Lyndon LaRouche har hele vejen utvetydigt sagt, at med mindre, og indtil, Obama smides ud, står verden på en knivsæg til atomkrig. Spøgelset af denne fare sås skarpt i tirsdags med Tyrkiets nedskydning af et russisk fly, der var engageret i bombetogt nær den tyrkisk-syriske grænse. LaRouche kom omgående med en offentlig erklæring, der sagde, »Obama har organiseret en krigshandling, og således sat USA, såvel som resten af menneskeheden, i fare«. Han sagde, at det »var et overlagt forsøg fra Obamas side på at fremtvinge generel krig«. Engelsk udskrift.

MEGAN BEETS: Good evening. It’s November 27, 2015. My name
is Megan Beets, and I’d like to welcome all of you to our regular
Friday evening broadcast here at LaRouche PAC. I’m joined in the
studio tonight by Jason Ross and I’m also joined, via video, by
Jeffrey Steinberg.
Now in discussions earlier this week, Mr. LaRouche made it
very, very clear that the key issue facing all of us, is whether
the people of the United States, in particular, both the people
in positions of leadership, such as the Congress, but also the
population in general, have the guts to stop compromising with
Obama, to tell the truth, and to throw him out. Now, what we’ve
seen shaping up over the past weeks is a very dramatically and a
very rapidly shifting world strategic situation, including
ongoing Russian military intervention into Syria; also including
the recent wave of terrorist attacks, such as the bombing of the
Russian plane over Egypt, and of course, the terrorist attacks
which occurred just two weeks ago in Paris, which was followed by
a shift in dynamic among world leaders, away from the failed
Obama policy, and toward a broader collaboration with the
Russians to defeat ISIS.
However, throughout all of this, Mr. LaRouche has been
unequivocal that unless, and until you get Obama out of the U.S.
presidency, the world stands on a razor’s edge of thermonuclear
war.
Now the spectre of that danger arose sharply this Tuesday,
with the Turkish shooting down of a Russian plane which was
involved in operations near the Turkish-Syria border. And Mr.
LaRouche immediately issued a statement, a public statement,
which said that “Obama has organized an act of war, and thus
endangered the United States, as well as all humanity.” He said
that it “was a deliberate attempt by Obama to force general
warfare.”
Now, this act by Turkey and by Obama, and the aftermath, has
catalyzed a very significant change in the world global dynamic,
which we’re seeing manifest, for example, in Europe, among other
places. This shift is also the subject of tonight’s institutional
question, which makes reference to the ongoing talks in Vienna,
which are aimed at resolving the situation in Syria. The question
reads as follows:
“Mr. LaRouche, please give us your view of how Russia and
Turkey can move once again to collaborate to save Syria under the
Vienna process?” So now I’m going to turn it over to Jeff to give
Mr. LaRouche’s response to that question, as well as an
elaboration of the general strategic picture.
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thank you, Megan. Can you hear me there?
Well I think that the starting point must be to tell the truth as
we know it about the events of last Tuesday. It was immediately
understood by leading political and military circles in the
United States, in Europe, and most emphatically in Russia, that
the action that was undertaken by the Turkish in shooting down
that Russian SU-24 over a border area on the Turkey-Syria border
right along the Mediterranean coast, that this was something that
1) was order top down in Turkey from President Erdogan, and 2)
Erdogan would never have undertaken such an action if he did not
have advance approval from Obama and the British.
So, for the Russians, this represented a major act of war,
and I can tell you that within the U.S. governing institutions,
there was a deep and profound split that reflected immediately in
actions that were diametrically opposite. Secretary of State John
Kerry, leading circles within the Pentagon all the way up to the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, immediately activated channels with
Russia, knowing full well that there was a very real prospect
that Russia would retaliate immediately after this unwarranted
military provocation. And so, you have one element of the U.S.
command that is not under British control, that moved immediately
to at least temporarily forestall a situation that was
potentially moments away from a general war between NATO and
Russia. And as we’ve been saying, as Mr. LaRouche has been
warning since virtually the beginning of the Obama presidency,
any such war between NATO and Russia would very rapidly devolve
into a thermonuclear war, in which the overwhelming majority of
humankind would likely not survive.
So you had actions. There was red phone line communications
activated immediately, between those elements in the U.S. Command
that were not on the British line, and top Russian officials. And
the first objective was simply to secure a commitment that the
situation would not immediately go to a hot war. In other words,
this was the most dangerous situation since, and probably more
so, than even the Cuban Missile crisis. Because in the Cuban
missile crisis, there was no shoot down of an American or a
Soviet ship or a plane.
On the other hand, President Obama, who was closer to
Erdogan than virtually any foreign leader, perhaps with the sole
exception of David Cameron in Britain, immediately got on the
phone with Erdogan and then issued public statements certifying
that, in his mind, Turkey acted perfectly within their sovereign
rights to shoot down a plane flying over its territory.
Now, never mind the fact that there are serious questions
and disputes of whether that plane, that Russian plane, actually
ever even entered Turkish airspace. The fact is that, if it
passed through Turkish air space at all, number one, there was
never any intent–and nobody in Turkey even claimed there was any
intent on the part of the Russians–to carry out any kind of
military action or provocation against Turkey. And secondly, even
after the first 24 hours following the shoot-down, the Turks were
even acknowledging that that plane, if it ever in fact crossed
into Turkish territory, was there only for a matter of brief
seconds, and no longer.
Now that also tells you that to shoot down that plane, was a
premeditated, pre-determined decision. There was not enough time
for the Turkish air force to consult up the chain of command all
the way to President Erdogan, and to then get response orders
back, and to fire at the Russian plane — all within a matter of
a timeframe that at most has been characterized as 17 seconds.
So, again, it was a premeditated act of war; and Erdogan on his
own never would have undertaken that. It was done in conjunction
with both Obama and the British; and therefore, the
responsibility lies there.
Now, let’s again visit what the immediate context was of
this incident. It occurred last Tuesday at a point that French
President Hollande was in Washington to attempt to organize
President Obama to join a trilateral military alliance of France,
Russia, and the United States, to wipe out the threat of ISIS and
Nusra, and all allied organizations inside Syria and inside Iraq
primarily. And so, the events that took place just as Obama and
Hollande were sitting down, hijacked the agenda of that
discussion. All you have to do is read the transcript, or even
better, watch the video of the press conference that took place
later that same day between Obama and Hollande; and you’ll see
towards the end, Obama launching into a typical Obama tirade
against Putin and against Russia. Obama was lying pathologically
in saying that the United States is leading a coalition of over
60 countries, and that Russia, when it comes to fighting against
the Islamic State is “the outlier”; and it went on from there.
So, statements soon after that, again from the White House, fully
endorsed and adopted the Turkish line on what happened.
So, here you’ve got a situation where an act of war, an act
of military aggression took place, carried out by Turkey — a
NATO member — and was done with the full at least tacit backing
of the President of the United States, with the full support of
the British. How close do you have to get to provoking
thermonuclear war before enough people in Congress and in the
American population wake up and recognize that Lyndon LaRouche
has been right for years in warning about the menace that
President Obama represents if he’s allowed to continue to remain
in office? We’re down to the final 14 or so months of his
Presidency, but you can see the kind of developments that can
occur on literally a moment’s notice. And so, there is no option
any longer other than removing the President from office by
Constitutional means immediately. That means that the leading
members of Congress and at least leading elements within the
American population have got to finally wake up to strategic
reality.
Now, to put an added punctuation mark on the situation,
let’s not forget that there was another major series of
provocations directed against Russia over the same recent
timeframe of the last week. You had the Right Sector, the
neo-Nazi apparatus in Ukraine, that is openly backed and promoted
by the Obama administration principally through Victoria Nuland,
the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs, who carried out a bombing campaign against the power
grid of Crimea; and has effectively shut off almost all power to
the entire Crimean peninsula. When Russian repair units attempted
to get to the sites to re-establish the power links, they were
fired on by Right Sector militias; and to make matters even
worse, at the end of last week, it was announced by Nuland’s pet
prime minister, Yatsenyuk, that henceforth all Russian flights
over Ukrainian airspace were cancelled. Now, that’s tantamount to
a threat of yet a second country, a major ally of the US and the
British, threatening to carry out unprovoked strikes against
Russian aircraft flying over Ukrainian airspace.
So, you’ve got a clear pattern here. You have — as Megan
indicated — a phase shift with the series of ISIS terrorist
attacks over the last several weeks, that began with the bombing
of the Russian Metro Jet over the Sinai; followed with a series
of suicide bombings on the southern portions of Beirut in
Lebanon, targetting the Shi’ite area of that city. And then the
Paris attacks. The world was energized to finally launch an
all-out serious campaign against the Islamic State. Russia
escalated the bombing campaign against the Islamic State and
knocked out an estimated 1000 of the tanker trucks that have been
smuggling oil from the ISIS-controlled areas of northern Syria
into Turkey, where they’ve been sold on the black market; and
these funds have been fueling the operations of the Islamic
State.
At the G-20 summit meeting that ironically took place in
Turkey just days before the Turkish air force shot down the
Russian SU-24, President Putin made very clear that Russia has
aerial photographs showing lengthy caravans of these oil tanker
trucks crossing the border into Turkey from northern Syria; and
furthermore, he said he has the names of financial agents in 40
countries, including a number of the G-20 member countries, that
are involved in financing the Islamic State through black market
cooperation. So, the case is unambiguous. If you wanted to
attribute narrow motives, you could say that Erdogan was furious
at the Russians for bombing these Turkish smuggling trucks, since
we know that the funds generated on the Turkish side from this
black market activity largely go into the coffers of the ruling
AKP Party. We know that the son of President Erdogan is himself
one of the major people involved in this black market operation.
But in a very real sense, that’s a much too narrow
understanding of what happened here. It eliminates the crucial
question, which is that Obama and the British were behind this,
and it was an attempt on a much grander scale to not just simply
sabotage the Vienna initiatives; but it was an attempt to trigger
a potential world war. And for that crime alone, despite the fact
that there is a long list of Constitutional violations and other
crimes committed by this President, for that reason alone he must
be immediately removed from office. And therefore, every person
listening to this broadcast, all of your friends, all of your
neighbors, all of your political associates, your co-workers, are
going to have to do some serious soul searching; because we came
inches away from world war last Tuesday morning, with the Turkish
actions. And it was only a matter of intervention, but
particularly restraint on the part of Russian President Putin and
the Russian military that averted that. There is still clearly an
option, and lessons to be learned from this provocation, that
could and must lead to reaching an agreement in Vienna to end the
five-year war and tragedy in Syria. But that must start with the
kind of blunt truth which we have been discussing here over the
last few minutes; and it cannot go forward so long as President
Obama remains in office. So, there are urgent issues that must be
taken up by the Congress and by the American people, if we are
going to avert a war; because I can assure you, if those critical
actions are not taken in the immediate days ahead, then the
chances that there will be {another} incident; {another}
provocation, whether by Ukraine, whether by Erdogan and the
Turks, whether by ISIS, and if actions aren’t taken to solve the
problem at its roots, we will be staring at the prospect of world
war in the immediate days, perhaps hours ahead.

BEETS: Okay, thank you very much, Jeff. Now, upcoming this
Monday, November 30th, we have the beginning of a two-week long
genocidal COP21 depopulation climate conference, which is
occurring in Paris, and despite the actual danger to humanity
which Jeff just outlined in detail, and especially in the wake of
the terrorist attacks in Paris just two weeks ago, this
absolutely insane conference is going ahead as scheduled, to be
attended by approximately 140 heads of state, along with
thousands of other government, NGO, and other officials, notably
Britain’s Prince Charles, the dysfunctional and inbred son of
Queen Elizabeth and her walking-dead husband, Prince Philip, will
be one of the keynote speakers.
Now, as we addressed in this webcast last week, if anyone
involved had any morality, we would completely change the nature
of the conference, to address the actual dangers and threats to
humanity, such as the refugee crisis, the conditions of poverty
around the world, and the lack of development that are actually
threatening billions of people. So what I’d like to do now, is
ask Jason to come to the podium to address this upcoming
conference in the context of what Jeff just presented.

JASON ROSS: This is almost like the worst joke you could
imagine, holding this conference in Paris. This conference which,
starting in a few days — we’ve been opposing this, and we’ve got
a leaflet, a resolution that we’ve been getting out on this,
called, “We Say No to the Paris COP21 CO2 Reduction Scheme.” I
want to read the bookmarks of this, the bookends. It opens, “The
conditions for life of billions of people depend upon rejecting
the agenda being presented at the 2015 climate change conference
to be held in Paris this December. The COP21 Paris initiative to
adopt a legally-binding agreement to reduce CO2 emissions must be
rejected on two grounds: the scientific reality, that mankind’s
activity, is {not} going to cause catastrophic climate change,
and the very real lethal consequences of the CO2 reduction
programs being demanded.” It ends, that “Energy-intensive
scientific, technological, and economic growth is essential to
human existence. This can be measured by transitions to higher
levels of energy-flux density per-capita and per-area. Such
progress, growth, and development, is the universal right of man,
and CO2 emissions are presently a vital part of that process for
the overwhelming majority of the world’s population. The adoption
of a legally-binding CO2 reduction scheme at the COP21 conference
in Paris will condemn billions of people to a lower quality of
life, with higher death-rates, greater poverty, and no ability to
exercise their inherent human right to participate in the
creation of a better condition for society as a whole. This is
deeply immoral. For these reasons, the CO2 reduction scheme of
the COP21 conference in Paris must be rejected.”
So on the grounds of the fakery of the science, and the
very, very real human costs of trying to meet the CO2 reduction
goals, this can’t go forward. However, obviously the push is
there, the conference is going ahead despite the state of
emergency currently in France, the terrorized population of
Paris, changes in some of the agenda, but it’s going ahead, and
as a matter of fact, this conference is getting a kick-start over
the weekend — today and the rest of the weekend — the
Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting is taking place in
Malta. So this is where all the members of the former British
Empire, now called the British Commonwealth, get together to —
as in this case — hear speeches from the Queen and others about
why they need to reduce CO2.
Prince Charles — who has been basically waiting for his
mother to die for a half century to get a job — he said that the
terrorism that we’re seeing, the conflicts that we’re seeing, are
not because of conflict, not because of ISIS, not because of the
Brits and Saudi Arabia helping ISIS, instead, Prince Charles
said, “In fact, there is very good evidence indeed that one of
the major reasons for this horror in Syria was a drought that
lasted for about 5 or 6 years, which meant that huge numbers of
people in the end had to leave the land.” This is the guy that
they’re asking to give the keynote address at the COP21
conference — a man whose understanding of Syria seems to be that
all of the conflict is because of a drought which was caused by
climate change. It’s insane, and it’s knowingly evil on his part.
So, what should be done instead, is re-purposing the
conference would be a good thing, you know, recycling what’s
going to be done there. As Megan said, of course, addressing the
refugee crisis, which is all over Europe at present, and beyond
— that’s worth discussing. Really, what’s worth discussing is a
solution to this whole problem, which would be excellent if the
Congress were to release the 28 pages, put them in the record, as
Senator Gravel did with the Pentagon Papers, to be able to attack
the cause of this conflict at its source, which as Jeff went
through, as LaRouche has been stressing, is Obama, who by his
nature as a killer personality, has qualified himself to be
inserted into his role as President. That that is the cause of
the conflicts. Releasing the 28 pages, discussing how to actually
shut down terrorism in the region, working {with} Russia on this
— you know, Russia is serious about this — you know, that would
be worth discussing.
And really, what would it mean to develop the world into the
Silk Road? You know, EIR released, about a year ago now, “The New
Silk Road Becomes the World Landbridge.” It’s a 300 and — almost
400 page report. It goes through in incredible detail, with maps
and everything, what it would mean for China’s One Belt One Road
project, its New Silk Road project, to continue its extension
into a worldwide paradigm of development. What would those
projects look like? And this is a policy that the LaRouches have
been promoting for decades, and Helga LaRouche in her visits to
China is acknowledged as “the Silk Road Lady,” for her role in
bringing this outlook into the current fruition that it’s
finding. So what would it mean for the U.S. to join the Silk
Road? What would it mean for us to get our act together?
Well, we’ve been working on a report on this, in terms of
what a U.S. recovery would look like, and there’s a lot of
aspects to this. I mean, if you think about the kinds of projects
that have, many, been on the books, and the kinds of projects
that will drive us into the future, you recognize that it would
not be very difficult to create millions of jobs in a very short
period of time — meaningful, productive jobs — that lay the
groundwork for a durable new, more productive economy for the
future. Doing that will require eliminating Wall Street, getting
Glass-Steagall re-implemented, having those provisions back in
place, shutting down Wall Street which we do not need. Gambling
is not an essential part of economy. The productive process,
science, creativity, the development of human beings and
infrastructure — that is essential. Gambling is not.
So with Wall Street out of the way, with federal financing,
with federal credit made available, some of the projects are
things that we’ve discussed quite a bit. Take, for example, the
Bering Strait. Crossing the Bering Strait with a tunnel or a
bridge, as engineers decide, would be a very key role, a very key
project, to put the U.S. on the Silk Road, literally, making it
possible to get from the West Coast of the U.S., into Eurasia,
much more quickly than by sending a ship across the ocean, with
the added benefit that rail, or transportation corridors on land
overall, allow for the ability to develop regions along the
way. Something that a ship crossing the ocean doesn’t do. Ships
don’t create wealth, or the potential to create it, as they cross
the waters. Land connections do.
So the Bering Strait tunnel — that would be a key project.
Overall, transportation has a tremendous way to go in the U.S.
You know, China, which is a nation very similar in size to the
United States, currently has 11,000 miles of high-speed rail,
with plans to have 30,000 by 2020, and they’ll do it — they do
what they say. In contrast, we have under 500 miles of high-speed
rail, and that’s being very generous in counting the Acela
service as high-speed. What we should have is 42,000 miles of
electrified, decent rail in the United States, bringing down the
costs of transportation, and of production throughout the nation,
making it more possible to move intermediate goods from place to
place, to move people, to move products in a way that will have a
tremendous savings in time, and in energy costs.
Currently over half of rail-freight in the U.S. is coal. You
know, in a nuclear economy we obviously wouldn’t need so much
coal, but it also goes to show how little else is being done with
the system as it is, and maybe some idea of what it could be like
in the future.
Along with the development of the basics which we naturally
think of — things like transportation, rail, repairing roadways,
power plants, water systems, which I’ll get into in a moment —
the other aspect is cities. Now, India has committed itself to
building scores of new cities across the country. Russia has
created science cities. The United States — imagine the
potential, not to keep adding more and more sprawl to the
outsides of our current cities, but developing legitimately new
cities, actual cities, planned in a sensible way, with part of a
transportation backbone underlying it, with infrastructure that’s
needed, canals and aqueducts as necessary, water, power, that
sort of thing. But then also where the cities and where life is
oriented around the most key of economic processes — the
creation of wealth by improving the productive powers of labor,
by the cultural role that can be played by a city.
So in addition to the ability to move goods and people
easily, the density you find in a real city, where different
members of the household can do their various things that anyone
having an hour and a half commute can’t, you also have the other
role of the city itself as a social institution.
So, in a very interesting article that LaRouche wrote some
decades ago, in a program for the development of Africa, he
discusses the central role of the city, and the presence of a
research and educational complex, a pedagogical museum where
people, kids, their parents, etc. would be able to step
themselves through how discoveries had been made in the past in a
hands-on way, doing experiments, themselves witnessing and
understanding very directly how humanity has gotten where it is,
making it possible to have workers able to master new
technologies, and scientists able to reflect on what science has
done in the past, to create the new discoveries needed in the
future.
This sort of educational center of the city will be more
than a museum retailing the past; it will be more than looking
backwards. LaRouche wrote that to give vitality and direction to
the process, the educational zone of a new city must be engaged
in some aspect of scientific research which is itself of world
importance. He says that “a modern nation has achieved true
sovereignty in spirit, only if it achieves excellence in some
important aspect of advancement of human knowledge generally. A
people which can point to several institutions of its own nation,
and can identify several important contributions to human
knowledge associated with such institutions, is a people which
knows that its children are capable of equalling in importance to
humanity, the children of any other nation. To teach science is
to teach the principles of discovery.”
So, with cities, with this as an included basis, cities of
finite size ( no more than one or two million people), with the
development made potential by rail, by water, by developing
fusion power on a crash basis, and implementing the
already-discovered abilities which have been improved on building
nuclear fission plants, we’ll be able to dramatically increase
the power, electrical power, available in the nation; to power
transportation; to power manufacturing. And to do all of this,
we’re also going to need revival of machine tools themselves.
Now, machine tools — now not everyone’s actually seen one
of these in person. These are things like lathes, like mills,
shapers — these are the devices that make everything that’s
required, that create metal, that shape metal to do machining. To
the extent that you are able to innovate in this area, as has
been done with new technologies over the decades — like electric
discharge machining around the time of the Apollo program, or
electron-beam welding; or the more recent developments of laser
and plasma cutting, and the ability for these computer-controlled
machine tools to create things that would have taken ten times
longer in earlier eras: to the extent that this technology
improves, and to the extent that purchases are made, and as part
of an industrialization, the capital stock is increasingly of
newer, and more productive machine tools, the entire economy sees
the benefits from them, by making easier, reducing the cost, of
all other production.
So, this machine tool principle is, in the small, an image
of what it means to take discoveries and then implement them into
an economy, for new thought, new engineering, or scientific idea,
to become manifest in the economy. And this is a field that needs
motion on. As I said earlier, power; fusion research, which has
been starved of funding deliberately for decades, preventing the
kind of breakthroughs that would make power, as has been said,
too cheap to meter — or even if not that cheap, remarkably
abundant power able to bring the next generation of production
technologies into play. To transform our relationship with raw
materials, and with reshaping those materials. Things like the
plasma torch.
So, in this kind of economy, we can then re-approach such
subjects as water. California is in what’s called a water crisis,
despite being right next to the Pacific Ocean. Why do we not have
the power and the plants in place to be able to desalinate? To at
least provide for much of the needs in California? Why have we
not done more research on how weather actually functions?
You know, one of the ironies of the global warming
alarmists, hysterics, whatever you want to call them, is that
this supposedly scientific outlook is actually stifling science.
Hypotheses about what’s causing climate change over time,
hypotheses about how cosmic radiation coming from our Galaxy, or
even beyond, plays a role in creating the cloud condensation
nuclei to form clouds, to effect precipitation, to change the
albedo, the reflectants of the Earth, and therefore its
temperature — that’s real science that’s being held back by the
global warming mafia, who reject this kind of approach because it
doesn’t come to the conclusion that they want: namely, that
human-made CO2 is {the} determining factor in global climate.
It’s just not true.
So, as was said in that resolution I read at the beginning,
and as is covered in this other EIR special report, “Global
Warming Scare is Population Reduction, Not Science,” the science
is clear. We are not causing catastrophic warming of the planet.
Mankind is not a virus destroying the Earth. What is destroying
the planet is oligarchism; the outlook that human beings are a
disease, the anti-growth and enforced poverty promoted by the
City of London, by Wall Street, by that system which has to be
removed. In its place, as far as an actual concept of humanity,
let me read another quote from LaRouche here. He says, “Every
infant born in any part of the world has the potential for
development of his or her mental powers to the level sufficient
for adult competence in use of modern technology.” And this also
means real technology, not iPhones. “That child can achieve at
least an approximation for practice of the highest levels of
productive powers of labor in the world generally today. It is
that potential development which is the only source of wealth.”
Let’s remember that; the source of wealth, the increasing of the
productive powers of labor, as Hamilton put it, lies in that
ability for human beings creatively to develop new understandings
about nature, and thereby reform the economy in an entire way.
That’s real economic science, and with that approach, the
programs that are needed, the development projects which we can
implement, the jobs that will create; this can all follow from an
outlook of what economics truly is, and breaking free from the
false ideas about it which have been promoted by Wall Street and
which have affected, unfortunately, a very great number of our
fellow citizens.

BEETS: Thanks, Jason. Two days ago, on Wednesday of this
week, we celebrated the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s
publication of his paper on general relativity. Now, LaRouche has
reiterated many times in the recent period that Einstein was the
only true scientist in the 20th Century; someone who held out
against the corruption in thinking that was ushered in 1900 by
Bertrand Russell. And someone who was attacked and isolated for
his commitment to the paradigm of thinking which represents the
actual human mind; the paradigm which was responsible for all of
human progress up to this point. So, what I’d like to do is ask
Jason to come back to the podium and ask him this question: Given
the task ahead of us today to rebuild society, rebuild
civilization, and to create a new paradigm for mankind, I’d like
to ask Jason to give us a sense of the importance of Einstein’s
work and his commitment.

ROSS: Sure. I think what Einstein accomplished represents a
key concept under which science can be understood; that of
metaphor. LaRouche has repeatedly stressed the importance of
metaphor as the key to science; meaning the development of
language in such a way that you express a new scientific truth in
a way that could not even have been stated in the preceding
language. It’s not something mathematical; it’s not a formula or
an expression. Discoveries in their true form can’t be. After the
fact, you might be able to write them down; but what makes them a
discovery is an overthrowing of the past, the development of a
new basis for thinking incompatible with what came before. That’s
the kernel of what a discovery is. None of these thoughts are
really eternal; what is, is that process of developing new ones.
Which is the incredible error in science education today, based
upon understanding how to apply the fruits of discovery to
specific problems; but not going through how they were developed.
So, 100 years ago, 1915, Einstein successfully expanded his
special theory of relativity, which he had developed in 1905,
into a more general form; making it the general theory of
relativity. So, I do want to say a bit about what Einstein did; I
think it would be wrong not to; and then get into what it would
mean for us today, what’s the relevance. Einstein’s not just
someone to idolize, or say, “Wow, he was a real genius.” Figure
out what he did.
So, going back ten years earlier to 1905 — 110 years ago —
Einstein, in his what’s now called special theory of relativity,
changed the basis on which scientific thought was based. At that
time, the prevailing view was of a Newtonian outlook to space and
time. Isaac Newton had said that space and time were independent
of things within them; space is space, within it, things exist
and take place, or occur in different relations to each other.
According to Newton, time flows on its own, without reference to
the things in it; they take place over time, but time is an
independent existence.
Well, Einstein tore that apart in 1905; in some ways with
rather simple thoughts. For example, he demonstrated that the
concept of simultaneity does not exist; that depending on who it
is that you ask, and their motion with respect to two events that
are occurring, that observer might say yes they occurred at the
same time. Meaning the light from those two events reaching them,
to make a determination which one occurred first, or second, or
whether they occurred simultaneously, depending on the motion of
an observer, they might appear to occur at the same time or not.
He gave the example of someone on a train witnessing two
lightning bolts, versus someone on the ground witnessing two
lightning bolts.  To someone on the ground, two lightning bolts
occurring at equal distances in either direction, the light will
come and reach the person at the same time. To someone on a
train, who is at the middle of that platform right when the bolts
occur, at the same time according to the person on the platform,
because of the train’s motion, they’re going to see this bolt
before the other one. Who’s right? What does it really mean to
say “at the same time”? Because all the laws of nature work the
same, whether you’re standing still supposedly, or you’re in
constant motion, there’s no way to say who’s right; what the
right time should be. And the idea of having a universality of
simultaneity, to say “at this moment in the universe” disappears,
and it becomes relative to the observer.
What does that mean? It means that time itself no longer
exists as a basis for thought in the way that it had before.
There’s still time, but it’s no longer an untouchable permanence;
the same thing is the case for space. Where space and time are
skewed, and distances have to take place or be considered in
space-time, rather than in only one or the other. So, by then, by
1905 in his special theory of relativity, Einstein had replaced
the concepts of space and time as a basis for physics with
something physical; light’s motion. In this way, he was
implementing the revolutions in physics that Riemann said would
take place; that our understanding of geometry would take place
not by looking at geometry, but by an understanding of those
binding forces of nature which give rise to what is then
observed. A bent space; a curved space; a skewed space.
With his general theory of relativity in 1915, Einstein went
beyond frames of reference which are either at rest with respect
to each other or in uniform motion; and he considered
acceleration. He considered the fact that there is a relativistic
equivalence between somebody in a room where they feel the floor
pushing up against their feet, or their feet pushing down against
the floor, that without reference to what’s outside that room,
they might be sitting on the Earth, or they might be out in
space, where the top of the building is attached to a rope which
is being pulled at an accelerating rate, constantly pulling the
building up against their feet. No experiment, nothing you could
do inside the room, would be able to distinguish the one from the
other. From this equivalence then, Einstein derived his general
theory of relativity, by which not only motion, but gravitation
changes the shape of space and time.
This was a very, and still is, a very wild shocking idea.
Space and time were considered to be such fundamental things that
the possibility of them even being curved was rejected out of
hand by people like Immanuel Kant, Isaac Newton, Bertrand
Russell.
So, what Einstein was able to do, though, is demonstrate
that he was right. Two quick examples. One was the orbit of
Mercury. Every orbit, every planet, has a place that’s farthest
from the Sun, and one where it’s closest to the Sun. You draw the
line through them. That line for the orbit doesn’t stay
stationary. It actually moves over time. For Mercury that line
moves a degree and a half every century. And based on
calculations and gravity, as it was understood, people were able
to explain almost all of that change. There remained a very, very
small — about .01 degree per century — change in Mercury’s
orbit that no one had explained, but which Einstein was able to
explain with his theory.
Also his prediction about how light would bend going around
large objects, was borne out in the experiments around the
eclipse of 1919, in which photographs taken of stars near the
eclipsed Sun — since the Sun was covered, you could actually see
stars near the Sun, which you can’t ordinarily do in the daytime,
because you can’t see anything — and comparing those same stars
when the Sun was not in the sky near them, showed again that
Einstein was right; that the path of light coming from the stars
towards us was deformed, was shaped, by the presence of the Sun
in the way.
So, these are the things that people are most familiar with
about Einstein, things that are indisputably advances that he
made. But there’s more to him than that. I think that the great
importance that LaRouche attributes to him in what Megan was
bringing up about calling him the only scientist we had here in
the Twentieth Century, the only one who stuck to science, lies
elsewhere as well.
The other great work that Einstein had done was on the
quantum. So in 1905, in addition to Special Relativity, he also
wrote a paper to explain the photo-electric effect, and it was
actually this that got him his Nobel Prize later. This expanded
the theories of Planck in showing how light itself must come in
pieces: that it’s not purely a wave phenomenon; that there’s
something particle-like about it. Experiments, however, required
light to also have wave-like properties, making it impossible to
in a simple way decide on this question. Is light a particle, or
is light a wave? This is one of the difficulties of quantum
physics.
What Einstein held out against was the interpretation by
scientists in his day, led by Bohr, mainly, Neils Bohr the Dane,
to say that science had reached a limit; that to ask why was
really no longer admissible, and that in the quantum world,
physics, instead of saying what nature is, is limited to
describing how nature appears. Against that Einstein — Einstein
would not accept that. Einstein never accepted the idea that we
had reached an end to the ability to know things, and that
quantum theory as it was known at that time, was final, complete.
Something that’s never been true of, really, any theory in
history.
This is seen now with the ongoing difficulties around
completing quantum theory, and also the anomalies in the fields
of life and the potential for a higher understanding of these
quantum processes in the fields of cognition. It’s also seen in
his own work, with the theory of gravitation; with the
difficulties — I hope you’ve been watching the series of
presentations our colleague Ben Deniston has been doing on the
Galaxy on this website every other Wednesday — it’s also seen in
the difficulty in understanding the speed of rotation of
galaxies. The basis for hypotheses that people make about dark
matter now. A lot of what this can indicate is that we have
simply reached the limits to the applicability of our physical
theories, and need to go beyond them.
That’s not done mathematically by positing ways to keep our
old laws, to explain the new phenomena, but it can require going
beyond it.
So, we don’t have answers to these questions. We shouldn’t
fool ourselves into thinking that we do already have the answers
to these questions. And the importance of Einstein for us today,
is that of a successful discoverer who overthrew what had been
thought, developed a higher theory to explain things, and was
guided by an understanding of the role of the human mind in
developing new, successful concepts about nature. With that as a
basis for how we relate to other human beings, with that as a
basis for social relations, we can forge a much higher level of
cooperation on this planet, and develop a culture that’s really
suitable for human beings that participate in it.
MEGAN BEETS: Thank you very much, Jason. With that, I’m
going to bring our broadcast to a close. I would like to thank
Jason for joining me, and Jeff for joining us via video, and I’d
like to thank all of you for watching tonight. Please stay tuned
to larouchepac.com. Good night.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, formand for det tyske, politiske parti BüSo (Borgerrettighedsbevægelsen Solidaritet), er den eneste, tyske leder, der har fremlagt løsningen: Tyskland må omgående trække sig ud af briternes og Obamas politik med regimeskift og krig og droppe den grønne dagsorden, til fordel for en total accept af den kinesisk anførte bevægelse for global opbygning gennem en Ny Silkevej. I denne ånd har Zepp-LaRouche helhjertet støttet opfordringen fra videnskabsfolkene Paul Dreissen og Joe D’Aleo om at forvandle topmødet i Paris til en begivenhed til mobilisering til fordel for at redde flygtningene med en reel, økonomisk genopbygningsplan.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

26. november 2015 – I sin faste spalte i Berlineravisen Der Tagesspiegel, angriber Stephan-Andreas Casdorff Obama for de netop forlængede sanktioner mod Rusland for at være det stik modsatte af en konstruktiv verdenspolitik. Obamas træk er kontrær til det presserende nødvendige behov for at få signaler om en øst-vest-afspænding (detente) og samarbejde med Rusland imod IS, skriver Casdorff og tilføjer, at russerne har bedre efterretninger om noget som helst, der finder sted i Syrien, end nogen anden, og at de ved, hvad de gør, til forskel fra de andre magter, der ikke ved, hvad de gør.

… LaRouche refererede herefter til et møde tirsdag aften, hvor han havde insisteret på, at Obama omgående må ydmyges og degraderes i en grad, hvor han ikke længere vil være i stand til at gennemtvinge de sidste, tilbageværende, korte skridt mod en atomkrig, og heller ikke vil være i stand til at forhindre, at han brat tvinges fra embedet. Dette er et spørgsmål om liv eller død for menneskeheden – ikke uger ud i fremtiden, men lige nu, på Thanksgiving Day, og fredag morgen.

Under en telefonkonference onsdag morgen, den 25. nov., med sin Politiske Komite sagde Lyndon LaRouche: »Jeg mener ikke, vi befinder os i en god tid. Vi er i en desorganiseret tid, en tid med nederlag. Vi er ikke særligt effektive lige nu. Vores organisation som helhed lykkes ikke, med hensyn til vores præstationer; dette må vi rette op på.«

LaRouche refererede herefter til et møde tirsdag aften, hvor han havde insisteret på, at Obama omgående må ydmyges og degraderes i en grad, hvor han ikke længere vil være i stand til at gennemtvinge de sidste, tilbageværende, korte skridt mod en atomkrig, og heller ikke vil være i stand til at forhindre, at han brat tvinges fra embedet. Dette er et spørgsmål om liv eller død for menneskeheden – ikke uger ud i fremtiden, men lige nu, på Thanksgiving Day[1], og fredag morgen.

For alle, der stadig er i tvivl, så blev det offentligt indrømmet denne tirsdag morgen, at de fleste af jer ikke har denne tankegang, og derfor ikke præsterer denne adfærd.

Under sin haste-diskussion med aktivister i hele USA, (den såkaldte ’Fireside Chat’) om aftenen den 25. kom det sidste spørgsmål fra en texaner, som sagde, at en rigsretssag mod Obama var udelukket, eftersom dette kræver to tredjedele af Senatet, og aldrig før er sket. Obama burde smides ud i et militærkup efter krav fra befolkningen, ligesom den egyptiske diktator Morsi, fortsatte spørgeren, men dette er ikke muligt, eftersom Obama har fyret alle de gode generaler. Hvordan kan vi få det amerikanske folk til at rejse sig en masse og kræve Obamas afsættelse, spurgte han?

LaRouche svarede, at der ikke er noget systemisk princip, der forhindrer dette. Folk må mobiliseres til at uddanne sig selv på den rette måde. De værdier, man har lært dem at tilpasse sig til, har fordærvet dem. Det er ikke kun et spørgsmål om at fjerne skidtet fra folks hoveder: de må bringes til at forstå de sygdomme, som de har inficeret deres egne hjerner med. Det vil virke.

Hvis man ønsker at kontrollere samfundet, korrumperer (fordærver) man samfundet; man inducerer folk til at tro på noget, der ikke er sandt; hvorimod sandfærdig viden ikke er alment praktiseret. Dette skyldes, at vore regeringssystemer så ofte er korrupte.

Man må få folk til at se på sig selv og sige, »Hvad gør jeg forkert?« De kan forstå dette, men de må begynde et studie af sig selv og gennemgå, hvad det er, de burde tænke på, med de rette ideer. Dette kan gøres, men den eneste måde, det kan gøres på, er ved, at folk inspicerer sig selv meget grundigt. At de genovervejer, hvad det er, de har vedtaget som deres mening. Under visse omstændigheder er dette sket med held. Det har vi nu igen brug for.

[1] I USA en overvejende sekulariseret helligdag den fjerde torsdag i november, der er blevet fejret lige siden de første europæere kom til Den nye Verden; oprindeligt en taksigelse for årets høst.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video:

Lyd:

25. november 2015 – »Et spørgsmål lyder, ville [den tyrkiske præsident] Erdogan gøre dette uden USA’s tilladelse, uden USA’s støtte?«, sagde Daniel McAdams, adm. dir. for Ron Paul Instituttet for Fred og Fremgang i et interview i dag med Sputnik International. McAdams, en mangeårig støtte til Ron Paul i Kongressen, anklagede Tyrkiet for kriminel aktivitet med at hjælpe ISIS: »Dette er meget alvorligt«, sagde han, » … Tyrkiet har gjort det muligt for sig selv at blive til et super-arnested for ISIS og andre jihadister, der kan bevæge sig frem og tilbage fra Syrien til Tyrkiet … hvis man vil have kriminel aktivitet, er Tyrkiet mindst en medskyldig i forbrydelsen.«

McAdams inkluderede Obama i forbrydelsen: »Netop i denne uge overvejede USA at invitere al-Qaedas affilierede Ahrar ash-Sham til også at deltage i drøftelserne [om Syrien]. Så, 14 år efter, at al-Qaeda angreb USA den 11. september, taler USA om at bringe en organisation, der er tilknyttet al-Qaeda, ind, som en moderat opposition til Syrien.«

Obamas rolle rejses også af Pepe Escobar: »Lad os gå lige ind til benet. Den idé, at Tyrkiets nedskydning af et russisk Su-24-fly af et ’made-in-USA’ F-16 blev gennemført uden enten grønt lys eller i det mindste en på forhånd arrangeret ’støtte’ fra Washington«, er næsten umuligt at tro på. Dernæst fremlægger Escobar en synopsis over Tyrkiets beskidte rolle under ’Sultan Erdogan’ med at hjælpe ISIS og smugling af olie, stjålet af ISIS, fra Syrien og Irak. Han dokumenterer også, at »Bilal Erdogan, sultanens søn, er en betydelig spekulant« inden for denne handel, og som Putin, bemærker han, afslørede under G20-topmødet i Antalya, Tyrkiet, i sidste uge.

Der er også alvorlige advarsler om faren for en atomkrig. Den republikanske præsidentkandidat Rand Paul sagde i går, iflg. The Hill: »Nedskydningen af et russisk kampfly illustrerer præcist, hvorfor vi må have en åben linje« til Rusland. Han knuste også andre kandidaters krav om en flyveforbudszone og sagde, »nedskydning af de andre landes kampfly vil blive resultatet, og en krig mellem atomare stormagter en mulighed«. Redaktøren af antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo, siger, at »amerikanerne vil have en ny Cubansk missilkrise … Er I parate til Tredje Verdenskrig?«

Foto: Den tyrkiske præsident Erdogan.

Den britiske agent Barack Obama stod bag den tyrkiske nedskydning af det russiske Su-24 fly over syrisk luftrum tirsdag, den 24. november, og den russiske regering har gjort det klart, at det er fuldt ud klar over Obamas medskyldighed. I en telefonsamtale med den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry onsdag påpegede den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov, at, under bestemmelserne i forståelsesmemorandaet om dekonfliktion, som USA og Rusland for nyligt underskrev, tog USA ansvaret for alle de såkaldte koalitionspartneres handlinger. Mere præcist, så påpegede Lavrov, at angrebet på det russiske fly blev udført af et amerikansk fremstillet F-16, og der foreligger en bindende forståelse, der går ud på, at offensive operationer med anvendelse af amerikansk fremstillede fly skal cleares forud.

I det umiddelbare kølvand på nedskydningen af den russiske jet var det vigtigt for præsident Obama at telefonere til den tyrkiske præsident Erdogan for at forsikre ham om, at USA fuldt ud støttede hans »suveræne« handlinger. I sin afskyelige pressekonference sammen med den franske præsident Hollande tirsdag aften kastede Obama sig i sit storhedsvanvid ud i et angreb på Putin og Rusland og kaldte dem »afvigerne« og »tilbød« Rusland en sidste chance for at slutte sig til den amerikansk ledede »koalition«, der udfører den rigtige bekæmpelse af ISIS.

Obama gjorde det, han gør bedst – han løj, patologisk, på vegne af sine britiske herrer. I umindelige tider har den britiske krones strategi været den at fremprovokere krig mellem USA og Rusland og bære ved til bålet for en permanent befolkningskrig internt i den muslimske verden, mellem sunni og shia, ved at anvende deres (briternes) saudiske juniorpartnere som hovedprovokatører. Nu er Tyrkiet, under det korrupte Erdogan-regime, blevet bragt ind i blandingen for at oppiske betingelserne for en verdenskrig. Obama har været hovedaktivet for denne britiske krigsstrategi, lige siden han tiltrådte embedet, og indledte sin første embedsperiode med et besøg hos Dronning Elizabeth og Prins Philip i London, tre måneder efter sin indsættelse.

Et voksende antal politiske analytikere har tilsluttet sig Lyndon LaRouches afsløring af Obamas medskyldighed i tirsdagens tyrkiske handlinger. John Helmer i Moskva, Justin Raimondo, Daniel McAdams fra Ron Paul Institute og Pepe Escobar har inden for de seneste 24 timer alle offentligt udtalt, at Erdogan aldrig ville have lanceret et angreb mod det russiske fly uden forudgående godkendelse fra Obama.

I respons til det tyrkiske angreb har præsident Putin annonceret flere omgående militære modforholdsregler, inklusive deployeringen af de mest avancerede S-400 luftforsvarssystemer til den russiske luftbase i den syriske provins Latakia, udstationeringen af et overflade-til-luft (SAM) missilskib ud for Syriens kyst, samt en opgradering af ledsagefly, der kan afværge angreb, til alle fremtidige russiske bombetogter imod ISIS og mål i Syrien. Den russiske regering har gjort det klart, at de har beviser, inkl. varmesporet fra det nedskudte Su-24-fly, på, at flyet aldrig var inde over tyrkisk luftrum. En unavngiven amerikansk regeringsperson sagde til Reuters og andre nyhedsbureauer, at det russiske fly blev skudt ned over syrisk luftrum efter en meget kort passage gennem tyrkisk luftrum, der ikke kunne have varet mere end nogle få sekunder. Angrebet var planlagt på forhånd, med fuldt overlæg, og havde til hensigt at smadre klimaet efter angrebene i Paris, hvor en potentiel afgørelse af den fem år lange krig i Syrien og en koncentreret kampagne for at nedkæmpe ISIS og Nusra var ved at komme op at stå.

Putin vil svare tilbage med et flankeangreb, på linje med sin deployering af russiske styrker i Syrien, der fundamentalt ændrede konfliktens kurs, i september måned.

Skulle der herske nogen tvivl om, at dette er et globalt, britisk/Obama-ledet krigsfremstød mod Rusland, så se blot på Ukraine, hvor Sektor Højre har bombet elektricitetsledninger til Krim, og hvor Victoria Nulands (USA’s viceudenrigsminister for eurasiske og europæiske anliggender, -red.) kæledægge, ’Jats’ Jatsenjuk, netop har meddelt, at han har forbudt russiske fly enhver adgang til det ukrainske luftrum. Det svarer til en trussel om at nedskyde et russisk fly, hvornår det skal være.

Briternes største sårbarhed i dette fremstød for krig er Barack Obama. Han har begået forbrydelser imod menneskeheden, og så mange kriminelle handlinger, der berettiger til, at han stilles for en rigsret, at han udelukkende kun stadig er i embedet takket være fejheden og opportunismen hos de fleste af Kongressens medlemmer og det amerikanske folk, der tolererer hans eksistens, med deres eget liv som indsats.

Dokumentation:

Ruslands udenrigsminister Lavrov: Godkendte USA på forhånd Tyrkiets handling?

25. november 2015 – Den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry kondolerede på USA’s vegne over for den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov over telefon i dag, iflg. en erklæring udgivet af USA’s Udenrigsministerium. Forud for telefonopringningen sagde Lavrov til reportere i Moskva, at Rusland ved, at USA altid af sine koalitionspartnere i Syrien kræver, at brug af amerikanske kampfly koordineres med USA. Han påpegede således, iflg. TASS, den mulighed, at de tyrkiske myndigheder havde diskuteret deres beslutning om at beordre deres krigsfly i luften til at nedskyde det russiske fly med USA.

»Nogle medlemmer af koalitionen, inklusive dem, der leverer deres kampfly til angreb mod Irak og Syrien, har betroet os, at de involverede fly var af amerikansk fabrikat, og amerikanerne kræver normalt en tilladelse fra USA til sådanne operationer«, sagde Lavrov. »Så vidt jeg forstår, blev vores fly skudt ned af et amerikansk fremstillet F-16-fly. Vi ved endnu ikke, om USA’s krav gælder for Tyrkiet, og hvis det gør, ville jeg gerne vide, om Tyrkiet har spurgt USA om lov til at sende sine fly af sted på en kampmission og nedskyde et fly, selv om dette sandsynligvis er identificeret, over syrisk territorium.«

Lavrov mindede Kerry om, at, under bestemmelserne i Forståelsesmemorandaet (MOU) om dekonfliktion tager USA direkte ansvaret for de såkaldte koalitionspartneres handlinger, og det omfatter Tyrkiet. Lavrov bemærkede ligeledes, at Tyrkiet og Rusland, uafhængigt af MOU’et, etablerede en ’hot line’ telefonforbindelse, men at der ikke var nogen indsats fra nogen tyrkisk regeringsperson for at bruge denne linje til at afværge nedskydningen.

Lavrov talte også med sin tyrkiske modpart, Ahmet Cavusoglu, tidligere på dagen. Lavrov sagde, at Rusland ikke har nogen planer om at gå i krig med Tyrkiet, men at de planlagte russiske, diplomatiske besøg til Tyrkiet, og vice versa, heller ikke vil blive gennemført. Lavrov sagde, at hans tyrkiske modpart gav udtryk for beklagelse over Sukhoi-24M-hændelsen, men forsøgte samtidig at fremlægge undskyldninger for de handlinger, som det tyrkiske luftvåben begik.

»Hvad bør Tyrkiet gøre for at normalisere situationen?«, spurgte Lavrov. »Vi må nødvendigvis drage den konklusion, at angreb som det i går til syvende og sidst er absolut uacceptable. Jeg har hørt kondolencer fra [den tyrkiske udenrigs]minister Cavusoglu, men alle de andre erklæringer havde til hensigt at retfærdiggøre den tyrkiske holdning.«

Lavrov bemærkede også, at angrebet på Ruslands Su-24M-fly ligner en planlagt provokation. »Vi betvivler alvorligt, at det var uagtsomt; det ligner en planlagt provokation«, sagde Lavrov og tilføjede, at nogle russiske partnere kalder nedskydningen for »et åbenlyst bagholdsangreb«.

»Ville Tyrkiet handle uden USA’s tilladelse?« spørger politiske kommentatorer McAdams og Escobar; Andre advarer om atomkrig

25. november 2015 – »Et spørgsmål lyder, ville [den tyrkiske præsident] Erdogan gøre dette uden USA’s tilladelse, uden USA’s støtte?«, sagde Daniel McAdams, adm. dir. for Ron Paul Instituttet for Fred og Fremgang i et interview i dag med Sputnik International. McAdams, en mangeårig støtte til Ron Paul i Kongressen, anklagede Tyrkiet for kriminel aktivitet med at hjælpe ISIS: »Dette er meget alvorligt«, sagde han, » … Tyrkiet har gjort det muligt for sig selv at blive til et super-arnested for ISIS og andre jihadister, der kan bevæge sig frem og tilbage fra Syrien til Tyrkiet … hvis man vil have kriminel aktivitet, er Tyrkiet mindst en medskyldig i forbrydelsen.«

McAdams inkluderede Obama i forbrydelsen: »Netop i denne uge overvejede USA at invitere al-Qaedas affilierede Ahrar ash-Sham til også at deltage i drøftelserne [om Syrien]. Så, 14 år efter, at al-Qaeda angreb USA den 11. september, taler USA om at bringe en organisation, der er tilknyttet al-Qaeda, ind, som en moderat opposition til Syrien.«

Obamas rolle rejses også af Pepe Escobar: »Lad os gå lige ind til benet. Den idé, at Tyrkiets nedskydning af et russisk Su-24-fly af et ’made-in-USA’ F-16 blev gennemført uden enten grønt lys eller i det mindste en på forhånd arrangeret ’støtte’ fra Washington«, er næsten umuligt at tro på. Dernæst fremlægger Escobar en synopsis over Tyrkiets beskidte rolle under ’Sultan Erdogan’ med at hjælpe ISIS og smugling af olie, stjålet af ISIS, fra Syrien og Irak. Han dokumenterer også, at »Bilal Erdogan, sultanens søn, er en betydelig spekulant« inden for denne handel, og som Putin, bemærker han, afslørede under G20-topmødet i Antalya, Tyrkiet, i sidste uge.

Der er også alvorlige advarsler om faren for en atomkrig. Den republikanske præsidentkandidat Rand Paul sagde i går, iflg. The Hill: »Nedskydningen af et russisk kampfly illustrerer præcist, hvorfor vi må have en åben linje« til Rusland. Han knuste også andre kandidaters krav om en flyveforbudszone og sagde, »nedskydning af de andre landes kampfly vil blive resultatet, og en krig mellem atomare stormagter en mulighed«. Redaktøren af antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo, siger, at »amerikanerne vil have en ny Cubansk missilkrise … Er I parate til Tredje Verdenskrig?«

24. november 2015 – Under en fælles pressekonference med den franske præsident François Hollande efter deres møde i Det Hvide Hus i dag, forsvarede præsident Barack Obama fuldt ud Tyrkiets nedskydning af et russisk Su-24 bombefly og udtalte, at »Tyrkiet har, som enhver anden stat, ret til at forsvare sit territorium og sit luftrum«. Obama forsøgte dernæst at lægge skylden for hændelsen på den russiske regering og sagde, at »dette peger på et fortsat problem med de russiske operationer. De opererer meget tæt ved en tyrkisk grænse, og de går efter en moderat opposition, der ikke alene støttes af Tyrkiet, men af en bred vifte af lande«. Dernæst opfordrede han på hyklerisk vis alle sider til at udvise »tilbageholdenhed«, så krisen ikke eskalerede.

Efter en hastemøde i NATO, der var indkaldt af medlemmet Tyrkiet, gav NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg ligeledes sin fulde støtte til Tyrkiet:

»Som vi gentagne gange har gjort det klart, så står vi solidarisk med Tyrkiet og støtter vores NATO-allierede Tyrkiets territoriale integritet. Jeg ser frem til yderligere kontakter mellem Ankara og Moskva, og opfordrer til besindelse og deeskalering. Diplomati og deeskalering er vigtige for at løse denne situation«, sagde han.

I Ankara sagde en nonchalant tyrkisk premierminister Ahmet Davutoglu til Al Jazeera: »Enhver må vide, at det er vores internationale ret og nationale pligt at tage alle forholdsregler imod hvem som helst, der krænker vort land eller vore landegrænser. De tyrkiske bevæbnede styrker har fået klare instrukser. Selv hvis det er en flyvende fugl, vil den blive forhindret.«

Den pensionerede amerikanske oberst Patrick Lang skrev i dag på sin Sic Semper Tyrannis-blog: »Måske er tiden inde til at suspendere tyrkisk medlemskab af NATO, før Erdogan trækker os alle ind i en krig med Rusland.«

24. november 2015 – Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin talte i dag til pressen umiddelbart før sit møde med den jordanske Kong Abdullah i Sotji, Rusland, hvor han kom med en alvorlig advarsel til dem, der står bag tyrkiske kampflys nedskydning af det russiske Su-24 fly i dag. Putin beskrev det som »en kniv i ryggen fra dem, der er terroristernes medskyldige« og spurgte: »Ønsker de, at NATO skal tjene ISIS’ interesser?« Han advarede om, at Rusland »aldrig vil vende det blinde øje til sådanne forbrydelser som den, der blev begået i dag«.

Her følger væsentlige uddrag af Putins kommentarer:

»Denne begivenhed går ud over den normale indsats for at bekæmpe terrorisme. Vore militærfolk er engageret i en heroisk kamp imod terrorisme, og de skåner ikke sig selv, eller deres egne liv. Det tab, vi led i dag, er imidlertid resultatet af en kniv i ryggen fra dem, der er terroristernes medskyldige. Jeg kan ikke kvalificere det, der skete i dag, på nogen anden måde.

Vores fly blev skudt ned over syrisk territorium af et luft-til-luft-missil, der blev affyret fra et tyrkisk F-16 fly. Det faldt ned på syrisk territorium, fire kilometer fra den tyrkiske grænse. Da flyet blev angrebet i luften, fløj det i en højde af 6.000 meter, en kilometer fra det tyrkiske territorium. Under alle omstændigheder, så udgjorde vores fly og vore piloter på ingen måde en trussel mod den Tyrkiske Republik, på nogen måde. Dette er åbenlyst …

Vi har længe observeret bevægelser af store mængder olie og benzin til Tyrkiet fra territorier, der er besat af ISIS. Dette forklarer de betydelige pengemidler, som terroristerne modtager. Nu stikker de en kniv i ryggen på os ved at nedskyde vore fly, der bekæmper terrorismen. Dette sker på trods af den aftale, vi har underskrevet med vore amerikanske partnere, om at forhindre hændelser i luften, og, som I ved, så er Tyrkiet blandt dem, der angiveligt skulle bekæmpe terrorisme med den amerikanske koalition.

Hvis ISIS tjener så mange penge – vi taler om et titals eller måske et hundredetals millioner, muligvis milliarder af dollars på oliehandel, og de støttes af en hel stats væbnede styrker, så er det tydeligt, hvorfor de er så dristige og uforskammede, hvorfor de dræber mennesker på så grusomme måder, og hvorfor de begår terrorhandlinger over hele verden, inklusive i hjertet af Europa …

Den tragiske begivenhed i dag vil få betydelige konsekvenser for de russisk-tyrkiske relationer. Vi har altid behandlet Tyrkiet som ikke alene en nær nabo, men også som en venligtsindet stat. Jeg ved ikke, hvem der har gavn af det, der skete i dag. Vi har ganske bestemt ikke. Desuden, i stedet for omgående at etablere kontakt med os, så vendte Tyrkiet sig, så vidt vi ved, mod sine NATO-partnere for at diskutere hændelsen. Som om det var os, der havde nedskudt deres fly, og ikke omvendt.

Ønsker de at få NATO til at tjene ISIS? Jeg ved, at enhver stat altid har sine regionale interesser, og vi respekterer altid disse. Vi vil imidlertid aldrig vende det blinde øje til sådanne forbrydelser som den, der blev begået i dag.«

24. november 2015 – Der er ingen tvivl om, at Tyrkiets nedskydning af det russiske SU-24 kampfly var en fuldt overlagt operation, tydeligvis under ordrer fra præsident Barack Obama og dennes britiske herrer.

Ifølge den tyrkiske avis Hurriyet, der citerer regeringskilder, har den tyrkiske regering gjort et stort nummer ud af at beskytte de syriske turkmenere i området. Selvfølgelig har disse såkaldte turkmenere, hvis de da er turkmenere, fået våben og fuld støtte direkte fra Tyrkiet via den tyrkiske præsidents efterretningstjeneste, det såkaldte MIT.

I et åbenlyst forsøg på at retfærdigøre nedskydningen af et russisk fly skal Tyrkiet have anmodet om et møde i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd for at diskutere angivelige angreb på turkmenere i Syrien. Det tyrkiske udenrigsministerium har ligeledes indkaldt den russiske ambassadør, Andrei Karlov, den 19. nov., for at protestere imod den angivelige bombning af deres landsbyer. Dette er tilfældigvis langs med den del af grænsen, som Tyrkiet endnu ikke har sikret – og gennem hvilken en stor del at den illegale trafik med olie og våben strømmer, og som Tyrkiet profiterer stort af.

Ifølge Hurriyet indkaldte udenrigsministeriet også den russiske militærattaché til Udenrigsministeriet og overbragte en række trusler:

• Den russiske hærs operationer finder sted i områder, der ligger meget tæt på Tyrkiets grænse. Dette øger muligheden for en situation, der kunne true Tyrkiets grænsesikkerhed. Det bør bemærkes, at Tyrkiets regler for at indgå i kamphandlinger var på plads, og at man ikke vil tøve med at implementere dem, hvis en sådan krænkelse finder sted.
• Han hævdede, at russiske operationer ikke var rettet mod kæmpere fra Islamisk Stat, men udelukkende imod fredelige, turkmenske civile, der, hævdede han, led overlast gennem Ruslands operationer. Han sagde dernæst, at Tyrkiet ikke ville stille sig ligegyldige over for angreb, der var rettet mod turkmenernes sikkerhed.

Det turkmenske spørgsmål blev allerede indskudt i drøftelserne af den tyrkiske udenrigsminister Feridun Sinirlioglu, der den 23. nov. til Hurriyet sagde, at han også havde talt med den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry den 20. nov., og ligeledes med den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov. Spørgsmålet ville også være på dagsordenen for et møde mellem tyrkiske og russiske udenrigsministre i Istanbul den 25. nov., der nu er blevet aflyst af Sergei Lavrov.

Lyndon LaRouche responderede i dag til den tyrkiske nedskydning af et russisk kampfly ved at erklære, at »Obama har organiseret en krigshandling og har således sat USA, såvel som resten af menneskeheden, i fare.

Kvalificerede amerikanske personer har, i det umiddelbare kølvand af Tyrkiets handling, understreget, at Tyrkiets præsident Erdogan aldrig ville have udført denne aktion, hvis han ikke på forhånd vidste, at han havde stiltiende støtte fra Obama. De samme kilder observerede, at Obama i weekenden var rasende over, at den franske regering, under et enormt folkeligt pres, har taget skridt til en reel alliance med Rusland for at knuse ISIS. I skarp kontrast til denne fornuftige, franske respons til angrebene i Paris den 13. november har Obama gentaget sine krav om, at afsættelsen af den syriske præsident Bashar al-Assad må finde sted omgående, og må gå forud for aktionerne imod Islamisk Stat.

LaRouche krævede Obamas omgående fjernelse fra embedet. »Der kan ikke være nogen undskyldninger for Obama, hvis menneskeheden skal overleve. Vejen bort fra Tredje Verdenskrig er, at retskafne amerikanere fordømmer præsidenten ved enhver given lejlighed.«

Gå ind på https://larouchepac.com/ og hør Lyndon LaRouche i en ekstraordinær diskussion, fremkaldt af denne nødssituation, med aktivister i hele USA

onsdag, kl. 21 Eastern time (kl. 03.00 torsdag dansk tid)

OBS! Benyt chancen for at diskutere live med Tom Gillesberg torsdag aften, se opslag om konferencelinje her på hjemmesiden

23. november 2015 – Præsident Obamas nazistiske viceudenrigsminister for europæiske og eurasiske anliggender, Victoria Nuland, sluttede sig til NATO’s vicegeneralsekretær Alexander Vershbow den 17. nov., hvor hun holdt en ekstremt fjendtlig, antirussisk tale ved Behörden Spiegel Sikkerhedskonference i Berlin. Nuland, der er berygtet for at installere Arsenij »Jats« Jatsenjuk som premierminister i Ukraine, krævede der, at sanktionerne mod Rusland opretholdes, indtil Minskaftalens våbenhvile er fuldt ud implementeret, og Krim er kommet tilbage til Ukraine!

Tre dage senere sprængte fascistiske sabotører to højspændingsledninger, der ledte elektricitet til Krim fra Ukraine, i luften. Det var en fredag aften, den 20. november; søndag morgen, den 22. nov., sprængte de yderligere to i luften uden, at den ukrainske regering greb ind. Med »demonstranter«, der forhindrede reparationer, er Krim og dets 2 mio. mennesker nu blevet efterladt uden strøm, med undtagelse af den strøm, der leveres af lokale generatorer, omkring 30 % af totalen, iflg. russiske myndigheder. Det nazistiske Sektor Højre, med tilslutning fra tatarer »i eksil«, er begyndt at blokere lastbiler med varer ind til Krim og forsøger således at afskære mad og vand.

Regeringen responderede ved den ukrainske præsident Poroshenko, der sammenkaldte et regeringsmøde denne mandag, som sluttede med gennemtvingelsen af en »midlertidig suspension af alle vareudvekslinger mellem Ukraine og Krim. Nulands »Jats« krævede, at regeringen »omgående oprettede en arbejdsgruppe« for at standse »levering af varer og al handel« med Krim.

Disse forholdsregler er morderiske i betragtning af, at Krim indtil videre stadig er beroende af Ukraine for sit vand og sin strøm. Rusland er i gang med at bygge en undervands-strømforbindelse til Krim, som forventes at komme i drift ved årets slutning.

23. november 2015 – USA’s tidligere forsvarsminister – indtil Obama sparkede ham ud – Chuck Hagel kom igen offentligt ud med sin modstand mod Obamas (og Londons) ’Assad-skal-væk’-strategi for Syrien. Det var netop over dette spørgsmål, at Obama, for næsten nøjagtig et år siden, fyrede Hagel, efter et memo, som Hagel havde skrevet til nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver Susan Rice, kom for dagens lys. Iflg. rapporter fremlagde to-siders dokumentet Hagels bekymringer for, at USA kunne »sakke bagud« i sin krig imod ISIS, hvis det ikke ændrede sin strategi over for den syriske præsident Bashar al-Assad.

Som gæst på CNN’s søndagsprogram »State of the Union« sagde Hagel til værten Jake Tapper, at »ISIS repræsenterer den virkelige trussel mod vort land – [og] verden … Der er ingen militærløsning på dette. Vi er oppe imod en ideologi, vi er oppe imod en realitet, en række dynamikker, som vi aldrig før har set – en sofistikeret korrumpering af samfundets medier, den militære frygtløshed, den taktiske, strategiske dygtighed, som ISIS er i besiddelse af, finansieringen«, sagde Hagel. »Så vi bør definere klarere, hvad er vore politiske strategier? Hvad er vore prioriteter? Er Assad fjenden, eller er ISIS fjenden?«

Men reference til memoet fra 2014 sagde Hagel: »Det, der sker her, er fuldstændigt ude af kontrol, og der er ingen udsigt til at bringe nogen form for stabilitet, tror jeg, med den kurs, vi følger nu, og det var, hvad jeg talte om i memoet.« Hagel sagde, at USA må udskifte sin fremgangsmåde over for ISIS og fokusere på at bygge stærkere alliancer med andre lande, der ønsker at eliminere ISIS, inklusive Rusland. »Hvad er den fælles trussel mod alle disse lande?«, spurgte han. »Jeg tror ikke, man vil kunne finde en løsning på Assad, før man finder ud af, hvordan man skal nedkæmpe ISIS«, insisterede Hagel.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/22/politics/chuck-hagel-syria-isis-assad/

Hvor den russiske præsident Putin lancerede en flanke, der kunne føre til den totale ødelæggelse af ISIS og al-Qaeda-terroristers base i Syrien og Irak, så har briterne nu aggressivt interveneret imod denne flanke, som hele planeten så desperat har brug for.

Den britiske premierminister Camerons aktuelle, hektiske deployering har til formål at forstærke den krigspolitik, der nu er modstand imod – Tony Blairs, George W. Bush’ og Barack Obamas katastrofale politik – britiske agenter og marionetter. Cameron insisterer: Nej, ødelæg ikke baserne for de terrorister, der nu myrder løs i Mellemøsten og Europa. Assad må først væltes som Syriens præsident.

Og marionetten Obama har i hele den forgangne uge gentaget: Intet samarbejde imod ISIS; forudsætningen er, at Rusland må gå med til, at Assad først må smides ud.

Det britiske monarki og finansielle imperium insisterer: Gå ikke efter ISIS’ finansierer og våbenleverandører i Saudi Arabien; gå ikke efter dets hjælper i den tyrkiske regering. Og frem for alt, gå ikke imod den britisk-saudiske politik for regimeskift-krige, der føres af Bush og Obama, og som bevidst har skabt og udbredt ISIS og drevet hundrede tusinder af desperate flygtninge ind i Europa.

Til Frankrig og andre nationer lyder ordren: Gå ikke i partnerskab med Rusland eller opfordr USA til at gå med Rusland for at knuse ISIS; men kræv, at Assad først må gå af. Grib ikke den chance, som tilbydes gennem Putins nylige, åbenlyst globale rolle, bakket op af Kinas tilbud om at forlænge udviklingen med den Nye Silkevej ind i Mellemøsten.

Samtidig forbereder de britiske kongelige sig på at åbne COP21-klimakonferencen om »global opvarmning« i Paris og styre den i henhold til deres besættelse – at reducere den menneskelige befolkning. Prins Charles, der er udvalgt til at holde åbningstalen til konferencen, påstod i et interview den 21. nov., at klimaforandring var årsagen til de folkemorderiske krige i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika – ikke Tony Blair, ikke George W. Bush og Barack Obama, men klimaforandringen forårsagede disse krige.

Og den britiske marionet Obama gentog i en tale den 21. nov., at »klimaforandring er USA’s sikkerhedstrussel nummer ét«.

Er han sindssyg? Nej, han er en marionet for det britiske monarki og det britiske finansimperium, og af Wall Street.

Lyndon LaRouche har insisteret på dette. Obama er en britisk marionet og en præsident for evindelige krige og dronedrab. Han må fjernes fra embedet. For dernæst at skabe en økonomisk genrejsning, »må alt, hvad vi gør i USA, følge de principper, som præsident Franklin Roosevelt stod for, imod Wall Street«.

»Der kan ikke blive nogen fred, før det britiske monarki er fjernet«, sagde LaRouche den 22. nov. Vær opmærksom på LaRouches insisteren på dette; det betyder menneskehedens fremtid.

Vi skal stoppe dem, og det betyder, at borgerne må vedtage en politik, hvor de siger ”Vi stopper dem!” Det er muligt. Så vi har set, hvordan folk bliver myrdet i denne hændelse, men hvorfor bliver de myrdet? Fordi ingen var opmærksomme på, at de var mordere. Det er problemet.

Og derfor betaler Frankrig f.eks. en høj pris, fordi Frankrigs regering ikke var opmærksom på den åbenlyse trussel mod Frankrig. Og nu skammer den franske regering sig, og det er godt for dem. For nu har de en regulær grund til at sikre, at de ikke længere tolererer det, de tolererede alt for længe. Og det samme er tilfældet i andre dele af Europa. Og der er forskellige slags institutioner i forskellige dele af Europa, der har samme problem.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

20. november 2015 – Fire veteraner fra det amerikanske luftvåben med sammenlagt mere end 20 års erfaring med drone-operationer, tre af dem som ’sensor-operatører’ og den fjerde som kommunikations-tekniker, har skrevet til præsident Obama og opfordret ham til at genoverveje politikken med målrettede drone-drab, fordi, som de siger, det er en drivkraft bag ISIS og andre jihadistiske grupper. I et passioneret brev stilet til Obama, forsvarsminister Ash Carter og CIA direktør John Brennan skriver de, at taktikken har ”leveret brændstof til de hadefulde følelser, der har opildnet terrorismen og grupper som ISIS og samtidig tjent som et grundlæggende rekrutterings-værktøj i lighed med Guantánamo Bay”.

Den ældste af de fire, Brandon Bryant, der gjorde tjeneste i drone-eskadroner fra 2005 til 2011, fortalte til Guardian, at han var en del af det hold, der opsporede Anwar al-Awlaki med droner gennem 10 måneder kort tid før han blev dræbt. Bryant sagde, at iflg. hans mening er han blevet tvunget til at bryde sin militære ed ved at blive tildelt en mission, der dræbte en amerikansk landsmand. ”Vi fik at vide, at al-Awlaki fortjente at dø, at han fortjente at blive dræbt som en forræder, men artikel 3 af sektion 2 i den amerikanske forfatning siger, at selv en forræder har fortjent en retfærdig retssag foran en jury af ligemænd.”

De betegnede drone-strategien som selvødelæggende, fordi de civile tab skaber had rettet mod USA. ”Lige nu ser det ud til at være politisk hensigtsmæssigt,” sagde Cian Westmoreland, kommunikations-teknikeren. ”Men i det lange løb vil det kun være den negative side af Hellfire-missilerne og de brummende drone-overflyvninger, som mange af disse mennesker kender til USA og Storbritannien.

Her følger ordlyden af deres brev:

”Vi er forhenværende militærfolk i luftvåbnet. Vi gik ind i luftvåbnet for at beskytte amerikanske liv og vores forfatning. Vi kom til erkendelse af, at de uskyldige civile, vi dræbte, kun leverede brændstof til de følelser af had, der antændte terrorismen og grupper som ISIS, og som samtidig tjente som et grundlæggende rekrutterings-værktøj i lighed med Guantánamo Bay.” Denne regering og dens forgængere har opbygget et drone-program, der er en af de mest ødelæggende drivkræfter bag terrorisme og destabilisering i hele verden.

“Da skyldfølelsen over vores rolle i at fremme dette systematiske tab af uskyldige liv blev for meget, bukkede vi alle under for PTSD (post-traumatisk stress-syndrom). Vi blev afskrevet af den selvsamme regering, som vi havde givet så meget, og sendt ud i verden uden tilstrækkelig lægebehandling, hjælp fra det offentlige sundhedssystem eller nødvendig understøttelse. Nogle af os er nu hjemløse. Andre af os kan kun lige klare dagen og vejen.”

”Vi var vidner til groft spild, inkompetent ledelse, magtmisbrug samt, at vort lands ledere løj i fuld offentlighed om effektiviteten af drone-programmet. Vi kan ikke se tavst til og være vidner til tragedier som angrebene i Paris, vel vidende om drone-programmets ødelæggende effekt i udlandet og hjemme. En sådan tavshed ville krænke selve den ed, vi aflagde, om at støtte og forsvare forfatningen.”

”Vi anmoder Dem om at tage vores perspektiv i betragtning, selv om, i betragtning af den uhørte forfølgelse af sandhedsvidner, der kom før os, såsom Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange og Edward Snowden, denne opfordring muligvis er forgæves. For dette lands skyld håber vi dog, at det forholder sig anderledes.”

Brevet er undertegnet af Brandon Bryant, sensor-operatør; Cian Westmoreland, RF transmissions-systemtekniker; Stephen Lewis, sensor-operatør; og Michael Haas, sensor-operatør.

I dag, den 22. november 2015 er årsdagen for mordet på John F. Kennedy for 52 år siden, og denne dag bør være en klar påmindelse til os om, hvorfor Obama skal fjernes fra embedet. Kennedy blev myrdet af de selv samme britiske royale kredse, der i dag ejer præsident Obama, og som dengang opererede via Canada, gennem franske og spanske mordere og medskyldige amerikanske agenter. Alt imens Kennedy arbejdede sammen med Krustjov for at undgå et atomkrigs-holocaust under den cubanske missilkrise og havde påbegyndt USA’s tilbagetrækning fra Indokina på det tidspunkt, hvor han blev myrdet, så har Obama ikke bevirket andet end forarmelse af flertallet af amerikanere, kaos i mange dele af verden og fremstød for en strategisk konfrontation med både Moskva og Beijing. Kunne der være en bedre måde at højtideligholde JFK’s liv på, end ved at fjerne Obama fra embedet?

22. november 2015 – Robert Farley, en seniorlektor ved Patterson School for Diplomati og International Handel ved Kentucky Universitet, advarer om, at der er fem mulige måder, hvorpå Tredje Verdenskrig (eller efter hans mening snarere Femte Verdenskrig, idet han tæller Syvårskrigen og Napoleonskrigene med som verdenskrige) kunne begynde.

Brændpunkterne omfatter de følgende:

* Syrien – Enten kunne en konfrontation mellem amerikanske og russiske fly i luften over Syrien eskalere ud af kontrol, eller også bliver ISIS besejret, men USA, Frankrig og Rusland bliver rivaler over, hvordan Syrien efter ISIS skal se ud.

* Indien og Pakistan – Indien og Pakistan kunne komme i krig igen af flere grunde. USA har generelt været tæt på Pakistan, men har været i færd med at dyrke tættere relationer med Indien. Kina har længe miltært været tæt på Pakistan. Farley nævner ikke Rusland, der rent historisk har haft tætte relationer til Indien, inklusive militært.

* Det Østkinesiske Hav – Kina og Japan er modstandere mht. Senkaku/Daioyu-øerne. USA er traktatmæssigt forpligtet til at forsvare Japan, hvilket gør det næsten sikkert, at, skulle der udbryde kampe, ville USA gå ind på Japans side.

* Det Sydkinesiske Hav – En krig mellem USA og Kina kunne trække Japan og Indien med og kunne resultere i en udveksling af atomvåben.

* Ukraine – En konfrontation mellem NATO og Rusland kunne forårsage, at Rusland tyer til taktiske atomvåben, hvis det mener, det ikke kan overleve.

Farley konkluderer, at vi mangler den Kolde Krigs »rædselsvækkende« klarhed. »Der kunne udbryde krig flere steder, som kunne trække krigsførende parter med ind på uforudsigelige måder«, skriver han. »Krigsførende parter begynder meget sjældent en krig med overlæg; lederne af verdens mest magtfulde nationer må være på vagt over for truslen om en optrapning af kriser.«

Foto: Russiske jets under en “aerobatic” flyveopvisning i Rusland. Kunne en konfrontation mellem amerikanske og russiske fly over Syrien komme ud af kontrol og eskalere?

Med Bruxelles i højeste alarmberedskab på anden dag i forventning om endnu et større terrorangreb fra Islamisk Stat på samme skala som massakren i Paris den 13. november, er der stigende opmærksomhed omkring den kendsgerning, at omdrejningspunktet for jihadistisk terrorisme i realiteten findes i hjertet af Europa. Bruxelles, hovedstad for både NATO og Den europæiske Union, har nu fået kaldenavnet Brusselstan, ligesom London længe er blevet refereret til som Londonistan på grund af den kendsgerning, at bogstavelig talt enhver jihadistisk, narko- og separatistterrororganisation har fået husly, beskyttelse og finansiering af det britiske monarki. For nylig frafaldt den britiske regering alle anklager imod en angiveligt jihadistisk våbensmugler, fordi hans forsvarsadvokat påpegede, at de samme grupper, som han stod anklaget for at bevæbne, blev åbenlyst støttet af det britiske efterretningsvæsens MI6.

Dette er en gammel historie. London har været centrum for global terrorisme i årtier. Executive Intelligence Review var ophavsmand til et dossier, som blev overgivet USA’s Udenrigsministerium i 2000, og som krævede, at Storbritannien blev sat på listen over stater, der sponsorerede terrorisme. Dossieret byggede udelukkende på bevismateriale, der var fremkommet gennem regeringer i hele verden, inklusive Rusland, Egypten, Indien, Pakistan, Colombia og Peru, og som på afgørende vis viste, at den britiske krone husede verdens værste terrorister, som en del af imperiesystemet. De største britiske banker, med HSBC (tidligere HonKong og Shanghai Bankselskab, berygtet for opiumskrigene) i spidsen, er verdens mest berygtede hvidvaskningsinstitutioner for narkopenge, som det for nylig er blevet dokumenteret af USA’s Senat.

Det er ligeledes det britiske kongehus, der har udsendt Ridderkommandør John Schnellnhuber til at kapre Paven og Vatikanet for ideen om en radikal befolkningsreduktion, baseret på den videnskabelige svindel med menneskeskabt, global opvarmning.

Alle de grusomheder, som præsident Obama har begået – fra hans massedronedrab i Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen og Somalia, til hans voldelige afsættelse og koldblodige mord på Gaddafi i Libyen, der skabte en zone af kaos, terror og utilstrækkelige stater i store dele af Nordafrika og Mellemøsten, og til decimeringen af livsvilkårene for det store flertal af amerikanere – kan anbringes på det britiske kongehus’ dørtærskel. Obama er intet andet end en britisk agent, der blev udvalgt af briterne til at blive installeret som præsident for USA, på vegne af Kronen og City of London.

Efter grusomhederne i Paris er det i stigende grad ved at blive åbenlyst gennemskueligt for et voksende antal tænkende mennesker, at Islamisk Stat er en skabelse af Obama og briterne. Al-Qaeda blev skabt og næret af briterne, USA og Saudi Arabien i 1980’erne, som kollektivt samlede et slæng af terrorister fra fængsler i hele den arabiske og islamiske verden, for at drive sovjetrusserne ud af Afghanistan. I 1985 sluttede Prins Bandar bin Sultan, bogstavelig talt et medlem af Bush-familien, sig til den britiske premierminister Margaret Thatcher for at lancere Al-Yamamah-byttehandelen (våben for olie), under hvilken en 100 milliarder dollar stor, hemmelig fond blev etableret for i hemmelighed at bevæbne al-Qaeda og andre terrororganisationer. I 2001 deployerede Bandar nogle af disse Al Yamamah-midler til at finansiere 11. september-flykaprernes angreb på World Trade Tårnene og angribe Pentagon.

Hvis man vil forstå, hvorfor den britiske agent Barack Obama har nægtet at ophæve hemmeligstemplingen af de 28 sider af den Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, må man begynde fra toppen, med denne redegørelse for, hvordan briterne og Obama skabte al-Qaeda og, senere, Islamisk Stat. Tidligere chef for USA’s Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, general Michael Flynn, har åbenlyst rapporteret om, at præsident Obama bevæbnede de syriske oprørere fra Benghazi og fortsatte med at gøre det, fordi det var regeringens politik. DIA-dokumenter fra sommeren og efteråret 2012 forklarer i detaljer de fælles britisk-amerikanske operationer fra Benghazi til smuglerhavne i de områder i Syrien, der kontrolleredes af oprørerne.

Lyndon LaRouche sagde ligefremt til medarbejdere søndag den 22. november, at man må udrydde det britiske monarki, eller også vil der ikke være nogen løsning på krigen i Syrien eller andre globale brændpunkter. Med mindre Det britiske Imperium fjernes, står vi over for en global krig imod Rusland og Kina, der vil føre til udslettelsen af store dele af menneskeheden. Barack Obama er en britisk agent, der blev selekteret til at blive USA’s præsident af briterne. Vi må sænke Det britiske Imperium og alt, hvad det repræsenterer, eller også vil vi stå over for en optrapning af rædselsforestillinger over hele planeten.

20. november 2015 – Den kinesiske Folkets Befrielseshærs flådechef Wu Shengli sagde, ved et møde onsdag i Shanghai med admiral Scott Swift, chef for USA’s Stillehavsflåde, direkte til denne, at USA må stoppe med sine provokationer i det Sydkinesiske Hav. Den kinesiske flåde, sagde han, »havde, med fokus på det større billede for bilaterale bånd« udøvet »maksimal tilbageholdenhed« konfronteret med USA’s provokationer, rapporterer Xinhua i dag. Admiral Wu opfordrede USA til at værne om den »gode udvikling« af båndene mellem landene og »kontrollere« sine maritime militæroperationer. Han roste admiral Swifts velkomstbesøg til Kina som et tegn på, at begge sider tillægger udviklingen og bevarelsen af den nye form for relationer mellem store lande og de militære relationer mellem de to sider stor betydning, sagde Xinhua.

Men, tilføjede han, »USA’s opførsel bidrager ikke i mindste måde til fred og stabilitet i det Sydkinesiske Hav. USA kan ikke påtvinge sine egne krav på andre nationer. Det kan ikke sabotere andre nationers suverænitet og sikkerhed.« Han kaldte Kinas ø-byggeri for »fornuftigt, rimeligt og legitimt« og tilføjede, at de kinesiske og amerikanske flåder burde anskue deres uoverensstemmelser rationelt, og undgå »overdrevne situationer«.

Iflg. Xinhua sagde admiral Swift, at USA’s flåde ikke ønsker, at det Sydkinesiske Hav skal blive et spørgsmål, der bryder båndene mellem de to parter, og han udtrykte håb om, at de to flåder kunne bevare udvekslinger på højt niveau og afholde flere fælles øvelser.

Foto: Kinas flådechef Wu Shengli

20. november 2015 – Kongresmedlemmerne Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hi.) og Austin Scott (R-Ga.) fremstillede i går et lovforslag, H.R. 4108, »For at forbyde brugen af midler til at yde assistance til syriske oppositionsgrupper og individer«, hvilket, med Gabbards ord, vil sige at »bringe til omgående ophør den ulovlige, kontraproduktive krig for at vælte Assads syriske regering«. Gabbard er en veteran, der to gange har været udsendt til at kæmpe i Irak.

»Krigen med det formål at vælte Assad er kontraproduktiv, fordi den i realiteten hjælper ISIS og andre islamiske ekstremister med at opnå deres mål med at vælte Assads syriske regering og tage kontrol over hele Syrien, som simpelt hen vil øge de menneskelige lidelser i regionen, forværre flygtningekrisen og udgøre en større trussel mod verden«, sagde hun. »Desuden er krigen for at vælte Assad ulovlig, fordi Kongressen aldrig har givet bemyndigelse til den.« Scott tilføjede, at »vores primære mission bør være krigen imod ISIS, al-Qaeda og radikale islamiske ekstremister, der har operationer både i og uden for Syrien og Irak«.

Betydningen af lovforslaget blev forstærket af Gabbard i et interview med CNN i dag – som hun gav fra Paris, hvortil hun rejste for at lægge blomster fra sin hjemstat ved en mindehøjtidelighed for ofrene for terrorangrebene den 13. nov. Hun siger, at USA gentager »de samme fejltagelser som i fortiden«, selv, når eksperter siger, at Assad er en brutal diktator, der dræber sin egen befolkning.

»Folk sagde præcis det samme om Saddam (Hussein), det samme om (Moammar) Gaddafi; resultaterne af disse to, fejlslagne indsatser for regimeskift og den efterfølgende nationale opbygning har ikke alene været totalt fejlslagne, men har i realiteten virket som en forstærkning af vores fjende«, sagde Gabbard.

Ni af de ti punkter i Gabbards erklæring om denne lov handler om konsekvenserne om at allierede sig med ISIS og al-Qaeda imod Assad, alt imens det tiende punkt refererer direkte til faren for en mere udbredt krig. »Vores krig for at vælte Assad-regeringen sætter os i direkte konflikt med Rusland og øger sandsynligheden for krig mellem USA og Rusland og muligheden for endnu en verdenskrig«, sagde hun. I stedet må USA alliere sig med ethvert land, der er villig til at knuse ISIS, inklusive Rusland.

Foto: Kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard, ved en tidligere optræden i Huset i nov. 2015.           

20. november 2015 – Internetvært Alex Jones fra »Infowars« (http://www.infowars.com/) interviewede i dag den amerikanske senator Mike Gravel (1969-1981) i 40 minutter. Det syndikerede show udsendes på mere end 160 radiostationer i USA.

Alex Jones introducerede sen. Gravel som en person, der altid have afsløret den korrupte forbindelse mellem Saudi Arabien og USA: »Saudierne styrede flykaprerne, og vores regering gjorde ingenting … Hvad med de 28 sider?«

»Det er latterligt, at de blev hemmeligstemplet«, svarede sen. Gravel: »Kongressen er ligeværdig med den udøvende gren (præsidenten, -red.), og den udøvende gren kan ikke hemmeligstemple det, der øver indflydelse på Forfatningens ’tale- eller debatklausul’ … «, hvilket er, hvad der giver Kongressen mulighed for at informere borgerne om, hvad regeringen foretager sig, for »hvis man som borger ikke ved, hvad regeringen foretager sig, hvordan skal man så kunne handle på det?« Saudierne har i tre til fem årtier finansieret udbredelsen af Wahhabi-doktrinen. Vi gør et stort nummer ud af, hvad ISIS gør (halshugning, stening etc.), men saudierne gør disse ting som noget ganske normalt. ISIS er et produkt af Wahhabi-tankegangen og er blevet betalt for det af Saudi Arabien i generationer. Om Syrien sagde sen. Gravel: »Hvem tror vi, vi er, at vi kan diktere, at Assad skal væk? Mellemøsten er noget rod. Vi invaderede Libyen, et fremgangsrigt land, hvor borgerne blev uddannet«, inkl. kvinder. »Victoria Nuland (USA’s viceudenrigsminister for Eurasien, -red.) brugte milliarder af dollar til at anstifte det ukrainske rod. Vores udenrigspolitik er ’Apokalypsens Fire Ryttere’ – krig, hungersnød, pest og død – gennem erobringskrige, som vi ikke har råd til.«

Sen. Gravel påpegede USA’s politik over for Kina som et eksempel på Thukydides-fælden[1], hvor en fremvoksende magt er i færd med at fortrænge en eksisterende supermagt. »Der kunne ske en ulykke, som startede en atomkrig … Lyt engang til de republikanske kandidater; Kongressen er lige så skyldig som den udøvende gren … Vi skal være amerikanske borgere, men vi skal også være verdensborgere. USA er et imperium i forfald, som ikke vil indrømme det.«

Alex Jones roste larouchepac.com webside, og sen. Gravel roste Executive Intelligence Reviews webside (http://www.larouchepub.com/), som han kaldte »fantastisk«. Han sagde, at han var »henrykt over at være associeret med LaRouche-bevægelsen« og henviste til LaRouches rolle i SDI (Strategisk Forsvarsinitiativ)[2] og EIR’s historiske analyser, der »går lige til sagen«.

Sen. Gravel sagde, at han støttede den kinesiske udviklingsplan, »Ét bælte, én vej«[3], der ville forene verden rent økonomisk på en måde, hvor alle nyder frugterne af modernitet«, versus USA’s fremstød for »en militarisering af planeten … Kina er i færd med at erobre verden gennem økonomiske midler. Det kunne USA have gjort«, sagde sen. Gravel.

[1] Gr. Historiker, 460-305 f.Kr.; beskrev, hvordan republikken Athen degenererede til et imperium og destruerede sig selv gennem erobringskrige.

[2] Se: LaRouches Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ, en amerikansk-sovjetisk aftale for fred og udvikling, tema-artikel, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=6976

[3] Se: Schiller Institut-seminar i København den 27. april 2015: Kinas politik for “Et Bælte, En Vej”, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=6387

Som hr. LaRouche eftertrykkeligt erklærede under vores diskussion med ham, så er den amerikanske præsident Obamas politik den førende årsag til det kaos, som verden nu befinder sig i, og har ikke alene bevirket skabelsen af en frugtbar yngleplads for vækst og deployering af terrororganisationer som ISIS i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, men har også bragt os helt ud på randen af krig med Rusland og Kina – en krig, som ville blive en verdenskrig med anvendelse af atomvåben, som ville betyde udslettelsen af det store flertal af denne planets befolkning. Med Jeff Steinberg m. fl.

Engelsk udskrift.

International LaRouche PAC Webcast for Friday November 20 2015

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s November 20, 2015. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly broadcast
here from larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio tonight by
both Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, and
Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science Team, and we have
a very timely and important presentation prepared for you
tonight, which was informed by a meeting that the three of us had
earlier today with both Lyndon LaRouche, as well as Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, who joined us via video-call from Europe.
Obviously we’re meeting here tonight exactly one week
following the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday. As
Helga LaRouche emphasized during our discussion with her earlier,
the sheer horror of these attacks, striking as they did at the
heart of one of the leading cities of Europe, claiming the lives
of 130 innocent people, who were slaughtered in cold blood as
they went around their usual business on a Friday night — this
has absolutely changed everything, and has served to force people
across Europe, and in the United States, to recognize that a
sudden and dramatic change in policy must be adopted, or else the
entirety of Western Civilization is on the verge of descending
into a total hell on earth, from which it would be virtually
impossible to return.
As Mr. LaRouche emphatically stated in our discussion with
him, the policies of US President Barack Obama are the leading
cause of the chaos which the world now finds itself in, and have
served not only to create a fertile breeding ground for the
growth and deployment of terrorist organizations like ISIS in the
Middle East and North Africa, but have brought us right to the
edge of a war with Russia, and with China — a war that would be
world war, which would involve the use of thermonuclear weapons,
which would mean the extermination of a vast majority of the
population on this planet.
Now in a very significant development, which I know Jeff
will go a little bit more into, and will elaborate on in his
remarks, this fact has been explicitly stated by a Congresswoman,
whom we’ve spoken about previously on these broadcasts, Rep.
Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii, in a press release which
she issued earlier today, announcing the filing of a bill in the
House of Representatives that, in her words, would bring an
immediate end to the illegal, counter-productive war to overthrow
the Syrian government of Assad, Barack Obama’s war. Congresswoman
Gabbard explains:
“The war to overthrow Assad is illegal and
counterproductive, because it actually helps ISIS and other
Islamic extremists achieve their goal of overthrowing the Syrian
government of Assad and taking control of all of Syria.” Then she
lists 10 reasons, which include the fact that if we are to
succeed in overthrowing Assad, as Barack Obama wishes, it would
open the door for ISIS to take over all of Syria, including
Damascus, in which case, she says, “there will be genocide and
suffering on a scale beyond our imagination.”
She also states that the overthrowing of the government of
Assad is the goal of ISIS, and other Islamic extremist groups,
and “we should not be allying ourselves with these Islamic
extremists by helping them achieve their goal, because it is
against the security interests of the United States and all of
civilization.” And she also says that we should learn from the
past mistakes in both the regime changes in Iraq and in Libya,
which is saying something from a combat veteran, Congresswoman
Gabbard, who was herself deployed in the war in Iraq.
Now, she also makes the point that Obama’s war has been the
direct exacerbation of the chaos and the carnage in Syria
inflicted by ISIS on the innocent people of that country, which
has caused the number of refugees being forced to flee Syria and
elsewhere, to continue to increase at a rapid rate. And later in
the broadcast that is something that I know Ben Deniston will
also be addressing.
But most significantly, she lists as reason number 10:
“Because our war to overthrow the Assad government puts us in
direct conflict with Russia, and increases the likelihood of war
between the United States and Russia, and the possibility of
another world war.” So, as far as I know, that makes Tulsi
Gabbard the only sitting member of Congress to have had the guts
to state that fact as explicitly and clearly.
I just want to read one more short excerpt from her press
release before introducing our institutional question for this
evening. Congresswoman Gabbard concludes her press release by
stating: “To destroy ISIS will take international alliances. If
we are serious about defeating ISIS, and solving the refugee
problem, we’ll work in partnership with Russia, with France, and
anyone else who is serious about destroying ISIS and affiliated
Islamic extremist organizations worldwide. The problem is because
the U.S. is trying to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad,
and Russia is supporting the government of Assad, it is
impossible for us to have an effective cooperative relationship
with Russia in our mutual fight against ISIS. Our focus on
overthrowing Assad is interfering with our ability to destroy
ISIS. We must immediately end the illegal, counterproductive war
to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad, and ally ourselves
with any countries willing to focus on destroying the Islamic
extremists who pose a genuine threat to civilization.”
So this brings us directly to our institutional question for
this evening, to which I’m going to ask Jeff to deliver Mr.
LaRouche’s response. The question reads as follows: “Mr.
LaRouche, the Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev has said
that the best way to combat the so-called Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria, or ISIS, is for Russia to unite with the West in a
grand alliance to defeat this common threat of terrorism. In this
regard, Russia is already coordinating airstrikes against ISIS
with France. How do you envision a closer collaboration between
the United States and Russia in this fight to defeat ISIS, and
all of its affiliated terrorist organizations?”

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. Mr. LaRouche was very
blunt, as you’ll hear in a just a moment, and in fact, he took
the question one step beyond the otherwise very important and
admirable comments made by Congresswoman Gabbard today. And by
the way, that press release was announcing the introduction of a
bill into the U.S. House of Representatives that would formally
ban the Obama administration from any further actions to
overthrow the Assad government.
Now, during our discussion with Mr. LaRouche, I took rather
detailed notes so what I’m about to read to you are not verbatim
transcripts of what Mr. LaRouche had to say, but they will give
you a very clear flavor, and represent I think a pretty accurate
accounting from Mr. LaRouche’s comments. And the very first thing
that he said is, to defeat ISIS in partnership with the Russians,
you have to get rid of Obama. Putin surprised everyone with his
military move into Syria in September; and it was the only way to
do it. Obama is sunk in, and there is no alternative until he is
removed; and this cannot be postponed. We’re running out of time,
and we are on the verge of the total collapse of the US system;
he must be thrown out immediately. And LaRouche went on to add,
we must totally dump Wall Street and adopt the approach of FDR at
the start of his New Deal. Roosevelt solved the problem within
weeks of taking office, by changing the entire direction of the
nation after the disaster of President Herbert Hoover. Everything
changed within a few years. The idea of totally shutting down
Wall Street is not difficult for intelligent people to
understand; nothing else works. Congress is pussyfooting around.
Wall Street must be shut, and a new Federal operation must be
launched to rebuild the nation. Do not try to salvage any part of
the old system. The problem is that most people in Congress are
idiots; and the President of the United States is a criminal.
When you have a criminal leading idiots, you have a system that
will not work. So, Obama must be thrown out, and there is no
alternative to that. All of the evidence is there. Shut down Wall
Street! It’s not needed.
Furthermore, Obama has committed so many crimes in fact,
that he can be removed from office at any moment. Start with his
Tuesday kill sessions; these are crimes that not only demand his
removal from office, but should land him in prison for mass
murder. Obama has presided over the destruction of the US
economy, to the point that a majority of our citizens are facing
the disaster of impoverishment. He has followed the George
Bush/Dick Cheney cover-up of 9/11; this is typical for Obama, who
is nothing but a British agent protecting the brutish.
And so, the problem is not with the evidence; the problem is
that most members of Congress lack guts. The Tuesday kill
meetings tell it all. The vast majority of people killed on
Obama’s personal orders, were innocent bystanders; not even the
so-called “legitimate targets”. And Obama personally signed off
on every one of those killings.
Now, I want you to take a look at one of the documents that
was released as part of the “Drone Papers”. We’ve talked about
this repeatedly for the last four or five weeks. The “Drone
Papers” that were published by {The Intercept}, a web-based news
organization founded by Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill, are
hundreds of pages of documents from the Pentagon and from the
House Select Committee on Intelligence. Now the specific document
that you’re looking at, is a flowchart that goes through
step-by-step the procedures that are used to establish who will
be killed. This is the process that ultimately leads up to those
Tuesday kill meetings, where President Obama personally presides.
If you follow the chain of command — and this is dealing with
two specific operations within the overall drone kill program —
one operation in Somalia called Operation Jupiter Garrett; and
another operation in Yemen called Copper Dune. In every instance,
the process for deciding on the kill order goes up from the local
military intelligence units on the ground, up through the
military command all the way through the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
up to the Secretary of Defense, and up to the Principals
Committee and the Deputy Principals Committee; these are the
Cabinet and Deputy Cabinet officials of the government. But
ultimately, everything leads back to the President of the United
States. And it’s only with President Obama’s personal signature
that the kill orders go out; the clock starts, and there is a
60-day deadline to track down and kill the designated target.
Now, even by the criteria that are contained in this
document, we know from the House Intelligence review and from
other exposés that none of the guidelines have been followed; and
that all of procedures that were supposedly built in to make sure
that innocent civilian casualties were avoided, that there was
direct confirmation of the whereabouts of the target — none of
those things were adhered to. At the very bottom, it says that
“At every level, the targetting window suitability is determined
by rules of engagement.” The rules of engagement are that there
must be low collateral damage estimates; meaning “collateral
damage” is a polite word for innocent civilians being killed in
the course of the attacks. There must be “near certainty” of the
high-value individual’s presence, based on two forms of
intelligence and no contradictory intelligence; and then, all the
way up the chain of command — including the host government —
must all concur, or otherwise no strike is allowed to take place.
Now, I can tell you that having reviewed the totality of the
“Drone Papers”, that these procedures — as minimal and as
limited as they are — were never adhered to. None of these
conditions were met in the overwhelming majority of these kill
incidents. And to give you an idea of the callousness of this
structure under President Obama, the formal name given to the
summary documents; the photographs and documentary evidence that
was used to determine whether or not the President will sign off
on a kill order, is referred to in these meetings as the
“baseball card”. So, in other words, the lack of any sense of
what this program is all about, is absolutely stunning.
Now, let me just add that, earlier today, President Obama,
Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, and CIA Director John Brennan
received a letter that was written by four former US Air Force
Drone Team members. They are: Brandon Bryant, Sion Westmoreland,
Stephen Lewis, and Michael Haas; all four of them operated for
years as members of the drone crew. And they wrote this letter,
urging the President to end the program right now; and I want to
read you what they had to say, because I think it’s one of the
most powerful testaments to the murderous criminality of our
President. And it should make very clear that anything short of
immediate removal from office, by impeachment, or invoking of the
25th Amendment, or forcing his immediate resignation is
unacceptable and doesn’t rise to the magnitude of the crisis that
we’re in, or the crimes that he’s committed. Here’s the letter:
“We are former Air Force service members. We joined the Air
Force to protect American lives and to protect our Constitution.
We came to the realization that the innocent civilians we were
killing, only fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited
terrorism and groups like ISIS, while also serving as a
fundamental recruitment tool similar to Guantanamo Bay. This
administration and its predecessors have built a drone program
that is one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism
and destabilization around the world. When the guilt of our roles
in facilitating this systematic loss of innocent life became too
much, all of us succumbed to PTSD — post-traumatic stress
disorder. We were cut loose by the same government we gave so
much to, sent out in the world without adequate medical care,
reliable public health services, or necessary benefits. Some of
us are now homeless. Others of us barely make it. We witnessed
gross waste, mismanagement, abuse of power, and our country’s
leaders lying publicly about the effectiveness of the drone
program. We cannot sit silently by and witness tragedies like the
attacks in Paris, knowing the devastating effects the drone
program has, overseas and at home. Such silence would violate the
very oaths we took to support and defend the Constitution. We
request that you consider our perspective, though perhaps that
request is in vain, given the unprecedented prosecutions of
truth-tellers who came before us, like Chelsea Manning, Julian
Assange, and Edward Snowden. For the sake of this country, we
hope it is otherwise.”
Now, again, Mr. LaRouche has put the right punctuation mark
on the situation, and has made clear that nothing can be
accomplished, nothing can be effectively achieved in partnership
with the Russians, unless Obama is removed. I want to continue
briefly reading the remainder of Mr. LaRouche’s comments to us
this afternoon, and then we’ll move on. ` He said, the
gutlessness of the Congress really started in the current context
with the attacks of 9/11, with Cheney and company. He said, I
still have vivid recollection of the planes crashing into the
twin towers. This is a Manhattan issue. It goes to the heart of
the Bush family, and the heart of the Obama legacy. Obama’s
personality was shaped by his step-father, who was a cold
murderer. Obama has blood on his hands; he’s too dangerous for
mankind. Since the Russians launched their Syria operations in
September, and especially since the Paris attacks of one week
ago, there is an implicit taming of Obama, but he is still too
dangerous to be allowed to remain in office. Imagine where we
would be today without Putin’s actions and the actions of China.
The Victory Day parade in Beijing attended by Xi Jinping and
Putin established the Asian factor as a supreme factor in world
affairs. Compare that to the mess we see in France, the mess we
see in Germany, and elsewhere. So you must remove Obama from
office, or we can’t make it.
Now, he then returned to the question of Wall Street, which
Obama’s Presidency has protected up and down the line. Wall
Street is about to implode, and we must shut it down now. Treat
Wall Street as something that no longer exists. Use FDR’s methods
with even more emphasis. Write off all of Wall Street’s assets
out of existence, and develop a program, an FDR program, to
change the direction of the economy. Create a credit system, and
make it known that nothing will be paid on the useless assets of
Wall Street. And Mr. LaRouche ended by simply noting, Clinton was
blackmailed into going along with the end of Glass-Steagall, and
Hillary was unfortunately used as a tool in that process.
So, again, there is no question that a coordinated alliance
between the United States and Russia to defeat ISIS, using the
same approach that was used to defeat Hitler in World War II, is
feasible. Some leading retired American military officials have
openly called for a formal military alliance between the United
States and Russia. Let Russia, which has been formally invited
into Syria, handle the assault on the ISIS forces from the Syrian
side, and let the United States, which has been invited-in by the
Iraqi government, handle the assault against the Islamic State
from the Iraqi side. Run that as a pincer operation. Hit them
from both flanks, and crush them under the weight of the
capability that could be brought to bear by the United States and
Russia in combination. But again, while that is absolutely
feasible, there is no reason to assume that the British will let
that happen, so long as Obama remains in office. And therefore,
it is essential, if we are going to have this alliance, if we are
going to avoid many more Paris-es — perhaps the next one on the
streets of New York City, or Washington DC, or Chicago, or Los
Angeles — then Obama must be removed now, and Congress
collectively must find the guts to take the necessary action.
OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, as we mentioned last week on
our broadcast here, which we recorded just hours after the
initial attacks occurred in Paris, before there was last Friday’s
attacks in Paris, which killed 130 people, there were also the
fore-going attacks in January of this year, against the editorial
offices of the satirical magazine {Charlie Hebdo}.
As a matter of very eerie coincidence, just hours after
those attacks occurred, on January 7th of this year, several
members of Congress, including Walter Jones, and Stephen Lynch,
as well as former Senator Bob Graham, of the State of Florida,
and additionally, family members of the victims of 9/11, convened
a press conference on Capitol Hill, on the morning of January
7th, which had been previously scheduled, on the subject of a
bill to release the redacted 28 pages of the Congressional Joint
Inquiry Report into the attacks on 9/11, an inquiry of which
former Senator Bob Graham had been co-chair at the time. We are
going to replay a very short excerpt of Senator Graham’s remarks
at that press conference then, January 7th of this year, but
while we play this for you, I want you to reflect on how even
more relevant and urgent his statements are, now, in the wake, in
the aftermath of last Friday’s attacks in Paris, not to mention
the attacks in Beirut, the attacks in Mali earlier today, and
elsewhere, and the fact that the failure to release these pages
{then}, on January 7th, or January 8th, in the immediate wake of
that press conference, the failure to release the 28 pages
{then}, puts the blood of the innocent victims of these
subsequent attacks on the hands of those who insist on
perpetuating this cover-up to this day. So watch this brief
excerpt from the press conference on January 7th.

[RECORDING] CONG. WALTER JONES: I introduce the esteemed
Senator from Florida, Bob Graham. Thank you.

SENATOR BOB GRAHAM: Walter, thank you very much. And I, too,
want to thank Walter and Steve — Congressmen Jones and Lynch —
for their leadership in bringing this matter to the attention of
the Congress. I want to thank the family members, who have been
without question the most influential force in all of the changes
that have occurred as a result of 9/11, and will be the most
significant force in terms of convincing the President that it is
time to give the American people the truth. Needless to say, my
remarks that I will espouse this morning, are considerably
different than they would have been, but for events in Paris this
morning, which in my judgment, bring this matter into its proper
focus.
What have been the consequences of this refusal to release
the pages? The consequences, in my judgment are three:
One, is a denial of the truth. A core question in 9/11 is,
did these 19 people act alone, or did they have a network of
support which facilitated their ability to carry out a very
complex plot? No one who has looked closely at the facts,
including the individuals that I just named, has come to a
conclusion other than that it is highly improbable that the 19
people could have acted alone. Yet, the official position of the
United States government has been that they did act alone, and
that there is no necessity for further inquiry into the question
of whether there was a support network.
The second issue, is the issue of justice. Some 3,000
members of the families who were lost on 9/11 have been trying
for years to get justice through our system for the losses that
they have suffered. The position of the United States government
has been to protect Saudi Arabia, at virtually every step of the
judicial process. When the United States government was called
upon to take a position, it has been a position adverse to the
interests of the United States citizens seeking justice, and
protective of the government which, in my judgment, was the most
responsible for that network of support.
The third consequence is the issue of national security, and
frequently those who have defended nondisclosure, have said, this
cannot be made available to the American people, because it would
be adverse to our national security. It will affect methods and
sources of information, or other information that is
inappropriate to be made publicly known. As the two Congressmen
have just said, they both read the reportnot 12 years ago, when I
participated in writing the reportbut they have read it recently,
and have both come to the same conclusion that we did a dozen
years ago: that there is no threat to national security in
disclosure.
I’m going to make the case today, that there is a threat to
national security by non-disclosure, and we saw another chapter
of that today in Paris.
Here are some facts:
The Saudis know what they did. They are not persons who are
unaware of the consequences of their government’s actions.
Second, the Saudis know that we know what they did! Somebody in
the Federal government has read these 28 pages, someone in the
Federal government has read all the other documents that have
been covered up so far. And the Saudis know that.
What would you think the Saudis’ position would be, if they
knew what they had done, they knew that the United States knew
what they had done, and they also observed that the United States
had taken a position of either passivity, or actual hostility to
letting those facts be known? What would the Saudi government do
in that circumstance, which is precisely where they have been,
for more than a decade?
Well, one, they have continued, maybe accelerated, their
support for one of the most extreme forms of Islam, Wahhabism,
throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East. And
second, they have supported the religious fervor, with financial
and other forms of support, of the institutions which were going
to carry out those extreme forms of Islam. Those institutions
have included mosques, madrassas, and military. Al-Qaeda was a
creature of Saudi Arabia; the regional groups such as al-Shabaab
have been largely creatures of Saudi Arabia; and now, ISIS is the
latest creature!
Yes, I hope and I trust that the United States will crush
ISIS, but if we think that is the definition of victory, we are
being very naive! ISIS is a consequence, not a causeit is a
consequence of the spread of extremism, largely by Saudi Arabia,
and if it is crushed, there will be another institution
established, financed, supported, to carry on the cause.
So the consequences of our passivity to Saudi Arabia, have
been that we have tolerated this succession of
institutionsviolent, extreme, extremely hurtful to the region of
the Middle East, and a threat to the world, as we saw this
morning in Paris.
So I conclude by saying, this is a very important issue. It
may seem stale to some, but it is as current as the headlines
that we will read today. It is an issue that goes to the core of
the United States’ contract with its people, that the people
would give the government the credibility and support to govern;
the government would give the people the information upon which
they can make good judgments, as to the appropriateness of
governmental action. It’s as fundamental as justice to our
people, who have suffered so, by this evil union of extremism and
a very powerful nation-state. And it is the security of the
people of the United States of America.
So, I again thank the Congressmen for their leadership. I
hope that they will soon be joined by a rising tide of other
members of Congress who recognize the importance of this issue.
And then, finally, that the President of the United States will
declare that he is going to adopt the Lincolnesque standard of
full disclosure, and rely on the intelligence and judgment and
patriotism of the American people to decide what the appropriate
course of action should be.
Thank you.

OGDEN: Now both Jeff Steinberg and myself had the
opportunity to be in that room on that day, January 7, present at
that press conference, and I know Senator Graham’s presentation
sent chills through the audience, especially because it came in
such proximity to these terrible attacks on that day, on the
headquarters of {Charlie Hebdo}; but especially when he said —
and I think this stood out for you, probably, when you were just
listening to this again — when he said, this is a very important
issue. It may seem stale to some, but it is as current as the
headlines we will read today.
And tragically, that applies just as much this week, in the
aftermath of the horrific attacks in Paris of last Friday, as it
did then, in the aftermath of the attacks at {Charlie Hebdo}. And
as long as this cover-up continues, innocent people continue to
die. Paris, Beirut, Mali, the Russian airliner — what’s next?
What must be done to ensure there {is} no next time?
So I know that Jeff has been deeply involved in this issue
for several years, over a decade, and I’d like him to come to the
podium to briefly comment on the significance of what you just
heard Senator Bob Graham say.

STEINBERG: The statement I read a few moments ago from the
four former drone pilots reminded me that among the documents
that were released in 2010 by WikiLeaks, which of course began
the process of revealing some of the murderous behavior of the
Obama administration, included a document which was a cable from
then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Richard Holbrooke, who
was the Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, who was
preparing to make a visit to Saudi Arabia soon after that memo
was written, towards the end of 2009. And what that memo said was
well, we’re in possession of massive evidence that the number one
source of financing for all of the various Sunni jihadist terror
groups is Saudi Arabia. And we’ve got to begin to develop a
policy for putting some kind of pressure on Saudi Arabia so
they’ll cut it out.
So, in other words, there was full knowledge in 2009 at the
very beginning of the Obama administration throughout the
administration that Saudi Arabia was still continuing to be a
major source of support for the al-Qaeda networks that carried
out the 9/11 atrocities. Remember also that General Michael
Flynn, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency until he was
unceremoniously fired last year by President Obama for daring to
continue to supply intelligence on the fact that Obama’s own
policies were fueling the growth of al-Qaeda and eventually
fueling the growth of the Islamic State — ISIS. So, this should
be a further reminder of the points that were made by Senator
Graham and the others that this administration, from day one, has
been fully on notice about the continuing role of Saudi Arabia as
the principal source of financing and logistical support for the
activities of these hideous jihadist terrorists.
Now just in the past week, really in the past several weeks,
we can account for hundreds of people who’ve been killed by the
very apparatus that this President has refused to take any action
against. You had the bombing of the Metro Jet airliner — 224
people killed when the plane blew up by a terrorist bomb over the
Sinai Desert. Secondly, you had two suicide bombings in the
southern portions of Beirut, targetting a largely Shi’ite
neighborhood. We don’t have the precise number of people killed,
but it was a large number of people killed and wounded. And of
course, we now have a death toll of 130 in Paris. And even
earlier today, you had a jihadist assault on the Radisson Blue
Hotel in Mali, where again we’re still awaiting the body count;
but 180 or so people were taken hostage by a group of armed
gunmen, and ultimately Malian, French and American commandoes
raided the hotel. And again, we witnessed a significant fire
fight; people were killed — innocent civilians arbitrarily
targetted simply because they were in the wrong place at the
wrong time.
Now, let’s face the reality. If those 28 pages had been
published back in 2002, and had revealed the indications of the
role of the Saudi monarchy and Saudi intelligence and Saudi
defense industrial company in providing the key support for the
9/11 hijackers, there would have been a public outcry. There
would have been a serious investigation into Saudi Arabia. There
would have been a fundamental change in the US relationship to
Saudi Arabia. And by the way, the investigation into the specific
funds provided by Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan to
the Saudi intelligence agents who were managing and supporting
two of the hijackers in San Diego, would have directly led to the
doorsteps of the British; because some of the money that went
from Bandar’s personal account into the hands of those
terrorists, came from the al Yamamah agreement — the
British/Saudi barter agreement, which {EIR} documented created an
offshore slush fund of tens of billions of dollars, perhaps
hundreds of billions of dollars over the scope and sweep of that
agreement — that was used to finance terrorism. Prince Bandar
openly boasted that funds from the al Yamamah project went to
financing what were then called the Afghan mujahideen; the
so-called freedom fighters who soon were known as al-Qaeda and
Taliban.
So, the track record is enormous; it’s unambiguous. There
has been a top-down Presidential cover-up of the Saudis and
British and their role in this terrorism under the Bush/Cheney
administration, and continuing under Obama. And in spite of all
of that evidence, the Obama administration continued to smuggle
weapons out of Benghazi into the hands of Syrian rebels;
including those who became part of ISIS and the Nusra Front. And
that’s not idle speculation; that’s from documents from the
Defense Intelligence Agency that were presented to the President
by no later than the Fall of 2012. One of those documents
specifically said, why are we still smuggling weapons into the
Syrian rebels out of Benghazi, when those networks just
assassinated a US ambassador and three other American officials?
So again, let’s go back to the original comments in response
to tonight’s institutional question by Mr. LaRouche. Obama’s got
to be removed from office because he’s got blood on his hands.
And the United States will never ever be able to actually
re-establish its role as a leading force for good in the world,
so long as we tolerate a President in office who’s got that much
blood on his hands and continues to carry forward the same
policies despite all of the evidence and all of the warnings.

OGDEN: Now, a direct correlative of this entire situation in
Syria, Libya, Iraq, and elsewhere is the unprecedented refugee
crisis now being experienced by the people of this region; who
are flooding across the Mediterranean and into Europe. And I know
this is one of the items that was directly cited by Congresswoman
Tulsi Gabbard in her list of ten reasons why the illegal war
against Bashar al-Assad must be ended. And it’s impossible to
underestimate the urgency and the significance of the currently
ongoing refugee crisis. This is a massive displacement of human
beings on the scale of millions, flooding into Europe from the
Middle East and North Africa; fleeing from the carnage and the
chaos which have taken over that region, which is a direct result
of the regime-change wars of first the George W Bush
administration, and now the Barack Obama administration. Again,
the culpability lies on the doorstep of Obama. And in Europe,
even before the terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday, we saw a
frightening rise of a right-wing, proto-fascist, xenophobic
backlash within the European population against these refugees;
driven by the effects of the policies of such persons as Schäuble
and his so-called “Black Zero” policy. And the danger is that
this could drastically worsen and spin out of control as the
economic breakdown in the trans-Atlantic region continually gets
worse; and it will get worse rapidly, as long as the necessary
policies of a top-down complete bankruptcy re-organization of
this Wall Street system are not taken, which must begin with
Glass-Steagall, and the correlated policies that Franklin
Roosevelt enacted at the beginning of his New Deal.
Now this is the real civilizational crisis, threatening
Europe, the United States and the entire world, and {not}, as
Obama and his fellow travelers in the British Royal Family would
have you believe, the so-called crisis of anthropogenic global
warming. This is the real crisis: this refugee crisis, the crisis
of the destabilization of the entire region of the Middle East
and North Africa, and the threat of a total blow-out of the
trans-Atlantic bankrupt financial system. This is the real
crisis, which responsible leaders of the world’s leading powers
should be discussing as they gather in Paris next week for the
so-called COP21 Summit in Paris.
So before I say more about that, I would like to ask Ben
Deniston to come to the podium to make some very relevant
comments in that regard.
BEN DENISTON: Thanks, Matthew. From our discussion with
Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche earlier today, we were discussing
a certain article that had just been released in the last couple
days, and Helga and all of us thought it would be an important
thing to highlight, given the relevance of this article to what
Matt just referenced. You should have graphic on your screen,
just a screen-shot of one publication, one blog, which is hosting
this article. The title is, as you can read, “Terrorism and a
Cold Winter Refugee Crisis,” with a subline reading “A Brutal
Cold Spell Could Kill Refugees.” Paris COP21 delegates need to
discuss this climate issue.
Now this article was authored by two leading so-called
climate skeptics, two individuals who have been out front
fighting against this fraudulent claim of a man-made climate
change crisis. One individual, just to give you a sense of who
they are, Joseph D’Aleo, is a certified consulting meteorologist;
he’s a fellow of the American Meteorology Society; and he’s one
of the original co-founders of the Weather Channel. So, he’s
somebody familiar with climate and weather. The other author is
Paul Driessen, who is a self-proclaimed former environmentalist,
until the environmentalist movement went against human beings,
and he decided it wasn’t a good thing to stick with. But he’s the
author of such books as the 2003 book “Eco-Imperialism: Green
Power, Black Death.” And he’s also done a number of interviews
with {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine, one of which is
part of the 2015 report put out by {Executive Intelligence
Review}, which, if you don’t have a copy of, we encourage you to
get a copy of immediately. Our recent report “Global Warming
Scare is Population Reduction, not Science”
So, they came out with a rather interesting piece which we
want to just put on the table and then comment upon. But just to
quote the beginning of their article. They open by saying “Even
after these latest Paris massacres, and previous radical Islamist
atrocities in the USA, in France, in Britain, in Canada, in
Spain, India, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and elsewhere, politicians
still absurdly say that hypothetical man-made global warming is
the greatest threat facing humanity. In reality, fossil fuel
contributions to the climate change pose few dangers to people or
planet, and winters actually kill 20 times more people than hot
weather.”
So after that lunge, they go on to highlight some very
relevant facts. They go into focus on the millions of refugees
that Matthew just referenced, who are desperately now trying to
escape the horrors of what frankly Obama has unleashed with the
Islamic State. As we discussed, many of them fleeing into Europe.
Well, the authors of this article make the relevant point that
these people are coming from a climate that is on average
generally 20 to 30 degrees warmer in the winter time than their
current destinations they’re heading into in Eastern and Northern
Europe. That this people who are fleeing desperately to get out
with their lives intact, are simply not prepared to just plunge
into this much colder climate of Europe, and especially if
they’re just simply left to try and survive in makeshift shelters
or tents, we could be seeing the beginnings of a very horrific
mass death scene, as these people suffer the horrors of a cold
European winter.
And these authors give a warning, that this could actually
be worse, this particular winter, if we see the return of some of
these periodic blasts or movements of frigid, extremely cold
Siberian air transfer over Europe, which is a not-uncommon
phenomenon, and could give rise to, again, a very cold, deadly
cold in this case, winter over Europe.
Now, they make the point: this prospect of a potentially
harsh cold is obviously in stark contrast to just the insane
propaganda lies about global warming, including, for example — a
couple of their highlights are rather useful, if anything, for
comic relief. But they cite a headline article from the German
publication {Der Spiegel} from 15 years [ago], from the year
2000. And the title of this article was: ” Goodbye, Winter. In
Germany cold winters are now a thing of the past.” This was
declared in 2000 to be the reality. Or a scientist with a British
Climate research unit, who was quoted saying, again about 15
years ago, around the year 2000: “Children are not going to know
what snow is.”
So, despite these crazy lies that have been spouted for
decades, and are being spouted again now, they make the relevant
point that for five years, between 2008 and 2013, you had a whole
series of extremely cold winters throughout Europe, in some cases
setting many records. England, for example, having one of the
coldest winters they had in centuries. Mind you, 8 to 12 years
after it was proclaimed that children in England would no longer
know what snow is, they had the coldest winter they’ve had since
sometime in the 1600s, in the Little Ice Age.
So anyway, they go on to point out that with most recent
scientific knowledge, these particular climate conditions, these
blasts, this movement of very frigid, cold air from the Siberian
region into Europe, tends to be associated with certain
fluctuation in the Atlantic ocean, certain multi-decadal cycles
in the Atlantic, in correspondence with certain changes in solar
activity. There’s a very close correlation and indications
between these solar phenomena and this particular process leading
to extremely cold winters in Europe. And they — obviously none
of this having anything to do with human CO2 emissions.
But Driessen and D’Aleo do make the point that the fact of
the matter is that the current phase of what the ocean is doing
in the Atlantic, the current phase of solar activity, generally
points to the possibility that we could be seeing another very
harsh, very cold winter in Europe. Now, it’s not to say for
certain that’s going to happen, but that is the type of reality,
the type of threat to these people, that we should be thinking of
— that the people in Paris should actually be addressing.
So, with literally millions of lives on the line, we thought
today in our discussion that these authors’ call could not be
more correct, could not be more relevant: their call on the
delegates to this upcoming UN conference on climate change —
which, as Matt said, is going to start in just a little over a
week and run for two weeks in December — that at this event,
this is the climate issue that should be being discussed. And
they present this refugee crisis against evidence for a broader
reality, that quite frankly — and as has been shown even in more
detail on some recent studies — cold weather generally kills
something on the order of 20 times more people than hot weather.
Periods of extreme cold, winter is on average, averaged over many
locations, far more deadly than warming. And on top of that, this
entire Green energy program makes it even worse; it’s making it
more expensive if not impossible for many people — especially in
cold regions — to be able to afford basic heating for their home
to keep themselves alive during the winters.
So with this framework, this particular article concludes
rather sharply that it would be an “unconscionable crime against
humanity if the nations gathering in Paris implement policies to
protect our planet’s energy-depraved masses from hypothetical
manmade climate change occurring decades from now by perpetuating
poverty and disease that will kill millions of people tomorrow.
These are the reasons that climate change is a critical, moral
issue. We need to recognize that and stop playing games with
people’s lives.”
So again, in the discussion earlier today, we thought that
this recent article, Helga Zepp-LaRouche said in particular that
this should serve as a real challenge to people. This should be a
challenge to many of the so-called “climate skeptics” out there;
it should be a challenge to really all individuals who, for one
reason or another might be claiming they’re opposing this
upcoming UN climate conference. And it should really be a
challenge obviously, to anybody participating directly in this
process. This is not an academic debate; this is not a debate
about one scientific theory against another in academia. This is
a life or death issue for millions upon millions of people. This
has real world consequences; it has had them, it’s having them
now, it’s going to have them in the future. If this type of thing
is going to go through, you’re literally condemning millions of
people — potentially billions — to unnecessary poverty, to
suffering, and to early death. Those are the facts of the matter.
So the question on the table right now is, will you let this
happen? Will you go down in history as having let this happen?
And as we’ve documented, especially in this report and in other
locations, we know what this is all about. This is intentional;
this is the 21st Century version of Thomas Malthus’ policy. This
is the modern Zeus policy.
Who did we just hear is going to be one of the leading
prominent speakers at this Paris COP 21 conference? Prince
Charles, the British Empire; the next in the series of
degenerations of the British Royal Family, following Prince
Phillip and Queen Elizabeth. And it’s no secret these people are
promoting a policy of outright genocide; they’re advocating and
promoting a policy saying the world can only support 1-2 billion
people. And we need to push to reduce the world’s population to a
few billion people. So if you let this type of program to go
through, this will go down in history as the greatest mass
killing on record; save perhaps Obama’s thermonuclear war if we
let him launch that. But if that’s not launched by Obama, this
would go down in history as the greatest mass death; and you will
be the people who let that happen.
So the crisis conditions facing these refugees are a leading
expression of this more general threat. And this is occurring at
the same time as we’re seeing this gathering for this fake global
warming scare conference in Paris, which is just about to occur.
If you reflect on this process, it really almost sounds like
you’re describing the opening scenario of a rather famous short
story by Edgar Allan Poe; it’s almost reminiscent of something
like {The Mask of the Red Death}. We have some major gathering of
representatives of upper class layers of society, gathering in
some isolated, climate-controlled conference halls — very
comfortable; hoping they can celebrate their own delusional
picture of the world. Hoping they can celebrate their
determination of the fate of the masses of people, under the
fantasy that they themselves are going to free from the effects
of their actions. Well at the same time that this absurd scene is
going on, you have millions of desperate people gathering around
them throughout Europe; fleeing into Europe. Running from the
policies which most of the people at this conference refuse to
address; Obama’s policies. Masses of people suffering from the
reality that those people at this conference refuse to accept;
which is the fact that global warming is nothing but a Malthusian
hoax. So, it’s got an eerie similarity to some stories of the
past, but unlike Poe’s dramatic account, what we have now is that
you still have the time to act.

OGDEN: Thank you very much Ben. And let me just say in
conclusion, there is a petition which is circulating; it was
authored by the Schiller Institute, and it is now posted on the
LaRouche PAC website titled, “A Resolution To Defend Billions of
Lives; We Say ‘No’ to Paris COP 21”. So, we invite you to sign
that and to circulate that as widely as you can in the coming
days. Also, as Ben mentioned, that {EIR} Special Report is
available from {Executive Intelligence Review}. So, that’s
available for you to obtain as well. So, I’m going to bring a
conclusion to our broadcast here tonight. I want to thank very
much both Ben and Jeff for joining me here; I want to thank you
for tuning in, and please, stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

19. november 2015 – I en tale til en forsamling af Frankrigs borgmestre den 18. nov. sagde præsident François Hollande, at begivenhederne i Saint-Denis bekræftede, at Frankrig var »i krig … det, som er disse terroristers mål, er det, som Frankrig repræsenterer. Det var det, der blev angrebet den 13. nov. Disse barbarers mål var at ramme Frankrig i sin forskelligartethed. Det er Frankrigs ungdom, der var målet, simpelt hen fordi den repræsenterer livet.«

Premierminister Manuel Valls har bekræftet, at Abdelhamid Abaaoud, den angivelige planlægger bag angrebene den 13. nov., blev dræbt under en politirazzia i Saint-Denis. Indenrigsministeriet sagde, at politiet havde ransaget yderligere 118 adresser i hele landet natten mellem den 17. og 18. november og havde foretaget 25 arrestationer og beslaglagt 34 våben. Der er foretaget razzia mod flere end 400 huse, og 60 mennesker er blevet tilbageholdt, siden Frankrig erklærede undtagelsestilstand fredag, den 13. nov.

Efter planen skal Hollande besøge den amerikanske præsident Barack Obama for at vise den bydende nødvendighed af kampen mod Islamisk Stat, når de mødes i Washington i næste uge. Den britiske avis Guardian citerede en unavngiven diplomatisk kilde, der beskrev, hvad det er, Hollande vil klargøre for Obama.

»Det budskab, vi ønsker at sende USA, er simplet hen, at krisen er i færd med at destabilisere Europa. Problemet er, at angrebene i Paris og flygtningekrisen viser, at vi ikke har tid. Der er en nødsituation«, sagde kilden til Guardian. Han tilføjede: »Det er de udenlandske krigere, men det er også migranterne, der splitter europæerne og destabiliserer kontinentet, så vi må handle hurtigt og fortælle USA’s regering, at kerneinteresser for europæerne, jeres bedste allierede, står på spil.« Pointen er, at Obama efter Frankrigs mening nægter at handle hurtigt nok. »Det er grunden til, at den franske præsident vil være i Washington på tirsdag, før han flyver videre til Moskva for at mødes med præsident Putin.«

I sin tale til Nationalforsamlingen for at forlænge undtagelsestilstanden advarede den franske premierminister Manuel Valls om, at terrorister i fremtiden kunne benytte kemiske og biologiske våben.

Ansøgninger til den franske hær er steget voldsomt, fra 135 om dagen til 500 om dagen, siden regeringen meddelte, at den vil rekruttere yderligere 15.000 personel i år og yderligere 16.000 i 2016. Den franske hær består i øjeblikket af 115.000 mænd og kvinder.

Foto: Soldater på Champs Elysées, Paris, med Triumfbuen i baggrunden. Undtagelsestilstanden er efter premierminister Manuel Valls begæring til Nationalforsamlingen blevet forlænget med 3 måneder.