Helga Zepp-LaRouche: "Idet vi taler om og tænker på de soldater, der døde i krige, vil jeg gerne understrege, at, i en tid med atomvåben burde det stå enhver på denne planet klart, at krig ikke længere kan være en mulighed til løsning af nogen som helst konflikt. For, hvis det skulle komme til det utænkelige, at der blev en udveksling af atomvåben – tja, der findes nu nogle teorier, der siger, at man kan have en ’begrænset’ atomkrig – en regional atomkrig, der kan vindes. Men jeg tror, at enhver, der har undersøgt sagen lidt mere i dybden, som for eksempel at læse, hvad Ted Postol har skrevet, der uddybende har argumenteret for, hvorfor noget sådant som en begrænset atomkrig ikke findes, og ikke kan findes. Af den simple grund, at enhver, der antager dette, overser den fundamentale forskel mellem en konventionel krig, hvor målet er at slå fjenden, afvæbne ham og så stoppe krigen; men, med anvendelse af atomvåben vil alle eksisterende våben blive brugt, og de vil blive brugt omgående. Og skulle det komme til dette, ville det betyde civilisationens omgående udslettelse."    

New York, 28. maj 2016 – Engelsk udskrift. 

Tune this Memorial Day weekend at 12:30 pm eastern Saturday for a conference in Manhattan featuring live participation from Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

TRANSCRIPT

DENNIS SPEED: We are going to begin today this Memorial Day Weekend with this special presentation. We talk and have been speaking at several of these meetings for the past several weeks about the idea of a so-called living memorial. This was an idea that Mr. Lyndon LaRouche initially expressed in a response to matters that have been very much in the news recently concerning 9/11.  But also recently, if only a few weeks ago, a Victory in Europe Day or Victory over Fascism Day. This was also the theme of the Immortal Regiment demonstrations that were done in Russia and in other places. However, there's a bigger idea between on the idea of the living memorial we'd like to point out. When you talk about China and the Second World War, most Americans have no idea that there may have been as many as 50 million civilian casualties in China during the Second World War. Most Americans have no idea that the official counts for Russia, for the Soviet Union, are between 24 and 27 million dead. And so, when we speak about the idea of the Second World War, and we think about, for example, the fact that there were countries like India, that were colonized by the British, didn't have the freedoms, that they were being told to fight for in that war.

The true issues behind what the keynote speaker of this morning is going to be talking about are left unrealized. It's been well over, now, 25 years that Helga LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche led a campaign, which at different times had slightly different names. But it was a campaign that all veterans will understand. The campaign for the World Land-Bridge, first called the Eurasian Triangle, then called the Productive Triangle, and then the New Silk Road, and now called the World Land-Bridge, is the only real, living memorial you can give to the people who died, not merely during the Second World War, but in many, many other wars, and in the wars that are continuing today.

There are recent developments of a very important nature in this area, but there is also the extraordinary danger of war, a global war that can wipe out humanity. So we thought it was important this Memorial Day to remind people that the idea of fighting wars, is to end all war; and that that's the only way that you can truly celebrate the contributions and sacrifices that people make. And so, the idea that Helga LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche put forward, the World Land-Bridge, this idea, that is the idea and the only idea that is the actual appropriate means by which we can, I think, even begin to think about the importance of the deaths and the sacrifices that veterans all over the world have made to bring us to this moment where we are capable of ending war forever on our planet.

It's always my honor and privilege to introduce, on these occasions, Helga LaRouche, the founder and chairman of the Schiller Institute, who will now address us. Helga?

HELGA LAROUCHE: Hello. (applause) Dear members of the LaRouche PAC, guests of the Schiller Institute, dear friends, it is a great pleasure for me to talk to you today.  And as we are talking and thinking about the soldiers who died in wars, I want to stress that in the time of thermonuclear weapons, it should be clear to anybody on this planet that war cannot be an option anymore to solve any conflict. Because if it would come to the unthinkable that you would have the exchange of nuclear weapons, well, there are some theories, right now, that you could have a limited nuclear war — a winnable, regional, nuclear war.

But I think that anybody who has studied the matter a little bit more in depth, like, for example, reading the writings of Ted Postol, who has made the very elaborated argument why such a thing as a limited nuclear war does not and cannot exist. Simply because, anybody who assumes that, overlooks the fundamental difference between conventional war, where the aim is to defeat your enemy, to disarm him, and then to stop the war; but with the use of nuclear weapons, it is the logic of such a war that once it starts, all existing weapons will be used and they will be used instantly. And if it would come to this point, it would be the immediate extinction of civilization.

And I think that was clearly understood at the height of the Cold War. You had the Mutual Assured Destruction doctrine, where it was very clear that either we survived together or we all die together. But that MAD strategy has been eroded since quite some time; because now you have all kinds of scenarios with the idea of winning war by having smarter, smaller, leaner, more usable, more precise, nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and that therefore you could use them. But that is now a mortal danger to civilization. We have been warning of that quite some time ago. We made a movie called, "Unsurvivable." We made many speeches about it, and we were almost, with few other people, the lonely callers in the desert. But now, in the last several weeks, there is a sudden eruption of awareness of many people who are now speaking out, warning that things have gone completely haywire.

This is all happening in front of several acute strategic crises: one on the Russian border in Eastern Europe; another one in Southwest Asia; still another one around Korea; and another one around the South China Sea. Each of these conflicts could become the trigger point for a global nuclear war. And people are really freaking out, because the upcoming NATO summit, which will take place at the beginning of July in Warsaw, is scheduled to manifest all kinds of changes, like moving four major battalions of 1,000 troops each into the Baltic countries; of linking at the date of that July summit, the recently installed BMD (ballistic missile defense) component in Romania with the Aegis class destroyers which are deployed already in the Baltics and the Black Sea and elsewhere. And that is reaching very quickly a point where Russia has said that they cannot tolerate a continuous building of this ballistic missile system, because it's clearly aimed at Russia, and it's clearly aimed to take out the second strike capability of Russia, and it has never been what always was the pretext, it has never been against the supposed missile threat from Iran.

Now already two or three years ago, the Russian military had produced video animations showing that the systems installed now in Poland, in Romania, in Bulgaria, in Spain, and on these warships, are really assigned to hit Russia. But especially after the P5+1 deal with Iran containing the danger of missiles coming from Iran, has been agreed upon, there is no more such pretext. Now it has been noted by such people, like the New York University professor Stephen Cohen, that this is very clearly with the intent to launch a war. Another very important speaker from Russia, General Leonid Ivashov, said what we are seeing right now are clear steps in preparation for war.

Now it is very significant that even in Germany, somebody who I would characterize as a staunch Atlanticist, somebody belonging absolutely to the mainstream establishment, last week called a very important article in the conservative daily newspaper Die Welt with the headline, "No Protocol Will Save Us From Nuclear War." And there he talks about the modernization of nuclear weapons; the fact that they are supposedly less, even so, one has to say that the Obama administration has reduced less nuclear weapons from the stockpile than any other post-Cold War administration before, and the rate of reduction has been slowing down significantly. Now what this Michael Stuermer notes is that people should not assume that because these nuclear weapons become fewer, smaller, that this is good news. To the contrary, it is more reason to worry; because the very idea that these weapons are usable is lowering the threshold of them actually being used. And then he says, the problem is that during the Cold War, the military and political leadership had a very clear understanding of what Mutual Assured Destruction would mean, namely the annihilation of all of mankind. But we have now new generations of both political and military leadership, who don't even pay attention to it anymore. And he said, all these almost fatal incidents, which are taking place now almost every day either over the Baltic Sea, or in the Black Sea, or in the South China Sea, they would have, in former times, put the alarm clocks to the highest noise possible; because people would have recognized how quickly such an accidental almost-incident could lead to the global war. And other statements in the recent months have made very clear that both the system of NATO and of Russia are all the time on launch-on-warning, and therefore, the actual decision-making time of any side, either the President of the United States or in that case the Russian President,  have is about 3 to 6 minutes, at best half an hour. So we are sitting on a potential Armageddon, which if people would just think about it, they would really do everything possible to stop that.

Now there is right now a growing awareness of this. There was a hearing in the US Senate where Senator Feinstein commented on the fact that the United States is now committing $1 trillion in the next decades to modernize the nuclear arsenals, including the tactical nuclear weapons, the B-61-12, which are stationed mostly in Europe; that makes the idea of using these weapons more within reach and that alone is utterly immoral because of the implication that it could lead to the extinction of civilization.

We have a similar situation like that in Europe, right now, in the South China Sea. There is a lot of propaganda that China is supposedly aggressively taking land. Nothing from that could be further from the truth. All that China is doing is, they put installations on some of these islands which historically they have claims to going back to the 9th Century, and which every other country in the region, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, they are all doing the same thing since a long time. And not one ship has been prevented, a cargo ship, from ever travelling. So the whole argument that this is a violation of the freedom of navigation, which has been put forward by the United States, is simply not true. And all the incidents were caused by violations of U.S. ships in the 12-mile zone of these islands or over-flights; which is also a breach of the code of such behavior.

So we are really at the edge; and I must say I got a very, very eerie feeling, when I got reports that Obama, before he went to Hiroshima, not only did not apologize for throwing these bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for which there was, in reality, no reason. It was not that which saved a million lives of American soldiers, which was the official narrative of the Truman Administration. It was very well known that Japan had already negotiated with the Vatican a resolution and capitulation; so the throwing of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was simply to establish the principle ofSchrecklischkeit; to demonstrate to the Soviet Union at that point what the power of nuclear weapons would be.

So, Obama did not apologize, which is really telling already; but in an interview with the Japanese TV he said, when he was asked what he thought about this throwing of bombs on Hiroshima, he said, "Well I have been a President now for seven and a half years, and having been a wartime President myself, I can understand that presidents, under those conditions could be forced to make such decisions." I think people better wake up to where we are really at.

We have no reason to go to war. Russia is not aggressive; don't believe it for one second. Every step Russia has been taking, especially since the effort to pull Ukraine into the EU Association agreement, which was the beginning of the Ukraine crisis; which was unacceptable because Yanukovich, at the time, fled and left and reacted so strongly from the EU Summit, because he realized that that would have given NATO control over Ukraine. And it would have opened up the Russian market for all the EU products, which was unacceptable for Russia. So, he cancelled the agreement.

Then the Maidan was sprung against the Ukrainian government. Then you had the coup on the 21st of February 2014, which was a coup by Nazis, which, everybody knew they were going back to the Stepan Bandera tradition. So the West went along with that. That led to the terrible conditions inside east Ukraine; and as a reaction to all of this Russia then annexed Crimea. People saying Russia was aggressive in taking the Crimea is wrong; because Russia reacted each single step as Russia reacted to the whole breaking of the promises which were given to Gorbachov, but also to other people at the time when the Soviet Union disintegrated, that NATO would not expand its troops to the border of Russia. Then you had the color revolution, the sanctions, all of this has been correctly characterized by Russia as being forms of a hybrid war which is already going on; which has the ultimate aim of regime change in Moscow. As Madame Albright and the former Green Foreign Minister of Germany, Joschka Fischer, said at one point, Russia has too big a territory and too many raw materials; as if it could be allowed to exploit these raw materials all by itself.

The same kind of geopolitical intention for regime change really exists against China, which I don't want to elaborate now, we can do it in the discussion if people want. But what I'm saying is that neither Russia nor China are aggressive. Don't believe these media lies which are part of a pre-war propaganda. As a matter of fact, the absolute opposite is true. China has started a policy which is a war avoidance policy; and actually, the only perspective to overcome geopolitics which has been put by anybody on the table. Back in September 2013 when Xi Jinping announced in Kazakhstan the New Silk Road, this was a policy in the tradition of the ancient silk road, which 2000 years ago, during the Han administration was an exchange of goods, of culture, of ideas. And it led to a tremendous increase in the prosperity of all the nations participating in the Silk Road at that time; and what China is now offering with the New Silk Road, is doing exactly the same thing.

This project, which is now almost three years old, in September it will be three years since it was started, is now already involving 70 countries, mainly in Asia, along the ancient Silk Road, but it is also now reaching out to the ASEAN countries, to Iran, to Africa, to Egypt, to India. This is now a project which is pursuing a completely different principle. It is not the casino economy of the trans-Atlantic sector; but it is the idea to build infrastructure, to have a banking system associated with it which is not investing in high-risk speculation, but providing the necessary credits to solve the incredible lack of infrastructure which was the result of the policies of the IMF, the World Bank, who deliberately denied Third World countries access to credit for infrastructure.

The New Silk Road policy, and the banking system which is associated with it, the AIIB, the New Development Bank, and the new Shanghai Cooperation Bank which was just started, also the Maritime Silk Road Fund, the Silk Road Fund, the Bank of the SAG countries, the South Asian countries, all of these banks represent a completely different model of banking and economic cooperation. And they have invited the United States to join. Xi Jinping repeatedly said, this is an open concept for every country on the planet. We want to have a win-win perspective, where naturally, China has its advantages; but every other country has their own advantages if they participate.

Now, where does the war danger come from? Why is the United States, and the EU and Great Britain, why are they not simply not joining? Well, the problem is the British Empire. The problem is that the United States, in reality, is run by the idea that there must be a unipolar world run on the basis of the special relationship between the British Empire and the United States. And unfortunately President Obama has completely bought into this idea, which is really a continuation of the Neo-Con policy, which was presented by such people as Wolfowitz, Perl, already at the end of the '90s. They called it the Project for a New American doctrine. And that is the idea, that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is only one super-power left, and that super-power has the right to, basically, deploy militarily around the globe; that that super-power will not allow any nation or group of nations to bypass the United States in terms of economic, political, or military power.

Now the problem is, that unipolar world, in reality, does not exist anymore. Because China is rising, all of Asia is rising. China is already producing a lot more high technology goods for exports than the United States. They are producing more scientists, more engineers. They are just much more future oriented, as you can see by the most fantastic space program China has, while NASA has been dismantled. And the problem is that not only China is rising, but many countries in Asia are rising. India, for example, India has the largest economic growth rate in the world, about 8%. Other countries are totally committed to being modern, middle class countries by 2020 or 2025, such as Malaysia; or even Ethiopia wants to be very soon a normal, developed country. This is happening and you cannot stop that desire for development of all these nations around the globe.

Now, the problem is that the trans-Atlantic sector is about to blow up financially. You just had the conclusion of the G-7 meeting. The G-7 is supposedly the most important economic countries, or that's what they think. In reality, their influence is shrinking; so that even the German tabloid, Bild Zietung, which is read by 8 million people every day, had a banner headline saying that the G-7 summit was the summit of the seven dwarves. That was a correct characterization, and the only reasonable person at that G-7 summit, was, to a big surprise, Japanese Prime Minister Abe. Because he went into the summit after coming back from a visit to Sochi, where he met extensively with President Putin, and concluded many, many economic deals; gas and oil in the far east of Russia and many other such projects, which he did despite enormous pressure from the Obama Administration not to do. He came into the summit and said, "Look, we have to discuss the fact that the western financial system is about to have a crisis as big as 2008," the crisis of Lehman Brothers.

The problem was that did fall into deaf ears. Obama said, no, no such thing, we are in an upswing. So the final communique of that summit said the upswing is continuing, we are all doing fine. Now nothing could be further from the truth. Because right now, the too-big-to-fail banks, if one of these banks would bust, the entire system could evaporate. You have right now the ridiculous debate around helicopter money. That is the idea that the last measure of the Central banks is to print money electronically, like throwing money notes out of helicopters over cities, to prevent a crash from happening, which was the crazy idea of Ben Bernanke many years ago, but they are now doing it.

They have negative interest rates. They are issuing hundred-year bonds. If you want to give a donation to the bank, then buy a hundred-year bond, because what happens with this bond in one hundred years is a big illusion. It will evaporate, not exist; and if you sell such a bond before the hundred-year term is up, you will lose a lot of money by doing so. So it is a complete swindle to just try to get people who have savings to invest in the banking machine. The fact that people are buying these bonds, shows you that the confidence in the markets has really shrunk to an abysmal point.

This is the real war danger. Because you have people in the trans-Atlantic world who are absolutely determined to not allow Asia rising; who are about to commit exactly the mistake the former Joint Chief of Staff General Dempsey warned of many times, to fall into the Thucydides trap. That was the conflict between Sparta and Athens in ancient Greece, where the fear of the one of the rise of the other led to the Peloponnesian War and finally to the destruction of the Greek empire. And Greece has never regained the importance it had at that time. Dempsey had warned that the United States should not make the same mistake; but that is exactly what is happening.

You have right now many, many changes in the world which are taking place with an absolute rapid speed. As I said, Japan is, right now, swinging towards the BRICS coalition, the Silk Road coalition. And, obviously, if Japan has very good relations now with Russia, that is a good stepping stone to improve relations with China as well. The Indian Prime Minister, Modi, was just in Iran; and concluded together with President Rouhani and the President of Afghanistan, Ghani, long-term investments into the Chabahar port industrial zone, which is part of extending the Silk Road from China to Iran and from there to India and to Afghanistan.

Now, the former President, Karzai, had already stated at a conference in New Delhi in March, that the only way Afghanistan can be pacified is by making Afghanistan a hub of trade and commerce for the New Silk Road connection between Asia and Europe.  The President of India, Mukherjee, was just in China for a four-day visit, also concluding many, many deals.  He made a beautiful speech referring to the long, ancient cultural collaboration and exchanges between China and India; and he said, "If our two nations," which are the biggest in the world in terms of population, they together are more than 2.5 billion people, "If our two countries work together, there is nothing we cannot accomplish on this Earth."

So, you have right now two completely different sets of policies.  You have the trans-Atlantic world being still in fear of this unipolar control, which is preparing for war; however, people in Europe [are] freaking out about it.  There is a big discussion about ending the sanctions; there was a meeting in the French National Assembly, voting against it.  Just yesterday, there was another meeting in the Senate in France in a commission, also voting against sanctions.  Italian Prime Minister Renzi is against sanctions, and he's going in June to the St. Petersburg economic summit; which is clearly not what the United States would like to see.  And in Germany, half (or even more) of the country is in favor of ending the sanctions; and right now, people realize they have to make a choice.  Do they stay in the war machine in the trans-Atlantic world, or do they side with those countries which represent the future?

We have right now a branching point in history.  Don't think that this very quickly changing situation will last forever.  I think the decision of which direction mankind will go will be made in the coming weeks; in the month of June and not much beyond that.  There is a war danger for this summer; people are talking about a danger of war with Russia for 2017.  There is a book by a neo-con out with that title.  People are very worried that this summer the crisis in the South China Sea may explode, or be exploded.  I think there comes a point of no return.

So, we have to really think of what can be a way out.  Let me bring in one other problem.  In Europe right now, we are in really a complete turmoil because you have the influx of the largest refugee crisis since the end of World War II.  Last year, there were about 2 million refugees coming to Europe; this year it's expected to be a little bit less, due to the fact that the EU is now committing a murderous policy by using the military means of Frontex driving the refugees back.  Many of them drowning in the Mediterranean, and making extremely dirty deals with Turkey and with Saudi Arabia to help them to prevent the refugees from entering the EU.  This will not work; it already has led to a complete discreditation of the EU; no one from the EU should talk anymore about humanitarian values, or even human values, when they are committing such murderous policies against the refugees.  But it should be obvious that you will not solve that problem by building new walls around every country; that is the end of the EU anyway.  And also not walls around the outer borders of the EU.  But you need to eliminate the real reason why people are risking their lives with a 50% chance they might die to get to Europe; because they are running away from wars and hunger and other catastrophes in Southwest Asia and in Africa. In the case of southwest Africa and Libya, it's clearly the result of American and British wars, NATO wars which were all based on lies; which has led to a complete explosion of southwest Asia.  And in the case of Africa, it's the result of 50 years of induced increased death rates because of the conditionalities of the IMF.

Now, there is a way out.  As I said, now China, India, Iran are all working to extend the Silk Road into Iran, Afghanistan; and the obvious idea is that we need a Marshall Plan-Silk Road approach towards the entire southwest Asia region — from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, from the Caucuses to the Persian Gulf.  We have to have a real development strategy to conquer the desert in this region through the development of new fresh water; peaceful nuclear energy for desalinization of large amounts of ocean water; aquifers; ionization of the atmosphere. We can do everything; these countries, which once were blossoming cultures, can be turned again to become blossoming countries which give a future to the young generation.  And it is already on the way because the neighbors are committed to do that.  All we have to do is convince the United States and the European countries to participate in such a Silk Road-Marshall Plan for the Middle East, and also for Africa.  It would be so easy to eliminate poverty; we could do that in half a year.  No person would have to die of hunger anymore, because the technologies all exist; and if you then would go and build infrastructure — ports, railway systems, waterways, highways, food processing. Build new cities; build advanced technologies in all countries of Africa and southwest Asia.  It could be turned around in a few years, and in one or two generations these regions could be as developed as the United States or Europe were in the '70s.  I'm not saying now, but as they were in the '70s.

So, why don't we move in this direction?  There is no good reason.  We will lose identity as being human if we don't do that.  I think we have never been at such a challenge as right now; and it is extremely important that we remember that this planet is inhabited by only one human race.  Contrary to what the new racists and the new fascists — which are unfortunately on the rise; like in the '30s, you have the rise of racism and fascism.  You have old wine in new bottles, but the content of these bottles remains the same.  Anybody who says the refugees or foreigners are of a different genetic composition, or have different reproduction schemes and therefore must be kept out; these are racists in new clothing.  And we must absolutely establish the idea that what makes us human is that every child born on this planet, is gifted with a potentially limitless potential to be a genius.

The fact that we don't have more geniuses on the planet right now is not due to the nature of the human being, but due to the fact that the conditions of life do not allow so far the best development of every child who is born.  If they would have universal education and a decent living standard, and have a vision and a hope for the future, we could have an increase of geniuses in the world; which would really show that mankind is in the infancy stage, maybe even embryonic stage of its development. If you want to evade the fate the of the dinosaurs — that is, vanish — we have to make that evolutionary where we are not defined anymore by blood and soil, or territory, or color of our skin or hair.  But that we are defined by that which is human to all of humanity, that we can all be beautiful souls. That we can not only develop limitless new insights into the law of the Universe and make scientific discoveries of physical principles leading to tremendous breakthroughs in science and technology; but that we can also become better human beings. That we can become more beautiful in our character; that we can become more loving; that we can become more artistically brilliant; that we can compose music at least as good as the great Classical music and beyond.

So, I think we are really at a branching point, and you people there in New York have a very, very special responsibility.  Because as Lyn has said, New York is a very, very special place in the United States; it's the founding of the United States.  It's the place from which Alexander Hamilton operated.  But even today, the New Yorkers are generally more cosmopolitan, they are less chauvinist, they are more intelligent, they are more political.  And if we want to get the United States back to be a republic, a country which other countries want to be allied with and not shriveling in fear and terror, then it is you, the New Yorkers, and your example shining in the entire United States of America which will turn this country around.  So, I think on this Memorial Day weekend, we have a tremendous moment; think about the people who died in previous wars, and we must have a solemn commitment that war should never become a means of conflict resolution again.  If we mobilize people around that idea, and the idea that humanity is really at the point of finishing itself off, or making an evolutionary jump where we are all being defined by the global development partnership in which we can engage; and the responsibility for future generations that we must build the bridge to a better time and a better age.  I think we can do it.

DENNIS SPEED:  OK, we're going to go to questions now. There's a microphone here in the middle of the floor; there are chairs people can line up.  When you get up, state your name, and please try to be concise in your asking of the questions.  First question.

Q1:  Hello, Helga.  On the question of war, something that people here may not know is that in 1962, while Kennedy was dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy's intervention — which is not very well known — but Kennedy intervened in the Indo-China War; which is the 1962 war between India and China, and was working with the Indian government to de-escalate tensions.  It got to a point where even the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk was stationed in the Bay of Bengal to come to the aid of India, in case we needed help.  And this is something that he and James Galbraith — Kennedy's ambassador to India — were working with the Indian government; especially Prime Minister Nehru, who was the father of Indira Gandhi.  Since then, the world has really changed, where in the United States you have a President who is escalating tensions in the world; and you have India and China, who are coming closer than ever.  So, I just find it very interesting how the world has really shifted; because of interventions and because of leadership like Indira Gandhi and you and your husband, Mr. LaRouche.

So, I wanted to ask you, how in our interactions with Indira Gandhi, how did your concept of the World Land-Bridge change or develop?  And how did she influence your ideas about the World Land-Bridge?  And how do you think India can use its cultural heritage now in organizing the rest of the world into this New Paradigm?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, we talked with Indira Gandhi, I think it was between '79 and '83, until when she was assassinated.  That was obviously before the idea of the Silk Road could appear; because you still had the Warsaw Pact and the NATO bloc.  So, we were talking with Indira Gandhi about a 40-year development plan for India; and that was actually the idea that you need two generations — or at that point we assumed you needed two generations to do that.  Because there were many parts of India which are totally undeveloped; not even roads, you had dirt roads.  The idea was to bring infrastructure in the first generation and universal education to every child.  This is a big thing, because in India at that time, and I think to a certain extent it's still going on; there are many parents who send their children instead of sending them to the school, to help in the countryside in the fields.  Which naturally, it's preventing children from having education, so that was our main concern; these two aspects — infrastructure and universal education to every child.  And then in the second generation, you could have — with every child being educated — you could develop India fully.  So, she liked that approach, and was totally determined to implement it; and when she was killed, we continued to work on that with her son, Rajiv Gandhi.  And then he was assassinated as well.

So in a certain sense, India has been set back a lot by these assassinations; and therefore it is not extremely good that now with Prime Minister Modi, who is from the BJP and not from the Congress Party, but nevertheless he is very, very popular. And many people in India today compare him to Nehru, to Indira Gandhi; and they respect him as one of the great leaders who can really change the world.  And he has managed to do one thing; he has successfully, in the short period he has been in office — a little bit more than two years — managed to change the role of India in the world from a regional power to become a true global power.  And India is now assuming that role by saying they have already the biggest economic growth rate; they soon will have the largest number of people, they will bypass China.  And therefore, I'm very happy; because when I was in India in March at the Raisina Dialogue, there was still a big concern about India-Chinese tensions — the border conflicts.  And also naturally the issue of the development corridor China is building in Pakistan; will that be against India?  So there were still a lot of these worries, and for the two problem points we have now made a breakthrough.  Because with President Mukherjee going to China, and saying these countries are in an absolutely fantastic alliance, and we can solve every problem in the world; this is on a very good track.  And with Modi going to Iran, basically building bridges with Afghanistan; Afghanistan is a big security concern for India.  So, this is all moving step by step in a very good direction; and I think the best thing we could do is, I think there are 3 million Indians in the United States — I think so, yeah.  So, if these people would take pride of the great advances India is making right now, and basically say, "We are now living in the United States; and we want to have good relations between the United States and India.  But that means stop this confrontation with Russia and with China, and then we can really move on in a global development partnership."  So I think these 3 million Indians living in the United States could become a great asset for peace and for the future of all civilization; and we should appeal to them to act exactly in this way.

Q2:  Hi, Helga; it's Alvin.  I'm glad that you're here because there's a recent article on LPAC that's talking about and describing a recent conference that took place in the capital of Yemen as a breakthrough.  And the Schiller Institute influence is being felt there, and continues to grow.  As the article describes, this was widely attended; hundreds of finance ministers, private industry, civil and economic organizations were there.  And of the many items that were resolved or passed, three of them involve the work of the organization as a whole, the principle of Hamilton where you're restoring — the New Silk Road of course, Reconstruction Bank and national credit.  Now here is this small nation which is war-torn through the Saudis, through the British, through Obama, and they find themselves taking this giant step forward and making demands upon the UN to exile the Saudis and adopt these policies for future peace and development.  Now obviously, the Schiller Institute's influence, this shows a good example of why we come under the types of attacks that you do, when you have such an influence.  But what I wanted to ask you was, what do you really think are the implications from a successful conference like this?  And how should we, here in Manhattan, use this as a weapon to bring others in to understanding what a real global, strategic outlook requires?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think the first message obviously is, no country can be so small or in such difficult conditions as not being able to rise above its so-called fate and take the initiative to change the situation.  If we can stop this general war danger which I tried to describe a little bit earlier, if we can stop that and get some public debate in the United States about the fact that that war danger exists; the problem is, people don't even know it.  There is no uprising; there are no people in the streets.  There is nobody saying "We do not want the United States to start World War III."  I think that's the first step.  If we can stop that, then I am very optimistic in terms that we can get this World Land-Bridge approach for the reconstruction.

Because right now, with Putin intervening in Syria, the Syrian Army regaining more and more territory; China has now committed a special person for the reconstruction for Syria, who is presently in Damascus.  There are many projects being worked on; and we will soon publish a lot more about it.  We are working with Syrian architects and engineers who are totally determined to make the Project Phoenix a reality; which if people don't know yet what Operation Phoenix is, they should look at it.  It's a very concrete project to rebuild the cities which were destroyed in Syria.  All of this is going to happen; and also for Africa. There is a new mood in the developing countries.  I'm almost reminded of the time of the Non-Aligned Movement, when there was a totally determined nation to get a Just New World Economic Order; and while they may not name it New World Economic Order right now, as I said, there are many countries in Africa and Asia who are absolutely determined to overcome underdevelopment.  And isn't that what Roosevelt wanted, or what Martin Luther King was talking about; what Kennedy was talking about?  And that is now a distinct possibility; but I think everything depends upon us getting these changes inside the United States.  Because the best person cannot live in peace if the evil-minded neighbor does not allow it; and that is a German proverb which applies to all these efforts.  All these countries will not succeed if we cannot change the United States.

Q3:  Helga, this is R—  from Bergen County, New Jersey. You mentioned the losing of one's human identity; which can happen from the types of activities that one's government is involved in — referring to the nuclear build-up and so forth. My question is, if we go back to the case of Nazi Germany, the Germans under Nazi Germany, did Germans lose their human identity due to the activities of their government at that time?  And also, what did it take for Germans to regain their human identity; and is that entire scenario analogous to what's going on in the United States today?  In other words, have Americans lost, or are they losing their human identity due to the types of activities of their government?  Can that be drawn as a similar situation to Nazi Germany; and what will be required for Americans to regain their human identity?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I think the German example should be a warning example to any country around the world; that a country which is — I am at least proud to have produced some of the most beautiful composers, inventors, poets.  I find the German Classical period is probably the richest of any country; and I'm not saying this because I'm arrogant, but because it's simply a fact.  How could such a country plunge into the depths of the Nazi horror?  I think it is very important to study exactly are the axioms which erode; and I think we have done some studies about it.  That what started to erode the Classical period in Germany was the Romantic period; because the Romantic period started to destroy the clear principles of the classics.  And that was then followed by an increasing pessimism with Schopenhauer; out of that came the youth movement before  World War I, which was a terrible youth movement.  It was actually a proto-fascist youth movement.  Then came World War I, World War II.

Just today, there was a big celebration of 4000 German and French students celebrating German-French friendship; looking at what was it for four years to fight in the trenches in Verdun. And trying to build an understanding; what were these soldiers doing for four years?  Mindless battles; shooting; killing back and forth; gaining nothing; back and forth.  These four years of the First World War denuded the young generation in Germany so badly, that then with the Versailles Treaty and the hyperinflation and the Great Depression, gave rise to extremist movements.  The Nazis, the Bolsheviks, which led to a right-left confrontation in the streets.  But the Conservative Revolution, the idea that man is fixed; that man is not good; that you have to fight against the ideas of 1789, which is the American Revolution, the French Revolution.  The idea that there is only one human race.  That spread; 400 movements existed like that.

So, people now look at the present, and they don't see the continuity of these movements today.  Even so, the Conservative Revolution is absolutely a continuous movement since the American Revolution; it's the oligarchy.  It's the idea of taking back, reversing the American Revolution; reversing the idea of a Constitution.  And that is why I think it is so extremely important that Americans have the clear idea to return the United States to become a republic again.  To go back to the Founding Fathers; to Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, to a little bit later John Quincy Adams, and to the principles of Lincoln. And these early Presidents represented a United States which was quite different than what is happening today.  And I think you have to revive the best traditions, in order not to let it come to such a deep plunge, like Germany did. It has, in my view, not happened yet, even though it's had much in the vicinity of it. But, you have to really use the best traditions of the United States, to prevent the disaster. Because, racism is clearly there. You have, clearly, elements which I would characterize as, "Nazi-like," and people don't dare to say it, but that is what people should really recognize. Germany, right now, I would say, is, sort of, you know, a little bit, still impotent, decapitated, doesn't dare to have a clear idea of its own traditions. But, it has successfully changed; it has admitted the guilt. It is clearly, "no war!"; people have a clear idea — never war again. And therefore, I see apotential that Germany may not go along. You know, if Japan can break out of this, and Germany could break out of it in Europe; we could solve this danger. Because, without Germany the war would not happen. So, I think, you know, we should draw lessons from history. Because, if we deny history, we are bound to make the same mistakes.

Q4: I came to this country in '73. And, kind of a secret mission. During the civil war in Russia, my  father was in the "White Army," not in "Red." So, they never trusted me; and I lost my sea career in the Pacific. Instead of becoming captain, I became a professor of political science, because I could not sail. They were afraid that I would escape. It's family arguments. Now, finally, in the 1960s, I came to Moscow, and sent my old mother to United States, to seek her brother in Chicago. He was a soldier in the White Army, and left Russia in 1921, from the Crimea, with General Wrangel.

Anyway, what I talk about: I knew how to behave, in that world, where I was; one word could cost you too much. So, it was much more comfortable not to talk, but to listen. And, I was in Moscow in 1970, when the political police arranged mental asylum for me. At that time, already, no shootings; it was a democracy. So, then I— that was the system that I built. In Moscow, you have two restaurants: National, where Russian KGB catching Western spies; and Prague, this is the citadel of the Russian elite. So, I went there, and found a guy, who proved to be a colonel in the KGB, at the top of the pyramid. And, he took me to his home, in Moscow, locked me for three days. And then, came back and said that, "You're under protection, don't worry." And, I stayed some years, and what was my problem, then: To return to merchant marine? Only in coastal trade, because, if you go abroad, you never return. So, I understood that the people, never knew what they were doing. The situation was, that I had a cyanide pill, here — all that nonsense. And, in 1972, I finished my first — while sitting in Moscow; I wrote 900 pages my travel in the Pacific. It's coastal trade, between Japan and Arctic. And, tell me the concentration camps, everything, big material for people who can read. And, they wanted to publish the books, abroad. In that case, I have to go to mental asylum. They could not help me.

So, we agree that I better go out. And, they arranged me; KGB all obeyed. Immediately I got my visa, and, in '72, in fall, I left. And, when I came here, after some time, some thought that I was a Russian agent, a twice American double agent, and they never know what they are doing. I never touched anybody. I was a driver for 25 years; driving school; fresh air, and I enjoyed it.

Now, about this organization: I heard about it, but I have doubts. In my secret mission, I delayed for 20 years, then I sent to Bush my analysis of American war in Middle East. I got from him a big photo, with, "Thanks." And, Mr. Reynolds, from Republican Congress, reported to me that they appointed to me as a "honorary American [inaudible 1.06.21]" That has been my plan. But that was all I could do. As I promised my guys in Moscow, I never joined any political struggle inside. It was not the purpose.  Anyway, I sent him my material, first time, and got results. Then, Mr. Obama appeared, and invited me to join to his shadow cabinet. At that time, I didn't know that he as bad as you pictured him. I had no idea about him; I was a Republican. So, I joined him, now. And, I stand aside.

What I know, now, the situation is. I don't know even the name of this organization. But I saw them. And, I see, clearly, a few points: That they talk business. The world is moving to war; this I know. Back in Russia, my father was in the White Army, not Red. My uncle was in the Tsarist army, fighting Germans. And every week, they met each other for drinks; they called it "brotherhoods." And then, Stalin — not only you — in Russia, nobody knows him, what he did that way. I saw it all: I lived in Siberia, then Arctic, the whole country, one-sixth of the Earth.

After Stalin prepared Russia for war, after Lenin's death, he created the world's biggest military machine. And in 1941 in Moscow, when Hitler's army group one, under big Marshal Bock were ready to take Moscow; when Stalin recalled his divisions from the Pacific. I saw them arrive, near Moscow, it was in October. Then, in November, they prepared; in December, they attacked, and destroyed German army, completely. It was a catastrophe, there. They drove them about 600 km — 300 miles away from Moscow. That was the end of the WAR, in fact. After that, Hitler knew that it's all over for him. But, he tried to save his army, himself, and Germany. He failed, everywhere. Finally, a bullet into his throat.

I don't want to talk about Hitler, because he was a nervous man, not fit for anything. But Germans paid a high price for that.

I talk about this situation. Now, Russia is a huge, military machine, ready to — why? — I did not tell you. The last thousand years, Russia was ten times attacked, once from the east, nine times from the west. Incessant attacks. And, Hitler's attack was the latest draw. So, one of them, before I left; I had friends, no jobs. He told me, if anybody comes to us, once more, with guns; so far, they came, we chased them back. This time, nobody will be chased back; we kill them all and bury them, and that will be the end. If you take Russia, European part, to Moscow, it's like Europe, then also from Moscow—

SPEED: Excuse me, Viktor, we need you to wrap it up.

Q4:  I finish it, tomorrow, thank you.

SPEED: No, no, no. Just, if you have a final point.

Q4: No. Just one word. This organization talks business. But, what I found out, it gets no financial support, absolutely. I am the banker. I have a friend; I gave her $100, several times. Just now, I'm empty, then, soon I going to make, again. It's amazing, for me. The only organization that talks business, which involves prevention of war; because nuclear war will make this planet dead. Even spiders will die. They already afraid of my house, never returned to my house. I have a house — I am a rich man, now. And, I keep my mouth shut; first time I talk. [laughter] But, listen: War is war. I talking nonsense, but, I can talk different ways. So far, you see, I am a retired political scientist.

SPEED: I think that Helga may have something to say.

Q4: So, give me two minutes more!

SPEED: No, no, no— [laughing] you get 30 seconds.

Q4: OK: I wish you good luck! [laughter, applause]

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think that you are not the only person with Russian background, who is reminded of the Great Patriotic War, and the fact that Russia was attacked several times. As a matter of fact, if you look at what Napoleon did, he tried to conquer Russia. And it was the brilliant collaboration between the Russian generals, and the German-Prussian reformers, such people like Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and also the cousin of Schiller, who actually defined the line of long penetration, into Russia, luring the Napoleonic army into the far territory, Russia. So, then when, finally, Napoleon reached Moscow, they burned it down so that he couldn't have Moscow as a winter headquarters. And then, on the way back, they chopped the entire Napoleonic army — an army which was several hundred thousand — ended up (I think) with a couple of hundred people, at the end of that war. And, that was exactly the same mistake Hitler made, who thought he could conquer Russia.

And, right now, you have, fortunately, in the person of President Putin, somebody who has proven to be much, much superior as a strategist, than the West; especially the people who are trying to push this confrontation.

But, right now, the fact that you have the largest concentration of troops, on the Russian border is bringing forward the memory of exactly the Nazi invasion in '40, '41.  And it is really something people should not underestimate; the suffering of losing so many people in the war, that memory is coming back in the Russian population today.  And that is why the Immortal Regiment demonstrations were so absolutely moving, a couple of weeks ago.

And I think we have to somehow revive that spirit of fighting Nazism, fighting fascism. That fascism is not coming in the form of Hitler, it's coming in the form of a unipolar world and imperialism and basically destroying other nations for the sake of the world empire.  But we have to call forth, nevertheless, the deep emotions associated with the sacrifice of previous generations; and not gamble it away lightly.  Because what Lincoln addressed in the Gettysburg Address, or what other people said in similar occasions, we have to keep the suffering of our previous generations as a source of inspiration to build a better future and make sure this never happens again.

I think that your experience is unfortunately typical of people who got in between the various developments.  But I think we really have to have a clear vision that the future of humanity should not be like that; that we have to have a situation where people relate to each other as scientists, as composers, as poets.  If you read the letter exchanges of great people of the past — of Einstein and Max Planck, or Schiller and Humboldt — then you get a sense of what is a truly human relation.

And I think we have to have a clear vision today of what should be the future in 100 years, in 1,000 years.  People should grow up; I don't think people should remain the way the 20th Century has been, or the beginning of the 21st Century for that matter.  I want people to become like Plato, like Nicolaus of Cusa, like Leibniz.  Why should every person not be like that? I'm not talking about copies; I'm not talking about talking like Leibniz, talking like Schiller.  But in the realm of genius, there is no limit; there are infinite possibilities to develop creativity and contribute to the human development.  I think we have a tremendous responsibility, because it is our action today that will decide that we unleash this unbelievable potential of the human species.

I can imagine that in 10,000 years from now, people will be completely focused on problem solving in the Solar System, in the Galaxy; they will probably have traveled to other Galaxies.  We have probably mastered higher energy flux density, so that moving around in the Universe will be a completely different question than we even think about it today.  And that people will discover principles and creativity that we have not even an inkling of today; in the same way people in the Stone Age could not anticipate that fusion power would solve soon the energy problems of the entire planet.  Would people have discovered the use of fire?  Would they have thought that we would be able to control matter/anti-matter reactions in the future?  No.  And they couldn't even think it; and I think there are things we cannot even think about, but which become the absolute natural condition of man.  And that people will be loving.  I don't think that the nasty character most people have today is what is human.  I think that people will become loving, creative, humorous; they will have a totally different character.  And therefore, I disagree with President Obama fundamentally when he made this speech in Hiroshima, where he said the nature of man has always been to go for war.  I don't think that that's true.  I think the idea of making war is an infantile disorder; and in the same way as little two-year old boys kick you against the knee, when they are grown up they stop doing that if they are civilized.  And in the same way,  I thing this idea of solving conflict with war will vanish.  And man is principally good; he just has to be more developed so the goodness can come out.  I fully agree with Nicolaus of Cusa, who said that sin is a sign of underdevelopment; and that if all people just had the ability to spend the time on the development of their creative potential, sin would vanish.  And that's what I think is absolutely true. [applause]

SPEED:  Let me simply say, hold on before we go any further. We want people to be concise.  It is true that it's Memorial Day; it is true that we have veterans of the war, and we wish to hear from people.  But you have to think about what you just heard Helga say; and think about it as you pose matters for deliberation for the people here.  Other things can be discussed in the halls or in the breaks and so forth; but it's important we, here, focus.  So, I just wanted to say that to everybody before we continue.

Q5:  Thank you.  I will be concise.  My name is H— M—; I'm from Staten Island.  I apologize for my voice.  I agree with much of what you said in your presentation.  There were a number of issues that you didn't mention that I think are critically important.  The first is that the American economy is going through a major transition with the advance of technology and different sources of energy.  We need fewer and fewer fully-educated unskilled workers; and essentially we don't most of the lower 80% of the labor force.  Thomas Frank, who wrote that famous book, What's the Matter with Kansas?, recently published a follow-up to that.

SPEED:  Hold on; this is exactly what I meant.  If you have a matter that you want as a question, fine.

Q5:  The first issue that you didn't mention is what's going to happen with the transition in the global economy that is occurring.  We don't need low-skilled workers.  How are we going to deal with that?  If you had all geniuses, you would still need somebody to pick up the garbage.  The second thing is that when you have international conflicts that can't be resolved, the Second World War, for example, was necessary.  There were a lot of conflicts that were going on in Germany and Eastern Europe and Western Europe prior to the Second World War; and the only way they could be resolved was through an explosion, which occurred. These conflicts between China, Russia, and the United States have to be resolved.

SPEED:  OK, hold on.  You have two issues there.

Q5: I have a third; can I just mention the third?  So war can create a new stabilization.  And the third is that we have global warming; and that's going to have an immense impact on the population of the world.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, just to mention global warming first. Global warming does not happen; it's global cooling since about 16 years.  And global change, change in weather patterns, have nothing to do with CO2 emissions; they have everything to do with the cycles of our Solar System in the Galaxy.  So, we better get accustomed to these changes, because we cannot influence them. We have to learn to live with it better; because there were these Ice Ages and warming periods over the last hundreds of thousands of years.  That's just the way it is.  In the same way, if we lose a couple of species, we should not be so concerned; because the evolution of the Universe produces new species all the time. That's part of what evolution is all about.

But to the more fundamental point, I cannot agree with what you say that the Second World War was necessary, or that it was a cleaning explosion or something like that.  And in the same way, it's utterly untrue for the present conflict between Russia, China, and the United States.  The Second World War was really the continuation of the geopolitical games which led to World War I; which Haushofer, Mackinder, Milner, such people had basically worked out.  Which was really the idea that whoever controls the Eurasian heartland is the master of the planet; and that this would be at the disadvantage of the trend of the Atlantic Rim countries.  It was that crazy thinking which led to World War I; and that was not resolved through that war.  It was cemented through the Versailles Treaty; which really was the basis for all the conflicts now, including the conflicts in the South China Sea.  Because the Paris Treaty, which was part of the Versailles Treaty, left the territorial conflicts of the South China Sea unresolved by leaving a tremendous feeling of injustice in the Chinese population; because a lot of the previous German colonies were given to Japan.  And the same thing happened with the Sykes-Picot agreement already in 1916; it happened with the Trianon Treaty which was part of Versailles.  And all of that was the result of the same empire policy persisting with Versailles after the First World War; and Versailles was an absolute contributing factor to World War II, in which the same imperial forces who groomed Hitler as one tendency — the National Socialists were just one tendency of that Conservative Revolution which I mentioned earlier.  They groomed Hitler as a orator through the Thule Society; and they read Mein Kampf, and they said if we pit Germany and Russia against each other, it will lead to World War II.  And that's why the oligarchs in Great Britain and such people as the Eugenics Society in the United States backed Hitler; because they liked his race policies.  That was the reason why World War II finally happened; because it was a geopolitical manipulation.  And it was a total setback for mankind; and many countries have not recovered from it to the present day, Germany being one of them.

So I do not agree that you need these explosions.  And if it would come to such an explosion today, I'm pretty much afraid that nobody would be left.  I think we have to think completely differently; we have to think about a New Paradigm of mankind.  A paradigm which is defined by the common aims of mankind; that which makes us human together.  The problems we have to solve together, like space travel, to make it safe for the human race to exist.  We are not safe right now; we could be destroyed by asteroids, by volcanic explosions which could lead to a winter period like what probably happened after the dinosaurs. Ninety-six species gone 65 million years ago.  We have to think about how to make life safe for the human species; not only on Earth, but also on Earth.  And for that, we have to work together.  The New Paradigm must conceive of mankind in the same way as the difference was between the Dark Age of the 14th Century and the modern times which started with the Renaissance period of the 15th Century with the Golden Renaissance in Italy.

If you compare the leading axioms of the Middle Ages with the leading axioms of the modern times, you have two completely different sets of ideas.  The Dark Age, the Middle Ages, were characterized by scholasticism, by the Peripatetics, by the control of Aristotle in all the universities, by witchcraft, by the Flagellants, by people who would burn women as witches, by the Inquisition.  All of this was characteristic of the Middle Ages.  And then came, based on Dante, Petrarca, Nicolaus of Cusa brought the heritage of Plato to Italy at that time; which had been lost for about 1700 years, and that all led to a tremendous scientific and cultural explosion known as the Italian Renaissance.  And the image of man, the absolute emphasis on the individual creativity, on the idea of the common good as being the purpose of the state, the idea of the sovereign nation-state, all of these new ideas developed in this period of the early 15th Century into the middle of the 15th Century, about two generations.  We had an explosion of science, of knowledge, and that led to the foundation for Nicolaus of Cusa, for Kepler, for Leibniz, for the allusion of modern science, of precise natural science, of great Classical art.

And these two systems have coexisted for 500-600 years, and now this has come to an end.  We are now at an end of an epoch. The end of the epoch of the coexistence of empire and nation-state.  And if we don't make the jump now, to say, both empire is a finished model, but also the nation-state as such has to be complemented by a higher form of "the common aims of mankind," and the idea of the truly human behavior of people working for the common aims; making a new Renaissance of all cultures of this planet, where each culture knows the other culture, the high point; every American will know what Chinese culture was, what Russian culture was, what German culture was, and make something new, beautiful out of that: a new Renaissance which will take the best of the ideas of what each nation produced, celebrate it, make it common knowledge.

Make the cultures of the world as known to every human being, as maybe the Ninth Symphony of Beethoven is pretty known to all human beings.  But do people know everything about Chinese philosophy, poetry, Indian painting, Indian Classical dance, Indian Classical music?  No, they don't!  And that is the kind of human heritage which we have to have as the common good of all people, to create something new out of it.

So we need a new paradigm, and I think people should each, individually, think, what do you want to contribute with your life, so that in a hundred years, mankind is more human by several orders of magnitude than today?  And that your life has contributed, to end this terrible popular culture which we have today, which is completely Satanic.  I mean, all the youth culture is utterly Satanic.  All the pop music is Satanic, fashion is mostly ugly; all of the modern painting is an insult to the human mind, to even consider that as creative.  I mean, true, there are some exceptions, but we have to go back to the highest standard of all the cultures before, to make something new out of it.

So do not think that war is necessary, or was necessary. War is a relic of an infantile feature of the human person. [applause]

SPEED: We're going to take two questions, and then we're going to take a break.  We're going to take a break so that all those people who completely disagree with much of what was just said, can vent in the halls, before you come back, hopefully with cogent questions about the next session.  So, go ahead.

Q6:  Hello, Helga, we have a question here from a contact from Brazil that we met recently, B—A—.  And his question is, "What do you think about the coup that is going on against the democracy of Brazil?  It is a violence and danger for Latin America.  For example, what would be the impact on the world economy if the Brazilian economy collapsed, since it is the seventh largest in the world? Without the BRICS would there be a world?"

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, we will publish in the coming issue of EIR a documentation of who is running this coup. Because Dilma Rousseff herself said repeatedly that this has nothing to do with corruption she was involved in, but that it was a coup by the right wing Brazil.  Now while it is obviously clear that the right wing in Brazil has been involved in this, what she has not said is what we will document, that, how certain forces in the United States in particular, and in Great Britain, have been behind steering this coup, in the same way as the attack on Cristina Fernández de Kirchner is organized from the United States, from certain hedge funds, from certain political interests; and we will put this out in writing.

And hopefully somebody in Brazil will pick it up.  Because I think the only way how the integrity of Brazil can be protected, is that the truth comes out, and that the population in Brazil which is obviously being targetted by a black propaganda campaign following the Italian model of "Clean Hands."  And this was even admitted by Bloomberg, that the model of Clean Hands is what was being used.

This goes back to the history of Italy, where everybody in Italy knew that the way how Italian  politics would function in the postwar period was the amici di amici principle: that if you would give somebody an order, you would give him a kickback and the kickback would be distributed to all the friends of that person and it was called the "amici di amici" principle.  And that system, which everybody participated in for decades, all of a sudden was exploded, when the British decided to take over Italy for cheap money with the coup; the plot of the Britannia royal yacht, devaluing the Italian lira by 30% and then buying Italian firms up for cheap.  And then in the context, they destroyed all the political parties in Italy, and created new, synthetic ones, which no longer could defend the sovereignty of Italy in the same way.

And that is exactly the model which has been applied in Brazil.  And Dilma Rousseff herself went after this corruption system and she was not involved.  And now this new phase has erupted, where the finance minister had a telephone discussion with a Senator, where they said, if we want to stop this corruption campaign, we have to get rid of Dilma and put in Temer [the then-Vice President].  So now that has been leaked to the media and this is like "the revolution eats its children" because there is no honesty among thieves.  The next wave of the destabilization is already hitting now, those who committed the first wave of the destabilization.

And this will go on.  And the danger is chaos.  And I fully agree with you, if the Brazilian economy would be weakened even more, than it is right now, it would be a disaster for all of Latin America, and therefore, the first priority is that the truth of who is behind this coup should be published, and it should become a household word in all of Brazil and all of Latin America.

Q7:  Hi Helga, this is Lynn Yen, from the Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture.  You've made two great intellectual breakthroughs:  One which is the idea of Friedrich Schiller, that to bring mankind into adulthood, you have to educate the emotions through great art and great culture.  And the other is the breakthrough of Nicolaus of Cusa, who said that as man comes closer to absolute truth, if he's intelligent, he realizes that he knows nothing at all.

Now, at our foundation and our work with a lot of young people, the idea of Classical culture, it's easy, when you introduce Classical culture to young people, they can get it almost immediately.  But what do you do about all the other people?  How would you do about the adults?  A lot of people out there oftentimes the adults, who think they know things that they actually don't know, and how do you address that?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, my own experience is that when you make people more conscious about the difference of the music they like and Classical music, they realize, at least there is a superior species when they deal with Classical culture.  So I have done educationals and pedagogicals where I would download from the internet, the worst example of black gothic rock or some other Satanic popular culture, because there's some really awesome examples!  I mean pop music has many varieties and Madonna has made some Satanic movies, you know?  Like sitting on an electric chair having an orgy with herself.  I mean, there are some really horrible examples!  And then I would show these, not too long, maybe a minute  —  loud, ugly, the people would really see it like in a mirror. And then I would confront that, for example, with Marian Anderson singing the National Anthem at Kennedy's invitation in 1962, and people would see; or confronting Beyoncé singing the National Anthem with Obama and Marian Anderson singing the National Anthem; and I would really invite you go home to your laptop and look at that, because Beyoncé is Hollywood-like, a façade-like face, not really human; she could be a robot.  And then you have in the video they made about that, they had Michelle and Barack Obama looking like heroes in Russian Socialist art, looking into the future listening to this Beyoncé.  It's so — in German there is this word — kitsch.  You know, kitsch means, when the fat and the oil is dripping out of something which is so horrible.  Anyway. And then you see Marian Anderson, who completely, simple, non-stylized, just very truthfully and beautiful, sings the National Anthem and it moves everybody to tears.

And that way you have to educate people to start, you know, when you have a completely degenerated taste, it takes a while to reeducate that people even have the tastebuds to taste what is beautiful!  And you have to give them many, many examples, also the principles of when is a painting beautiful, and when it is not truthful.  Or when is a poem beautiful, and when is it not beautiful.  And you have to use examples, because it's something people can learn, and I'm absolutely certain adults — you know, age as somebody said recently, is not a question of the bones, it's a question of the mind.  And I fully subscribe to that. Because if you are future oriented and optimistic, and have big plans, you're not aging.  It just doesn't happen.  Your body may be a little bit more stiff, and quirky and whatnot, but your mind can be as youthful as whatever age you choose to be.

And in the same way, I think that older people, they can recognize the difference between ugliness and beauty. In that sense, Schiller, for example was completely against the idea that you would have categories of the Stürm und Drang, which was the period before the Classical period.  He said, the difference is, is art beautiful or not.  And anything which is not beautiful should not be called art.  And I think that that is so true: Because if the art is elevating the human mind, and appealing to the soul, bringing forth this power of love, of what makes us human, this inside power which enables us to do everything we want, for the good, for the future, for mankind; if art evokes that, it is beautiful.  And if art brings us down, makes us more full of lust or greed or just mindless passion, like in a rock concert where you're just moving like an ape, you can repeat rhythms you know, like a monkey rattling his cage; but that is not human!

So the question really, is how to teach the eye, the mind, the ear, to see the beauty, and reject the ugly.

SPEED:  So, we're just going to be taking a brief break. Before we do, Alvin, I'd like you to take the microphone for a moment, and we want to recognize our veterans.  We're just going to go person by person, we'd like each of you to say who you are, what war you served in; and anyone that we're missing, please just hold up your hand, and Alvin will go around.

BILL MONROE:  Good afternoon everyone.  It's a real pleasure to be here today amongst you all and with my fellow veterans. I'm looking forward to an opportunity to speak to Lyn, but it's always a pleasure to speak to you, Ma'am.

I'm sorry:  My name is Bill Monroe, I'm from New Jersey. I've spoken with you on several occasions, Helga, and it's always a pleasure to see you.  You're doing a wonderful job, dear lady! Keep it up!  God bless you!

AL KORBY:  This is Al Korby.  Pearl Harbor was bombed on my 17th birthday.  On my 18th birthday I joined the Army Air Force, and I worked as an aircraft mechanic on B-24s and B-29s in Texas, Kansas, Colorado and Utah. …

PATRICK S:  Good afternoon, I'm Patrick from Greenwich, Connecticut.  I'm happy to be here.  I was in the United States Army, stationed in Germany, in 1960-63.

PAUL BARRON: [ph]  Good afternoon, Helga.  My name is Paul Barron and I was in the Vietnam era, and I've from Storrs, Connecticut.

BILL MONROE:  I forgot to tell you:  I served in World War II, in the European theater of operations, and from there I went to the Philippines at the cessation of the war.

JAMES CHRISTIAN:  Good evening, my name is James Christian, I served in the U.S. Navy as a radio operator between 1957-1960.

MICHAEL LEPPIG:  My name is Michael Leppig and I served in the U.S. Navy, I was a Vietnamese linguist in Vietnam in 1966-67, and Helga, I was very inspired by your presentation.  Thank you so much.

HAL VAUGHN: I was in the U.S. Army, '72-'74;  I was in Turkey in 1973 when your friend Henry Kissinger caused a little trouble over there.

 TORY HALL:  I was in the U.S. Army, I was stationed in Germany from 2012-2016.

RONALD:  My name is Ronald.  I served from 1969-1971 in Vietnam.

INTERMISSION

Lyndon LaRouche Dialogue with the Manhattan Project

LAROUCHE:  Well, what we would look at is Putin. Look at Putin. Putin is an honest soldier in every sense of the word.

DENNIS SPEED: So, my name is Dennis Speed and on behalf of the LaRouche Political Action Committee, I want to welcome you here for our Saturday, May 28, Memorial Day Dialogue with LaRouche.

Of course, this is an event which needs and demands no introduction [laughs]. We've come — whether or not we wish to have come to the conclusion or not — to expect from Lyn, his normal, highly truthful, characterization of all things related to thinking.

As I said earlier, I hope that people have by now vented sufficiently and are ready to ask questions, and receive the answers that they're going to be given. Whoever our questioners are, please line up.

Lyn, would you have any statement for us at this point?

LAROUCHE: Well, I think I've been aware of what my wife has been saying, during the passing hours, and, I would like to add a rebuttal!  In a certain kind of way.

SPEED: [laughs]  Like I said!  I think there may be some things that some of the veterans had to say, but let's just ask first of all, if there are one or two questions, either from the last session. If not, we'll give you gentlemen, — a couple of them had a few things they wanted to say.

LAROUCHE: Okay.

SPEED: So maybe Patrick, you want to start us off?  You had something….

Q:  Good afternoon, Mr. LaRouche.  I'm Patrick from Greenwich, Connecticut.  I'm honored to be here today, for the Live Memorial to the veterans, and the 9/11 victims.

A little bit about myself: I joined the Army, May 2nd, 1960. And, I had basic training in Fort Dix, New Jersey, and I went to Fort Sill, Oklahoma for artillery, and I trained on a 105 Howitzer. Then, I was stationed in Germany — I went overseas, and my new outfit was the 3rd Missile Battalion, 21st Artillery. This was the "Honest John" missile, which had a nuclear capability. And, in 1961, the Berlin Wall went up; 1962, the Cuban Crisis started, and 13 days, we were out in the field, about 3 kilometers from the Czech border, with our missiles fully prepared and ready to go. But, thank God that Kennedy and Khrushchov were sane people.

Anyway, my question is: The Cuban Crisis of that era, and what's going on now, with the nuclear capabilities. What is your opinion as to the two different  — the Cuban Crisis, compared to now?

LAROUCHE: The Cuban Crisis was something which was being pressured, under the conditions of the FBI. The FBI was a key factor in bringing the matter to its form. And, that was a big problem. It was a rather evil operation, because the thing that was being done at that time, from my direct, personal knowledge what was going on, and I was in a leading role, position of authority, in the first part of my existence, as a major figure.

Then, of course, I was cancelled by the FBI; the FBI just threw me out of the organization, where I had been a leading figure, in what the FBI did.  And, I got bounced around a few times, and I finally organized my own organization; which was quite successful up to the point of the FBI again came into my career and put me in prison.

So, I'm used to these kinds of treatments, that kind, knowing that every one of these guys who were doing that against me were bums! Rots and bums! With no right to anything.

But, I just go ahead and do what I have to do, and I do it.

Q: My name is Mike [leppig], I'm from New Jersey, and I'm a Vietnam veteran. And well, Helga kind of provoked a whole series of memories in my mind.  I was 17 years old in 1965 when I joined the U.S. Navy, and I became a Vietnamese linguist. I went to Vietnam, and I left for Vietnam in November of '66. At that time, this was after the Gulf of Tonkin; after the Kennedy assassination, the view of my family and my parents was that the military would "make a man of me." The attitude generally, at least in the community that I came out of, was supportive of the government, "if the government's behind it,  this is it."

While I was in Vietnam, what I experienced was an almost total cynicism about the war itself, on the part of the military leadership, with a significant element of that leadership, I would consider in retrospect very patriotic; that they were committed in Vietnam, they wanted to see it develop, they had, what I now understand, is a kind of a traditional military outlook. Others were careerists, they were their own career.

Anyway, coming back from Vietnam, by the end of the '60s, what you describe as the condition of the government today,  that it has no legitimacy, that's the way I felt. And, I think a lot of my age-people felt the same way. Now, we're confronted with a society that's their children, and we have an FBI-run Presidential election; like the riots in San Diego yesterday FBI show.

And it seems to me like this is our moment, like never before. I am so optimistic; I can't believe it! Because, nobody believes in the election; people who say that they're for Trump — they hate Hillary; people who say they're for Hillary — they hate Trump. But, you probe it,  and they don't give a crap about either one of them; and when you mention your name, there's respect. Either they go away, because they don't want to hear it, they don't want to know the truth, or, if they're at least interested in the truth, they stop, they take the literature, they may not give money, but they know that you represent the truth. So, it seems to me that this puts a big burden on all of us here in the room, because you've done your work, now what we've got to do is just say that we're with you, and be able to stand up, with you in mind. That's what I want to say.

LAROUCHE: We have to do more than that.  We have to activate the thing, again, by understanding exactly what's wrong, with the way the government runs today, and to present an account of what the errors are, of government, in management today. It has to be cleared up. Because what happens?  The people who are doing the frame-ups against people, are still doing the frame-ups! By and large. Not the same people who kept doing it, but new, alternative figures, who are doing the frame-ups. That's where the problem lies.

So, the difficulty is to find an honest group of people who will actually listen to their own mind and find out what is going on in their own mind. And the problem is, in the United States generally, most people are incapable of listening to the product of their own mind.

SPEED:  Okay! Next question, if it's actually a question. [laughs]

Q: Hi Lyn! This is Tory Hall. I'm also a U.S. Army veteran. I served from 2012 to 2016. I was in Germany. They sent me to a few different places as well. And most recently they had sent me to Ukraine. I was there, physically. In my own mind, I rejected the entire operation that happened there. But that wasn't common. That wasn't typical of the other people there. And because I rejected these things—in a way I was already looking towards the New Paradigm—the idea of the Silk Road—then this type of conflict doesn't even make sense. What does a military look like in a New Silk Road paradigm?

LAROUCHE:  Well, what we would look at is Putin. Look at Putin. Putin is an honest soldier in every sense of the word. His commitments are honest to the total extent of the work. He's the greatest builder of competence right now. His brother was killed, in the family. He became a career.

I met him, not directly, I met him indirectly, because I was doing some work in that area against the Chechen operation there. He was doing it at the same time. So I was actually operating in parallel to him, not in direct relationship to him, but in parallel to him. Then I came out of that service and he went on with his own career, as we've seen up to today, so far

He's a very capable person. He probably is one of the best, most competent, military figures of the current time. He has a tremendously good record. And he has great achievements. He's learned how to do things that most other people in government and in military service have not learned what to do.

And he's a backer for China. He probably will turn out to be a backer for Japan, because the evidence now is that the Japan organization is going to agree, against —against Obama. They're turning against Obama.

But the overall situation is: Just think of the military situation, as such. Now, in the military situation is, there's no reason why the United States military under the military system should do anything for Obama. Obama is evil. He's a thief, a swindler, he's a cheat, and other unpleasant things. And therefore, the important thing here is, that Obama is what he is; but Putin is also what he is. And Putin is a man of great achievement, unusually great achievement. If you're going to win a war, you'd better work with him on that, and you're likely to win.

Q:  Hello, Mr. LaRouche, I'm Igor Kochan. I'm the president of Russian Youth of America organization. I'm also a member of Coordinating Council of Russian Compatriots in the U.S.A. We do a lot of different cultural events to bring Russians and Americans together, to let Americans know more about Russian history and Russian culture.

One of the events that we had this year, was called the Immortal Regiment. I'm really grateful that members of your organization joined us, and grateful for the choir that sang at that event. The Immortal Regiment, so that everybody understands what it is, is that, it's the walk where people are walking with pictures of their grandparents. We do it close to the May 8th, which is Victory in Europe Day. The idea is to preserve the history of your family to make people remember the veterans of their family, and to walk with their pictures in their hands, and to lay the flowers, this year, to the East Coast Memorial.

There was about 600 people this year. We would like to get more Americans involved in that, so that it becomes not only a Russian tradition, but an American tradition also. Because we believe that to bring Russians and Americans together, it's really important that Americans remember their own history—the history of their families, the history of their country—because right now, unfortunately, when we were asking people what they remember about the World War II, they couldn't even remember who won that war! Some people were giving some ridiculous answers, like "Well, you know what? Germans won the war." No, no, no! It's like Germans were Nazis!

By trying to remember the heroes of the war, people who fought in that war, in their families, people also learn who were participating in this war; that Russians and Americans were not enemies, actually; that they fought together, against Nazis. It's real important. If they were friends at that time, maybe they're still friends, or they should be.

So, what do you think about the idea of the Immortal Regiment? And do you think it's possible to make it an American tradition to remember the veterans?

LAROUCHE:  Well, "American" is a special name for the kind of process we're talking about. There're many nations which have memorial organizations; that is, they have a history of tradition. And that is, of course, different in different nations. But the idea of having such organizations is not wrong. You've just got to make sure you've got the right home of that organization. That's all you require. Otherwise, what happens, you have people like that who become the firemen, everything else that is needed for emergency purposes. Those people who serve as a military or other kind of service, of the same kind of thing, these groups are usually, and generally, very useful inside of society.

Q: Mr. LaRouche, this is Al Korby. Pearl Harbor was bombed on my 17th birthday. Then I joined the Army on my 18th birthday. I was on my way to Okinawa when the atom bombers bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I thought that was a good thing at the time. The war was over. I found out later that it was a senseless massacre; that Japan was in the process of negotiating surrender. As a civilian again, and in a small business, I avoided politics because I thought it was a corrupt system. Then the Kennedy assassination and the cover-up. I said, "Why? A cover-up?" I was looking for an answer, looking for the reason. It wasn't there.

Then a call came from Margaret Greenspan in 1994. It was within a few days of you're getting out prison. I took a subscription, and then I started understanding what was going on; that we were being manipulated by the British Empire. Then in 2001, I became a full-time activist with the organization. Now, on the 7th of this month, I participated in the Immortal Regiment march, with the colonel from Russia. I said that we had to make a joining of the continents at the Bering Strait a reality.

So, what are the particular actions we must take now, to make this a reality?

LAROUCHE:  What you've got to do, is you've got to change the mentality of the usual citizen in the United States, because most of the usual citizens in the United States who are living today, are incompetent; they are confused at the very best. And therefore the problem is, we don't have a standard, under our government today, which trains people or induces people to pick up a career which is justified for the help of the  protection of a nation. The idea that you have to protect a nation. You have understand why you're protecting the nation, what the protection is, what the requirements are. We don't have that any more. We have too many FBI people, and not enough real citizens. [applause]

Q:  Hi Lyn! It's Alvin. A quick quote from something you recently stated: "There's a large, powerful, force which is accumulating its expression, and this will be the deciding factor if mankind is to survive." Now, we're taking the Obama/British Empire of repeatedly only knowing one type of script to follow. They're dangerous, but they're very stupid. You continue to emphasize to us the importance of the strategic leadership, particularly around China and Russia, with Xi Jinping doing something in his way toward development, and Putin demonstrating his ability to outflank the Empire and avoid war, so that we might live to actually have a future; that mankind might be able to actually realize its true potential and grow up.

On the [Fireside Chat] call Thursday, we're here in Manhattan, and we're trying to organize people around these conceptions, have them get over their own ignorance and fear. You mentioned—and this relates to the work that we're doing outside of the political realm—the question becomes, "Can a human being become greater than themselves?"

That's our job here: To improve ourselves as human beings, and then inspire others. So, I just would like for you to elaborate on that theme, and how we can continue to make progress.

LAROUCHE:  Well, that's difficult to do, because you have to explain a lot of things that go into this kind of question. Very few people really have much skill at that. That's where the problem lies. You have people who have some insight into what itmight mean, but they don't understand what it is to deliver the product. And the people's ability to deliver the required product, is where the problem comes up.

Q:  Hello, Lyn. John Sigerson. I'm not a veteran, though both my parents were. This is along the same lines as some of the people who have addressed this, but I wanted to look into the future, along the lines of what Helga said about a world without war, a world where this infantile malady had finally been expunged from our culture, and we should look at all of the people who have served and have died, as people serving in the name of that, rather than simply defeating some enemy, however, nefarious that enemy might have been or might be.

But my question is, looking into the future, with a vision of a society without war, how do you do maintain a warlike attitude in the population so that the population does not go soft, and that you still have a warlike attitude, but not from the standpoint of actually physically fighting wars against some enemy?

LAROUCHE:  … involve wars or fighting wars as such. What's important is the ability of the human individual to apparently fulfill a military obligation, apparently.  But that is not necessarily true.  Often the professional soldier, is a fake.  This is a common problem in the military service, that the people who are in there do not have the qualifications to carry out the mission!  So generally you get a limited number of people in the military who do have some understanding of what this means and appreciation of what its implications are, but in general, most people in society do not have a comprehension of what that means, and I'm talking about people who are civilians as well as otherwise.  That they are not capable of summoning in themselves, the kind of role which is necessary to do the job.

Now, this comes up in strange ways, which are not really formal ways.  When somebody who comes in to rescue someone who is endangered, that's the typical case.  And therefore, you find out, is that person capable of delivering a successful effect, for the benefit of the population.  That's what's important.  It has the implications of being something tantamount to a military organization, but it really isn't.  It's the guy who, with clothes or not, who goes out to do something, to save people from some threat against them, or to some injury against them in another sense.

And that's what the issue is.  It's to get people to understand that their obligation insociety, is to lead society or to assist in leading society to enable a population, to accomplish its true mission.  Not just some mission, but the true mission of a  member of the society as a whole.

You get people to understand this, to see, to understand what they are, and find out there's something good that there is what they are. And when they find those talents are expressed, then you have a sense of victory.

Q:  Hi Lyn, this is Daniel [burke].  On that question of a successful leadership of the population, we're embarked upon something, which we discussed at the opening of this event here, which is to create a justice and a meaning for the lives of those people who were killed, wantonly, in this horrible attack on 9/11/2001.  And I'm very concerned to know, to discover, what are the proper principles of achieving this?  And I do think that it is in context, or that we have to keep in context, the fact that Obama and the Saudis and the British are losing.  They have lost a certain amount of control of Japan; they have major people in France and Germany saying "end the sanctions against Russia." There is an opportunity here, and so, it's all the more important that we achieve this justice:  How do we do that?

LAROUCHE:  On the case of Japan, for example:  The Japan case, Japan is now realizing that its enemy is coming from those quarters, and they have to deal with that quarter, and they're doing it, to some degree.  I don't know to what perfected, or non-perfected degree; that's working out now.  But there is an orientation among people in Japan, to develop Japan as an instrument, to defend the people against Obama!  So, this is a part of thing.

So therefore, you can't come down with some kind of mechanical explanation.  You have to say,  these are developments where people, in this case, Japanese, who've moved into this area of attitude, and they've moved into it.  Why?  Because they thought it was in their best interest, and they thought what they were getting from Obama and company was not in their best interest.  I don't know how much they were against Obama, or not. But I do know what they were doing in practice, was something which was to the advantage of the people of the nation, and to the Japanese themselves.  So, that's fine.

And these are the kinds of things you have to look at; look at it in those kinds of terms.  Not simple, mechanical kinds of interpretation.

Q:  This is R— from Bergen Country, New Jersey.  In the recent issue of EIR, there is an editorial called "LaRouche's Triple Curve," and I found something that you — on the occasion of bringing out this Triple Curve concept, you gave a talk — this was around 1995 — and there's a quote in there, which I'd like to read a simple extract from that, if I could.  I'm quoting you:

"We always blame somebody else. Now, the job of a leader is not to blame leaders. We can point out some are bad, some are defective, some are utterly immoral, some are barely human. But the problem lies in the people, not in the leaders. The problem, often, of oppression, lies in the oppressed. Because they will not accept any proposition that is not consistent with the assumption that they must remain `the oppressed.'"

So is it accurate to say that people get the leaders that they deserve? And if so, is that why the cultural issue is so important?

LAROUCHE:  Well, the cultural issue is one which I laid out about the time where I was about to be bounced out of the organization.  And I designed this program, which I proved, and then they bounced me out and I disappeared for some time as a result of that, because I was in jail, put in jail by the FBI. And so that was what the temporary end of the thing was.

Now, we have a different situation, a very similar situation, however, not just a different one, and they're still after me; the FBI is still after me.  They're a little bit more skittish than they were in times back, but the point was that what I was talking about was simply, my scientific discovery, of the fallacy of the usual kind of assumptions, about how things work.  My specialty was how things can be made to work.  And I introduced a new idea, which was unknown to most of the people in that time.  And are still unknown to most people of the present time!  Because they never discovered what I presented.  But some people got it.

Q:  Hello  Mr. LaRouche, my name is J— and I'm from the Bronx.

LAROUCHE:  That's all right! [laughs]

Q:  I heard something over the weekend that I think you might like:  The education and the act of educating is to overcome ignorance.  But I believe, and I'm sure you would agree with me on this, that the education system today is meant to make kids my age, and maybe a little younger, to keep them ignorant. [laughter] See people already agree with me on that point.

LAROUCHE:  The main purpose of the education system in the universities and high schools and so forth today, is to make the students dumber.

Q: [follow-up] Now, what we've been doing — by "we," I mean we started a "Basement club" as well, that we started here in New York, me and a group of four other students, including Lynn Yen, and we've been led by Megan as well; and what we've been doing, is we've been studying Kepler and we've been looking at Classical pieces.  And over the summer as well, we've been holding summer classes, where we teach Plato's work, theMeno dialogue, especially, as well, which has really resonated with me, to combat the ignorance that the education system has placed in the minds of these students.  And I know this to be true, because I am part of this system, that tries to keep us ignorant [LaRouche laughs] … standardized testing, SATs that restrict the way we think, that don't  allow us to look at things differently, but say "this is what's right, and this is what's wrong:  out of four options on this bubble sheet that you have, only one of them is right and you are not allowed to think differently."

LAROUCHE:  [laughs] I know what you're talking about!

Q: [follow-up] Basically, what I'm trying to get at is, is there more that I could be doing, and that others can be doing, to fix this system, other than just reading Plato; and other than just looking at Classical music?  Is this enough?  Is that what you're telling me?

LAROUCHE:  No, you really have to have, an in-depth discovery, an actual discovery, done by many scientists in different generations, and so forth in the process.  And you have to rely upon that experience, and seeing that experience in terms of your experience; and trying to see whether you agree or not.  But to get to insight into what this is all about.  When you go with formalities, all you get is blab.  And blab and flab. So you don't need blab or flab.

So what we have to do, is get some people out there, who will actually engage in discussion of what makes the truth be the truth.  And you've got to come up with some evidence.  You've got to produce some evidence which tells you that the truth that you believe is the truth, is the truth.  That's where the tough business comes into play.

Q:  Hi Lyn, this is Asuka.  My question is about my country, Japan.  There's quite an earthquake going on, the political earthquake, and it could be bigger than "Hokushima."  But I want to ask your insight into this, because certainly there is a role that you and your wife played in this.  Last December, Helga went to Japan and had a conference where she keynoted. And she also spoke among the prominent industrialists of Japan, and also there was Yakunin, former head of Russian Railways, present.

So, for me to see the recent development in terms of Abe's visit to Sochi and meeting with Putin, coming out with this fantastic proposal to develop the Siberian region, I think there was a certain precursor in this that we saw in Helga's visit to Japan.  And I know you personally went to Tokyo with Helga before.  So if you can elaborate a little bit about your insight and your experience regarding Japan, and what's going on?

LAROUCHE:  Well, the point is, what you're seeing is the effect, and the effect is already available to you immediately, without too much explanation.  What's happened is that Japan, the population of Japan has produced within itself, a body of people who are concerned with a fresh view of what the future is, because what's happened, they're being stuck now with some of the things that are going on in that region, and therefore they want to get out of that region and be more sane, and practicable. And they're attracted to this.  They are attracted to this against, — and every time they get a smell of Obama, they want to vomit!  And therefore what they do is they aim their mouth in the direction of the distance, and let the vomit come out, and then feel fresher.  [laughter]

SPEED:  OK — next question!

Q:  Hi, Lyn, it's K— from Bronx.

LAROUCHE:  Acknowledged!

Q: I see a mental shift taking place among the nations and among people, to a higher level, where they want to have growth and they want to have cooperation among nations and among each other.  I wanted to interject about the Middle East:  I have gathered some information together, that tensions are somewhat reduced in that area.  They're not eliminated but there is some reduction; from what I understand Hamas and Hezbollah have other enemies that they're more interested in than Israel, and they also recognize that Israel could wipe them out or certain decimate them quite badly.

I also believe that there is a change of leadership coming in Palestine and if I'm correct on that, do you know anything about it?  And is the next leader, to be more amenable to trying to get along in the neighborhood?

LAROUCHE: Well, as you probably know from your background, on this matter, that, in the Jewish community in particular, you had some very rough treatment:  Assassinations being perpetrated by Jews, against Jews.  And I was of course, early on the course of my postwar experience, I was associated with an initial Israeli organization, which was a military organization at that time, and I was associated with that.  So therefore, I was very much concerned with the defense of that.

Then at the end of a cycle, what happened was, everything went bad, and from that point on you had people who were Jews or murderers, or not murderers.  And that was going on under the influence of the British.  The British system took control over the Israelis on that basis, and thus they produced a degenerate quality of person, and some of the degenerates were in California.  California had a Jewish community which was really a butcherous community.

But the core of the Israeli population, not so much from Russia, not so much from Germany.  Germany was a disease; for Israel, Germany is a disease, it's a disease that's infectious and you try to duck it if you can.  But in this case, what I was associated with, was a group of people who were the hard core of the people who had been the military leaders who were already operating in the Middle East in that time, and these people were then suppressed by the crowd coming from Britain.  So the British crowd that came in, started a war among Jews, and therefore, there killings of Jewish leaders by some people, and killers of Jewish leaders  by some other people — in other words both ways. And this thing was going on for some time.

One would hope, that on that question, given the present circumstances, we would have a more peaceful arrangement under which the Israelis  or the Israeli faction, were being a more, shall we say, suitable leadership.  The leadership of Israel under those guys, the British guys,  — get rid of them!  is the best advice.  And, if we could get some peace in this area, we can save Jewish lives and everything else.  And just look at it that way.

It's the British system.  It's the British angle of this thing, that sets up all these evil things that come out of Israel.

Q: [follow-up] A rabbi in the neighborhood where I live said there are two Israels: there's the religious and there's the secular.  And in her opinion, if Israel goes down that would be the reason they went down.  That's her point.

I had also heard, and I don't know where I got this information, that the Chinese, the Egyptians, and the Indians were hoping to work with Israel and the Palestinians to try to do the resolve.  If that were to take place, it would knock the United States and the British out of that neighborhood.  Do you know anything about that?

LAROUCHE:  No, that would not.  The point is, you've got a population of Jews  in that region, and other groups as well, and you have people who are good people, just honest, good people; they may be a bit confused on this or that, and so forth, or ignorant.  But that's it.

But the point is, my concern is, here I was, I had just come out of military service and I went out to associate myself with the Israelis who had been the leaders of the defense of Jews in that period.  They got bounced out about four years later, and I was bounced out.  But so that was the condition.

What today is, if we can pacify the situation, now that doesn't mean the individual as such; pacify the situation, because you'll find that when people are pacified in a certain way, they are no longer freaking out about accusations against one person and another person.  If you can get a community to agree, on making arrangements with each other, in order to function better, then you've won.  So I think that's where you've to go today.  I know what the situation was when I saw it, after the initial Israeli development there.  But the whole thing changed after a time; we went through a whole period when the British element was controlling the Jewish population.  That thing is shifting.  And I think the time now, because of the Turkish problem, and some other kinds of problems, that the people in that network would be very happy to escape from getting entangled into that kind of nonsense, which is going on today.

People do like peace, you know!  They do like to live! [laughter] So the point is, how can we get — this has always been for me, what's the problem?  What you have to do to make people peaceful? And to help each other?

Q:  Hi Lyn, it's Denise.  First off, I was really, really moved by Helga's presentation on the new paradigm.  And I was thinking about this new paradigm from the standpoint, that I was making a mistake, and I'm sure many other people, who are mentally focusing on these idiots who are running for President. And if you only think about that, or if that's in your mind, you can't have a new paradigm, you're a dead duck.  What I thought of was the only way to have political freedom, as Schiller had said, is through beauty.  And I'd wanted to make a special call to honor Jeanne d'Arc whose saintly feast is May 30, and her being the leadership of France against the Burgundians and the English; and I also want to say that it's our chorus and our music work that's going to come above all of this stuff having to do with the two idiots who are running for office.

You know, this week we're going to open our fourth chorus in the New York City area, which is wonderful that we're doing that.  And now I'm thinking, more and more, having heard Helga and having heard you, to get out of this other mindset.

And I finally want to mention that I'm the eldest of seven children, whose father was a United States Marine and served in both World War II and Korea.  Thank you.

LAROUCHE:  Thank you.

 Q:  Hi Lyn, this is Renée [sigerson].  I wanted to just address briefly a matter that I've been thinking about for the last few weeks, in which you opened up my mind by nothing that people lack the qualifications or the developed capacities, to address the subjective questions that come up in the organizing, and how we actually deal with that,  which we're actually doing in this discussion.  But I want to focus on one aspect of it, which I think is crucial and quickly, to frame it in this way.

A year after you were in jail, I'll never forget a message that you sent to us, it was about one year later, and you said: "I'm the happiest man in the world, because I have the most wonderful wife, and all of my enemies are complete moral degenerates." [laughter] And I'll never forget that.

And it came about the same time, that Michael Billington was going through the most incredible harassment in the Virginia prison system.  And the combination of these circumstance, captured by those two elements and what Mike describes in his book, which really, at the time, was completely  — it was another very heavy blow — I know went through a transformation, where during that period of time, I just got reallybored and sick of my fear of the enemy.  And I just suddenly said, "we just got to crush these guys." And there was a certain resolution in my own mind that suddenly, they weren't frightening any more, but they just had to go.

And I thought about this a lot, because in a way, it exemplifies a principle which you then addressed when you came out of prison, which is very relevant to the discussion we're having, which is the principle of metaphor.  Because I think that it is really impossible to do what you want us to do, unless people rivet themselves on being able to identify that truth lies in metaphor, and metaphor is truth; that this is not some kind of interesting "twist," or decoration, but that this is the essence of how truth actually functions.  And it really clears your mind.

Like people bring up fixating on the election.  Well, if you think metaphorically, you don't fixate on the election, because you just say, this is a bunch of idiots, and you can see it right away.  You don't see contradictions between saving the United States and dealing with the Congress and at the same time, fighting internationally to win the fight for the Land-Bridge: All these things that are different, somehow form this very beautiful, elaborate crystal, that in your mind, is a One, if you think metaphorically.  But if you haven't worked at thinking metaphorically, you're always in this truncated, vulnerable state of mind.  And I think the question of metaphor is also, that your emphasis on this over years and years, in different ways, was one of the things that strengthened some of us, at a critical moment to finally find out that fear is a very boring emotion.

But could you say something about that?

LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  The question of metaphor is ambiguous at this point, unless you qualify it.  Because the question is, what can you do in society, and how can you do it?  And so, the problem is, if people are not able to equip themselves to adapt a policy which inures them against fears, and that's what the issue is.  And if you want to educate a population, you have to educate the population as such, in order so that they don't get in the grip of fears.  Like fears of the FBI.  For example, you should rejoice, every time you can dangle a jig about yourself against the FBI out there.  Wherever the FBI are doing something and you hope, saying, "Well, let them go out there and jingle on the sidewalk, let him go out and make an ass of himself.  Let him see what a damned fool he is."  Right?  And say, "that's the way to look at this guy!"

Q: Good afternoon Mr. LaRouche.  It's Jessica from Brooklyn. On May 24th, which was just the past Wednesday, there was an article in the New York Post and I didn't read the Post because, you know, we've talked about newspapers before.  But I saw it on the internet also, that Schumer had up-ended the 9/11 Saudi suit which is called the JASTA bill [Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act], and what's interesting about this, is when you're living in history, things change from moment to moment very quickly.  And before I knew it, the families of the victims of 9/11 were saying that this was an article that was not reported accurately; that Schumer had not done these things; that it was some Republican faction or something that was trying to introduce something to water down the bill.

And I thought about our work on the 28 pages, and even though we are in support of the JASTA bill, it kind of led me to talk about the 28 pages even more among my colleagues.  And so, in their asking me about this article, I started talking about the 28 pages, and how this is actually something that we're doing as a mission to get to the truth; to talk about the truth about the Saudis and the British, in all terrorism, in terrorism around the globe, and how people need to really understand what the truth is about this entire 28-page operation.

So I'd like you to kind of comment, because now my colleagues, every time they see me, and they ask me questions about stuff, they go "all power to the people."  So any time I see a colleague, they go "Oh, Power to the people, that's Miss White," you know.  So I'd like you to comment on the fact that our mission is to expose the truth about the 28 pages, and the fact that two Presidential administrations have not only reclassified their own information, but have covered this whole, entire thing up, to the point of where it is now, and we're trying to get to the real crux of the matter, concerning, not just the 28 pages, but these Presidencies.

LAROUCHE: Well, there has been a very bad twist put on this question, in terms of Manhattan.  Especially for Manhattan as such.  And this was a lie!  Now, why was the lie:  The lie was in order to try to avoid making Schumer the scapegoat for the FBI; that's essentially what it was, plus and minus.

Q: [follow-up]  That's amazing.

LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  He was guilty.  I mean, Schumer was actually guilty by sliding along — I think sliding along is the most appropriate thing, or sliming along is equal.  But the point is, he did wedge in an argument against the steps, and that confused people.  And then, therefore, people in other parts of the government tried to crawl onto that thing, and thus make a case against what had happened, and to cover up what Schumer had said.  Schumer had slided into something, and they covered up for him.  Because he wanted to be in with the right boys!

Q: [follow-up]  Right:  "go along to get along" right? Thank you.

SPEED:  Any other questions?

LAROUCHE:  Any survivors?  [laughter]

Q:  [Bill Monroe] First of all, I want to wish you a very memorial holiday, today, Lyn.  And guess what?  Look.  [Gives a crisp salute]  Some of these folks may not know that you and I both are old warriors.  My name is Bill Monroe, same as that country western singer.

I've been following your brilliant career for way over 20 years.  I wish to state, it has been brilliant, illuminating, and consistent, never, ever wavering!  You have inspiredmy life, sir!  And I want to thank you for that.

I want to tell you a little something about myself.  I'll be as brief as I possibly can.  I joined the Army in 1943, and I went over to England aboard the Queen Mary, and never mind the British government — the British people treated Bill Monroe real, real damned good and I thank them for that!  They made my stay there, I was there about a year before the invasion.

I landed over there on D-Day, the third wave of invasion of Omaha Beach.  A lot of people did not make it.  I'm very fortunate to say, luckily, I did make it.  I further want to say, that as things began to quiet down, I had a most illuminating experience.  I became a friend of the mayor Sainte-Mère Église, and one day, he sent word over, "Sgt. Monroe, I want you to come over and meet somebody!"  So, I said, OK, as soon as I possibly can.  So when I got leave, I went over, I walked in, and look at me [slowly cranes his head upward] — I said, “Êtes-vous Général de Gaulle?” “Je suis le même!” [“Are you General de Gaulle?” “The very same!”] [laughter]

I want to back up just momentarily: When I was in high school, it was compulsory at that time, different than it is today, unfortunately, that you had to take some foreign language.  Unbeknownst to me as to my destiny, for some reason unknown to me, I chose French.  So when I got to France, I was able to converse with most of the people there.  Again, they treated Bill Monroe darn good!  I met what I call my French mother and father, because they kind of adopted me while I was in their area, and they treated me, as I said, "darn good."  That dear lady walked three miles into town to get something special for Bill Monroe, and three miles back.  Guess what she made?Escargots. [laughter]  At that time I had not the slightest inkling as to what escargotswas!  I said to myself, "Oh, they fix tuna fish a little different here!" When I got back to camp, and I leafed through my French-English booklet and I seen "escargots," and I said, "Oh my God, I at snails!"  But these are edible snails.

So, when I finally got back to the States, at an Italian restaurant, "Hey, Bill, what would you like to have today?"  I said, "Escargot!"  He said, "Oh, yeah?  Okay!"  And I said, "And give me a cappuccino, too!"  [laughter]

Lyn, I want to say one thing:  I've had a very, very illuminating career myself.  You've been a real inspiration to me, sir.  I believe you have helped pilot my life.  I'm hoping that a lot of folks will do the same. I want to God bless you, sir, you and your wife, Helga.  You're doing a brilliant thing, in spite of the so-called "FBI" which I used to have respect for! Keep it up, all right?  [laughter, applause]

SPEED: Well, do you have anything to say in response to that?

LAROUCHE:  It's hard to do that.  That consumes my appetites.

SPEED:  OK, very good.  It looks like we may have a follow-up question.

Q:  It's me again J— from the Bronx.  You  know, the English language is pretty dumb, it's pretty dumb, right?  And university students have found a way to surprise me and this is something I expressed to Dennis as well, but they've found a way to make the English language even dumber!  You can't even call someone a color any more because it's offensive.  You're not allowed to say an idea if it's offensive to someone, or if someone's offended, and frankly someone of the things you say offend me!  In fact, why don't I just censor you now?  Why don't I just storm out of this building and protest against you?

I'd like to believe that I'm probably the last open-minded person in my generation nowadays, because everyone is so afraid to accept a new idea, or everyone is so afraid to live outside what comforts them, or  — I don't know.  People are afraid to get hurt by something they've never heard before; or people are so accustomed or coddled by gender-study professors [laughter] — it's true!  People forget what's in-between their legs nowadays, and then you know, you refer to them as Mr. or Mrs. and suddenly it's like "I want to be referred to as `zee' or 'they', or some other pronoun," and it's like, "Oh, okay."  And then this subject of man-splaining, where a man who explains an idea is perpetuating sexist culture, and that's a way of censorship, honestly.  That's all that it's leading up to, censorship!  I believe my generation has almost shot itself in the foot.

And we're going backwards!  It's called the "regressive Left."  You know, there was a time when the Left stood for something right.  You know, MLK, the '60s, it was a great time. And somehow we've gone backwards.  We can't seem to do anything any more.  And I don't know, I just want to know your thoughts on that.

LAROUCHE:  I think we need to improve the population. [Speed guffaws]  I think we're in a desperate strait for cleaning up the population.

SPEED:  All right, I think we've sort of drawn out everything we're going to draw out for the moment.  There's probably some more opposition in the audience, but I don't think we're going to hear from it today!  So, Lyn if you have any — oh, of course, it is a bit expanded from the last time you saw us, and I think we're going to be seeing this as a trend.  But if there's anything you'd like to say to our — or your army in Manhattan, please go ahead.

LAROUCHE:  Well, I think we are ready to extend the grip of Manhattan, into the area of some parts of the neighboring waters, a little bit distant.  We're going to be opening up more channels in different parts of the world than we have been doing before. And that's going to be the augmented aspect of what's going to happen to me in the coming days.

SPEED:  Great!  That's good news.  We'll await results.

LAROUCHE:  Yes.  You'll get it, too.

SPEED:  All right great!  [applause]

2. juni 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Mennesket skriver historie lige for øjnene af os i dag, fra dag til dag og endda fra time til time i takt med, at alle de forskellige, gensidige forbindelser mellem Rusland, Kina og Indien bliver stadigt tættere og stadigt mere talrige, og som trækker 70 eller flere nationer tættere sammen, hvilket faktisk omfatter godt og vel halvdelen af menneskeheden – som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde i sit interview med TASS den 31. maj. 

Det er som en ring af sammenkædede magneter, der trækker hinanden ind i en stadigt tættere kæde. Tænk på den genoplivede interesse for Kra-kanalen, der forbinder Det sydkinesiske Hav med Det indiske Ocean (via Den thailandske Golf og området omkring Andamanerne i Den bengalske Bugt).

I sin nuværende inkarnation er dette et projekt fra Lyndon LaRouche og Japan. Det vil forbinde Indien med Sydøstasien og Kina; det vil revolutionere disse farvande; Lyndon LaRouche har sagt, at det vil blive en af de største revolutioner i moderne historie.

Den 31. maj sagde den kinesiske premierminister Li Keqiang til asiatiske redaktører, at

”Hvis Kina og Indien arbejder sammen og smeder synenergi, vil det kaste nytte af sig ikke alene for det kinesiske og indiske folk, men også til Asien og videre endnu.”

Med henvisning til Indiens nylige annoncering af en aftale om en handelskorridor med Iran og Afghanistan, via Irans Chabaharhavn, sagde Li, at Kina ”hilser den velkommen”.

Indien og Kina samarbejder for første gang omkring Tibet, hvor Kina tidligere har været særligt ømfindtlige mht. Indien i betragtning af Dalai Lamas tilstedeværelse i Indien, samt det derværende betragtelige, tibetanske samfund.

Ligeledes den 31. maj talte den forhenværende kinesiske ambassadør til Rusland, Li Fenglin, ved en todages konference i Moskva om de kinesisk-russiske relationer. Han sagde her, at den bilaterale relation stod på sit højeste i 400 år, men at Kina ønsker, at Rusland skal have større tiltro til den.

”Det er min fornemmelse, at Putin og Xi har en begrebsmæssig forståelse af, hvordan vi bør samarbejde, men at der er forståelsesproblemer på mellemlederniveau”,

sagde ambassadør Li, der talte perfekt og idiomatisk russisk.

”Det gør ingen ting, at vi har forskellige fremgangsmåder. Det er helt normalt for sådanne store og forskellige lande at have forskellige fremgangsmåder. Det væsentlige er, at disse ikke fører til modsigelser.”

Alt dette minder os om, hvorfor (den amerikanske) LaRouchePAC-leder Kesha Rogers fra Houston, Texas, så viseligt valgte afdøde tysk-amerikanske rumpionér, Krafft Ehricke, som den personlighed, der skulle være omdrejningspunkt for hendes kamp for at genoplive USA’s rumprogram. 

Krafft Ehrickes fremgangsmåde er, i lighed med Lyndon LaRouches, ikke den mindste smule ’praktisk’ (dvs. begrænset af, hvad der ’tilsyneladende’ kun er muligt), men alligevel viser sig at være ekstremt virksom, som det er blevet demonstreret, så det er hævet over enhver tvivl. Krafft Ehricke var en af de ledere inden for udforskning af rummet, som også tidligere Konstantin Tsiolkovskij og Hermann Oberth var det, hvis mod og intellekt bragte mennesket til nye verdener, som endda overgik det, som Christoffer Columbus gjorde. 

Krafft Ehricke var en forsker; men hans forskning udgør ægte videnskab, og ikke den afskyelige, matematiske erstatning for videnskab, der i dag undervises på vore skoler, og som repræsenteres af Obamas degenererede forsvarsminister, Ashton Carter. Ashton Carters falske version af videnskab gav os F-35-flyet, til sandsynligvis $200 mio. dollar stykket, og som ikke virker, og aldrig kommer til at virke.

Krafft Ehricke forudså derimod, blandt mange andre dristige, videnskabelige præstationer, med præcision Apollo 13-missionen i 1970 i en artikel, skrevet i 1948. Typisk for ham stod der i hans artikel fra 1948, at han havde skrevet den i 2400 med et tilbageblik over de seneste 350 år, til den første, bemandede Marsmission i 2050, med navnet ”Ekspedition Ares”. Terence Norton, lederen af denne mission, havde været nødsaget til at svare på den indvending, at de i 2050 til rådighed stående teknologiers begrænsninger – her hovedsageligt det forhold, at der kun var kemisk propulsion til rådighed for rumrejser – forøgede sandsynligheden af en ”afvigelse fra den normale plan”, og hermed også missionens fiasko, og endda missionsmandskabets død. Hvad var så hans svar? Var det at annullere missionen? I sin rapport til ”Rumfartsstyrelsen” skrev han:

”Når man betragter problemet fra et hvilket som helst standpunkt, rejser spørgsmålet sig: På hvilken måde kunne man imødegå udfordringen med afvigelse fra den normale plan, ved hjælp af de til rådighed stående ressourcer? Tilbyder en sådan ikke særlig sandsynlig situation ikke chancer for at vinde for sig, de storslåede resultater af menneskelig dristighed; eller, betyder en manglende evne til at kunne overkomme denne situation den visse død, et sted ude i rummet, for alle ombordværende?”

”En undersøgelse af de følgende sider vil vise, at den tekniske gruppe har øget sikkerhedsfaktoren til et tal, der er langt større end det tal, der ansås for at være maksimum, da projektet blev startet op. Resten kan overlades til gruppens karakter og åndrighed. Det må åbenhjertigt indrømmes, at mulige farer, som ikke kan forudses, findes, men gruppen er fast overbevist om, at mod, ressourcefuldhed og opnåede præstationer hos de mennesker, der er blevet udvalgt til at foretage rejsen, med succes vil imødegå rumrejsens udfordringer.”

En anden faktor var virkelighedstro, grundig og omfattende træning, træning og atter træning – meget af den i selve rummet. Bemærk, at meget af den tekniske gentagelse, der var indbygget i ”Ekspedition Ares”, var identisk med den, der var at finde i Apollomissionerne: nemlig, en ophobning af forskellige moduler, der kunne overleve uafhængigt af hinanden, hvor hver af dem var skræddersyet til et specifikt formål, men samtidig til generelle formål.

Og, ligesom med Apollo 13, forekom der et uheld med ”Ekspedition Ares” og en ”afvigelse fra den normale plan”. Ligesom Apollo 13 måtte missionen opgives, men ligesom med Apollo 13 blev hele besætningen reddet og kom tilbage til Jorden.

Kesha Rogers ved sandelig, hvad hun taler om.

Onsdag, 1. juni 2016 – Schiller Instituttets grundlægger Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der i Kina har fået tilnavnet ”Silkevejsladyen”, og som, sammen med Lyndon LaRouche, er den fremmeste promoter af denne politik i Europa, blev interviewet af TASS den 31. maj 2016 om at træffe valget mellem enten en ny, global krig, eller økonomisk udvikling og samarbejde.

TASS: Hvordan vurderer De det aktuelle, internationale samarbejde?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Der er to radikalt modsatrettede bevægelser på planeten netop nu. På den ene side mødes kombinationen af præsident Putins meget succesrige militære flanker, såsom hans intervention i Syrien, der skabte potentialet for fred, og så hans forskellige diplomatiske interventioner i Asien, parallelt med Kinas initiativer for Den Nye Silkevej.

Disse indsatser repræsenterer allerede et win-win-perspektiv for flere end 70 lande.

På den anden side finder der en ekstremt farlig konfrontation sted fra USA’s, Storbritanniens, EU’s og NATO’s side imod Rusland og Kina, der har bragt verden ind i multiple kriser, der er farligere end på højden af den Kolde Krig.

TASS: På hvilke områder er dette mere aktivt, og hvor er det ikke?

Zepp-LaRouche: Med hensyn til Syrien, så er samarbejdet mellem [den russiske] udenrigsminister Lavrov og [den amerikanske] udenrigsminister Kerry, såvel som også Genève-samarbejdet mellem Rusland og USA, meget positivt. Men så længe USA imidlertid ikke opgiver sin politik for ’regimeskift’, er situationen fortsat farlig. Præsident Putin har vist sig at være en fremragende strateg.

Dette giver tiltro til, at det ikke vil lykkes krigshøgene i NATO at lokke Rusland ind i en fælde og give NATO et påskud til et lancere et førsteangreb.

TASS: Omkring hvilke spørgsmål må vi optrappe samarbejdet mellem Vesten og Rusland, og hvorfor?

Zepp-LaRouche: Kendsgerningen er den, at hele den transatlantiske sektor er bankerot og tæt på at eksplodere på en større måde end i 2008. Den japanske premierminister Abe understregede, efter et meget vigtigt besøg i Rusland, klart dette ved det nyligt afsluttede G7-møde, men blev afvist af præsident Obama, der hævdede, at ”den økonomiske genrejsning går fremad”, hvilket er absurd i lyset af centralbankernes negative rentesatser og debatten omkring ”helikopter-penge” (ubegrænset pengetrykning, -red.).

Vesten har derfor mere end Asien brug for den form for økonomisk samarbejde, som samarbejdet om Ét bælte, én vej/den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union byder på, og som integrerer Eurasien fra Vladivostok til Lissabon, men som også inviterer USA til at deltage i dette perspektiv. Vi kan kun undgå en katastrofe, hvis det lykkes os at overvinde geopolitik og nå frem til et nyt paradigme, baseret på et partnerskab for global udvikling og menneskehedens fælles mål.

TASS: Hvorfor forhindrer Vesten i den grad samarbejde med Rusland, på trods af den åbenlyse terrortrussel, cyberkriminalitet og andre internationale udfordringer?

Zepp-LaRouche: Næsten alle betydningsfulde konflikter stammer fra det anglo-amerikanske imperiums indsats for at bevare en unipolær verden, på et tidspunkt, hvor denne verden de facto allerede er ophørt med at eksistere. Flere og flere kræfter i verden indser, at de må træffe eksistentielle beslutninger, og at deres nationers interesser er meget bedre tjent med at standse sanktionerne og konfrontationen imod Rusland og Kina.

Den kendsgerning, at Rusland og Kina har skabt et meget stærkt, strategisk partnerskab, med Indien som en tredje partner, har flyttet den strategiske balance i verden. Flere og flere lande ser det som langt mere gavnligt at samarbejde om fælles udvikling end at befinde sig under åget af en militær konfrontation. Vi befinder os på et punkt i historien, hvor der må vælges, og det, der tæller, er lederskab af den art, som vi har set komme fra præsident Putin.

Det forestående NATO-topmøde i Warszawa den 8. – 9. juli forventes at blive endnu en provokation mod Rusland. Ved at underskrive denne appel siger vi ”stop” denne optrapning mod atomkrig, før det, der er uigenkaldeligt, indtræffer!

Download (PDF, Unknown)

30. maj 2016: Følgende appel cirkuleres internationalt, inklusive på den internationale LaRouche-bevægelses websider:

Det forestående NATO-topmøde i Warszawa den 8. – 9. juli forventes at blive endnu en provokation mod Rusland. Ved at underskrive denne appel siger vi ”stop” denne optrapning mod atomkrig, før det, der er uigenkaldeligt, indtræffer!

Dette er en alvorstung time. En ny missilkrise er under opbygning, som et spejlbillede af den, der i 1962 førte til, at Sovjetunionen deployerede atomsprænghoveder på Cuba, på USA’s dørtærskel. I dag er situationen omvendt. Dengang bekæmpede NATO Warszawa-pagten; i dag organiserer NATO et topmøde i Warszawa!

Vi, der underskriver dette, observerer, at NATO gennemfører en provokerende ”inddæmningspolitik”, som følger: (se pdf)

Dette er et øjeblik, i hvilket vi absolut må mobilisere, for verden … har nået til et beslutningens øjeblik … der vil afgøre menneskehedens retning for de næste 50, 100 eller flere år. Det er nu, vi må beslutte, hvorvidt vi aktuelt befinder os i en nedtælling til Tredje Verdenskrig mellem atommagter, som det ønskes af Obama og hans britiske ‘controllers’; eller, om denne periode er begyndelsen til et absolut nyt, globalt system, baseret på et fuldstændig nyt princip, hvis standard er gensidigt samarbejde og gensidig gavn, til menneskehedens fremme som helhed. 

Engelsk udskrift.  

The United States Must Join China to find its Destiny on the Far Side of the Moon.

Webcast, May 27, 2016:

        MEGAN BEETS:  Good evening.  This is Friday, May 27, 2016.
And I'd like to welcome all of you to our regular Friday evening
broadcast here at LaRouche PAC.  My name is Megan Beets; and I'm
joined in the studio today by Ben Deniston and by Lyndon
LaRouche.  We're joined via video by three members of the
LaRouche PAC Policy Committee:  Michael Steger in San Francisco,
California; Kesha Rogers in Houston, Texas; and Diane Sare,
currently in New Jersey, but joining us from our Manhattan
Project.
        This weekend in the United States is Memorial Day weekend;
which is a holiday which was created after the Civil War to honor
the sacrifice of our fallen soldiers, including those soldiers
who fought in World War II and gave their lives to the defeat of
fascism in the 20th Century.  This is a moment in which we
absolutely mobilize, because the world sits now, and has reached
a point of decision — a {punctum saliens} which will determine
the direction of humanity for the next 50, 100, or more years.
It's now that we must decide whether we are currently going to be
in a countdown to World War III between thermonuclear powers, as
is the want of Obama and his British controllers; or whether this
period is the beginning of an absolutely new global system, based
upon a completely new principle.  The standard of which is mutual
cooperation, mutual benefit for the advancement of mankind as a
whole.
        If you take a step back, and you look at the world as a
whole — which can sometimes be difficult for Americans, in
particular, to do — if you look at the global situation as one,
the tensions between these two potential futures couldn't be more
clear.  For example, on the one hand, you had an incredible
development this week in Iran; on Monday, May 23, President
Rouhani of Iran declared May 23 to be Chabahar Day.  This
declaration was made to mark and to celebrate an historic
agreement which was signed in Iran between the President of Iran,
Prime Minister Modi of India, and the President of Afghanistan;
who had gathered to sign agreements toward joint cooperation and
collaboration, a $20 billion investment to build up the port of
Chabahar in southeast Iran, which opens up to the Arabian Sea.
        This project is a great victory for the cause of the World
Land-Bridge, which Lyn, you and your wife Helga have organized
for, for quite some time.  And this crucial project will
integrate India, Afghanistan, and Iran, and potential future
partners like Pakistan and China; and it opens up new shipping
routes, new trade routes, and new potentialities for the
development of potentially the entire south Eurasian region, to
integrate it up into Europe.  Just to add one more detail, very
importantly, this gives landlocked Afghanistan, which as we know
has been decimated by the policies of the Bush and Obama
administrations, access to the Arabian Sea.
        Aside from the details, more importantly, is this spirit of
cooperation which was expressed by President Rouhani at the
signing celebration; where he said, about the Day of Chabahar,
"This is a very important day for Iranians.  And from now on, it
is going to be even more important; because today is going to
mark the day of cooperation among the three of us — Iran, India,
and Afghanistan."  He said, "Today's document is not just an
economic document.  It is actually a political and a regional
one, and its message is that countries need to utilize the
opportunities provided by the region in order to develop, and
also expand cooperation."  And then, at the same ceremony,
President Modi noted the long unified history of India and Iran.
        At virtually the same time that Modi was in Iran, the
President of India was in China on a four-day visit, where he
spoke at Beijing University on the topic of "India-China
Relations; 8 Steps to a People-Centric Partnership".  He said,
"India and China are poised to play a significant and
constructive role in the 21st Century.  When Indians and Chinese
come together to address global challenges and build on their
shared interests, there will be no limits to what our two peoples
can jointly achieve."  He also noted particularly that China and
India are young countries, full of young people.  And he said
that "Both sides should work with the aim of insuring that we do
not burden our coming generations by leaving unresolved problems
to them.  Both India and China are young societies, and our youth
share common aspirations and perceptions."
        Just to quickly add another part of the picture, are the
interesting and potentially very important actions of President
Abe of Japan; who in the recent period, has begun to move towards
agreements for cooperation both with President Putin in Russia,
and also with China, against the explicit orders of Obama and the
British, who demand that Japan maintain the historic geopolitical
conflict and enmity with both of those nations.  So, this is a
new world which is developing; but on the other hand, Obama is
still in office in the United States, because the American people
and the Congress have refused to throw him out.  And Obama today
is visiting Hiroshima; the first US President to make that visit
since the completely unnecessary bombing of that city over 70
years ago.  Leading into this visit, Obama not only refused to
apologize for that bombing that killed over 100,000 people; but
he also defended the actions of Harry Truman, saying that
sometimes Presidents in warfare have to make tough decisions.
        That characterizes exactly why [Obama’s] in Asia; to attempt
to drum up among the Asian nations against China.  Now, this
won't work, but it only fans the flames of any potential war and
confrontation.

        BENJAMIN DENISTON:  Lyn, I don't know if you have any direct
thoughts on that, but I think the immediate counterpoint to that,
as you're saying, under Obama, is this build-up to the war danger
as the direct threat.  I think what we're seeing with these
developments in central Asia, these agreements, is just another
step in this new strategic bloc centered around really Russia's
and China's leadership.  As we were discussing earlier today,
completely in tandem with that, is the escalation of the threat
of war; Obama being kind of the face of it.  But really coming
from the British as an attempt to break down this threat to their
empire, centered around Russia and China.  It's notable just to
emphasize, we're going, in July is going to be this next NATO
summit; where they're going to try and solidify the establishment
of putting four new battalions, of about 1000 troops each, up in
Eastern Europe right on the border of Russia.  It's been noted
that this is potentially the largest forward basing of a military
presence on Russia's borders since when?  Since the Nazis in
World War II.  So, you have this explicit clear escalation; and
that's coming up in July.  That's the intention for this.  And
that's in the context of the entire NATO policy perpetually to
move closer and closer to Russia's borders; a policy that we, the
United States, promised we wouldn't do.  We made that promise to
Russia as the Soviet Union began to collapse; and we've
completely reneged on that, and pushed it further and further and
further.  And now this is really coming to a breaking point; and
Lyn, your wife Helga, from her reading from Europe, she's been
saying that she thinks there is a real growing recognition.
We've been saying it; we know it's happening.  You've been
sounding the alarm on this; but she thought it was interesting
that even conservative elements in Germany for example —
elements that might not usually be so vocal on this — are coming
out and warning that we're on the path to war under this current
policy.  Particularly, an article in {Die Welt} recently, which
is generally one of the major conservative papers in Germany; so
you wouldn't expect this concern over this war drive.  But her
assessment was that that being raised now was reflecting a kind
of breaking open of recognition and potential freak-out around
the fact that this thing is heading towards a real potential
conflict; and this is not something you walk away from.  You're
talking about thermonuclear war; you're not talking about any
kind of conflict mankind's ever had before.

        LYNDON LAROUCHE:  Well, the crucial issue here is not detail
as such; the crucial thing is what creates a higher standard of
performance of the human individual in society.  Now, that thing
is not treated seriously in any ordinary sense; they don't
recognize it.  They don't recognize the need to change the
productivity of the per capita personality of society; that is
not recognized.  What is recognized is, how cheap is the labor;
and no matter how poor the quality of performance of the labor,
how cheap is the labor.  We see this in the United States as a
trend; a backward trend.  We see it very clearly; the United
States is degenerated.  It was degenerated; it was done under the
influence of the British.  You had people like the Bushes and
Obama; these people are a destructive force.  Their very
existence destroys the productive capabilities of the human
population.  So therefore, you have to get rid of these guys and
replace them with people who are competent; which has not been
done.  So what you see, the degeneration of the quality of labor
inside the United States is typical of this kind of phenomena.
So, this is something which is more British than it is American.
But it's been stuck in the United States.  And therefore, all
these ideas that you can measure things simply is wrong; it
doesn't work that way.  Mankind creates by mankind itself creates
a capability of creation; and that's what's important.
        Now then, you have to support that which you have
discovered; that's what the problem is.  And the usual procedure
and interpretation is worthless and actually destructive.

        DENISTON:  You look at what gets presented as ostensible
value in economics discussion today, it's ridiculous.  Economic
value is a product of the human mind; resources are creations of
mankind that create wealth, that create value.  It's not going
out finding resources or exploiting labor forces, getting the
cheapest labor; that's not the substance of what enables — in my
mind, the core issue is what is the science of mankind's relation
to the universe.  It's kind of a general way to put it; and I
think that maybe passes over a lot of people's heads.  But you're
looking at how is it that mankind exists in the universe?
Mankind doesn't exist in a fixed way, mankind can intervene to
change that relationship.  If we're not looking at that, then
we're not talking about mankind.

        LAROUCHE:  Well, mankind has to be changed; that's a
necessary factor.  And mankind is changed how?  By being exposed
to responsibility for doing things which were not able to be done
by human beings at an earlier stage.  And therefore, the question
is the improvement of the quality of the personal individual in
society is the crucial element.  You find you have the people
working for Wall Street; they're worthless.

        DENISTON:  That's a nice way to put it.

        LAROUCHE:  They are actually worthless people.  And most of
society in the United States today is full of worthless people;
because they have been degenerated below the level of what
humanity was capable of doing earlier.  Now they go back to a
lower level; you see the high death rates among employed people
during the recent course of time.  Therefore, the process of the
government has become a force of destruction of the human
individual.  That's why the problem becomes apparent; because you
recognize, "Wait a minute! You're saying that my existence is
inferior?"  "Yes."  Why is that the case? Because society wants a
lower standard of productivity; things like the space program are
gone.  The removal of the space program from the achievement of
the original space program, which was done in Germany and in the
United States —

        DENISTON:  Krafft Ehricke and all his allies, yeah.

        LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  This thing is what was being crushed.  So
therefore, the human mind was being crushed; but the lesson is
that what were the technologies that we were introducing for
practice were technologies which inherently had a higher value of
productivity than anything else.  And that's what's overlooked.
        The idea of cheap labor; cheap labor is a disease.  What you
need is a higher standard of achievement of the human mind;
leading to a higher standard of development of the human mind.
That's what's important; that's the crucial issue.

        BEETS:  I think when we start to think about where in the US
do you have a population that could be moved to restore the
demand for such a human standard, you've put the emphasis on
Manhattan.  And I was wondering if Diane wanted to say a few
things; because we have a conference coming up there this weekend
that both you and Helga will be participating in.

        LAROUCHE:  All you have to do to destroy the human power of
creativity is to take California, southern California, the
universities and several institutions in California, and go from
what had been the case, to what was the case.  And when you had a
certain sexual maniac who took over southern California, you
understand exactly what the problem is.

        DENISTON:  A pretty pathetic movie star; a Nazi, a Hitler
admirer at that.  Schwarzenegger, yeah.  I mean, you talk about
degeneration; you raised California.  To me, the emblematic
family is the Brown family.  You look at Jerry Brown, you look at
Pat Brown, his father, Edmund Pat Brown; he was one of the last
echoes, reverberations of the Franklin Roosevelt orientation.  He
built up the state — the water projects, the educational system,
the schools.  When I started going to school, you could go to a
decent junior college for tens of dollars for a class.  It was
affordable; people could afford education.  And it's just been
completely destroyed.  It was all built up under this
Roosevelt-style administration of Pat Brown; then you look at
Jerry Brown — "Governor Moon Beam" as he was called in his first
term — a total degenerate.  Now they're talking about — Michael
Steger might have more to say on this — now they're talking
about permanently shutting down large sections of the
agricultural region in California because they're running out of
water.  The idiocy is astounding.  They're sitting there, a huge
coastline on the biggest ocean on the entire planet; and they're
saying, "We can't find any water; we don't have any water.  We
have to just shut things down."  And the fact that people go
along with that, is just insane.
        You talk about degeneration; look at what we used to have
under the leadership of Pat Brown.  We had some things in
between; we had this disgusting figure Schwarzenegger, who was a
total British agent himself.  And then this Jerry Brown thing is
just emblematic of the degeneration and the Green policy
takeover; what's happened to the population in the United States.

        LAROUCHE:  The lesson is, that there's a principle of
organization of productivity in terms of the human individual;
and that's what you have to focus on.  That factor.  Without that
factor, you have no progress.  As a matter of fact, mankind
ceases to be mankind; mankind is reduced to something which is a
pseudo mankind formula, but it's not actual.  It's something
which is mechanical; it's something which is simply constructed.
But the creative power of the individual, the creative power
which is acquired by the individual in society, is the thing
which makes it work.  It's not just, "This will make it work.
This will make it better."  No.  Mankind has to produce within
the ranks of mankind itself, the ability to achieve degrees of
productivity beyond anything beforehand; that has always been the
policy.  Since the beginning, shall we say so to speak; and it
was always like that.  When you lose that, then you lose your
very characteristic of the human species.

        DENISTON:  Be fruitful and multiply.

        LAROUCHE:  Multiply, I don't know; they're kind of lazy
these days.

        DIANE SARE:  I had one very specific comment on this,
actually, which is very interesting, from our earlier discussion;
and then when I heard what President Obama had to say in his
speech in Hiroshima.  Where he says, he talks about supposedly
the development of mankind; and this is Obama's take on man.
"Artifacts tell us that violent conflict appeared with the very
first man.  Our early ancestors, having learned to make blades
from flint and spears from wood, used these tools not just for
hunting, but against their own kind.  On every continent, the
history of civilization is filled with war, whether driven by
scarcity of grain or hunger for gold; compelled by nationalist
fervor or religious zeal."  Do you hear his stepfather and what
happened in Indonesia in that?
        And I was very struck, because if you take two other great
American leaders, who also gave us their take on the arc of
history, one is Martin Luther King, who people may remember in
his Mountaintop speech, he has the polemic, "If I could travel
with God to any other time in history, when would I want to be
alive?"  So, he talks about the Parthenon; he talks about seeing
Socrates, and Aristotle and Mount Olympus; he talks about the
emperors of the Roman Empire.  He says, "I would come up to the
day of the Renaissance and get a quick picture of all that the
Renaissance did for the cultural and aesthetic life of man; but I
wouldn't stop there."  And then he talks about Abraham Lincoln
and the Emancipation Proclamation; he says, "I wouldn't stop
there.  I would even come up to the early '30s and see a man
grappling with the problems of the bankruptcy of his nation, and
come up with an eloquent cry that 'We have nothing to fear, but
fear itself.'|"  And he says, "Strangely enough, I would turn to
the Almighty and say, 'If you allow me to live just a few years
in the second half of the 20th Century, I will be happy.'|"
        So, that was Martin Luther King; and then the other which
Kesha will be very familiar with, is the speech that President
Kennedy gave at Rice University, where he announces that we're
going to land on the Moon.  And he says, "No man can fully grasp
how far and how fast we have come.  But condense, if you will,
the 50,000 years of man's recorded history in the time span of
but a half century.  Stated in these terms, we know very little
about the first 40 years, except at the end of them, advanced man
had learned how to use the skins of animals to cover them.  Then
about ten years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his
caves to construct other kinds of shelter.  Only five years ago,
man learned how to write and use a cart with wheels.
Christianity began only two years ago.  The printing press came
this year; then, less than two months ago, during this whole
fifty-year span of history, the steam engine provided a new
source of power."  He talks about electric lights —
        In other words, what's the view of Kennedy; what's the view
of Martin Luther King of the development of man?  And then you
take the view of President Obama, which is exactly what you have
expressed here, Lyn, in terms of the total degradation and a
Satanic, destructive outlook.

        LAROUCHE:  I agree, it's real degeneration; definitely
DE-generation.

        KESHA ROGERS:  Yeah, and I think it's important to note,
one; why we are gathered here today in the context in which we're
gathered.  As we've been expressing, what is the intention to
create a future state of society where a new species and a new
understanding of what mankind should represent comes into play?
The United States right now has to understand that we have a
unique opportunity to join with the nations of Eurasia — with
China, Russia.  Of the developments which Megan was laying out
earlier, that organize a new direction of a New Paradigm and
progress for mankind; which you have really stated can be brought
into cohesion with a new development of the United States.  This
is why you've put a focus on particularly Manhattan, which was
the center point of the Alexander Hamilton foundation of the
United States; and Texas and California are joining in that
effort.
        I think that people really have to get an understanding that
the United States can and must play a crucial role in preventing
what we were discussing earlier as the sabotage of the
orientation that is being put forth by leading nations coming
together and saying that there is a unique quality to mankind
which has to be preserved.  Which is the creative nature of human
beings; and this is what Diane was just expressing.  This has
been amongst leading figures of our nation, from George
Washington, Hamilton, to Lincoln and others, John F Kennedy, have
expressed this quite profoundly.  I think if we look at the fact
that two days on the 25th of May, was the 55th anniversary of
Kennedy's speech to the Joint Session of Congress; and in that
speech, he called for the very task of doing something that at
that point had never been done before.  Creating something
completely new, which was to land a man on the Moon and return
him safely to Earth.  He says, as he's calling for the US to take
that leading role in the space achievement, which he said, "in
many ways, may hold a key to our future on Earth."  That is still
what we face today.
        The new developments being proposed by China on the far side
of the Moon, are going to hold the key not just for China doing
something different for their nation; but for the future of
mankind on Earth.  Because what Kennedy had proposed, has been
hijacked by the likes of the British Empire and those who wanted
to stifle human progress in any way that they could.  So, I think
if we look at the direction the world is going in right now,
there is no reason for people to feel like they have to
capitulate to the stupidity that they're being bombarded with in
Presidential elections, in the media lies that are being told.
        The real issue right now is, what are we actually going to
create as a new direction for mankind?  And what Putin and China
and other nations in that direction are doing is crucial.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  I just would make the point from
California.  It's clear, Lyn, what you've been describing.  Once
you adopt a cheap labor policy, which was explicitly adopted in
California as probably the leading example; you then have no
reason to educate and provoke a higher sense of identity within
your population.  You lose a sense of that mission, and then you
become a slave to the practical, to the mundane, to the
day-to-day survival tactics; and you a kind of destruction of the
culture and life of the nation over these 50 years.  But what
makes it most clear is what you see in the current insanity of
the Presidential election; there's not a focus around this
particular issue, which is Hamilton.  It is what Hamilton drove
to shape the Constitution and the economic policies of the
country; and it is very much what was the spark of consolidating
the organization, and our intervention.  Specifically, around the
Manhattan Project and Hamilton's economic policies; and this
orientation.  Because there is no clear voice coming out of the
trans-Atlantic, except that perspective and that direction for
development.  We see it in Putin; we see it in China.  That
becomes the basis of civilization; that become the basis on which
the trans-Atlantic can turn back to this Hamilton tradition,
which is really the greatest expression of the trans-Atlantic and
economic development up until the modern period.  So really
becomes the fight defining the political fight in the United
States to reject Obama; because there is a loss of standard in
the American people.  There is a loss of victory, of triumph, in
the minds and the culture of the American population today.
They're accepting their own form of slavery.  And that really
becomes the challenge.

        SARE:  I can report from Manhattan that one of the flanks on
this situation — and I think given that it is Memorial Day —
all Americans should resolve ourselves, as Abraham Lincoln said
in his speech at Gettysburg, that "those who have died" like the
people who died on 9/11, as well as of course the people who
voluntarily enlisted and fought in the wars; World War II in
particular, "have not died in vain."  To that end, one; I would
just like to say for viewers of this website, tomorrow at
12:30pm, we will be live streaming a Memorial Day event from
Manhattan.  Which will begin with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and then
at 3pm, with Lyn yourself, Mr. LaRouche in a dialogue with the
citizens of Manhattan, to get another inflection point after the
Schiller Institute on April 7th.  It's clear that that was viewed
with some hope by international audiences; that there could be
signs of intelligent life in the United States, as it was viewed
with terror by people on behalf of the British Empire like the
Saudis.  It was not too long after that, that "60 Minutes" aired
the special on the 28 pages; on the role of the Saudis in
perpetrating the murder of 3000 Americans on September 11th, and
the role of the FBI in covering it up.  I would say that
particularly in Manhattan — although it is the case in other
parts of the country — but particularly in Manhattan, people are
not prepared now to put the genie back in the bottle.  They want
the truth; they would like the United States to be restored to
its Constitutional role as Alexander Hamilton intended, and not
as a cat's paw for the British Empire.  The Saudis, I think, are
aware of this; so I think people should also know that the Saudi
lobbyists are on a full-front, heavily funded deployment into
Washington DC to try and clean up their image with glossy
pamphlets and PR firms that are getting paid $200,000 a month, to
try and promote themselves as the most wonderful allies of the
United States in the war on terror and the leaders in the fight
against terrorism.  This is simply not going to fly.  As much
corruption as there is in Washington DC, it's a little much to
have people parading around as the purveyors of justice when they
publicly beheaded 47 people to usher in the New Year.
        So, I think we're coming to a point where it's clear the
United States is going to take a decision; and I find what Megan
referenced at the beginning — the shift that perhaps is
occurring in Japan at this moment — is also a potential shift in
the United States at this time.

        DENISTON:  In that context, I really think the 9/11 issue is
critical; and Obama's role in the whole thing.  As we've been
saying, people have to get their heads out of the gutter on this
election stuff; people view these elections like a sporting game
or something.  Root for their team versus another team.  We've
got an issue immediately before us of this guy Obama is a killer;
he has to be pulled out of office.  We cannot tolerate him
running the country.  And just typical of that is his commitment
to completely cover up the heinous murder of Americans on
American soil in our history; just cover that up.  No justice;
nothing.

        LAROUCHE:  That was Obama; that's Obama's operation.  And
Obama's sitting there still; being an abomination.

        DENISTON:  That's his number one career asset, is being an
abomination.

        LAROUCHE:  That's exactly it; and the point is that if
people don't recognize that, they're going to find themselves in
an Obamanation situation.

        ROGERS:  Last night on the discussion with the activists,
you were speaking about the space program, and you said that the
space program goes to the right of the human individual and it's
essential for human existence.  I think that's what we're dealing
with right now; the human individual under Obama, has been denied
rights, and particularly the rights to life.  Because you have a
murderous policy, and if you take what has been put forth under
the war drive, closer and closer to thermonuclear war, the policy
coming from Obama around the healthcare; just to name a few.
When you talk about what are the rights of the human individual,
that is being denied; and that is what people should be actually
fighting for.  The understanding has to become, how do you
actually know and understand those rights as a human being?  What
powers do human beings possess that go beyond just the
simplistics of life that people try to hold on to and depend on,
which gets to a higher state of existence?  Which is really
missing from the discussion of most of the ordinary discussion of
society today.

        LAROUCHE:  Well, the development of the science of human
discovery, which was presented by a great individual who was
originally German; and then became domesticated, shall we say, in
terms of the United States.  And he became the secret agent, so
to speak, for the progress of the human species throughout the
planet.  And that case, that example, is extremely important;
because what's important is not what mankind does, or what the
individual does physically.  That's not really that important.
What's important is the ability to create a discovery of a
principle of productivity which is far advanced beyond what
mankind has experienced so far; that's the point.  And that is
where the United States has lost most of its achievement; and
that's what has to be corrected.

        DENISTON:  And space forces that issue today.

        LAROUCHE:  Yeah; because without that, you cannot accomplish
what is required by mankind.

        BEETS:  Lyn, that's one of the most beautiful things about
the relationship of mankind as a unique species to the Universe
itself.  We're not the same as the Creator, obviously, but we
resonate with that principle of Creation; and our own development
is guided by the principles of organization of the Universe.  We
{have} to go into space in order to advance; and our progress in
space is going to contribute to the further development of that
Universe, and the further perfection and improvement of that
Universe.

        LAROUCHE: You've got the history of discovery of the space
program; which was developed by Germans, working from the western
part of Germany and moving closer to the United States itself.
And they themselves created and generated a view of mankind which
provides us with an insight into the actual, efficient practice
of what mankind can do in terms of the stars.

        DENISTON:  And they were doing much of this before they were
even allowed to pursue it.  They were looking for support; they
were looking for people, even before World War I you had these
early visionaries.  And then up before World War II, they were
already thinking all these things; and they were trying to find
sane governments that would actually support this endeavor.

        LAROUCHE:  Like the Moon exploration, which was done
earlier.

        DENISTON:  All the way back to Jules Verne and some —

        LAROUCHE:  But Jules Verne was not a real good contribution
to anything.  But what was actually being done, by the space
program, by the people on the Moon project, that was really
working.  And that was what actually turned into a mechanism in
order to create an insight into mankind's potential beyond what
mankind had previously understood to be the kinds of things that
could be experimentally achieved.

        DENISTON:  Always for me, the first thing that comes out is,
all of sudden, you're talking about mankind; you're not talking
one nation or one culture or one people.  You're talking about
what is it about us as a unique species on this planet that we
can pursue these things.

        LAROUCHE:  The main thing is, what about the people from
Germany, originally from their Moon project in Germany, actually
created this whole system.  And that whole tendency depends upon
that; it depends upon that precedent.  German scientists who
actually came into the United States; developed a program; and
applied the program; which gave the United States today the
ability to do what it has not been doing recently so far.

        ROGERS:  Yeah, and they had a sense of creative imagination
which was different than what some people get inspired by the
space program.  A lot of people talk about the science fiction
Star Wars, all of this stuff, that really doesn't characterize
the true nature of mankind to bring these ideas into existence.
For instance, Krafft Ehricke, von Braun, all of these great
German scientists, they had such extraordinary imaginations; and
they put forth the programs that were necessary to expand
mankind's existence beyond Earth, beyond the Moon, and into the
outer reaches of the Solar System in a way that nobody else could
do, in a way that could be accomplished and become real.  Because
they understood that man had the power to bring this into
existence; it wasn't just some far out science fiction thing, but
this was the destiny of mankind.  To conquer the Solar System; to
reach mankind's extra-terrestrial imperative.  And it's
completely different than what people get inspire by today —
Hollywood movies and Star Wars, and all of this stuff that is not
real.

        STEGER:  Well, it's Bach; the real question is Bach.  Krafft
Ehricke, Werner von Braun, they set up Classical quartets in
these rural towns in Alabama where they were sent to do this
space research.  If you really think about what Bach propagated
as a quality of culture of the Universe itself; he took what
Kepler had initiated and continued it and maintained it so you
could get this level of scientific advancement.  It really is the
question of what drove Einstein.  What drove the questions of
what's governing the heavens?  Even going back to the ancient
world, this question of music and composition that Bach really
made clear, seems to have captured the imagination of man in a
way which makes space travel possible.

        LAROUCHE:  I think the key thing to look at is Krafft
Ehricke. Now, Krafft Ehricke became the maker of the whole space
program; he did it.  And the method he was using was to the same
effect; and therefore it was to the idea that there was some
process of the human mind, the creative powers of the human
individual mind.  This is what can be used, and must be used, as
the instrument for bringing the achievements which mankind will
find in due course.  And Krafft Ehricke is an illustration of
that point; if you look at the history of what he did, and then
you apply that to what has been going on still from Texas now.
The elements from there are still there.  But this was a
discovery which came from eastern Germany, which was carried
through the period of the war; which went into the southern parts
of the United States to build a program which was supported by
American officials and so forth.  And to presume Krafft Ehricke's
achievements; which were terminated because he had a very
complicated health problem, and he died under those conditions.
But the principle of the matter is still alive.  He had been dead
for some years, but the principle on which he was expressed and
which led and prompted other people who would listen to him; that
is still a principle which is important.
        So, it's not a practical principle; it's not something that
you can measure simply, as a yardstick or something of that
nature.  This was the achievement of a particular man, among
other men doing the same kind of work, which created the
possibility of mankind's systemic mastery of the Universe.

        DENISTON:  I think that's our reference point for today.
Anything less than that, and we're failing to achieve the
requirements for mankind.

        LAROUCHE:  Yeah, they're important.

        BEETS:  And I think that quality is what we have to
re-awaken within the United States; it's a specific reference
point from Germany, but in the United States.  And I think it's
important to recognize that you have all these beautiful
developments around the world, but unless we can shift the United
States, it doesn't matter.  We actually have to turn this and
re-awaken this true principle of the United States that you've
been expressing in order to make this shift to the New Paradigm.

        LAROUCHE:  And what you know, of course, from your own
experience, in terms of what we do with the Moon; the Moon
project, which is what our destiny is from the standpoint of
China right now.

        BEETS:  Yeah, if Americans realized that in two years, we
could join China on the far side of the Moon, I think they'd have
a far different outlook for the immediate future.

        LAROUCHE:  I think that's where we want to push people's
attention to that thing as a commitment.

        DENISTON:  Yes; always the unknown.

        LAROUCHE:  Unknown?  Who's unknown?

        BEETS:  Is there anything else from you three joining us by
video?

        SARE:  To tune in tomorrow at 12:30pm.  If you're in New
York, you should be there.

        BEETS:  Good.  Well, I think that will bring this discussion
to a close.  I think it's a very good point to end on; and as
Diane said, tune in tomorrow on this website at 12:30pm and then
again at 3pm for this event being broadcast from Manhattan.  So,
thank you all; thanks Lyn.  Thank you all for joining us; and
stay tuned.

Det var mindeplade, som de første astronauter bragte til månen for næsten 50 år siden: “Vi kommer med fred, for hele menneskeheden.” Ikke blot astronauterne, men hele den amerikanske nation og millioner af andre mennesker rundt om på jorden fik ændret deres tankegang om menneskehedens fremtid af disse rejser, som de foretog, tilrettelagde og bevidnede.
”For første gang besluttede mennesker sig bevidst for at lære at leve og agere i omgivelser, der er komplet anderledes end dem, fra hvilke vi har udviklet os,” som en astronaut sagde det.

Men næsten fra den ene dag til den anden trak de smukke skibe, der cirklede om månen, sig tilbage; fjernere rumrejser blev glemt. Landet kastede sig ud i krige – modelleret efter britiske og franske kolonikrige –, som er fortsat siden da, og som USA ultimativt har tabt. Under præsidenter G.W. Bush og Obama, har de spredt katastrofer af krig og terrorisme tværs over Mellemøsten, Nordafrika og Europa.

Skønt der blev udpeget ubemandede rummissioner for opdagelser og opdagelsesrejsende, var amerikanerne overbevist om at være ”praktiske” og at glemme at gennemleve opdagelser, som de ofte havde gjort før.

Andre nationer, Kina og Indien i særdeleshed, planlægger nu at tage de store opdagelsesskridt i rummet, planlægger Mars-missioner, programsætter de første landinger på den storslåede platform for opdagelser af galaksen – Månens bagside.

På samme tid har de asiatiske magter sammen med Rusland planlagt og påbegyndt udfordrende projekter for ny infrastruktur, store øst-vest og nord-syd eurasiske landbroer med højhastighedstog, nye byer, energi, selv magnettogsforbindelser.

Når de griber ind for at bringe krige til afslutning, så de kan påbegynde genopbygning og ny udvikling, så mener de det.

Præsident Obama, der prøver at sammenstykke militæralliancer, handelskrige, NATO-krigstrusler og konfrontationer for at stande de russiske og kinesiske ledere fra disse udviklinger – organiserer faktisk en ”liga af tabere.” Truslen om global krig fra hans forsøg på at intimidere Rusland og Kina er alvorlige; men han er en taber, der truer virkelige ledere som Putin og Xi.
Glem hvad der er “praktisk muligt”: Selv i bekæmpelse af terrorisme, er opdagelser hvad der behøves for at vinde sejre, opdagelser, som i at eksponere de saudisk/britiske hænder, der kontrollerede massemordene d. 11. september, og pludseligt dermed se kilden til de seneste 15 års katastrofale krige.

Så meget desto mere i at genoplive det storartede amerikanske rumprogram. I samarbejde med de nylige dynamiske rum-magter vil det blive en ny kilde til at leve gennem opdagelser – der faktisk er menneskelige, som nationen lærte det for 50 år siden.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video 2. del: (5 min.)

Lyd:

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Uddrag fra LaRouchePAC fredags-webcast, den 29 april 2016

Senator Bob Graham fortsætter med at være meget kontant i sine beskyldninger omkring hvem der er ansvarlig for at dække over, det som han før har kaldt det "aggressive bedrag" af det amerikanske folk omkring spørgsmålet om, hvad der virkelig skete den 11 september 2001. I dette interview opfordrede Senator Graham ikke kun til frigivelsen af de 28 sider. Han opfordrede også til frigivelse af de titusinder af andre dokumentsider, der er blevet tilbageholdt fra det amerikanske folk og Kongressens efterforskere, og kaldte for en genåbning af 9/11 undersøgelsen. I dette interview gjorde Senator Graham som han har gjort før, men på en meget kontant og meget ærlig måde. Han placerede ansvaret lige uden for døren af FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), som han beskyldte, i utvetydige vendinger, for at lyve til Kongressen og engagere sig i dette "aggressive bedrag" af det amerikanske folk.

Lad mig indledningsvis læse nogle uddrag fra Senator Graham's interview. Senator Graham sagde:
”Grunden til at de 28 sider er så vigtige, er at de var konklusionen på Kongressens undersøgelse af hvordan 11te september operationen var finansieret. Hvem betalte for det? Og mens jeg ikke kan diskutere detaljerne i dette kapitel, peger det kraftigt på Saudi-Arabien.

"Hvad vi officielt ved er, at der var agenter for den saudiske regering, som støttede mindst to af de flykaprere der endte med at bo i San Diego. De blev hjulpet med økonomisk støtte, med anonymitet, med et sted at bo, med flylektioner og med beskyttelse. I et tilfælde, i over et år.

FBI har udleveret 80.000 sider [ærligt talt blev de tvunget til at udlevere MO*] til en føderal domstol, gennem en Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) sag, der involverer en undersøgelse der fandt sted i Sarasota, Florida af forholdet mellem Mohammed Atta, lederen af de 19 flykaprere og to af hans håndlangere og en fremtrædende Saudisk familie, som havde boet i Sarasota i seks år. De tog afsted to uger før 9/11 under betingelser, som blev beskrevet som presserende for at vende tilbage til Saudi-Arabien, hvilket skaber den logiske slutning, at de blev varskoet og besluttede at de ville være bedre stillede andetsteds end i Sarasota, når 9/11 indtraf."

Intervieweren spurgte da Senator Graham følgende. Hun sagde, "Tror du, at de på hinanden følgende administrationer har beskyttet den saudiske kongefamilie imod amerikanske statsborgeres interesser?”

Senator Graham svarede, "Ja. Og jeg tror, det har været mere end en tilsløring. Jeg tror, det har været det, jeg kalder aggressivt bedrag. Der er tilfælde, hvor FBI offentligt har publiceret udsagn, som jeg ved fra personlig erfaring var usande. De erklærede at de i forbindelse med Sarasota sagen havde afsluttet undersøgelsen, og at undersøgelsen havde fastslået at der ikke var nogen forbindelse mellem flykaprerne og den fremtrædende Saudiske familie, og at de havde overleveret alle disse oplysninger til både Kongressens undersøgelse og 9/11 Citizens Commissions. Jeg ved det som en kendsgerning, at ingen af disse tre udsagn er sande."

Så sagde intervieweren til ham: "Lad mig få dette på det rette, Sir. Du påstår at FBI bevidst løj om dette spørgsmål, og at der har været en tilsløring.".

Senator Graham afbrød hende, og sagde: ".. det er mere end en tilsløring. FBI misinformerede om hvad der er i deres egne registreringer i forhold til situationen i Sarasota"

Han blev spurgt: "Hvad tror du der skal gøres?"

Senator Graham svarede:. "Jeg tror, vi er nødt til at have en generel genåbning af efterforskningen af 9/11. Både Kongressens og 9/11 Kommissionens undersøgelse foregik under stramme tidsrammer, hvilket udelukkede den fuldstændige undersøgelse, der nødvendigvis må gøres, når 9/11 sagen er genåbnet."

Hr. LaRouche sagde, efter at have lyttet til dette interview, at dette er meget klart og tydeligt. Dette kan der ikke gøres indsigelser imod. Alt, hvad senator Graham sagde, var helt rigtigt.

Han sagde: "Retfærdighed skal endelig ske fyldest overfor de amerikanske borgere. Det kan ikke længere udskydes. Ingen kan sige, "Lad os bare udsætte dette, lad os udsætte dette, lad os udsætte det endnu en uge. Det skal ske nu.” Den sande historie er blevet tilsløret alt for længe”, sagde Hr. LaRouche, og han fortsatte:" Sen. Grahams udsagn om dette er klare og tydelige. Hans identifikation af FBI's aggressive bedrag er lige i øjet, og kan ikke diskuteres. Husk, at FBI juridisk er underlagt justitsministeriet, som er medlem af den udøvende magt, hvilket placerer hele denne operation lige på Obamas dørtrin. Den udøvende magt kan ikke handle uden præsidentens direkte ordrer.

Ethvert forsøg på varigt at fortsætte som nu," sagde Hr. LaRouche, "er en krænkelse af de amerikanske borgeres forfatningsmæssige rettigheder, og det i interessen af det der beviseligt er en fjendtlig fremmed magt, helt op til det punkt af hvad man kan sige nærmer sig forræderi. Faren er 3. verdenskrig, hvilket ville betyde ødelæggelse af ikke kun USA, men hele verden. Der går ikke en dag uden at der forekommer en provokation, et eller andet sted i verden af Obama mod både Rusland og Kina, der hver vil kunne tænde lunten til 3. verdenskrig. Vi kan ikke vente, vi kan ikke udsætte det. Vi kan ikke sige, 'Åh, bare et par uger mere, blot et par måneder mere.' 3. verdenskrig er på vores dørtrin, og 3. verdenskrig ville betyde ødelæggelsen af menneskeheden.

"Våbenhvilen i Syrien nærmer sig opløsningspunktet. Saudi-Arabien og Tyrkiets rolle i dette er klar og udgør en meget indlysende pointe, at det strategiske momentum, der er nødvendigt gennem de-klassificeringen af de 28 sider, ville forhindre denne krig. Dette viser dig blot et eksempel – et meget umiddelbart eksempel – men det er blot ét eksempel på den strategiske nødvendighed af at frigive de 28 sider og blotlægge saudierne og deres partnere i det britiske monarki for hvad de er og hvad de gjorde i tilfældet med 9/11 forbrydelsen"

* MO: Modus Operandi – måde at agere på

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Et uddrag:
Ogden: I løbet af en tidligere diskussion med Lyndon LaRouche snakkede vi også om dagens institutionelle spørgsmål, som lyder: »Hr. LaRouche, vær venlig at fremlægge dine anbefalinger om, hvordan man opbygger de institutioner og strukturer, der skal til, for at gennemføre en global indsats mod terrorisme, i et samarbejde mellem USA, Kina, Rusland og Europa. Hvilken form for organisering og politik kan du anbefale, og hvilken rolle tror du FN kan spille i en sådan indsats?«

Steinberg: Efter vores diskussion med Hr. LaRouche og Fru Zepp-LaRouche, som fandt sted for nogle få timer siden, vil jeg svare, at det første der må gøres, er at fremlægge en præcis redegørelse for, hvor den globale terrorisme har sin oprindelse. Og det har den i London – Londonistan – og i lande, der i stigende grad er blevet simple håndlangere for det Britiske Imperium og dets politik. Saudi-Arabien er en sådan håndlanger. Det har landet været i hundrede af år. Men i særdeleshed siden al-Yamamah aftalen fra 1985 har der været en britisk-saudisk organisation, der har ophobet store pengesummer, øremærket til at understøtte terrororganisationer som al-Qaeda og aflæggeren ISIS. Prøv engang at se på Sydamerika og Mexico, ødelagt af narko-terrorisme, og bemærk så, hvordan London har været centrum for den internationale narkohandel og de terrororganisationer, der er sprunget frem deraf. Hvis man ikke starter med at sige sandheden omkring terrorismens natur, omkring dens oprindelsessted; hvis man ikke våger at angribe det britiske og det saudiske monarki, så kan der ikke opstå et solidt grundlag for den form for samarbejde, der er nødvendig.

Det er klart at de fire ledende nationer, USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien alle er konfronteret med denne Angelsaudiske terrortrussel. Og for så vidt som disse nationer ikke samarbejder omkring udformningen af en entydig handlingsplan, der involverer nedlæggelsen af de britiske oversøiske finanscentre, der stiller finanserne til rådighed for terrororganisationerne, er der intet grundlag for sejr. Hvis disse lande går sammen – for hvilke FN's sikkerhedsråd ville udgøre den perfekte platform – kan der føres en succesfuld krig mod den form for terrorisme, der udfolder sig globalt i dag. Og det er en afgørende del af den krig, der allerede er undervejs.

Og så er der selvfølgelig det mere langsigtede spørgsmål omkring, hvordan man skaber en tilstand hvor mennesker ikke har noget incitament til at gå med i den slags terrororganisationer. Det spørgsmål ligger implicit i Kinas politiske projekt kaldet »Ét bælte, én vej«: Udviklingen af Asien gennem denne »Win-Win«-politik. Visse desperate politiske ledere i Europa – sågar i Tyskland – lufter ideen om en »Marshallplan«, der skal genopbygge Syrien og Irak. Det vil give flygtningene en mission, så de vil tage tilbage og hjælpe med at opbygge deres lande med en masse opbakning udefra. Og det er en del af den slags passende og holdbare antiterrorstrategi, der skal til for at skabe en langtidsholdbar løsning. Allerede tilbage i 1970'erne fremlagde Lyndon LaRouche en plan for at skabe fred og udvikling i Mellemøsten. Udgangspunktet var at en økonomisk udvikling af regionen var den mest effektive antiterrorstrategi. Ligeledes sagde LaRouche i kølvandet på Oslo-aftalen i 1993, at man blev nødt til med det samme at køre bulldozer og arbejdsmaskinerne i position og begynde at genopbygge Gazastriben og Vestbredden og skabe et velstående område, hvor mennesker har en fremtid at leve for og se frem til.

Men nu har vi i stedet Saudi-Arabiens tyranni. Hen over de seneste dage har vi set, hvordan Tyrkiets præsident Erdogan forsøger at etablere et brutalt diktatur i sit land og hvordan han afpresser Europa med truslen om at oversvømme Europa med endnu en omgang af flygtninge på flugt fra Syrien, Irak, Libyen og Afghanistan. Så der findes en holdbar og effektiv politik, men kun, hvis man tager tingene fra toppen og tager udgangspunkt i sandheden om, hvor terrorismen kommer fra. Således og kun således kan vi danne den rette form for sammenslutning af nationer, der samarbejder om et fælles mål. Og terrorismen kan overvindes, det er der ingen tvivl om, men ikke hvis udgangspunktet for processen er et svindelnummer.

Ogden: På den front så vi hvordan CIA-direktør, John Brennan, i TV-udsendelsen »Meet the Press« sidste søndag (1. maj) udtalte, at de 28 sider ikke vil blive offentliggjort af Obama-administrationen. Det viser med al tydelighed at USA ikke er klar til en alliance med Rusland, Kina og Indien, FN og Europa omkring en effektiv krig mod terror, men stadig bukker og skraber for den saudiske kongefamilie, som stod bag 11. september.

Putins afgørende intervention i Palmyra, foruden hvilken byen stadig ville være under ISIS' belejring, skaber en stærk kontrast og viser vejen for at overvinde terrorisme. Så måske kan du forklare, hvad dette viser om, hvor Obama-administrationens sande alliancer ligger.

Steinberg: Det er meget ligetil. Det Brennan sagde på nationalt TV i »Meet the Press« i søndags var præcist, hvad vi regnede med, at han ville sige. Og alt dette var forårsaget af den vedholdende mobilisering for at få offentliggjort de 28 sider, som LaRouches politiske aksionskomité (LaRouchePAC) har været hovedansvarlig for. Denne mobilisering har tvunget Obama-administrationen til at bekende kulør og sige at den på ingen måde har tænkt sig at bryde med den Angel-saudiske alliance. Så længe Obama er præsiden og Brennan er CIA-direktør vil der være en beskyttelsesmur mod enhver form for afsløring af det Britiske Imperiums og Saudi-Arabiens rolle i terrorangrebet d. 11. september. Og naturligvis har FBI's topledelse været dybt involveret i at mørklægge denne sag. Hvis nogen troede at FBI på en eller anden vis havde skiftet identitet siden de mørke dage under J. Edgar Hoover, får de sig noget af en overraskelse. Den eneste forskel er, at teknologierne og ressourcerne, der er tilgængelige i dag, er langt mere vidtrækkende. Og det var daværende FBI-chef Robert Mueller, der personligt satte en stopper for, at de 28 sider blev offentliggjort.

Og så udtalte pressesekretæren for det Hvide Hus, Josh Earnest, tirsdag – han har ellers under pres fra de pårørende til ofrene for 11. september flere gange udtalt, at en i det mindste delvis offentliggørelse af de 28 sider ville finde sted indenfor de næste måneder – at han bakkede fuldt op omkring Brennans udlægning af sagen i »Meet the Press« udsendelsen og at der ikke ville blive nogen offentliggørelse. Og han løj så det drev, idet han gentog Brennans løgn om, at de 28 sider indeholder ubegrundede foreløbige ledetråde. Og det på trods af, at der er snesevis af saudiarabiske embedsmænd og politiske figurer, der er dybt involveret i at samarbejde med flykaprerne før angrebet d. 11. september.

Så USA befinder sig på sin vis i sandhedens time. Hvis I, det amerikanske folk, ikke kan gennemtvinge denne sag, hvis ikke vi kan få offentliggjort de 28 sider, så er det muligvis et tegn på at denne nation ikke længere har den moralske integritet, der skal til, for at overleve. Tilbage i 70'erne, da Vietnamkrigen viste sig som et monster, der åd USA op indefra, havde Senator Mike Gravel modet til at offentliggøre de såkaldte »Pentagon Papers« (Pentagons hemmelige dokumentation af USA's Vietnam-politik – red.) ved at læse dem højt fra talerstolen i senatet, og det ændrede historien. Og det er den slags øjeblikke vi lige nu befinder os i. Vi har brug for at nogen udviser samme mod i dag, som Mike Gravel gjorde dengang. For hvis mørklægningen af den Angel-saudiske hånd bag 11. september bliver tilladt at fortsætte meget længere, vil denne nation have opgivet det, der retfærdiggør nationens eksistens.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video:
2. del:

Lyd:

Af Alexander Hartmann, redaktør af "Neue Solidarität".

7. maj 2016 — Vil den amerikanske præsident Obama indlade sig på en militær kraftprøve med Rusland og Kina endnu før sin tilbagetræden? Den slutning må man drage, når man betragter de nyeste bestræbelser inden for amerikansk politik: Umiddelbart efter at det var lykkedes for USA's udenrigsminister John Kerry og Ruslands udenrigsminister Sergej Lavrov at forhandle sig frem til en udvidelse af våbenstilstanden i Syrien på grundlag af aftalen i Geneve, hvor der skulle oprettes et særligt, større kontor i Geneve med russiske og amerikanske militærpersoner og diplomater for at overvåge våbenstilstanden, blev Kerry – øjensynligt af Obama – foranlediget til offentligt at stille et ultimatum til den syriske præsident Bashar Assad: Dersom Assad ikke træder tilbage inden den 1. august, så vil USA ”inddrage andre sider”. I betragtning af, at USA allerede er ved at indsætte amerikanske soldater i Syrien uden den syriske præsidents godkendelse, må der øjensynligt være tale om en større militær indsats, der har det udtrykkelige formål at fremtvinge et regimeskift i Syrien. Og dermed står det klart, at Rusland og Kina, der begge modsætter sig et udefra påtvungent regimeskift i Syrien og selv er militært til stede der, skal stilles over for et valg om enten at lade Assad falde – eller at tage en direkte militær konfrontation med USA med i beregningerne. Og samtidigt fortsætter den militære opmarch og indkredsningen over for Rusland og Kina med at skride fremad ”som en damptromle”, sådan som BüSo’s forkvinde Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede det den 4. maj på sit internetforum.

Afgørende er tiden frem til NATO-topmødet først i juli, hvor skabelsen af NATO's faste troppetilstedeværelse i Baltikum skal godkendes af NATO's medlemsstater.

Disse enheder skal ikke udstationeres permanent, men indsættes i skiftende hold – ligesom i krigsområder. UN News citerede en ubenævnt militær talsmand: ”Vi går fra gensidig hjælp over til afskrækning og fra gensidig hjælp over til opstilling til kamp.” Det samme gælder også for de amerikanske troppeoverførsler til Filippinerne. USA's regering har allerede anmodet kongressen om en firdobling af midlerne til den amerikanske troppeindsats i Østeuropa, og den har – både gennem forsvarsminister Ashton Carter såvel som gennem general Philip Breedlove, den hidtidige overkommandoindehaver over USA's tropper i Europa, og dennes efterfølger general Curtis Scaparrotti, som Carter overdrog kommandoen til den 3. maj i Stuttgart – også gjort det ganske klart, at den betragter Rusland og Kina som sine vigtigste fjender.

Øjensynligt er præsident Obama ude på at gennemtvinge en ”endegyldig løsning” af syriensproblemet efter sit eget sind, før han forlader embedet. Det er muligt, at dette set fra Obamas synsvinkel blot er ét stort blufnummer, hvormed han vil bevise over for sig selv og resten af verden, hvem der er ”herre i huset” – men hvis Obama skulle gå hen og forregne sig her, så kommer der til at blive en kernevåbenkrig mellem supermagterne. Det er på høje tid, at de fornuftige kræfter i de vestlige regeringer og parlamenter endelig tager sig sammen til at forhindre Obama i at udføre sådanne forrykte dumheder, for det farlige ved ultimatummer er, at de ofte frembringer en situation, hvor ingen af parterne længere kan trække sig tilbage.

Det er klart, at selvom Rusland og Kina samtidigt strækker hånden frem mod Vesten for en fornuftig samarbejdspolitik, kan de overhovedet ikke gøre andet end at reagere på den vestlige opmarch med selv at opruste og med forhøjet kampberedskab. Således meddelte Rusland for eksempel, at det som reaktion på NATO's oprustning i Østeuropa ville opstille tre nye divisioner, hver på 10.000 mand i løbet af året i sine vestlige og sydlige militærområder. Og det er ikke blot USA, der arbejder febrilsk på at modernisere sine atomvåben; Rusland og Kina gør nøjagtigt det samme.

Den nye Operation Barbarossa

Helga Zepp-LaRouche sammenligner NATO's opmarch i Østeuropa med ”Operation Barbarossa”, Det tredje Riges troppeopmarch for at overfalde Sovjetunionen, og begrundede denne påstand på sit internetforum. Efter Obamas besøg bekendtgjorde forbundskansler Merkel, at 250 tyske soldater straks skulle deltage i NATO's bataljoner i Baltikum. I Rusland genopvækkes erindringerne om Den store Fædrelandskrig kraftigt her for tiden, ”og når tyske soldater så her bare 71 efter afslutningen på anden verdenskrig udstationeres lige op til den russiske grænse i forholdsvis højt kampberedskab, så kan jeg meget vel forestille mig – ja, jeg føler mig fuldstændigt sikker på det – at det vil fremkalde virkeligt stærke følelser i Rusland. Hele NATO's politik er jo i grunden ikke andet end en indkredsning af Rusland og af Kina.”

Når man betragter den samlede strategi – lige fra sanktionerne mod Rusland over forsøgene på at iscenesætte farverevolutioner og til den oprustningsspiral, som Rusland og Kina er tvunget ind i – så bør det være klart, at dette sker med den hensigt at frembringe regimeskift. Det spørgsmål forbliver ubesvaret: ”Hvorfor skal atomvåbnene moderniseres? Alle amerikanske atomvåbenlagre skal moderniseres, de taktiske atomvåben B61-12 i Tyskland – det er angrebsvåben. Og hvad skal russerne mene om det?”

En offentlig debat savnes

Frem for alt kritiserede hun, at der hidtil ikke har fundet nogen offentlig debat sted omkring disse ting:

”Der er ikke engang nogen i Tyskland, der vover at udtale sig om sanktionerne – bortset fra med en tilbageholdende kritik. Men en debat om hele den militære dimension mangler egentlig fuldstændigt. Og det er virkeligt en skandale. Jeg mener, at vi virkeligt behøver en dramatisk ændring af vor politik, for vi skal selv bestemme over vore egne interesser i Tyskland og hele Europa. Bliver vi draget med ind i sådan en krig? … Skal vi virkeligt lade os drive ind i sådan en konfrontation, så at sige i ly af USA, der virkeligt sætter Tysklands eksistentielle interesser på spil? For hvis uheldet er ude, så ophører Tyskland med at eksistere.”

Det egentlige motiv

Det virkelige motiv bag konfrontationspolitikken over for Rusland og Kina, understregede hun, ligger i forhandlingerne om frihandelsaftalerne TPP (med de asiatiske nationer) og TTIP (med Europa), som USA's regering vil gennemtrumfe endnu før Obamas afgang. Dette demonstreredes af et indlæg fra præsident Obama i Washington Post med den megetsigende overskrift: ”Amerika – og ikke Kina – fastsætter reglerne.” ”Heri siger han, at Sydasien og Sydøstasien udvikler sig med rasende fart, og vi – USA – kan ikke tillade, at Kina fastlægger reglerne, for det gør vi! Og dermed har han egentlig lukket katten ud af sækken. For også ved den føromtalte militære oprustning og ved konfrontationsscenarierne drejer det sig egentlig kun om én ting. Såvel ved TPP, TTIP som ved NATO's oprustning over for Rusland og naturligvis også i Det sydkinesiske Hav, i Korea, i hele den militære dimension, drejer det sig kun om ét enkelt tema – og det er at forsvare USA's enevældige position med alle midler.”

I Det sydkinesiske Hav drejer det sig med sikkerhed ikke om et par klippeøer, og den frie sejlads er heller ikke krænket blot en eneste gang, det er alt sammen blot grov propaganda. Tværtimod ønsker Obama at konsolidere ”USA's krav om overherredømme over Stillehavet og sandsynligvis også snart over Det indiske Hav, det vil sige over alle verdenshavene… Det drejer sig om at opretholde den unipolære verden.” Men det er så at sige fortid nu, for den er holdt op med at eksistere. ”Asien stiger opad, Kina udvikler sig, andre asiatiske stater, Indien, det, som før kaldtes for tigerøkonomierne, udvikler sig med rasende fart.” Kinas regering har reageret meget køligt på Obamas artikel ved at slå fast, at handelsreglerne ikke skal fastsættes af ét land, men af alle de inddragne nationer. Og under et møde i Australien, hvor det drejede sig om den kinesiske handelsaftale, deltog 15 lande, ”der øjensynligt fandt de af Kina foreslåede betingelser for langt mere attraktive end TPP, der egentlig kun har til formål at holde Kina udenfor.”

Thukydid-fælden

Men det afgørende punkt er dog, ”at alle imperier i historien er gået under som følge af at have forstrakt sig… USA har forstrakt sig her for tiden, de økonomiske tal er katastrofale – både hvad angår tallene for arbejdspladserne og tallene for den produktionsstigning, der i de sidste fem år har været nul eller endnu lavere. Det vil sige, at USA's fysiske økonomi skrumper mere og mere ind, og banksektoren er naturligvis blot en kæmpeboble, der har det endnu værre end i 2008 og truer med at eksplodere – ligesom i Europa.”

Hun fortsatte: ”Med andre ord, så er dette en politik, der ikke er holdbar, og det gør den også så farlig.” For der er kræfter i den transatlantiske sektor, der reagerer således på denne udvikling i Asien, at de er ved at gå i den såkaldte Thukydid-fælde, som den tidligere amerikanske generalstabschef flere gange har advaret om, nemlig konflikten mellem Athen og Sparta i det klassiske Grækenland, som Thukydid beskrev, ”hvor den ene parts opstigning førte til den anden sides krigsførelse og dermed startede den peloponnesiske krig, der i sidste ende førte til det klassiske Grækenlands undergang.” Det er noget, der i dag i brintbombernes tidsalder, og hvor der er tale om overgang fra afskrækning til kampberedskab og mobilitetstilstand for tropperne, er ekstremt bekymrende. ”Jeg har sagt det så tit: Vi behøver en offentlig debat. Hvor er Tysklands interesser henne? Tysklands interesser er netop ikke fremmedfjendtlighed eller ”lukkede grænser”, for den eneste måde Tyskland kan sikre sin eksistens på længere sigt er ved at indlede et nyt paradigme og deltage i det med andre stater, frem for alt med hele Eurasien, der så i fællesskab kan løse de problemer, der berører os alle: Det nære og mellemste Østens fuldstændige ødelæggelse og den frygtelige situation i Afrika. Og den eneste mulighed, vi har for at slippe ud af alle de konflikter, er den, at vi sammen med Rusland og Kina udbygger Den nye Silkevej til en Verdenslandbro.”

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

<iframe width=”100%” height=”450″ scrolling=”no” frameborder=”no” src=”https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/263241683&amp;auto_play=false&amp;hide_related=false&amp;show_comments=true&amp;show_user=true&amp;show_reposts=false&amp;visual=true”></iframe>

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

30. april 2016 — Betragter man NATO’s forskellige aktiviteter over for Rusland såvel som de amerikanske styrkers over for Kina, så får man et billede af en politik, der er lagt an på indkredsning og provokation, og som i sidste ende egentlig kun kan munde ud i den store katastrofe. At lige netop den tyske regering nu vil udstationere tyske soldater som en del af NATO’s tusinde mand store bataljon i Litauen – 71 år efter Hitlers tilintetgørende nederlag under hans vanvittige felttog mod Sovjetunionen – det er en skandale.
Efter at præsident Obama allerede inden sit sidste besøg i Hannover havde tilkendegivet, at han ville kræve et større militært engagement og større økonomiske bidrag fra Tysklands side, havde forbundskansler Merkel intet bedre at tage sig til end »bag lukkede døre« at forsikre Storbritanniens, Frankrigs og Italiens regeringschefer på det såkaldte minitopmøde med præsident Obama i Hannover, at det tyske militær nok skulle bidrage til NATO’s fortsatte østekspansion. Endegyldigt skal denne mission med skiftende, kort udstationeret mandskab vedtages på det kommende NATO-topmøde i Warszawa i begyndelsen af juli, hvor en hel række yderligere offensive forholdsregler ligeledes skal sættes i gang mod Rusland.
På sikkerhedskonferencen i Moskva, der lige har fundet sted, advarede den russiske NATO-gesandt Alexander Grusjko om konsekvenserne af NATO’s konfrontationspolitik på dennes østflanke som for eksempel den såkaldte permanente tropperotation (hvoraf de tyske tropper kun skal udgøre en del), den fortsatte udstationering af tunge våbensystemer i forskellige østeuropæiske stater, uafbrudte manøvrer, vedvarende overvågning af luftrummet, og forstærkning af flådeenhederne i Østersøen og Sortehavet. Under den sidste episode i Østersøen, hvor russiske kampfly fløj hen mod amerikanske krigsskibe, der befandt sig godt 120 km fra den russiske enklave Kaliningrads kyst, påberåbte man sig fra amerikansk side den såkaldte »anti access/area denial« (A2AD) og hævdede, at Rusland forhindrer den frie adgang til militær hjælp til De baltiske Lande – hvor det i virkeligheden drejede sig om at stille spørgsmål ved Ruslands ret til at forsvare sig selv i umiddelbar nærhed af sine egne grænser.
Noget andet, der forberedes, er militære brigader, der skal sammensættes af tropper fra Bulgarien, Rumænien, Ukraine såvel som Litauen og Polen. Også udbygningen af det amerikanske raketforsvarssystem i Østeuropa fortsætter uforstyrret, selv om enhver begrundelse om, at dette forsvarssystem skal tjene som værn mod iranske raketter, er faldet bort med »P5+1«-aftalen med Iran. Det er nu helt klart, at det skal tjene til at udslette Ruslands mulighed for gengældelsesangreb.

Det kan kun forklares som et eksempel på kollektiv lammelse og hukommelsestab, at så godt som ingen i Tyskland stiller det spørgsmål, hvorfor Obamaadministrationen i de kommende år vil give en billion dollars (!) til at modernisere det samlede amerikanske kernevåbenarsenal – indbefattet de i Tyskland udstationerede taktiske kernevåben B61-12 – for (sammen med stealth-fly) at gøre det mere »indsatsegnet«, sådan som det for nylig fastsloges under en høring i det amerikanske senat af fru senator Feinstein. Alt dette finder stadig sted i et miljø, som militæranalytikere som Ted Postol eller Hans Kristensen betegner som farligere end højdepunktet af den kolde krig, altså Kubakrisen, hvilket fik personligheder som Mikhail Gorbatjov og den afdøde Helmut Schmidt til for ikke særligt lang tid siden til at advare mod en tredje verdenskrig.

Denne gang går fru Merkels og de karrieresyge militærpersoners imødekommende, vasalagtige troskab for vidt. Tysklands øgede deltagelse i NATO’s indkredsningsstrategi over for Rusland, hvor NATO rykker helt frem til Ruslands grænser, og ikke omvendt – den russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov talte om et »beskidt forsøg på at stille sandheden på hovedet« – , sætter selve Tysklands eksistens på spil, idet der intet vil blive tilbage af landet eller dets indbyggere, dersom en atomkrig virkeligt finder sted. Og ingen kan overbevise os om, at fru Merkel, fru von der Leyen (den tyske forssvarsminister) og forsvarsledelsen overhovedet intet skulle vide om dette.

Oven i NATO-operationerne mod Rusland kommer de amerikanske stridskræfters ligeledes eskalerende provokationer over for Kina – hvor USA slår på »den frie sejlret i havet« i Det sydkinesiske Hav, selv om Kina ikke en eneste gang har forhindret denne – de hermed begrundede krænkende overflyvninger af det kinesiske territorium, de omstridte øer og rev, forsøget på at udnytte krisen omkring Nordkorea til at udstationere det mod Kina og Rusland vendte THAAD-raketsystem i Sydkorea, og udsendelsen af yderligere 250 amerikanske specialtropper i Syrien uden tilladelse fra den syriske regering, uden mandat fra FNs sikkerhedsråd og uden den nødvendige bemyndigelse fra den amerikanske kongres, sådan som den amerikanske forfatning kræver det.

Alt dette er elementer af en yderst risikabel politik. Er den lagt an på at lokke Rusland og Kina i en fælde for at fremprovokere reaktioner, der så kan bruges som påskud for stort anlagte straffeaktioner? Drejer det sig om opmarch for et førsteangreb, der svarer til de forskellige doktriner såsom Prompt Global Strike eller Air-Sea Battle? Tror man virkeligt i fuldt alvor, at udgifterne til en ny oprustningsspiral i kombination med farverevolutioner vil fremkalde regimeskift i Moskva og Beijing, fordi landenes befolkninger vil rejse sig mod Putin og Xi Jinping? Alle disse varianter er vanvittige. I alle tilfælde risikerer man at udslette menneskeheden i en verdensomspændende, termonukleær krig.

Problemet er hveken Rusland eller Kina, men den neoliberale finanspolitik, der ligger til grund for en indbildt nødvendighed af at udvide den transatlantiske imperialistiske politik. Fastholdelsen af denne politik er i sidste ende grunden til, at der ikke er nogen, der taler om »årsager« til den flygtningekrise, der er resultatet af de på løgne begrundede krige i Sydvestasien, og af den politik, der har nægtet Afrika udvikling på grund af Den internationale Valutafonds berygtede kreditbetingelser. Det var denne politik, der åbnede en uudholdelig afgrund mellem rig og fattig i mange dele af verden, og som synes rede til at at ofre alt til gavn for få og på manges bekostning på højrisikospekulationens alter. Og netop denne politik er håbløst bankerot, sådan som de lige så afsindige debatter om »helikopter-penge« demonstrerer.

Bare tanken om, at vi her 71 år efter det fuldstændige nederlag for nationalsocialisterne, der bragte uendelige lidelser over den russiske befolkning såvel som mange andre lande – ikke mindst vort eget – atter kan deltage i en »Operation Barbarossa« mod Rusland, må tilbagevises med fuldt eftertryk, også i praksis. Når alle de for tiden planlagte optrapninger, indbefattet Ukraines og Georgiens tilbudte medlemskab som »associerede partnere« til NATO, hvilket Rusland for længst har betegnet som en rød linje – når det mulige NATO-medlemskab for Finland og Sverige og udsendelsen af enheder fra det tyske forsvar til Litauen besluttes på det kommende NATO-topmøde, så befinder vi os sandsynligvis på den direkte vej til Helvede.

Vi må benytte de to resterende måneder til at fremføre at alternativ, og et sådant er »Win-win«-sammenarbejdet med Rusland og Kina, uden hvilket intet af de problemer, der truer vor eksistens – krigsfaren, det truende finanskrak, flygtningekrisen eller terrorismen – vil kunne løses. Og vi kan ikke gøre det sande Amerika nogen større tjeneste end ved at stå fast på dette samarbejde.

Der er en udvej: Vi må sammen med Rusland, Kina og Indien udbygge Den nye Silkevej for at fremkalde en økonomisk opbygning af Sydvestasien og Afrika og for at genopbygge vor egen produktive økonomi; og vi må gøre det klart for Amerika, at vi ikke er rede til at begå selvmord for at opretholde et imperium, der for længst har forstrakt sig ved sin egen opførsel. Derimod indtager George Washingtons, Alexander Hamiltons, Abraham Lincolns, Franklin D. Roosevelts og John F. Kennedys Amerika en æresplads inden for den samlede menneskehed.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Kommer senere på dansk.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche Addresses Seminar in Copenhagen,
April 18, 2016 [unproofed draft]

We Need a New Paradigm for Humanity

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, thank you very much for this
kind introduction.
Dear Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen: I would like to
start my presentation with showing you a point of view which may
be unusual to discuss the strategic situation, but I think it is
quite adequate.
This is a time-lapse video where you can actually have a view
from space. This is the kind of view normally only astronauts,
cosmonauts, taikonauts have. They all come back from their space
travel with the idea that there is only one humanity, and that
our planet, which is very beautiful and blue; however, it is very
small in a very large solar system and an even larger galaxy, not
to mention the billion galaxies out there in our universe.
With that view comes, naturally, the question of the future.
Where should mankind be in 100 years from now, in a 1000 years,
in 10,000 years? Well, you have to exercise your power of
imagination. In 10,000 years, we probably are well beyond having
colonized the Moon, we have completed very successful Mars
missions, we will have a much, much better understanding about
our solar system, our galaxy, and we will have gotten a much
deeper understanding about the principle of our universe.
Just think, that it took 100 years before modern science
could confirm that Einstein's conception about gravitational
waves was correct. Ten thousand years of the past human history
has brought tremendous progress. But just think that this growth
can go on, exponentially. And since there is no limit to the
creativity and perfectibility of the human species, in 10,000
years we can have a wonderful world.
So, let's look from that view, into the future, to the
present, to have the right perspective.
Yesterday, the {New York Times}, in the Sunday edition, had
an article saying "The Race Escalates for the Latest Class of
Nuclear Arms," portraying in detail that the United States, and
Russia, and China are developing new generations of smaller and
less destructive nuclear weapons, which would make them more
useable. They quote in the article James Clapper, the Director of
the National Intelligence of the United States, that the world
has now entered a new Cold War spiral, where, basically, totally
different laws and rules govern, than it used to be the case with
Mutual Assured Destruction.
The previous NATO doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction
proceeded from the assumption that the destructive power of
nuclear weapons is so horrible, because it will lead to the
annihilation of the human race, that nobody in their right mind
would ever use it. And therefore, it was a deterrence that these
weapons would never be used.
This is now no longer valid. What they are now discussing,
openly, on the front page of the {New York Times}, is that what
we, for a very long time, only we and a few of military experts,
have said, namely, that these modernized tactical nuclear
weapons, like the B12-61, in combination with stealth bombers,
with hypersonic missiles, can actually lead to the winning of a
nuclear war.
Ted Postol and Hans Kristensen, very respected military
analysts, have detailed at great lengths, why the idea of a
limited nuclear war is completely ludicrous, and it is the nature
of the difference between thermonuclear weapons and conventional
weapons, that once you enter a nuclear exchange, that it is the
logic of such a war that all weapons will be used, and that will
be the end of mankind. We are closer to that possibility than
most people dare to even consider, because if they would, they
would not remain so passive as they are now.
This is why I want to make emphatically the point–and this
is the purpose of conducting meetings like this seminar and many
other conferences we are engaged in–that we have reached a point
in human history where geopolitics must be superseded with a
completely new paradigm. And that is why I started with the view
from space. We need a new paradigm, basically saying goodbye to
the very idea of geopolitics, which has caused two world wars in
the 20th century. That new paradigm must be completely different
than that which is governing the world today.
We have, right now, rising tensions in the South China Sea.
Policymakers and the neighboring countries are extremely worried
about what will happen in the period between now and the trial in
The Hague. You have the largest maneuver around North and South
Korea right now, where people in the region are extremely worried
that the slightest provocation could lead to an exchange of
nuclear weapons.
You have the NATO expansion up to the Russian border.
Countries like Poland and Lithuania are asking to have these
modernized nuclear weapons located on their territory, even that
makes them prime targets.
The United States is continuing to build the anti-ballistic
missile system which, supposedly, was against Iranian missiles,
but after the P5+1 agreement has been reached, it is obvious this
was always a pretext and the aim was always to take out the
second strike capability of Russia.
Then you have the entire region of Southwest Asia, still
being a terrible destruction and consequence of failed wars.
North Africa is exploding. You have new incidents between NATO
and Russia, all of a sudden in the Baltic Sea, which was, up to
now, a calm region where there are no conflicts, or, there have
been no conflicts.
In the Middle East briefing, discussing President Obama's
trip to Riyadh on the 21st of this month, they say that this trip
will open up a new page of NATO in the relationship to the Middle
East, that what Obama will try to establish is a new relationship
between NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council countries.
So, we have a situation where the {New York Times}, also
yesterday, and I'm quoting these papers to say that these are not
some opinions of us, but this is now the public discussion, that
what is really at stake in the South China Sea is not so much the
fight around some uninhabited reefs and cliffs, or some tiny
islands, but it is the American effort to halt China's rise. And
not only China's rise, but that of Asia. China, Asia arising; the
trans-Atlantic region is in decline.
Just now, we are heading towards a new financial crisis, and
all signs are, that we are going into the same kind of crash like
2008. Already since the beginning of this year, $50 billion
corporate defaults were taking place, which is on the same level
like what happened in 2009.
What the United States is trying to assert under this
conditions, where the trans-Atlantic world is in decline or
marching towards collapse, to insist that nevertheless a unipolar
world must be maintained. The problem is, that unipolar world,
effectively, no longer exists. But still, what carries American
policy to the present day, is the Project for the New American
Century, the so-called Wolfowitz Doctrine, which is a neocon idea
which says that no country and no group of countries should ever
be allowed to challenge the power position of the United States.
In the age of thermonuclear weapons, the insistence to maintain a
non-tenable world order could very quickly lead to the
annihilation of civilization.
It is a fact: China has made an economic miracle in the last
30 years which is absolutely breathtaking. And it is continuing,
despite all the media rumors about China's economic collapse.
India has by now the largest growth rate in the world; it's above
7%. Many other Asian countries have explicitly formulated the
goal for themselves to be developed countries in a few years. The
Chinese economy right now is rebounding. They just announced that
in the next five years China is going to import $10 trillion
worth of imports. They will invest $600 billion worth of
investments abroad. Every day 10,000 new firms are being created
in China.
So, if you look at the development, especially since
President Xi Jinping announced in September, 2013 in Kazakhstan,
that the New Silk Road, the One Belt One Road, is put on the
agenda. In the Two and a half years since that time, more than
sixty nations have joined with China in this development. They
have created the New Silk Road, the Maritime Silk Road; these
nations have created a whole set of alternative
economic-financial institutions, such as the AIIB, which, despite
massive pressure from the United States not to do so, immediately
was joined by sixty founding members. The New Development Bank
also started just now its functioning. The New Silk Road Fund,
the Maritime Silk Road Fund, the Shanghai Cooperation Bank, and
many more. All of these were created because the IMF and the
World Bank had not invested in the urgently required
infrastructure.
These banks are now engaged in very, very impressive, large
projects. For example: China invested $46 billion in the
China-Pakistan corridor. When President Xi Jinping recently went
to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran, consequently Iran,
fool-heartedly, declared that they are now part of the One Belt
One Road, New Silk Road development. Greece is now talking about
that after China is investing in the Port of Piraeus, that Greece
will be the bridge between China and Europe. The 16+1, that is
the East and Central European countries, just declared that they
absolutely want to participate in China helping to build a fast
train system in these countries. Those projects which the EU has
not bid, China is now building. Part of it is, for example, the
Elbe-Oder-Danube Canal, which will connect the waterways of these
countries. When President Xi recently was in the Czech Republic,
President Zeman announced that the "Golden City" of Prague will
be the gateway between the Silk Road and Europe. Also, Austria
and Switzerland are now fully on board and see the benefits of
their country's joining with the New Silk Road.
When President Xi Jinping at the APEC meeting in October
2014 offered to President Obama to cooperate in all of these
projects in a "win-win" perspective, he not only proposed
economic cooperation, but he put on the agenda a completely new
model of international relations exactly designed to overcome
geopolitics. The new model is supposed to be based on the respect
for sovereignty, non-interference into the internal affairs of
the other country, respect for the different social system the
other country chooses to adopt. It would really be, in a certain
sense, a fulfillment of the principles which are laid out in the
UN Charter anyway.
How was the Western response?  Very, very ambiguous.  The
United States in spite of this, never really responded to
President Xi's offer.  They keep insisting on an unipolar world.
For example, in the TPP, like in the TTIP for Europe, it is said
very, very clearly, the U.S. sets the rules of trade for Asia and
not China.  Recently, the American Defense Secretary Ash Carter,
and also NATO commander General Breedlove, declared the enemies
#1 of the United States are, first, Russia, second, China, third,
Iran, fourth North Korea, and only fifth terrorism.
Now that is in spite of the fact that many other statesmen,
such as United States Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign
Minister Steinmeier, and many others, have recently also stated,
that all crucial problems of the world cannot be solved without
the cooperation of Russia, and China.  For example, the P5+1
agreement with Iran, would never have come into being without a
constructive role of {both} Russia and China . Without Putin's
very intelligent intervention in the military situation in Syria,
this situation could not have come to the potential of a
political solution.
Also, apart from the military pressure, there is massive
pressure on the new institutions such as the AIIB and the New
Development Bank, to {not}  be outside of the casino economy but
to follow the "international standards."
Now, in these times of the Panama Papers, of the various
LIBOR scandals, of the money laundering of many of these banks,
it is a sort of laughable thing, what should be these
"international standards" of the Western financial system.
Now, let's be realistic.  At the IMF/ World Bank meeting
which just concluded in Washington over the weekend,  behind the
scenes there was complete panic, but nobody dared to speak about
it openly,  behind the scenes people were talking, what former
IMF boss Strauss-Kahn has said repeatedly, publicly, that we are
heading towards the "perfect political storm."  That if one of
the too-big-to-fail banks collapses, it will lead to a crisis
much, much worse than 2008.
At the recent Davos Economic Forum, the former chief
economist of the BIS William White said that the world system is
so utterly overindebted, that there are two roads only possible:
Either you have an orderly writeoff of the debt, like in the
religious Jubilee, so that you just say "these debts are not
payable," and you write them off, or it will come to a disorderly
collapse.
Now, the situation is all the more urgent, because unlike
2008 when everyone was talking about the "tools" of the central
bank, like interest rate reduction, rescue packages, bailouts,
all of these tools don't function any more. As a matter of fact,
when the competition for more zero interest rate, or even
negative interest rate, when into high gear in the last month,
when, for example, the Bank of Japan or the central bank of
Norway, or the ECB declared a zero interest rate policy, or even
a negative interest rate policy, it boomeranged!  It had the
opposite effect:   Rather than leading to more investment, in the
real economy, it led to a deflationary escalation of the
collapse.
When Mario Draghi, the chief of the ECB, recently announced,
"yeah, yeah, we have a discussion about helicopter money."  And
Ben Bernanke echoed it and said, "yes, now we need helicopter
money," meaning electronic printing of {endless} amounts of
worthless money, virtual money, they de facto announced that the
trans-Atlantic financial system is absolutely in the last phase.
Because after helicopter money comes only evaporation.
But this is only the most obvious of the crises.  Another
one, which is in a different domain, but equally systemic is the
refugee crisis in Europe.  Now,  I supported Chancellor Merkel
when she initially said, we can manage that,  we can give refuge
to these people, and for the first time, I was  saying "this
woman is doing the right thing."  I know there was a lot of
international criticism, but she acted on the basis of the Geneva
Convention on refugees, but it was the right thing to do.  But
the reactions from the other European countries, revealed an
underlying, basic flaw of the EU, a flaw which was not caused by
the refugees, but it was revealed by the first serious challenge,
that in the EU, as it has been conceptualized in the Maastricht
Treaty going up to the Lisbon Treaty, there is no unity, there is
no solidarity; and with the collapse of the Schengen agreement
which allows free travel within the internal borders of the EU,
the closing of the so-called Balkan routes, to prevent refugees
from coming, the basis for the European common currency is also
gone, because without the Schengen agreement, the possibility to
have the euro last is extremely dubious.
Now, with the recent response by the EU to basically have a
deal with Turkey, I mean, this is beyond the bankruptcy of the
whole EU  policy if you can top it.  At a point when the Russian
UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, presented the UN Security Council
with evidence that the Turkish government, is continuing up to
the present day to supply ISIS with weapons and other logistical
means, to then say, we pay Turkey EU6 billion, for what?  To have
them receive refugees; and Amnesty International has already
said, there is no guarantee that these people will be protected,
but rather that Turkey is sending them back to the war zones,
like Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
So, if you look at the pictures of Idomeni, where the
Macedonian police are using tear gas against refugees who are
absolutely desperate; if you look at the fact that Greece is now,
rather than having refugee camps which would somehow process
these unfortunate human beings, they have, on pressure of the EU,
been turned into detention centers.  Pope Francis was just in
Lesvos, together with the Greek Patriarch Bartholomew, and this
Patriarch said, the present EU policy on the refugee crisis, is
the completely bankruptcy of Europe.  The Doctors Without Borders
left their job in Greece, because they said they cannot be
accomplices to the murderous policy of detention, where the
police decide who is a patient and not doctors.  Instead of
protecting the people running away from wars and persecution,
they are now being treated as criminals.
Immediately, days after this disgusting EU-Turkey deal, it
turned out that it's a complete failure, the so-called "European
values," human rights, humanism, well–they're all in the
trashcan, because now the refugees, obviously still fleeing for
their lives, go to Libya trying to get into small boats to Italy.
And just yesterday the news came that another 400 people drowned
in the Mediterranean.  And this will keep going on.  And it will
haunt the people who are refusing to change their ways.
Now, there is a new element in the situation which may cause
sudden surprises, and that is a program which was presented by
CBS, a week ago Sunday, in the so-called "60 Minutes" program
portraying the coverup, of the U.S. governments from Bush to
Obama, of the famous 28 pages omitted in the publication of the
official Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 by the U.S.
Congress; and as many people have said, and was said in this
program, this pertains to the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11.
Yesterday, {all} the U.S. talk shows, and all the U.S. media,
pointed their finger to the coverup of the Bush administration
and even to the present day of the present government, that there
is a coverup of criminal activity.
Now, the Saudi Arabian government reacted very unnerved, and
this was again reported in the {New York Times}, that they would
sell off $750 billion in U.S. Treasuries, if the U.S. would allow
a bill that would allow Saudi Arabia to be held responsible in
court, for their role in 9/11.  Now, that's not exactly a sign of
sovereignty, but of despair.  There are several U.S. Senators,
among them Mrs. Gillibrand from New York, who demand that this
whole question of the Saudi Arabian role in 9/11 must be on the
agenda when President Obama goes to Riyadh this week.  Which in
any case, may not happen, but it will not be the end of the story
because the genie is now out of the bottle.
OK:  How do we respond to these many, many crises? Well,
there is a solution to all of these problems.  The trans-Atlantic
should just do exactly what Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1933, in
reaction to the  world financial crisis at the time.  Implement
the full banking separation — Glass-Steagall — and the whole
offshore nightmare which is being revealed in the Panama Papers,
and remember, that this firm Mossack Fonseca is only the fourth
largest of such firms, and 11 million documents still need to be
read through, and processed.  But we have to go back to the kind
of international credit system, as it existed in the Bretton
Woods system, before Nixon ended the fixed exchange rate in 1971,
opening the gate for  floating exchange rates and especially the
creation of offshore money markets for the unlimited creation of
money and other illegal operations as it now is coming out.
Then we need a writeoff of the absolutely unpayable state
debt, which has accumulated and ballooned after the bailouts of
2008 and afterwards. And we have to basically get rid of the
toxic paper of the whole derivatives markets, because they are
the burden which is eating up the chance for the investment in
the real economy.
Then, we need a Marshall Plan Silk Road; and the only reason
I'm  talking about a Marshall Plan, despite the fact that China
is {emphatic} that they do not want a Cold War connotation to the
New Silk Road, it gives people in the United States and Europe a
memory, that it is very possible to rebuild war-torn economies,
as it happened in Europe after the Second World War.
Now, with the ceasefire which was negotiated between Foreign
Ministers Kerry and Lavrov, you have now a still-fragile, but you
have the potential for a peace development in Syria, and soon
other countries in the region.  But it is extremely urgent, that
the peace dividend of this ceasefire is becoming visible for the
people of the region, immediately.  That is, there has to be a
reconstruction and economic buildup, not only of the territory
and the destroyed cities, but the entire region, has to be looked
at as one:  From Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, from the North
Caucasus to the Persian Gulf.  Because you cannot build
infrastructure by building a bridge in one country.  You have to
have a complete plan for the transformation of this region, which
mainly consists of desert.
Now, the idea is to have a comprehensive plan, greening the
deserts, building infrastructure, creating new, fresh water from
desalination of ocean water, of tapping into the water of the
atmosphere through ionization, and various other means. And then
build infrastructure corridors, new cities, and give hope to,
especially, the young people of the region, so they have a reason
not to join the jihad, but to become doctors, to become
engineers, to care for their family and their future.
Now this is not just a program any more, because  when
President Xi Jinping visited Iran about two months ago, he put
the Silk Road development on the agenda for this region.  So, all
you need to do, is extend the Silk Road, and the first train has
already arrived in Tehran; you have to continue to build that
road, from Iran, to Iraq, to Syria all the way to Egypt.  Other
routes should go from Afghanistan, to Pakistan, to India. From
Central Asia to Turkey to Europe, and this obviously can only
work because the problem is so big, that all the neighbors of the
region, Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt, but also the countries
which are now torn apart by the refugee crisis such as Germany,
Italy, Greece, France, and all other European countries must all
commit themselves to work on such a Silk Road Marshall Plan for
the reconstruction and economic buildup of the Middle
East/Southwest Asia, {and} all of Africa, because the economic
situation is equally dire in that continent.
The United States must be convinced that it is in their best
interest to cooperate in such a development, and stop thinking in
terms of geopolitics.  Now, the United States should only be
encouraged to cooperate in the development of these regions, but
the United States needs {urgently} a New Silk Road itself.
Because if you look at the condition, not only of the financial
sector in the United States, but especially the physical economy;
if you look at the social effects of the  economic collapse, like
the rising suicide rates, in all age brackets of the {white}
population, and especially rural women in the age between 20 and
40, the suicide rate is quadrupling and even beyond.  This is a
sign of a collapsing society.
Now, China has built as of last year, 20,000 km of fast
train systems.  Excellent, top-level technology fast-train
systems;  it wants to have 50,000 km by I think the year 2025.
How many miles of  fast train as the U.S. built?  I don't any.
But if the United States would join the New Silk Road and
participate  in the economic reconstruction, as Franklin D.
Roosevelt did it with the Tennessee Valley Authority plan, with
the Reconstruction Finance Corp. in the '30s, the United States
could very, very quickly be a prosperous country, and could again
be regarded by the whole world as "a beacon of liberty and a
temple of freedom," which was the idea of America when it was
founded.
So, the whole fate of the whole world will depend if we all
succeed to get the United States to go back to its proud
tradition of a republic, and stop thinking like an empire,
because that cannot be maintained in any case;  because all
empires in the whole history of mankind always disintegrated when
they became overstretched and collapsed.  There is not one
exception to this idea.
Now, therefore, let's go back to the idea from the
beginning:  Let's approach all problems in the present from the
idea, where is the future of mankind?  Where should mankind be?
Do we exist, or will we destroy ourselves.  And that requires a
change in paradigm, which must be as fundamental and thorough,
like the paradigm shift from the European Middle Ages to the
modern times.  And what caused that shift was such great figures
as Nikolaus of Cusa, but also Brunelleschi, Jeanne d'Arc, and
many others; but what they introduced was a rejection of the old
paradigm–scholasticism, Aristotelianism, all the wrong ideas
which  led to the destruction of the 14th century, and they
replaced with a  completely {new} image of man, man as an {imago
viva Dei}, which was a synonym for the unlimited creative
potential and perfectability of the human being.  It led to a new
image of man which created a blossoming of science, of modern
science, of the modern sovereign nation-state;  it made possible
the emergence of Classical arts.
And that is what we have  to do today:   We have to stop
thinking in terms of geopolitics, and we have to focus on the
common aims of mankind.  Now, what are these "common aims of
mankind"?  It is, first of all scientific cooperation to
eradicate hunger, poverty, to develop more and more cures for
diseases, to increase the longevity of all people.  We have to
study much more fundamentally, what is the principle of life?
Why does life exist?  How does it function?  What, really, is the
deeper lawfulness of our universe?  And that must define the
identity of human beings, which is unique to the human species.
And I have an idea of the future, which will be full of joy.
Because we will discover new principles in science and in
classical art, and we will create a new Renaissance.  As the
Italian Renaissance superseded the Dark Age of the 14th century,
what we have to do today, is we have to revive the best
traditions of all great nations and cultures of the world; and
make them known to the other one.  Have a dialogue of the most
advanced periods of Chinese, of European, Indian, African, other
cultures, and revive–and that is being done in China,
already–the great Confucian tradition, which is in absolute
correspondence with the best neo-Platonic humanist ideas of
Europe.  We must revive the great Vedic tradition in India, the
Gupta period; the Indian Renaissance of the late 19th to the 20th
century.  We must revive the Abbasid Dynasty of the Arab world;
the Italian Renaissance; the Andalusian Spanish Renaissance, the
Ecole Polytechnique in France, the great German Classical period.
The great Italian method of singing in Verdi tuning and the bel
canto method.  And if all of these riches of all the different
countries become the common good of all children of this planet,
and everyone can learn universal history, other cultures as if it
would be their own, I can already see how humanity can make a
jump, and how we can create the most beautiful Renaissance of
human history so far.
I think everybody who is thinking about these questions, has
a deep understanding, that we are at the most important crossroad
in human history. And it is not yet clear which way we will go,
but it is clear to me, that we will {only} come out of this
crisis if we mobilize the subjective emotional quality, which in
the Chinese is called {ren}; and the European equivalent, you
would call {agapë}, love.  And we will only solve this problem if
we are able to mobilize a tender, maybe even {passionate} love,
for the human species.  [applause]

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

Klik her for videoerne og afskrifterne på engelsk.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

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

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

22. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – »Bankerotten i USA’s økonomi er generelt set færdigt. Det er absolut færdigt«, erklærede Lyndon LaRouche kategorisk i sin diskussion mandag den 21. marts med LPAC Policy Committee, under den internationale webcast.

Mens de fleste amerikanere ser den anden vej og med frygt i sjælen forsøger at lade som om, at det ikke finder sted, så er det, vi i virkeligheden er vidne til, hele det transatlantiske finanssystems død – det er bankerot og står ikke til at redde. Men, vi er også vidne til en nations død, og dens befolknings død, fordi vores fornemmelse for en national mission – og de enkelte individers fornemmelse af formål og selve det, at have en identitet – systematisk er blevet fjernet af Det britiske Imperium, dets agenter og dets politik internt i USA. Intet har været så afgørende for denne operation som nedlæggelsen af NASA, som er kulmineret under Obamas præsidentskabs-parodi.

I går erklærede LaRouche: »Der er hele kategorier af folk, der under normale omstændigheder var produktive mennesker. De har ikke længere nogen rolle at udfylde. For det første sidder vi på toppen af en vulkan, som er det bankerotte, transatlantiske finanssystem, som kan – og vil – eksplodere i en hyperinflationsskabende nedsmeltning, hvad øjeblik, det skal være. Tro endelig ikke, at den nuværende politik med endeløse bailouts og »helikopterpenge«, som tidligere formand for Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, holdt af at kalde det, kan holde stand. Man kan ikke forsøge at ’redde’ for 2 billiard dollar værdiløse, spekulative finanspapirer med endnu en billiard finansielt affald, uden, at det eksploderer op i ens ansigt. De regeringer, der støtter op omkring denne galskab – såsom Obamaregeringen – er lige så skyldige i de forbrydelser, der begås.

Det britiske Imperium er dømt til total undergang, understregede Lyndon LaRouche i dag, og de handler i total desperation: de vil ikke acceptere et nederlag, og de er parate til at dræbe en masse. Der er stærke indikationer på, at dette er i gang i USA, såvel som i Europa.

Dødsfald som følge af narko-overdosis, alle kommuner, USA, 2002-2014. O.D.’s er steget til tårnhøje tal i næsten alle USA’s kommuner under Bush’ og Obamas præsidentskaber.

Ud over det eksploderende finanssystem, så sidder vi også på toppen af nok en vulkan, som er den erklærede hensigt fra Det britiske Imperium – og fra deres marionet, Barack Obama – om at fremtvinge regimeskift i Rusland og Kina. Som Lyndon LaRouche i årevis har advaret om, så er kriserne i Libyen, Syrien og Irak, og international terrorisme generelt, alle sammen rettet mod et strategisk atomopgør med Rusland og Kina. De seneste »barbariske« terrorhandlinger i Bruxelles, som præsident Vladimir Putin kaldte det, er ingen undtagelse. Idet hun talte om de internationale sponsorer af terrorisme – som vi ved er Det britiske Imperium, der opererer under diverse flag – var talsperson for det russiske Udenrigsministerium, Maria Zakharova, ligefrem: »Man kan ikke støtte terrorister i én del af verden uden at forvente, de også dukker op i en anden.«

Rusland og Kina fortsætter med at spille deres rolle i at gå op imod dette vanvid, og bygge et Nyt Paradigme baseret på en mission for menneskeheden, der udfolder sig omkring win-win-samarbejde om grundlæggende forskning så som rumforskning, og samstemmende store infrastrukturprojekter her på planeten Jord.

Men for at det skal lykkes, må USA bringes med ombord i dette Nye Paradigme. Til en begyndelse må de nazister, der ønsker at forvandle USA til en koncentrationslejr, afsløres som det, de er – lige fra FBI-hooligans, til Obamas drabsmaskine og til Wall Street-bankerne, der har folkemord i deres kølvand. At give dem en stærkt forsinket blodtud er en god måde at få humøret op og genoplive optimisme på.

Dernæst må landet genoprette sin fornemmelse for national mission omkring NASA’s rumprogram, med Kesha Rogers’ kampagne som spydspids for vore bestræbelser i denne retning. Dette vil gengive folk ikke alene produktive jobs, men selve deres fornemmelse for mening og menneskelig identitet. Og det er en kraft, som Det britiske Imperium ikke kan håndtere.