Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

4. september 2016 – Den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry og den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov mødtes igen i Hangzhou, Kina, tidligere i dag, for at drøfte deres indsats for at skabe amerikansk-russisk samarbejde om Syrien. Kerry sagde bagefter til reportere, at de skal mødes igen i morgen tidlig for at forsøge at komme til enighed om nogle tilbageværende »vanskelige spørgsmål«, som de begge i mellemtiden vil overveje. »Vi har aftalt at mødes i morgen tidlig for at se, hvorvidt det er muligt at bygge bro over svælget og finde en løsning på disse få spørgsmål«, sagde han. »Og hvis ikke, så er vi fast besluttet på at sikre, at vi gør dette på en måde, der giver det de bedste chancer for at lykkes.«

Kerrys bemærkninger, som han fremkom med omkring kl. 5:30 om morgenen EDT (01:30 UTC) her til morgen, kom efter noget mindre optimistiske bemærkninger fra præsident Obama i går, om det samme emne. Ifølge Associated Press sagde Obama, at USA og Rusland stadig har »alvorlige meningsforskelle« om, hvad der skal til for at afslutte Syriens borgerkrig, og hvilke oppositionsgrupper, der er legitime mål for det amerikanske og russiske militær. Men, sagde han, »det er værd at forsøge«.

»Vi er ikke helt fremme endnu«, sagde Obama. »Jeg tror, det er for tidligt at sige, at der er en klar vej fremad, men der er i det mindste en mulighed for, at vi kan gøre nogle fremskridt.«

Kerry hævdede klart, som respons på et spørgsmål, der blev opkastet netop, som han gik, at alle »er med om bord« mht. det, han og Lavrov er ved at udarbejde, men Pentagon kaster stadig koldt vand på indsatsen. »Jeg stoler ikke en hvid på russerne«, sagde en unavngiven, højtplaceret forsvars-regeringsperson med kendskab til forhandlingerne til Foreign Policy. »Der er ingen, der tror på, at noget af dette rent faktisk kommer til at ske.«  

4. september 2016 (Leder) – Søndag, den 4. september, gav præsident Xi Jinping startskuddet til G20-topmødet for statsoverhoveder i Hangzhou, Kina. Åbningsceremonien omfattede en bevægende opførelse af Ode til Glæden, der anslog den inspirerende tone for hele topmødet. I sine åbningsbemærkninger gentog præsident Xi sit krav fra den foregående dag ved B20-forum for erhvervsledere om, at hele det globale finanssystem må gennemgribende ændres, for at vende den aktuelle, globale krise omkring, og at G20 må tage føringen med hensyn til at skabe de nødvendige ændringer, der må have innovation og samarbejde mellem nationer som drivkraft.

Præsident Xis tale lørdag ved B20 var en stærkt ekko af den politik, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har udviklet hen over årtier, inklusive Helgas seneste opfordring til, at G20-mødet tager skridt til fuldt og at virkeliggøre Verdenslandbroen. 

Den signifikante opførelse af Ode til Glæden, et digt af Friedrich Schiller med musik af Ludwig von Beethoven, var en yderligere indikation på Xis forpligtelse over for principperne om videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt og »win-win«-samarbejde mellem alle verdens nationer.

Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping holder hovedtalen ved Business 20-mødets åbningsceremoni (B20.)

Se uddrag på dansk af talen her.  

Forud for G20-mødet blev der afholdt et uformelt møde for BRIKS-nationernes statsoverhoveder, hvor der blev gjort yderligere forberedelser til BRIKS-topmødet den 15. – 16. oktober, med den indiske premierminister Modi som vært, i Goa, Indien. BRIKS- og G20-begivenhederne begyndte umiddelbart efter afslutningen af det Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok, Rusland, med præsident Vladimir Putin som vært, hvor den samme dagsorden med eurasisk udvikling og en samarbejdsånd mellem verdens ledende nationer blev promoveret. De to æresgæster ved Vladivostok-forummet var Japans premierminister Abe og Sydkoreas præsident Park, der således udvider alliancens samarbejde.

I stærk kontrast hertil brugte USA’s præsident Barack Obama anledningen til at promovere alle de konfliktområder, der splitter USA og Kina, inklusive den Permanente Voldgiftsrets ulovlige afgørelse om det Sydkinesiske Hav, beskyldningerne om, at Kina skulle dumpe stål på verdensmarkedet, samt andre friktioner. Obama dukkede op i Hangzhou for at forsøge at genoplive det, som er dødt – hans svindelnummer med Trans Pacific Partnerskab (TPP) – såvel som også for at fremprovokere konflikt. Obama kunne ikke engang modstå fristelsen til at kaste kold vand på sin egen udenrigsminister John Kerrys indsats for at indgå en aftale med Rusland om fælles militære operationer imod Islamisk Stat og al-Qaeda.

G20-topmødet fortsætter mandag, efterfulgt af endnu et asiatisk, økonomisk topmøde i Laos, den 6. – 9. september, der efterfølges af et møde mellem de 10+1 – de ti ASEAN-nationer og Kina.

Alt imens præsident Obama fortsætter med at isolere sig selv fra det voksende flertal af nationer, der forsøger at fremkomme med løsninger på det fremstormende kollaps af det transatlantiske område og fremstødet for krig, der kommer fra det døende britiske imperiesystem, så afsluttes denne uge med et intenst højdepunkt, med rækken af fire opførelser af Mozarts Rekviem i New York City-området, for at mindes 15-års dagen for angrebene den 11. september, 2001, på World Trade Center og Pentagon, hvor 3000 mennesker blev dræbt. Schiller Instituttets kor og orkester vil deltage i disse koncerter.

Med tidligere senator Bob Grahams pressekonference sidste onsdag i Washington, D.C., og med en afstemning i Repræsentanternes Hus om Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorisme Act (JASTA) (Loven om Retsforfølgelse af Sponsorer af Terrorisme), der skal finde sted, når Kongressen genoptager arbejdet den 6. september, vil spørgsmålet om juridisk retfærdighed dominere denne uge. Som senator Graham sagde til medierne i Washington i sidste uge, så er proppen taget af flasken, med frigivelsen den 15. juli af det 28 sider lange kapitel af hans oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelses-rapport om 11. september, og nu må den fulde sandhed om Saudi-Arabiens rolle i historiens værste terrorangreb på amerikansk jord komme frem. Det betyder, at hele det anglo-saudiske terrorapparat nu kan bringes til fald, og det betyder igen, at de primære kræfter, der er ude på at forhindre virkeliggørelsen af Verdenslandbroen og et nyt paradigme for relationer mellem Jordens nationer, kan besejres, én gang for alle.

Titelfoto: 2016 G20-ledere. (Foto: RIA Novosti)      

Hr. LaRouche …»Hvis man ikke gennemtvinger Glass-Steagall, som udgangspunkt for en sådan total omstrukturering af hele USA’s finansielle og monetære system«, og selvfølgelig også udstrækker det til Europa; »så vil et enormt antal mennesker dø. Det er den enkle kendsgerning.«

Uddrag af LaRouchePAC Fredags-webcast, den 2. september 2016. Hele webcastet inkl. engelsk udskrift kan ses her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=14486

Matthew Ogden: God aften. Det er den 2. september 2016, og dette er vores ugentlige fredags-webcast på larouchepac.com. Med mig i studiet i aften har jeg Jeffrey Steinberg fra EIR, og via video to medlemmer af LaRouchePAC Politiske Komite: Dave Christie fra Seattle, Washington, og Diane Sare fra New York City-området. Velkommen til jer begge to.

Vi havde en diskussion med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche for et par timer siden. Det er helt klart, at vi står ved et punkt, hvor tre, meget afgørende initiativer, som LaRouche-bevægelsen har stået i centrum for i flere år, nu kulminerer. For det første står vi umiddelbart foran G20-topmødet; topmødet i Vladivostok er i gang; og to uger efter disse begivenheder træder FN’s Generalforsamling sammen. Det er helt åbenlyst, at man tager initiativerne til at skabe en ny, finansiel arkitektur for planeten omkring udviklingen af den Nye Silkevej. Jeg vil blot ganske kort nævne, at, hvis man ikke har set den endnu, så har vi en fremragende, ny, 20 minutter lang video (på larouchepac.com – se den danske hjemmeside, inkl. udskrift: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=14429) »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«. Den går i dybden med meget af indholdet i EIR’s rapport af samme navn. Den må I bestemt se, hvis I ikke allerede har.

På hjemmefronten har vi en meget intens kampagne, der nu optrappes, for at genindføre Glass-Steagall; og for at styre kræfterne til at gennemtvinge denne vedtagelse, før præsidentvalget finder sted. Dernæst har vi kampagnen for at genåbne en fuld undersøgelse af angrebene den 11. september (2001); med frigivelsen af de 28 sider må man nu gå videre med at forfølge [frigivelsen] af de ti tusinder af sider, der fortsat tilbageholdes. På denne front befinder vi os nu én uge fra 15-års dagen for disse forfærdelige angreb den 11. september, og vi vil se en række koncerter, der vil finde sted i New York City – det kan Diane fortælle meget mere om – med en opførelse af Mozarts Rekviem, som vil blive opført i Brooklyns katedral, i en stor kirke i Manhattan og andre steder, for at holde en mindehøjtid for ofrene for disse angreb, og for at bringe retfærdighed [for dem]. Dette vil finde sted samtidig med et strategisk seminar, der sponsoreres i New York City om samme emne. Og samtidig foregår der et kraftigt initiativ for at gennemtvinge en afstemning i Repræsentanternes Hus – forhåbentlig i næste uge, før mindedagen – om JASTA-lovforslaget (Justice against State Sponsors of Terrorism Act; Loven om Retsforfølgelse af statslige sponsorer af Terrorhandlinger). Kongressen vender tilbage fra ferie i næste uge.

Som en del af dette fremstød var tidligere senator Bob Graham i Washington D.C. i forgårs, hvor han deltog i en betydningsfuld pressekonference, som han holdt i National Press Club. Både Jeff Steinberg og jeg selv havde mulighed for at deltage i konferencen, og vi vil fremlægge nogle uddrag af denne pressekonference som en del af vores udsendelse i aften.

Men før vi kommer til det, vil jeg gerne begynde med den diskussion, vi havde med hr. LaRouche for blot et par timer siden; især om nødvendigheden af at lancere en omgående mobilisering omkring genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall. Så for at introducere dette spørgsmål, vil jeg læse det spørgsmål, vi har fået fra institutionelt hold til i dag, og som blev forelagt hr. LaRouche. Jeg vil bede Jeff Steinberg om at uddybe det, som hr. LaRouche sagde som respons til dette spørgsmål. Det lyder:

»Hr. LaRouche, De har advaret om, at, med mindre USA’s Kongres handler – og handler her i september – for at genindføre Glass-Steagall som det første skridt i en langt større omskabelse af den økonomiske og monetære politik, så har hele det transatlantiske system kurs mod en nedsmeltning. Vil De venligst uddybe vigtigheden af at vedtage Glass-Steagall under den næste Kongressamling, umiddelbart efter Labor Day (mandag, den 5. september)?«

Jeffrey Steinberg: Hr. LaRouche var meget ligefrem; han sagde: »Hvis man ikke gennemtvinger Glass-Steagall, som udgangspunkt for en sådan total omstrukturering af hele USA’s finansielle og monetære system«, og selvfølgelig også udstrækker det til Europa; »så vil et enormt antal mennesker dø. Det er den enkle kendsgerning.« De europæiske storbanker, der er fuldstændig viklet ind i de store Wall Street-banker, har en beholdning til nominelt billioner, hvis ikke hundreder af billioner af dollars, af derivater og insolvente lån og anden hasardspilsgæld, så vil man ikke have nogen som helst mulighed for på nogen som helst måde at omstøde den situation, vi har i USA’s økonomi lige nu; og det samme er tilfældet for Europa. Nemlig [den situation], at der er et sammenbrud i produktiviteten; tro ikke på tallene for jobskabelse, for virkeligheden er den, at 93,5 millioner jobkvalificerede amerikanere i den arbejdsføre alder står uden arbejde. For de har opgivet at finde et job; og de er derfor aldrig blevet talt med i arbejdsstyrken i det hele taget. Hertil kommer, at et voksende antal mennesker nu finder, at de er henvist til at arbejde deltids; undertiden et par timer om dagen i flere forskellige jobs, fordi der ikke er nogen fuldtidsjobs inden for produktion til rådighed i økonomien. Der er en masse parasit-jobs; der er en masse andre jobs, der, i en sund, voksende økonomi, ville være nødvendige og nyttige. Men, når man har et sammenbrud i produktion, som vi har i USA og Europa, og når man oven i dette lægger denne form for massive bankkrise – en finansboble, der overgår den i 2008; så har man en perfekt storm for noget, der vil resultere i massedødsfald.

Glass-Steagall er det første skridt; det er på ingen måde totaliteten af det, der må gøres. Hr. LaRouche har fremlagt de Fire Nødvendige Love, fire hovedinitiativer, der må tages for at genrejse produktiviteten; for at skabe ægte, produktive jobs. Men udgangspunktet må være at opbryde og udskille de legitime, kommercielle bankfunktioner fra de spekulative aktiviteter, der fuldstændigt har plyndret de kommercielle bankers indskyder-grundlag, siden Glass-Steagall blev ophævet (1999). Begge de politiske partier (Demokrater og Republikanere) har i deres valgplatforme støttet en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall; dette var ikke bare en rutineting. Der var en kamp under Republikanernes konvent mellem folkene i Platform-komiteen; der var et aggressivt fremstød for at gennemtvinge en vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall. Så begge partier har taget stilling. Der er lovforslag fremsat i begge Kongreshuse, og man skal og må vedtage det; ikke efter præsidentvalget, og ikke under ’lame duck’-sessionen, men i løbet af den kommende 2-3 uger lange periode, der starter på tirsdag, den 6. september, den aften, hvor Kongressen vender tilbage. Onsdag bliver den første, hele dag, hvor Kongressen har sammentræde. Dette må være én af denne Kongressamlings allerførste handlinger i løbet af denne overgangs-samling; og det vil ikke ske, med mindre der finder en total mobilisering af det amerikanske folk sted. Der er betydningsfulde institutioner, fra AFL-CIO (USA’s største fagforening) og til diverse borgerrettighedsgrupper, der er med os i dette spørgsmål om Glass-Steagall. Men det kræver en absolut fokuseret og hård og laserlignende intervention. Og der er nok ikke noget, der opsummerer dette mere klart end det, som hr. LaRouche gentagne gange har sagt i løbet af de seneste dage: Nemlig, at, hvis man ikke vedtager Glass-Steagall; hvis man ikke intervenerer for at sikre, at Kongressen gør det, så kan man dø som følge af det.

Matthew Ogden: Vi havde en diskussion med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche for et par timer siden. Det er helt klart, at vi står ved et punkt, hvor tre, meget afgørende initiativer, som LaRouche-bevægelsen har stået i centrum for i flere år, nu kulminerer. For det første står vi umiddelbart foran G20-topmødet; topmødet i Vladivostok er i gang; og to uger efter disse begivenheder træder FN’s Generalforsamling sammen. Det er helt åbenlyst, at man tager initiativerne til at skabe en ny, finansiel arkitektur for planeten omkring udviklingen af den Nye Silkevej. Jeg vil blot nævnte ganske kort, at, hvis man ikke har set den endnu, så har vi en fremragende, ny, 20 minutter lang video (på larouchepac.com – se den danske hjemmeside, inkl. udskrift: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=14429) »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«. Den går i dybden med meget af indholdet i EIR’s rapport af samme navn. Den må I bestemt se, hvis I ikke allerede har.

Engelsk udskrift.

You Can Change History: Act Now to Force a Vote on Glass-Steagall        

"A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT."

International LaRouche PAC webcast, Saturday, September 3, 2016   

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it's September 2, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly webcast
here on Friday evening with larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the
studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence
Review}, and via video by two members of the LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee. We have Dave Christie joining us from Seattle,
Washington; welcome, Dave. And we have Diane Sare joining us from
the greater New York City area.
        I'll just say to start off, we did have a discussion with
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche just a few hours ago. It's very clear
that we are at the intersection point of the culmination of three
very crucial initiatives that the LaRouche Movement has been
right in the center of leading for several years. Number one,
we're on the eve of the G20 summit; we have the Vladivostok
summit which is occurring; and in two weeks following that, we
have the United Nations General Assembly. It's very apparent that
the initiatives are being taken to create a new financial
architecture for the planet, around the development of the New
Silk Road. I'll just say very quickly here, if you haven't seen
it yet, there's an excellent new 20-minute video feature on the
larouchepac.com website which is about "The New Silk Road Becomes
the World Land-Bridge". It elaborates a lot of the {Executive
Intelligence Review} publication by that same title. I would say
to definitely watch that if you haven't yet.
        On the domestic front, we have a very intense campaign which
is now being escalated to reinstate Glass-Steagall; and
marshalling the forces to force that to a vote before the
Presidential elections take place. Then we have the push to
reopen a full investigation into the attacks on 9/11; with the
declassification of the 28 pages that happened, you have to
further that with the pursuit of the tens of thousands of more
pages which continue to be withheld. On that front, we are one
week away from the 15th anniversary of those horrific attacks on
9/11; and we will be seeing a series of concerts which will take
place in New York City — Diane can tell us a lot more about that
— of Mozart's {Requiem} that will be performed in the cathedral
in Brooklyn, a major church in Manhattan and elsewhere to
commemorate the victims of those attacks and to bring justice.
This is happening in conjunction with a strategic seminar which
is being sponsored in New York City on the same subject. And at
the same time, there's a powerful push to force a vote in the
House of Representatives — hopefully next week, before the
anniversary happens — on the JASTA bill (Justice against State
Sponsors of Terrorism Act). Congress is returning next week.
        As part of that push, former Senator Bob Graham was in
Washington DC the day before yesterday, at a major press
conference which he held at the National Press Club. Both Jeff
and I had the opportunity to attend that conference, and we will
be featuring some excerpts from that press conference as part of
our broadcast tonight.
        But before I get to that, I do want to start with the
discussion that we had with Mr. LaRouche just a few hours ago;
particularly on the necessity of launching an immediate
mobilization around the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. So, in
order to introduce that subject, I'm going to read the
institutional question which we received today, which was
presented to Mr. LaRouche. I'm going to ask Jeff to elaborate a
bit on what Mr. LaRouche's comments were in response to this
question. It reads: "Mr. LaRouche, you have warned that unless
the United States Congress acts — and now in September — to
reinstate Glass-Steagall as the first step in a much larger
overhaul in economic and monetary policy, then the entire
trans-Atlantic system is headed for blow-out. Would you please
elaborate on the importance of the passage of Glass-Steagall in
the next session of Congress immediately after Labor Day?"

        JEFFREY STEINBERG: Mr. LaRouche was very blunt; he said, "If
you don't implement Glass-Steagall as the starting point for such
a total overhaul of the entire US financial and monetary system,"
and extending that obviously into Europe as well; "then an
enormous number of people are going to die. It comes down to
that." The major European banks, which are completely co-mingled
with the big Wall Street banks, are carrying trillions — perhaps
hundreds of trillions — of dollars in derivatives and
non-performing debt of all other kinds as well. They're
hopelessly bankrupt, and unless you implement Glass-Steagall and
separate out and just simply write off all of that derivatives
and other gambling debt, you have no chance whatsoever for any
kind of turnaround in the situation that we have in the US
economy right now; and similarly in Europe. Namely, that there is
a collapse of productivity; don't believe the numbers about job
creation, because the reality is that 93.5 million eligible,
working age Americans have no work. Because they've given up
trying to find a job, or they've never found a job; and therefore
have never been counted in the working force to begin with. On
top of that, a growing percentage of people are finding
themselves relegated to working part-time; sometimes a few hours
a day on several different jobs, because there are no full-time
productive jobs available in the economy. You've got a lot of
parasitic jobs; you've got a lot of other jobs that in a healthy,
growing economy would be necessary and useful. But when you've
got a collapse of production as we have in the United States and
Europe, and you put on top of that a kind of massive banking
crisis — financial bubble bigger than 2008; then you've got a
perfect storm for something that will result in mass deaths.
        Now, Glass-Steagall is the first step; it's by no means the
totality of what must be done. Mr. LaRouche has laid out the four
cardinal laws, four major initiatives that must be taken to
restore productivity; to create genuinely productive jobs. But
the starting point has to be to break up and separate out the
legitimate commercial banking functions from the speculative
activities that have completely looted the depositor base of
commercial banks since the repeal of Glass-Steagall. Both
political parties, in their platforms, have endorsed reinstating
Glass-Steagall; and this was not just simply a perfunctory thing.
There was a fight at the Republican convention among the Platform
Committee people; there was an aggressive push to force
Glass-Steagall's adoption. The same thing happened on the
Democratic side. Hillary Clinton has not publicly called for
reinstating Glass-Steagall. So, you've got both parties poised.
You have bills in both houses of Congress and a vote can and must
be taken; not after the elections, not during the lame duck
session, but during this next 2-3 week period starting Tuesday,
the 6th of September, when Congress returns that evening.
Wednesday will be the first full day that Congress is in session.
This must be one of the very first acts of this Congress during
this interim session; and it's not going to happen unless there
is a full-blown mobilization of the American people. There are
major institutions from the AFL-CIO to various civil rights
groups that are with us on this question of Glass-Steagall. But
what's required, is an absolutely focussed and tough and
laser-like intervention. And I think nothing sums that up more
clearly than what Mr. LaRouche has said repeatedly over the last
few days: Namely, if you don't pass Glass-Steagall; if you don't
intervene to make sure that Congress does it, then you may die as
a result of that.

        OGDEN: Well, I want to use as an example of the kind of
strategic leverage that is going to be required to force through
this passage of Glass-Steagall, I want to use as an example what
the LaRouche Movement was able to do by marshalling forces across
the country to force the declassification of the 28 pages.
Because it's a very similar example of the kind of widespread
upsurge in activism across the country led with this kind of
laser focus, that's going to be required right now in the coming
weeks to force the Glass-Steagall vote. So, on that note, I'd
like to introduce a short 7-minute video clip which is excerpts
from the blockbuster press conference that former Senator Bob
Graham held at the National Press Club this past Wednesday. We
can invite you to watch the full press conference, which is
available on the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel. For right now, I'd
like to introduce that, and then use that to open up a broader
discussion here.

FORMER SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Burr; and thank
you for the opportunity to come back to the National Press Club.
        As has been said, on July 15th, after some 14 years, the
chapter of 28 pages from the final Report of the Congressional
Joint Inquiry into 9/11 was released. This was removing the cork
from the bottle; but there is a significant amount of information
which, like the 28 pages, has been withheld. It was necessary to
get this first block of material to the public in order to build
the support that will be necessary for the balance of the
material to flowâ¦.
        Now that the bottle is open, what is likely to pour forth?
        I think there are three tasks in which the liquid will flow.
One is, the 28 pages were written in the Fall of 2002, but were
not — in a number of instances — completed. We were under a
mandate to submit our final report before the end of that session
of Congress; which meant by the end of December of 2002. There
were some issues that have not been taken fully to ground. As an
example, the role of Prince Bandar, the long Saudi ambassador to
the United States. In the 28 pages, it is disclosed that in the
book of Abu Zabadeh[ph], one of Osama bin Laden's closest
operatives, were the telephone numbers — which were otherwise
unavailable — to Bandar's mansion in Aspen, and to his bodyguard
here in Washington. There was also information about the fact
that both he and his wife had been involved in money transfers
which appeared to go to the mentors and protectors of the three
hijackers in San Diego. Was that where that money flow ended; or
did it end up supporting the hijackers? That's the kind of
questions which were raised in the 28 pages; but I hope that we
will now get information to close those loopsâ¦.

        ??: Senator Graham, thanks and congratulations for what
you're doing in insisting that the facts on 9/11 come out. As you
pointed out, and as the media pointed out, the 28 pages and
credible media reporting that there were meetings, there were
facts here; not just myths and wonderings, but facts. In San
Diego, the meetings by the Saudi Director of Religious Affairs
with at least three of the hijackers; and 15 of the 19 hijackers
were from Saudi Arabia. There was money paid from Prince Bandar's
account. Those are the facts; but it just seems that the American
policy is to hide and to obfuscate. Why? Is it a matter of
Democrats and Republicans alike just want to pander to Saudi
Arabia? What I don't understand is the reason why we don't just
take the facts and move from there; because these are the facts.

        GRAHAM: No, this is not a partisan issue. In fact, in the
House, the effort to pass this JASTA legislation that will modify
the sovereign immunity defense, and prior to that, a resolution
urging the President to release the 28 pages, was led by a
Republican, Walter Jones from North Carolina, and a Democrat,
Stephen Lynch from Massachusetts. This has had strong bipartisan
support. If anything, it's more of an Executive Branch versus the
people of America; it's been the Executive Branch through not
only Justice and State, but Treasury and the intelligence
agencies, that have largely been the barrier to allowing this
information to be known by the American people. And let the
American people then form a judgment. What do they think we ought
to be doing in this relationship with Saudi Arabia?

        STEINBERG: Jeff Steinberg; {Executive Intelligence Review}.
Senator, former Navy Secretary John Lehman, who was a
commissioner on the 9/11 Commission, told "60 Minutes" back in
April that there really never was a complete investigation by the
9/11 Commission; and you've already said that the Joint Inquiry
was limited by time and resources. Now, 15 years later, we have
the 28 pages. As you just indicated, there's lots of facts in
there. There was a 47-page report written at the beginning of the
9/11 Commission by the two people on your staff who were
following up on the Saudi leads. They listed 22 Saudi officials
who had direct contacts with just the San Diego hijackers. What
do you envision as the next step? Can there be a new
investigation without the time restrictions and other problems?
Do you support that? How would you envision moving forward from
here in addition to the lawsuit which we do hope will be
reinstated against the Saudis for discovery?

        GRAHAM: In addition to the request to the National Archives,
who are the custodians of the 9/11 papers, to release those
sections of its report which have been withheld which relate to
following up to the leads which are in the 28 pages. So, we could
ask, in those pages, is there a chapter about Prince Bandar that
pursues the leads that were outlined in the 28 pages? Second,
will have to be more Freedom of Information Act with the FBI and
the CIA. Another thing would be the President; I can understand
why George Bush acted the way he did. I cannot understand why
Barack Obama is acting the way he has. This information is going
to be known; whether it's in 2016, or 2026, or '36, or '46, it
will — like the Pentagon Papers and all these other old scandals
— eventually it's going to come out. I think the legacy of
Barack Obama is going to be stained when the people recognize how
much information was under his control, that he made the
executive decision to continue to restrict from the American
people. So, those are, I think, the principal levers; they all
eventually come to the American people. The American people care
about knowing what their government did in this particularly
egregious action; and if so, will they put enough political
pressure? The most immediate thing is to contact your member of
Congress and urge he or she to vote for JASTA. That bill has had
a roller coaster existence over the last four or five years; it
seems to be closer to reaching its destination today than at any
time during that long period. The key is going to be, will the
House take it up? That's where the pressure needs to be until
that important task is accomplishedâ¦.
        What I think are the most likely three directions after the
28 pages are: One, following up on the leads that were in the 28
pages; such as the role of the then-Saudi Ambassador to the
United States, Prince Bandar. Second, there's been information
developed since the 28 pages were written in the Fall of 2002;
such as the existence of this relationship between a prominent
Saudi family, Mohammed Atta and two of his compatriots in
Sarasota, Florida. Then third, the litigation that is being
frustrated by the sovereign immunity defense; which the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia has been raising. Those are, I think, the three
major channels in which we will get additional information on the
relationship between Saudi Arabia and the 19 hijackers. The
report, I think, made a case that an investigator reading what
Prince Bandar had done, would say, "I want to pursue this
further." The question is, were those leads pursued? And if so,
to what end? I hope what we'll find is that yes, they were
pursued; and here are investigative reports that carry this case
to its conclusion.

        OGDEN: So, as you could see, yours truly Jeff Steinberg was
on hand to ask Senator Graham a question; and Senator Graham's
emphasis, which he repeatedly came back to, was to open up the
file on Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador. So Jeff, maybe you
want to elaborate a little bit more on where this investigation
needs to go.

        STEINBERG: Well, I think Senator Graham was very clear that
there are 80,000 pages of documents that the FBI has acknowledged
belatedly and begrudgingly exist in Sarasota, Florida. I'm sure
that that was a small fraction of the documents down there, as
Senator Graham said, 13 of the 19 hijackers, at one point or
another, were based in Florida before the attack. Paterson, New
Jersey was another center where the hijackers were living and
training for a period of time. Falls Church, Virginia was both a
place where a number of them were present for a while, but it was
a convergence point; a kind of a staging area. There was a
confirmed report that a high-ranking Saudi minister was at the
same hotel in Falls Church, Virginia as a group of the hijackers
the night before the hijacking. So, there are many leads.
Undoubtedly, between the FBI, the CIA, the National Security
Agency, there's an alphabet soup of 16 intelligence agencies that
undoubtedly have millions and millions of pages of undisclosed
material.
        I think one of the most crucial things — and again, Senator
Graham was very clear on this — the most aggressive and
effective form of forcing out new information on what really
happened is by having the Saudi monarchy reinstated in the
lawsuit. Meaning that the JASTA bill has to pass the House; it
has to pass by a veto-proof majority. Once again, we're back to
the same question: Are you, the American people, going to stand
up and fight for something that's urgently needed? Or, are you
going to treat democracy as a spectator sport? If you choose the
latter, then the consequences are going to be more of the same
and worse. I think that the fact that Senator Graham focussed on
further disclosure — as he said, the bottle is uncorked; but the
contents have been barely trickled out. There's an enormous
amount more that has to be done; and of course, next weekend is
the 15th anniversary of the initial 9/11 attacks. Let's not
forget, it's the fourth anniversary of the second 9/11 attack in
Benghazi in 2012. That's not only a very relevant issue in terms
of the consequences of the original cover-up of the Saudi
involvement, but it's a very immediate and intensive issue
related to the Presidential elections in the US. We've got to be
fairly blunt about that. The cover-up of Benghazi is part of the
continuation of the cover-up of the Saudi role in the original
9/11 attack.

OGDEN: Well, Diane, you're right in the middle obviously of
putting together the commemorative anniversary celebrations and
the seminar, and just leading the activism there in New York
City. So, maybe you can just pick up from here.

        DIANE SARE: Well, I'd like to actually take a step back;
because one of the things that Senator Graham brought up about
why this was so important. He said there were three reasons: One
is the question of justice for the family members of the people
who were killed; Two, a somewhat obvious question, which is the
question of security. If we don't root out these networks,
they're there to be used repeatedly. And three, which I think is
really important and cannot be overstated, which is the question
of whether people trust their government. Because once the
population of the United States no longer trusts the government,
which is almost where we are right now, then you lose the
republic. Our republic, going back to the conception of Nicholas
of Cusa and {Concordantia Catholica}, depends on this question of
the consent of the governed. If you don't trust your government,
you will not consent to have it representing you. What Mr.
LaRouche said in the last days, is what we've seen between the
breakthrough that was driven by our work, and then Congressmen
Jones and Lynch virtually threatening — not exactly in those
words — but saying we know that we are immune if we read this
into the record; and what's moving on Glass-Steagall in terms of
the party platforms, is that these Congressmen are beginning to
be forced to represent their populations.
        I would put this in an international context, because what
you have coming up with the Vladivostok meetings going on right
now, and the G20; the trans-Atlantic system is completely
bankrupt. There is nothing Obama and the current configuration,
the European Central Bank, what are they offering to the world?
Negative interest rates? Keep your money with us, and we'll make
you pay! In other words, there is nothing that they can do; but
what you have with Russia and China. China's work — which people
who are following our website will have seen the show on
Wednesday; the New Paradigm show on the question of the far side
of the Moon, or the talk Thursday night. There is an entire
universe — we'll start with the Solar System — which is opening
up, which this collaboration in Asia has to offer. What the
Chinese have done is, they're hosting the G20 meeting, and
they're making President Putin the guest of honor. Then they're
having President al-Sisi as another honored figure at this
meeting. What is Obama's response? He thinks he's going to go
there and somehow push the Trans-Pacific Partnership; which is
bound to be a complete flop, a non-starter. The Russians made
very clear in an interview in Xinhua going into this meeting,
that Moscow and Beijing need Washington as a partner. I found
that somewhat — it made me happy as an American, because I think
the US should be a partner in this. Also, paradoxical. Then the
person who was interviewed, said Washington can be a complex and
unpredictable partner.
        So, I would say that our job as Americans — in a sense —
we've been given a mission that other very important leaders are
saying that the United States is wanted as a valued partner in
this New Paradigm. It is for us to deliver that by straightening
out this criminal regime that we have. Part of what we saw with
9/11 is that the cover-up has gone on through two
administrations; that Obama has been not only complicit in this,
but with his policies in the region, has contributed to the
growth of ISIS, the growth of al-Qaeda, their ability to recruit.
We've lost over these last years, almost 4500 soldiers in Iraq,
which is now known to be a complete lie and a fraud; that's what
came out of the Chilcot Inquiry. The question of 9/11, therefore,
becomes will we get justice? And justice doesn't mean revenge or
retribution; it means will we restore our nation to something
which someone would want to give their consent to be governed by
this government?
        I think when you look at the question of Mozart, which is
the {Requiem} which will be performed, which our chorus is
participating in and working on; Mozart's commitment was that. He
was a supporter of the American Revolution; he was a supporter of
the ideas of creating a republic, and he was murdered. His work
was eliminated; his contribution, what he could have done had he
lived longer. The piece has lived on because it has a quality
which is immortal; which actually embodies the question of human
creativity. What we're seeing here in response is that the people
who are engaged in this are developing a certain kind of passion
which probably was always in them. But because they have a chance
to participate in something which is going to be so profound and
so beautiful, and it has a mission in the real world, they are
becoming passionate again; which is I think is something that's
been very lacking. Everyone can think of conversations that
you've had with your friends and neighbors about the upcoming
election or almost anything; and the population has become
passionless, which is why people don't act when they should or
when they can.
        So, I have a sense that we really are on the brink of a
major breakthrough that the United States will be a part of; even
if many people in the United States don't fully appreciate why it
is here and how they came to be involved in it.

        OGDEN: Absolutely! I would just echo exactly what you just
said, Diane. In his speech at the Press Club, Senator Graham
quoted the often-quoted anecdote from Ben Franklin at the
Philadelphia Constitutional Convention; when the woman asked,
"What have you given us?" And he said, "A republic, if you can
keep it." The passion that Senator Graham has exhibited around
this, sustaining his role and his fight for 15 years for the
declassification of these documents; where does this passion come
from? Even though the FBI tried to intimidate him personally, and
told him to back down; basically "Get a life!" they said. Senator
Graham has refused to back down, because he sees this — as well
it should be seen — as an existential question for the survival
of the American republic. Not only from justice and the
standpoint of national security, but the very survival of our
nation as a republican form of government. I would assert that
we're looking at exactly the same kind of existential question
when it comes to the restoration of Glass-Steagall. The magnitude
of the implosion of the trans-Atlantic system that we are about
to see — if this thing came down without the necessary
leadership in place around the restoration of Glass-Steagall and
otherwise, to protect the American people from the fall-out from
that kind of financial crisis — this republic would not survive.
        The opportunity is there at our fingertips to join the new
financial architecture and to create the kinds of productive
surges in growth that this nation has never before seen; that
would surpass even what we achieved during FDR's New Deal, if we
were to join the New Silk Road which is being led right now by
China and others. So, it's that same kind of passion which needs
to be applied to that question as well.

DAVE CHRISTIE: Just to add, because I think the other side of
this is what Mr. LaRouche has identified that we're at a point
now where the old concept of sovereignty from the standpoint of
geopolitics; that the moves that are being made in the world by
the leadership of Russia, China, and India, are obviously the
echo of what Mr. LaRouche and his wife Helga have put on the
table for over a 40-year period. The discussion of the new
financial architecture really began when Mr. LaRouche proposed
the International Development Bank; his proposals for a New
Bretton Woods conference, starting in the '90s. That was picked
up by Nestor Kirchner of Argentina. Putin was actually discussing
this concept as well, of the new financial architecture, in the
early 2000s. So clearly, the role of the LaRouches is at the
forefront of this New Paradigm and the potential for that to come
into existence. What Mr. LaRouche has stressed is that we're
going to move beyond the old nation-state system. That doesn't
mean we're going to cease to have nations; but rather, the first
and foremost thought will be of mankind viewing itself from the
common aims of mankind. That humanity will be thought of first. I
think that's what we're seeing with the implications of the New
Silk Road policy and the new financial architecture; it is just
simply to facilitate the expansion of this concept.
        In that light, I think it's important that {The Hindu} just
had an interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche; and in the coverage of
that article, they cite the question of the Bering Strait, which
is the tunnel underneath the Bering Strait to link Eurasia with
North America. I think that's relevant to the ongoing discussion
in Vladivostok; because clearly the ability for Japan, for Korea,
for China and Russia to come together in this part of the world,
represents an amazing potential. Just think of the scientific and
technological potentials of those nations: China's space program;
Russia's space capabilities; the high-tech capabilities of Japan
and Korea. It really represents a very profound potential; and
when you begin discussing the development of the Siberia region,
the Far East region, you're building up that economic potential
right up to the doorstep of the Bering Strait. So, I think that's
obviously reflected in this {Hindu} article which interviews
Helga Zepp-LaRouche and her call to make the New Silk Road become
the World Land-Bridge; which is actually the title of that
article.
        So, I think the importance of what Diane referenced — this
idea of the consent of the governed — in a sense, these
discussions that are going on this weekend with the Vladivostok
conference, the G20 conference, that is what is actually being
discussed. As the Europeans are complaining about Obama, they're
trying to ram the TTIP and the TPP down the throats of the
Europeans; where prominent leadership of Germany and France are
saying, "Wait a second. Aren't we going to be involved in any
kind of discussion about this? Is this a democratic process?" But
of course, for Obama and the imperial interests that control him,
there's no discussion; no democratic process. I think that's
actually what is on the table. Just to come back to it, there's
no other place than space, which is perhaps the greatest
reflection of the end of the idea of the old system of
nation-state. There are no nation-states in space.
        We were discussing earlier the fact that this SpaceX rocket
just blew up; the great privatized space program that we're now
going to have after Obama dismantled NASA. It turns out that its
payload was a satellite launched by Facebook to run broad band in
Africa. This is the level of technology that we have in the
United States, or that we're concerned about. Whereas, if you
look at what China's doing with the far side of the Moon, look at
this collaborative effort; that can be the way to bring Asians on
this planet together to actually realize the common aims of
mankind.

        OGDEN: If you go back to the inaugural speech that John F
Kennedy made in 1961, when he was elected President; that was
obviously the focus of a previous generation of this country. He
said, we must move beyond the age of war; because all-out war is
not conceivable anymore in the age of nuclear weapons. This would
lead to the extermination of not just one country or another, but
the entirety of the human race. Instead, what we must do, is move
beyond the age of war to an age where nations are collaborating
to achieve the common aims of mankind. He said, our mission must
be to explore the stars, to conquer the deserts, to cure poverty
and disease, and to bring an end to the age of war itself.
        When you look back one year at the speeches that Vladimir
Putin and Xi Jinping made at the United Nations General Assembly
meeting in New York, that was exactly what the subject matter
was. It was the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, and
the framework that was put together by Franklin Roosevelt after
that war before he died, was intended to be a framework of
international relations based on bringing the New Deal, bringing
the awesome achievements that the United States had accomplished
under the American System to the rest of the world. And, bringing
an end to imperialism and colonialism once and for all. So, they
harkened back to that framework in which the United Nations was
originally conceived, and said this must be the foundation of the
paradigm going forward. Immediately after those speeches at the
United Nations General Assembly, Helga LaRouche issued a call for
a new security architecture for the planet. If you look at how
much has changed just over the past one year, in terms of what
now exists in actuality in those terms; that new security
architecture, the new economic architecture, this new
international order has now begun to coalesce.
        As Diane was saying, it's incumbent on the American people
to impress upon yourself how rapidly the situation in this
country could change, if the necessary steps are taken in order
to bring the United States into that new framework. If you bring
yourself outwards by a couple of months or one year from the
present date, and look at how much has changed since that
previous United Nations General Assembly meeting; you can see how
rapidly things could change for the better. I know that's been
Helga's assertion over and over again. The future is so close;
it's at your fingertips. It would be so easy to achieve. But
there are bold actions that must be taken in the United States;
and absolutely that starts in the month of September with the
convening of an immediate vote on Glass-Steagall, and ramming
that through the United States Congress.

        STEINBERG: I think that Mr. LaRouche has emphasized
repeatedly that winning this fight in the United States,
basically restoring the United States to its historical tradition
— which was an anti-colonial, anti-imperial, specifically
anti-British Empire nation that came into existence through a
struggle against all those principles of empire that have been
gradually more and more adopted by the last two administrations;
by the Bush 43 administration and equally so if not even more so
by Obama. The fact of the matter is, that we can at this point —
as the 28 pages fight indicated, as the momentum for
Glass-Steagall indicates — we can win this fight in the United
States; but it's got to be done now, and it's got to be done in a
timely fashion where people realize that there are critical
flanking battles that must be fought. Many other things are
merely irrelevant or distractions; and should just be ignored. We
win the fight on Glass-Steagall; we win the fight on the full
exposure of the Saudi 9/11, because that is really a
British-Saudi story that goes deep into our own national security
structures. So, these are the things that are going to be
measured in the next immediate days and weeks ahead. It has
virtually nothing to do with the election show that's going to be
more and more of a dominant factor.
        We've got to win this fight for Glass-Steagall; we've got to
win the JASTA fight. Those things can be won in the Congress in
the immediate several weeks ahead of us. That's going to take an
enormous mobilization, a focussed mobilization of the American
people. It means a lot of institutions that can be dragged in
many different directions, have to have the same kind of laser
focus that Mr. LaRouche is calling for and demanding of our own
forces. AFL-CIO actively involved in Glass-Steagall. Now is the
moment to pull out all of the stops and force the issue; because
Glass-Steagall is merely the starting point. It begs the issue of
a national system of credit; of national banking; of establishing
priority projects. Including, first and foremost, reviving NASA;
reviving our government-backed space program. Because these are
the things that are the only way that you're going to revive real
productivity in the US economy, given how far down it's sunk
already.

OGDEN: I would just say one thing. Those two subjects — the
forcing of the reopening of the 9/11 investigation and the
immediate mobilization around Glass-Steagall — these are
featured in this week's edition of {The Hamiltonian}; which is
hitting the streets today. That is a direct focus in terms of
activism that everybody needs to be involved in, is the
saturation of New York City, specifically with this weekly
publication that is now coming out — {The Hamiltonian}. So,
maybe before we conclude this broadcast, Diane, you can give us a
quick update on how that's changing the situation on the ground
in New York; and what people have to do between now and next
weekend in order to maximize the effect of the events that are
coming up in a week.

        SARE: I would say that people should certainly contact the
Manhattan Project office about coming to our meeting tomorrow in
Manhattan; where people can pick up copies of {The Hamiltonian}
and can join us on the distributions. We've been getting them out
all over the city and in the neighboring boroughs, and getting a
very favorable response. It's amazing; this one we're printing
now is only the fourth issue, but we already clearly have a
following of people saying, "Do you have the next one?" I think
it's also shaping the perception of what people are willing to
say. It may have been a coincidence, I don't know, that we ran
our first issue on Hillary Clinton as a stooge for Obama's wars
and Wall Street; and that week, Maureen Dowd came out with her
column on Hillary Clinton as the pro-war perfect replacement for
Dick Cheney was the idea. As we've seen in the past, there are
certain things that we take the point on, and we change what
people are allowed to discuss. Like when Mr. LaRouche, years ago
during Cheney and Bush, talked about Leo Strauss; and we produced
a series of reports — ultimately a book — on this policy of
lying and ramming it down people's throats as a way of
terrorizing the population to go along with fascism. The next
things you knew, the {New York Times} was running this big
article about Leo Strauss, who I'm sure most people had never
heard of until we did this.
        If you go back to what happened with the 28 pages, Obama had
absolutely no intention to ever release those pages. We created a
situation where he could not not release them; he had to do it.
Therefore, people should take heart in a certain way, that what
you used to consider as the powers that be, or the things that
are unmovable, or what can't be changed; that is no longer the
case. Now is really the moment to pick up — Jeff said it clearly
— the American Constitution, Alexander Hamilton; what our nation
is actually supposed to represent in the world. Now is the moment
for Americans to find their guts and stand up on their hind legs
and demand that nothing lower than that standard is going to be
tolerated by us at this point.

        OGDEN: Absolutely. So, I would encourage everybody to please
contact the New York office if you're in the area, or if you can
travel there. There's going to be a series of events that you can
participate in over the next week; and it's very significant. If
you have not yet, please subscribe to our YouTube channel, but
also, watch the two latest features that have been posted on the
LaRouche PAC YouTube channel and the LaRouche PAC website. As I
mentioned, the full press conference that Bob Graham delivered at
the National Press Club is available; the short address of that
is lpac.co/graham-press-club. We'll put that in the description
of this video here today. Also, the 20-minute video called "The
New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge: a Tour"; which is
very well-composed overview of exactly what the New Paradigm and
the new economic architecture looks like. Again, we'll put the
URL of that video in the description as well.
        So, thank you very much for joining us here today. I think
this was a very important discussion. Please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com. Thank you very much; good night.

Torsdag, 1. september 2016 (Leder) – En ny, fredelig verdensorden, helliget videnskabeligt fremskridt, reel økonomisk fremgang og en gennemført indsats for udforskning af rummet, bliver nu sammenvævet i en række af i alt fire, internationale topmøder i løbet af månederne september og oktober. Alle fire topmøder komplementerer hinanden, men den vigtigste af dem er topmødet mellem Gruppen af 20, der finder sted den 4.-5. september i Kina. Hvis amerikanere nu, i september, viser tilstrækkelig intelligens og det fornødne mod til at ryste Obamas og hans liges døende system af sig, kan USA begynde at genoplive vores nations moralitet, og med denne, vores videnskab og industri. For dem, der er gamle nok til at huske det, vil virkningen være lig den, der kun blev os lovet gennem den myrdede John F. Kennedys kortvarige regering, der bragte os ud i rummet og til Månen, hvor der siden 1969 har været et mindeplade med ordene, »Vi kom i fred for hele menneskeheden«.

Vi må tilbage til Månen! Vi vil komme tilbage! Månen er den uerstattelige port til Solsystemet, og hinsides dette.

Den stimulus, som John Kennedy gav den amerikanske økonomi i løbet af de få, korte måneder, han fik lov at tjene, var ikke fuldstændigt opbrugt før starten af 1970’erne. Nu er det Barack Obama, der endelig har aflivet alt, hvad der var tilbage af den amerikanske økonomi, ved at nedlukke vores rumprogram. Og den fakkel, som John Kennedy kastede, da han blev dræbt, er blevet samlet op af – Vladimir Putin! Tilsammen med Kinas præsident, Xi Jinping, der står for at skulle åbne topmødet for Gruppen af 20.

Det, som Rusland og Kina tilbyder os, er på den ene side et medlemskab af det udstrakte, voksende eurasiske system med indbyrdes forbunden infrastruktur og en voksende, videnskabsbaseret økonomi. Dette koncept har Lyndon og Helga Zepp-LaRouche været forkæmpere for fra begyndelsen af 1980’erne. Det er nu blevet en realitet som Kinas politik for Den nye Silkevej, der blev vedtaget i 2013, ved navn »Ét bælte, én vej«.

Den anden, komplementære del af deres tilbud er det, der kaldes en »Ny finansiel arkitektur«. Det nuværende finanssystem, der er dømt til undergang, befinder sig på randen af endnu en nedsmeltning, som vil kvæle midlerne til livets opretholdelse i hele det transatlantiske område. Økonomisk udvikling baseret på videnskab, udforskning af rummet og »infrastruktur-udviklingskorridorer«, kræver, at vi vender tilbage til det finanssystem, som blev opfundet af Alexander Hamilton, og som Abraham Lincoln og Franklin Roosevelt senere også vendte tilbage til.

Vi må omgående gribe til handling nu for at sikre, at de spekulative derivaters finansielle fordringer, som på verdensplan er evalueret til 2 billard dollars, ikke pludseligt kollapser og knuser os omgående, sådan, som det truede med at ske allerede i 2007-08. Dette kræver den omgående tilbagevenden til Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov, for at adskille normal, kommerciel bankvirksomhed fra hasardspilsspekulation, mens der endnu er tid. Der er fremsat lovforslag om at genoplive Glass-Steagall, med mange sponsorer fra begge partier, i begge Kongreshuse. Hvad er det, vore kongresmedlemmer og senatorer foretager sig? Har de nogen som helst idé om, hvor mange, der vil dø i vores befolkning, hvis disse vitale beskyttelsesforanstaltninger yderligere udsættes?

Hvis man venter med at handle til den 8. november, vil det sandsynligvis være for sent. Informer dig og handl i dag, og opsøg og tag kontakt med alle andre, der vil handle sammen med os. Verdens største nationers regeringer appellerer til os om at gøre dette, og de har ret.    

Foto: Præsident John F. Kennedy taler foran Kongressen den 25. maj 1961, hvor han erklærer, »… Jeg mener, at denne nation bør forpligte sig til, før udgangen af dette årti, at fuldføre det mål, at landsætte en mand på Månen og bringe ham sikkert tilbage til Jorden«.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Lars Løkke Rasmussens fremlæggelse af regeringens 2025-plan er endnu en understregning af det ufatteligt lave niveau, dansk politik er faldet ned på. Det er en redningsplan for en skrøbelig Venstreregering, gennem at forsøge at give partierne, der udgør regeringens parlamentariske grundlag, nogle gode kødben at tygge på, uden at reflektere de virkelige trusler og muligheder, som Danmark og resten af verden står overfor.

31. august 2016 (Leder) – Med betydningsfulde, internationale topmøder, der starter den 2. september, og med den amerikanske Kongres, der vender tilbage til Washington den 6. september, vil de næste to uger blive langt mere afgørende for USA’s fremtidige skæbne, og for menneskehedens fremtidige skæbne, end det amerikanske præsidentvalg den 8. november.

Lyndon LaRouche har advaret om, at, med mindre Kongressen handler – og handler nu, i september – for at genindføre Glass-Steagall, som det første skridt i en langt mere omfattende omstrukturering af den økonomiske og monetære politik, så har hele det transatlantiske system direkte kurs mod en nedsmeltning.

I diskussioner med kolleger i dag sagde LaRouche følgende:

»Hvis de undgår spørgsmålet om Glass-Steagall i særdeleshed, samt relaterede spørgsmål, så vil de personer, der beter sig således, bringe deres egen død over deres hoveder. Man kan ikke tillade sig at ignorere det, der står på spil her. Man vil få en masse pludselige dødsfald, fordi de ikke var opmærksomme og gjorde, hvad de skulle.«

Denne kommende weekend vil blive vidne til en fremmarch af tre på hinanden følgende, internationale topmøder for statsoverhoveder, i Asien – Ruslands Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok, Kinas værtskab for G20-topmødet og Laos’ værtskab for ASEAN plus 6 – og disse topmøder vil kontinuerligt etablere den kendsgerning, at Kina, Rusland og Indien – og ikke Obama og NATO – er i færd med at skabe et nyt, globalt system. Og mens Kina tager føringen ved denne uges G20-topmøde for at skabe et nyt og retfærdigt, globalt finansielt system, så har håndlanger for briterne, den amerikanske præsident Barack Obama, i sin sindsforvirrede tilstand, og som en del af sin agenda for krig mod Rusland og Kina, planer om at promovere sin ekskluderende handelsaftale, Trans-Pacific Partnerskab (TPP), der på forhånd er dømt til undergang.

USA holder søndag den 11. september en mindedag i anledning af 15-års dagen for terrorangrebene den 11. september, 2001, og denne årsdag er den første, hvor de virkelige, udenlandske sponsorer af terrorangrebene – det britiske og saudiske monarki – står afsløret, med de nu frigivne 28 sider af den Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport fra 2002. Dette 28 sider lange kapitel afslører også nogle af de institutioner, der kørte mørklægningen, inklusive, men ikke begrænset til, FBI og CIA. I lyset af disse afsløringer vil New York City fejre denne weekend med en imponerende række koropførelser af Mozarts Rekviem, der opføres af Schiller Instituttets kor, inklusive en særlig messe den 11. september, til ære for New York City’s Brandvæsen (FDNY), hvilket alt sammen indgår som en del af kravet om total juridisk retfærdighed for det afskyelige mord på mere end 3000 amerikanere og andre, for femten år siden.

Og der er klare og accelererende tegn på en umiddelbart forestående nedsmeltning af det transatlantiske system. Den aftale, der blev indgået i sidste øjeblik for at redde Italiens Monte dei Paschi-bank, er nu ved at smuldre, og JPMorgan Chase taler nu for at gennemføre en bail-in (ekspropriering) af den private sektor for at undgå, at hele den italienske banksektor bliver udslettet. CNBC rapporterede i sidste uge, at »bankerne forbereder sig til en økonomisk atomvinter« og er i færd med at udarbejde nødplaner, ifald det værste skulle indtræffe, planer, der forudser eurozonens totale opbrud og enden på den Europæiske Union gennem en hel række afstemninger over hele Europa til fordel for en exit.

Aldrig har den sandhed stået klarere, at, hvis befolkningen skulle ønske at vende de seneste femten års, for ikke at sige de seneste halvtreds års tendenser omkring, så ville Obama bliver fordømt som en tragisk skikkelse, og patriotiske kræfter ville gennemtvinge Glass-Steagall nu!

Lyndon LaRouche talte i diskussionen om denne befolkningens underliggende frygt:

»Og I ved, at FBI er en del af dette her. Andre institutioner er, som FBI, er ansvarlige for undertrykkelse af sandheden. Jeg tror, tiden nu er inde til at undertrykke FBI! I det mindste, indtil de lever op til deres ansvar … Og alle de personer, der støttede ideen om at sætte mig i fængsel, var bedragere. I særdeleshed nogle af de højtplacerede folk i det juridiske system. De gjorde det. De begik en forbrydelse … Problemet er, at folk ikke handler på det, som de erkender, er problemet! Så vi må mobilisere folk som sådan, til at mobilisere sig selv. Med andre ord, til ikke alene at mobilisere sig selv som sådan, men til rent faktisk at mobilisere deres egen indsats over for andre … Problemet er, at folk bliver bange. De er bange for FBI og alle mulige ting, der foregår. De er intimideret.«

Tiden er inde til at handle

Som for eksempel med de igangværende topmøder, inklusive det forestående sammentræde af FN’s Generalforsamling i anden halvdel af september, er stærke strategiske skift i gang. Putin har forpurret den amerikansk/britiske politik i Sydvestasien og har vundet Tyrkiet og nu endda førende røster i Tyskland til fordel for en politik, baseret på international lov, elimineringen af terrornetværk samt økonomisk udvikling på storstilet skala.

Det bliver nu med stadigt voksende klarhed åbenlyst, at Kinas, Ruslands og Indiens politik med nye infrastrukturkorridorer over hele Eurasien og Afrika er blevet en politik, der er langt mere magtfuld end Obamas forsøg på at fremprovokere krig med Rusland og Kina.

Som Lyndon LaRouche sagde under diskussioner med kolleger tidligere i dag:

»Jeg tror, vi nu har det rette publicerede materiale. Det vigtigste er simpelt hen at holde fast i materialet om udvikling, og at forøge det. Vi får sandsynligvis den bedst mulige hjælp på baggrund af de nye angreb på ’gangsterne’, som vi kalder dem. Og mange kongresmedlemmer tvinges nu til at forsvare vore borgeres rettigheder.

Det betyder, at vi simpelt hen vil mobilisere befolkningen. Vi vil mobilisere befolkningen til at gennemtvinge disse rettigheder – deres rettigheder, på baggrund af dette, blot denne simple overvejelse. Det vil ikke fungere på nogen anden måde.«

Glass-Steagall er det første, uomgængelige skridt i både USA og Europa, for at afvende et finansielt lavineskred. Der er fremsat Glass/Steagall-lovforslag fra begge partier i begge Kongressens huse, ligesom Glass-Steagall indgår i valgplatformene for både det Demokratiske og Republikanske Parti, og en vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall i de kommende uger vil sluttelig vende hele valgprocessen omkring, til fordel for det amerikanske folk som helhed.

Den nye, globale, finansielle arkitektur og en verdenslandbro med transkontinentale storprojekter, der nu er under opførelse, er blevet promoveret af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche i over fire årtier. Tiden er nu inde til at gennemtvinge en vedtagelse af Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingen, en eliminering af de finansielle derivaters finansielle atombombe og implementeringen af Lyndon LaRouches tre andre hovedlove: skabelse af statslige kreditbanker; en definering af et kreditsystem, der sigter på en forøgelse af arbejdskraftens produktive evne gennem storstilet udvikling og infrastruktur; samt at fremskyde de videnskabelige grænser gennem udforskning af det ydre rum og udvikling af fusionskraft.

Menneskeheden har et ubegrænset potentiale for økonomisk vækst og udvikling af kreative evner. Vi må nu hævde vores naturlige, menneskelige ret til fortsat fremskridt, der er ubegrænset, eller også stå ansigt til ansigt med vores egen frygt.   

30. august 2016 (Leder) – Tirsdag advarede Lyndon LaRouche om, at, med mindre den amerikanske Kongres – nu, i september – handler for at genindsætte Glass/Steagall-loven, som blot det første skridt i en langt større fornyelse af den økonomiske og monetære politik, har hele det transatlantiske system kurs mod en nedsmeltning. Samtidig med, at Kina forbereder sig til at tage føringen ved næste uges G20-topmøde for statsoverhoveder for at bringe et nyt, retfærdigt, globalt finanssystem til verden, farer briternes håndlanger, Barack Obama, rundt i en sindsforstyrret tilstand og forsøger at fremme handelsaftalen Trans Pacific Partnerskab (TPP) og andre lige så vanvittige, døde politikker, der er dømt til undergang. Hvide Hus-regeringsfolk Ben Rhodes og Josh Earnest gjorde det i denne uge over for reportere klart, at Obama vil sætte TPP på toppen af sin dagsorden, når han mødes med verdens ledere i Kina til G20-topmødet. De øvrige hovedpunkter på hans dagsorden er: at gøre fremstød for krig i det Sydkinesiske Hav, baseret på den Internationale Voldgiftsrets ulovlige afgørelse, samt at banke aftalen fra klimaforandringskonferencen i Paris igennem.

Alle de tydelige tegn på en umiddelbart forestående, transatlantisk nedsmeltning inden årets udgang er til stede. Den i sidste øjeblik indgåede aftale for at redde Italiens Monte dei Paschi bank er i færd med at smuldre, og JPMorgan Chase gør nu fremstød for en bail-in (ekspropriering af bankindskud) af den private sektor for at undgå, at den italienske banksektor bliver udslettet. Den italienske premierminister Renzi skal på onsdag mødes med den tyske kansler Merkel i endnu et forsøg på at indgå en rådden aftale for at opretholde de bankerotte banker. Tirsdag advarede Bloomberg News om, at derivatmarkedet har kurs mod en nedsmeltning. Under overskriften, »Gjorde Brexit derivatmarkedet giftigt?«, bemærker Bloomberg, at ingen, der spekulerer på valutakurs-fluktuationer mellem det britiske pund og euroen, havde forudset resultatet af Brexit-afstemningen. CNBC rapporterede tirsdag, at »banker forbereder sig til en økonomisk atomvinter« og udarbejder nødplaner, hvis ’det værste’ skulle indtræffe, som forudser det totale sammenbrud af eurozonen og enden på den Europæiske Union gennem en hel række andre exit-afstemninger over hele Europa.

Glass-Steagall er det første, uomgængelige skridt i både USA og Europa for at afvende et finansielt lavineskred. Med upartiske lovforslag fremsat i begge kongressens huse, og med både det Demokratiske og Republikanske Partis valgplatform, der kræver en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, har vi nu det rette øjeblik for seriøs og korrekt udtænkt handling. Kongressen vender tilbage til Washington næste tirsdag, den 6. september. Der kan ikke komme nogen genoplivning af regulær produktivitet i den døende amerikanske og europæiske økonomi uden først at fjerne hele derivatboblen og genetablere fungerende kommercielle banker, gennem hvilke enorme mængder kredit kan kanaliseres til vital infrastruktur, forskning og udvikling. Frem for alt må USA’s rumprogram fuldt ud genoplives, så USA kan tilslutte sig Kina, Rusland, Indien og andre nationer, der allerede er fuldt ud forpligtet over for det, som den store rumforsker Krafft Ehricke kaldte »den udenjordiske forpligtelse«.

På fredag og lørdag finder Vladivostok Østlige Økonomiske Topmøde sted, som dagen efter efterfølges af åbningen af G20-topmødet for statsoverhoveder i Hangzhou, Kina. Man er allerede ved at komme på linje på globalt plan, centreret omkring den bydende nødvendige eurasiske udvikling. Men for at denne alliance virkeligt kan lykkes, må USA og Europa bringes med om bord. Det betyder, at de må opgive enhver politik, der er associeret med det Britiske Imperium, og som på det seneste er kommet til udtryk gennem præsident Obamas sindsforvirrede planer om at genoplive et allerede dødt system.     

29. august 2016 – Med en ekspertanalyse fra to, førende tyske militære personer, rapporterede Welt am Sonntag den 28. august, at de to mest fundamentale postulater om Syrien fra Obamas Hvide Hus og NATO er blevet modbevist. »Fred med Assad?« lyder overskriften på artiklen, og indledningen lyder: »Tyrkiet invaderer Syrien; dette er efter aftale med Rusland og Assad-regimet. Dette kunne ses som et totalt kursskifte, hvilket fortsat benægtes af Vesten.«

Welt har et længere interview med Wolfgang Ischinger, chef for den årlige Sikkerhedskonference i München og en førende tysk, konservativ militærtænker, der siger: »Jeg mener, at Tyrkiets ’nye ansigt’ over for Assad [hvor de accepterer, at han foreløbig forbliver ved magten] er forståeligt. Og jeg opfordrer til, at Vesten finder det forståeligt. Kendsgerningerne er enkle. Vi kan ikke ignorere dem.« Ischinger kalder således Obamas, Camerons og NATO’s første postulat og »røde linje«, nemlig, at Assad må gå, for »en forfejlet plan«.

Den russiske præsident Putin udgør vægtstangen i situationen, og den tyrkiske præsident Erdogan søger at tilslutte sig ham, observerer Welt. Bladet citerer også den tyske general Harald Kujat, en tidligere vice-øverstkommanderende for NATO, der smadrer Obamas og hans bandes andet postulat, nemlig, at der »ikke er en militær løsning« i Syrien. Kujat siger, at dette er forkert, og at alle de involverede magter i realiteten har søgt en militær løsning, begyndende med USA/UK, der angriber de kurdiske militser og de såkaldte »moderate oprørsstyrker«, og Erdogan, der angriber al-Nusra og al-Qaeda.

Der findes ikke længere nogen »moderate oprørsstyrker«, insisterer Kujat, »hvis der nogensinde var nogen«. Ideen om en »forhandlet fred« baseret på, at Assad tvinges ud, var derfor et totalt korthus, en opskrift for kaos, siger han, »en alles krig mod alle«. Hvad der er vigtigere, så ændrede Putin fuldstændig situationen fundamentalt, da Rusland intervenerede sidste september, den 30., og søgte en militær løsning mod alle terroristgrupperne, med Assads egen imødekommende regering som Ruslands »styrker på landjorden«.

Den lange og detaljerede undersøgelse af Thorsten Jungholt, hvor han påpegede det grundlæggende skift i alliancen, som Putin frembragte, vakte tydeligvis postyr i Tyskland. Dagen efter forsøgte Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung at modbevise dette i en lederartikel, der hævdede, at Tyrkiet stadig ønsker, at Assad »skal forsvinde« nu. Denne løgn modsiges af den tyrkiske udenrigsministers egne, nylige, officielle erklæringer, og viser blot, i hvilken grad, Welt am Sonntags rapport af den nye virkelighed har forårsaget uro.   

30. august, 2016 (Leder) – De næste par uger bliver langt mere afgørende for USA og menneskehedens fremtid, end det amerikanske præsidentvalg den 8. november.

I disse to uger vil vi opleve en fremmarch af tre, på hinanden følgende internationale topmøder, der afholdes i Asien, og som vil etablere den nye virkelighed, at det er Kina, Rusland og Indien – og ikke Obama og NATO – der skaber og former denne fremtid.

Og USA vil ikke være det samme efter 15-årsdagen for 11. september-angrebene, den første årsdag, hvor de, der var de reelle, udenlandske sponsorer af disse terrorangreb, står afsløret. Den forrykte tåbelighed, som var Bush-Obama krigene, og som fulgte i kølvandet på disse terrorangreb, er således blevet gjort klar og tydelig; det samme er også den russiske præsident Putins medmenneskelighed, med hans omgående tilkendegivelser af solidaritet med USA på daværende tidspunkt. I de næste to uger vil New York håndtere disse afsløringer gennem en slagkraftig række af minde-korkoncerter, opført af Schiller Instituttet, i hele byen.

Der er vægtige strategiske skift i gang. Putin har forpurret de amerikansk/europæiske præmisser om terroristbekæmpelse i Sydvestasien, idet han har vundet Tyrkiet for sin tilgang til problemet og nu er i færd med at vinde toneangivende røster, selv i Tyskland. Kinas, Ruslands og Indiens politik med at bygge landbroer og korridorer med ny infrastruktur i hele Eurasien og Afrika er blevet mere potent end Obamas forsøg på at provokere Rusland med krig, og »udstede regler« for Kina.

Alle Obamas giftige bestræbelser på at gøre Kina til en fjende af de 10 ASEAN-lande er endt ud med, at Kina er mere indflydelsesrigt i ASEAN end før. ASEAN’s årsmøde – efter weekendens Østasiatiske Økonomiske Forum og derefter G20-mødet i Hangzhou, Kina – vil være det tredje af de magtfulde topmøder, der alle fokuserer på at genskabe vækst og produktivitet for verdensøkonomien efter det sidste årtis sammenbrud, udløst af Wall Street.

Og Obamas anti-kinesiske »handelsaftaler«, TTP (Trans-Pacific Partnerskab) og TTIP (Trans-Atlantiske Handels- og Investerings-Partnerskab), bliver erklæret for døde, selv af deres tidligere tilhængere. Hvis vi optrapper vores indsats i løbet af disse to uger, er der bedre chancer for, at Kongressen snart vil gen-vedtage Glass-Steagall som lov, end tilfældet er for Obamas TTP eller TTIP.

Den nye, finansielle arkitektektur og Verdenslandbroens storslåede infrastrukturprojekter, som disse topmøder vil tage sigte på, er blevet promoveret af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche over fire årtier.

Vil de fremtvinge en accept af Glass/Steagall-bankregulering og en afskrivning af den finansielle atombombe, som de finansielle derivater udgør?

Det kræver, at vi nu optrapper vores mobilisering for det, som Lyndon LaRouche har kaldt sine Fire Kardinallove: Glass-Steagall; nationale kreditbanker; teknologiske fremskridt gennem infrastruktur-byggeri; fremme af videnskabens fremskudte grænser gennem udforskning af det ydre rum og udvikling af fusionskraft.

Der er et ubegrænset potentiale for menneskehedens økonomiske vækst og udvikling af kreative evner. Obamas Hvide Hus vil sandsynligvis modsætte sig dette nye paradigme på G20-topmødet. Det er vores ansvar at lave om på det.

Foto: Vladimir Putin og Barack Obama holdt et bilateralt møde på sidelinjen af Fn's Generalforsamlings-møde. 29. september 2015 [kremlin.ru] 

26. august, 2016 (Leder) – Uanset hvor meget tid, han har tilbage, må Obama afsættes, hvis der skal komme noget som helst fungerende nyt præsidentskab i USA i den kommende periode. Hans præsidentskab har været en fiasko, og én, der skaber ravage, død og kaos i USA og i verden gennem ulovlige krige, finansielle redningspakker (bailout), droneangreb, ødelæggelse af sundhedssektoren, narkotikarelaterede dødsfald, arbejdsløshed samt Obamas personlige psykotiske patologi. Samtidig med, at Eurasiens nationer under ledelse af præsident Putin konstruerer et nyt, strategisk og økonomisk system, må Obama fordømmes for det, han er: en ynkelig fiasko og en tjener for det døende, britiske monarki.

Det er det igangværende samarbejde mellem Rusland og Kinas lederskab om et nyt økonomisk system, samt presserende strukturelle ændringer i det globale finansielle system, der er af yderste betydning. Dette er den afgørende flanke for at undgå en atomar verdenskrig og finansielt kaos – resultaterne af Obamas mislykkede præsidentskab – og dette er også det toneangivende diskussionsemne blandt verdens ledere ved de mange internationale topmøder, der skal finde sted i løbet september og oktober måned.

Kinas præsident Xi Jinping har til hensigt at sætte det afgørende spørgsmål om et nyt, globalt, økonomisk og finansielt system på dagsordenen for det kommende G20-topmøde i Hangzhou, Kina. De officielle kinesiske medier, fulgt af russiske top-analytikere, har gjort det klart, at ethvert sådant nyt og funktionsdygtigt system må omfatte USA – hvilket betyder, at USA må opgive sine illusioner om at regere en unipolær verden, der ikke længere eksisterer, og begynde at samarbejde med store nationer om et nyt og retfærdigt, økonomisk system.

Dette blev d. 24. august fremhævet i et telegram fra Kinas officielle nyhedsbureau Xinhua, med titlen »Interview: Rusland og Kina bør samarbejde i G20-regi om at tackle udfordringer.« Andrey Kortunov, generaldirektør for det Russiske Råd for Internationale Anliggender, som står i tæt forbindelse med det Russiske Udenrigsministerium, sagde: »Jo længere, disse reformer udskydes, desto højere risiko er der for nye kriser og ustabilitet i verdensøkonomien.« Han tilføjede senere, »Hvis Beijing og Moskva i dag tilbyder deres koncept for stabilitet til det internationale samfund, er det ikke bare tomme ord, men forslag baseret på mange succesfulde erfaringer.« Han bemærkede, at USA kunne være »en kompleks og undertiden uforudsigelig partner«, men ikke desto mindre »bør både Rusland og Kina konsekvent søge fælles fodslag med Washington og undgå kriser, uden at gøre indrømmelser på principielle spørgsmål«.

En reportage i Xinhua på samme dag, også vedrørende G20, angreb »over-afhængighed af pengepolitikken« og fokus på »markeder« i modsætning til »nationer« – på bekostning af en politik, der sigter mod reel, fysisk-økonomisk vækst og er baseret på teknologisk innovation. »Kina vil bruge konferencen til at anspore til dialog mellem udviklede lande og udviklingslande omkring potentialet for at skabe vækst gennem reformer og innovation.«

Wall Street Journal har antydet, at det var på anmodning af Kina, at den Internationale Betalingsbank (BIS) i en nyligt udsendt rapport advarer om, at der på nuværende tidspunkt ikke er nogen mekanismer på plads, der kan forhindre en eksplosion af den globale, finansielle derivatboble på mere end $600 billioner, hvis nogen større spiller skulle gå i betalingsstandsning. I noget, der kun kan betegnes som en smertelig underdrivelse, blev Business Insider tvunget til at indrømme, at resultaterne af denne undersøgelse »er lettere skræmmende«, for, hvis det ikke lykkes for derivat-handelshuse at håndtere en krise, så bliver derivater til »u-eksploderede atombomber, der putter sig dybt i det finansielle system«. Wall Street Journal fortsætter med at bemærke, at Kina har placeret de centrale handelshuses sikkerhed »højt på dagsordenen« af G20-topmødet d. 4. – 5. september.

Der er nu en voksende og udbredt opfattelse blandt topembedsmænd i det transatlantiske område, at Europa og USA står på den yderste rand af en finansiel eksplosion, hvis enorme størrelse kun modsvares af deres egen benægtelse af både dens globale konsekvenser og af sammenbruddet af vestlig dominans. Bloomberg rapporterede tirsdag d. 23. august, at Deutsche Bank, Barclays og Credit Suisse sidder på sammenlagt $102,5 milliarder i »Level-3«-aktiver – dvs. aktiver, som er illikvide, uden markedsværdi, og som ikke kan dumpes i en krise. Economist gav sin udgave d. 20. – 26. august overskriften, »Mareridt på Main Street« og advarede om, at det amerikanske boligmarked på $26 billioner, som ligger til grund for et bjerg af derivater og andre spekulations-værdipapirer, både fra banker, men også uden for banker – atter er klar til at springe i luften.

Med hele Vestens politiske og økonomiske klasse, der i stigende grad er miskrediteret, er den eneste tilbageværende mulighed en omgående genindførelse af en fuld Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling i USA, og en tilsvarende implementering i hele Europa. Glass-Steagall, efterfulgt af en gældseftergivelse for udviklingslandene (i overensstemmelse med Alfred Herrhausen politik i 1989), samt udstedelse af langfristet kredit til industriel og videnskabelig udvikling, er blot nogle af de første, uomgængelige skridt hen imod skabelsen af en ny, global, finansiel arkitektur, og udgør forudsætningerne for et nyt, kulturelt paradigme, en ny renæssance for hele menneskeheden.

Grundlaget for en sådan ny global finansiel og økonomisk arkitektur er nu veletableret gennem den voksende integration af Eurasien, der væves sammen gennem samarbejdet i den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen (SCO), BRIKS, ASEAN og andre grupperinger. Det er Kinas »Ét Bælte, Én Vej«-initiativ baseret på Lyndon og Helga LaRouches oprindelige koncept om den Eurasiske Landbro fra midten af 1990'erne, der er det princip, som denne eurasiske og potentielt globale udvikling har som sin forudsætning.

Som den mexicanske præsident José López Portillo engang sagde: »Det er nu nødvendigt, at verden lytter til de kloge ord fra Lyndon LaRouche!«

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

TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BEN DENISTON: Each individual year?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video: 2. del:

Lyd:

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

Part 1:

Part 2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19. august 2016 – Læger uden Grænser meddelte i går, at de trækker alt personale ud af seks hospitaler i det nordlige Yemen efter angrebet den 15. juli på hospitalet i Abs udført af den saudiskledede koalition, som, sagde de, »er det fjerde og mest dødbringende angreb på nogen LuG-støttet facilitet i denne krig, og der har været utallige angreb på andre sundhedsfaciliteter og tjenester i hele Yemen.«

Joan Tubau, generaldir. for LuG, sagde: »LuG beder den saudiskledede koalition og de regeringer, der støtter denne koalition, især USA, UK og Frankrig, om at sikre en omgående indførelse af forholdsregler til markant at forøge beskyttelsen af civile.« Men indtil dette sker, er de aktuelle protokoller utilstrækkelige og faren alvorlig.

De seks hospitaler ligger i det nordlige Yemen, i de administrative distrikter Saada og Hajjah. Faciliteterne vil fortsætte med at arbejde med frivilligt personale fra Sundhedsministeriet, men tjenesteydelserne var i forvejen forfærdeligt overbelastet. Evakueringen af LuG-personale omfatter fødselslæger, børnelæger, kirurger og specialister for intensivafdelinger.

I bombeangrebet den 15. juli af Abs-hospitalet i Hajjah-distriktet blev 19 mennesker dræbt og 24 såret. LuG erklærer, at de har mistet tilliden til, at den saudiskledede koalition vil gøre noget for at forhindre sådanne fatale angreb. LuG’s pressemeddelelse fra 18. august slutter, »At sundhedspersonale og syge og sårede mennesker dræbes i et hospital, taler sit tydelige sprog om denne krigs grusomhed og umenneskelighed.«

Den 17. august siger en lederartikel i New York Times med overskriften, »Amerika er medskyldig i blodbadet i Yemen«, at »Saudi-Arabien, der startede luftkrigen i marts 2015, bærer det tungeste ansvar for at opflamme konflikten … «, og at, »Hr. Obama aftalte at støtte interventionen i Yemen – med Kongressens formelle godkendelse – og at sælge endnu flere våben til saudierne … « Redaktionen konkluderer, »I betragtning af de civile tab, kan en fortsat amerikansk støtte til denne krig ikke forsvares.«

Foto: Abs-hospitalet i Hajjah-provinsen blev bombet i mandags, hvor 19 mennesker blev dræbt. Læger den Grænser evakuerer nu personale fra stedet, og fra fem andre hospitaler i det nordlige Yemen, pga. bombeangrebene.

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

Engelsk udskrift.

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

International LaRouche PAC Webcast , Aug. 19, 2016

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

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

        KESHA ROGERS: Did you want to start, Jason?

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

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

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

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Hi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. august 2016 (Leder) – Hvis Deutsche Bank for lov til at synke ned i et ukontrolleret kollaps, der får den største pulje af derivater blandt verdens banker til at nedsmelte, vil ikke alene den tyske økonomi, men også hele Europa og USA, hermed blive lagt øde. Alligevel er det, hvad der er på dagsordenen, bogstaveligt talt hvad dag, det skal være. Endnu en stemme fra den finansielle elite råber i dag alarm: »Deutsche Bank befinder sig i større vanskeligheder, end folk gør sig klart«, sagde Brad Lamensdorf fra hedgefonden Ranger Equity Bear i et interview med Lodonavisen The Express. »Noget er i den grad brudt sammen.«

»Der er intet i det europæiske banksystem, der er stabilt«, var Lyndon LaRouches respons. »Den tyske økonomi er på randen af en eksplosion. Merkel og Schäuble prøver på at håndtere det umulige. De må gå af. Det er kun et spørgsmål om tid, hvornår sammenbruddet vil indtræffe.«

Der findes midler til at løse denne krise, men ikke, medmindre der i Tyskland omgående træder ledere frem, der kan genoprette stabiliteten. Dette kræver for det første en genkapitalisering af Deutsche Bank under en nyt program, der afskriver den værdiløse derivat-boble og genopretter kommerciel bankvirksomhed under en regulering i stil med Glass-Steagall. Hvis dette gøres nu, sagde LaRouche, så kan Tyskland, i samarbejde med Putins Rusland, undgå et pludseligt sammenbrud og blive drivkraften for et nyt paradigme for samarbejde mellem de transatlantiske nationer og det russisk-kinesiske partnerskab, der nu leder verdensøkonomien fremad, det vestlige kollaps til trods.

Ledende kræfter i Tyskland forsøger at forbedre relationerne med Rusland. Udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier mødtes med sin russiske modpart Sergei Lavrov i Jekatarinburg den 15. august, hvor de to enedes om at »tilskynde til kontakter mellem regeringsagenturer for regioner i den Russiske Føderation og Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland«, udtalte Lavrov og tilføjede, at »vi mener, at den interesse for at samarbejde med Ruslands regioner, som Frank-Walter har udvist, fortjener al mulig støtte«. Som rapporteret i TASS, diskuterede de to, ifølge Lavrov, også bilaterale relationer inden for »politiske, kulturelle, humanitære og historiske områder«. Hvor længe kan det vanvittige sanktionsregime og NATO’s krigsmobilisering tolereres?

Tiden er knap. Putin har ramt Obamas krigsplan på to sårbare flanker: først i Syrien, hvor han under international lov har arbejdet med Syriens suveræne regering om at besejre terrorist-apparatet på forskellige fronter i Syrien, og således udstillet Obama som en promoter af de saudisk-kontrollerede al-Qaeda-netværk for at fuldbyrde hans aggressioners mål om kriminelt regimeskifte; og for det andet, så har Putin bragt Tyrkiet til fornuft og afsluttet Obamas brug af landet til at kanalisere våben og terrorister ind i Syrien.

Obama har reageret ved at sætte neonazistiske bander ind i Ukraine for at udløse terroristangreb i Krim – dvs. på russisk territorium – og optrappe krigen i Donbas-regionen. Putin meddelte, at det planlagte møde i Normandiet-gruppen (Frankrig, Tyskland, Rusland og Ukraine) ved det kommende G20-møde i Kina, med henblik på at forsøge at redde Minsk-aftalerne, var meningsløst nu, hvor Kiev har satset på terror på russisk territorium. Hollande, Merkel og Porosjenko talte i telefon i dag – uden Putin – og opfordrede til at fortsætte med Normandiet-processen. Andre har foreslået, at Tyskland og Rusland fortsætter på egen hånd for at løse problemet med Ukraine, og for at kræve en afslutning på Kievs Obama-støttede provokationer.

Der er krig på dagsordenen – en krig, der hurtigt ville blive global og atomar. Alt imens Tyskland, under et nyt lederskab, og i tandem med Rusland, kan forhindre det økonomiske kollaps og standse den fremstormende krig, så vil det kræve mod af amerikanske statsborgere at standse Obama (og hans håndlanger Hillary Clinton) i at udsætte USA for Wall Streets destruktion af den fysiske økonomi og føre verden ud i krig. Disse beslutninger skal træffes nu – ikke igennem et svindelvalg mellem to fjender af det Amerikanske System, men nu, ved forfatningsmæssige midler, der fjerner Obama for hans flere mange forbrydelser mod Forfatningen og mod menneskeheden, og som indfører Glass-Steagall, genopretter nationalbankvirksomhed og genopretter Amerikas forpligtelse til en fremtid på Jorden og i rummet med fusionskraft.

Ingen »praktiske«, delvise forholdsregler vil lykkes.

Foto: Præsident Putin og den tyske udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier trykker hinanden i hånden efter et møde den 23. marts, 2016.

.

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her følger det korte uddrag: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

.