Hele det transatlantiske, London/Wall Street finanssystem befinder sig på randen af det totale kollaps. Det kunne ske hver time, hver dag, det skal være. De kritiske tegn er allerede synlige for enhver, der ikke med overlæg gør sig blind. Fire italienske banker er gået fallit i den forgangne uge, med den Europæiske Unions påtvungne bail-in plyndring af indskydernes midler til følge. Puerto Rico har allerede meddelt, at landet sandsynligvis vil gå i betalingsstandsning den 1. januar over en forfalden gæld på 1 milliard dollar, toppen af en gældsboble til i alt 72 mia. dollar; og gribbefondene er helt eksponeret. Flere hedgefonde, der er eksponeret over for Puerto Ricos gæld og den bankerot, der har fundet sted i sektoren for skiferolie og -gas, er allerede bukket under. Dette er blot et forvarsel om det transatlantiske systems umiddelbart forestående, totale sammenbrud.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

12. december 2015 – På trods af, at det Amerikanske Udenrigsministeriums talsmand, John Kirby, verbalt langede ud efter RT-reporteren i denne uge og hævede, at Irak vil håndtere Tyrkiets invasion af Irak som et bilateralt anliggende, så er kendsgerningen, at Irak går til FN’s Sikkerhedsråd. Kirby fik et hysterisk anfald over RT-reporteren og kaldte hende »latterlig« og »gal« for at rejse spørgsmålet om Iraks vrede mod NATO-medlemmet Tyrkiet.

RT’s reporter have ret, og i går indgav den irakiske regering en officiel klage over Tyrkiet til FN og sendte et brev fra den irakiske regering til Samantha Power, Obamas ’ansvar-for-at-beskytte (R2P), regimeskift’-galning i FN.

Reuters rapporterer, at den irakiske ambassadør til FN, Mohamed Ali Alhakim, i brevet til Power skrev: »Vi anmoder Sikkerhedsrådet om at kræve, at Tyrkiet omgående trækker sine styrker tilbage … og ikke igen at krænke irakisk suverænitet. … Dette anses for at være en åbenlys overtrædelse af principperne i FN’s Charter, og en krænkelse af Iraks territoriale integritet og staten Iraks suverænitet.«

I sproglige vendinger, der er en kindhest mod Tyrkiet og en advarsel til USA og andre NATO-medlemmer, sagde Alhakim, at den tyrkiske invasion er en »aggressiv handling« og tilføjede, »Assistance med militær uddannelse og avanceret teknologi og avancerede våben for at bekæmpe terrorenheden Islamisk Stat må være baseret på bilaterale og multilaterale aftaler og ske i fuld respekt for national suverænitet og den irakiske forfatning, og må være koordineret med de irakiske bevæbnede styrker.«

Irak har også klaget over Obamas meddelelse om, at dræberteams fra Specialstyrkerne vil ankomme til Irak.

Foto: Tanks fra den tyrkiske hær på den tyrkisk-irakiske grænse.

12. december 2015 – I løbet af det seneste døgn har kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard optrådt på TV og i radio og talt imod Bush/Obama-politikken for regimeskift, der netop nu er i gang imod Syriens præsident Assad. På National Public Radio (NPR) her til morgen konkluderede Gabbard: »Hvis Assads syriske regering bliver væltet, vil ISIS og al-Qaeda og disse andre grupper tage magten i hele Syrien og skabe en endnu større humanitær krise, så de mennesker, der er flygtet fra Syrien, fortsat ikke vil have noget hjem der. De vil forsat ikke se nogen fred og stabilitet, og truslen mod resten af verden vil være endnu større.«

Gabbard tilbageviste værten Steve Simons linje om, at syrere skulle være flygtet ud af deres land for at undfly Assad, hvilket er den linje, som forfølges af London/Team Obama. Hun sagde: »Hvis vi ser på tidslinjen, så begyndte folk at forlade – folk begyndte at forlade landet, da borgerkrigen gik i gang. Og meget af dette er blevet drevet af den finansiering, udstyring og bevæbning, som er udført af lande som USA, Saudi Arabien, Qatar og Tyrkiet. Og det har været, og er fortsat, en meget grim borgerkrig, hvilket er en af grundene til, at jeg er fortaler for at standse og afslutte denne borgerkrig, så vi kan fokusere vore ressourcer omkring overvindelsen af ISIS.«

I går aftes, på Fox TV News’ program med Greta van Susteren, afviste Gabbard spørgsmålet om, at Assad-regeringen skulle købe ISIS-olie på det sorte marked, som en afledningsmanøvre. »Det er vigtigt at huske på, hvem, der er vores fjende.« Hun sagde, man skulle se tilbage på San Bernadino, på hvem det var, der fløj flyene ind i tvillingetårnene, samt andre terrorhandlinger. Disse mennesker var ikke kæmpere på mission fra den syriske præsident Assad! Gabbard, der er veteran fra Irakkrigen og har rank af major i Hawaiis Nationalgarde, gentog, at vi præcist ved, hvem disse mennesker er – al-Qaeda, al-Nusra og ISIS. Med hensyn til påstandene om, at Syrien skulle købe olie fra ISIS, sagde hun, at »de rapporter, der kommer frem, er et gennemskueligt forsøg på at aflede kritik bort fra Tyrkiet«, som er et hovedtransitsted for salg af ISIS-olien. Erdogans søn og svigersøn profiterer af det. Faktum er, at, hvad enten Syrien køber noget olie eller ej, så har det minimal virkning i sammenligning med Tyrkiets åbne grænse med Syrien, som giver mulighed for, at udenlandske kæmpere, våben, ammunition, penge og olie kommer ind i terroristgrupper.

10. december, 2015 – Den tidligere leder af det amerikanske forsvars efterretningstjeneste (Defense Intelligence Agency), den bramfri generalløjtnant Michael Flynn, var blandt hovedtalerne ved en RT–konference (Russia Today) i Moskva i torsdags, hvor han understregede behovet for et samarbejde mellem USA, Rusland og andre lande med henblik på at besejre Islamisk Stat.

Konferencen højtideligholdt 10-årsdagen for grundlæggelsen af RT som Ruslands internationale nyheds-Tv-station. RT har over samme tidsrum opbygget et publikum på 700 millioner mennesker til dets engelsk-, spansk- og arabisksprogede udsendelser, som det blev bemærket af den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin i hans lykønsknings-budskab til konferencen.

Gen. Flynns deltagelse i konferencen sendte i sig selv et budskab om, at seriøse personer i USA’s og Ruslands regeringsinstitutioner har planer om at etablere, som deres fælles sag, besejringen af et internationalt terror-apparat, der i henhold til gen. Flynns estimat sandsynligvis tæller 30.000 plus udenlandske krigere fra 80 forskellige lande i sine syriske og irakiske rækker.

I et interview med RT i forbindelse med konferencen sagde Flynn, at ”Jeg står i et forum sammen med russisk TV, helt ærligt, for at stå frem og sige til verden: ’Hør her, vi er nødt til at gøre mere som internationalt samfund’” for at besejre denne fjende, ”og vi er nødt til at have en følelse af en påtrængende nødvendighed”. Han opfordrede russerne og amerikanerne til at finde ud af at tilpasse deres strategier og angav nogle af sine egne tanker om, hvad det indebærer.

Islamisk Stat er vokset ud over blot at være en regional trussel; det er en global trussel, som vi har set det i Paris og San Bernadino i Californien, understregede Flynn. Ligesom der også har været direkte trusler inden for Ruslands grænser.

”Jeg tror, at små ting, såsom at dele efterretninger, arbejde sammen, at få hinanden indenfor i vore respektive operationscentre, kan skabe en begyndende forståelse for, hvor de militære muligheder ligger – men vi er også nødt til at have nogle andre strategiske målsætninger, der i praksis virker gensidigt understøttende”, sagde Flynn.

Af konferencens øvrige internationale deltagere, hvis præsentationer endnu ikke er nedfældet, kan nævnes den tidligere tjekkiske vicepremier- og udenrigsminister Cyril Svoboda; samt den ”tyske statsmand og forhenværende vicepræsident for OSCE, Willy Wimmer”.

LaRouche: Dvs., at der fra begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede og frem til i dag har været en fortsat degeneration mht. de økonomiske tendenser over længere tid i USA og Europa. Vi må derfor lukke alt dette ned, ikke alene Wall Street i USA, men i Canada, Storbritannien og mange dele af Europa: Luk det ned! Og gå tilbage til Franklin Roosevelts intention med sin reform, ved at lukke Wall Street ned og opbygge et nyt, økonomisk system.

Engelsk udskrift.

TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it’s December 11, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden and you’re watching our weekly Friday night broadcast here from larouchepac.com. Tonight I’m joined in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review and by Jason Ross from  the LaRouche PAC scientific team, and the three of us did have a chance to have a sit-down conversation with both Mr. and Mrs. Helga LaRouche earlier today.

Now, that discussion was largely a development on a very important policy statement that Mr. LaRouche made last night, and for those of you who had the opportunity to participate in the Fireside Chat discussion last night, you had a chance to hear Mr. LaRouche’s remarks live. But what I would like to do during this initial stage of the broadcast here tonight, is to go through in fairly substantial detail what Mr. LaRouche’s remarks were last night, as sort of a statement of policy right up front here, to begin tonight’s broadcast: In order to put these remarks on the record, and to underscore what Mr. LaRouche’s marching orders are for the present moment.

Now Mr. LaRouche said that we are clearly seeing a current tendency of a handful of decent senior people in both the Republican Party and in the Democratic Party, who are beginning to distinguish themselves as potential sources of qualified leadership, and these are persons who could, under the correct leadership, be brought together into a sort of unified organization to create a functional government in this nation. On the Republican side, you see the huge backlash against the outrageous and frankly fascist statements that were made earlier this week by Donald Trump, and as Mr. LaRouche said last night, disliking Trump is curiously a virtue among Republicans. And he emphasized that Trump is very dangerous, and absolutely must be dumped.

And then on the Democratic side, you have those who are now increasingly allying themselves openly against what both Obama and Hillary represent. So Mr. LaRouche said that if we can take these elements from both of the political parties, and, granted, these are persons who might not agree with each other on everything, but if we can find common ground when it comes to at least the core fundamental principles which are required to save this nation, and if we can unite those elements around these core fundamental principles, then we can create a team which will be qualified to confront the urgent crisis that is now facing the United States.

And let me just read a little bit of what Mr. LaRouche said in his own words, to underscore this:

“That is urgent.  That is not a choice, that is an urgent command.  Because we’re on the edge, of possibly going into a horrible situation.  It’s building up fast and we’ve got to take charge.  The people of the United States have to take charge on the basis, of the right people from the Democratic side and the right people, from the Republican side.  That is what we must stick to, right now.”

Now this doesn’t mean,” Mr. LaRouche said, that you’re going to have a perfect organization. “It does mean that we can bring together these two major elements of our nation. But, that is still not good enough. On top of this, we’ve got to shut down Wall Street. We’ve got to shut it down right away. You can’t leave it. You’ve got to get rid of it. Get rid of Wall Street, period. Because everything you do to try to defend any part of Wall Street, means that you’re killing Americans. And I’m sure you don’t want to do that.

“Now, among Republicans and Democrats who are sane, and human, unlike the other type, the different type, this will work.”

Then, Mr. LaRouche continued: “What we have to do, is make a fundamental change, from everything that most people in this nation have learned.  That is, beginning with the 20th Century policy, and up to the present time, there has been a continuous degeneration, in terms of long-term trends of the United States and European economy.  Therefore, we must shut down everything that is like, not only the Wall Street system in the United States, but in Canada, in Britain, and in many parts of Europe: Shut it down!  And go back to what Franklin Roosevelt had intended, for his reform, by closing down Wall Street and building up a new system of economy.

“But no more of any of this thing.  No deals!  No deals for Donald Trump.  No deals for Hillary Clinton.  No deals for any people of those categories.”

We’re going to get two teams together, Mr. LaRouche said. The Democrats and Republicans and some other people who are fit to serve, and we’re going to get what Franklin Roosevelt aimed to do, when he did it in the 1930s.  That’s our policy.  There’s a certain element of shambles in this whole thing when we do it, I mean, decent Republicans and decent Democrats don’t always agree; they don’t even have the same agenda.  But we have to take that part of the policy, build the organization around that, get some degree of unity among those two elements I’ve indicated, and do the best we can to build up from there.

Now later in the discussion on the Fireside chat last night, Mr. LaRouche responded to a question and he emphasized that what he laid out in the initial phase of that discussion, is something that absolutely can be done. He said, because there are people in our nation who are senior, and very important people in terms of their political and economic functions in the United States — and Mr. LaRouche mentioned that he’s in both direct and indirect dialogue with persons of that caliber. And Mr. LaRouche said that what he’s observed over the recent period, is that there’s been a phenomenon of a sort of division among this group of people, because they haven’t been able to figure out the formula for unity, unity among those people who are prepared to make a reasonable agreement in order to save the United States as a viable organization, but he said that what his obligation is, is to concentrate on what that element, what that recipe for unity is.

And this is how he said it has to be done:

“Once we decide, that a significant number, among the Republican members of the organization, and the Democratic Party part, minus Wall Street and minus what Hillary’s trying to do, and under those conditions, you will find that we have a possibility of a very sudden turnabout, where doubtful people are no longer going to be doubtful.  Because if we can bring together that kind of unity, around those kinds of considerations, we are able to pull the United States population together around this issue.

“A lot of people will still disagree, but we have a hard core, of both Republicans and Democrats and the thinking that goes with that, and that is the best thing we can possibly do at this time.  It’s from that point of view, if we start that, then a lot of other development can be obtained.”

So, at the conclusion of last night’s discussion, what Mr. LaRouche said was the following:

“The time has come, to take Democrats and Republicans who fit the sanity test, and get them into motion. Because if we can get an agreement within a significant part of the totality of our own Presidency, and spill that same spirit, into other countries which we deal with, I think we can make a good headway quickly, and it’s one which is very much needed….

“Therefore, instead of worrying about blaming people who are making mistakes — without question, making terrible mistakes — you’ve got to take the people, who as a group, will build a force which will spread its influence throughout other parts of the United States.

“Because if you just sit and say, ‘We’ve got a terrible situation out there, it ain’t going to work.  It’s not working.’ You’re just asking for the worst kind of effect.  You have to get in there, form organization, focus on your issues,  and get people together on those issues.  Without that,  everything you will say will become a waste of time!  And we don’t want that.

“We want our citizens, to recognize that what I’m talking about, as some Republicans, a significant number of Republicans, and that’s a late reform; and some other members of the House, are thinking a little more seriously now.

“What you’ve got to do is focus on encouraging, those forces, to become unified forces, with a unified conception of what has to be done!  Without that we’re dead.  So just complaining and denouncing people will not work.  It just makes things worse.  You’ve got to get people on the issues that mean something to them!  Real issues!

“I need to get Republicans, who are decent, but who are not necessarily very accurate right now; we’ve got to bring them into the fold.  We’ve got to do the same thing in other parts of the nation.  We’ve got to bring the people together.  We’re not going to get them all there at once, in one big swoop.  But we can organize very rapidly; there are intelligent people, members of the Congress many of them; members of the House of Representatives; other kinds of people like that; and we have a force.

“Our job now is to bring those willing people, who are willing to do that, and bring them together and enlarge the growth of their movement.”

So, that was Mr. LaRouche’s very clear statement of policy last night, and I wanted to go through it in detail, because it’s very important that it go on record, and that it be underscored in terms of what Mr. LaRouche’s outlook is at the current time.

Now, earlier today, as I mentioned, when we had a chance to meet with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, the discussion developed from there, based off of what Mr. LaRouche had to say last night. And the discussion developed in the context of the following question which I’m about to read, and which I’m going to ask Jeff to elaborate a little bit of what Mr. LaRouche’s answer was. This our institutional question for the week, and it reads as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche, the European Union’s Executive on Thursday stepped up pressure on the Bloc’s governments to enforce migration rules, launching a legal case against Hungary’s stringent asylum law, and advancing steps against Italy, Greece, and others for failing to implement EU legislation. In your view, how should the European Union manage the refugee crisis, emanating from multiple conflicts in countries such as Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan?”

So, I’ll ask Jeff to come to the podium at this point.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. The response by Mr. LaRouche was very immediate, very rapid, and very clear. He said, the problem emanates from the European Union itself, and the only viable solution for Europe is to break up the European Union itself. It’s become a factor chaos in all of Europe, and the basic policies of the European Union are creating the conditions for effectively the sealing-off of the borders of the entire European territory from desperate people, fleeing the wars in places like Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, which have been creations of the policies coming from the United States and from Europe over the course of the last 15 years — really, the problems go back even earlier. In effect, the Afghan operation began in 1979, when Jimmy Carter was still President of the United States, and Zbigniew Brzezinski was the National Security Adviser, taking his cue from a high-level British intelligence figure named Dr. Bernard Lewis.

That was the beginning of the promotion of the terrorist apparatus, that at the time was known as the Afghan mujahideen. They were called freedom fighters. A number of years later, they were known as al-Qaeda, and more recently, they’ve morphed into other even more virulent forms, such as the Islamic State.

So, the policies that have come out of the trans-Atlantic region, including policies emanating from the European Union, have been catastrophic, and they’ve brought the entire trans-Atlantic system to a point of absolute breakdown.

Now, at the same time that we’ve seen this policy of building a wall around the European region, and of creating the conditions for widespread deaths of desperate refugees trying to get into Europe, to escape the ravages of the war in Libya, for example, which came about because Britain, France, and the United States, Cameron, Sarkozy, and Obama — with a very strong endorsement from Hillary Clinton, unfortunately — overthrew and assassinated Libyan leader Qaddafi, and opened the floodgates for a jihadist stronghold on the Mediterranean shores of the Maghreb region of Africa.

Weapons flowed out of that area, into Syria, fueling the rise of the Islamic State. So Europe, particularly Britain and France, with the full complicity of the Obama Administration in the United States, created that refugee crisis in Northern Africa. Similarly, the United States and Britain created the catastrophes in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and it’s been the regime change policy of Washington and London to overthrow the Assad government in Syria, that’s led to the rise of the Islamic State, and created yet another major refugee flow into Europe.

So the European Union’s policy of shutting out those desperate people, is basically a condemnation of those people to mass death.

Now, internally within Europe itself, over the past week, we’ve seen four major banks in Italy go bankrupt, and under the policies adopted by the European Union and the European Central Bank, those banks have looted their depositors’ funding in a massive bail-in operation, which has meant the impoverishment of scores of citizens, hundreds, thousands of citizens of Italy, who thought their money was protected under the guideline rules of the European Union, only to find that the Cyprus model of bail-in has looted their accounts. There’s now an ongoing criminal investigation in Italy, because one of the depositors who had his entire life savings looted, committed suicide, and there’s an appropriate investigation now underway, as to the fact that the policies of the European Union, the European Commission, and the ECB, acted upon by the leading management of those banks, was a direct cause for a death.

So, you’re talking about a capital offense having been carried out.

This is the legacy of the European Union. And what Mr. LaRouche said, is that the theft of funds in Italy, along with the sealing-off of the European borders, is a worse form of fascism than we’ve seen since the end of World War II. And the same exact trend is in existence in the United States, under the top-down direction of Wall Street. He said, when you take people’s lives away, this is an act of mass murder, and this is an act of a policy of outright fascism. Wall Street, London fascism.

We’ve seen similar things going on in Greece. And therefore, the starting point for any kind of solution, for Europe in particular, is that you’ve got to destroy the European Union. Whatever benefit some people may have argued in the past, may have been associated with the EU, are now vastly overshadowed by the damage and negative factors. Bail-in as a policy is unforgivable. We already have bail-in in Europe. We already have bail-in in the United States — it’s yet to be acted upon, but it’s there, imbedded in Dodd-Frank, in Article 2 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Anyone involved in these policies deserves to be immediately pushed into jail, immediately. These are mass kill policies. These same mass kill policies are playing out in Paris at the COP-21 forum, and an outright mass genocidalist, Hans Joachim Schellnhüber, one of the leading advisors to the Pope on this issue of global warming, is calling for the Pope to step in and make a “religious intervention” to salvage the COP-21 conference, because leading nations in the developing sector are saying, “This is flat out a policy of genocide; we will not go along with it.” Malaysia, India, in particular, have taken the lead on this issue.

Now, the policies that we’re discussing, in the case of the European Union, are being carried out with the same ferocity here in the United States. And what we’re seeing, in terms of the reaction against the [Dec. 2 mass killing] incident that took place in San Bernardino, California, the overall blanket condemnation of Islam, the stoking up of this hatred ,on the part of Donald Trump, among others, is a further indication of the degeneration of the entire political situation.

Now, as Matt said earlier, quoting Mr. LaRouche from his Fireside Chat on Thursday night, there are clearly people of good will in both political parties, who’ve got to, basically, forge a non-partisan political alliance. We’ve got to clean out the garbage, and we’ve got to create the condition where the Presidential election in 2016 represents a return to core principles upon which this nation was founded. Many people are familiar with the first President of the United States, George Washington’s Farewell Address, from the standpoint of his warnings against foreign entanglements. But, in that same Farewell Address, George Washington warned against the tyranny of political parties, the tyranny of factionalism and sectionalism, and those warnings ring more true today, than perhaps at any point in recent memory.

Now, you’ve got some serious members of Congress, both the House and the Senate, and it’s not surprising that the areas where there is already common collaboration, are areas that are the most relevant to the issues that Mr. LaRouche put on the table, namely, wiping out Wall Street, and wiping out the power of the British Empire system, which still dominates the trans-Atlantic region. You’ve got a large and growing numbers of members of both the House and the Senate, who are supporting the idea of the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, which would be an efficient means of bankrupting Wall Street, in one fell swoop.

Many of those same members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, are also demanding the release of the 28 pages from the original 2002 Joint Congressional Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks, the September 11, 2011 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Remember, that those 28 pages catalog the role of the Saudi royal family, the role of Saudi intelligence, the role of the Saudi Ambassador at that time to the United States, Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, in financing the hijackers who carried out the greatest terrorist atrocity on U.S. soil in recorded history.

So, there are movements that strike at the heart of the problems that are facing this nation and are facing the world — that combination of people, many of them in Congress, others in the military and intelligence domain, former leading military figures, like [ret. Lieut.-]Gen. Michael Flynn, who we’ve talked about repeatedly in recent weeks on this broadcast. Michael Flynn was in Moscow this week, speaking at the 10th Anniversary Conference of RT, along with a number of other prominent American critics of the Anglo-American policy.

And Gen. Flynn correctly emphasized that to destroy ISIS, to defeat the Islamic State decisively, there must be cooperation between the United States and Russia. Others, leading retired military and intelligence figures, have come out publicly and said there must be a joint, unified, military command, conducted by the United States and Russia. Russia is an invited power that’s been asked in to Syria to help the Syrian government to fight the Islamic State. The United States has been, similarly, invited into Iraq, to do the same thing, until our invitation runs out. If there were a joint effort, the United States launching a pincer attack from the Iraq side, Russia launching a pincer attack with Syrian military forces from the Syrian side, you could crush the Islamic State. You could decisively defeat it.

So, there are people who are thinking strategically. We’ve got to take all of those elements, and create the kind of team that can coalesce around a viable American Presidency. And that both can and must happen, in the immediate period ahead. Trump, Hillary Clinton — these are not viable figures. They’ve demonstrated that repeatedly in the recent period. President Obama is not a viable figure. I had meetings, just in the past week, where a number of leading figures were expressing grave concern that the United States will not survive, if Obama remains in office for the next 13 months. There are people now who are openly discussing the idea of invoking the 25th Amendment. We talked about this last week.

Many people were shocked to see President Obama’s psychological meltdown on three recent occasions: first, you had the joint press conference with French President [François] Holland, following the Paris attacks of November 13th, where Holland was clearly in a frame of mind of marshalling for war, and President Obama was disassociated, disconnected, and thoroughly emotionally blocked, on the greatest challenge facing the trans-Atlantic region, in memory. Then in Paris, at the CO-P21 conference, where the [series of coordinated terrorist attacks] that took place on Nov. 13th in Paris, were trumping the issues that were nominally on the table, around “global warming.” Obama’s [Nov. 16th] press conference in Paris was shocking, in terms of the level of disassociation from reality. And so people became openly alarmed. And then, again, last Sunday evening, when the President dragged a podium and a teleprompter into the Oval Office, to deliver what was supposed to be a rallying cry for a war against the Islamic State, after the attacks in San Bernardino. And, once again, it was a disconnected, disassociated, policy statement that had nothing in it of any content.

People are talking about the need for the 25th Amendment. It’s been out in the media. Behind the scenes in Congress, it’s being discussed intensively, to the point that President Obama dispatched [Senior Advisor to the President] Valerie Jarret to Capitol Hill this week, to basically tell Democrats that the Republicans are getting ready for impeachment, and that the Democrats better be prepared to rally behind Obama. This is absolute nonsense, but indicates a further level of paranoia, emanating from the inner circle at the White House.

So, this Presidency has to be ended, using Constitutional means. And, frankly, at this point, the 25th Amendment is far more viable as a means to do it. Either members of Cabinet, or leaders of the Congress, can take action to convene a review, and immediately suspend the Obama Presidency, and move on from there. This is both necessary and vital for avoiding the kind of war danger which continues to emanate from this White House; even as military figures like General Flynn, like former Defense Secretary Bill Perry, echo warnings that we are closer to a thermonuclear war of annihilation than we were even at the height of the Cold War.

So these are real issues.  You can’t tolerate the continuation of this existing system; whether it’s in the European Union case or it’s in the case of the Obama Presidency. We need the kind of change that is only going to come about from this sort of rallying of a nonpartisan grouping of leading figures who don’t think of themselves any longer as Democrats or Republicans; but as responsible leaders of a republic facing its gravest crisis in recent history.  If we can do that, if we can marshal those forces, with the proper mobilization of you, the citizens of this country, we can get through this crisis and turn things around.  But anything short of that, leaves us dangerously on the edge of destruction.

OGDEN:  Thank you Jeff.  What I read from Mr. LaRouche earlier was sort of a thesis along which lines we were going to follow through on the course of the remainder of this broadcast. And I want to call your attention to one short part of those remarks that I did read, but I want to underscore as sort of an introduction to the next segment of what you’re about to see. One thing that Mr. LaRouche said last night is the following: “What we have to do is make a fundamental change from everything that most people in this nation have learned.  That is, beginning with the 20th Century policy and up to the present time, there has been a continuous degeneration in terms of long-term trends of economy and culture.”

Now, last week, at the concluding of the webcast, as an introduction to Benjamin Deniston’s segment, I referenced another very important statement that Mr. LaRouche delivered at the conclusion of his previous Fireside Chat; the one of last Thursday, on the topic of how history actually works in terms of mankind’s obligation to willfully generate his own future.  In order to set up what Jason Ross is going to present to us in the remainder of this broadcast tonight, I would actually like to read that statement in full; what Mr. LaRouche had to say on this subject last week.  What Mr. LaRouche said was the following:

“There is no such thing as an evolutionary process of development of human culture.  There are effects which occur at certain times, but then suddenly, the whole culture collapses; vanishes.  Then, somebody else arrives and stimulates something new, and gives mankind another chance at progress.  And our job is to understand this question of progress; and progress is not an evolutionary process.  It’s always a revolutionary process; it is never evolutionary.  And everybody who is sitting around waiting for a revolutionary process is just kidding themselves. A revolution of that type has to be an act of genius, which comes as if from nowhere; but that’s the way mankind succeeds.  And I’m looking for people who will do that kind of work, and become the geniuses who cause the future to be reborn again.”

So, let me ask Jason to speak on that subject.

JASON ROSS:  All right; thanks.  One key figure who LaRouche has pointed to for understanding this notion of breaks, of jumps, of revolutions in human self-conception and in the history of our species, is Filippo Brunelleschi.  Who, along with Cusa and Kepler, was one of the three real founders of modern science. I’m going to read another quote from LaRouche; this is from the show this Monday.  LaRouche had said, “Most of human history is breaks; breaks in human history, and evil periods and broken periods came into existence in the history.  And so then, what Brunelleschi did was, he brought in a concept of science which is unique in terms of what is known today.  Most people who were educated in this have no comprehension whatsoever of what Brunelleschi did.  It’s all available there for people if they were to study it enough; and it was brilliant, it was absolutely unique.  And so, I would say, the problem is that in our location itself, and in other locations, the lack of understanding of the work of Brunelleschi is the reason for the source of stupidity shown by even many of our own members on this.  And therefore, it’s extremely important that we realize that we are facing a great challenge threatening us.  And the Obama administration is an example of the great danger to the existence of the human species.  And this kind of thing, which is expressed by the work of Brunelleschi, is actually the solution; the key to the solution to understand actually how things were intended to work.”  What I’d like to do tonight is help give some background to the point that Mr. LaRouche is making by going through some of what Brunelleschi did in his life, and then come to some conclusions from that about intent and about shaping history today.

So, Brunelleschi himself — he lived from 1377 to 1446 — what he’s most known for is the construction of this magnificent dome [Fig. 1].  What you see here is the dome of the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiori in Florence.  You can just see from this picture, this is far larger; it dominates the entire city.  It’s an incredible accomplishment.  And you might be able to make out, standing on top of the red dome at the base of the white lantern as it’s called which tops it, there are people there, standing at a railing which may not even be visible as more than a pixel to you.  It gives some sense of how tall this structure is.  At the top of that gold ball on the top, which Da Vinci helped create, it rises higher than the US Capitol.  This is an enormous building; and it was built over the period of the 1300s and 1400s.

So, to give a little bit of background about the other things that Brunelleschi did as a very frankly, universal genius, I want to step through some other things in his life.  These aren’t in chronological order, but I want to give a sense of what he did, to then come back to the dome.  Among his accomplishments was the purported first construction of a spring-based watch, so you could actually have a clock that was based on springs, as opposed to weights, as they were made at the time.  I’m not really entirely certain that that was done.  He did work on perspective; he had created a sort of a “trick” painting that incorporated a mirror; so that if you stood in the right place, you would have an effect where the mirror would become part of the painting.  To show his work in sculpting — if we see the next image — he was officially apprenticed as a goldsmith, which is the same occupation that Donatello, his friend the great sculptor, took up.  Verrocchio, who was Da Vinci’s mentor, Da Vinci himself; these were goldsmiths.  Here you see one of his first projects, which was on the right [Fig. 2] a panel he submitted for a competition to design a set of doors for the Baptistry in Florence there.  He didn’t win; this was one of his first tries at getting a commission, but this is from him early in life.  You get a sense of what kind of skill he had.

The next image [Fig. 3], we see a painting in Santa Maria Novella in Florence by a colleague of Brunelleschi’s; this is by Masaccio, and it’s painting of the Trinity.  You may not notice, but there’s a dove there as the Holy Spirit in between the Father in the back and Christ in the front.  This is the first painting that really used perspective, so that on the flat wall of the church, you had a space that was created there; where the boundary, the type of the medium was broken.  And something flat turned into something solid.  Leon Battista Alberti, later the writer of a very famous book on painting, credited Brunelleschi with the invention of perspective.  And this is the work of one of his colleagues.

We see in the next image [Fig. 4], on the left we see an image of a crucifix, Christ on the cross that was made by Donatello.  Brunelleschi saw it, and he said that he didn’t really think Donatello had done a good enough job; he thought that Christ looked a little too “meaty” — that wasn’t the word he used.  But Donatello said all right; well, you take a shot at it, knowing that this wasn’t exactly Brunelleschi’s foremost skill as a sculptor.  But Brunelleschi created the image you see on the right [Fig. 5], and in Donatello’s eyes, it was superior.

The next image, we see a building that he had designed [Fig. 6]; this is a very nice looking building.  It’s got what’s called a loggia on the front; a sort of porch, the sort of thing you would see on the front of the house of a wealthy Roman from the height of the Roman Empire, or in Venice.  This is a building for orphans, this is the Ospedale degli Innocenti; and da Vinci brought that humanist approach to the beauty of the individual in constructing this building for orphans, where a decision could have been made to do this on the cheap.  Let’s throw up something that looks like it might have come out of East Germany in more recent times; but no, this is what he created.

The next image [Fig. 7], we see the interior of a church, Santo Spirito, which was designed by Brunelleschi; and although it’s difficult to get a sense of space when you see still images, these are buildings which give you a sense of goodness and beauty walking through them.  They’re beautiful buildings.  One more beautiful building we see here in the next image [Fig. 8], is the exterior — unfortunately this is the outside of the Pazzi Chapel that LaRouche has made frequent reference to.  Inside the chapel, which was designed by Brunelleschi, there is a really astonishing quality of sound; reverberation, echo, but not simply echo.  As LaRouche has put it, if you sing to it, it sings back to you. And I’d like to read some words from the Italian soprano Antonella Banaudi, who spoke about this chapel in a conference of the Schiller Institute in Berlin in 2012.  Banaudi said, “I recently went to the Pazzi Chapel in Florence; the Florence of Brunelleschi and Ficino.  In its naked proportion and simplicity, in the balance of light and colors, it gave a beautiful resonance to the sound of my voice.  A demonstration that it is the proportion, the idea translated into construction, that resonates inside of us.  The emotion I felt in hearing a response from the stone that almost supported me in singing; as if the stone were alive and expressing itself through cosmic vibration, made me feel part of a whole that unites stone and man in a harmony that is the reason for the existence for everything.  It is the same harmony that we seek and experience when singing together, playing together, participating in a sort of rite or celebration that is beyond religion and is profoundly moral and human.” Pretty good endorsement for a singing space.

So now, let’s come back to the dome; I’d like to talk about its background and creation.  The first stone was laid for its construction back in 1296, and construction was continuing through the 1300s; at a time when  Florence saw a great period of growth.  In 1367, there was a referendum on how to build the cathedral.  I know I’ve got local things that come up on the ballot, like school bonds, or things like that.  Imagine having this to vote on.  There was a referendum for two designs for the cathedral, which at that time was certainly nowhere near complete.  And the referendum was to vote between the structure you see here, which is obviously the one that won the referendum. The alternative approach was one that had a different idea of building.  You see on the cathedral here, the windows are very small; this is not a bright cathedral on the inside.  It’s very spacious, it’s enormous; but there’s not a lot of natural light coming in through those huge stained glass windows that you might associate with the beginning of the cathedral movement in Europe. Those cathedrals with the huge windows, given that they had a lot of glass and not a lot of stone to hold the building up, had those arches on the outside — the flying buttresses to hold it in.  But the vote on this referendum, which Brunelleschi’s father voted in, and he voted for this design which eventually won; was to forego the windows for a more beautiful design of the building as a whole.  And it laid out some requirements for the dome.

At the time, no one knew how to build the dome, but its general height was proposed; the height of that ring above the height of the rest of the cathedral to the dome was set.  So, this occurred in 1367.  To give a couple of numbers, the cathedral is 140 feet tall; the timbre, that extra ring before the dome starts, is another 30 feet tall; and then the dome itself goes to 300 feet with another 70 or so for the lantern and the ball and cross on top of it.

Brunelleschi was born ten years after this referendum in 1377.  He lived a few blocks from the cathedral; he would have — you couldn’t have missed this obviously, if you lived in Florence anywhere.  But living only a few blocks from it, he saw this every day; he saw the construction taking place.  This is the kind of thing that would cause a  young person to have an incredible sense of wonder.  So, as he became a more accomplished sculptor, artist, architect, goldsmith, he entered later in his life, in 1418, another competition.  And this was the competition to become the contractor, so to speak, to build the dome.

Now, there’s a lot of difficulty in terms of how you would build the dome; and it raised a very important question of construction.  So in the next image [Fig. 9], you see a typical sort of Roman dome; you can barely even see that there’s anything going on there.  This is the Pantheon; and you can see there’s a bit of a pimple or something sticking out of the top of it.  That dome is about as wide as the one in Florence, but you can barely see it; it’s in the shape of a sphere.  It’s 23 feet thick at the base, where the dome starts to come out of the rest of the building; that’s how thick they had to make it to hold itself up, and the way it was built — Let’s see the next image [Fig. 10] for a similar example of construction.  If you thing about the images — maybe you’ve seen Roman aqueducts with the semi-circular arches along the way — the way that they’re built, this is the Pont du Gare in today’s France.  The way that these arches were built was that you built a scaffolding underneath while you built the circular arch; and once the whole arch was done, and you put the keystone on top, then it would support itself.  The two parts that are trying to lean inward on the two sides could lean against each other and hold themselves up.  So, here you can see this type of construction being applied to an arch today in the next image [Fig. 11].  This is in Morocco.  You can see there’s scaffolding.

Now, the dome is very large.  It would have been impossible to build scaffolding under the dome.  It began at the height of 170 feet; there are no trees that tall.  This is beyond the height of trees.  So, if you’re trying to put up a bunch of posts to go underneath this thing to hold up the dome as you’re building it, you’re not going to get enough wood.  It would have taken 1000 trees anyway, even if you could have big enough ones; it was basically impossible.  So, what Brunelleschi had done in this competition is, he said it’s not an issue.  I’ll build this dome without scaffolding.  I’ll build this dome without centering, he said.

So, people asked him, “How are you going to do this?”  He actually responded with a joke.  I don’t know if it’s a true story about him, but a story about an egg, where he said, here’s the challenge; how do you make an egg stand up on its base.  And Brunelleschi took the cooked egg and just cracked it down, flattening the bottom, and said, “There you go; see?  The egg stands up just fine.”  And they said, “Well, if we knew that, we could have put the egg up.”  And he said, “Exactly.  I know how to build this dome, and you don’t.  So, you’re not going to understand it, but I can do it.  I’m your man.”

In the construction, he developed a  number of new techniques.  So, I’m going to talk about the overall shape of the dome; and Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized the importance of the catenary principle in this.  The catenary is just a word that means chain; it just means chain-ish.  So, the catenary, the shape of a hanging chain, it’s a shape that’s not coming from geometry, it’s not in Euclid; you can’t make it with a compass and a straight edge, the kinds of things you do in geometry class.  It’s a physical shape that’s made by a physical thing — a chain; it’s something real and physical.  It has a different kind of curvature in every spot of it; and LaRouche sees in Brunelleschi’s use of this principle in the construction of the dome, that Brunelleschi rejected the idea of linearity in the small.  That in the infinitesimal, there’s always an activeness to it; it’s not flat, it’s not linear.

In building this dome, let’s take a look at some of the technologies Brunelleschi developed.  In addition to being a sculptor and a goldsmith, he was also a very good contractor. The next image [Fig. 12], you see a crane that he had developed. If you’re lifting a bunch of material up to the top of this dome, you don’t want to be carrying it up all those steps.  If you imagine you’re carrying every brick up these steps, that would be a very grueling and tiring way to build this.  So what he did was, he repurposed, he developed a new way to use a winch system to lift material.  Before him, they used cables to lift things up, but they would use people, because people could turn around more easily than animals.  So before Brunelleschi, they used basically a giant hamster wheel with people in it, a treadmill. And people would run in it, and that would twist the cranks and lift the bucket up; and when it came time to bring it down, they’d run the other way.  The difficulty of using animals — this is a picture of a horse by da Vinci [Fig. 13], but oxen were used is, you can’t make them go backwards; they don’t like to turn around.  So, here you see a transmission. Brunelleschi built this with two sets of pegs on the vertical axis to connect to the horizontal one, where you’d change the height of it, and you could make it go forward or in reverse without making the animals change direction.  So, what a guy.

In the next image [Fig. 14], you see an interior schematic of the dome itself, where here we see another chain.  Four stone chains, a wooden chain which you can see inside the cathedral today, and a metal chain which is believed to exist.  Sort of like the hoops around a barrel to hold it in, Brunelleschi built in these chains to help hold in the dome.  This let him build it very thin, and actually surprising light.  Unlike the dome of the Pantheon, which was 23 feet thick at its base, the inner dome that Brunelleschi built was only 7 feet thick; and the outer dome — the one that you see on the outside of the building — is only 2 feet thick at its base, which is pretty astonishing.

So another aspect we see in the next image [Fig. 15] is the brickwork which Brunelleschi used.  Rather than flat layers of brick, where the bricks would basically fall off or cave in, Brunelleschi didn’t know how sheer lines; and with this space that you see here, this is the space between the inner and outer dome that you walk through to get up to the top.  This was a new technique that required 4 million bricks; these were custom shaped bricks; all different sizes.  He made these bricks very well; he’d season them for two years before he’d bake them.  This was a major, major undertaking.

So, the dome is under construction; it takes over a decade and a half.  The Pope himself comes to announce that it’s complete.  The Council of Florence, which I think people who are familiar with Mr. LaRouche’s work will have heard of; this important council to pull for unanimity and to resolve religious differences, was held here in Florence with this cathedral. Which I’m sure had an amazing impact on the participants.  If you’re trying to think through what’s the relationship of God and man; and you’re in this incredible, astonishing, unbelievable construction, I think that’ll have an effect on what you believe man’s identity to be, for sure.

So, shortly after that, Brunelleschi died.  The white lantern on the top made of marble — and this terrified people living in the area, because that’s tons and tons and tons of marble.  They were amazed that the dome was up at all; when it came time to bring even more weight up on top, to add the marble on those ribs, to add the marble for the lantern, people thought it was going to crack, it was going to break.  Obviously, it didn’t; it’s still here.  In 1461 it was completed, and as I mentioned, da Vinci was part of the crew that helped build that golden ball that you see at the very top there.  So, this takes us from Brunelleschi into da Vinci.

That other image you saw of the light on the ground, in 1475, Toscanelli put a plate inside the lantern to have a nice spotlight come down from the Sun.  Since this was the tallest structure around — the top of the lantern is 370 feet up — this is a very good solar observatory.  So, you’re able to get a very good sense of how the Sun is moving to correct the length of the year, you have a sense of the timing of the seasons.  And this is the kind of thinking that went into Toscanelli’s collaboration with Columbus, and providing him with maps, and the whole voyage to the New World.

So, that’s some about Brunelleschi; let’s talk about the implications for today, briefly.  In his approach, Brunelleschi — if you think about in the way that LaRouche like to talk about science vs. mathematics today, for example, if you compare the physical structure built by Brunelleschi to the geometry of the Pantheon, which was just a hemisphere, circle shape, those other arches in the Roman aqueduct.  They served their purpose, but they’re very much a shape that’s conceived and then you figure out how to bring it into being.  Brunelleschi started with the physical space he was working with, and went from geometry into physics; in a way like what real physics is, as compared to Euclid.  In the same way that Kepler, taking the insights from Brunelleschi’s work, taking the insights from Cusa’s work, approached astronomy; from the standpoint not of shapes but of the physical causes that brought about the motions of the planets.  Of gravitation, of the need for harmony; this was Kepler’s approach.  It was the approach of Leibniz, who, unlike the math and geometry based ideas of motion in physics that came from Descartes; Leibniz said, “No, forget it.  We can’t understand the physical world by how it appears to us,” by geometry and by shape.  There’s something more there; there’s something physical that’s distinct from the perceptual or from extension and shape and geometry.  Leibniz discovered what we would today understand as the force of motion; what he called vies viva, what today people would call kinetic energy.

You think about what Riemann did, where he in his Habilitation dissertation of 1854 said what Gauss knew but didn’t really way, when he said, “Look; we have been using ideas of mathematics and geometry to shape our thinking, but we don’t even know if it’s based on something that’s true.”  Are the idea of geometry that we base everything else on, are they true?  Is space flat?  How would we answer that question?  And what did Riemann say?  He said, in that tradition of Brunelleschi, get out of geometry; look to physics.  In the small, things are happening; it’s something physical, but it’s not a shape you can just imagine.

So, with these kinds of jumps that we saw, with Brunelleschi’s character as a person, he had certain achievements.  But what he did was, he made new things happen; that was his personality.  He did new things; they don’t happen on their own, he made the leaps.  So, think about the kinds of leaps we need to make today.  Some of the leaps, like leaping over the crap; throwing out Obama, dumping Trump.  And then there are the leaps upward, besides leaping over the pits; the leaps upward, things like developing fusion power.  We don’t know how the nucleus works; there’s so much unknown about it.  What’s occurring with low-energy nuclear reactions; will that be a viable source of power?  Maybe.  Will it be an insight into what’s actually going on in the nucleus?  Yes.  What will it mean to have a fusion power basis for our economy?  How will that change our relationship to materials, to resources, to water, when we can produce all we want and not worry about shortages of materials anymore?

What do we have to learn about the galaxy, where the limits of Newtonian gravity are making themselves very apparent with the inventions of dark matter and dark energy to try to keep the old law in place while accounting for new things that don’t fit them? What are we actually going to learn?  What are we going to learn about water?  About the ability to control water cycles here on Earth?  What’s role of the galaxy, of the Sun, in changing how the atmosphere responds to the formation of clouds, to climate over time, to water?  How does our Sun’s relationship to the galaxy we are in impact life here on Earth over evolutionary time, over climatic time, over long periods and shorter periods in terms of weather effects?

These are all incredible jumps that need to be made; that will not come from the past, but will come from what we’ll look back on and say, “Oh, that was that necessary step.”  And that’s the real basis in economy; the intention to have a leap, the intention to make a jump.  The desire to go to a future that hasn’t existed before.  This is what Alexander Hamilton’s outlook was in setting up our initial credit system, and his goal for an industrial, scientific, and technologically advancing United States; as opposed to the agrarian dream of Thomas Jefferson.

Here’s one of Hamilton’s mottoes.  He said, “As a general marches at the head of his troops, so ought wise politicians — if I dare use the expression — they should march at the head of affairs, insomuch that they ought not to await the event to know what measures to take, but the measures which they have taken ought to produce the event.”  We can produce a recovery; we can have direction in our economy.  We can have missions the way that Kennedy with the space program; the way Lincoln did with building the transcontinental railroad and other programs even during the Civil War.  With the initiatives that Franklin Roosevelt took to create a real recovery and separate the economy from the Wall Street-connected finance that Hoover was tied to.

So, nothing happens on its own.  As LaRouche has been saying, you don’t get evolutionary development over time in that sense in human history; it’s revolutionary.  Things don’t just happen; you make them happen.  You go out and you do them.  You throw Obama out, you create a credit system; they don’t just happen on their own.

And I’d like to end what I was going to say with another quote from Mr. LaRouche, from our discussion with the Policy Committee on Monday.  LaRouche said, “With the personality of human beings, you can’t say that you located it in the person as such; the living person who dies.  That is not the way to define the problem; you have to find the connection which creates the leap into progress, as opposed to a continuity.  You don’t  know what the process is until you live it, and find out what the mystery is.  It’s sort of, when you go to Kepler, you get a leap; when you go to the galactic system, you get a leap.  You get all kinds of leaps in the Solar System and through the whole thing itself; and it’s the understanding that this is the mind of man which is creating mankind, and not the other way around.”

OGDEN:  Well, thank you very much, Jason.  And I think that gives us a very good idea of exactly what Mr. LaRouche was saying; that history is not something that you allow to act on you and just react against.  But, history is something which must be understood in terms of the future being something that we must generate.  So, I think what Mr. LaRouche has prompted to think about, that that generation of the future can only come through an act of genius, which comes apparently out of nowhere, as Brunelleschi’s did.  And as Mr. LaRouche said, “I’m looking for people who will do that kind of work, and become the geniuses who cause the future to be reborn again.”

So, with that said, I would to bring a conclusion to tonight’s webcast.  Thank you very much to Jason and to Jeff for joining us here tonight; and thank you to all of you.  And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.

Men hverken menneskehedens udslettelse i et termonukleart Armageddon eller ofringen af menneskeliv til fordel for finansoligarkiet er uundgåelig. At forhindre dette kræver først og fremmest, at man overvinder partianskuelser eller geopolitiske anskuelser og i stedet erstatter dem med et upartisk samarbejde på alle niveauer, for menneskehedens fælles interesser. Ikke overraskende viser EU, der siden Maastrichttraktaten har udviklet sig til et monstrum, i lyset af flygtningekrisen og det forestående finanskrak, sig ikke alene at være en mislykket model, men EU er yderligere nu ved at gennemføre en åbenlyst fascistisk politik. Det seneste fremstød i denne retning er Bruxelles meddelelse om, at den under alle omstændigheder allerede afskyelige EU-grænsekontrol-organisation Frontex skal erstattes af en ny organisation, der kontrolleres fra Bruxelles, og som deporterer flygtninge med egne grænsevagter, opererer i ikke-EU-medlemsstater og kan sætte sig ud over indvendinger fra medlemsstater. Dermed ville det i flygtningespørgsmålet komme til den største overførsel af suverænitet til Bruxelles, siden euroens indførelse.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Der findes ingen evolutionsproces, når det kommer til udviklingen af menneskets kultur. Der er visse virkninger, som indtræder på visse tidspunkter. Men så, pludseligt, kollapser hele kulturen og forsvinder, den bliver slagtet. Så kommer der senere en anden, som bevirker noget nyt og giver menneskeheden en ny chance for fremskridt. Og vores opgave er at forstå, hvordan fremskridt fungerer, og det er ikke en evolutionær proces. Det er altid en revolutionær proces, aldrig en evolutionær proces!

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Den fordærvede offentlige mening og de ditto offentlige medier påstår, at Obamas fjernelse er umulig. Ja, de går endda så vidt som til at påstå, at det ikke engang bliver diskuteret. Men takket være først og fremmest, og mest af alt, den hovedrolle som katalysator, der spilles af Lyndon LaRouches »Manhattan-projekt« – er ingen af disse påstande sande. Ja, faktisk finder der en aktiv diskussion sted om behovet for at fjerne Obama på højeste regeringsplan. Ikke flere løgne; det kan gøres, og det må gøres, og vi må sørge for, at det bliver gjort, og gjort hurtigt.

Undertiden har en aktion, der angiveligt synes at være lokaliseret til et enkelt sted, såsom »Manhattan-projektet«, en universel virkning; tænk f.eks. på Brunelleschis kuppel i Firenze (katedralen Santa Maria della Fiore).

En del af det, som disse fordærvede medier og den offentlige mening forholder dig, er, at der nu foreligger et aktuelt lovforslag i Kongressen, der opregner 11 overtrædelser, der kunne udløse en rigsretssagsprocedure imod enhver præsident, der begik en hvilken som helst af disse overtrædelser. Den mest prominente af disse overtrædelser er lige netop disse »store forbrydelser og forseelser«, for hvilke Lyndon LaRouche har rejst tiltale mod Barack Obama i sine ugentlige dialoger med Manhattan-projektet.

Kongresmedlem Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) introducerede »H. Res. 198« den 13. april i år. Den er behagligt kortfattet. Efter nogle indledende »alt imens’er«, siger dens operative afsnit ganske enkelt det følgende:

»Repræsentanternes Hus erklærer, at de følgende præsidentielle handlinger skal udgøre ’store forbrydelser og forseelser’ inden for rammerne af artikel II, sektion 4, der skal udløse Husets vedtagelse af en artikel eller artikler for en rigsretssag (’impeachment’), der skal sendes til Senatet til efterprøvelse –

»(1) at indlede krig uden udtrykkelig bemyndigelse fra Kongressen

»(2) at, i USA eller i udlandet, dræbe amerikanske borgere, der ikke er engageret i aktive fjendtligheder imod USA, uden korrekt retssag (med mindre drabet var nødvendigt for at forhindre umiddelbar, alvorlig fysisk skade mod tredjeparter);

»(3) at forsømme udøvelsen af tilsyn med underordnede, der har gjort sig skyldig i kroniske forfatningsmæssige overgreb;

»(4) at bruge anviste midler i modstrid med betingelser fastsat for deres anvendelse;

»(5) med overlæg at lyve for Kongressen for at opnå bemyndigelse til krig;

»(6) at forsømme omsorgen for, at love samvittighedsfuldt udøves, derigennem, at erklæringer eller en systematisk politik for ikke-håndhævelse underskrives;

»(7) at indsætte eksekutive aftaler i stedet for traktater

»(8) med overlæg at lyve under ed for en føderal dommer eller undersøgelsesjury (grand jury)

»(9) at misbruge føderale (statslige) organisationer til fremme af en partisk politisk dagsorden;

»(10) at nægte at overholde en Kongresstævning om (udlevering af) dokumenter eller vidneaflæggelser, der er udstedt til et legitimt juridisk formål; og

«(11) at udstede eksekutive ordrer eller præsidentielle memoranda, der krænker eller omgår Kongressens forfatningsmæssige magtbeføjelser.«

Bemærk, at kongresmedlem Yohos lovforslag vil træde i kraft, så snart det er vedtaget af et flertal i Repræsentanternes Hus. Der behøves ingen handling fra Senatets side. Kongresmedlem Yoho har to medsponsorer: republikanerne Jeff Duncan fra South Carolina og Tom McClintock fra Californien. Republikaneren Justin Amash fra Michigan var en medsponsor, men trak sig tilbage den 9. juni. Vi kender endnu ikke hans begrundelser for tilbagetrækningen, men de involverer sandsynligvis intensiteten i kampen – i en kamp, som nogle ønsker, vi skal tro, slet ikke finder sted.

Hele den aktuelle fokusering på det umiddelbare behov for at fjerne Obama har ført til, at nogle personer igen undersøger bestemmelserne i Sektion 4 i det 25. tillæg til Den amerikanske Forfatning, der foreskriver, hvordan man fjerner en præsident, »der ikke er i stand til at udøve sit embedes magtbeføjelser og pligter«, men som forsømmer at gå af på eget initiativ – og således har brug for et lille skub, kunne man sige.

Den sædvanlige fremlæggelse af Sektion 4 – det, der rent faktisk har været vores sædvanlig fremlæggelse af Sektion 4 – siger, at vicepræsidenten og et flertal af regeringsmedlemmer skal vedtage at erklære præsidentens mentale defekt (i det aktuelle tilfælde). Men det er rent faktisk ikke, hvad den siger. Dette er blot et af alternativerne. Det andet alternativ er, at Kongreshusene (dvs. Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet) ved lov etablerer en anden »institution«, der ville få virkning af en særlig kommission til at undersøge og vedtage præsidentens evne til at fortsætte i embedet.

Det er potentielt set en temmelig stor forskel.

Lyndon LaRouche tilføjede her til aften, at der må være et tværpartisk initiativ for at dumpe (Donald) Trump. Netop nu har demokrater og republikanere mulighed for at sænke Trump på en regulær, upartisk basis. Hvis de kommer frem og siger det sammen, så omdefinerer det arten af præsidentkampagnen for 2016. Selv januar måned vil være for sent. Det bør ske nu, en upartisk organisering imod Trump, og denne samme kombination må også tage initiativ til handling for at dumpe Obama.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Rusland siger, USA og Rusland snart vil præsentere FN-Resolution for at forkrøble ISIS’ indkomster, sagde Ruslands ambassadør til FN Vitaly Churkin til reportere den 9. dec. »Vi arbejder sammen med USA’s delegation om et fællesprojekt. Dette er en storstilet resolution til bekæmpelse af terrorisme. Vi har tiltro til, at vi vil opnå dette, at denne resolution vil være klar til 18. december.« RT rapporterer, at denne »nye resolution vil indeholde en klausul, der vil håndhæve en strengere implementering af Resolution 2199 [en russisksponsoreret resolution fra februar 2015], der forbyder illegal oliehandel med terroristgrupper.«

Foto: Vitaly Churkin i FN.

9. december 2015 – De amerikanske F-15C luft-til-luft-kampfly, der blev deployeret til Syrien i begyndelsen af november, blev sendt dertil for at være modstandere mod Ruslands tilstedeværelse i Syrien. En unavngiven højtplaceret embedsmand i det amerikanske Luftvåben kom med kommentarer, der faktisk sagde dette, i går, som det rapporteres af The National Interest. Embedsmanden sagde, at kampflyene blev sendt til Tyrkiet, fordi »vi mente, at Rusland var i færd med at optrappe deres krænkelser af grænsen.«

Embedsmanden bekræftede således den erklæring, som kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hi.) kom med den 1. dec. i Husets Komite for de Væbnede Styrker, da hun udspurgte forsvarsminister Ash Carter om truslen om atomkrig mod Rusland: »Så, den kendsgerning, at vi nu har vores F-15-fly, der afpatruljerer den tyrkisk-syriske grænse, med en primær luft-til-luft-operation – der er ingen luftkamp imod ISIS; de har ingen aktiver i form af luftvåben; så jeg kan kun gå ud fra, at disse flys mål er russiske fly«, sagde hun. Carter svarede aldrig på hendes erklæring om F-15C-flyene, men det er nu demonstreret, at hun har ret.

Den unavngivne embedsmand klagede i øvrigt over, at tyrkerne ødelagde deployeringen af det amerikanske luftvåben med deres nedskydning af det russiske Su-24 fly den 24. november, som det amerikanske luftvåben ikke havde forventet, og det forventede heller ikke den russiske reaktion, dvs. russernes deployering af S-400 luftforsvarssystemet, tættere på den syriske kyst.

Foto: Det russiske krigsskib Moskva krydser nu ud for den syriske havneby Latakia.

Spørgsmålet om Frankrigs overlevelse efter det andet terrormassemord i Paris på et år blev udtrykt, da den franske præsident Hollande omgående og tvingende nødvendigt gik i aktion for at fremtvinge en alliance mellem Rusland, Frankrig og USA for at knuse ISIS og al-Qaeda.

Spørgsmålet om Ruslands overlevelse efter Tyrkiets bombning af det russiske fly over Syrien blev udtrykt, da præsident Putin holdt sin magtfulde tale til parlamentet i militærets hal, og påkaldte Ruslands 15 år lange kamp for at bekæmpe terror i Rusland, og nu, international terror, og indkaldte hver eneste russiske borger til at se sig selv som en »soldat« i denne krig.

Spørgsmålet om Amerikas overlevelse nu har intet at gøre med valggøglet efter terrorangrebet i San Bernardino. Spørgsmålet handler om den præsident Obama, der insisterer på at angribe og konfrontere Rusland og Kina som fjender, og som skjuler og benægter beviser for, at Saudi Arabien, Tyrkiet, Qatar og London støtter radikal jihadisme. Den præsident, der beordrede den amerikanske »åbning« til det Muslimske Broderskab siden 2011; som, siden afsættelsen og mordet på Gaddafi, har ført en bevidst kurs mod et endeligt opgør med Rusland og Kina, og i hvilket selvmorderisk opgør han tror, at de vil kapitulere til regimeskift, hvor som helst, han måtte ønske det.

Stiftende redaktør for Executive Intelligence Review Lyndon LaRouche har krævet, at Obama fjernes fra embedet, siden 2009, hvor han, med det samme, Obama indtog Det Hvide Hus, identificerede hans fatale »Nero-kompleks«.

LaRouche fremlagde det i dag: »Putin udøver en kvalitet af lederskab, der er de fleste amerikanske præsidenter i vores historie overlegent – men Obama! Obama begik et bevidst bedrageri, to gange på nationalt TV, hvor han dækkede over terroroperationen i Californien. Han støttede denne operation ved at forsøge at skjule dens karakter, og dernæst skjule dens sponsorer. Obama er en faktor for terrorisme og krig, en potentiel atomkrig.«

Obama driver nu nationen og planeten hen mod en atomar konfrontation, som den menneskelige civilisation ikke kan overleve. Atomvåbeneksperter kan se det og kommer med offentlige advarsler. Mindst ét kongresmedlem kan se det; kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard fra Hawaii udfordrede forsvarsminister Carter med denne Obamas trussel om atomkrig i Husets Komite for de Bevæbnede Styrker. Præsident Putin og det kinesiske lederskab ser det helt bestemt og træffer enhver foranstaltning til at forberede sig, så vel som til at undgå krig.

Onsdag ringede en af LaRouchePAC’s samarbejdspartnere i Midtvesten til sit kongresmedlem, briefede ham og sagde til ham, at Obama måtte fjernes ved hjælp af det 25. forfatningstillæg, omgående. Kongresmedlemmet sagde, at han ikke havde hørt nogen diskussion om dette. Vælgeren svarede magtfuldt, »Så kan du begynde diskussionen!« Det gjorde kongresmedlemmet, usandsynligt nok, og ringede tilbage til sin vælger to gange til for at rapportere, hvordan de andre i Kongressen havde reageret.

Det er blot én borger. Gang det op. Ændr hvad du tænker mht. din mulighed for at være med til at gøre, hvad der i virkeligheden er ret og nødvendigt.

7. december 2015 – Veterandiplomat Paul Craig Roberts rejser netop denne frygtindgydende kendsgerning i en artikel i dag med overskriften: »Der er krig i horisonten: Er det for sent at standse det?« På trods af al Ruslands tilbageholdenhed og fornuft – først i Ukraine og nu i Syrien – bemærker Roberts, så er deres tilbageholdenhed blevet behandlet som svaghed, og ved hver begivenhed, især efter Tyrkiets angreb på russernes Su-24 bombefly, har Washington blot øget provokationsniveauet. Dette kan skyldes, som han ildevarslende bemærker i begyndelsen, at, »når mobilisering for krig først begynder, følger det sin egen dynamik og er ukontrollerbart.«

Alt imens han aldrig bruger termen »atomar«, fremlægger Roberts tydeligt kendsgerningen om den globale trussel. »Det er ikke klart, i hvilken udstrækning de russiske og kinesiske regeringer forstår, at deres uafhængige politik, som blev bekræftet af den russiske og den kinesiske præsident den 28. september [på FN’s Generalforsamling], af Washington anses for at være ’eksistentielle trusler’ mod USA’s eneherredømme. Grundlaget for USA’s udenrigspolitik er det forpligtende engagement over for at forhindre andre magter i at rejse sig til en status, hvor de vil være i stand til at begrænse Washingtons ensidige handling. Ruslands og Kinas evne til at gøre dette gør dem begge til mål.«

»Den russiske regering har forladt sig på ansvarlig, ikke-provokerende respons«, siger han. »Rusland har antaget en diplomatisk fremgangsmåde og forladt sig på, at europæiske regeringer kommer til fornuft og erkender, at deres nationale interesser afviger fra Washingtons, og ophører med at gøre Washingtons politik for eneherredømme mulig. Denne russiske politik er slået fejl. Gentagne gange er Ruslands ansvarlige responser med lav profil blevet brugt at Washington til at afbilde Rusland som en papirtiger, som ingen behøver være ræd for. Vi står tilbage med det paradoks, at Ruslands faste beslutning om at undgå krig, er i færd med at føre direkte til krig.«

»Hvad enten de russiske medier, det russiske folk og hele den russiske regering forstår dette eller ej«, siger Roberts som afslutning, »så må det være indlysende for det russiske militær. Det eneste, de russiske militærledere behøver gøre, er at se på sammensætningen af de styrker, der er sendt af NATO for at ’bekæmpe ISIS’. Som George Abert bemærker, så er de amerikanske, franske og britiske fly, der er blevet deployeret, kampfly, hvis formål er luft-til-luft-kampe, ikke angreb på jorden. Kampflyene er ikke deployeret for at angribe ISIS på jorden, men for at true de russiske bombefly, der angriber ISIS-mål på jorden.«

»Der er ingen tvivl om, at Washington driver verden hen imod et Armageddon, og Europa er den, der gør det muligt. Washingtons købte og betalte marionetter i Tyskland, Frankrig og Storbritannien (Det forenede Kongerige) er enten dumme, ligeglade eller magtesløse over for at undfly Washingtons greb. Med mindre Rusland kan vække Europa, er krig uundgåelig.«

Efter fuldstændigt at være blevet taget på sengen af den russiske præsident Putins strategiske flankeoperation i Syrien, som annonceredes den 30. september, har Det britiske Imperium og præsident Obama lanceret en igangværende række direkte militære angreb og provokationer imod Rusland, som eskalerer for hver dag, der går. Dette har de gjort gennem helejede datterselskaber såsom ISIS (der mere ligner en gren af Londons Dope, Inc.), den tyrkiske regering, Saudi Arabien osv. Tag denne korte kronologiske oversigt i betragtning:

* 31. okt.: Ruslands Metrojet sprænges i luften over Sinai af ISIS.

* 24. nov.: Tyrkiet nedskyder et russisk SU-24 over Syrien, med klar godkendelse og forudgående ondskabsfuld hensigt fra Obamas side. Tirsdag modtog præsident Putin flyets sorte boks, som det lykkedes russiske og syriske styrker at bjærge, og meddelte, at den kun vil blive åbnet under internationale eksperters tilstedeværelse, og at den ville vise, at flyet var blevet ramt i syrisk luftrum.

* 1. dec.: Den amerikanske forsvarsminister Ash Carter annoncerede deployeringen af yderligere amerikanske specialstyrker i Irak, under den irakiske regerings højlydte protester.

* 3. dec.: Tyrkiske tropper invaderede det nordlige Irak under den irakiske regerings skingre protester, igen med klar opbakning fra Obama. Dette eskalerede den 7. dec., da der rapporteredes om yderligere tyrkiske tropper, der gik ind i området, hvilket bragte tallet op på 900 iflg. guvernøren for provinsen Ninive, rapporterer Sputnik. Tyrkiet har nægtet at trække sine troper tilbage; deres eneste »indrømmelse« har været endnu ikke at sende yderligere 350 tropper, der er opstillet på grænsen, ind.

* 6. dec.: USA bombede en syrisk militærbase i Syrien og dræbte tre soldater; et yderligere amerikansk bombeangreb dræbte 32 civile. Forsvarsministeriet har afvist ansvaret for angrebet på militærbasen og har modargumenteret med, at russerne gjorde det.

Finnian Cunningham, den anti-britiske, irske, politiske analytiker, hvis artikler jævnligt udgives i de russiske medier, opsummerede situationen i en artikel den 7. dec. i RT: »På trods af de absurde benægtelser, så er den barske konklusion den, at NATO er i krig med Syrien … gennem forlængelse betyder dette, at NATO også har bevæget sig over i en krigstilstand imod Rusland, som den syriske præsident Bashar al-Assads regerings allierede.« Cunningham konkluderede: »Det ser ud, som om Washington er parat til at starte en verdenskrig.«

Og den russiske militærekspert Vladimir Bogatyrev gav et interview til Radio Sputnik den 7. dec., hvor han sagde, at Tyrkiets indrykning i det nordlige Irak er en provokation, de er koordineret med den amerikanske regering. »Vi er gået ind i en helt ny fase i kampen mod Daesh [ISIS] … Det er afgjort en tyrkisk provokation. Og den var selvfølgelig koordineret med USA.«

Men alle disse provokationer på vegne af briterne og Obama går op imod Putins stålsatte beslutning og hans igangværende flankering af provokationerne. Tirsdag meddelte Putin og hans forsvarsminister Shoigu, at Rusland havde lanceret krydsermissiler imod ISIS fra en russisk ubåd i Middelhavet. Putin tilføjede, at missilerne kan armeres med enten et konventionelt sprænghoved eller et atomsprænghoved, men at han håbede, atomsprænghoveder »aldrig vil blive nødvendige«.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

6. december 2015 – Den syriske præsident Bashar Assad advarede igen i dag, i et interview udgivet af Londons Sunday Times, de europæiske nationer om disses aktuelle, katastrofale kurs og pegede som en modsætning på det, Rusland gør:

»De [Rusland] ønsker at beskytte Syrien, Irak, regionen – og endda Europa. Jeg overdriver ikke, når jeg siger, at de beskytter Europa i dag.« Men det, de europæiske nationer gør sammen med USA, hvor de bomber i Syrien uden hans regerings tilladelse, er ulovligt, sagde Assad, og er kun med til at få ISIS-canceren til at vokse.

»Vi ved lige fra begyndelsen, at Storbritannien og Frankrig var spydhoveder i støtten til terroristerne i Syrien, lige fra konfliktens begyndelse«, sagde han. »Vi ved, at de ikke har denne vilje, selv hvis vi vil gå tilbage til kapitlet om militær deltagelse i koalitionen, må den være omfattende, det må være fra luften, fra jorden, for at have samarbejde med tropperne på jorden, de nationale styrker, for at denne indgriben eller deltagelse skal være lovlig. Det er kun lovligt, hvis deltagelsen er i samarbejde med den legitime regering i Syrien. Så jeg ville sige, at de ikke har viljen og de har ikke visionen om, hvordan de skal nedkæmpe terrorismen …

Så jeg ville sige, for det første, så vil de ikke skabe nogen resultater. For det andet vil det blive skadeligt og ulovligt, og det vil støtte terrorisme, som det, der skete efter at koalitionen begyndte sin operation for et år eller så siden, for dette er ligesom en cancer. Man kan ikke skære i canceren. Man må fjerne den. Denne form for operation er ligesom at skære i canceren, som vil få den til at spredes hurtigere i kroppen.«

Assad gentog ikke desto mindre sit tidligere tilbud om at samarbejde med enhver, der er seriøs omkring at ødelægge ISIS: »Hvis de er parat – seriøst og oprigtigt – til at bekæmpe terrorisme, byder vi ethvert land eller enhver regering, enhver politisk indsats, velkommen; i den henseende er vi ikke radikale, vi er pragmatiske.«

6. december 2015 – Den ISIS-allierede Recep Erdogans tyrkiske regering deployeres af Obamaregeringen og briterne for at forsøge at provokere den russiske præsident Putin ind i deres fælde med en konflikt, der eskalerer til atomkrig.

De 150 tyrkiske tropper og 25 tanks, der i denne weekend uindbudt gik ind i det nordlige Irak, er »lige ved siden af Mosul og lige imellem kurderne og ISIS«, direkte på smuglerruten for illegal ISIS-råolie ind i Tyrkiet fra Irak, skrev Tyler Durden i ZeroHedge.com den 5. dec. Den tyrkiske avis Hurriyet tilføjede, at det er planen, at »Tyrkiet får en permanent militærbase i Bashiqa-regionen i Mosul«.

Den irakiske regering protesterede i går over, at den tyrkiske handling var en »invasion« og krævede deres omgående tilbagetrækning og optrappede i dag med en erklæring fra premierministerens kontor, der lød: »Hvis en tilbagetrækning af disse styrker ikke finder sted inden for 48 timer, har Irak ret til at tage alle tilgængelige muligheder i anvendelse, inklusive at ty til FN’s Sikkerhedsråd.« Foreløbig har Tyrkiet kun svaret lakonisk, at det har suspenderet alle yderligere troppeoverførsler.

I betragtning af disse udviklinger spørger Durden: »Dette er sluttelig endnu en optrapning fra Erdogan, og timing, sted og vage forklaringer rejser alle mulige spørgsmål om, hvad disse 150 tropper og 25 tanks foretager sig, men man kan være sikker på, at, hvis Bagdad irettesætter Washington og giver grønt lys til russisk rekognoscering og luftangreb i Irak, vil vi snart finde ud af det.«

Med et par nye hændelser mellem Tyrkiet og Rusland tilbageholdt Tyrkiet tidligere på ugen fire russiske handelsskibe i den tyrkiske havn Samsun pga. angivelige »manglende dokumenter« og overtrædelse af sikkerheden. Tre af de fire skibe blev frigivet den 4. dec., men et skib er fortsat tilbageholdt. Den tyrkiske handling kom iflg. rapporterne efter russerne tilbageholdt fem tyrkiske skibe i Novorossiysk, der siden alle er blevet frigivet. Og det Tyrkiske Udenrigsministerium har protesteret over, at en russisk soldat i går svingede med en raket-affyrer på sin skulder på dækket af et russisk skib under dets passage gennem Bosporus, der deler Istanbul i to.

Foto: Tyrkiets statsminister Recep Tayyup Erdogan.

»Det, vi har her, er et problem, der umiddelbart kan spores til det terrorregime, der ramte Paris og andre dele af Frankrig for nylig. Vi har nu i USA, i mindre skala, den samme type operation med en arabisk gruppe for panik, og som begår massemord. De massemord, der styres af Tyrkiet og andre netop nu, er en del af den samme ting, som nu dræber amerikanere i USA på samme basis. Og grunden til, at dette finder sted, er Barack Obama, der har magt til at håndtere dette problem, men ikke gør det. Man kan derfor ikke klage over disse ting, hvis man ikke handler med de midler, der er til rådighed, for at korrigere problemet.«

»Der sker det, at politiets styrker har nogen indsigt i dette her, men den form for indsigt, der behøves, bliver ikke leveret! USA’s præsident er ansvarlig for at håndtere dette, for denne bølge af terror, der smittede fra Frankrig, som kom fra Saudi Arabien oprindeligt, derfra, rammer nu USA, og enten ved USA’s præsidentskab det, eller også er det så dumt, at det ikke ved det.«

»Nogen bør gøre noget ved det. Det her vil blive værre. Men hvis man ikke sørger for at blive dette særlige tilfælde af terror kvit – for dette er kun en del af en plan for at skabe massiv uro, på denne måde, internt i USA, så vel som andre steder.«

»Så derfor gør Obama ikke sit job! Obama handler ikke for at redde amerikanske borgeres liv. Og det er den eneste måde at få ram på det her. Lad være med at kommentere det: Korriger det.«

»Vi er kommet til et tidspunkt, hvor vi ikke simplet hen kan løse et problem ad gangen. Vi må erkende, at hele planeten, under Det britiske Imperiums indflydelse, som sådan; det var Det britiske Imperium, der organiserede de generelle krige i forrige århundrede; [den amerikanske] borgerkrigen var et produkt af dette samme problem.«

»Problemet er således, at vi simpelt hen må rense op i dette rod.«

Senere i diskussionen gentog LaRouche:

»Denne præsident må fjernes fra embedet, fordi han terroriserer hele USA’s befolkning, og han er derfor ikke skikket til at være USA’s præsident.«

LaRouches lederskab overlapper den voksende afsky i landet mod Obamas løgne, og hans afsindige fremstød mod en atomar konfrontation med Rusland og Kina – som på det seneste bruger Erdogans regering i Tyrkiet til at lancere den ene provokation efter den anden imod Rusland. Den 4. dec. var Melon-Scaifes Pittsburgh Tribune Review den seneste avis, der tog spalteskriver Charles Hurts artikel i Washington Times op, hvor denne rejser spørgsmålet om det nødvendige i at aktivere det 25. forfatningstillæg imod en præsident Obama, de er ansvarlig for, at ISIS nu »kommer til Amerika«. Andre medier, såsom Boston Herald, er oprørte over Obamas håndtering af San Bernadino-skyderiet og skriver: »Vold på arbejdspladsen? Virkelig?«

Men det er kun få mennesker i USA, der endnu forstår dybden af de forandringer, der kræves for at løse disse problemer – såsom den presserende forlængelse af Verdenslandbroen ud i hvert eneste hjørne af planeten, inklusive i det krigshærgede Mellemøsten. De har heller ikke overvejet den menneskelige kreativitets enestående egenskaber, der ligger uden for de dagligdags vaner med »praktisk tankegang«, og som er nødvendige for at få denne revolutionerende transformation til at ske.

Her kommer LaRouches Manhattan-projekt ind, som netop tager dette afgørende spørgsmål op. Som LaRouche erklærede i sin ’Samtale omkring Pejsen’:

»Sådan noget som en evolutionær proces inden for udvikling af menneskelig kultur eksisterer ikke. Der er virkninger, der finder sted på bestemte tider. Men så kollapser hele kulturen pludselig, den forsvinder, den bliver slagtet. Senere kommer der så en anden person og stimulerer til noget nyt, og giver således menneskeheden en ny chance for at gøre fremskridt.«

»Det er vores opgave at forstå dette spørgsmål om fremskridt, og fremskridt er ikke en evolutionær proces. Det er altid en revolutionær proces, det er aldrig evolutionært! Og alle, der bare sidder og venter på en revolutionær proces, narrer sig selv. En sådan form for revolution må være en genial handling, der ligesom kommer ud af intetheden. Og jeg leder efter folk, der vil gøre den slags arbejde og blive til de genier, der vil forårsage, at fremtiden bliver genfødt.«

4. december 2015 – Stifter af og international præsident for Schiller Instituttet Helga Zepp-LaRouche talte ved to arrangementer i Tokyo den 2. december, hvor hun leverede et klart budslab til 400 japanske erhvervsledere om, at Verdenslandbroen er den eneste måde, hvorpå krigens og geopolitikkens tyranni, og den igangværende krise i Mellemøsten, kan afsluttes. Om morgenen talte fr. Zepp-LaRouche til Asia Innovation Forums syvende årsmøde, med 300 unge, japanske igangsættere og med Noboyuki Idei, fhv. formand og leder af Sony Corporation og nuværende stifter og leder af Quantum Leaps, såvel som også stifter af Asia Innovators’ Initiative, som vært.

I sin omfattende fremlæggelse advarede fr. Zepp-LaRouche om det globale mønster med regionale krige, det let kan føre til en global katastrofe, inklusive en ny konflikt mellem supermagter, og hun understregede, at den eneste måde, hvorpå begivenhedsforløbet kunne ændres, var gennem fundamentalt at ændre paradigmerne for tankegangen. Hun gennemgik i detaljer Verdenslandbroen og identificerede de store, globale projekter, der kan transformere verden, og nævnte den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings »Ét bælte, én vej« som frøet til en global renæssance. Efter en detaljeret gennemgang af de umiddelbart gennemførlige, store projekter, udlagde hun idéen om menneskeheden som en enestående art, der har evnen til at skabe en fremtid gennem skabende opdagelser. Hun forklarede konceptet i Alexander Hamiltons og Henry og Mathew Careys Amerikanske, økonomiske System, og hun forklarede, hvordan disse ideer bredte sig i hele verden i det 19. århundrede og skabte de moderne nationer Tyskland under kansler Otto von Bismarck og Japan under Meiji-restorationen.

Sammen med fr. Zepp-LaRouche bestod ekspertpanelet desuden af fhv. IMF-direktør, Dominique Strauss-Kahn; fhv. chef for det statslige russiske jernbaneselskab, og medstifter af Rhodos Dialog mellem Civilisationer, Vladimir Yakunin; og Paolo Nogueira Batista jr., den tidligere brasilianske direktør for IMF, som nu er vicepræsident for den Nye Udviklingsbank, der er grundlagt af BRIKS og har hovedkvarter i Shanghai. Panelets ordstyrer var Daisuke Kotegawa, en fhv. topembedsmand i det japanske Finansministerium, der også var Japans direktør for IMF på tidspunktet for finanskrisen i 2007-2009.

Under sin fremlæggelse støttede dr. Yakunin kraftigt fr. Zepp-LaRouches forslag til Verdenslandbroen, og han bemærkede, at Ruslands politik for Eurasiske Udviklingskorridorer og Kinas politik for ’Ét bælte, én vej’ var helt igennem forenelige og repræsenterede det »ny paradigme« i tankegang, som der er så hårdt og presserende brug for, for at forhindre krige, der skabes af det døende, neo-liberalistiske system. Han understregede, at præsidenterne Putin og Xi havde forpligtet sig engagerende til russisk-kinesisk samarbejde for at virkeliggøre disse eurasiske infrastruktur-forbindelser.

Under sine indledende bemærkninger gik Strauss-Kahn i detaljer med den igangværende krise i det globale finanssystem og erkendte, at nedskæringspolitikken (’nøjsomhedspolitikken’) var en fiasko og måtte erstattes af en model for vækst, alt imens han medgav, at der ikke er nogen reel støtte til en levedygtig ændring af politikken internt i de globale, dominerende finansinstitutioner i dag.

Om eftermiddagen talte fr. Zepp-LaRouche ved en separat begivenhed, der var sponsoreret af Canon Institute for Globale Studier og havde deltagelse af 100 topledere fra de største, japanske industriselskaber og finansinstitutioner, såvel som fra den japanske regerings oversøiske investeringsagenturer og -fonde. EIR-redaktør Jeffrey Steinberg talte ligeledes til Canon Institute-forsamlingen, hvor han fremlagde et detaljeret billede af den reelle proces med økonomisk og samfundsmæssigt sammenbrud i USA.

Fr. Zepp-LaRouche fremlagde sin præsentation af Verdenslandbroen[1] som den eneste måde, hvorpå det geopolitiske fremstød for verdenskrig kan besejres.

Nogueira Batista fremlagde en dybdegående rapport om den Nye Udviklingsbanks fremskridt og planerne om at begynde at udstede udviklingslån i april 2016. Han gennemgik historien om BRIKS-landenes lancering af den Nye Udviklingsbank som respons på »Washington-institutionernes« – IMF’s og Verdensbankens – ynkelige fiasko mht. at gennemføre reformer i kølvandet på det finansielle kollaps i 2008.

[1] Se Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale her på hjemmesiden, senere.

Den 1. december, 2015 – Flere personer har i de seneste dage udtalt og afsløret den svindel, der er forbundet med Obamas og briternes aktuelle handlinger i Syrien, samt udstillet truslen om en altomfattende krig; man er tæt ved ligeud at sige ’få galningen ud’(af det Hvide Hus, -red.), før det er for sent. Tidligere præsidentkandidat Pat Buchanan, en pensioneret amerikansk oberst, og en professor ved Bath Universitetet i Storbritannien er tre eksempler på sådanne kommentatorer.

Buchanan konkluderer i sin artikel med titlen: ”Er vi ved at snuble ind i en krig med Rusland?”, således: ”Som tingene står i dag, støtter Putin de amerikansk-franske angreb på ISIS. Men hvis vi følger tyrkerne, og begynder at hjælpe de oprørere, der angriber den syriske hær, kunne vi befinde os ansigt til ansigt i en konfrontation med Rusland, hvor vore NATO allierede ikke er med os. Er der nogen, der har gennemtænkt dette?”

Professor David Miller havde følgende overskrift på sin artikel: ”Hvordan stopper vi terrorisme? Ved at stoppe med at begå terrorisme.” I det skotske dagblad National, skriver Miller, at ”det første, de vestlige nationer skal gøre, hvis de ønsker at stoppe terrorisme, er at stoppe med at begå den. Hemmelige bortførelser, tortur, snigmord på udvalgte personer med drone eller special-kommando, samt massedrab på civile, forårsager terror og skaber terrorister.” Vi ved, at Daesh (ISIS) er et afkom af Blair-regeringens katastrofale invasion af Irak. Ideen om, at Daesh og andre drives af islamisk ekstremistisk ideologi, støttes ikke af dokumentation fra frontlinjen. Lydia Wilson fra ’Center for the Resolution of Intractable Conflict’ ved Oxford Universitet, rapporterer om oplevelsen med at interviewe Daesh-krigsfanger i Irak. Hun citerer en fange, der formulerer sine grunde til at kæmpe således: ”Amerikanerne kom,” sagde han. ”De fjernede Saddam, men de fratog os også vores sikkerhed. Jeg brød mig ikke om Saddam, vi sultede dengang, men i det mindste havde vi ikke krig. Borgerkrigen startede, da I kom hertil.”

I Spectator skriver pensioneret oberst Andrew J. Bacevich, nu ansat ved Boston Universitetet, i en artikel med overskriften ”Vi foregiver at være i krig: Hvorfor det ikke løser problemet at bombe ISIS”:

”Selv suppleret med kommandoraids, træningsmissioner og generøs uddeling af våben til lokale styrker, beløber de opnåede resultater for de mange fløjne bombetogter, mængden af brugt ammunition og de ramte mål, sig tilsammen ikke til meget mere end militært småstikkeri. I USA har luftangrebenes indlysende mangel på effektivitet udløst opfordringer til en decideret invasion. Eksperter i den krigeriske kategori, af hvilke de fleste gik forkert af Irakkrigen i 2003, insisterer på, at blot 10.000 eller 20.000 landtropper – maksimalt 50.000! – hurtigt vil kunne gøre det af med Islamisk Stat som en kampstyrke. Garanteret sejr. Intet problem …”

”Knus ISIS, hvad enten det sker med bombning eller landtropper, og problemerne vil stadig være der. Et nyt ISIS, under et andet navn, men sandsynligvis under samme flag, vil dukke op i stedet, meget lig den måde, hvorpå ISIS selv dukkede op af asken fra al-Qaeda i Irak …
”Intervention tjener typisk til at skærpe situationen og fremprovokere yderligere modstand. Fremfor at slukke radikalismens flammer, ender vi med at nære dem …

”At de vestlige regeringer pr. refleks vil hjemsøge regionen med yderligere vold, repræsenterer ikke en politik, men derimod en opgivelse af politik. Det er på høje tid at tænke anderledes”, konkluderede han.

I løbet af de 10 dage, siden Tyrkiets nedskydning af det russiske bombefly … , har de barske kendsgerninger, som hr. LaRouche har advaret om i årevis, hævdet sig meget levende, og på uigendrivelig måde: at, under denne præsidents fortsatte politik befinder verden sig kun en hårs bredde fra en fuldt optrappet atomkrig, en krig, der kunne bryde ud, hvornår det skal være, og en krig, der ville blive absolut uden fortilfælde mht. det omfang af død og ødelæggelse, som en sådan krig ville udløse. Engelsk udskrift.

Utilize Your Unique Human Potential To Contribute
  To the Creation of a Higher State of Existence for Mankind! 
International Webcast for December 4, 2015

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s December 4, 2015. You’re
watching our regular Friday evening webcast here from
larouchepac.com. My name is Mathew Ogden, and I will be your host
here this evening. I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey
Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}, and by Benjamin
Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science Team. And the three of us
did have an opportunity to meet with both Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche earlier today, and what we present here tonight will be
informed as a reflection of the outcome of that discussion.
We meet here tonight under very urgent circumstances. In the
10 days since the shooting-down of the Russian fighter jet by
Turkey over Syrian territory, the stark reality of what Mr.
LaRouche has been warning about for years has asserted itself
very vividly, and in an indisputable way: that under the
continued policies of this President, the world is currently only
a hair’s breadth away from all-out thermonuclear war, a war which
could occur any hour of any day, and one whose consequences would
be absolutely unprecedented in the magnitude of death and
devastation which such a war would unleash.
As Mr. LaRouche was very forthright in the hours following
that incident on Nov. 24, and was echoed and confirmed later by
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Turkey was by no means
acting alone in the decision to take this incredibly provocative
action, but must have possessed some sort of prior agreement
directly from the United States to shoot this Russian plane
down-the very first such direct military action against a Russian
military aircraft by a NATO member country in over 60 years, and
one taken with the obvious foreknowledge of everything that such
an attack implies in terms of the rapid chain of escalation of
response, and counter-response, which can very quickly, under
these circumstances, lead to the issuance of a command for the
launch of a nuclear strike.
Thus, as Mr. LaRouche has not ceased to warn in very clear
terms, every day that Obama has his finger on the red button of
the United States strategic nuclear arsenal, is a day of
existential danger to the entirety of the human race.
Now in the aftermath of this incident, the dire urgency of
this grim reality has begun to sink in. We saw the article that
we mentioned last week in {Politico} magazine on Nov. 27, by
Bruce Blair, a nuclear security expert at Princeton University,
and one of the cofounders of the Global Zero movement for the
elimination of nuclear arms. The article was titled “Could
U.S.-Russian Tensions Go Nuclear?”, and described in detail the
so-called launch-on-warning status which have the nuclear weapons
of both Russia and the United States on hair-trigger alert in
which the decision to launch a full-scale nuclear barrage by
either side, must be made within a matter of mere minutes, if not
mere seconds. The author, Bruce Blair, says the following:
“The public doesn’t realize just how little time exists for
our leaders to make a decision to use nuclear weapons, even
today. And if anything, the atmosphere has become even more
hair-trigger. A launch order is the length of a tweet. Missile
crews in turn transmit a short stream of computer signals that
immediately ignite the rocket engines of many hundreds of
land-based missiles. For the United States, this takes one
minute. Given the 1 to 30 minute flight times of attacking
missiles, 11 for submarines lurking off the other side’s coasts,
and 30 minutes for rockets flying over the poles to the other
side of the planet, nuclear decision-making under
launch-on-warning, the process from warning to decision to
action, is extremely rushed, emotionally charged, and pro forma,
driven by check lists. I describe it as the rote enactment of a
prepared script. In some scenarios after only a 3 minute
assessment of early warning data, the U.S. President receives a
30 second briefing on his nuclear response options, and their
consequences. He then has a few minutes — 12 at most — more
likely 3 to 6, to choose one option.”
The author also quotes President Reagan, who in his memoirs
complained of having “only 6 minutes to decide how to respond to
a blip on a radar scope, and decide whether or not to release
Armageddon.” — which, parenthetically, is why President Reagan
decided to take up Mr. LaRouche’s proposal for a joint
U.S.-Russian space-based missile defense system, the so-called
Strategic Defense Initiative, to render nuclear missiles impotent
and obsolete. But as we well know, Barack Obama is definitely no
Ronald Reagan.
Now in addition to this article by Bruce Blair, yesterday
former Defense Secretary William Perry, said in a very
significant presentation which he made in Washington, D.C., the
following: “The U.S. is on the brink of kicking off a new nuclear
arms race that will elevate the risk of nuclear apocalypse to
Cold War levels. ” He said, “We’re now at the precipice, maybe I
should say the brink, of a new arms race,” and called for the
dismantling of the ICBM component of the so-called nuclear triad.
And he went on to say, “the risk of nuclear war is exacerbated by
the dismantling of the relationship between Russia and the U.S.
that had been formed after the fall of the Soviet Union. Without
clear military to military communication between those two
nations, the risk of conflict increases. I probably would not
have said this 10 years ago,” he said. But today we now face the
kind of dangers of a nuclear event like we had during the Cold
War, an accidental war. I see an imperative, therefore, to stop
this damn nuclear arms race from accelerating again.”
And finally, we have the confrontation by Congresswoman ,
Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, during a hearing of the
House Armed Services Committee, of Obama’s Defense Secretary
Ashton Carter, which we’re going to play a video clip for you in
just one minute. Representative Gabbard’s remarks were covered
quite extensively in the press, under headlines such as “Tulsi
Gabbard says, Obama Policies could trigger war with Russia,”
which was in the Huffington Post, and “Democratic Congresswoman
Warns, Obama Could Drag the U.S. into a devastating nuclear war
with Russia,” Daily Mail. What you’re about to hear Congresswoman
Gabbard say, also echoes statements that she made a few days
earlier in a CNN interview, after having returned from Paris, in
which she warned that Obama’s policies in Syria ” put the United
States and Russia into a head-to-head conflict, with the
possibility that one side will shoot down the other’s planes,
kicking of what is much larger, potentially world war, and a
nuclear war between the United States and Russia, and she said,
“We’ve got to ask ourselves: what will the costs of this be? The
devastation to the American people and to the world, and for
what? What’s the benefit? Why are we trying to do this in Syria?
Why are we trying to go to war with Russia over this disagreement
concerning the overthrowing of the Syrian government of Bashar
al-Assad. It’s crazy.”
So let’s see this short video clip of Congresswoman Tulsi
Gabbard and Ash Carter:

GABBARD: The policy to overthrow the Syrian government of
Assad has thrown us into a potential direct head to head military
conflict with Russia. I have some important questions along this
line. How many nuclear warheads does Russia have aimed at the
U.S., and how many does the U.S. have aimed at Russia?

CARTER: Congresswoman, I will get you those precise numbers
as best we know them. Let me just summarize it by the fact that
we have a, I’m confident, a strong, safe, secure, reliable
deterrent. But it’s also true that Russia, like the Soviet Union
that precedes it, has a massive nuclear arsenal.

GABBARD: Right. And it would be accurate to say that both of
our countries have the capacity to launch these nuclear weapons
within minutes?

CARTER: We do.

GABBARD: I’ve seen pictures, films, and images from Nagasaki
and Hiroshima; I know you have as well. And I presume you would
agree with me that nuclear war would be devastating to the
American people; the amount of suffering that it would cause and
the devastation to our families, our children, our communities,
our planet, our future generations is difficult to imagine. So,
I’m wondering if there’s been an assessment done on how many
lives would be lost and the damage that would be done if this
nuclear war between our two countries were to occur?

CARTER: Congresswoman, I’ve been doing this for a long time,
including during the Cold War, and working on nuclear weapons
since the beginning of my career. And to answer your question,
there have been estimates made right along. When there was a
Soviet Union, then a Russia, and it’s a very simple story; it is
as you say. Nuclear war would be an absolutely unprecedented, and
result in a catastrophic destruction; that is why deterrence is
so important, that’s why prudence in the field of nuclear matters
by leaders all over the world is so essential.

GABBARD: So the fact that we now have our F-15s patrolling
the Turkey-Syria border with a primary air-to-air combat
operation; there’s no air-to-air combat against ISIS. They don’t
have any air assets. So, I can only presume that the purpose of
these planes would be to target Russian planes; is that accurate?

CARTER: Congresswoman, let me answer the point you began
with, which is we have a different view, a very different view
from Russia about what would be constructive for them to do in
Syria. We have that disagreement; we can’t align ourselves with
what they’re doing. We’re opposing and want them to change what
they’re doing in Syria. That’s not the same as the United States
and Russia clashing; I think that the Chairman and his
counterpart in Russia just talked yesterday about making sure
that we didn’t by accident have any incident involving US and
Russian forces. So, we have a sharp disagreement there, but
that’s not the same as blundering into an armed situation with
one another.

GABBARD: But that sharp disagreement — sorry, sir, I only
have a minute here — that sharp disagreement with two
diametrically opposed objectives. One, the US seeking to
overthrow the Syrian government of Assad, Russia seeking to
uphold the Syrian government of Assad, creates that potential;
that strong potential and that strong likelihood for that
head-to-head combat, or that head-to-head military conflict. And
Russia’s installation of their anti-aircraft missile defense
system increases that possibility of whether it’s intentional or
even an accidental event, where one side may shoot down the other
side’s plane. And that’s really where the potential is for this
devastating nuclear war, for something that could blow up into
something much larger.

CARTER: I have to correct something, Congresswoman, that you
said; which is that I would characterize Russia’s prospective
differently. And by the way, what they say and what they do are
two different things. What they said they were going to do was
fight ISIL and pursue a political transition; and not support
Assad endlessly, but instead, try to pursue a political solution.
What they’ve done militarily has had the effect of supporting
Assad, no question about it. And they haven’t gone after ISIL,
they’ve gone after moderate — that’s our source of disagreement.
We’re having that disagreement and trying to get them to come
around; that is what Secretary Kerry is doing, to a more
reasonable and constructive position. But at the same time, as
the Chairman’s efforts indicate — and the Russians agree with
this intent on avoiding an accidental situation in the air over
Syria.

OGDEN: Having seen that, the question that you must ask is,
what is the necessary action that must be taken to defuse this
very real and immediate threat of thermonuclear war which
threatens us as a direct consequence of Obama’s policies, both in
Syria and elsewhere. And I’m going to ask Jeff to come to the
podium to address this question; but as Mr. LaRouche has
repeatedly said, the only guarantee is for responsible parties in
this country to take the Constitutional action necessary to
remove Barack Obama from the Presidency of the United States,
specifically through the activation of the 25th Amendment to the
US Constitution. Which stipulates that if the President is deemed
mentally incapable of serving in the role of Commander in Chief,
he can be removed and replaced through the predetermined line of
succession. Mr. LaRouche has been calling for this measure to be
taken for a number of years; but just this week, discussion of
this measure has exploded into the mainstream press, including
very significantly in an editorial that was published in the
{Washington Times} by staff writer Charles Hurt, which was
titled, “Has the President Lost His Ability to Discharge the
Powers and Duties of Office?” The editorial begins by asking,
“Has our President officially lost his ability to discharge the
powers and duties of his office? Anyone who listened to President
Obama speak to reporters in Paris on Tuesday, would reasonably
conclude that it is high time to start drawing up the papers to
transmit to Congress for his removal.” And after describing in
detail the rambling and largely incoherent performance by Obama
during his press conference in Paris earlier this week, the
author concludes by stating the following: “Someone alert the
Senate Pro Tem; somebody call the Speaker of the House, and let’s
all dust off the 25th Amendment.”
So Jeff, with all this evidence of a growing acknowledgement
in public discussion of the danger which Mr. LaRouche has been
warning about for years, of world war resulting from the
continuation of Obama’s policies, what can you tell us about what
the discussion is among responsible persons behind the scenes,
and what must be done now to remove this imminent threat of a
global thermonuclear war?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. I think it’s important to
take note of the fact that the {Washington Times} did publish
that Charles Hurt piece, but that there were other commentaries
along exactly the same lines. There was a similar editorial
comment, picking up on the {Washington Times} story in the
{Washington Enquirer}; and in both cases, there were references
to a series of commentaries that appeared recently in the
{Washington Post}, which is generally thought of — along with
the {New York Times} as one of the mainstays of the liberal
establishment media apparatus. You had Richard Cohen and Dana
Milbank, two of the senior regular {Washington Post} editorial
columnists taking note of the fact that President Obama was
completely disoriented and when his teleprompter broke down
during the course of his presentations in Paris, he stammered and
staggered 336 times in a speech that ran a total of 13 minutes.
Never mind that the gathered world leaders were told that they
had a firm 5-minute limitation on their speeches. It may have
taken the President 13 minutes to deliver a 5-minute address; I
haven’t reviewed the text, or timed it or anything. But clearly,
he is suffering from severe mental exhaustion, a breakdown;
someone who — as Lyndon LaRouche identified as early as April of
2009 — suffers from a form of extreme narcissism, can’t avoid
the reality that the world is going in a very different direction
than his narcissistic delusions would have him believe.
Just prior to the attacks in Paris, on the 13th of November,
the President issued a statement saying that ISIS was contained
and on the way to being defeated, and didn’t pose a threat.
Earlier he had called them “the junior varsity of terrorism.” I
think reality tells us something quite different.
Earlier this week, he said that there is no measurable
security threat, here, inside the United States. And what we saw
happen in San Bernardino, California several days ago, clearly
demonstrates that that was not an accurate reflection of reality.
The response of the White House has been to put pressure on FBI
Director, [James] Comey, and on the media, to hold back from
drawing the obvious conclusion, that virtually anybody in their
right mind has drawn, from even the media coverage of that San
Bernardino incident, namely, that it was a pre-meditated
terrorist attack. It’s very much reminiscent of what happened on
September 11th, 2012, when President Obama ordered a false
statement, a patently absurd false statement, about the attack in
Benghazi [Libya] that led to the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris
Stevens and three other American officials. And that, of course,
is still an issue that’s pending before the House [Select
Committee on Benghazi].  So, we’re clearly dealing with a
situation where the President’s grip on reality is slipping
precipitously.
Under similar circumstances, back in the early 1970s,
members of President Richard Nixon’s own political party, were
grounded enough in reality that they were willing to recognize
that Nixon was “losing it” mentally, and represented a grave
danger to the survival of the United States, and they were
seriously contemplating invoking the recently-ratified 25th
Amendment, that provides for the immediate removal of the
President of the United States. These recent articles, published
this week, have openly said that Vice-President Joe Biden should
reach out to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and similarly
consult with the Cabinet, and consider invoking the 25th
Amendment. That process can remove Obama from office within a
matter of {hours}. And so, we’re here in a situation. We’ve seen
the developments. We’ve saw the Tulsi Gabbard exchange with
Ashton Carter.
And, I think it’s noteworthy, that the statements that Matt
just quoted from, from former Defense Secretary Bill Perry, have
very much bearing on the situation, because Perry and Ash Carter
have jointly written a number of articles in military journals.
They’re very very close. One could almost say that Perry is
Ashton Carter’s mentor. So, if you’ve got someone like Perry
alarmed enough to come out publicly — and really, in a sense,
reverse his own statements of the recent years — and say we’ve
got to get in synch with the Russians, and you hold that up
against what Carter is saying as an official spokesman for the
Administration, putting the onus on Russia, and really refusing
to directly address the issues that were raised by Congresswoman
Gabbard, you get an idea that there is a disconnect from reality,
with respect to the most pressing and dangerous issue facing
mankind today, which is the question, “Are we close to the kind
of incident that could get out of control and lead to nuclear
war?”
Nobody in the Administration is talking about what the
consequences and implications are, of the fact that President
Obama {publicly, after the fact}, endorsed the actions of the
Turkish government in shooting down that Russian Su-24 over the
border area between Turkey and Syria. I’m told by leading U.S.
military and intelligence contacts that there’s unanimous
agreement among the leading countries of NATO, including the U.S.
military, and all of the major European militaries, that,
basically, the Turks had no business shooting down that Russian
plane; it was an act of {absolute provocation}. If Turkey was not
a member of NATO, with that Article 5 mandate for collective
security backing them up, without the idea that [President]
Erdogan had, that he had the full backing of President Obama,
it’s very unlikely that he would have even remotely considered
ordering the bombing of that Russian plane.
Now, what is the aftermath of that action by Turkey? From a
strictly military standpoint, as we talked about this last week,
leading figures within the U.S. military and intelligence
command, immediately got on the horn with their Russian
counterparts. And there was an agreement reached that this would
not be, in and of itself, a trigger for an all-out war in the
region, a war between Russia and Turkey. President Putin
refrained from any direct military retaliation against Turkey.
And that’s a good thing.
What Russia {did} however do, as Representative Gabbard
referenced, Russia has deployed their S-400 Air Defense Systems
to the airbase in Latakia Province inside Syria. That airbase is
32 miles from the Turkish border. The S-400 Air Defense Systems
have a range of 250 miles. In order words, Russia has the ability
to knock out Turkish aircraft 200 miles {inside} Turkish
territory. That’s an area in which U.S. fighter planes and drones
are also operating.
The Russians have now equipped all of their entire range of
Su fighter planes with air-to-air missile capabilities, so that
you’ve got both American and Russian, and now you’ve got the
added complexities of British and French, perhaps soon German,
planes, all flying within that same general airspace.
So, to say that we are not in a situation where the
conflict, even if it’s a disagreement over policy toward Syria,
that this doesn’t represent a hair-trigger situation for a war
that could directly involve U.S. and Russian forces, not
surrogates, but direct U.S. and Russian military forces, would be
an absolute denial of reality.
Now, a number of military thinkers have come out with
measures that could be taken to mitigate the risk. There are
those, including [ret.] German General [Harald] Kujat, who’ve
called for the re-convening of the NATO-Russia Council, to create
a mechanism for coordination between NATO and Russia, in which
the Syria-Turkey issue would be one element of it. Former top DIA
official and retired U.S. Army Colonel, [W.] Patrick Lang, in his
widely-read website, has said that Turkey should be suspended
from NATO, because their irresponsible behavior could, by itself,
be a trigger for general war. There are proposals, reflected by
[U.S. and Russian nuclear security expert] Bruce Blair; reflected
by Gen. [James] Cartwright, who was the former vice-chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff [and] former head of the U.S. Strategic
Command, our nuclear triad; along with Russian [Maj.] Gen.
[Vladimir] Dvorkin, who was the chief intelligence analyst for
Russia’s strategic rocket force — who’ve all said, “Let’s
immediately abandon launch-on-warning. We’ve got to, basically,
create an alternative to this hair-trigger situation, where a
decision about global nuclear annihilation, has to be made in a
matter of seconds.”
The reality is, that there is another option. It’s the
option that was referenced in the {Washington Times} and the
{Washington Examiner}, and even implicitly in the {Washington
Post}. And it’s the option that Lyndon LaRouche has been
discussing {for a very long time}. You’ve got to {remove} one of
the most crucial factors that continues this threat, which is the
continuation of President Barack Obama in office. The 25th
Amendment is there. His behavior in Paris, his erratic behavior,
has caused alarm bells to go off all over the place, and the
question that’s got to be posed, is: “Are {you}, Member of
Congress; are {you}, American Citizen, willing to run the risk of
maintaining a President in office, who may very well be “losing
it” mentally, and who certainly has exhibited a policy of hatred
towards Russia

and particularly towards President Putin, that under the present
circumstances poses a grave danger of general war, a war that
could be a nuclear war.
So, that’s the question on the table. And now that Mr.
LaRouche is no longer the only leading American political voice
openly talking about immediately invoking the 25th Amendment,
maybe it’s time for a serious national debate and dialogue on
that issue to put the kind of pressure on Vice-President Biden,
Secretary Kerry, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, to not run the
risk, to not play, to use a bad analogy, Russian roulette, with
nuclear warheads, and the barrel of a gun, when the survival of
humanity is at stake.
We are really now in a very different place than we even
were a few weeks ago. The actions taken by Erdogan have brought
us to that moment of hair-trigger, and while there are many
things that could be done to ameliorate that danger, the fact is
that none of them are possible so long as President Obama is in
office. So the tools are right there. The 25th Amendment can be
activated on a moment’s notice. We could have a regime change,
purely constitutional, here in the United States, as a measure of
caution against someone in a state of mental breakdown, being in
a position of having his finger on the nuclear trigger. And I see
no justification whatsoever for running the risk of mankind’s
survival, of waiting another day to activate that potential.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. Now, I’m just going to
pose the institutional question for this evening, and Jeff will
deliver what Mr. LaRouche’s response was to this, as well as
Helga LaRouche’s insights. The question reads as follows: “Mr.
LaRouche, the German Bundestag has voted to support the U.S.
coalition military operations in Syria against the Islamic State,
and the British Parliament has also taken similar action. What is
your view of German and British involvement in the fight against
the Islamic state in Syria?”

STEINBERG: Well, I think that one thing that’s obvious, the
first comment from Mr. LaRouche on this was, yes, we’ve got to
defeat the Islamic State. It’s got to be done, and there’s got to
be an alliance of countries involved in doing that, and with
that, he said, of course always be cautious. You can never trust
the British.
Now, the fact of the matter is that there are measures that
could be taken, that would lead to the crushing of the Islamic
State, to the taking back of Raqqa, their nominal capital, to the
ouster of the Islamic State from Mosul–the military options are
all quite clear and are being openly discussed, and are being
proposed around the tables all over the place. Seal the border
with Turkey. The Erdogan government in Turkey through the son
Balal Erdogan, son of the president, has been the major source of
black market revenue for the Islamic State, since the very
beginning. We know that there are massive black market oil deals
going on between ISIS and the Turkish black market, which is
really the mafia underbelly of Erdogan’s AKP Party, and the MIT,
which is the Turkish equivalent of the CIA, run by one of
Erdogan’s very close associates.
So, you can seal the borders. You can start the economic
squeeze against the Islamic State. You could create a single
joint military command operation fully integrating Russia, into
whatever other military operations are going to be run. President
Hollande of France, when he was in Washington, and then in Moscow
last week, specifically proposed that there be a consolidated
unified air campaign against ISIS, and that on the ground the
Syrian army be integrated with some of the rebel groups that are
strictly made up of former Syrian military personnel-some element
of the Free Syrian Army, in particular. That kind of ground
force, maybe with some other assistance from the Iraqi military,
along with a massive air campaign, through a single unified
command, could wipe out the Islamic State, at least in so far as
it’s operating out of a major safe haven territory in Syria and
Iraq.
The problem, however, as has been demonstrated by Paris, by
San Bernardino now this week here in the United States–on a much
lower scale, of course– by the bombing of the Metro jet, Russian
metro jet over the Sinai, by the suicide bombings in Southern
Beirut, all of these things indicate that you’re dealing with a
much larger problem that’s not going to be solved overnight. You
can crush the nominal Islamic State militarily, but you’ve got to
address a much more fundamental issue, which is that the
policies, the geo-political policies coming out of the leading
Western powers-the United States, particularly Great Britain,
France to a degree, certainly Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the
United Arab Emirates, Turkey- there’s been a long-standing policy
of promoting the Saudi-Wahhabi neo-Salafist agenda, and spreading
this disease, this Dark Age ideology, all over the globe.
You have large swaths of territory in the Middle East, in
North Africa, in other parts of Asia, that are ungovernable, and
have been turned into no-man’s lands as the result of the
prolonged policies– I would say that it’s the Twentieth and
Twenty-First Centuries’ Thirty Years War, except it began
operationally in 1979, when Jimmy Carter and Brzezinski were
still in office, when there was a presidential finding
authorizing the assembling of the Islamist mujahideen to drive
the Soviet Red Army out of Afghanistan, except, of course, that
operation began 6 months before the Soviets even went into
Afghanistan.
So, we’re in the throes of a multi-generational process of
creating Dark Age conditions in many parts of the planet. If you
were born 35 years ago in Afghanistan, you’ve never lived under
anything other than 30 Years’ War conditions of violence and
chaos. And don’t say that Afghanistan was always like that,
there’s nothing you can do about it. That’s emphatically not
true. Throughout the postwar period, the 50s, 60s, and 70s, the
United States’ presence in Afghanistan was largely through the
Army Corps of Engineers, the Peace Corps, and other organizations
like that, and the place was relatively peaceful and stable. It
was not the world’s opium production capital. So, the point is
that there are alternative policies that must be enacted to
really defeat this Dark Age phenomenon.
The Chinese have adopted the One Belt/One Road policy of
developing vast corridors of infrastructure, of industrial and
agricultural expansion, of water management, throughout much of
Eurasia. For that program to work, it’s going to be urgent that
we achieve stability in places like Syria and Iraq, and in many
parts of North Africa. So, the real question here is, if you’re
prepared to commit to defeating the phenomenon that ISIS right
now is the most visible representation of, you’ve got to be
prepared to fundamentally change your thinking. You’ve got to be
willing to abandon geo-politics, altogether. Abandon the British
Empire, because this policy of permanent warfare across this
great big crescent running from North Africa through the Middle
East and Central Asia, all along the southern borders of the
former Soviet Union into Western China,–that’s a British
geo-political policy. It was called the Bernard Lewis plan back
in the 1970s, of spreading fundamentalist chaos along that entire
what they called crescent (arc) of crisis.
That program hasn’t changed. It’s British geo-politics at
its worst. It’s population warfare at its worst. And those
policies must be abandoned all together. There was even a
commentary this week in the {Wall Street Journal} of all places,
asking the question of whether or not China’s New Silk Road
policy might not be the key to saving the situation in Syria and
Iraq, and throughout that region. You’ve got to give people hope
that there is a viable prospect for a future, if you’re going to
get those leading strata within Syrian society back from Europe,
where they were driven out by ISIS; back into Syria to rebuild
their country. They’ve got to know that there is a commitment to
a kind of a global Marshall Plan, which the Chinese have proposed
as part of their One Belt/One Road policy. I had the privilege,
earlier this week, of being in Tokyo, attending two conferences.
One where Helga Zepp-LaRouche spoke about the urgent need to
avoid the war dangers by the United States and other western
countries, by becoming fully involved and committed to working in
conjunction with China and the other BRICS countries on this One
Belt/One Road policy. We’ve got to build development corridors
from areas that are now strictly war zones. I spoke at a second
conference earlier this week with Mrs. LaRouche in Tokyo; and we
both took up this question very strongly. You need a new paradigm
of thinking; you need to think at the level of real human beings
who uniquely are capable of thinking about the future. Of
creating a new future; not one that’s defined by the geopolitics
of population war, but one that’s defined by scientific
advancement, by the betterment of all mankind. So, the issue on
the table is, you can defeat ISIS militarily with some readily
available tool; especially if you drop the war confrontation with
Russia, and get into an alliance with Russia, which means getting
Obama out of office under the 25th Amendment. It’s doable, but
you’re not going to solve the deeper underlying problem of the
consequences of the last 35 years or more of this hideous
geopolitics of pitting one nation, one people against another,
promoting irrationalism and fundamentalism. You’ve got to
basically roll up your shirt sleeves and begin real development
of the kind that China has correctly defined as the win-win
policy of the future.

At this conference, there was a leading representative from
Russia, Dr. Yakunin, who said that the Russians have concluded
that their Eurasian development plan for major infrastructure
projects, is completely compatible with China’s One Belt/One Road
policy. India, as a leading BRICS country, is fully on board with
that prospect. We’re about to develop a plan and publish it in
the coming days, for the United States to become fully integrated
into this global World Land-Bridge policy. But this requires an
overhaul of thinking; and that overhaul of thinking is now long
overdue, because the very survival of mankind is literally on the
table is we don’t make that change.
So, we’ve got a much bigger challenge and a much bigger
agenda. Even if we’re serious about defeating the Islamic State
and other manifestations of this Dark Age policy. It’s going to
have to be done through a vast change in thinking, and a return
to real human thinking about what kinds of projects can insure
not just the survival, but the betterment of mankind going into
the future.

OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Just by way of quick introduction of
Ben Deniston, who’s going to conclude our broadcast here tonight,
I want to pick up here directly off of what Jeff just ended with.
As those who have been following the website this week know; and
who had the chance to participate last night in the Fireside Chat
with Mr. LaRouche, Mr. LaRouche’s emphasis has been one of saying
that this entire Dark Age situation which we now find ourselves
in today — both internationally as Jeff just elaborated, and
also here domestically with the Dark Age of rising death rates,
addictions, violence, and so forth, that is plaguing the American
people as the result of 16 years of a Bush and Obama
Presidencies, Mr. LaRouche said, “The future cannot be created by
a continuation of the failed policies of the past. This Dark Age,
which we now find ourselves in the midst of, cannot be overcome
without the conscious elimination and overturning of the failed
axioms of the present system. A New Paradigm today, as Jeff was
just discussing, just as with the Golden Renaissance of Filippo
Brunelleschi and Nicholas of Cusa, is never something which can
come about through an evolutionary change,” as Mr. LaRouche said
last night, “but only as a consciously revolutionary effect of
the intervention of a great genius. The effect that a great
genius has on history; a genius such as Brunelleschi or Cusa. Or
more recently, you can use the example of Albert Einstein.
Geniuses who reject the failed ideas of the past, and instead
introduce something completely new; a valid, newly discovered
principle upon which a valid and viable future can be built. So
this is something which obviously Mr. LaRouche has done
consistently throughout his life; and has based his entire career
on. But for those of you who had the chance to participate in the
Fireside Chat with Mr. LaRouche last night will know, you heard
him call on all of you; on all of the American citizenry to adopt
that perspective of genius as your personal commitment going
forward. And this is obviously something which all of us have to
think about very profoundly.
So Ben, I guess I would ask you to elaborate for us a little
bit, what is the equivalent of the great Brunelleschi’s dome, you
could say, of today; which can be the herald of this new
Renaissance for all mankind today?

BENJAMIN DENISTON: It’s quite a task, I think, Matthew. But
as Matthew said, I’m just going to pick up off of — we’ve been
working on, the LaRouche PAC Science Team — this program of
putting together a picture for the American people, what it would
mean for the United States to join this New Silk Road
orientation. What it would mean for us as a country to really
return to our roots, as founded by people like Alexander
Hamilton, as Mr. LaRouche has put a great deal of emphasis in his
most recently developing flank in Manhattan being real soul of
the nation where we could pivot the United States back to an
orientation like Matt just referenced in terms of a real pursuit
of mankind as a creative force. What will it actually mean for
the United States to once again participate in that process? And
this is something that, as was referenced, at least a thesis
perspective on what that would look like for the United States.
But I wanted to open by just referencing something that was
mentioned earlier, just to get a sense to get at the real
principle of what we were talking about. There was a rather
unprecedented study that came out, a study that’s rather shocking
that pointed to an unprecedented reality which has been uncovered
in just the last couple of months, which is the realization of
the increase in death rates among white, American, working age
people. And we have a graphic illustrating the comparison of the
death rates for this particular demographic, in comparison with a
number of other developed nations. [Figure 1] And we can see in
red there, from 1990 up to past 2010, the change in the death
rate for, again, white Americans from age 45 to 54. And I just
want to put this on the screen for a minute, because there’s a
lot of stats we can go through in terms of what’s happening, and
a lot can be done to give a sense that I think most Americans
have their own clear sense of, living in this nation, of the real
process of death of the U.S. economy, under the Bush-Obama reign.
But I think this one is rather shocking, because these are
people that are supposed to be in their prime. We’re talking
about people who are supposed to be reaching their, towards the
peak of their productive contribution to society, people who are
supposed to be approaching the pinnacle of their ability to
contribute to the advancement of the society of which they’re a
part. And what are we seeing in that layer of the population?
This dramatic acceleration, continual year to year increase, in
the death rate of this section of the population. As the authors
of the study stated, “We have half a million Americans who are
now dead, who frankly should not be dead,” according to what we
would expect from a healthy economic process.
And what’s the cause of this? What are the major factors
contributing to this increase in the death rate? You have drug
addiction, alcoholism, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse,
heroin abuse, suicides. These are diseases of despair as has been
said. These are diseases of a dying society, where people who
should be at their prime contribution to the economic process,
are instead ending their own lives. They’re killing themselves.
What’s supposed to be our leading productive sector of the
economy is instead destroying and ending their own lives, through
their own willful choice of these substance abuse, drug
addiction, suicide, what have you.
So I think this should be taken as a very clear signal of
what’s happened to the United states, what’s happened to the
American economy. And what we have to reverse. And what I want to
talk about just briefly is trying to get at the essence of the
issue, to the degree possible. Because we can talk about putting
people back to work, we could talk about creating jobs, we could
talk about rebuilding things-but that’s not going to get to the
real essence of what we confront right now as a nation. We have
to really re-find the purpose of the existence of our nation, as
Matthew referenced as Mr. LaRouche said last night, in an
understanding of what is mankind’s purpose as a creative force in
the Universe.
Why do people work? Why do people have jobs? Why do people
work to contribute to society? What’s the purpose of existence?
That’s been eliminated really over two generations, increasingly
though in a rapid acceleration, under the Bush-Cheney regime. The
very idea that mankind is inherently creative species; I mean,
that mankind creates its own existence meaning that {you}, as an
individual part of that species, part of that process, can
participate in the actual physical creation of the future state
of society. That if society moves forward, … And what do we
mean by “move forward”? LaRouche has spent decades developing a
science of physical economy. What is economics for mankind? We
can support a greater population, higher population density, with
better living standards for everybody; that unlike the animals,
unlike the Greenies’ ideology, there’s no zero sum game for
mankind. There’s no finite, fixed amount of wealth for the human
species. That mankind can uniquely create a fundamentally higher
state of existence for his species as a whole.

That doesn’t come from merely finding some new resource, or
exploiting some new resource, but from the unique creative powers
of the human mind. Something {unique} about the human mind that
we don’t see existing anywhere in animal life per se. That that
unique capability is the substance, the principle, underlying
what makes mankind a unique force on this planet. We have to
again find our existence in exercising and implementing that
principle–the idea that based on that principle, we can create
wealth for our nation. We can grow our population. We can have a
large population with higher living standards, better
infrastructure, better conditions of life, better health care. We
can provide all that. Mankind has the ability to do that. But the
way that mankind does that is by the creative contributions of
individuals acting in coordination with society.
We’ve lost the connection to that. We have to re-establish
the connection to that. Really in a scientific sense. That
mankind has a real physical immortality that he can create for
himself. He can be the creation of the future existence, not just
the extension of the past, not just the extension of the present,
but the creation of a state of existence for society which would
not ever exist if not for the actions, the contributions, of the
earlier generation of the earlier state.
That’s what we have to return to. Creation of new states for
mankind, not just perpetuating or rebuilding what we had in the
past, but rising to a new level. And we need that now more than
ever. That has been at the root of our existence as a republic,
again going back to Hamilton, people like Lincoln, people like
Franklin Roosevelt-that’s been understood to varying degrees,
that this is what makes mankind unique, and we have to focus our
efforts of government, of society, in exercising and facilitating
that creative process.
So what do we need to do now, today? Just to go through some
of the obvious things that we should be focused on, and doing as
a nation. One leading element is going to be rebuilding our
nation, rebuilding our infrastructure, and in a sense not really
rebuilding, but building anew, building a higher level of
existence for our nation. And one of the things we’re going to be
featuring in our prospective program for the United States is
actually building a modern, high-speed rail system. This is just
obvious. That transportation in the United States would be a joke
if we didn’t have to deal with it every single day. The idea of
people just wasting their lives on these highways. Hours upon
hours upon hours daily, just wasted.
If you go to the third graphic here, we have a comparison,
just to give people a sense of–in the green, we see existing
high speed rail systems in the United States and China. Now, in
the United States this has been debatable whether we could
actually include the green corridor we’ve included as technically
high-speed rail. Relative to what we have, we could consider it
high-speed rail, but that’s not saying much. It’s stretching the
definition, but it’s the closest we have. and throughout the rest
of the United States, you see one proposal, among a number of
proposals, for what kind of obvious, sane high-speed rail system
we should have: travelling 150 miles per hour, to get people to
different locations in a quick efficient manner.
You see China is doing this. You see China’s program now,
what they’ve built, and what they’re committed to building I
believe out to 2020, for their high-speed rail program. So this
could be done. This needs to be done.
We have the water issue. We have, to put it lightly, insane
governor in California, who, despite living on the coast of the
largest body of water on the face of this planet, seems to think
that we’ve run out of water. Well, we have plenty of means
available to us to provide all the water we need. Some of this is
illustrated in the next graphic, the fourth graphic. This is
something we’ve covered in more detail on the LaRouche PAC
website and other locations. But mankind fully has the capability
of managing the water cycle in completely new ways.
We have desalination. LaRouche has been talking about
desalination for decades. Nuclear-powered desalination, you can
provide the water you need in the coastal areas. You can do water
transfer. There’s rivers that exist that have abundant excesses
of water that just flow into the ocean unused. And we can really
go to the frontiers. We can look at mankind managing the water in
the atmosphere. This is actually happening right now as we speak
in various places around the world. We have technologies now to
actually manage precipitation in the atmosphere; increase
precipitation where we want it. Some of this is drawn directly
from insights into how our Earth’s climate system actually
responds to different galactic environments — the galactic
conditions affecting our climate. Understanding this gives us an
insight into how we can manage those conditions; how we can
increase the rainfall where we need it. How we can actually
direct flows of atmospheric water vapor to where they’re needed.
We could be drawing the atmosphere of water vapor from over the
Pacific Ocean into California and increasing the rainfall in
California. We can do that.
Power, energy, nuclear power; we’ve been sitting on nuclear
power for decades. It’s been suppressed; fusion has been
suppressed. There’s been a conscious policy to not put the
resources into fusion that are needed to develop fusion power.
We’ve had in effect a policy of not developing fusion power for
decades. You just look at the budget compared to what was known
to be required to develop it; it’s obvious. And various experts
have made clear, we can have a demonstration functioning fusion
power plant in 10-15 years, if we decided to do it.
Obviously, all this would require a high-speed rail system,
solving our water crises, mass production of nuclear power, a
crash program to develop fusion power. This would force us to
confront the fact that we need to rebuild our manufacturing base;
rebuild our industrial base. We’d be forced to confront a certain
reality that now we look at an unemployment problem; with this
program, we’re going to be confronted with a little more
frightening reality. We actually have an unemployable problem; we
have people who have no skills. We’re going to need to look back
to things like Franklin Roosevelt’s CCC program, and figure out
how to upgrade that and advance that for an entire new challenge
of taking not just a labor force, a society that’s had no
productive work for a decade or more. And look, we’ve had two
generations of zero-growth policy; two generations of
de-industrialization, a shift towards this insane, so-called
“services economy”. Wall Street bubbles. We’ve had fewer and
fewer people who have any idea of how to contribute a productive
contribution to the economic process.
So, we’re going to need to actually tackle all these issues.
And, again, this is not just rebuilding stuff we had before; it’s
not just rebuilding our infrastructure. It’s not just recreating
the state of the economy as it was 20, 30 years ago. This is
looking at how do we increase the potential productivity of the
economy as a whole to a completely new level? Modern
transportation, water, power. We can open up entire new regions
of the continent; entire new territories of the nation can now be
developed. New agriculture; new production; new industries; new
cities. We could actually be developing new Renaissance cities,
organized around a conception of man as a creative process. The
city itself can be an expression of the principle of this new
Renaissance; this New Paradigm that we want to create. The
construction of sane, organized city population areas, centered
around cultural development; educational development. Centered
around universities and cultural systems as the core of the
development of your population, of your society. That organizes
this city. Around it, you have the various agriculture, industry,
etc. that’s an expression of mankind’s creative capabilities. But
actually coherently designing the city in which the population
around this new principle, this new conception of mankind.
So, this is what we can do; this is what we need to fight
for. But I think to attempt to address what Matthew said in terms
of Mr. LaRouche’s remarks in terms of actually creating a new
future; that has to be the number one guiding principle. And Mr.
LaRouche in recent years has again come back to the pedagogy of
the difference between mankind and the animals. And I think
that’s something that most people still don’t understand the way
he understands it. What is it that mankind has that makes our
species separate; that makes us distinct? What is that actual
principle which mankind has the ability to tap into and employ if
he chooses to; if he chooses to organize his society in a truly
human way? And what would that mean for us today? Well, again, it
wouldn’t mean just doing what we’ve done in the past. It would
mean that right now, what we have to do is bring society to a
level that we’ve never had before. And we have to fight to engage
the American population again into recognizing that their meaning
to history, their meaning, period, depends upon that. That the
meaning of their very existence depends upon recognizing that
they have a potential to contribute to the creation of a higher
state of existence for society. And for mankind, if we’re not
doing that, if we’re not organizing society to do that and
exercise that, and implement those creative leaps of mankind,
then you’re not being human; and your population is being denied
an actual efficient access to their true scientific immortality
as a human species.
There’s obviously a lot that could be said, but I think
that’s the principle that we have to focus on; that it’s not just
about creating jobs. It’s not just about employing people who are
various economic statistics; it’s about coming to a new, higher
understanding of economics really as an expression of this unique
spark of human creative potential. And we have to, again, focus
on that as the number one issue; the cause, the substance of what
will allow us to progress and move forward. And that really is
the whole purpose of all of this.
So, we’re going to have more coming out; a lot more can be
said, but I think that’s the challenge that we have right now.
And I think it’s going to be a huge challenge, given what’s
happened to the population; especially in the last two
Presidencies. But the fight is to awaken that in the American
people; they have to realize that this is the only thing that’s
worth fighting for. Fighting for creating the future in a way
that is truly, uniquely human.

OGDEN: Thank you, Ben. And what Ben referred to, is a
forthcoming programmatic feature which is intended to be a
supplement to the EIR Special Report, “The New Silk Road Becomes
the World Land-Bridge”. This is going to be titled, “Why the
United States Must Join the New Silk Road”. I also know this will
be the bulk of the subject of the presentation which Helga
delivered in Tokyo, which Jeff was referring to; and will be
available in transcript form in the next edition of {Executive
Intelligence Review}. So, I’m going to bring a conclusion to our
broadcast here tonight. I would encourage all of you to continue
participating in both the Thursday night Fireside Chats, which
Mr. LaRouche hosts every week, as well as if you are present in
the New York City area, the Manhattan Project meetings, which
occur every Saturday afternoon. Another one will occur tomorrow.
So, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you to both
Jeff and Ben, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com

2. december 2015 – Repræsentanternes Hus nedstemte med overvældende flertal Obamas diktatoriske klimaforandringsregulativer for kraftværker, selv om Obama har til hensigt at nedlægge veto mod afstemningen. Obamas EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) gennemtvang regulativet under den falske forudsætning, at kulstof er en forurener og således falder ind under den udøvende grens (præsidentens) mandat for at standse forurening.

Afstemningen fulgte for det meste partilinjen, med 242-180. Tirsdagens afstemning sender et budskab til Obamas skrivebord, efter Senatets vedtagelse af lovgivningen i november, iflg. The Hill.

EPA’s regulativ fra august påbyder en 32 % ’s nedskæring af energisektorens udledninger af CO2 i 2030, de første grænser for drivhusgasser for kraftværker. De stemte også med 235-188 for at blokere et lignende EPA-regulativ, der satte grænser for udledninger fra nyligt opførte kraftværker, der bruger kul eller naturgas, og som iflg. industrien stort set ville forhindre nye kraftværker.

Budskabet til Paris – Obama har ikke det amerikanske folks støtte til sin grønne fascisme.

Syvogtyve stater har sluttet sig til dusinvis af erhvervsgrupper og energiinteresser, der har anmodet Appeldomstolen i Columbiakredsens Distrikt om at standse implementeringen af regulativerne. Dommerne vil så tidligt som i næste måned afgøre, om de midlertidigt skal blokeres, mens retssagen skrider frem, sagde The Hill.

Den 1. december 2015 – Efter præsident Obamas optrapning mod den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin i går, mødtes NATO-landenes udenrigsministre i Bruxelles i dag (mødet løber indtil 2. december), hvor de lovede, at NATO står bag Tyrkiet uanset, hvad der måtte ske.

”NATO’s mangeårige planer for Tyrkiets forsvar er på plads og vurderes løbende”, sagde ministrene i en fælles udtalelse i dag. ”I lyset af den generelle omskiftelighed i regionen, styrkes disse planer yderligere” med en forøgelse af Tyrkiets luftforsvar. ”I ånden af ’alle for én’, forbliver vi fast besluttet på fortsat at udvikle yderligere NATO-sikkerhedsforanstaltninger, og alliancepartnere arbejder med forberedelse af andre mulige bidrag.”

Den amerikanske NATO-ambassadør Douglas Lute gav i sine bemærkninger i går Tyrkiet fuld opbakning i forbindelse med den tyrkiske nedskydning af det russiske SU-24 fly den 24. november.

”De amerikanske data, jeg har set, bekræfter Tyrkiets version af begivenhederne. Flyet befandt sig i tyrkisk luftrum; kamphandlingen blev udført i Tyrkiet; flyet blev advaret gentagne gange”, sagde han. ”Der var ikke blevet udsendt nogen flyveplan, der omfattede en krænkelse af NATO’s luftrum.”

Til trods for, at de kastede skylden for episoden på Rusland, opfordrede embedsfolk i både Bruxelles og Washington til en mindskelse af spændingerne. NATO-generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg foreslog en modernisering af koldkrigs-traktaten kendt som Wiener-dokumentet, der udstikker reglerne for storstilede militærøvelser og anden militær aktivitet, tillige med ’varme’ telefonlinjer og andre militære kommunikationskanaler. “Den må nødvendigvis moderniseres, fordi der er adskillige smuthuller”, sagde Stoltenberg. I går ringede formanden for USA’s Generalstabschefer, general Joseph Dunford, for første gang til general Valeriy Gerasimov, den russiske generalstabschef, og ifølge Dunfords talsmand var dette et af de emner, de diskuterede. Talskvinde for USA’s Udenrigsministerium Elizabeth Trudeau sagde til journalister, at bevismateriale fra Tyrkiet og amerikanske kilder ”indikerer, at det russiske fly krænkede tyrkisk luftrum” til trods for, at det blev advaret flere gange af tyrkiske styrker. ”Vi bør nu tilskynde til en dialog, og vi har behov for en nedtrapning af situationen,” sagde hun og tilføjede, at en ”fortsat diskussion imellem de to parter nu er det vigtigste”.

Alexander Grushko, Ruslands ambassadør til NATO, reagerede på alt dette ved at beskylde NATO for at give Tyrkiet politisk rygdækning for aggressionen mod Rusland. Ifølge Sputnik rapporterede Grushko, at han har haft en samtale med NATO’s vicegeneralsekretær Alexander Vershbow om nedskydningen.

“Jeg informerede ham om Ruslands holdning til hændelsen, og henviste til de militære og politiske faktorer, der bevidner den kendsgerning, at det var et overlagt angreb på det russiske fly i syrisk luftrum”, sagde Grushko. ”Jeg understregede, at NATO, der ikke er kommet med nogen principmæssig evaluering af denne ulovlige handling, faktisk har dækket politisk over Ankara som sit medlem og derfor har et medansvar for episoden”, sagde han. Grushko anklagede Tyrkiet for ikke at følge etablerede NATO-procedurer til at forhindre luftfartøjer; dvs., at det kampfly, der vil forhindre indtrængning, skal flyve op langs siden af det indtrængende fly for at identificere det, og derefter eskortere det ud af luftrummet. Ved hændelsen den 24. november ”blev disse NATO-procedurer ikke fulgt, eftersom piloterne, ifølge Ankara, ikke engang kendte identiteten af det indtrængende fly”, sagde Grushko.

Præsident Obama fortsætter sin mobilisering for krig med Rusland. NATO planlægger at sender kampfly og antiluftforsvars-missiler til Tyrkiet – med Rusland som eneste mål for sådanne offensive våben – med USA’s forsvarsminister Ash Carter, der tirsdag meddelte deployeringen af 200 amerikanske jag-og-dræb specialstyrker til Irak for at finde og dræbe ISIS-ledere i både Irak og Syrien. Ikke »rådgivere« og »uddannelsesofficerer«, men dræberteams. Selv Irak reagerede imod den gale dræber, med premierminister al-Abdi, der til pressen sagde, at Irak har brug for uddannelse, våben og rådgivning fra det internationale samfund, »ikke udenlandske kamptropper på jorden, der kæmper på irakisk jord«. Han tilføjede, at en sådan deployering »ikke kan ske uden [regeringens] godkendelse, fuld koordinering og fuld respekt for Iraks suverænitet«.

Flere amerikanske aviser havde i dag udgivet opfordringer til at tage det 25. forfatningstillæg i anvendelse som nødvendigt middel til at fjerne Obama fra embedet med den begrundelse, at han ikke længere er mentalt skikket til at udføre sine pligter. Lyndon LaRouche har gentagne gange krævet, at dette forfatningstillæg omgående blev taget i anvendelse, før det lykkes Obama at lancere en menneskelig udslettelseskrig.

Obamas optræden på Klimaforandringskonferencen i Paris var så usammenhængende, at selv en af hans faste tilhængere, reporter Richard Cohen fra Washington Post, skrev en spalte med overskriften, »Obama, en præsident, der mistede sin stemme« og sagde, at »hans veltalenhed var blevet erstattet af arrigskab, og han har mistet evnen til at overtale« og at »hans problem er, at han ofte ikke har noget at sige«.

Journalisten Mark Whittington fra examiner.com responderede imidlertid: »Har Barack Obama mistet sin stemme, eller har han mistet forstanden?« Han fortsatte: »I mangel af en rigsretssag kan vicepræsident Biden måske sammenkalde regeringen, påkalde det 25. forfatningstillæg og erklære præsident Obama mentalt uegnet til at sidde rest af sin embedsperiode ud.«

LaRouche bemærkede i dag, at det var Vladimir Putin, der satte denne dynamik i gang med sin tale til FN’s Generalforsamling[1] i september, da han roligt, men bestemt, fremlagde Obamaregeringens kriminelle handlinger, hvor de rev FN’s Charter i stykker, lancerede ulovlige krige, gennemtvang regimeskift og udførte dronedrab i hele verden. Det internationale publikum var frastødt af sandheden om Obamas handlinger, og siden da har Obama selv været ude om det.

Frygten for Obama er det eneste, der holder det amerikanske folk, så vel som ledere i hele verden, tilbage fra at sige sandheden og kræve, at han fjernes, og at USA og Europa i stedet går sammen med Rusland, Kina og BRIKS-nationerne om at opbygge verden gennem processen med den Nye Silkevej, som det eneste middel til at standse Bush-Obama-politikken med overlagte, evindelige krige. Som Franklin Roosevelt sagde, stedt over for truslen om fascisme: »Vi har intet at frygte, ud over selve frygten«.[2]

[1] Præsident Putins fulde tale i FN, video, engelsk voice over. 

[2] FDR’s første indsættelsestale, dansk. 

Tirsdag, 1. december 2015 – En fascinerende artikel af Andrew Browne fra Wall Street Journal i dag, med titlen, »Can Beijing Sell Silk Road as a Marshall Plan against terror?« (Kan Beijing sælge Silkevejen som en Marshallplan imod terror?), opfordrer USA til at slutte sig til Kinas Silkevej som et nødvendigt middel til at bringe udvikling til den islamiske verden, og som det eneste middel, der kan bringe fred til regionen.

»I kølvandet på massakren i Paris«, skriver Browne, »er det værd at stille det spørgsmål, om Kina kan få Vesten til at samarbejde med Kina om netværket af hovedveje, jernbaner, kraftværker og industriparker, der strækker sig hele vejen til Europa. Det økonomiske Silkevejsbælte repræsenterer det mest signifikante økonomiske forslag, noget land har fremlagt, der kan være med til at stabilisere kaotiske dele af verden. Desuden bakkes forslaget op af hård valuta: Kina sætter sine valutareserver på i alt 3,5 billion dollar bag indsatsen for at kickstarte vækst og skabe jobs i de muslimske områder …«

Kinas umådeligt ambitiøse initiativ står på spil, et initiativ, der er af afgørende betydning for Beijings indsats for at sikre sin sårbare, vestlige flanke. Projektet har sin tvilling i det ligeledes fejende koncept med den Maritime Silkevej, hvis formål er at få en lignende, transformerende, økonomisk virkning langs sejlruter fra Kina til Europa via Sydøstasien, Mellemøsten og Afrika …«

Stort set alle er enige i, at bombning af Islamisk Stat ikke vil løse de underliggende problemer, der avler morderiske fanatikere. Her kommer så Kina, med et afgørende, manglende element, en plan, som nogle sammenligner med USA’s indsats efter Anden Verdenskrig for at opbygge de skamskudte økonomier i Europa og Japan. William H. Overholt, seniorunderviser ved Harvard Universitetets Asiencenter, skriver, at, ligesom Amerikas visionære program, er Kinas Silkevejsinitiativ imponerende, ikke alene pga. dets geografiske rækkevidde, men også pga. dets integration af økonomiske, politiske og nationale sikkerhedsmæssige betragtninger …«

»At fjerne den økonomiske fortvivlelse, der opretholder den muslimske ekstremisme, er en vision, der naturligt bør bringe Kina og USA sammen; terrorisme udfordrer dem begge ligeligt, ligesom klimaforandringer eller pandemier, hvor landende har gode erfaringer fra samarbejde. Og ulig Østasien, hvor amerikanske og kinesiske strategiske interesser støder sammen, så er de i det store og hele sammenfaldende i den muslimske verden.

Xinjiang-provinsen kunne blive det sted, hvor Kinas interne sikkerhed bliver optrævlet. Eller det kunne blive springbrættet for en global indsats for at imødegå appellen fra muslimske dødskulter.

Men Kina må overbevise Vesten om værdien af sine planer om Silkevejen.«[1]

[1] Schiller Instituttets Seminar i København 27. apr. 2015: »Kinas politik for ’Ét bælte, én vej’«