Jason Ross: En af de ting, jeg tænkte på, var, hvor utroligt meget, folk tager fejl, hvor meget, folk undervurderer, hvor meget politikerne tager fejl, hvor meget, økonomer tager fejl, hvor meget, folk i almindelighed tager fejl i grundlæggende spørgsmål om ikke alene økonomi og politik, men endda om menneskeheden: Hvad er det, der gør et individ til et menneske? Hvis man interviewer den såkaldte ’manden på gaden’ og blot spørger folk, hvad er det, der gør os forskellige fra dyrene? Den kendsgerning, at Renæssancens gennembrud besvarede disse spørgsmål på en måde, der førte til skabelsen af utroligt, videnskabeligt fremskridt, det største fremskridt i menneskelig civilisation, i menneskelig velfærd, i levestandard, som verden endnu havde set; den kendsgerning, at denne grundlæggende viden, der gjorde dette gennembrud muligt, er næsten totalt fraværende i dag, er virkelig forbløffende.

I sit økonomiske arbejde husker jeg, at hr. LaRouche engang sagde, at noget af det, der gav ham en fordel, var, på en måde i sammenligning med andre, at de fleste økonomer rådgiver dig om økonomi ligesom en person, der fortæller dig, at du skal tage dine bukser over dit hoved, som det første skridt til at få dem på dine ben. Man begynder i den forkerte retning lige fra begyndelsen.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Hvordan kommer vi ud af denne krise? Som vi har diskuteret, så finder der et massivt program for vækst sted i hele verden, under anførelse af Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ, og med et åbent tilbud til USA om at gå med i denne proces. Det kan sikre en storstilet genopbygning af USA i samarbejde med andre nationer ved at tilslutte sig dette Bælte & Vej Initiativ. Det er den politiske handling, der ligger på bordet. Men det, vi ønsker at behandle i denne undervisningsrække; det, vi gerne vil diskutere, er de underliggende, videnskabelige principper, der ligger til grund for det, som faktisk vil skabe vækst og udvikling. Hvad er det for underliggende principper, der er årsag til, at Kinas aktuelle Bælte & Vej Initiativ rent faktisk fungerer og i vid udstrækning er succesfuldt? Hvad er videnskaben bag; hvad er det, der faktisk får dette til at fungere, i modsætning til andre programmer, som ikke fungerede? Dette går tilbage til spørgsmålene om, hvad virkelig økonomi er.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Vært Matthew Ogden: God aften; det er den 29. september, 2017. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg William Wertz fra Executive Intelligence Review. Vi vil diskutere den netop udkomne specialundersøgelses-rapport; dossieret med titlen, »Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal Assassin; He Will Do His Job if You Let Him!«

Jeg viser rapportens forsidebillede her på skærmen [Fig. 1]. Som I ser, så er rapporten nu tilgængelig; den er allerede blevet cirkuleret i over et døgn. Den er allerede i hænderne på folk i hele USA, og man kan se den her: lpac.co/ytdos (LPAC’s hjemmeside; EIR-rapporten findes som pdf på vores hjemmeside).

Rapporten er delt op i tre afsnit og følger tråden af personen Robert Mueller igennem tre af de mest berygtede forbrydelser i de seneste 30 år. For det første, de falske anklager og retsforfølgelsen af Lyndon LaRouche – LaRouche-sagen; for det andet, det aggressive bedrag af det amerikanske folk mht. sandheden om begivenhederne den 11. september, 2001, som dernæst blev brugt til at lancere en række krige for regimeskifte; og for det tredje, det igangværende kup imod den siddende amerikanske præsident, mens vi taler. Og I vil se, forhåbentlig i løbet af denne udsendelse – og vi opfordrer jer til at læse hele dossieret – at tråden til Robert Mueller kan spores hele vejen igennem disse afgørende, historiske vendepunkter. Hvis man trækker i denne tråd, vil hele dette apparat, hele denne operation, blive optrævlet.

Will Wertz er her i dag for at fremlægge nogle af rapportens punkter i en overordnet gennemgang, og for at guide jer gennem rapportens indhold og komme med nogle refleksioner over hvert af disse tre, afgørende knudepunkter, som detaljeret dækkes i rapporten. Og, forhåbentlig også for at lokke jer og tilskynde jer til at læse og studere denne rapport i detaljer. Jeg vil lade Will gå i gang, og vi vil vise noget materiale på skærmen undervejs, men vi vil gennemgå noget af indholdet fra rapporten.

William Wertz: Tak. Matt. Skønheden i denne rapport – som er noget, der omgående må handles på for at redde denne republik og præsidentskabet og bevæge verden ind i et Nyt Paradigme, som det defineres af den kinesiske politik for Ét Bælte, én Vej, og som er blevet vedtaget af mange lande i hele verden, inklusive Rusland, og som USA er blevet inviteret til at tilslutte sig – er, at den identificerer dette angreb på præsident Trump og det amerikanske præsidentskab over en længere tidsperiode; og hvor det fundamentale spørgsmål er, om verden fortsat skal være domineret af et bankerot, finansielt imperiesystem, der kontrolleres af briterne, eller om vi i stedet bevæger os ind i et Nyt Paradigme, baseret på princippet om fred gennem økonomisk udvikling. Det er det fundamentale spørgsmål. Dette er noget, som Lyndon LaRouche har kæmpet for i årtier. Tilbage i 1971, den 15. august, fremlagde han meget klart de alternativer, der ligger foran menneskeheden, og foran dette land, med Nixon, der annoncerede første fase, anden fase, af nedtagningen af Bretton Woods-systemet, som Roosevelt havde indsat efter Anden Verdenskrig. Han (LaRouche) sagde dengang, at vi har et alternativt valg; alternativet er at satse på en politik for økonomisk udvikling på global skala, eller også vil vi blive konfronteret med et forsøg på at gennemtvinge en fascistisk, økonomisk politik i Schachts tradition, som ville resultere i massive dødstal over hele verden. Med ’Schachts tradition’ refererer jeg til Hjalmar Schacht, finansminister under Adolf Hitler, der kom til magten med hjælp fra sådanne folk som John Foster Dulles og briterne.

Det, LaRouche gjorde i 1970’erne efter denne vurdering, var, at han fremlagde mange absolut afgørende udviklingsprogrammer. I 1975 var han fortaler for skabelsen af en International Udviklingsbank. Senere krævede han oprettelsen af en Nationalbank i USA efter samme principper som Alexander Hamiltons Første Nationalbank. Han præsenterede udviklingsprogrammer for områderne i Stillehavsbækkenet og det Indiske Oceans bækken. Han præsenterede et program ved navn Operation Juárez, for Mexicos udvikling, som en model for Nord-Syd-relationer gennem udveksling af mexicansk olie til gengæld for amerikansk teknologi. Senere præsenterede han programmer for den Eurasiske Landbro i samarbejde med sin hustru, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, og som senere udvikledes til Verdenslandbroen. Briterne var totalt modstandere af denne politik – totalt. Vi vil få at se, at dette har været en kamp under hele perioden 1970’erne og 1980’erne og under hele 11. september-perioden, og frem til det aktuelle angreb på Trumps præsidentskab. Det har været en kamp mellem Det britiske Imperium, som har interveneret i USA for at forhindre, at USA gik i denne retning, som Lyndon LaRouche har forsøgt at styre USA i; og som LaRouche er på randen til at styre USA i, i dag, og som er årsagen til, at briterne er så bange!

Tilbage i 1980’erne spillede Lyndon LaRouche en afgørende rolle i udformningen af den tiltrædende Reagan-administration. LaRouche var ophavsmand til det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ, som Reagan senere annoncerede i marts måned, 1983. LaRouche var også modstander mod briterne i krigen om Malvinas-øerne (som briterne kalder Falklandsøerne), og han krævede en gennemførelse af Monroe-doktrinen imod briternes kolonipolitik dér. Som et resultat mødtes LaRouche og hans hustru i 1982 med Indira Gandhi; han og hans hustru mødte Indira Gandhi i april 1982 for at diskutere udviklingen af det indiske subkontinent og Stillehavsbækkenet. I maj 1982 mødtes han med José López Portillo (Mexico) for at diskutere Operation Juárez. Som respons på dette sendte Henry Kissinger, i august 1982, et brev til FBI-direktør William Webster med krav om en efterforskning af Lyndon LaRouche på en anklage om angivelig chikane af Kissinger for at være britisk agent. Der blev ligeledes sendt et brev den 27. august 1982 fra den britiske regering til FBI; som krævede en efterforskning af Lyndon LaRouche og hans organisation. Den 24. september 1982 skrev FBI, i skikkelse af chef for kontraefterretning, James Noland, et svar til briterne.

Matthew Ogden: Vi har faktisk en FOIA-udgivelse (FOIA: Freedom of Information Act) af dette FBI-memo, som vi viser på skærmen [Fig. 2]. I kan selv se det følgende citat, som Will vil læse.

Will Wertz: Der står, og det er altså fra James Noland til den britiske regering: »Vi vil gerne gentage vores konklusion om, at, alt imens mange af NCLC’s chikane-aktiviteter« – NCLC var Lyndon LaRouches organisation – »og de temaer, som NCLC’s publikationer promoverer, såsom EIR [Executive Intelligence Review] ofte er favorable over for sovjetisk misinformation og propagandainteresser, så er der ingen direkte beviser for, at russerne dirigerer eller finansierer LaRouche eller hans organisation. Det er imidlertid helt igennem sandsynligt, at russerne (sovjet-russerne) har udviklet eller vil udvikle kilder internt i NCLC, der befinder sig i en position, hvor de kan indskyde sovjet-inspirerede anskuelser i NCLC’s aktiviteter og publikationer. Det er sandsynligt, at russerne vil forsøge at drage fordel af eller udnytte NCLC-meninger, der er paralleller til eller fremmer sovjetiske, udenrigspolitiske mål.«

Minder dette jer om interventionen på vegne af Storbritanniens Government Communications Headquarters – GCHQ – eller på vegne af MI6’s Christopher Steele, for at forsøge at få en efterforskning af USA’s præsident Donald Trump, for angiveligt ’aftalt spil’ med russerne?

Alligevel skete der det, at præsidentens Udenrigspolitiske Råds Styrelse den 12. januar, 1983, krævede en efterforskning fra FBI’s side. Robert Mueller kommer ind i billedet i 1982. Han blev en del af USA’s justitsminister William Welds stab i Boston i 1982. Efter valgene i 1984 lancerede Weld en efterforskning af LaRouche; og i 1986 efterfulgte Mueller Weld, da Weld af George Bush – det var faktisk Ronald Reagan, der var præsident, men under indflydelse af George Bush, senior – blev udnævnt til at lede Justitsministeriets Kriminal-afdeling. Mueller bragte dernæst en vis John Markham ind for at udføre retsforfølgelsen af Lyndon LaRouche, der begyndte i Boston. Efter en razzia den 6. oktober, 1986 i Leesburg, Virginia, mod LaRouches hovedkvarter, hvor der var en trussel om, og en faktisk plan for, at forsøge at iscenesætte mordet på Lyndon LaRouche. Dette forsøg blev forpurret, men retsforfølgelsen forsatte i de sene 1980’ere.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

This prosecution was typical of Mueller’s corruption.  For
instance, in Boston itself, the prosecution ended in a mistrial
after government misconduct had been brought to light.  The jury,
when they polled themselves afterwards, having only heard the
complete prosecution case, unanimously said that they would have
voted for acquittal.  The judge in that case made the following
statement:  He said that the government had “engaged in
systematic and institutional prosecutorial misconduct”; this is
Robert Mueller.  The case was then shifted to Virginia, and what
they did there was that they had a judge in the so-called “Rocket
Docket” who made it impossible for the defendants to raise the
fact that the government had illegally put companies associated
with LaRouche into involuntary bankruptcy.  That was a very
significant factor in undermining the defense in that case.
After the case had resulted in convictions, the bankruptcy judge,
Martin Bostetter, ruled that the bankruptcy was a “constructive
fraud on the court.”
Ramsey Clark was the attorney for Lyndon LaRouche in the
appeal.

OGDEN:  Let’s put this quote on the screen, too; we have
Ramsey Clark’s quote [Fig. 3].

WERTZ:  What Ramsey Clark said was that “The LaRouche case
represents a broader range of deliberate cunning and systemic
misconduct over a longer period of time using the power of the
Federal government, than any other prosecution by the U.S.
Government in my time and to my knowledge.”  Later in another
spin-off case in New York State, New York State Supreme Court
Justice Stephen G. Crane said, “The actions of the Federal
prosecutors raise an inference of a conspiracy to lay low these
defendants at any cost.”  This is not just one judge.  We’re
talking about at least two judges, a bankruptcy judge, and the
former Attorney General of the United States Ramsey Clark, who
effectively denounced this so-called honest Robert Mueller for
conducting one of the most incredible corrupt prosecutions in
U.S. history.
If we look forward to the 9/11 period, Lyndon LaRouche
wrongly imprisoned by this apparatus which was launched by the
British and carried forward by the Bush administration.  Bush was
President at the time of the trial and the sentencing.  LaRouche
was out of prison and continued his fight for a policy of
economic development; calling for a New Bretton Woods system to
replace the system which had been abandoned by Nixon in 1971.  He
was working, as he had in the earlier period, on negotiating in
the early 1980s with the Soviets for the National Security
Council of the United States under Reagan for the SDI.  He
continued those discussions with the Russians, this time around a
New Bretton Woods conception under President Clinton.  Clinton
himself, before the impeachment proceedings were launched against
him, called for a new financial architecture at a speech before
the CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] in New York, along the
lines of what LaRouche had advocated.
LaRouche was also at the end of the 1990s, he was warning
about the campaign to create an Arc of Crisis around Russia — no
longer the Soviet Union, but Russia.  He produced a video called
“Storm Over Asia” in which he developed precisely how this
operation was being run against Russia.  Then in January of 2001,
he warned that there could be some sort of terrorist action in
the United States such as a Reichstag Fire [which brought Hitler
into power], which could be engineered under the Bush
administration.  That’s precisely what occurred on September 11,
2001.
Again, what do we have here?  Mueller assumed office as FBI
Director on September 4, 2001, just days before 9/11.  What he
did from that point on, was to carry out what Senator Bob Graham,
who headed up the Congressional investigation of 9/11, has
described as “aggressive deception.”

OGDEN:  Here’s a clip from a press conference that Bob
Graham did a little bit over a year ago at the National Press
Club, where he discusses the role that the FBI played in
stonewalling the Congressional investigation into 9/11; both in
terms of the details regarding San Diego — that’s what was
contained in the 28 pages — but also in an even bigger case of
cover-up, the details of the cell that was located in Sarasota,
Florida.  So you’ll hear Bob Graham talk about what he called
“beyond a cover-up, but an aggressive deception campaign against
the American people.”

SEN. BOB GRAHAM

:  It appeared as if the FBI was
moving from a cover-up which I considered to be a passive
withholding of information, to aggressive deception in the case
of Sarasota — which is one of several examples.  They rewrote
the narrative; they said we’ve finished the investigation, and we
have found no connections.  When in their own files, written by
their own special agent who was from the Tampa office,
incidentally, they had contrary information.  They then, and have
continued, to withhold that information, other than the 80,000
pages from the public.  I consider to justify the categorization
of being aggressive deception.

OGDEN:  Then later in the same press conference, which you
can watch in full there — it’s lpac.co/graham-press-conference.
But later in the same press conference, he talked about how the
Deputy Director of the FBI actually detained him and his wife at
Dulles Airport, and warned them to stop pursuing the truth about
what was contained in these documents about the Saudi connections
to 9/11.  So, here’s a short clip where he talks about that
warning from the FBI to him and his wife.

GRAHAM

:  The question is raised, “Why are you doing
this?  Fifteen years later, what difference does this make?  Get
a life.”  I was told that by the Deputy Director of the FBI.
FEMALE REPORTER:  Just one follow-up.  You were pretty much
harassed by the FBI when you tried to go further in your
inquiries.  Since you went public, have you heard of anybody else
who had that kind of treatment from the FBI?
GRAHAM:  No.  This was a situation which occurred in 2011 as
all this information about Sarasota was starting to come out.  My
wife and I flew up from Miami to Dulles to have Thanksgiving with
our daughter who lives in Great Falls.  We were met at the
airport by two FBI agents.  They said that an official of the FBI
wants to talk with you about the Sarasota situation. Well, I was
encouraged; feeling that maybe some of the questions that we’d
been asking were now going to be answered.  So, we drove with the
two agents to the office at Dulles which the FBI has.  My wife
was put in one room, and she was given as entertainment the FBI
training manual.  If you want to know some arcane aspects of FBI
training, she’s fully prepared.  I was taken into another room,
with the Deputy Director of the FBI, a young female FBI agent,
and a middle-aged lawyer from the Department of Justice.
Essentially, the message was, we’ve done this complete
investigation; everything that’s known is known, and you need to
get a life.  I pointed out what he didn’t know was that I had
actually read two of the investigative reports by their agent,
which contradicted what they had said publicly and what he had
just said to me privately.  He said, “Oh, you don’t understand.
One, that wasn’t a very good agent.”  Well, the idea that has
there been an investigation by the FBI in its history that was as
important to the American people as full knowledge as 9/11?  And
the very fact that they would say they had sent as an
investigation into what I think was an important component of the
total picture, someone that they declare to be less than a fully
capable person was itself revelatory.  And then he proceeded to
say, “And we have other information that puts what you read in
context.  And you will see that in fact what we have said is
true.”  So, I said “Fine.  Could I see the information that will
put it into context?”  And he pointed to the young female agent,
and directed her to assemble the files.  We arranged a time to
meet at the FBI office for the District of Columbia.
So, a few days later, I showed up for our meeting, prepared
to read these files.  The Deputy Director was there, and he said
the meeting is cancelled and we’re not going to reschedule.  And,
since I knew who the agent was who had been described as less
than competent; and I had called him to try to have a telephone
conversation, and he said “I know you’ve been calling Agent ‘X’.
Stop calling him, because I’ve told him to not take your calls.”
That was the last of any official character meeting that I had
with the FBI. [END VIDEO]

OGDEN:  There are more details concerning Mueller’s direct
involvement in this kind of stonewalling around the Congressional
inquiry into 9/11; telling Bob Graham and his other investigators
not to fly out to interview one of the known personalities in San
Diego.  They disobeyed those orders and did it anyhow.  But just
parenthetically, immediately after this press conference that Bob
Graham did in Washington D.C. at the National Press Club, a fight
erupted around the so-called JASTA bill — Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism — which would allow the 9/11 families to
sue Saudi Arabia for their role in financing and coordinating the
9/11 attacks.

Yesterday just happens to be the one-year anniversary of the major victory — you can see on the screen
here [Fig. 4] — of the Senate override of Obama’s veto of this
JASTA bill, which was absolutely dramatic.  This was a rally in
front of the White House [Fig. 5] of 9/11 families and activists,
asking the Congress to override Obama’s veto; and then next [Fig. 6], this is an article in one of the Capitol Hill newspapers.
“Senate Poised To Override Obama Veto.”  Then this is the final picture [Fig. 7], this was actually in the cloakroom immediately after the Senate cast their votes.  The cloakroom of the U.S. Senate.  I had the pleasure to actually be there in the gallery with the 9/11 families when the U.S. Senate overrode Obama’s veto of the JASTA bill.  That was the CNN coverage.  This was obviously a major victory, parenthetically.  But it’s part of the story, and the role that Bob Graham had to play in going directly head-to-head with the FBI and others in the Executive Branch who were trying to cover up and protect the Saudis in the 9/11 case.

WERTZ:  Now, there are, along with the statement from James
Noland that I read earlier, in response to the British
government’s request back in 1982 for an investigation of Lyndon
LaRouche, there were two other attachments which were
declassified.  The one basically was an attack upon LaRouche for
having opposed in what they called the Falkland Islands, but
which is the Malvinas Islands.  LaRouche did that from the
standpoint of the Monroe Doctrine.  The second was they objected
to the LaRouche Movement revealing that the policy of the British
was to promote the Muslim Brotherhood.  If we look at the period
after 9/11, in which Robert Mueller is carrying out this
“aggressive deception” as Senator Graham puts it, to cover up the
role of the Saudis.  When you’re talking about the Saudis, you’re
talking about a satrap of the British; that’s what you’re talking
about in this situation.
What follows 9/11?  Regime-change wars.  What follows 9/11
immediately is Tony Blair’s sexed up dossier claiming that Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; which, as it turns out,
he did not have.  And which the British undoubtedly knew he did
not have.  Once again, British intervention.  And after the
invasion of Iraq, you had the effective creation of ISIS; you had
then under Obama, continued regime-change policies under the name
of the Arab Spring, which was just a policy of bringing the
Muslim Brotherhood to power in such locations as Tunisia, Egypt,
Libya, and Syria.  As Lyndon LaRouche said after the
assassination of Qaddafi, the reason they assassinated him was
that they were in a hurry to move into Syria, as part of what he
had earlier described as the “Storm Over Asia”; an effort to
encircle Russia and to ensure that a New Paradigm does not
emerge.
A critical point in this narrative really is in the period
of 2013-14.  I should just say, Mueller stepped aside as FBI
Director on September 4, 2013; and as you know, he was replaced
by James Comey.  James Comey, it should be remembered, was the
Deputy Attorney General under Mueller from December 2003 until
August 2005.
In the year 2013, President Xi of China went to Kazakhstan,
and he announced the Chinese commitment to the Silk Road; a
policy which had been advocated for a significant period of time
by Lyndon LaRouche and his wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who is well
known today as the Silk Road Lady.  The Chinese have an immediate
appreciation of the role that she has played in advocating this
policy.
In the next year, you have the Ukraine coup — February
2014; orchestrated by Obama and by the British and the French,
among others.  But the basic idea here was, again, encirclement
of Russia, in this case with a bunch of Nazis, which is what the
Maidan consisted of.
On July 16, 2014, as the dossier that Barbara Boyd has
authored on Mueller indicates, you had the BRICS organization
meeting in Brazil, and what they formed was the New Development
Bank.  Remember, LaRouche had called for an International
Development Bank, back in 1975: This whole policy that LaRouche
had advocated over these decades, at that point was in the
process of coming into existence, and it was at point,
particularly following the coup in Ukraine, that the operation
against associates of Trump’s began, that is, even before he
announced for President.  We now know, that contrary to the lies
of James Comey and [then Director of National Intelligence] James
Clapper, there was wiretapping of associates of President Trump.
We know for a fact that the dossier indicates that Paul Manafort,
who became Trump’s campaign manager when he announced for
President, was wiretapped beginning in the year 2014; and this
continued through 2016.  It was discontinued for a certain period
of time, and then resumed into 2017 before Obama left office,
including a time period in which it was known that Manafort, even
though he was no longer campaign manager, was speaking to
President Trump.  Manafort had a residence in the Trump Tower all
of this time.
Why was he targetted, initially?  Well, because he had
provided advisory services to the Yanukovych government [in
Ukraine] — this was a duly elected government, which was
overthrown unconstitutionally in 2014, by Nazis.  So, of course,
that becomes grounds for investigating somebody whose client was
overthrown by a bunch of Nazis, by the Obama administration!
The investigation begins there.
Also, in 2014, Michael Flynn was fired by Obama — why?
Because he had opposed the Obama Arab Spring policy, which gave
rise to ISIS, Michael Flynn said at the time.  So you can imagine
that it is perhaps the case that surveillance of Michael Flynn
began at that time as well.
Now, what the dossier on Mueller goes through is that
Mueller should be removed as Special Counsel, and there should be
an actual Special Counsel who investigates the crimes which
Mueller aggressively deceiving the American people about, in his
investigation of President Trump.  And I would also point out,
think of the statements by various judges about the corrupt
investigation and witch hunt directed at Lyndon LaRouche — well,
on June 15, 2017, Trump wrote:  “You are witnessing the single
greatest witch hunt in American political history.”  And I would
say that, the precursor for this was the unprecedented witch hunt
against Lyndon LaRouche, but that President Trump is effectively
getting the same treatment as Lyndon LaRouche did then, from the
same sources, from the British.
Now, there are seven areas, that should be investigated — ,

OGDEN:  We can put this on the screen here.  We have the
list of the seven actual crimes.

WERTZ:  First, instigation of a coup against the United
States by a foreign power.
So, although the charge is that President Trump, or his
associates, colluded with the Russians, the fact of the matter
is, that all the evidence shows that this entire operation has
been concocted by the British, and been carried out by stooges in
the intelligence community under President Obama; who was
particularly happy every time he visited Buckingham Palace.
Now what do we have as evidence?  Well, the {Guardian}
reports that as early as 2015, shortly after he announced for
President, that the British began to surveille Trump and his
associates.  And according to the public account — and this
cannot be taken at face value; this investigation of Trump may
have started earlier.  The communications between the British and
[then CIA Director] Brennan or others in the U.S. intelligence
community, could have occurred before 2016. The report in the
{Guardian} says that sometime in the summer, Hannigan of the
Government Communications Headquarters,  the GCHQ, which is the
equivalent of our NSA, spoke with Brennan about allegations that
Trump was being influenced by the Russians or working with the
Russians.
But the point is, it was the GCHQ which was directly
involved — according to public accounts in the {Guardian}, in
prompting Brennan to create a six-intelligence agency taskforce
to investigate Trump, {during} the Presidential campaign!
And I think the only other case of this kind of thing, was
what happened to Lyndon LaRouche, because Lyndon LaRouche was
running for President, back in 1988, and the investigation of him
was launched while he was a Presidential candidate in the United
States, and — really, actually, an indictment during the
Presidential campaign, which is completely unprecedented.
Additionally, you have the Christopher Steele dossier:
Christopher Steele is allegedly an “ex” MI6 agent.  He headed up
the MI6 Russian desk in Moscow, until 2009.  In 2009, he left
that position and formed Orbis Business at the same time period
Fusion GPS, a U.S. company which was involved in commissioning
Steele’s dossier, was also created.  And these two companies were
working together since at least 2010 when they signed a
confidentiality agreement between them as a shield for revealing
what was actually going on.
So you have the circulation of the Christopher Steele
dossier — and they didn’t just produce this for Hillary Clinton.
They were briefing the press!  They were giving direct briefings
to the press; they were giving it to John McCain who then gave it
to Comey, and so forth.  They were actively circulating this
unverified, so-called “intelligence” against Donald Trump, who
was a candidate for President, then became President.
And it’s very important to understand that Christopher
Steele, it’s public record that he worked with the FBI’s Eurasian
Organized Crime Unit in New York City, from at least 2010. The
former head of the FBI’s Eurasian Organized Crime Unit in New
York City is none other than Andrew McCabe; who for a while,
after Comey was fired, was Acting Director of the FBI, and is
still Deputy Director of the FBI.  And it’s believed that McCabe
was the person who was working closely with Christopher Steele.
It came to light, for instance, that the FBI actually offered to
pay Steele $50,000 to continue with his research, although the
FBI’s been stonewalling on the details on that.
So what you have here is completely a British operation
directed at Trump and his associates; and I’ll get to this in
terms of the wiretapping.
And it’s also believed that the Christopher Steele dossier
provided the roadmap for the FBI’s investigation, and also may
have been used for getting ,” FISA [Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court] surveillance authorization directed at people
such as Manafort.
Second crime is false reporting of a crime: And that’s
precisely what has occurred in the case of the allegation that
the Russians hacked Podesta and the DNC. It has been documented
thoroughly by numerous sources that this was a leak by an
insider, and not a hack by the Russians.  The most definitive
proof of this is the memorandum put forward by the Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).  And these are
top-notch former NSA, former CIA agents such as William Binney
and Ray McGovern.  They prove forensically that it could not have
been a hack over the internet; it had to be a leak onto some sort
of memory device, because of the speed involved [in the data
transfer].
This has been submitted to Mueller; he’s done nothing on it.
It’s been submitted to the President with the idea that he should
ask Pompeo of the CIA to get to the bottom of this.  We don’t
know if anything’s been done along these lines.
They also show that at least the Guccifer 2.0 claimed
hacking, attributed falsely to the Russians, when in fact there
was cutting and pasting to put the Russian language on the
alleged hack trail.  This is something which the CIA has the
capability to do under Brennan; it’s called the Marble Framework.
Assange of WikiLeaks has denied that this came from the Russian
government.  He recently met with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher,
and said that he was willing to provide testimony which would
definitely establish that this was not a hack and that it was not
given to him by the Russians.  Rohrabacher (R-CA) has been trying
to meet with Trump in order to present this evidence, but it’s
been blocked, according to him, by the staff at the White House.
Craig Murray, a U.K. former ambassador to Uzbekistan, has
said it was a leak and he knows it personally, because he met
with a person that he said was the leaker.
Seymour Hersh was taped in a discussion, without his knowing
he was being recorded, and he indicated that he had sources who
indicated that Seth Rich,  a DNC computer technician, may have
been the person who carried out the leak.
So all of this information is not being taken into account,
in continuing with the narrative that this was a Russian hack,
and you’re supposed to believe that.
Then you have the third crime, which is an attempt at
entrapment of Donald Trump, Jr., Manafort, and Jared Kushner,
among others, in a Trump Tower meeting.  The British hand is all
over this: The person who set up the meeting and sent the emails
to Donald Trump, Jr., which misrepresented the purpose of the
meeting, was one Ron Goldstone, a British national.  It should
also be pointed out that one William Browder, who testified
before Congress, in this case against Fusion GPS, because they
were lobbying against the Magnitsky Act, which was the subject of
the discussion at the Trump Tower.  This was a person who
renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1989 and became a British
citizen.
So again, what we’re dealing with here is a complete British
operation. It’s just transparent that that’s the case.  But this
was a deliberate attempt to try to set up a situation which would
involve the Trump immediate circles, in attempting to get
information on Hillary Clinton allegedly coming from the
Russians.
Fourth area: Felonious leaks of intelligence by the Obama
administration.  This has to do with the unmasking, which was
completely out of control, or I guess you could say it was under
very directed control by the Obama administration officials.  For
instance, it’s been revealed that Samantha Power, the Obama UN
ambassador, requested 260 unmaskings of U.S. citizens in the
course of 2016.  And she even tried to get even more unmaskings
before the inauguration of Donald Trump.  What reason does she
have to be asking for such intelligence, from the standpoint of
being at the UN?
Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, it is known
asked for many unmaskings, in this case, her National Security
Council records were transferred to the Obama library, so that
justice could be obstructed, because records at the library are
sealed for a number of years.
This is a deliberate policy of targetting U.S. citizens,
particularly Trump associated by the Obama administration, and
those are two such cases.
You have also the attempted J. Edgar Hoover-style sexual
blackmail of Trump, by Comey:  This is the fifth area that should
be investigated.  Comey met with Trump in Trump Tower on Jan. 6,
2017; he met with him alone.  Other people had come to the
meeting, but he asked them to leave and then met with Trump
alone, and presented him with an aspect of the Steele dossier
which claimed that he had been involved in sexual perversions in
a hotel in Moscow.  Trump has reportedly asked for an immediate
investigation of this fraudulent dossier, which Comey refused to
do.
But this is the kind of thing that J. Edgar Hoover did to
many, to Martin Luther King, Jr., and to many others, as a means
of terrorizing and controlling people to go along with a policy
desired by J. Edgar Hoover’s controllers, which is also the case
with respect to Comey.
A sixth area for investigation is the wiretapping of Trump
associates, and then the lying by Comey and Clapper to the U.S.
Congress. Clapper in particular was asked, was there a FISA
ordered surveillance of Trump or his associates?  He said no.
“Would you know about it if it had occurred?”  “Yes, I would,”
and he left a loophole and said: Well, there may have been some
other jurisdiction was carrying out a wiretap that I don’t know
about.
But this is what he said, and he definitively said there was
no FISA Court wiretap, and yet, that’s precisely what came out:
That Manafort, the campaign manager of Trump, was wiretapped and
he had a resident at Trump Tower, and this is precisely what
Trump had tweeted on March 4th, 2017:  “Terrible! Just found out
that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the
victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”  So that has to be
investigated.
And then the final thing in the dossier, is the attempted
entrapment of the President by Comey himself, into an obstruction
of justice charge:  So you have the head of the FBI who is acting
virtually as somebody who goes to a meeting with wires on, and
goes back to his controllers at the FBI to consult after each
visit with Trump.  And then writes memos, which he illegally
leaked to the press, and he actually said:  “I thought that might
prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”  So he had the
intention of getting a special counsel against Trump, on the
grounds  — one would be to claim that Trump asked him not to
pursue an investigation of Michael Flynn; of course Trump didn’t
do that, as indicated.  He merely said, “I would hope that he
wouldn’t be prosecuted.”  And of course, as has been pointed out,
the President has the right to actually pardon somebody.  So, as
Alan Dershowitz, the civil rights attorney, and Democrat, has
said he had every right to say what he did.
And the other aspect is to say that somehow Trump was
obstructing justice by firing Comey!  So the attempt was set up
to get Mueller to be able to carry out this kind of an
investigation against Trump.
Using methods of entrapment, lying throughout, what you had
is a witch hunt against a President of the United States.  It’s
not the first time that the British have been involved in this,
and their stooges in the United States, but this is really
unprecedented, with the exception of the witch hunt which was
carried out earlier against Lyndon LaRouche.
And it’s time that this be stopped! And that’s the whole
point of this dossier.
The dossier should be seen as a political weapon in the
hands of the American citizenry.  The issue here is what Benjamin
Franklin said after the Constitutional Convention adopted a
Constitution.  We have a republic, the question is, can you keep
it?  And the responsibility rests on the American citizen to use
this dossier to actually force the issue in the country right
now, to stop this British coup.
Robert Mueller’s full name, as the dossier indicates, is
Robert Swan Mueller III.  Our intention is to make this operation
being carried out by Mueller right now, to be his final swan
song.

OGDEN:  As we saw on the screen there, the question that was
asked at the conclusion of this final section of the dossier is
the following: “{Have our intelligence agencies, actually
instigated an Active Measures counterintelligence program
illegally and against a sitting President?}” [emphasis in
original]
So that’s the question and as the dossier states a little
bit later on:  It’s very clear that there has been a foreign
government that has intervened to attempt to sway the U.S.
electoral process and the U.S. democratic process, and that that
foreign government is the British government.  And so if you
follow the thread of Robert Mueller, not just in the attacks
right now against President Donald Trump, but if you follow it
back to the aggressive cover-up of the events of 9/11, and even
the prosecution and witch hunt against Lyndon LaRouche in the
1980s, you’ll see if you pull that thread it will unravel a much,
much larger apparatus, and it will reveal a lot more.
This dossier follows that thread very clearly through these
three crucial inflection points in our nation’s recent history
and the call to action is obviously to access this dossier which
we’re making available and to circulate it as widely as possible.
Will, you made the point that the context for all of this is
much more significant than maybe even all of the mechanisms by
which these crimes have been carried out.  The context is what
reveals and uncovers the true motivation behind this entire
process, and I think if you take the connections between this
dossier, which choose 1982 as a crucial year to examine what
Lyndon LaRouche’s activities were at that time — meeting with
López Portillo, meeting with Indira Gandhi, proposing the
Strategic Defense Initiative, and authoring {Operation Juárez},
and if you trace that forward to the announcement in 2013 by Xi
Jinping of the new Silk Road, the Eurasian World Land-Bridge, and
the new international financial institution of development that
that represents, that’s the unifier for this entire period of
history.
And despite the attempts, over and over, and over again, to
derail that locomotive of world history, we’ve reached the point
where that is the prevailing dynamic on the planet. And the
attempts to try to sabotage that and undermine it continue to
fail.  And so, this is the latest attempt in that, but to look at
what the motivation is — maybe you can just say a little bit
more about what that context is.

WERTZ:  I think the point is, in defeating this British
operation which Mueller is spearheading at this point, we create
the conditions under which President Trump can move to join with
Russia, China, India in the development of the One Belt, One Road
policy.  This is crucial in terms of reversing the destructions
over the recent decades of our industrial capacity in the United
States; it’s crucial in terms of developing world peace, solving
crises such as Korea, solving crises such as the terrorist
onslaught in the Middle East and Northern Africa in particular.
That collaboration is crucial.  Trump has signalled that he wants
to move with such collaboration.
And this is a longstanding fight to bring humanity together,
operating on a common destiny of humanity, what John Quincy Adams
called a “community of principle among a family of sovereign
nation-states.”
The British Empire, as the Venetian Empire before it, has
been opposed to that.  It has operated under the geopolitical of
dividing nations among themselves, creating warfare such as we’ve
seen repeatedly over the last more than a hundred years, with two
world wars, and perpetual warfare ever since.
And so we’re in a situation, where, as Lyndon LaRouche
recently said, “Victory is within our reach,” and you have to
understand this broad arc of history in order to have an
appreciation of what’s occurring in so-called contemporary
affairs.  It’s not what meets the eye:  it’s this broader
question — we’ve got a financial crisis in the world.  The
system is overbloated and ripe for collapse; the problems of 2008
were never solved.  And we have a solution before us which is New
Paradigm:  Peace based upon economic development, cooperation
among nations for the purpose of promoting, as our Constitution
says, the General Welfare, not just of our own population, but of
the population of the entire planet.
And I think that’s the issue between the British Empire
policy of geopolitics, versus the policy of a community of
principle among nation-states, which is a U.S. policy; the policy
expressed by President Xi of China of a “win-win” policy, as
opposed to a zero-sum game — this is what’s at stake right now.
I think the American citizen, as this dossier concludes, has to
take responsibility, circulate this dossier!  We’re going to be
producing a leaflet and maybe multiple leaflets that you can get
from our site and then circulate throughout the country, to bring
people’s attention to this dossier.  We’re not in a position to
produce a large number of these in hard copy, but we do have an
electronic version which will be available on the LaRouche PAC
site.
And by doing this, we can create the conditions under which
not only is the presence of the United States defended against
this coup attempt, and it’s very much like the Maidan in Ukraine
that’s being attempted right now; what’s being done to Trump is
almost precisely modeled on the Maidan that brought about the
coup in Ukraine.  But more broadly than that, by defending the
Presidency was the chance of bringing about a different geometry
on the globe as a whole, and creating the conditions under which
we can move towards what the actual mission of mankind is:, which
is not only to develop this planet Earth, but also to assert
dominion over the Galaxy and eventually the Universe.

OGDEN:  Well, thank you, and let me put on the screen, one
more time, the cover page of this dossier, so you can get a look
at it, and we’ll have the link here on the screen.  You can
access this dossier at lpac.co/ytdos. And again, the title:
“Robert Mueller Is An Amoral Legal Assassin:  He Will Do His Job
If You Let Him.”
You’ll find this report fascinating:  You’ll learn a lot
about history, the history of this country over the last 30, 35
years that you did not know, I guarantee you.  And you’ll learn a
lot about what’s going on right now.  There’s much, much more
than what meets the eye.
Thank you for joining me, Will.  And thank you for tuning
in, and we encourage you, read the dossier and circulate it as
widely as you can.  And stay tuned to larouchepac.com

Af Barbara Boyd.

Indledning:

Robert Swan Mueller III – den særlige anklager, der har fået til opgave at bringe USA’s præsident til fald – er, som hans navn antyder, et produkt af elitens privatskoler og universiteter. I de nationale nyhedsmedier roses han på ensartet og nøgtern vis som ubestikkelige, fair, »ærlige Bob«, »skolemester Bobby med tre pinde«. Vi vil vise, at dette image er et skamløst falsk PR-nummer fra Washington, D.C., der er skabt for de godtroende.

I virkeligheden er Robert Swan Mueller så korrupt, man kan være, og bøjer og drejer loven efter behov for at tjene deres mål, som tildeler ham opgaver. Magten hos anklagerfunktionen og institutionerne, han tjener, dikterer, hvad der er retten for ham, snarere end den fordomsfrie forfølgelse af retfærdighed, som loven bestemmer for hans kald. I, hvad han selv kalder et afgørende øjeblik, brød han rækkerne efter college for at tjene som marinesoldat i Vietnamkrigen. Herefter ønskede han aldrig at gøre noget som helst andet end at retsforfølge. Hans udnævnelse til særlig anklager udgør toppen af en lang karriere, hvor han har set sig selv som en streng og villig kriger, en pligtopfyldende marinesoldat, der handler på vegne af en hvilken som helst ond plan, hans overordnede præsenterer ham for, og bruger hvilke midler som helst, der synes nødvendige for at udføre planen.

I de seneste uger har aktivister fra LaRouche-bevægelsen gentagne gange fået at vide af borgere, de møder: »Det ser ud, som om præsident Trump nu får ’LaRouche-behandlingen’«. De to mænd kunne ikke være mere forskellige, mht. position eller kulturelle og intellektuelle præstationer. LaRouche er et verdenshistorisk geni af samme støbning som Leibniz. Men, begge mænd har rørt ved det, der viste sig at være den ’tredje skinne’ (den farlige, el-førende skinne i f.eks. undergrundbanen) i amerikansk politik, siden Franklin Roosevelts død. De udgjorde en trussel mod det angloamerikanske, britiske imperiesystem efter krigen. LaRouche udgjorde en sådan trussel direkte, konsekvent og eksplicit ved navn. Trump udgør en sådan trussel implicit, ved at afvise evindelig krigsførelse og søge bedre relationer med Rusland, kræve gennemførelse af Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, støtte det, han henviser til som det Amerikanske System for politisk økonomi og ved at love massiv infrastrukturudvikling og en moderne platform for varefremstilling, for produktive jobs.

I begge tilfælde krævede briterne, som vi vil få at se, deres skalp, baseret på den opfattede trussel mod dem, med, som det mest specifikke eksempel på denne trussel, ønsket om en samarbejdsrelation med Rusland og en afslutning af den »unipolære« ramme for relationer mellem nationer. I begge tilfælde udløste de kontrollerede medier en uafbrudt spærreild af hæslig, slibrig og ærekrænkende dækning, dag efter dag, for at skabe betingelserne for en folkelig opbakning til en retsforfølgelse for kriminel aktivitet. Alt imens der er mange andre aktører i disse ’Kabuki-danse’ (tilnærmelsesvis, spil for galleriet) – kompromitterede og terroriserede politikere og dommere, og et efterretningssamfund, der fungerer som gendarmer for vores Orwellske politistat – så var det stumpe instrument, der blev valgt til angrebet, Robert Mueller. Undervejs, mellem disse to opgaver, spillede Robert Mueller en enormt betydningsfuld rolle i mørklægningen af den saudisk/britiske rolle i mordene på næsten 3.000 amerikanere den 11. september, 2001, og det totalt ødelæggende udsalg af USA’s Forfatning, der fulgte i kølvandet på terrorangrebet – en rolle, der, hvis den blev grundigt efterforsket, udgør forhindring af retfærdighedens gang, blandt andre forbrydelser.

Dette dossier vil tage jer igennem Muellers karriere, baseret på det, der er umiddelbart og offentligt tilgængeligt. Det efterlader et spor af ureglementeret anklagervirksomhed, inklusive det, som tidligere senator Bob Graham kalder »aggressivt bedrag« af den amerikanske Kongres og offentlighed, med hensyn til begivenhederne den 11. september, 2001, og inkluderer en betydelig rolle i overvågningsstaten efter 11. september, som har udtaget og ødelagt det fjerde forfatningstillæg og resten af vor Forfatnings Lov om Frihedsrettigheder. De af jer, der arbejder inden for vor moderne Leviatan, kan utvivlsomt pege på andre ureglementerede aktiviteter, og vi opfordrer jer til at læsse på – vær så venlige at afsløre det. Intet mindre end dette er, hvad I skylder jeres ed over for USA’s Forfatning.

Læs hele EIR’s dossier:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

English: See below

Kun få mennesker opnår at blive 95 år – så når de gør, er der grund til at fejre dem. Men endnu færre er de, der har brugt deres tildelte år, mange eller få, til at ændre historiens gang, sådan, som Lyn har gjort, og til at inspirere så mange til at handle for også selv at ændre historiens gang. Under festen lørdag, den 9. sept. i Tyskland, i en vindyrkers restaurant i Münster-Sarmsheim an der Nahe, blev der derfor bragt gaver i form af udtryk for menneskelig kreativitet til en mand, der har kæmpet så hårdt, og så længe, for at bringe princippet om menneskelig kreativitet ind i økonomi, ind i politik, ind i kunst og videnskab, til gamle og unge, og i hele verden. Fra poesi til drama; fra Lieder, operaarier og til korværker.

Nogle af Lyns bedste venner fra evighedens samtidighed var særlige gæsteoptrædende for at gøre festivitassen større: Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms og Verdi, og, åh ja, også Schiller. Fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche kom et originalt digt på tysk, og fra nogle af de tilstedeværende medlemmer af LaRouches politiske bevægelse kom der musikalske kompositioner og arrangementer. Kunstneriske værker på tysk, engelsk, italiensk og dansk; værker på kinesisk, koreansk og afrikanske sprog.

Takkeord blev givet til en mand, der har ændret alle vore liv – der har givet os retning, formål og missioner på vegne af hele menneskeheden. Som rent politisk har kæmpet med sit intellekt, som boksere kæmper med næverne, og således anført vejen.

Deltagerne var rejst fra hele Tyskland, fra Frankrig, Italien, Sverige, Danmark, USA og Rusland. Gid vi alle kunne have været til stede.

Men mange af dem, der ikke kunne være til stede, havde skrevet bidrag til et Festschrift, som blev overbragt Lyn af hans hustru og nærmeste medarbejder, Helga. Efter glassene med sekt var blevet hævet til Lyns ære, blev hun lokket til at recitere digtet, hun havde skrevet til sin kæreste mand, og som er det første bidrag i Festskriftet.

Det første musikalske indslag kom fra John Sigerson og Margaret Greenspan, der opførte An die ferne Geliebte (Til den fjerne elskede), og som Lyn virkelig nød. Det skabte en god atmosfære for resten af aftenen. (De var rejst fra USA for at synge og spille for Lyn, foruden også at have givet to koncerter i forbindelse med den aktuelle BüSo-valgkampagne, som køres af den tyske gren af LaRouche-bevægelsen.)

Dernæst fortsatte programmet efter kaffe og kage. Elliot Greenspan, en leder i Lyns Manhattan-projekt, præsenterede Lyn for flere minder fra dette projekt: et billede af aktivisterne, en original tegning af Leibniz med Verdenslandbroen som baggrund, en kalender med billeder af Manhattan-projektets aktiviteter, og et digt, skrevet af et af medlemmerne dér; og han spurgte Lyn, om, da han initierede projektet, havde forudset, at New York City ville producere den næste præsident, Trump. Lyn svarede, at vi ikke ved, hvor langt, Trump vil drive det. Vi har brug for ham nu, men, hvis han mislykkes, er det hans fejl, og det vil være beklageligt, men jeg tror, han kan vinde. Elliot responderede, at vi ikke blot har tænkt os at sidde og vente på at se, hvad der sker. Du sagde, Lyn, at du var for gammel til at opstille til præsident; men ikke for gammel til at forme præsidentskabet. Du gav os Hamilton-princippet og kor-princippet. Gav os, og eksemplificerede, princippet om det menneskelige intellekt, princippet om flanken og Schillers idé om patrioten og verdensborgeren. På vegne af især de amerikanske aktivister, er vi for altid taknemlige og forpligtet over for denne mission. Man kunne måske sige, at Trump er blevet vores Manhattan-projekt, eller, hvis man virkelig ønsker at gøre Amerika stort igen, »Vind med Lyn«. (Her indskød Lyn, mens han selv blev æret, en tanke om at ære de ofre og redningsfolk, der døde i Manhattan den 11. september, 2001.)

Dernæst fulgte Feride Gillesberg, som, akkompagneret af Werner Hartmann, sang en kinesisk folkesang. Hun opførte dernæst sammen med Michelle Rasmussen førsteopførelsen af en sang, som Michelle havde komponeret til digtet, »Kender du den store bog?«, af Hans Christian Andersen. Dette digt beskriver den store bog som værende naturen og det store univers, som mennesket kan læse og udlede visdom af.

Dernæst talte Kasia. Hun havde spurgt flere personer fra evighedens samtid om denne ballademager, Lyndon LaRouche, og hun reciterede deres erklæringer om, hvad egenskaben ved geni er, som sin gave til et nutidsgeni: Man kan kende et ægte geni på mængden af modstand, han får (Jonathan Swift og Einstein); på, hvordan én, der beundres af andre, selv ved, hvor langt væk, han er fra sit mål (Beethoven); menneskets tre moralske egenskaber er visdom, medfølelse og mod (Konfucius); jo mere, vi ved om Guds skaberværker, desto mere erkender vi dem for at være fremragende og i overensstemmelse med vore ønsker (Leibniz); og sluttelig, at længslen efter frihed og menneskets rettigheder er plantet af Gud i alle hjerter (Benjamin Franklin) og du, Lyn, har altid handlet som denne filosof.

Leena Malkki-Guignard fra Sverige fremførte en smuk opførsel af Schubert fra Schwanengesang, Frühlingsbotschaft og Ständchen. Hun takkede Lyn for hans inspiration. Disse to sange var to af de første, hun nogensinde opførte. Hun sang desuden en sang af Haydn, Fidelity.

Wiesbaden-koret, dirigeret af Werner Hartmann, sang et smukt arrangement af ham selv af den koreanske folkesang, Arirang, hvilket bragte en inderlig stemning af forening (idet sangen er en slags nationalhymne for begge Korea’er). Dernæst Berlin/Dresden-koret, der blev dirigeret af Benjamin Lylloff, og som sang tre folkesange, In stiller Nacht, Erlaube mir og All’ mein Gedanken af Johannes Brahms. De afsluttede med Nkosi sikelel’ iAfrika, i Benjamins arrangement. Dette var en glad afslutning på første del af de kulturelle indslag.

Efter buffeten begyndte anden del med en scene fra Schillers skuespil Don Carlos mellem Kong Philip og Elisabeth, spillet af Hans-Peter Müller og Christa Kaiser.

Odile spillede en gigue af Bach på Violin. Det er altid en fornøjelse at høre hende spille.

Under anden del af programmet begyndte Jacques Cheminade (leder af Solidarité & Progrès; det franske parti, der udtrykker LaRouche-bevægelsens ideer) at holde en tale i denne ærefulde anledning. Men den ærede mand, hvis liv er karakteriseret af aktivitet, og ikke passivitet, begyndte at respondere til hver idé, og det, der fulgte, blev transformeret fra en monolog til en dialog, til alles, inklusive Jacques, fryd.

Dialogen frem og tilbage begyndte med, at Jacques erklærede, at Lyns og Helgas vision nu er ved at blive til virkelighed. Under diskussionen sagde Lyn, at hans helligelse, hans livsværk var den faste beslutning om, at mennesket må handle på universet for at løse problemer, og at han en kriger for forsvaret af menneskeheden som menneskehed.

Jacques sagde, at vi fejrer et øjeblik i den fremskridende evighedens samtidighed. Du har givet os en pilgrimsfærd for fremtidens sag – på grund af det, du og Helga har gjort, har vi en chance for at blive en del af fremtiden.

Diskussion inkluderede et enormt angreb mod stupiditeten i de nuværende tyske og franske systemer, og den amerikanske befolkning. Lyn spurgte, om menneskeheden kan forstå, hvad der er galt med den. Det er den eneste måde at løse problemerne på.

Det eneste, der er vigtigt, er opdagelser i universet og om det er sandt eller falsk. Se på det store arbejde, Kina gør. Hvis man forstår, hvad sandheden kunne være, har man en chance.

Jacques konkluderede ved at sige, at fremtidens sange endnu ikke har ord, men at de sange, der er præsenteret her i aften, beviser, at vi har potentialet til at etablere relationer i hele verden. Hvis man kan gøre det, kan man frembringe civilisationens frelse.

Løsningen er at udvikle evnen til at rejse ud i rummet. Jacques sagde, at det var hans rumprogram, der fik den franske elite til at ønske at smide ham ud i rummet. Lyn svarede: Tag det som en mulighed!

Dernæst fulgte Ema Reuter, der meget bevægende fremførte Schuberts Der Wanderer med Benjamin på klaver. Dernæst fulgte kvartetten fra Fidelio, »Mir ist’s so wunderbar«, med Feride som Marzeline, Leena som Leonore, Tom som Rocco og John som Jacquino, og Benjamin på klaver.

Tom Gillesberg fra Danmark sagde, at han håbede om fem år, i anledning af Lyns 100-års fødselsdag, at kunne holde en tale om åbningen af LaRouche Universiteter i mange lande (der var mere herom i hans bidrag til Lyns Festskrift). Vi befinder os i en tid, hvor nødvendighed og mulighed mødes. Lyn svarede ved at sige, at man må gøre det for at opnå sejr. Bringe kræfter i Italien og andre lande sammen om et fælles mål. Det vil gøre det. Det er absolut nødvendigt. Eller, vi mister alt. Man kan ikke have enkeltstående kontorer. Man må satse fuldt og helt. Satse for at vinde, og vinde for menneskeheden.

Herefter sang Leena igen, og hun fremførte Desdemonas sang om Grædepilen og Ave Maria fra Verdis Othello. Dette var en bevægende afslutning på en lang aften, hvor John sammen med Margaret glad sang Das Wandern af Schubert.

Og således blev Lyns 95-års fødselsdag fejret, sammen med nogle af hans mange venner og medarbejdere, både de nulevende og fra fortiden, med opløftende musik og ord, og god mad og vin. Og, ikke at forglemme, den lille hund Holly (Helgas hund), der også var til stede for at lykønske Lyn!

(Den engelske EIR-artikel kan ses her: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/private/2017/2017_30-39/2017-38/pdf/36-39_4438.pdf)

Foto: Lyndon LaRouche og hans hustru, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, på Lyns 95-års fødselsdag.

 Bilag: H.C. Andersens digt: »Kjender du den store bog?«:

Sang ved de skandinaviske Naturforskeres sidste møde den 9de Juli 1840.

Kjender Du den store Bog,
Hvor hvert Blad et Aar omfatter,
Bogen, som til Skrifttegn tog
Skoven, Havet, Skjønheds-Datter,
Edderkoppens fine Spind,
Kloderne i Himmel-Rummet!

Hvo i Bogen trænger ind,
Han Guds stemme har fornummet!

Bogen er Naturens Bog,
Den hver Tanke slutter inde,
Der den Vise Viisdom tog,
Der vi Skjaldens Sange finde;
Som man denne Bog forstaaer,
Har man Rang i Aandens Rige,
Ganske fatte den, det gaaer
Uden for os Dødelige!

Udtal hver da hvad han fandt,
Udtal det paa Mængdens Veie,
Og alt Skjønt og Godt og Sandt
Skal da blive Verdens Eie.
Nordens Sønner, eens i Aand
Og med fælles Sprog og Minder,
Musen Eder Haand i Haand
Granskende om Bogen finder.

Samled´ er de Brødre tre,
Granskende i Guddoms-Værket;
Gran og Birk og Bøg vi see,
Malet staae i Skjoldemærket,
Nordens Stjerne oventil,
Ens det er i Hjerte-Grunden;
Aanden Norden samle vil,
Broder er af Broder funden.

Kilde: H.C. Andersens “Samlede Skrifter” Tolvte Bind.1879.

Oversigt over H.C. Andersen digte – Hans Christian Andersen poems.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Vært Matthew Ogden: Aftenens udsendelse er noget speciel. Mange af jer ved, at hr. Lyndon LaRouches 95-års fødselsdag blev fejret for en uge siden, den 8. sept.; 95 år, en moden alder. Jeg lægger et billede op på skærmen af hr. LaRouche ved sin fødselsdagsfest den følgende dag. Det var en meget glædelig fest. Mange af de hilsner, der kom fra hele verden, var varme lykønskninger og hyldest fra mennesker, der har kendt hr. LaRouche, der har arbejdet med hr. LaRouche, og som respekterer hans bidrag til at ændre verdenshistoriens gang hen over disse mange og produktive 95 år. Nogle af disse hilsner er blevet samlet i et Festskrift; heriblandt hilsner fra meget fremtrædende politiske ledere fra USA – valgte repræsentanter og tidligere valgte repræsentanter. Richard Black fra Virginia, tidligere kongresmedlem Lacy Clay, tidligere justitsminister Ramsey Clark har sendt de varmeste hilsner. Tidligere senator Mike Gravel, der ligeledes har været præsidentkandidat og er berømt for Pentagon Papirerne. Der var dr. Hal Cooper, en ingeniør, der har arbejdet meget hårdt på visionen om Verdenslandbroen og har deltaget i nogle af de seneste begivenheder i New York City. Mark Sweazey, der er en leder af UAW (United Automobile Workers) fra Ohio, der har arbejdet med hr. LaRouche for at stoppe nedlukningen af automobilindustrien. Carol Smith, en aktivist fra Kentucky. Ron og Denna Wierczorek, meget kendte aktivister fra South Dakota, borgere i dette land. Så er der kunstnere – Maestro Anthony Morss fra New York City, en fremtrædende dirigent; Alan Leathers, en sanger fra Washington, D.C. Dernæst, politiske, videnskabelige og militære ledere fra hele verden. Latinamerika – fra Argentina, Bolivia, Brasilien, Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru. Der kom hilsner andre steder fra; fra hele Asien, inklusive flere hilsner fra Kina og Rusland. Folk fra Australien, Malaysia, Filippinerne, Thailand. Vi havde en rapport herfra for nylig; hr. Pakdee Tanapura, der arrangerede det meget succesfulde møde om Kra-kanalen, der netop fandt sted i mandags. Fra Spanien, og endda fra Yemen fra hr. Fouad al-Ghaffari, der er præsident for BRIKS’ Ungdomskabinet. Vi håber at kunne udsende et interview med ham i løbet af de næste par dages aktivisme, han vil gennemføre i Yemen for at stoppe saudiernes folkemordskrig mod det yemenitiske folk.

Men, som I ser, så er det kun et lille udvalg af de mange varme hilsner, der er kommet fra hele verden og hele USA i denne glædelige anledning af hr. LaRouches 95-års fødselsdag.

I aften vil vi faktisk gå nogle år tilbage i tiden. Vi vil gå fem år tilbage til hr. LaRouches 90-års fødselsdag. Ved denne lejlighed holdt hr. LaRouche en tale, der nu er blevet temmelig berømt, og hvori han kræver afslutningen af partisystemet; men han fremlægger også programmet for USA’s økonomiske genrejsning og en helt ny vision for det, der må sker mht. internationale relationer og dette lands politik.

Der er sket meget siden dengang, for fem år siden. Det synes næsten at være en evighed siden, mht. verdenshistoriens forløb. Hvis man tænker på, hvad der er sket, så blev denne tale, som vi skal ske et klip fra, holdt før kineserne vedtog den Nye Silkevej som deres officielle politik – Bælte & Vej Initiativet; før overfloden af nye udviklingsbanker, der kom fra BRIKS-landene – den Ny Udviklingsbank og Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank; før alle disse udviklinger fandt sted i udlandet. Og selvfølgelig, før det skelsættende valg i 2016 her i USA.

Hvis man ser på, hvad der er sket i USA, i betragtning af, at denne tale, som vi skal se et klip fra, blev holdt under præsidentvalgkampen i 2012 mellem Barack Obama og Mitt Romney. Men det er næsten fænomenalt, hvor forudvidende, hr. LaRouche var, mht. det, der ville finde sted i USA; noget, som ingen andre så komme og sikkert ikke troede på, da de hørte hr. LaRouches ord dengang. Begge de såkaldte politiske partier i dette forrige præsidentvalg ophørte med at eksistere i deres tidligere form. Der er intet genkendeligt Demokratisk Parti, eller Republikansk Parti. Der er måske nogle af de samme personer, men ikke de såkaldte establishment-partier, vi havde før 2016, før oprøret i det Demokratiske Parti, der formede sig omkring Bernie Sanders, og dernæst oprøret i det Republikanske Parti omkring Donald Trump; før begge disse ting indtraf, fremlagde hr. LaRouche det, han kaldte afslutningen af establishment-partisystemet, der var i færd med at ødelægge selve USA’s sjæl.

Vi har set dette fortsætte i 2016-valget, meget klart. Der var meget mere, der forenede det amerikanske folk end splittede det. Se f.eks. på den brede støtte til Glass/Steagall; noget, vi skal høre hr. LaRouche tale om i denne tale fra for fem år siden. Se på den brede støtte til infrastruktur, til produktive jobs; se på den brede opposition til konfrontationen med Rusland, der ville føre til Tredje Verdenskrig. Det er, hvad Hillary Clintons kampagne repræsenterede i det amerikanske folks øjne. Dette er, hvad det etablerede Republikanske Partis forskellige kampagner repræsenterede i det amerikanske folks øjne. Der var meget mere på det tidspunkt, der forenede det amerikanske folk end splittede det. Det var i realiteten LaRouche-programmet.

Går vi frem til nutiden og ser, hvad der er sket i USA i de seneste par uger, ser vi igen, at det amerikanske folk forenes. Se, hvad der skete i Houston omkring Harvey; den form for uselviskhed og næstekærlighed, som folk viste ved at gå ud for at redde og beskytte folk mod denne naturkatastrofe. Dette kendte ikke til skel; der var ingen partilinjer. Der var ikke noget, »Er du et flertal, er du et mindretal? Er du Republikaner, er du Demokrat? Er du konservativ, er du liberal?« Alle var amerikanere. Den samme stemning skete i Florida i kølvandet på orkanen Irma dér. Vi ser nu, at det endda smitter i politik i Washington. I en meget spirende form, men USA’s præsident har nu virkelig fornærmet establishment-personerne i det Republikanske Parti – Mitch McConnell og Paul Ryan og deres lige – ved at række ud til det Demokratiske Parti for at gennemføre et genrejsningsprogram for Houston og begynde at arbejde på noget af den politik, der burde have været politik fra Dag Ét. Dette skulle have været hans første 100 dage i embedet: Infrastruktur; produktive jobs. Dette begynder nu endelig at vise sig i en spirende form; og det er vores ansvar at forsætte med at lede.

Men jeg vil afspille dette uddrag af hr. LaRouches bemærkninger.

(Se hele LaRouche 90-års tale her (dansk): »Evnen til at gøre det gode – Mennesket har en særlig opgave i universet«)

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

I think you’ll find it fascinating

reflecting on what has happened in the past five years between

Mr. LaRouche’s 90th birthday and Mr. LaRouche’s 95th birthday.

In fact, what is the power of ideas to shape history?  What do we

have to expect in the days, weeks, months, and years to come?

This is the vision that leadership, that statesman-like

leadership that you’re about to hear from Mr. LaRouche.  This is

how history is formed.

 

[BEGIN VIDEO]

LYNDON LaRouche: … The problem is, {the party system}.

Now, George Washington, President George Washington and

others, at the founding of our republic, as an independent

republic, tried to {prevent} the formation of {a party system}.

And I think, the time has come, to eliminate {the party system}.

[applause]  At this time, it’s the only way, formally, through

the legal process, that we could eliminate the possibility of

these two kinds of Presidents.

What’s wrong?  Why should we have {party systems}?  We have

a Constitution, which is defined;  the Constitution is fine, if

it’s carried through, as intended; it is our system.  But why do

we have to have parties intervening in between the process of

selecting Presidential leadership in national government?  Why do

we do that?  What screwball invented this kind of nonsense?

Because that’s what happened:  People become partisan, and say,

“which party wins is going to determine the fate of the nation!”

No party has that kind of right!  There can not be a party,

that has the right, to oversee and control the destiny of the

nation!  You can have a President, there’s nothing wrong with

that.  But you can’t have a President as the President of a

party.  Or, you can not have a conniving, between two

Presidential teams, or two party teams, which connive by special

agreement among themselves, to create the composition of a

national government!  These things are obscenities, which leaders

of our nation, beginning from the George Washington

Administration, recognized as evils!  And the idea of going to a

European kind of government, which is inherently corrupt — by

its very nature, not necessarily by the {intention} of the

people, or the intention of the politicians, {they just don’t

know any better!}

And the only way this can be done, is, if we infect the

population, with the realization, {we do not want a party

system!}  We have state governments, don’t we?  Under our

Constitution.  We have local governments, within state

governments, under our Constitution.  We have bodies which the

nation creates, to perform functions of the Federal government,

the military and the rest of  it. {So we don’t need parties!}

They don’t do any damned good!

I mean, it’s like Franklin Roosevelt:  If Franklin Roosevelt

had just been the President and didn’t have to deal with these

damned parties, we would haven’t the mess we got into.  What we

need, we need to have {not} a contention, over which {party} is

going to win, when the party was {not] inherent in the conception

of nation.  What we need is a Federal Republic, with its state

composition and other local compositions playing their role.

{We don’t need this party system} which is a system of

inherently corruption.  What we need, is the election, due

process election, of a composition of government.  And we don’t

want people diverting the attention of the population, from the

issues of the nation, over the issues of partisanship! {That’s}

where the problem lies!

When you rely on parties, as such, you set up a kind of

controversy, or competition, for power, between or among party

systems.  These party systems then {excite the passions} of the

foolish voters, who now are concerned about voting for the

{party, first}, and the {nation, second!}  When it must be the

{nation, first,} and the not the party.

The voluntary part of the system, that’s fine; the citizen

has a right, to make formations, to make agreements among

themselves, and to cast their votes accordingly, and to discuss

these matters accordingly.  But we don’t want the top-down rule

of a party system, which is controlled by the money sent to them,

by financial interests which control the money which gives one

party advantage over the other!  You want the bare citizen, as a

citizen, to have an equal right, and independence of this party

system.

This has been said, again and again, in the course of the

history of the United States!  That people with insight, realize

the essence of the corruption in the United States, is based in

and derived from the use of the party system.  And you see it

right now:  You have, the nation is now mortgaged, for the

selection of its government, its national government, is

mortgaged to the {party system!}  Everything is stopped, except

which party is going to win!  And one is almost as bad as the

other.

And why should we be spending our time, selecting a

government, of two parties, neither of which is fit to be our

government!  Why don’t we have a national government selected in

the way that George Washington, for example, President George

Washington, had intended?  We would not {have} that mess!  And

the citizen would be called upon, not to decide who’s butt he

wants to kiss, but rather what the issues are and programs that

this citizen wishes to express.  We want to engage the citizen in

the dialogue!  We don’t want to take the competition {between}

groups of citizens.  {We want the citizen to force the reality,

that he or she is voting for the government.}  And what the

citizens do in voting for a government, will determine the fate

of the nation.

We want to {confront} the citizen, with the responsibility

of {his} being accountable, or her being accountable, for the

responsibility of what government is, and what it becomes.  We

have to {force} responsibility upon the individual citizen, as a

citizen, not as a sucker, playing into some kind of game.  And

this has been understood for a long time, by the best thinkers of

the United States, that it is the party system, as typified by

the Andrew Jackson Presidency, one of the most corrupt

Presidencies in our history.  And the corruption that was done,

to the United States, by the election of Andrew Jackson, and the

people who controlled him,  which were British bankers; so,

Andrew Jackson was a tool of British imperial bankers:  They

owned him.  They ran him.  And it was because of the party

system, that this could happen.

And we got the same thing today:  You’re shacked up with a

couple of clowns — Dummo and the Crook, and the Insane Crook.

Now, the only thing we can do, or the only thing I can do,

on this thing right now, apart from telling you about this

wonderful information, is to awaken you to realize what we’re

really up against, to recognize what the real problems are.  If

you’re thinking about looking at this mess out there, from the

standpoint of Democratic or Republican, you’re not thinking!

Because you’re not thinking in terms of the essential interest.

Because what you’re doing, whatever you do, you are imprisoned to

pledging your support, to a party!  Not to the nation.  Yes, you

say, “to the nation,” but it’s the party that controls you.  And

that is how Andrew Jackson destroyed the United States, was with

the party system! That’s what doomed Franklin Roosevelt. Franklin

Roosevelt would never have had this clown, Truman, stuck on him,

except for the party system business.  And that’s where our

problem lies.

And we have to make that clear.  Because we know what the

state of mind is?  What’s the state of mind of the voter?  He’s

playing football, not politics!  He’s playing a version of

football, baseball, whatever — gambling!  Racketeering,

whatever!  And his mind, his passion, is associated with winning

this, for this party, this team, this that, that and so forth —

{not for the nation!}  The objective of our system of government

must be to {force the citizen, as a citizen, to think through

what the national interest is!}  And we don’t do it.  We say,

“Which party are you going to support?”  Well, what’s the party

going to do? “Well, I think it’s a good party,” in other words,

they don’t know what the hell they’re doing — and they’re

passion is involved in being sure they won’t do it. And that’s

where we stand. And that’s the thing we’ve got to think about.

And you’ve got to destroy the self-confidence of those

damned fools, who think that the “party vote,” the vote for the

party {should determine the decision of the nation.}  That is a

false and fraudulent conception, and it’s about time we called a

halt to it.  And right now, would be a very good time.  All

right.  [applause]

Now, what’re we going to do?  Let’s lay out, here, we have

our organization.  We have a conception of how to organize this

nation, how to deal with the great crisis, the financial crisis,

the economic crises, which occur in this nation; and which occur,

also, similarly, in other nations, which I think would tend, at

this time, to look with a friendly eye at what I might propose

here, right now.

All right: First of all, the world is bankrupt.  The

trans-Atlantic region is {totally, hopelessly bankrupt!} Every

part of Western and Central Europe is totally bankrupt!  It’s

{incurably} bankrupt, under its present system.  Nothing be done

to save it in its present form.  There’s no way you can bail it

out!  There’s no way you can take it out of this — except one

way:  Glass-Steagall.

Now, of late, you will have observed that Glass-Steagall has

become increasingly popular, in England, in the continent of

Europe, and other notable places!  So what does Glass-Steagall

do?  Well, essentially it says that the system of government

we’re running under right now, is hopelessly corrupt; so, let’s

shut it down!  Let’s shut down all the bail out.  We’re not going

to pay it!  We jes’ ain’t gonna pay it!  [applause]

So what’re we going to do?  Well, we’re going to have a

grand old time:  We’re going to go to a straight credit system,

which is Glass-Steagall, immediately!  Now, that means, that all

those other guys, the gamblers, Wall Street types and so forth,

are going to find themselves sitting — well:  They have all

these claims.  All these values.  They own all this property, in

terms of title.  But we say, the point is here, with

Glass-Steagall, that you can run your kind of banking system if

you want to  —  under penalties of law, of course! But you don’t

have any right to come to the Federal government, to demand that

the Federal government bail them out, if they happen to go

bankrupt.

Now, I can tell you, as you probably have suspected, that

practically every part of the whole system in the United States,

today, {is already hopelessly, incurably bankrupt!}  And there’s

only one way we can escape from this bankruptcy:  You want to

have some money to live on?  There’s one thing you got to do:

Glass-Steagall!  And that will open the… it won’t solve the

problem, but it will open the gates, to permit the problem to be

solved.

If you take, and say, all these things that are not and

don’t conform to Glass-Steagall, all these things must be

cancelled.  That means these banks can still have their banking

system, as long as they don’t go bankrupt.  We’re not going to

shut them down arbitrarily, we’re just letting them out on their

own, and saying, “this is not our business.  The Federal

government is not responsible for this.”

All right, now that will reduce the debt of the United

States, {tremendously!}  It would have a similar effect in

nations of Europe!  The French banks would not be pleased with

1. They would probably say some very nasty things about me,

but… things like that.

But the point is, the world now knows, and increasingly in

Europe, and starting in England and other countries in Europe

itself, there’s an understanding that Glass-Steagall is a

necessary alternative.  And these guys are having a terrible

time, in fighting off the Glass-Steagall popularity.  But that

will do it.

The problem is, because we waited so long, since we

cancelled Glass-Steagall, we waited too long, and they ran up a

hyperinflationary debt, which is really beyond even dreaming.  So

therefore, the result is, if we go with Glass-Steagall, we’re

going to have relatively little money, under our Federal system;

because we wasted it by throwing it into the garbage pail, and we

can’t get it back.  So therefore,  we’re going to have to go to

another measure.  Now, I said, national banking.  Now, why

national banking?  Because, unless you create a banking system,

under the U.S. government, under protection and regulation of the

U.S. government, you can’t do anything much with the economy.

We have very little industry left in the United States, it’s

been systematically destroyed.  Especially since the last three

terms of the Presidency.  We have been running a garbage pail;

and therefore, we have no means, by ordinary means, to save the

economy.  We don’t have jobs.  Now, as most of you know, under

NAWAPA, we would create, quickly, {4 million or more jobs} —

real jobs! Really productive jobs.  We would create, at least,

immediately, a couple million more highly skilled categories of

jobs.  We would start the process of a general recovery of the

United States — but oh!  Wait a minute!  Got one more problem.

Where’s the money going to come from, that we’re going to loan,

for NAWAPA, and loan for other high-technology jobs, and certain

other kinds of skilled jobs?  The Federal government is going to

have to {create credit}, which will be run through national

banking system, so that under national banking and Federal

government approval, we can conduit credit into creating these

jobs.

Let’s take the practical question of the food supply in the

United States right now:  As you probably know, food is about to

be cancelled, and the Obama Administration is doing everything

possible to destroy it.  Because they’re doing everything to

destroy food, for fuels.

So therefore, what’re we going to do?  Well, what we’re

going to do, is by giving the Federal credit, into, say, the

NAWAPA system, we’re going to create a flow of credit, into the

various phases of this process, which will immediately charge

NAWAPA, in particular, and other things that go with NAWAPA.  We

have also, we have the lost auto industry, the whole Detroit

system, for example, and we’re going to put that back into work!

So, we’re going to create, instantly, that is, by Federal decree

— instantly create sufficient growth, not only to get rid of

this hopeless debt, which never was really a legitimate debt, at

all, and we’re going to restart the economy, by taking people,

when you have very few people who are actually involved in

productive jobs, they’re not involved in producing things;

they’re mostly employed in various kinds of services, which are

not particularly productive, and do not lend any productive value

to the U.S. economy.  They’re simply pass-outs, under one guise

or the other.

So in this case, we are launching a recovery of the U.S.

economy, by supply the credit, as we did in the beginning of the

development of our economy, after we won our Revolution, we’re

going back to that system of recovery to get things moving, and

it’s going to start immediately.  And the easiest way for us to

do this, is NAWAPA.  NAWAPA is a project, which is relevant,

because it’s focused on {water management}.  And the problem we

have in the United States today, is a water management problem!

In the Central States, we don’t have rain!  We don’t the means to

grow crops.  And we don’t have people who are employed, in

actually productive forms of employment!  Physically productive

forms of employment.

The difference is, with this kind of reform, of three steps:

NAWAPA as a driver, an incentive driver, which will save the

organization of production in the Central and Western States of

the United States!  The going back into the area of the so-called

Detroit area, with several million jobs, immediately, will have a

similar effect.  Which means that we then can use a credit

system, managed under Federal control, as we’ve used credit

systems, like Franklin Roosevelt did in the past, and use that

kind of credit system under a Glass-Steagall type government

system, and we can start the regrowth of the U.S. economy.

We also have, as a byproduct of this:  If we as the United

States {do} this, you will find that the nations of Eurasia, will

join us.  You will find that nations of Europe, who are now being

destroyed by their own system, will now go back into functioning,

and we will use international credit, which is an extension of

the national banking concept, instead of speculation, in order to

restart the economy.  And that can be done.

So there is a practical solution, a {sane} practical

solution, as opposed to the other kind, for this problem we have

as a nation. How far are we from getting it, is the question?

Well, that depends.  It depends how desperate people are,

and how much their desperation is moderated by the sense of

attachment to a solution.  Our job is to present the solutions.

You know, society is actually led, when it’s led, by a tiny

minority of the human race.  We have not, because of our

underdevelopment, we have not built up nation systems, which are

actually rationally, and truly represent {the will of human

beings.} What we approach is the conditional will of human

beings, by providing them with promises, which we hopefully can

keep, and that they will be satisfied by trusting us, by the

means of the measures we offer to them, as suggestions.  A very

tiny minority, of the human population in all nations, actually

has any comprehension, any qualifications for comprehension of

how an economy runs or how it should be run. We have to bring

them to us, to our ideas, our conceptions, based on the fact that

they need precisely the solutions that we present.  It may not

exactly what they would dream for, but it’s what we could

deliver!  And if people understand that that’s what the game is,

they’ll accept it, at least in large part.

It’s what they can believe that we can deliver.  And it’s

our saying that we can deliver this, but we {can’t do that, yet}.

And if you promise everything, they’re not going to trust you,

and for good reason.  If you give specific promises, that {will

work}, and make sense, and can be explained to the people, it’ll

work!  And if they don’t accept it, that’s their fault!

But our responsibility, which is limited — we don’t run the

world; we don’t have powers to supervise the world as a whole. We

can only argue!  We can only argue as an intelligentsia, that we

have done some thinking that the other people have not yet caught

onto, or didn’t know about.  And we can tell them, what [we} can

do!  What {we} understand, what {will} work for them; and say,

“We’re going to have to work harder, and better, in order to

fulfill the kind of promises we wish to deliver.”  And say, we

need their cooperation in doing that.

We’ve got to give them a sense, that whatever we’re

promising them, we’re committed to delivering, and that our

promise of delivery has been made credible to them.  And that

experience, as in the case of the Franklin Roosevelt recovery in

the United States during the 1930s, the same program, the same

policy that Franklin Roosevelt used in reviving the U.S. economy.

But we have to tell these guys, “Stop being the kind of

idiot, who believes in the party system!  That’s number one.

Number two, don’t believe in Obama, get him out of there, and

make sure he’s removed quickly.”  And we’re going to have to

figure out what we’re going to do about this Republican.

[laughter]  Because that’s a real weak point, there.

However, I believe this:  If we can establish a functional

Presidency of the United States as was done in establishing the

United States  under George Washington’s Presidency, if we have a

President, and we use our system of government, our

constitutional system of government, we can solve this problem.

Not the way people would like, by “wish factory” or something,

but by the fact, we can point the direction, and it’s up to the

people to follow the direction, and choose to follow the

direction.

{But we must do what is not done right now}:  The problem

with government now, is that the U.S. government and its

functions, are chiefly one, big, damned lie!  They promise things

that do not exist, or will not exist, and make rules which make

no sense, and are willing to get into wars, by which civilization

and mankind in general, could be destroyed.  And we have to use

that argument and that bill of particulars, as a method of

convincing them, this has to be done.

And the key thing is this, to come back to the theme I

started with:  Space.  It’s obvious, there’s a limited timeframe

within which mankind can continue to live safely under the system

of the Sun, the current Sun system.  The Sun has a limited —

some people say 2 billion years; some would say, well, long

before 2 billion years, the Sun is going to act up, and life is

going to be {most unpleasant} on this planet!

So, we as mankind, have to address this question.  And it’s

obvious that to address this question, we have to give new

attention, to space, the questions of space.  We have to find

ways of intervening in the space system, or the solar space

system and so forth, and this is possible.  But we must turn to

that direction, to think, “well, we can’t stand around, following

a fixed recipe, like a kitchen cookbook recipe, forever.  We have

to  anticipate the problems which face mankind in the future, we

have to search for solutions to those problems, and we’ve got to

convince people.

And the big thing you have to do, is this:  Most people in

the United States today, behave stupidly, and this, of course, is

helped by the educational system, it’s helped by the terrible

conditions of life of children, as well as adolescents, and there

are many things that have to be done.  And our job is, as a

minority in society, and with other minorities in society which

{wish}  to find and initiate true solutions for these problems,

we have to get out, and convince people, and educate them.

And in particular, get them immediately to understand, that

these two Presidencies that they’ve stuck out there for voting,

ain’t shucks! And we’ve got to do something about that, and the

best way, is to go out and say that these guys aren’t fit to run

anything, and give some indications of what we’re thinking.

It can work.  It can work because the situation of all

humanity, on this planet right now, is almost a hopeless one. The

war danger, the thermonuclear war which is hanging over us right

now, is threat number one.  The shortage of food in the United

States, for people, citizens of the United States, is another.

The conditions of health care, are another.  All of these

conditions are intolerable!  {And nobody’s doing a damned thing

about it, from the standpoint of government on down!}  I don’t

hear of any big riots coming out of the Congress, against the

lack of such needed reforms!  They’re going by… the party

system. And I think we have to just treat the party system, as

the kind of fraud that it has always been!

We should have a system of representative government, in

which the citizens can use those other citizens who are the most

qualified, and the most committed, to provide leadership, to

provide the ideas and the leadership which is needed for the

rest.  If you can’t be something, inspire it in somebody else.

Thank you.  [ovation]  [END VIDEO]

 

OGDEN:  So as you can see, this is a speech which remains

very timely in terms of its urgent political importance, and we

would encourage you to watch the speech in its entirety; we’ll

make that available for you.

But if you just thinking about what you’ve just heard, the

economic program, the prescience of what Mr. LaRouche’s remarks

there were, five years ago, our country still finds itself in a

state of dire economic emergency, perhaps even having gotten

worse in the last five years;  and that program is still urgent

in terms of its implementation.

But what {has} changed is, indeed, the party structure as we

thought we knew it at that time, has ceased to exist, in terms of

the two establishment parties — what was the Democratic Party

and what was the Republican Party.  And this is a change,

perhaps, in par with what we saw in the middle of the 19th

century when the two established parties at that time nearly

ceased to exist:  This was a turmoil out of which, perhaps the

greatest President of our entire history, Abraham Lincoln,

emerged.

But our responsibility, and what we have to recognize, is

that the importance of Mr. LaRouche’s leadership and the

importance of the leadership of that small minority which he was

discussing, is perhaps more important now, because of this very

reality, than ever before.  As you just heard Mr. LaRouche

describe, in a very eloquent way, our job is to present the

solution, because society is actually led, by a very tiny

minority of intellectual leaders, and society as a whole invests

their trust in those whom they are confident have their best

interests in mind, and have the unique understanding of what must

be done; a very tiny minority has any qualified understanding of

how an economy actually must be run, and can deliver on that

understanding, which is the crucial ingredient.  That’s where

leadership comes from, that’s what makes leadership qualified,

and that’s what serves as the actual qualified leadership in a

republic such as ours.

Now, speaking of a republic, as my colleague Benjamin

Deniston noted in his {Festschrift} contribution to Mr.

LaRouche’s 95th birthday: “When age is measured, not merely in

years, but in wisdom and in creativity, and especially in

contributions to the progress of society, we can truly say,

taking due note of Plato’s famous {Timaeus} dialogue, we are

truly blessed with Mr. LaRouche’s 95th birthday, to have an old

man among us, a {very} old man among us.”

So we wish Mr. LaRouche a very happy 95th birthday, and we

wish him many more.

Thank you very much for tuning in to this special broadcast

tonight, and we encourage you to watch that address in its

entirety. Thank you and good night.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 14. sept., 2017 – Det faktum, at præsident Trump er begyndt at arbejde med top-Demokrater i Kongressen, siden orkanerne Harvey og Irma, for i fællesskab at opnå de presserende nødvendige resultater for det amerikanske folk, har overrasket mange – men ikke os. Lyndon LaRouche forudsagde, i anledning af sin 90-års fødselsdag, for blot fem år siden, at »topartisystemet«, som var en vederstyggelighed for vor Forfatnings grundlæggere, var i færd med at blive fjernet. En række hidtil usete begivenheder, som har været totalt uventet af andre, men som i princippet blev forudsagt af LaRouche, har bragt os tættere på dette resultat i dag, end nogen andre havde forventet, selv på så sent et tidspunkt som for blot et par uger siden!

Et umiddelbart resultat af denne forandring er, at det må hjælpe i kampen for Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love, med start i genindførelsen af den oprindelige Glass/Steagall-lov, under omstændigheder, hvor præsidentens kampagne for embedet lovede at genindføre loven, alt imens også mange Demokrater offentligt er gået ind for det. Og det sker på et tidspunkt, hvor selv Storbritanniens ekstremt liberale Adam Smith Institute, som vi bemærkede i går, advarer om en nært forestående nedsmeltning af finanssystemet. Sagen kunne ikke haste mere.

Men briterne har ikke tænkt sig at opgive at sænke dette præsidentskab, ligesom de heller aldrig opgav at sænke Franklin Roosevelt. Vi må fortsætte vores kampagne for VIPS-rapporten, der afslører svindelnummeret med Russiagate. Langs retningslinjerne af de kampagner, der blev drøftet på EIR’s Manhattan-konference den 9. sept., bør VIPS-rapporten læses ind i Kongressens optegnelser (Congressional Record). Præsident Trump bør tvinge sin CIA-direktør, Mike Pompeo, til at fremstille den relevante, sandfærdige dokumentation.

En smuk illustration af betydningen af den indre konsekvens af Lyndon LaRouches Fire Nye Love fra juni 2014, kom frem under en højtideligholdelse den 12. sept. i det oversvømmelseshærgede Houston, og som medlem af LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, Kesha Rogers, rapporterer om i dag. Som hun skriver, så samledes en overraskende stor flok, 1000 mennesker, på Rice Universitet for at fejre præsident Kennedys berømte »Månetale« præcis 55 år tidligere, og for at høre Apollo 13-astronaut Fred Haise. Blandt andre sigende bemærkninger, genkaldte oberst Haise, hvordan Apollo-programmet havde genopfundet sig selv efter det tragiske tab af tre Apollo 1-astronauter i en brand i rumfartøjet på jorden i 1967. Jeg ville tilføje her, at deres genlancering af sig selv var så succesfuld, at, i alle de efterfølgende rummissioner, mistede man ikke ét eneste menneskeliv frem til katastrofen med rumfærgen Challenger i 1986.

I deres monografi om »Apollotraditionen« sagde Seamans og Mueller, to Apollo-topadministratorer, at det program, der blev gennemført efter Apollo 1-tragedien, krævede, at alle i programmet – omkring 30-40.000 mennesker – gentagne gange afkrævedes at genopfinde sig selv, som nye, bedre og mere kapable mennesker, inden for rammerne af et tværfagligt team.

For at sige dette på en anden måde – de var, i det mindste i en periode, i stand til at besejre middelmådighed. Middelmådighed dræber. Heri finder traditionen efter John Kennedy, Apollo-traditionen, sin plads inden for Lyndon LaRouches Fire Nye Love.

Foto: Helga og Lyndon LaRouche, ved sidstnævntes 95-års fødselsdag, september, 2017.

Will Wertz: For mange år siden, faktisk for 2.500 år siden, skrev Platon to dialoger, blandt andre; Timaios og Kritias. Det, han diskuterede i begge disse dialoger, er en oversvømmelse, der udslettede en hel civilisation. I Timaios beretter Platon, at en præst sagde til Solon,

»I hellenere er ikke andet end børn. Der er ikke én eneste gammel mand iblandt jer. Der har været, og vil igen komme, mange ødelæggelser af menneskeheden, der fremkommer af mange årsager. De største er blevet frembragt gennem ild og vand.«

Han påpeger, at grunden til, at disse civilisationer ikke kunne håndtere sådanne naturkatastrofer, er, at

»Gudernes overbærenhed begyndte at svækkes, og de begyndte at opføre sig upassende. De blev inficeret af ondt begær og magtens arrogance«.

Vi har nu heldigvis i USA nogle ’gamle mænd’ – i særdeleshed Lyndon LaRouche; som faktisk er yngre end de fleste mennesker mht. til hans intellekt.

Jeg vil fremlægge præcis, hvad det er, Lyndon LaRouche har kæmpet for, i en kort gennemgang, for jeg har ikke tid nok til at gå i dybden. Men Lyndon LaRouche har, som Dennis antydede, kæmpet imod Det britiske Imperium, en kamp, der mindst går tilbage til hans tid i Anden Verdenskrig på det indiske subkontinent i Burma – som det hed dengang – og Indien. Han så på første hånd briternes folkemordspolitik mod den indiske befolkning. På dette tidspunkt udviklede han et livslangt forpligtende engagement for at besejre Det britiske Imperium, og til at gøre det, Franklin Roosevelt under krigen sagde til Winston Churchill, at han var forpligtet over for at gøre. Roosevelt sagde, vi udkæmper ikke Anden Verdenskrig for at bevare Det britiske Imperium. Efter Anden Verdenskrig vil vi bruge det Amerikanske Systems metoder for økonomisk udvikling til at udvikle resten af verden. Desværre blev denne Roosevelts mission saboteret efter hans død af Winston Churchill og af Harry S. Truman; sidstnævnte var en meget smålig mand. Man fik den første mobilisering mod Rusland, og mere specifikt mod den alliance, som Roosevelt var forpligtet overfor; og som var en alliance mellem USA, Rusland, Kina og andre nationer for at udvikle planeten ved hjælp af det Amerikanske Systems metoder.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

Se hele konferencevideoen her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzJCl1xnvvU

Foto: Den britiske geopolitiker, Harold Mackinders kort. Den grundlæggende idé er, at man ser på Europa, Afrika og Asien, og det er verdens-øen. Den britiske politik var at omringe det, de kaldte omdrejnings-området eller hjertelandet, som er Rusland, med en intern halvmåne. Mackinders grundtema var, at »den, der hersker over Østeuropa, kontrollerer hjertelandet. Den, der hersker over hjertelandet, kontrollerer verdens-øen. Den, der hersker over verdens-øen, kontrollerer verden«. Grundelementet i Det britiske Imperiums geopolitik, og i deres to ‘Verdenskrige’.

Lørdag, den 9. september, blev Lyndon LaRouches 95-års fødselsdag fejret i Wiesbaden, Tyskland, i en kreativ og glædelig, international festligholdelse af hans livsværk og mission og hans bidrag til menneskeheden og alle hans kolleger. Festen indledtes med Helga, hans hustru, der oplæste sit bidrag til festskriftet, en inderlig, personlig hyldest til hendes mand, der efterfulgtes af Lyn’s inderlige besvarelse. Herefter fulgte seks timer med musik, hyldesterklæringer, poesi, drama, mad og drikke, og dialoger med Lyn (inklusive med Jacques Cheminade fra Frankrig og Elliot Greenspan fra det amerikanske Manhattan-projekt). Alt dette blev delt af medlemmer og venner fra Tyskland, Frankrig, Italien, USA, Sverige, Finland, Danmark, Belgien, Rusland og endnu flere nationer. Det var en vidunderlig fejring af Lyn’s geni og godhed, og af kærlighed til ham fra hele verden.

Jeg vil gerne sige, at dette virkelig bør være alarmklokken, der ringer for at vække, ikke alene nationen til at respondere til denne umiddelbare katastrofe, men også til, at vi nu begynder at respondere til det intellektuelle lederskab, som hr. Lyndon LaRouche har demonstreret under hele sin karriere – i 40-50 år, eller mere. I dag er en meget passende dag for denne opfordring om, at tiden nu er inde til at lytte til Lyndon LaRouches vise ord, eftersom det i dag, den 8. september, er hans 95-års fødselsdag. Vi ønsker hr. LaRouche Tillykke med fødselsdagen! Men det er vores mission at tage denne opfordring til efterretning og træffe den beslutning, at det nu er tidspunktet for at respondere til denne historiens alarmklokke og tage de nødvendige skridt til at påbegynde et totalt og komplet paradigmeskifte i den måde, hvorpå vi går frem med nationalpolitik og international politik.

Vært Matthew Ogden: God aften. Det er den 8. september, 2017; jeg er Matthew Ogden, og dette er vores ugentlige fredags-webcast fra larouchepac.com. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Paul Gallagher, EIR’s økonomiredaktør; og via video har vi Benjamin Deniston fra LaRouche PAC-websiden og vores forskningsteam. Vi vil have en meget rig diskussion, tror jeg. Før vi kommer til det, vil jeg blot sige, at vi nu er to uger, mindre end to uger, inde i katastrofen med orkanen Harvey; og vi har udstedt en nøderklæring, som vi har diskuteret i de seneste par udsendelser, med titlen: »Ikke flere Houston-katastrofer! Lyndon LaRouche siger, hvad det er, der nu må ske!«

Jeg vil gerne sige, at dette virkelig bør være alarmklokken, der ringer for at vække, ikke alene nationen til at respondere til denne umiddelbare katastrofe, men også til, at vi nu begynder at respondere til det intellektuelle lederskab, som hr. Lyndon LaRouche har demonstreret under hele sin karriere – i 40-50 år, eller mere. I dag er en meget passende dag for denne opfordring om, at tiden nu er inde til at lytte til Lyndon LaRouches vise ord, eftersom det i dag, den 8. september, er hans 95-års fødselsdag. Vi ønsker hr. LaRouche Tillykke med fødselsdagen! Men det er vores mission at tage denne opfordring til efterretning og træffe den beslutning, at det nu er tidspunktet for at respondere til denne historiens alarmklokke og tage de nødvendige skridt til at påbegynde et totalt og komplet paradigmeskifte i den måde, hvorpå vi går frem med nationalpolitik og international politik.

Før jeg begynder, vil jeg gerne opfordre alle vore seere til – hvis I ikke allerede har, og LaRouchePAC har tweetet et link til det – at se den 8 minutter lange video, der blev produceret af New York Times. Den har titlen »Into the Deluge« (Ind i syndfloden), og er en kort dokumentar om den hærgen og ødelæggelse, som orkanen Harvey har forårsaget i Houston, Texas, og det omkringliggende område. Videoen fortæller historien om Kesha Rogers (medlem af LaRouche PAC Policy Committee) og hendes familie, og hendes far og stedmor, der mistede livet i oversvømmelserne efter Harvey. Videoen starter med et uforglemmeligt smukt soundtrack af Kesha selv, der synger en spiritual, »Walk With Me«, lagt hen over utrolige optagelser af de dramatiske ødelæggelser efter orkanen Harvey og oversvømmelserne. Den fortæller, som jeg sagde, historien om ikke alene hendes far og stedmor, men også andre ofre, andre overlevende og de første nødhjælpsfolk, der trådte til efter orkanen Harvey. Den slutter med et citat af Kesha Rogers, som jeg mener, bør være temaet for vores udsendelse her i aften. Jeg viser det på skærmen [Fig. 1]. Kesha siger,

»Det er denne form for tragedier, der får folk til at komme sammen. Der har været en utrolig respons fra hele nationen og hele verden. Men man har ikke tid til at sidde hjemme og græde. Jeg har en mission«, sagde hun. »Jeg har arbejde, der skal gøres; det har vi alle. Det er pointen.«

På skærmen kan I se citatet af Kesha, og det er også nævnt i videoen fra New York Times, der har titlen, »Into the Deluge«. Jeg opfordrer jer til at finde den online og se den. Vi har tweetet linket til videoen, og I kan finde det på vores twitter-feed.

Men, dette er netop pointen; at vi alle har arbejde, der skal gøres, og det er denne katastrofe, der skete i Houston – men også andre, der nu truer os, inkl. med stor sandsynlighed orkanen Irma, der nu stormer af sted med retning mod Florida. Brug dette som alarmklokken til den ’bratte opvågning’ for endelig at samle denne nation og til at påbegynde den form for presserende nødvendige, økonomiske handlinger, der kan sikre, at denne form for tragedier aldrig mere kan ske. Disse orkaner er muligvis nok naturfænomener, og det vil vi diskutere lidt senere med Ben Deniston. Men den katastrofale hærgen i deres kølvand bør aldrig få lov at forekomme. Og de er virkelig menneskeskabte katastrofer, fordi vi har forsømt at tage de nødvendige skridt, som vi på forhånd er vidende om, for at forebygge og beskytte os mod virkningerne af denne form for naturfænomener. Vi kan gøre disse ting, fordi vi er menneskelige, og fordi vi kan forstå og tøjle naturens kræfter, og faktisk ikke alene mildne de ødelæggende virkninger, men sætte disse naturkræfter til at arbejde for det gode; som det, hævet over enhver tvivl, blev demonstreret med Tennessee Valley Authority. Vi dækkede TVA sidste fredag og viste et kort uddrag af en video; men dette er et eksempel herpå. Vi kan som nation gøre dette, fordi vi har en Forfatning og et økonomisk system, der blev grundlagt af Alexander Hamilton med netop dette formål.

Som jeg nævnte, så udstedte vi en nøderklæring, »Ikke flere Houston-katastrofer! Lyndon LaRouche siger, hvad det er, der nu må ske!«, og den fremlægger et omgående firepunktsprogram: Genindfør Glass-Steagall, bryd Wall Street og dets magt op; skab nationale kreditinstitutioner baseret på FDR’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation og Hamiltons nationalbanker; investér kredit i ny infrastruktur med helt nye teknologier; og vedtag et forceret program for fusionskraft, der kan lade en stor udvidelse af NASA’s rumforskning blive drivkraften bag produktivitet og produktiv beskæftigelse. Selv om dette er en presserende nøderklæring, der blev udgivet for kun en uge siden, og vi vil gennemgå, hvad der er sket på denne front, siden denne erklæring blev udstedt, så er det ikke nyt. Lyndon LaRouche har krævet dette i mindst et årti, eller mere. Så før vi går over til Paul Gallagher og Ben Deniston, vil jeg gerne vise et kort, 3-minutters klip af Lyndon LaRouche selv, i kølvandet på en tidligere naturkatastrofe. Dette var et webcast, som han holdt i dagene umiddelbart efter orkanen Katrina, der ramte New Orleans. Dette er i august, 2005, og her kan I se præcis, hvad Lyndon LaRouche havde at sige dengang, som de nødvendige skridt, der måtte tages, og hvad der er, og ikke er, blevet gjort siden denne historiske storm i 2005. Lad mig afspille dette for jer:

Lyndon LaRouche (video):

»De fleste mennesker forstår ikke arten af situationen, fordi de ikke tænker ud fra standpunktet om, hvad en præsident for USA bør tænke på et sådant tidspunkt. Vi har nu en krise, der hovedsagligt er en menneskeskabt katastrofe i tillæg til det, der ellers ville have været en kontrollabel, men alvorlig, naturkatastrofe. Det er den menneskeskabte katastrofe, som er det hovedproblem, vi må konfrontere og overvinde.

Det, som vi nu må gøre, og årsagen til, at vi nu har denne krise i Louisiana, Mississippi og Alabama, er, at vi opgav politikken om en forfatningsmæssig forpligtelse til fremme af det Almene Vel. Og derfor, fordi vi indførte nedskæringer, nedskæringer af det Almene Vel, med den måde, hvorpå vi udplyndrede de sociale ydelser (til arbejdsløshed, sygedagpenge, sundhedsydelser m.v.), opretholdt vi ikke længere levestandarden og støtten til disse områder, som ville gøre det muligt for dem at håndtere mange af disse problemer. Vi leverede ikke det, der krævedes, i Louisiana, Mississippi og Alabama, selv om vi vidste, det behøvedes, fordi vi ikke ville bruge pengene, fordi vi forsøgte at skære ned på midlerne til vores sociale ydelser, så vi, lad os sige, kunne føre krig i Irak, eller en ny krig, de vil have i Iran – denne form for ting. Vi har nu denne situation for os, som er skabt af vor befolknings lidelser i disse tre stater i særdeleshed. Men det er ikke problemet; det stiller et større spørgsmål til os. Er vi en nation? Hvad definerer os som nation? Vi kan redde denne nation; vi kan bringe dens værdighed tilbage. Vi kan ikke bringe de mennesker tilbage, der mistede livet pga. embedsmisbrug i denne periode, men vi kan redde denne nation. Vi kan sige, at vi vandt denne krig. Det er op til jer. Vi må gå tilbage til Fortalen til USA’s Føderale Forfatning og anerkende, at denne nations grundlæggende lov findes i Fortalen. Ikke alene mht. det nationale forsvar, men også i fremme af det Almene Vel for de levende, og deres efterkommere. Vi har overtrådt princippet om nationens forsvar, åbenlyst. Vi har endnu mere åbenlyst overtrådt politikken for fremme af det Almene Vel. Vi dømmer os selv til foragt, med mindre vi går tilbage, og nu gør fremme af det Almene Vel for de levende og deres efterkommere til regeringsgrundlaget. Tak.«

Matthew Ogden: Dette var altså et webcast med Lyndon LaRouche fra september 2005. Under den efterfølgende spørgsmål-og-svar-tid, forklarede han faktisk mere detaljeret, hvordan man skulle anvende princippet om det Almene Vel for at redde USA. Det kommer her på skærmen [Figurer 2 & 3], to korte klip, og så læser jeg dem. Hr. LaRouche sagde:

»Der er derfor én løsning; og det er at gå til Fortalen for USA’s Forfatning, om nationalforsvar og fremme af det Almene Vel for de nuværende og fremtidige generationer. Regeringer sætter det nationale banksystem under konkursbehandling og bankerot og forhindrer bankerne i at smække dørene i; går igennem en finansiel reorganisering af systemet for at sikre, at folk ikke bliver smidt ud af deres hjem; deres foretagender fortsat er åbne; deres pensioner udbetales; og vi fortsætter med at vokse …

USA er den eneste nation, der har en Forfatning, der pr. tradition kvalificerer os til at gå over til statslig bankpraksis, som det beskrives af Hamilton. De private banker skal under konkursbehandling … de skal reorganiseres. Man rydder op i værdipapirerne, og man skaber ny kredit, der får økonomien til at vokse, gennem investering i infrastruktur og andre ting, der er tilstrækkelige til at sikre, at det, vi tjener om året, overstiger det, vi bruger om året med hensyn til de nuværende regnskaber. Og dét må vi gøre.«

Som I ser, så var dette for 12 år siden; og Lyndon LaRouche var allerede på scenen med præcis den politik, som er fremlagt i denne nøderklæring, som vi udstedte i sidste uge.

Jeg vil nu bede Paul Gallagher om at forklare lidt mere om dette. Hvor er vi nu, siden denne nøderklæring blev udstedt, og hvad mangler der at ske?

Her følger Paul Gallaghers indlæg, der efterfølges af Ben Denistons indlæg, i engelsk udskrift:  

PAUL GALLAGHER:  You mean the emergency statement that we
issued about two weeks or ten days ago.  I’ll come to that, but I
just want to point out, Lyndon LaRouche was making that statement
not only at the end of 2005 immediately after the devastation
from Hurricane Katrina, but also in the then-foreseeable — and
he had foreseen it for sure — preparations for the financial
crash of 2007-2008.  He was saying that in regard to that
oncoming crash and the disaster that had occurred in Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama, the reorganization of the private banks
of the United States under a Glass-Steagall standard, enabling
them to be mediators of credit both from savings and from the
Federal government into the businesses of the economy and also
the creation of national banking and large amounts of national
credit in that way precisely for infrastructure, not just
reconstruction.  Construction of infrastructure that never had
been produced, and had to be produced with new technologies then
in order to prevent future such disasters.  So, he was looking to
both.
There is a memory in the United States obviously of three
major cities being devastated.  And when we put out this policy
statement, we were thinking of the fact that the memory of the
devastation of New Orleans, the devastation of the New York-New
Jersey area a few years later, the devastation now of
southeastern Texas a few years after that, and the threat of
another one in Florida.  These are essentially a single memory, a
single thought in the minds of many millions of Americans about
what has to be done that hasn’t been being done.  When we as a
nation have allowed three of the greatest cities of the country
to be effectively, at least temporarily, destroyed.  In the case
of New Orleans and New York, the long-term damage to their
neighborhoods, to their school systems, to their transportation
systems, is still there.  The long-term damage to their economies
is still there, and it’s getting worse.  So, this has shown
something very clear that if you postpone and do not act on a $25
or $50 billion or even $100 billion infrastructure that must be
made, you will shortly be paying, in one way or another, hundreds
of billions of dollars in economic losses.  Losses of wages,
losses of jobs, losses — tragically — of human lives by the
hundreds and perhaps thousands as in Katrina; because you have
not done that.
In the 1930s, there was a kind of thinking which was driven
by Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s leadership.  We’ve seen in the
last ten days the first — as Shelley would say, the locks of the
approaching storm — the first indications of the revival of that
kind of thinking.  The way they thought then about this was made
clear in the government TVA film that you showed on this program
last week, when the announcer said in showing the devastating
flooding, the raging Tennessee River and its tributaries
destroying buildings, destroying agricultural areas, killing
people.  The announcer described it as devastating effects on
human beings of greed and neglect; not of nature, but of greed
and neglect.  And it’s that neglect which LaRouche was speaking
about there, and it’s that neglect which we’ve seen in New
Orleans and the Gulf Coast, then New Jersey and New York, now
again in Texas and the Gulf Coast in the destruction of whole
cities and killing of people, completely unnecessarily.  This was
man-made, and I think there is a video which has come out down in
Houston, put out by the newspaper, the {Houston Chronicle}, of
the former flood control director of Harris County — which
includes Houston — in which he says very strongly right at the
beginning, “This was a man-made disaster”; meaning the flooding
of Hurricane Harvey and everything that it did.  He knew that
because he was personally involved in trying to get one of the
infrastructure solutions — only one of them — right in the city
of Houston that was necessary in order to prevent this kind of
devastating flooding.  He was unable to get it done because of
political and because of greed and neglect.  Neglect of the
Constitution, neglect of the General Welfare of the population,
he was unable to get it done.  He says this was a man-made
disaster.
Now, things are beginning to change.  I was in a meeting
with a senior figure who works for the House of Representatives
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee immediately after
Hurricane Harvey.  He said that they expected that discussion of
legislation on infrastructure funding would start sometime next
year.  This was only ten days ago.  He was saying it would start
sometime next year that they would begin to discuss the
possibility of legislation to fund new infrastructure in the
United States.  We were then in a situation in which the nearly
year-long and in a certain sense with his candidacy year and a
half-long attack on President Trump to attempt to force him out
as a candidate, and then attempt to force him out of the
Presidency.  That attack — the Soros forces, the British
intelligence initiated attack and the way in which the Democratic
Party leadership had gone along with this — had created a
tremendous division in the country; one which people only have to
remember back to the Charlottesville events of a month ago, to
realize how deep and how that implicit racial division in the
country was being pushed at the same time that war was
threatening from many directions.  We have to realize that, going
all the way back to the 1960s when John F Kennedy was
assassinated after having launched this tremendous infrastructure
program known as NASA and the Apollo Project, and having tried to
get started an equally ambitious Earth-based terraforming and
water management project for the entire West of North America —
the North American Water and Power Alliance program.  That it was
war, it was the Vietnam War and the tremendous economic,
budgetary, and political and social effects of that war which
destroyed those things.  It will consider and push them off the
table from then until now — for 50 years.  That kind of
preoccupation with regime change wars, it will push the General
Welfare off the table over and over again unless the American
people realize that, at a point like this, we can’t let that
happen.  Now we have to build.
So, we have seen some changes.  The one that got the most
publicity, of course, was the sudden agreement between President
Trump and the Democrats in Congress.  On the part of the
Democrats, they had already agreed and acknowledged and more or
less admitted in the days before that, that their strategy of
Resist promotes racial divisions.  Resist tried to impeach the
President.  This strategy was a failure and was dangerous to the
country, and they were going to abandon it if Hillary Clinton
would only shut up.  They were going to try and get something
done instead.  That already had dawned on them before the
terrible lesson of Hurricane Harvey and the perhaps $100 billion
in economic losses; clearly more than 100 precious lives being
lost.  This hit them on top of that.  You then had this agreement
that enable $15 billion in a first down payment of recovery aid
to go through, together with a measure to fund the government for
the next three months and a measure to remove the debt ceiling
for the next three months.  Clearing the decks perhaps for
further expansion of what is going to be done to rebuild.  Not
only to rebuild obviously in east Texas, but to rebuild in
Florida and to rebuild in Puerto Rico and some of the smaller
islands.  Puerto Rico has had for some time a very clear
possibility of a development bank needing only the guarantee of
the Federal government in order to turn development of its port
position particularly into development of infrastructure on the
island; electrical and transportation, which is currently in such
bad condition and which has now been knocked out. So, that door
was opened.
Then already yesterday, we saw the President having a
meeting with a large number of members of the Senate and the
House on the so-called Gateway Project, the major necessary
infrastructure step to repair what Hurricane Sandy left behind it
in terms of inoperable or increasingly deteriorating and failing
transportation; subway and freight rail transportation all around
the New York City area, which has famously been turned into the
Summer of Hell this summer in terms of trying to get anywhere.
You’re taking your life in your hands to get anywhere in New
York.
There was a meeting between Trump and the two governors of
New Jersey and New York, the Senators from New Jersey and New
York, a number of members of Congress of both parties, in which
there was a least a tentative agreement made to proceed with this
Gateway Project.  This involves building two new tunnels — each
one way — under the Hudson River from New Jersey to New York in
the general northeast rail corridor of the United States.  Having
done that, then to be able to repair the tunnels which were made
almost inoperable by Sandy; which incredibly have nonetheless
been used in the five years since.  Also, to replace the bridge
which is in such terrible condition in Hackensack, over which all
of the East Coast passenger and freight rail goes from Florida
all the way to New England.  Supposedly, 10% of the GDP is
waiting to fail when that bridge cannot be hammered back into
line so the trains can go over it.  There are other improvements
in this Gateway Project.  It was given a top priority in the
National Governors’ Association list of major new infrastructure
projects in the country, which they issued earlier this year in
January.
The members of Congress coming out of this meeting made
clear that there was an optimism and a thrust, a potential
commitment of the Trump administration to fund all the funding
that remains to be needed for that; this is on the order of up to
$15 billion from the Federal side that needs to be put in that
investment.  They were, at least on the part of the President,
they were ready to make that commitment, and talked about others
as well for that general area; including reconstruction for the
international airports there and connecting those international
airports — which incredibly, are not connected by transportation
now.  This then started people talking about the potentials for
Congress to meet these bills.  There is not a means, and there
hasn’t been a means really since Franklin Roosevelt’s
administration, there hasn’t been a reliable means by which the
Federal government can create this kind of credit that Mr.
LaRouche was talking about, and on that basis actually fund the
new infrastructure that is needed.
Now you have in Texas as well, members of Congress from both
parties talking about a major new building of flood control for
the cities along the southeast coast of Texas on the Gulf.  I’ll
just read you the comment of one Republican member of Congress.
He said, “There’s going to be another Harvey, and we need to
build at least one more reservoir, maybe two or more reservoirs.
We have to figure out how to get the water out of the Houston
area down to the Gulf of Mexico without flooding.”  There have
been plans for at least 50 years which at least expressed in
general, if you have that slide I gave you [Fig. 4], we could
show one of them, which expressed at least in general how this
has to be done.  It’s very small and can only be indicated in the
broadest strokes that what is involved there is, at the lower
right, the construction of an intercoastal canal.  Essentially a
large canal for moving water either from the northeast to the
southwest along the coast, but behind the cities of the coast.
Moving it in either direction by pumping.  Thereby you can see
generally, the numerous rivers which come down to the Gulf, which
are involved always in the flooding of all of these cities
whenever there is a hurricane. What you probably cannot see
clearly on that slide, is that there are nine new reservoirs
specified in that plan on those rivers, which together with the
canal make it possible to control flood waters that are
threatening the cities on the Texas Gulf coast and to move water
in either direction.  Either for drought relief, if that’s
necessary, but more critically here, for flood relief by bringing
the water eventually all the way down to the Rio Grande at the
Mexican border.  This is one element.  At the top of the screen
is shown another main element canal system to bring flood water
from the Mississippi River across northern Texas into the dry
plains where the Ogallala Aquifer is, which could be recharged.
These were plans of the Texas State Water Authority.  These
were state plans typical of those which were made at the time in
Harris County, within which is Houston.  Other plans were being
made for a channel underneath one of the freeways that was being
built, which would discharge water.  A very large underground
channel, tunnel, which would discharge water from those two
reservoirs which everyone heard and saw overflowing ten days ago.
It would discharge and bring that water down to the Houston ship
channel and into the Gulf.  That was, I think, particularly the
plan which the former Harris County Flood Control Commissioner
was referring to in his interview with the {Chronicle} in which
he said, “This was a man-made disaster that we did not get this
done.”
Now these clearly are, as the New York project is, these are
new infrastructure efforts which will require tens of billions of
dollars in investments.  That is exactly what we have been
circulating in Congress, and circulating this statement now with
them in order to get a national bank created, which can generate
$1-3 trillion in national Federal credit for investment in this
new infrastructure.  And in order to get the existing
Glass-Steagall legislation in both Houses to be passed so that
these disasters are not added to by a looming financial crash
which takes the banks to be bailed out again.  But rather, those
banks can be counted on to take part in this kind of rebuilding
effort because they are taking in deposits and they are lending
them into the economy.
Ben is going to talk more about the contributions here of
the space program.  That also must see not just $100 billion or
whatever it’s going to be in recovery aid for Harvey, but a great
deal more money in accelerating and reviving NASA space
exploration, which went the way of the Vietnam War nearly 60
years ago.
So the view of this is changing.  The Texas governor has now
created a commission to rebuild the state.  As a Republican, he’s
appointed a Democrat to head it.  On all of these levels, there
is the potential now that this lesson will actually be learned,
because the country has been put in a different state of mind as
a result of seeing this kind of disaster occur unnecessarily time
and time again, and the tremendous human costs that it has.  So,
let’s really push that to the greatest extent we can, and do it
in exactly the spirit that LaRouche was laying out there 12 years
ago.  He, by the way, is 95 years old today.  He has lived and is
living an incredibly productive human existence, and we wish him
many more.

OGDEN:  And one of the results of what Lyn has done over the
last 40 years alongside Helga is what’s now emerging
internationally.  You can counter pose what hasn’t been done here
in the United States in terms of these great infrastructure
projects with what is being done now by China and the Belt and
Road Initiative.  It’s a necessary counterpoint to draw.  Look at
what Xi Jinping had to say at the BRICS conference which occurred
— this is the 9th BRICS conference — which occurred in China
over the course of last week and the beginning of this week.  You
look at what China is actually now building.  Obviously, the
Three Gorges Dam is an incredible example; that’s the Chinese
TVA, but on an even grander scale in certain regards.  But look
at now what’s being done abroad, including the example of the
Transaqua water transfer program to refill Lake Chad in Africa.
There’s an excellent video update that was published by Alicia
Cerretani on larouchepac.com just a couple of days ago on that
subject.  But that indeed should continue to be the inspiration,
encapsulating the entirety of this emergency program that must be
done nationally, we also have to follow through on the initiative
for the United States to join this great projects dynamic abroad.
What’s being done by China with the New Silk Road and the Belt
and Road Initiative.
What Paul has just been discussing, and even what I
referenced with what China has done, is an element of the
terrestrial infrastructure that indeed must be built, and should
by built by all means.  But there’s an entirely different
dimension that also must be included in this picture when we’re
talking about these great weather episodes and other aspects of
what it means to understand and harness nature.  I decided to ask
Ben Deniston to come on today because he has a bit of an
exclusive breaking report on what the space weather conditions
are right now as we speak, which are coinciding with the
developments around Hurricane Irma and the other approaching
hurricanes that are now tracking across the Atlantic.  So, Ben,
go ahead.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  Thank you, Matthew.  So, we are seeing a
very interesting situation with respect to certain activities of
our Sun, our Solar System, and what you might call the cosmic
environment that we’re watching very closely; because these could
play into a strengthening of Hurricane Irma, which could push an
already potentially dangerous situation into something even
worse.  I’m going to get into that a little bit more in just a
second, but I think first and foremost, coming off of what was
discussed, these events — the tragedy of Harvey, the major
earthquake just off the coast in Mexico, the largest earthquake
in Mexico in 100 years.  We have Irma as we just said, coming
towards Florida, which hopefully will avoid a dangerous situation
there, but it does look like it could be potentially very
catastrophic.  All of these events should remind us that what
we’re dealing with as a single mankind on one small planet in the
Solar System and in this Galaxy.  These are unfortunate events,
but also an opportunity to bring people together as we discussed,
not just in the United States, but internationally.  To realize
what mankind can uniquely do to defend ourselves against these
kinds of situations.  Some of that includes a better
understanding of what factors actually play into these things.
In passing, just because there’s so much crazy propaganda
about supposed man-made climate change being a factor in these
storms, that’s just bunk; that should just be said outright.
It’s unfortunate that we even have to say it, but given the fact
that this is being pushed as a major top-down propaganda
campaign, we should just say outright that there is no evidence
at all that storm systems and extreme weather has been getting
worse as a function of increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
There is no evidence of that.  Even just look at the history of
hurricanes in the United States.  Since 1970, we’ve had four
Category 4 or higher hurricanes make landfall on the United
States.  In the 40 years prior to that, we had 14.  So, what’s
all this talk about extreme weather getting worse?  We just
recently exited a very anomalous drought of hurricanes, where we
had no Category 3 plus hurricane make landfall on the United
States for almost 12 years earlier at the turn of this century.
So, there’s no evidence that we’re seeing more extreme
situations; there’s no evidence that human CO2 emissions play any
factor at all.  Again, it’s unfortunate that we have to waste our
time to even address this, but just because it’s being pushed
down the throats of the American people and much of the world
population, we should just make that clear outright.
But what we do have is natural weather and natural storms
and natural extreme events.  Instead of this false blaming of
human CO2 emissions, we should instead be taking a higher
perspective on what factors actually do influence extreme weather
and climate change.  These are factors that go beyond the Earth.
These are factors that go to the Sun, that go to the Solar
System.  That again, forced mankind to realize we are one very
unique species on one very small planet; and we know very little
about what actually determines the conditions we live in here on
Earth.  So, it’s about time that humankind as a whole wakes up,
stops playing these insane geopolitical games to try and compete
over some small amount of wealth developed on the planet so far,
and realizes that if we collaborate as one species, we can uplift
the entire population of this planet to a much higher level.  And
we can collaborate on defending our entire planet from disasters
like this.
So, as Matt mentioned, this is a developing situation that I
briefed him on and Mr. LaRouche and Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche on
earlier this morning about possible space weather effects which
could worsen Hurricane Irma.  Again, this is an ongoing process
that is playing out, so we don’t know exactly what’s going to
happen.  But it is worth highlighting what we know so far.  As we
know, Hurricane Irma is now thought to be a couple of days away
from most likely making landfall on the southern coast of
Florida.  It is already a very extreme and intense hurricane.
Just a few days prior, our Sun — if we can switch over to the
graphic animation [Fig. 5] we have here — our Sun released the
strongest solar flare in about a decade.  This was released on
September 6th.  So that bright flash in the lower right central
region is this explosion on the surface of the Sun.  This was
classified as an X-9 flare; a very strong solar flare.  That was
actually the strongest of a series of intense solar flares that
the Sun has released in the last week.  So, the Sun — despite
going into a bit of a slumber — has decided to send out a
barrage of rather strong outbursts.  These outbursts send a
strong wave of gas and plasma from the Sun barrelling at the
Earth.  As we see in this next graphic [Fig. 6], as is a rather
well-known phenomenon, when the Earth’s magnetic field gets
blasted by these outbursts from the Sun, it causes the Earth’s
magnetic field to begin to fluctuate wildly; what’s called a
“geo-magnetic storm.”  So, a storm in the Earth’s magnetic field.
I’m sure most people know, our entire planet is surrounded
by a magnetic field that is critical to supporting and protecting
life on Earth, providing certain unique electromagnetic
conditions to the biosphere on Earth; it’s part of our regular
Earth system we live with day to day, year to year, etc.  When
the Earth’s magnetic field gets blasted with these outbursts of
solar activity, the Earth’s magnetic field goes into these
fluctuations referred to as “geo-magnetic storms.”  What you’re
looking at here [Fig. 7] is an index provided by NOAA of the
level of geo-magnetic activity over the last three or four days.
As you can see, coming into the night of September 7th and into
the very early morning of September 8th, we saw an explosion of a
very intense geo-magnetic storm, corresponding with these
outbursts of solar activity which are referred to as a “coronal
mass ejection”; an ejection of material from the surface of the
Sun, corresponding with that intersecting Earth’s magnetic field.
As you might intuit from this diagram, what we’ve currently
experiencing is a very intense event; a very intense geo-magnetic
storm classified as severe by NOAA’s metrics.
There’s much that can be said about this.  These
geo-magnetic storms are known to be potentially dangerous to the
Earth’s electrical infrastructure.  That’s something that’s
becoming a very well-known and clear point of concern, that when
we have these types of geo-magnetic storms, this can actually
wreak havoc on our electrical grid.  That’s something we actually
want to keep a very close eye on today and in the coming days.
But another aspect of this, which we see in the next graphic
[Fig. 8] is that when the Earth’s magnetic field is compressed
like this, this actually temporarily increases the shielding of
the Earth from galactic cosmic radiation.  So, we temporarily
have a stronger protection from this continuous flow, this
continuous input of radiation coming from our entire galactic
system.  This is also another well-known phenomenon; this is
referred to as a “Forbush decrease,” named after the scientist
who identified this event whose name was Scott Forbush.  But as
you can see here, from the most recent data being provided, this
is an indication of the level of galactic radiation reaching the
Earth’s atmosphere, and we can see this sharp drop coming
immediately in the context of this geomagnetic storm and the
solar outburst.
These are all well-known phenomena.  These are not
mysterious, these are not unexplained or unknown, but there’s an
element of this that does not yet get enough attention; which is
that, when you have this particular type of activity, geomagnetic
storms, reduction of the cosmic radiation reaching the Earth’s
atmosphere, this is known to very likely be a factor in
potentially increasing the severity and strength of hurricanes
and cyclones.  And what we have on the screen here is one study,
showing that in 2005, this tragic event of Hurricane Katrina
which we heard referenced earlier, was actually partially
strengthened by the activity of the Sun in a very similar way to
what we’re looking at right now. [Fig. 9]  This was a study by
Prof. Sergei Pulinets, and some associates as you can see on the
byline there; where they analyzed a very similar situation where,
when Katrina was a few days off the Gulf Coast for its actually
second landfall, there was a coronal mass ejection, there was a
geomagnetic storm, and that led to a strengthening of Hurricane
Katrina at the time.
What we’re looking at now, today, is a potentially similar
situation, where what we see with these cosmic effects on the
weather system, is that when you have these reductions in cosmic
radiation reaching the atmosphere, that actually can lead to a
greater temperature difference between the surface of the ocean
and the top of the atmosphere, which can lead to a greater rate
of convection and a strengthening of the hurricane.
And so those are the conditions we’re immediately watching
now with Hurricane Irma, which is already a very strong
hurricane.  We’re already seeing a geomagnetic storm. Various
people who are aware of these potential cosmic influences on
these events are watching very closely to see if we will see a
strengthening of Irma in response to these conditions.
This is a developing situation; I’m sure we’ll have more on
this in the coming days, but as I said at the beginning, this is
an unfortunate but valid example of the kinds of lessons we
should take to heart as mankind, and realize that this is for
example the perfect area of study that we, the United States.
should be collaborating on with Russia and with China on
developing greater insights into.
This brings back to mind Mr. LaRouche’s work on the
Strategic Defense Initiative and the revival of that proposal
with the “Strategic Defense of the Earth,” where the same
principle was brought forward; namely, that the United States,
Russia, leading powers need to move beyond a system of conflict
and mutually assured destruction and towards a system where we
realize that mankind as a whole, and especially these leading
most powerful nations, have to come together and provide all the
resources we have available as nations, all of our scientific
capabilities, all of our technologies, and actually bring these
together in joint efforts to defend our planet as a whole from
these types of events.  Better understand these cosmic influences
driving our climate and weather systems, and begin to determine
what we can do to defend our populations from these types of
activities.
So we’ll be watching the situation very closely.  We’ll see
what develops over the coming days, and we’ll certainly have more
on this very dramatic situation with these coming hurricanes as
things develop.

OGDEN:  Thank you, Ben.

GALLAGHER:  Actually, I have two questions, Ben.  The
meteorologists are saying now that there’s an extremely high
temperature differential between the upper atmosphere and the
Earth’s surface in the western Atlantic and the Gulf; they’re
connecting that directly to the great strength of these
hurricanes.  Are you saying this is related? In that work that
you just showed [by Pulinets, et al.], that this is related to
the reduced cosmic irradiation of the upper atmosphere?  That’s
one question.
The other has to do with the space assets that are watching
all this.  Do they need to be increased?  I heard, for example,
that in the case of radar satellite observations of the
development of Harvey, that these were German radar satellites
that were doing this.  Are there missing assets or assets that
should be increased in the U.S., in the NASA program?

DENISTON:  Yes, to take the first question.  Generally, over
time the upper atmosphere will be cooler than the oceans in this
region.  So you have a certain temperature differential that’s
already naturally there.
The role that galactic radiation plays, is that actually
helps to facilitate a higher rate of condensation of water vapor,
and release of latent heat, in this region. So the flux of cosmic
radiation actually helps to facilitate a slight warming of the
upper atmosphere in this region.  If you have that process all of
a sudden halted, you’ll get less warming, and obviously cooling
of the upper atmosphere, which could increase the temperature
difference and lead to an even stronger hurricane.
That process is happening now; the conditions that are being
reported on already are before we’re seeing the effects of this.
Now obviously, this is not a simplistic, mechanical, 1, 2, 3,
process.  There are many factors involved, there’s variations in
the cosmic radiation flux coming in already; there’s many other
factors involved in affecting the hurricane itself.  So we’re not
in a position to absolutely say one way or the other exactly what
the effect of this situation is going to be.  But we can
definitely identify Katrina; and then other hurricanes have been
studied as well, where it’s been shown that there formation or
their strengthening often comes a couple days after these types
of geomagnetic storms and drops in the cosmic radiation flux.
Again, the mechanism, the causal relation that Professor Pulinets
and others have presented, is that relates to this heating of the
upper atmosphere by cosmic radiation flux.
But that directly ties into your second question, is that,
yeah, we need many more satellites and other instruments to be
monitoring these conditions, much more extensively and in real
time around the world.  We do have some very impressive assets up
there;  but much more is needed to really better understand, not
just the Earth’s own atmosphere and weather system, but the
relation to the activity of the Sun and the activity of the
Galaxy.  One of our key assets for directly measuring the
activity coming from the Sun towards the Earth, which is called
the ACE satellite, is already many years past its life expectancy
and expected to fail at any time.  As of now, we have no
replacement ready to send up.  That’s just one example.  That’s a
satellite that sits directly in between the Earth and the Sun,
and intercepts the high-energy radiation, especially the plasma,
coming from the Sun before it reaches the Earth, and at least
gives us a little bit of a warning and analysis of what the Sun
is sending at us.  And that thing is ready to go.  That’s just
one example.
I think this also relates to the question of earthquakes and
earthquake forecasting which we’ve covered on this site before
also. [See interview with Prof. Sergey Pulinets
http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/17944]  We could use
dedicated satellites that could help measure the precursor
conditions, that could alert us to coming earthquakes, like this
devastating earthquake that just hit off the coast of Mexico.
So there are certainly more satellite systems that we could
be developing, more ground-based systems as well,  to get some
better understanding of the intersection of solar activity,
galactic activity, the activity intrinsic to the Earth system
itself;  and actually begin to get a better handle on how all
these factors play together in affecting the climate and
affecting the weather.  And really, to get serious about it,
begin to think about how we can manage these situations and
intervene; and obviously, forecast and give early warning, but
potentially even intervene to change these conditions and defend
life on Earth.
And that should be a top, strategic priority of leading
nations of the world. And I think that just goes hand in hand
with this new paradigm that we’re seeing potentially emerging
with the leadership of China, with its Belt and Road initiative,
and with this idea of “win-win cooperation”; in which we can move
beyond, finally, and put behind us this insane geopolitical games
which you’re still seeing attempting to be rammed down Americans’
throats with this crazy lie about Russian “hacking” and
attempting to make the Russians look like the biggest bogeymen in
the world, and play up this crazy game of conflict against
Russia, economic warfare against China. These are our allies!
We’ve got to put all of this behind us and look at them as
collaborators, for our nation, for other nations in the world
that can help us to defend our species as a whole against these
kinds of conditions.

OGDEN:  Let me pick up directly off what you just
referenced, Ben, and put on the screen the advertisement for the
conference that’s coming up in New York City tomorrow, which will
go directly to that point.  This is a conference as you can see
that’s featuring William Binney, NSA whistleblower; Ray McGovern,
the founder of the Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS) and himself a veteran CIA analyst; and William Wertz from
{Executive Intelligence Review}.  The title of the event, is:
“The Russian ‘Hack’ Inside Job:  Who’s Trying To Destroy the
Presidency and Start a World War with Russia?”  As you can see on
the screen there, there’s still time for you to RSVP and register
to attend, that’s going to be available, http://lpac.co/ytvips .
That link is active now, but it’s going to be available in the
description of the video which is immediately below this video in
the YouTube player.  If you’re in New York City also you can get
in contact, and register for the event in person.
This is going to be an historic event, following up on the
memo, which is becoming a controversial memo which was published
by William Binney, Ray McGovern and others from VIPS, which
documented that according to the metadata the so-called “Russian
hack” of DNC emails could not have been a hack, but was in fact
some sort of inside job, a leak in order to set up the conditions
where, now, you have this so-called Russia-gate, and the mad
drive to undermine the efforts that Trump had at least intended
to initiate to restore the kinds of cooperate relation between
the United States and Russia.
It’s this kind of great powers relationship between the
United States and Russia, the U.S. and China, what we now see
developing in terms of the BRICS, with Russia, China, India,
Brazil and South Africa and other national relationships:  This
is what Lyndon LaRouche has been campaigning for for years, in
that form.  To say, now is the time to abandon and discard this
British Imperial mentality of geopolitics, petty competition over
so-called natural resources, or “limited” natural resources, and
perpetual war; and to initiate exactly what you’re saying, Ben,
this kind of cooperation within the species as a whole: To say,
what are the common aims of mankind and how can we collaborate in
a “win-win” modality to achieve those common aims.
And under that category you would say that common defense of
mankind  from these great natural and terrestrial,
extraterrestrial phenomena, which we see expressed in discrete
ways in the form of these hurricanes, those kinds of natural
disasters; also these earthquakes, which are obviously part of
much broader and much larger kind of terrestrial phenomena, which
we have yet to understand.  And what is the connection of that to
the space weather that our planet exists in?
So that’s a fascinating kind of view.
But just in the same way that we have to abandon those
geopolitics abroad, we also have to abandon the kinds of
British/Wall Street mentality here in the United States, which is
this insane negligence of our physical infrastructure, and in the
interest of mere, monetary speculation; and to return to the
general welfare principle, you heard Mr. LaRouche so beautifully
and emphatically say that, in that webcast excerpt that we have
from 2005, in the aftermath of Katrina; return to the general
welfare and restore the system of Hamiltonian national credit.
So I think that’s a sufficient place to conclude our
broadcast here, today.  I’d like to thank you, Ben, for joining
us, remotely there.  And we’ll stay tuned for developments as
they occur on that front.  And I’d like to thank Paul Gallagher
for joining me here in the studio.
So please tune in on this website tomorrow, at 1 p.m.
Eastern Time, for the historic conference out of New York City,
featuring Bill Binney, Ray McGovern, and Will Wertz; and we’ll be
back with you on Monday for our strategic overview.
Thank you for joining us and please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.

4. sept., 2017 – Mens verden med bæven ser på Nordkoreas magtfulde demonstration af atomvåben og USA’s trusler om krig, mindede Lyndon LaRouche verden om, at det var sabotage af hans politik for »fred gennem udvikling«, først fra George Bush’ og Dick Cheneys, og dernæst Obamas, side, som forårsagede den nuværende krise. »Rammeaftalen« fra 1994 under Bill Clinton arbejde på at afslutte Nordkoreas atomvåbenprogram, med inspektører fra IAEA på stedet, til gengæld for økonomisk samarbejde, da Bush og Cheney skrottede den til fordel for miltære trusler og konfrontation. Igen i 2002, da den sydkoreanske præsident Kim Dae-jung, med opbakning fra Rusland og Kina, genoptog sin »Solskinspolitik« med at åbne for økonomisk samarbejde med Nordkorea, afviste Bush og dernæst Obama samarbejde, alt imens de beskyldte Nordkorea for at »snyde«.

Kendsgerningen er, at briterne og deres neokonservative kohorter i USA ikke ønsker en løsning, eftersom krisen i Korea retfærdiggør deres bestræbelser på at ramme Kina, økonomisk og militært. Dette bliver klart i dag gennem Washingtons respons til den opfattede trussel fra Pyongyang.

USA’s inkompetente ambassadør til FN, Nikki Haley, sagde i dag ved hastemødet i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, at Nordkoreas leder Kim Jong-un »tigger og beder« om krig og sagde, at USA er i færd med at udarbejde et udkast til en resolution, der skal til afstemning i næste uge, og i hvilken »USA vil anse ethvert land, der gør forretninger med Nordkorea, som et land, der hjælper deres hensynsløse og farlige atomare hensigter« – dvs., at målet er at ramme Kina, såvel som også Rusland. Finansminister Steven Mnuchin, Wall Streets aktiv i Trump-administrationen, sagde søndag til Fox News, at han arbejdede på sanktioner, der ville medføre, at »enhver, der ønsker at handle eller gøre forretninger med [Nordkorea], ville blive forhindret i at handle eller gøre forretninger med os«. Han taler formentlig om at udelukke visse kinesiske banker og selskaber af USA’s finansielle system – hvilket er sindssygt.

Dette gør det ligeledes klart, at målet også er at ramme Trump, mere bestemt hans bestræbelser på at opbygge et arbejdsvenskab mellem USA og både Kina og Rusland, og som er baggrunden for den igangværende »farvede revolution« imod ham af forrædere i begge partier.

Selv tweetede Trump, at Kina »forsøger at hjælpe, men uden meget held«, og beskyldte Sydkorea for at »formilde«, når det på nogen som helst måde ønskede at indgå i en relation med Nordkorea. General Mattis udstedte en erklæring, der sagde: »En hvilken som helst trussel mod USA eller dets territorier – inklusive Guam eller vore allierede – vil blive mødt med en massiv militær respons, der både er effektiv og overvældende.«

På den anden side udstedte den sydkoreanske præsident Moon Jae-ins kontor en erklæring, der sagde: »Korea er et land, der har oplevet en krig mellem brødre. Krigens ødelæggelser bør ikke gentages i dette land.« Moon har udtrykkeligt erklæret, at præsident Trump har forsikret ham om, at der ikke bliver nogen militæraktion imod Nordkorea uden Seouls godkendelse. Ikke desto mindre optrapper Moon-regeringen tempoet for deployeringen af THAAD-missiler i dets land (på trods af stærk opposition fra Kina og Rusland) og diskuterer med Washington, deployeringen af amerikansk, strategisk militærudstyr i Sydkorea, inklusive et atomarmeret hangarskib og strategiske bombefly.

Både Kina og Rusland fordømte kraftigt Nordkoreas atomtest, men gjorde det klart, at Washingtons afvisning af forhandlinger med Pyongyang, eller af at indskrænke sine militærøvelser, der truer Nordkorea, ligeledes er ansvarlig for krisen. »Det er min personlig opfattelse, at der slet ikke ville have været nogen konflikt, hvis USA var holdt op med at bevare konflikten«, sagde den russiske vice-premierminister og præsidentielle udsending for Fjernøsten, Yuri Trutnev, til TASS. »Hver gang, Nord- og Sydkorea synes at være ved at komme overens, og spændingerne begynder at lette, begynder der straks nogle flådeøvelser, der endda understreger en plan for øvelser, hvis formål er at angribe Pyongyang, hvilket er en direkte provokation«, sagde Trutnev.

Talsmand for det Kinesiske Udenrigsministerium, Geng Shuang, sagde mandag til reportere, at Nordkorea må være meget klar over, at FN’s Sikkerhedsråds resolutioner forbyder sådanne aktiviteter. Men Geng tog også afstand fra truslerne mod Kina. Han sagde, at Kina anså det for uacceptabelt »med en situation, hvor vi på den ene side arbejder for at løse dette spørgsmål fredeligt, men hvor vore interesser på den anden side udsættes for sanktioner og sættes på spil. Dette er hverken objektivt eller rimeligt.«

China Daily skrev i en leder: »Der er ingen tvivl om, at handlingerne fra den Demokratiske Folkerepublik Koreas side … er grov overtrædelse af relevante resolutioner i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd og har voldt alvorlig bekymring i området og globalt. Men det hjælper ikke situationen, at Trump tweeter angreb på DFK og kritiserer Sydkorea og Kina.« Lederartiklen fortsætter med at fremføre, at »den fundamentale fiaskofor Trumps strategi er, at den sætter for store håb til en stramning af sanktionerne, en strategi, der i årtier har vist sig at være en fiasko«. Lederartiklen fortsætter »Hvis Trump har ret, når han siger, at Kina ’forsøger at hjælpe, uden meget held’, så skyldes det, at USA ikke har lyttet til Kinas råd, såsom at genoptage sekspartsforhandlingerne og direkte kontakter mellem USA og DFK og acceptere den ’tosidede suspendering’, hvor USA og Sydkorea stopper deres militærøvelser og DFK suspenderer sine atomtests.«

Putin, Xi Jinping, Abe, Moon og andre vil mødes i denne weekend, nogle på det igangværende BRIKS-møde i Xiamen, og dernæst på det Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok, hvor Korea vil stå højt på dagsordenen.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 31. august, 2017 – I dag udstedte LaRouche PAC en erklæring om, hvad der må gøres i betragtning af, at orkanen Harveys ødelæggelser ikke er en »naturlig« katastrofe, men er et resultat af kriminelle politikker. Erklæringen vil ligeledes udkomme på tryk i næste nummer af The Hamiltonian, LaRouche-bevægelsens plakat-avis, der uddeles i New York, sammen med hele Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale på konferencen den 26. august i New York City, om den amerikanske infrastruktur-nødsituation. Erklæringen kan læses på engelsk her.

Ikke flere Houston-katastrofer:

Lyndon LaRouche siger, hvad det er, der må ske ’lige med det samme’

Katastrofen i Texas er en menneskeskabt katastrofe, der skete som følge af denne nations valgte repræsentanters kriminelle neglekt; de valgte repræsentanter, der har fortsat med at støtte Wall Streets spekulationsøkonomi og imperieambitioner, alt imens de samtidig fremfører, at nationen ikke har råd til at genopbygge og erstatte sin forældede og nedbrudte, økonomiske infrastruktur. For tredje gang siden 2005 er store, amerikanske byer blevet oversvømmet og deres indbyggere bragt til fortvivlelse, fordi planerne for ny infrastruktur, der kræver investeringer for titals milliarder, til beskyttelse af befolkningen, er blevet ignoreret og afvist. Orkanen Harvey er nu den overhængende, værste, nationale katastrofe i nationens historie, og det er en katastrofe, som ikke behøvede indtræffe.

I 2005 dræbte orkanen Katrina næsten 2.000 mennesker og anrettede økonomiske skader for $130 mia. Først da, og langsomt, blev nye sikkerhedsforanstaltninger til oversvømmelseskontrol og barrierer mod havet langt om længe bygget for New Orleans, til en brøkdel af de menneskelige omkostninger og omkostningerne for skaderne, som stormen forårsagede. Hvor mange unødvendige dødsfald og lidelser kunne dette projekt have afværget?

Fire år senere mødtes det Amerikanske Civilingeniør-selskab i Manhattan for at diskutere flere muligheder for barrierer mod flodbølger i New York City-området. Det økonomiske overslag for den største af disse muligheder lød på $9 mia. Regeringen besluttede ingenting at gøre. Så dræbte superstormen Sandy i 2012 flere end 100 mennesker og forårsagede økonomiske tab for $65 mia. Netop nu gennemlever indbyggere i New York-området »Helvedessommeren«, med det 100 år gamle, regionale transportsystem, der for fem år siden blev oversvømmet og beskadiget, og som heller ikke blev repareret eller erstattet i det nødvendige tempo.

De svimlende økonomiske og menneskelige lidelser, forårsaget af orkanen Harvey i Texas’ og Louisianas golfområde, kendes endnu ikke, men vil vokse i størrelsesorden i takt med, at vandet trækker sig tilbage; men, hvad man i mange år har vidst, er, at Texas’ byer ved golfen er i fare for oversvømmelser, og gentagne gange er blevet oversvømmet. Alligevel er der ikke blevet bygget nogen sikkerhedsforanstaltninger mod oversvømmelser eller infrastruktur til beskyttelse mod orkaner, siden slutningen af Anden Verdenskrig. Man havde udarbejdet planer for et nyt system for Houston-området, men omkostningerne på $25 mia. blev vurderet til at være »for høj« en pris for vore Wall Street-dominerede regeringskontorer og valgte repræsentanter. Nu er hundrede af milliarder af dollars, og uvurderlige menneskeliv, gået tabt.

Alle disse katastrofer, samt andre i den seneste tid, kunne have været afværget for en brøkdel af de sluttelige omkostninger i tabt rigdom, for slet ikke at tale om tabte liv. Medierne insisterer over for amerikanerne, og katastrofen i den enkelte by skyldes byens særlige økonomiske vaner, dens beliggenhed, dens jurisdiktioners indbyrdes skænderier, dens ignorering af klimaforandring eller dens beliggenhed tæt på vand! Dette er nonsens. Wall Street, der gentagne gange er blevet reddet ved statslige midler (bail-out) til billioner af dollars uden, at det har medført noget som helst andet end øget forarmelse for det amerikanske folk, må ikke længere have lov at diktere USA’s økonomiske politik.

»Nationen kræver handling, og handling nu!«, med præsident Franklin Roosevelts ord. Under hans præsidentskab og op igennem 1940’erne blev ny infrastruktur – såsom Tennessee Valley Authority – til afværgelse af sådanne »naturkatastrofer« finansieret af statslig kredit, såsom via Reconstruction Finance Corporation og Works Progress Authority.

Orkanen Harvey, der drukner byer i det østlige Texas, bør være den alarmklokke, der afslutter 70 år, hvor landet har været uden sådanne statslige kreditinstitutioner.

Et kursskifte er nødvendigt

Den 30. august krævede Lyndon LaRouche et »kursskifte« i politikken »med det samme«. Han krævede den omgående skabelse af en national (dvs. statslig) kreditinstitution til ny, højteknologisk infrastruktur, ligesom det, Franklin Roosevelt anvendte, da langt størstedelen af vores nuværende infrastruktur blev bygget. Der er intet alternativ til skabelse af en statslig kreditinstitution som den, Alexander Hamilton brugte, og som er i overensstemmelse med vores Forfatning, til at finansiere de nødvendige billioner i nye infrastrukturinvesteringer.

Vi må ligeledes handle for at genindføre Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling med det samme, med endnu en overhængende finanskrise, og med Wall Street, der fortsætter med at forhindre reel, produktiv investering. At gøre det muligt for Wall Street at fjerne Glass/Steagall-loven i 1990’erne førte til et krak, der var årsag til tabt rigdom for $10 billioner, massearbejdsløshed og ufortalte tab og afkortning af menneskeliv.

LaRouche insisterer på, at hans »Fire Økonomiske Love til at redde nationen« omgående må gennemføres, hvis dette land skal komme sig over orkanen Harvey og forebygge lignende katastrofer, der stammer fra vores rådnende, fysiske økonomi, der er som en tikkende bombe:

• Genindfør Glass-Steagall: bryd Wall Street og dets magt op;
• Skab statslige kreditinstitutioner baseret på FDR’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation og Alexander Hamiltons nationalbanker;
• Investér kreditten i ny infrastruktur med frontlinje-teknologier, inklusive højhastighedsjernbaner, fjerde generations fission, samt teknologier til fusionskraft og moderne systemer til beskyttelse mod storme og til vandmanagement;
• Vedtag et »forceret program« for opnåelse af fusion, som økonomisk drivkraft: lad en stor udvidelse af NASA’s rumforskningsprogram forsyne os med drivkraften bag produktivitet og produktiv beskæftigelse.

Et Nyt Paradigme begynder at virke

Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ, et internationalt projekt for nye »jernbane-landbroer« og store projekter for infrastrukturudvikling, tilbyder omgående samarbejde om kreditten til og byggeriet af ny infrastruktur i USA. Dette initiativ iværksætter nu store projekter, som de længe har identificeret som værende absolut nødvendige, såsom Kra-kanalen i Sydøstasien og genoplivningen af Tchadsøen i Subsaharisk Afrika, projekter, som Lyndon LaRouche og hans hustru, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, længe har været fortalere for.

Helga og Lyndon LaRouche leder en national mobilisering, der fokuserer på at få præsident Trump til omgående at bringe Amerika ind i det af Kina initierede Bælte & Vej Initiativ for byggeri af ny infrastruktur i hele verden. Dette »win-win«-initiativ, og USA’s tilslutning til dets projekter i hele verden, samt ligeledes USA’s byggeri af sin egen, nye infrastruktur, betyder genoplivningen af USA som en industrimagt.

Den 26. august talte Helga Zepp-LaRouche på en konference i Manhattan om infrastruktur-nødsituationen i USA, hvor hun kom med følgende forslag:

»Tænk engang på det enorme potentiale, der åbner sig, hvis USA ville samarbejde med Bælte & Vej Initiativet«,

sagde Zepp-LaRouche til konferencen.

»Jeg mener, det er vigtigt, at man forestiller sig et helt andet system. Hvis USA i dag ville gøre, hvad Franklin D. Roosevelt gjorde – en New Deal, Glass-Steagall, samarbejde med Kina – kunne USA opleve en industriel revolution, større end på noget andet tidspunkt i sin historie. Folk må simpelthen forestille sig, at vi nu befinder os ved et systems afslutning, et system, der ikke kan reddes. Vi må erstatte det med et totalt andet system, og det har de fleste mennesker simpelthen svært ved at forestille sig, men der er eksempler på sådanne forandringer. Marshallplanen i Europa var f.eks. et sådant eksempel, og Meiji-restaurationen i Japan var et sådant eksempel – det, som Roosevelt gjorde med New Deal, så folk må simpelthen tænke, at en sådan dramatisk forandring absolut er mulig i dag.«[1]

LaRouche PAC har påtaget sig ansvaret for at få præsident Trump og Kongressen til at udføre denne handling. Men det er ligeledes alle amerikaneres ansvar, der tænker på sig selv som borgere: de, der aktivt har støttet præsidenten eller senator Bernie Sanders; de, der ikke støttede nogen, på grund af afsky for manipulationen, og den fortsatte manipulation, af valget, men som har ønsket en drastisk ændring i politikken med afindustrialisering og Wall Street-spekulation, der styrer landet; de, der kender mennesker, der blev dræbt eller gjort hjemløse og forarmede af de af Wall Street forårsagede »naturkatastrofer«. De må nu alle handle og lade deres stemmer blive hørt.

For, at se på, hvad der, nu igen, sker med store, amerikanske byer, fører alle ved deres fulde fem til den samme konklusion: Der er intet alternativ.

Foto: Oversvømmelser forårsaget af orkanen Harvey nær Houston Downtown. 27. august, 2017. (Youtube Screengrab / Evan Mallett)

[1] Citatet er fra ’Spørgsmål til Helga Zepp-LaRouche’, efter hendes indledende indlæg. (-red.)

18. august, 2017 – Kort tid efter, at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity beviste, at »Russia-gate« byggede på et svindelnummer, udtalte Lyndon LaRouche den 4. aug., at dette var et svindelnummer fra britisk efterretnings side, der havde til formål at omstøde valget af Donald Trump som en præsident, der var uden for Londons politiske kontrol. LaRouche sagde:

»Det amerikanske folk må kræve, at det igangværende, forræderiske, britiske kup mod det amerikanske præsidentskab og selve nationen stoppes, og gerningsmændene retsforfølges og fængsles. Det britiske system må opgives, og præsidenten må ikke sky nogen indsats for at redde dette lands befolkning, og resten af menneskeheden, fra yderligere britiskdirigeret udplyndring af deres liv. Opgiv det britiske system; red folket.«

I dag, hvor racekrig organiseres mod Trump med »Konføderations-statuer« som udløser, udtalte LaRouche igen, at det er det britiske system, der er drivkraften bag dette kupforsøg.

»Fremlæg mit standpunkt om dette offentligt«, sagde han. »Jeg arbejder stadig for denne sag. Det er den eneste måde, hvorpå USA kan reddes.«

Den 17. aug. blev en enorm statue i Washington, D.C., af Albert Pike – konføderationsgeneral, britisk frimurerleder og stifter af Ku Klux Klan – ét af mange tilfældige mål for en britisk/George Soros-styret »antifa« (anti-fascistisk) bevægelse, der forsøger at bringe præsident Trump til fald gennem optøjer.

Lyndon LaRouches lederskab af fredelige demonstrationer, der var tæt på at fremtvinge fjernelsen af Albert Pike-statuen for 25 år siden, er stadig så kendt, at selv Washington Post – en medieleder af kupforsøget mod præsident Trump – i løbet af de seneste par dage har forespurgt om et interview af LaRouche om Pike-statuen. I 1992 havde WP i en lederartikel sagt til utilfredse byrådsfolk i Washington, at Pike må forblive stående på Judiciary Square – fordi at fjerne ham ville give Lyndon LaRouche en sejr!

Det vil sige, en sejr mod det «britiske system«. Her er, hvad LaRouche, der i 1992 var opstillet som kandidat for Demokraternes nominering af præsidentkandidaten, sagde under en Tv-udsendelse i oktober 1992, mens der fandt demonstrationer sted for at fjerne Pike:

»Det, der kaldes Den amerikanske Borgerkrig, den mest ødelæggende krig i vores historie, var ikke en krig mellem staterne. Det var en borgerkrig i den forstand, at en gruppering, inklusive Boston-folk som Albert Pike, New York-folk som John Slidell, og så fremdeles, alle var med i en britisk sammensværgelse, der blev kørt gennem den Sydlige Jurisdiktion af den Skotske Frimurerrite, der overtog kontrollen over staterne – ved hjælp af en forræder i spidsen for det Demokratiske Parti, August Belmont, en erklæret forræder – med det formål at ødelægge De forenede Stater ved at opsplitte det i flere dele således, at briterne kunne kontrollere det …

Dette var ikke en sydstats-sammensværgelse; det var sammensværgelse af britiskkontrollerede forrædere, der forrådte De forenede Stater, og som gik ud på at overtage … slavestaterne, som en måde at opsplitte De forenede Stater i flere dele, som kunne holdes i en evindelig konflikt mod hinanden, med det formål at eliminere De forenede Stater som både en faktor i verdenspolitik, men også for at svække det i en grad, hvor billedet af De forenede Stater, af Den amerikanske Revolution, ville blive slettet i erindringen, og i forhåbningerne, hos mennesker i hele verden.«

Dette er, hvad der står på spil i det britiskstyrede kup imod det amerikanske præsidentskab i dag. I dag sagde LaRouche:

»Jeg gør stadig dette her. Jeg er for menneskeheden, og jeg er villig til at hjælpe enhver person, der ønsker at kæmpe for retfærdighed.«      

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 17. august, 2017 – Der er både enestående, nye muligheder og store farer i det aktuelle, hidtil usete historiske sammenfald af begivenheder.

Til en begyndelse, så ses mediehistorierne om Charlottesville, og at præsident Trump skulle være racist, som ’fake news’ af flere og flere amerikanere, på trods af, at denne kupoperations britiske afstamning endnu ikke er gået op for dem. Der har været et skifte i denne retning, med at fatte aspektet med ’fake news’, blot fra tirsdag og frem til i dag. Mange har set Trumps pressekonference den 15. aug., hvor han ikke fik lov at tale om infrastruktur, men blev overdøvet af pressens mænader. Men han kæmpede imod meget effektivt og sandfærdigt. Trump kæmper, og det er med til at vende befolkningen fra frygt til vrede. »Vi støttede ham. Vi er ikke racister. Vi mener ikke, han er racist.«

Men økonomien er Akilleshælen. Livsbetingelserne er faldende for millioner af mennesker, og der synes ikke at være nogen lettelse i sigte. Det er fortsat vores opgave at udbrede kendskabet til de handlinger – som det skitseres i Lyndon LaRouches »Fire Love« – der vil genoprette kursen mod fremskridt. Folk kan løftes til at forstå Alexander Hamiltons principper om statskredit. Man kan se dette princip virke i Eurasien, langs den Nye Silkevej! Store og skønne projekter. Amerikanere bør stille sig selv spørgsmålet – som der nu også er nogle, der gør: Hvis Silkevejen kan bygges derovre, hvorfor så ikke her?

Folk søger et lederskab, der kan dirigere løsningen på krisen. Dette er et »LaRouche-øjeblik«. For, mange mennesker, især dem, der var blandt de første til at respondere til LaRouchePAC’s nye appel (»Præsident Trump, efterforsk britisk underminering af USA«), har allerede kendt til Lyndon LaRouches lederskabsrolle og historie, som går mange år tilbage. Det er, som om LaRouches identitet som en stor leder nu er i færd med at tone frem, nærmest spontant, gennem denne stormfulde periode.

Da Lyndon LaRouche i dag blev briefet om dette, svarede han, i store træk: »Ja. Eftersom folk roser mig lige nu, bør jeg igen lade min stemme høre. Eller i det mindste gennem nogen, der er i det her. Det er den eneste måde, hvorpå man kan få en indvirkning på de ændringer, som folk nu efterspørger. Jeg lever, og jeg kan gøre det, jeg hidtil har gjort i hele mit liv. Og det har ikke ændret sig. Det er ikke bare mig, som person. Det er det, jeg repræsenterer, som en akse for at slå til der, hvor det er nødvendigt. Det er det eneste, jeg faktisk nogensinde har gjort, som var vigtigt. Og jeg gjorde det – og jeg håber, vi kan gøre det nu.«

USA burde for længst have tilsluttet sig den Nye Silkevej – det største program for infrastruktur og udvikling i menneskehedens historie. Blot fordi det ikke bliver rapporteret i de amerikanske medier, betyder det ikke, at det ikke eksisterer!

Foto: Lyndon og Helga LaRouche under en Schiller Institut-konference i Berlin, juni, 2016.

Appel til præsident Donald Trump,

Det Hvide Hus,

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20500.

Lyndon LaRouche har, med hensyn til den igangværende svindelagtige skandale med Russia-gate, der er rettet mod præsident Trump, erklæret, at det amerikanske folk må kræve, at det igangværende, forræderiske britiske kup imod præsidentskabet, og nationen, stoppes, og at gerningsmændene retsforfølges og fængsles. Vi, underskriverne, erklærer os enige med erklæringen og det følgende:

1. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) har fremlagt beviser for præsident Trump for, at Rusland aldrig hackede Demokraternes Nationalkomite. De omtalte e-mails blev lækket af en insider, og ikke hacket, og blev efterfølgende manipuleret for at tilskrive Rusland ansvaret. En ny særlig anklager bør udpeges for at efterforske dem, der er ansvarlige for at begå det efterfølgende svindelnummer, der har skadet og delt hele vor nation så meget.
2. Der er rigelige registrerede beviser, der viser, at britiske institutioner og tjenester udførte et samordnet angreb på kandidat, og nu præsident, Donald Trump med det formål at øve indflydelse på, og dernæst omstøde, resultatet af det amerikanske valg. Handlingerne udført af tidligere MI6-agent Christopher Steele og hans firma Orbis Business Intelligence, der er involveret i at skabe falske og slibrige anklager mod præsidenten, efter at være blevet betalt over $1.000.000 af tilhængere af Hillary Clinton, er frugtbare mål for efterforskning, ligesom også handlinger, udført af GCHQ (det britiske NSA), er det. Hvis en ny, særlig anklagers efterforskning viser britisk indblanding, bør den særlige relation mellem USA og Storbritannien opgives i enhver henseende.

Med LaRouches ord, Opgiv det britiske system. Red folket.

Underskrift …

(Bemærk, at Appellen på LaRouchePAC’s webside også kan underskrives af udlændinge).     

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 8. august, 2017 – I dag svarede Lyndon LaRouche, efter en briefing om de seneste, dystre økonomiske overskrifter fra Tyskland, at det, vi ser, er et generelt »kollaps af den fysiske økonomi« i det transatlantiske område. Han talte om, hvad det betød mht. den politiske krise og understregede, at, selv om nogle mennesker har gode hensigter og kommer med specifikke forslag, så fungerer de ikke desto mindre i det samme, mislykkede system. LaRouche opsummerede: USA’s økonomi er ved at synke. Frankrig er i en tilstand, hvor det intet bidrager med. Tyskland er ikke meget bedre stillet. Og det bliver værre og værre. Hele paradigmet må udskiftes, og dét hurtigt.

Da det blev nævnt, at vi var heldige, at præsidenterne Xi Jinping og Vladimir Putin ikke er brushoveder, erklærede LaRouche sig enig heri, men understregede, at vores problem er, »andre ønsker ikke at gøre det, som det er deres job at gøre«. Dette er vores »historiske udfordring«.

Vores umiddelbare opgave, især i USA, er at mobilisere kræfterne til at besejre kup-operationen, den »farvede revolution«, som er lanceret mod præsident Donald Trump, selve nationen, og ligeledes mod Rusland. Det kommer fra London, Inc., med det formål at aflive potentialet for gode relationer mellem USA og Rusland, og mellem USA og Kina, og venligtsindede relationer generelt mellem øst og vest til fordel for udvikling og fred for alle berørte. Hvis dette onde slæng lykkes, betyder det ikke alene afsavn, men fuldt optrappet krig. De må stoppes.

Vi er oppe imod en »hade-storm«, er sådan, som en ledende tysk, politisk person udtrykker det. Partiformand for de Frie Demokrater, Christian Lindner, opfordrede i sidste uge simpelt hen til en »konstruktiv dialog« med Rusland og, i særdeleshed, til at sætte det varme spørgsmål om Krim i bero (»in provisium«) under disse konsultationer. I går fortalte Lindner så, at han er blevet angrebet af en »hade-storm« af fordømmelser for sine forslag, som kommer fra Bildzeitung, en stor, tysk avis, og fra andet hold. Bild Zeitungs overskrift var, »Lindners hygge-kurs over for Putin«.

USA’s udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson kom ligeledes i går ud for en hade-storm af fordømmelse for den forbrydelse, man tillagde ham, ikke at aktivere en anti-russisk propagandaenhed i Udenrigsministeriet. Kongresmedlem Eliot Engel (D-NY) offentliggjorde et brev, han havde sendt til Tillerson den 4. august, hvor han anklagede udenrigsministeren for ikke at handle »for at bekæmpe Ruslands og ISIS’ propagandakampagner … Det er ikke acceptabelt for kongresmedlemmerne, at informationskrig fra Ruslands og ISIS’ side forbliver ubesvaret«. Engels brev blev sendt til Tillerson den 4. august, dagen før Tillerson mødtes med den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov i Filippinerne, hvor de aftalte at fortsætte diplomatiske forhandlinger, uagtet uoverensstemmelser.

Disse to hysteriske hændelser, der er typiske for begivenheder, der nu er hverdagskost, er ikke en manifestation af fjendens styrke, men derimod af deres sindsforvirring. Som LaRouche PAC-rapporter fra vores organisering i hele USA viser, hvor som helst folk får grundlaget for at kende sandheden og hvad der kan gøres, så kommer deres humanitet frem. Senere på ugen vil LaRouche PAC udstede en ny appel om nødvendigheden af at handle nu.

Foto: Lyndon LaRouche, amerikansk statsmand, økonom og filosof; sammen med sin hustru, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ophavsmand til ‘Verdenslandbroen’  – Den Nye Silkevej – som en politik for fred gennem udvikling, og som nu er officiel kinesisk politik i form af Kinas Ét Bælte, én Vej.

Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at vi nu er ved et punkt, hvor denne sameksistens, denne symbiotiske relation, som man ser i den amerikansk-britiske »særlige relation«, må ødelægges. Menneskeheden må nå til et voksenstadie, hvor man ikke har denne imperiepolitik, der har ligeværdig status med menneskeheden. Zeus må ødelægges – Prometheus sættes fri.

Renée Sigerson (LaRouche-bevægelsen): I ånden af vor umistelige ret til stræben efter lykke, vil jeg blot tilføje et element til denne diskussion, og vi kan forhåbentlig diskutere dette mere fremover. Men det, jeg gerne vil bringe ind, er, at grunden til, at dette historiske øjeblik er så afgørende, er ikke, at der eksisterer atomvåben; men at atomvåben eksisterer, fordi Det britiske Imperium i løbet af det 20. århundrede, gennem folk som Bertrand Russel og H.G. Wells osv., indså, at, uden sådanne ødelæggende, verdensomspændende supervåben, ultimative masseødelæggelsesvåben, ville de (Det britiske Imperium) blive fjernet fra Jordens overflade; at menneskehedens udvikling var ved at nå et punkt, hvor deres pant var ved at udløbe.

Vi må konstant tale om dette, når vi mobiliserer folk til at gå med i organisationen, og i mine diskussioner med folk er mit mentale billede af Det britiske Imperium en brændende fakkel, hvor – til forskel fra Prometheus – ilden ikke organiseres for at hjælpe menneskehedens fremtid, men at de bliver brændt til sod. Det, de prøver at gøre, er at redde sig selv i tide, før det nye, økonomiske system, som Lyn har skabt, fjerner dem fra Jordens overflade.

Spørgsmålet om Lyns personlige rolle i at bringe historien til et punkt, hvor de, bogstavelig talt, må ødelægge menneskeheden for at de selv … I ved, digteren John Milton (1608-1674) sagde om dette, på tidspunktet for det fremvoksende, venetianske, britiske oligarki, han sagde, de ville »hellere herske i helvede end tjene i himlen«. Og de er virkelig så sataniske. Opiatepidemien, som de har opfundet, som HSBC har opfundet i USA[1] – som vi advarede mod; vi skrev en bog om HSBC i 1979, og vi sagde til folk, hvis I slipper disse svin ind i landet, så har vi inden for én generation en opiatepidemi her i USA. Dette er de folk, der kørte Opiumskrigene mod Kina. Og vi havde desværre fuldstændig ret i, at det skete.

Det fantastiske ved Lyn er, at her stod han i Indien, i 1945-46, og han så alt dette! Og jeg er virkelig overbevist om – han har aldrig sagt det præcist – at det var grunden til, at han besluttede, han måtte blive økonom, for disse unge indere kom hen til ham og sagde, »amerikanske soldat, amerikanske soldat? Efter krigen, vil du så gå ud og skaffe os maskiner? Vil du hjælpe os til at blive industrialiseret? Vil du hjælp os med at afkaste dette åg?« Og han holdt sit løfte til dem om, at han ville hjælpe, men han gjorde det ved at hellige sig opdagelsen af et princip, som er, at roden til økonomisk udvikling faktisk er menneskelig kreativitet. Det er noget ikke-fysisk, som er menneskelig kreativitet, som er den faktiske årsag og rod til økonomisk udvikling.

Og det er spredningen af denne idé i verden, inkl. i det folkerige Kina i dag, som nu er i færd med at bringe Det britiske Imperium, og imperieideen om menneskehedens slaveri, til et punkt, hvor det afgår ved døden.

Så de har intet andet valg end at sprænge os alle sammen i stykker, eller også fortsætte med at drive sig selv bankerot og selv brænde, ligesom denne her bygning, som de nedbrændte i London (Grenfell Tower). I ved, den britiske befolkning har nået enden af sit reb: for, man har disse sociale boligbyggerier, som de beklædte med brandfarlig isolering, så hvis man stryger en tændstik det forkerte sted, brænder bygningen ned på 20 minutter, og 100 mennesker dør. I har sikkert hørt om dette; det er en metafor for, hvor sindssyge, de er! De er fuldstændig sindssyge! Og derfor er de så farlige, men også sårbare.

Og jeg mener, at den ånd, Patrick (en tidligere spørger) eksemplificerer, og som vi alle har i os, er, at vi vil opnå vores stræben efter lykke og bringe disse fyre til fald og blive dem kvit, rent faktisk blive dem kvit, og derfor diskuterer vi dem for at indgyde os selv selvtillid mht., at vi kan formidle dette til folk. Det var, hvad jeg ville sige.

Diane Sare (mødeleder): Virkelig godt. Vil du, Will (Wertz), sige noget som afslutning?

Will Wertz (redaktionen, EIR): Det vil jeg blot støtte. Pointen er, at Det britiske Imperiums eksistens ikke er noget, der bør accepteres som »sådan er tingene«. I så fald har vi det, der hedder et manikæisk (sort-hvidt) univers, hvor godt og ondt sameksisterer. Og der er i realiteten et problem, som udviklede sig efter renæssancen, og som er, at man fik udviklingen af nationalstaten; på den anden side, så fik nationalstaten ikke overherredømmet i hele verden, og imperiesystemet blev ved at eksistere. Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at vi nu er ved et punkt, hvor denne sameksistens, denne symbiotiske relation, som man ser i den amerikansk-britiske »særlige relation«, må ødelægges. Menneskeheden må nå til et voksenstadie, hvor man ikke har denne imperiepolitik, der har ligeværdig status med menneskeheden. Zeus må ødelægges – Prometheus sættes fri.

Hele videoen kan ses her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjttaTmlA9g

Foto: Relief i marmor af ukendt, italiensk kunstner, 3. årh. e. Kr.: Prometheus skaber mennesket under Athenes ledelse. Athene var i græsk mytologi gudinde for visdom. (Louvre-museet).

[1] Se EIR-artikel, februar 2015: Vil HSBC-skandalen sænke Wall Streets Obama-præsidentskab? http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=5202

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 31. juli, 2017 – Lyndon LaRouche, der i dag talte om implikationerne af det memorandum, der i sidste uge blev offentliggjort af Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), samt loven om sanktioner mod Rusland, som Kongressen næsten samtidigt vedtog, opfordrede til omgående handling fra det amerikanske folks side for at afvende den britiske plan om krig med Rusland og Kina, en plan, som USA’s Kongres har kapituleret til.

»Det amerikanske folk må kræve, at det igangværende, forræderiske britiske kup mod præsidenten og selve nationen stoppes og dets gerningsmænd retsforfølges og fængsles«, sagde LaRouche. »Det britiske system, der har kontrolleret USA, må aflyses, og præsidenten må gøre alt, hvad der er muligt, for at redde dette lands befolkning, og den øvrige menneskehed, fra yderligere, britiskdirigeret udplyndring af deres liv. Aflys det britiske system; red folket«, sagde LaRouche.

I sidste uge brød den britiskdirigerede myte om Russia-gate sammen, da VIPS beviste, at det var en omstændelig svindel. Demokraternes Nationalkomite (DNC) blev ikke udsat for et russisk hack. I stedet blev materiale lækket af en insider i DNC og fremsendt til WikiLeaks. Nøgledata blev forfalsket for at få det til at se ud, som om russerne hackede DNC.

(Se https://larouchepac.com/20170729/interview-ray-mcgovern-
there-was-no-russian-hack, engelsk, og http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=20816, dansk)

Samtidig vedtog den hjernevaskede og/eller købte Kongres næsten enstemmigt at gennemføre betydelige sanktioner mod Rusland, baseret på denne bedrageriske svindel. Der var to, der stemte anderledes i Senatet, og tre i Huset. Sanktionerne, der har været undervejs, lige siden valget i november 2016, er udtrykkeligt designet til at forkrøble og/eller afslutte enhver mulighed for, at præsident Trump skulle kunne gøre en ende på marchen mod en termonuklear storbrand, som blev anlagt af Barack Obama og hans britiske ’controllers’.

Ruslands og Kinas respons kom omgående i løbet af weekenden. Præsident Xi optrådte i militærmundering, hvor han inspicerede kinesiske tropper og våben; præsident Putin var ligeledes engageret i en lignende, meget stor militærinspektion. De er tydeligvis begyndt at tænke, at Donald Trump er blevet fuldstændig indfanget af den angloamerikanske krigsmaskine, og de forbereder sig i overensstemmelse hermed. Atter tikker uret ildevarslende hen imod Tredje Verdenskrig.

Under diskussioner med kolleger i dag, understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at briterne desperat forsøger at narre USA ind i krig med Rusland og Kina ud fra en position af svaghed, ikke styrke. Deres finansimperium står og vipper på randen af et stort, nyt finanskollaps, langt værre end i 2008.

Præsidenten må have støtte fra befolkning og institutioner til at udpege en særlig anklager, der skal efterforske hele svindlen, som hedder Russia-gate, og retsforfølge dens konspiratorer. Præsidenten må ligeledes omgående gennemføre en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling og samtidig gå frem med at gennemføre bundlinjen af LaRouches Fire Love for økonomisk genrejsning, for at beskytte folket, de glemte mænd og kvinder, han forsvarede under sidste valg.

LaRouche PAC har på fremtrædende vis offentliggjort VIPS-memoet på vores webside, med vore gadeaktioner i hele USA og på de sociale medier. Vi befinder os i en kampagne for at komme vidt og bredt ud med denne historie, og for at opmuntre præsidenten til atter at trodse den britiske sump i Washington, som han gjorde, da han skabte tætte relationer med præsident Xi, og i Hamborg, med præsident Putin. Vi må nu bringe Russia-gate til et hvinende stop og retsforfølge konspiratorerne, der stod bag. Vi må i denne uge dramatisk udvide vores kampagne, og vi har brug for, at du går med os. Livet, for os alle, afhænger i bogstavelig forstand af denne kampagnes succes.

Sammenhængen, i hvilken oprøret mod Trump finder sted, kunne ikke være tydeligere. Briterne og deres lakajer på Wall Street ønsker at bevare deres Imperium. Rusland og Kina er fremvoksende, økonomiske magter, der er helliget den type økonomiske politikker, der engang gjorde Amerika stort – storstilet infrastruktur, varefremstilling, avanceret videnskabelig forskning og udforskning af rummet. De har bedt USA slutte sig til dem i et stort projekt for at bygge den moderne infrastruktur for verdens kommende 50 år, og præsidenten signalerede oprindeligt sin plan om at gøre dette, og vil muligvis stadig gøre det, og således bringe tusindvis af nye, produktive jobs til USA. Men, dette kan ikke ske, med mindre det nuværende britiske imperieregime på Wall Street/City of London, samt dets ledsagende, udenrigspolitiske samtykke i Washington, D.C., rykkes op med rode og destrueres. Den britiske sump er det, der må drænes.

Vi opfordrer først og fremmest alle, der stemte for præsidenten eller kerer sig om deres fremtidige eksistens, til at lade ham vide, at de med overvældende flertal vil støtte ophævelserne af sanktionerne mod Rusland, fordi de er en svigagtig handling. Ethvert skridt mod positive relationer med Rusland og Kina må tages. Præsident Trump bør pålægge sine efterretningstjenester den opgave at efterforske og afsløre den faktiske sammensværgelse, der er involveret i svindlen med Russia-gate, og bringe fuldstændig frem til offentlighedens kendskab den rolle, som Barack Obama, Obamas efterretningsstab, britiske efterretningstjenester og folk i hans eget apparat, der lækker materiale, spiller. Ring Det Hvide Hus, 2002-45-1414, eller skriv til https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact

For det andet, må I deltage i alle medborgermøder eller andre arrangementer, der involverer jeres kongresmedlem eller senatorer, under Kongressens ferie i August. Sig til dem, at I vil have Russia-gate stoppet og dets gerningsmænd retsforfulgt. Sanktionerne må omstødes. Den britiske regerings rolle i forsøg på regimeskifte i USA bør være genstanden for en efterforskning. Dette er et krav, der ikke står til forhandling, og ikke en anmodning.

For det tredje opfordrer vi præsidenten til at kræve, at der udpeges en særlig anklager, der skal efterforske hele svindlen med Russia-gate. Det er en kriminel opstand imod USA’s præsident og folket, en opstand, der nu synes at have kurs mod en krig, der ville udslette den menneskelige race.

For at kunne håndtere den form for krise, vi konfronteres med, må vi søge i os selv og i os selv finde en værdi, der er så dyrebar, at, hvis vi brugte vort liv på at forsvare denne værdi, ville vi herved have vundet vort liv, fordi vi ville have vundet formålet med vor dødelige eksistens.

»Hvis vi vedtog den holdning, som USA havde under Kennedys rumprogram; faktisk Eisenhower/Kennedy-rumprogrammet, fra ca. 1958, det såkaldte ’Sputnik’-program, og frem til 1965, kombineret med en politik for investerings-skattekredit for passende investering, sammen med et program for videnskabs-berigelse i vore skoler og lignende ting, som vi gjorde dengang; intet andet end dette, så kan jeg forsikre jer for, at, med en viden om, hvad der er vigtigt at arbejde på inden for videnskab, inden for teknologi; med en viden om de projekter, der er den bedste måde at udtrykke disse teknologiske forbedringer på, så garanterer jeg jer, at, hvis mennesker på denne planet havde den politiske vilje til at gøre dette, ville vi øge den potentielle befolkningstæthed på denne planet, og forbedre levestandarden med så meget som 40 gange så meget som i dag, hen over de næste tre generationer med faktor 10. Vi kunne ved slutningen af dette århundrede … i løbet af to generationer, opretholde et potentielt befolkningstal i størrelsesordenen 100 milliarder mennesker – med større lethed, meget bedre ernæret, langt tryggere, mere frie, meget mindre overfyldt end i dag, fordi vi brugte jorden på en mere intelligent måde.

Der findes to slags ’naturlig lov’, eller to aspekter af naturlig lov. Den første er universets love, og den mand, eller lad os sige, hvis et kongresmedlem skulle finde på at ophæve tyngdeloven, for nu at bruge et billede, ville det så ophæve tyngdeloven? Det ville det ikke. Så hver gang personer, fordi de har stor, politisk magt, siger, at de trodser det, der i realiteten er en lov i det fysiske univers, en lov i naturen, naturlig lov, og de, på grund af deres magt, får andre til at støtte denne modstand, hvad sker der så med nationer, der trodser naturen? De bliver knust, ødelagt. Deres bekæmpelse af naturlig lov bliver redskabet for deres ødelæggelse. Hvis man støtter politikere, der bedriver en sådan trods af naturlig lov, hvad bringer man så over én selv, og ens nation? Man bliver en medskyldig, man håndhæver denne ødelæggelse, man fremkalder ødelæggelsen af ens nation, ens familie, alting.

For at kunne håndtere den form for krise, vi konfronteres med, må vi søge i os selv og i os selv finde en værdi, der er så dyrebar, at, hvis vi brugte vort liv på at forsvare denne værdi, ville vi herved have vundet vort liv, fordi vi ville have vundet formålet med vor dødelige eksistens. Det er, hvad en soldat burde have i kampen, mod, ikke patriotisme, men dét; ikke patriotisme som et abstrakt flag; ikke patriotisme som et racistisk begreb; ikke patriotisme i nogen af disse andre, symbolske betydninger; men patriotisme i den betydning, som vi burde have i USA, men som vi stort set er fremmedgjorte overfor. At vide, hvad Ben[jamin] Franklin repræsenterede; et system af repræsentativt selvstyre under naturlig lov, og under loven, der styres af naturlig lov. At forestille sig rædslen ved engang at have kendt et sådant selvstyre; at forestille sig at leve under slaveri, der ikke alene er en materiel undertrykkelse, men ødelæggelse af selve ens børns sjæl. Og på os ligger såedes, og jeg vil respondere til denne udfordring, det moralske ansvar for hundreder af milliarder af sjæle, der, hvis tingene var passende, burde blive født i fremtiden.

Det ansvar påhviler os, at se tilbage til de martyrer, der gav os regeringsinstitutioner, i hvilke sandhed, og således frihed, fik samfundsmæssig status. Der findes ikke frihed uden sandhed, og der findes ikke sandhed uden frihed. Rettigheden hos en person, der ledes af de rette principper, til at komme frem til en mening, der bygger på fornuft – ikke en tilfældig mening, men baseret på en omhyggelig anvendelse af fornuft; og denne persons rettighed til at stå frem og sige, ’Dette er, hvad jeg mener, med mindre jeg bliver overbevist om det modsatte gennem fornuft’. Det er frihed. Om så hele samfundet er uenig med én, hvad så? Så længe, man ledes af fornuft, og så længe, man underkaster sig korrektion af ens opfattelse gennem fornuft, det er retten til at fremføre en mening i modstrid med flertallet i samfundet omkring én; det er frihed. Et demokratisk samfund, som ’Projekt Demokrati’ i Kongressen definerer det i dag, er den mest forfærdelige vederstyggelighed, man kan forestille sig, og imod hvilket de, der grundlagde USA, advarede. ’Demokrati’ er det værste af alle onder, den værste af alle tyranner, fordi der ikke findes en værre tyran end i den irrationelle flok, en lynch-flok; demokrati, som de definerer det, er et demokrati, der består af en lynch-flok – pas på med ikke at have den forkerte hudfarve, eller den forkerte mening – og under hvilket personen ikke har nogen rettighed, undtagen retten til at være enig med det, der fremstår som flertallet af den herskende mening. Og, hvis flokken skifter mening, så river man sit tøj af og tager det tøj på, den tager på, og så fremdeles. Et samfund af modeluner og vanvid, uden noget moralsk formål, nogen moralsk karakter og evne til fornuft. Forsvaret af personen, der ønsker at udøve fornuft, der ønsker at blive styret af naturlig lov og fornuft, er samfundets helligste pligt – forsvaret og omsorgen for sådanne personer. Og et samfund, der ikke opfylder denne mission, er ikke levedygtigt. En regeringsform, der ikke tjener dette formål, er ikke levedygtig, fordi den ikke beskytter den mest dyrebare del af det menneskelige samfund – udviklingen af fornuftsevnen i den enkelte person; det, der gør os til virkelige mennesker; det, der gør vores individuelle liv helligt.

Og det er, hvad der står på spil.«

Offentliggjort den 5. jul. 2017

Ovenstående er et klip fra LaRouches hovedtale på en 1988-konference »Mad for Fred«, som en fejring af den forestående Schiller Institut-konference denne fredag (7. juli, 2017), der ligeledes har titlen, »Mad for Fred: Det nye navn for fred er økonomisk udvikling«. Hr. LaRouche talte for flere end 400 landbrugsledere om potentialet for at anvende det Amerikanske Systems økonomiske metoder for at opretholde 100 milliarder mennesker om tre generationer, og den nødvendige, kulturelle opgradering for at udvikle vore borgeres kreativitet for at opnå dette mål.

Se hele hovedtalen her: https://youtu.be/UjYMNMSPZ3s         

»Briterne har altid haft magt over os ved at få os ind i krige på steder som Asien. Det er sådan, briterne kører verden; Det britiske Imperium har magten over verden ved hjælp af krige, på samme måde, som de fik imperiemagt, ved at få Europas tåbelige nationer til at gå i krig med hinanden i den såkaldte 70-års krig. Og Europas førende nationer gik i krig mod hinanden i 70 år! Mens briterne stod på sidelinjen og opmuntrede processen og grinede. Og så, i februar af 1763, i Freden i Paris, blev Det britiske Imperium erklæret som imperiet for et privat selskab ved navn Britisk Ostindisk Kompagni (British East India Company), og dette Britisk Ostindisk Kompagni overtog, og blev til, Det forenede Kongerige (UK), og har kørt lige siden frem til dets moderne modsvar – Britisk Ostindisk Kompagni gik selvfølgelig bankerot i en senere periode, der blev indført ændringer, som under Victoria; men princippet forblev det samme: med en maritim karakteristik, det var oprindelig bygget på den maritime magt over Middelhavet og bredte sig senere til Atlanterhavet. En søfartsmagt, der havde skabt magten over brugen af penge. Magtgrundlaget var penge. Magten over penge, som en imperieform. Al europæisk imperialisme, inklusive britisk imperialisme i dag, er ikke baseret på et land-territorium, men er baseret på magten over penge. Disse penge kontrolleres i realiteten af private interesser, af personer, der danner samlinger af private interesser, og som etablerer kontrol over penge, deres skabelse og management. Og nationalstater er underordnet denne internatonale pengekontrol. Det britiske Imperium, der udvikledes ud af denne proces, er intet andet end dette. Det er ikke et imperium, der består af befolkningen i UK. Det er et imperium, der består af et internationalt konsortium for denne type af interesser, hvis brug af magt over penge bruges til at have magt over nationer.«

Offentliggjort den 20. juni, 2017.

Lyndon LaRouche at his best—the only statesman alive today who pulls no punches identifying the British Empire. Here, an excerpt from a September 2009 webcast.
——–
This video is copyrighted by EIR News Service Inc. To encourage the widest distribution possible, we encourage you to spread it, repost it, and use it. We will only enforce our copyright if the video is altered in any way other than strict translation into another language or it is placed in a context, which in our sole judgement is racist or defamatory regarding any ethnic or religious group or person.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 27. april, 2017 – USA og det transatlantiske finanssystem befinder sig nu ved et punkt, hvor det er på vej til en snarlig eksplosion, der overgår 2007-08. Foretagendernes gældsboble i dag, som er på $14 billion, er større end ejendomsmarkedsboblens $11 billion i 2007-08, og raten med 20 % betalingsstandsninger, som forudses for denne gæld i dag, er langt større end det, vi faktisk oplevede med ejendomslånene for et årti siden. Vi befinder os allerede i »The Big Short«, hvor Wall Street udlåner flere penge til naive tåber for at hjælpe dem til at opkøbe Wall Streets værdiløse værdipapirer – for derefter at spille imod sine egne kunder.

Hysteriet, der udstilles i Wall Streets daglige, offentlige udgydelser imod Glass-Steagall, reflekterer bankernes bevidsthed om den forestående nedsmeltning.

Intet som den nuværende situation er nogensinde blevet oplevet før, nogetsteds – det, der f.eks. skete i 2007-08, tåler ikke sammenligning med noget som helst i den nuværende verdenssituation.

Gene Kranz, mission controller i NASA, der senere blev chef mission controller for Apollo 13, beskrev i sin bog fra 2009, Failure is Not an Option (Fiasko er ikke en mulighed), hvordan hans chef, den legendariske mission controller Chris Kraft, kom hen til hans skrivebord blot to uger efter, at Kranz først startede i NASA i Langley i 1960. Kraft sagde:

»Alle andre er optaget. Jeg har kun dig tilbage. Vi har vores første Redstone-opsendelse foran os. Jeg vil gerne have, at du tager til Cape, går sammen med dem, der udfører testene og skriver en nedtælling. Skriv dernæst nogle regler for missionen. Når du er færdig, så ring til mig, og vi kommer ned og begynder træningen.«

Kranz fortsatte med at sige, at

»han må have bemærket chokket i mit ansigt, da Kraft fortsatte med at sige, ’jeg giver Paul Johnson besked om at tage imod dig i Mercury Control og give dig en hånd med’.

Min tid som iagttager var forbi, min mulighed for at nå at komme i omdrejninger afsluttet … Fra mit arbejde, senest ved Holloman Air Force Base i New Mexico, kendte jeg til flyvning, systemer, procedurer og checklister. Jeg kunne godt regne ud, hvad en nedtælling skulle indeholde. Men regler for en mission var noget andet. Der havde aldrig tidligere været en sådan mission i USA’s historie – jeg måtte simpelthen kaste mig ud i det. Eftersom der ikke var skrevet nogen bøger om den faktiske metodologi inden for rumfart, måtte vi skrive dem hen ad vejen.«

I dag er situationen den samme. Der findes ingen instruktionshåndbog. Det, vi ved, er, at vi må komme krakket i forkøbet, gennem en dybtgående mobilisering af befolkningen – ligesom en krigsmobilisering, men en dybtgående nationaløkonomisk mobilisering. Tænk på Franklin Roosevelts »100 dages program«. Stiftende redaktør for EIR, Lyndon LaRouche, forklarede, hvad dette vil sige i sine »Fire Nye Love« fra juni 2014. Revolutionen, der vælder frem fra hans »Basement« forskningsteam, giver genlyd af dette, sammen med hans »Manhattan Projekt«. Det sås i lederen af Basement-teamet Benjamin Denistons 15 minutter lange præsentation ved Schiller Instituttets konference på Manhattan den 13. april, og ligeledes af Basement-teamleder Megan Beets’ kursus den 15. april, om »Fusion; At hæve den menneskelige art.«

Det findes i hele Manhattanprojektets musikalske arbejde, ledet af Schiller Instituttets musikdirektør, John Sigerson.

»Det, man kan efterprøve, er det, I laver i Basement team, og det virker«, sagde LaRouche i dag.

»Det er funktionelt. Det, vi har gjort i Manhattan-området, har været en præstationsmæssig revolution. Så hvis I vil synke, kan I synke ved at være tåbelige. Hvis I ikke vil synke, så er det, I må gøre, at opføre jer ordentligt.«

LaRouche bemærkede, at USA og andre nationer har en iboende økonomisk kraft, der demonstreres i superhøje vækstrater, som impulser i visse perioder. Men

»så kom tyveknægtene og lukkede det ned og udbredte den myte, at det er sådan her, systemet fungerer. Men det er en myte! Det fungerer ikke sådan.«

Det, vi gør med Manhattan Projektet, hvor vi skaber en kraft for økonomisk kreativitet, må fortsættes. Der må være skabelsen af en udviklingsproces. Vi må indføre økonomisk virkelighed. Hvis det gøres, vil der ikke være noget problem, for døre vil åbne sig – før eller siden.

»Problemet i nationaløkonomier opstår, når nationaløkonomier ødelægges. Hvis man ser på det, som jeg ser på det«, sagde LaRouche,

»så har vi portene til fremgang lige frem for os. Men, vi må fastholde dem – det er forskellen.«       

Med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen.

Pdf af LaRouches økonomibog findes her: i Så du ønsker at lære alt om økonomi?

Studiekreds 4. mødegang den 2. marts 2017

Studiekreds 5. mødegang den 11. april 2017

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 26. marts, 2017 – Lørdag, den 25. marts, udsendte præsident Donald Trump en stærk og inspirerende, fem minutter lang video som sin ugentlige tale, hvor han bebuder sin plan om at føre nationen tilbage til rummet, efter Obamas syv års ødelæggelse af NASA og nationens rumprogram. Trump lod sig inspirere af Hubble-teleskopet, der i 1995 skuer ud i tomrummet, for blot at opdage, at der er endnu tusinder, eller millioner – eller flere – nye galakser at opdage. Som Trump sagde: »Denne opdagelse var fuldstændig utrolig. Men det uforglemmelige syn tilfredsstillede ikke vores dybe hunger efter viden. Denne hunger voksede til stadighed, og endnu mere, og mindede os om, hvor meget, vi ikke ved om rummet; ja faktisk, hvor meget, vi ikke ved om livet.«

Alle borgere på Jorden må få lejlighed til at se denne video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=ZGt6lkLApuo

Det er måske ikke et tilfælde, at Schiller Instituttet og Fusion Energy Forum, stiftet af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche, på samme tid afholdt konferencer i München, Tyskland, og i Houston, Texas, for at ære den store, tysk-amerikanske rumforsker og visionære person, Krafft Ehricke, der blev født for 100 år siden, den 24. marts, 1917. Alt imens flere fremlæggelser i München diskuterede Ehrickes ekstraordinære liv og karakter, og hans tætte relation til hr. og fr. LaRouche, så viste en fremlæggelse af en schweizisk astronaut, professor Claude Nicollier, der havde besøgt Hubble-teleskopet under sine fire missioner i rummet, flere spektakulære Hubble-fotografier af galakser, som teleskopet havde opdaget.

Blot få minutter senere, da Trump-videoen blev sendt til konferencen umiddelbart efter videoen blev udsendt af Det Hvide Hus, blev publikum slået af målløshed og inspireret af at se mange af de samme, smukke billeder af vort univers, som de netop havde set under den schweiziske astronauts fremlæggelse.

Med ganske få undtagelser har mainstreammedierne i USA, der er fikseret på at ødelægge den amerikanske præsident, baseret på britiske imperieløgne om, hvor farlig Rusland er for verden, totalt ignoreret denne historiske videopræsentation. Ikke siden John F. Kennedys program for at tage til Månen, og siden Ronald Reagans program for et samarbejde mellem USA og Rusland om skabelse af et strategisk forsvar i rummet, imod atomvåben, har en præsident således inspireret nationen – og dog vil de fleste mennesker ikke engang høre det, med mindre vi påtager os, som vores ansvar, at sørge for det.

Ligesom Ronald Reagans program for SDI, ’Strategic Defense Initiative’ (Strategisk Forsvarsinitiativ[1]), var direkte inspireret af Lyndon LaRouche, så ser vi nu præsident Trump bevæge sig imod vedtagelse af en politik, der er blevet initieret og forsvaret af LaRouche – og i de fleste tilfælde, udelukkende af LaRouche – i løbet af de seneste 50 år. Tag LaRouches video fra 1987, »Woman on Mars« (Kvinden på Mars); hans brochure, ’War on Drugs’ (Krig mod narkotika), fra 1980’erne; hans program for det Amerikanske System, for en genindførelse af Alexander Hamiltons (økonomiske) opdagelser; hans fremgangsmåde med Store Projekter for global udvikling; hans politik for de Fire Magter, for en forening af USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien; hans bog, »There are No Limits to Growth« (Der er ingen grænser for vækst), fra 1983 – alt dette reflekteres i stigende grad i de politikker, som Donald Trump vedtager.

Vil de lykkes?

Det vil være afhængigt af menneskehedens evne på globalt plan – og ikke kun amerikanernes – til at hæve sig op på et højere eksistensniveau – ’værens-niveau’ – til det, Helga Zepp-LaRouche kalder menneskehedens »modne alderstrin«, baseret på den menneskelige arts harmoni gennem skabende samarbejde for at fremme vores tilstand af viden, og af kultur. Denne harmoni er den Europæiske Renæssances rod, som den blev inspireret af Nicolaus Cusanus – Nikolaus von Kues – af Brunnelleschi og andre; og som ligeledes er roden i Song-dynastiets Konfucianske Renæssance, inspireret af Zhu Xi, såvel som den nye Konfucianske Renæssance i dag, inspireret af Kinas præsident, Xi Jinping.

Vi oplever for tiden en revolution i civilisationen. Som Lyndon LaRouche altid har hævdet, så, når dette øjeblik kommer, vil tiden ikke være til heppekor, eller til at følge flokken. Det er en tid for lederskab og personligt ansvar for menneskeheden som helhed.

Den tid er nu kommet.   

Foto: Screenshot fra præsident Trumps ugentlige tale, den 25. marts, 2017, om NASA Authorization Bill, med Hubble-teleskopets, og dets efterfølger, James Webb-teleskopets utrolige successer.