30. juni 2016 (Leder) – Under en diskussion torsdag med sin Policy Committee og andre kolleger understregede Lyndon LaRouche, at det nuværende, finansielle system er ved at bryde sammen, og at systemet, som system, ikke kan overleve. De store, finansielle institutioner, inklusive centralbankerne, er håbløst og uigenkaldeligt bankerot. LaRouche bemærkede, at, alt imens der eksisterer en forfærdelig risiko for krig, der drives frem af de kredse, hvis magt udspringer af det aktuelle finansielle system, så er en stor del af de trusler, der kommer ud af munden på Barack Obama og nogle NATO-folk, faktisk ikke andet end bluff. Truslerne, som de udslynger imod Rusland og Kina, virker ikke.

Ikke desto mindre kan denne sammenblanding, med både den finansielle front og krigsfronten, føre til et alvorligt sammenbrud, som menneskeheden ikke er parat til at håndtere.

I denne uge udstedte både Den Internationale Valutafond (IMF) og Den Internationale Betalingsbank (BIS) rapporter, der klart indikerede hele det transatlantiske finansielle systems disintegration. Bankernes udlån i hele den avancerede sektor er totalt kollapset. Der er ingen som helst kapitalindstrømning til realøkonomien, den produktive økonomi, i henhold til de data, som BIS har frembragt. IMF har udstedt en dyster advarsel om, at Deutsche Bank står foran nedsmeltning, og alene dette kunne udløse en systemisk krise.

I takt med, at NATO-folk færdiggør planerne for statsledernes topmøde i Warszawa, Polen, den 8.-9. juli, opbygges vanviddet mod Rusland yderligere. Onsdag var præsident Obama i Ottawa til sit endelige topmøde med sine canadiske og mexicanske modparter. Han benyttede anledningen til at kaste sig ud i en tirade imod Rusland og nærmest tiggede Canada om at udsende en kampbataljon til De Baltiske Stater.

Sæt denne galskab op i kontrast til Schiller Instituttets ekstraordinære konference, der fandt sted sidste weekend i Berlin, hvor ledere fra fire kontinenter kom sammen for at diskutere spørgsmålet om et nyt paradigme for en tankegang, der skal få verden ud af den nuværende, eksistentielle katastrofe.

Som både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche understregede under weekendens begivenheder i Berlin, så er det presserende nødvendigt, at vi skaber et revolutionært skifte i tankegang, der fokusere på en opbygning af en fremtid med samarbejde mellem suveræne nationer og integrerede regioner i verden. Kinas program med ’Ét bælte, én vej’ er paradigmatisk for denne nye form for tankegang, der må vedtages af ledende borgere i verden.

Det nuværende system er dødt, og det kan ikke overleve ret meget længere.

Video: Hør Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale fra konferencen i Berlin, 25.-26. juni, 2016. En dansk oversættelse af talen er på vej. Bliv på kanalen!

Titelfoto: Mineudlæggeren FNS Uusimaa fra den finske flåde sejler i Det baltiske Hav (Østersøen) under BALTOPS den 7. juni, 2016, som en del af øvelser, der skal demonstrere beslutsomhed hos styrkerne fra NATO og dens partnere.

28. juni 2016 (Leder) – Ved afslutningen af todages-konferencen i Berlin, sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet, hvor ledende talere fra fire kontinenter fremlagde det rædselsvækkende billede af både den ’evindelige krig’, der finder sted i dag, og truslen om en atomkrig i morgen, samt de nødvendige løsninger med den Nye Silkevejs-proces, kom Lyndon LaRouche med følgende bemærkninger (parafrase):

Vi kan som et folk indgå aftale om ideer om en fredelig løsning på den krise, vi står overfor, hvilket er afgørende. Send et stærkt og klart opråb; spred ordet. Vi søger ikke krig. Der er en anden løsning end atter at blive krigens offer.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche afsluttede dernæst konferencen, som stifter af og præsident for Schiller Instituttet, med ordene: »Jeg opfordrer jer til at tilslutte jer Schiller Instituttet og, hvad der ligeledes er vigtigt, at følge Lyndon LaRouches vise ord.«

Aldrig har den overhængende krise stået mere skarpt. Den britiske Brexit-afstemning sidste torsdag afslørede den kendsgerning, at Imperiets finansielle system går rundt i den bare natskjorte. Brexit forårsagede ingenting – den afslørede simpelt hen den kendsgerning, der i mange år har været åbenlys for alle, for nær de blinde, at det enorme spillekasino, kendt som det transatlantiske finansielle system, ikke kan »reddes« – og ganske bestemt ikke ved, at man trykker flere penge for kunstigt at stive de bankerotte banker af i endnu nogle uger eller måneder. Londons førende bankaktier er kollapset med over 30 % siden Brexit-afstemningen torsdag, og med halvdelen i løbet af det seneste år. Alle de vestlige »To Big to Fail«-banker – ’for store til at lade gå ned-banker’ – står over for en lignende skæbne, der allerede er i gang.

Vi må gøre en ende på systemets elendighed med en total Glass/Steagall-afskrivning af de værdiløse værdipapirer, der dominerer de såkaldte aktiver i storbankerne. Først da kan et kreditsystem efter Hamiltons principper blive genindført, som det kræves, for at Vesten kan tilslutte sig Rusland og Kina i den globale udviklingsproces, der nu er i gang, sammen med verdens nationer og folk, gennem programmet med Ét bælte, én vej, Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen, den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, den Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank, BRIKS’ Nye Udviklingsbank – som alle er helliget til, og nu aktivt investerer i, regionale infrastrukturprojekter i stor skala i hele verden. Som LaRouche har understreget hele sit liv – udelukkende kun en sådan kreativ transformation af verdens borgeres produktivitet, gennem videnskabelige opdagelser, kan gøre en ende på det mareridt, menneskeheden nu står overfor.

Det vestlige finansoligarkis frygt er, at Storbritanniens afgang fra EU vil indgyde mod i det voksende antal ledere i Europa, der ønsker at afkaste City of Londons og det sjælløse EU-diktatur i Bruxelles’ lænker. Den tyske udenrigsminister Steinmeiers fordømmelse af, at NATO rasler med atomsablen og udøver militære provokationer mod Rusland, har mange støtter, der blot mangler modet til at tale offentligt. Dette er vores opgave – LaRouches »stærke og klare opråb« om, at der er en løsning, hvis folk finder det sublime i sig selv og handler på vegne af menneskeheden som et hele.

Foto: Lyndon og Helga LaRouche på Schiller Instituttets Konference i Berlin,  25. – 26. juni, 2016.

»Jeg tror, vi alle er kommet til stede på denne konference, fordi alle, der befinder sig i denne sal, ved, at vi nu oplever en systemisk og eksistentiel civilisationskrise uden fortilfælde … Denne konference har ét emne, eller et overordnet emne, og det er at definere løsninger på denne krise: at diskutere, hvad det nye paradigme skal være, og om menneskeheden er i stand til at løse en sådan eksistentiel krise?

27. juni 2016 (Leder) – Schiller Instituttets todages internationale konference 25. – 26. juni begyndte om morgenen den 25. juni i den tyske hovedstad under temaet: »En fælles fremtid for menneskeheden og en renæssance for klassiske kulturer«.

Flere end 320 mennesker fra henved 22 lande på fire kontinenter deltog i arrangementet, der havde et udvalg af fremtrædende talere fra hele globen. (Yderligere detaljer kommer snarest.)

Det første panel adresserede den »Strategiske krise er farligere end på højden af den Kolde Krig«. Inden præsentationerne introducerede ceremonimester Elke Fimmen talerne, og hun hilste i særdeleshed Lyndon LaRouches tilstedeværelse på konferencen velkommen.

Hovedtalen blev dernæst holdt af Schiller Instituttets internationale præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der lige fra begyndelsen anslog konferencens fokus:

»Jeg tror, vi alle er kommet til stede på denne konference, fordi alle, der befinder sig i denne sal, ved, at vi er i færd med at opleve en systemisk og eksistentiel civilisationskrise uden fortilfælde. Vi har sammenfaldet mellem faren for krig, hvor NATO konfronterer Rusland på en meget, meget aggressiv måde – hvilket kunne føre til en Tredje Verdenskrig. Vi har en amerikansk konfrontation mod Kina i det Sydkinesiske Hav. Vi har faren for en ny, 2008-type finansiel krise, der kunne få det finansielle system til at nedsmelte, og så var der for to dage siden selvfølgelig Brexit – Storbritannien, der stemte for at forlade den Europæiske Union. Og som vi alle ved, så var dette ikke en stemme imod Europa som sådan, men imod et komplet uretfærdigt system og en korrupt elite.

Denne konference har ét emne, eller et overordnet emne, og det er at definere løsninger på denne krise: at diskutere, hvad det nye paradigme skal være, og om menneskeheden er i stand til at løse en sådan eksistentiel krise?

Vi har fremtrædende talere fra fire kontinenter, fra mange lande, og dette er selvsagt folk, eller er repræsentanter for den slags folk, der er fast besluttet på at finde en løsning. Og før jeg kommer nærmere ind på disse forskellige dødsfarer, så er løsningen nem. Så vær opmærksom og fattet. Hvis menneskeheden forener sig om en god plan og handler i solidaritet og modigt, så kan enhver krise i den menneskelige civilisation overvindes, for dette er den menneskelige natur – at, når vi udfordres af et stort onde, vækkes en endnu større kraft for det gode i vores sjæl.«

Den verdenskendte amerikanske statsmand Lyndon LaRouche vendte tilbage til dette tema i sine bemærkninger under spørgsmål-og-svar-sessionen, hvor han udtalte:

»Dette betyder, at vi, grundlæggende set, har ansvaret for, hvad der vil ske med menneskeheden.«

»Hvordan løser vi rent faktisk dette problem? Man gør det, at man går ud og bedriver noget videnskab. Man anvender videnskab til at skabe en metode for kreativitet. Man baserer derfor det hele, ikke på menneskeheden som sådan, men på den kreative kraft. Det er, hvad jeg generelt har gjort i det meste af mit liv. Man må øge det menneskelige intellekts arbejdes produktive evne. Man må give det individuelle menneske en større evne til kreativitet for menneskeligt liv.«

Foto: Schiller Instituttets stifter og præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche holder hovedtalen lørdag, den 25. juni, 2016, i Berlin. (Foto: Julien Lemaitre)

Netop nu befinder den generelle menneskehed sig under en alvorlig trussel om undergang, på global skala. Det betyder ikke, at det nødvendigvis vil finde sted. Det betyder, at, hvis vi gør de rigtige ting, kan vi undfly disse trusler. Det er, hvor vi står generelt, lige nu.  Og hvis du vil gøre noget ved det, så lad os tale om det

9. juni 2016 (Leder) – I går lykkedes det næsten indgriben fra FBI at forhindre Lyndon LaRouches deltagelse via internet i en stor konference i Nordcalifornien, arrangeret af hans medarbejdere. Hvis ikke lederskabet dér havde grebet ind i tide, ville LaRouche ikke have kunnet deltage.

Da LaRouche endelig kunne tale, var hans udgangspunkt den aktuelle, akutte trussel mod den menneskelige eksistens.

»Det væsentligste spørgsmål, jeg bekymrer mig om, er truslerne mod den menneskelige arts eksistens, i det totale område, lige nu. For, lige nu, på dette tidspunkt, står hele den menneskelige arts eksistens på den yderste rand, og vi må derfor være lydhøre over for at forstå, hvad det er for problemer, der er involveret i det her, og hvad det er for midler, der kan sikre en udvej for menneskeheden generelt.

Netop nu befinder den generelle menneskehed sig under en alvorlig trussel om undergang, på global skala. Det betyder ikke, at det nødvendigvis vil finde sted. Det betyder, at, hvis vi gør de rigtige ting, kan vi undfly disse trusler. Det er, hvor vi står generelt, lige nu.  Og hvis du vil gøre noget ved det, så lad os tale om det.«

 Men fra dette øjeblik og fremefter – lad os sige det ligeud – rev hovedindholdet i LaRouches bemærkninger slemt i nerverne på mange lyttere. Han blev ved med at komme tilbage til spørgsmålet om personlig identitet, men især spørgsmålet om hans egen personlige identitet. På et spørgsmål om, hvordan det individuelle sind overvinder forhindringer for at vinde en kamp for menneskeheden, svarede han:

»Lad mig sige, at jeg har temmelig gode levnedsegenskaber. Jeg er en aktiv person i samfundet, og jeg er en ældre person, og en erfaren, ældre person, en af de mest erfarne af alle personer i denne kategori. Så jeg tror ikke, nogen ville have nogen vanskeligheder med at forstå, hvem jeg er, hvad jeg er, hvor jeg kom fra og hvad jeg gør.

Andre personer holder måske fast ved en idé om en anden identitet hos en anden person, som jeg ikke kender, men sådan synes det at være.«

LaRouche drejede næsten hvert spørgsmål rundt på denne måde. Dette her irriterer dig måske, men det første spørgsmål, du skal stille dig selv, er: er det sandt? Er det sådan, at »tingene bare sker«, eller er det sådan, at »tingene bringes til at ske« af mænd og kvinder, der, som LaRouche sagde, er »kvalificeret til at skabe historie?« Da MacArthur blev tvunget ud af Filippinerne den 12. marts 1942, var det da rigtigt af ham at sige, »Jeg vender tilbage«, eller burde han have ændret det til »vi vender tilbage«? Ville mennesket have klaret at komme til Månen i 1969 – eller nogensinde – hvis det ikke havde været for den enlige skikkelse, den første og største tyske rumpioner, Hermann Oberth (1894-1989). Oberth var fattig det meste af sit liv. Efter at have kæmpet for rumrejser i årtier, havde han næppe mødt en eneste person, der både var enig i, og forstod, disses betydning. Men det er takket være denne »næppe en eneste person«, såsom Werner von Braun, at vi fik den revolution, som var rumprogrammet.

På et spørgsmål om, hvordan vi kan afgøre, hvorvidt vore forestillinger er fantasteri eller er sandfærdige, svarede LaRouche:

»Hvorfor siger vi simpelthen ikke, lad os identificere et sandfærdigt eksempel, en sandfærdig identitet. Jeg er. Og enhver, der vil benægte dette, ville tage fejl, ville være tåbelig.

Jeg er kendt som, identificeret som en historisk skikkelse igennem det meste af det 20. århundrede, og de fleste mennesker fra det 20. århundrede bør vide, hvem jeg er, og de bør vide, hvad jeg gør. De kender måske ikke alle detaljer omkring, hvad jeg gør, men sådan er det: Jeg er en prominent, en særdeles prominent, skikkelse på denne planet, blandt de mest prominente.«

Den senere del af det 20. århundrede ville have været uigenkendelig, hvis det ikke havde været for LaRouches sejr over det britiske, økonomiske system i en debat i 1971 på Queens College, New York, som dernæst, ad indirekte veje, førte til hans sejr med det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ i Reaganregeringen i 1983.

Dette banede igen vejen for hans og hans hustru Helgas initiativ, som nu er blevet til den Eurasiske Landbro og den Nye Silkevej, og som er det 21. århundredes hovedudvikling frem til i dag.

Hvorfor er det så irriterende at lytte til det indlysende: at LaRouche er en hovedskikkelse i det 20. og 21. århundrede? Fordi vi i skolen lærte om demokratiets dyder? Er det den virkelige årsag, eller skyldes det snarere, at vi lukker ørerne, fordi vi finder det mere beroligende for os personligt at benægte, at nogen mand eller kvinde rent faktisk kan være ansvarlig for menneskets tilstand og menneskehedens skæbne?

Læs her Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedindlæg på konferencen i San Francisco, Californien, den 8. juni:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

New York, 28. maj 2016 – Engelsk udskrift. 

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

TRANSCRIPT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q4:  I finish it, tomorrow, thank you.

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

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

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

Q4: So, give me two minutes more!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTERMISSION

Lyndon LaRouche Dialogue with the Manhattan Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LAROUCHE: Okay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LAROUCHE:  That's all right! [laughs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPEED:  OK — next question!

Q:  Hi, Lyn, it's K— from Bronx.

LAROUCHE:  Acknowledged!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LAROUCHE:  Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

But could you say something about that?

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

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

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

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

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

Q: [follow-up]  That's amazing.

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

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

SPEED:  Any other questions?

LAROUCHE:  Any survivors?  [laughter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LAROUCHE:  Yes.  You'll get it, too.

SPEED:  All right great!  [applause]

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

Engelsk udskrift.  

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

Webcast, May 27, 2016:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        DENISTON:  Krafft Ehricke and all his allies, yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

        DENISTON:  Be fruitful and multiply.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        DENISTON:  And space forces that issue today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        LAROUCHE:  Yeah, they're important.

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

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

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

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

        DENISTON:  Yes; always the unknown.

        LAROUCHE:  Unknown?  Who's unknown?

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

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

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

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

Klik her for videoerne og afskrifterne på engelsk.

LAROUCHE: Jeg vil sige, at lige nu gennemgår vi – ikke en simpel version af hvad vi tidligere har haft – men vi går ind i en krisesituation, der er meget dybt rodfæstet, ikke bare i USA, men på meget af planeten. Vi er på kanten af truslen om en lancering af krig imod Kina, og implicit også Putin, men Kina i særdeleshed – og truslerne er ved at blive meget alvorlige.

HONG LEI (talsmand for det kinesiske udenrigsministerium): Installationen af THAAD systemet har strakt sig langt ud over forsvarsbehovene i forhold til Nordkorea, og vil direkte skade Kinas strategiske og sikkerhedsmæssige interesser, såvel som den regionale balance.

LAROUCHE: Hvis disse trusler blev ført ud i livet, ville den umiddelbare effekt være generel verdensomspændende termonuklear krig. Det er kendsgerningerne. For hvis Putin blev slået ud, og hvis Kina, efter Obamas direktiver, blev ramt direkte, ville man have den værste generelle krigsførelse på planeten Jorden, der nogensinde er forekommet og som vi nogensinde har erfaret. Det er der vi er.

GEN. PHILIP BREEDLOV (øverstkommanderende for NATO): Om nødvendigt er vi er parate til at kæmpe og vinde….vores fokus vil ekspandere fra sikkerhed til afskrækkelse, inklusiv forholdsregler, der forøger vort samlede beredskab enormt. Mod øst og nord står vi over for et fornyet og aggressivt Rusland, der fortsat, som vi har været vidne til igennem de sidste to år, søger at udvide dets indflydelse på dets periferi og derudover.

LAROUCHE: Hvis vi ikke griber ind med det samme, og Obama agerer som han lige nu har til hensigt – vil han sætte en generel verdensomspændende termonuklear krig i bevægelse. Hvorvidt det vil lykkes ham at gøre det eller ej, er et andet spørgsmål, men kendsgerningen er, at han har til hensigt at gøre det. Og han sætter militære styrker ind på det -mange militærstyrker.

SERGEI GLAZYEV (Økonom og rådgiver til præsident Putin): Som det altid sker i en verdensøkonomisk orden under forandring, prøver det land, der er ved at taber sit lederskab, at slippe en verdenskrig løs for at få kontrol over periferien …… . State Department og det Hvide Hus fortsætter med at se verden gennem prismet af både den Kolde Krig og britiske konfrontationer med Rusland og Tyskland i det nittende århundrede. Og USA er i gang med at slippe en ny krig løs.

LAROUCHE: For indeværende er planetens transatlantiske samfund en katastrofe. Alt hvad vi havde på forhånd er netop krakket. Vi mister det hele. Så vi har to ting at gøre:
Få Obama ud med det samme. (Med det samme!) Forlad ham, han går efter en termonuklear krig! Så I er nødt til at få ham ud.
Når dette skridt er taget, er I nødt til at tage foranstaltninger til genopbygning, og de foranstaltninger er mulige, de lader sig gennem­føre. Der skal foretages en reorganisering af Kongressens politiske struktur og så videre. Og I må gå ud og finde folk, der er villige til at stå frem, som er i stand til at se på de ting vi kunne gøre, eller skulle have gjort. Det vil indebære, at gennemføre et program i lighed med det program, der gennemføres i Kina! Det Kina, som Obama har til hensigt at ødelægge.
Så det vi ønsker at gøre, er simpelthen at tage de samme ting i brug, som vi havde i forbindelse med rumprogrammet, at genoplive rumprogrammet, for vi skal have gjort en masse rumligt opdagelsesarbejde – rumarbejde. Og det vil blive meget vigtigt og meget rigt, og uden at gøre netop det, og uden at bruge det, klarer I det ikke.
Så I har intet alternativ til denne situation. Men hvis et sådant foretagende har det engagement, der skal til, og man er parate til at udfolde det, ville jeg sige: “Pris dem. Vi behøver dem!”
Og bak dem så op.

S: Mit navn er Jens Jørgen Nielsen, jeg kommer fra Danmark, og er kun her på visit. Jeg repræsenterer en organisation i Danmark ved navn Russisk-Dansk Dialog; og vi arbejder tæt og succesfuldt sammen med LaRouche-organisationen i Danmark, til hvilken jeg har et godt kendskab.

Jeg har et spørgsmål, der konkret vedrører Danmark. De ved selvfølgelig alle, at man i EU forfølger en politik i forhold til Rusland, som vi, i min organisation, meget modsætter os. Vi mener, at den er tæt på at være selvmorderisk.

Men jeg har et spørgsmål, der aktuelt angår vores land, idet Grønland, som De sikkert ved, er en del af Det danske Rigsfællesskab. Såfremt vi rammes af klimaforandringer, som en del mennesker taler om at vi bliver, meget snart faktisk; så betyder det, at den nordlige del af Rusland, det arktiske område, snart på mange måder vil være interessant – der er et potentiale for masser af energi såvel som der er et økonomisk-socialt udviklingspotentiale i dette område. Jeg ville være meget interesseret i Deres syn på fremtiden og mulighederne for et potentielt samarbejde med Rusland i det arktiske område? Og desuden, hvad vil der ske, hvis vi ikke overkommer sanktionspolitikken i forhold til Rusland? Så for det første, Deres syn på mulighederne af et sådant samarbejde, og dernæst betydningen og konsekvenserne af sanktionspolitikken?

LAROUCHE: Det korrekte svar på Deres spørgsmål er en smule vanskeligt at forholde sig til. Ikke så meget for mig; men for mennesker i al almindelighed. Fordi folk opererer med udgangspunkt i nogle antagelser om disse spørgsmål, som jeg ved er falske. Det dominerende træk ved vores planet er antagelser, der er baseret på absurde overbevisninger.

Men de fleste lande i verden i dag tenderer desværre imod tåbelige ideer om forskelligheder mellem nationerne. Det Transatlantiske område er for indeværende en ødemark. Lige netop nu.

Centrum ligger i Rusland og Kina. Det er her – med henblik på at opstille et referencepunkt -, at menneskehedens styrke på nuværende tidspunkt ligger. Det Transatlantiske samfund er, i form af dets historie, essentielt set et satanisk fællesskab. Det britiske system, for eksempel. Det britiske system er i sig selv et satanisk system! Ja, sådan ville irlænderne altid sige det. Den ærlige irer ville til hver en tid sige det på den måde.

Pointen er, at vi simpelthen må forstå hvad menneskeslægten er, og ikke hvad folk er. Hvad er menneskeslægten? Hvad er dens egenskaber? Hvad er effekten af den? Hvad er menneskehedens rolle i forhold til solsystemet og hvad der findes længere ude? Hvad er betydningen? Jeg kan sige Dem her og nu, at det Transatlantiske samfund er en ødemark. Det er ikke fuldstændig en ødemark, men det er under indflydelse af en ødemarks-tendens. Visse dele er det mere end andre.

Så jeg mener, at man er nødt til at anskue problemet rigtigt, og sige: at det vi er optaget af, med henblik på at forstå, hvad denne realitet går ud på, er, at vi nødvendigvis må tage ’Månens bagside’ med i betragtning, og se på realiteterne i et perspektiv med udgangspunkt i ’Månens bagside’, hvilket vi endnu ikke har gjort. Så vi har kun en ’skygge’ af det. Og vi bliver derfor nødt til at bruge vort eget sind til at forstå, hvad kræfterne i det menneskelige sind er, for på relevant vis at lede os til den slags ting, som vi må tage i betragtning. Og folk må lære at tilpasse dem selv til den realitet, som de ikke allerede er bekendt med. Det er hele pointen.

Dette ser man for eksempel i Kina. Folk rundt omkring i verden forstår ikke dette Kina-koncept. De forstår det overhovedet ikke. Så derfor er vi nødt til at acceptere processen; at vi er på vej til at operere fra ’Månens bagside’. Vi er på vej til at opdage, hvad bagsiden af Månen er. Og fra dette standpunkt, når vi har udført det eksperiment succesfuldt, vil vi sætte en ny standard for beskrivelsen af hvad betydningen af menneskeslægten er. Bagsiden af Månen!

Vi havde et rumprogram op til det tidspunkt, hvor Obama knuste dette princip. Det må og skal genoplives; og det er hvad vi gør i Texas – i særdeleshed i Texas området. Vi rejser til bagsiden af Månen. Vi har endnu ikke gjort det, men vi arbejder på at komme til det sted på Månen. Men Obama skar det væk, og derfor er vi nødsaget til at fjerne Obama fra scenen. Og så lader vi ham gøre tingene bedre.

Derudover, er det ganske almindelige idéer, De egentlig ønsker at arbejde videre med.

S:[follow-up] Ja, mange tak. Måske De har givet mig et svar, fordi jeg gerne vil høre Deres mening, nu og her, om den Europæiske Union. Fordi vi netop nu, i Danmark, Tyskland og Frankrig diskuterer fremtiden for den Europæiske Union. Har den overhovedet en fremtid? Hvordan ser den Europæiske Union og fremtiden ud i Deres perspektiv? Har den, – vil den overhovedet have en fremtid? Hvordan ser De på det?

LAROUCHE: Fremtiden betyder, at Rusland og Kina, og andre områder rundt omkring på planeten, hvor fremtiden skabes, bliver en del af fremtiden. Disse ting vil overleve. Meget af den konventionelle opinion af i dag vil ikke overleve. Det er derfor vi har krige i det Transatlantiske fællesskab. Det er af denne grund, vi har haft disse krige, for vi har haft krige over anliggender, der ikke var de rette problemer at være optaget af. Og så, altså, er vi nødt til at bruge vore sind, og forstå, hvad menneskeslægten er i stand til at udrette? Og svaret er; vi må være i stand til at gøre det, som vi nødvendigvis må gøre. Og vi bliver nødt til at opdage disse ting, og vi bliver nødt til at lære hvordan vi skal gøre det.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alt dette er et mål for det faktum, at det transatlantiske område er dødt; og det vil kun begynde at vende denne død omkring, hvis der finder en revolutionær, fundamental forandring sted i politikken. Denne alternative politik gennemføres i det eurasiske og asiatiske Stillehavsområde, anført af Kina, af Rusland, og er reflekteret i den måde, hvorpå præsident Putin har navigeret den strategiske situation.

Så den store trussel kommer fra det faktum, at et døende Britisk Imperium – der er uigenkaldeligt dømt til undergang – kæmper for sit liv og forsøger at bevare noget, der ikke længere kan bevares.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Lyndon LaRouche, 12. marts 2016:

»Jeg ville sige, at, i USA netop nu, i den grad, hvor nogle af os bidrager med nye indsigter i, hvad USA kan blive til, at vi må have en udvikling mod frihed. For problemet er, at de folk, der ikke kan lide os, der ikke kan lide frihed, er problemet. Men spørgsmålet bliver derfor, hvad er frihed? Nogle mennesker siger, »min idé om frihed er det her«, og deres idé om frihed er så ikke det.

Så pointen er, at der må være en sammenhæng, en aftale, baseret på fornuftig indsigt i den praktiske udførelse. Dette er, hvad der altid har fungeret i nationer. Dette er, hvad der har destrueret nationer! Napoleon destruerede nationer! Briterne har altid destrueret nationer! De specialiserer i det; og dette har været kun alt for sandt i historien.

Så man har altså det, at dannelsen af regering er baseret på ødelæggelsen af særskilte regeringer, på konflikt, mord. Jeg tænker på det, Tyrkiet nu gør, diktaturet i Tyrkiet. Men dette er ikke en karakteristik af tyrkerne; dette er en karakteristik … for jeg ved noget om tyrkerne og deres historie. Jeg har været tæt associeret med nogle af heltene i Tyrkiet. Og lignende ting er sande for andre ting. Der er ingen grund til, at vi bør sige, at der er et naturligt had, en naturlig konflikt blandt folkeslagene i verden! Det er ikke naturligt. Det faktum, at der er konflikt, er ofte et u-naturligt produkt.

For, når folk ser, hvad det gode er, når mennesket ser, hvad det gode er, i praksis, så vil man finde, at de ikke ønsker at gøre den slags ting, som tyrannerne gerne vil frembringe. Spørgsmålet er, vi opstiller argumenterne for, hvad bør det gode være? Hvad er det, vi bør gøre, som er det gode? Hvad er bedre? Det er, hvad det handler om.

Og alle de andre ting er nonsens. Mennesket er forplig… Hvor står vi f.eks. nu? Bare for lige at afbryde mig selv. Hvor er vi nu? Vi er på randen af en generel atomkrig over hele planeten, og udover selve planeten. Og denne ting kan ske, lige nu, i den form for krig, som netop nu bliver planlagt, som kan ødelægge hele planeten, og planetens mennesker, netop nu! Og spørgsmålet bliver derfor, hvordan kan vi forhindre dette i at ske? Og hvordan gør vi det, uden at gå ud i en eller anden form for underkastelse under dette, eller underkastelse under hint? Nej! Det må komme fra en indsigt i, hvad sandhed er, hvad menneskeheden er, hvad menneskeheden må være. Og mange mennesker, ligesom – jeg tror, man kunne sige, at Putin er et ret godt eksempel på en model – forsøger at gøre præcis dette. Og der er mennesker i andre dele af verden, der har til hensigt at gøre dette.

Og det er, hvad vi må gøre. Vi ser dette med Kina, med Rusland og med andre dele af planeten nu. Vi ser, at disse nationale enheder kommer sammen, og de går ikke bare i seng med hinanden, men det er en proces af at erkende, at de må arbejde sig igennem det, ved hvilket deres fælles interesser fremmes, på en bevidst og progressiv måde.

Og det er, hvad vi forsøger at gøre. Se på, hvad Kina gør. Indien forsøger at arbejde sig igennem her. Andre dele af verden forsøger at arbejde sig igennem denne proces. Det er denne form for mål, denne form for proces, hvor man siger – og det udmunder i, når man begynder at tale om rumprogrammet. Man taler om Månens bagside. Hvad gør Kina? Kina har kig på Månens bagside, og Månens bagside er det, Kina forsøger at finde ud af: Hvad er den virkelig betydning af det her, Månens bagside? Og Kina er ved at mobilisere for de næste to generationer, blot for dette formål. Og det er ikke bare en hensigt, men det er et begyndelsessted for at forstå, hvordan menneskeheden, jord-mennesket, kan spile en rolle i at udforme galaksen. Og galaksen er det mål, som menneskeheden bør have for øje netop nu.«

John Ascher (mødeleder): Jeg vil blot lige nævne her, at alle de temaer, du netop berørte, vil blive temaer for en meget vigtig konference, som bliver afholdt den 7. april i Manhattan, sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet, om spørgsmålet om, hvad det nødvendige begreb om menneskeheden er; og at få USA til at tilslutte sig Verdenslandbroen. Vi har en invitation, og forsøger at få denne konference, der kommer den 7. april, til at blive det store gennembrud. Og det, som hr. LaRouche netop gennemgik, er præcis temaet for denne konference, inklusive spørgsmålet om rumprogrammet og videnskab som drivkraft.

Ovenstående er et uddrag af webcastet The Manhattan Projekt med Lyndon LaRouche, fra 12. marts. Hele videoen kan ses her: https://larouchepac.com/20160312/larouchepac-manhattan-project-town-hall-lyndon-larouche-march-12-2016

Der er intet grundlag overhovedet for at betale 6 mia. euro i afpresserpenge, når man ved, at en karakter som Erdogan vil komme tilbage … og vil fortsætte med at true med at udløse massive flygtningestrømme samtidig med, at Tyrkiet forsøger at sabotere Lavrovs og Kerrys indsats for at bringe en afslutning på denne fem år lange monstrøsitet af en krig, der har raset i Syrien.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

10. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Den europæiske Centralbank annoncerede i dag panikagtige forholdsregler for en enorm inflation af aktiver. ECB sænkede sine allerede negative rentesatser for bankpenge, der er indsat i ECB, fra -0,3 % til -0,4 %. Hvad der er endnu mere ekstremt, så annoncerede ECB en ny serie af fireårige lån til banker (»TLTRO II«), hvor rentesatserne kunne falde så lavt som til satserne på indskudsfaciliteten, nu -0,4 %. Med andre ord, så vil ECB betale banker for at tage dets lån – de vil tilbagebetale mindre, end de lånte!

»Det er en hurtig afslutning på en hel historie«, var Lyndon LaRouches respons i dag. »Dette er slutningen! Dette vil ikke holde – det giver ingen mening. Obama og præsidentskabet osv. burde sige, dette er slutningen! Der er det med os, at vi siger, dette er slutningen! Vi kan ikke gøre dette! Og Wall Street kommer til at betale for det. Wall Street kommer til at betale, for de ejer pengene! Og de kommer til at betale, hvad de skylder, for deres voldtægt af finanssystemet er regulært tyveri. Annuller dette tyveri! Det eneste, vi behøver at gøre, er at anvende Franklin Roosevelts politik fra 1930’erne, og det vil række. Der findes ingen anden kompetent måde at respondere til dette på.

Disse karle vil stjæle; de vil stjæle luksuriøst. Det her går tilbage til en historie: Dodd-Frank!«

ECB annoncerede også, at dets kvantitative lempelsesprogram med opkøb af obligationslån vil blive sat op til 80 mia. euro om måneden og udvidet til også at omfatte obligationslån fra selskaber, der ikke er banker, sammen med bankobligationer og statsobligationer.

»Offentliggør det, cirkuler det, og sig, at dette er et svindleri af alle ting – Gud over alle ting.«

Georg Fahrenschon, chef for den tyske Sparekasseassociation, der er kraftigt imod disse sindssyge erklæringer, sagde, at, før eller senere vil negative rentesatser sprede sig til et punkt, hvor bankerne forlanger penge for at beholde kundernes indskud.

»Det gør de ikke«, sagde LaRouche, »bankerne vil forsvinde!«

10. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Under en diskussion den 9. marts med LaRouchePAC’s Komite for Politisk Strategi karakteriserede Lyndon LaRouche kampagnen for at bryde BRIKS-gruppen op som følger:

»Det er britisk. Se på omstændighederne. Der er visse kendsgerninger her, der er meget klare. For det første står briterne bag alt dette, og briterne triumferer over den fordærvelse, de har været i stand til at indføre i USA og i den amerikanske befolkning. Det er et faktum. Når man lige har fordøjet dette, så må man se på, hvad det er for problemer, der findes i Europa, og så bliver man virkelig lidt skræmt, for man ser hele områder af Europa, der disintegrerer for øjnene af os, og især dem, der er på den forkerte kurs.

Det, Putin gør, er virkelig godt; det er meget effektivt – det er rigtig godt. Og det er succesfuldt, og det hænger sammen med Kina og andre former for operationer omkring dette, der bygger det op. Så det er en god situation for os mht. tingenes udsigt. Der er ikke noget problem her. Der er bekymring, men ikke noget virkeligt problem.

Vores problem ligger hovedsageligt i USA. Det er den kendsgerning, at USA’s befolkning er blevet gjort sindssyge, voldsomt, af Bush-familien, og nu af Obama. Det har været en degeneration. Disse ting er så åbenlyse, at det må siges højt, fordi det er så åbenlyst. Kongressen er i et forfærdeligt rod.

Hvis man indser disse ting, og man laver en liste med en sammenligning af det ene mod det andet, finder man ud af, at tingene ikke står så dårligt til i det ene kvarter, men at de er forfærdelige mht. USA og den amerikanske befolkning. USA er i en tilstand af desperation. Desperation, fordi de accepterer spekulativ investeringsbankvirksomhed, men de accepterer ikke Glass-Steagall, der automatisk ville hjælpe udviklingen. Sådan står det til. Vi har i virkeligheden ikke noget andet problem end dette. Vi har Wall Street, som er rådden, FBI er råddent, og en masse mennesker er ikke andet end de rene svindlere. Og vores befolkning er på både kunstig vis, men også aktivt, blevet demoraliseret. Demoraliseringen af den amerikanske befolkning er en meget farlig ting.

I Sydamerika ser man også, at udsigterne er ved at blive forfærdelige. Det behøver de ikke at være, men det er de. Så vi må virkelig samle vore tanker og ikke udbrede sygdomme, der ikke er virkelige.

LaRouchePAC-leder Kesha Rogers er ved at komme tilbage, og det er vigtigt. Hendes rolle med udgangspunkt i Texas, og i baggrunden dernede, er meget styrkende mht. hele situationen.

Wall Street og Washington ved, at Dodd/Frank-loven har været en total fiasko. De ved det! De er rædselsslagne. Folk har tendens til at være bange; en meget stærk frygt. Men det bliver bare til hysteri. Det politiske system er råddent: der var nogle styrkeområder, men det meste af det er råddent. Demoralisering er nøglespørgsmålet; situationen er forfærdelig, men der er noget, der er værre: demoralisering. Og demoralisering kan selvfølgelig ikke bekæmpes, med mindre der er reel styrke bag; man kan ikke bare bluffe det.

Dette er en ekstremt dødbringende situation. Spørgsmålet er, om hele USA’s økonomi vil kollapse, før balladen virkelig begynder. Kina befinder sig i en god situation; Putin er i en god situation, relativt set, og der finder en opbygning sted i visse dele af planeten.

Vi har endnu ikke fået kontrol over tingene. Vi har udsigter, men ingen kontrol. Og denne kontrol må vi selv levere.«

Rachel Brinkley (fra LaRouchePAC Policy Committee, -red.) fra Boston sagde, at befolkningen er rasende over, at økonomien er i færd med at kollapse, og at ingen gør noget ved det.

LaRouche svarede:

»De tror ikke på, at de kan gøre noget ved det; det er derfor. De tror på, at det er noget, der overgår dem; ikke noget, som de gør.

Jeg håber på, at vi kan bryde igennem med noget her, for der er gennembrud i ting, der er internationale faktorer. Men jeg har ingen præcise beviser, så jeg er lidt forsigtig. Jeg mener, at der er muligheder; helt bestemt i Kina og Rusland og så fremdeles, er der gode tegn. Men en stor del af det transatlantiske område og relaterede tilfælde er en stor katastrofe. Det vil formentlig vedblive at være en katastrofe, endda forværrende. Så vi står ved et punkt lige nu, hvor vi ikke har nogen præcis konklusion om noget som helst; vi har en masse tilkendegivelser.

Det kommer til at handle om globale faktorer; jeg tror ikke, der er mange chancer i lokale områder; jeg tror, at globale faktorer er de eneste, der virkelig er signifikante. For se på økonomien, se på moralen osv., som vi ser generelt. Der er intet at hente her. Der er visse udviklinger, der omfatter nogle af problemområderne og giver folk en vis fornemmelse af et optimistisk syn. For situationen er ikke så dårlig, som mange mennesker tror, hvis den blev håndteret korrekt. Eller den er værre – hvilket er mærkeligt. Man har noget, som folk tror, vil være godt for dem, når det er ubrugeligt. Men de får også undertiden et frisk pust af at se frem til noget.

Det er vores job at blive ved med at kæmpe og opbygge ting, som vi kan opbygge. Vi ser ingen mirakler lige nu, undtagen når vi en gang imellem får en smule fordel – og det må man arbejde videre med. Og der kommer nogle lyspunkter her og der.«

Titelfoto: Lyndon LaRouche fortsætter med at arbejde for Det britiske Imperiums afslutning og for udløsningen af menneskehedens kreativitet.

.

7. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Det transatlantiske systems kollaps er en dødbringende situation – fra det fysiske, økonomiske sammenbrud, til den finansielle nedsmeltnings kaos, til faren for krig og den rædselsvækkende virkning af det rådne opbud af kandidater til det amerikanske valg og dettes forløb. Det, der kræves under disse irrationelle omstændigheder, er en rationel respons. Der findes løsninger. Netop en sådan rationel respons er i gang i form af det fremstød, der kommer fra Ruslands og Kinas ledere, for samarbejde om rummet, videnskab, økonomisk udvikling i Eurasien og hele verden, og om fred. I sidste uge blev det under nationale møder i Beijing fastslået, at rumforskning nu vil blive en integreret del af Kinas økonomiske innovationsprogram. I USA leder LaRouchePAC’s Kesha Rogers det politiske fremstød for at genrejse netop samme anskuelse, der oprindeligt var et varemærke for det Amerikanske System, og som NASA legemliggjorde.

I dag satte Lyndon LaRouche spørgsmålet om lederskab ind i et umiddelbart, historisk perspektiv med reference til Nancy Reagans død i søndags. Han sagde, at, hvis man tager perioden fra Ronald Reagans valg til præsidentskabet i 1980, i frem til Nancys død, så er det et tegn på, at »en ganske bestemt æra netop er afsluttet«. Reagan legemliggjorde en kvalitetsstandard for lederskab. Han var en meget dygtig person. LaRouche talte om sin forbindelse med ham, og nu om mindet om hans hustru.

I den ny æra, der nu er i gang, handler krisen ikke kun om fraværet af lederskabskvalitet, men om den udbredte fjendtlighed over for en sådan kvalitet. Folk i det transatlantiske område – Vesten – bliver mere og mere vanvittige. Men vi kan ikke desto mindre, hvis vi intervenerer med rationalitet for at levere lederskabet, komme til undsætning og have held med vores forehavende.

Fjendens deployering er intens, med fremstød imod BRIKS og mod krig. Ingen anden end selveste den britiske krones tjener Ambrose Evans Pritchard er på scenen i Sao Paulo, hvor han udgiver en artikel fra 7. marts om, at »BRIKS-fantasien« nu er forbi, og at »BRIKS-konceptet er blevet meningsløst …« Han hævder, at »Brasilien er den første af BRIKS-kvintetten, der bryder sammen på så mange fronter på samme tid«, og at Sydafrika, Rusland og Kina alle er plaget af problemer. Han hævder, at kun Indien stadig har »vind i sejlene« – hvilket i realiteten refererer til beskidte, angloamerikanske tricks for at forsøge at få Indien til at blive ’den sidste, stående BRIK’.

Med hensyn til den relaterede, forrykte militære oprustningsfront, så er de største militære øvelser nogen sinde – kaldet Key Resolve – nu i gang mellem USA og Sydkorea. Med et opbud af 17.000 amerikanske styrker og 300.000 stk. sydkoreansk personel vil øvelserne vare i otte uger. Dette finder sted på et tidspunkt, hvor der er skarpe spændinger med Nordkorea, i betragtning af den kumulative virkning af årevis med geopolitik.

I LaRouchePAC’s ugentlige TV Policy Committee-udsendelse i dag formanede Lyndon LaRouche, »Det er slutningen på det gamle system. Det må erstattes af et andet. Det kan gøres.«

Det er farligt. Bliv ikke bange.

Vi må genrejse fremtiden; og det begynder med kampen for at genoplive NASA. Og de gode nyheder er, at denne kamp nu er i gang; den er endnu i sit begyndelsesstadie, men det er en kamp, der kan vindes. Og USA’s fremtid ligger i vægtskålene.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

DOKUMENTATION:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Gå ud i rummet med Kina, ikke ad Helvede til med Obama

6. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Da Barack Obama annullerede USA’s planer om udforskning af rummet, begik han den største af sine forbrydelser, selv i sin egenskab af en »Vinder af Nobels Fredspris«, der udartede til en krigspræsident og massedræber. Rumprogrammet var Amerikas kultur, dets mission og fremtid, og Obamas handlinger vendte i realiteten den historiske kurs omkring og drev USA tilbage.

Tilstanden for økonomien i USA – for ikke at tale om Europa – er i en håbløs spiral for nedadgående og dræber millioner af mennesker gennem håbløshed, narko- og medikamentafhængighed og krig, som truer hele den amerikanske befolkning.

En total genoplivelse af udfordringerne i forbindelse med udforskning af rummet kan ændre alt. NASA’s rumprogrammer, der nu er skåret væk og suspenderet, er Amerikas eneste potentielle center for økonomisk håb.

For at vende degenerationen af USA og dets befolkning omkring, er den totale genoplivelse af rumprogrammet, på et højere niveau, den eneste farbare vej.

LaRouche-demokraten Kesha Rogers fra Texas fører an på denne vej, med den mobilisering, hun har genlanceret sammen med veteraner fra NASA, for at bringe rumprogrammet tilbage. EIR’s stiftende redaktør Lyndon LaRouche kalder dette for videnskabeligt arbejde af højeste rang; det er den eneste, videnskabelige aktivitet i USA, der har ægte betydning for menneskehedens fremtid.

Og Amerika vil stå foran et samfundsmæssigt kollaps, hvis vi ikke meget snart gør dette.

De eksempler, som USA må samarbejde med om enhver bestræbelse inden for rumfartsvidenskab, som der gives mulighed for, er Kina og Rusland.

Dér, hvor den amerikanske »fremskridtskultur« engang blomstrede – i udforskningen af rummet – dér er Kina nu den drivende kraft. Kinas plan for de næste fem år er centreret omkring rumforskning. Med målet om at undersøge galaksen fra Månens bagside inden for de næste to år, inkluderer Kinas nye plan for økonomisk og samfundsmæssig udvikling »en forståelse af universets oprindelse«.

­Under en diskussion om det økonomiske program den 5. marts sagde chefen for Kinas største rumforskningslaboratorie: »Rumforskning er uadskilleligt fra Kinas innovationsdrevne udvikling. Hvis Kina ønsker at være en stærk, global nation, bør det ikke kun varetage sine umiddelbare interesser, men også bidrage til menneskeheden. Kun dette kan vinde Kina verdens respekt.«

USA har mistet verdens respekt under Bush, og især under Barack Obama. Obama må fjernes fra embedet, omgående, og hans onde »værk« må omstødes. Og mere presserende end alt andet må hans mord på Amerikas rumforskningsprogram vendes omkring i en total genoplivelse af rumforskning – »for en forståelse af universets oprindelse«.

Disse handlinger, denne operation for regimeskift i Libyen, førte, som nu er velkendt, direkte til, at Libyen blev til en mislykket stat og skabte et vakuum, i hvilket Libyen kunne blive stedet for iscenesættelse af det, der i dag kaldes ISIS – disse radikale, jihadistiske terrorister, der i mange områder bruger de våben, der blev kanaliseret ind i Libyen på tidspunktet for Hillary Clinton/Obama-operationen, med henblik på at vælte Gaddafi. De bruger nu disse våben til at overtage store bidder af territorium i Nordafrika og Mellemøsten. Dette skal naturligvis ses i forbindelse med de tragiske begivenheder, der udspillede sig den 11. september [2011] i Benghazi, hvor ambassadør Stevens og tre andre amerikanere blev dræbt. Men dette påpeger den mere betydningsfulde diskussion, der burde finde sted: Hvad var Hillary Clintons rolle? Hvad var Barack Obamas rolle i beslutningen om at gennemføre regimeskift i Libyen, og hvad vil resultatet blive, hvis vi tillader denne samme operation for regimeskift at finde sted i Syrien og mange andre lande?

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Titelfoto: En bevæbnet libysk oprørskæmper sparker til en fodbold i nærheden af Moammar Gaddafis kompleks Bab al-Aziziya, mens dette omsluttes af flammer. Libyske oprørere indtog paladset efter flere dages kampe for at vinde kontrollen over Tripoli, 2011. (Maxppp/ZUMAPRESS)

LPAC fredags-webcast 26. februar 2016, dansk oversættelse.

Hvis man derfor sluttelig ønsker, at den syriske fredsaftale skal blive en succes, altså holde, så må man, ud over det presserende nødvendige behov for en Marshallplan/Landbro-hjørnesten for at sikre, at freden er varig, også fjerne Obama. Og man må bringe det britiske imperiesystem til fald.

Der findes muligheder for en erstatning, men disse erstatninger vil kun ske, når Obama er blevet fjernet af reelle forfatningsmæssige grunde, og på det tidspunkt, hvor Det britiske Imperium har fået en reglementeret begravelse.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

28. februar 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Alle dele af planeten konfronteres nu med valget mellem to konkurrerende stemmer. »Spørgsmålet drejer sig om krisen«, erklærede Lyndon LaRouche skarpt under sin dialog med Manhattan-projektet den 27. feb. »Vil du dø, eller vil du leve? Det er de to stemmer.«

Halvdelen af menneskeheden – BRIKS og de hermed allierede lande, under anførsel af Rusland og Kina – har allerede valgt at leve og tilbyder at være med til at redde resten af planeten. Den transatlantiske sektor har indtil videre valgt at dø. Hvilken anden betydning kunne det have, fortsat at tolerere Wall Street og tillade den onde dræber Obamas tilstedeværelse i Det Hvide Hus? Hvilken anden betydning kunne det have, fortsat at tolerere den aktuelle farce omkring valg af præsidentkandidater, og tillade, at tidligere produktive arbejdere dræber sig selv i rekordstort antal, med narko, alkohol og direkte selvmord? Hvad med ødelæggelsen af NASA og den kreative, missionsorienterede anskuelse, det repræsenterede?

Den russiske præsident Putins intervention med en flankeoperation i Syrien og den bredere, regionale situation, med begyndelse i september 2015, har på dramatisk vis omformet hele geometrien i de globale anliggender. Obama er mod sin vilje blevet banket ind i et samarbejde med Rusland om den aktuelle våbenhvile i Syrien, der fortsat holder under det amerikanske og russiske militærs voksende koordination. Dramatiske, positive forandringer finder sted i Iran, Egypten og andre nationer, der har valgt at alliere sig med BRIKS-udviklingen. Og befolkningen i USA – på trods af en årtier lang, britisk fordummelsesproces ind i pragmatisme, og som nu er ved at kvæles af et valgcirkus – responderer med uvant optimisme til LaRouche-bevægelsens mobilisering, der på enestående vis resonerer med det aktuelle, politiske fremstød fra både Putin og Xi Jinpings kinesiske regering. Når alt kommer til alt, så blev meget af deres politik, og mest eftertrykkeligt den Nye Silkevej, oprindeligt udtænkt og promoveret af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche.

Som et eksempel på denne begyndende renæssance står den særdeles succesfulde Schiller Institut konference, der blev afholdt den 27. feb. »i skyggen af Johnson Space Center« i Texas, med medlem af LPAC Policy Committee og tidligere demokratisk kandidat til Kongressen, Kesha Rogers, der genaktiverede og på ny gav liv til NASA-veteraner og andre omkring vores nødvendige mission: at mennesket sluttelig er en fornuftsart baseret i rummet, som Rogers understregede det. På samme måde var en forandring i modtagelighed åbenlyst til stede ved den nylige konference i Seattle, med Helga Zepp-LaRouche som hovedtaler; ved et arrangement på Georgetown University, hvor Matthew Ogden holdt hovedtalen; ved LaRouche-bevægelsens Verdenslandbro-konferencer i Hermosillo (Mexico) og i Lima (Peru), samt andre steder.

Det er LaRouche-organisationens enestående »helligelse til kreativ opdagelse«, som LaRouche beskrev det under sin diskussion med Manhattan-projektet, og udelukkende dette, der sætter os i en position, hvor vi kan forme den globale udvikling i retning af det gode. Men det pålægger os også strenge, interne betingelser, der kræver, at vi gør det klart, når organisationer ikke er en del af denne forpligtelse og således i stedet bliver forhindringer for vore bestræbelsers succes.

»Hele formålet med menneskeheden er dens evne til at gøre opdagelser, som den, der gjorde opdagelsen, aldrig selv helt vil høste frugten af«,

erklærede LaRouche til publikum ved Manhattan-projektet.

»Men kun personer, der er i deres adfærd er besjælet af denne ånd, vil være i stand til at levere et eksempel på det, som er nødvendigt for menneskehedens fremtid.«

Foto: Forberedelse til yderligere udforskning af rummet, det naturlige, næste trin i menneskehedens udvikling. Her arbejder ingeniører fra NASA og Lockheed Martin på NASA’s Orion-rumfartøj, der efter planen skal opsendes i december måned.

P.g.a. en fejl blev programmet desværre ikke optaget, men her er kildematerialet. Michelle Rasmussens indlægsnotater på dansk vil blive udlagt senere.

Vi diskuterede nøglepunkterne i kapitler 1 og 2 af Lyndon LaRouches lærebog "So, you wish to learn all about economics?":

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Her er LaRouches video om emnet, som var lavet i forbindelsen med bogen:

21. februar 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Lyndon LaRouche gav søndag, den 21. februar en strategisk vurdering, der sagde, at verden nu har nået et øjeblik med et vendepunkt, hvor enten, det onde Britiske Imperium, med sit system for monetaristisk udplyndring, bliver knust, eller verden vil snart styrte ned i en atomkrigs rædsler. Alt imens der er legitim fokus på de sindssyge provokationer, som kommer fra Tyrkiet og Saudi Arabien, der forsøger at gøre alt, hvad de kan, for at starte Tredje Verdenskrig på den syrisk-tyrkiske grænse, så er virkeligheden den, at det virkelige magtsæde bag disse manøvrer er den britiske krone.

Det transatlantiske, britiske system er totalt bankerot, og det virkelige centrum for global magt og stabilitet er skiftet over til Asien, hvor samarbejde mellem Kina, Rusland og Indien har skabt en relativ stabilitet, efter transatlantiske standarder. Der er trusler i Asien, men disse trusler kan overvindes gennem den form for politik for fysisk, økonomisk udvikling, som Kina har fremmet gennem initiativet med ’Et bælte, én vej’. Asien er blevet centrum for menneskehedens fremtid, fordi briterne har ødelagt næsten hver eneste hvid af kreativitet i USA, Storbritannien og det meste af kontinental-Europa. Der er muligheder, men de begynder alle med udslettelsen af Det britiske Imperiums magt.

For kontinental-Europa er den eneste, produktive løsning, at Tyskland, den sidste, tilbageværende økonomiske magt i Europa, allierer sig med Rusland omkring en plan for fysisk, økonomisk udvikling, tværs over hele korridoren mellem Tyskland og Rusland. En russisk-tysk koalition for en genoplivning af de produktive kræfter ville være den form for forandring, væk fra Det britiske Imperiums monetarisme, som der er et presserende behov for. Glem Det britiske Imperiums bankerotte pengesystem. Det er fuldstændig færdigt, og kan aldrig genoplives. En tysk alliance med Rusland om opbygning af de produktive forbindelser hen over Eurasien, i partnerskab med Kina og Indien, er skriften på væggen for en dødsdom over de imperiekræfter, der gør fremstød for krig ved hjælp af skakbrikker som Erdogan, Obama og Mohammed bin Salman.

Samme fremgangsmåde er presserende nødvendig i Nordøstasien, hvor Koreakrisen kun kan løses gennem en genoplivning af Kina-Korea-Rusland-jernbaneforbindelserne, der rent historisk har eksisteret, og som kan og må genoplives i dag. uden en fysisk-økonomisk dimension findes der ingen måde, hvorpå de britiske, geopolitiske svindelnumre kan overvindes. Afdøde general Douglas MacArthur forstod dette princip for asiatisk udvikling og stabilitet, som det ses af hans program for en genopbygning af Japan ved afslutningen af Anden Verdenskrig, og af hans fremragende lederskab i Korea. Genoplivningen af Kina-Korea-Rusland-jernbanekorridoren er afgørende for stabiliteten i Asien, og dette bliver forstået af det kinesiske lederskab som et nøgleelement i hele »win-win«-udviklingsstrategien i Eurasien.

Der er ingen levedygtige alternativer til denne totale sejr/totale fremgangsmåde med krig, til at overvinde briterne. En tysk-russisk alliance for en genoplivning af Eurasien fra den europæiske side, som det tidligere blev forudset af den franske præsident, general Charles de Gaulle, den sidste franske leder, der besad en vision om Eurasien, er den eneste, tilbageværende mulighed for Europa og hele det transatlantiske område. I USA betyder dette at dumpe Obama, der ikke er andet end en britisk brik, og at udslette Wall Street. I Asien er Kina-Korea-Rusland-jernbanekorridoren afgørende for en meningsfuld løsning til Det britiske Imperiums eskalerende krigsprovokationer, der i overvejende grad køres gennem Barack Obamas mund, og som er rettet, ikke mod Nordkorea, men mod Kina. Indien er en naturlig partner i denne asiatiske udviklingsbestræbelse, og er allerede med om bord og forlænger de eurasiske udviklingskorridorer ind i Det indiske Ocean.

Den russiske præsident Putin har gjort det godt med den russiske, strategiske intervention i Syrien, der har trukket tåberne i Tyrkiet og Saudi Arabien ind i en fælde, de selv har skylden for. Denne fælde har taget det britiske imperie-slæng på sengen, og øjeblikket til at knuse dem fuldstændigt er nu inde.

Dette er den presserende, globale politik, der må tages i betragtning, og vedtages. Tiden er ikke til endeløse debatter, og til at trække tiden ud. Denne politik må vedtages nu, og gennemføres i praksis. Det er den faktiske gennemførelse, der er underkastet seriøs planlægning blandt seriøse verdensledere, af hvilke flertallet er i Eurasien, som et resultat af generationers britiske brutalisering af befolkningerne i USA og kontinental-Europa.

Hvis du fanger dig selv i at tænke, »Ja, men det her er altså ikke praktisk«, er du allerede dømt til undergang.

11. februar 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – De store strateger, såsom William Shakespeare, om hvem Lyndon LaRouche gennemførte skelsættende studier i januar 2014, forstod, at det nye gennembrud, der var nødvendigt for menneskehedens overlevelse, krævede, og man begav sig ud på veje, hvor intet menneske før havde gået; ja, på veje, hvis blotte eksistens ingen hidtil havde anet. Det var, hvad Douglas MacArthur gjorde i Stillehavskrigen under Anden Verdenskrig: han udtænkte en helt ny dimension for handling, ingen før havde forestillet sig, og som hidtil ikke havde været mulig, og som gav hans underlegne styrker mulighed for hele tiden at overvinde overlegne styrker.

Dette ændrede historien for altid, men det var kun et enkelt af flere sådanne gennembrud, som MacArthur skabte. Det samme er sandt for Lyndon LaRouche.

I hvert enkelt tilfælde gjaldt de beslutninger, de traf, ikke kun for en dag eller et år, men for hele fremtiden. I denne henseende var de alle et ekko af Prometheus’ skæbnesvangre beslutning, der blev taget én gang for alle tider, længe før historisk tid. Den gik ud på, at han ville skærme menneskeheden mod at lide udslettelsens skæbne, som Zeus havde dekreteret for vores art. Lige som præsident John F. Kennedys beslutning, der blev annonceret for Kongressen den 25. maj 1961:

»Det er min overbevisning, at denne nation bør forpligte sig til, før dette årti rinder ud, at opfylde det mål at landsætte en mand på Månen og bringe ham sikkert tilbage til Jorden.«

I dag må vi atter træffe en sådan beslutning; det er denne kamp, som anføres af LaRouchePAC-leder Kesha Rogers fra Houston, Texas.

I sit webcast mandag, den 8. februar med LaRouchePAC Policy Committee sammenlignede LaRouche USA’s intellektuelle anskuelse i dag med Det romerske Imperiums nedgang og fald og omtalte Det britiske Imperiums indtrængen lige fra USA’s første begyndelse:

»Det skete omgående, i og med USA’s begyndelse som en nation. Ødelæggelsen var massiv: de fleste af USA’s præsidenter var i realiteten fjender af USA; det var de fleste af dem! Og det er derfor, problemet bliver ved med at dukke op. Og fortsat gør det: Dette er Det romerske Imperium, modellen for Det romerske Imperium.

Nu har man den eurasiske model, Kinas genoplivning; og det, som Putin på sin side har gjort. Denne ting inspirerede ham. Husk, som jeg har nævnt ved et par lejligheder, så kom Putins familie fra et område, der var en koncentration af død, på grund af de kampe, der fandt sted dér. Og Putin er lykkedes med at være en faktor, der har skabt en styrkelse af både Kina og Rusland, for at redde Rusland. Og hvad implikationerne er; det, jeg har set i de områder, hvor jeg tidligere har befundet mig, I ved, Indien osv., områder, hvor jeg arbejdede.

Det, vi ser, er, at dette område, dette eurasiske område i sig har elementer, der danner grundlag for at skabe eller genskabe et nyt system for menneskeheden. Og hvad resultatet vil blive, de karakteristika, der er indbygget i denne ting, denne karakteristik er rumprogrammet.

Hvad mener vi med rumprogrammet? Jamen, det er ikke rumprogrammet sådan, som tåben tænker på rumprogrammet, men det er derimod rumprogrammet som en refleksion af, at menneskeheden er ved at opnå forstand på den virkelighed, at menneskeheden på Jorden ikke er den magt, der hersker over Jorden; men snarere, at der findes en magt ud over dette, der kontrollerer realiseringen af rummet, og det betyder, at mennesket er et væsen, der lever i rummet. Og det er i dette område, dette domæne, og dette domænes aktiviteter og udvikling, at menneskehedens fremtid ligger.

Det vigtige her er lige at tage et lille, kort trip og tænke over det. Hvad betyder dette? Og det her med Månen lige nu, det nye Måneprojekt, er sandsynligvis nøglen til at bringe denne idé til ikke alene det, der foregår i Kina netop nu, men hvad det betyder for hele den menneskelige art. Men vi har kurs mod en ændring af, hvad der har været karakteristisk for vores art, fra det, der har været traditionelt og til det, der nu vil vokse frem, fra denne nye forandring.

Ideen er derfor, hvis man vil gøre noget godt, så se på dette. Spørg ikke, hvad en eller anden siger, ’jamen, jeg tror, det er dette; jeg tror, det er hint ’. Det duer ikke! Problemet er, at menneskeheden har været en fiasko, men hvorfor har menneskeheden været en fiasko? Ikke på grund af menneskehedens iboende natur, men på grund af dens fordærvelse.«

I andre diskussioner i løbet af de seneste dage har LaRouche påpeget sine kontroversielle studier af Shakespeare i 2014, som der netop henvistes til, hvor han fastslog den pointe, blandt andre, at den stort set universelle opfattelse af menneskets historie er et falsum. At historien i realiteten består af disse former for dristige, hidtil ukendte opdagelser, som vi netop har diskuteret ovenfor. Disse opdagelser udgør menneskets natur. Se på den fremragende og radikale opfindelse af fysisk rum-tid, der går i en bue fra Kepler til Leibniz, via Gauss og dernæst til Planck og Einstein.

LaRouches webcast fra 8. februar indeholdt flere forskellige, konvergerende tankerækker, der alle lå på linje med det presserende behov for handling. Her følger konklusionen på en af disse tankerækker:

»Så spørgsmålet om kreativitet betyder, at hele systemet med Solsystemet og videre endnu grundlæggende set beherskes af disse begivenheder, de samme begivenheder, som er de begivenheder, der karakteriseres af systemet som helhed. Det er der! Spørgsmålet er, hvad ønsker man? Man ønsker at skabe mennesker, der er kreative, skabende. Man ønsker at kunne skabe spædbørn, der selv er skabende på en original måde. Man ser dette: Einstein var f.eks. et godt eksempel på dette. Hvis man tager det, vi ved om hans historie, at menneskelig kreativitet er en enestående ting; det er det, der i realiteten bør dominere og kontrollere menneskehedens historie.«   

Titelbillede: Prometheus bringer ilden til menneskene, oliemaleri af Heinrich von Füger, 1817. 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 4. februar 2016 – Vi står ved et unikt vendepunkt uden fortilfælde i historien; historien er gået ind i en ny fase, ikke i løbet af de seneste årtier eller de seneste par år, men i realiteten i løbet af de seneste dage. Endnu ved ingen, hvad det vil bringe, hverken til det bedre eller til det værre; vi må se til, at det bliver meget bedre.

Selv de personer, der skaber spillene, ved ikke, hvad spillene vil blive, sagde Lyndon LaRouche i dag med henvisning til den beslutning, man har truffet, om at gå i krig med Rusland og Kina.

Som LaRouche tidligere udtrykte det, den 1. februar:

»Vi er på vej ind i et forandringens område, som vi ikke har noget fortilfælde for. Vi må derfor overveje spørgsmålet om at undersøge, mht. vore egne meninger, at undersøge disse spørgsmål, der må udforskes for denne tid. For, det vil ikke blive det samme gamle, det samme gamle; det vil blive meget anderledes. Det vil uundgåeligt blive nyt.«

Det eneste, vi virkelig kan forlade os på som retningslinje for vore handlinger i disse enestående skæbnedage, er de dybest kendte og mest fundamentale sandheder. De er ikke det, som det meste af den vrang-uddannede verden siger, de er – det, der på den mest intime måde kendes af hver eneste af os, er menneskets fundamentale natur. Ikke det »praktiske menneske«, men mennesket, som vi kun møder det, når det rejser ud i rummet.

Eller, når mennesket faktisk fungerer på en kompetent måde.

Lyndon LaRouche, 1, februar:

»Vi stræbte efter at forstå, hvad der er ved mennesket; hvad menneskeheden er; hvorfor eksisterer menneskeheden? Hvad betyder menneskehedens eksistens? Og vi opdager, at man må ud på galaktiske vande og sådanne steder for at opdage og erfare, hvad det betyder. Mennesket har for længst forstået, at mennesket er en unik skabning, en unik skabelse; processen er gået ud på at forsøge at udvide vores indsigt i, hvad dette vil sige. Og præcis dér må vi begynde med disse spørgsmål, under de nuværende betingelser. Hvis man ikke gør det, kommer man ikke til pointen; man vil gøre fejltagelser i forklaringerne og så videre, og de er forkerte. Pointen er, at mennesket er en skabende kraft i universet; men menneskeheden må lære, hvordan det skal opføre sig, for at kunne virkeliggøre rollen som en kraft i universet.«

Dette er ikke menneskeskabte, men universelle principper – de principper, vi får tilgang til gennem rumprogrammet.

»Udviklingen af rumprogrammet var udviklingen af menneskets evne til at forme planetsystemets skæbne. Med menneskehedens intelligens, dens intelligente rolle i håndteringen af mulighederne og udfordringerne, som det ydre rum repræsenterer; alle de galaktiske principper, som er vendepunkter, og sådanne ting. Alle disse ting er ikke menneskeskabte; de er ikke menneskets skabelser. De involverer potentialet for menneskelig skabelse; men de gengiver faktisk principper, der skaber og forbedrer universet. Det er derfor udviklingen af intellektets skabekraft af denne art, der definerer menneskehedens virkelige betydning som sådan. Uden det er der intet; der er ikke noget, der er os givet automatisk; som noget, der er kastet ned på gaden. Disse ting, der er skabende, blev skabt af personers, enkeltindividers intellekt; og disse individer skabte adgangen til at forstå, hvordan universet fungerer. Så genialiteten ligger i universet; ikke i enkeltindividet. Det ligger i den rolle, som enkeltindividet spiller i arbejdet med at opbygge universet.«

John F. Kennedy sagde engang:

»I sin søgen efter viden og fremskridt er mennesket determineret og kan ikke afskrækkes. Udforskningen af rummet vil skride frem, hvad enten vi deltager i det eller ej, og det er en af de allerstørste eventyr nogensinde, og ingen nation, der har forventninger om at blive leder for andre nationer, kan forvente at falde bagud i kapløbet om rummet.«

Den kendsgerning, at det transatlantiske område, der domineres af Det britiske Imperium, nu ikke er andet end en bunke rustent jern, opsummeres i det faktum, at det er ingen anden end Barack Obama, der annullerede USA’s rumprogram, kort tid efter sin tiltrædelse i embedet. I mellemtiden er Kina gået frem med sit rumprogram og inspirerer netop nu sine 1,4 mia. mennesker med udsigten til i fremtiden at foretage den første landsætning af en månerobot på Månens bagside – af hvilken mennesket hidtil kun har nogle få, stjålne glimt – i hele menneskehedens historie. Amerikanere vil nu ikke lykkes med noget som helst, med mindre de følger inspirationen fra Rusland og Kina – uanset, hvad folk måtte sige om dette.

»For det første, så er spørgsmålet her, at vi har en kontrast mellem på den ene side Putin, der er en ledende personlighed i verden som helhed, samt det, der er sket for så vidt angår Kina. Hvis man ser på et kort over verdenssamfundet, vil man sige, at det samfund, vi mest taler om, det transatlantiske samfund, befinder sig i en tilstand af kollaps. Det er en fiasko. Det har været en fiasko. Og det fortsætter i nutiden med at være en fiasko. Og vi forsøger at sparke det tilbage til en form for faktisk eksistens. Men kendsgerningen er den, at vi må forlade os på Ruslands og Kinas ledende rolle. Rusland og Kina er en anden del af hele planeten, end de andre dele, generelt. Indien er en del af denne interessegruppe.

Men det transatlantiske samfund er virkelig nedbrudt. Det har ingen iboende overlevelses-duelighed. Det kan kun vinde, eller genvinde, overlevelse ved at følge Putins og Kinas lederskab. Og det, der er sammen med dem; Indien er ved hurtigt at komme frem med deres arbejde, og der foregår andet arbejde i Asien.

Planetens transatlantiske område er derfor et falsum. Det er en fiasko. Det må fuldstændig genopbygges. Det eneste sted, hvor vi kan hente denne genopbygning, er sammen med Kina og Rusland. Uden disse nationer har vi ingen fremtid. Det, vi har, er i realiteten noget, der allerede er dødt. Det hedder Det britiske Imperium. Og Det britiske Imperium er dødt. Det er desværre endnu ikke begravet. Og det vandrer stadig rundt og stiller krav.

Jeg mener, er det netop er temaet i vores aktuelle situation. Vi har to ledende elementer, der er tætte allierede, nemlig Rusland og Kina. Derudover har vi Europa, som er en katastrofe; og en stor del af USA er en absolut katastrofe.

Vores job er derfor i realiteten at samle en myndighed lig den, Kina og Rusland, og deres allierede, repræsenterer. Og vi må ligesom smide det skidt ud, der til overflod findes i salene i vores Kongres. Jeg mener, at Wall Street er en sot, men denne sot har overtaget USA’s regering.«

Problemet er, at det, som det transatlantiske samfund foretager sig, er, at de er ved at begå selvmord! De siger, »Ved at begå masseselvmord, og ved i øvrigt at forsøge at slå så mange mennesker som muligt ihjel – så vil vi opnå en stor sejr!« Det her er det rene vanvid. Man må kalde det ved dets rette navn; vanvid. Folk siger, »Jamen, det er da ikke vanvid – det er med fuldt overlæg! Derfor er det ikke vanvid!«

Og Månens bagside begynder at komme inden for synsvidde.

Vi har ingen andre muligheder: vi må acceptere de midler, som kunne udgøre muligheden – og det er menneskehedens eneste håb.

Supplerende materiale:

Tyskland: Teltschik og Seehofer insisterer på, at dialog med Rusland er uundværlig

I et interview med Ruslands Sputnik Tyskland sagde Horst Teltschik, tidligere chef for kanslerkontoret i Tyskland:

»Europæerne og amerikanerne har alt for længe afvist at tale med præsident Putin om Syrien.«

Der er afvigende synspunkter, sagde Teltschik, men der burde have været en diskussion med Putin om, hvordan en reglementeret fred kunne være mulig. »De umiddelbare konsekvenser i Europa er disse utallige flygtninge. Det vil sige, at vi har maksimal interesse i at få denne konflikt afsluttet, så folk ikke flygter. I det stykke spiller Rusland en hovedrolle.« Teltschik sagde, at det store flertal af tyskere ønsker en dialog med Rusland, inklusive et økonomisk samarbejde, og mener, at EU/NATO-sanktionerne har gjort skade på begge sider.

Premierministeren i delstaten Bayern Horst Seehofer sagde ved en pressekonference efter et møde med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin i går aftes, at

»vi har brug for nogle ideer til at komme ud af sanktionerne, enten i et enkelt skridt eller over flere trin«.

Rusland må også tænke på mulige veje, for eksempel ved at gøre sit »hjemmearbejde« mht. det ukrainske spørgsmål, tilføjede Seehofer. Putin sagde, at de 1.600 selskaber, der har bayersk deltagelse i Rusland, er aktive

»inden for praktisk talt alle sektorer – inden for elektronik, ingeniørvirksomhed, byggeindustri og mere endnu. Halvtreds procent af Tysklands investeringsprojekter i Rusland stammer fra Bayern. De er derfor en særlig gæst her, og vi er meget glade for at se Dem.«

Seehofer svarede:

»Det vigtigste for os er at uddybe vore relationer, først og fremmest selvfølgelig, vore økonomiske relationer, men det er ikke vores eneste mål. Jeg mener, at vi må gøre det samme inden for kultur og videnskab. Disse ting vil vi også diskutere. I nutidens globaliserede verden er vi i Bayern, med vores befolkning på 13 millioner, selvfølgelig meget bevidste om, hvad der foregår hver dag i vores verden, hvad enten det er Syrien eller Ukraine, flygtninge eller kriminalitet. Og vi mener, at, kun ved, at vi handler i fællesskab, og ikke i konflikt med hinanden, kan vi løse disse problemer. I dette vores ønske søger vi ikke at handle i modstrid med vores forbundsregering, men sammen med den, og vi handler ikke imod Rusland, men håber at samarbejde med Rusland.«

Her til aften mødtes Seehofer også med de russiske regeringsministre for industri og økonomisk politik, delvis som en forberedelse til endnu et besøg til efteråret sammen med en magtfuld delegation af tyske industri- og bankfolk.    

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 31. januar 2016 – Lyndon LaRouche kom søndag aften med en skarp advarsel om, at »verden står på randen af generel atomkrig, og det kommer først og fremmest fra Storbritannien og Obama. Obama er, og har altid været, agent for det britiske imperiesystem, og de satser nu på at lancere generel atomkrig. De står nu på den yderste rand for at skubbe det ud over kanten, lige nu, især i Europa.«

LaRouche sagde, at han har fulgt udviklingen på den internationale scene tæt, og det er i løbet af de seneste uger blevet åbenbart, at det døende, britiske imperiesystem gør fremstød for krig, nu, udvirket af deres agent Obama som et opgør mellem USA og NATO, imod Rusland og Kina. Vi har nået et sammenbrudspunkt i historien, hvor der omgående må gribes ind med handling for at forhindre dette mareridt i at udspille sig.

»Det er det budskab, der bør præsenteres for alle, der ikke er dumme«, sagde LaRouche. »Og vi bør handle for at standse og forhindre, at en sådan krig lanceres. Med mindre de afskrækkes fra at gennemføre det, som de nu åbenlyst signalerer, at de vil gøre hurtigt, har vi kurs mod atomkrig og massedød over hele planeten. Pointen er: Kan vi forhindre dette her, der allerede er sat i værk? Kan vi forhindre, at det gennemføres? Det er det eneste spørgsmål af betydning i øjeblikket.«

I dag introducerede LaRouche-bevægelsen (i USA) et betydningsfuldt skift i den strategiske situation med Kesha Rogers, medlem af LaRouche Komite for Politisk Strategi (LPAC) og tidligere to gange demokratisk kandidat til Kongressen for delstaten Texas, der kaldte til politisk kamp med en genoplivning af NASA fra det helvede, som Obamas politik har dømt det til, for at få USA tilbage i rummet og gå ind i et win-win-samarbejde med Rusland og Kina, i særdeleshed om Kinas plan om at landsætte en mission på Månens bagside i 2020.

Se: LPAC-medlem og to gange demokratisk nomineret til Texas-22, Kesha Rogers, uden for Johnson Space Center i Houston, Texas. 

Denne kampagne kan også spille en afgørende rolle i at genindføre fornuften i institutionen Det amerikanske Præsidentskab, der i øjeblikket befinder sig i hænderne på en afsindig morder, der synes at mene, at han kan få Rusland og Kina til at bøje sig under trusler om en atomar konfrontation, eller med en decideret atomkrig.

Dette skifte kan ikke vente til november 2016. Obama må fjernes fra magten nu. Dette kan gøres, og en fungerende præsidentiel institution genoplives, ved at afsløre det, der nu er et manipuleret demokratisk væddeløb til præsidentvalget. Sænk Hillary Clintons og Bernie Sanders’ pro-Obama-kandidaturer, og lancer en levedygtig politisk diskussion omkring Martin O’Malleys kampagne – den eneste kandidat, der offentligt har udtalt sig seriøst om at vende tilbage til Glass-Steagall-standarden for bankopdeling for at stoppe Wall Streets dødbringende politik, og som på anden vis har demonstreret egenskaber, der kvalificerer ham til præsidentskabet.[1]

På samme tid er det nødvendigt omgående at lukke Wall Street og hele det spekulative, transatlantiske finanssystem ned, eftersom det er dette systems bankerot, der står bag fremstødet for krig. Hele det transatlantiske system var et hårs bredde fra at kollapse i sidste uge med bankkrisen i Italien, og det kunne eksplodere, hvad øjeblik, det skal være – og stort set hvor som helst. Dette system må begraves, så USA kan vende tilbage til den politik for økonomisk vækst, vi havde under Franklin Roosevelt, og som også reflekteredes af Kennedys rumprogram.

»Rumprogrammet er hemmeligheden bag den mekanisme, gennem hvilken vi kan bringe USA, og andre dele af verden, ind i et økonomisk genrejsningsforløb«, udtalte Lyndon LaRouche den 30. jan. Når denne politik først træder i kraft, »vi vil se begyndelsen til en virkelig revolution i rummet. Så lad os komme i gang!«  

[1] Se: Fredags-webcast fra LPAC, 29. jan., dansk oversættelse, uddrag, om LaRouche-bevægelsens støtte til O’Malley-kampagnen og Glass-Steagall, o.a.: