Den 12. december 2016 var Helga Zepp-LaRouche – Lyndon LaRouches hustru, Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og en international nøgleperson i kampen for et nyt globalt udviklingsparadigme – særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar på Frederiksberg med titlen: »Donald Trump og det Nye Internationale Paradigme«. Blandt deltagerne var diplomater, aktivister og repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.

Arrangementet blev indledt med fremførelsen af en kendt traditionel kinesisk sang, Kāngdìng Qínggē (Kangding Kærlighedssang), af Feride Istogu Gillesberg (sopran) og Michelle Rasmussen (klaver). Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, som på smukkeste og mest optimistiske vis førte publikken igennem en tour-de-force af den nuværende politiske situation med såvel befolkningens afvisning af det nuværende paradigme gennem Brexit, Hillary Clintons valgnederlag til Donald Trump og det italienske ”Nej”, som et forsøg på at skabe kaos (og krig) inden Donald Trumps indsættelse den 20. januar. Dertil kom en fremstilling af det nye globale paradigme, som allerede er ved at overtage verden, illustreret ved Kinas politik for Den Nye Silkevej – som den kommende amerikanske administration skal finde sin plads i – og den videre udvikling, der er nødvendig, hvis menneskeheden skal finde sin sande identitet. Hele talen og den efterfølgende diskussion kan ses, høres og læses på: www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=16773.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Jeg mener, at vi bør være meget glade, for hvis dette alt sammen går den rigtige vej; og det er for en stor del vores personlige forpligtelse at hjælpe, og jeg beder jer alle sammen om ikke at være passive tilskuere, men gå med i Schiller Instituttet for at være med til at implementere disse visioner og disse ideer, for så vil vi blive meget heldige med, at vi i vores levetid kan leve det nye paradigme. Og det nye paradigme vil blive første gang, menneskets værdighed vil blive virkeliggjort, og jeg mener, at det er en meget, meget vigtig mission, som vi alle bør vedtage.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

(Efterfølgende spørgsmål og svar, engelsk udskrift: Klik her. )

København, 12. december, 2016 – I dag var Helga Zepp-LaRouche særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar i København, med titlen, »Donald Trump og det Nye, Internationale Paradigme«. Otte diplomater fra seks lande deltog, inklusive to ambassadører. Nationer fra Vesteuropa, Sydvestasien, Vest- og Østasien var repræsenteret, samt fra Afrika. Desuden deltog henved 30 af Schiller Instituttets medlemmer og kontakter, såvel som også et par repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.

Arrangementet indledtes af en forestilling, hvor Feride Istogu Gillesberg og Michelle Rasmussen fremførte en kinesisk kærlighedssang. Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ved at beskrive den historiske rolle, hun har spillet i skabelsen af politikken med Den Nye Silkevej.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche indledte sin meget inspirerende og dybtgående tale med den revolution imod globalisering, som Brexit, Trumps valgsejr og Nej-resultatet i den italienske folkeafstemning udgør. Hun kom med en vurdering af potentialet i nogle af Trumps hidtidige erklæringer og udnævnelser og gik dernæst videre med en detaljeret diskussion af de to, modstridende paradigmer, der eksisterer i verden i dag. Dernæst opløftede Helga tilhørerne med Krafft Ehrickes og Nicolaus Cusanus’ skønne ideer. Hun konkluderede med en appel til de tilstedeværende om ikke at handle som tilskuere på historiens scene, men derimod, sammen med os, at gå med i kampen for det nye paradigme.

Herefter fulgte en intens, timelang diskussion, hvor der kom spørgsmål fra alle de forskellige grupper, der var repræsenteret. Helga afsluttede mødet med at udfordre tilhørerne til at beslutte, hvad de ønsker at bruge deres liv til; hvilket mærke, som vil være til gavn for hele menneskeheden langt ud i fremtiden, ønsker de at sætte? Et udskrift af Helgas svar vil ligeledes snarest blive udlagt her på hjemmesiden.

Helgas tale og efterfølgende diskussion havde en dybtgående virkning på alle de tilstedeværende. 

København, 12. december, 2016 – I dag var Helga Zepp-LaRouche særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar i København, med titlen, »Donald Trump og det Nye, Internationale Paradigme«. Otte diplomater fra seks lande deltog, inklusive to ambassadører. Nationer fra Vesteuropa, Sydvestasien, Vest- og Østasien var repræsenteret, samt fra Afrika. Desuden deltog henved 30 af Schiller Instituttets medlemmer og kontakter, såvel som også et par repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.

Arrangementet indledtes af en forestilling, hvor Feride Istogu Gillesberg og Michelle Rasmussen fremførte en kinesisk kærlighedssang. Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ved at beskrive den historiske rolle, hun har spillet i skabelsen af politikken med Den Nye Silkevej.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche indledte sin meget inspirerende og dybtgående tale med den revolution imod globalisering, som Brexit, Trumps valgsejr og Nej-resultatet i den italienske folkeafstemning udgør. Hun kom med en vurdering af potentialet i nogle af Trumps hidtidige erklæringer og udnævnelser og gik dernæst videre med en detaljeret diskussion af de to, modstridende paradigmer, der eksisterer i verden i dag. Dernæst opløftede Helga tilhørerne med Krafft Ehrickes og Nicolaus Cusanus’ skønne ideer. Hun konkluderede med en appel til de tilstedeværende om ikke at handle som tilskuere på historiens scene, men derimod, sammen med os, at gå med i kampen for det nye paradigme.

Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale, der varer omkring 1 time og 20 minutter, kan høres ovenover eller her:

https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/helga-zepp-larouche-in-copenhagen-donald-trump-and-the-new-international-paradigm-1

En dansk oversættelse af talen kommer på torsdag. 

Herefter fulgte en intens, timelang diskussion, hvor der kom spørgsmål fra alle de forskellige grupper, der var repræsenteret. Helga afsluttede mødet med at udfordre tilhørerne til at beslutte, hvad de ønsker at bruge deres liv til; hvilket mærke, som vil være til gavn for hele menneskeheden langt ud i fremtiden, ønsker de at sætte? Et udskrift af Helgas svar vil ligeledes snarest blive udlagt her på hjemmesiden.

Helgas tale og efterfølgende diskussion havde en dybtgående virkning på alle de tilstedeværende. 

Diskussionen findes kun som engelsk udskrift (se nedenfor).

—–

English: Introductory article

Helga Zepp-LaRouche Keynotes Copenhagen Seminar on `Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm'

COPENHAGEN, Dec. 12, 2016 (EIRNS) — Today, Helga Zepp-LaRouche was the special guest speaker at a Schiller Institute/{EIR} seminar in Copenhagen entitled, "Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm." Eight diplomats from six countries attended, including two ambassadors. There were nations from Western Europe, Southwest Asia, Western and Eastern Asia, and Africa. In addition, there were around 30 Schiller Institute members and contacts, as well as a few representatives of various Danish and international institutions.

The event was opened by the presentation of a Chinese love song performed by Feride Istogu Gillesberg and Michelle Rasmussen. Afterwards, Tom Gillesberg, the chairman of The Schiller Institute in Denmark, introduced Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, describing her historical role in bringing about the New Silk Road policy.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche's very inspiring, in-depth speech began with the revolution against globalization represented by the Brexit, the Trump election, and the Italian No vote. She gave an evaluation of the potential represented by some of the statements and appointments Trump has made so far, and then proceeded with a detailed discussion of the two conflicting paradigms in the world today. Zepp-LaRouche then uplifted the audience with the beautiful ideas of space scientist Krafft Ehricke and Renaissance philosopher Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. She concluded with an appeal to those present not to act as spectators on the stage of history, but engage in the battle for the new paradigm with us.

Her speech, about 80 minutes long, may be heard above, or at: https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/helga-zepp-larouche-in-copenhagen -donald-trump-and-the-new-international-paradigm-1

Afterwards, there was an intensive hour-long discussion, with questions from all of the different groups represented. Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche ended by challenging the audience to decide what they want to do with their lives, what mark they will make to benefit all humanity, far into the future.  

Zepp-LaRouche's speech and discussion had a profound effect on all present. 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Discussion:

(There is no video or audio of the discussion period, only this transcript.)

Helga Zepp-LaRouche in Copenhagen December 12, 2016
Discussion
(To facilitate free discussion, the questioners are not identified, and the questions are summarized. The answers are complete.)
Question: Can we be optimistic about Trump’s presidency, because he is skeptical about climate change, is for trade war with China and Mexico, opposes the free trade deals, and has called for tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I said earlier that the potentialities for change are there, but it depends, to a very large extent, upon us – what we do. When Trump got elected, my first response was, this is what I call the ‘dog pull-tail, let-go feeling.’ What I mean by that is that when you pull the tail of a dog, which you should never do, naturally, and you let go, the pain stops. When you pull, there is pain, and when you stop pulling, the pain goes away.
So, in a certain sense, the election of Trump was the tail let-go feeling, because we were on an immediate course toward WWIII, and that was really the primary point, because if Hillary Clinton would have been elected — unfortunately, Hillary Clinton, when she was in the Obama administration, transformed from being a relatively OK person, she was never great, but in 2008, she was relatively decent, compared to what she became, because she capitulated to Obama, and when she made this terrible statement, for example, in Libya, about the murder of Gadaffi, “We came, we saw, and he died.” This is barbarism.
Her behavior in the Ben Ghazi case. There were so many things where she became worse than Obama, almost. So the immediate thing was that that big danger, that she would have continued the policies of Bush and Obama, in the confrontation with Russia and China, that that was stopped is, already, for the survival of civilization, the most important step.
Now, on these other points. Naturally, there is climate change. There is no question about it. But the question is, what is the cause of it? And the Schiller Institute had several conferences where we invited extremely important scientists who presented, beyond a doubt, that if you look at the last 500 million years in the history of the Earth, you have a continuous cycle of ice ages, of warming periods, of small ice ages, and the man-made component of climate change is absolutely negligible. It’s a big fraud, for example, it’s a big business. To sell CO2 omission quotas, is like selling indulgences in the Middle Ages.
Obviously, there are climate changes, and some countries which have low coasts are very much affected, but then you have to adapt to these climate changes with modern technology, and you cannot solve the problem by going to electric cars, or going to decarbonization of the world economy. This is a big fraud, and I am not saying that Trump is saying this for all the right reasons, but the idea to impose measures implied with the “great transformation” Schellnhuber is talking about – I mean these people do not want development.
We have been on this case for the last — as a matter of fact, we, the LaRouche movement, had a conception about the development of the world really starting at the end of the sixties.
I joined Mr. LaRouche because I went to China, Africa, other Asian countries, and I saw the horrible, horrible underdevelopment. So I came back from this trip, and I said, ‘I have to become political, because I want to change this.’ I could give you a long, long story of the many observations, because I went with a cargo ship, and when you go to these countries with a cargo ship, you get a quite different idea than if you go on a 5-star cruise, and hotels. You see how the poverty affects people in their real lives. And I came back, and I looked at all the political movements, and I saw that LaRouche was the only one who said, ‘We have to have Third World development. We have to have technology transfer. We have to alleviate this poverty.’
And we had a positive conception already in the seventies, and therefore, when the Club of Rome appeared, we immediately said, ‘This is a fraud.’ Because the Club of Rome said, ‘There are limits to growth. We have reached equilibrium. Until the year 1972, you could develop, but now, we have reached equilibrium, and we have to have sustainable development. We have to have appropriate technology.’ These notions did not exist before, because before, you had the idea of a UN Development Decade, where each decade, you would overcome the underdevelopment by qualitative jumps. And when we recognized this propaganda by the Club of Rome, we immediately said, ‘This is a complete fraud,’ and the people who wrote the book “Limits to Growth,” Meadows and Forrester …
Q: A followup about the Paris climate summit.
A: I would like to give you written documentation afterwards of the studies that were made by these geologists, which are, without question, the explanation of climate change is not man-made. The anthropogenic aspect of it is so miniscule. Climate change has to do with the position of the solar system in the galaxy, which goes in cycles around a certain axis, and you can see that over 500 million years, the data confirms that you have these wide changes. Greenland is called Greenland, because it was green. There used to be vineyards. You had ice ages which completely covered the Earth, and the reason why I went into this longer history, is to show how the environmentalist movement was created with the attempt to keep development down, and climate change is just another expression of the same effort.
If you look at which firms which are investing in solar parks, in wind parks, who is controlling the CO2 emission trade, you have all the top hedge funds in London and Wall St. I can give you a lot of documentation about it, which does not mean that climate change is not real, because you have the rise of the oceans, and you have climate change, you have extreme weather, but that has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.
And, on the other points you raised, obviously, from our standpoint, the cancellation of NAFTA, is a good thing, because NAFTA did not allow development for Mexico. As a matter of fact, NAFTA is the incarnation of the cheap labor production model of free trade. What you need is – especially countries which are not developed, you need protective tariffs for their own good. They have to develop a domestic market first. The booklet which I emphasized, which you should please read, “Against the Stream,” is one of many, but it is very condensed, and a very good book.
The question is, ‘What is the source of wealth?’ Is the source of wealth cheap labor, to buy cheap raw materials, produce cheaply, and sell expensive? Is that the cause of wealth? No.
The only cause of wealth is the increase in the creativity of labor power. And a good government is, therefore, investing the maximum amount into education, into sponsoring the creativity of youth, of labor, and the more people in the labor force, by percentage, are engineers, scientists, the more productive the economy becomes.
And the free trade system, of which NAFTA is just one example, did exactly the opposite. China, which was part of this in the beginning — the reason why China today has so many environmental problems, like smog, like a large amount of groundwater being contaminated, is the result of the fact that China, in the beginning of its industrialization, accepted being a cheap labor production place for the U.S. and for Europe. When I was in China, even in 1971, I visited some factories which were horrible. They were absolutely horrible. The working conditions were terrible, the labor force, which produced electrical devices for radios, it was horrible. They worked for 18 hours. No health system. It was just terrible. And that is how China developed in the first phase.
But then China, with Deng Xiaoping, started to recognize that that is the wrong way. So China is now on a completely different track. They are putting the maximum emphasis on science and technology, the increase of excellence. Last year, they produced 1 million scientists. That’s double of what the U.S. produced. Obviously China is a larger country, but still. What will finally be decisive is the number of people who are creative. And that is why China, right now, has the best education system, because they have understood that the source of wealth is not raw materials. Is not trade conditions. It is the creativity of their own people. And that it a good thing. If we go to a system where we have a certain amount of protectionism, to protect the development of the domestic market, it is a good thing.
There is no danger of cutting [countries off from one another], because all of these infrastructure projects are connectivity. The world will be more connected than ever before. But this whole myth of free trade is really a very bad thing. It has been coined by the people who profit from it. That’s why the world is in the condition it is right now, where the rich become richer, and the poor become poorer. The middle class is being destroyed all over the world. And I would really like to communicate with you so that we can deepen this dialogue.
On the Iran thing, I don’t think he will break it, but that is my hope. I don’t know.
So, I’m not saying he’s a – as I said, Baron von Knigge would get a heart attack when he hears Trump’s speeches, but the world was in such a grip of evil, satanic evil, that it is a good thing that there is a break, and the unfortunate thing, is that Europe is still in this grip.
You can see it. Von der Leyen, the German Defense Secretary, had the funniest reaction. The day after the election of Trump, she said ‘I am deeply shocked,’ about this election result, because nobody thought this would happen. Now, this same lady is now parading in Saudi Arabia with Crown Prince Bin Salman Al Saud, and she isn’t shocked. So, I don’t know what’s wrong with her. I think that that would be a good place to be shocked, or not even go there.
So, I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the Europeans who react this way to the defeat of Hillary, are obeying another power in their head, and that power I call The British Empire, which is still in place, and it dominates Europe, and that is why they feel – I was asking myself, how come all of these politicians are so arrogant towards the new president of the U.S.? Because they were the boot-lickers of Washington until yesterday, and they would immediately do everything Washington would say and do, so I asked myself, ‘Where is this sudden self-assertedness coming from?’ And the only explanation I came up with, was to say, they must have an idea that there is another power which is more powerful than Trump, otherwise, they wouldn’t have this sudden arrogance.
And it is the British, because you will see tomorrow, because tomorrow, there will be a federal press conference in Berlin, where a number of people will present their contribution to the German chairmanship of the G-20, which will take place in July in Hamburg. This will be Joachim Schellnhuber, the head of the WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change), this is the scientific advisory organization advising the German government. He put out this paper about ‘the great transformation,’ which we wrote about. You can look in the archive. He is the head of the idea of a decarbonization of the world economy.
Now, if you decarbonize the world economy, without having fusion, that would be one thing, to have fusion power in place. Then you can talk about getting rid of fossil fuels, but without having fusion, and being against nuclear energy, fission, it means that you will reduce the world’s population to 1 billion or less, because there is a direct correlation between the energy-flux-density, and the number of people you can maintain. Schellnhuber said that the carrying capacity of the Earth is maximum 1 billion people. He didn’t say that he wants to do with the 6 billion who are already there. If he would be consequent, he should hop away from this planet.
And they will announce a sinister plan, to try to use the fact that many countries have environmental problems, to sneak in their anti-development programs. People should not be naïve, because not everybody thinks that population growth is a good thing. There are many people who think that each human being is a parasite, destroying nature. That is the image of man which many people have. The greenies, for example.
We look at it in a different way. We think that the more people you have, the greater longevity you can have, division of labor, and a modern scientific society needs many people with a long life span. Because if you are in the Third World, and you die, and you have an average life expectancy of 40 years, or less, you cannot have scientists, because the production of a scientist takes 30-35 years, and if people then die right away, then you can’t have a modern society.
So the more creative people you have, the better. Each human being is an incredible addition, because we are creative.
Tom Gillesberg: Schellnhuber, for his services, was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE), and for him, he personally has said, that the highpoint of his existence was that the British Queen, personally, gave him the Order of the British Empire, for his efforts to reduce the possibility for mankind’s survival, you could say, so it is connected with what you said.
Q: This is the best speech I have ever heard in my life.
Is this a second American Revolution, and will the Federal Reserve, which is privately owned, be closed down, and will money be created for the benefit of all people, and not just the private Fed?
A: I don’t know, because, as I said, there are so many unknowns about Trump, and what he will do, and how it will play out. All I can say is, if Trump does not fulfill his promises, the same people who caused his election, will topple him. Because I don’t think that this process, which is now underway, where ordinary people have just had it — If you think about the declaration of Independence, it has this formulation that you will not bring down a government system for light reasons, but, if for a long time, the common good is being violated, I don’t know the exact text, then, people have the right and duty to replace this government with a rightful one, and that idea I call natural law.
It’s the same idea that Friedrich Schiller had in Wilhelm Tell. This is a play he wrote, which takes place in Switzerland. There, the Hapsburg oligarch is also trampling on the rights of the Swiss people, then they unite with the Rütli Oath. There is this beautiful formulation which says, ‘When the rights of people are trampled upon, they have the right to reach out to the stars, and take from the stars those rights which are eternally embedded in these stars. (I am not saying it as beautifully as Schiller does.)
If you compare these two texts, the Declaration of Independence, and the Rütli Oath from Schiller’s play, they are almost identical, and it’s very clear that Schiller was inspired by the American Revolution when he wrote that play, because in his plays, there are many ideas which resonate with the American Revolution, and he actually wanted to immigrate, at one point, to America.
So I think that if Trump turns out to be another fraudster, which we don’t know yet, I think that this process of revolt will continue, because I only mentioned some elements.
I could mention that there are many countries now in realignment. for example, the Philippines, Duterte. This was supposed to be the playground for the conflict with China in the South China Sea. Now Duterte sent his Defense Secretary, Lorenzana, to Russia and China, to buy weapon systems from Russia and China, and to establish a friendship with China, and he said, ‘The Philippines is no longer the colony of the U.S.’
Then you have Japan, which was the junior partner of the U.S. in the Pacific. Abe went to Sochi, meeting with Putin. In three days from now, Putin will go to Japan to have a state visit. They are talking about a peace treaty between Russia and Japan.
All of these are new alignments. There is a shift in the strategic situation, and I don’t think that that shift can be reversed.
Q: About Russia hacking the U.S. election. Why doesn’t the U.S. have anti-hacking measures? Can you explain that?
A: I cannot explain that, for the same reason that I cannot explain why the NSA is surveilling everyone, all their phones, their communications, worldwide. They can observe all of these things, but they don’t know about terrorism. They don’t know about drug trafficking. They don’t know about money laundering. Either their system is not so good, or they are looking in the wrong direction. I can’t answer your question.
Q: Will the result of the Brexit be positive for Europe, to enable continental Europe to become stronger, and to improve cooperation with the eastern parts of Europe?
A: I think that the EU is not functioning, and I think it is not just the Brexit. The “No” in Italy is a reflection of the same dynamic. Now you have Gentiloni, the new prime minister, and they will probably go for new elections. Right now, in the polls, you have the 5 Star Party leading. If they win, and form the new government, they have already said that they would leave the EU, and leave the Euro, and, in a certain sense, it is not functioning.
The reason I was against the introduction of the Euro from the beginning, was because we said that it cannot function. You cannot have a European currency union in something which is not an optimal economic space. You cannot put advanced industry together with an agrarian country, with completely different tax laws, pension laws, and you don’t want a political union, because Europe is not a people. You don’t have a European people. I don’t know what the Danes are saying. I don’t know what is in the Danish newspapers. The people of Slovenia have no inkling of what is happening in Alsace-Lorraine, and so forth, and so on. You don’t have a European people. Esperanto doesn’t function. You have 28 nations, 28 histories, 28 cultures.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t work together. I think that the idea of Charles de Gaulle to work together as an alliance between perfectly sovereign fatherlands, that is a correct idea. And all these fatherlands can adopt a joint mission, like to develop Africa, or other things.
I just think that this European Union is not going to stay forever.
Q: (followup) Will it be easier for Germany and France to promote this development, as the leading countries?
A: Everybody says that Germany is the biggest beneficiary of globalization, the EU, and the Euro, but that’s not really true, because, if you look at it more closely, then you can say that since the introduction of the Euro, the domestic market of Germany has completely stagnated. And the number of people who became poorer has increased.
Q: (followup) What about regarding the dialogue with Russia.
A: Oh yes, that would be much easier.
I do not think that this EU bureaucracy is capable of reform, because by their self-understanding, they are the local pro-consuls of this empire, and I think that it would be much better if Germany, France, and other countries have individual relations. And I don’t think that – this whole idea that you need a European Empire to compete with Russia and China and other emerging countries – The EU, by definition, is an empire. They have said it themselves. Robert Cooper, who has some kind of advisory function [currently serving as EU Special Advisor with regard to Myanmar], he said that the EU is the fastest expanding empire in history. It’s a bad idea.
And the Russians for – I noticed this since the beginning of the year 2000, that the Russians did not make a difference anymore between the EU and NATO. They said that it’s the same thing. And it is the same thing.
Q: You said that the One Belt, One Road was stripped of commercial interests from the Chinese side, as opposed to the IMF, World Bank. On what basis do you say that it is less interest-driven than the Bretton Woods institutions?
A: Well, because, the question is not that I’m saying that China is perfect. I’m not saying that. But when you look at anything, you have to look at the vector of development, is it going upward, or is it going downward? And from that standpoint, I had the advantage that I was in China in 1971, which was in the middle of the Cultural Revolution. This was so different than China today.
The Cultural Revolution was horrible for the people. The Red Guards would take people out of their homes, put them in jail, send them to the countryside, and people were distraught.
And now, people in China are happy. If you talk to students, or to young people, they are optimistic. They say, ‘Oh. I will do this in the future. I have these plans.’ I talked to a group of students in Lanzhou two years ago, and they said, ‘We will go to Africa. We will develop Africa.’ I have never heard a German student say this. Yeah, when I was a student, but that’s a long time ago.
I think that it is very worthwhile to read the speeches of Xi Jinping. There is a book, “The Governance of China,” but that only has about 60 speeches, and there are many, many more. For example, you should read the speeches he gave when he went to France, to Germany, and to India.
For example, when he went to India, he made a speech which was really incredible, because he said that he loved Indian culture from his early youth, and then he gave so many examples of the high points of Indian culture, the Gupta period, the Upanishads, the Vedic writings, Rabindranath Tagore, many predicates which prove that he really knows what he is talking about. He is not just one of these politicians who have a PR advisor about how to make nice bubbles in your speeches, but you could really see that he means it. And the same for Germany. He came to Germany and he emphasized Schubert and Heine, things which I also appreciate about Germany, and he did the same thing in France.
And I don’t think that the Chinese leadership would agree with me when I say this, but I think that they are less communist than Confucians. They probably would not admit that, because they are officially the Communist Party, and that’s OK, but, I come from Trier, and Trier is the birthplace of Karl Marx, so I have studied Karl Marx, and I think that they are still socialist, or communist, or whatever, but they always said that they are communist with Chinese characteristics, and these Chinese characteristics are Confucianism.
And the Confucian idea of man is lifelong learning, lifelong perfection, that everyone should be a Jinzi, a wise man, a noble man, and Confucius said, if the government is bad, then the Jinzi, these wise people, should replace the government. Also the idea that you have to have an harmonious development, starting with the family, continuing in the nation, and then, larger, among the nations.
China is the only country that has not made wars of aggression, colonial wars, in its 5,000 years of history. It was invaded many times, the Opium War, and things like that, but China is not an aggressive nation, at all.
And if you look at what they are doing in practice, the IMF and the World Bank have prevented Third World development, and China is going from one country to the next, building science cities, helping with space cooperation, bringing in developing countries in the most advanced areas of science, in order to not prevent their development. I think this is a completely different approach.
I think that the Chinese have come up with a new model of government, which I have not seen in any place in Europe, the U.S. ever, and it’s a model which is overcoming geopolitics, which is, if you say, ‘I have a win-win for cooperation. Everybody can join.’ Then, if everyone joins, then you have overcome geopolitics.
And geopolitics is the one thing that caused two world wars, and in the age of thermonuclear weapons, we cannot have geopolitics anymore. So I think that these are very important differences.
Sure, China has its own interests. Win-win means that China also has an interest. China has advantages, but, for example, if you ask people from Africa, ‘Would you rather have deals where China gets raw materials for long periods of time, but they build infrastructure for Africans.’ They like that much better than Europeans who come and say, ‘Oh, you should obey democracy,’ and do nothing.
Q: Statement about Chinese infrastructure projects in Morocco. Both are winners, as opposed to projects 20 years ago run by other countries. The Chinese there have learned Arabic. The projects have greatly reduced the travel time. They have a different perspective than the French, and Europeans had.    
Tom Gillesberg: Do you have final remarks?
A: I would just say that people should not just believe, or not believe, what I am saying, but take an active attitude to try to find out what the truth is, for themselves. Because the world is not helped by replacing one ideology by another. The only way you can be certain, is that you become a truth-seeking person yourself. Because the whole question about what went wrong, is that people forgot what it is to be an honest truth-seeking person, taking the truth not as something you reach finally, but something you always improve.
Schiller had this beautiful writing about universal history, where he said that the philosophical mind is the first one to take his own system apart, to put it together more perfectly again.
I think that that quality – and, also, we had two days ago in Berlin, a very important event, which was also about the dialogue of cultures, and every – we had a very important presentation, which you can soon see on our webpage, where we had a double bass player who spoke about the importance of Wilhelm Furtwängler as a conductor, and he gave some musical examples, and he compared the performances of Furtwängler with some modern conductors, and the difference is so unbelievable. The music of Furtwängler is transparent. It is beautiful. It is absolutely overwhelmingly uplifting, and many of the other conductors are just playing along, with no respect for what the composition is.
And he really described, with many quotes from Furtwängler, that what is needed is this inner quality of truthfulness. That you don’t fake it, because if you’re not truthful – for example, you cannot recite poetry, if you’re not truthful. You cannot sing beautifully, if you’re not truthful. Sure, you can sing brilliantly, you can do all kinds of tricks, and it impresses people, but to really produce art, you have to be truthful. You have to try to understand the poetical idea, the musical idea. You have to step back with your ego behind what the composer or the poet wrote. And that’s what is wrong with modern theater. In Regietheater, they just say, ‘I don’t care what Schiller wrote, or what Shakespeare wrote. I just make my modern interpretation. I put Harley Davidson’s into Shakespeare, and it doesn’t matter.’ And that is not art.
And I think the question is, ‘What do you do with your life?’ That is really the question. Are you becoming a creative person, devoted to that with your life, you contribute to enable mankind to move on a little step further, and become better.
Or, are you just eating three tons of caviar, and have 3,000 Porsches. And then, when you die, they write on your gravestone, ‘He/she ate three mons of caviar, and had 3,000 Porsches,’ and that was it.
No, you should try to be an honest person, trying to make human society better with what you do. And, once you do that, you become happy. Then you are free. This inner freedom, is what you should try to find. And that is the only way that we will win that battle. It’s not Trump. It is, can we get enough people to be innerly free.
And then we win.
End of discussion

Lyd:

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 7. december, 2016 – På 75-års dagen den 7. dec., 1941 – »en dag, som vil blive husket som en skændselsdag«, som FDR erklærede – breder et lignende chok sig i De forenede Stater, og i verden, med Det britiske Imperium, der står over for sin mulige, endelige død. Politisk, økonomisk og strategisk vakler Imperiet, med Olympens bjerg, der smuldrer under dets fødder.

På den politiske side har den italienske befolknings overvældende afvisning af den EU-dikterede folkeafstemning, der skulle overgive magten til Bruxelles-bureaukraterne, som handler på vegne af bankerne i City of London, føjet yderligere et slag til Brexit, Trumps valgsejr, Fillons valgsejr i Frankrig, Dutertes valgsejr i Filippinerne og den allesteds nærværende fornemmelse af, at den britiske »globalisering« af hele verden under bankierernes kontrol er ved at være forbi.

På den økonomiske side bliver det i stigende grad erkendt, at den hektiske bestræbelse for at holde de europæiske banker oven vande gennem mere kvantitativ lempelse (’pengetrykning’), mere bail-in (ekspropriering af bankindskud) og mere bail-out (statslig bankredning) – de samme, mislykkede bestræbelser, som Bush og Obama har brugt i USA – skal dække over ødelæggelsen af folks levebrød, hvor produktiv beskæftigelse og selve produktiviteten bliver lukket ned for at redde spekulanterne. Og så virker det ikke engang, for at redde bankerne!

På den strategiske side, så er krigene for »regimeskifte«, som Bush, Blair, Cameron og Obama har ført i hele Mellemøsten, og som har overgivet land efter land til bestialske terroristbander, ved at blive nedkæmpet på Syriens slagmarker. Aleppo er næsten blevet befriet fra al-Qaeda og ISIS, disse, de britiske og saudiske monarkiers skabelser. Som oberst Pat Lang (pens.) bemærkede på sin blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis:[1] »Det, der er sket i borgerkrigens heksekedel, er, at en ny magt er opstået i Levanten. En ny, syrisk, arabisk hær eksisterer nu, takket være russisk uddannelse, udstyr og rådgivning.«

Som en yderligere konsolidering af denne afvisning af britisk imperiepolitik, erklærede Donald Trump i går aftes i North Carolina med sin hidtil stærkeste formulering:

»Vi vil ophøre med at fare rundt for at vælte udenlandske regimer, som vi intet ved om; som vi ikke bør være indblandet i. Denne destruktive cyklus med intervention og kaos må omsider være slut … Vi søger harmoni og god vilje mellem verdens nationer.«

Grundlaget for denne harmoni er blevet fremlagt i detaljer i EIR’s Specialrapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«, som nu cirkulerer i hele verden på engelsk, kinesisk og arabisk. I løbet af den forgangne uge fortalte to politiske ledere fra Kina, Patrick Ho, tidligere Hong Kong-indenrigssekretær, og viceudenrigsminister Fu Ying fra Beijing, et amerikansk publikum i Washington og New York, at den nyvalgte præsident Trump har mulighed for at bringe Kina og USA sammen omkring global opbygning af nationer, ved at tilslutte sig Xi Jinpings Silkevejsprojekter, Bælt-og-Vej-programmet, og ved at tage imod det stående tilbud fra præsident Xi om samarbejde, som Obama havde afvist til fordel for militær konfrontation med både Kina og Rusland.

Trump har gjort det ekstremt klart, at han vil arbejde sammen med præsident Putin omkring bekæmpelse af terrorisme, samt inden for andre, endnu ikke afgjorte områder. I dag foretog han endnu en positiv gestus over for Beijing ved at udnævne guvernøren for Iowa, Terry Branstad, som den næste ambassadør til Kina. Branstad er en nær, personlig ven til præsident Xi Jinping, et venskab, der stammer fra Xis mange besøg til Iowa i årenes løb.

For virkelig at bringe Amerika ind i en samarbejdsrelation med Rusland og Kina, må det transatlantiske banksystems bankerot løses, helst før der indtræffer en ukontrollabel sammenbrudskrise. Dette kræver den omgående genindførelse af Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov og afskrivning af boblen med værdiløse derivater, der er i færd med at drive realøkonomien ad Helvede til. I dag er aktivist-teams fra hele USA’s østkyst i Washington, hvor de giver de sædvanligvis totalt idéforladte kongresmedlemmer deres marchordrer om at tilslutte sig den nu på globalt plan gærende revolution, der er i færd med at bringe en afslutning på Det britiske Imperiums finansdiktatur gennem Glass-Steagall og statslig kredit, der, efter Hamiltons principper, dirigeres til opbygning af industri, landbrug, infrastruktur og satsning på fusionskraft og udforskning af rummet. Magten til og muligheden for at gøre dette ligger i dette øjeblik i vore hænder, et øjeblik, der ligeledes vil »huskes som en skændsel«, hvis vi mislykkes. Som i 1941, har alle patrioter i deres respektive nationer, og alle borgere i verden, muligheden for at ændre historiens gang til det bedre, ved at tilslutte sig denne historiske, internationale kamp for at skabe en civilisation, der er i overensstemmelse med alle menneskers værdighed.

Foto: SAA Tigerstyrker og civile i Aleppo, Syrien, 7. december, 2016.  

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Jason Ross: Diskussionen i aften finder sted to en halv uge efter præsidentvalget i USA den 8. nov. Siden da har vi set en hvirvelvind af spekulationer over udnævnelser til regeringsposter, inkl. nogle udnævnelser til poster i Trump-administrationen. Vi har også set betydningsfulde, internationale nyheder, såsom APEC-topmødet, der fandt sted i sidste weekend; topmødet i Asien-Stillehavsområdets Økonomiske Samarbejde (APEC), der meget betydningsfuldt inkluderede den filippinske præsident Duterte og den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping blandt de mange tilstedeværende ledere. På denne konference understregede Duterte igen, at Filippinerne ikke længere anser sig selv for at være en amerikansk koloni; og landet forfølger en uafhængig politik, rent økonomisk, med Kina, der således er et modtræk til at skabe konflikt i f.eks. det Sydkinesiske Hav. Præsident Xi var på rundrejse i Mellem- og Sydamerika samtidig med, at han rejste til APEC-topmødet. Så ved siden af Peru – som var værtsland for topmødet – besøgte han også Chile og Ecuador, hvor han blandt andet talte om den bi-oceaniske korridor, en plan for en jernbaneforbindelse mellem Sydamerikas to omkringliggende have, Stillehavet og Atlanterhavet, og om at etablere videnskabsbyer. Han blev hyldet af præsident Correa i Ecuador, der betragtede Xi Jinpings besøg som den mest betydningsfulde begivenhed, der nogen sinde havde fundet sted i Ecuadors historie, baseret på det potentiale, som dette tilbød denne nation.

Dette Nye Paradigme, der i øjeblikket ledes politisk og økonomisk af Rusland og Kina, kommer som et resultat af LaRouche-bevægelsens og Lyndon og Helga LaRouches årtier lange organisering; der er således nu et Nyt Paradigme, der fører en stadigt større del af verden i en meget positiv retning. Vores job i øjeblikket er ikke at få de hotteste nyheder om, hvad Trumps udnævnelser bliver, osv. Det er at forme amerikanske politik, som vi med held gjorde det med at gennemtvinge en underkendelse af Obamas veto af Loven om Juridisk Retfærdighed mod Sponsorer af Terrorisme (JASTA). Og som vi nu står klar til at gøre, med at få Kongressen – under denne overgangsperiode, ’lamme and’-perioden – til at gennemføre Glass-Steagall, det nødvendige første skridt for en økonomisk genrejsning. Glass-Steagall er den lov, som Franklin Roosevelt fik vedtaget, og som skabte 60+ år med stabil, kedelig, stabil, produktiv bankvirksomhed i USA; snarere end den form for spillevirksomhed, vi nu ser.

Lad med vise dette kort [Fig. 1] for blot at vise lidt at den succes, som vi har set med det kinesiske program.

Programmet med nationerne i Ét bælte, én vej [OBOR], der inkluderer både – der er to komponenter i Kinas projekt i denne henseende; det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte, med nationerne vist i blå farve, og det 21. Århundredes Maritime Silkevej i orange farve. Tilsammen refererer Kina til dette på kinesisk som initiativet med »Ét bælte, én vej«; på engelsk ofte blot kaldt initiativet for Bæltet og Vejen. Med hensyn til det potentiale, som dette har, er her blot nogle af tallene: 20.000 km højhastigheds-jernbanelinjer i Kina, alle bygget inden for det seneste årti – mere end i resten af verden tilsammen; et titals billioner af dollars i direkte investering i nationerne i området; en forøgelse af kontrakter om tjenesteydelser på over 33 % i løbet af blot ét år langs Bæltet og Vejen; Kinas Eksport/Importbank har udestående engagementer i flere end 1000 projekter og har for ganske nylig underskrevet aftaler om omkring 500 nye projekter i nationerne langs Bæltet og Vejen. Kina er i færd med at udbygge 150.000 stipendier, som tilbyder uddannelse til 500.000 eksperter til uddannelse i Kina; har etableret 500 Konfucius-institutter i hele verden; har initieret flere end et dusin økonomiske samarbejdszoner; frihandelsaftaler, og er i øjeblikket engageret i flere end 40 energiprojekter – inklusive omkring 20, der lige er blevet etableret i år i Bæltet og Vejens nationer.

Hvordan kan vi så blive en del af dette? I magasinet Chronicles udgave fra 21. nov. er der et forslag fra Edward Lozansky og Jim Jatrus. Lozansky er præsident for det Amerikanske Universitet i Moskva. De skrev en artikel med titlen, »The Big Three: America, Russia, and China Must Join Hands for
Security, Prosperity, and Peace« (De tre store: Amerika, Rusland og Kina må gå sammen om sikkerhed, velstand og fred). To uddrag: De indleder deres artikel, »Med Donald Trumps sejr over Hillary Clinton får vi måske aldrig at vide, hvor tæt Amerika og hele menneskeheden kom på atomkrig«. Med en beskrivelse af verdenssituationen afslutter de med et forslag: »Præsident Donald Trump kan rette tidligere amerikanske præsidenters fejl. Snarere end modstandere kan Rusland og Kina blive Amerikas vigtigste partere, og som er, er vi overbevist om, rede til at respondere positivt. Tiden er inde for Trump og Amerika til at tage initiativet til samarbejde mellem USA, Rusland og Kina hen imod en tryg, fremgangsrig og fredelig fremtid. Et Trump-Putin-Xi ’Store Tre-topmøde’ bør være en prioritet for den nye, amerikanske præsidents første 100 dage.«

Jeg vil nu bede Jeff Steinberg om at fylde verdensbilledet ud og forklare vore seere, hvilke flanker, hvilke håndtag, hvilke vægtstænger vi har for at ændre USA’s politik på dette tidspunkt?

Jeffrey Steinberg (efterretningsredaktør, EIR): Det er indledningsvist meget vigtigt at indse, at vi befinder os i en periode med forandring. Vi ved visse ting om konsekvenserne af det amerikanske præsidentvalg og andre nationale valg den 8. nov. Jeg mener, at Lozansky og Jatrus gjorde en fundamental pointe meget klart: Der forelå en meget alvorlig fare, baseret på Hillary Clintons kampagneretorik, baseret på politikker, der blev stadigt mere aggressivt forfulgt af præsident Barack Obama mod slutningen af hans otte år i embedet; at vi havde kurs mod den værste krise mellem USA og Rusland, som vi nogen sinde har oplevet – måske endda værre end Cubakrisen i 1962. Så Hillary Clintons nederlag er virkelig afslutningen af præsidentskaberne Bush’ og Obamas 16 år lange tyranni. Hvor hurtigt, vi kan vende politikken omkring under det nye Trump-præsidentskab, og i hvilken retning, udnævnelserne til hans administration vil gå, er alt sammen ukendte faktorer; vi har ingen vished om dem.

Det, vi ved, er, at især i kølvandet på APEC-topmødet, der netop er afsluttet i sidste uge i Lima, Peru, og som dernæst efterfulgtes af den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings statsbesøg til Peru og dernæst til Chile, og forud for topmødet var han i Ecuador; og vi ved, at der er en enorm mulighed derude for USA, under et Trump-præsidentskab, for netop at gå med i det, der altid har ligget på bordet som en åben invitation til USA; nemlig, at USA kan tilslutte sig projektet om Verdenslandbroen. For, uden et USA er det meget vanskeligt at opfatte dette som en Verdenslandbro, hvilket er det, verden virkelig har brug for lige nu. Der har været meget indledende telefondiskussioner mellem nyvalgte præsident Trump og den russiske præsident Putin; de synes at være blevet enige om at have et personligt topmøde hurtigt efter tiltrædelsen – som finder sted den 20. januar. Det er ligeledes tanken, at præsident Trump, efter tiltrædelsen, også ret hurtigt skal mødes med den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping. Jeg mener, at Lozansky-Jatrus-ideen om et trilateralt møde ville være ekstraordinært værdifuldt. Det er vigtigt at huske på, at, i 1944, var det præsident Franklin Roosevelts kurs i sine handlinger for at etablere De forenede Nationer – hvilket skete i 1945 – at inkludere både Sovjetunionen og Kina i FN’s Sikkerhedsråds fem permanente nationer. Husk på, at Roosevelt forstod, at der var imperiepolitikker, der stadig var kernen i Det britiske Imperium med Churchill, og på lignende måde med Frankrig. Så ideen med at have Rusland – dengang Sovjetunionen – og Kina i dette permanente Sikkerhedsråds kernegruppe, reflekterede den kendsgerning, at Roosevelt dengang så udsigten til denne form for et alliancesystem hen over Eurasien. Jeg mener, at der er en historisk baggrund, for netop denne form for russisk-kinesiske samarbejde, at se hen til her. I de seneste 15 år har det været en hjørnesten i Lyndon LaRouches globale politik med et USA-Rusland-Kina-Indien-samarbejde, især omkring videnskabelige programmer; især udforskning af rummet, som basis for global fred og udvikling. Så disse ideer er fremlagt.

Den 20. november sagde general Michael Flynn, kort tid efter, at han var blevet udnævnt af nyvalgte præsident Trump som national sikkerhedsrådgiver, i et interview med Fareed Zakhari på CNN, at, efter hans mening, var den eneste måde at håndtere problemerne med den jihadistiske terrortrussel i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika på længere sigt at have et globalt samarbejde omkring en Marshallplan – han brugte udtrykkeligt dette udtryk. Han sagde, hvis man ser på, hvad Europa var i stand til at præstere i kølvandet på Anden Verdenskrigs ødelæggelser, og den rolle, som Marshallplanen spillede; det var ikke det hele, men det var et vigtigt element i den økonomiske genrejsning efter krigen. Et perspektiv af denne art er virkelig den vindende strategi for at håndtere befolkningstilvæksten og spredningen af den saudisksponsorerede jihadisme i hele Mellemøsten/Nordafrika-området. Det går også ind i Sydvestasien.

Der findes altså enorme potentialer; de er i vid udstrækning foreløbigt ikke realiseret med hensyn til den forandring, der kommer med den ny administration. Men, som du sagde, Jason [Ross], så er der ingen grund til at vente til januar. Den nyvalgte præsident Trump krævede udtrykkeligt, i en tale i Charlotte, North Carolina, en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. Det er i begge de to store politiske partiers valgplatform for dette års valg; både Demokraterne og Republikanerne har vedtaget det. Det var en Trump-delegeret til GOP [Grand Old Party – det Republikanske Parti] komiteen for politisk strategi, der introducerede Glass-Steagall. Der er senatorerne Elizabeth Warren, og vigtigere endnu, Bernie Sanders, som siger, at de er villige til at række over midtergangen og arbejde sammen med Donald Trump, hvis samarbejdsspørgsmålene inkluderer og virkelig begynder med Glass-Steagall. Så dette er noget, der ikke behøver at vente til januar og tiltrædelsen og den nye Kongres. Der er fremstillet lovforslag for Glass-Steagall i både Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet. Et af forslagene i Huset har en ordlyd, der er identisk med Senatsforslaget. Som vi så det med vedtagelsen af underkendelsen af JASTA-vetoet, hvis lederskabet i Kongressen giver grønt lys, kan Glass-Steagall bringes til debat i begge huse og vedtages inden for få timer. Underkendelsen af JASTA-vetoet tog to timer om morgenen i USA’s Senat, og to en halv time eller så om eftermiddagen i Huset. Det opnåede man på en enkelt dag i Kongressen. Så der er ingen som helst grund til, at vi ikke omgående kan gennemføre det – i bogstavelig forstand i næste uge, når Kongressen atter samles efter Thanksgiving-ferien; og den vil sidde i de næste fire uger. Der er intet til hinder for, at vi kan få Glass-Steagall tilbage som landets lov før juleferien, så vi har det på plads til den nye administration; og tiden er rent ud sagt af afgørende betydning. Vi ved ikke, i betragtning af situationen med Deutsche Bank, med Royal Bank of Scotland, med de største, amerikanske for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-banker, der sidder på derivater til $252 billion. Det er 30 % mere end det var på tidspunktet for krakket i 2008. Det sidder på toppen af et meget tvivlsomt kapitalgrundlag på $14 billion; i virkeligheden er det sandsynligvis meget mindre end det, for nogle af de værdipapirer, som bliver talt med som kapitalreserver, er grundlæggende set illikvide og kan ikke – selv i nødstilfælde – gøres likvide.

Så vi kunne altså vågne i morgen, eller mandag morgen, eller midt i næste uge, og finde, at hele det transatlantiske banksystem er nedsmeltet. Så Glass-Steagall er altså et presserende hastespørgsmål; og det forudsætter dernæst de andre hovedelementer i LaRouches Fire Love. Det er et kreditsystem; investering i store infrastrukturprojekter; og en genoplivning af de mest avancerede, videnskabelige programmer, inklusive en storstilet tilbagevenden til rummet og det internationale arbejde for endelig at opnå det fulde gennembrud inden for fusion. Alle disse ting er på bordet, men igen, så er der ingen garantier; intet er blot tilnærmelsesvis sikkert mht., hvad det næste, der vil ske, bliver. Vi kan ånde lidt op, fordi faren for krig med Rusland og Kina er blevet meget reduceret; og der er en masse potentiale. Der er en masse af den form for overgang som fra Jimmy Carter til Ronald Reagan i luften som et potentiale; men intet af det er endnu fuldt ud realiseret. Folk må indse, at dette er et tidspunkt med store muligheder. Det vil blive et krav fra befolkningen under det rette lederskab, der er orienteret mod de rette politikker, der virkelig kan gribe muligheden. Hvis vi venter til januar eller februar næste år, hvem ved så, hvilke slags sabotageoperationer, man vil køre?

Man kan gå ind på Craigs Liste og finde dækgrupper for George Soros, såsom MoveOn.org og blacklivesmatter.org, der tilbyder $1500 om ugen for, at folk render rundt som idioter og protesterer imod resultatet af valget. Der er en hel del usikkerhed med hensyn til, hvad der foregår, samtidig med, at der er store muligheder. Vi må sikre os, at vi tager lederskabet mht. at gribe øjeblikket.

Ovenstående er første del af det Internationale Webcast; det engelske udskrift af hele webcastet følger her:

MAKE THE MOST OF THE OPENNESS IN POLICY NOW,
TO INSURE A NEW PARADIGM FOR THE UNITED STATES
BEFORE THE INAUGURATION
LaRouche PAC International Webcast, Saturday, November 26, 2016

        JASON ROSS:  Hi there!  Today is November 25, 2016; and
you're joining us for our regular webcast here from
larouchepac.com.  My name is Jason Ross; I'll be the host today.
I'm joined in the studio by Ben Deniston, my colleague here at
LaRouche PAC; and via video by Jeff Steinberg of Executive
Intelligence Review.
        This discussion is taking place 2.5 weeks after the November
8, 2016 Presidential election in the United States.  Since then,
we've seen a whirlwind of speculation about Cabinet appointments,
including some Cabinet appointments for the Trump administration.
We've also seen some significant international news, such as the
APEC summit which occurred last weekend; the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation summit that included very significantly new
Philippines' President Duterte and Chinese Xi Jinping among the
many leaders who were there.  At this conference, Duterte again
emphasized that the Philippines no longer considers itself to be
a US colony; and is pursuing an independent policy economically
with China, countering the attempts to create conflict, for
example, in the South China Sea.  President Xi Jinping went on a
tour of Latin America while he was at the APEC summit. So in
addition to Peru — which hosted the event — he also visited
Chile and Ecuador; where he spoke, among other things, about the
bioceanic corridor, a plan for a rail link between the Pacific
and Atlantic sides of South America; about setting up science
cities.  He was greeted by President Correa in Ecuador, who
considered Xi Jinping's trip the most significant event to occur
in Ecuador's history; based on the potential that it offered that
nation.
        So, this New Paradigm, being led politically and
economically at present by Russia and by China, comes as a result
of decades of organizing by the LaRouche Movement, by Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche; such that there is now a New Paradigm taking an
increasingly larger portion of the world in a very positive
direction.  Our job at present isn't to get the hottest news on
what Trump's appointments will be, etc.  It is to shape US
policy; as we successfully did in forcing an override against
Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
And as we stand poised to do now with getting the Congress —
during this lame duck session — to implement Glass-Steagall, the
necessary first step for an economic recovery.  Glass-Steagall is
the law that Franklin Roosevelt had put in place that created 60+
years of stable, boring, stable productive banking in the United
States; rather than the kind of gambling that we see now.
        Let me pull up this chart [Fig. 1] just to show a bit of
this success that we've seen along the Chinese economic program.
Along the One Belt, One Road nations which includes both the —
there's two components to China's project on this; the Silk Road
economic belt, which you see the nations in blue, and the 21st
Century Maritime Silk Road in orange.  Together, China refers to
this in Chinese as the "One Belt, One Road" initiative; in
English, often just the Belt and Road initiative.  As far as the
potential that this holds, these are just some of the figures:
20,000 km of high-speed rail in China, all built within the last
decade — more than the rest of the world combined; tens of
billions of dollars of direct investment into nations of the
region; an increase in services contracts of over 33% in just one
year along the One Belt, One Road; the Export/Import Bank of
China has outstanding involvement in over 1000 projects, and just
recently has signed up about 500 new projects along the Belt and
Road nations.  China is extending 150,000 scholarships offering
training for 500,000 for professionals for training in China; has
set up 500 Confucius institutes around the world, has initiated
over a dozen economic cooperation zones; free trade agreements,
and is engaged currently in over 40 energy projects — including
about 20 that were just set up this year among One Belt, One Road
nations.
        So, how can we become a part of this?  Well, a proposal was
made in the November 21st issue of {Chronicles} magazine by
Edward Lozansky and Jim Jatrus.  Losansky is the President of the
American University in Moscow.  They wrote an article called,
"The Big Three: America, Russia, and China Must Join Hands for
Security, Prosperity, and Peace".  Two excerpts.  They open their
article, "With the defeat of Hillary Clinton by Donald Trump, we
may never know how close America and all mankind came to nuclear
war."  In describing the world situation, they end with a
proposal: "President Donald Trump can correct the mistakes of
past U.S. presidents. Rather than adversaries Russia and China
can become Americaâs essential partners and are, we are
convinced, ready to respond positively. Itâs time for Trump and
America to take the initiative for U.S-Russia-China cooperation
towards a secure, prosperous, and peaceful future.  A
Trump-Putin-Xi 'Big Three Summit' should be a priority for the
new U.S. Presidentâs first 100 days."
        So, I'd like to ask Jeff Steinberg to fill out the world
picture, and detail for our viewers what are the flanks, what are
the handles, the levers that we have for shifting US policy at
this time?

JEFFREY STEINBERG:  Thanks, Jason.  For starters, it's very
important to realize that we're in a period of significant flux.
There are certain things that we know about the consequences of
the US Presidential elections and other Federal elections on
November 8th.  And I think Lozansky and Jatrus made one very
fundamental point quite clearly:  That there was a very grave
danger based on the campaign rhetoric of Hillary Clinton, based
on the policies that were pursued even ever more aggressively
towards the end of his eight years in office by President Barack
Obama; that we were headed for the worst crisis between the
United States and Russia that we ever experienced — worse
perhaps even than the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.  So, the
defeat of Hillary Clinton really is the end of the 16-year
tyranny of the Bush and Obama Presidencies.  How rapidly we can
turn the policies around under the new Trump Presidency, where
the Cabinet appointments are going to go, these are all unknowns;
they're not certain to us.
        So, we do know that particularly in the aftermath of the
APEC summit meeting that just concluded last week in Lima, Peru,
which was then followed by state visits by Chinese President Xi
Jinping to Peru and then to Chile afterwards; and prior to the
summit, he was in Ecuador.  We know that there's a tremendous
opportunity out there for the United States, under a Trump
Presidency, to precisely join in what has always been on the
table as an open invitation to the United States; namely, for the
United States to join in the World Land-Bridge project.  Because
without the United States, it's very difficult to conceive of
this as a World Land-Bridge; which is really what the world
requires right now.  There have been very preliminary phone
discussions between President-elect Trump and Russian President
Putin; they seem to have reached an agreement that they will have
a face-to-face summit meeting soon after the inauguration —
which is January 20th.  The idea, similarly, is for President
Trump, once he's inaugurated, to also meet quite soon with
Chinese President Xi Jinping.  I think the Lozansky-Jatrus idea
of a trilateral meeting would be extraordinarily valuable.  I
think it's important to remember that in 1944, the orientation of
President Franklin Roosevelt in the move to establish the United
Nations — which happened in 1945 — was to include both the
Soviet Union and China among the permanent five nations of the UN
Security Council.  Remember, Roosevelt understood that there were
imperial policies that were still at the core of the British
Empire with Churchill, and similarly with France.  So, the idea
of having Russia — the Soviet Union at the time — and China in
this permanent Security Council core grouping, reflected the fact
that Roosevelt at that time saw the prospect of that kind of an
alliance system across Eurasia.  So, I think that's there's an
historical basis to look to here for exactly this kind of
Russia-China cooperation.  For the last 15 years, a cornerstone
of Lyndon LaRouche's of global policy has been a
US-Russia-China-India cooperation, particularly on scientific
programs; especially space exploration, as the basis for global
peace and development.  So, those ideas are out there.
        On November 20th, soon after he was named by President-elect
Trump to be the National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn,
in an interview with Fareed Zakhari on CNN, said that in his
view, the only way to deal with the long-term problem of the
jihadist, terrorist threat in the Middle East and North Africa,
was for there to be a global cooperation on a Marshall Plan — he
used that term explicitly.  He said, if you look at what Europe
was able to accomplish in the aftermath of the devastation of
World War II, and the role that the Marshall Plan played; it was
not the whole thing, but it was an important element of the
postwar recovery.  That kind of perspective is really the winning
strategy for dealing with the population growth and this spread
of Saudi-sponsored jihadism throughout the Middle East-North
Africa region.  It extends into Southeast Asia as well.
        So, there are great potentialities; they are largely as yet
unrealized in terms of the change coming with the new
administration.  But I think, Jason, as you correctly said, there
is no reason to wait for January.  President-elect Trump, in a
major campaign speech in Charlotte, North Carolina, explicitly
called for reinstating Glass-Steagall.  It's in the platforms of
both major political parties from this year's elections; the
Democrats and the Republicans both adopted it.  It was a Trump
delegate to the policy committee of the GOP who introduced the
Glass-Steagall.  You've got Senators Elizabeth Warren, and more
importantly, Senator Bernie Sanders, saying that they're prepared
to reach across the aisle and work with Donald Trump if the
issues for collaboration include and really start with
Glass-Steagall.  So, this is something that does not have to wait
for January and the inauguration and the new Congress.  There are
Glass-Steagall bills in both the House and the Senate.  One of
the House bills has the identical language as the Senate bill.
As we saw with the JASTA veto override vote, if the Congressional
leadership gives the green lights, then Glass-Steagall can be
brought to the floor of both houses and can be debated and voted
within a matter of hours.  The override of JASTA took two hours
in the morning for the US Senate, and two and a half or so hours
in the afternoon for the House.  It was accomplished in one
legislative day.  So, there's no reason whatsoever that we can't
move immediately — literally next week when Congress is back in
session after Thanksgiving; and they're there for three weeks.
There's no reason that we should not have Glass-Steagall back as
the law of the land before the Christmas recess.  So that we hit
the ground running with the new administration; and frankly, time
is of the essence.  We don't know, given the situation with
Deutsche Bank, with Royal Bank of Scotland, the largest US
too-big-to-fail banks are sitting on $252 trillion in
derivatives.  That's 30% more than it was at the time of the 2008
crash.  That's on top of a very questionable capital base of $14
trillion; the reality is that it's probably much less than that,
because some of the assets that are allowed to be counted as the
capital reserves, are basically illiquid and can't be — even on
an emergency basis — made liquid.
        So, we could wake up tomorrow morning, or Monday morning, or
the middle of next week, and find that the entire trans-Atlantic
banking system has blown out.  So, Glass-Steagall is an urgent,
immediate issue; and it then begs the other three key elements of
LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws.  Which is a credit system;
investment in major infrastructure projects; and a revival of the
most advanced scientific programs, including a major return to
space and the work internationally to finally achieve the full
breakthrough on fusion.  All of these things are on the table,
but again, there are no guarantees, there's nothing that's even
remotely certain about what's going to come next.  We can breathe
a little easier because danger of war with Russia, with China is
greatly reduced; and there's a lot of potentiality.  There's a
lot of the kind of transition from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan
in the air as a potential; but none of it is fully realized yet.
So, people are going to have to realize this is a moment of great
opportunity.  It's going to be an outpouring of the population
under the right kind of leadership, directed at the right
policies, that can really seize the opportunity.  If we wait
until January of February of next year, who knows what kind of
sabotage operations are going to be run?
        You can go on Craig's List and find George Soros front
groups, like MoveOn.org and blacklivesmatter.org, offering $1500
a week for people to run around like idiots, protesting against
the outcome of the election. There's a great deal of uncertainty,
in terms of what's going on, at the same time that there's great
opportunity. We've got to make sure that we take the lead in
seizing the moment.

ROSS: Great! Thanks! In terms of the long-term outlook of where
we're going to go, what our policy should be, a major aspect of
this goes beyond legislation that affects us only here on Earth.
A major component, in fact the fourth component of the Four Laws
of Mr. LaRouche, the last one being the fusion driver crash
program, is connected with our existence beyond the planet, also
out in space. Ben wrote an article that's going to be in the
upcoming issue of the Hamiltonian about what a U.S. space
policy ought to be, and about the really long-term goals that we
have to have, and why this is important and essential. So, could
you tell us about that, Ben?

        BENJAMIN DENISTON: Gladly! As viewers are aware, this has
been an ongoing subject of discussion. Mr. LaRouche, as Jason is
saying, has put a major, major focus on, as a critical part of
the needed recovery program and the future of mankind. In this
article we tried to elevate people's thinking about space,
especially in the context of so many years and administrations
and decades of just zero-growth policies.
        One thing that's being discussed now, which is interesting
and useful, is how much NASA has been hijacked for this global
warming crap. A lot of NASA's budget has been redirected to
"Earth sciences." Not all Earth sciences are bad. There's a lot
of interesting science to learn about the Earth. But Earth
sciences is often a front to push this fraud of some man-made
global warming crisis. So, there's some discussion about NASA
being redirected away from wasting their time on this phony,
phony, fake crisis, which is not something we need to be
concerned about, and redirecting back to exploration. Surprise,
surprise. The Moon has come back now as a central subject of the
discussion. Anybody who had any sense would realize that once
Obama was out, this crazy asteroid mission [The Asteroid Impact
and Deflection Assessment (AIDA) mission] would likely be tossed
aside. Anybody who is serious would recognize that the Moon is
the next place to get back to.
        As Jeff was referencing, there's a lot of discussion, a lot
of openness. From our work and discussions with Mr. LaRouche, I
think it's critical to really raise the level of discussion to
the right basis. We can have exciting missions, we can have
inspiring missions, but the question to ask is: are we going to
have a program where the investments are going to be the basis
for creating a whole new level of activity, that will allows us
to do orders of magnitude more than we were able to do prior to
that investment? Is this going to create what Mr. LaRouche had
once defined as a "physical-economic platform?" Is this going to
create an entirely new platform of activity, of potential — of
infrastructure, of energy-flux density of technologies — which
comes together to support a qualitatively new level of potential
activity for mankind?
        That is the issue we want to put on the table right now.
This goes directly to the vision of Krafft Ehricke, the early
space pioneer who worked very closely with Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche in the '80s, who was one of the leading space
visionaries, who had outlined in great detail the initial basis
of mankind expanding to really becoming a Solar System species.
I'm going to get back to his work in a minute. Mr. LaRouche's
concept of the "platform" is really critical. He introduced this,
I think it was around the year 2010, 2009, something like that.
He was coming up against a real lack of understanding of the
significance of what "infrastructure" really means, in its true
scientific sense. Unfortunately, this has become somewhat of a
buzzword that a lot of people throw out there. "We need to
rebuild our infrastructure" has become a kind of a hot
campaign-trail word to use to get some support.
        The real understanding of what qualitative revolutions in
infrastructure systems mean for mankind's continual creative
progress is not connected to the way most people use that term.
Mr. LaRouche defined the very profound and critical assessment of
looking at the development of human civilization in these stages
of platforms. He said, go back to thousands of years ago, when
the dominant cultures were trans-oceanic maritime cultures. What
you began to see, with the development of inland waterways,
inland river systems — he had put a big point on what
Charlemagne was doing during his reign in central Europe in
developing these canal systems and river systems — was a
qualitative revolution above what had existed prior, with these
trans-oceanic civilizations: the development of these inland
waterways. That defined a new platform of activity that supported
a qualitative leap in what civilization was able to accomplish.
        The next leap came with the development of rail systems,
railroads, especially trans-continental railroads, typified by
what Lincoln had spearheaded with the trans-continental railroad
across America. With these rail systems, with the new
technologies of steam engines powering these rail systems, the
higher energy-flux density of coal-powered steam engines, this
enabled mankind to begin to develop the interior regions of the
continent, in completely new ways, and defined a totally new
relationship of mankind, of civilization, to the environment
around him. It defined a qualitative increase in mankind's
"potential relative population density," as LaRouche had
developed that metric for understanding the science of economic
growth. It made things that were at one point incredibly
expensive or challenging or risky, become just day-to-day regular
activities.
        I think back to the early phases of these frontier
explorations of the American Continent. You go back to the Lewis
and Clark Expeditions, where to travel from the east coast across
the entire mainland of the continent to the west coast required
someone like the leading skilled frontiersmen, and a very
dangerous, very challenging mission, which was a very brave
undertaking for a handful of people to actually be able to
accomplish that. Some decades later, with the rail system, with
the infrastructure of this railroad platform, any family could do
this. With your young children, you could hop on the rail line
and get across the country. Any entrepreneur could come out and
take advantage of the development of new territories that were
completely inaccessible before. It was a complete transformation
in our most fundamental ability to exist on the planet in these
different territories.
        Now what does this have to do with space? This is how we
should be thinking about space exploration, space
development–things that we view today as incredibly expensive,
difficult, dangerous missions. We should be thinking now what
kind of investments can we make to ensure that those then become
regular, day-to-day even, activities that we can support very
easily. What will it take to create a Solar System
physical-economic platform that will enable mankind to do much
more, much easier, than we can today? That's the metric we want
to set. That's the measuring rod we want to utilize, to determine
what kind of space program, what kind of policy we need today.
        In breaking this down, this might not include everything,
but in some of our work in the Basement with our discussions on
this subject, I think we can really, very usefully look at three
categories of activity — three categories of infrastructure and
technologies — which define the basis, you could say the
pillars, of a Solar System platform, of an ability to
qualitatively expand mankind's ability to access the Solar System
in completely new ways, to make things we currently view as
singular flagship missions, [into] just regular, easy activities
that we can do, orders of magnitude more of than we can now.

What we want to look at are these three categories of activity:

(1) Access to space. What's our ability to get from Earth's
surface up into Earth orbit? Initial basic access to space.

(2) Travelling in space. Getting around the Solar System. Getting
from one planetary body to the next.

(3) Developing resources. Developing the capabilities to utilize
the resources available to us throughout the Solar System, not
having to take everything with us everywhere we go, but be able
to develop the wealth that's available out there; to utilize it
on site and transport it around, even bringing stuff back to
Earth that we can't necessarily get from Earth.

        If you look at these three pillars, these three categories
together, and if you make qualitative breakthroughs in each of
these together, this really comes together to define a new
platform of activity, a new standard that will enable the kind of
leap that will transition us from viewing space as a Lewis and
Clark style expedition, to a trans-continental railroad style
relationship to the Solar System.
        I just want to take a couple minutes and go through just
some sense of what areas we can see breakthroughs in each of
these categories. Go to the first slide we have displayed. [Fig.
1] It has been said that getting from Earth's surface to low
Earth orbit, is half-way to anywhere in the Solar System. In a
certain sense that's very true. If you have a sense of the
scales, that might sound very, very strange, because, just in
terms of distance, low Earth orbit [begins] about 160 km, about
100 miles, up above your head. If you want to travel to the Moon,
you're talking about hundreds of thousands of miles. If you want
to travel to another planet, you're talking about millions of
miles.
        It's a little funny to think that the first 100 miles,
compared to hundreds of thousands or millions, is actually half
of the trip. But if you look at the energy requirements and what
it takes to actually start from just being on the Earth's surface
and getting into orbit, that is the case. It is a tremendous
amount of energy requirement to get from Earth's surface up into
Earth orbit.
        The graphic here displays this, in terms of travel from
Earth's surface to different planetary bodies, measured in the
standard terms used for Solar System travel, which is your change
in speed. To get into Earth orbit requires not just going up 100
miles, but actually changing your speed, from your current
velocity sitting here on the Earth, to something that will allow
you to stay in orbit. If you want to change orbits, or travel
around, you can measure that, in terms of changes in velocity.
So that happens to be the metric here; but you can see the lowest
dark blue bar on each of these graphics shows that literally far
more than half of the requirement is just getting from Earth's
surface to Earth orbit.

        ROSS:  So, this is half of the speed that you're getting;
this doesn't mean half of the energy, or half of the fuel, or
anything like that.

        DENISTON:  Yeah.  Once you start to include that, it would
be even more energy requirements; because you've got to lift your
fuel that you're going to use for the different travels into
orbit with you.  It definitely gets a little more detailed if you
want to get into it, but this is literally the change in speed
requirements to get into Earth orbit and then to leave Earth
orbit is very significant.
        So, there's improvements being made in rocket systems to get
up more efficiently, but there are new technologies that are just
sitting there on the horizon; they've been sitting there for
decades, frankly, that would dramatically lower the cost, lower
the requirements, and the point is, dramatically increase the
accessibility of space to mankind.  One technology that has been
discussed for a long time is space planes.  Here in the graphic
you can see a relatively recent article covering studies in China
on interest in China to develop what some people call
single-stage-to-orbit space planes.  So, you can get on a plane
on a runway — it's probably going to be a little bit longer than
your standard runway for airplane travel — and you can ride a
single space plane from the runway all the way up into Earth
orbit.  A lot of this depends upon much more advanced engine
designs that can utilize the oxygen in the atmosphere at higher
speeds and at higher altitudes to continue to provide thrust.
But these things could dramatically lower the cost, the energy
requirements of getting people and payloads up into Earth orbit;
far more than a lot of the discussion about these reusable
rockets and some of the developments going on in improving rocket
systems to get from Earth's surface into Earth orbit.

        ROSS:  This is a technology that was in LaRouche's "Woman on
Mars" video from the 1980s, right?  It talked about beginning
with an airplane, and then turning into a rocket.  The big
benefit being that you can use the oxygen in the atmosphere
instead of carrying it with you, is that right?  Is that what
makes this more effective?

        DENISTON:  Yeah, absolutely.  These rocket systems have to
carry the oxygen as part of the rocket to combust to provide the
thrust.  These are more innovative engine designs —
air-breathing engines that can use the oxygen in the atmosphere.
As you said, this has been researched in the United States with
different scramjet designs.  Yeah, Mr. LaRouche featured some of
this, which he had developed I think in some close discussion
with some Italian colleagues at the time in his collaboration
with the Fusion Energy Foundation; and had made it a major part
of his "Woman on Mars" mission.
        But this is being developed; this is live.  Again, you're
seeing clear interest in China; there's interest in the United
States; there's a company in the United Kingdom that's developing
very interesting engine designs that can utilize these
capabilities.  If you want to take it a step further, another
thing that's been discussed is using vacuum tube maglev
technologies to launch from Earth orbit into space.  This might
be a little more frontier and not quite as around the corner as
these space planes; but this is the kind of stuff that we should
be thinking about.  Again, the point is, completely
revolutionizing mankind's access to low-Earth orbit and then to
the Solar System.  So, this is the first major hurdle.  If you
get some solid infrastructure developments that can enable
mankind to overcome this hurdle more easily, you're creating the
basis for a much broader expansion of mankind's activity.
        The next pillar, the next category is travel in space.  And
again, this is an issue that Mr. LaRouche has been campaigning on
for decades.  Space travel requires nuclear reactions; chemical
fuel just doesn't have the energy density to provide quick and
efficient access to the Solar System.  We can get to the Moon;
that's OK.  It probably would be nice to get there a little bit
quicker, but that's our next door neighbor in terms of the Solar
System.  If you want to get to Mars, you want to get around to
other places in the Solar System, you've got to get to nuclear
reactions.  The heart of this is the fact that the energy
density, the energy per mass of nuclear reactions is, on average,
on the order of a million times greater than the energy per mass
in chemical reactions; even as broad categories, setting aside
the particular fuel you use in either case.
        A million times is just a big number, but for one quick
comparison, you take the fuel used for the Space Shuttle launch
— those two solid rocket boosters on either side, the large tank
in the middle filled with liquid fuel.  You take the weight of
all that fuel together, some of the most advanced chemical
reactions we have for fuel for space launch; how much weight of
nuclear fuel would it take to contain the same amount of energy?
You're talking about 10 pounds!  One suitcase full of nuclear
fuel contains the same amount of energy as all three fuel tanks
of the Space Shuttle.  To be fair, you couldn't necessarily use
that fuel the same way to launch the Space Shuttle; you have to
have systems that can actually combust it and get thrust out of
it.  It's not just the energy content as the only issue, but that
is the defining characteristic that makes nuclear reactions key
to getting around the Solar System; enabling things like
travelling at constant acceleration.  Instead of just initially
firing your thruster and basically floating on an orbit to get to
different planetary bodies — which is what's often proposed for
getting people to Mars; which would take on the order of six,
seven, eight months to do.  If you had nuclear reactions —
especially fusion reactions — you can be accelerating for half
the trip, and decelerating the second half of the trip; you can
cut that time down to weeks or even days.
        We were all excited that New Horizons got to Pluto.
Unfortunately, it didn't have the fuel in it and the engines to
slow down when it got there; which is too bad, because it spent
ten years getting there, and even just passing by in the course
of a couple of weeks, found amazing things.  Imagine if it
actually got to stop and stay?  If you had nuclear reactions,
that the type of stuff you could be doing.  If you had
one-gravity acceleration, so you're constantly accelerating,
providing the thrust that creates the equivalent of one Earth
gravity for the crew on the space ship, it would literally take
16 days to get to Pluto.  Compared to New Horizons taking ten
years to get there; that's when the orbits are closest, but maybe
a few more days in sub-optimal conditions.
        You're talking about a complete revolution in our ability to
efficiently get around the Solar System; travel to different
planetary bodies; visit multiple locations.  If you want to send
people to Mars, this is the way to do it.  If you want to send
people out to other places, this is the way to do it.  Even
robotic missions; you want to get around and do way more
exploration.  There's so much we don't know about all these
planets, about their moons; there's just so much to figure out.
These are the kinds of systems that are going to create vast
improvements in our ability to do it.
        And again, the third category is developing the resources in
space; developing the ability to utilize what's available to us
on the Moon, on Mars, on different asteroids.  This is something
we don't really do at all, yet.  So, you have to bring basically
everything with you through that very costly energy-intensive
first hurdle of getting from Earth's surface up into Earth orbit,
through travelling the vast distances of space.  This is just
this very early pioneer style mode of activity.  Whereas, if
we're going to be serious about this, we need to develop the
capabilities to utilize the resources that are there; and
eventually look to serious industrialization and development of
advanced systems out in space, on-site at different planetary
bodies.  One critical driver to this whole thing that we've put a
major focus on is the development of helium-3 from the Moon.
Helium-3 being an absolutely unique, excellent fusion fuel; which
is basically absent on Earth, but relatively abundant all over
the lunar surface, and could be an excellent fuel for fusion
propulsion in space and also to provide electricity energy back
here on Earth.  There's been years of serious study and designs
and investigations of how to go to the Moon, develop the systems
to process the regala[ph], extract the helium-3; and initiate
real industrial-style processes; developments on the lunar
surface.  That's just one example.  You want to get oxygen,
hydrogen, metals; asteroids are also potentially very useful
places to develop the resources.  So, as a third category, the
general idea of developing advanced capabilities to utilize and
create what we need in different regions of the Solar System.
        If you put this together and look at these things
synergistically as integrated technologies, infrastructure
systems, levels of energy flux density; as a whole they define
for mankind a completely different relationship to the Solar
System.  The question is, are we making investments that are
bringing us to that level?  Can we say that the investments we're
going to make in this next administration are going to be taking
mankind in that direction, to be able to support these
qualitatively higher levels of activity to the point where we can
honestly look back in a couple of generations and see the space
activity going on now as equivalent to Lewis and Clark style
explorations of the West; and have mankind have the capabilities
to regularly visit many planetary bodies and do all we want
around the Solar System?  That's the vision that we need.
        We were talking about this with Mr. LaRouche earlier today,
and he again said, "Your starting point is Krafft Ehricke."  And
Krafft Ehricke's industrialization of the Moon really I think is
the critical driver program that can get a lot of this going.  As
I said, we have helium-3 on the Moon; that puts fusion directly
right there on the table.  You're talking about developing
industrial capabilities and mining capabilities on the Moon.  If
you're serious about doing this, you want to increase our access
to space from the Earth's surface.  So, it is excellent that
we're seeing a lot of discussion about the Moon coming on the
table again; but I think the issue is, are we going to pursue
this Krafft Ehricke vision for a real industrial development?
Although he might have used different terms in discussing it, he
had exactly the same conception that Mr. LaRouche has:  That this
is the basis for mankind's much broader expanse.  Really the
essential nature of the type of qualitative changes that mankind
goes through in his natural growth and development as a very
unique species on this Earth and hopefully tomorrow in the Solar
System.
        As Jason mentioned, some of this is discussed in an article
that's going to be released in the next issue of the
Hamiltonian.  This is an ongoing subject of discussion, but
with the openness now, I really think it's critical we set the
level of discussion on that basis.

        ROSS:  Mmhmm; that's aiming pretty high, that's good.  I
think that's a really apt description that you got about
comparing Lewis and Clark.  It used to be a really difficult
thing to cross the continent; now it isn't.  Or think about the
Silk Road.  The ancient Silk Road.  If you're trying the develop
that region of the planet with camel caravans, and you contrast
that with what China is able to do now with building rail
networks and helping build them and road networks in these
neighboring countries; you totally transform the relationship to
that area.  The old development of human settlements along
coasts, along oceans or along rivers; and then by the chemical
revolution, by the ability to have steam power — also canals
earlier, but still connected to water; but with steam power, it
made it possible to open up the interior of the continents.  And
with the potential for nuclear power, then the Solar System
becomes something that's accessible to us in a meaningful or more
regular way than an exotic, years-long, life-threatening trip.
        The other aspect, which you talked about is, if you look at
what's going on with the New Paradigm in the world; what China's
doing, with the way things are being reshaped politically also
around Russia.  And then you look at the scientific advancements
that are being made, where China's got a very top-line in the
world super-conducting tokamak for fusion research.  The major
breakthroughs in terms of lunar exploration — that's China right
now; China's going to be landing on the far side of the Moon;
China had the first soft landing on the Moon in decades.  This is
really a potential.  With their far side of the Moon landing,
China will be able to take the first photographs of our universe
in the very low radio range; it's never been done before.  We'll
have access to a whole new sense of sight about the universe
around us.
        So, I think it's very exciting.  It's definitely much more
thrilling than most of the discussion that takes place about this
policy or that policy, when you think big like that.

DENISTON:  Mr. LaRouche's platform concept is so key.  People
just don't have the idea of this type of qualitative leaps that
are natural for mankind.  People are so accustomed at this point
to just slow, incremental progress if there's any progress at
all.  It's going to be a fight to get people to think on this
level again.

        ROSS:  Yes!  So much of what is considered to be progressive
or useful is only nudging people toward being better savers or
something; compared to the kinds of huge changes that are going
to be needed.  I think that's a very good image that we've given
people.  Let's end it with that.  I think the thing to take from
this also is that we have got a lot that we need to do; a lot of
policies to put into place; and a wide open opportunity to make
it happen right now.  Including, as Jeff was emphasizing,
Glass-Steagall is absolutely doable during this session of
Congress; even before the inauguration of the next President and
the next Congress in January.  This is something we can do right
now, next week, in this period.
        The ability to understand this concept of the platforms, of
the history of economic development of the United States, a real
major aspect of economic science, comes through studying
Alexander Hamilton.  So, if you have not been working through
Alexander Hamilton's reports, I urge you to get in touch with —
if you're near one of our offices, one of our locations, to join
us for these readings.  Get a copy of these reports yourself.
The book, Alexander Hamilton's Vision contains all four of the
reports, along with Mr. LaRouche's Four New Laws to Save the USA
Now.  And you don't have to get into a fistfight at a Walmart
parking lot to pick it up, either.
        Let's end it with that.  Please sign up through our website
if you haven't already, to find out how to get involved with us.
Get our daily email, join us via the action center; let's be in
touch, and let's make this happen right now.  There is nothing to
wait for; the situation is open.  So, thank you for joining us;
thank you to Ben and Jeff.  Thank you for all the work that you
have done and that you will do in the period immediately ahead.

 

               

                  

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 18. november, 2016; International Webcast – Det står nu helt klart, at hele det tidligere regeringssystem, det gamle system, brat og endegyldigt har nået slutningen. Men spørgsmålet lyder stadig: Hvad skal erstatte det? Og dette er langt fra konkret eller afklaret på nuværende tidspunkt. Det lederskab, som LaRouchePAC har ydet, og fortsat yder, udgør den afgørende faktor i dette spørgsmål – både på den nationale og den internationale scene. Det er meget tydeligt, at dynamikken nu er skiftet over mod det, Xi Jinping har anført med den Nye Silkevej og med samarbejdet med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin omkring skabelsen af en ny, strategisk og økonomisk, international orden; og det er bestemmende for verdensbegivenhederne i øjeblikket, og som går langt ud over noget, der finder sted på den hjemlige front, internt i USA. Spørgsmålet er, hvordan responderer vi til det?

LaRouchePAC fortsætter med at lede; og, som vi diskuterede i mandags, så var dette en meget vigtig uge. Kongressen samledes igen – selv om det kun var for nogle få dage; men, på stedet dér, for at byde medlemmerne af USA’s Kongres velkommen, så snart de vendte tilbage til Washington, var nogle af vore førende aktivister fra Larouche Political Action Committee (LPAC). Vi havde en dag med aktioner på stedet ved Capitol Hill onsdag; og vi mødte ganske afgjort en totalt rystet og langt mere åben situation, end vi har set i de seneste måske 16 år i Washington, D.C. Både det Republikanske lederskab og absolut det Demokratiske lederskab har fået alvorlige tæsk; og de mest mentalt sunde aspekter i begge partier er ved at indse, at tiden er inde til at forlige sig med det. Hvor skal de se hen for lederskab? Til LaRouche Political Action Committee.

Vi vil nu afspille et kort uddrag af en diskussion, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche anførte. Dette er bemærkninger, som hun gav til aktivisterne som en slags marchordre, før de tog til Washington. Hun giver en meget klar gennemgang af præcis den situation, vi er i, og det ansvar, vi har. Efter dette korte klip fortsætter vi diskussionen med nogle meget mere uddybende synspunkter om det, vi nu har været i stand til at opnå, og hvilke udfordringer, vi har foran os.

(For en dansk oversættelse af hele Helgas indslag, se http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=16093)

     Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast November 18, 2016

 

OUR ROLE MUST BE TO SHAPE THE INSTITUTION OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE VERY HIGHEST LEVEL.

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening.  It's November 18, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden and you're joining us for our weekly
webcast from larouchepac.com.  I'm joined in the studio by

Benjamin Deniston, and via video by members of our Policy
Committee:  Diane Sare, joining us from New York City; and Kesha
Rogers, joining us from Houston, Texas.
        We had the opportunity just now to have a discussion with
both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, and I think Mr. LaRouche's point
is very clear.  It is decisively determined that the entire
reigning former system, the old system, has abruptly and
decisively come to an end.  But the question still remains:  What
will replace it?  And that is far from concrete or finalized at
this point.  The leadership that the LaRouche PAC has delivered
and continues to deliver, is the deciding factor in that — both
nationally and on the international stage.  It's very clear that
the dynamic is now shifted towards what Xi Jinping has led in
China with the New Silk Road and in collaboration with Russian
President Vladimir Putin in creating a new strategic and economic
international order; and that is what is determining world events
right now, far beyond anything that's happening domestically from
within the borders of the United States.  The question is, how do
we respond to that?
        The LaRouche PAC continues to lead; and as we discussed on
Monday with the Policy Committee, this was a very important week.
Congress came back into session — albeit for just a couple of
days; but there to greet the members of the United States
Congress as soon as they returned to Washington were some of the
leading activists of the LaRouche Political Action Committee.  We
had a day of action on the ground on Capitol Hill on Wednesday;
and we definitely met a completely shaken up and much more open
situation than we have faced in perhaps the last 16 years in
Washington, DC.  Both the Republican leadership and absolutely
the Democratic leadership have received a severe drubbing; and
the most sane aspects of both parties are realizing that now is
the time to come to terms with that.  Where else can they turn
for leadership?  The LaRouche Political Action Committee.
        So, what we're going to do right now is play a short excerpt
from a discussion that was led by Helga Zepp-LaRouche.  These are
remarks that she delivered to those activists as sort of marching
orders before they went to Washington, DC.  I think she gives a
very clear overview of exactly the situation we find ourselves
in, and the responsibilities that we have.  Coming out of that
short audio clip, we will continue the discussion with some much
more elaborated views of what we have now been able to
accomplish, and what the challenges still are ahead of us.  So,
let me play that clip for you right now:

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE :  OK.  So, first of
all, I want to say hello to you.  Obviously, this is a very
important intervention because the election results in the United
States, which many people did not anticipate, is really part of a
global process.  It's not something which is accountable in all
the explanations given by the US media; for the most part, the
cover-up or some phony explanation like it was the FBI who cost
Hillary the election and so forth and so on.  What really is
going on strategically is that the masses of the population of
the trans-Atlantic sector in particular — also in some other
parts of the world, but in Europe and the United States in
particular — have really had it with an establishment which has
consistently acted against their interests.  People in those
states which are not represented by the anti-establishment, they
know that; because for them, the working and living conditions in
the last decades one can say, but in particular in the last 15
years, have become worse and worse.  People have to work more
jobs; they still can't make ends meet.  They have many cases
where their sons and sometimes even daughters have gone to Iraq
for five times in a row, to come home to be completely broken.
So, people have experienced that life is just getting worse for
them; and they do not have any hope in the Washington-New York
establishment.  You had the same phenomenon leading to the Brexit
vote in Great Britain in June; which also was not just the
refugees and most of the obvious issues — even though they did
play a certain catalyzing role; but it was the same fundamental
sense of injustice.  That there is simply no more government
which takes care of the common good.  Whatever explanations they
now come up with, this will not go away until the situation is
remedied, and good government is being re-established in the
United States, in Europe, and in other parts of the world.
        One immediate next point where the same kind of resentment
probably will show is with the referendum in Italy where on the
4th of December — that is, in 2.5 weeks from now — they will
have a referendum about a change in the constitution which as the
sentiment now goes, will be also a vote against the Renzi
government.  Even so, he promised he would resign; now, he
doesn't want to resign.  But in any case, this type of a process
will continue until a remedy has been put in.
        Now, obviously, the situation is that the Trump victory is
an open question.  It's not yet clear what this Presidency will
become; but as Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized emphatically almost
every day since the vote, this is not a local US affair.  This is
a global issue; it's a global international question because one
major reason why Trump won the election is because especially in
the last period, he had emphasized that Hillary Clinton would
mean World War III because of her policy concerning Syria.  She
demanded the no-fly zone and was proposing a head-on
confrontation with Russia.  That was absolutely to the point,
because we were on an absolutely very dangerous road to a
confrontation with Russia and with China.
        Trump in the election campaign had said repeatedly that he
would have a different attitude towards Russia; and he said
something more kinetic[?] things against China.  But since he has
been elected, he has been on the phone with Putin and Xi Jinping;
and in both cases, said that he would work to improve the
relations between the United States and Russia or respectively
with China.  Now that is obviously extremely important; and the
other extremely important question is will he carry through with
his promise on Glass-Steagall?  Especially in his speech in
Charlotte, he had reiterated that he would immediately implement
Glass-Steagall.  Obviously this is the key, because only if one
stops and terminates the casino economy which is really the cause
for the war, can the situation be brought in shape.  Obviously,
all the progressives — Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren; even
Pelosi said that they would already cooperate with Trump if he
would go for this infrastructure job creation Glass-Steagall
economic program.
        So, we should give the benefit of the doubt that he really
means it; but we should also be aware that naturally, the entire
Wall Street crowd, the neo-cons in the Republican Party will do
everything possible to not have that.  So therefore, we have to
have this intervention to really educate the Congress and the
Senate on what is really at stake.  The world is now really
looking, holding their breath; will there be a change in American
policy for the better?  Which hopefully it will; but it requires
these measures:  Glass-Steagall as an absolute precondition
without which nothing else will work.  But that is not enough,
because you are not just talking about banking reform; you are
talking about a completely new paradigm in the economic system.
That has been defined by the Four Laws of Lyn, which everybody
should really make sure that they completely understand when you
are doing this kind of lobbying work.  Lyn has been stressing in
the last couple of days, that the key thing is to increase the
productivity of the labor force; and because of neo-liberal
policies of monetarist policies of the last one can really say
decades, this productivity has gone down in the trans-Atlantic
sector below the break-even point.  This is why we need a
national bank in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton; we need a
credit policy; we need an international credit system, a new
Bretton Woods system.  And you obviously need a "win-win"
cooperation of all nations building the New Silk Road.  Also, in
the United States, building the Silk Road to become a World
Land-Bridge.
        Now, extremely important is the fourth of the Four Laws,
which basically says that we cannot get an increase in the
productivity of the economy unless you go for a crash program of
fusion power, and you go for a crash program of international
cooperation for space research.  Only if you do these kinds of
avant-garde leaps in the productivity — like fusion technology
brings you in a completely economic platform with the fusion
torch.  You will have energy security for the whole planet; you
will have raw materials security because you can use any waste
and differentiate out the different isotopes and reconstitute new
raw materials by putting the isotopes together in the way
required.  So, it's a gigantic technological leap; and the same
thing goes for space technology.  It will have exactly the same
impact as during the Apollo program when every investment in
space technology, in rockets and other new materials, brought 14
cents back from each cent of investment.  Everything from
computer chips to Teflon cooking ware to all kinds of benefits
occurred as a byproduct from space research.  To get the world
economy out of this present condition — especially in the
trans-Atlantic sector — you need that kind of reorientation
towards the scientific and technological progress, increases in
energy flux density.  All of this Green ideology which is really
no development ideology has to be replaced; and the world has to
go back in a direction where the real physical laws of the
physical universe are the criteria for truth, and not some
ideology."
        OGDEN:  Now, Helga LaRouche also delivered an equally
inspiring, but much more extensive speech at a very important
conference this week that occurred in Peru.  This was the 23rd
National Congress of the Association of Economists of Peru, that
was held in conjunction with the APEC meeting which is occurring
over this weekend in Lima, Peru.  The title of the conference was
"The Peru-Brazil Bi-Oceanic Train; the Impact on the Economy of
the Amazon Region and the Country".  So, this is Peru-Brazil
transcontinental railroad.  Helga LaRouche's presentation was the
keynote address; and she delivered it at the opening session.  It
was titled, "The New Silk Road Concept; Facing the Collapse of
the World Financial System".  This APEC summit which will be
occurring this weekend, will be hosting world leaders including
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.  There has been a major surge in
interest and engagement between China and these countries of
South America, around the idea of expanding the New Silk Road
into South America.  That would also obviously have to include
North America.  This is the vision that Helga LaRouche has been
emphasizing, and what she laid out in a very inspiring way in
this speech in Peru; the idea of the New Silk Road Becomes the
World Land-Bridge.  The organizers of that conference — this
national congress of economists, the economists' association in
Peru — drafted their own copy of a 60-page pamphlet that they
distributed to all the participants of this conference, that was
based on excerpts from this report by {EIR} — "The New Silk Road
Becomes the World Land-Bridge".  It also included a printing of
Lyndon LaRouche's Four New Laws concept.  So, this is obviously a
very significant event; and the fact that it's happening in
conjunction with the APEC summit at this moment in history, is
very important.  We hope to make the proceedings of that
conference available to viewers of this website.
        But what I can say is, we have now set the agenda.  What's
happening now is that the world is being forced to respond to the
agenda that has been set over decades — but really in the last
few months — by the LaRouche Movement internationally.  You can
see this by the flurry of coverage of Glass-Steagall inside the
United States, and the fact that there's open discussion
including from the new leadership of the Democratic Party:
Warren, Sanders, Keith Ellison, and others.  Now is the time to
put Glass-Steagall on the table and get out in front of this.
But the other element of this is the discussion of so-called
"infrastructure".  Now infrastructure can mean a lot of different
things, and I'm sure that people watched the victory speech by
President-elect Trump where he talked about building rail,
building bridges, building airports, and so forth.
        The latest development in that discussion is an article that
is featured on the front page of the {New York Times} today,
called "Trump-size Idea for a New President; Build Something
Inspiring".  Good headline, and the article starts off pretty
inspiringly; it says the only way that you're going to be able to
unify a bitterly divided America, is by building great
infrastructure projects.  Not just painting rusty bridges, or
laying a few miles of asphalt, but "Build something
awe-inspiring.  Something Americans can be proud of.  Something
that will repay its investment many times over for generations to
come.  Build the modern-day equivalent of the Golden Gate Bridge,
the Hoover Dam, the Lincoln Tunnel " All of which were built by
Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal administration.  Then the
article does also say, "Can anybody remember anything that came
out of Obama's $800 billion  [stimulus package]?  I don't think
so."  So, this article usefully cites what Franklin Roosevelt did
with the PWA, the WPA: 700 miles of airport runways; 650,000
miles or rail; 78,000 bridges; 125,000 military and civilian
buildings, [including] 40,000 schools.  This is massive.  The
article also usefully says the idea that any infrastructure
project today could pay for itself through user fees is a
ridiculous prospect.  But the alternative that this article poses
is just as bad; saying, the way to do it is for government to
borrow most of the money from investors.
        So, I think this demonstrates that we have a lot of work to
do with putting the full concept of Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws
on the table.  Now, this article cites a few useful
infrastructure projects: a new rail tunnel under the Hudson
River; California high-speed rail; a Northeast mag-lev corridor;
a Miami sea wall; so forth and so on.  But if you look at the
vision that's presented in this pamphlet — "The United States
Joins the New Silk Road: a Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic
Renaissance" — with the Bering Strait tunnel rail project to
connect Eurasia with the North and South American mega-continent.
If you look at the amount of high-speed rail, if you look at the
water management programs; and most of all, if you look at what
China has been able to accomplish in just the last few years,
you'll see that everything that is cited in this article
absolutely pales in comparison.
        And, there are some much deeper scientific points that have
got to be addressed.  1. The understanding of what Alexander
Hamilton actually did; and 2. What Lyndon LaRouche's science of
economics defines as real productivity from the standpoint of
increases in energy flux density.  So, I think that sets up the
discussion that we can have here right now.  Ben, Diane, Kesha,
and I think we should maybe expand from there.

        BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think it's very important that Mr.
LaRouche, increasingly in the last couple of months, has said
over and over again, "Productivity; productivity; productivity."
We have to start thinking about not just providing jobs, not just
providing needed infrastructure projects.  I think it's worth
making a distinction between on the one side things that are just
needed to maintain what we have.  We have a massive deficit just
to maintain the standard — I think the appropriate term is
"platform" as Mr. LaRouche had introduced a couple of years back
— about how to think about infrastructure and the real
development of a national territory in a scientific way.  You
have a certain platform of activity, a standard of activity level
that maintains a specific level of existence for your society;
directly connected to the potential relative population density
of your society.  We should always be looking to push to higher
and higher platforms; higher levels of activity.  Our current
platform is degraded; much of the infrastructure we live upon was
built largely under Franklin Roosevelt and a few spurts of
activity following him on that.  So on the hand, yeah, we need to
rebuild some of these things.  Our existing dam systems,
transport systems, even soft infrastructure like health care
systems are in need of repair.  But we also need to push to a
higher level; we need to go to a new platform which has higher
degrees of productivity per capita.  Higher degrees of ability to
support a larger population in new area, new territories of the
country; increase the productivity of existing territories, and
that begins to create real growth.  You're not going to get real
growth just by rebuilding what you have; although you need to do
that, because we've been letting this decay for decades now.
        But you also need to create real economic value, real
economic growth.  And that goes to this issue of, are you
increasing the productive powers of your labor force?  Are you
increasing the ability of your productive sector to produce the
physical goods needed to support society more efficiently and at
higher qualities with less physical input per capita, you could
say?  Can you measure those kinds of steps of growth?  Are you
taking that metric into account?  That's critical right now; and
it's worth recognizing that we've been living in a
post-industrial policy for many years now.  This whole idea of
the services economy, that somehow we can support ourselves by
creating jobs in services; where we take turns washing each
other's laundry.  I make you a cup of coffee; you make me a
hamburger.  That doesn't actually create qualitative changes in
the ability of society to sustain more people at higher living
standards.  You're just trading service work back and forth.
        So in all of this, we need to have a serious re-focussing on
what are the essential principles of human economic growth?  And
that's why Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws in totality is so crucial.
That's why I thought it was very good in Mrs. LaRouche's
orientation into our deployment into DC, she made a very clear
point on Mr. LaRouche's fourth law — this fusion driver program.
These are the kinds of things that you might employ a relatively
small part of the population even in that specific endeavor; but
you're pushing the frontiers of engineering capabilities,
scientific capabilities.  That actually has the most important
radiating effect on the entirety of the economy, the entirety of
the productive capabilities of the labor force.
        You absolutely need this science driver, this
high-technology, high capital-intensity driver program to really
push the whole program forward.  The depth of the crisis that
we've gone into just makes it that much more important that we
have that element up there, front and center.  Since Mr. LaRouche
put out this Four Laws document, he has also obviously been
increasingly focussed on the role of space in that focus, in that
goal.  That is another absolutely critical element of this.  It
was not an incomprehensible or miraculous thing that John F
Kennedy's Apollo program had such a massive spin-off effect in
terms of payback to the US economy from the investments that were
made.  The studies not that long after the project finished, were
already showing a 14-1 payback in terms of the totality of
increases of productivity of industries that were not part of the
space program; but acquired technologies.  Precision engineering
capabilities; high-precision control systems for production;
various things that were created out of necessity to make this
super-advanced Moon mission work.  But that increased the ability
of mankind generally to be more productive in his production
capabilities.  That was then able to be applied throughout the
economy generally.
        So, those are the kinds of things that we absolutely need
right now; not just repairing our existing degraded
infrastructure.  We're going to have to do that, sure; but how do
you create the growth where you can afford to do that, and afford
to make completely new investments?  Part of this infrastructure
discussion should be opening up new territories of the country.
A major part of this pamphlet that we put out, and a huge part of
Mrs. LaRouche's focus, has been new cities.  You've got huge
territories in the United States that are not developed.  Let's
develop the nation; let's expand new territories; let's create
huge areas of new growth.  That's the kind of stuff that's going
to drive the whole process forward.  We're in a real need for
some precise, clear, authoritative leadership on these issues,
because these things are not understood.  We're not just going
into this in a vacuum; we have a completely broken down system;
not just in the financial sector, but in the physical economy,
too.  So we need clear, precise, immediate action.  We don't have
years for somebody to figure this thing out over time; people's
lives are on the line right now in terms of what's needed to turn
the US economy around.

        DIANE SARE:  Well, I'd like to just put this in a context;
because we're not having a discussion here in the abstract.  And
I want to go back to what Mr. LaRouche did in the 1970s with the
creation of the Fusion Energy Foundation, and his role in being
brought into a team to create a Presidency.  I want to be very
clear with the people watching this that what we are doing is not
an academic discussion of nice things that we, sitting in a
little corner, want to do.  Mr. LaRouche — as you heard from
what Ben laid out — had a very clear conception of the necessity
of fusion energy at that time.  Also, people remember the Jimmy
Carter Presidency; small is beautiful.  I think we were talking
about global cooling back then, and now it's global warming.
[One sentence paraphrase because of bad audio] What we needed to
do, in collaboration with Edward Teller, was to take the Mutually
Assured Destruction doctrine off the table.  The only deterrent
to a nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union was who
could blow up the world more times over.  What happened was, in
the process of this, Ronald Reagan as a candidate and then as
President, was recruited to this idea; and I think we've been
told there a number of things which Mr. LaRouche was working on
with the Reagan administration.  Not the least of which was the
SDI, which the Soviets rejected and Reagan announced, which led
in a not-so-indirect way to the Berlin Wall coming down.  Also,
there was discussion of a meeting between President Reagan and
Indira Gandhi, former prime minister of India who had been leader
of the Non-Aligned Movement.  Reagan, as people recall, was shot
in '82; Indira Gandhi was assassinated; Mr. LaRouche was put in
prison.  I'm not saying that to say that we're worried about it;
there's all kinds of questions of security and safety.  But my
point is that LaRouche personally has played a major, important
role in shaping the institution of the Presidency; and his
incarceration was timed for when we had earlier another such
great opportunity, which was when the Soviet system collapsed
economically as he warned it would.  He was in prison, and his
wife Helga Zepp-LaRouche put on the table with him the Productive
Triangle and so on.  We know what happened; that was sabotaged by
a series of wars.  The Balkans; the first Iraq War; we later had
9/11 and so on.
        What we are doing today is to shape the American [nation] in
participation with what is a New Paradigm; which LaRouche and his
wife personally have been very much involved in creating.  Two
years ago, Mr. LaRouche announced that we should move the center
of our American operations to New York City; which was done.  In
the last three or four months, we have begun circulation of a
newspaper appropriately titled {The Hamiltonian}.  I'll just say
I found it ironic that the {New York Times} today has these
headlines about infrastructure.  They also have articles about
how school children in Estonia and Latvia were terrified that
Hillary Clinton was going to drag them into the middle ground of
a war between NATO and Russia.  It's very interesting.
        The big title on {The Hamiltonian} this week is "We Are
Facing a New Epoch for Mankind"; the subtitle is "The New York
Times Has Become Irrelevant".  So, they may be scrambling to make
themselves relevant.  But what you also see, is we have printed
now, four weeks in a row, Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws.  They have no
excuse to be so idiotic on their proposals; both for how you fund
this, and how they're thinking about it, which is all domestic.
The world now, what Mrs. LaRouche described in her speech in
Peru, was that Xi Jinping made his announcement of this in
September of 2013.  In those three years, he travelled to 37
nations; he made bilateral agreements with 56 nations; 39 new
cargo routes have been opened.  These are major international
transportation corridors; 98 airports.  The magnitude of this
completely boggles the mind.  It really is in keeping with what
Hamilton would have envisioned; what you saw with Henry Carey, or
John Quincy Adams in terms of their role in the United States.
And I would say geographically, if you could step away, if you
could get on a space ship and look at the Earth from a distance;
or just take out a globe and look at what the United States is,
where we are between the Atlantic and the Pacific.  What North
America is, and South America now getting involved, we have a
great opportunity before us to play an absolutely strategic role
in this.  Our intent is to bring this about, which is why it's so
crucial that everybody watching this, makes it a point to master
the principles in Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws.  Particularly the
fourth principle, and also particularly the principle of credit;
which is in a sense tied to the increase of productivity.  We're
not going to fund so-called infrastructure by tolls; we're not
going to build a new bridge, a tunnel under the Hudson and charge
people a toll and that's going to pay for it.  No, if your
population is able to produce orders of magnitude more than it is
currently producing, that is a net increase in the wealth of the
nation.  It has nothing to do with tolls, or tickets for public
transportation; which are all sort of a form of tax farming and
looting.
        I do want to underscore:  1. The role of Lyndon LaRouche in
shaping the Presidency; 2. That this is going to occur from
Manhattan; the entire transition seems to be being organized from
Trump Towers on Fifth Avenue in New York City.  It is incumbent
on all of us to raise this to the appropriate level of discussion
and to not tolerate anything smaller.

        KESHA ROGERS:  Just to follow up on that, another important
aspect of the fight waged by Mr. LaRouche and his wife Helga,
going back to the 1970s around the fight that you just mentioned,
Diane, of the Fusion Energy Foundation, was the fight against
this apparatus of a zero-growth or no-growth culture.  He was
very instrumental with Mrs. LaRouche and also their collaboration
with space pioneer Krafft Ehricke — who we've mentioned a lot —
on taking on this degeneracy of the attack on population
reduction that was being promoted and continues to be promoted to
this day.  Many people may remember that there was a book put out
in the 1970s by two men, Dennis Meadows and Jay Forrester.  Jay
Forrester just died recently at 98 years old.  He was
instrumental in putting out the computer models which indicated
that there was a certain relationship between the limited
resources on Earth and the production of food to how many people
you can sustain on Earth and so forth.  This is something that
Mr. LaRouche has taken directly in terms of this is an attack on
the human identity, an attack on the real productivity based on
the creative potential of the human mind and LaRouche's model has
been brought up on the increasing of the energy flux density of
your economy per capita, and per land area.
        I think it's really important right now to look at the fact
that Mr. LaRouche sees this fight as a complete shift in the
global direction of mankind; unifying mankind on a level that
nations have never been unified on before.  I thought it was
important that yesterday, we had a discussion with Mr. LaRouche
— Ben, myself, and others from the leadership team; and one
thing that he brought up was the integration of the space program
and the development of space research, space science, and the
exploration of space to Classical music — which we're really
defining in the development of our Manhattan Project, which is
really shaping our organization across the country and
internationally.  You have seen a culture which is completely
degenerated under the Bush-Obama Presidencies.  You take the
inspiration, the culture which shaped the identity of the fight
and the vision that led President John F Kennedy to implement the
space program in the way he did.  The fact that he brought in
people like Pablo Casals into the White House; that this
classical identity and classical culture was very instrumental
throughout the space program, by people such as space pioneer
[Werner] von Braun and various others working with him.  Some of
these scientists who came with von Braun, like Krafft Ehricke and
others, from Germany; who helped to shape the US space program.
It's interesting; you compare that to what you've seen under
Bush.  Who did he bring into the White House during his
inauguration?  I think it was Ozzy Osbourne; rock music, heavy
metal.  Then you had Obama bringing in Beyoncé, not to mention
the other very degenerate cultural figures that he has brought
in.  So, I think what Mr. LaRouche is saying around this is
extremely important.
        I think it's also important to look at the space program and
the integration of the classical culture as the expression of a
higher identity of what it means to be human, and the inspiration
and optimism that's been missing from the population.  There's a
few more things we can say on this; I think it's also important
to recognize the importance internationally of what China is
doing.  We can say more on this later, but the fact that when you
talk about inspiration and optimism, we have now the Shenzhou 11
space crew, the crew in China who just docked 33 days ago to the
Tiangong 2, the space lab for China.  They're doing experiments
that are quite phenomenal; but what they're really expressing —
they're going to continue doing these experiments in space.  One
of the things we saw back in 2013, when you had the astronauts
docking the first space lab for China, videoing this and beaming
it back to Earth; and 60 million children watching it.  They're
going to do something similar for this space experiment.  This is
something that we have to go back to right now; the space program
is not just some abstract thing on the side for gurus who like
it.  We have to make it part of the culture; we have to make it
something that inspires and uplifts the population again, but is
instrumental in the development of the increases of the
productivity of society and increases in the platform.  So that
means that the population has to come to a higher level of
understanding of their identity; and the way to do that is really
an integration of culture, as Mr. LaRouche has made clear.

        OGDEN:  One thing you brought up, and I thought it was good
to go back to; the conjunction of Kennedy's space program, the
kind of inspiration and culture needed.  This was something very
conscious to the Kennedy administration; not only did they bring
Pablo Casals to the White House, but this was part of a broader
discussion between John F Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy, and Pierre
Salinger, who was the Press Secretary.  But before he became
Kennedy's Press Secretary, had been a child prodigy; had been a
concert pianist, a composer.  He had discussions with Jackie
Kennedy which he records in his book, where Jackie Kennedy said
the role of the White House should be to set a tone for the arts
which will encourage great culture, classical culture around the
country.  And we should exhibit the finest of culture, of art; we
should set the standard which everybody else can then rise to
that level.
        It is good that you brought up, Kesha, in conjunction has
happened politically, where New York City has definitely become
the center of gravity of the political universe of the United
States.  It's not just Trump; Clinton was also New York City.  It
was a strategic decision to center a very active organization in
New York; but that entire process has also happened in parallel
with what Diane has been leading there with this revival of
Classical music and culture.  That's very important, even from
the standpoint of what is our idea of man; and the dignity of
human beings.  Yes, granted, there were dark tones during this
Presidential campaign which is not acceptable.  But the idea of
the dignity of man, and the creativity of the entire human
species is what is embodied in the greatest of Classical music.
It's one thing to point actually, Diane; that first Messiah
concert which launched the New York City renaissance project,
happened in the context of this racial tension that was heating
up in New York at that time.  So, this still is a very important
aspect of addressing that.

        SARE:  I just wanted to add one quick thing on that note;
which is a musical question actually, if you think about a
symphony orchestra or a chorus and the role that individuals play
as part of that body; where the whole is definitely greater than
the sum of its parts.  Were we to launch a transformation of
society along the lines of what Mrs. LaRouche outlined in Peru;
that is, the US to become integrated in part of the Belt and Road
program, then I think we would quickly discover that we actually
don't have enough people in this country.  So that all the things
that people are afraid about, about who's going to be excluded,
who's going to be deported, etc.; you will find yourself looking
at your fellow human beings with new eyes because of the creative
potential of each individual which will be necessary to transform
the nation and the world in the immediate future.

        OGDEN:  Ben was just referencing some of Mr. LaRouche's
early writings on economics which really get to the question of
how do you measure productivity.  This is not just raw labor
power; this is not just the number of jobs.  But it is the
question of generation upon generation, can you produce more than
is consumed?  But can you do it in a way where the power of the
human species actually is transformed almost as a species
characteristic, step by step? I've found it very inspiring that
during those opening remarks that we played by Helga, she went
back to the discussion of what we used to call the isotope
economy.  What power can mankind wield if we penetrate not just
to the molecular level, but to the very atomic level?  Fission
power is breaking apart the atom; fusion is an entirely different
matter, where you actually have the ability to create new
elements.  You have the ability to create new isotopes of any
given elements, which have very differing characteristics.  It's
the promise of Promethean fire, which mankind has been working
towards over millennia; but we have not yet achieved.  This is an
inspiring subject, but the ability of mankind to wield power at
the very basic level of the fabric of matter; that's an entirely
new power.

        DENISTON:  Yeah, and it's a huge subject that could be
probably taken up in much more detail.  It really goes to the
question of what is a resource?  What do we consider as a
resource; and how that continually changes as mankind develops.
Once you go to this level of an isotope conception of resources,
we don't use up isotopes.  When you use petroleum or wood,
anything you use — unless you're actually doing fission and
fusion, when the total amount of matter you're working with is
very small — you're not actually destroying the elements
themselves.  You might be acting on a state of organization
that's been created.  We might be looking for certain states of
organization to utilize the properties of that as a resource at a
certain point.  But I think this goes right to the issue of the
isotope economy, the intimate connection with energy flux density
where we could begin to create those states of organization
ourselves; or work with lower states of quality of concentrations
of ores and various things.  Where things that were not
economical before to do, or not even possible to do before; if
you get a higher energy flux density, a higher energy throughput,
you can begin to manage in a completely new way.  Separating the
quality of resource elements that we want; organizing them in new
ways.
        Helga mentioned this very exciting prospect that's been
talked about to some degree for years of this fusion torch idea.
That you could take stuff that now is just trash, trash is
fundamentally everything we use; that's why it's our trash.  It
was something that we were using that was useful to us.  Now, we
might have degraded it in some way and put it in a landfill; but
the fundamental constituents of what made it useful are still
there.  So, it's not inconceivable to think of mankind
progressing to a point where we could reprocess even these
landfills.  That might be a little ways away; there will be some
steps along the way to get there.  But those are the kinds of
complete transformations in what mankind can do to recreate the
cycles of productivity that support, again, larger populations at
higher living standards; and really going in the opposite
direction than we've been going in for decades.
        Right now, a family needs to work three or four jobs just to
not get by month-to-month, and not be able to afford health care,
not be able to afford education.  We need a society where one job
can sustain a significantly sized family and provide these kinds
of benefits — higher education, health care, and have free time
for arts, for recreation, for developing the cultural mental
powers of your family and yourself.  How you're going to get to
that point is going at these issues we're talking about here, of
actually increasing the productivity of the labor force as a
whole; the productive powers of the labor force as a whole.
Pushing these kinds of science driver, technology driver programs,
that make these kinds of breakthroughs.
        Mr. LaRouche's point on this as a new focus, that he's put on
this in the recent period, is really critical.  We got to raise
this discussion to not just jobs, but productivity.  What's your
ability to produce things?  If we're serious about turning the
economy around.  It's kind of been referenced here and there, but
we have allies in doing that.  It's not just going to be
completely on our own shoulders.  We have to decide to do it, but
China has said, "Hey, United States!  If you want to quit this
geopolitical, 19th Century crazy game and get to some serious
discussion about creating a future for mankind, that's what we're
doing.  So, if you want to work with us, we'd be happy to
cooperate with you in a serious, honest investment and
development for our nations."  Many other nations are rallying
around China in their effort to do that; so that's there as a
critical support point, if the United States makes this shift.
These are the critical issues that we've got to put on the table
and fight out.
        And again, Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws, as he said, is a
central organizing document around that whole perspective.

        ROGERS:  Yeah, it's also important to note that as Mr.
LaRouche said, in the calling for the implementation and
enactment of the Four Laws that he's put on the table as an
urgent necessity, Glass-Steagall being the first and urgently
needed measure, is not an option or a compromise with the Wall
Street bankers.  He indicated that it has to be the Franklin
Roosevelt; and it can't be a watered-down Dodd-Frank compromise
or anything of that nature.  There's only one way you're going to
wipe out this casino economy, Wall Street speculation; and I
think that goes the same for the measures needed with the
development of the types of density and increase in energy source
and fusion economy as Mr. LaRouche is calling for.  There's a lot
of compromise out there about that, too.  "Fusion is a long way
away; it's never going to happen.  The politicians aren't going
to let it happen."  All of this stuff.
        I attended a space conference this week; and one of the
things that was being promoted in terms of deep space exploration
was solar-electric power.  "Yes, we agree; nuclear, increase in
fusion sources is most important, but it's not practical.  So,
we're going to go with this."  Or, "We're going to push this,
because it's probably something we can get through Congress."
That's the most insane thing you can think of.  When they talked
about to carry cargo into space would be 2-3 years, is that real
productivity?  How are you going to advance mankind's exploration
into space and the ability to actually go out to a Moon mission
as a base?  And a Mars mission?  Also, just increasing what Ben
was just discussing in terms of our ability to increase our
resources here on Earth.  The mining of Helium-3 on the Moon and
various other resources, that we've talked about.
        Once again, the point was, a lot of people want to
compromise on these things.  There cannot be compromise because
there is a global shift underway; and that global shift is
requiring an increase in the highest levels of scientific
development that has to be implemented immediately.  This is why
Mr. LaRouche's fourth law in terms of fusion driver program, is
something that — just like Glass-Steagall — cannot be
compromised on; and is absolutely fundamental for pushing forth
the breakthroughs which are necessary.

        OGDEN:  Well, that was Helga LaRouche's point during the
opening segment that we played today; that it is incumbent on all
the activists, all the viewers of this broadcast, to master the
contents of Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws document.  This might seem
like a short document, but it's a very dense document; and a lot
of the subjects that Ben has brought up here today in terms of
the definition of economic productivity and what the nature of
mankind is.  Kesha, what you were saying; there really are no
limits to growth.  This is not some kind of thing, where when we
reach our carrying capacity, that will be it.  It's mankind
transforming its own species; transforming the universe, and
transforming our relationship to the universe.  That's what's
addressed in this policy document by Lyndon LaRouche.  You have
to set the bar that high; it cannot be any lower than that level
from which you're going to effect the kind of revolution in
policy that's necessary for the entire planet at this time.
        So, we have a lot of work to do.  The Congress was only in
session for a day and a half this week.  But what that means, is
that they are back in their districts; and I'm telling you, it's
not going to be like business as usual.  This is not what the
conditions were before this election.  It's all the more
important to think from the standpoint of what Diane was
mentioning in the beginning of the show:  Our role is — and has
always been — to shape the institution of government of the
United States from the very highest level.  This is not coming in
from the outside; this is not a voice calling in the darkness.
This is working with the leadership of the nations of the planet
and creating the dynamic that you now see taking over.  This has
been decades in the making; but I can guarantee you, Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche have played a role that has been central to this
reality now coming into being.  I'm talking about the New Silk
Road; I'm talking about this trilateral relationship between
Russia, China, and India, creating a new dynamic on the Eurasian
continent.  Everything that's happening in South America right
now is something that Lyndon LaRouche was personally involved in
over decades; and now South America coming into the New Silk Road
and joining this new World Land-Bridge is something that is very
real.
        Nothing is determined; but our role is to continue that
fight inside the United States, and to make this a reality —
"The United States {Joins} the New Silk Road".  We put it in the
present tense for a reason.
        So, I'd invite Diane, Kesha, if there's anything concluding
that you'd like to say before we close out the show?

        SARE:  I think one great benefit of launching this recovery
and increasing the productivity is all the states which just
voted to legalize marijuana, will have second thoughts about
that.

        DENISTON:  We want high productivity, and it doesn't mean
that.

        OGDEN:  You'll turn out like Gary Johnson and have an
"Aleppo moment".
OK.  We'll take that as a concluding point here.  Please stay
tuned.  We will make the full speech that Helga delivered in Peru
available.  The audio at least, or maybe the video.  There was
also a very productive dialogue that occurred with the
participants of that meeting with Helga, following her keynote
speech.  So, that's an important thing to stay tuned for.  Also,
we will be producing a feature video — about 10 or 15 minutes in
length — on the content of the Four New Laws.  That fleshes out
some of the Hamiltonian aspect of that; and it's an educational
tool to teach yourself and to teach everybody else real
economics.  So stay tuned for that; that will be coming to the
website soon.
        Thank you for watching; please subscribe to our YouTube
channel and our daily email updates.  All of the information is
available in the description of this video available below the
video in the YouTube player.  Thank you and we'll talk to you
soon.  Stay tuned.

Det andet punkt, som står meget klart, er, at LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) har sat dagsordenen; … Glass-Steagall; den omgående nødvendighed af at nedlukke Wall Street; og det faktum, at det amerikanske folk ikke var villigt til at acceptere Obama-Clinton-dagsordenen om at bringe USA ind i Tredje Verdenskrig med en konfrontation med Rusland. Men vi må fortsætte med at sætte dagsordenen. Der er intet alternativ, ingen erstatning for en fortsat mobilisering og en fortsat klarhed i lederskab, som kommer fra LaRouche Politiske Aktions-komite og vore allierede.

specialudsendelsen efter valget, som vi udlagde på denne webside onsdag; med direkte udtalelser fra både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche. Vi har haft mulighed for at tale med hr. LaRouche flere gange siden, inkl. for blot en time siden; og hr. LaRouche fastslår fortsat den pointe, at dette er en højst uafgjort situation; meget udefineret. Vi har endnu ikke fået de fulde fakta om, hvad implikationerne af den tiltrædende administration vil blive, men to punkter står klart. Og jeg tror, at folk meget klart har set, at dette har været en total afvisning af hele Obama-Clinton-Wall Street-apparatet, der havde overtaget det Demokratiske Parti; men også, på samme tid, det Republikanske Partis Bush-Cheney-apparat. Begge partier er nu ophørt med at eksistere i deres tidligere form, og vi befinder os i en situation internt i USA, der ikke har fortilfælde.

»Trumps sejr betyder kun en udsættelse af krigsfaren – med mindre der vedtages en langt mere fundamental forandring«.Den indledes med følgende erklæring:

»The United States joins the New Silk Road« (Se også dansk introduktion ved samme navn). Heri fremlægges det meget klart, hvordan USA kan tilslutte sig dette nye paradigme.

Fire Nye Økonomiske Love, med implikationerne af Alexander Hamiltons økonomiske rapporter, der oprindeligt definerede og skabte USA, og med anerkendelse af, hvad klokken er slået; og med skiftet til en totalt ny, international, økonomisk og strategisk orden, er det vores ansvar at mobilisere USA og bringe det ind i denne nye orden.

 

WE MUST SET THE AGENDA!
THE UNITED STATES MUST JOIN THE NEW SILK ROAD.

International Webcast, Nov. 11, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening, it's November 11, 2016.  Happy
Veterans' Day!  My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to
welcome you to our regular weekly Friday evening broadcast here
from larouchepac.com.  I'm joined in the studio today by Ben
Deniston, my colleague, as well as Kesha Rogers, member of the
LaRouche PAC Policy Committee and former candidate for Federal
office — United States Congress and US Senate — joining us from
Houston, Texas; and Michael Steger, joining us from San
Francisco, California, also a leading member of the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee.
        I hope everybody had a chance to see the post-election
broadcast special that we posted on this website on Wednesday;
which included some direct video statements from both Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche.  We've had a chance to speak with Mr. LaRouche
several times since then, including just about an hour ago; and
Mr. LaRouche continues to make the point that this is a highly
inconclusive situation; very undefined.  We have yet to get the
full facts on what the implications of the incoming
administration will be, but two points are very clear.  And I
think as people have observed very clearly, this has been a total
repudiation of the entire Obama-Clinton-Wall Street apparatus
that had taken over the Democratic Party; but also, at the same
time, the Bush-Cheney Republican Party apparatus.  Both parties
have now ceased to exist in their previous form, and we are in an
unprecedented situation inside the United States.  The other
point which is very clear is that the LaRouche Political Action
Committee has set the agenda; and this point should have been
clear for years leading into this, including from Kesha Rogers'
successful, highly impactful campaigns for Federal office.  But
we've put on the agenda: Glass-Steagall; the immediate necessity
to shut down Wall Street; and the fact that the American people
were not willing to accept the Obama-Clinton agenda to bring the
United States into World War III with a confrontation with
Russia.  But we must continue to do so, and we must continue to
set this agenda.  There can be no alternative, no replacement for
a continued mobilization and a continued clarity of leadership
coming from the LaRouche Political Action Committee and our
allies.
        Now, I would like to read a short portion of the lead item
which was posted on the LaRouche PAC website today, because I
think it very clearly defines what Mr. LaRouche's current
analysis of this situation is.  And then we can open up the
discussion from there.  But the title is, "Trump Victory Is Only
a Reprieve from War Danger Unless a Much More Fundamental Change
Can Be Enacted".  It begins by stating the following:
        "The election of Donald Trump and the defeat of both Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama has provided a short reprieve in a drive
for World War III against Russia, so long as Obama is prevented
from taking some kind of insane action in his remaining lame duck
weeks in office. The fact that an immediate danger of nuclear war
is off the table for the time being is important; but it does not
address the other grave crises that the world is facing.
        "The trans-Atlantic financial system is still on the edge of
total disintegration, and unless that problem is immediately
addressed, the conditions will soon re-emerge for global war. To
solve that imminent crisis, the US Congress must immediately pass
the pending legislation in both Houses, to reinstate the original
Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks
into totally separated commercial and investment banks. This must
be the first order of business when Congress returns to
Washington early next week."
        This continues by saying:  "Well beyond that urgently
required action, other measures must be taken to forge a new kind
of relations among the leading nations of the planet."  This is
something we will elaborate much more during the course of this
broadcast, but this statement goes on to cite some statements
that were made by Sergei Glazyev, a leading advisor of President
Putin; Chas Freeman, a top and very distinguished diplomat in the
United States diplomatic community; and otherwise, that make the
very clear and correct point that now is the time to realize that
the world is moving into an entirely new paradigm.  And beyond
just a détente between the United States and Russia, which is a
potentially very positive development, the United States must
also reciprocate the offers from China to enter into this New
Silk Road, New Paradigm program; entering into the AIIB, joining
the New Silk Road in a very concrete and definitive way.
        Now, what can be very clearly defined, is that Mr. LaRouche
is the leading statesman on the scene right now in the United
States.  The Four New Laws that we have been repeatedly
emphasizing over the course of the recent several months leading
into this election, continue to be the number one agenda item.
Of course, that begins with Glass-Steagall, but the entirety of
the program is a Hamiltonian renaissance for the United States.
        Now, during a discussion we had earlier today, Helga
Zepp-LaRouche emphasized this supplementary pamphlet which was
issued by the LaRouche Political Action Committee almost a year
ago — "The United States Must Join the New Silk Road; a
Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance".  And this very
concretely lays out how the United States can join this New
Paradigm.
        Now, I'd like to just begin with a few excerpts from these
statements that were made by Sergei Glazyev and Chas Freeman,
which I think clearly get to this point; but I think a lot more
can be said.  This is an interview with Sergei Glazyev from {Itar
Tass} in the aftermath of the Presidential elections:  "According
to Glazyev," this article says, "the result of the US elections
show that 'The American people don't want war. For the first time
in the world's history, there is a chance to a new global
economic order without waging a world war.'|"
        And then Chas Freeman, in a speech called "One Belt, One
Road" which was delivered in Hawaii a few days before the
election, end with the point that "The United States must now
realize that the new paradigm defined by the AIIB and the New
Silk Road, and all of the other initiatives that have been taken
by China, is the new game in town."  And Chas Freeman's point is
that Americans are not in the game.  Now's the time for us to
enter into this and to realize that it's in our interest to join
the One Belt, One Road initiative.  Chas Freeman says, "China's
growing influence is very good reason to seek a seat alongside
it, both in the new and old councils of the emerging multi-polar
world, rather than continuing to futilely try to exclude it. The
United States needs to be constructive and helpful, not negative
and critical — still less obstructive — as all this unfolds.
Americans have a big stake in how Eurasia integrates, and in what
its relationships with other continents and regions become.  Time
to get in the game," he concludes; "time to participate in
crafting the post-Pax Americana order.  Time to leverage China's
initiative to American advantage."
        And I could go on, but I want to just make the point that
now is the time to recognize the full responsibility of the
intellectual leadership that LaRouche PAC has defined and
continues to deliver.  And taking the Four New Economic Laws,
taking the implications of Alexander Hamilton's economic reports,
which defined and created the United States in the first place,
and recognizing what time it is; with the shift to an entirely
new international economic and strategic order, it's our
responsibility to mobilize and bring the United States into that
new order.
        So, I'll just leave it at that; and I think we can explore
some of the implications of this in discussion with Kesha and
Michael.

KESHA ROGERS:  OK, I will start in response by saying that what
has to be recognized is that the fight has never been a matter of
party politics, one party over the other; because as President
George Washington said, "Party politics is the bane of our
nation's existence."  What we saw during my campaigns for US
Congress, was very instrumental in that; because the people I was
able to pull together were people from all different types of
backgrounds.  It was a question not of just what party you
belonged to, or what your race was, or any of that; but this
question of what do we want to see for our nation and for the
future of our nation?  Reviving the vision and the ideas of
President John F Kennedy, President Franklin Roosevelt; people of
all different types of backgrounds — as has been stated — came
together around Glass-Steagall to defy Wall Street, and they
continue to do so.  The Republican Party, the Democratic Party,
and so forth.  So, I think it's important to note that what we
have identified is a question of the direction that mankind has
to take; that the people of this nation have come together on a
few accounts that have been completely against what the
establishment had thought would happen.  During my campaigns, the
victories around the two nominations despite the fact that the
party establishment did everything in their power to create a
divide against the truth that myself, Mr. LaRouche, and our slate
were saying; that Obama represented a threat to this nation.  The
cancelling of the NASA Constellation program, the continued
policies for backing Wall Street against the interests of the
population.  The second time that we saw the population come
together in a real way — as has been said on a number of
occasions here — is the JASTA vote.  The JASTA vote was not a —
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act — was not a Republican
or a Democratic issue; so I think we are now eliminating the
party system.  This has been a big part of what I have been
advocating, what Mr. LaRouche has been advocating is that we have
to have a new conception of mankind brought forward.  I think
it's been very clearly stated in the discussions that we've had
with him, that are really continuing and hopefully we can get
that developed in this discussion today.  The idea that this is
not just a US issue; now we're talking about how do we improve
and develop new conceptions of international relations.  New
conceptions of relations among human beings.
        Just a couple of things I want to start off with to develop
that.  First of all, just in the discussion we had with Mr.
LaRouche yesterday, in response to the election and where we must
go from here, he said we will get a unity among human beings as
human beings.  The US and Russia can work together as human
beings; and we are looking at mankind in a universal way.  We are
going to learn how to apply our minds.  People have to see the
meaning of their existence in a way that most people have not.
If we're really going to conceptualize that idea, I think what
we're going to discuss here today is:  1. The concrete policies
that are needed to bring together the type of collaboration as
we're seeing develop from the development of the BRICS nations —
Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa — and their
cooperation.  The development of the AIIB, and the offer of
cooperation through the Silk Road, by President Xi Jinping to the
United States.  People probably remember that Obama rejected it.
Now, the mission is, we have to reverse the rejection.  We have
to work with Russia; we have to take up China's offer.  But we
have to take it up in a bigger way than just around treaty
agreements or working together on international cooperation of
projects.  Those things will be essential, but the essential is
going to be the development of a new, unified, international
mission of a new direction for mankind in space collaboration.  I
want to develop that a little bit more, but I will stop right
there, because I think we need to pull a few more things together
to come back to that point.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  The underlying ability for the LaRouche
organization and LaRouche PAC to operate as a leading force on
the planet has been something that eludes most people.  It's not
something that's in the predicates of the policies we've been
fighting for directly; there's something philosophically more
profound.  It does stand out, the fact that this election, where
vote came from, what people voted for — whether it be in the
Democratic primary, where we saw Glass-Steagall both by Martin
O'Malley and Bernie Sanders, and again even by Trump at the end
of the general election campaign; where Glass-Steagall came up
again. {We} were the leading factor and force of a political
fight, won in the opposition of Bush and Cheney and the clear
tyranny that they represented, but even more distinctly, because
of the nature of Obama in this last years–which is important
just to take a few seconds, not long, but just to recognize: the
Republican Party for the last eight years worked with Obama.
There was no real opposition to it. That's why the Republican
Party is really in as much of a shambles as the Democratic Party
is.
        The Party system, as Kesha said, is gone, because there was
no legitimate opposition to Obama, except for what we did. And it
started on the Obamacare question. We led the fight entirely. We
defined it as a Nazi program, while the Republican Party was
likely going to adopt it and support it, the same way Mitt Romney
had pushed in Massachusetts. It was generally a kind of Heritage
Foundation, right-wing, healthcare reform. We recognized it to
be, underlying, a fascist program of population reduction, and
we've been relentless with Obama, unrelenting, on the question
that this Presidency was a failure and a very danger to mankind.
        But then you had Lyn's intervention following the invasion
of Libya, and the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, and Lyn's precise
insight that this represented a very accelerated drive for
nuclear war. There was immediate resonance, immediate response
from the leadership in Russia. Like Dmitry Medvedev, [then
President, now Prime Minister]. And we saw an increasing level of
recognition, somewhat slowly, but from key figures, who began to
identify the fact that Lyn was absolutely right. And that again
became a center of the discussion of the U.S. Presidential
election over the last few months.
        So, you have the immediate collapse of the financial system
— which is there, we're on the precipice, this has been in the
financial media now practically for a year, going back to last
December, when the financial markets collapsed then. There's a
very, very imminent breakdown of the trans-Atlantic financial
system. It's an underlying bankruptcy, a deep bankruptcy. Then
you also have the immediate drive for war. Both of those issues
have now been on the table. That's what the American people voted
for. It was a mandate for the LaRouche policy. And for the very
reason that the political establishment in this country
compromised on Lyn, going back to the 1980s, shut down his
efforts for space exploration, for collaboration among nations,
and instead put an FBI attack on him and our organization, they
got this kind of revolt. Had they adopted Lyn's policies then,
you wouldn't see neither the breakdown of our economy and our
society, the threat of nuclear war, or the collapse of a
revolutionary type situation in the United States.
        The only way to really address this problem is to address it
quickly. We are talking about a timeframe where if the new
Administration coming in does not fulfill what the LaRouche PAC
has defined as the "New Presidency," then it will fail, and fail
quickly. There is a quality of crisis in the country, and so
there is a level of urgency that Mr. LaRouche expressed today in
our discussions. We need to get a handle on this. The policy
orientation needs to be very clear. And it needs to be a
comprehensive program. You can't just implement Glass-Steagall,
though that's exactly where you have to start. You've got to go
with the full Hamilton perspective. You've got to look at a full
development of the country. And you can't go with this Wall
Street garbage. It's not going to function.
        A point that Kesha really made an emphasis of, and that Lyn
emphasized on Wednesday following this election, stands out,
because there is clearly — as Matt, you read from the Chas
Freeman quote — at the highest institutional level of
recognition, that this New Silk Road orientation is in depth; it
is not weak; it is not superficial. As someone from the Chinese
Consulate in San Francisco recently said, "This is not on paper.
This is on the ground. This is a real project. This is not the
TPP." The question though, is how is this approached? The
approach of the political establishment may be best indicated by
Henry Kissinger and these types: is to approach it from the
Hobbesian view — an animalistic view of man, where you're
looking for advantages. How do we take advantage of this? How do
we work with this? China is looking to their advantage. How do we
look to our advantage?
        It doesn't mean that one disregards one's own benefit. But
the emphasis that Lyn made, and I think what Kesha was
developing, is that you have to look at the universal nature of
mankind. You have to look at what policies, what approach towards
the relationship among nations is of benefit to mankind as a
whole, or as Helga said on Wednesday in a discussion, what used
to be referenced as the "common aims of mankind." That has to be
then the basis, the philosophical basis for a scientific
foundation, for a new relationship among nations. And that really
then defines how this can be very much a new paradigm or a new
era for mankind. Not only is an immediate action required, but
the potential of action is perhaps greater than it's ever been.

OGDEN: Just to continue to emphasize the point that you, Kesha,
brought up, the first indications, I think very clearly, of what
hit with full force with this election, was what you were able to
generate around your campaigns for federal office.

        BEN DENISTON: Over and over again.

        OGDEN: Three times in a row. Twice the Democratic nominee
for Congress, and then you forced the Senate campaign into a
run-off, in Texas, on precisely this LaRouche PAC program. Every
time that people say, "Oh, we are so surprised, we are so
shocked, none of the polls saw this coming," whether it was in
this general election campaign for President, whether it was in
the Brexit vote — every time somebody tells you that, you say,
"No, that's actually not true."

        DENISTON: Most people probably know, but it's worth
emphasizing: Kesha led with "Impeach Obama." You had a Democrat
leading the Democratic ticket on impeaching Obama, and that was
what shocked. It was national news. It's kind of amazing that the
Democrats are so far behind, so much in this crazy bubble, that
they can't see where the ferment is in the population. Just to
add that in there.

        OGDEN: Absolutely!

        DENISTON: It shocked the country, it shocked the world.
There was international recognition when Kesha won [the
Democratic Party primaries for U.S. House in 2010 and again in
2012; and came in second in a field of five candidates for U.S.
Senate in 2013, but lost in the run-off]. These guys are now
years and years behind the ball on this thing.

        OGDEN: The other element of your campaigns, Kesha, was a
clear vision for the country. This is an element of inspiration
that a population which was, yes, legitimately angry and enraged
against the policies of the last not 8 years, but the last 15, 16
years of both the Obama and Bush administrations, and had been
ground into the dust and left behind, and were literally
suffering from an increase in mortality, and so forth, as we've
spoken about.
        It was not only a rage factor, in terms of that, but it was
also, and it continues to be — and this must be recognized — a
deep desire for purpose, for meaning, for inspiration, and for a
vision of what the future actually can be. And, Michael, as you
were saying, it's a philosophical question: What is the meaning
of mankind? What is this really all about? Why am I struggling,
day in and day out? What's the meaning behind "what it means to
be human?"
        And so, the Number One point of emphasis in your campaigns,
Kesha, and the Number One point of emphasis continues to be, what
is the role that mankind is going to play over the next 100 years
in this solar system and in the universe? It was clear when John
F. Kennedy committed the United States to having a man on the
Moon before the end of the 1960s, that this was the defining
moment in the entire generation at that point. The United States
rose to the challenge because it was a truthful challenge.
        We applied the Hamiltonian principles to make that happen.
You stood up and you said "We're going back to space. China is
doing it." In the years since your campaigns, Kesha, China has
achieved unbelievable feats. There will be a robotic lander on
the far side of the Moon. If we put this on the agenda, and we
say, "We are no longer going to succumb to the backwards agenda.
We're going to join hands, not only on the New Silk Road here on
Earth, but we're going to join hands with China to go back to the
Moon. We're going to go to Mars. We are going in a way which
affirms the true, creative nature of the human species. We're
going into space." That's the other element of this.

        ROGERS: Yeah, that was already defined by Krafft Ehricke. It
was defined by Lyndon LaRouche. It was exemplified, as has
already been stated, in a conception of mankind and the
relationships among human beings, that most people, through the
degenerate culture that we have been immersed in, has yet to
actually, truly experience. It's not just a question of "Well, I
like this policy of going to the Moon," or "Yes, we should do
that," or "Kennedy's idea of going to the Moon was for economic
profits or to put feet on the Moon and then it was going to be
over." We were talking about policy for a 50-year-plus plan, or
should we say, a generational.
        Right now, the problem is that we have lost the conception
of acting for the next generations. Most people say, especially
with space policy, "Well, we'll see what this next President's
going to do, but then after that we have to follow whatever the
next President wants to do, and it's just going to be an
up-and-down cycle. Maybe we'll have a good one who wants a good
policy, and maybe we'll have a bad one." But that's not how the
process works. As I said, this is a question of international
relations, but also, as Krafft Ehricke said, the question of
development of space, and what that represents for understanding
our relationships right here on Earth is a Universal, an
Extraterritorial Imperative.
        I think these conceptions are not just things that are to be
thrown around, but they really have to be conceptualized,
understood, and mastered, just as Lyn's emphasis and very
important call, that the only thing that can save the United
States right now, and for that matter save the entire world
against this economic collapse, is the return to those
Hamiltonian principles — the recognition that we have to restore
an understanding of what Hamilton was developing in his four
reports: "Report on Public Credit;" "Report on a National Bank;"
"Report on the Subject of Manufactures;" and "On the
Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States."
        We've done a number of very thorough presentations on those
points, because that's not just something of the past, or just
"policy issues," but it is the necessary direction that has to be
re-established right now: how are we going to build up our
capabilities on this planet to provide for the needs of every
single human being? We're talking about development around food,
most importantly around fusion resources–LaRouche's Fourth Law.
We have to have a science-driver fusion program. This is the key
aspect of China's policy for their Moon mission, and their space
program — the mining of Helium-3, the development of the far
side of the Moon.
        This is the policy that the United States has gone far away
from. We just have to just put the United States back on course
again, and that the course of action has been clearly stated by
the direction that China's taking with their space program. It's
interesting to note: that was the direction we were going in, or
slated to go in, with the development of the Moon, under not just
President John F. Kennedy, but this was the policy that was being
put forth prior to President Obama cancelling it.

OGDEN: I want to pick up on what you said, Michael. What the
LaRouche Movement — both in the United States, but also
internationally — has clearly been at the forefront of for
decades, is the agenda. The intelligentsia of the planet has
concentrated itself, at key moments of history, around what the
conceptions for the future must be that have been laid forward by
the LaRouche Movement. I just want to bring up one point which
was contained in this report. This is the transcript of an
international conference that took place in June of this year.
Coincidentally, it was literally the day after the Brexit vote
occurred; which had the entire trans-Atlantic expert
establishment on their heels.  Nobody supposedly saw this coming.
But the keynote speaker at this event was Helga Zepp-LaRouche;
one of the other keynote speakers was Ambassador Chas Freeman.
At that point, the point of the One Belt, One Road policy, the
New Silk Road policy was put clearly on the agenda.  The other
major agenda item of this conference was the necessity to work
with Russia to resolve and rebuild the situation inside Syria.
This conference was called in order to discuss the contents of
this massive special report, which was published by {Executive
Intelligence Review}.  This is "The New Silk Road Becomes the
World Land-Bridge"; and with the publication of this, the entire
nitty-gritty aspect of what this New Paradigm really means on the
ground — not on paper, as you said, Michael — was put into
writing.
        At that point, Helga Zepp-LaRouche called for the
publication of a supplementary pamphlet which would concretely
elaborate exactly how the United States would join that New Silk
Road.  And with all of the discussion now in the last few days of
infrastructure and big projects and how to create millions of new
jobs inside the United States, this is clearly the number one
item of relevance.  Now, we're going to play a short excerpt from
a video which was put out by LaRouche PAC about two months ago.
The full video is called "The New Silk Road Becomes the World
Land-Bridge", but this short excerpt from the concluding portion
of that video elaborates exactly how the United States could work
with China and work with these Eurasian countries to build itself
into this New Silk Road.  So, I'd like to play that excerpt for
you right now.

        "As part of the trans-Atlantic, the United States is also
associated with a high standard of living.  However, the Wall
Street-dominated, post-World War II paradigm has taken its toll
on the US economy and its people.  Scrapping its agro-industrial
sector for financial and services industries, with the promise
that it would make for a more competitive economy, high-earning
skilled work was out-sourced to cheaper markets abroad which
provide a living wage for their workers.  This flawed version of
globalization lowered the productivity of the Americas as a
whole, increased the rate of poverty throughout the hemisphere,
and invited billions of dollars of illicit money flows from the
global drug trade, which to this day represent a significant
portion of the cash on hand in the Western banking sector.
        "However, even after the 2007-2008 crisis, when the
bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic financial system could no longer
be covered up and needed an emergency bail-out —
        "|'This is not just about Lehman Brothers; these problems
are not limited to Wall Street or even Main Street.  This is a
crisis for the global economy.'
        "– no serious structural reforms have been made to the
Western financial establishment; putting the West and the rest of
the world at risk of an even greater crisis.
        "No wonder that in recent years, China, Russia, and other
emerging economies have begun to create new international
financial institutions, based on a concept of 'win-win' relations
among nations and created to facilitate economic development and
trade for all participants instead of preserving the hegemony of
some.  Instead of the exclusivity of US trade agreements like the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, China has extended an invitation to
the US and the rest of the Americas to join them in establishing
a new era of global economic development.
        "'I state this very clearly to President Obama that China
will be firmly committed to the part of peaceful development; and
China will be firm in deepening reform and opening up the country
….¦'
        "But can the US envision a world where it is no longer the
sole superpower; and instead shares that responsibility with
other nations?
        "'|..¦.and will work hard to push forward the noble cause of
peace and development for all mankind.' [Chinese President Xi
Jinping]
        "The potential for US participation in the New Silk Road
program is immense.  One key project in EIR's New Silk Road
report is finally connecting the Eurasian continent with North
America at the Bering Strait.  A Bering Strait provides the
needed symmetry to make the One Belt, One Road strategy a global
one; and would transform the two continents the same way the
ancient Silk Road opened up Europe to Asia.
        "Imagine boarding a magnetically-levitated train in downtown
Paris or Berlin, travelling 250 miles per hour across the steppes
of Siberia, through a tunnel below the Bering Strait, emerging on
the other side in Alaska on your way to Manhattan.  Layered with
a freight and passenger rail line running north-south from Alaska
to the lower 48 states from Eurasia, is the construction of the
long-awaited North American Water and Power Alliance [NAWAPA]; an
Apollo-era continental water management system that takes
freshwater run-off from Alaska and Canada, and diverts it
southward for use in the arid southwest United States.
        "And while the average American will tell you these projects
are impossible, the average Chinese today is building them.  In
the last decade, China — comparable in size to the United States
— constructed over 11,000 miles of high-speed rail; and seeks to
triple that number by 2020.  Similarly, China's Three Gorges Dam
and South Water North projects are some of the greatest water
infrastructure projects ever undertaken.  In the new 'win-win'
paradigm, big infrastructure investment is the new normal
everywhere."

        That video is available on the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel
and the LaRouche PAC website.  But I'd like to ask Ben to just
follow that up.

BEN DENISTON:  Off of the discussions that Matt referenced with
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche in the last couple of days, we wanted
to redirect people's attention to this supplementary pamphlet.
Obviously the full report is a little bit hefty for your average
American, we did want to produce this shorter, condensed kind of
organizing report to really grip people and give people a sense
of what it means for the United States to join this New Silk Road
program, this New Paradigm.  We want to make sure people know —
we can bring up on the screen share here — that this full report
is also available on our website.  If you go under "our
policies", "US Joins the New Silk Road" it's available right
there; and the entirety of the report is available here.  As
Matthew said, this was published almost one year ago, so maybe
some of the introduction might be a little bit dated to the
context of the time when we put this out; but the substance, the
content, is still very relevant, very crucial, and integrates
together with the more recent focus Mr. LaRouche has put on his
Four Laws program.
        But just to give people a very quick overview of the report,
we can see here in the table of contents, it's broken into a
series of chapters following the introduction.  The first chapter
really provides somewhat of a sketch, but a real presentation of
what can be done in the United States in the context of joining
this New Paradigm.  So, passing Glass-Steagall; engaging in an
international credit/finance system to facilitate growth,
development.  What does that mean?  Well, as was referenced in
the video, one of the mega-projects that's been on the table for
a century now quite frankly, if not longer, is this Bering Strait
connection; literally connecting, via high-speed rail, North
America into this entire World Land-Bridge perspective.  So,
that's been long recognized as a keystone project.  That can come
together with — as was also discussed in the video — high-speed
rail across the United States.  As Mr. LaRouche, in his work on
the Eurasian Land-Bridge and World Land-Bridge, had developed,
these are more than just rail corridors; this mankind developing
the interior regions of continents.  Moving from a coastal
dominated civilization to one that actually master the interior
landmass of regions.  A lot can be said, but this really goes to
the heart of his science of economics, his insight, his metric of
potential relative population density; how mankind can transform
the so-called "carrying capacity" of a piece of land of society
with this kind of development.  So, bringing in high-speed rail
and all the associated infrastructure to make vastly larger
regions of the territory of the United States inhabitable and
developable.  We have huge amounts of unused land waiting to be
developed.
        In the development of this report, Helga LaRouche also
placed a large emphasis on the development of new cities; new
renaissance cities as she called for as part of the whole
development program.  Bringing rail, water, power to these new
regions of the country to develop new, highly-organized cities;
not just urban sprawl, not just endless unorganized development.
But actual cultural city centers organized around a central
region, focussed on an educational, artistic focus of society;
and you center your activity around that.  That's also discussed
in some detail in this report.
        This is obviously going to create major spin-off effects in
terms of job requirements; rebuilding US industry.  All kinds of
connected jobs required to support that kind of activity.  So,
this talk about creating millions of jobs, this can be done very
easily in the context of this New Paradigm system.  One thing we
fought with in producing this report was actually gripping people
with what this means.  It's easy to go through the figures —
this many miles of rail, this many cities, etc. — but the
American people have suffered so long under a lack of this kind
of development, that it's important to really grip people and
give them a sense that these are not just projects; this is your
future.  This is a return to the idea that every generation is
going to be fundamentally better off than the generation before
them.  That you live your life with the recognition that your
children are going to have a fundamentally better life than you
were able to live; and it was because you and your generation
contributed to creating that.
        It's been recognized — LaRouche PAC may have been the first
to point this out — but it's now generally recognized, the
current youth generation does not have that.  You have the first
situation potentially in American history where the younger
generation is worse off than their parents' generation.  If you
want to talk about the death rates, the drug epidemic, all these
things, that's the substance of what's driving that process.  Not
just poverty per se, but poverty in the context of no future;
complete degeneracy of society.
        So, returning to this idea that there is
to your job, to your employment, to your activity, to your
family's activity, to your neighborhood, your city, your town.
There's a purpose in investing and creating a new, higher state
of living for the nation as a whole; and that's what this really
means.  That's driving inspiration in China, in nations working
with China; in this whole One Belt, One Road program.  That's
what we can revive and return to in the United States; that's
what these infrastructure projects really mean.  It's about
mankind participating in the truly immortal nature of mankind's
creative development.
        And what we also address in this report, just to point this
out to people directly, is an added integral element of that is a
real science driver program.  So, we have on the one hand — it's
not separated, but together with the idea of joining the New Silk
Road, rebuilding the United States on a higher level with new
infrastructure, a new standard of living; also engaging in the
science driver programs and technology driver programs that push
to new frontiers.  Fusion power.  With fusion power, you can
completely transform mankind's capabilities; you can blast
mankind up to a higher level of potential existence.  Both in
making power available, but also completely revolutionizing all
kinds of production, industry, technologies; it's a totally new
stage for mankind.
        This goes directly together with space; the development of
the Moon, the development of helium-3 resources on the Moon as a
key fusion fuel.  So, bringing mankind really into a level of a
Solar System species, a Solar System existence; and learning —
we had some discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier today —
learning what the Solar System is really all about.  There are
some of the most basic things we still don't understand about how
the Solar System works; even how the Moon works.  Our knowledge
is still extremely limited in terms of what mankind is existing
in here in this Solar System; let alone what the Solar System is
doing in the galaxy, and how to understand these kinds of things.
Recognizing that that is kind of the first of the substance of
these kinds of revolutions of mankind's ability to exist.  If we
discover these higher levels of the principles organizing the
fundamental nature of the universe, we can uniquely utilize that
understanding to transform how we act.
        So, it's this intimate connection that Mr. LaRouche, I
believe, is the first to really define scientifically between
fundamental scientific discovery and the crucial rile of real
scientific method in that context, and what people call economic
progress and economic growth.  That's the integrated central
picture that we have to present and break through on; and we have
presented it in a somewhat short but moving and condensed and
illustrated way in this report.  So, Helga had specifically
requested that we draw people's attention again to this important
piece of organizing ammunition that we have; to move people in
this time of ferment, in this time of potential, to not sit back
and wait for something to happen, but to take action.  Realize
this is the future we can create.  We've just had an opening
created that gives us the potential to act; it's not here yet,
but now we have a potential that we have not had for four terms
of the Presidency.  So, I think this is critical that we get all
this on the table and move immediately with the recognition that
this is the true mission of mankind.

STEGER:  I would just like to say, on the Four Laws, which
captured this policy direction, the subtitle is that this is not
an option, but an immediate necessity.  And I think it's worth
making it clear that these are not policy options from the
standpoint of government.  These Four Laws and this orientation
that Ben just laid out, is actually a necessary and integral
functioning of any competent form of government.  Hamilton
uniquely understood that at his time; there was resistance from
the slave-based oligarchy at that time which opposed the
recognition that the economic power to unleash mankind's
advancement, to orient mankind towards this level through
manufacturing, through industry, and especially through the
scientific process.  But that was an integral part of what
government required to fulfill its obligation to the well-being
of its population and its posterity.  So, these Four Laws are a
necessity not simply because of the economic crisis; they must be
adopted by government as laws.  Our government today, to secure
for the first time as Glazyev said, for the first time, world war
is no longer a danger; and for the first time the United States
will set the leading example of a form of self-government based
on the highest scientific conception of mankind based on these
Four Laws; and have the economic power and potential to unleash
that unique characteristic of mankind.  These Four Laws are of
that quality of significance.

        OGDEN:  This is the immediate action agenda.  And as Lyndon
and Helga LaRouche said earlier, there's a lot that's undefined;
there's very inconclusive facts available right now.  But the one
thing that is clear, is that we need a full-scale mobilization
from the people who are involved in the activities of LaRouche
PAC, to immediately force the Glass-Steagall agenda.  Congress is
coming back into session at the very beginning of next week —
Monday and Tuesday.  They need to be confronted with an absolute
torrent, a flood of calls and activity from around the country to
say "There is nothing else; this is agenda point one."  And to
pull out all the stops on this entire program.  We've emphasized
we have the ability to pull together the entire country on the
Four Laws action page; this is action.larouchepac.com/fourlaws.
If you haven't signed up there yet, that's available.  There's
also a place where you can submit your reports.  All of the
material that you need is on that website, including the
Alexander Hamilton four reports and Mr. LaRouche's original
document, "LaRouche's Four Laws".  Then as Ben just showed you,
we also have this supplementary page, a digital pamphlet that we
produced; "The United States Joins the New Silk Road".  This is
also available on the LaRouche PAC website.
        So, we are in undefined and uncharted territory right now; I
think people are recognizing that at the point that the United
States, for example in the 1930s, faced similar situations, it
was only because of the immediate leadership that Franklin
Roosevelt provided with the entire program — this was the
initial Glass-Steagall, this was a reorganization of the entire
bankrupt financial system, this was immediately getting people
back to work — that is the agenda.  At that point, it was
undefined what was going to happen; it was because Franklin
Roosevelt provided the kind of leadership that he did, that
prevented what could have been a very dangerous situation from
degenerating into that.  It's our responsibility to place that
onto the agenda now.  Nobody else is going to do that.  We have a
short reprieve, a short window of reprieve from the danger of
World War III.  You have qualified leadership from around the
world tentatively reaching out and saying we are ready for an
entirely new paradigm of relations with the United States.
Russia, China, other countries around the world.  But the United
States that they want, is LaRouche's United States.
        So, thank you very much for joining us.  I'd like to
especially thank Michael and Kesha.  Kesha, thank you; and I'm
sure we will be looking to you for some more in the near future.
And I'd like to thank Ben for joining me here in the studio.
Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  If you haven't subscribed
to our YouTube channel yet, do so immediately.  And subscribe to
our weekly and daily emails as well.  Thank you and good night.