15. januar, 2016 – Følgende er et uddrag af ’Samtale med Lyndon LaRouche’, om nedgangen i befolkningstallet i staten West Virginia, USA:

Deltager: Hej, det er T– fra Virginia. Lyn, jeg ville gerne fortsætte derfra, hvor vi slap i forhold til Wall Street, og få din respons på og dele min egen personlige udlægning og efterforskning om den virkelige trussel, som Wall Street udgør. Jeg mener nemlig, at folks slaphed, når det kommer til afsættelsen af Obama eller afskaffelsen af Wall Street, bunder i et manglende førstehåndskendskab til, hvor mange dødsofre disse to kræftsvulster har krævet.

Når folk, som jeg plejede at bruge tid sammen med, eller den gennemsnitlige person hører om investeringsfondene, der går ned, eller om aktierne, der falder i værdi, eller hvor slemt, det generelt set står til med økonomien, så giver det ganske enkelt ikke genklang i dem som værende noget, der både kan og vil koste menneskeliv og også allerede har gjort det, for de tænker kun på penge, som du siger. Og derfor tror de, at de bare kan komme over det.

Faktisk vil jeg gerne begynde med at tage tråden op fra en artikel, som blev offentliggjort på LaRouchePAC-hjemmesiden for en uges tid siden. Den handlede om, hvordan USA’s befolkningstal er for nedadgående, og West Virginia blev nævnt som eksempel. Og for nyligt udgav EIR også en artikel om kulminerne, der går konkurs i West Virginia.

Først og fremmest mener jeg ikke, at de tal, der fremlægges, gengiver de faktiske, morderiske forhold, som befolkningen må lide. Jeg kommer selv fra West Virginia med de mange kulminer, og min familie kommer derfra og var selv minearbejdere. Min bedstefader arbejdede faktisk – som repræsentant for sin fagforening i West Virginia – sammen med John L. Lewis.

Så for et par måneder siden tog jeg derhen og besøgte min broder, og vi tog en køretur til McDowell kommune, hvor vi voksede op. Og da vi nærmede os, sagde min boder passende: »Velkommen til Uganda.« For beboerne dér lever under gruopvækkende betingelser, værre end de fleste amerikanere er klar over. Lad mig forklare. Skolerne er lukket ned, men ikke der, hvor der var mange skoler, hvoraf nogle så er lukket, men der, hvor de fleste af skolerne er lukket. Forældrene er faktisk afhængige af skolerne for at give deres børn mad, for de kan ikke engang give dem noget at spise derhjemme. Der er ét hospital med begrænset kapacitet, og den sygeforsikring, som tidligere blev leveret af fagforeninger og arbejdspladser, er væk, folk har ingenting.

Det gør mig meget vred: Folk lever stadig i de arbejdsskure, som mineselskaberne opstillede, da minerne blev åbnet; uden rindende vand, uden ordentlige sanitære forhold, i dag, i 2016! Vi så rent faktisk folk stå i kø med tomme flasker på steder, hvor man henter vand fra det, der løber ned ad bjergsiderne, så de kan få rent vand.

Huse med udendørs lokum er ikke bare et levn fra fortiden, men bruges faktisk her. Og man besøger disse lokalsamfund og ser, at folk ikke har tag over hovedet, de bor bogstavelig talt under presenninger. Og i denne kommune, hvor min familie plejede at bo, var befolkningen tidligere på 100.000, og nu ligger den på omkring 20.000, og over halvdelen af befolkningen lever i nedværdigende fattigdom, de lever faktisk i helvede.

Jeg tog derhen og så det med mine egne øjne. Jeg havde ikke været der i lang tid, men det er virkeligheden i Obamas USA, som vi finder os i; at vi lever under betingelser, som Franklin Roosevelt fordømte i 1936, og intet bliver gjort for at ændre det.

McDowell kommune har også landets højeste afhængighed af heroin og stoffer, og hvad var Obamas respons, da han tog til et borgermøde i Charleston, South Carolina, og tilbød flere behandlingssteder for narkomisbrug, så han bedre kan administrere folks død? I det mindste blev han fordømt af befolkningen og tvunget til at lukke mødet for offentligheden. Og ud over narkomisbruget, så må mange af disse mennesker flygte, så de går ind i militæret for at udkæmpe Bush’ og Obamas krige. Og det eneste, de har at komme tilbage til, er dette helvede, hvor krigsveteranerne begår selvmord i alarmerende mængder. Jeg har faktisk undersøgt det: Der har været 22 selvmord hver eneste dag i USA siden 2003.

Så jeg ville bare gerne gøre det klart for enhver på dette opkald: Vi behøver ikke at kigge på Italien for at finde helvede. Jeg talte med en dame, som stadig lever der, i dette helvede, og hun sagde til mig, at West Virginia er kendt som den tilbagestående del af USA, men vi er faktisk fremtiden.

Så med alt dette sagt, Lyn, tror jeg, at det er nødvendigt, at vi tværer det ud i fjæset på de amerikanere, der lader som om, at de på en eller anden måde vil overleve det, der sker, uden at forandre tingene og skille sig af med Obama og hans britiske dukkeførere. Og til alle jer andre: begå ikke den fejl at tro, at nogen vil hjælpe disse mennesker, hjælpe os, medmindre vi gør noget. Tak.

Lyndon LaRouche: Okay, godt. Altså, lad os gå til problemet på praktisk vis, for du har bragt en del ting på banen, som alle er sande. Men vi behøver ikke at have nogen af de problemer! Det gør vi ikke! Hvis vi skifter regeringen nu, og hvis vi går tilbage i retning af det, vi ved virker, som har virket i min livstid. Jeg blev født i 1922, og jeg har et ret godt kendskab til, hvad historien er. Jeg var der ikke i 1922, for jeg var kun lige blevet født, men jeg har et godt kendskab til, hvad det her handler om.

Det, der skete, var – vi må starte med Bertrand Russell, hvis karriere startede i begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede. Og han var det ondeste menneske, der hidtil var blevet født.

Og problemet her er, at vi stadig – i USA og andetsteds, USA’s befolkning i det hele taget, befolkningen i Sydamerika, i Centralamerika, i Europa i dag, det meste af Europa – det går f.eks. bedre for Putin, end det gør for resten af Europa – Kina er i en fremragende forfatning, sammenlignet med USA i dag – men hvis vi nu beslutter os for at smide det ud, som Bertrand Russell repræsenterer, og det er virkelig ondskabsfulde sager; hvis vi siger, at det vil vi forandre, så har vi et problem. Vi har studerende og skoleelever i alle aldre, som i det store og hele er ret dumme. Det vil sige, at de fleste studerende i dag, specielt i USA, og som er under uddannelse, eller som bliver forfremmet osv. på basis af at være uddannet, er ret dumme, de er næsten håbløst dumme.

Specielt i Californien. Californien er den delstat, hvor de har en guvernør, der er yderst problematisk, og han smadrer Californien. Vi skal af med ham! For Californien kan stadig nå at ændre kurs. Vi har en gruppe mennesker i Californien, som jeg har arbejdet tæt sammen med, som er meget effektive, men desværre har Californien en guvernør i øjeblikket, som virkelig er en satanisk faktor. Hvis man fjerner ham fra hans stilling som en satanisk faktor, bliver tingene straks bedre. Hvis man begynder at samarbejde med andre nationer, der prøver at gøre det samme, som f.eks. Kina, vil man se et pludseligt skifte væk fra det forfald, som har ramt USA særlig hårdt siden begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede.

Det skal ændres. Husk, hvad der skete. Husk rumprogrammet før Obama lukkede det ned, alle disse gode ting, som vi plejede at gøre, kan bringes tilbage. Men vi må være fast besluttet på, at de kommer tilbage. For vi kan ikke tillade det, der sker med minearbejderne i West Virginia osv., det må man ikke acceptere. Det bliver vi nødt til at ændre på.

Så hvorfor ikke bare ændre det? Hvordan gør vi det? Jeg er i hvert fald villig til at gøre mit for at få det til at lykkes. Kom af med skvadderhovederne. Kom af med dumheden, kom af med det forfald, som har ramt det meste af USA’s befolkning. Det største problem i USA er befolkningens galoperende forfald. Det skal vi ændre. Vi kan ændre det. Vi bliver nødt til at beslutte os for at ændre det. Og det er den opgave, vi må påtage os.

Man vil opdage, at Kina gerne vil samarbejde med os på det punkt. Rusland vil samarbejde. Visse andre nationer vil gerne samarbejde. Men der er to ting, vi skal af med: Først og fremmest skal vi afskaffe det britiske system. Bare fjern det fuldstændigt. Og fjern derefter råddenskaben i USA.

Og så vil man finde, at det var, hvad der skete under Franklin Roosevelts regeringstid, hvor han udførte geniale arbejder i sin embedsperiode som præsident. Alle de fantastiske ting, der blev bygget i den periode, viser os, at vi bare skal af med fjolserne og give de mennesker en chance, der har brug for hjælp og vil tage imod den. Og så kan vi genopbygge USA’s økonomi.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 18. januar 2016 – Det britiske Imperiums økonomiske system er mere end dødt, og det eneste, der er værd at diskutere, er at annullere det hele, fjerne det totalt og skabe nye muligheder, udtalte Lyndon LaRouche i går, den 17. januar.

Det giver ingen mening at forsøge at afgøre mængden af kadaveret, eller mængden af spekulative værdipapirer, der allerede er ved at gå op i røg. Man kan ikke måle det, for det er allerede mere end dødt. Der er ingen, der ved – bortset fra, at kollapset er i gang, at det skrider frem i accelererende tempo, og at der ikke findes nogen løsning inden for systemet selv. Når man befinder sig på randen af samfundsmæssigt kaos og samfundsmæssig disintegration, så er det eneste, der er værd at tage i betragtning, ikke de dumme, bedrageriske, løgnagtige kommentarer og handlinger, der kommer fra bankierer og Obamaregeringen; det eneste, man behøver at vide, bemærkede LaRouche, er, at man virkelig ikke ønsker at gifte sig med et kadaver!

Det transatlantiske system er uendeligt, håbløst bankerot, og hele molevitten må ganske enkelt annulleres omgående. Det eneste spørgsmål er, vil det blive begravet og et nyt system skabt, præcis, som Franklin D. Roosevelt gjorde det?

Vi må skabe sunde, fornuftige muligheder ved at eliminere alt, som Wall Street repræsenterer. Der er ingen som helst garanti for nogen som helst værdi i hele deres system, så hvorfor forsøge at måle det? Vi må simpelt hen annullere det og komme tilbage til atter at hævde et nyt system, som FDR gjorde.

Vores fjende, som vi klart må holde os for øje, er Det britiske Imperium, der blandt andre forbrydelser er skyldig i at placere sit værktøj, Barack Obama, i USA’s præsidentskab. Som LaRouche udtalte under diskussioner med medarbejdere i går:

»Der er kun ét spørgsmål: Det britiske Imperium, punktum. Det er det eneste emne. Hvad gør vi med Det britiske Imperium?«

Alt andet er blot snak og afledning, sagde LaRouche. Det britiske Imperium dominerer planeten, inklusive Wall Street, og inklusive den fascistiske, ’grønne’ politik, der nu er blevet taget op og promoveret af Pave Frans. »Hvad er den ’grønne’ politik? Det er helt og fuldt Det britiske Imperium. Det er ikke andet end det britiske system. Så lad være med at lede efter forklaringer, som sådan. Vi må sænke Det britiske Imperium!«

»Vi står nu over for den kendsgerning, at, i morgen er i dag. Vi konfronteres med nuets intense uopsættelighed. I denne livets og historiens gåde, som udfolder sig, findes der noget, der hedder at komme for sent. Sendrægtighed er stadig tidens tyv. Livet lader os ofte stå bare, nøgne og modløse over en tabt mulighed. De menneskelige anliggenders tidevand bliver ikke ved med at være flod; der kommer også ebbe. Vel kan vi råbe desperat, at tiden skal holde pause i sin passage, men tiden er døv for hver en bøn og haster videre. Hen over de blegnede knogler og virvaret af rester af utallige civilisationer står de ynkelige ord, ’For sent’. Der er en usynlig livets bog, der skæbnesvangert optegner vor årvågenhed eller vor forsømmelse. Fingeren i bevægelse skriver, og går derefter videre.«

(Dr. Martin Luther King, 1967)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Hvorfor tolererer man i Europas tilfælde fortsat eksistensen af en Eurozone, der idémæssigt var bankerot fra første dag, den blev skabt? Hvorfor tolererer man fortsat en Europæisk Kommission i Bruxelles, og en Europæisk Union, der er en rent destruktiv, bogstavelig talt satanisk institution? Hvorfor tolererer man, og går på kattepoter rundt om, den kendsgerning, at Paven, i sin encyklika om global opvarmning, accepterede en britisk politik for folkemord?

Download (PDF, Unknown)

I takt med, at vi nærmer os dommedag den 1. januar, står menneskeheden over for muligheden for sin egen udslettelse, hvis ikke gennem atomkrig, fremkaldt af præsident Obamas galskab, med hans trusler om krig med Rusland og Kina, så gennem økonomisk disintegration forårsaget af fejheden i Kongressen, der ikke lukker Wall Street ned gennem en Glass/Steagall-lovgivning, efter Franklin Roosevelts model.

Roden til problemet, insisterede Lyndon LaRouche under en diskussion med sine medarbejdere den 28. dec., skal findes i den kendsgerning, at menneskeheden har glemt naturlig lov – ja, i realiteten regeres de transatlantiske nationer i stigende grad af satanisk lov, der skaber såkaldt legal retfærdiggørelse af massemord, ulovlige krige, negativ økonomisk vækst og af tyveri af penge, sundhedssystemer og endda mad fra befolkningen, for i stedet at opretholde de bankerotte New York- og London-banker.

»Der er tale om et spørgsmål af en højere orden her, et spørgsmål, som jeg lejlighedsvis har rejst, men som ikke ofte rejses«, sagde LaRouche. »Problemet er, at mennesket rent faktisk ikke skaber loven! Det vil sige, at menneskeheden rent faktisk ikke, gennem sin egen myndighed som sådan, gennem individuelle medlemmer af samfundet, skaber loven. For loven er princippet om menneskeslægtens fremskridt, og hvis menneskeslægten ikke gør fremskridt i sin udvikling og opfyldelse, så er loven blevet krænket! Og det er der, problemet ligger.

Se på de forfærdelige ting, der er sket under diverse renæssancer, der er blevet knust; se på disse massemord. Vi taler nu om et massemordsproblem. Vi taler om den amerikanske regerings politik netop nu, i det mindste under den aktuelle præsident og den forudgående præsident: Massemord!

Pointen er, at mennesket adlyder en højere lov, for mennesket er ikke en Jordbo! Mennesket er baseret på et princip, som ikke er Jordboernes princip. Det er menneskehedens forpligtelse at udvikle fremtidige befolkninger, der er mere passende. Antagelsen er den, at hver generation bør gå progressivt fremad i overensstemmelse med naturlig lov, og denne naturlige lov vil sige forbedringen, selv-forbedringen, af den menneskelige art. Kun mennesket har evnen til at gøre dette … Det er loven, den virkelige lov. Tekniske love, juridiske love, love for transportveje på privat jord, det er ikke loven. Loven er, at menneskeheden ifølge sin natur må gøre fremskridt. Folk dør, det ved vi. Hvad er loven? Ja, sørgede de for at frembringe bedre mennesker i deres familie? Var deres familier i stand til at gøre fremskridt og hæve sig op til et højere præstationsniveau for menneskeheden? Er vi f.eks. ikke ansvarlige for at tage os af (take care of) Galaksen? Det er vores ansvar!«

Stedt over for den største trussel mod civilisationen i moderne historie, må vore borgere og alle verdens borgere stræbe efter denne højere standard, ikke alene for vores egen skyld, men for menneskehedens fremtidige eksistens. De, der følger en lavere lov, den sataniske lov, må omgående fjernes fra lederskabspositioner, med præsident Obama som den første, der skal fjernes.

28. december 2015 – Lyndon og Helga LaRouche blev den 27. december interviewet af China Radio International i anledning af lanceringen af Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank, AIIB. Som svar på et spørgsmål om AIIB og beslutningen om at anvende dollaren til bankens første lån, sagde LaRouche, at dollaren befandt sig i en tilstand af hastigt sammenbrud pga. sammenbruddet i den amerikanske økonomi, alt imens Kina og renminbi (RMB) var på vej op. Med alle sine problemer går den kinesiske økonomi frem, sagde han, mens den amerikanske økonomi er ved at kollapse. Faren, bemærkede han, består i, at USA, under den britisk dominerede Obamaregering, måske vil forsøge at lancere en atomkrig for at forhindre disse positive udviklinger i at skride frem.

Helga LaRouche bemærkede, at den kurs, som USA tager i det kommende år, vil være af absolut afgørende betydning. »Præsident Xi Jinping har lige fra begyndelsen indbudt USA til at samarbejde om dette projekt, og det står fortsat åbent for alle«, sagde hun. USA kunne respondere på imperie-maner og forsøge at sabotere disse positive udviklinger og den nye orientering i økonomisk tankegang, som AIIB og den Nye Udviklingsbank repræsenterer, sagde hun. Eller USA kunne også tage det amerikanske folks virkelige interesser til sig og respondere positivt til denne nye, økonomiske orden ved at tilslutte sig AIIB og samarbejde med Kina og dets partnere om udviklingen af verdensøkonomien.

Den hastighed, hvormed finanskrakket nu accelererer, kræver handling nu – før jul. Med mindre Wall Street dumpes i de nærmest forestående dage, er der ingen garanti for, at USA stadig står til Nytår. Junk-obligationer og kommercielle investeringsobligationer til 15 billioner dollars er blevet indløst blot i løbet af den seneste uge. For det meste dækker selskaber deres tab ind i forventning om en endnu større nedsmeltning på et tidspunkt i den allernærmeste fremtid.

Dette er dødsens alvorligt. En ukontrolleret nedsmeltning af det transatlantiske finanssystem, som kunne ske om timer eller dage, ville skabe den form for massekaos, der er den klassiske, britiske opskrift for den værste form for fascistiske diktatur, som altid, uundgåeligt, fører til generel krig. Fra og med den 1. januar træder i Europa de regler for bail-in i kraft, som blev presset igennem af EU-kommissionen. Banker i Italien og Portugal har allerede plyndret indehavere af aktier og obligationer i fallerede banker, og næste skridt er den fulde Cypern-model for plyndring af kontohavernes penge. Pariser-avisen Le Parisien gav i dag sine læsere en forsmag på bail-in under overskriften, »Hvad hvis din bank gik nedenom og hjem?«

Nærmere ved USA står Puerto Rico til at gå i betalingsstandsning den 1. januar over et forfaldent afdrag på 1,4 mia. dollar på en total gæld på 72 mia. dollar, og den amerikanske Kongres valgte bevidst at ignorere denne krise ved at nægte at vedtage en lov, der godkendte en beskyttelse mod bankerot, som tilbydes alle amerikanske stater og kommuner. Formand for Repræsentanternes Hus Paul Ryan og Nancy Pelosi har meddelt, at de »lover« at komme frem til denne lov pr. 31. marts, men det er en syg vittighed, for krisen for Puerto Rico og hele det transatlantiske område venter ikke til marts måned. Den kommer nu.

Lyndon LaRouche advarede i dag om, at, med mindre der før jul foreligger en komplet plan for den totale fjernelse af Wall Street og en lancering af et program for økonomisk genrejsning, med Franklin Roosevelts politik som model, så står det amerikanske folk over for den umiddelbare udsigt til et totalt, samfundsmæssigt sammenbrud. En strategisk plan fra øverst til nederst, der følger de retningslinjer, som Lyndon LaRouche har fastlagt i løbet af de seneste dage, må omgående være på plads.

Kongressen har demonstreret sin fejhed, senest ved at vedtage en katastrofal lov om bevillinger, der trodser virkeligheden omkring det umiddelbart forestående krak. Kongressen må trodses og latterliggøres for sin inkompetence. Enten lukker man Obama og Wall Street ned nu, eller også er der ingen chance. Politikken må være den at sænke Wall Street og sænke dem, som Obama og flertallet af Kongressen, der har fulgt Wall Streets linje.

LaRouche understregede også, at den saudiske sygdom med promovering af wahhabi-terrorisme må udslettes. Obamaregeringen har systematisk mørklagt de bjerge af beviser for, at saudierne står bag væksten af al-Qaeda, Islamisk Stat, Taliban og Boko Haram. Saudierne har, sammen med deres britiske sponsorer, udløst et narko-terrorist-jihadistisk angreb imod hver eneste større nation på planeten, og topembedsfolk i Obamaregeringen, fra Susan Rice til CIA-direktør John Brennan og dir. for den nationale Efterretningstjeneste, general James Clapper, har præsideret over en ondsindet mørklægning af disse forbrydelser og har udsøgt og forfulgt enhver ærlig efterretningsembedsmand, der sagde sandheden og trodsede Obamas ondsindede fantasier. De er fuldt ud medskyldige i opkomsten af ISIS og angrebene i Paris og San Bernardino og bør retsforfølges efter USA’s kriminal-lovgivning og international lov.

Beviserne for disse forbrydelser er ved at gennembryde den mur, der skulle inddæmme dem. Tiden er nu inde til, at de 28 (hemmeligstemplede) sider fra den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september 2001, fra 2002, frigives fuldt ud til offentligheden. Disse sider vil, ifølge amerikanske regeringsfolk (eks. kongresmedlemmer i særlige komiteer), som har læst dem, bevise, at al-Qaeda var de britiske og saudiske monarkiers skabelse, og at dette var kendt af top-regeringsfolk i den amerikanske regering, inklusive præsidenterne George W. Bush og Barack Obama, som er fuldt ud medskyldige.

Politikken må være den, fuldstændigt at ødelægge fjenden. Slå til på deres mest sårbare, dødelige flanker, med begyndelse i den kendsgerning, at Wall Street er død, er allerede død. Vi befinder os på randen af en stor dårskab, og vores nations og menneskehedens overlevelse står på spil i de umiddelbart forestående timer og dage.

I denne nyhedsorientering har vi valgt at bringe en række uvurdelige, strategiske vurderinger vedrørende kampen imod Islamisk Stat, flygtningekrisen i Europa og det igangværende finanskollaps, som er fremkommet i løbet af december måned på de ugentlige webcast, der finder sted hver fredag aften amerikansk tid på www.larouchepac.com. LaRouchePAC er en amerikansk politisk aktionskomité, grundlagt og vedvarende inspireret af den amerikanske økonom og statsmand, Lyndon LaRouche. Jeffrey Steinberg (t.v.) er en ledende medarbejder til Lyndon LaRouche og er også efterretningsredaktør for tidsskriftet Executive Intelligence Review. Ben Deniston er leder af LaRouchePAC’s Videnskabsteam.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Under diskussioner med sine kolleger søndag aften opsummerede Lyndon LaRouche den globale, strategiske krise i præcise vendinger: Londons og Det britiske Imperiums magt må omgående elimineres, eller også vil hele det transatlantiske område, med start i USA, hastigt styrtdykke ud i et ukontrollerbart kaos. Forholdsregler til kontrol må indføres, og dette betyder, at Det britiske Imperiums magt, der kontrollerer Obama, må fjernes.

Problemet er, at ledende personer i regeringsinstitutionerne i Washington, med start i den amerikanske Kongres, der allerede burde være trådt i aktion imod Obama, ikke har handlet. Obama leder stadig sine tirsdagsmøder for (drone-)drab, på trods af den kendsgerning, at hans tilstand er under hastig degeneration, i accelererende tempo. Det britiske monarki er fortsat den institution, der regerer over det transatlantiske område.

LaRouche bemærkede, at Rusland er anderledes, og Kina er også anderledes. Det er nationer, der samarbejder, og ser hen til en udvidelse af deres samarbejde. Men der er alvorlige problemer, med at skaffe tilstrækkeligt med vand og mad til en begyndelse. Rusland og Kina er i dag de eneste, virkelige magter, der potentielt set handler imod Det britiske Imperiums stadigt eksisterende magt, og imod deres redskab, præsident Obama.

I realiteten, erklærede LaRouche, så har kræfterne bag 11. september (2001) magten over USA. Der har været et utilstrækkeligt angreb imod det anglo-saudiske apparat, der stod bag 11. september. Som følge heraf har de kræfter, der repræsenteres af Bush og Obama, fået fribillet til at handle. Hvis arven efter det britiske monarki og dets Bush- og Obama-operationer kan knuses, kan USA og store dele af den øvrige verden reddes.

LaRouche understregede, at centrum for kampen imod det britiske tyranni, der repræsenteres af Bush og Obama, skal findes på Manhattan og nærmeste omgivelser. Denne pointe blev tydelig i denne weekend gennem to koncerter, der blev afholdt af Schiller Instituttet, der præsenterede Händels Messias i Brooklyn og Manhattan. Alt i alt blev de to forestillinger besøgt af flere end 1.000 mennesker, med kun ståpladser til begge forestillinger. Den strøm af støtte til forestillingerne og til ideen om forbindelsen mellem klassisk kultur, videnskab og den politiske kamp for en genoplivning af Det amerikanske System, illustrerer den kendsgerning, at der i den amerikanske befolkning er en kerne, centreret omkring Manhattan og dele af det nordlige Californien især, der kan redde nationen. Disse områders førende borgeres særlige egenskaber kan spredes i hele landet, men kun med fokus på ånden og aktiveringen fra Manhattan.

Nedsmeltningen af hele systemet er i fuld gang. Det globale blodbad kan udelukkende standses af et gennembrud i USA, med start i fjernelsen af Wall Street og genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall. Dette må ske inden krakket finder sted, og det kunne ske, hvornår det skal være, fra nu af og fremefter. Dette er ikke et ’hype’ eller et slogan. Den 1. januar 2016 træder reglerne for bail-out i kraft i Europa. Samme dag vil Puerto Rico gå i betalingsstandsning med de første 1,4 mia. dollar i gæld til gribbefondene.

Enten får man Glass-Steagall vedtaget nu, eller også vil følgen blive kaos i hele det transatlantiske område, og under disse omstændigheder er det næsten sikkert, at kræfterne i Det britiske Imperium vil satse på krig med Rusland og Kina.

Wall Street og hele det transatlantiske finanssystem er nu dødsdømt og kunne forsvinde ud i den blå luft, hvornår det skal være, i løbet af de kommende dage eller uger, lød advarslen igen i dag fra Lyndon LaRouche. Faren er, at dette vil føre til en tilstand af panik og medfølgende massedød, som kun kan undgås ved at lukke Wall Street på samme måde, som USA’s præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt gjorde, erklærede LaRouche. Vi har presserende behov for en »mobilisering af de villige« blandt det amerikanske folk for at få nationen – og verden – tilbage på ret kurs.

Dette drejer sig ikke om at forhandle en eller anden form for reform eller indrømmelser. »Wall Street må lukkes ned, uden at give nogen kompensation«, sagde LaRouche. »Vi må lukke det ned, ligesom Franklin Roosevelt gjorde. Og hvis man ikke lukker dem ned, har man alligevel mistet det hele. Med andre ord, så kan man ikke forhandle med banksystemet; man må lære lektien af FDR!«

LaRouche var eftertrykkelig: »I har intet spillerum. Hver eneste stump finansiel aktivitet, som er derude, og som er af spekulativ art, må udslettes uden nogen kompensation. Man gør hver eneste af disse svindlere bankerot, i alle kategorier, og ribber dem for alt.«

Omfanget af den globale spekulationsboble overstiger nu 2 billiarder dollar, et konservativt skøn, og er vokset med over en tredjedel under Obamas vagt. Dette er et direkte resultat af Wall Streets kriminelle politik med bail-out (finansiel kvantitativ lempelse – ’pengetrykning’) og nu bail-in (ekspropriering af bankkundernes indeståender/indskud) – med ’nøjsomhedspolitik’, der har folkemord til følge, og budgetnedskæringer, der er designet til skarpt at forøge dødsraten, i kombination med decideret tyveri af folks opsparinger, som det skete på Cypern og for nylig i Italien. Wall Streets gæld har nået et punkt, hvor den ikke længere kan betales i dollar; nu kræver de, at den betales i lig.

Se på tilfældet med Italien, hvor en tvungen bail-in af kunderne i fire banker tidligere på måneden udslettede mange menneskers livsopsparing. Mindst en person vides at have begået selvmord som følge heraf, som det er sket med hundreder af erhvervsfolk og arbejdere, der blev ødelagt af den samme politik.

Eller se over grænsen, til vores nabo Canada, hvor nedsmeltningen af Wall Streets oliefracking-boble har decimeret hele lokalsamfund og er i færd med at slå folk ihjel. Selvmordsraten er i de seneste måneder eksploderet blandt afskedigede arbejdere i canadiske oliefelter i provinserne Alberta og Saskatchewan, med en stigning i selvmord på 30 % i de første seks måneder af 2015, sammenlignet med de første seks måneder af 2014.

Ønsker du, at dette skal ske for dig? Det vil det – med mindre man lukker Wall Street ned.

Erstat britisk monetarisme med Franklin Roosevelts kreditsystem

Lyndon LaRouche understregede, at det haster med omgående at gribe til handling. »Det her er ikke ’hen ad vejen’; det er nu. Vi må, så hurtigt som muligt, lukke hele det monetaristiske system ned, i USA i særdeleshed – inden Nytår, hvor det her vil bryde ud i fuldt flor.«

»Det, der er brug for, er mere end bare noget regulering«, fortsatte LaRouche. »Pointen er, at man må eliminere ideen om penge, om det monetaristiske system, som er karakteristisk for det britiske system. Vores løsning er ikke mod anvendelsen af penge, men imod monetarisme; så man må annullere monetarisme. Man kan ikke antage, at penge har en iboende værdi i sig selv; det er problemet.«

Det, som præsident Franklin Roosevelt gjorde, var absolut korrekt og tjener som en god indikator for den kurs, vi i dag må tage. Efter at lukke Wall Street ned, må man etablere en kreditfacilitet af samme type, som FDR skabte. »Man udsteder kredit, og denne kredit – hvis den bruges korrekt – afføder produktivitet«, erklærede LaRouche. »Kreditten er baseret på den generøse indsats på vegne af selve regeringen, på vegne af det amerikanske, statslige kreditsystem. Det, der skete under FDR’s politik, er, at folk rent faktisk blev dækket ind af det præsidentielle systems generøsitet. Man måtte imødekomme den kendsgerning, at man havde en gæld til den nationale regering, som en magt; og man måtte optjene vejen til at opbygge sin egen økonomi. Det var, hvad vi gjorde under Franklin Roosevelt.«

LaRouche konkluderede: »Vi står nu ved et punkt, i løbet af de kommende uger frem til Nytår, hvor vores eksistens kunne være dømt til undergang, med mindre vi gør dette, med mindre vi får dette gennemført. Det er virkeligheden. Det er der, vi står.

Vilkårene i USA er nu af en sådan art, at det nuværende system ikke kan fungere; det vil bryde sammen. Og vi må forhindre et sammenbrud. Hvordan forhindrer vi et sammenbrud? Vi gør det, som Franklin Roosevelt gjorde ved Wall Street. Der er ingen anden mulighed; det eksisterer ikke. Og det haster. Fra og med begyndelsen af det nye år, kunne I være døde, med mindre dette gøres.

Hvad betyder så dette? Det betyder, at man skal se at få sparket præsident Obama ud af embedet; hurtigt, omgående.«

LaRouches Fire Hovedlove

Lyndon LaRouche opstillede den 9. juni 2014 de Fire Hovedlove for en reel genrejsning af den fysiske økonomi:

* Genindfør Glass-Steagall med et total adskillelse af kommercielle banker og investeringsbankernes hasardspilsaktiviteter, hedgefonde og andre spekulanter. Dette vil omgående udslette gælden til Wall Street, som er ubetalelig og har været illegitim fra første færd – og vil samtidig udslette Wall Street/London-bankkartellernes magt.

* Lancer en massiv indsprøjtning af statskredit igennem dette nu genoprettede banksystem, ind i realøkonomien. Denne fremgangsmåde, i traditionen efter Alexander Hamilton, med et statsligt banksystem og statskredit, er også omdrejningspunktet for FDR’s politik.

* Fokuser på de områder for investering, der mest forøger energi-gennemstrømningstætheden[1] i økonomien som helhed, inklusive infrastruktur og videnskabelig og teknologisk forskning og udvikling. Dette betyder billioner af dollars i anlægsinvesteringer for at opbygge det 21. århundredes infrastrukturnetværk langs med Verdenslandbroens ruter.

* Forfølg den videnskabelige udforsknings fremskudte grænser, med afsæt i det 20. århundredes store, russiske videnskabsmand, V.I. Vernadskijs arbejde inden for biokemi og noosfæren. Dette må inkludere et internationalt, forceret program for at opnå fusionskraft til kommercielt brug, et afgørende træk i den næste fase af rumforskning, så vel som også for løsningen af kravene om vand- og energiforsyning i en verden, der konfronteres med en sammenbrudskrise af proportioner som i den Mørke Tidsalder.

Kontakt dit lokale LaRouchePAC kontor/Schiller Institut nu. Slut dig til »mobiliseringen af de villige«, for at lukke Wall Street ned.

[1] Se: Video: Energi-gennemstrømnings-tæthed, et kort overblik, dansk udskrift

Og det eneste, der er at gøre, er at gennemføre Franklin Roosevelts politik; man må sige: »Vedtag Franklin Roosevelts politik nu, imod Wall Street.« Det er den eneste måde, hvorpå problemet kan løses. I modsat fald står vi med noget, der vil accelerere, og der er intet, man kan gøre for at stoppe det. Det, man må gøre, er at fremstille den kendsgerning, at der ikke er nogen løsning, med mindre Wall Street omgående lukkes ned. Det er faktisk, hvad Franklin Roosevelt gjorde. Han lukkede Wall Street ned, hvilket gjorde en ende på den inflation, der var i gang på det tidspunkt, før valget. Og den eneste måde at gøre det på er ved at lukke det ned!

Med andre ord, så er det uden for diskussion, man må lukke det ned. Og man må ganske enkelt annullere alle såkaldte aktiver (’værdipapirer’), der ikke er skikket til denne rolle. Man siger simpelt hen: »I får ingen penge overhovedet. I får ingen som helst kompensation. I er ekskluderet; I eksisterer ikke mere.«

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Og det, vi i dag har med at gøre, pavens og den britiske kongefamilies grønne politik, deres økonomiske politik, vil resultere i, at størstedelen af menneskeheden uddør og efter kort tid vil det kun være en lille del, der er tilbage og kan overleve.

Så man må betragte disse sager fra en bredere vinkel frem for blot at begrænse sig til visse enkeltsager, som man ønsker at tage op som enkeltsager. Vi bliver nødt til at tage de store spørgsmål op. Og det er det, som folk er bange for. Jeg er ikke bange for de store spørgsmål. Når folk bliver intelligente, bliver de villige til at opgive enkeltsagerne og tage de store spørgsmål op, som er altafgørende for menneskehedens nutid og fremtid.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Lyndon LaRouche: Men pointen her er altid, at menneskeslægten ikke er en (automatisk) selvudviklende personlighed. Menneskehedens skæbne er forbedring af menneskets evner, i den betydning, at mennesket kan forudse menneskehedens evner til at opnå virkninger, som menneskeheden ellers ikke ville være i stand til at præstere. Dette er noget, der går op til et højere niveau end det, vi tænker på som givne kendsgerninger, eller givne former for kendsgerninger.

Alt, hvad der et vigtigt omkring menneskeheden, kan reduceres til kravet om, at menneskeheden må udvikles til et højere niveau af selvudvikling. Menneskeheden skaber ikke selvudvikling, men menneskeheden kilder potentialet for selvudvikling. Og det er, hvad vi kalder opdagelsen af kreativitet. Og det bedste eksempel på dette, det enkle tilfælde på dette, er Einstein. Einstein gjorde præcist, hvad der måtte gøres: At opdage, hvad fremtiden er, at opdage, hvad menneskehedens muligheder er, for at virkeliggøre intet mindre end noget bedre, som kan forstås i denne sammenhæng. Det er, hvad Brunelleschi gjorde. Det er sådan, det fungerer, og det er den eneste måde, det faktisk virker på tilfredsstillende måde.

Med andre ord, så kommer menneskeheden ikke og siger, »Jeg er et stort geni«. Kommer frem og siger, »Jeg er et stort geni«. Hvad betyder det? Ved hvilken standard opdager man, hvad dette såkaldte geni er? Man ser på Einstein, og man ser på hans største række af udviklinger, og man ser det samme. Man ser det samme tidligere, i Brunelleschis arbejde. Det er alt sammen det samme. Det er begrebet om menneskehedens udødelighed, at altid gå op til et højere niveau af kreativitet, ikke inden for den eksisterende opfattelse af menneskeheden, men i en opfattelse ud over, for mennesket, ud over menneskehedens tilegnede kundskaber, på det tidspunkt.

Det er fremtiden, skabelsen af fremtiden på et højere niveau. Dette kommer ikke fra mennesket selv. Det kommer fra menneskehedens skæbne som en agent for opdagelse, der når op på et højere niveau end menneskeheden nogen sinde før har nået.

——————-

Redaktionens bemærkning: Dagens leder fra LaRouche-bevægelsen er hele Lyndon LaRouches Manhattan-diskussion fra lørdag, den 12. december. Vi har desværre ikke kapacitet til at oversætte det hele til dansk, men anbefaler kraftigt, at man læser/hører hele diskussionen, der omhandler LaRouches pointering af unikke, videnskabelige opdagelser, viljemæssigt udført af enkelte individer, som det bærende element i de periodevise revolutioner, der fører den menneskelige kultur fremad til et højere niveau, og altså ikke er noget, der ’sker af sig selv’ som følge af en forud fastlagt ’evolution’. God fornøjelse! (-red.)

——————

Lyndon LaRouche Dialogue with the Manhattan Project, Saturday, December 12, 2015

HUMAN CREATIVE COMPOSITION: ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S MANHATTAN,

BRUNELLESCHI’S DANCING ROPE BRIDGE, AND VERDI’S TUNING IN MUSIC

DENNIS SPEED:  My name is Dennis Speed and on behalf of the
LaRouche Political Action Committee I’d like to welcome you to
today’s meeting.  I believe this is the 27th meeting, but I want
to say this:
Lyn, everybody today, has or has access at least, on the
table in the back, to an {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine
simply entitled “Brunelleschi.”  Now, our Manhattan Project is
over the next week going to go into a new phase, and the music
will be leading that.  And that musical process, which will reach
a certain level, particularly over next Friday, next Saturday,
and Sunday, has already been started here today, by what Diane
just did, especially her last reference to the question of the
Solar System being inside one’s head.
So Lyn, I’d like you to do something today which I’m
requesting, which is an opening statement which takes us past the
noise of the Barack Obama apologizers of this week, such as
Donald Trump and others; and puts us on a different plane so we
can consider this concept you’ve put forward about the unity of
the nation, and the need for people, good people, be they
Republican, Democrat, Independent, or other, to come together and
accomplish what you’ve outlined can be done, which is the
immediate removal of Barack Obama from office, and the immediate
defeat of Wall Street, but by use of these methods that you had
uniquely pioneered. And the Brunelleschi {EIR} just brought this
to my mind.  So I know I don’t usually do that, but I’d like to
ask you for an opening statement, and then we go to Q&A.

LYNDON LAROUCHE:  Yes, I think the important thing that is
for us to consider, is what was actually accomplished with
Nicholas of Cusa, but prior to Nicholas of Cusa, and what
preceded that.  And therefore, once you place your ideas of
judgment in that category, suddenly you find yourself in sort of
a happy state of mind, that you are sure that you’re on the right
ground, you realize that there’s creativity.  And you go through
the Brunelleschi series entirely.  And Brunelleschi is a very
complex question for people to deal with, who are particularly
{ingénues}, because they don’t understand it.
But in the time of Brunelleschi’s leadership, he was {really
a master} in this area.  And that was something on which the
foundation, of modern civilization, has depended, on the great
achievements of Brunelleschi.  And everything else followed from
that.
But that’s a whole story in itself.  It’s something, we’ve
just gone through a choral practice, and the idea of a choral
practice, which you’ve just been doing again, on this afternoon,
and what we do in society in general, are one and the same thing.
There has to be a harmonic agreement which is not simply singing
notes one after the other, but going with the idea that
everything you’ve done up to a certain point, requires that you
make an innovation to the next note; and then to make another
one, again, an innovation to the next note.  And that’s exactly
what Brunelleschi did. And the best illustration, is he composed
or constructed, a harmonic chorus, which was {totally beautiful
music, itself},  absolutely beautiful, in his composition, in
this small area, that he occupied for this subject-matter.  And
this thing set a standard for all wise people, to look up and see
something beautiful.

SPEED:  Thank you, Lyn.  He’s referring to the Pazzi Chapel,
I believe.
And I’d like to have us go to the first question, which is
here.

Q:  My name is J–W–.  And I love that we’re doing notes,
and starting on notes, because my gosh, we’ve got some crazy
notes going on in politics — like Trump and Hillary Clinton.  So
who, as a bipartisan coalition, would you see helpful to bringing
some harmony in our country?

LAROUCHE:  I think, the point is, why not go from, beginning
with Brunelleschi; And Brunelleschi was actually the founder of
modern science, in many ways.  He did everything, everything
imaginable.  The list of his accomplishments is immense.  But his
building of the Florence Cathedral, that particular construction,
which anyone can see these days, still, this was a magical
development, and it reflects his mind.
And what the small occasion that he struck there, in that
little temple kind of place the Pazzi Chapel, musical temple, is
one of the most beautiful little things ever produced, and it
sets the standards for all kinds of beautiful things, in poetry,
music, and so forth, in general.  And so he is one of the great
geniuses who brought the future of mankind into possibility.

Q: [follow-up]  In our bipartisan coalition that we would
like to see happen in this country, do you see any particular
individual that we could anchor in on, and get some better music
notation?

LAROUCHE:  Well, in terms of my own experience, I search for
these kinds of opportunities.  And by that I mean, when I’m
dealing with something, I don’t like to do something I think is
shabby, or dull, either one.  And therefore I think my impulses
always are, to get some element of beauty, that is, but beauty in
the true sense, not beauty as some kind of construction.  But
when you just try to do the things that you think are the next
things which should happen, which is what Brunelleschi did, in
his practice, If you go back his history.  We’re doing this now,
it’s a big story.
But what he did, he set up whole systems.  Like this idea
that of a rope, if you take a rope and you pull a rope across the
stream, and the rope has a flexibility in it. So the people who
are walking across this rope, from one shore to the other; and
this one of the famous things of Brunelleschi, and his treatment
of “yes, no; yes, no; yes, no,” and so forth, was a typical part
of his whole mental life.  And he used this to induce people, how
to trust a rope system, as you walk as a human being across the
rope, from one shore to the next.  And people were doing that.
In Italy up to the recent time, this thing of the Rope Song, was
a very common feature of the culture.
In other words, you imagine you had two points across a
river.  You create a flexible structure, of the type Brunelleschi
himself made, developed, designed.  And you walk across the
thing, and you find that the rope dances.  And in order to cross
the river, you must dance, in a sense, across the rope.  When you
move on the rope, you change the direction of the rope, in terms
of the walking; and you can think that backwards and forwards,
and that’s what the Italian standard was.  And people up to the
present, or recent time, at least, remembered that song, about
the dancing rope.  Because there’s two points; you have one rope,
with a slack in it, and you’re going to use the slack as like a
piece of music.  So you step on the rope;  now when you make the
next step, you’re going to a different point in the crossing of
the rope.  The effect is that the rope effectively dances,
according to your steps of moving in one direction or the other.
And this is typical of the concept of construction, which
Brunelleschi represented.
And up to recent times, people used to sing that song, of
the Rope Song, created by Brunelleschi.  And this one of the
principal methods of demonstration, of what he was trying to
convey, to the minds of the people who were actually using that
rope to cross a stream.  And that’s still a valid thing today, as
even in my youth, or a little bit later, I was part, you know,
you would sit there and you were thinking, you were thinking the
dancing rope; but just imagining that you were walking from one
step to the next in either direction, in terms of passing over
that rope.  And this idea created an idea in the mind of the
people who were walking across this rope, from one point of
departure to point of arrival.  And this was an Italian theme,
which dominated everything since Brunelleschi, up to a recent
time, of the dancing rope.

Q: [follow-up]  How can we apply that to our bipartisan
issue here, politically, with Trump and Hillary Clinton, and how
can we…?

LAROUCHE:  Very easily, just do it.  The way to do it is,
you go backwards.  What you do is, you construct the experiment.
Now, Brunelleschi did a lot of that.  Everything that he did,
including the whole development of the chapel that he created, he
did everything that way.  And so therefore, everything worked.
He built the whole structure of the tower was based on
creating a shell which had a space, a shell within a shell.  And
I and my wife Helga walked up that system, inside the shell.  You
have also in the Italian music records, the same thing, you have
the choral presentation there.  It was all there.  It’s still all
there.
The problem is, you don’t have a population today which has
that sense of experience.  And the best thing we can do, is to
take Brunelleschi’s old work, including the tower that he built;
and that will give you an education, because you are forced to
follow a certain ropes, with values.  And you realize that your
music is the way the rope moves when you walk across it.  And by
designing that thing as what you can do in music, is the same
thing.  You can change the character of the rope, and that will
change the tune of the walking of the rope, across the stream.

Q: [follow-up] Sounds good to me.  Thank you very much!
[applause]

Q:  Okay Mr. LaRouche, it’s a pleasure to actually be here,
actually meet with you, and not to mention that singer-songwriter
Mariah Carey will perform here at the Beacon Theater tonight.
And so it’s a pretty wonderful experience, you know, to learn
more of the notes that take you back to high school, with the
music notes that we just pronounced here.
Basically, my name is C–J–, and I’m actually an owner of a
law firm.  And so basically my primary concern is, basically on
regards of Barack Obama, our President, who is supposedly in
violation of the 25th Amendment.  So I wanted to know, basically
in order to require more of my students, and to teach more of my
law students in more with regards to the 25th Amendment; and as
far as the Congress, who, as far as not producing any functioning
or producing any reins, on his behalf as far as not contributing
to him violating the 25th Amendment, and as far as them not per
se doing anything in regards of him moving in directions away
from Constitution, or violating the Constitution.  What do you
think on that?

LAROUCHE:  I looked, as to Obama’s function, was the
beginning of his career.  And I looked quickly at what he was up
to.  I had a large core group was gathered around me on this
business.  And I launched the identification of what Obama meant,
and before the end of the week, I had Obama’s number.  And my
justness on his number was never lessened; I was right from the
beginning.  {He only became worse.}
And if we want to have a civilization, you must remove any
leadership, which corresponds to that of Obama. He is identical
with the idea of a Satanic mentality. I think there are certain
Roman emperors, Nero, for example, who would fit exactly what
Obama represents today.

Q: [follow-up]  Definitely. So do you think that him and the
British Crown are affiliated with each other, as far as
coinciding with each other?

LAROUCHE: They’re identical. The Roman legacy, that is the
ancient Roman legacy, is still the foundation of the British
System.

Q: [follow-up]  Definitely.

LAROUCHE: It’s evil.

Q: [follow-up]  So, what do you think as far as Congress?
And what is their functional role because of him violating the
25th Amendment to the Constitution?

LAROUCHE: It’s obvious. Mankind has to create. Mankind is
not something that is going to be fixed. This is stupid, the way
it’s done. And the ignorance with which people approach the
subject, by habit, by induced habit, is really very destructive.
Because mankind is not a self-determining creature. Mankind
is a response to the potential of not only the Solar System, but
the Galactic System. Now, here mankind is actually, from our own
experience, mankind has progressed in understanding itself by
educating themselves to get these ideas of physical principles,
or what is the effect of physical principles, and to recognize,
that that is the natural tendency. And when you study the
Galactic System as such, and the Galactic System is a very large
and varied system.  It’s an immense thing. We have very limited
actual knowledge of the scope of that principle.
But what we find out, is we find out we can adduce the
destiny of mankind from the standpoint of things like the
Galactic System. But the Galactic System is only {one part} of a
larger system, which is the whole system of the Solar System and
beyond. And so, therefore, mankind, must come to an agreement
with that objective.  And you get that with Kepler, Kepler is a
big change in the system, his accomplishments. Then you go to
another layer, a higher layer of discovery. From Einstein, for
example. Einstein is one of the greatest models for introducing
the concept of what the human mind is properly directed to do.
And we have {not} explored this thing fully. We just know
that mankind is not the stupidity of a single human being. No
single human being, per se, is adequate to be a human being.
Mankind must always, be moving in a direction which goes to
mastering challenges, as Einstein did, in his time; is to find a
creative pathway, to a higher level than mankind has ever known
before.
So mankind is not {sui generis}. Mankind is not something
which creates a Solar System per se, but rather mankind adapts to
the opportunity of the Solar System and beyond; and mankind is
not a self-contained creature. Mankind is a guided creature,
which is guided by the heavenly powers, so to speak; those
heavenly powers which are way beyond anything mankind had known
before. {But}, the crucial thing, if you follow that pathway of
improvements, you are acting in {harmony} with mankind’s destiny.

Q: [follow-up]  I think it’s well said. I very much
appreciate it, Mr. LaRouche. Thank you.

Q: Hi, Mr. LaRouche, my name is C–. I’ve been looking into
Brunelleschi, ever since you mentioned the triad, with
Brunelleschi, Cusa, and Kepler.  And one of the things that stood
out to me when I was looking into the subject, —  you know, with
arches, an arch structure is not stable until you put that last
centerpiece, the keystone. And with domes that were built in that
time they needed the centering, and they were only stable when
the keystone was put in place.
With Brunelleschi’s dome, it never required any of that.  It
was self-standing throughout the entire process.  And there was a
contemporary during that time who described that, because he grew
up watching Brunelleschi do this incredible thing, and he
described it such that the catenary effect allowed for every
brick to be a keystone. I was wondering if you could maybe
elaborate on that?

LAROUCHE: Simply, this is something which I’m very familiar
with. I’ve spent a good deal of time particularly in Italy, when
I was working in that area with some of the people, the Italians
who were gifted Italians at that point; and with their whole
system. And this is something which is natural.
But the point here always is, that mankind is not a
self-developing personality. Mankind has a destiny of
improvement, of man’s powers in terms, that mankind is able to
foresee the powers of mankind, to achieve effects which mankind
would not otherwise be able to accomplish. This is something
which goes to a higher level than what we think of as given facts
or given kinds of facts.
Everything important about mankind can be reduced to the
requirement that mankind {must} develop to a higher level of
self-development. Mankind does not create self-development, but
mankind tickles the potential of self-development. And that’s
what we call the discovery of creativity. And the best example of
that, the simple case of that, is Einstein. Einstein did exactly
what has to be done: To discover what the future is, to discover
what mankind’s options are, to realize nothing less than
something better which you can understand in those terms.  That’s
what Brunelleschi did. That’s the way it works, and that’s the
{only} way it really works satisfactorily.
In other words, mankind does not come out and say, “I’m a
great genius.” And walk out and say, “I’m a great genius.”  What
does that mean? What’s the standard by which you discover what
this so-called alleged genius is? And you look at Einstein, and
you look at his major series of developments, and you see the
same thing. You’ll see the same thing {earlier}, in the work of
Brunelleschi. It’s all the same thing. It’s the immortal
conception of mankind, to always go to a higher level of
creativity, not within the opinion of the existing mankind, but
of a comprehension beyond, for man, beyond mankind’s accessed
knowledge, then.
It’s the future, the creation of the future to a higher
level. This does not come from man itself. It comes from the
destiny of mankind, as a discovering agency, which reaches a
higher level than mankind has ever reached before.

Q: Hi Mr. LaRouche, I’m R– from Bergen County, New Jersey.
I apologize if I am a little bit disorganized today.  But it was
last night that I came across Jeff Steinberg’s excellent
presentation last night [in the Friday Webcast], and an article
from LPAC brought my attention to a new development in the
Congress called H.Res.198, submitted by Mr. Yoho.  And to me, I
would like to get your thoughts on this, but to me this is an
extremely interesting development, where the purpose of the
resolution is to define impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors.
Without reading a lot of it, it says that:  “The absence of
impeachment standards creates an appearance that [as read]
impeachment is a partisan exercise, which undermines its
legitimacy and deters its use; and whereas the impeachment power
in the House of Representatives is a cornerstone safeguard
against Presidential tyranny…” etc. And then they go through
and define the Presidential impeachable offenses, and it’s pretty
amazing when you read down the list, because there’s nothing in
the list that hasn’t been violated numerous times, by the last
two Presidents.  For example, initiating war without
Congressional approval, killing American citizens, failing to
superintend subordinates guilty of chronic Constitutional abuses
— the list goes on and on and on.  You can read through it and
see, there are probably hundreds of instances, in which all of
these conditions have been violated by the last two Presidents.
But it raised to me, the question of why has Congress held
back?  I mean, it looks to me like there is some kind of emerging
consensus, in some sense coming into existence, which is
reflected by this H.Res.198.  But I went back and re-read the
Preamble to the Constitution, and I asked myself, has Congress
actually defended any of these conditions in the Preamble to the
Constitution? “In order to form a more perfect Union.” Has
Congress helped to form a more perfect union? I don’t think so.
“Establish justice?” Have they been defending justice?  Not with
regard to Wall Street, for example. “Ensure domestic tranquility”
—  we’re not seeing a heck of a lot of domestic tranquility
these days. “Provide for the common defense?” are they doing that
with the rise of ISIS? “Promoting the General Welfare?” Well,
they sure as heck have {not} done that. “Securing the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?”
Bottom line is, it looks like Congress over the last 15
years has done nothing to defend the Preamble to the
Constitution.
So my question to you is, according to the Constitution,
does the Congress have the obligation to meet the requirements of
the Preamble, or is that an option for them?
Beyond that, it looks like, if these diverse elements, come
into the existence in the Congress, as reflected by Yoho’s House
resolution, it seems that LPAC, in that case, plays an essential
and very important and historic role in being a catalyst to bring
those elements together, to force these issues to be confronted.

LAROUCHE: Let’s take the case of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas
Jefferson was the force of evil working against the foundation of
the United States. And since that time, there have been a great
number of Presidents of the United States, who have, like
Jefferson, maintained a commitment to this evil, or relative
evil, at least. And this has been the dominant feature among the
Presidencies of the United States; and by the local states in
particular. The Southern states in general are hopelessly
degenerate in these questions.
And the very best of our Presidential system of recent
vintage, is a number of Presidents, who typify the effort, to
bring about — .  But then you find out that the President of the
United States, while Franklin Roosevelt seemed to be a great
genius, but when the new election came, he was replaced by the
FBI, the development of the FBI. Once the FBI was set into
motion, the corruption of the United States was, consistently,
but irregularly, going in a direction: {downward, downward,
downward, downward.}
Now therefore, in this situation, we have to operate on the
basis, of understanding a universal principle which was already
grafted, in at least its raw essence, by the founding of the
United States.  And what you have from our great first leadership
of this thing, which led to bringing of the Washington
institution as a President, from that point on, was being savaged
in one degree or another, ever since.
Now, if we understand what the original principle was, and
understand the measures by which you can test the principle,
that’s the only solution that we have.  We have to go back to the
original Constitution of Alexander Hamilton, in particular.
Hamilton had the most precise insight into what these principles
meant.  Like the four first measures on economics.  And if you
look at his four cases, and apply that, that would be sufficient
to demonstrate what the inconsistency is of most practices since
that time from more or less evil, or just stupidity.
So the point is, if we understand that principle, we have a
guide to clean up this mess.  Now, of course, Obama we have to
get rid of entirely; the Bushes–you have to burn the Bushes.
God says burn the Bushes.  Get these Bushes burned out and {clean
it up}.  And we need to have a Presidency which finally says, no,
{we are not going to go one step further, in this kind of
monstrous behavior, which we have been doing as a nation up and
down in various ways, during the best of time.}
We’ve come to a point of crisis, and it’s a crisis which
deals with the question of the United States and other nations of
the planet as a whole.  We have to bring a new condition among
nations.  We’re working on a fight on this for China; we’re
trying to rebuild India’s prospects; we’re looking at efforts in
Japan;  we’re looking at new canal systems, which are major canal
systems, and all kinds of things.  We’re also working on
recognizing that mankind, is not a creature limited to the Earth
as such–that we also have to respond, to what are the
implications of the Earth existing within this system, including
the aquatic system, like the Galactic System.  And these are
factors which mankind must take into account.
The most efficient example is that of Einstein.  Now
Einstein was absolutely unique, among all the people of his time,
absolutely unique.  It was the time in the 20th century, when the
20th century was going through a process of early disintegration
and degeneration; and it’s been going more and more deep into
degeneration ever since.  So we have to stop the process of
degeneration, which has been given to us, by recent authority,
since Franklin Roosevelt’s birth.  And we have to {exactly} put
into a new conception of mankind, which is a knowledgeable accord
with what mankind should be.  It’s not a perfect one, but it’s a
knowledgeably sound one, which will lead hopefully, to more and
more improvements of man’s role inside the Solar System, inside
the Galactic System, and beyond.  We have to discover the mystery
of what the purpose of the existence of mankind is in the
universe, and follow that pathway.

Q:  Hi Mr. LaRouche.  [E–B–] I would like to ask you, if
Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont, becomes the
Democratic Party nominee for President, would you be able to
support him?  Would you be able to work together with him, if he
becomes President?
He is saying that we must bring back Glass-Steagall, and
that we must divide the wealth of the nation evenly.  He’s
against the rich corporations getting away with the tax loopholes
and not paying any taxes at all or very little taxes.  And
Senator Sanders is for the working class families and for the
middle class.  So I’m just wondering, do you think he would make
a good President?  Would you be able to work together with him
and advise him?

LAROUCHE:  Absolutely not! Absolutely not. He’s a fraud.
We’ve got another candidate up there, who is much capable,
and much more intelligent, who is also hesitating on the edge on
this thing.  But the problem is that we don’t have any prospect,
a functional prospect, to create a new Presidency.  Now we could
create that.  And I’m aware of means by which we could create
that, with the existing institutions of government, that is the
foundations of our Constitution.  And I think O’Malley would be a
more likely candidate than anyone else on the screen right now.
There are other people–you know, I’ve supported Ronald
Reagan; I was actually a part of his team, for a time. And then
they got me out of there, because they wanted to get me out; they
wanted the Bushes in there.  And since then we’ve been living in
the Bushes. Which means that everybody who’s been functioning
since Ronald Reagan was shot–he did survive–but he was shot by
a member of the Bush family.  And therefore everything has been
backed down.
I was assigned, I was in the last two terms of the
organization. And I was sent in to become, together with a great
Einstein tradition figure, with two of us–Teller.  Teller and I
were actually collaborators in this thing.  And we had been
collaborating ever since, for most of the decade.
And so we went with this, and we came up with a good
program. But what’s happened is that–what happened with Reagan,
when Reagan got shot, is that the Bush family interest took over,
heavily, and since that time we have not had a good Presidency in
any sense, since that time.  We had Bill Clinton, who was the
only approximation of that, and he had problems of getting his
own government into shape.  He never did get a full government,
because his Vice President was a foul ball.  And I worked with
him, closely on some of these projects.  And so I know what Bill
Clinton was capable of, and I understood what Reagan was capable
of. But that was a turning point.  And that was the turning point
that I experienced.
And since that time, {there has been no good President}, or
Presidential candidate of any function in the United States.  And
our issue now is, to define what the requirements are of a valid
President of the United States, which is not an offense against
the foundation of the United States, from, shall we say, the
great leader from New York.
And he {founded} this nation.  He actually pulled it
together, and got George Washington to pull it together, too.
And that’s how we got a United States.  And we have been
generally drifting up and down, ever since ever since the course
of time.
But we can do it.  {We can do it.}  We have better resources
than ever before.  But only a few of them have them.  Our job is
to spread, the knowledge, that we have, and to spread it to more
people, to create a unity of understanding, among the people of
the United States and elsewhere.

Q:  Hi, Lyn, how’s it going?  We’ve been doing a lot of work
in Brooklyn on this Italian question, back to the Italian
standard we were discussing before.  And quite generally we’ve
been working to push the Verdi tuning more prevalently amongst a
lot of thee older Italian opera singers.  In fact, one of these
Italian opera singers we met with earlier in the week, when
briefed on our mobilization around the Verdi tuning, she was very
moved; it wasn’t like–she didn’t just respond to the fact that
the Verdi tuning was just a better way of singing.  But she got
very moved because she knew that, “Ah, now you guys can do the
{Va Pensiero}.  And I can help teach you the {Va Pensiero}.”  So
she was moved on that level, that now we can actually communicate
the {idea} of the piece itself.
That same type of resonance around the music question,
around the Verdi tuning is similar to what we’re getting in the
response around even concert we’re doing with the {Messiah} in
Brooklyn.  From the business owners and the people generally in
the population, that when we present it from the standpoint that
we are going to use this, use the music question as a counter to
the homicides, the suicides, the police shootings, the mass
killings, people are responding in a similarly moving way.
And I just wanted to get your feedback, on what the effect
generally this is going to have on the population, generally?

LAROUCHE: Yes, I understand.  The point is the Italian
standard. Now I had exposed in Italy, and was a participant in a
celebration in honor of this work in Italy.  And I was a
participant in the centenary, in effect, of that period.
And what the Italian standard, as defined by that standard,
is probably the highest level of principled development of
musical development, known to me.  If anything matches that, it’s
not known to me.  And so Verdi is the standard for {all good
modern music}, as far as I know.  The perfections are great.
Now the next thing, you would have other things–the Spanish
thing is complicated, it’s a mess; the French language is a mess,
to deal with in music: it’s too much grunting and groaning
involved there.  And grunting and groaning is not good for the
musical mind.
And so what Verdi represented {is} the standard which should
set, {by Verdi’s strict standards}, as such, is the standard for
{all good music known to me}.  If it’s known to someone else,
we’ll have to talk about that.  But Verdi’s standard, as I
experienced it, at the celebration of his achievements–he was
then dead, of course; and so, we went to his headquarters where
he had lived; it was still his headquarters.  And we had a great
assembly among Italian musicians, and some Italian musicians who
were also functioning from the United States and so forth.  And
we had this great event, celebrating the work of Verdi. And that
standard is still the best.
After the Italian, you have some German work, in terms of
poetry and things like that which are better.  The French
language is a grunting language and it’s a very bad language the
way it’s used.  “Uhhnh, eehhnnn, hmm.”  Spanish similarly;
Portuguese similarly.  It does not produce good music.  And
there’s some German music which is good, but Verdi is better.
The Italian Verdi is much better.  That’s my knowledge.

Q: [follow-up] Just to follow up on that, what would you say
the overall impact is going to have is going to have on the
population when we do more of this?

LAROUCHE:  We’re going to do it.  And you know what we’re
going to do?  We’re going to take Manhattan — you may be
acquainted with that locality.  But that locality can be the
proper place within the United States as such, within Manhattan,
within the United States and bring in the Italian standard and
the things that portend to the edge, of the Italian Classical
standard. That’s the way to go.
And my conviction is that if we do that effectively, and we
do have some talent which can supply the training of some other
people, who have some skills of their own talent now, and can
acquire an improvement, copied on that talent, we can actually
change, not only the quality of music, in the United States, and
beyond, we can also create an improvement of the minds, of the
musicians, now.  Because by doing these things which are
themselves beautiful, and true, you make people stronger.  You
make them richer, in terms of what their lives mean to them and
to the people around them.
So the idea of the retuning, of music — shut down all this
crap!  Take the real standard required, for competent musical
composition, associate yourself with the best people in terms of
musicians, who could help to build the team, of a new musical
school, which is founded on the basis of, for example, exemplary,
the Italian school of Verdi, and  that itself, will make things
{much} better.  It’ll make it much better in Italy, too.

Q: [strong accent] When I left Russia, I hoped the end of my
life, I live in peace.  I found war outside and inside, every
time.  So I remember now two people, Hitler and Stalin.  I spent
50 years learning what happened to them.  I’ll just take three
minutes, not more.
Hitler’s performance was based on absolute stupidity, not
one reasonable step.  When Stalin routed him at Moscow in 1941,
then he understand that the war will be over.  After that four
years for Hitler, it was an effort to save his war, his Germany
and himself. In 1945, the war collapsed and he collapsed.  But
Germany remained.  It was the strongest nation in Europe, and
civilization, and what happened, that such a bastard, that he
did.
In 1944, I was small, and my train was travelling from
Moscow to the Crimea, across the battle of Kursk.  We stopped.  I
saw a German cemetery; it was about 2 miles wide and 10 miles
long.  The crosses, beautiful German crosses, I don’t know where
they got the wood [to make them]; these were prairies.  And on
each cross, a German cask with bullets.  That was what you call a
“weapons row” [s/l 50:28.4].  They got territory.
One stupidity after another; miserable country.  And the one
gigantic, giant, one-sixth of the Earth, and then what happened,
I find very similar now.  It’s striking similarity!
Again, somebody makes war, and has no idea how it will end.
To start you know; to finish, nobody knows.  The Crimea, I  lived
in Crimea, but I don’t want to continue about that, but I simply
want to tell you what’s going on, reminds me of the same damned
situation between Hitler and Stalin.  A striking similarity.  A
lot of talk, a lot of things, and then a catastrophe.  That war,
10 million people; in Russia, 18 million, Germany 12.  It was a
[inaudible] and one fool could do it!
What’s going on now, you know better than I do.  Thank you.

LAROUCHE:  Thank you.

SPEED:  Lyn, that speaker is someone who, a couple years ago
when you were very much emphasizing the danger of nuclear war,
after Qaddafi, helped to convey a message.  And I’d just like for
you and everybody to know, that the idea that we are in the
throes of the end of humanity if we don’t get Obama out, is very,
very well understood by many people in the world.  I just wanted
to make that quick comment, and ask that the next questioners
come up.

LAROUCHE:  It registers.  I understand this.

Q:  Hi Lyn, it’s A– here,  in New York again.  We have, as
everyone knows, a weekend of concerts of coming up, and the
timing of this is no accident.  The crucial importance of it, is
obvious to us.  I’ve been, this past week, doing flyer
distribution and talking to individuals about the {Messiah} and I
can’t help but draw that, as confused and as concerned as people
are, the personal response I’m getting is a very welcomed and
openness to attending.  And I think we’re going to have a very
big turnout, at least from the Manhattan standpoint, and we still
have another week of talking to people and making these
distributions.
And one of the things that’s kind of funny to me, in not so
much the distributions, but just in conversations with people,
we’re having a heat wave up here, and several people have said to
me — and Im not kidding — “Yes, it’s warm and that worries me.”
[laughs]  And so, I said, “well, you know, we’re singing Handel’s
{Messiah}” — I can’t even get into the global warming thing with
them!  — I tell them what we’re doing, and the response has been
very, very good.  This is not just from Boomers, these are
younger people;  I think the church that we’re using is unknown
to me, but very well known to people,  and so, there is something
different that is radiating from them.  And you oftentimes wonder
if it’s you yourself that’s kind of seeing this, but I don’t
think this was there before.  And where we are with the silliness
that people believe, and the insanity of the President, even
though they won’t talk about it, is something that’s affecting
them.  so they’re drawn to something like the {Messiah}.
My question to you is, now, once we complete this, I think
we’re going to be in a very strong position, to catalyze people.
And what is it that we should be looking to do, to make sure that
that happens, and we can make Manhattan really grow?

LAROUCHE:  Well, let’s go back, that, in October of last
year, I made a resolution, to free the United States from the
local states within it. And my conception was to look at what was
focussed on Alexander Hamilton, and to take the Hamiltonian
principle, which is a very useful one for all of these purposes,
and to say, let us create, again, something which is consistent
with the intention and the legacy of Classical musical
composition.  And what we did is, we found we were able to
influence musicians, some of them who are first-rate musicians,
performers, and others who are capable to be trained, to join the
company of musical performers.
The idea is that, and this would go largely to the area of
Manhattan and to certain areas around northern New Jersey, which
are that; and to some limited degree, to Boston and so forth,
there.  So, my view has been, we should go full speed for this
kind of program, on Classical music and related kinds of things.
And with a great emphasis on the Classical composition work.
That’s what we’ve been doing.
Now, we’ve got only in motion on this, because we are
bringing people together, who are resolved to carry this out.
The leading group of people around this group, are fully
qualified for that talent.  We have had experiments, in education
experiment, absolutely qualified.  We’ve had successes.  We
simply need to get more perfection and more breadth and more
depth in new areas of musical work; and people are coming to it.
So this is particularly in the Manhattan region.
Now, my view has been, is the idea of the United States as
being the ruling institution, I said, that’s crap!  I know the
Southern states of the United States, and most of them are crap.
I know it; and many of them who are intelligent, also know it.
but they go along with the yokel local stuff, and that local
yokel commitment destroys their ability to fulfill any mission
that they want to really get to.  So therefore, my view is, we
have Manhattan and the Manhattan area; and we have a spread into
certain areas in New England and certain other locations. We can
take what we have, as there and potential, serious potential,
work on that, and spread that from {that} region, into the rest
of the United States.
But the idea of the local yokel idea, in the state, is
stupid.  It doesn’t work!  It’s wrong!  You don’t develop
geniuses by training them to be fools.  And that’s the point. And
so, what we’ve got in the Manhattan area, with a certain group
around the northern parts of New Jersey, and you know what those
regions are; and Brooklyn, of course, is always included in
there; and we find that we have, in Manhattan and in the
adjoining area, there, we have, we have the potential of creating
a choral organization, or a nest of choral organizations, which
can bring a new spirit to the United States, through this
vicinity.  And we know you can’t do the job efficiently, if you
go at it in some other territories.  You have to go in and
{colonize}, these other states, and bring them to the reality of
the purpose of their life.

Q:  Hello, Lyn! [Bob Baker]  I wanted to attempt a question
regarding the impact of the Manhattan Project into the other
parts of the nation.  And from the standpoint, after a series of
meetings with farmers and ag producers in Iowa and Illinois, last
week, and the week before in Kansas and Missouri with cattlemen,
what I’ve come to understand, as many people know, is that the
state of the agriculture producers, is probably in a worse shape
now than it was in the 1970s:
Cattle prices have dropped 51%; in 1973, the price of corn
was $3.75 a bushel, and the price of good farmland was $700 [an
acre].  Today, the average price of good farmland is
$12,000-$15,000 an acre and the price of corn is — $3.75 a
bushel.
So what you can see is, there’s been a massive leveraging,
and it’s all coming from the Wall Street process, to where, now,
the majority of the livestock produced in the areas, is under
contracts with big packing plants which are all connected to the
Wall Street banks.  So in effect, what you’ve done is, you’ve
moved the independent, owner-operator farm, into a process where
the farmer’s building buildings, providing the land, supporting
the debt, and now he gets, a fee, to work on his farm for a big
packing plant of some kind; to raise crops for them or livestock.
What that’s done is that’s brought into the understanding of
almost everybody agriculture, is that this situation cannot
continue.  And what you see is, you see the most advanced
technology, things that you would just think about were  only
done by the rover on Mars, in terms of technology, is being used
by the average high-tech farmer today, in putting in his crops
with the GPS modern technology. So it’s very productive and very
efficient — except they’re becoming slaves to a financial
system.
Now, as a counter to that, the Manhattan Project has
influenced some people, farmers in certain areas; and in one
case, farmers who were facing a situation where their local
church was going to be knocked down, and they fought that.  Their
ancestors came from Germany, they fought to keep it, and a couple
farmers, after being connected with your type of thinking and the
Manhattan Project and Classical music, set in motion to have
Classical concerts in the church — which had never happened
before, since it was erected.
And what happened is, the one farmer commented, he said, “I
never saw so many grown men pull their hanky out” [pauses,
emotionally moved] “and wipe tears out of their eyes.”
I would like you to comment on that, in terms of the
Manhattan Project’s effect on the nation.

LAROUCHE:  This is obvious, absolutely obvious.  This is the
course that we must take, there’s no other course that’s going to
work. Agriculture, everything, the whole thing is one thing.  All
you have to do is say, “what did we lose? What was destroyed that
we had, in terms of earlier generations and earlier decades of
the population?”  And when you look at that, and you look at what
I saw while I was part of the Reagan administration, in that
period, there’s been a general trend of degeneration, of the
opportunities and resources, of the people of the United States.
We have to {eliminate} that discrepancy between the two
values, and go beyond that in terms of progress, directedly. We
can do that and we {must} do that, and we must not accept
anything {less}, than that direction of achievement.  It has to
happen fast, it has to happen now, it’s necessary to bring the
nations in general, like the nations of Asia, like China, like
India, like other nations in other parts of the world; in Africa,
in other parts of that world; in South America, to bring South
America and Central America and bring them back into a productive
role of mankind. {We must do that on a global scale.}  We must
bring those nations together for unification, of realizing, that
is, actually realizing, {physically realizing}, the
reconstruction of the productive powers of labor, and of the
human mind:  That has to be done! That is a mission which we must
never abandon.  And we must keep going, once we’ve gotten to that
point.

Q:  Mr. LaRouche, good afternoon.  R– from Brooklyn.  In
the past, you’ve talked about the Galactic coordinates; I’ve
found in talking to people, various persons, college graduates,
that global warming is not happening; that the education is so
bad, that I have to explain the Galactic coordinates.  What do
you think about this?

LAROUCHE:  Well, of course this is obvious.  The point is,
since the beginning of, well, shall we say, the Reagan
administration, the first part of the Reagan administration,
before the Bush family really got moved in there; and there’s
been a consistent degeneration.  See the last time we had an
achievement was when I won a victory, in Manhattan, at the
beginning in, in 1971, and we won then on that case, and we’ve
been losing ever since.  And when I came into the Presidency,
under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, was a part of a middle
area, when we still had the potential at that point, of getting
progress again.
But when Reagan was actually almost killed, by a member of
his own Bush family, the trend has been {downward}, ever since.
And the rate of downwardness has tended to be predominantly, an
increasing rate of stupidity, the destruction of ideas.
So therefore, once we take that into account, we have a
mission to perform.  It’s a mission in which mankind demands for
the sake of mankind as such.  We cannot accept anything less. And
it is {achievable}!  It is an achievable event!

Q: [follow-up]  I take it that that if the Manhattan project
is successful, we will have an effect on the educational system?

LAROUCHE:  Absolutely.  That’s the only answer.  That’s the
only possibility.

Q:  Mr. LaRouche, it’s W–  from the Bronx.  I just wanted
to know, what do you think about Trump and a lot of his influence
here in the New York City?

LAROUCHE:  I think a Trump is an insult against elephants.
He’s a kind of animal we don’t want, a Trump.  And a Trump is
also a piece of folly, even in the gambling business.
Now, I hope that makes your day sweeter.

Q: [follow-up]  Yes, thank you. Thank you.  A lot of my
friends seem to like him, and I don’t understand them.

SPEED:  Wow — well, we all have friends like that.  The
ones we need to “unfriend”!  [laughter]

Q:  Or uplift!

LAROUCHE:  How are you, young man?

SPEED: Well, I have a story for you.  There is a recent
movie made, and there is an earlier documentary, about the August
1974 walk, between the two towers of the World Trade Center.
There was a Frenchman, 24 years old, who one night, with a team,
put a wire up between the two Towers; and he walked for 45
minutes between the two Towers.  {Except}, when the police went
to apprehend him — and there is documentary footage of the
actual policeman speaking in 1974,  — he said, “well, he wasn’t
really walking.  The only thing that you can say is that he was
dancing.”
Now, when this was said at the time, when I saw it, I just
thought, well, there was somehow an athletic achievement.  No!
Because the wire-walker explained, in a brief discussion, he
said, “no, well, there’s a technical name for this, it’s called a
catenary, but let me just tell you want I did.” And so he goes on
and never says more.  But he had learned the technique — he was
not a member of a circus.  He had studied various circuses, and
he also was a bit of an artist himself; he did a lot of drawings
of a lot of different constructions.  But I only bring this up
because, what you were saying earlier about the rope dance and
the fact that there are people who {knew} this, and that this is
something that {is} known and is a physical knowledge that people
have.  I thought I would just tell you that.
We’re looking for the gentleman who did it; he happens to
live in New York City these days, and to see what he might have
to say about all this.
So I just wanted to tell you that story.
I guess, if there are no other questions, we have a choral
rehearsal and other things we have to do this evening.  So Lyn,
I’d like you to give us some final remarks and we’ll get to work.

LAROUCHE:  OK, that’s a good idea!  Well, I think I have
spoken my speaking on this question today.  And I think it’s
something which, by its nature, is something which demands a
continuity of realization.  And so, I hope what we’ve done so far
in terms of this particular session, that will be something which
will lead to a profitable benefit for the people who were
involved in this work.

SPEED:  OK!  Well, thank you. So on behalf of everybody
here:  Thank you very much, Lyn. Let’s let Lyn know we appreciate
what he just did for us. [applause]

—————

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Uddrag af Lyndon LaRouches diskussion med aktivister i hele USA den 25. november. LaRouche: Godt, først og fremmest er det, som man skal bekymre sig om, det, som vi har brug for, Glass-Steagall. Og Glass-Steagall, hvis den bliver gennemført på rette vis nu, vil betyde, at vi automatisk – i hele USA i hvert fald, ville vi lukke alt det, der er baseret på investeringsbankpraksis, der ikke følger Glass-Steagall-standarden, fuldstændigt ned. Sagt på en anden måde: Vi ville gå tilbage til den form for system, som Franklin Roosevelt repræsenterede i løbet af sin præsidentperiode, især i løbet af 1930’erne.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

LaRouche: Okay. Der er ingen grund til, at vi nogensinde behøvede at tolerere afskaffelsen af Glass-Steagall. Glass/Steagall-loven blev indført af præsident Franklin Roosevelt. Og alt, hvad Franklin Roosevelt gjorde imod Wall Street-slænget, var dårligt for Wall Street.

Så i samme øjeblik, som Roosevelt døde, tog Wall Street over, og det blev værre og værre og værre. Og i efterkrigstiden opdelte man den ameri-kanske befolkning, og der var dem, som blev ’underdog’ (lavest i hakkeordenen) og dem, som var bagdels-kyssere. Og jeg vil gerne forsikre dig om, at det ikke virkede særlig godt.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Vejen til løsningen er at lukke Wall Street ned. Simpelt hen lukke det ned. Hvad betyder så det? Det betyder, at vi ikke længere betaler Wall Street. Vi bemyndiger ikke anvendelsen af Wall Street-penge som USA’s valuta. Det bliver løftet fra USA’s valuta. Det bruges ikke længere som valuta i og af USA. Vi stopper det! Bare sådan! Og det er vidunderligt. Det er smukt. Hvad sker der så? Ja, man må tilbage til Franklin Roosevelt og det, han gjorde, hans reform mod Wall Street. Så vi har et fint, lille fortilfælde. Luk Wall Street ned. Betal dem ikke noget som helst! Erklær dem bankerot! Vi vil ikke have dem! Vi har ikke brug for dem i USA, vil ikke have dem i USA! Måske kan vi lære dem at lave tønder, eller sådan noget, eller at lave noget nyttigt; men Wall Street fortjener ingen som helst understøttelse. Ingen som helst finansiel understøttelse overhovedet! Når vi først sparker Wall Streets praksis ud, kan menneskeheden begynde at fungere.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

En nyligt deklassificeret rapport fra 1990, der blev udfærdiget af Præsidentens Efterretnings-Råd (eng.: PFIAB) viste, at truslen om en atomkrig i 1983, ud fra et sovjetisk perspektiv, var blevet drastisk undervurderet af den amerikanske efterretningstjeneste, hvilket skabte en meget reel fare for atomkrig på daværende tidspunkt. Lyndon LaRouche henviste til denne rapport som værende en afgørende markør for det amerikanske lederskabs forfald efter dette tidspunkt, baseret på LaRouches eget kendskab til den situation, som rapporten omhandler – selv om der ikke blev henvist til disse kendsgerninger i selve PFIAB-rapporten.

Kendsgerningen er, at daværende præsident Ronald Reagan den 23. marts 1983 havde vedtaget det forslag, som LaRouche havde udarbejdet, om et fælles udviklingsprojekt mellem USA og Sovjetunionen om at bygge et rumbaseret, anti-missilsystem, baseret på nye, videnskabelige principper (partikelstråle- og laserstrålesystemer), som ville have gjort en ende på den ekstreme fare, der hidrørte fra politikken med »Gensidigt Garanteret Ødelæggelse« (Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD), en politik, der er baseret på at fastholde verden opdelt i Øst og Vest, og hvor begge sider retter massive arsenaler af atomvåben, der kan udløses ved mindste varsel, mod hinanden.

Mordforsøget på Ronald Reagan, der blev udført af en bekendt af Bush-familien kort tid efter Reagans indsættelse, havde nær afsluttet dette historiske samarbejde mellem Reagan og LaRouche, men Reagan overlevede og annoncerede programmet under navnet Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) (Strategisk Forsvarsinitiativ). Men britiske interesser i både USSR og USA saboterede indsatsen – en proces, der reflekteres i PFIAB’s indrømmelse af efterretningsfiaskoen fra 1983 vedr. truslen om atomkrig.

Siden denne sabotage af SDI og Reagans erstatning med den forræderiske Bush-familie i tre embedsperioder og Obama i to perioder, har der i USA været et udtalt forfald ned i økonomisk og strategisk vanvid, der har muliggjort Wall Streets og City of Londons bankinteressers dominans over regeringen, og som har lanceret den ene krig efter den anden i kolonialistisk stil over hele planeten og drevet den vestlige verden ud i kaos, som det nu reflekteres i flygtningekatastrofen i Sydvestasien og Europa.

SE »den fulde historie om SDI« 

Med skabelsen af BRIKS og dettes nye finansinstitutioner, der er helliget international infrastrukturudvikling, samt præsident Putins fremragende flankeoperation i Syrien, er verden nu i en position, hvor Det britiske Imperium langt om længe kan blive stedt til hvile. Obama, og Hillary Clinton (der underkastede sig Obamas ondskab), er blevet afsløret som støtter af terrorisme med det formål at opnå »regimeskift« over for nationer, der nægter at underkaste sig, og som beskyttere af de morderiske finansfyrster på Wall Street ved at afvise den nødvendige genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, der skal underkaste Wall Street en konkursbehandling.

De interventioner, som talsfolk fra LaRouchePAC i løbet af de seneste uger på Manhattan og andre steder i hele USA har gennemført, har fået repræsentanter fra Imperiet til at søge dækning med den voksende bevidsthed om sandheden af deres forbrydelser, der er blevet offentligt udtalt og har ødelagt deres evne til at hjernevaske og tvinge godtroende amerikanere. Tiden er inde til at lukke Wall Street ned, fjerne Obama og til, at solen endeligt må gå ned over Det britiske Imperium.

Se: En kort gennemgang af historien om LaRouches Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ, fra LPAC (Jeff Steinberg)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOpVhtVdS7A

Over hele USA, men især i NYC, mobiliserer LPAC i højeste gear for en omgående vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall, før det uafvendelige Wall Street-krak indtræffer og kaster ikke blot USA, men hele verden ud i kaos. De kæmper ikke blot for USA ’lokalt’, men også for os her i Europa. Kontakt os og tag kampen op: Glass-Steagall, ikke kaos!

Schiller Instituttets Aktionscenter DK 

Følg med i LPAC’s afgørende kamp i USA her:

Lyndon LaRouches opråb til en fuldt optrappet indsats for at komme Wall St.’s krak i forkøbet med Glass-Steagall, 5. okt. 2015

Kend hele historien:

LPACTV: The Takedown of Glass-Steagall – Feature Film:

5. oktober 2015: 

1) En akut nødtilstand eksisterer nu, der truer med at dræbe millioner af amerikanere, primært, og også borgere i andre lande.

2) Dette skyldes umiddelbart Wall Streets bankerot. ..

3) Hvis Wall Street får lov til atter at nedsmelte … vil resultatet blive historiens værste panik … Vi vil få massive tabstal, på samme skala som den Sorte Død, der udslettede en tredjedel af Europas befolkning. Endnu en bailout af Wall Street, som Obama vil kræve, hvis han får lov til at blive i embedet, ville udløse en hyperinflation med samme, dødbringende virkning… 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

»Russerne er her for at vinde krigen; dette ved alle.« Ali Hashem, chefnyhedskorrespondent for Al Mayadeen News Network, skrev disse ord den 7. oktober i Al-Monitor, idet han citerede en af sine libanesiske kilder. Jo, det er absolut sandt, og det ved enhver, der har nogen bevidsthed om dette. Efter måneders planlægning er Putin gået ind i krigen for at vinde. Dette finder amerikanere endnu umuligt at tro på, for vores land har været i krig i de fleste år, siden Anden Verdenskrig – men ikke for at vinde. Aldrig for at vinde. Faktisk det stik modsatte – de krige, som Det britiske Imperium har kastet os ud i, som f.eks. via Barack Obama, har været evindelige krige, hvis formål var at skabe kaos, befolkningsreduktion og De forenede Staters ødelæggelse. Ingen sejrs-krige. Men ikke desto mindre, så gik Putin faktisk ind i krigen for at vinde; det er hans plan at vinde.

I dag er Dag 2 i en »storslået offensiv«, som den Syriske Hær udtrykker det, hvor russiske flystyrker for første gang direkte har leveret støtte til syriske tropper i kamp.

Og det drejer sig ikke engang blot om krigen som sådan. Hvad vigtigere er, så har denne alliance fuldstændig givet Syrien nyt liv.

Nej, intet er som før. Alt har ændret sig.

Det, der nu sker i Syrien, og i realiteten meget mere bredt, er nøjagtigt, hvad LaRouche sagde, måtte ske. Alle andre sagde, »Jeg er enig i, at det skal til, men det kan ikke ske«. LaRouche havde ret. Nu siger de, »Ja, Wall Street må lukkes ned – jeg er enig i, at det skal til – men det kan ikke ske«. Hvem vil, til slut, vise sig at have haft ret?

Det vil Lyndon LaRouche. Under et møde med medarbejdere anvendte han i store træk følgende vendinger.

Obamas flippen ud fortsætter med at spinde ud af kontrol; alt, hvad han gør, sprænges i stykker. Der er panik i Det Hvide Hus: man kan forvente selvpåførte skader og afstraffelser. Obama må bringes til fald! Luk Wall Street ned, og man lukker samtidig Obama ned.

Som helhed er USA’s lederskab afskyeligt. Sammenlign det med den moralske stemning, der er vokset frem i Tyskland som svar på flygtningekrisen. Havde det ikke været for Putin, ville vi alle have været døde. Ved roden til problemet med USA finder vi det faktum, at det er et forbryderisk, råddent samfund. Men samtidig er der nogle amerikanere, såsom nogle af vore militære kommandoofficerer, der har en ophøjet ansvarsfølelse, som undertiden går langt ud over deres formelle ansvar. Som for eksempel, at gå imod Obama.

Kan man fortælle Obama sandheden? Nej. Merkel er mere lydhør, men det ligger på falderebet, om hun kan bevare magten, eller om hun vil blive erstattet af kræfter, der er langt værre end selv finansminister Wolfgang Schäuble.

Problemet er, at det tyvende århundredes ideologi ikke virker. Det tyvende århundrede har erstattet moralitet med matematik.

Obamas indflydelse over Hillary Clinton er ved at kollapse, og hun er ved at forlade ham. Han bliver afvist af demokrater og andre; der er ingen, der forsvarer ham. Når vi siger til dem, at han må fjernes, så, i stedet for at sige »Nej«, som de gjorde før, siger de nu, at de er enige og spørger, hvordan det kan gøres.

Alt dette lå bare og ventede på at ske, frem til det øjeblik, hvor det hele blev udløst af Putins dristige handling. Det, Putin har gjort, er tydeligt – se blot på hans familiebaggrund i Anden Verdenskrig, med den måde, han ser tingene på. Dette er generelt atypisk for Europa. Han er en mand, der har en følelse af et moralsk formål og en mission, og som ikke kan afledes eller køres ud på et sidespor. Putin gør i Syrien det, som LaRouche forventede, han ville gøre.

I mellemtiden er der, i den amerikanske, præsidentielle udvælgelsesproces, ingen enkelt kandidat, der træder frem som en person, der er klar til at gøre, hvad der er nødvendigt. Vi må have en proces, der involverer flere kandidater, der kan bidrage hertil. Vi må opbygge et forenet, præsidentielt team omkring en mission, snarere end omkring en bestemt person.

Kerry er i stand til at handle i modstrid med Obamas sindssyge politik, fordi han ved, at han har støtte til det, og at Obama er blevet vraget. Vi må nu bringe dette videre til næste trin.