I dag, den 28. sept., udspyede Obama sit krigsgale snavs over de samlede repræsentanter for verden på FN’s Generalforsamling. Blot få minutter senere fastslog Putins fremlæggelse med syvtommersøm den usminkede sandhed: at Obama er færdig.

Mens han på hyklerisk vis nævnte »regering ved international lov« og ondskaben i »magt er ret«, gjorde Obama Putin og Syriens Bashar al-Assad til direkte målskive for anklager om, at de var roden til alt ondt i verden i dag og hævdede endda, at Assad er årsagen til ISIS-rædslen i Irak og Syrien. »Lad os huske på, hvordan det begyndte«, fantaserede han.

»Assad reagerede på fredelige protester ved at optrappe undertrykkelse og drab, som igen skabte vilkårene for den aktuelle strid. Og Assad og hans allierede kan således ikke simpelt hen pacificere det store befolkningsflertal, der er blevet brutaliseret af kemiske våben og hensynsløse bombardementer.«

Han sagde, at »visse stormagter hævder sig på måder, der er i modstrid med international lov«, hvilket må have fået tilhørerne til at gispe efter vejret; dernæst klagede han over, at disse samme magter fremfører, at, for at bekæmpe terrorisme,

»må vi støtte tyranner som Bashar al-Assad, der kaster tøndebomber for at massakrere uskyldige børn, fordi alternativet sikkert er værre«.

Han skød dernæst brystet frem:

»Jeg er leder for det stærkeste militær, verden nogen sinde har kendt, og jeg vil aldrig tøve med at beskytte mit land eller vore allierede, ensidigt og ved hjælp af magt, om nødvendigt.«

(Senere fremdrog Putin ødelæggelsen af Libyen og Irak, lande, der bestemt ikke truede nogen, samt Obamas ensidige tilsidesættelse af FN’s charter og international lov.)

Obamas diskussion blev mere direkte med hensyn til Ukraine:

»Se på Ruslands annektering af Krim og yderligere aggression i Ukraine … Vi kan ikke passivt se til, når en nations suverænitet og territoriale integritet åbenlyst krænkes.«(!)

Idet han tydeligvis følte presset, sagde han klagende:

»Det er ikke en sammensværgelse af amerikansk-støttede NGO’er, der afslører korruption og sætter befolkningens forventninger op i hele verden; dens teknologi, sociale medier og ønsket, der ikke kan indskrænkes, hos folk overalt om at træffe deres egne valg om, hvordan de ønsker at blive regeret.«

Rusland har, sagde han hysterisk, startet en ny kold krig, og er nu ved at kollapse.

Obama vendte gentagne gange tilbage til situationen i Syrien, men omtalte aldrig russernes flanke-initiativ, hvorved de intervenerer militært og skaber en ægte, international koalition for at knuse ISIS, hvilket er årsagen til Obamas forstillelse foran hele FN.

Se hele Obamas tale i FN her:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3V9I2Dx7vk

“Vi kan ikke længere udholde verdens tilstand” – Vladimir Putin i De forenede Nationer.

Indenfor, udenfor og i stor afstand fra FN på Manhattans østside var det i dag åbenlyst, at den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin er i færd med at ændre den strategiske form af verdensbegivenhederne, og også har betydelig støtte blandt amerikanere for en reel, international koalition til bekæmpelse af terrorisme.

Putins tale i FN, hvor han forsvarede denne organisations charter, der havde Franklin Roosevelt som sin oprindelse, var ligefrem og effektiv. Han sagde, at der var blevet skabt en terrorisme, der hastigt bredte sig, og skabt forarmelse og tab af respekt for livet i hele Mellemøsten, Nordafrika og Sydasien, gennem krige for regimeskift, eller »demokrati-krige«, der krænker dette FN-charter og international lov, og at denne ødelæggelse ville brede sig, indtil den blev standset.

»Vi kan ikke længere udholde verdens tilstand.«

Et heldags demonstrationsmøde uden for FN med 40 aktivister fra LaRouchePAC oplevede en usædvanlig modtagelighed for sit banner-budskab: »Obama: Hjælp verdensfreden. Gå af.« Den totalt falske krig, som Obamas »60-nationer stor koalition« angiveligt skulle udkæmpe imod ISIS-terroristerne, er gået ned til at være et par luftangreb om dagen, mens tilfangetagne amerikanske våben og USA’s »allieredes« støtte til ISIS/al-Qaeda har fået terroristernes kamprækker til at svulme op til 30.000 alene i Syrien og Irak.

Som »ud af den blå luft« er en ny koalition, der rent faktisk vil bekæmpe terroristerne, imidlertid hastigt ved at vokse frem omkring Putins russiske initiativ ind i Syrien, med støtte fra Kina. Også hen over Europa, såvel som i Mellemøsten, fejer der et skift med hensyn til accept af dette initiativ.

EIR’s stiftende redaktør Lyndon LaRouche blev af medier bedt om at kommentere Putins 2 timer lange CBS-interview. Under diskussioner med LaRouchePAC’s Komite for Politisk Strategi mandag sagde LaRouche, at der er ved at fremkomme et fundamentalt skift, som er revolutionært, i den politiske strategi. Wall Street kollapser også. Verden vil snart repræsentere noget andet for menneskeheden, sagde han. Og dette i en periode, hvor man ikke længere tror på opdagelsen af fundamentalt nye principper – fysiske, økonomiske eller politiske!

Putin, sagde han, har netop demonstreret princippet om flanken – imod et afgørende punkt for den totale fiasko for Obamas politik, og har kastet Obamas Hvide Hus ud i forvirring og vrede.

I mellemtiden bekendtgjorde Kinas præsident Xi endnu en forpligtelse til 100 mia. dollars, gennem FN, til international infrastrukturudvikling. Kinas »win-win«-politik, eller konfucianske politik for økonomisk udvikling, er en integreret del af det globale skift, der er i gang.

Obamas mest effektive bidrag hertil? Gå af.

I dag, mandag den 28. sept., er en afgørende mærkedag i historien, med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin, der kommer til Manhattan for at fremlægge sin flankemanøvre imod præsident Obama og hans herrer i London og på Wall Street. Det er et opgør mellem kreativitet og sindssyge, mellem global udvikling og global disintegration; mellem krig og fred. Putin er allerede begyndt at deployere ekstensivt militærudstyr i Syrien, på anmodning fra den legitime, syriske regering under præsident Assad. Som han sagde til Charlie Rose i et interview, der skal sendes i afsnit mellem søndag nat og tirsdag, så er han forpligtende engageret til at forsvare denne legitime regering, eftersom »alle andre handlinger i modsat retning« ville skabe en katastrofe, »som vi nu ser det« i Libyen. Han påpegede, at denne deployering var helt i overensstemmelse med international lov, ulig tilsvarende deployeringer fra præsident Obamas side, hvis

»levering af militær støtte til illegale strukturer er i modstrid med principperne i moderne, international lov og De forenede Nationers Charter«.

Der er panik i Det Hvide Hus under Obamas forberedelser til at mødes privat med Putin, efter at de begge taler til Generalforsamlingen i dag. En afvisning af Putins forslag om en international koalition mellem nationer for at beskytte den suveræne stat Syrien, og verden, mod det barbariske ISIS, vil afsløre Obama som en åbenlys støtte af præcis disse terroristnetværk – nøjagtig som general Michael Flynn, den tidligere chef for det amerikanske Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste (DIA), sagde den 31. juli til Al Jazeera, hvor han anklagede Obama for »bevidst« at støtte al-Qaeda for at opnå et regimeskift i Libyen og Irak.

TASS rapporterede søndag, at Irak, Iran, Syrien og Rusland allerede har etableret et center i Bagdad for koordinering af efterretninger og operationer imod ISIS, og som skal ledes af repræsentanter for disse nationers generalstabe. Vil Obama modsætte sig denne indsats?

Præsident Xi Jinping sendte yderligere chokbølger gennem FN i lørdags, hvor han fremlagde kinesiske planer om yderligere flere store udviklingsprojekter i hele verden, med en alvorlig kritik af den eksisterende politik, hvor der kun gives hjælp til de lande, der lydigt følger de vestlige magters ordre. Kina, sagde han, vil, i sine udviklingsprojekter, sætte »retfærdighed over interesser«.

Og den tredje leder af Rusland-Kina-Indien-trekanten, der anfører BRIKS-nationerne i skabelsen af et nyt paradigme for fred gennem udvikling, sprængte hul i den grønne fascistdagsordens planer om at bruge svindelen med global opvarmning til at nedlukke udvikling over hele verden. Den indiske premierminister Narendra Modi sagde til FN’s generalsekretær, Ban Ki-moon, at der bestod et »tillids-underskud« over for de udviklede lande, der bruger klimaspørgsmålet til at afholde udviklingslandene fra at forbedre deres befolkningers levestandard, under påskuddet om kontrol af CO₂-udledning. Det var Indien og Kina, der førte an i den heldige afvisning af tvungen nedbringelse af CO₂, og som ødelagde Klimakonferencen i København i 2009, »COP15«, og det er sandsynligt, at vi kan vente det samme ved »COP21«, Klimakonferencen i Paris i december måned.

EIR’s nye Specialrapport, Skræmmekampagne om ’Global Opvarmning’ er Befolkningsreduktion, ikke Videnskab[1], må læses og distribueres for at sikre netop et sådant resultat.

I lørdags blev Lyndon LaRouche, under en konference i Manhattan, spurgt, hvilken fremgangsmåde, man skulle anvende for at mobilisere folk på et tidspunkt, hvor faren, som nu, er så alvorlig. Han svar var, i uddrag:

»Obama var på randen af at lancere en atomkrig fra selve USA. Det var, hvad han var helliget til. Og Putin blokerede det! Hvordan blokerede han det? Han gik over til en anden kæde og ændrede spørgsmålet og kom ind i et helt område, som ikke var det europæiske område i den almindelige forstand. Og hele dette område, fra Tyskland, og fra andre dele af Europa, begyndte at respondere til det, Putin havde gjort!

Pointen er derfor, at vi på alle punkter altid må søge menneskehedens fremskridt, i den forstand, at vi søger efter menneskelig udødelighed i de mennesker, der vil tage vores plads, når de skal tage vores plads, ud fra den antagelse, at de vil være i stand til, som en gruppe mennesker, som et samfund, at skabe evnen til ægte menneskelighed i fremtiden, eller i nutiden og ind i fremtiden.

Og det er denne optimisme, der giver folk inspiration til at hellige deres liv til det, der ligger forude, selv, hvis de skulle stå over for en trussel om døden. Og de inspireres af den kendsgerning, at de har folk, der bidrager til udviklingen af en mere fremskreden grad af udvikling af samfundet, end de nogen sinde tidligere har kendt.«

Titelbillede: St. Georg dragedræberen

[1] Se: Rapport fra pressekonferencen i anledning af rapportens udgivelse 

Samt også: Introduktion til EIR’s rapport v/Helga Zepp-LaRouche, »Klimaforandring som middel til oprettelse af et globalt miljødiktatur« 

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Mandag i denne uge markerede den officielle begyndelse af FN’s Generalforsamlings sammentræde i New York City, hvor en stor del af verdens ledere vil være samlet for de næste to uger, midt i en meget usikker, og også meget farlig og omskiftelig, global strategisk situation. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde i en erklæring, hun udstedte for et par uger siden »En hasteappel til FN’s Generalforsamling«, så kunne dette være menneskehedens sidste chance for at droppe systemet med geopolitik og indvarsle et nyt paradigme, der bygger på menneskehedens fælles mål. I erklæringen siger hun: »Kun på denne måde vil vi overleve som art. Og efter denne standard vil statsoverhovederne på Manhattan blive målt.«

Af denne grund vil der være meget fokus på de første dage i næste uge, hvor statsoverhovederne vil samles på Manhattan for at holde taler og mødes; disse statsoverhoveder inkluderer Kinas Xi Jinping, Ruslands Vladimir Putin og USA’s Barack Obama.

Engelsk udskrift.

We’re coming to you LIVE tonight! We have plenty to update you on, so tune in LIVE at 8pm Eastern.

Transcript

MEGAN BEETS:

It’s Friday evening September 25, and I’d like to welcome you all to our regular weekly webcast. My name is Megan Beets, and I’m joined tonight in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review, and Jason Ross and Ben Deniston of the LaRouche PAC science team.

Monday of this week marked the official start of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York City, where much of the leadership of the world has convened for the next two, in the midst of a very precarious, and also a very dangerous and rapidly transforming global strategic situation. As was said by Helga Zepp-LaRouche in a statement that she released a couple of weeks ago, “An Urgent Appeal to the United Nations General Assembly,” this could be mankind’s last chance to dump the system of geopolitics, and to usher in a new paradigm built around the common aims of mankind. She says in the statement: “Only in that way will we survive as a species. And by that standard will the heads of state in Manhattan be measured.”

Now for that reason, much attention is focused on the early days of next week, when the heads of state will be gathering in Manhattan to speak, and to meet, heads of state including Xi Jinping of China, Vladimir Putin of Russia, and Barack Obama. Now, this brings us to the subject of tonight’s institutional question which reads as follows: Mr. LaRouche, President Obama is set to have a one-on-one meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin next week at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.  According to a senior administration official:  “Given the situation in Ukraine and Syria, despite our profound differences with Moscow, the President believes that it would be irresponsible not to test whether we can make progress through high-level engagement with the Russians.  In particular, our European partners have underscored the importance of a unified message about the necessity of fully implementing the Minsk agreements.  President Obama will take advantage of this meeting to discuss Ukraine, and he will be focused on ensuring Moscow lives up to the Minsk commitments.  This will be the core message of this bilateral engagement.” What is your advice to presidents Obama and Putin?

So with that, I’d like to invite Jeffrey Steinberg to the podium to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response to that question, and also his views on the more general strategic situation.

JEFF STEINBERG: Thanks, Megan.

We had a lengthy discussion this afternoon with Mr. LaRouche, and we discussed this; and for the sake of precision, I want to briefly read you the pretty much exact comments that Mr. LaRouche made, and then I’ll give some elaboration and set some context for what he had to say.

He said: Putin will handle the meeting with Obama fine. Let Obama get stuck. After nearly two terms, it is clear you cannot deal with him. You can only denounce him. He is no good, and never was. Only half-wits support him. Look at what he is. His step-father was the prototype. In essence, he is a nasty. Putin is fine. Obama is dangerous, after his step-father.

Now, I think it’s important to realize that the statement, that was included in the institutional question from a White House senior spokesperson, is typical of what you get from Washington, D.C. today. This is true from the first day of the Obama presidency, and it was true throughout the presidency of George W. Bush, with Dick Cheney looking over his shoulder. There’s nothing that is said in Washington that can be presumed to be truthful. There’s nothing that is said in Washington that can be relied on as an accurate account of what’s actually going on.

The fact of the matter is that the only reason that President Obama, at the very last moment, agreed to this meeting with President Putin, is that he was boxed in to an absolute corner, and in fact, the proposal from Moscow for there to be just such a face-to-face meeting, was made over a month ago, and it took the White House just until the last 24 hours, to make the decision that they could not weasel their way out of this face-to-face meeting. So, when you get this high-falutin’ language about, it would be irresponsible not to sit down with Russia, despite these tremendous differences, and the attempt on the part of Obama to turn the entire issue of the discussion around the situation in Ukraine, and to completely ignore what the Russians have done in Syria — and the opportunity that represents for actually defeating the Islamic State and these other Salafist jihadis — is sheer folly.

Mr. LaRouche’s view is that if President Obama attempts to turn the discussion in that private meeting around Ukraine, his simple advice to Mr. Putin is to just say to Obama, “Mr. President, you made the decision, beginning in November of 2013, to support an outright neo-Nazi coup against a legitimately elected government because that government refused to sign on to a rotten deal that would have wrecked Ukraine, and would have led to the kind of crisis between Ukraine and Russia that we’re seeing right now.” And in fact, that’s the simple truth of the matter. President Obama is committed to the idea of war with Russia. That commitment has been there from literally the very beginning of the Obama presidency, and in November [I think it’s October—ed.] of 2011, when there was a decision made between President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and then-French President Sarkozy to summarily execute Libyan leader Qaddafi, rather than capture him and put him on trial, and go through the prolonged process with all that would have come out during the course of that trial, Mr. LaRouche said, this is vectored against Russia and China.

Now in the last days, just preceding the events now beginning to take place in New York City, the German national television network, ZDF, aired a news magazine — kind of their equivalent of 60 Minutes — which went through a detailed exposé of the danger behind the fact that the United States is in the process of deploying a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons into Western Europe, and in fact, the B61-12, this new generation, is in fact an intermediate-range weapon which is a clear violation of both the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force INF Treaty that was signed in 1988.  These weapons, in fact, blur the lines of distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons.  They are no longer simply deterrence against the old Cold War fears that the Soviet Army would come rushing through the Fulda Gap and would basically occupy half of Western Europe before anybody could do anything about it.  The situation right now is that these new generation weapons are far more accurate, will carry a much-reduced payload, and can be fired from combat stealth fighters that will reach deep into Russian territory.  The fact that the German national television network, a week before all these UN events, chose to put a very prominent documentary exposé of the danger behind this Obama decision, is indicative of the fact that it’s not that there’s unity between the US and our European allies over the situation in Ukraine.

There’s been a decisive break led by Germany, now also including France; because they have come to the realization that Obama is a dangerous lunatic when it comes to Russia, and is jeopardizing the real possibility of a nuclear war on European soil.  So, the Europeans have broken with Obama in a very demonstrable way.  Germany, then France, then other European countries, have also come out fully supportive of the Russian military deployments into Syria; and have called for a much broader diplomatic initiative that does not exclude Russia, that does not exclude Assad in Syria, and does not exclude Iran.  So the idea that there’s unity within the western nations is an absolute fraud.  Obama has created the conditions where Europe, in many critical areas of security, is breaking with the United States and is moving — at least by natural impulse — towards seeking cooperation and an alliance with Russia.

So remember, when Russian President Putin a month ago began the deployment of significant military equipment into Syria, this was a strategic game-changer.  The United States was in the advanced stages of reaching a rotten deal with Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Kuwait, to establish a no-fly zone in the northern part of Syria that was to ostensibly be a safe haven against ISIS; but was in fact to be a zone where the jihadists could operate freely, because the Syrian air force was completely denied access to that.  Now, you’ve got two squadrons of Russian advanced MiG fighter planes at a base just south of Latakia in northern Syria on the Mediterranean coast.  This week, several thousand Russian engineers arrived in the port of Tartus to expand and modernize that port to be able to receive larger Russian battleships and supply ships.  So the game has been dramatically changed in the Middle East, and it was not on the basis of President Putin seeking out a compromise with President Obama.  It was based on taking a very clear political military calculation that by hitting Obama on this strategic flank in Syria, it would completely destabilize the White House; and it would create the conditions where Obama would make a series of significant political mistakes.  If he mishandles the summit meeting next week on Monday with President Putin, this will be another indication of Obama walking into the kind of trap that has been set for him; first by his own behavior, and by his commitment on behalf of London and Wall Street to fomenting war against Russia.

And we’ve seen the same things in the case of China. President Xi Jinping arrived in Seattle, Washington earlier this week; and had three days of meetings out there.  And now, has been here in Washington last night and today for a summit meeting with President Obama.  Preceding that summitry in Washington, the President sent Penny Pritzker, part of the Chicago mafia apparatus that put Obama in office; that created his political career.  She’s now Secretary of Commerce, and she was the finance chair of Obama’s two Presidential campaigns.  She was sent out to Seattle as a kind of a minder to sit in on all of the meetings that took place between top American business leaders and President Xi Jinping; to make sure that they toed the White House line of making accusations about China unfair business practices in dealing with American companies.  So that kind of crazy behavior on the eve of a heads of state summit is another typical indication of how this President has tended to do business.  So, again as Mr. LaRouche said, “Putin will handle the meeting with Obama fine; let Obama get stuck.  After nearly two terms, it’s clear you cannot deal with him; you can only denounce him.”  So that is, in all likelihood, the kind of approach with velvet gloves, that President Putin will take; and that certainly is Mr. LaRouche’s recommendation of what he should expect out of this meeting with President Obama.

Now, I should say that there are elements within the US military — high-level people — who favor the idea of US-Russian military cooperation to genuinely go after and crush the Islamic State and the Nusra front.  Their view is that: 1) there must be negotiations on what’s called “de-confliction”; the US and Russia are going to be operating in the same theatres of activity over Syria, and it’s very important that there be a level of coordination to avoid an accidental incident that could get out of control.  There are those in the Pentagon and in the US intelligence community who wish to see direct intelligence sharing and ultimately coordinated operations against the Islamic State, involving the United States and Russia.  There is a line of communication between President Putin through Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, into Secretary of State Kerry; and it’s very clear that there is both a diplomatic and a military initiative coming out of President Putin.  And he’s expected to present that in considerable detail Monday morning when he addresses the UN General Assembly.  That’ll be just several hours before his Monday afternoon meeting with President Obama.

So, the Russians have taken a number of bold and critical initiatives.  They’ve created a series of strategic faites accomplis; that’s why President Obama authorized Defense Secretary Ash Carter to engage in phone discussion with Russian Defense Minister Shoigu last Friday.  There will be a working group at the Pentagon chaired by Carter, but with representation from the Joint Chiefs and CENTCOM [Central Command—ed.] that will be negotiating and talking on an ongoing basis with Russian counterparts.  This didn’t come from negotiating and compromising with Obama; it came from forcing his hand and creating a series of unavoidable options.  So, Obama is shaken; he’s furious at what’s happened around the Syria situation.  He’s furious that the efforts to create a blockade of Russian air links into Syria failed miserably; they couldn’t even get Iraq to go along with banning Russian over flights over Iraqi airspace.  So, the corridor from Russia through Iran and Iraq into Syria has been wide open; and that’s the basis on which the Russians have carried out a very rapid and very significant military build-up inside Syria.

So, that’s the backdrop to what’s going to be happening in New York beginning this weekend and extending into next week.

Now, I think that there’s an over-arching message that my colleagues will be addressing throughout the duration of this webcast, but I just want to put it clearly on the table right now, which is that there has been so much compromise, so much “practical decisions” that have been made over such a long time. This long pre-dates Obama, long pre-dates Bush-Cheney, really goes back decades, that the kinds of compromises on core principle have an erosive effect that is a grave danger.  In fact, it’s the single gravest danger to the survival of mankind, that there is a willingness to make compromises on fundamental issues of scientific truth.  We’ve seen that with the Pope’s compromise in the encyclical, that gave ground to outright British genocidalists on this concept of global warming and climate change.  So these kinds of compromises, which are considered to be in good taste, or to be expected of honorable gentlemen and -women, is a flaw, a deep pragmatic flaw that right now has created the conditions for the crisis that the world is facing.  So, in the case of the Putin-Obama meeting coming up on Monday: no compromise.  Truth.  And on that basis we can get through this crisis, and avoid the kind of thermonuclear war that President Obama is toying around with.

BEETS:  Thank you, Jeff.

Now, as Jeff just referred to, leading into the heads-of-state meeting that is to begin Monday in New York, events at the U.N. this weekend have been co-opted by the attempt to shape the ongoing discussion in a major way around the rotten agenda, the fraud, of so-called sustainable development.  Now, a major part of that was kicked off this morning by the speech of Pope Francis in front of the plenary session, where he again, very unfortunately, pushed the doctrine coming from the British, that man is destroying the Earth, and must shift to a mode of stewardship and living harmoniously with Mother Earth, and to face the threat of climate change.  So this began a weekend full of meetings of the U.N. Sustainability Summit around their 2030 agenda for sustainable development, which was, as Jeff said, in terms of a real tragic concession, voted up unanimously by the session shortly after the Pope’s speech.

Now, as we’ve documented thoroughly in these webcasts, and also as is covered in great detail in the newly-released EIR Special Report, “Global Warming Scare Is Population Reduction, Not Science”, the entire program of so-called sustainability is nothing new, and it’s a fraud which has been pushed time and again throughout the twentieth and now the twenty-first centuries by the leading factions of the British Empire.  So what I’d like to do now is invite first Ben Deniston, followed by Jason Ross, to come to the podium to address, number one, what is the fraud of the policy of sustainable development, and number two, what would a real policy for human progress look like?

BEN DENISTON:  Thanks, Megan.

I think I just want to start by referring to Mr. LaRouche’s very clear and concise assessment of the situation around the Pope.  You know, he’s, I think, put this question in some terms that have important precision.  The question we have, is, what convinced this Pope of all people to go along with this policy which is a genocide program.  We may not know every aspect of why he’s going along with this, for his personal motivations.  Mr. LaRouche has made that clear a number of times, including in a discussion last night, his so-called Fireside Chat discussion, which is available on the LaRouche PAC website, but he’s made that point a number of times.  We may not know all of the motivation behind the Pope himself, but the facts are what they are, and we know that he’s going along with the policy, which is a genocide policy, and we know exactly what forces have moved in on this Pope, and what they’re characteristics are.

First and foremost, what we’ve identified and we’ve discussed on these shows, and we’ve discussed on the LaRouche PAC website, and one of the key individuals is this guy John Schellnhuber, who has been for many years a leading operative and collaborator of the British Royal Family, very specifically in their genocidal population-reduction program.  He shares the view of Prince Philip, of the Queen, of this degenerate oligarchical faction, that the world is well beyond its carrying-capacity and needs — and world population must be reduced to around a few billion people.  This is the view of Philip, and the other British Royals.  This is the view of Schellnhuber.  He’s the one who’s become a key advisor to the Pope on these environmental issues, on the so-called climate issue, including playing a leading role in this encyclical that the Pope released a couple of months back.

Now, you know, just to make this clear and put this on the table, just look at the guy’s profile.  In 2004, Schellnhuber was deployed along with Tony Blair’s top science advisor at the time, Sir David King, together to go over to the United States to try and strong-arm the Bush Administration into going along with this climate change fraud policy.  And apparently they were so egregious in their attempt to strong-arm the Bush Administration, that the Bush Administration issued a formal complaint to Tony Blair, complaining about the trip of Schellnhuber and the way he acted on it.  It was later that same year, that Schellnhuber was named an official Honorary Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, by Queen Elizabeth, and it’s been said that he very much is offended if you do not call him by his official title given by the British Royals.  In 2005, he worked with Tony Blair to organize a conference for the G-8 Summit in Scotland at the time, on the issue of this climate change fraud. Schellnhüber edited the proceedings of that conference, and the introduction to the whole thing was written by Tony Blair.  Since then, he became the key advisor to Angela Merkel in Germany, presiding over the, really, dismantling of the German economy, with their nuclear-exit program, their insane carbon-reduction policy, and their suicidal green energy program.  2009, in the buildup to the Copenhagen Climate Summit, Schellnhuber worked closely with Prince Charles to try and build support for this summit, including making another trip to the United States to meet with then Obama as the President, to make sure the Obama Administration was in line with this whole program.  So, you know, he’s got a clear, very high-level track record of trying to recruit and strong-arm leading officials to go along with this population-reduction program of the British.  Now, he is the guy who has moved in on the Pope, bringing this entire program into the Vatican.  As Megan referenced, just earlier today in his address to the United Nations, the Pope clearly asked for support from the world population, from the leaders represented there at the U.N. Summit, to support the upcoming Climate Summit in Paris this December, where they’re trying to get nations to agree to really a suicidal commitment to reduce carbon emissions in the name of this fraud of a so-called climate-change scare.  This is a killer policy, but the point is, that’s the intention.  This is being pushed by these radical de-population fanatics.  They don’t care about the facts, they don’t care about the climate, they don’t care about the reality of the science between CO2 and the climate — their objective is this population-reduction program.  You know, what are that facts we actually know on CO2 and climate?  Well, number one: there’s been no warming of the Earth’s temperature on average, for the past nearly 20 years, now, despite the fact we’ve been putting CO2 in the atmosphere at a faster rate than ever. So there’s no evidence that the climate is highly sensitive, or highly responsive, to CO2, and there’s no evidence to show that mankind is going to have some catastrophic effect. It’s just getting ridiculous.

There’s been no increase in extreme weather, despite what you hear. There’s no evidence that CO2 can be tied to any increase in sea level rise, according to the most accurate measurements we have available. And, as an added irony to the whole thing, we know that the planet is actually getting greener, because CO2 is a plant food; it’s not a pollutant, despite the insane proclamation of the EPA. It’s a vital component to the biosphere, and the higher levels of CO2 have actually led to a greener planet overall.

But, the point is, these guys don’t care about these facts. They don’t care about the scientific arguments, because they’re starting from their program of a Malthusian population reduction policy, not any scientific argument. And Schellnhüber is a leading example of this.

Now, Mr. LaRouche has also emphasized the importance of highlighting the role of another figure, another situation, expressing this exact same fight, which is Jerry Brown, over in California, the governor of California. Where yes, he’s also pushing this insane idea for a murderous reduction in CO2 emissions, but that agenda is really no different than his water policy, or maybe better said, his no water policy. The facts are clear; the reality is clear. There’s plenty of water for California. Jerry Brown doesn’t want new water for California. He doesn’t want to develop new resources. He wants to kill off sections of the population; he wants to reduce the population of California.

There’s no shortage of water supplies for the state. They’re being denied to the population by the policies of that governor. As we’ve covered on these shows, on this site, we can get all the water we need for California, and we can actually get it in new ways. We can get it more quickly. We can get it more efficiently than ever before, if we decide to actually act human, and move to higher levels, by understanding how our galactic system operates.

You can ask the question: How do specifically the atmospheric components of our Earth’s water system operate? How does the atmospheric aspect of the Earth’s water cycle operate? Well, you can’t actually understand that unless you understand how the Solar System as a whole is actually subsumed by the higher order system of the Galaxy as a whole. If you understand that, if we understand that, and we act on that; if we act on a galactic level, on a Galactic principle, then we can manage the world’s water supplies in a completely new way. We can bring water to where it’s needed, by managing the atmospheric characteristics of the water system, in a way we haven’t been able to do before.

But people like Jerry Brown — they don’t want that. It’s not that that’s not an option; it’s not that we don’t have that available. They don’t want that policy. The British Royal Family does not want that policy, because it’s contrary to their Zeusian view of mankind. Because this shows us that mankind can go to qualitatively higher levels. We can create new resources. We’re not limited by any finite amount of resources. We’re limited by the boundaries of our knowledge at any given state, but what we can do as mankind is transcend to a higher state; go to a higher level of discovery, fundamentally transforming what the nature of the human species is in the Universe. Just like this galactic perspective is a clear demonstration of that, and that’s what these people hate.

They want their Green program. They want a program of so-called sustainability. Not progress, not creation, not really truly human action, but sustainability, sustaining some prior earlier state of mankind as a fixed animal-like species.

So, this is the fundamental fight going on right now. And this is what’s happening at the United States, with the so-called move to adopt some idea of a “sustainable” policy.

If you go to the fundamental principle of the matter, and Mr. LaRouche was very emphatic on this earlier today when we were meeting with him, sustainability is a Satanic policy. This is a scientifically defined Satanic outlook. Because this goes to a deeper issue, something quite frankly that the Pope should understand, but apparently he either doesn’t understand it, or refuses to discuss. But the issue of what is the true nature of mankind. And Mr. LaRouche said this very clearly earlier today. He said: Sustainability is death. There is no such thing as sustainability. Without progress, mankind will cease to exist. Because the issue is that mankind as a unique species on this planet, is uniquely characterized by a type of creative action, which does not exist in the domain of the animal world. Something that distinguishes our species as fundamentally unique. That this is what should be discussed at the United Nations right now. This should be the fundamental principle on which we discuss a new era of relations among nations, a truthful scientific insight and understanding of what mankind is as a creative species. Not a green program, not a sustainability program.

If you’re starting from a green program, you’re starting from a Satanic conception of mankind. Despite what the Pope said earlier today, despite what these crazy fanatics say, mankind is not a product of the natural biosphere, so to speak. We’re not a product of animal life. We do not exist in any steady balance with nature that we have to maintain. It’s not true.

Mankind, the existence of society today, is purely a product of mankind. We exist at the present state we’re at right now, because of the creative contributions of prior generations that have created the current state of existence of our species. And that is what we need to focus on. That is what we need to understand.

We have to ask these questions: how is it that mankind uniquely creates his own future? And it’s not just something that happened once, and then we’ve achieved that state and that’s it. This is the substance of what makes us human: continual and unending progress.  And I think the issue is that we have to treat — if we’re going to treat individuals as truly human, we must recognize every individual’s fundamental inherent right to participate in this process.

It’s not just about biological life. It’s not just about a lifespan per se. Sure, we need better living conditions. Much of the world needs better living conditions. We need longer lifespans, we need better health care, we need better infrastructure. That’s all true. But, for what purpose? Do those lives actually get a chance to mean anything? They can live out their live, you can live and you can die, without even having the chance to make a fundamental human contribution to the progress of society, without having the chance to really be truly human, and actually participate in a creative process to move society forward.

So, that’s the principal issue. That is why a green program, a program focussed on sustainability, sustaining some magical, fanatical idea of balance with nature, some inherent balance that we should just maintain, is a Satanic conception. There’s nothing truly human in it. There’s no actual creation. And so this whole green program — it’s not just evil because it kills people. That is evil; it’s evil to kill people. But it’s evil because it denies people access to their real nature as mankind as a unique species.  It denies people access the right and the ability to contribute something unique and something meaningful to the progress of society.  So, this is the issue that Mr. LaRouche was emphatic that needs to be put on the table; the actual principle of what mankind is.  What is the basis on which we need to move the world forward on a positive conception of true human nature? But even this Green program that we’re talking about here today, Mr. LaRouche emphasized, is only a recent expression of a longer standing fight; a longer standing issue.  Today’s Green policy is not really unique; it may have new clothes, it may have a more recent expression.  But it’s a much longer standing policy, longer standing fight.  And I think Jason has some more to elaborate here on the deeper roots of this issue.

JASON ROSS:  I do.

One of the other things that the Pope had brought up at the United Nations was, that in this speech he says that as human beings, we have to follow certain laws of physics and chemistry and biology, because we have bodies.  We need to talk about what it is that makes us human.  And I’m going to do that tonight in two aspects.  One is from the standpoint of the scientist Vernadsky; and the other is from the standpoint of Zeus or Bertrand Russell against the Promethean outlook of man, and talk about what a real human identity must be and what we need to hold on to today.

So, is it true what the Pope said, that we have to follow the laws of nature and biology and chemistry and physics because we have physical bodies?  Well, ask yourself this:  Are there any unique things about us as a species?  Do we apply laws of morality to animals?  Do we say that a lion is being immoral when it’s catching, hunting down some animal and then only eating half of it; wasting the leftovers?  Are there any rosebushes or orange trees that are going to be attending the Pope’s mass on Sunday? I doubt it.  The difference between human beings and animals is an obvious thing to everybody in the sense that it’s not hard to tell if you see something in front of you; is this a human being, or is this an animal?  It’s not hard to figure that out.  Just as in the study of biology or physics, it’s not difficult to know whether something that you’re seeing is part of a living process or not.  Some people might say, “Well, viruses are an unusual case.”

So, what does Vernadsky have to do with this?  Vernadsky, the Russian-Ukrainian biogeochemist who regular viewers of our website will have heard about I think a fair amount, he looked at life as a phenomenon.  He looked at human life as a phenomenon; and rather than focussing on the actions of individual organisms the way a biologist would, his focus was more on life as a whole. The impact of life, the inter-relationship between life and the non-living material around it, and the reshaping of the originally non-living material around life by the process of the biosphere over billions of years.  As a result of this process, we’re going to compare life with non-life, and then look at the human.  Because imagine if someone had said, “Well, life has to follow the laws of physics and chemistry.”  Imagine if you had gone back to the dawning of life on Earth, and said, “Wait a minute!  Life, you’re going to destroy the planet; you’re going to alter everything.  You’re going to reshape the soils; you’re going to change the atmosphere.  Look at all that pollution you’re making.”  This happened in life; the initial life on this planet lived off of chemical energy, such as deep sea vents, things in the crust, that sort of thing — chemical energy.  The breakthrough invention in life of photosynthesis, where the light of the Sun became the fuel and power source for life; that was tremendous transformation [that] totally changed life’s relationship to the rest of the planet.  It also led to the production of a very dangerous chemical.  Unlike carbon dioxide, which isn’t going to hurt anything, oxygen is actually is toxic; you might have said life was polluting the planet.  And indeed, the kind of life had to change to be able to live in an environment that had oxygen.  New kinds of metabolic pathways were developed that used oxygen as part of metabolism; like we do, as animals.

So, there’s been a dramatic change in life’s presence on this planet.  This is seen in the biogenic migration of atoms; of the flow of material from living organisms to the non-living — but almost undoubtedly shaped by life — surroundings.  The flow back and forth between life and non-life.  The development and growth of an increasing amount of biogeochemical energy. Vernadsky says that life increases its free energy; it colonizes the non-living.  At this point, the whole crust of the Earth down to a certain depth, the atmosphere; it’s all been shaped by life. Vernadsky points to other differences.  Take, for example, evolution.  Now, evolution has a direction to it.  I’d mentioned earlier the transition from chemical energy only to having photosynthesis, to developing higher forms of life — animals, warm-blooded animals.  The process of cephalization, meaning moving towards the head, where in animal life, more and more of the senses, the neural systems developed into the head.  That’s a process that took place over time; making it possible for there to be human beings.  Life doesn’t respond the way chemical elements do in other respects.  Life treats isotopes differently than can be explained by chemical or physical processes.  It treats left- and right-handed isomers differently in a way that purely chemical processes don’t.

So, there’s plenty that distinguishes life from non-life. In a similar way, there’s plenty that distinguishes human beings from life.  Despite what you may have heard about lawsuits about chimpanzees or other such animals having human rights; they’re not human.  And this used to be an obvious thing.  Let me read a section now from Vernadsky.  This is from his paper “Problems of Biogeochemistry Two“, and it’s available in a Vernadsky anthology that we put together. (Anthology Book I Here)  Vernadsky says:

“From the standpoint of the biosphere, the individual living organism is usually lost from view; in first place comes the aggregate of organisms — living matter. In biogeochemistry, however — in some strictly defined cases — at times it is necessary to pay attention to the discrete organism, to its individuality. It is indispensable to do this in those cases, where the activity of Man appears as a geological factor, as we see happening now, and the individual personality sometimes becomes vividly apparent and is reflected in large-scale phenomena of a planetary character. The human personality changes, accelerates, and causes geological processes of enormous significance, through its presence in the biosphere.”

With human beings, individuals actually matter on a planetary scale; no individual animal matters on a planetary scale, no individual plant matters on a planetary scale, no fungus.  With human beings, it’s different; how is that?  He said:

“We are living in a brand new, bright geological epoch. Man, through his labor — and his conscious relationship to life — is transforming the envelope of the Earth — the geological region of life, the biosphere. Man is shifting it into a new geological state: Through his labor and his consciousness, the biosphere is in a process of transition to the noosphere.  [From the root noeses, or thinking.]  Man is creating new biogeochemical processes, which never existed before. The biogeochemical history of the chemical elements — a planetary phenomenon — is drastically changing. Enormous masses of new, free metals and their alloys are being created on Earth, for example, ones which never existed here before, such as aluminum, magnesium, and calcium.”

“Plant and animal life are being changed and disturbed in the most drastic manner. New species and races are being created. The face of the Earth is changing profoundly.  The stage of the noosphere is being created. Within the Earth’s biosphere, an intense blossoming is in process, the further history of which will be grandiose, it seems….”

Human beings aren’t animals.  Bio-behavior, by looking at human existence over time as a phenomenon; just looking at it a scientist, looking at it as something that occurred.  We do things that animals have never done and never will.  We transform biogeochemical processes; we create new states of existence in the universe on the Earth.  We make new things happen that would not have happened by any means that was purely biological, physical, or chemical; we create.

Now this is a way of understanding the idea of human beings as being made in the image of God, for example.  The distinction between human beings and animals used to be, this wasn’t really much of a question.  Religions that look to Genesis and the notion that human beings are made in the image of God; that’s a clear distinction.  Squirrels are not said to be so made.  We see it in the indications that Vernadsky gives of the kinds of transformations we’ve made; so let’s talk about how that happens. And what that means about our identity, and what it means about how we have to approach the future.  I want to read a response that Lyndon LaRouche gave last night on a call of activists that we have every Thursday evening.  I’ll read the question, too. The question was:

“How do you deal with strengthening the spiritual ability for mankind, or the person to deal with the problem of the world? You mentioned people are becoming disheartened of the fact that the crisis is becoming unbearable for some.  But how do you strengthen the quality in defending mankind?”

LaRouche in his answer, said:

“We have the means, mankind has the means to understand mankind.  And what I said in an earlier remark this evening, that at a certain point, we are able to understand mankind, how?  We understand that, because we are all human, and we all know that we are going to die, sooner or later. And we know that the question is, what’s the meaning of our life?  And many people have a big problem, because they have never been able to resolve what has been and what will be, ‘the meaning of my life.’

“So you start with what has been the meaning of your life; then you go to the really tougher question, and you say, what is the meaning of your future of your life?  And that means you have think, now, of what you are, and shape what you are going to be, in such a way that you do not feel shame about having lived. That means that you devote your life to making contributions which lead mankind to improve mankind!  That is to improve people, living people.   And rather than simply taking care of your own greed, and so forth, you’ve got to think about what you can do to influence people, to make the next generation, a better generation than the one you’re living in.”

He says, “That is a short way of saying it; but I think it’s an adequately effective one.”

Now, on this subject, LaRouche — when we spoke to him this afternoon — was very emphatic about drawing the contrast between that outlook that he expressed and the outlook of mankind expressed by Zeus, or by Bertrand Russell, or by John Schellnhuber — sorry, I forgot your title there, John.  You do it by not being practical.  Now the story of Zeus and Prometheus is one of tyranny.  Zeus the tyrant said that human beings were of a lower class than he; he was a god, human beings were these mere mortals.  And that the power of fire was something reserved for him alone; it wasn’t for human beings to have.  If Zeus had his way, he’d exterminate the human race, as a matter of fact. Prometheus enters the story as the fire-bringer; as defying Zeus and bringing the power of fire to mankind, and in fact, creating mankind.  Listen to this; you can understand the creation of the human species as a non-biological, non-animal — we’re not animals.  Here’s Prometheus.  He says:  “Listen to the miseries that beset mankind.  How they were witless before I made them have sense, and endowed them with Reason.  First of all, although they had eyes to see, they saw to no avail.  They had ears; but they did not understand.”  Your cat, as much as you love it, probably doesn’t understand a whole lot.  “But just as shapes and dreams throughout their length of days, without purpose, they wrought all things in confusion.”  He says, human beings didn’t know how to build houses; didn’t know how to use wood; didn’t understand the seasons; didn’t know when to plant crops; didn’t know how to navigate using the stars; didn’t have numbers; didn’t have poetry; didn’t have writing; didn’t use animals to do their chores for them; and didn’t have sailing.  And didn’t have metallurgy; he goes on.  Prometheus, yes; the fire-bringer.  The power of fire which no animal species uses; and creativity itself as a whole, defining the human race.

Now, against that idea of the human race, stood Zeus then and, in our time over the past century, has loomed very large — Bertrand Russell.  I’m not going to say a lot about Bertrand Russell; we’ve got a lot of material, we’ve gone through this a good deal in the past.  But to give a short reminder, I suppose you could call it, in 1900, Bertrand Russell took up a task that was put down by David Hilbert about, in effect, killing science. The specific idea was about turning mathematics into a branch of logic; but what the whole pursuit meant to Russell was eliminating creativity.  To turn science — instead of being something creative where new things could occur, where new discoveries happen; Russell sought to destroy it, and say, “We’ve really got it all figured out; and everything in the future can be derived from the past.  We can take the model of Euclid; you derive from what you’ve already got, and that’s all that we’re going to have in the future.”  And that really has taken over science; modelling, curve-fitting, throwing in more parameters to explain anomalies in the way that Ptolemy or Copernicus did by adding in extra epicycles.  Approaching things mathematically, rather than as a scientist in the tradition of Mendeleyev, Kepler, Cusa, Fermat, Leibniz, or a great musician.

So, I’d like to actually at this point get to a short idea about this from Percy Shelley.  Now, Percy Shelley wrote a poem, Prometheus Unbound.  Aeschylus’ play Prometheus Bound is only the first of a trilogy, and the other two plays have been lost; we don’t have them.  But let me read an epilogue to Shelley’s poem, Prometheus Unbound.  He’s writing this to Prometheus.  He says that

“To suffer woes which hope thinks infinite; to forgive wrongs darker than death or night; to defy power which seems omnipotent; to love and bear; to hope ’til hope creates from its own wreck a thing it contemplates.  Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent.  This, like thy glory, Titan, is to be good, great, and joyous; beautiful and free.  This is alone life, joy, empire, and victory.” 

That the greatest power that we have lies in our minds; lies in the power to do new things; lies in the power to — as we understand it today through LaRouche’s economics — to live our lives in such a way that not only can we feel good about ourselves, but that we can have access to a necessity.  In other words, it’s possible to live a life in such a way that you will have been necessary to the future.

And as Ben said, just as we must prevent people from being killed — murder is wrong; we can’t have a SPCA approach to human beings.  To develop the Third World like adopting a poor puppy from the pound, or something like that.  That’s not a human approach to our fellow human beings.  The development that we need is one in which people are elevated to being able to play a role in that development process itself; and to be truly human. To know what means, to have an idea of what future must be; and as in that quote from LaRouche, to shape yourself, and live your life in shaping yourself to be able to bring that about.  That is the highest form of freedom for an individual.  And by bringing that to society as a whole, we can achieve the true highest sort of freedom; which is not only a freedom from want, oppression, tyranny; but it’s freedom to express intelligence, a freedom to know.  It’s a very developed sense of freedom; the highest sense of freedom.  And to make that something that people are able to participate in, is truly the highest work for us today.

BEETS:  Thank you very much, Jason.

With that, I’m going to bring a close to tonight’s broadcast.  I’d like to thank Ben, Jason, and Jeff for joining me tonight; and I would like to thank all of you for watching.

Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.

25. september 2015 – Lyndon LaRouche sagde i går, at vi må benytte FN’s Generalforsamling til at bringe USA tilbage til sin Forfatning. Det vil sige, at vi må bruge de kalejdoskopiske skift – til det bedre – i nationernes politik og relationerne imellem dem, som blev udløst af Vladimir Putins overraskelsesmanøvre ind i Syrien, til at lukke Wall Street ned og smide Barack Obama ud af embedet. Siden Putins overraskelsestræk er den tyske regering vendt på en tallerken mht. spørgsmålet om flygtningene, der trænges i Europa. Kansler Merkel besluttede at gå ud med en velkomst af flygtningene og skaffe dem uddannelse og jobs i stedet for at forsøge at smide dem ud.

Men LaRouches analyse indbefattede, at det tyske politiske skift ikke vil være begrænset til flygtningespørgsmålet – at det ville være langt mere generelt. Og det har allerede vist sig at være sandt. I går, blot en dag efter en telefonsamtale med Obama, trodsede kansler Merkel åbenlyst hans politik, da hun under en pressekonference meddelte, at krisen i Syrien må forhandles med Bashar Assad, og ligeledes med Iran og Rusland. I dag støttede begge de to tyske regeringskoalitionspartneres parlamentariske gruppeledere fra CDU og SPD hende.

Dernæst var Obama, under ekstremt pres, i dag tvunget til at gå med til et møde mandag med Ruslands præsident Putin – et møde, der vil blive meget risikabelt for Obama, fordi Putin ser lige tværs igennem ham og har alle kortene på hånden.

Men husk, at LaRouche har understreget den pointe, at Obama ikke vil gå stille – tværtimod, hans impuls vil være at begynde en krig snarere end indrømme, at hans tid endelig er omme. Da Obama f.eks. bemyndigede forsvarsminister Carter til for første gang at tale med sin russiske modpart Shoigu den 18. sept., blev det meddelt, at formålet var »dekonfliktion« – at forsøge at sikre, at amerikanske og russiske styrker ikke ved et uheld ville begynde at beskyde hinanden i Syrien. Ikke så hurtigt! Den 22. sept. sagde Pentagon, naturligvis efter en indgriben fra Obama, at Carter IKKE har planer om at diskutere dekonfliktion, før Rusland ændrer sin støtte til Syriens valgte præsident, Bashar Assad!

De naive ville sige, at Obama værdsætter regimeskift højere end amerikanske soldaters liv, men LaRouche har mere præcist observeret, at Obama simpelt hen elsker at dræbe, og længes efter at dræbe på en langt større skala nu, hvor han er trængt op i en krog – hele vejen til en atomkrig. I et lignende træk fra Obamas side har magasinet Foreign Policy rapporteret, at USA i hemmelighed har nedlagt veto mod en russisk resolution i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, der opfordrede til en bredere og effektiv koalition imod ISIS, selv efter, at Rusland inkluderede ændringer, der tilfredsstillede andre lande.

Hvis nogle blandt vort folk, efter to valgperioder med Obama, ikke længere erkender ham for at være den dræber, han er, så skyldes det ikke, at Obama har forandret sig til det bedre, men derimod den degeneration, som hele vores kultur har lidt under, under hans misregimente. Obama er en massemorder, ligesom hans indonesiske stedfader Lolo Soetoro. Den seneste runde med degeneration under Tåbelige Bush og dernæst den endnu værre Obama bør minde os om en tidligere runde, der begyndte med forsøget på at myrde Ronald Reagan, for hånden af en person med tilknytning til H.W. Bush, kort tid efter Reagans indsættelse, og som sluttede med Bill Clintons ydmygelse og degradering, kort før hans anden valgperiode sluttede.

Amerikanere, der var blevet voksne før eller under perioden i 1960’erne efter JFK’s mord, husker med al tydelighed den totale forandring, vort land gennemgik som følge af rock-narko-sex-modkulturen. Men der er langt færre mennesker, der erkender denne efterfølgende runde af degeneration.

Inden for disse rammer har LaRouche understreget det forfald, som har fundet sted i USA’s Senat, der er efterladt uden nogen intellektuel eller moralsk dybde.

Den større sammenhæng, i hvilken man skal se denne forfaldsrunde, er det generelle forfald i det tyvende århundrede, forud for hvilket forfald kansler Bismarck blev afsat af den Britiske Krone i 1890, der umiddelbart efterfulgtes af det politiske mord på præsident William McKinley i 1901.[1] McKinley havde en politik for verdensfred – en politik for harmoni blandt nationer, ligesom den politik, Kina i dag forfølger, som FDR forfulgte med sin plan om FN, og som den politik, Lyndon LaRouche fremlagde i sin Manhattan-dialog fra 19. september.[2] McKinleys præsidentskab skal ses som en fortsættelse af Ulysses Grants militære lederskab, hans præsidentskab og hans indsats efter sit præsidentskab. Grant var igen en fortsættelse af Abraham Lincoln.

Det er velkendt, hvem det var, der myrdede McKinley; det var den samme magt, der myrdede Lincoln, og den samme, der intrigerede for at få Bismarck afskediget.[3]

Nu, mere end et århundrede senere, har vi det privilegium at befinde os i den position, som vi har – en position, der er vundet gennem Lyndon og Helga LaRouches indsats, og dem, der hjalp dem. Vi har det privilegium at genoprette Den amerikanske Forfatning ved at nedlukke Wall Street, og bortvise Obama fra embedet – med hjælp fra det, der finder sted på De forenede Nationers Generalforsamling på Manhattan.

[1] Se: Londons mord på McKinley lancerede et århundrede med politiske mord, Tema-artikel,

[2] Se: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63PgCpj8jPY

[3] Se: Afsættelsen af Bismarck og starten til Første Verdenskrig, Tema-artikel

Den 24. september 2015 – Med en handling, der måske kan overraske Magasinet Spiegels læsere, men bestemt ikke EIR’s, udtalte den tyske kansler Merkel i går ved et EU-topmøde, at »Vi må forhandle med mange aktører, inklusiv Assad.« France24 rapporterede i dag, at Merkel til en pressekonference efter et EU-topmøde om den af syrienkrigen forårsagede flygtningekrise udtalte: »Vi må tale med mange aktører, dette inkluderer Assad såvel som andre.« Hun tilføjede »ikke alene med USA og Rusland, men også med vigtige regionale parter som Iran samt Sunni-lande som Saudi-Arabien.« At Merkel nævner Iran, et land, der spiller en nøglerolle, og som utvivlsomt søger at stabilisere området, er bemærkelsesværdigt.

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung kommenterede: »Det var kun en kort bemærkning, men den bekræfter, at et diplomatisk skifte er på vej i jagten på en løsning af syrienkrigen.« Begge koalitionspartier viste omgående en stærk opbakning til Merkel. Således udtalte CDU’s forbundsdagsformand Volker Kauder: »Måske skulle vi tidligere være trådt i dialog med Assad.« Og SPD’s forbundsdagsformand Thomas Oppermann: »Vi må også træde i dialog med Assad,« fordi vi skal tale med alle, der kan hjælpe med at opnå fred.

Det er også værd at notere sig fhv. viceudenrigsminister Jürgen Chrobogs bemærkning i et interview med Deutschlandfunk 23. sept. om, at Vesten har brug for Rusland i Mellemøsten. Chrobog udtalte, at en løsning uden Assad er umulig: »Vi har brug for de eksisterende strukturer til at sejre over ISIS. Rusland vil gerne beholde det nuværende system; om de på lang sigt ønsker at beholde Assad er et andet spørgsmål.«

24. september 2015 – Tyngdepunktet for verdensanliggender ligger på Manhattan i denne og næste uge, hvor verdens ledere ankommer til FN’s Generalforsamling, og præsident Obama har til hensigt at bruge lejligheden til at fremme krig. Mandag, den 28. sept. vil Obama, den russiske præsident Putin, den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping, den franske præsident Hollande og den iranske præsident Rouhani tale til FN’s Generalforsamling. Ulig de fleste FN-generalforsamlinger vil begivenhederne i år være af historisk karakter, idet spørgsmål om krig og fred vil være på bordet.

Den russiske præsident Putin har præsenteret Obama for et fait accompli med de intense, russiske, militære deployeringer til Syrien. Den russiske deployering har foregrebet Obamas planer om at allierede sig med Tyrkiet og Saudi Arabien og etablere en flyveforbudszone i det nordlige Syrien, som vil gavne jihadisterne og tilsigter at vælte Assad-regeringen og skabe et salafist-tilflugtssted på Middelhavets østkyst. Det er nu taget af bordet som resultat af Putins modige og rettidige handlinger. Ud over deployeringen af mindst to eskadriller russiske MIG-kampfly til Latakia-området, er russiske ingeniører nu ankommet til flådehavnen i Tartus for at udvide faciliteterne til at kunne modtage større, russiske krigsskibe og forsyningsskibe. Putin har også sat en stopper for Israels dominans over syrisk luftrum og har i mandags meget ligefremt fortalt den israelske premierminister Netanyahu, at Rusland ikke vil tillade israelske fly frit at angribe Hezbollah-konvojer inde på syrisk territorium.

De russiske træk tvang Obama til at tillade sin forsvarsminister Ashton Carter at etablere en kontaktkanal direkte mellem USA’s og Ruslands militær. Amerikanske efterretningskilder rapporterer, at russiske overvågningsdroner allerede opererer over syrisk territorium, hvor USA også har været aktiv. En vis, begrænset grad af »dekonfliktion«-kontakt – altså aftaler om forholdsregler, der skal mindske risikoen for uheld og fejlberegninger i nærkontakt mellem de to militærstyrker, som dermed på farlig vis ville optrappe spændingerne – er allerede blevet etableret på jorden, og nogle fornuftige kredse i det amerikanske militær går ind for russisk-amerikansk udveksling af efterretninger og eventuelle, koordinerede operationer imod Islamisk Stat og andre jihadister.

Obama vil imidlertid aldrig acceptere en sådan fornuftig politik. Han er fanatisk indstillet på en konfrontation med Rusland, og man kan forvente, at han vil foretage en eller anden irrationel handling i New York City (et russisk forslag om et Obama-Putin-topmøde på tomandshånd er endnu ikke blevet besvaret af Det Hvide Hus) for at optrappe konfrontationen, snarere end at tage imod de russiske tilbud om reelt samarbejde for at bekæmpe terrorister.

Lyndon LaRouche understregede i denne uge, at den største fare i den aktuelle situation er, at ledende embedsmænd i Washington, inklusive ledende medlemmer af det amerikanske Senat, har blokeret sandheden om Obamas narcissisme og had til Putin ude. De begår den fejl ikke at se den umiddelbare fare for, at Obama begår en sindssyg provokation over for Rusland, selv om alle tegn herpå er til stede.

Obama har godkendt deployeringen af en ny generation af atomvåben til Europa. B61-12 er nominelt et taktisk atomvåben, men opgraderingerne giver det en større præcision, og de kan lanceres fra ’snigende’ (stealth) bombefly, der kan nå russiske grænser. Tysklands nationale TV-netværk har vist en dokumentar, der viser, at Obamas politik udvisker linjerne mellem konventionel og atomar krigsførelse og i høj grad øger faren for en udslettelseskrig med Rusland. Efter planen skal Tyskland modtage 20 af de nye B61-12 atomvåben, og senere i år vil kampfly i det tyske Luftwaffe begynde at blive ombygget, således, at de kan lancere disse atomsprænghoveder – under ordrer fra USA.

General David Petraeus, er nu er militærrådgiver til Obama, havde foretræde for Senatskomiteen for Væbnede Tjenester i begyndelsen af denne uge for at promovere ideen om, at USA skulle lancere en bombekampagne mod de Syriske Luftstyrker. Han har for nylig opfordret til en alliance mellem USA og Nusra Front, den officielle al-Qaeda-aflægger i Syrien.

Forud for sit topmøde i Det Hvide Hus med den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping har Obama udsendt sin handelsminister, Penny Pritzker, til Seattle for at intimidere amerikanske foretagende-ledere, der skal mødes med den kinesiske præsident, til at angribe Kina for unfair handelsmetoder. Pritzker har lyttet med i private samtaler mellem Xi og de amerikanske forretningsfolk – for at sikre, at amerikanerne overholder Obamas hårde linje.

Denne form for galskab fra Obamas side er ikke ny. Så tidligt som i april 2009 havde LaRouche i en international webcast advaret om Obamas alvorlige narcissisme, og flere måneder senere krævet, at Obama blev fjernet, før han sprængte hele verden i luften, gennem påkaldelsen af bestemmelserne i det 25. forfatningstillæg. Seks år senere kan disse advarslers korrekthed ikke drages i tvivl.

Det, der er anderledes nu, er imidlertid, at verden befinder sig på randen af generel krig og total disintegration af det transatlantiske finanssystem. Begge disse begivenheder kunne forekomme, hvornår det skal være, og den eneste fornuftige måde at forhindre det på er at fjerne Obama fra embedet.

De begivenheder, der finder sted hen over de næste par uger i New York City, stiller amerikanske såvel som globale ledere over for en udfordring. Så længe, Obama fortsat sidder i embedet, vil menneskeheden fortsat være i fare.

22. september 2015 – Mens EIR’s og LaRouchePAC’s mobilisering omkring det forestående sammentræde af FN’s Generalforsamling i dag fortsatte med et stort, offentligt møde i New York, reagerede diplomater, journalister og New York’ere – som Lyndon LaRouche udtrykte det – »I synes at gå fremad, mens Wall Street går tilbage.«

LaRouche kaldte det bemærkelsesværdigt, at flere bankierer og økonomer i løbet af de seneste dage over for EIR har understreget, at det, som Federal Reserve og andre centralbanker nu gør på Wall Streets bud, er dybt destruktivt for økonomien og for levestandarden. Desuden signalerer det, at Wall Streets finansinstitutioner ikke længere er levedygtige og står over for en total nedsmeltning.

Den amerikanske økonomi i sin Wall Street-dominerede form er død. Selve Wall Street, anført af Goldman Sachs, kræver nu desperat »mere lempelse« – negative renter, konfiskering af indskyderkonti – fra Federal Reserve og andre centralbanker, for at afværge dets kollaps. Dette er blot en defensiv taktik, der intet løser for Wall Street, men som i høj grad kunne forværre økonomien, hvis det ikke stoppes.

Tiden er inde til at lukke Wall Street ned: muligheden for en reorganisering af banksystemet under Glass-Steagall og et økonomisk genrejsningsprogram efter FDR-modellen er klar.

Tirsdag morgen ved FN går vi i direkte kamp mod Wall Streets/City of Londons »grønne« nulvækstpolitik, med en pressekonference, der annoncerer den nye EIR-rapport, »Global Warming Scare is Population Reduction, Not Science« (»Global opvarmning som skræmmevision er befolkningsreduktion, ikke videnskab«).

Vi befinder os helt tydeligt på randen af et pludseligt skift. Det er LaRouches synspunkt, at den russiske præsident Putins strategiske initiativ, der støttes af Kina, for en reel koalition imod ISIS/al-Qaeda-terrorisme, klart er ved at lykkes internationalt. Hele den betydeligste del af den amerikanske presse indrømmer åbent – om de så er nok så rasende over det – at Putins »tour de force« – kunststykke – vælter præsident Obamas mislykkede og katastrofale politik med krige for regimeskift.

Dette er, kommenterede LaRouche, en ændring i de globale anliggender, foretaget af Putin – igen, støttet af Kina – og ikke en lykkelig ændring for ham. Det er strategisk og har haft en stærk virkning i hele Eurasien. Krigsmageren Obama er udmanøvreret; men bliver han smidt ud af embedet? Hvis han bliver smidt ud, kan USA finde sammen med andre større nationer over dette og andre afgørende spørgsmål.

Men USA’s reaktion på denne nye situation er stadig ekstremt vigtig. For at være positiv må denne reaktion inkludere, at Obama fratages al magt.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

14. september, 2015 – Forhenværende senator for USA, Mike Gravel fra Alaska, præsidentkandidat for det demokratiske parti i 2008, og mangeårig skarp kritiker af USA’s udenrigspolitik, inklusive Obama-regeringens, fortalte i dag FN’s presse i New York, at Kinas politik tilbyder løsninger på verdens økonomiske og politiske krise. Gravel henviste til Kinas udviklingspolitik med ”Et bælte, en vej” for global infrastruktur som løsningen på verdens økonomiske krise og sagde, at han ikke kunne se nogen løsning komme fra Obamas USA.

”Dette er Silkevejen, som ikke har noget at gøre med militarisme at gøre”, forklarede han. ”Dette er Silkevejen, som er designet til den økonomiske forening af Asiens og Europas kontinenter gennem Eurasien – og det vil være et system med jernbanetransport, med veje og med investeringer langs med vejen gennem denne proces, og derefter med udvidelser mod syd ind i Arabien og Iran.

”Så når vi ser på den totale plan – og organisationen EIR, Executive Intelligence Review, har udgivet et hæfte om den, som er helt fantastisk i sine detaljer.”

”Der er ikke involveret nogen plan om overherredømme”, sagde Gravel og tilføjede: ”Man kommer, man tilslutter sig, og det er ingen betingelse, at man er enig om alle facetter af deres politik. … Og BRIKS er også i færd med at etablere en finansinstitution for at imødegå det, der foregår med IMF og Verdensbanken.

Senator Gravel gjorde også rede for den ”forfærdelige” udenrigspolitik, som føres af USA’s neokonservative, så som Victoria Nuland, med Obamas støtte til Ukraine. Den russiske præsident Putin reagerede og handlede intelligent for at forhindre krigen i at eskalere, ved at annektere Krimhalvøen, fremførte Gravel. Obama, sagde han, er en fortsættelse af Bush-administrationen i 1988 og dens neo-konservative.

Gravels to timer lange pressekonference affødte mange spørgsmål fra de 20-30 fremmødte pressefolk. De indbefattede  Kinas People’s Daily, China Daily, Xinhua, og Wenhui Daily; Itar Tass fra Rusland; Deutsche Welle Radio, det tyske presseagentur og taz.de fra Tyskland; The Wall Street Journal og wnd.com fra USA; Italiens La Stampa og Ansa news agency; Canadas Global Research; Pakistans The Dawn og Associated Press fra Pakistan; Al Akbar fra Beirut; Al Hurra TV, fra Mideast Broadcasting Network; Salima Press, iransk, bulgarsk and japansk presse, samt andre.

Senator Gravel blev introduceret af medlem af FN’s korrespondentsammenslutning, Joe Lauria fra Wall Street Journal, som rapporterede, at han havde rejst sammen med Gravel i begyndelsen af 2008, da denne, som demokratisk præsidentkandidat, deltog i en debat med 8 andre kandidater, deriblandt Hillary Clinton og Barack Obama. Lauria sagde, at, i 1971 havde Daniel Ellsberg taget skridt til at afsløre de tophemmelige efterretninger, der var indeholdt i Pentagon-dokumenterne om Vietnamkrigen, men at ”kun senator Mike Gravel havde mod til at påtage sig at indlæse de klassificerede dokumenter i Kongressens Protokol. (Fordi der ikke var et beslutningsdygtigt Senat, måtte Gravel indkalde til en høring i Komiteen for Bygninger og Grunde, som han var formand for  29. juni 1971, og, under pressens tilstedeværelse, oplæste han ved høringen Pentagon-dokumenterne,  der senere blev udgivet af Beacon Press med titlen: ”Senator Mike Gravels udgave af Pentagon-dokumenterne.)

Senator Gravel fortalte tilhørerne fra pressen i dag:

”Vi behøver ikke prædike om dette forfejlede demokrati rundt omkring i verden. Obama er en fortsættelse af Bush-administrationen i 1988, og dens neo-konservative. I 1998 pressede disse neo-konservative Bill Clinton til at angribe Syrien, Irak og Iran. Formand for Den Nationale Fond for Demokrati; Det amerikanske Fredsinstitut, Steven Hadley krævede, at Syrien blev bombet og Ukraine militariseret. NATO er en forlængelse af hele dette kompleks, og dets virkninger strækker sig ind i indenrigspolitik.”

Som et eksempel på dette nævnte senator Gravel ”Obamacare”, som han sagde, er tre gange så dyrt som sammenlignelige sundhedssystemer i resten af verden, og tilføjede, at USA har det dårligste servicesystem. USA’s befolkning ønskede et regeringsbetalt system, sagde han; Obamacare støtter  forsikringsselskaber og medicinalindustrien.

19. september 2015 – I disse, verdenspolitikkens stormfulde dage, ser vi to, grundlæggende forskellige typer af politiske og finanspolitiske beslutningstagere: de, der ud fra et optimistisk menneskesyn fremlægger en klar vision for menneskehedens fremtid, og de, hvis kræmmersjæl slet ikke lader nogen plads tilbage til noget som helst menneskesyn, men kun med tilbagevirkende kraft søger at opretholde deres magt og gæld fra fortiden, selv om disse for længst er ophørt med at være erholdelige. I de dramatiske ændringer, der vil finde sted i de kommen-de uger, vil vi kun kunne løse de problemer, vi står over-for, hvis det lykkes at vinde de europæiske nationer og USA for det nye paradigme, som BRIKS-nationernes økonomiske politik og Kinas »win-win«-politik med den Nye Silkevej repræsenterer.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

17. september 2015 – En af de klareste afspejlinger af det kulturelle og politiske skift, der finder sted i Tyskland, er det forslag, som kansler Angela Merkel har stillet, og som støttes af nationens erhvervs- og industriorganisationer, om hurtigt at uddanne og integrere i arbejdsstyrken de hundreder af tusinder af migranter, der kommer ind i landet.

Merkel har allerede meddelt, at hun agter at fremskynde asylprocessen, således at de, der får lov at blive, lettere kan komme ind i arbejdsstyrken. New York Times rapporterede i dag, at regeringen har bevilget 2 mia. euro til undervisning i tysk til dem, der søger arbejde. Tidligere på ugen støttede landets fire største arbejdsgiverforeninger, der repræsenterer hundrede tusinder af foretagender, offentligt opfordringen om at give godkendte migranter hurtigere adgang til arbejdsmarkedet og til uddannelse i sprog og faglige kompetencer.

Tyskland har en aldrende befolkning og lider under alvorlig arbejdskraftmangel, med næsten 600.000 ubesatte jobs. Alexander Wilhelm, fra Sammenslutningen af Tyske Arbejdsgiverforeninger, sagde til Times, »Vi ser ikke beviser for, at flygtninge vil stjæle jobs. Vi har rekordhøj underbeskæftigelse og rekordhøje jobtilbud. Så arbejdsmarkedet er i øjeblikket i stand til at tilbyde nye muligheder.« Mange af flygtningene, især syrere, er tilbøjelige til at være unge og veluddannede.

Der er ingen, der foreslår, at dette bliver en simpel eller nem proces, men kansler Merkel og ledere af foretagender peger på det eksempel, hvor østtyske arbejdere blev assimileret i en national økonomi efter Tysklands genforening. I sidste uge opfordrede store arbejdsgivere, såsom bilproducenten Daimler, til en revidering af tyske arbejdsmarkedslove, så asylansøgere hurtigt kunne komme i arbejde. Arbejdsgivere ser ikke blot dette som en måde at lette manglen på arbejdskraft, men også at integrere disse mennesker i det tyske samfund. »Vi må inkludere flygtninge i arbejdsstyrken og ikke bare efterlade dem på gaden«, sagde Gernot Hein, en talsmand ved industriselskabet ZF Friedrichshafen.

Wall Street er død, og USA’s regering må gøre en ende på dets lidelser og sætte det under konkursbehandling under Glass-Steagall. Hvad sker der så? Hvordan ville en “New Deal” for det 21. århundrede se ud? Dette og mere diskuteres på aftenens webcast. Engelsk udskrift. 

Wall Street is dead and the federal government needs to put it out of its misery beginning with a Glass-Steagall banking reorganization. What follows? What would a 21st century New Deal look like today? This and more discussed in tonight’s webcast. This webcast was prerecorded.

LaRouche on Bankrutcy of the Fed, the Total FDR Approach
Federal Reserve Makes an Error Based on a Lie

 Transcript- JASON ROSS: Good evening. This is the LaRouche PAC webcast for September 18, 2015. My name is Jason Ross, and joining me in the studio tonight are Jeff Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, and Benjamin Deniston from LaRouche PAC. As a note to our viewers, we are pre-recording this event on September 17.

So, to jump right in to our first topic, which is the economy and Wall Street. LaRouche’s assessment is that Wall Street is breaking down; that we need Glass-Steagall, but that this can’t be seen as one bill in isolation, but rather as part of an entire FDR approach to the economy. One in which value is placed on something real, rather than simply money. So, I’d like to ask Jeff Steinberg to come up and tell us what is going on in the economy; and what do we do?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Jason. Well, just in the last several hours, the Federal Open Market Committee announced that they will not raise interest rates. This comes in a context in which virtually everyone who has a view of what’s been going on inside the trans-Atlantic system is convinced that we are on the edge of a massive blow-out; something that goes way beyond what happened in 2007 and 2008 with the blow-out of the real estate bubble in the United States, which spread to the entire banking and insurance sector of the US. And then, over a period of time, spread into Europe. Nothing fundamental was done to change the nature of the situation; in fact, in the aftermath of the trillions of dollars of bail-out of Wall Street — in the range minimally of $15-20 trillion in direct taxpayer bail-out of hopelessly bankrupt financial institutions, those institutions took the message very clearly. Continue with the same reckless, irresponsible gambling behavior, and once again, taxpayers will be looted to bail out the bubble.

So, here we are in 2015, seven years this month virtually this week, since the Lehman Brothers debacle, and the too-big-to-fail banks are bigger by both capitalization, by derivatives exposure, and by percentage of the US banking sector that they have a vise-grip control over; and they’ve continued with the same exact behavior. Dodd-Frank was a pathetic, sick joke; the Volcker Rule was never even intended to be implemented. All it was, was a diversion to prevent the only viable starting point for a meaningful solution; and that’s the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall exactly as it was done in 1933 by Franklin Roosevelt, when Glass-Steagall was simply the obvious and necessary first step to launching a major economic recovery based on wiping out Wall Street’s bubble, and moving toward state credit directed at job creation and real economic recovery. That same solution is required today; Wall Street is far bigger, is far more bankrupt than it was at the time of the 1929 Crash and the follow-on crashes that were inherited by Franklin Roosevelt when he was elected President.

The global derivatives alone, is in the range of $1.5-2 quadrillion; and you’ve had a net decline in the actual global GDP by any kind of measurement of real physical economy. The GDP numbers, of course, are completely hoked up; and are virtually useless because they reflect so much activity that is purely parasitical and has nothing to do with the needs of the real world population or the requirements of a real economic recovery. So, we are at the very edge of a blow-out of the entire global financial system. Centered in the trans-Atlantic region, you’ve got Wall Street, which is now the epicenter of this financial bubble that can never be paid, that is thoroughly worthless; and is a reflection of the extreme to which we’ve gotten into a money system in which everything is measured by money, and there is no concern whatsoever for real, physical economic measurements of wealth. Mr. LaRouche, as many of you undoubtedly know, has been the author of critical writings on the subject of how to measure real economic value. And he’s developed several unique concepts; concepts of energy flux density, potential relative population density, that measure the actual physical capacity of the planet to sustain an expanded population.

Ultimately, the issue comes down to the fact that human beings are not animals. That human beings can conceptualize the future; can make decisions about the nature of the future that will inform policy decisions today. The greatest recent memory example of that kind of policy approach was the actions taken by President Franklin Roosevelt; and particularly in the first 100 days of his Presidency, where the Wall Street bubble was wiped out. The original Glass-Steagall Act of June 1933, completely broke up the Wall Street too-big-to-fail banks of that period; and established an absolute iron-clad separation between traditional commercial banks and investment banks and insurance companies and other institutions that engaged in wild speculative activity leading to the blow-out. And Roosevelt established the FDIC that insured citizens’ deposits in the banks, to prevent future bank runs. That system worked effectively; we had no systemic crises from 1933 until 1999, when, under impeachment threat and under the cloud of other scandals, President Bill Clinton capitulated to the like of Larry Summers, and signed into law the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall. There was no reason and no excuse for President Clinton to have done that at the time.

As a consequence of that action and other deregulation acts that followed after that, you had in a very short period of time, a build-up of the largest financial bubble in recorded history; which blew out in 2007-2008. It was bailed out — out of the hides of taxpayers — and then proceeded to build up once again to an even greater level. The Richmond Federal Reserve issued a report several months ago that basically said that were there to be a “new bail-out” of the banks in the event of a new banking crisis, the taxpayers would be obliged to more than they were obliged to in 2008, when the total bail-out fund made available to the banks was $23.7 trillion. That is according to Senate testimony by Leo [neil] Barofsky, who was the Inspector General of the TARP program at the time. Now the Richmond Fed estimate is that the immediate figure of bail-out would be $26.5 trillion; but that’s just a drop in the bucket. The entirety of Wall Street is hopelessly, irreversibly bankrupt, and the only viable course of action, for starters, is to reinstate Glass-Steagall.

By doing that, you immediately begin an audit of all of the US banks; and you separate out legitimate commercial banking activity from all of the gambling, all of the derivatives, all of the activities that should never have come under the umbrella of the FDIC under a Glass-Steagall system. The moment that that gambling debt is separated out, and is no longer subject to taxpayers’ bail-out, you will immediately have a blow-out of that entire system. Wall Street will vaporize, because some wise guy right off the bat will make a margin call; and in one fell swoop, the entire derivatives bubble, all of the insurance and gambling activities, the credit default swaps, all of those things will be gone. And basic message of Mr. LaRouche is “Good riddance!” This is a parasite that has been destroying the real economy, the real conditions of life for the overwhelming majority of Americans and citizens around the world. So, we don’t need it! Wall Street can basically disappear; it’s already dead, and the fact that it hasn’t yet been buried, simply means that there is a terrible stench over southern Manhattan.

So, this is the reality of the situation. I can just say, anecdotally, that in the last 48 hours, I’ve had discussions with two very prominent international bankers — one in London, one who commutes back and forth between London and New York — and they both said very bluntly, “The game is up. The system is hopelessly bankrupt. The mountain of debt that has been built up, the quantitative easing policies of the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan, and until recently the US Federal Reserve, have created such a massive debt bubble that it is unpayable; and all it’s doing is choking the life out of the real economy.”

So, what do we need to do? We need: 1. Glass-Steagall immediately; and this should be done preemptively, because we don’t know whether we’re going to wake up tomorrow morning to find out that we’ve had a blow-out of the whole system. Now, one of the reasons to be sure, that the Federal Open Market Committee did not go with the quarter-point interest rate increase today is because there were hysterical warnings. Reports this week by the Bank for International Settlements, the World Bank; absolute hysteria coming from people like Ambrose Evans-Pritchard — one of the leading mouthpieces for the City of London — writing in the Daily Telegraph, warning that there must be a massive new quantitative easing. No interest rate hike can be tolerated; the bubble has to be bailed out one more time. Otherwise, the sky will fall in, and we’re all doomed.

Well, the reality is, the sky will not fall in if Glass-Steagall is followed by an orderly process of emission of credit through the existing commercial banks for viable projects, capital investment in critically-needed infrastructure projects, job creation projects, and emphasis on those programs which represent the kind of science-driver policy that Franklin Roosevelt enacted particularly with the launching of the Tennessee Valley Authority. So, there is no magic here. Wall Street is gone; it’s finished. There is nothing that can be done to salvage it. And the more that it’s kept from being buried, the more the pain will be inflicted. We need a series of emergency steps; we need directed Federal credit to inject capital into the legitimate commercial banks, because those banks will be greatly under-capitalized because they’ve been looted in the post-Glass-Steagall period. So, we need not only Glass-Steagall in the United States, but we need it internationally. And I am confident, based on some of the recent developments in Europe — particularly some of the dramatic shifts that we’ve seen in Germany in the past several weeks — that a Glass-Steagall action by the US Congress will be rapidly followed in Europe and in other critical parts of the world.

But then the critical thing is the full FDR agenda. Roosevelt used the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which had been created by Herbert Hoover, as a quasi-national bank structure through which to provide credit for job creation. Both jobs that fulfilled an urgent emergency need because of the massive rates of unemployment; and secondly investment in capital-intensive programs, again, typified by the TVA. So that by the time we reached the late 1930s, when war had already erupted in Europe and President Roosevelt knew it was inevitable that the United States would be brought into the war, we had built up productive capacity in this country; through modernization of infrastructure, through revival of manufacturing and particularly the machine tool sector, through the kind of innovative scientific and technological work being done already through projects like the TVA. And it was those programs that made it possible for the United States to carry out the biggest military mobilization in human recorded history, to defeat fascism both in Europe and Asia.

So, in the current context, we want to avoid war at all costs, because war means thermonuclear war of extinction. But in all other modes, the lessons and the policies that were adopted by Franklin Roosevelt are exactly what must inform the policies that are carried out right now. That means, by the way, that Glass-Steagall must be immediately enacted preemptively in order to create the foundation of a functioning, effective commercial banking system with Wall Street buried and long gone. And actions along those lines will also have the further beneficial effect of ending the Obama Presidency; because he’s been nothing but a tool of those Wall Street and London interests that will be basically vaporized by the kind of policy initiatives that Mr. LaRouche has been spelling out.

So, we’re in a moment of crisis. As I say, people whom I spoke to in London and New York are absolutely crystal clear on the fact that the system is doomed and it’s a matter of days and hours, and perhaps weeks and not much longer than that before some incident, some factor will trigger the detonation of the entire system.

ROSS: Moving over to the strategic situation involving Syria and Russia, this is the institutional question for this week. It says:

“Mr. LaRouche, Secretary of State John Kerry called his counterpart Sergei Lavrov and re-affirmed the US commitment to fight ISIL terrorist groups in Syria with a coalition of more than 60 countries — of which Assad could never be a credible member, according to Kerry — and emphasized that the US would welcome a constructive Russian role in the anti-ISIL efforts. The Russian Foreign Ministry said that during the call, Mr. Lavrov again stressed the need to form a united front to fight terrorist groups in Syria. In your view, can there be a collaborative process leading to the inclusion of Russia in the counter-ISIL efforts?”

STEINBERG: In a moment, I want to go to the notes that I took during that discussion with Mr. LaRouche, because I want to present his formulations very precisely. But let me start by saying that some elements of the question I think have to be commented on. The idea that there is actually a coalition of 60 countries fighting against ISIL today is in and of itself a fraud. How can you have a coalition that’s fighting against ISIL, when it includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, and Qatar, who are the four leading countries in the region who have promoted and facilitated the rise of ISIS? In fact, you’d have to go all the way back to the late 1970s and ’80s when we were labelling what became al-Qaeda as mujahideen freedom fighters, because they were terrorists who were financed and recruited by the United States, Britain, France, Israel, Saudi Arabia and others, to go into Afghanistan and wage warfare against the Soviet Red Army. When the Soviets left Afghanistan, those networks remained intact and turned their sights against the West, against the United States, as anybody with a brain would have anticipated and forecasted. So, the United States bears responsibility, along with the Saudis, along with the British, along with other Gulf countries, for creating this terrorist fiasco in the first place. Jihadist terrorism as it exists today, would not be the global threat that it is today, were it not for the actions that were undertaken to create these organizations that were ostensibly put together to fight against the Soviets.

So, there’s a real irony here. To this day, Saudi Arabia is widely known to be the largest financier and overall promoter of the spread of Salafist Wahabi terrorism around the globe. The Saudis have not taken in any of the refugees from the wars that are Obama’s wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan; but very cutely, they offered to build 200 Wahabi mosques in Germany alone, in order to provide religious training to the 800,000 Syrian and other Middle East and North African refugees that Germany will be taking in this year. In other words, the Saudis are saying, “We’ll come in there, and we’ll create another generation or two generations of new recruits to Salafist terrorism.” So, with that in mind on Saudi Arabia, with the fact that Obama’s wars in Libya, in Syria, in Iraq, have been responsible for the emergence of the Islamic State. The fact that Turkey has been making billions of dollars in black market profits for President Erdogan’s AKP Party as part of the support for the Islamic State and for the Nusra Front, simply tells you that this idea that there is a coalition of nations fighting against the Islamic State and Syria, is an absolute preposterous fraud. It’s untrue; it never happened, and it hasn’t happened.

What has happened is, as we’ve been discussing over several weeks now on this Friday night broadcast, is that Russian President Putin instituted a brilliant flanking move, by sending Russian military equipment, Russian military personnel, into Syria at a point that the onslaught from these Saudi- and US- an British-backed Salafist terrorists had reached the point where the survival of the Assad government was in jeopardy. So, Russia has stepped in, and Russia is now building up the military force capabilities; they’re establishing an air base south of the Syrian town of Latakia on the north Mediterranean coast of Syria. They’re building up a new naval facility. They’ve already airlifted and boatlifted into Syria significant military equipment — tanks, artillery pieces, and other capabilities including fighter planes. So that within a very short period of time, and this is fully at the invitation of the Syrian government through established treaty agreements between Russia and Syria that go back a long time, that in some cases predated Russia, and went back to the Soviet period.

So, what the Russians are doing in Syria is legal under international law, and under bilateral treaty agreement between Syria and Russia. And so therefore, the Russians are on the verge of launching conventional military operations — ground and air operations — against the Islamic State. We don’t know for certain whether that will happen; we don’t know for certain how many Russian troops will be sent in to Syria. But what we do know is that the mere fact that the Russians made this move, has fundamentally altered the strategic surface in the Middle East as a whole, and more broadly, on a global scale. So, this was a crucial flanking initiative by Putin, and were there to be an agreement between Russia and the United States to cooperate in a genuine campaign against the Islamic State, and against the Nusra Front, and against the Army of Conquest, which is the latest name for another element of the Saudi-bankrolled Salafist terrorist apparatus. Under those circumstances, so long as Putin was in the driver’s seat and Russia was playing a leading role and President Obama was sidelined all together, this could work.

What Mr. LaRouche said is,

“Without Russian participation, any such effort would be doomed to complete failure. And by inclination, President Obama will wish to see that process fail. So therefore, any effective military operation combined with a diplomatic initiative, has to begin by removing President Obama’s influence, which is one of the main blockages towards an effective operation. Obama has to be induced to back down, or he will make a mess of everything. Obama is an ugly loser; and nothing should be done to encourage Obama. And so, action is needed, surely; and that action must be taken under the Putin leadership.”

And Obama can, of course, be included; he can play a token role. He can even take credit to an extent; but under no circumstances can he actually have a real say in how such an operation is going to be conducted.

Now, President Putin has made three proposals, very specifically. He will be giving a major address at the UN General Assembly at the end of this month, and in that speech, we already know his intention is to call for a creation of a genuine, serious committed coalition to wipe out the scourge of terrorism. Secondly, he has made it clear that he would like very much to have a face-to-face, sit-down meeting with President Obama on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. They’ll both be in town at the same time. Perfectly normal for such a discussion to take place, and the White House is terrified over the prospect of such a meeting. Why? Because they don’t understand what Putin is doing. They don’t understand how his mind works. And they’re afraid that any such meeting would be impossible for Obama, because you could never bring in a teleprompter that anticipates in advance everything that the President would be saying in his discussion with Putin.

So, yes, there is a possibility, but, as Mr. LaRouche said, you’ve got to humiliate Obama into a corner. Now, you’ve had a dramatic shift just in the last several weeks, in which Europe, the leading countries in Europe, namely Germany, first, and now France along with that, have realigned in a fundamental way. The Europeans wereterrified, even before the Putin initiative in Syria. They were terrified that Europe was headed for another world war to be fought on European soil, but this time, centered around the Ukraine situation. This would be a thermonuclear war, perhaps beginning as an exchange of tactical nuclear weapons, because both sides are building up large arsenals of modernized tactical nuclear weapons, right in the center of Europe.

But the Europeans were terrified of the war danger.

President Putin, as part of the Normandy Four discussions, and as part of the Minsk agreements, has clearly made a move to ensure that the ceasefire that began September 1st, is being fully enforced by the Russian minorities in the Donbass region in Eastern Ukraine. And so, the Russians have taken definitive steps to de-escalate the danger of a war of that sort in Europe.

Leading European statesmen, people associated with the European Leadership Network, former defense ministers, former heads of state, former foreign secretaries, have come out and said, we must take actions to de-escalate, to reduce the danger of thermonuclear war, general war, in Europe. And as a part of that concern, that real existential fear about that war danger, the Germans first, and now joined by the French, have said that they would fully support President Putin’s initiative in Syria, and would welcome the idea of sitting down in an inclusive collaborative way with Russia, to solve the Syria problem, just as the Normandy Group has been making progress in de-escalating the danger of war over Ukraine.

The German population opened their arms and their hearts to the refugees from the Middle East, from North Africa, and this also has changed the character of the German leadership in Europe. Instead of taking the lead in pushing for murderous austerity, the Germans have now taken the lead in showing genuine compassion, and a willingness to go out of their way to basically save the lives of these hundreds of thousands, millions, of refugees fleeing into Europe from these Obama wars in North Africa and the Middle East.

So, that’s a fundamental break in the situation, and now, between Russia and the Europeans, you have a situation in which you don’t have to go to Obama for Obama’s approval. With European backing, with a new Russian fact on the ground — Russian forces now actively engaged on the ground in Syria, through airlifts and boatlifts that have been ongoing for weeks —you now have a different situation.

Mr. LaRouche concluded by saying, Obama is almost stymied. He’s been weakened. He’s been cornered. And the next step is to invoke the 25th Amendment, and remove him from office altogether. The crisis around the death of Wall Street, and the need for a fundamental revolution in policy, a return to FDR, and the need to remove Obama to be absolutely certain that the danger of a thermonuclear war of extinction is eliminated — these two situations now converge, and there is nothing more important, now that Obama has been weakened and marginalized, than to have him removed from office by Constitutional means, so that we can actually move on to genuinely solve these crises — whether it’s Syria, with a critical role by Russia; or whether it’s wiping out Wall Street, and replacing it with a Glass-Steagall-FDR system.

In both cases, Obama’s the blockage. The crisis is here and now. So, let’s use the Constitution to solve the problem.

JASON ROSS: For a final topic today, we’re going to talk about the discussions that have been taking place among Russia, South Korea, and China shaping up towards the creation of a North Asia Development Bank that would include the Koreas, Russia, China, and Japan. This comes in the context of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, held directly after the Victory Day celebrations in China at the beginning of this month, where Russian President Putin and Korean President Park were very prominent guests of President Xi.

Lyndon LaRouche responded to the development around the possibility of this North Asian Development Bank by stressing the necessity for completing, building, the Kra Canal, a project whose recent planning goes back to the 1980s, to build a canal across the Isthmus of Kra in Thailand, relieving the overburdened Straits of Malacca, providing new transportation route, development for the region, especially today, as seen in the context of the New Silk Road.

I’d like to ask Benjamin Deniston, who has some remarks on this topic, to tell us about the Kra Canal.

BEN DENISTON: Thanks, Jason. Just to open up, I think this is an excellent counterpoint to what we just discussed with the insanity of Wall Street, and the Wall Street system. The Wall Street idea of money, this money system that is now blowing out, where there’s this religious belief in the value of money per se, and this insanity around trying to defend this bubble, which is full of financial assets which don’t actually mean anything.

Now you contrast that with what was just referenced, with what China is doing in collaboration with Russia, the BRICS nations, their other allies, other nations they’re working with around the world, in this completely new orientation, where they’re created institutions, new financial institutions — some might say new monetary institutions: like the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (the AIIB); or as Jason just mentioned, the discussion of a prospective North Asian Development Bank.

So, new financial institutions, new financial structures, to deal with what some people might call money. I think what Mr. LaRouche would define, more rigorously, as credit, as distinct from simply a monetary policy. Institutions to provide credit, specifically for projects like the Kra Canal.

Now, if we can get the first graphic up on the screen: (Figure 1). Now, we’re particularly talking about a region in Southeast Asia, and currently all shipping that goes from East Asia — from China, from South Korea, from Japan, from this entire region, which has a substantial amount of economic activity — any of the shipping from this region that goes to India, to the Mediterranean, up into Europe, goes through [the Straits of Malacca] — and including the discussion on China’s work on the New Maritime Silk Road, which is the maritime aspect of their Silk Road project, cover this exact same territory as well.

The shipping goes through a very congested bottleneck, which you can see displayed here, the Malacca Straits. Here you have a very narrow canal, a very narrow region, which currently is something on the order of one-fifth of the entire world’s trade. Not just for this region. But if you take the entire world trade, something on the order of one-fifth goes through these narrow straits.

If you bring up the second graphic (Figure 2), you can get a sense of the scale of this. This was from a 2013 video production by the LaRouche PAC, which you can find linked to the video description here. It’s entitled “The Kra Canal and the Development of Southeast Asia, produced in 2013.” But in this graphic from that video, you can see that through these Straits of Malacca, which we just saw in the previous map, in 2012, for a representative year, you had something like 90,000 ships travelling through those straits, which was around three times the combined number of ships that travelled through the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal.

So the Panama and Suez Canal combined, times three, is the number of ships passing through the Straits of Malacca. And at the time of our production of this video, it was estimated that the traffic through the Malacca Straits was going to be increasing by about 20% each year, putting on a direction to rather soon reach just a maximum capacity. You can only fit so many ships through this region. And it’s also relatively shallow, making it difficult for larger ships to even be able to get through this region at all.

So, it has been long known that this particular point in Southeast Asia, these Straits of Malacca, is a critical bottleneck for world trade, and world development. If you’re going from East Asia to India, you’ve got to pass through this region. If you’re going from East Asia into the Mediterranean, you have to pass through this region. If you want to go from East Asia into Europe, to the Atlantic in this route, you have to pass through particular region.

There’s been a long-standing proposal to develop a new shipping route, a new canal through Thailand, through the Kra Isthmus, and you can see this on the third graphic (Figure 3) here displayed. Again, a screen shot from our video, which presents this entire project, and its history in greater detail. Now you can see the path running through this rather narrow isthmus, through Thailand, through the Kra Isthmus. And here we have the proposal to make this canal, which would cut out the need to got through these Straits of Malacca. This would cut off something like 1000 miles from the trip, from the South China Sea into the Indian Ocean — not a huge, a modest reduction in the actual distance travelled. Not the biggest in the world, but something certainly significant.

But probably more important than the distance, is this would be a keystone project in just alleviating this bottleneck for this whole region, and being able to rapidly expand trade, and facilitate the continued expansion of trade through the Maritime Silk Road, from the developments in Asia, East Asia, in particular, again over to India, and as you can see in the fourth graphic (Figure 4) here, if you pair this with the recent incredible developments with Egypt’s development of the New Suez Canal, and we pair that with this prospect for a Kra Canal, you have a completely new potential for economic linking between the Pacific Ocean, between China, Russia’s eastern borders, South Korea, Japan, this entire region, through the Kra Canal to India, to the entire Indian Ocean, up through the New Suez Canal into the Mediterranean, into Southern Europe, and then into the Atlantic.

So we have a new picture of linking, as LaRouche was saying earlier today, the entire Pacific, the Atlantic, in a completely new way.

Again, I’d like to direct people to the feature video that we produced in 2013 on this subject, The Kra Canal and the Development of Southeast Asia. You can see this in graphic 5 (Figure 5), just an advertisement for the video.

As we discussed there, this project has a long and important history, designs going back to the 70s, and earlier, and in particular, Mr. LaRouche’s important role directly in the early ’80s, with his Fusion Energy Foundation, and his Executive Intelligence Review magazine sponsoring, in collaboration with the government of Thailand, collaborators from Japan, in sponsoring a series of conferences dedicated to the development of Southeast Asia, to the building of the Kra Canal, which Mr. LaRouche himself attended in the early ’80s on this subject.

And so it’s only appropriate now, given the shifting world economic dynamic towards China, towards the BRICS, that we’re seeing come back up and being put back on the table, as a perspective development project now.

I’d just like to conclude by looking at — again, I think this is an excellent case study in the type of shift in thinking that we need in the United States now. The difference between this insanity of Wall Street, where people are panicked about defending money that doesn’t mean anything. Money that has no actual existence in terms of any actual physical activity in the real economy. A completely worthless speculative bubble.

Versus what we’re seeing with things like the prospect for the Kra Canal, the construction of the Suez Canal. You have new financial institutions being developed, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the North Asian Development Bank, the New Silk Road Development Bank. We have new financial institutions ready to create the credit to invest in these types of actual development projects. Projects that actually physically transform the physical economic potential of — as the case of the Kra Canal. Not even of this entire region, but really of the whole world economy. You’re talking about a region which currently — around one-fifth of the entire global trade goes through this region.

So, if you’re going to reduce the time of trade through this region, if you’re going to lower the physical costs, you’re having a net physical impact on the entire world economy. You’re lowering the physical costs of the goods, and in effect, you’re raising the physical value provided to the entire world economy by those goods, by investing in these types of projects which can facilitate this whole process more efficiently.

It’s a useful case in the use of actual credit, a real credit system, to invest in real physical development, which actually has a measurable, understandable increase in the productive powers of the world economy. As measurable increase in the physical wealth, the lowering of the physical costs, increasing the physical wealth of the productive process of the entire world economy.

So I think this is one among many of a critical lesson for what the United States needs to start doing, and thinking towards, in a post-Wall Street era. And this should remind us of what we used to do, we did under Franklin Roosevelt, of the types of real physical investment policies which contribute to creating a higher order future for our country, for the coming generations. And this is absolutely what we need today.

I think that Mr. LaRouche’s remarks about emphasizing the Kra Canal is an incredibly important and exciting keystone development for this entire perspective, and it shows us, again, another resounding clear message of where the rest of the world is going, where the rest of the world is going in creating a new economy, a new economic stage, a new higher-order future for their societies. And this is just another message for the United States to get away from the control of Wall Street, and get serious and participate in this type of development, these types of projects.

JASON ROSS: Thank you, gentlemen. That will conclude the webcast for this evening, so thank you for joining us, thank you for your support, past, present, and future — and we will see you again.

Friday, September 18, 2015

19. september 2015 – I hvilken retning, det skal gå i Syrien og Irak, blev indikeret i en reportage i Sputnik i dag med titlen, »USA har brug for Rusland for at besejre ISIL, på trods af modstanden fra de allierede i Mellemøsten«. Den citerer EIR’s Jeffrey Steinbergs[1] udtalelse om, at den syriske præsident Bashar al-Assad inviterede Rusland ind i Syrien, og den irakiske premierminister Haider al-Abadi inviterede USA ind i Irak; derfor kunne de to stormagter let afgøre komplementære zoner for luftangreb og støtte til militæroperationer, hvor USA lægger mere vægt på ressourcer i Irak, og med Rusland, der hjælper i Syrien. »En logisk aftale ville udgøre et knibtangsangreb på Islamisk Stat fra begge sider«, forklarede Steinberg. »Det betyder, at det er mere end ’konflikt-afspænding’ mellem styrkerne, men mere er en faktisk koordinering af styrkerne.«

Steinberg påpegede, at den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin har gjort det klart, at han ville arbejde sammen med den amerikanske præsident Barack Obama om bekæmpelse af Islamisk Stat. »Putin lægger pres på Obama for at få et møde på tomandshånd i New York City på sidelinjerne af FN’s Generalforsamling, og dette er noget, der kunne blive positivt mht. Syrien-Irak«, sagde Steinberg. Problemet er fortsat de fire stater, der støtter ISIS imod Assad. »Tyrkiet, Saudi Arabien, Qatar og Kuwait ønsker stadig et salafist-regime i Damaskus, og dette er ikke i USA’s eller Ruslands interesse«, sagde han. »Skiftende alliancer er mulige under disse skrøbelige og hurtigt skiftende vilkår.«

Resten af Sputnik-artiklen citerer Ivan Eland fra Independant Institute, og som omhandler den katastrofe, der er overgået det amerikanske uddan-og-udstyr-program for syriske modstandskæmpere imod ISIS. »Virkningerne af dette program bør ikke overdrives«, sagde han. »Det antal, der er blevet uddannet af USA, har været meget ringe, fordi de fleste modstandskæmpere ikke ønsker at bekæmpe Islamisk Stat.«

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150919/1027226255.html

[1] Se: LPAC Fredagswebcast med Jeffrey Steinberg, 18. sept.: https://larouchepac.com/20150918/friday-webcast-jeff-steinberg-september-18-2015

18. september 2015 – Telefonsamtalen den 15. sept. mellem den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry og den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov bar frugt i form af en drøftelse over telefon mellem den amerikanske forsvarsminister Ash Carter og den russiske forsvarsminister Sergei Shoigu, her til morgen – den første kontakt mellem USA’s og Ruslands militær siden marts 2014, da USA ensidigt suspenderede kontakt.

Carter og Shoigu »drøftede områder, hvor USA’s og Ruslands perspektiver overlapper hinanden, samt områder, hvor de divergerer«, iflg. en udtalelse via e-mail, som Pentagons pressesekretær Peter Cook udsendte. »De aftalte at yderligere drøfte mekanismer for ’dekonfliktion’ (reduktion af spændinger, der kan fremme konflikt) i Syrien og kampagnen til bekæmpelse af ISIL.« Desuden understregede Carter, iflg. erklæringen, behovet for en diplomatisk fremgangsmåde for en politisk overgang, parallelt med de militære konsultationer. »Både den amerikanske og den russiske minister aftalte at fortsætte deres dialog«, slutter udtalelsen.

En højtplaceret embedsmand fra forsvaret sagde til reportere ved Pentagon, i en diskussion om baggrund, at den 50 minutter lange telefonsamtale, som Carter beskrev som »konstruktiv«, var resultatet af en anmodning fra russerne igennem Kerry. Embedsmanden sagde, at Shoigu var den, der bragte spørgsmålet om russiske militæraktiviteter i Syrien på banen, som han beskrev som defensive og tænkt at skulle honorere forpligtelser, som Moskva har indgået over for den syriske regering. Embedsmanden understregede gentagne gange, at morgenens telefonsamtale blot er begyndelsen på denne dialog, og at dialogen har til hensigt at undgå fejlberegninger og misforståelser mellem anti-ISIS-koalitionen og Rusland. Da han blev presset af reportere, sagde embedsmanden, at den syriske præsident Bashar al-Assads fremtid ikke var emnet for samtalen, men at det snarere var kampen mod ISIS.

Den udkomne tekst på den russiske side var enslydende. »Under en timelang samtale, drøftede ministrene detaljeret situationen i Mellemøsten generelt og situationen i Syrien og Irak i særdeleshed. Hovedvægten lå på behovet for at koordinere den bilaterale og multilaterale indsats for at bekæmpe international terrorisme«, sagde talsmand for det russiske Forsvarsministerium, generalmajor Igor Konashenkov, der tilføjede, at de to parters synspunkter om ISIS overlapper hinanden i de fleste spørgsmål, rapporterer Interfax. »Ministrene bekræftede genoprettelsen af kontakt mellem de to landes forsvarsagenturer og aftale at fortsætte konsultationerne«, sagde Konashenkov.

16. september 2015 – Præsident Obama og den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin vil være i New York City samtidig, under samlingen af FN’s Generalforsamling senere på måneden. Det er dog imidlertid endnu uvist, hvorvidt man kan arrangere et møde mellem de to eller ej, for at drøfte Syrien eller andre relevante spørgsmål. New York Times rapporterer, at Det Hvide Hus er »delt af en debat over, hvorvidt de skal mødes for at forsøge at afklare deres uoverensstemmelser før krisen«. På den ene side er de, der argumenterer med, at løsningerne på både problemerne i Ukraine og i Syrien går gennem Moskva, og derfor bør vi forhandle med dem. »Men der er imidlertid andre, der er bekymrede for, at en accept af et møde blot ville være en fordel for hr. Putin og belønne en international tyran.«

Uanset imidlertid, om denne splittelse er reel eller ej, så ved Det Hvide Hus tydeligvis ikke, hvad det er, Putin foretager sig. I går talte den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry med den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov for tredje gang på ti dage, for at klage over den russiske, militære deployering i Syrien, »Men amerikanerne var stadig ladt tilbage i forsøg på at fatte hr. Putins intentioner og spekulere over, om han kunne presses til at blive en mere konstruktiv spiller omkring Syrien, som de sagde, han havde været under forhandlingerne omkring Iran.« Det Hvide Hus’ pressesekretær Josh Earnest sagde i går, at Obama vil være villig til at forhandle med Putin, hvis han (Obama) »afgør, at det ville fremme vore interesser«. Ved »vore interesser« mener Earnest, at Rusland skal tilslutte sig politikken med regimeskift, hvilket Putin selvfølgelig aldrig vil gøre.

I Pentagon taler forsvarsminister Ash Carter ikke med sin russiske modpart, forsvarsminister Sergei Shoigu. Dette blev bekræftet af pressesekretær Peter Cook, der i går i en rutinemæssig briefing til pressen, og senere i en opfølgende udtalelse, sagde, at Carter på dette tidspunkt ikke ser nogen grund til at åbne en kanal til Moskva, mens Kerry har førertrøjen på. Cook bekræftede også, at der heller ikke finder drøftelser sted på højeste militære niveau.

Associated Press mener, at Pentagon er blevet sat ud på et »sidespor« mht. drøftelser med Rusland om Syrien, og antyder, at det skyldes en plan, der kommer uden for Pentagon selv, selv om de ikke uddyber dette. De bemærker imidlertid, at Carters afvisning af at ville forhandle med sin russiske modpart er et skift i forhold til Chuck Hagel, Carters umiddelbare forgænger, der »foretog flere telefonopringninger til Shoigu for at give udtryk for sin bekymring over Ruslands annektering af Ukraines Krim-region«.

17. september 2015 – I går afslørede den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry, under en fælles begivenhed med sin modpart fra Sydafrika, hvor pressen var til stede, at den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov havde foreslået direkte diskussioner mellem de to landes militær (USA og Rusland) om Syrien, og han havde gjort det klart, at han, Kerry, støtter dette forslag kraftigt. Dette finder sted, endnu mens Obama fortsat afviser at mødes med Putin, når de begge deltager i FN’s samling senere på måneden.

»Russerne foreslog, at vi tager en drøftelse og et møde mellem de to landes militær med det formål at diskutere spørgsmålet om, præcis hvad der skal gøres«, sagde Kerry. Han gjorde det klart, at han mener, sådanne diskussioner vil være nyttige. »Ord vil ikke kunne besvare alle spørgsmålene her; det er handlinger, og det er det, der vil blive afgjort ved at gå frem på meget specifikke måder, men man må have en drøftelse for at kunne gøre dette. Det er af afgørende betydning at undgå misforståelser, fejlberegninger og at ikke bringe os selv i vanskeligheder, når vi antager noget, og denne antagelse så er forkert. Så jeg tror, at man i denne slags situation må sikre, at man har med virkeligheden at gøre, og det kan kun ske gennem den form for drøftelser, der er blevet foreslået.«

»Det er også sandt, at, hvis Rusland kun fokuserer på ISIL«, som Lavrov havde erklæret under deres telefonsamtaler, »og hvis der er kapacitet til samarbejde, som jeg diskuterede for et øjeblik siden, så er der stadig en vej frem for at forsøge at få en politisk forhandling og et politisk resultat«, fortsatte Kerry. »Og med store nationers adfærd, i særdeleshed nationer med enorm magt, er det vigtig at sikre, at man udforsker disse muligheder grundigt og ikke kommer til forhastede konklusioner, der er baseret på fejlskøn.«

Lyndon LaRouche responderede med at sige, at Kerry er en svækling og en opportunist; det, vi må gøre, er at skaffe os af med Obama.

Foto: USA’s udenrigsminister John Kerry

16. september 2015 – Under en tale tidligere i dag i OSCE’s parlamentariske forsamling i Ulan Bator, Mongoliet, lagde formanden for den russiske Statsduma Sergei Naryshkin ikke skjul på, hvad der vil føre til en løsning i Syrien, og det er ikke den aktuelle, af Obama anførte, krig.

»Vi bør drage nødvendige, praktiske slutninger. Så Rusland opfordrer det internationale samfund til at indlede en dialog med de syriske myndigheder og arbejde sammen for at bekæmpe terrorisme. Kun dette vil være med til at stabilisere situationen i Europa«, sagde han, rapporteret af Sputnik. Det er uacceptabelt at retfærdigøre nationalisme, ekstremisme og terrorisme, og denne politik må være inkluderet inden for rammerne af OSCE, fortsatte Naryshkin. »USA’s og NATO’s grove indgriben i Iraks, Libyens og Syriens liv har ført til konflikter og hundrede tusinder af menneskers død. Hvilken enorm indsats må det ikke have taget at frembringe og nære den terroristiske ISIL-organisation under sloganet om demokratiske friheder«, tilføjede Naryshkin. Naryshkin argumenterede endvidere, at, uden den syriske hær ville ISIS allerede være i Europa.

Den syriske præsident Bashar al-Assad gentog Naryshkins standpunkt i et interview med de russiske medier:

»Fakta er, at, siden denne koalition begyndte at operere, har ISIS/ISIL spredt sig. Koalitionen er med andre ord en fiasko og har ingen reel indflydelse på jorden«, sagde Assad. Ifølge Assad nægter USA at anerkende, at den syriske regeringshær er den eneste styrke i landet, der kan bekæmpe ekstremistgrupperne på jorden. Han påpegede USA’s invasion af Irak i 2003 som roden til problemet i Syrien.

»Som en konsekvens var begyndelsen af den syriske krise, eller det, der skete i begyndelsen, et naturligt resultat af krigen og den sekteriske situation i Irak, og en del heraf flyttede til Syrien«, sagde han.

Assad kom med anklager om, at Obama-regeringen udviser »overlagt blindhed«, når den nægter at samarbejde med de syriske, bevæbnede styrker i kampen mod Islamisk Stats militante gruppe. »For dem er det, hvis de har noget med den syriske hær at gøre eller samarbejder med den, måske ligesom en anerkendelse af vores effektivitet i at bekæmpe ISIS/ISIL. Dette er desværre en del af den amerikanske regeringens bevidste blindhed.«

Foto: Sergei Naryshkin

16. september 2015 – Flere førende strateger fra USA og Europa presser nu på for, at Obama-regeringen skal samarbejde med Rusland om en løsning på krisen i Syrien, der nu er i sit fjerde år.

Graham Fuller, eks-CIA-embedsmand for Mellemøsten/Nordafrika, udlagde »Russerne kommer!« på sin blog den 15. sept., hvor han kræver, at USA stopper sin besættelse med at inddæmme Iran og Rusland og accepterer ideen om, at Rusland er på stedet i Syrien og kan spille en konstruktiv rolle i at besejre ISIS.

»Der er på nuværende tidspunkt to betydningsfulde lande i verden, der er i stand til at udøve alvorlig indflydelse på Damaskus – Rusland og Iran. De har ikke overrasende denne indflydelse pga. deres mangeårige, gode forbindelser til Damaskus; det er selvfølgelig langt mere sandsynligt, at Assad vil lytte til afprøvede allierede, end at han skulle lytte til planer, der kommer fra en fjende, der vil have ham væltet.« Efter en gennemgang af, hvordan Rusland reddede Obama i 2013 ved at få Syrien til at overgive dets kemiske våben, siger Fuller, at »selv, hvis Syrien skulle blive helt underkastet Rusland, ville USA’s generelle interesser i regionen ikke lide alvorligt … Vi er på vej ind i en ny æra, hvor USA i stigende grad ikke længere kan træffe beslutningerne mht. at forme den internationale orden … Rusland er sandsynligvis i en bedre position end nogen anden verdensspiller til at udøve indflydelse over Assad«. Fuller konkluderer: »Bundlinjen: Wasington har ikke den luksus at ’spille hunden i fodertruget’[1] i Mellemøsten, især ikke efter to årtiers massiv fiasko for en destruktiv politik på bogstavelig talt alle fronter.«

Carnegie Europas Judy Dempsey spurgte flere eksperter, om USA burde samarbejde med russerne om Syrien, og det overvældene flertal af de adspurgte sagde »ja«. Alt imens ikke alle af de tænketanke, hun bad om at respondere på sit spørgsmål, var entusiastiske over for en Washington-Moskva-løsning, med en enkelt undtagelse, så var de alle enige om, at Rusland var i Syrien, har dybe bånd til den syriske regering, og må være en del af en farbar løsning.

Ian Bremmer, præsident for den Eurasiske Gruppe, kom med en skarp respons: »Tiden er inde til at acceptere, at Rusland vil spille en større og vedvarende rolle i Mellemøsten. Den amerikanske præsidents politik for Syrien er en fiasko. … USA’s politik for Rusland er værre. USA’s regering stavrede ind i en konflikt med Rusland over Ukraine, et land, der betyder langt mere for Moskva, end det gør for Washington, og den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin beviser nu, at Rusland er for stort til at isolere. Fokuser på fremtiden. Den amerikanske præsident Barack Obamas primære forpligtelse i Mellemøsten bør være at ødelægge Islamisk Stat, den bedst udstyrede, bedst finansierede terroristorganisation i historien … Washington har brug for partnere. NATO-allierede, Iran, irakiske militser og Rusland har alle meget gode grunde til at ville se Islamisk Stat bide i græsset. Der vil være brug for dem alle.«

[1] Dvs. fordi hunden ikke selv spiser hø, prøver den at forhindre, at kvæget får noget.

Foto: Byen Aleppo i Syrien, nu.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video:

Lyd:

Leder, 18. september 2015 – Wall Street er totalt bankerot og er hastigt på vej til at krakke. De eneste løsninger er dem, der er foregribende, og som begynder med genindførelsen af Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov. MEN – hvis man ikke præsenterer den generelle løsning som en løsning, der begynder med det gennerelle koncept af Franklin Roosevelts totale, generelle løsning, og arbejder sig nedefter herfra – ja, så ender man blot med kaos.

Og om et nært forbundet spørgsmål: Ikke alene må vi fuldstændigt udslette Wall Street og få regeringen til at træde til. Vi må også fastslå en reel værdisætning, i modsætning til den nuværende, og falske, værdisætning som værende et spørgsmål om penge. Så går vi videre herfra, igennem de første, vanskelige trin med genopbygning, og videre til en fysisk-økonomisk genrejsning, der er selv-fortsættende og selv-accelererende, og ind i en ny æra for menneskeheden.

Wall Street står umiddelbart foran et totalt, kæmpemæssigt krak. Vi skal rent faktisk helt tilbage til begyndelsen af det tyvende århundrede, før pengesystemet blev gennemtvunget, et system, hvis præmisser først og fremmest var den store forbrydelse, som var mordet på præsident William McKinley i 1901.[1] På nuværende stadium har vi nået til det punkt under pengesystemet, hvor der overhovedet ikke eksisterer nogen måde, hvorpå man kan måle ægte, iboende værdi. Nu må hele Franklin Roosevelts koncept, som helhed, bringes i spil, hvis der skal være noget håb om en løsning.

Samtidig har Rusland taget initiativet i Syrien og presser nu en løsning igennem for den katastrofe, som Obama har påført dette land, og mere generelt. Hele verden støtter i stigende grad det, som Putin gør her – inklusive mange kræfter i USA. I dette russiske initiativs fravær ville Syrien og Irak blive totalt besejret. Faktisk kan alle Obamas politiske tiltag ikke producere andet end nederlag. Hans indflydelse må fuldstændigt blokeres; med mindre Obama kan formås til at trække sig, vil han ødelægge alting. Obama er en dårlig taber. Han må under ingen omstændigheder få nogen støtte; alt må gøres for at støtte Putins lederskab. Obama kan allerhøjst få lov til at udføre symbolske handlinger uden virkninger.

Hør engang: De større, europæiske lande har vendt sig imod Obamas politik. Rusland anfører verden imod Obamas politik. Når man har Europa og Rusland, er der ingen brug for Obamas OK; han er næsten helt blokeret. Det, vi behøver nu, er det 25. forfatningstillæg for fuldstændig at fjerne hans skadelige indflydelse.

[1] Se: »Londons mord på McKinley lancerede et århundrede med politiske mord«, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=6895

»De samvittighedsløse pengevekselerers handlemåde står anklaget ved den offentlige menings domstol, og menneskers hjerte og sind har forkastet dem. …  De har ingen vision, og hvor der ikke er nogen vision, går folket til grunde.« 

FDR, 1933.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder, 17. september 2015 – Præsident Obamas fremstød for at fremprovokere en atomar konfrontation med Rusland er blevet forpurret gennem en række træk for at forhindre krig, der fuldstændigt har ændret det globale, strategiske landskab.

Det initiativ, der var det væsentligste slag imod Obamas indsats, var den russiske præsident Vladimir Putins fremragende flankemanøvre i Syrien. Det er nu generelt bekræftet, at Rusland har etableret en dybere, militær tilstedeværelse i selve Syrien. En ny, russiskbygget flyvebase nær Latakia på Middelhavskysten i det nordlige Syrien vil stå færdig om nogle få uger. Offensiven fra Islamisk Stat og Nusra Front for at vælte præsident Bashar Assad er blevet trængt tilbage af de russiske handlinger. Putin har gjort fælden for Obama dybere ved at presse på for at få den amerikanske præsident til at gå med til et møde på tomandshånd senere denne måde i New York City, i forbindelse med FN-generalforsamlingen. Putins tale til Generalforsamlingen vil fremsætte et forslag om global krig mod Islamisk stat og andre allierede terrorister.

Selv før Putins handlinger i Syrien, blev forstandige kræfter i Vesteuropa skræmt til at handle gennem den erkendelse, at Obama presserede på for en konfrontation med Rusland, og at en sådan konfrontation hurtigt kunne udvikle sig til en atomkrig. Da Putin gennemførte denne beslutsomme handling i Syrien, samtidig med, at han pressede på for gennemførelsen af Minsk-aftalerne for at afslutte krisen i det østlige Ukraine, foretog europæiske regeringer, med Tyskland i spidsen, en betydningsfuld ændring i deres politik. Tyskland, og nu Frankrig, har hilst det russiske initiativ i Syrien velkommen og opfordret til en bred koalition mellem Vesten og Rusland for at løse krisen, der har oversvømmet Europa med krigsflygtninge fra Obamas og briternes krige i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika.

Internt i USA er et oprør brudt ud blandt militært efterretningspersonale, der tjener i Centralkommandoen, og som har indgivet formelle klager over, at Obamas højtplacerede regeringsfolk har presset dem til at »være kreative« mht. efterretningerne om Islamisk Stat for at skabe en illusion om succes, når den USA-ledede krig, efter alle forstandige mål, har været en total fiasko. Faktisk følger Obama og direktøren for national efterretning, general James Clapper, der anklages for at lede kampagnen med at lægge pres på analytikerne, i fodsporene af vicepræsident Dick Cheney under opløbet til invasionen af Irak i marts 2003. Årtier tidligere blev de samme »tabstalsargumenter«, der blev påtvunget Centcom-analytikere, brugt til at forlænge den dødsdømte Vietnamkrig.

Disse kombinerede handlinger har svækket Obamas fremstød for krig med Rusland – for indeværende. Der kan ikke blive nogen slækkelse i kravet om Obamas fjernelse fra embedet, enten gennem en rigsretssag, tvungen tilbagetræden eller påkaldelse af det 25. forfatningstillæg. Så længe Obama forbliver i embedet, selv, hvis han bliver holdt tilbage af en forlænget indsats til forhindring af krig, vil faren være til stede. Vurderingen er, at Obama er dømt til undergang af sin egen, fejlslagne politik, men hans fjernelse er den eneste garanti for, at hans undergang ikke også vil blive menneskehedens undergang som helhed.

16. sept. 2015 – I et CBS-interview, rapporteret af Sputnik, sagde den russiske FN-ambassadør Vitaly Churkin, at truslen fra Islamisk Stat (ISIS/ISIL) har presset Washington til at genoverveje sin holdning til den syriske præsident Assad.

»Jeg tror, at det nu er noget, vi har til fælles med den amerikanske regering: De ønsker ikke, at Assad-regeringen skal falde. De ønsker at bekæmpe [ISIL] på en måde, der ikke vil skade den syriske regering«, sagde Vitaly Churkin tirsdag. Han bemærkede »de store fremskridt i forståelsen af situationens kompleksitet«, som Washington har gjort siden den syriske borgerkrig begyndte i 2011.

»Det står helt klart for mig, at … en af den amerikanske regerings alvorlige bekymringer nu er, at Assad-regimet vil falde, og ISIL vil indtage Damaskus, og at USA vil få skylden for det«, understregede Churkin. Churkin sagde, at en ny resolution i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd kunne blive udarbejdet i lighed med den, som Rusland foreslog i 2013, og som nu kunne have en mulighed for at blive vedtaget.

Churkin var tydeligvis klar over, at Obama-regeringen er dybt splittet i spørgsmålet om et Putin-Obama-topmøde i New York senere på måneden, samt i det større spørgsmål om russiske handlinger i Syrien. Hans bemærkninger vil utvivlsomt voldsomt oprøre Obama og hans Hvide Hus-inderkreds.

Udenrigsminister John Kerry holdt tirsdag sin tredje diskussion over telefon med den russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov inden for en uge. Under en begivenhed, hvor pressen var til stede, i Udenrigsministeriet med Sydafrikas udenrigsminister i dag, afbrød Kerry for at afgive en erklæring om Syrien. Efter at have udtrykt sin forfærdelse over flygtningekrisen og meddelt, at USA vil tage yderligere 10.000 syriske flygtninge i år (Tyskland tager 800.000 krigsflygtninge), advarede han atter Rusland mod at stive Assad-regeringen af, hvilket, sagde han, ville forlænge krigen. Han lagde også hele skylden for ISIS’ opkomst og flygtningekrisen på Assad.

Kerry sagde til reportere: »Jeg talte med udenrigsminister Lavrov igen i går, den tredje gang på under en uge. Jeg gjorde det klart, at Ruslands fortsatte støtte til Assad risikerer at optrappe konflikten og underminere vore fælles mål med at bekæmpe terrorisme, hvis vi ikke også fortsat fokuserer på at finde en politisk løsning.

Jeg gentog også vores forpligtelse over for bekæmpelsen af ISIL med den koalition, der nu er på plads, og at vi ville hilse en konstruktiv russisk rolle velkommen i denne indsats. Jeg understregede også, at Ruslands eller noget andet lands fortsatte militære støtte til regimet risikerer at underminere Syriens sikkerhed og tiltrække flere ekstremister til kampen, og forhindrer muligheden af fremtidigt samarbejde hen imod en succesrig overgang, med mindre det sker på en effektiv og konstruktiv måde«.

Foto: Valery Churkin