamfundet bør imidlertid ikke alene kere sig om situationen i Aleppo, men også om situationen i det irakiske Mosul, i Yemen og i andre konfliktområder.«

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

2. dec., 2016 – I går underskrev den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin et dekret, som vedtog »Nyt koncept for Ruslands udenrigspolitik«. Ifølge TASS erklærer dekretet:

»Midt i de intensiverende politiske, sociale og økonomiske modsætninger og den voksende ustabilitet i verdens politiske system, vokser den rolle, som magtfaktoren spiller i internationale relationer. Oprustningen og moderniseringen af magtpotentialet; skabelsen og deployeringen af nye typer af våben virker til underminering af den strategiske stabilitet og skaber en trussel mod global sikkerhed, der er garanteret gennem et system af traktater og aftaler inden for området for våbenkontrol.«

Dekretet fortsætter: »Alt imens faren for at udløse en storstilet krig, inklusive en atomar konflikt, fortsat er ringe blandt ledende stater, så er der en voksende risiko for disses involvering i regionale konflikter og optrapning af kriser.« Dekretet fastslår, at »Rusland tilskriver implementeringen af traktaten for yderligere reduktion og begrænsning af strategiske offensive våben fra 8. april, 2010, mellem Rusland og USA, afgørende betydning.«

»Rusland gentager sin beredvillighed til at diskutere spørgsmål om en yderligere nedfasning af nukleare potentialer, baseret på den voksende aktualitet med at give denne proces en multilateral karakter, idet faktorer, der øver indflydelse på den strategiske stabilitet, tages i behørig betragtning.

Herudover støtter Moskva oprettelsen af en zone, der er fri for atomvåben og andre typer af masseødelæggelsesvåben; først og fremmest i Mellemøsten.«

»Det er Ruslands vurdering, at det er nødvendigt at skabe en bred, anti-terrorist-koalition«, rapporterer TASS og citerer fra dokumentet: »Den globale trussel fra terrorister har fået en kvalitativt ny natur med fremkomsten af den internationale terrororganisation Islamisk Stat og lignende grupperinger, der har gjort vold uhørt grusom og søger at skabe deres egen stat og øge deres indflydelse på et territorium mellem atlanterhavskysten og Pakistan«, siger dokumentet, der er udlagt på den officielle portal for juridisk information.

Dokumentet siger, at koalitionen bør … »arbejde uden politisering og dobbelte standarder og anvende civilsamfundets muligheder« for at forhindre terrorisme og ekstremisme og imødegå spredningen af radikale ideer.

Det politiske koncept erklærer, at »Moskva ikke accepterer Washingtons forsøg på at udøve ekstraterritorial jurisdiktion, men Rusland er interesseret i at opbygge en meningsfuld relation med USA, baseret på en pålidelig og gradvis udvikling af dialog med USA«, som kun vil være mulig, hvis den »baseres på princippet om ligeværdighed, gensidig respekt for interesser og ikke-indblanding i hinandens interne anliggender. Moskva accepterer ikke Washingtons forsøg på at udøve ekstraterritorial jurisdiktion, som overtræder international lov, og er ubøjelig i sin modstand mod ethvert militært, politisk eller økonomisk pres og forbeholder sig retten til at respondere strengt på ikke-venligtsindede handlinger, især gennem at styrke sit nationale forsvar og give svar på tiltale, såvel som også asymmetriske forholdsregler.«

Den 1. december, 2016 – Det Russiske Forsvarsministerium annoncerede i går, at et russisk minerydningshold var på vej til Syrien for at være med til at rydde de nyligt befriede distrikter af Aleppo for miner og lureminer, som jihadierne har efterladt.

»I dag tager en avanceret afdeling fra de russiske bevæbnede styrkers internationale anti-mine-center af sted for at desarmere ikke-eksploderet ammunition i Aleppo«, sagde generalløjtnant Sergei Rudskov, chefen for den russiske generalstabs hovedafdeling for operationer, i går under en briefing. »I alt vil flere end 200 soldater og 47 enheder med kamp- og specialudstyr være involveret i minerydningsaktiviteterne i Aleppo.« TASS minder i sin rapport om Rudkovs meddelelse om, at, efter befrielsen af Palmyra fra ISIS sidste marts, desarmerede russiske minerydningshold 17.500 eksplosive enheder i løbet af 45 dage, som samtidig ryddede 2.500 bygninger.

Samtidig hermed meddelte Forsvarsministeriet ligeledes, at transportfly læsset med hospitalsudstyr og mandskab var lettet fra Rusland for at yde lægehjælp til civile i Aleppo, i overensstemmelse med den ordre, som den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin udstedte dagen før.

»Personale fra det Russiske Forsvarsministeriums særlige afdeling for lægehjælp, et felthospital, særligt udstyr og lægeudstyr er taget til Syrien med fly«, sagde Forsvarsministeriet. »Når de er ankommet, vil russisk lægefagligt personale begynde at yde lægehjælp til civile og flygtninge nær Aleppo.«

Mens den russiske regering således var i gang med at mobilisere resurser for at komme civilbefolkningen i Aleppo til hjælp, forsøgte de uhyggelige skår og rester af Obamas/briternes apparat at sprænge ting i luften i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd i går, i et desperat forsøg på at omstøde den syriske hærs nylige sejre i Aleppo. Under et hastemøde, der var indkaldt af den franske udenrigsminister Jean-Marc Ayrault, brugte den amerikanske, franske og britiske FN-ambassadør rapporterne fra FN-folk om situationen i Syrien til aggressivt at fordømme den russiske og syriske regering for angiveligt at have udløst en massakre på talløse civile. Vitaly Churkin, Ruslands FN-ambassadør, svarede hertil, at tiden nu måske var inde til »at afholde en omfattende diskussion mht. Mellemøsten og Nordafrika og arrangere en debat om spørgsmålet, ’De katastrofale konsekvenser af at ødelægge statsskabet i områdets lande, som følge af udefrakommende indblanding’«          

Matthew Ogden: Både Diane Sare og Kesha Rogers har skrevet en artikel i denne uges The Hamiltonian; jeg mener, deres artikler meget fint tjener til at skabe en ramme omkring aftenens diskussion. Diane Sares artikel hedder "President Putin's Purloined Letter; the Poetic Principle in Political Affairs" (Præsident Putins stjålne brev; det poetiske princip i politiske affærer) – jeg kan godt lide bogstavrimet her. Kesha Rogers skrev en artikel, "Mankind Is Taking a Leap! You Should Ask 'How High?'" (Menneskeheden foretager et spring! Man bør spørge, ‘Hvor højt?’”)

Begge disse artikler tjener virkelig til at definere det, som hr. LaRouche pointerede mht. den nødvendige tankegang, når vi går frem i den nuværende situation i verden. Man må ikke blive fanget i lokal tankegang; man bør ikke tænke ud fra den laveste fællesnævner, eller tænke på alle de forskellige politiske taktikker, der plaskes ud over forsiden af New York Times eller Washington Post og de forskellige nyhedsmedier. Man må i stedet tænke som en leder; og man må tænke ud fra standpunktet om, hvad der er drivkraften bag den hastigt skiftende dynamik i globale anliggender.

Ganske kort: vi så dette meget direkte i denne uge fra et par forskellige standpunkter. For det første, så var der en aktionsdag fra LaRouchePAC-aktivister i Washington, D.C. i onsdags. Jeg havde den store glæde at deltage. Vi havde aktivister, der kom fra hele østkysten, inkl. fra ’Manhattan-projektet’ i New York City; og vi var dér for at sætte hr. LaRouches principper, i form af de Fire Økonomiske Love, på dagsordenen. At der ikke er noget alternativ til en omgående genindførelse af Glass-Steagall og en omgående renæssance af Alexander Hamiltons principper. Disse er: et nationalbanksystem; direkte kredit til forøget energi-gennemstrømningstæthed og produktivitet i arbejdsstyrken; og princippet om videnskab som [økonomisk] drivkraft, som Kesha Rogers diskuterer i sin artikel i The Hamiltonian. Et aggressivt program for udforskning og udvikling af rummet, og for at opnå fusionskraft og en højere energigennemstrømningstæthed i produktionsprocessen.

Og jeg mener, dette kan ses meget klart ud fra det, der finder sted internationalt, og som hovedsagligt kommer fra Rusland og Kina. Der var for det første et meget vigtigt dokument, som netop er blevet offentliggjort, fra Kina, som vi kan diskutere lidt mere omkring. Dette dokument hedder »Retten til udvikling: Kinas filosofi, praksis og bidrag«. Denne hvidbog erklærer, at udvikling er den fundamentale, umistelige rettighed. Og for det andet, så er der nu en ny, strategisk doktrin fra Rusland, som blev annonceret i summarisk form af den russiske præsident Putin i sin årlige ’Tale til nationen’, hvor han sagde, at verdensdynamikken nu er forandret. Vi er nu villige til at samarbejde med USA som ligeværdige partnere omkring fælles interesser – inklusive endelig at besejre de falske, konstruerede fjender, som vi har hørt om fra Obama-administrationen gennem de seneste otte år.

Så med denne form for geometrisk strategi har vi et meget rigt felt, vi kan intervenere i, og en meget rig mulighed.

Så der er mange detaljer, som jeg gerne vil have, vi kommer ind på under diskussionen af alle disse spørgsmål. Lad det være nok som introduktion, og lad os høre Kesha og Diane.

(Herefter følger udskrift af diskussionen på engelsk.)

DIANE SARE:  OK, I'll just go ahead.  I'm really glad with
what you said, Matt; because there really is a transformation,
and I think we tend to miss it.  Or you catch a glimmer of it
like the real joy that I certainly felt watching all the vote
totals come in; and these poor silly reporters not having a clue
what had hit them.  But then, you get bombarded with the real
fake news, which is what comes from the so-called mainstream news
media; which has absolutely zero about developments in the world
which are being created by billions of people.  So, you have the
most extraordinary, most gigantic Earth-changing events occurring
under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, under the leadership of
Xi Jinping, and their collaboration with leaders in South
America, leaders in Africa.  Not one word of it here, and then
we're treated to some miniscule detail of a misplaced wart that a
politician has somewhere or whatever.  I think we would do well
to bear in mind a little bit of what I tried to capture in that
article.  There is a poetic principle; there is a world
revolution underway.  These things are not separate, discrete
events.  The Brexit vote — contrary to the stupid media spin —
was not a bunch of white racists who hate immigrants.  Maybe
there are some of those, but the real factor was that the whole
euro system is bankrupt.  It didn't work and it wasn't designed
to work; and people were rejecting it.  Similarly, you had these
recent votes:  the winner in the French Republican Party
nominations, François Fillon, who does not want a war with
Russia.  I think most people on the planet actually recognize
that a nuclear war between superpowers is not a desirable policy
or outcome; and it's not necessary because what President Putin
is doing is leading a fight to eradicate terrorism.  He has been
very direct about this; especially after September of 2015, at
his speech at the United Nations.  He's reiterating again the
call for a coalition to wipe out this terrorist scourge.  So what
you see in this election process here in the United States, is we
have a potential now to join with the New Paradigm.
        Therefore, the most significant aspect of what we know about
the incoming administration perhaps, are the two phone calls that
Trump had with Xi Jinping and with President Vladimir Putin; and
this is absolutely not missed by people of the world.  I just
wanted to give a little bit of a report on an event last night at
New York University with this extraordinary woman, who is the
second only I think woman in history to be the chairwoman of the
Foreign Relations committee in the Chinese national assembly.
Her name is Madame Fu Ying; she is extraordinarily dignified,
calm and very confident.  She began her remarks at this forum at
New York University by referring to the phone call between Xi
Jinping and Trump.  She made a point of saying the Chinese are
always being accused of not contributing to good in the world, of
not working with the world.  So, we figured when we started the
Belt and Road and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, that
the United States — which is always accusing us of not wanting
to work with anyone else — would have been the first in line to
join.  Instead, our invitation to participate in these
extraordinary projects was rejected.  Now, clearly there is a
potential for this opportunity to be taken.
        This is really very big.  Similarly, the decision that Trump
has made to have retired General Michael Flynn as one of his
advisors; who has called for collaboration with Russia in Syria.
And Trump's reiterations of the necessity of that kind of
collaboration — these things are very important.  And the fact
that Flynn has come out calling for a Marshall Plan for the
region; which is similar to the Chinese; Xi Jinping made a tour
of several of those nations not so long ago.  The only way you
are going to secure peace is through economic development — not
on a low level, not on repairing the decrepit, aging, out-of-date
infrastructure we have; but by leaping into a new domain.  So, I
think I'll stop there for a minute; because I think Kesha
probably has a lot to add in that regard.

        KESHA ROGERS:  Yes.  Just taking from that, we really have
to advance mankind; we really have to have a leap forward for
mankind.  This is what Mr. LaRouche is committed to; this is what
you see Russia and China committed to.  I was greatly inspired by
the discussion and some of the developments that came out of the
President of Russia; President Putin's State of the Union
address.  The leap for mankind really requires putting the
commitment to the future.  This was really expressed very
beautifully in his remarks, which captured in essence the
conception that the responsibility of the nation is to foster
creativity in science, and foster creativity in the youth of your
nation.  The best expression to doing this, in terms of
scientific and technological development.  In his speech he says,
"Our schools must promote creativity, but children must learn to
think independently, work both on their own and as part of a
team, address usual tasks and formulate and achieve goals; which
will help them have an interesting and prosperous life.  You must
promote the culture of research and engineering work.  The number
of cutting edge science parks for children will increase to 40
within two years; they will serve as the basis for development of
a network of technical project groups across the country.
Companies, universities, and research institutes would contribute
to this, so our children will see clearly that all of them have
equal opportunity and an equal start in life.  That Russia needs
their ideas and knowledge and they can prove their mettle in
Russian companies and laboratories…."  And he goes to say, "Our
education system must be based on the principle that all children
and teenagers are gifted and can succeed in science, in creative
areas, in sports, in career, and in life."
        That should be the model for every single nation.  That is
the model for our space program, and it really starts with the
question of what is human nature?  If we're going to advance
mankind and have leaps forward?  As a part of this paper that
Matt mentioned, from China they're expressing the same expression
for their nation; and for mankind as a whole.  It's not just "our
nation is better than yours, and we're going to have our people
pulled out of poverty and your people can stay in poverty.
They're not thinking like imperialists or wanting to keep nations
backwards; they want nations to move forward.  So, China has
pulled 700 million people out of poverty; you can't do that by
taking baby steps and going with a few infrastructure projects.
You have to have creative leaps.  This has really been expressed
for their Silk Road development offer of win-win cooperation and
their commitment to space and space as the potential for opening
for mankind across the planet and across the galaxy.
        I think if people look at the very exciting developments
that we're seeing coming from Russia and China, that has to be
the model.  We have that potential right now, because I think
what Diane pointed out — that when President-elect Trump was
elected, this was a mandate.  This was a repudiation of the
Bush/Obama destruction of this type of potential for a future; a
repudiation of Hillary Clinton's commitment to continuing war.
The American people said, we're not going to condone this any
longer.
        The question is, what is the positive aspect that you're
going to fight for?  We've put that on the table with LaRouche's
Four Laws and our commitment to a future perspective for mankind,
based on this very identity that has been clearly laid out by
what we could be doing if we decide to make the commitment and
collaborate on the basis that Russia and China have laid out.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, China really is an inspiration in that regard.
Let me just read a very quick quote from that paper that you
referenced, Kesha. The title of this white paper, again, is "The
Right to Development: China's Philosophy, Practice and
Contribution"; and they start by saying, "The right to
development must be enjoyed and shared by all peoples. Realizing
the right to development is the responsibility of all countries
and also the obligation of the international community." If you
just juxtapose that to the Malthusian philosophy of the British
Royal Family and others in the so-called "West" today, where they
say, "Well, no, you know, the right to development — it's not a
right. All peoples do not have an equal right to the same living
standard, and, plus, if we were to pursue that — as Obama said
when he went to Africa — 'the planet would boil over.'" I mean,
give me a break!
        So, China's white paper is laying out the opposite
philosophy, view, of man. I think, in accordance with what Putin
said in that State of the Union, that, yes, every human being is
a creative human being. That is the fundamental right of every
human being — is to develop that creativity and to contribute it
to his or her nation and to the future of mankind.
        In the China white paper, they go on to state some really
stunning statistics. You, Kesha, cited the lifting 700 million
people out of poverty; which is just an incredible achievement in
and of itself. Now only a little bit under 6%, 5.7% of the
population of China, are officially under the poverty line. And
in the white paper they were very proud to point out that China
was actually the first to achieve this UN Millennium goal —
which is a goal to lift such and such a percentage of people out
of poverty. But they refuse to stop there! They say, "That's not
enough. We have a goal, that we are going to eliminate poverty
altogether!"
        The statistics are amazing. If you compare China in 1949 to
China in 2015, only a 70-year difference, the average longevity
in China in 1949 was 35 years. Today it's 76 years. The
enrollment of school-age children in school in 1949 was 20%.
Today it's almost 100%; 99.8% of all school-age children are
enrolled in schools in China. The difference between 1978 and
2015: the GDP was at RMB767 billion in 1978. Today their GDP is
RMB68,000 billion! So, that growth is unbelievable. And then
there's, obviously, much less tangible things that you can
measure, but which are clear to see, including the spread of art,
classical culture, classical musical training among the children
of China.  So this is really a model for the rest of the world,
an inspiration. As Xi Jinping has said, "We invite the United
States, we invite the West to become a part of the New Silk Road,
and to become a part of the One Belt, One Road initiative."
        One event that was happening in Washington, D.C.,
simultaneously with this Day of Action that the LaRouche PAC
activists had on Capitol Hill, was really an unprecedented event
that was sponsored by the Asia Society. It was an all-day event
that was hosted by a scholar named Dr. Patrick Ho, who's the
Secretary General of the China Energy Fund Committee. One of my
colleagues who was there, said about the event that "This was one
of those days in Washington, D.C. when all of the principles that
you've been talking about as a LaRouche PAC activist for years
and years and years, all of a sudden are being echoed by the
person standing at the podium." We've had those experiences
periodically, but this entire event was about the right to
development, the One Belt, One Road Initiative, the Eurasian
Land-Bridge, the World Land-Bridge, the New Paradigm, win-win
cooperation, the United States joining the Silk Road — quite
literally, in those terms.
        Dr. Ho actually laid out five points of advice to the new
incoming [Trump] administration on how to integrate the United
States into the One Belt, One Road program. His five steps are as
follows:
        1) Consider One Belt, One Road a platform to spearhead
initiatives and programs to bring closer cooperation between the
United States and China;
        2) Realign trade agreements with Asia-Pacific nations to
accommodate the One Belt, One Road;
        3) Adjust the U.S. posture towards the international
development banks — that's the AIIB, the New Silk Road Fund, the
New Development Bank of the BRICS, and so forth — and promote
their capacity to assist in support for infrastructure
development;
        4) Help secure security along the One Belt, One Road;
        5) Get the international institutions to work with the One
Belt, One Road.
        So, I think that's actually a very clearly stated way to, as
we say in this pamphlet that we've published from LaRouche PAC,
have the United States join this new Silk Road.
        These ideas, as Diane was saying, this is an active
principle, this is the dynamic {elsewhere}, and our
responsibility is to ensure that {this} is the dynamic shaping
policy in the United States.

        SARE: Along these lines — because I know there's discussion
and there's an article about Sen. Schumer saying he will work
with Trump on a $1 trillion infrastructure package (something
like that) — I think the idea of Hamilton and the ideas of
people like Krafft Ehricke and what China is doing, really need
to be understood by our activists, so that people can reflect.
For example, there's discussion about one of the things that was
promoted in the New York Times for Trump to do with his
infrastructures, that there should be a tunnel under the Hudson
River, from New Jersey to New York. Right now I think the trains
go, I don't know, every 90 seconds, or every three minutes, or
something like that. There's an enormous amount of traffic. The
Port Authority Bus Terminal is very old and decrepit. It's going
to have to be rebuilt and relocated. The tunnels are very old.
        So, this is something that has needed to be done for a long
time. As everyone might imagine, there's an absolutely enormous
amount of traffic between Manhattan and New Jersey across the
Hudson River. So, you say, "What's wrong with a new tunnel
between New Jersey and New York?" Well, in a sense, if you were
to do that, it would be a sin of omission. Obviously we need a
tunnel, but if the idea were to connect this tunnel to a tunnel
under the Bering Strait, so that you could travel from Manhattan
to Moscow, that would be a completely different idea. And I think
what…

        OGDEN: [cross talk] …Manhattan to Jersey City; that's for
sure! [both laugh]

        SARE: Yeah! Or even, you know, for people who don't want to
go to Moscow, for whatever reason. They could go to Paris, but
they could travel through Siberia. All kinds of exotic, really
wonderful places. It would be quite a ride. Although, I suppose,
if we get the magnetically-levitated vacuum trains, you wouldn't
really get to see much. On the other hand, you'd arrive at your
destination before you left, by the clock.
        Anyway, all of these things would completely transform the
way we think of everything. If you could take a train from New
Jersey to San Francisco. Supposing even that it wasn't three
hours — it was a normal high-speed train — so you got there in
a day-and-a-half, that's a completely different phenomenon. It
changes the United States: what you can ship; whom you can work
with; the exchange of ideas; the exchange of goods.  The ability
for people to find the very most brilliant individual, whether
they're in China or Somalia or India, who has expertise in a
particular area, and you want to bring them in to collaborate
with a team of scientists in your local laboratory. All these
things become thinkable.
        So, when Mr. LaRouche a few years ago had made the point
that he doesn't like the term "infrastructure" anymore, because
it doesn't really get at what is actually necessary; which is the
question of how do you increase the productivity of every person.
And that requires thinking in terms of a platform. The
difference between not having electricity, for example, and
having electricity, is not simply night and day. You just can't
even compare it. It's incommensurate. Therefore, I think we
have to be both open-minded, but we also have to set {really
high} standards for what we think we should be doing. It would be
absolutely criminal, even if it did employ millions of people, to
fill in every pothole in every major city in the United States.
That would not lift the standard of living or the productivity of
the nation as a whole; whereas a high-speed rail link that went
from Manhattan to Moscow would actually have a completely
transformative effect.

        OGDEN: Yeah, it's these {leaps} in progress that are
unquantifiable, because it's a completely different measuring
rod, from one leap to the next. Last week on the webcast here on
Friday night, Ben Deniston gave an excellent presentation on
what's necessary for a real space colonization and exploration
program. I thought one example that he used during that
presentation, was really interesting. Just think about what's the
difference between Lewis and Clark's Expedition to explore the
Louisiana Purchase Territory and to cross the continental United
States vs. what we were able to do with the trans-continental
railroad. That's a different universe vs. what we would able to
do with what you're talking about, Diane, with a
magnetically-levitated train that goes from New York, to Los
Angeles, all the way up to Anchorage, Alaska, and across the
Bering Strait, into the Eurasian landmass. Those are just
quantifiably and qualitatively different modes of action. And so,
yes, it's "setting the bar" incredibly high.
        Kesha, in your article, you said, "You should ask: How high?
We should leap, we should jump. Mankind should take a leap. How
high?" It's these kinds of insights that Krafft Ehricke, that
others, were able to discuss from the terms that now Mr. LaRouche
has {scientifically} defined, in terms of energy-flux density,
how much more productivity are you able to achieve, with less
effort, with less energy applied, because of these qualitative
leaps in technology and in the principle that you're employing.
        Before we get into a little bit more of that, I do want to
bring up, though, because you mentioned it, Diane, this article,
this interview with Sen. Chuck Schumer. Mr. LaRouche was told
about this earlier today when we had a discussion with him. He
placed some importance on it and said, "You know, Chuck Schumer
does play a significant role in the Democratic Party." He is now
Minority Leader in the U.S. Senate, and, very significantly, led
the fight against Obama's veto of the JASTA bill; very publicly
broke with the Obama administration, in favor of the 9/11
families, in overturning the Obama veto of the JASTA bill. I'd
like to say something about that later.
        This article is an interview that's published on
syracuse.com. It starts by saying, "U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer
said Wednesday that he's optimistic Congress will strike a deal
with President-elect Donald Trump, to pass a $1 trillion
infrastructure bill within the first 100 days of the
administration." However, he warned, "the bill cannot rely on
what he called 'gimmicks' or tax breaks." He said "any
infrastructure bill must be paid for through substantial and
direct federal funding." He said, "The bill needs to be stronger
and bolder than ever before. Simple tax credits will not work."
He also said that the so-called public-private partnership that
Trump's infrastructure plan and other incentives to build
projects that would be privately owned, would not function. He
said that he had personally told Trump in a private meeting, that
such a plan would lead to investment only in the most profitable
projects — people who are just trying to make a buck; and could
lead to significantly higher tolls on privately owned roads and
bridges.  Instead, Schumer said, "The $1 trillion could flow into
the U.S. Treasury to be used for rebuilding the nation's
infrastructure."  So, this is a direct Federal financing, not a
scheme, not a gimmick, not tax breaks, not PPPs [public-private
partnerships].  That is a significant development.
        I do not think it is a coincidence that that interview comes
directly in the wake of a two-week mobilization by LaRouche PAC
activists on Capitol Hill to force the issue of Hamiltonian
national banking, direct Federal credit.  I know that there were
countless meetings from activists; there were several dozen
meetings that Paul Gallagher personally had with staffers and
Congress people on Capitol Hill to discuss the details of what
Hamiltonian economics and Hamiltonian national banking actually
means.  If you haven't seen it yet, I would highly recommend
going back and listening to the recorded Fireside Chat that Paul
Gallagher did last night; that was on this question of what
Hamiltonian national banking really means.
        So this is significant; but, indeed, we have to have the
view that {we} are setting the agenda.  This nation and the
leadership of the country need a very intensive course in what
Hamiltonian economics really means.

        ROGERS:  Yes, and I think that the title of our publication
which we are continuing to get out en masse, The Hamiltonian
Vision for an Economic Renaissance is absolutely imperative to
be understood as just that.  We're not just talking about
developing infrastructure or increasing manufacturing; because
that's not what Hamilton understood in the increasing of the
productivity of society.  It was starting with advancing the
creative powers of mankind; and Lyndon LaRouche has taken that to
a very high level and conception, as you said.  His work over the
past 40-50 years looking at this conception of leaps in
productivity of society based on this conception of the potential
for mankind to advance in ways that had not been thought of
before; to advance in ways where the creative leaps in mankind
take the development scientifically and technologically to higher
and higher states.  Mr. LaRouche's understanding of this and
Krafft Ehricke's were very synonymous; they worked hand-in-hand
together.  The German space pioneer Krafft Ehricke — the
rejection of his ideas by the "limits to growth" imperialist
budget-cutters, who didn't want to see mankind advance in this
way, was as direct as the opposition to Lyndon LaRouche.  If Mr.
LaRouche's policies had been put through — along with Krafft
Ehricke's — on the development of LaRouche's perspective in the
'80s for a vibrant space program, setting the agenda of the space
program to heights that had not been thought of up until that
point, and continuing what John F Kennedy had laid out as a
national mission for advancing not just in the moment for space
development; but looking far into the future.  It's interesting
to go back and look at what the vision was at that time, and how
far we have been set back because we've had people who decided
that it's not the place of human beings to develop.
        Krafft Ehricke, as Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have continued to
say, represented a quality of genius.  It wasn't just that he
understood aeronautics and was one of the best in terms of field
of technology.  He was a real philosopher; his conception of
space development started from the standpoint of the development
of mankind as a whole.  That we on this planet, have a
responsibility for the development of each and every human being
on the planet; but the way we're going to achieve is — as he
said on many occasions — that you have to leave the confines of
one small planet. The idea that there are only limited resources
here for a limited number of people is not true.  There's a very
beautiful conception of that drawn out by Krafft Ehricke in a
very short writing that he wrote called "The Extra-Terrestrial
Imperative; Growth and Life"; that's the model that he worked on.
I just want to read something quickly from that, because I think
it's very indicative of what we're talking about here.  People
have to get these ideas in a very advanced understanding of it
when we're going into Congress right now.  It's not just about
getting them to pass a piece of legislation.  It has to be, and
we're seeing, a total shift in the thinking of the population.
He says:
        "There was a time when the human mind was slow to accept
growing evidence that Earth is not a flat center of the universe.
Now the concept of a closed, isolated world must be overcome.
Viewing our Earth from space should make it obvious that the
world into which we now can grow is no longer closed.  By
ignoring this new reality, current predictive world dynamic
models fail.  Adhering to an obsolete, closed worldview, they
despair of the future growth prospects.  The extra-terrestrial
imperative enjoins us to grow and live through open world
development which contains all the futures the human mind can
hold."
        So, that's what we're talking about.  How far can the human
mind advance?  How far can the human mind see into the future?
That's what we're talking about right now, and we have a
potential to really bring that perspective into focus if we have
a revolutionary change in the way we think about society, and we
think about the responsibility of the growth in society which we
have to now bring on, because it's long overdue.  LaRouche's
solutions really put forth exactly how we bring that into being.

        OGDEN:  This the moment of opportunity.  If you look at, as
Diane covered in the beginning of our discussion, this wave of
unexpected and completely dramatic electoral results and
otherwise; from Brexit to the Presidential election.  We've got
the Italian referendum coming up this weekend; we could see some
very dramatic results out of there.  Hollande has now declared
that he will not be running for President of France.  This is a
very dramatic and uncharted period; and the potential is there,
the doors are wide open.  I think we have repeatedly gone back to
this point, but I think we should return to it again.  It should
have been seen that this was not business as usual at the point
that the entirety of the United States Senate and a vast majority
of the U.S. House — not along party lines — rejected Obama's
treasonous veto of the JASTA bill.  That was in no small part the
result of the activation and the leadership of the LaRouche
Political Action Committee in the United States.  I think we who
are on this discussion right now, can say that we know directly
that the role that LaRouche PAC played was central and primary in
leading that fight for years.  Direct collaboration with the 9/11
Families; direct collaboration with the members of the U.S. House
and Senate in forcing this through.  That was not something that
Obama — despite all of his bluster — and the Saudi government
— despite all of their millions of dollars; they just could not
handle that.  That was something that overcame everything that
they tried to throw up against it.
        Now you have a pathetic effort by McCain and by Lindsey
Graham to try and gut the JASTA bill in the last days of the lame
duck session; but this is not going anywhere.  There was a very
good statement put out by Terry Strada and the 9/11 Families
United for Justice Against Terrorism, where they said in their
press release, "We wish to state our firm opposition to the
proposed legislative language offered by U.S. Senators Lindsey
Graham and John McCain that would effectively gut the JASTA bill;
which was overwhelmingly passed by Congress in September."  Later
they say, "Notably, Graham's and McCain's efforts come in the
wake of a massive lobbying campaign by the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, which is now employing roughly a dozen lobbying firms at
a cost of more than $1.3 million per month."  And then Terry
Strada herself is quoted saying "In April of this year, Senator
Graham met with 9/11 family members and told them that he
supported our cause 100%.  Senator Graham is now stabbing the
9/11 Families in the back.  He and Senator McCain are seeking to
torpedo JASTA by imposing changes demanded by Saudi Arabia's
lobbyists.  We have reviewed the language, and it is an absolute
betrayal."  She says, "We, the 9/11 Families, are fortunate to
have Senators John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer to block this action
in the Senate."  I can tell you that Senator Schumer told me
personally on Wednesday night that this effort is going nowhere;
this thing is not going to fly.  So, they are holding the line
very firmly.  But really, they have no choice; because this
victory on the JASTA bill and then everything that has come since
then, including this Presidential election, was a statement that
this is not business as usual among the American people anymore.
There is a mood of revolt among the American people.
        I just want to read one very short excerpt from an article
in The Hill which I think excellently gets to that very point
and I think is more generally applicable.  The article was
titled, "Note to Allies: Don't Underestimate Overwhelming Popular
Support for JASTA."  The author, Alexander Nicholson, says in
this article, "[O]n this particular issue…, no amount of money
or insider Washington connections will be able to overturn the
overwhelming will of the American people. Indeed," he says, "the
highly unexpected but highly populist-inspired election of Donald
Trump to the White House should serve as an indicator that no
amount of inside-the-beltway inside baseball can achieve results
when it comes to certain issues at certain times. And this, too,
is one of those issues and times."  And then he concludes the
article, "The current arguments are as ineffective as the
synthetic inside-the-beltway strategy it has thus far employed.
But the new era of empowerment of the American electorate is not
to be underestimated."  So, I think that is absolutely the case;
and people should take heart to that.  This is, indeed, a new
political era for the United States; it's the "empowerment of the
American electorate."
        Now's the time to take that empowerment and just keep the
momentum going; but it has to be from the standpoint of educating
ourselves, as Kesha said, on the principles of Alexander Hamilton
and the principles of the science of physical economy, and
saying, "We now are committing ourselves to what the Chinese have
called 'the inalienable right to development'; and we will not
let go of our demand for that inalienable right."

        SARE:  Just on that, I think on the one hand it's sort of
obvious; although I guess it shouldn't be, because we've
tolerated such criminality for the last 16 years since 9/11
occurred.  Droning people, torture, and so on.  The NSA spying on
every detail of everything of everyone.  But there's a certain
limit where people just said, "No, we're not intimidated."  We
saw that particularly strongly in Manhattan among first
responders and others who died, who are still dying as
after-effects, or who had loved ones who died, or colleagues who
died.  There's a certain sort of sacred commitment that "We are
not going back on this," and they're not afraid.  The challenge
now again is to raise the standard; in other words, can we fight
with the same fearless passion for those things that are
necessary for mankind to progress?  Could we get a situation
where the population just says, "Absolutely not!  We're not
shutting down our nuclear power plants.  Are you crazy?  This is
unacceptable.  You're saying we're not going to go back to the
Moon and build the means to get onto Mars from the Moon?  This is
crazy!"  Where no one even gives it a second thought that it's so
obvious.  I think that is where the two areas which Einstein
excelled in both: the music — his violin as a certain source of
inspiration and thought; and the science come together.  When one
is conscious of what it means to be truly human and creative,
then anything on a lower standard than that, is the same kind of
affront as the Saudi Foreign Minister traipsing through the halls
of Congress in his robes lined with money.  You just say, "Oh,
this is beneath us."  We saw that effect here when the Schiller
Institute Community Chorus participated in this series of
performances of the Mozart Requiem; and there's more music
coming up — again sponsored by the Foundation for the Revival of
Classical Culture — on December 17th in Brooklyn.  A unity
concert with the conception of, what does it mean: to be human?
Because human beings are not animals, no matter how many
environmentalist barbarians want to try and impose that on us.
When you've located your identity in a realm which is truly
beautiful, then a lot of these things that seem so difficult now
— like the difficulty of these politicians standing up to Wall
Street on Glass-Steagall.  Why are they afraid?  Why do they find
that difficult?  Because their own identities are right now on
too low of a level; but if they began to look at the world from a
higher standpoint — which is I'm convinced where people like
this woman from China, the Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying — you
just get a sense among some of these people that where they're
coming from is a much higher level and that such a thing would be
beneath them.  I imagine this was the effect of someone like
President Abraham Lincoln, who was described when he was seen
visiting the soldiers; because his identity was placed in a
different location in a higher realm.  Therefore, it wasn't just
that he was fighting against fear; there wasn't fear because
there was such a firm commitment to what is right.
        So, I think the next phase in this process is to have a
similar, almost ease; a soaring quality of mankind, even in the
United States, to get ourselves into the realm where we actually
should be living.

        ROGERS:  Diane, you keep getting them to sing; bringing more
inspiration and optimism.  So, we can get more singing and get
more space development, then we can really succeed.

        OGDEN:  President Modi of India called it a mass movement
for development; and I know Helga LaRouche has echoed that call
repeatedly since he said that.  And we really do see a mass
movement for development among some of these Eurasian countries
especially, but also with them reaching out to African and South
and Central American countries, you have a majority of the
world's population now getting in on this mass movement for
development.  But that's what we need demanded from the American
people right now; and I think we can turn this new era of
empowerment of the American electorate into a mass movement for
development.  But we have to do it from the standpoint of a
Hamiltonian renaissance in the United States.  We have the
materials for that, as we've said before.  The new book,
Hamilton's Vision is available on Amazon; and people can read
those four reports that he wrote to the United States Congress as
Treasury Security.  We also have the Four Laws from Mr. LaRouche
which are available on the LaRouche PAC website, and the related
pamphlet, "The United States Joins the New Silk Road."
        So, I implore people to become as active as you can. If you
haven't yet become an activist with the LaRouche PAC, now is the
time to take that step. Support us in every way you can, and
make yourself into a world historical individual by acting on
this current, very brief window of opportunity for mankind.  You
can sign up on the LaRouche PAC website; you can subscribe to our
YouTube channel; you can become an activist through the LaRouche
PAC Action Center; and you can share this video as widely as you
possibly can. Let's make this a mass movement for development!
        Thank you very much for joining us here today. Thank you to
both Kesha and to Diane. And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

          

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 1. december, 2016 – Kinas Xi Jinping og Ruslands Vladimir Putin fortsætter med at komme med tilbud efter tilbud til USA – og andre nationer, der stadig sidder fast i det transatlantiske systems dødbringende kviksand – om at gå med i opbygningen af det nye, globale paradigme, der er i færd med at erstatte geopolitiske krige og fascistiske nulsumsspil-økonomier, med den Nye Silkevejspolitiks win-win-resultater.

Den kinesiske regering har netop udgivet en hvidbog, »Retten til udvikling: Kinas filosofi, praksis og bidrag«, som dokumenterer det forbløffende fremskridt, Kina har præsteret i løbet af de seneste årtier inden for områderne fattigdomsreduktion, levetid, uddannelse og så videre, og dernæst fortsætter med at forklare, at deres Bælt-og-Vej-initiativ har til formål at hjælpe andre nationer med at opnå lignende resultater. Retten til udvikling, proklamerer hvidbogen, er hele menneskehedens umistelige rettighed.       

Den russiske præsident Putin gentog i sin »Tale til nationen« for den russiske Duma, det føderale parlament, at han var indstillet på at samarbejde med den tiltrædende Trump-administration i USA for at »sikre international stabilitet og sikkerhed«. Putin gjorde det ligeledes til fulde klart, at Ruslands fremtid ligger i at nære kreativitet, videnskab og evnen til at løse problemer hos den unge generation: »Vore skoler må fremme kreativitet … Vore børn vil klart se, at Rusland har brug for deres ideer og viden.«

Dette er præcis den form for tankegang, som engang dominerede Franklin Roosevelts, og endda John Kennedys, USA, men det er blevet næsten uforståeligt for de fleste amerikanere i dag, i et USA, der er blevet transformeret af de seneste 16 års mareridt med Bush og Obama.

Og dog, så er genopvækkelsen af denne ånd selve nøglen til en strategisk sejr imod det døende, Britiske Imperium. For at opnå dette kræver det, at vi lever op til udfordringen med at få den amerikanske befolkning, og dens repræsentanter i Washington, til at tænke på det højere niveau, som er det sande potentiale, der er fremlagt for os, og ikke på niveauet for de kontrollerede ’trivielle selskabslege’, som karakteriserer politikken i Washington og i lokale anliggender.

I en diskussion tidligere på dagen med medlemmer af LPAC’s Politiske Komite og Videnskabsteam, samt Helga Zepp-LaRouche, understregede Lyndon LaRouche den afgørende rolle, som et fornyet rumprogram spiller for atter at tænde gnisten for optimisme og inspiration omkring spørgsmålet om, hvad menneskets formål i universet er. Den store, tyske rumforsker Krafft Ehricke er en vigtig prøvesten i denne bestræbelse, sagde LaRouche, for kampen for at bringe fremskridt inden for videnskab, kultur og økonomi tilbage, som en forenet, indbyrdes forbundet præstation.

»Hele formålet er at forstå, hvad fremtiden bringer, eller kan bringe, og fastholde udviklingen på denne basis«, sagde Larouche. »Det er ligesom hele tiden at holde trit; hele tiden forsøge at gøre noget, der er vigtigere, at opnå det, og dernæst nyde det … Der må være et element af overraskelse, et element af denne form for udtryk. Det er det, der får det til at virke. Det er ikke noget tomt; det er noget, man skal få til at virke.«

LaRouche fortsatte: »Vi lever i vort intellekt. Hvis vi kan tænke kvalificeret, så opererer vi i rummet. Vi bør håbe, at vi vil frigøre os og således bringe menneskeheden til et nyt niveau af præstationer.«

Foto: Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping mødes med Ruslands præsident Putin, Chiles præsident Bachelet, Indiens præsident Modi og Kasahkstans præsident Nazarbayev i sine bestræbelser på at rekruttere nationer til den Nye Silkevejs økonomiske politik. 

29. nov., 2016 – Alexander Grushko, Ruslands ambassadør til NATO, sagde i går, at, hvis NATO ønsker at genoptage diskussioner om våbenkontrol med Rusland, må det stoppe sin militære opbygning i øst.

»Situationen omkring våbenkontrol har været temmelig kompliceret på det seneste«, bemærkede han. »Hovedvanskeligheden består i, at det er urimeligt at opfordre Rusland til at fremme anvendelsen af de relevante redskaber, og så samtidig fortsætte med en militær opbygning, baseret på planer fra koldkrigsæraen.«

»Hvis NATO-lande rent faktisk er rede til at investere i mekanismerne for våbenkontrol, så bør de først og fremmest opgive deres planer om at styrke alliancens østlige flanke, så vel som også deres bestræbelser på at opnå militær overlegenhed for at begrænse Rusland«, sagde Grushko. Den russiske diplomat påpegede, at dette var den eneste måde at »starte en meningsfuld dialog om at sikre militær sikkerhed«.

Grushkos udtalelse kom som respons til den erklæring, som den tyske udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier kom med den 25. nov., og som blev underskrevet af 13 europæiske udenrigsministre, og som krævede, at forhandlingerne med Rusland om våbenkontrol blev genåbnet og advarede om, at de eksisterende aftaler om våbenkontrol er ved at smuldre.  

  

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 30. november, 2016 – I denne uge kom delegationer fra Manhattan og flere stater i det østlige USA til Washington, D.C., for personligt at inddrage kongresmedlemmer i nødvendigheden af at tage skridt til at genindføre Glass-Steagall og gennemføre LaRouches »Fire Love«, for at håndtere den aktuelle, strategiske krise. Dette politiske initiativ – sammen med pres på kongressen over hele landet – kommer på et tidspunkt med nonstop mediefiksering på nyvalgte præsident Donald Trumps seneste og eventuelle udnævnelser til regeringsposter. ’Hvem er de?… Hvor dårlige er de?’, osv. Mediernes spærreild, og selv selve udnævnelserne, tjener til at forvirre og demobilisere enhver, der lytter.

Det er vigtigt at modstå alle sådanne, »bottom-up« karakteriseringer, der fremhæver lokale interesser, af det, der foregår. Der er intet lokalt her: »Trump«-valgoverraskelser finder sted i hele verden, og flere vil finde sted i de kommende uger. Vælgere over hele verden afviser nu hele »globaliseringsæraen« til fordel for et nyt paradigme, der fortsat er under udformning. EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, understregede dagen efter præsidentvalgene, at valget af Trump ikke var en »lokal« begivenhed. Afvisningen af Hillary Clinton gik længere end til et spørgsmål om selve personen; den var en del af et globalt, dynamisk skifte. LaRouche manede i dag til forsigtighed: »Det er farligt at gøre det muligt for dette [forvirringen som følge af lokalt fokus] at opstå. Man må frigøre sig fra det. Det ødelægger ens evne til at tænke og løse problemer.«

Undgå derfor vrede over enkeltpersoner; tænk på det mulige.

Dette er virkeligheden. Der er en dynamik i gang på internationalt plan, for et nyt paradigme for hele menneskeheden, og som er legemliggjort i den eurasiske Nye Silkevej. Præsident Vladimir Putin og præsident Xi Jinping leverer et stærkt lederskab for vejen frem, en vej, som i årtier er blevet fremlagt af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche.

I dag holdt Putin en tale i Moskva fra dette udsigtspunkt. Han talte om den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, »der sammenkobles med Kinas projekt for det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte, som vil gøre det muligt for os at bygge et eurasisk partnerskab«. Han talte i anledning af det andet, årlige »Primakov Readings International Forum« i Moskva, for at mindes eftermælet af Jevgenij Primakovs lederskab. Putin sagde: »Hr. Primakov var ligeledes af den mening, at det ville være meget vanskeligt at håndtere nutidens store udfordringer på tilfredsstillende vis uden et seriøst partnerskab mellem Rusland og USA. Ulykkeligvis er de russisk-amerikanske relationer blevet meget forværret i løbet af de seneste år, men dette er ikke vores skyld. Nu, hvor valgkampen er ovre i USA, og en ny præsident snart vil indtage Det Hvide Hus, håber vi, at dette vil skabe en mulighed for at forbedre disse relationer, der er så vigtige, ikke alene for vore to folkeslag, men også for at sikre international stabilitet og sikkerhed … «

Ideen om nye relationer runger over hele Latinamerika, efter Xis seks dages rundrejse i forbindelse med APEC-topmødet tidligere på måneden. Den mexicanske seniordiplomat Sergio Ley har krævet, at Mexico nu »diversificerer« sine relationer inden for udenrigshandel og ikke længere har 80 % af sin handel, der finder sted med USA. Han sagde, at der nu finder »en ekstraordinær dialog på højeste niveau« sted mellem Mexico og Kina.

I opposition til dette aktive, nye paradigme for internationale, gensidigt gavnlige relationer, kommer de sidste, fortvivlede bestræbelser fra geopolitikkens afdankede repræsentanter, på at forårsage mere skade og død. Især Frankrig, Storbritannien og Obama-administrationen mobiliserer imod Rusland over Syrien. I dag meddelte Frankrig, at det vil være vært for et møde den 10. december, som vil omfatte ledere fra UK, USA, Tyskland, Italien, Saudi-Arabien og andre, om, hvordan man skal modsætte sig »den totale krigs tankegang«, som de hævder, Rusland og Syrien forfølger.

Virkeligheden er den, at den syriske regering i Aleppo med held driver terroristerne tilbage; og Rusland er i færd med at mobilisere støtte og nødhjælpsforsyninger – inklusive felthospitaler – til de tusinder af mennesker, der nu er befriet og nødlidende.

Foto: Udsigt over Capitol fra toppen af Washington-monumentet.

28. nov. 2016 – I et interview med RIA Novosti sagde Dimitris Velanis, udenrigspolitisk rådgiver til den græske premierminister, Alexis Tsipras, at Grækenland ikke vil tilslutte sig en »kold krig« imod Rusland.

»Vi værdsætter den venligtsindede samarbejdspolitik, som Putin fører over for Grækenland … Det er grunden til, at Grækenland aldrig vil gå med til at spille ’kold krig’ mod Rusland«, sagde Velanis og forklarede yderligere, at ingen andre lande, især USA, havde gjort forsøg på at få Grækenland med i en anti-russisk politik, som medierne rapporterede i kølvandet på den amerikanske, ’lamme and’-præsident Barack Obamas besøg i Grækenland tidligere i november. »Med hensyn til græsk-russiske relationer og mht. disse ’forbud’ fra USA, som aktivt er blevet diskuteret i medierne … kan jeg helt ansvarligt sige, at der ikke har været nogen forsøg på at gennemføre et forbud … Der var intet pres, og desuden intet forbud, og det bliver der heller ikke.«

Velanis, der også rådgiver Tsipras om russiske anliggender, diskuterede Grækenlands relationer med Rusland: »Vi forbereder store projekter om fælles økonomisk samarbejde inden for området skibsbyggeri og skibsreparationer på græske og russiske værfter. De pågældende foretagender vil selv meddele detaljer om dette samarbejde.«

Velanis udtrykte støtte til russernes standpunkt med at sende olietankere til Syrien for at levere forsyninger til militære operationer og fremførte, at dette ikke udgjorde en krænkelse af sanktioner imod Syrien, som nogle vestlige lande har hævdet. Han sagde også, at Grækenland ikke overvejede et forbud mod, at sådanne skibe sejlede gennem græsk farvand eller græske havne. 

»Vi forstår, at Rusland, ved at anbringe sin flåde og sit luftvåben i Syrien, naturligvis skal levere brændstof til dem«, sagde Velanis. »De behørige græske myndigheder indtager en bestemt holdning. Jeg mener, at spørgsmålet om et forbud, slet ikke er oppe til diskussion.«    

Foto: Putin og Tsipras, under et nyligt møde. 

Indsat foto: Dimitris Velanis.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 28. november, 2016 – François Fillons overvældende valgsejr i søndagens franske primærvalg, til at være præsidentkandidat for Frankrigs Republikanske Parti, er et yderligere bevis på, at den menneskelige race ikke vil tolerere Barack Obamas fremstød for krig med Rusland. Ligesom Hillary Clinton førte Fillons modstander en kampagne mod Rusland, mens Fillon førte en kampagne for at arbejde sammen med Rusland om at nedkæmpe terroristerne i Syrien, om at afslutte de anti-russiske sanktioner og udvide det økonomiske samarbejde, og han vandt næsten to tredjedele af stemmerne.

Hillary Clinton, der kørte sin kampagne som en fortsættelse af Obamas krigshyl mod Rusland, forsøger nu desperat at give Putin skylden for sit nederlag! Det vanvittige i hendes påstand om, at Putin brugte at udsende »falske nyheder« og bedrive computerhacking for at stjæle det amerikanske valg, og som nu skaber overskrifter over hele USA, siger intet om Putin, men alt om tilstanden af mentalt sammenbrud hos krigspartiet i USA – de neokonservative i både det Republikanske og Demokratiske Parti, der samledes bag Hillary og blev slået af vælgerne, især af arbejdsstyrken på landet og i byerne.

I realiteten bidrog Putin faktisk til Obama/Hillary-krigspartiets nederlag, men ikke hemmeligt eller under dække. Hans vedvarende krav om, at USA holder op med at sponsorere terrorister under dække af at bevæbne den »moderate opposition« i Syrien med henblik på at vælte den legitime regering, og hans opfordring til samarbejde om krigen mod terror, var med til at afsløre Obama og Hillary for det, de er.

På lignende vis blev Xi Jinpings gentagne opfordringer til USA om at tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevejsproces med global nationsopbygning afvist af både Obama og Hillary til fordel for militær konfrontation med Kina og afslørede således deres imperiesyn over for en befolkning, der i stigende grad beundrer den utrolige udviklingsproces, som Kina har igangsat, både internt i landet og internationalt.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der tidligere har stillet op til kanslerposten i Tyskland, sagde i dag, at, på trods af Fillons økonomiske politik i Thatcher-traditionen, så demonstrerer valget af ham den voksende afsky i Europa for det anti-russiske hysteri og faren for krig. Trumps åbne erklæring om, at han vil arbejde med Putin for at besejre terrorisme, fik taberen Obama til i denne måned at forsøge at salve Tysklands Angela Merkel til sin efterfølger, som »leder for den frie verden« i en kampagne imod Rusland. Men Merkel er nu lige så isoleret, som Obama var – ligesom Olympens falske guder, der udråber deres krav over verden, mens Olympens bjerg smuldrer under deres fødder.

Samme dag som det franske valg vandt schweizerne en solid sejr i en folkeafstemning, der var lanceret af den ’grønne’ bevægelse mod kernekraft, for at lukke nationens kernekraftværker ned. Igen er budskabet til verden det, at den »nye, mørke tidsalders« mentalitet med afindustrialisering og permanente krige, ikke længere kan tolereres af menneskeslægten. Det er især et budskab til Merkel, der er imod kernekraft, om, at hendes tid er forbi.

Den vestlige verden oplever for tiden en revolutionær transformation. LaRouche-bevægelsen har i årevis tvunget befolkningen i USA og Europa, ofte imod dens vilje, til at se på det nye paradigmes nye lederskab, som kommer fra Rusland og Kina, og til at sammenligne det med den politik, der dikteres af London og Wall Street, og som økonomisk og kulturelt har ødelagt de transatlantiske nationer. Denne sandhed kan ikke længere undertrykkes. Lyndon LaRouche sagde i dag til sine medarbejdere: »Vi indtager en ledende position netop nu. Vi er ovenpå. Vi ved, hvad det er, vi gør, så lad os få en sejr.«

Foto: Daværende franske premierminister, hr. François Fillon, møder IAEA-generaldirektør Yukiya Amano & Chef de Cabinet, hr. Rafael Grossi, 2011. (Foto: IAEA Imagebank CC-SA)

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

25. nov., 2016 – På det Russisk-tyske Forum for Råmaterialer i Düsseldorf i går, præsenterede Valery Jazev, præsident for mineindustriens entreprenører, Tomsk-specialforskningsprogrammet for en oparbejdningsreaktor, der skal oparbejde brugt atombrændsel. Målet er at udvikle en reaktor til kommerciel brug, der kan oparbejde fra alle former for brugt atombrændsel og radioaktivt materiale.

Tomsk-projektet involverer, forklarede Jazev, arbejde på udviklingen af radioaktive materialer til medicinsk brug, så vel som også mærkning af materialer til industribrug. Jasev sagde, at Rusland er forud for alle andre nationer inden for denne sektor, med et 10-15 år langt forskningsforspring, og at Rusland om nogle få år vil være i besiddelse af en profitabel teknologi til global eksport. Rusland kunne også tilbyde denne teknologi til at oparbejde brugt atommateriale fra Tyskland, som vil få brug for en sådan teknologi, når de i 2022 afslutter anvendelse af atomkraft. Dette kunne betyde et vigtigt russisk bidrag til et energipartnerskab med Tyskland.

Fremtrædende tyskere ved samme begivenhed, f.eks. Klaus Töpfer og vicekansler Sigmar Gabriel, valgte imidlertid ikke at tage imod tilbuddet, men førte i stedet en masse nonsenssnak om »andre synspunkter, som naturligvis må tages i betragtning« og i øvrigt insisterede på den tyske regerings vanvittige strategi for fornybar energi. Dette inkluderer Gabriels synspunkter om retningen af »moderniseringspartnerskabet« med Rusland, nemlig reduceringen af CO2-udslip. Ildevarslende, at Gabriel præsenterede dette som et område for samarbejde uden for sanktionerne.   

25. nov., 2016 – I går mødtes Antonio Guterres, den udnævnte generalsekretær for FN (tiltræder 1. januar 2017), med Vladimir Putin i Moskva. De to havde mødtes ved tidligere lejligheder, inklusive, da Guterres var Portugals premierminister, i 2000, og da han var FN’s flygtningehøjkommissær, og Guterres genkaldte sig, at de to havde haft »vigtige, konstruktive og effektive relationer«, som Kremls webside rapporterer.

Putin understregede, at Rusland altid har støttet en styrkelse af FN’s »ledende og centrale rolle i internationale anliggender, i konfliktløsning og i kampen for menneskerettigheder«.

Da han talte til reportere forud for mødet, roste Ruslands FN-ambassadør Vitaly Churkin Guterres’ professionelle og personlige egenskaber og beskrev ham som én, der »kender hele FN-systemet og ved, hvad han ønsker at opnå«.

I sine bemærkninger til præsident Putin understregede Guterres, at »vi lever i en verden med multiple trusler fra de mangedoblede, nye konflikter … Jeg er en stærk tilhænger af, at globale problemer kun kan løses globalt, at det ikke er muligt, at en ensidig fremgangsmåde kan løse dem, og jeg er en stærk tilhænger af den mangesidige rolles betydning«. Han understregede den Russiske Føderations »afgørende« rolle, »ikke alene i FN, men i alle aspekter af internationale relationer, og jeg ville sige, at en absolut fundamental betingelse for, at jeg kan være i stand til at være til nytte for det internationale samfund, er at kunne have en meget konstruktiv og positiv dialog og relation med den Russiske Føderation«.    

Jason Ross: Diskussionen i aften finder sted to en halv uge efter præsidentvalget i USA den 8. nov. Siden da har vi set en hvirvelvind af spekulationer over udnævnelser til regeringsposter, inkl. nogle udnævnelser til poster i Trump-administrationen. Vi har også set betydningsfulde, internationale nyheder, såsom APEC-topmødet, der fandt sted i sidste weekend; topmødet i Asien-Stillehavsområdets Økonomiske Samarbejde (APEC), der meget betydningsfuldt inkluderede den filippinske præsident Duterte og den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping blandt de mange tilstedeværende ledere. På denne konference understregede Duterte igen, at Filippinerne ikke længere anser sig selv for at være en amerikansk koloni; og landet forfølger en uafhængig politik, rent økonomisk, med Kina, der således er et modtræk til at skabe konflikt i f.eks. det Sydkinesiske Hav. Præsident Xi var på rundrejse i Mellem- og Sydamerika samtidig med, at han rejste til APEC-topmødet. Så ved siden af Peru – som var værtsland for topmødet – besøgte han også Chile og Ecuador, hvor han blandt andet talte om den bi-oceaniske korridor, en plan for en jernbaneforbindelse mellem Sydamerikas to omkringliggende have, Stillehavet og Atlanterhavet, og om at etablere videnskabsbyer. Han blev hyldet af præsident Correa i Ecuador, der betragtede Xi Jinpings besøg som den mest betydningsfulde begivenhed, der nogen sinde havde fundet sted i Ecuadors historie, baseret på det potentiale, som dette tilbød denne nation.

Dette Nye Paradigme, der i øjeblikket ledes politisk og økonomisk af Rusland og Kina, kommer som et resultat af LaRouche-bevægelsens og Lyndon og Helga LaRouches årtier lange organisering; der er således nu et Nyt Paradigme, der fører en stadigt større del af verden i en meget positiv retning. Vores job i øjeblikket er ikke at få de hotteste nyheder om, hvad Trumps udnævnelser bliver, osv. Det er at forme amerikanske politik, som vi med held gjorde det med at gennemtvinge en underkendelse af Obamas veto af Loven om Juridisk Retfærdighed mod Sponsorer af Terrorisme (JASTA). Og som vi nu står klar til at gøre, med at få Kongressen – under denne overgangsperiode, ’lamme and’-perioden – til at gennemføre Glass-Steagall, det nødvendige første skridt for en økonomisk genrejsning. Glass-Steagall er den lov, som Franklin Roosevelt fik vedtaget, og som skabte 60+ år med stabil, kedelig, stabil, produktiv bankvirksomhed i USA; snarere end den form for spillevirksomhed, vi nu ser.

Lad med vise dette kort [Fig. 1] for blot at vise lidt at den succes, som vi har set med det kinesiske program.

Programmet med nationerne i Ét bælte, én vej [OBOR], der inkluderer både – der er to komponenter i Kinas projekt i denne henseende; det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte, med nationerne vist i blå farve, og det 21. Århundredes Maritime Silkevej i orange farve. Tilsammen refererer Kina til dette på kinesisk som initiativet med »Ét bælte, én vej«; på engelsk ofte blot kaldt initiativet for Bæltet og Vejen. Med hensyn til det potentiale, som dette har, er her blot nogle af tallene: 20.000 km højhastigheds-jernbanelinjer i Kina, alle bygget inden for det seneste årti – mere end i resten af verden tilsammen; et titals billioner af dollars i direkte investering i nationerne i området; en forøgelse af kontrakter om tjenesteydelser på over 33 % i løbet af blot ét år langs Bæltet og Vejen; Kinas Eksport/Importbank har udestående engagementer i flere end 1000 projekter og har for ganske nylig underskrevet aftaler om omkring 500 nye projekter i nationerne langs Bæltet og Vejen. Kina er i færd med at udbygge 150.000 stipendier, som tilbyder uddannelse til 500.000 eksperter til uddannelse i Kina; har etableret 500 Konfucius-institutter i hele verden; har initieret flere end et dusin økonomiske samarbejdszoner; frihandelsaftaler, og er i øjeblikket engageret i flere end 40 energiprojekter – inklusive omkring 20, der lige er blevet etableret i år i Bæltet og Vejens nationer.

Hvordan kan vi så blive en del af dette? I magasinet Chronicles udgave fra 21. nov. er der et forslag fra Edward Lozansky og Jim Jatrus. Lozansky er præsident for det Amerikanske Universitet i Moskva. De skrev en artikel med titlen, »The Big Three: America, Russia, and China Must Join Hands for
Security, Prosperity, and Peace« (De tre store: Amerika, Rusland og Kina må gå sammen om sikkerhed, velstand og fred). To uddrag: De indleder deres artikel, »Med Donald Trumps sejr over Hillary Clinton får vi måske aldrig at vide, hvor tæt Amerika og hele menneskeheden kom på atomkrig«. Med en beskrivelse af verdenssituationen afslutter de med et forslag: »Præsident Donald Trump kan rette tidligere amerikanske præsidenters fejl. Snarere end modstandere kan Rusland og Kina blive Amerikas vigtigste partere, og som er, er vi overbevist om, rede til at respondere positivt. Tiden er inde for Trump og Amerika til at tage initiativet til samarbejde mellem USA, Rusland og Kina hen imod en tryg, fremgangsrig og fredelig fremtid. Et Trump-Putin-Xi ’Store Tre-topmøde’ bør være en prioritet for den nye, amerikanske præsidents første 100 dage.«

Jeg vil nu bede Jeff Steinberg om at fylde verdensbilledet ud og forklare vore seere, hvilke flanker, hvilke håndtag, hvilke vægtstænger vi har for at ændre USA’s politik på dette tidspunkt?

Jeffrey Steinberg (efterretningsredaktør, EIR): Det er indledningsvist meget vigtigt at indse, at vi befinder os i en periode med forandring. Vi ved visse ting om konsekvenserne af det amerikanske præsidentvalg og andre nationale valg den 8. nov. Jeg mener, at Lozansky og Jatrus gjorde en fundamental pointe meget klart: Der forelå en meget alvorlig fare, baseret på Hillary Clintons kampagneretorik, baseret på politikker, der blev stadigt mere aggressivt forfulgt af præsident Barack Obama mod slutningen af hans otte år i embedet; at vi havde kurs mod den værste krise mellem USA og Rusland, som vi nogen sinde har oplevet – måske endda værre end Cubakrisen i 1962. Så Hillary Clintons nederlag er virkelig afslutningen af præsidentskaberne Bush’ og Obamas 16 år lange tyranni. Hvor hurtigt, vi kan vende politikken omkring under det nye Trump-præsidentskab, og i hvilken retning, udnævnelserne til hans administration vil gå, er alt sammen ukendte faktorer; vi har ingen vished om dem.

Det, vi ved, er, at især i kølvandet på APEC-topmødet, der netop er afsluttet i sidste uge i Lima, Peru, og som dernæst efterfulgtes af den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings statsbesøg til Peru og dernæst til Chile, og forud for topmødet var han i Ecuador; og vi ved, at der er en enorm mulighed derude for USA, under et Trump-præsidentskab, for netop at gå med i det, der altid har ligget på bordet som en åben invitation til USA; nemlig, at USA kan tilslutte sig projektet om Verdenslandbroen. For, uden et USA er det meget vanskeligt at opfatte dette som en Verdenslandbro, hvilket er det, verden virkelig har brug for lige nu. Der har været meget indledende telefondiskussioner mellem nyvalgte præsident Trump og den russiske præsident Putin; de synes at være blevet enige om at have et personligt topmøde hurtigt efter tiltrædelsen – som finder sted den 20. januar. Det er ligeledes tanken, at præsident Trump, efter tiltrædelsen, også ret hurtigt skal mødes med den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping. Jeg mener, at Lozansky-Jatrus-ideen om et trilateralt møde ville være ekstraordinært værdifuldt. Det er vigtigt at huske på, at, i 1944, var det præsident Franklin Roosevelts kurs i sine handlinger for at etablere De forenede Nationer – hvilket skete i 1945 – at inkludere både Sovjetunionen og Kina i FN’s Sikkerhedsråds fem permanente nationer. Husk på, at Roosevelt forstod, at der var imperiepolitikker, der stadig var kernen i Det britiske Imperium med Churchill, og på lignende måde med Frankrig. Så ideen med at have Rusland – dengang Sovjetunionen – og Kina i dette permanente Sikkerhedsråds kernegruppe, reflekterede den kendsgerning, at Roosevelt dengang så udsigten til denne form for et alliancesystem hen over Eurasien. Jeg mener, at der er en historisk baggrund, for netop denne form for russisk-kinesiske samarbejde, at se hen til her. I de seneste 15 år har det været en hjørnesten i Lyndon LaRouches globale politik med et USA-Rusland-Kina-Indien-samarbejde, især omkring videnskabelige programmer; især udforskning af rummet, som basis for global fred og udvikling. Så disse ideer er fremlagt.

Den 20. november sagde general Michael Flynn, kort tid efter, at han var blevet udnævnt af nyvalgte præsident Trump som national sikkerhedsrådgiver, i et interview med Fareed Zakhari på CNN, at, efter hans mening, var den eneste måde at håndtere problemerne med den jihadistiske terrortrussel i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika på længere sigt at have et globalt samarbejde omkring en Marshallplan – han brugte udtrykkeligt dette udtryk. Han sagde, hvis man ser på, hvad Europa var i stand til at præstere i kølvandet på Anden Verdenskrigs ødelæggelser, og den rolle, som Marshallplanen spillede; det var ikke det hele, men det var et vigtigt element i den økonomiske genrejsning efter krigen. Et perspektiv af denne art er virkelig den vindende strategi for at håndtere befolkningstilvæksten og spredningen af den saudisksponsorerede jihadisme i hele Mellemøsten/Nordafrika-området. Det går også ind i Sydvestasien.

Der findes altså enorme potentialer; de er i vid udstrækning foreløbigt ikke realiseret med hensyn til den forandring, der kommer med den ny administration. Men, som du sagde, Jason [Ross], så er der ingen grund til at vente til januar. Den nyvalgte præsident Trump krævede udtrykkeligt, i en tale i Charlotte, North Carolina, en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. Det er i begge de to store politiske partiers valgplatform for dette års valg; både Demokraterne og Republikanerne har vedtaget det. Det var en Trump-delegeret til GOP [Grand Old Party – det Republikanske Parti] komiteen for politisk strategi, der introducerede Glass-Steagall. Der er senatorerne Elizabeth Warren, og vigtigere endnu, Bernie Sanders, som siger, at de er villige til at række over midtergangen og arbejde sammen med Donald Trump, hvis samarbejdsspørgsmålene inkluderer og virkelig begynder med Glass-Steagall. Så dette er noget, der ikke behøver at vente til januar og tiltrædelsen og den nye Kongres. Der er fremstillet lovforslag for Glass-Steagall i både Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet. Et af forslagene i Huset har en ordlyd, der er identisk med Senatsforslaget. Som vi så det med vedtagelsen af underkendelsen af JASTA-vetoet, hvis lederskabet i Kongressen giver grønt lys, kan Glass-Steagall bringes til debat i begge huse og vedtages inden for få timer. Underkendelsen af JASTA-vetoet tog to timer om morgenen i USA’s Senat, og to en halv time eller så om eftermiddagen i Huset. Det opnåede man på en enkelt dag i Kongressen. Så der er ingen som helst grund til, at vi ikke omgående kan gennemføre det – i bogstavelig forstand i næste uge, når Kongressen atter samles efter Thanksgiving-ferien; og den vil sidde i de næste fire uger. Der er intet til hinder for, at vi kan få Glass-Steagall tilbage som landets lov før juleferien, så vi har det på plads til den nye administration; og tiden er rent ud sagt af afgørende betydning. Vi ved ikke, i betragtning af situationen med Deutsche Bank, med Royal Bank of Scotland, med de største, amerikanske for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-banker, der sidder på derivater til $252 billion. Det er 30 % mere end det var på tidspunktet for krakket i 2008. Det sidder på toppen af et meget tvivlsomt kapitalgrundlag på $14 billion; i virkeligheden er det sandsynligvis meget mindre end det, for nogle af de værdipapirer, som bliver talt med som kapitalreserver, er grundlæggende set illikvide og kan ikke – selv i nødstilfælde – gøres likvide.

Så vi kunne altså vågne i morgen, eller mandag morgen, eller midt i næste uge, og finde, at hele det transatlantiske banksystem er nedsmeltet. Så Glass-Steagall er altså et presserende hastespørgsmål; og det forudsætter dernæst de andre hovedelementer i LaRouches Fire Love. Det er et kreditsystem; investering i store infrastrukturprojekter; og en genoplivning af de mest avancerede, videnskabelige programmer, inklusive en storstilet tilbagevenden til rummet og det internationale arbejde for endelig at opnå det fulde gennembrud inden for fusion. Alle disse ting er på bordet, men igen, så er der ingen garantier; intet er blot tilnærmelsesvis sikkert mht., hvad det næste, der vil ske, bliver. Vi kan ånde lidt op, fordi faren for krig med Rusland og Kina er blevet meget reduceret; og der er en masse potentiale. Der er en masse af den form for overgang som fra Jimmy Carter til Ronald Reagan i luften som et potentiale; men intet af det er endnu fuldt ud realiseret. Folk må indse, at dette er et tidspunkt med store muligheder. Det vil blive et krav fra befolkningen under det rette lederskab, der er orienteret mod de rette politikker, der virkelig kan gribe muligheden. Hvis vi venter til januar eller februar næste år, hvem ved så, hvilke slags sabotageoperationer, man vil køre?

Man kan gå ind på Craigs Liste og finde dækgrupper for George Soros, såsom MoveOn.org og blacklivesmatter.org, der tilbyder $1500 om ugen for, at folk render rundt som idioter og protesterer imod resultatet af valget. Der er en hel del usikkerhed med hensyn til, hvad der foregår, samtidig med, at der er store muligheder. Vi må sikre os, at vi tager lederskabet mht. at gribe øjeblikket.

Ovenstående er første del af det Internationale Webcast; det engelske udskrift af hele webcastet følger her:

MAKE THE MOST OF THE OPENNESS IN POLICY NOW,
TO INSURE A NEW PARADIGM FOR THE UNITED STATES
BEFORE THE INAUGURATION
LaRouche PAC International Webcast, Saturday, November 26, 2016

        JASON ROSS:  Hi there!  Today is November 25, 2016; and
you're joining us for our regular webcast here from
larouchepac.com.  My name is Jason Ross; I'll be the host today.
I'm joined in the studio by Ben Deniston, my colleague here at
LaRouche PAC; and via video by Jeff Steinberg of Executive
Intelligence Review.
        This discussion is taking place 2.5 weeks after the November
8, 2016 Presidential election in the United States.  Since then,
we've seen a whirlwind of speculation about Cabinet appointments,
including some Cabinet appointments for the Trump administration.
We've also seen some significant international news, such as the
APEC summit which occurred last weekend; the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation summit that included very significantly new
Philippines' President Duterte and Chinese Xi Jinping among the
many leaders who were there.  At this conference, Duterte again
emphasized that the Philippines no longer considers itself to be
a US colony; and is pursuing an independent policy economically
with China, countering the attempts to create conflict, for
example, in the South China Sea.  President Xi Jinping went on a
tour of Latin America while he was at the APEC summit. So in
addition to Peru — which hosted the event — he also visited
Chile and Ecuador; where he spoke, among other things, about the
bioceanic corridor, a plan for a rail link between the Pacific
and Atlantic sides of South America; about setting up science
cities.  He was greeted by President Correa in Ecuador, who
considered Xi Jinping's trip the most significant event to occur
in Ecuador's history; based on the potential that it offered that
nation.
        So, this New Paradigm, being led politically and
economically at present by Russia and by China, comes as a result
of decades of organizing by the LaRouche Movement, by Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche; such that there is now a New Paradigm taking an
increasingly larger portion of the world in a very positive
direction.  Our job at present isn't to get the hottest news on
what Trump's appointments will be, etc.  It is to shape US
policy; as we successfully did in forcing an override against
Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
And as we stand poised to do now with getting the Congress —
during this lame duck session — to implement Glass-Steagall, the
necessary first step for an economic recovery.  Glass-Steagall is
the law that Franklin Roosevelt had put in place that created 60+
years of stable, boring, stable productive banking in the United
States; rather than the kind of gambling that we see now.
        Let me pull up this chart [Fig. 1] just to show a bit of
this success that we've seen along the Chinese economic program.
Along the One Belt, One Road nations which includes both the —
there's two components to China's project on this; the Silk Road
economic belt, which you see the nations in blue, and the 21st
Century Maritime Silk Road in orange.  Together, China refers to
this in Chinese as the "One Belt, One Road" initiative; in
English, often just the Belt and Road initiative.  As far as the
potential that this holds, these are just some of the figures:
20,000 km of high-speed rail in China, all built within the last
decade — more than the rest of the world combined; tens of
billions of dollars of direct investment into nations of the
region; an increase in services contracts of over 33% in just one
year along the One Belt, One Road; the Export/Import Bank of
China has outstanding involvement in over 1000 projects, and just
recently has signed up about 500 new projects along the Belt and
Road nations.  China is extending 150,000 scholarships offering
training for 500,000 for professionals for training in China; has
set up 500 Confucius institutes around the world, has initiated
over a dozen economic cooperation zones; free trade agreements,
and is engaged currently in over 40 energy projects — including
about 20 that were just set up this year among One Belt, One Road
nations.
        So, how can we become a part of this?  Well, a proposal was
made in the November 21st issue of {Chronicles} magazine by
Edward Lozansky and Jim Jatrus.  Losansky is the President of the
American University in Moscow.  They wrote an article called,
"The Big Three: America, Russia, and China Must Join Hands for
Security, Prosperity, and Peace".  Two excerpts.  They open their
article, "With the defeat of Hillary Clinton by Donald Trump, we
may never know how close America and all mankind came to nuclear
war."  In describing the world situation, they end with a
proposal: "President Donald Trump can correct the mistakes of
past U.S. presidents. Rather than adversaries Russia and China
can become Americaâs essential partners and are, we are
convinced, ready to respond positively. Itâs time for Trump and
America to take the initiative for U.S-Russia-China cooperation
towards a secure, prosperous, and peaceful future.  A
Trump-Putin-Xi 'Big Three Summit' should be a priority for the
new U.S. Presidentâs first 100 days."
        So, I'd like to ask Jeff Steinberg to fill out the world
picture, and detail for our viewers what are the flanks, what are
the handles, the levers that we have for shifting US policy at
this time?

JEFFREY STEINBERG:  Thanks, Jason.  For starters, it's very
important to realize that we're in a period of significant flux.
There are certain things that we know about the consequences of
the US Presidential elections and other Federal elections on
November 8th.  And I think Lozansky and Jatrus made one very
fundamental point quite clearly:  That there was a very grave
danger based on the campaign rhetoric of Hillary Clinton, based
on the policies that were pursued even ever more aggressively
towards the end of his eight years in office by President Barack
Obama; that we were headed for the worst crisis between the
United States and Russia that we ever experienced — worse
perhaps even than the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.  So, the
defeat of Hillary Clinton really is the end of the 16-year
tyranny of the Bush and Obama Presidencies.  How rapidly we can
turn the policies around under the new Trump Presidency, where
the Cabinet appointments are going to go, these are all unknowns;
they're not certain to us.
        So, we do know that particularly in the aftermath of the
APEC summit meeting that just concluded last week in Lima, Peru,
which was then followed by state visits by Chinese President Xi
Jinping to Peru and then to Chile afterwards; and prior to the
summit, he was in Ecuador.  We know that there's a tremendous
opportunity out there for the United States, under a Trump
Presidency, to precisely join in what has always been on the
table as an open invitation to the United States; namely, for the
United States to join in the World Land-Bridge project.  Because
without the United States, it's very difficult to conceive of
this as a World Land-Bridge; which is really what the world
requires right now.  There have been very preliminary phone
discussions between President-elect Trump and Russian President
Putin; they seem to have reached an agreement that they will have
a face-to-face summit meeting soon after the inauguration —
which is January 20th.  The idea, similarly, is for President
Trump, once he's inaugurated, to also meet quite soon with
Chinese President Xi Jinping.  I think the Lozansky-Jatrus idea
of a trilateral meeting would be extraordinarily valuable.  I
think it's important to remember that in 1944, the orientation of
President Franklin Roosevelt in the move to establish the United
Nations — which happened in 1945 — was to include both the
Soviet Union and China among the permanent five nations of the UN
Security Council.  Remember, Roosevelt understood that there were
imperial policies that were still at the core of the British
Empire with Churchill, and similarly with France.  So, the idea
of having Russia — the Soviet Union at the time — and China in
this permanent Security Council core grouping, reflected the fact
that Roosevelt at that time saw the prospect of that kind of an
alliance system across Eurasia.  So, I think that's there's an
historical basis to look to here for exactly this kind of
Russia-China cooperation.  For the last 15 years, a cornerstone
of Lyndon LaRouche's of global policy has been a
US-Russia-China-India cooperation, particularly on scientific
programs; especially space exploration, as the basis for global
peace and development.  So, those ideas are out there.
        On November 20th, soon after he was named by President-elect
Trump to be the National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn,
in an interview with Fareed Zakhari on CNN, said that in his
view, the only way to deal with the long-term problem of the
jihadist, terrorist threat in the Middle East and North Africa,
was for there to be a global cooperation on a Marshall Plan — he
used that term explicitly.  He said, if you look at what Europe
was able to accomplish in the aftermath of the devastation of
World War II, and the role that the Marshall Plan played; it was
not the whole thing, but it was an important element of the
postwar recovery.  That kind of perspective is really the winning
strategy for dealing with the population growth and this spread
of Saudi-sponsored jihadism throughout the Middle East-North
Africa region.  It extends into Southeast Asia as well.
        So, there are great potentialities; they are largely as yet
unrealized in terms of the change coming with the new
administration.  But I think, Jason, as you correctly said, there
is no reason to wait for January.  President-elect Trump, in a
major campaign speech in Charlotte, North Carolina, explicitly
called for reinstating Glass-Steagall.  It's in the platforms of
both major political parties from this year's elections; the
Democrats and the Republicans both adopted it.  It was a Trump
delegate to the policy committee of the GOP who introduced the
Glass-Steagall.  You've got Senators Elizabeth Warren, and more
importantly, Senator Bernie Sanders, saying that they're prepared
to reach across the aisle and work with Donald Trump if the
issues for collaboration include and really start with
Glass-Steagall.  So, this is something that does not have to wait
for January and the inauguration and the new Congress.  There are
Glass-Steagall bills in both the House and the Senate.  One of
the House bills has the identical language as the Senate bill.
As we saw with the JASTA veto override vote, if the Congressional
leadership gives the green lights, then Glass-Steagall can be
brought to the floor of both houses and can be debated and voted
within a matter of hours.  The override of JASTA took two hours
in the morning for the US Senate, and two and a half or so hours
in the afternoon for the House.  It was accomplished in one
legislative day.  So, there's no reason whatsoever that we can't
move immediately — literally next week when Congress is back in
session after Thanksgiving; and they're there for three weeks.
There's no reason that we should not have Glass-Steagall back as
the law of the land before the Christmas recess.  So that we hit
the ground running with the new administration; and frankly, time
is of the essence.  We don't know, given the situation with
Deutsche Bank, with Royal Bank of Scotland, the largest US
too-big-to-fail banks are sitting on $252 trillion in
derivatives.  That's 30% more than it was at the time of the 2008
crash.  That's on top of a very questionable capital base of $14
trillion; the reality is that it's probably much less than that,
because some of the assets that are allowed to be counted as the
capital reserves, are basically illiquid and can't be — even on
an emergency basis — made liquid.
        So, we could wake up tomorrow morning, or Monday morning, or
the middle of next week, and find that the entire trans-Atlantic
banking system has blown out.  So, Glass-Steagall is an urgent,
immediate issue; and it then begs the other three key elements of
LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws.  Which is a credit system;
investment in major infrastructure projects; and a revival of the
most advanced scientific programs, including a major return to
space and the work internationally to finally achieve the full
breakthrough on fusion.  All of these things are on the table,
but again, there are no guarantees, there's nothing that's even
remotely certain about what's going to come next.  We can breathe
a little easier because danger of war with Russia, with China is
greatly reduced; and there's a lot of potentiality.  There's a
lot of the kind of transition from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan
in the air as a potential; but none of it is fully realized yet.
So, people are going to have to realize this is a moment of great
opportunity.  It's going to be an outpouring of the population
under the right kind of leadership, directed at the right
policies, that can really seize the opportunity.  If we wait
until January of February of next year, who knows what kind of
sabotage operations are going to be run?
        You can go on Craig's List and find George Soros front
groups, like MoveOn.org and blacklivesmatter.org, offering $1500
a week for people to run around like idiots, protesting against
the outcome of the election. There's a great deal of uncertainty,
in terms of what's going on, at the same time that there's great
opportunity. We've got to make sure that we take the lead in
seizing the moment.

ROSS: Great! Thanks! In terms of the long-term outlook of where
we're going to go, what our policy should be, a major aspect of
this goes beyond legislation that affects us only here on Earth.
A major component, in fact the fourth component of the Four Laws
of Mr. LaRouche, the last one being the fusion driver crash
program, is connected with our existence beyond the planet, also
out in space. Ben wrote an article that's going to be in the
upcoming issue of the Hamiltonian about what a U.S. space
policy ought to be, and about the really long-term goals that we
have to have, and why this is important and essential. So, could
you tell us about that, Ben?

        BENJAMIN DENISTON: Gladly! As viewers are aware, this has
been an ongoing subject of discussion. Mr. LaRouche, as Jason is
saying, has put a major, major focus on, as a critical part of
the needed recovery program and the future of mankind. In this
article we tried to elevate people's thinking about space,
especially in the context of so many years and administrations
and decades of just zero-growth policies.
        One thing that's being discussed now, which is interesting
and useful, is how much NASA has been hijacked for this global
warming crap. A lot of NASA's budget has been redirected to
"Earth sciences." Not all Earth sciences are bad. There's a lot
of interesting science to learn about the Earth. But Earth
sciences is often a front to push this fraud of some man-made
global warming crisis. So, there's some discussion about NASA
being redirected away from wasting their time on this phony,
phony, fake crisis, which is not something we need to be
concerned about, and redirecting back to exploration. Surprise,
surprise. The Moon has come back now as a central subject of the
discussion. Anybody who had any sense would realize that once
Obama was out, this crazy asteroid mission [The Asteroid Impact
and Deflection Assessment (AIDA) mission] would likely be tossed
aside. Anybody who is serious would recognize that the Moon is
the next place to get back to.
        As Jeff was referencing, there's a lot of discussion, a lot
of openness. From our work and discussions with Mr. LaRouche, I
think it's critical to really raise the level of discussion to
the right basis. We can have exciting missions, we can have
inspiring missions, but the question to ask is: are we going to
have a program where the investments are going to be the basis
for creating a whole new level of activity, that will allows us
to do orders of magnitude more than we were able to do prior to
that investment? Is this going to create what Mr. LaRouche had
once defined as a "physical-economic platform?" Is this going to
create an entirely new platform of activity, of potential — of
infrastructure, of energy-flux density of technologies — which
comes together to support a qualitatively new level of potential
activity for mankind?
        That is the issue we want to put on the table right now.
This goes directly to the vision of Krafft Ehricke, the early
space pioneer who worked very closely with Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche in the '80s, who was one of the leading space
visionaries, who had outlined in great detail the initial basis
of mankind expanding to really becoming a Solar System species.
I'm going to get back to his work in a minute. Mr. LaRouche's
concept of the "platform" is really critical. He introduced this,
I think it was around the year 2010, 2009, something like that.
He was coming up against a real lack of understanding of the
significance of what "infrastructure" really means, in its true
scientific sense. Unfortunately, this has become somewhat of a
buzzword that a lot of people throw out there. "We need to
rebuild our infrastructure" has become a kind of a hot
campaign-trail word to use to get some support.
        The real understanding of what qualitative revolutions in
infrastructure systems mean for mankind's continual creative
progress is not connected to the way most people use that term.
Mr. LaRouche defined the very profound and critical assessment of
looking at the development of human civilization in these stages
of platforms. He said, go back to thousands of years ago, when
the dominant cultures were trans-oceanic maritime cultures. What
you began to see, with the development of inland waterways,
inland river systems — he had put a big point on what
Charlemagne was doing during his reign in central Europe in
developing these canal systems and river systems — was a
qualitative revolution above what had existed prior, with these
trans-oceanic civilizations: the development of these inland
waterways. That defined a new platform of activity that supported
a qualitative leap in what civilization was able to accomplish.
        The next leap came with the development of rail systems,
railroads, especially trans-continental railroads, typified by
what Lincoln had spearheaded with the trans-continental railroad
across America. With these rail systems, with the new
technologies of steam engines powering these rail systems, the
higher energy-flux density of coal-powered steam engines, this
enabled mankind to begin to develop the interior regions of the
continent, in completely new ways, and defined a totally new
relationship of mankind, of civilization, to the environment
around him. It defined a qualitative increase in mankind's
"potential relative population density," as LaRouche had
developed that metric for understanding the science of economic
growth. It made things that were at one point incredibly
expensive or challenging or risky, become just day-to-day regular
activities.
        I think back to the early phases of these frontier
explorations of the American Continent. You go back to the Lewis
and Clark Expeditions, where to travel from the east coast across
the entire mainland of the continent to the west coast required
someone like the leading skilled frontiersmen, and a very
dangerous, very challenging mission, which was a very brave
undertaking for a handful of people to actually be able to
accomplish that. Some decades later, with the rail system, with
the infrastructure of this railroad platform, any family could do
this. With your young children, you could hop on the rail line
and get across the country. Any entrepreneur could come out and
take advantage of the development of new territories that were
completely inaccessible before. It was a complete transformation
in our most fundamental ability to exist on the planet in these
different territories.
        Now what does this have to do with space? This is how we
should be thinking about space exploration, space
development–things that we view today as incredibly expensive,
difficult, dangerous missions. We should be thinking now what
kind of investments can we make to ensure that those then become
regular, day-to-day even, activities that we can support very
easily. What will it take to create a Solar System
physical-economic platform that will enable mankind to do much
more, much easier, than we can today? That's the metric we want
to set. That's the measuring rod we want to utilize, to determine
what kind of space program, what kind of policy we need today.
        In breaking this down, this might not include everything,
but in some of our work in the Basement with our discussions on
this subject, I think we can really, very usefully look at three
categories of activity — three categories of infrastructure and
technologies — which define the basis, you could say the
pillars, of a Solar System platform, of an ability to
qualitatively expand mankind's ability to access the Solar System
in completely new ways, to make things we currently view as
singular flagship missions, [into] just regular, easy activities
that we can do, orders of magnitude more of than we can now.

What we want to look at are these three categories of activity:

(1) Access to space. What's our ability to get from Earth's
surface up into Earth orbit? Initial basic access to space.

(2) Travelling in space. Getting around the Solar System. Getting
from one planetary body to the next.

(3) Developing resources. Developing the capabilities to utilize
the resources available to us throughout the Solar System, not
having to take everything with us everywhere we go, but be able
to develop the wealth that's available out there; to utilize it
on site and transport it around, even bringing stuff back to
Earth that we can't necessarily get from Earth.

        If you look at these three pillars, these three categories
together, and if you make qualitative breakthroughs in each of
these together, this really comes together to define a new
platform of activity, a new standard that will enable the kind of
leap that will transition us from viewing space as a Lewis and
Clark style expedition, to a trans-continental railroad style
relationship to the Solar System.
        I just want to take a couple minutes and go through just
some sense of what areas we can see breakthroughs in each of
these categories. Go to the first slide we have displayed. [Fig.
1] It has been said that getting from Earth's surface to low
Earth orbit, is half-way to anywhere in the Solar System. In a
certain sense that's very true. If you have a sense of the
scales, that might sound very, very strange, because, just in
terms of distance, low Earth orbit [begins] about 160 km, about
100 miles, up above your head. If you want to travel to the Moon,
you're talking about hundreds of thousands of miles. If you want
to travel to another planet, you're talking about millions of
miles.
        It's a little funny to think that the first 100 miles,
compared to hundreds of thousands or millions, is actually half
of the trip. But if you look at the energy requirements and what
it takes to actually start from just being on the Earth's surface
and getting into orbit, that is the case. It is a tremendous
amount of energy requirement to get from Earth's surface up into
Earth orbit.
        The graphic here displays this, in terms of travel from
Earth's surface to different planetary bodies, measured in the
standard terms used for Solar System travel, which is your change
in speed. To get into Earth orbit requires not just going up 100
miles, but actually changing your speed, from your current
velocity sitting here on the Earth, to something that will allow
you to stay in orbit. If you want to change orbits, or travel
around, you can measure that, in terms of changes in velocity.
So that happens to be the metric here; but you can see the lowest
dark blue bar on each of these graphics shows that literally far
more than half of the requirement is just getting from Earth's
surface to Earth orbit.

        ROSS:  So, this is half of the speed that you're getting;
this doesn't mean half of the energy, or half of the fuel, or
anything like that.

        DENISTON:  Yeah.  Once you start to include that, it would
be even more energy requirements; because you've got to lift your
fuel that you're going to use for the different travels into
orbit with you.  It definitely gets a little more detailed if you
want to get into it, but this is literally the change in speed
requirements to get into Earth orbit and then to leave Earth
orbit is very significant.
        So, there's improvements being made in rocket systems to get
up more efficiently, but there are new technologies that are just
sitting there on the horizon; they've been sitting there for
decades, frankly, that would dramatically lower the cost, lower
the requirements, and the point is, dramatically increase the
accessibility of space to mankind.  One technology that has been
discussed for a long time is space planes.  Here in the graphic
you can see a relatively recent article covering studies in China
on interest in China to develop what some people call
single-stage-to-orbit space planes.  So, you can get on a plane
on a runway — it's probably going to be a little bit longer than
your standard runway for airplane travel — and you can ride a
single space plane from the runway all the way up into Earth
orbit.  A lot of this depends upon much more advanced engine
designs that can utilize the oxygen in the atmosphere at higher
speeds and at higher altitudes to continue to provide thrust.
But these things could dramatically lower the cost, the energy
requirements of getting people and payloads up into Earth orbit;
far more than a lot of the discussion about these reusable
rockets and some of the developments going on in improving rocket
systems to get from Earth's surface into Earth orbit.

        ROSS:  This is a technology that was in LaRouche's "Woman on
Mars" video from the 1980s, right?  It talked about beginning
with an airplane, and then turning into a rocket.  The big
benefit being that you can use the oxygen in the atmosphere
instead of carrying it with you, is that right?  Is that what
makes this more effective?

        DENISTON:  Yeah, absolutely.  These rocket systems have to
carry the oxygen as part of the rocket to combust to provide the
thrust.  These are more innovative engine designs —
air-breathing engines that can use the oxygen in the atmosphere.
As you said, this has been researched in the United States with
different scramjet designs.  Yeah, Mr. LaRouche featured some of
this, which he had developed I think in some close discussion
with some Italian colleagues at the time in his collaboration
with the Fusion Energy Foundation; and had made it a major part
of his "Woman on Mars" mission.
        But this is being developed; this is live.  Again, you're
seeing clear interest in China; there's interest in the United
States; there's a company in the United Kingdom that's developing
very interesting engine designs that can utilize these
capabilities.  If you want to take it a step further, another
thing that's been discussed is using vacuum tube maglev
technologies to launch from Earth orbit into space.  This might
be a little more frontier and not quite as around the corner as
these space planes; but this is the kind of stuff that we should
be thinking about.  Again, the point is, completely
revolutionizing mankind's access to low-Earth orbit and then to
the Solar System.  So, this is the first major hurdle.  If you
get some solid infrastructure developments that can enable
mankind to overcome this hurdle more easily, you're creating the
basis for a much broader expansion of mankind's activity.
        The next pillar, the next category is travel in space.  And
again, this is an issue that Mr. LaRouche has been campaigning on
for decades.  Space travel requires nuclear reactions; chemical
fuel just doesn't have the energy density to provide quick and
efficient access to the Solar System.  We can get to the Moon;
that's OK.  It probably would be nice to get there a little bit
quicker, but that's our next door neighbor in terms of the Solar
System.  If you want to get to Mars, you want to get around to
other places in the Solar System, you've got to get to nuclear
reactions.  The heart of this is the fact that the energy
density, the energy per mass of nuclear reactions is, on average,
on the order of a million times greater than the energy per mass
in chemical reactions; even as broad categories, setting aside
the particular fuel you use in either case.
        A million times is just a big number, but for one quick
comparison, you take the fuel used for the Space Shuttle launch
— those two solid rocket boosters on either side, the large tank
in the middle filled with liquid fuel.  You take the weight of
all that fuel together, some of the most advanced chemical
reactions we have for fuel for space launch; how much weight of
nuclear fuel would it take to contain the same amount of energy?
You're talking about 10 pounds!  One suitcase full of nuclear
fuel contains the same amount of energy as all three fuel tanks
of the Space Shuttle.  To be fair, you couldn't necessarily use
that fuel the same way to launch the Space Shuttle; you have to
have systems that can actually combust it and get thrust out of
it.  It's not just the energy content as the only issue, but that
is the defining characteristic that makes nuclear reactions key
to getting around the Solar System; enabling things like
travelling at constant acceleration.  Instead of just initially
firing your thruster and basically floating on an orbit to get to
different planetary bodies — which is what's often proposed for
getting people to Mars; which would take on the order of six,
seven, eight months to do.  If you had nuclear reactions —
especially fusion reactions — you can be accelerating for half
the trip, and decelerating the second half of the trip; you can
cut that time down to weeks or even days.
        We were all excited that New Horizons got to Pluto.
Unfortunately, it didn't have the fuel in it and the engines to
slow down when it got there; which is too bad, because it spent
ten years getting there, and even just passing by in the course
of a couple of weeks, found amazing things.  Imagine if it
actually got to stop and stay?  If you had nuclear reactions,
that the type of stuff you could be doing.  If you had
one-gravity acceleration, so you're constantly accelerating,
providing the thrust that creates the equivalent of one Earth
gravity for the crew on the space ship, it would literally take
16 days to get to Pluto.  Compared to New Horizons taking ten
years to get there; that's when the orbits are closest, but maybe
a few more days in sub-optimal conditions.
        You're talking about a complete revolution in our ability to
efficiently get around the Solar System; travel to different
planetary bodies; visit multiple locations.  If you want to send
people to Mars, this is the way to do it.  If you want to send
people out to other places, this is the way to do it.  Even
robotic missions; you want to get around and do way more
exploration.  There's so much we don't know about all these
planets, about their moons; there's just so much to figure out.
These are the kinds of systems that are going to create vast
improvements in our ability to do it.
        And again, the third category is developing the resources in
space; developing the ability to utilize what's available to us
on the Moon, on Mars, on different asteroids.  This is something
we don't really do at all, yet.  So, you have to bring basically
everything with you through that very costly energy-intensive
first hurdle of getting from Earth's surface up into Earth orbit,
through travelling the vast distances of space.  This is just
this very early pioneer style mode of activity.  Whereas, if
we're going to be serious about this, we need to develop the
capabilities to utilize the resources that are there; and
eventually look to serious industrialization and development of
advanced systems out in space, on-site at different planetary
bodies.  One critical driver to this whole thing that we've put a
major focus on is the development of helium-3 from the Moon.
Helium-3 being an absolutely unique, excellent fusion fuel; which
is basically absent on Earth, but relatively abundant all over
the lunar surface, and could be an excellent fuel for fusion
propulsion in space and also to provide electricity energy back
here on Earth.  There's been years of serious study and designs
and investigations of how to go to the Moon, develop the systems
to process the regala[ph], extract the helium-3; and initiate
real industrial-style processes; developments on the lunar
surface.  That's just one example.  You want to get oxygen,
hydrogen, metals; asteroids are also potentially very useful
places to develop the resources.  So, as a third category, the
general idea of developing advanced capabilities to utilize and
create what we need in different regions of the Solar System.
        If you put this together and look at these things
synergistically as integrated technologies, infrastructure
systems, levels of energy flux density; as a whole they define
for mankind a completely different relationship to the Solar
System.  The question is, are we making investments that are
bringing us to that level?  Can we say that the investments we're
going to make in this next administration are going to be taking
mankind in that direction, to be able to support these
qualitatively higher levels of activity to the point where we can
honestly look back in a couple of generations and see the space
activity going on now as equivalent to Lewis and Clark style
explorations of the West; and have mankind have the capabilities
to regularly visit many planetary bodies and do all we want
around the Solar System?  That's the vision that we need.
        We were talking about this with Mr. LaRouche earlier today,
and he again said, "Your starting point is Krafft Ehricke."  And
Krafft Ehricke's industrialization of the Moon really I think is
the critical driver program that can get a lot of this going.  As
I said, we have helium-3 on the Moon; that puts fusion directly
right there on the table.  You're talking about developing
industrial capabilities and mining capabilities on the Moon.  If
you're serious about doing this, you want to increase our access
to space from the Earth's surface.  So, it is excellent that
we're seeing a lot of discussion about the Moon coming on the
table again; but I think the issue is, are we going to pursue
this Krafft Ehricke vision for a real industrial development?
Although he might have used different terms in discussing it, he
had exactly the same conception that Mr. LaRouche has:  That this
is the basis for mankind's much broader expanse.  Really the
essential nature of the type of qualitative changes that mankind
goes through in his natural growth and development as a very
unique species on this Earth and hopefully tomorrow in the Solar
System.
        As Jason mentioned, some of this is discussed in an article
that's going to be released in the next issue of the
Hamiltonian.  This is an ongoing subject of discussion, but
with the openness now, I really think it's critical we set the
level of discussion on that basis.

        ROSS:  Mmhmm; that's aiming pretty high, that's good.  I
think that's a really apt description that you got about
comparing Lewis and Clark.  It used to be a really difficult
thing to cross the continent; now it isn't.  Or think about the
Silk Road.  The ancient Silk Road.  If you're trying the develop
that region of the planet with camel caravans, and you contrast
that with what China is able to do now with building rail
networks and helping build them and road networks in these
neighboring countries; you totally transform the relationship to
that area.  The old development of human settlements along
coasts, along oceans or along rivers; and then by the chemical
revolution, by the ability to have steam power — also canals
earlier, but still connected to water; but with steam power, it
made it possible to open up the interior of the continents.  And
with the potential for nuclear power, then the Solar System
becomes something that's accessible to us in a meaningful or more
regular way than an exotic, years-long, life-threatening trip.
        The other aspect, which you talked about is, if you look at
what's going on with the New Paradigm in the world; what China's
doing, with the way things are being reshaped politically also
around Russia.  And then you look at the scientific advancements
that are being made, where China's got a very top-line in the
world super-conducting tokamak for fusion research.  The major
breakthroughs in terms of lunar exploration — that's China right
now; China's going to be landing on the far side of the Moon;
China had the first soft landing on the Moon in decades.  This is
really a potential.  With their far side of the Moon landing,
China will be able to take the first photographs of our universe
in the very low radio range; it's never been done before.  We'll
have access to a whole new sense of sight about the universe
around us.
        So, I think it's very exciting.  It's definitely much more
thrilling than most of the discussion that takes place about this
policy or that policy, when you think big like that.

DENISTON:  Mr. LaRouche's platform concept is so key.  People
just don't have the idea of this type of qualitative leaps that
are natural for mankind.  People are so accustomed at this point
to just slow, incremental progress if there's any progress at
all.  It's going to be a fight to get people to think on this
level again.

        ROSS:  Yes!  So much of what is considered to be progressive
or useful is only nudging people toward being better savers or
something; compared to the kinds of huge changes that are going
to be needed.  I think that's a very good image that we've given
people.  Let's end it with that.  I think the thing to take from
this also is that we have got a lot that we need to do; a lot of
policies to put into place; and a wide open opportunity to make
it happen right now.  Including, as Jeff was emphasizing,
Glass-Steagall is absolutely doable during this session of
Congress; even before the inauguration of the next President and
the next Congress in January.  This is something we can do right
now, next week, in this period.
        The ability to understand this concept of the platforms, of
the history of economic development of the United States, a real
major aspect of economic science, comes through studying
Alexander Hamilton.  So, if you have not been working through
Alexander Hamilton's reports, I urge you to get in touch with —
if you're near one of our offices, one of our locations, to join
us for these readings.  Get a copy of these reports yourself.
The book, Alexander Hamilton's Vision contains all four of the
reports, along with Mr. LaRouche's Four New Laws to Save the USA
Now.  And you don't have to get into a fistfight at a Walmart
parking lot to pick it up, either.
        Let's end it with that.  Please sign up through our website
if you haven't already, to find out how to get involved with us.
Get our daily email, join us via the action center; let's be in
touch, and let's make this happen right now.  There is nothing to
wait for; the situation is open.  So, thank you for joining us;
thank you to Ben and Jeff.  Thank you for all the work that you
have done and that you will do in the period immediately ahead.