Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 5. januar, 2017 – For at få et indtryk af LaRouche Manhattan Project’s stormende fremskridt, se pressemeddelelsen på New York Schiller Instituttets forestående begivenhed denne lørdag, 7. januar. Manhattan Projektets voksende, nationale magt, tilsammen med de nye, globale betingelser, som Putin og Kina, og valget af Donald Trump, har skabt, vil gøre det muligt for os at intensivere og udvide en mobilisering for vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall som vejen frem mod LaRouches Fire Love i deres helhed, og for at bringe USA ind i samarbejde med andre nationer som Rusland og Kina.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche er i gang med at lancere initiativer for en intensiv mobilisering for Glass-Steagall og de Fire Love, med langt mere vidtrækkende overskrifter, som vil begynde at give genlyd i de forestående timer og dage.

New Yorks senator Chuck Schumer, der er leder af et Senatsmindretal, angreb den 3. jan. den nyvalgte præsident for at være »virkelig dum« for at modsige chefer for USA’s efterretningstjenester. »Jeg siger jer, hvis man går op imod efterretningssamfundet, så har de utallige måder, hvorpå de kan angribe jer«, sagde senatoren på Rachel Maddox showet. »Så, selv for en praktisk, angiveligt benhård forretningsmand, er det virkelig dumt af ham at gøre dette.« Schumer, sagde, at han forstår, at efterretningsfolk er »oprørte over den måde, Trump har behandlet dem på og omtalt dem«.

Lyndon LaRouche sagde, at efterretningssamfundet er blevet korrumperet; at vi må dumpe al denne korruption, og at Schumers kritik af Trump ikke var værd at støtte.

De bemærkninger fra Trumps side, der i den grad har oprørt efterretningscheferne, var et tweet i tirsdags, der lød: »Briefingen om ’efterretningerne’ om den såkaldte ’russiske hacking’ blev udsat til fredag, måske fordi der var brug for mere tid til at opbygge en sag. Meget mærkeligt!« Men han havde ikke alene ret, for direktør for den Nationale Efterretningstjeneste, James Clapper, samt de andre, har stadig brug for mere tid; det blev klart i dag, at de ikke vil blive i stand til at få deres sag op at stå før i næste uge – og de ved stadig ikke, hvilken dag i næste uge.

I mellemtiden rapporterede Wall Street Journal den 4. jan. fra kilder, der er bekendte med Trumps planer, at han ville omstrukturere og nedskære direktøren for den Nationale Efterretningstjenestes kontor, som nu ledes af Clapper, og som han (Trump) mener, er oppustet og politiseret. (Bare se på Clapper …) Han vil omstrukturere CIA og nedskære personalet på Virginia-hovedkvarteret og få folk ud i poster i marken. »Trump-teamets synspunkt er, at efterretningsverdenen er blevet fuldstændig politiseret. De skal på slankekur.« Trumps tiltrædende nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver, general Michael Flynn, som blev fyret af Obama som chef for Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, er i centrum for den planlagte reorganisering.

Clapper blev tilsagt til at aflægge forklaring om »den russiske hacking af valget« for Lindsay Grahams og John McCains Senatskomite for de Bevæbnede Styrker i dag, men han sagde, at, før hans memo var klart, var han ikke indstillet på at sige mere, end han allerede havde sagt. Når dette memo er til rådighed på en ikke nærmere angivet dag i næste uge, sagde Clapper, at han vil aflægge forklaring om det for fire komiteer i Huset og Senatet, dernæst for hele Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og sluttelig offentliggøre en ikke-klassificeret version for hele landet.

De memoer, som Obama hidtil har fået fremstillet om den angivelige russiske hacking, har været temmelig latterlige – professionelle IT-sikkerhedsfolk fra alle politiske tendenser har kaldt dem et sjusket job. Den seneste version, der blev offentliggjort den 29. dec. af Homeland Security og FBI, har denne advarsel skrevet øverst. ANSVARSFRASKRIVELSE: Denne rapport udgives ’som den er’ udelukkende til informationsspørgsmål. Afdelingen for Homeland Security giver ingen garantier af nogen som helst art mht. de informationer, der er indeholdt i rapporten.« Efterretningsveteranerne William Binney og Ray McGovern afslører Clapper som en serieløgner i en kronik i Baltimore Sun i dag. Den 12. marts, 2013, aflagde han falsk vidnesbyrd til Kongressen mht. rækkevidden af NSA’s indsamling af data om amerikanere, som han indrømmede fire måneder senere efter Edward Snowdens afsløringer. Clapper havde tidligere hjulpet Donald Rumsfeld med at opretholde løgnen om de angivelige masseødelæggelsesvåben i Irak.

Ingen af disse anklager mod Rusland vil holde vand – og således rejser den afsluttende del af et radioshow den 3. jan. med prof. emeritus fra New Yorks Universitet, Stephen F. Cohen, spørgsmålet, om »Obama kunne gribe til endnu mere radikale skridt i løbet af sine sidste dage i embedet … « Dette anså Lyndon LaRouche for en relevant og signifikant advarsel.

LaRouche tilrådede også, at den nyvalgte præsident spiller en ledende rolle mht. Glass-Steagall. Giv Trump større juridisk spillerum. Hav en velvillig indstilling til den tiltrædende præsident. Erkend, at han har et vanskeligt job som udgangspunkt, og at vi derfor må give ham en vis opmuntring. Åbn sagen i sin helhed på denne måde, og gå ikke ind i enkelte punkter.      

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Lyd: 

4. januar, 2017 – Både i USA og hele verden bliver Obama latterliggjort og fordømt for sit massemyrderi, sine krigsforbrydelser, sine løgne og sine hektiske (men mislykkede) bestræbelser på at fremkalde »fabrikeret hysteri« vendt mod Rusland. Stort set ingen, udover de løgnagtige massemedier og de mest hæmningsløse neokonservative omkring Obama og Hillary Clinton, tror et ord af det.

Tirsdag aften blev et interview med WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange sendt på Fox News, hvor Assange igen fremhævede, at de omtalte e-mails fra den Demokratiske Nationalkomite og Hillary Clintons kampagneleder John Podesta ikke kom fra Rusland, som Obama og hans »efterretningsteam« har hævdet, og heller ikke fra nogen statslig aktør. Assange tilføjede, at WikiLeaks, i de ti år, det har eksisteret, aldrig har afsløret sine kilder, og heller ikke vil gøre det nu, men også, at det aldrig har taget fejl, eller blot er blevet beskyldt for at tage fejl. Som mange efterretningseksperter har vist, så findes der intet bevis, eller blot troværdigt bevismateriale, for, at Rusland havde noget som helst at gøre med at skaffe og lække disse e-mails.

Men, sandheden bekymrer ikke den døende race af aktiver for Det britiske Imperium. CIA-chef John Brennan, der er mest kendt for sine ugentlige møder med Obama for at kortlægge ugens liste over dronedrab, optrådte tirsdag på PBS for at himle op om, at de informationer, der viser, at Rusland havde grebet ind i valget, var absolut sande, men at han endnu ikke kunne afsløre denne information. Forespurgt om CIA’s »stensikre« bevis (som daværende CIA-direktør George Tenet dengang sagde) for, at Saddam Hussein havde masseødelæggelsesvåben, svarede Brennan, at det var noget, der fandt sted »for flere lysår siden«, og at CIA nu kun fortæller sandheden.

I Tyrkiet udstedte den tyrkiske premierminister Yilderim en erklæring, der sagde, at, selv om Obama hævder, at han bekæmper terrorisme, så har han i realiteten »sendt våben til terroristorganisationer … Det er kun Tyrkiet, der bekæmper Daesh (ISIS).

USA og andre gør ingenting … Det, vi forventer af den nye administration, er, at den sætter en stopper for denne skændsel.« Tyrkiske ledere stiller alvorlige spørgsmålstegn ved, at USA’s luftvåben fortsat skal have lov at bruge Incirlik Flyvebasen, eftersom de nægter at hjælpe tyrkiske og russiske styrker med at bekæmpe Daesch (ISIS) i Syrien.

Men, at sprænge Obamas krigsplaner vil i det lange løb ikke betyde stort, hvis disintegrationen af hele det vestlige finanssystem ikke standses og vendes omkring, hvilket kun er muligt gennem den omgående genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. Den nye Kongres åbnede i denne uge, med flere ledende Demokrater, der udtrykte, at de har i sinde at arbejde sammen med Trump omkring spørgsmål af gensidig interesse, og de nævnte især store investeringer i infrastruktur og en revision af den katastrofale frihandelsaftale NAFTA. Dette er nyttige og vigtige forholdsregler, men uden Glass-Steagall, der lukker de ulovlige spillebuler, centreret omkring Wall Street, vil intet andet kunne lade sig gøre i takt med, at den fremstormende implosion af det transatlantiske finansimperium vil feje alle andre bestræbelser på at genrejse økonomien væk. Kun gennem Glass-Steagall kan vi sætte scenen for et kreditsystem i Hamiltons tradition, og som kan dirigere kredit til genopbygning og til fremskridt i forskning på videnskabens fremskudte grænser.

Aktivister fra LaRouchePAC var tirsdag til stede på Capitol Hill, hvor de mødtes med mange nye og tilbagevendende senatorer og medlemmer af Repræsentanternes Hus. De fik at vide, at Glass/Steagall-lovforslagene fra sidste Kongresforsamling vil blive genintroduceret i den nye Kongres inden for få dage.

Men Demokraterne har hidtil forsømt at gribe til handlinger, der ville få Trump til at gøre det, han sagde, han ville gøre, under valgkampagnen – nemlig at støtte Glass-Steagall. Ved omgående at gennemtvinge spørgsmålet – før vi rammes af et nyt finanssammenbrud – kan, og må, et tværpolitisk flertal genoprette fornuft i nationen og genoplive regering af folket, ved folket og for folket – og ikke af Wall Street, ved Wall Street og for Wall Street. Det var netop en sådan erkendelse af denne degradering af nationens borgere på vegne af Wall Street, der forårsagede det solide nederlag for Obama/Hillary-kampagnen i 2016.

En koalition af Demokrater fra det nordøstlige Ohio, der har afholdt møder med repræsentanter for LaRouchePAC, har udstedt en stærk erklæring til nyvalgte præsident Trump om at inkludere et krav om Glass-Steagall i sin Tale til Nationen.

Onsdag, den 11. januar, bliver en LaRouchePAC »Aktionsdag« på Capitol Hill for at levere det nødvendige »opløftende« spark bagi til de tøvende og/eller feje kongresmedlemmer om at handle nu.                     

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 3. januar, 2017 – USA’s 115. Kongres tages i dag i ed i en tid, hvor den sandhed bliver mere og mere åbenlys for ethvert blot nogenlunde menneskeligt væsen, at der må komme et skifte i USA’s politik, bort fra økonomisk kollaps, krig og løgne. Hold af LaRouchePAC-aktivister var på stedet for at modtage kongresmedlemmerne med detaljerne for denne bydende nødvendige proces i form af en handleplan – genindfør Glass/Steagall-loven og sæt USA på en kurs for produktivitet gennem et nyt kreditsystem, og forny det forpligtende engagement over for videnskab og økonomisk udvikling.

Ydermere er sandhedens lys i færd med at brænde huller i Obama-administrationens aktuelle, store favoritløgn, nemlig, at det dæmoniske Rusland er i færd med at ’hacke’ Amerika i stumper og stykker. For det første måtte Washington Post i dag bide i det sure æble og trække sin påstand tilbage, som avisen fremkom med i sidste uge, om, at Rusland havde hacket et elektricitetsselskab i New England, med mulige blackouts til følge. WP’s forsideartikel i dag lyder, »El-selskab i Vermont har tilsyneladende ikke været udsat for russisk hacking«. WP havde urigtigt rapporteret, at selve værket var blevet hacket; at den skadelige software (malware) kunne forbindes til Rusland; og at der var fare for et blackout på værket – Burlington Electric. Intet af dette var sandt.

Man bør huske på, at dette er den samme Washington Post, der, sammen med New York Times, oprindeligt fremkom med den påstand, at Rusland hackede den Demokratiske Nationalkomites computere og opsnappede e-mails fra John Podesta, Hillary Clintons kampagneleder, og med disse e-mails, der senere blev offentliggjort af WikiLeaks og således på ulovlig vis greb ind i valgresultatet (til Trumps fordel).

I denne sammenhæng udtalte WikiLeaks’ grundlægger og redaktør, Julian Assange, sig offentligt imod denne påstand og sagde, at han er 1000 % sikker på, at Rusland ikke leverede hackede e-mails til WikiLeaks. »Vi kan sige, og har sagt, gentagne gange i løbet af de seneste to måneder, at vores kilde ikke er den russiske regering, og ikke er et nationalt parti.« Dette, og mere, sagde Assange i et eksklusivt interview i sidste uge med Sean Hannity fra Fox News, der vil blive udsendt i sin fulde udstrækning (første del) kl. 22 den 3. januar. Dette er første gang nogensinde, at Assange giver et interview til en Tv-kanal, og hans foreløbige kommentarer får allerede stor opmærksomhed internationalt og skaber ravage for Obama-flokken, inklusive for det Republikanske Partis russofober.

Disse afsløringer understreger den pointe, Lyndon LaRouche for nylig kom med, om Obama-præsidentskabets sidste dage: »Husk, hvem, der står bag Obama.« Han refererer til det døende, britiske City of London/Wall Street slæng. Men, tilføjer han, i takt med, at deres system udånder – og så længe der ikke gennemtvinges et skift i politikken for at udslukke det – så er de farlige og i stand til at udføre grusomheder.

I Sydvestasien skal man se hen til dette netværk i forbindelse med de ansvarlige for massenedskydningen i Istanbul nytårsaften. De tyrkiske myndigheders og samarbejdende, asiatiske regeringers efterforskning er stadig i gang og holdes hemmelig, men LaRouche bemærkede: Led efter de britisk-tjetjenske netværks hånd i denne grusomme handling. Ud over visse empiriske ’signatur-fakta’, der er knyttet til hændelsen, er der den grelle realitet med en sådan handlings onde formål – at forsøge at sabotere det igangværende tyrkisk-russisk-iranske samarbejde om en syrisk våbenhvile, forhandlinger i Kasakhstan i næste uge og en politisk løsning. Den tyrkiske vicepremierminister, Numann Kurtulmus, bekræftede imidlertid i dag, at Tyrkiets forpligtelse forbliver resolut.

Samme dag som massenedskydningsforbrydelsen fandt sted i Sydvestasien – hjemstedet for Det gamle, britiske Imperiums »Store Spil«, med alle dets årtier med blodsudgydelser – holdt den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping i Østasien sin årlige nytårstale, hvor han specifikt udtalte den sandhed, at menneskeheden kan handle på en måde, hvor der er fred i verden. Efter en gennemgang af Kinas præstationer i 2016, især inden for rumforskning, Bælt-og-Vej og præstationen med at løfte 10 millioner borgere ud af fattigdom, sluttede Xi:

»Det kinesiske folk har altid troet på, at verden er et fællesskab. Vi kinesere aspirerer ikke kun til et godt liv for os selv, men vi håber også, at mennesker i andre dele af verden har et anstændigt liv. I øjeblikket plages mennesker i visse lande og områder stadig af krige og uroligheder; mange lider under sygdomme og katastrofer. Vi håber inderligt, at det internationale samfund vil gøre en fælles indsats, arbejde i den overbevisning, at menneskeheden har en fælles skæbne som et fællesskab og bygge vores planet op til at være et mere fredeligt og fremgangsrigt sted at leve.«

Foto: LaRouchePAC-aktivister foran Capitol uddeler materiale under banner for 'Genindfør Glass-Steagall'. Foto fra 2014.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 2. januar, 2017 – Da præsident Herbert Hoover havde tabt valget til Franklin D. Roosevelt i 1932, brugte han hele overgangsperioden til at forsøge at tvinge FDR til offentligt at støtte hans, Hoovers, mislykkede politik; og da FDR ikke ville det, tog en rasende Hoover til indsættelsesceremonien, hvor han nægtede at tale, eller bare se på den nyvalgte præsident. Hoover bar på et bittert nag imod FDR’s nye paradigme – New Deal – frem til 1950’erne, hvor han spillede en rolle i fremvæksten af »McCarthy-giften«.

Alle Barack Obamas handlinger udgør nu et forsøg på at tvinge nyvalgte præsident Trump til at følge hans, Obamas, mislykkede politik; og til at angribe og bagvaske Rusland og dets præsident Putin.

Obama har i enhver forstand svigtet nationen – dens arbejdsstyrke, beskæftigelse, produktivitet, husstandsindkomst, narkoafhængighed, hjemløshed, stigende dødsrate og faldende gennemsnitslevealder, katastrofale krige. Han tyer nu til angivelige »uigenkaldelige eksekutive ordrer« og til deciderede misinformationskampagner fra regeringen, for at forsøge at tvinge Trump ind i – mindst – en ny kold krig. Dette kommer fra en præsident, der ikke kunne klare præsident Putin, og heller ikke Kinas præsident Xi Jinping.

Trump vil stadig ikke gå med, som hans bemærkninger i Florida nytårsaften indikerer. Men, hvilken politik, han vil føre, er stadig ikke klart.

Det, som er klart, er det nye paradigme med økonomisk og videnskabeligt fremskridt, og med potentialet for fred, der er blevet skabt i løbet af 2016 af Xis Kina, Putins Rusland og deres allierede blandt eurasiske og afrikanske nationer, og med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche, der fortsat spiller en katalyserende rolle. Og lige så klar er »sangens kraft« i dette nye paradigme, der må have det bedste af alle nationers kulturhistorie, deres »klassik«, som kan gives til de andre. Dette demonstreredes af den over Internettet, især af russiske speakere, med lynets hast spredte kondolencehilsen fra Helga LaRouche i anledning af tabet af Alexandrov Ensemblet i et flystyrt. (Det er overflødigt at nævne, at Barack Obama ikke kommenterede den tragiske død af hvert eneste medlem af Ruslands nationale kor.)

Det nye paradigme dikterer også ganske klart, hvad Trump og den tiltrædende Kongres omgående må gøre: Genindfør Glass/Steagall-loven og skab en statslig kreditinstitution til at hælde investeringer ind i rumforskning, gennembrud i kernefusion og ny infrastruktur med høj produktivitet.

Vi hører, at Obama har til hensigt at »sige farvel og takke nationen« den 10. januar i en tale i Chicago. Han bør holde den tale en uge før, og gå.

   

          

Vi befinder os i nedtællingen til afslutningen af Obama-administrationen og begyndelsen af den tiltrædende Trump-administration. Om præcis tre uger finder indsættelsesceremonien for den tiltrædende administration sted. Der er stadig meget, der er uafklaret og usikkert; men verdenssituationen ændrer sig meget hurtigt. Som hr. LaRouche advarede om for mindre end 48 timer siden, så må vi stadig holde øje med Obama; så længe, han beklæder embedet, kan han lave en forfærdelig masse ulykker. Blot i dag forsøgte han, fra sin ferie på Hawaii, at optrappe og fremprovokere en konflikt med Rusland. Han meddelte, at 35 russere vil blive erklæret persona non grata og ville blive udvist af USA under anklage om angivelig spionage; og at der ikke alene ville blive pålagt Rusland flere sanktioner som gengældelse for den såkaldte »russiske hacking«, men at to russiske ejendomsområder, der angiveligt bliver brugt til spionage – et område på Marylands østkyst og et på Long Island, steder, hvor russiske diplomater til USA og Washington D.C. kan bringe deres familier til en hårdt tiltrængt ferie og afslapning – han meddelte, at føderale styrker ville rykke ind og lukke disse områder ned. Jeg er sikker på, at Obama regnede med, at dette ville provokere hans ærke-Nemesis Vladimir Putin til at gøre gengældelse, men Obama blev sørgeligt skuffet. Til trods for, at Sergei Lavrov, Ruslands udenrigsminister, sagde, at de var i deres gode ret til at gøre gengæld, øje for øje, og udvise 35 såkaldte amerikanske diplomater af Rusland som persona non grata og lukke amerikanske feriesteder i Moskva og omegn ned; men i stedet foretog Putin, på klassisk Putin-vis, et judo-træk og gjorde ingenting. Et træk fra Putin side, som generelt erkendes som at udmanøvrere Obama – f.eks. i overskriften i Daily Beast, »Putin udmanøvrerer Obama i spionkrig; Moskva griner ad Obama-administrationens sanktioner og udvisninger som de sidste handlinger af svaghed«. Putin afslørede Obama for det, han er, en ’lam and’; og han nægtede at respondere. I en erklæring offentliggjort på Kremls webside i dag sagde Putin følgende: »Alt imens vi forbeholder os ret til at tage forholdsregler til gengældelse, så vil vi ikke degradere os selv til et niveau af ’køkkendiplomati’. I vore fremtidige skridt på vej imod en genoprettelse af de russisk-amerikanske relationer, vil vi gå frem fra den politik, som Donald Trumps administration forfølger.«

Så dette er en perfekt afslutning og diplomatisk sejr for Putin; og det er på linje med et tweet, der blev udsendt af det Russiske Udenrigsministerium, og som var et billede af en gul and med ordet »lam« skrevet over billedet. Obama og hans hold, selv om de kan skabe en masse ulykker i de resterende tre uger, anses ikke for at være særlig magtfulde mere, af Putin og andre i verden.

Samtidig kan russerne hævde en sand diplomatisk sejr i Syrien. Oven i befrielsen af Aleppo og genoprettelsen af regeringskontrol over en stor del af landet imod ISIS og andre oprørsstyrker, så forhandlede russerne en våbenhvile igennem sammen med Tyrkiet; men uden USA. Foreløbig holder denne våbenhvile. Dette er en meget håbefuld situation og demonstrerer endnu engang, at Obama definitivt har mistet lederskabsrollen i verden¸ og Rusland er en formidabel strategisk leder på verdensscenen, mens denne administration træder tilbage og den nye administration går om bord.

Samtidig har vi en nedsmeltning af det finansielle system; Monte dei Paschi banksituationen kører fortsat videre. Vi har en eksponering til derivater fra hver eneste bank på hele planeten. Enhver af disse – Deutsche Bank, Monte dei Paschi – hvad som helst kunne udløse en nedsmeltning af hele finanssystemet. Hr. LaRouches Fire Love er fortsat de afgørende og særdeles presserende forholdsregler, der må tages i USA. Som jeg sagde, så er intet afgjort, men der er meget, der er muligt. Som I har set i vore diverse udsendelser de seneste dage – Fireside Chat i går, en LPAC e-mail, der blev udsendt i dag, hovedoverskrifter på larouchepac.com hjemmesiden – så er vi engageret i en absolut presserende og afgørende mobilisering for at tvinge Glass-Steagall på dagsordenen, endnu før den tiltrædende administration indsættes. Dette må være det absolutte top-lovforslag, der lægges på den nye præsidents skrivebord til underskrift. Kongressen kan handle på det, når de træder sammen i næste uge; i modsætning til [senator] McCains meddelelse om, at han vil have høringer om russisk hacking, eller sådan noget. Dette er den afgørende forholdsregel; og vi vil have aktivister, der kommer til Washington, D.C. Vi har allerede afleveret marchordrerne; og vi vil diskutere dette yderligere i aftenens udsendelse.

Men dette er fortsat blot det første skridt i Lyndon LaRouches Fire Hastelove til at redde USA, nu. Det bedste eksempel, vi stadig har, den bedste præcedens, er Franklin Roosevelts første 100 dage; hvad FDR var i stand til at opnå i sine første 100 dage i embedet. Kongressen trådte sammen; han vedtog omgående Bankloven af 1933, erklærede banklukkedag, reorganiserede hele det bankerotte finanssystem og satte Amerika i arbejde igen. Kongressen holdt ikke pause før nøjagtig 100 dage senere; og 100 milepæle i lovgivning blev debatteret, vedtaget og sendt over til Det Hvide Hus til Franklin Roosevelts underskrift, hvilket ændrede historien. Dette er fortsat præcedensen; det er fortsat modellen, og indholdet af disse første 100 dage bør være Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love til USA’s redning.

Jeg giver nu ordet til Jason [Ross], for der er nogle specifikke måder, hvorpå vi kan gå i gang med disse presserende forholdsregler.  

   

WE NEED GLASS STEAGALL SITTING ON TRUMPS DESK
AWAITING HIS SIGNATURE WHEN HE TAKES OFFICE!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast, Dec. 30, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon!  It's December 30, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden and you're watching our final Friday
evening broadcast for 2016 for this year on larouchepac.com.  I'm
joined in the studio today by Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC
Science Team; and via video by two members of our Policy
Committee — Bill Roberts from Detroit, Michigan (Hi, Bill); and
Michael Steger from San Francisco, California.
Now, obviously we are in a countdown to the end of the Obama
administration and the beginning of the incoming Trump
administration.  Exactly three weeks from today is the
inauguration of the incoming administration.  There are still
many things that are undetermined and up in the air; but the
world situation is moving very fast.  As Mr. LaRouche warned less
than 48 hours ago, you still have to keep your eye on Obama; as
long as he remains in office, he can cause an awful of mischief.
And we saw that just yesterday, in an announcement that came from
Obama while he was vacationing in Hawaii; he attempted to
escalate and provoke a conflict with Russia.   He announced that
35 Russian nationals would be declared {persona non grata} and
would be expelled from the United States under supposed spying
charges; and he announced that not only would there be more
sanctions imposed against Russia in retaliation for the so-called
"Russian hacking", but also two Russian estates that are
supposedly being used for espionage purposes — one on the
Eastern Shore of Maryland and one on Long Island, places where
Russian diplomats to the United Nations and to Washington DC can
bring their families for much-needed vacation and rest and
relaxation — he announced that Federal forces would be moving in
to close down those estates.  Now, I'm sure that Obama expected
that this was going to provoke his arch-nemesis Vladimir Putin
into retaliatory measures, but Obama was severely disappointed.
Despite the fact that Sergey Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of
Russia, said that they would be fully justified in retaliating
tit-for-tat and expelling 35 so-called US diplomats from Russia
as {persona non grata} and closing down US vacation homes in
Moscow and the Moscow suburbs; Putin instead, in classic Putin
fashion, judoed Barack Obama and did nothing.  Vladimir Putin, in
a move which is being universally recognized as outfoxing Obama
— for example, in a headline in the {Daily Beast} "Putin
Outfoxes Obama in Spy War ⦠Moscow Laughs Off the Obama
Administration's Sanctions and Expulsions as Feeble Last
Gestures".  Putin called out Obama for what he is, a lame duck;
and he refused to respond.  In a statement that was put out on
the Kremlin website today, Putin said the following:
"While we reserve the right to take reciprocal measures, we
are not going to downgrade ourselves to the level of
irresponsible 'kitchen' diplomacy.  In our future steps on our
way towards the restoration of Russian-United States relations,
we will proceed from the policy pursued by the administration of
Donald Trump."
So, this is a perfect ending and diplomatic victory for
Putin; and I think this goes along with a tweet that was sent out
by the Russian Foreign Ministry, which is a big picture of a
yellow duck with the word "lame" written over top of it.  Obama
and his crew, although they are in the position to cause an awful
amount of mischief in the remaining three weeks, are not being
recognized as all that powerful anymore by Putin and others
around the world.
Now, at the same time, there is a true diplomatic victory
that the Russians can claim in Syria.  On top of the liberation
of Aleppo and really restoring government control over a vast
part of the country against the ISIS and other rebel forces,
yesterday the Russians brokered a ceasefire with Turkey; but
without the United States.  This ceasefire has, up to this point,
been holding.  This is a very hopeful situation, and yet again,
demonstrates that Obama has definitely lost the leadership role
in the world; and Russia is a very formidable strategic leader on
the world stage as this administration exits and as the new
administration comes on board.
At the same time, you've got a meltdown of the financial
system; the Monte dei Paschi banking situation continues to
unravel.  We have the exposure of derivatives from every single
bank in the entire planet.  Any one of these — Deutsche Bank,
Monte dei Paschi Bank — anything could be the trigger to blow
out the entire financial system.  Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws remain
the essential and most urgent measures that need to be taken in
the United States.  As I said, nothing is determined, but there
is a lot that is possible.  As you've seen on various channels of
our communications over the last few days — the Fireside Chat
yesterday, an LPAC email that went out today, headlines on the
larouchepac.com website — we are engaged in an absolutely urgent
and critical mobilization to force Glass-Steagall onto the agenda
even before the inauguration of the incoming administration.
This should be the number one bill that is delivered to the new
President's desk for his signature.  It could be acted on by
Congress as they come into session next week; as opposed to
McCain's announcement that he's going to have hearings on Russian
hacking, or something like that.  This is the critical measure;
and we will have activists that will be coming into Washington,
DC.  We've already delivered the marching orders; and we can
discuss that more on the broadcast today.
But of course, that remains just the first step in Lyndon
LaRouche's Four Urgent Laws to Save the United States Now.  The
best example that we still have, the best precedent, is the first
100 days of Franklin Roosevelt; what FDR was able to accomplish
in his first 100 days in office.  The Congress came into session;
he immediately passed the Emergency Banking Act, declared a bank
holiday, reorganized the entire bankrupt financial system, put
Americans back to work.  Congress did not leave session until
exactly 100 days later; and 10 landmark pieces of legislation
were debated, passed, and sent over to the White House for
Franklin Roosevelt's signature, which changed the course of
history.  So of course, that remains the precedent; that remains
the model, and the contents of that first 100 days should be
Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws to Save the United States.
So, with that said, I'd like to hand it over to Jason,
because there are some very specific examples of means by which
we can undertake those urgent measures.

JASON ROSS:  Let's also put it in the context of the world.  The
US desperately needs an economic recovery, a change in direction.
Think about the world as a whole; there's so much to be done.
Two and a half billion people on the planet don't have access to
continuous electricity; 800 million don't have access to fresh
water; 1.5 billion people don't have access to basic sanitation;
and over 1 billion people don't have access to telephone
capabilities.  There's much work to be done, and the United
States is definitely for a large shift.
President-elect Donald Trump has said that he's got big
plans to make America great again; that he wants to spend $1
trillion on infrastructure in the United States over the coming
period.  There's a lot that we could learn from China on this.
China, over just the past decade, has built the largest
high-speed rail network in the world.  In one decade, it went
from basically nothing, to now being the world's leader.  That
network is slated to double its size in the next 1.5 decades to a
level of 40-50,000 kms; about 30,000 miles of high-speed rail.
They're working, through their Belt and Road initiative, with 65
other nations in the region and beyond on cooperative projects;
on rail, energy, transportation, logistics, water, information,
training, expertise, education, a whole slew of projects for
economic cooperation and development that itself will entail
beyond China's borders tens of thousands more kilometers of
high-speed rail.  So, how are they financing this?  How are they
doing it?  China's been spending $1 trillion a year for the past
decade; so the idea of spending $1 trillion in the US to get
everything up to some great standard is far too low.
The other aspect is, how is this going to be financed and
how is it going to be built?  How is a $1 trillion going to be
brought to bear for the US economy?  Let me read the concluding
paragraph of an op-ed that was published in the {People's Daily}
online of China; an op-ed by Curtis Stone.  He wrote:
"Trump wants to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure upgrades
in America to rebuild the nation and put people back to work. The
problem is how to pay for it and how to do it. China knows how to
fund and carry out serious infrastructure building, and
deep-pocketed Chinese investors want to invest billions more in
America. One way for Trump to realize his plan would be to use
Chinese funds and technology. This would help return some of
Americaâs investment in China back to America for the benefit of
America, and strengthen the bilateral relationship. Trumpâs plan
to rebuild America is bold, but it remains to be seen if he will
be bold enough to do what is best for America."
So, on that, let's think about how China can be involved
here.  The need for financing in the US is very great; there is
not a lot of credit available in the way that people think.  The
very low interest rates that currently exist, as Paul Gallagher
has explained well in the "Economics Frequently Asked Questions"
section on our website, we can't just sell a bunch of bonds at
low interest rates; the rates will go up.  Where is that money
going to come from?  Private investors?  What's the return?  What
this really requires is a totally different way of thinking about
economics.  So, let's look at the LaRouche approach — very
briefly — to economics.  In his policy document for the US,
called "Four New Laws to Save the USA Now", LaRouche gave four
very primary steps.  First, Glass-Steagall, to end the connection
to the outrageously decrepit and collapsing financial system that
we have; it's almost totally divorced from the physical aspect of
economy.
Second, that we need a national banking approach.  Now, what
does that mean?  Let's think of some examples in US history as to
how a national approach to economy has occurred.  If you look at
what Alexander Hamilton did in the early days of the new United
States, he turned the huge liabilities, the huge debts of that
new US and the state governments into something very valuable by
turning that debt into what became the basis for the First
National Bank of the United States; using that debt to become the
basis for a huge amount in loans that were necessary to build the
roads and then later the canals in the United States.  To take a
more recent example, Matt had mentioned Franklin Roosevelt as the
best precedent that we have in the United States of late.  Look
at what Roosevelt did with the Tennessee Valley Authority, for
example.  This is a project that dramatically improved the
economy in the southeast part of the US; in the Tennessee Valley
area that it serviced.  The increased productivity in that region
itself more than paid for the cost of the investment of the
project.  This was the type of project where it doesn't really
matter whether the money that's spent on building it is paid back
directly; and that's something that private investors would
demand.  "Can we build a toll road that we'll be able to get
money back from?  Can we upgrade an airport terminal which
charges passenger fees for passing through it, and then we'll pay
back the investment in that terminal at the airport?"
Well, what about the large projects that shape the economy
as a whole; that provide a platform for economic activity?
That's the sort of thing where you look at the nation as a unique
economic actor that's able to finance investments whose payback
isn't direct in the way that a private investment would be; but
comes back in the sense of "Did we improve the productivity of
the nation as a whole in a way that makes the project
worthwhile?"  That's what we saw with the creation of the
railroads in the United States, for example.  This was something
that wouldn't have happened without the government support that
it got to build the Transcontinental Railroad.  The payback was
that we had a connected economy; we had a whole country.  We had
definitely the improvements that made it worthwhile have done
that.
So, if you think about that today, to get away from
project-by-project — does it pay for itself? Is it worth it? —
and to think about how do we institute in the U.S. a higher
platform of technology in our infrastructure: are we building a
high-speed rail network? Are we building power generation of the
highest energy-flux density? Or are we building solar panels? Are
we investing in fusion technology, to make that breakthrough in
our knowledge of the atom and nuclear processes that will
transform our relationship to materials, to energy, in a way that
will be far more profound than the development of the steam
engine?  These are the kinds of things: the space program — what
are the {drivers} of our human identity as a species that goes
beyond and that develops? And I think maybe to start a discussion
on it, here on the program — I don't have everything to say
about it — but this also raises the issue of the culture in the
population. In other words, what expressions, culturally, do we
have of what it is to be a person; of what it is to live in a
society; of our relations among each other? What is the kind of
culture that's commensurate with going to space, with developing
fusion, with developing our economy, with becoming better human
beings, and how do we bring that culture into being? I think that
that's a very major question. It's not one that addressed quite
as directly as, say, national banking or financing of a national
high-speed rail network, but is just as important. I think that's
something to take up here.

BILL ROBERTS: Yeah, I would say this, what you've just touched
on, Jason, is the real question of sovereignty of nations to
participate in the development of mankind, to free themselves
from the diktats of this dying trans-Atlantic financial system.
That really is sort of the crux of the entire shift that we're
experiencing right now.
Just to mention a few things on this: Yesterday, in an
interview that Bashar al-Assad did with the Italian newspaper,
{Il Giornale}, he identified that the issue in the Syrian war,
was that Syria wanted to make a sovereign decision on the
development of both oil pipelines, but also railroad lines
running east-to-west through Syria; rather than Syria simply
being sort of a passing-through point of oil pipelines from
Qatar, north-to-south. Of course the east-to-west route — for
those of you who are familiar with our plan, the Phoenix Project
for Aleppo and the Integration of Syria, the proposals that the
Schiller Institute has made for the integration of Syria into the
New Silk Road; this is designed to make Syria an energy hub, an
industrial hub, and sort of restore Syria's ancient tradition as
an important step along the New Silk Road.
This is the implication of Vladimir Putin's intervention
into Syria to crush the terrorists in that area. This was the
same question with respect to Japan's recent decision to resume
its historical role as a country that is not going to be part of
an offshore, trans-Atlantic financial system, but it going to be
a "machine" for the development of the interior of Asia. Japan
had made this decision against the interests of what's
historically been the attempt by the United States to try to
prevent Japan from negotiating a peace treaty with Russia over
the remaining islands in dispute from World War II. So, Japan
made this decision as a sovereign nation, and was really prompted
to do so by Vladimir Putin, who made the issue directly that
Japan had to make a sovereign, independent decision.
I would say in the United States, the question of the Trump
Presidency and the United States Government being able to address
the horrid conditions of the American population, and uplift,
both culturally and in terms of the physical standards of life,
depends upon the immediate reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.
Number one, because if Glass-Steagall is not reinstated before
the crash that is looking very likely to happen soon in the
European banking system, hits, there will be more bail-outs; and
this will further increase the death-rates of Americans. But also
number two, as both Matt and Jason were just discussing, the
United States has to make a serious commitment to providing
massive financing, and mobilizing our workforce, to build
entirely new platforms of infrastructure. That's not going to be
possible without a credit system; and that will not be possible
without the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. That may require, as
this recent {People's Daily} article points out, in certain cases
that may mean that China will come in and build certain aspects.
They may be better suited to build high-speed rail systems, for
example. We've seen the problems [inaud; 22:09]. We've seen the
problems with [California Governor] Jerry Brown's program on the
West Coast with high-speed rail. Perhaps we should just set up a
Chinese initiative for doing this.
Our sovereignty today, ironically, does not mean
isolationism. I don't know that Donald Trump thinks that it does;
I don't think he does. But in many cases, what the New Paradigm
has meant is that certain countries have made breakthroughs in
certain areas. Certainly we have in the United States. We should
look at {all} the potentials that exist for cooperation: the
space program, medicine, certain aspects within the machine-tool
sector that we still have — in the same way that this was
considered by Kennedy when he placed the science centers, the
space program centers, in the more-backwards, southern part of
the United States. Or when FDR placed the Oak Ridge facilities,
the "secret city" that developed the Manhattan Project outside of
Knoxville, Tennessee. Or like the Russians are doing, currently,
in their plans to have Rosatom invest in building a new science
city for the development of nuclear science, in one of the
poorest cities in South America, La Paz, [Bolivia] which has
basically been the center of a drug-production economy. These are
some of the things that we're going to continue to be filling
out; but these are the issues behind the immediate necessity of
Glass-Steagall, that every American has to know the ABCs of.

MICHAEL STEGER: Yeah, that's great! There are just a couple
of things I'd like to touch on. One is the Putin situation,
because as Bill just indicated, the whole situation
internationally seems to have been greatly shaped by Vladimir
Putin. If anyone were to watch some of the news alerts, the {New
York Times} and the entire political establishment of the United
States was taken off guard, significantly. As Matt indicated,
Obama had clearly expected his nemesis, Putin, to have the
strong-man response. The {New York Times}, at 6:00 Eastern Time,
sent out a message indicating they [the Russians] are going to go
for a "massive retaliation. Thirty-five people evicted." This was
blasted out on the internet airwaves. Within just two hours, the
{New York Times} had to report a "head-spinning turn of events,"
in terms of the fact that not only did Putin not retaliate, as
Matt indicated, but I believe he invited all of the U.S.
diplomatic corps to the Kremlin to celebrate the New Year and
Christmas!
The way Putin has shaped this process — and we were
reflecting on this here this morning — that it was just a little
over a year ago, the end of September 2015, that Russia formally
entered into the Syrian conflict on the side of Assad against the
terrorists. It was just November of last year, just a little over
a year ago, when a Turkish fighter jet shot down a Russian
fighter jet. It was then last Christmas — in that entire holiday
period — when we on the verge of what could have been a
break-out of nuclear war. The tensions were incredibly high. The
rhetoric was incredibly high. And what we had in the White House,
Obama, is now on full display in its psychotic kind of pettiness.
So the way that Putin has shaped this process — and it's
worth situating the recent events — that not only did we have
this display of psychosis by Obama. There was also the
assassination of Russia's Ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov.
This came just a few days after Obama had made an illicit threat
against Russia, which Mr. LaRouche had captured very
specifically. This meant that Obama was looking to kill, and kill
people of significance. And then you had the assassination of
Ambassador Karlov by someone tied to what looks to be some kind
of Western intelligence-coordinated network. And then, it's not
yet clear what happened, there's much speculation, but
regardless, there's the unfortunate loss of the Alexandrov
Ensemble (the Red Army Chorus).
As we speak, we're in Manhattan at the Russian Consulate,
singing Russian patriotic songs, as well as American songs. I'd
like to read a section of a leaflet that Helga Zepp LaRouche
wrote on this occasion for our chorus outside the Russian
Consulate. This is just a small taste of it, which will be
released in its entirety today, following that event. She says:
"Let me therefore share with you the idea that in addition
to rebuilding the Alexandrov Ensemble, which they intend to do,
thousands of Alexandrov choruses be established, in schools all
over Russia, to honor the heroic contribution of Russia in the
liberation of Syria, and at the same time, broaden the uplifting
effect of choral singing to the young generation."
I think that proposal stands out as the quality of idea and
initiatives that can now be taken; that there is unfolding a new
paradigm. There's a paradigm of win-win, or almost as Putin
displayed today, of turn the other cheek. We're not going to go
tit-for-tat. We're not going to descend into kitchen-level
politics. We're going to rise to a higher level, of a discussion
of mankind and the collaboration towards world peace and global
development. Nothing better expresses that than what's developed
in Syria, and the collaboration of Russia, Turkey, and Iran to
consolidate that. This really has been the work of Putin, and
this last year has really been shaped by Vladimir Putin more so
than anyone else.
Now, the question is: how do we respond to this in the
United States? That's the onus upon us today. As Matt indicated,
the financial crisis around Monte dei Paschi and the other major
trans-Atlantic banks, are clearly at a point of breakdown. I
would ask people just to reflect upon, look at the electoral
maps. Some of this has been done by various studies after the
election, where they saw the kind of vote turnout for Trump
happened the greatest in areas that had been hit the hardest by
the drug epidemic, the suicides, the unemployment levels.
If you look at the demographic condition of the country
today, it is defined by the insanity of our financial and
economic system. The financial bubble that has been run,
perpetually, really going back even since the early '90s, and we
saw it then regained after the dot.com blow-out with the housing
bubble. Then the blow-out of the housing bubble only accelerated
even further towards what is an entirely just fictitious
financial derivative scheme, with almost {no} benefits, even
monetarily or financially, to the population of the United
States.
What you see is limited pockets, small specific areas.  The
New York City area; the Washington, DC area, major Dulles airport
area; San Francisco and the Bay area; certain key pockets where
the financial bubble that Obama has pumped up and has called his
"Obama recovery".  This was the dominant area where you saw the
votes come in against Trump and for this Obama program.  But more
importantly, you saw the reaction, the rebellion against Obama
and this Bush-Obama legacy, came from a majority — 80% to 90% of
the land area of the country, and a good majority of the
population; whether they voted for Bernie Sanders or they voted
for Donald Trump, they voted against this Obama-Bush tyranny.  A
majority of the American people have been left out and forgotten;
they have become the forgotten men and women of the country, as
Franklin Roosevelt characterized them in the Great Depression.
It is the question of, how do you bring together the entire
country?  Because we're looking for an economic development that
is based on physical reality, not on some fictitious financial
numbers; you can't forecast an economy based on the financial
numbers that are presented today — they're all lies.  Let alone
Obama's recovery, but even notions of financial success; it's all
lies.  The physical reality is, the United States is crumbling;
it's in horrible disrepair.  It's not just our infrastructure, or
our manufacturing capabilities; it's our cultural level of our
society, it's the educational orientation.  It's the sense of
optimism; it's the productive skill set and sense of integrity
and confidence in the ability to produce something of
significance that has been crushed and taken away from our
population.
So, Mr. LaRouche — as Jason indicated — presented Four
Laws; and those four laws really start with the fourth law, which
is an immediate commitment towards the restoration of a space
program which has been laid out in detail by Kesha Rogers, and
the fusion program.  The initial first step on these four laws to
initiate this kind of science-driver program is Glass-Steagall;
because Glass-Steagall ends this financial cult, this financial
bubble.  And it integrates that part of the country which has
been forgotten into the conception of our economy and of our
society.  And we're going to take the entire nation and take it
upwards.  There's no longer going to be fly-over areas of the
country; there's no longer going to be these provinces on the
outskirts of our economy.  We're going to look at the entire
productivity of our nation; and most importantly, the
productivity of our people.  The greatest sham of Obama's
recovery is the fact that you have 100 million people not in the
workforce; not involved or engaged in any kind of economic
activity.  Many of them are on painkillers, and out of work or on
disabled lists.  We've got to bring this entire part of the
country into the economy immediately; in the areas which increase
the productivity per capita of the nation as a whole.
So, we've got to move on Glass-Steagall.  As Matt said, it
should be on Trump's desk the day he comes into office on January
20th.  Congress comes back into session next Tuesday; they're
sworn in.  That's mostly a reception day.  There will be some
activities Wednesday and Thursday, and then they'll be in session
again the following week.  We have reports from this morning that
Obama has the gall to go to Capitol Hill next Wednesday to meet
with Senate and House Democrats.  This, of course, is the party
he's crushed and destroyed.  I'm sure he will browbeat or worse,
the Democratic members of Congress.  So, we will definitely have
a presence in Washington, DC; we will have {Hamiltonian} issues
distributed throughout New York City and throughout Washington.
We are definitely asking people to participate in a full-scale
mobilization.  That doesn't mean just Congress; Congress will be
available for meetings not this coming week, but likely the next
week.  The bigger question is to get to Democratic clubs, state
legislators, union leaders, other activists, other writers, other
people who have advocated and promoted Glass-Steagall.  We should
set the country on fire around this notion that Glass-Steagall is
not something to support; it's not something showing that you are
on the right side of things.  Glass-Steagall must be passed; it
must be passed quickly, because we have a lot more work to do in
2017 than to simply deal with the insanity of this financial
crisis.
We're asking people to mobilize as much as possible; and
have in mind how much work we have to do to rebuild the country's
infrastructure, its manufacturing, and most importantly, rebuild
the minds of the coming generations — which is really the most
important work any of us can participate in doing.  So, that's
the mobilization LaRouche PAC has set forth.  The email went out
today, and we're asking everyone to participate.

OGDEN:  Well Michael, what you're describing is the kind of
policy revolution that Franklin Roosevelt ushered in, in his
first few days as President in 1933.  Of course, he was
inaugurated in March; the inaugurations back then used to happen
in March, not January.  But it's that first 100 days, as we've
said, that remains the kind of model; and unfortunately, there
are very few people in the United States for whom that historical
accomplishment of Franklin Roosevelt remains something from their
living memory.  It's our job to educate and remind people of what
Franklin Roosevelt was able to accomplish.  Now, I don't think
any of us are assuming that this is something that's going to
happen by itself; this is why we are mobilizing.  This is why we
are saying, in the countdown to this inauguration, it's our job
to set the agenda.  And at the same time that we're doing that
domestically, you really do have the winds of history are blowing
in from around the world.  There's a shifting global dynamic
which is forcing a change in the United States, as Jason
referenced with that article in {People's Daily}; the role that
China can play with the One Belt, One Road policy in transforming
the economic potential of the entire planet and the strategic
changes that are coming out of Russia.  But with that said, it is
always very useful to go back and review what Franklin Roosevelt
did in his entire administration; it's almost something you could
not discuss in abbreviated form — from the beginning of his
first term into his fourth term, with the victory in World War
II.  But if you just take those first 100 days and quickly review
what he was able to accomplish, that's the kind of urgent
revolution in policy that is needed right now in the United
States around these four LaRouche economic laws.
So, let me just very quickly list what Roosevelt was able to
accomplish.  Of course, this was not unilateral actions from the
White House by any means.  This was done by a willing and
cooperative Congress, who recognized the urgency and the
emergency of reversing the economic despair and disintegration
that the entire nation was experiencing.  But, as I said, from
the very first day of his administration, he passed the Emergency
Banking Act; which reorganized all of the banks across the entire
country, declared a banking holiday, audited these banks, and
allowed them to open under completely new standards.  He passed
the Government Economy Act — slightly less important — but it
eliminated certain waste that was in government; he also passed
the Volstead Act, which temporarily suspended the rules of
Prohibition — that was popular.  He passed the Farm Credit Act,
which was very important; this refinanced farm mortgages across
the country.  Farmers who were unable to keep their farms open
because they couldn't pay their mortgages and their farms were
being foreclosed; this was a very big story in Iowa and the
heartland states.  In fact, there were vigilantes who were
standing up to sheriffs, saying "We will not let you foreclose on
our farms."  This resolved that situation, and also provided
operating funds for farms across the country at very low interest
rates; to keep the food on the plates of the American people.  He
established the Homeowners' Loan Corporation; this provided
relief for struggling homeowners across the country, and in fact,
actually directly assumed one-sixth of all the mortgages in the
country from homeowners who were struggling to pay their
mortgages.
He provided within the first 100 days a half-billion dollars
in 1933 dollars in unemployment relief; which was administered by
Harry Hopkins.  That was greatly expanded in the following months
after the first 100 days.  Here's a very important one which
we've been discussing a lot lately:  He established the CCC, the
Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided training and
employment for unskilled youth from across the entire country to
build public works projects and conservation projects.  Over six
years, this ultimately employed {3 million} young people in the
United States.  As Jason mentioned earlier, within the first 100
days, he established the Tennessee Valley Authority — the TVA;
this was passed through law and shovels were hitting the dirt
within five weeks.  This transformed one of the most backward
parts of the entire United States in Tennessee and Kentucky and
the neighboring states.
To address what had caused the Great Depression in the first
place, FDR passed the Truth in Securities Act — an important
element; and then, of course, as we've been discussing, passed
the Glass-Steagall Act.  This required banks to immediately
divest within a certain amount of time, all of their securities
operations; and established the FDIC, which created the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation protections for the average
American depositing their savings in commercial banks.  Then he
created the National Industrial Recovery Act, which — among many
other things — guaranteed collective bargaining for unions,
greatly increased the union membership across the United States,
and made available $3.3 billion in 1933 dollars; that's $50
billion dollars in today's dollars in public works financing.
That's the first 100 days; and Congress did not leave
session.  Congress did not go home from the day that Franklin
Roosevelt was inaugurated until the day they left, exactly 100
days later.  That's the kind of policy revolution that has to
happen in the United States; and it will only function if it's
carried out according to the principles underlying LaRouche's
Four Economic Laws.

STEGER:  That's great, Matt.  I think it's important to
indicate and let people know that LaRouche PAC also has two other
initiatives.  One is a new pamphlet coming out, which will
highlight this kind of economic program based on Lyn's Four Laws.
It looks at how is it possible in the most effective way to
increase the productivity of the American people and that we as a
nation build our own recovery.  We build ourselves out of this
economic rot that we have been plunged into.
The other initiative, which maybe Jason can say more on, is
going to be an educational initiative to the American people a
sense — especially members within the Trump administration — of
how real economics is.  Because Lyndon LaRouche has been the
leading economic thinker for the last 50 years on the planet, let
alone the United States.  He has forecast some of the most
significant events in the course of that 50 years; and he is the
leading figure from the standpoint of real physical economics and
scientific advancement.  I know Jason is part of that, so maybe
he can say more on that as well.

ROSS:  Sure.  Economics is a pretty funny subject because
it's one that so many people get so wrong.  One that specifically
so many experts get so wrong.  If you look at the Society of
Professional Economic Forecasters and you look at how good their
forecasts have been over the last 50 years, they're not getting
any better.  You'd say that's a science that really isn't
improving, is it — economic forecasting.  It's because it's not
treated as a science.  There is so much ideology and there's so
much just plain old stupidity about looking at measures that are
based on money, rather than a physical understanding of what
makes economy possible.  So, we're going to be preparing and
presenting a series, a number of pedagogical discussions; some
tools to help think about how an economy really functions,
drawing on Lyndon LaRouche's decades of experience as an economic
writer and forecaster — as a remarkably accurate one.  We will
have these things available, like some of the concepts that he
brings up frequently; like what is energy flux density in an
economy.  I know that I made a video on that recently, and
there's much more to say than could fit in a short summary video
that touched on it only briefly.  Or, other concepts, like
capital intensity, and the concept of an economic platform, which
is not something to get into detail right now on.  But a
reconceptualization of what many people think of as just
infrastructure and public works, and how to think about that as a
mediating a relationship of a society and the physical world
around them and within that society itself; in the way that
Vladimir Vernadsky, for example, looks at the human species in
terms of what is the power of cognition?  How does that transform
the relationship of the human species to the planet and to the
biosphere in a way that is unlike any purely biological species?
What is the physical power of cognition?  How can we measure that
as geologists, as biologists, as economists?  So, definitely more
coming on that.

OGDEN:  The central theme in Mr. LaRouche's Four Economic
Laws document is the necessity to increase productivity — per
capita and in terms of the productivity of the labor force.  As
we've discussed, going back to Alexander Hamilton, this is really
the root of economic science.  In the "Report on Manufactures",
Hamilton's theme is how do manufactures and technology and
industry increase what would otherwise just be the raw labor
force of the population.  It has a multiplier effect.
One thing going back to Mr. LaRouche's Four New Economic
Laws document, one point that he makes is that this is not just
an option — as we've said before; but this is an absolute
necessity.  Not just because of the urgency of the collapse, but
also because of the nature of our nation.  Alexander Hamilton was
the founding economic genius of the country, founding father of
our system of economics; but he was also one of the central
authors of the United States Constitution.  He made a very
explicit point of putting the clause in there which is the
General Welfare Clause; which not only gives permission to the
United States Federal Government to act in the general welfare of
the United States — this was used as the reason behind the
constitutionality of the National Bank — but it also mandates
that this is part of the responsibility of the Federal
government.  This is what gives it legitimacy; that it {must} act
in the interest of the general welfare of the American people.
And {all} of the American people, not just sections; not just the
coasts or the big cities, but all of the American people.  This
is a point that Mr. LaRouche makes in one very short sentence in
that Four Economic Laws.  He says: "The ceaseless increase of the
physical productivity of employment, accompanied by its benefits
for the General Welfare, are a principle of Federal law which
must be a paramount standard of achievement of the nation and of
the individual."  So, the word "law" is in the title of this
document; and Mr. LaRouche is asserting that this increase in
productivity is included under the idea of the General Welfare,
and is a central principle of what we should understand as
Federal law under our Constitutional republic.
It was recently stated in a similar way in the white paper
that was put out by the Chinese government; where they declared
that development is an inalienable human right.  The same way
that we talk about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as
being inalienable rights, the Chinese, who have lifted 750
million people out of poverty in their country, were declaring
that development itself is an inalienable human right.  I think
this is an important understanding of what the responsibility of
government itself needs to be; and this central principle of
economic science — understanding what it means to, and how one
proceeds to increase the physical productivity of one's labor
force for the benefit of the General Welfare as a whole.

STEGER:  I think that captures the New Paradigm.

OGDEN:  OK, wonderful.  I do want to say that I really
appreciate Bill being on, and I think increasingly we need to
return to some of the questions that Mr. LaRouche was directly
involved in, in Detroit and Michigan and Ohio and some of these
Midwest areas.  What you brought up, Michael, about there are no
fly-over states; we should no longer have the word "Rust Belt" in
our vocabulary.  The question is, how are we going to take the
skills that are inherent in these machinists and former
machinists and skilled workers in that region — who are now in a
state of real despair and increasing mortality — and put them to
work again for the development of the country.  So, you can say
something about that now, but Bill, I think we should also
revisit that maybe in some of our future shows; and have that be
part of our countdown to the new Presidency.

ROBERTS:  Yeah, sure.  It's a real challenge.  This is the
subject of what Marcy Kaptur took up in a recent op-ed, when she
said the Democratic Party has to do some "soul-searching" is the
way that she put it.  But really, it's not soul-searching; we've
got to define what the commitment is going to be to the American
population and all of the American population.  It's a real
challenge; I think much more so than what Franklin Roosevelt had
to face.  Part of it is what we didn't get into so much today —
the deep cultural degeneration process that has left young people
without very much of a sense of character or identity.  You
mentioned the CCC program of the past; [that] had to be tailored
to address — and Franklin Roosevelt himself was very personally
involved in crafting that program, which he saw as being
absolutely critical if the nation was going to have a future.
So, I agree; this is going to have to be something we put a lot
of thought and effort into how to make that shift upward in
productivity that is so required today immediately, but also for
the future, for the long-term.

OGDEN:  Great.  Well, thank you very much.  Thanks, Bill;
thank you, Michael; thank you, Jason.  I would recommend reading
the op-ed that Jason referenced at the beginning of the program;
this was in {People's Daily}.  I know when we spoke with Lyndon
and Helga LaRouche earlier today, Helga put a major premium on
that op-ed.  We, of course, encourage you to participate as fully
as you can in this mobilization to immediately not build support
for Glass-Steagall, but immediately make Glass-Steagall law.  So,
as Michael said, the marching orders are available; we sent out
an email to the entire LaRouche PAC email list today.  If you're
not yet a subscriber to that email list, you need to sign up
immediately.  We're going to have marching orders such as that as
we count down the next 21 days, the three weeks until the new
administration; and we're not going to stop there.  So, please
subscribe to the email list and please subscribe to our YouTube
channel as well.
Thank you all for watching today, and Happy New Year to you!
I think we all can look forward to a 2017 full of a lot of
potential; and it's our job to realize that potential.  Thank you
and good night.

28. december, 2016 – Mens Obama fortsat demonstrerer, at han er »politisk afdød«, som Lyndon LaRouche udtrykker det, og kaster tordenkiler fra sin politiske kiste, som om han stadig var »dræberkongen« fra før, udstedte nyvalgte Trump i dag et tweet, hvor han fordømte de »mange inflammatoriske udtalelser og vejspærringer«, som kommer fra Obama. Obama har meddelt, at han snart vil annoncere »forholdsregler til gengældelse« imod Rusland for fantasifostret med Putins angivelige tyveri af valget, i håb om, at han kan underminere Trump-teamets plan om at gøre en ende på galskaben.

Men, Putin har ikke spildt tiden med at fumle rundt med det amerikanske valg. Hele Mellemøsten er blevet transformeret af hans succesfulde intervention i Syrien, der har vendt stormløbet fra de saudisk-britisk sponsorerede terroristnetværk. Ødelæggelsesprocessen imod Irak, Libyen og Syrien – de tre stærkeste, sekulære, antiterrorist-nationer i området, er nu slut. Undervejs er der dukket beviser op allevegne for, at Obama har bevæbnet terroristerne – russiske sappører, der rydder miner fra det befriede Aleppo, annoncerede i dag fundet af et terrorist-våbenlager, proppet med amerikanske, tyske og bulgarske våben, mens den tyrkiske præsident Erdogan annoncerede, at han havde sikre beviser for USA’s bevæbning af selve ISIS.

Men, hvad der er vigtigere, så har kombinationen af den russiske rolle i Syrien og Putins nylige besøg i Japan transformeret begge områder og forenet dem bag kendsgerningen om et nyt paradigme, baseret på udvikling. Den østrigske mellemøstekspert Karin Kneissl kom i dag med den indsigtsfulde pointe, at Ruslands evne til at hjælpe den syriske regering med at knuse terroristtruslen på dramatisk vis blev fremhjulpet af Kinas »den bløde magts strategi« og bringer den Nye Silkevej ind i regionen og således skaber jobs for de millioner af unge mennesker, hvis fremtid var blevet tyvstjålet af Bush’ og Obamas krige, og som skaber potentialet for, at de millioner af flygtninge kan vende tilbage til produktive beskæftigelser i deres hjemlande.

I dag pegede Lyndon LaRouche på Putins højst succesrige besøg til den japanske premierminister Shinzo Abe i denne måned, hvor han igangsatte enorme, fælles udviklingsprojekter i det russiske Fjernøsten, og endda på de omstridte Kurilliske Øer, og som således forbereder vejen for en fredstraktat mellem Rusland og Japan.

»Dette er ikke blot en lokal aftale«, sagde LaRouche. »Det vil stimulere væksten ikke alene i hele Asien, men det vil stimulere hele verden.« Abe besøgte Pearl Harbor tirsdag sammen med præsident Obama, hvor førstnævntes udtalelser kun kunne forstås som en advarsel til USA om ikke at følge Obamas vanvittige konfrontation med Rusland, men derimod gå sammen med Japan og med Kinas Nye Silkevejsproces for at skabe et nyt paradigme for fredelig udvikling for menneskeheden.

LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) er i færd med at forberede en opdateret rapport om »USA tilslutter sig Den Nye Silkevej – en Hamilton-vision for en økonomisk renæssance«. Rapporten vil gennemgå det utrolige tempo, i hvilket udviklingsprojekter er blevet igangsat i hele verden i 2016, under Kinas Bælt-og-Vej-initiativ og dermed relaterede bestræbelser fra Ruslands og Indiens side, og fremlægge for det amerikanske folk, og Trump-teamet, at USA kan og må deltage i denne revolutionære proces. Ikke alene kan en genoplivet amerikansk industri i stor stil bidrage til disse globale projekter, men den smuldrende, amerikanske infrastruktur kan også selv blive genopbygget, med nye, storstilede projekter inden for vand, transport, et genoplivet rumprogram og videnskabelig udforskning på den menneskelige videns fremskudte grænser.

Magten hos det finansielle oligarki, der har påtvunget verden sin vilje, har nu mistet kontrollen over det meste af verden uden for de transatlantiske nationer, og dets magt dér står nu på højkant. Deres finansielle kartellers bankerot kan ikke længere udskydes, og deres befolkninger er i en tilstand af oprør, som de miskrediterede oligarker afviser som »populisme«. Raseriet imod deres onde nedskæringspolitikker, og imod deres fremstød for krig imod Rusland og Kina, er åbenbart overalt i Vesten. Dette raseri må finde sit fokus i positiv hævdelse af sund fornuft, baseret på fremgangsmåden med LaRouches Fire Love: underkast kartellerne konkursbehandling iflg. Glass-Steagall; skab nye kreditinstitutioner efter Hamiltons model; målret kreditudstedelse til genopbygning af industri, landbrug og infrastruktur; og stimuler vore borgeres kreative evner, for at virkeliggøre fusionskraft og rumforskning, og for skabelse af en fremtid i overensstemmelse med menneskeværdet.

Foto: Kesha Rogers fra LaRouche Komite for Politisk Strategi (LPAC) ved NASA’s Johnson Space Center, (Houston), i januar 2016. Se hendes artikel: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=11543          

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 27. december, 2016 – I denne uge udgav Kina sin rapport, »Kinas aktiviteter i rummet i 2016«, med en gennemgang af rumprogrammets præstationer igennem de seneste år, og med en fremlæggelse af planer for den kommende periode, med det formål, lyder rapporten, at tjene »menneskehedens utrættelige forfølgelse af en fredelig udforskning og anvendelse af det ydre rum. Kina står ved en ny, historisk startlinje og er fast besluttet på at fremskynde udviklingen af sin industri og aktivt udøve international udveksling og internationalt samarbejde omkring rummet således, at resultater fra aktiviteter i rummet vil tjene og forbedre menneskehedens trivsel i bredere omfang … «

I skarp modsætning hertil befinder USA og det transatlantiske område sig i et økonomisk sammenbrud, der udgør en stor fare for hele menneskeheden, og de fortsætter desuden med at forfølge den selv samme politik, der var årsag til dette sammenbrud.

Nærmere bestemt, så finder der i øjeblikket et opgør sted mellem Den europæiske Centralbank (ECB) og Italien over Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS), som truer med at bryde ud i kaos. I denne uge kom det frem, at ECB har beordret MPS til at fremskaffe – genkapitalisere – 8,8 mia. euro, og ikke de tidligere 5 mia., som den italienske regering har arbejdet på at fremskaffe. Befolkningen er rasende.

Den eneste fornuftige respons til alt dette er at dumpe det døde system ved at indlede en Glass-Steagall reorganisering og etablere et ordentligt banksystem. Udsted kreditter til prioriterede, produktive aktiviteter og promover den økonomiske virkning, med videnskab som drivkraft, af at fremme arbejde omkring rummet og omkring gennembrud inden for fusion. Dette fremlægges i Lyndon LaRouches forslag fra 2014 med de »Fire Love«, som vi vil præsentere i den kommende, nye brochure fra LaRouchePAC til masseomdeling – en opdateret version af brochuren »USA går med i den Nye Silkevej; en Hamilton-vision for en økonomisk renæssance« (2015).

Dette program må sættes øverst på dagsordenen i USA, og ligeledes i Europa og andre steder, og det må ske omgående. Det er desuden ligeledes presserende nødvendigt at formidle videnskaben bag de ’Fire Love’. Se tilbage og studer LaRouches gennembrud inden for metodologi i årtiernes løb. For eksempel, hans koncept med potentiel relativ befolkningstæthed; hans koncept med energigennemstrømningstæthed; hans koncept med den ’produktive platform’ – og ikke blot infrastruktur.

I dag bemærkede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at det, man ser i den netop publicerede kinesiske rapport om rum-infrastruktur, faktisk er, at man har taget halvdelen af Lyndon LaRouches forslag for en økonomisk platform og projiceret det ud i rummet. Det er meget rigt og håbefuldt.

Den 3. januar vil den nye, 115. Kongres træde sammen i Washington, D.C. De skal mærke presset for at handle. Den 6. januar vil alle kongresmedlemmer være til stede for at gennemføre protokollen med at optælle valgmandskollegiets stemmer og officielt erklære valget af Donald Trump, hvis kampagne red ind på en bølge af befolkningens afsky for den nuværende politik med økonomisk destruktion og krig. Vi må nu sætte dagsordenen for, hvad der må gøres for at gøre en ende på denne befolknings trængsler, fortvivlelse og vrede.

Lyndon LaRouche talte om denne bydende og presserende nødvendighed: »Læg pres på kongresmedlemmerne for at få tingene til at ske.« Han sagde, »Vi må opbygge mennesker, der blev ødelagt af det, som Bush-familien og Obama gjorde. Det er spørgsmålet.« Han talte om Franklin D. Roosevelt og sagde, »Se på, hvordan FDR var foregangsmand for nye fordele for USA’s befolkning« og bemærkede, at FDR og hans politik dernæst blev knust. Men, »vi har en latent mulighed. Vi kan få det tilbage«. Ideen er, at »vi må genopdrage. Brug redskaber til at gøre folk kreative … Se, hvad FDR opnåede. Det må gøres klart.«      

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

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

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

En dansk oversættelse af talen kommer på torsdag. 

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

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

Diskussionen findes kun som engelsk udskrift (se nedenfor).

—–

English: Introductory article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Discussion:

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

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

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 8. december, 2016 – Alt imens det aktuelle, afgørende spørgsmål er, om den tiltrædende Trump-administration virkelig vil begrave »krigsdoktrinen for regimeskifte« og forfølge produktivt, økonomisk samarbejde med Kina og Rusland, så blev vi i dag mindet om den anden, triste arv fra Barack Obama: økonomien. Det amerikanske Konkurrenceråd har udgivet en rapport om USA’s produktivitet med titlen, »Ingen økonomisk genrejsning«, og i USA Today lød overskriften meget passende, »Obamas økonomiske genrejsning var alligevel ingen genrejsning«. Og det Nationale Center for Sundhedsstatistik udgav en grummere undersøgelse, der fandt, at den forventede levealder for alle amerikanere faktisk er faldende, og at dødsfald som følge af alle de mest almindelige sygdomme er stigende, og det samme er spædbarnsdødeligheden. En af undersøgelsens forskere sagde: »Der er simpelt hen dette fænomen med, at tingene ikke står så godt til i USA, over hele linjen.«

På trods af »markedets« kortvarige eufori over valget af Trump, så forudsiger mange økonomer, at Obama har efterladt ham »en ny, stor recession«; og faktisk, et snarligt finanssammenbrud på grund af Dodd/Frank-lovens åbenbare manglende evne til at kontrollere og undertvinge Wall Street. Mange af de mest aktive og interesserede amerikanere er også meget bekymrede over dette.

Det ovenfor nævnte «største spørgsmål« vil fundamentalt afgøre det; amerikansk velstand vil vende tilbage gennem at samarbejde omkring »Den Nye Silkevej« om store infrastrukturprojekter, gennem fælles gennembrud inden for teknologier for fusionskraft; og inden for kernekraft og afsaltning af havvand ved hjælp af kernekraft.

Som Rachel Brinkley, fra LaRouchePAC National Policy Committee, udtrykte det i en udtalelse om den mislykkede Dodd/Frank-lov: »For det første, så er der … forøgelsen af reel velstand som resultat af forøgede rater af fysisk produktivitet. Kinas politik for den Nye Silkevej har en positiv effekt på 70 lande og 4,4 mia. mennesker, ved at fokusere på byggeriet af nye transportruter og udvikling af energi, inklusive byggeriet af højhastighedsjernbaner og mere effektive havne, at bringe elektricitet til landdistrikterne, og ved at indgå partnerskaber for avanceret, videnskabeligt samarbejde med andre lande. Dette er en aktuel, levende demonstration af, hvordan man påvirker nettorater af fysisk vækst i positiv retning. Monetære processer må altid være underordnet dette … «

Men, vi må omgående have en reorganisering af bankerne gennem indførelse af Glass-Steagall – i modsat fald, med stigende rentesatser, der nu rammer kolossale gældsbobler, vil Wall Street og City of London atter kollapse og ødelægge udsigterne til fremskridt. Trump har sagt, at han vil have Glass-Steagall genindført; mange kendte økonomer siger, at Kongressen og hans Wall Street-rådgivere ikke vil tillade det.

De undervurderer det tilbageholdte krav fra millioner af informerede amerikanere, om at få retfærdighed gennem Glass-Steagall og få »lukket Wall Street-kasinoet ned«. Dernæst kan en politik for statslig kredit og produktivitet, i Franklin Roosevelts tradition, løfte nationen ud af det langvarige, økonomiske kollaps, i hvilket Bush og Obama har efterladt den.

Foto: Nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump har forpligtet sig til, at USA skal ophøre med at føre en politik for regimeskifte …     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 6. december, 2016 – Den formelle overgang til USA’s næste præsidentskab – der er 45 dage til Indvielsesdagen for Donald Trump – får uophørlig opmærksomhed i USA og i andre medier, men, den historisk vigtige overgang i verden som helhed er det følgende: hvor hurtigt og vist vil USA og Europa opgive det geopolitiske, kasino-økonomiske system og gå med i det nye, globale win-win-paradigme? Udfordringen består i at mobilisere folk til at være med til at få dette til at ske. Dette omfatter, at de foretager en personlig ændring og bliver aktive, og ikke længere blot ser passivt og afventende til. Der gives øjeblikke i historien, hvor den subjektive faktor er altafgørende. Vi befinder os ved et sådant øjeblik.

Omstændighederne er dramatiske. Yderligere initiativer for fred og udvikling kommer i denne uge fra Rusland og Kina.

I dag var premierminister Dmitri Medvedev vært for mange møder i Moskva med den tyrkiske premierminister Binali Yildirim, inkl. møder med præsident Vladimir Putin. Sammen med afgørende, økonomiske engagementer, såsom byggeri af kernekraftværker og gasledningen Turkish Stream, bekræftede lederne det, som Yildirim kaldte behovet for en ny, international sikkerhedsarkitektur for at besejre terrorisme, og en ny dialog med vestlige magter på dette grundlag.

I Tokyo fremlagde en kinesisk embedsmand fra den magtfulde Nationale Udviklings- og Reformkommission (NDRC) i går et tilbud om at opkoble Bælt-og-Vej-programmet til Japans og Sydkoreas økonomiske »arbejdsplaner«. Hr. Cao Wenlian, generaldirektør for NDRC’s Internationale Samarbejdscenter, talte om at styrke komplementariteten i de tre nationers økonomiske aktiviteter, der tilsammen allerede udgør 36 procent af verdens BNP. Cao talte i anledning af det Første Forum for Samarbejde om Industrikapacitet mellem de tre lande. Dette fremstød med det kinesiske tilbud tilsidesætter Japans mangeårige underdanighed under transatlantisk, økonomisk og militær, tvivlsom og aggressiv manipulation.  

Selv Henry Kissinger – hvis personlige historie kan siges at indbefatte særdeles uønskede paradigmer – taler offentligt til fordel for samarbejde mellem USA og Kina. Kissinger mødtes den 2. dec. med præsident Xi Jinping i Beijing. I dag mødtes han med Donald Trump i New York City. I går aftes under et Manhattan-arrangement svarede Kissinger på et spørgsmål, der var stillet af LaRouchePAC’s Daniel Burke, som spurgte: »Hr. LaRouche deler stærkt Deres mening om, at USA og Kina må samarbejde. Og han understreger, at USA og Kina kan samarbejde omkring politikken med Ét bælte, én vej; at dette ville være en indlysende vej til at genopbygge USA’s kollapsende økonomi … « Kissinger svarede: »Jeg mener, at konceptet med Én vej, ét bælte [sic] er et vigtigt spørgsmål. Jeg mener, at Kina kan og bør finde en måde at tale om det. Det er et af de spørgsmål, hvor samarbejde sandsynligvis er muligt … «

I denne uge vil LaRouchePAC-aktivister fra flere østkyststater anføre angrebet på Capitol Hill i Washington, D.C., for at lægge pres på virkeligheden og politikken med det formål at få USA til at gå med i det nye paradigmes æra, med start i en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, der følges op af gennemførelse af de handlinger, der fremlægges i LaRouches Fire Love.

Ved et arrangement i går i Washington, D.C., talte både vicepræsident Joe Biden og Thomas Hoenig, vicepræsident for den amerikanske Statslige Indskudsgarantifond, FDIC, offentligt til fordel for Glass/Steagall-loven. Biden fordømte sin egen stemme til fordel for en ophævelse af Glass-Steagall i 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley-loven) som »den værste stemme, jeg nogensinde har afgivet i hele min tid i USA’s Senat«. Men så vendte han rundt og sagde, det er derfor, vi nu »ikke kan tillade en ophævelse af Dodd-Frank«, fordi vi har brug for »en opmand i marken«.  

Hoenig udtalte imidlertid støtte til genindførelse af Glass-Steagall og forklarede, at ophævelsen af denne lov førte til de risikable omstændigheder, der skabte krisen i 2008.

»Man gav de kommercielle banker, der har et statsgaranteret sikkerhedsnet, lov til« at engagere sig i alle former for aktiviteter, og man »forsynede dem endda med udvidet statsstøtte til at handle … « Hoenig er en potentiel Trump-udnævnelse til viceformand for banktilsynet i Federal Reserve (USA’s centralbank).

Hvis man træder et skridt tilbage og betragter historien, ser man, at visse øjeblikke træder frem som tidspunkter, hvor en afgørende, personlig ændring finder sted. I denne uge tænker vi med alvor tilbage på den 7. december, 1941, Pearl Harbor Day, hvor amerikanske borgere, som nation, gennemgik en ændring over en nat.

Vi skal i dag forstå, at vi alle er kaldede til aktivt at intervenere for at være med til at afgøre det historiske udfald.

5. dec., 2016 – Denne rapport blev publiceret i EIR European Alert Service:

Det overvældende nederlag for pro-EU-oligarkier i den italienske folkeafstemning om en forfatningsændring den 4. dec., åbner for en ny fase i europæisk politik og har globale implikationer. Dette er det tredje chok, leveret af den glemte borgers verdensomspændende oprør mod et politisk etablissement, der er ansvarlig for en økonomisk krise og for krige, der driver millioner af mennesker ud i fattigdom, fortvivlelse og død. Ikke tilfældigt kom den største andel af Nej-stemmerne fra de sydlige regioner, såsom Sicilien og Sardinien, som har de højeste tal for ungdomsarbejdsløshed og fattigdom, og ligeledes fra den nordøstlige region Veneto, som blev hårdest ramt af den industrielle ørkendannelse efter krisen i 2008, og med en høj rate af selvmord blandt mindre virksomhedsejere.

Med en valgdeltagelse, der lå på næsten 70 % hjemme (66 % inkl. vælgere i udlandet), gav italienerne en lektion i visdom ved, med 60 % mod 40 %, at afvise en forfatningsreform, der var dikteret af den Europæiske Union og investeringsbankierer. Hvis reformen var blevet vedtaget, ville den have forvandlet parlamentet til en institution, der blot skulle eksekvere en diktatorisk magt, der ikke havde base i Rom, men i Bruxelles og Frankurt (dvs., EU-kommissionen og ECB). Faktisk erklærer introduktionen til lovforslaget til forfatningsreformen, at dens hensigt er »i en udtømmende grad at rationalisere det komplekse styrelsessystem med flere niveauer, som udtrykkes mellem den Europæiske Union, staten og lokale autonomier«. Ikke færre end fire nye arikler i forfatningen fastslog, at EU-lov var på samme niveau som italiensk forfatningsbestemt lov.

En ny, turbulent fase vil nu begynde for Italien og EU. Premierminister Matteo Renzi trådte tilbage, og statspræsident Sergio Mattarella må nu pålægge en ny, politisk person eller teknokrat at danne ny regering. Oppositionspartierne Lega Nord og Femstjernebevægelsen (M5S) har krævet snarligt valg, men der er fortsat et stort flertal i parlamentet til støtte for en premierminister fra det Demokratiske Parti (som Renzi er leder af). Hertil kommer, at, før der kan afholdes nyvalg, må en ny valglov først vedtages, eftersom Forfatningsdomstolen har afgjort, at den nuværende lov er forfatningsstridig.

Desuden er det vanskeligt for Mattarella at opløse parlamentet, når budgetloven stadig mangler at blive vedtaget og den aktuelle bankkrise kunne komme ud af kontrol.

Den finansstorm, som var blevet annonceret, ifald valget blev et nederlag for Renzi (Raffaele Jerusalmi, adm. dir. for Borsa Italiana, den italienske børs, advarede om »kolossale short positions«[1] på Italien, i forventning om en sejr for ’Nej’), kom ikke dagen derpå. Tiden rinder imidlertid ud for Monte dei Paschi di Siena og andre banker, der forventer en løsning på akkumulerede tab under ti år med depression, og en EU-dikteret »markedsløsning«, der involverer en bail-in (ekspropriering) af (visse typer) indskydere, er nu mere vanskelig end før. Hvis krisen udløses, vil den sprede smitte i hele finanssystemet.

Italien vil om kort tid blive konfronteret med et valg: enten at gennemføre finansfascisme, eller også forlade euroen og implementere nationale nødretslove, som vil omfatte en Glass/Steagall-finansreform og en storstilet plan for investeringer i infrastruktur og for en økonomisk genrejsning; dette i samarbejde med Kinas strategi for den Nye Silkevej.