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

Schiller Instituttets Aktionscenter DK 

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

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

Kend hele historien:

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

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Jeff Steinberg om Lyndon LaRouches vurdering af udviklingen omkring situationen med Rusland, Syrien, Obama og bombningen af Læger uden Grænser-hospitalet i Kunduz, ud fra et standpunkt om de nødvendige kulturelle ændringer, der skal til for at vende forandringerne i det 20. Århundrede omkring. Engelsk udskrift.

TAKE PRE-EMPTIVE ACTION NOW:

GLASS STEAGALL IN, OBAMA OUT

TRANSCRIPT

MATT OGDEN: Good evening.

You’re joining us for LaRouche PAC weekly webcast for October 9, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I will be your host tonight. I’m joined in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review, and by Jason Ross of the LaRouche PAC Science Team, and we, together with a number of others, had the opportunity to meet with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche briefly before filming this recorded webcast.

What I would like to begin with is just to make the point: that this has been a week of mobilization by the LaRouche PAC and the LaRouche movement across the country, both with our continuing intervention into New York City, and with the deployment of a number of activists into Washington, D.C., including a number of activists from the Manhattan area, who descended onto Capitol hill on Wednesday of this week, to saturate Congress with Mr. LaRouche’s newest statement on the urgent necessity for the immediate action to shut down Wall Street with the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.

This statement had quite a substantial impact on Congress, which is, itself, in the midst of total chaos in the wake of the resignation of John Boehner, and now with the surprise withdrawal of Kevin McCarthy from the Speaker’s race, who was the nominated, or assumed heir apparent, of John Boehner to replace him as Speaker of the House. This has thrown the entire Congress into chaos, and they were desperately in need of the leadership that LaRouche PAC was there to provide.

The text of this statement is the following, and I think it’s very short, and very concise, and it’s worth beginning our broadcast tonight by just reading this in full. It’s titled “For the Urgent Attention of Congressmen, Senators, and Other Members of the United States Government”:

Oct. 5—Key responsible Congressmen and Senators (and there are some), and other U.S. government representatives must meet at once, to issue Findings of Fact and Statements of Commitment roughly as follows, for immediate enactment into law, and into immediate effect.

1. There is now an acute emergency which threatens to kill millions of Americans, primarily, and also citizens of other countries.
2. This is due immediately to the bankruptcy of Wall Street. Wall Street is totally and irremediably bankrupt. The successive Bush and Obama bailouts and the rounds of “quantitative easing,” have only succeeded in making all of Wall Street’s values valueless, and finalizing its bankruptcy.
3. If Wall Street is permitted to blow out again on its own terms, as now appears imminent, the result will be the worst panic in history, which will close down everything that remains of the U.S. economy. We will have mass death, on the order of the Black Plague which wiped out one-third of the population of Europe. Another Wall Street bailout, which Obama will demand if he is permitted to remain in office, would trigger a hyper-inflation just as deadly.
4. Hence, Wall Street must be closed down pre-emptively by U.S. Government action, in the spirit of what Franklin Roosevelt would do if he were alive today. (Although the crisis he faced was far milder.) Only activities compatible with a strict Glass-Steagall standard must be allowed to continue.
5. The Federal Government must issue U.S. dollars as credit to preserve the lives of the population and employ all the employable, in the spirit of Roosevelt’s kindred actions with Harry Hopkins.
6. Over the slightly longer term, U.S. Federal credit must be used to rapidly raise the level of productivity of U.S. labor, through increased energy-flux density with scientific and technological progress.
7. Finally removing Barack Obama from office would be an excellent starting-point for these urgent reforms.

So that went out all over Capitol Hill this week, and also across the country, with rallies from San Francisco to Manhattan, and elsewhere in between. And Obama is increasingly being isolated and abandoned by members of his own cabinet, vis-a-vis the Russian intervention into Syria; the split by Hillary on the TPP, distancing herself now, officially, from Obama on that, and also, with the dramatic announcement by Doctors Without Borders that they will be pursuing an independent investigation into whether war crimes were committed with regards to the sustained bombing, for over one hour, of the Afghan hospital. And that’s something that we will get into later in this broadcast.

So, in that context, I’d like to begin tonight’s broadcast by asking Jeff to respond with Mr. LaRouche’s remarks on the institutional question for this week, which I’ll read as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche. There are strong rumors that Vice President Biden will enter the race. Some observers believe key individuals associated with President Obama are supportive of Biden’s nomination. Some Obama campaign veterans are successfully helping Sanders’ fundraising campaign. In your view, is there a concerted effort at the White House to find an alternative to Hillary Clinton?’

So, I’ll let Jeff give Mr. LaRouche’s response to that.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt.

I think the reality of the situation goes way, way, way beyond the question of whether or not the Team Obama, the core group of advisors plus the President himself, have it out for Hillary Clinton, because there’s ample evidence that that’s absolutely the case. And, in fact, it’s been the case since the moment that President Obama offered Hillary Clinton the job of Secretary of State, which she unfortunately, very foolishly accepted. And so, is there animus between the Obama and Clinton machines, and family? No question about it. But we’re in a different universe. We’re almost on a different planet right now from the standpoint of the upcoming Presidential elections and events that are much more immediately at hand.

President Obama and the entire inner circles at the White House are in an absolutely frantic state of mind, and under those kinds of circumstances, one can expect that this President will make the kinds of colossal blunders, dangerous blunders, which could lead to general war,—and in fact, there are many indications of exacting that trajectory—and alternatively, will result in the kind of meltdown that will finally catalyze the long, long overdue drive to get him out of office.

Recently, when President Obama spoke at the United Nations General Assembly, there was a state of total shock and disbelief among the diplomats present, when they realized that Obama’s words were full of nothing but lies and hypocrisy. The United States was engaged in a bombing campaign in Syria, which was in violation of the most fundamental concepts of national security, of national sovereignty. The Syrian government did not invite the United States in. There was no United Nations Security Council action, and in fact, there has been no action by the United States Congress giving the President any authorization to carry out any military operations overseas.

So, in effect, the President’s behavior is completely lawless, completely irrational, and generally speaking, sociopathogical. And this is nothing new. Back in April of 2009, Lyndon LaRouche, in a nationwide and internationally telecast webcast, warned that the President had a severe narcissist personality disorder, and that the danger was that if he were allowed to continue in office unchecked, this would lead to a complete breakdown, and to a state of general war that could lead to a thermonuclear war of extinction.

Now we’re on the very edge of exactly that process. As Matt mentioned, we had a large delegation up on Capitol Hill several days ago, and in that discussion process that occurred with many, many members of Congress—around an outdoor rally and around a lot of private discussions—the striking shift in mood, particularly among Democrats, was that when we said: Obama must be removed from office, we can’t wait out the clock and run out the duration of his Presidency, Wall Street is bankrupt, the system is about to blow, and we are on the verge of thermonuclear war—the general response was no longer “Oh, c’mon, that’s impossible. It’ll never happen.” Now people wanted to stop and talk, and the question was not should it be done, but the question was how do we do it.

So, you’ve got an Obama White House that is increasingly being isolated from the rest of the world. You’ve had in the past days a pattern of response to the actions taken by Russian President Putin in Syria, where, instead of this pattern of permanent war, never-ending conflict, with no effort whatsoever to actually solve anything in a decisive way—the Russians have come in and are prepared to use military force, combined with diplomacy, to wipe out the Islamic State, and any other allied Salafist, jihadist forces, and this is a different mode of action.

What President Obama represents is the fact that, for the entirety of the Twentieth Century, we’ve been operating under a continuous degeneration of culture, and of intellectual and moral depth. We’re now at the point that we’re one and a half decades into the Twenty-First Century, and the disastrous course of the Twentieth Century has not yet been reversed.

You go back to the beginning of the Twentieth Century, the beginning of a century of perpetual war and economic breakdown, a collapse of productivity, and you see that mathematics replaced morality and physics and other science, as the basis for all major policy decisions. Clearly you had moments of exception: the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency in its entirety was a dramatic exception to this. But from the moment that Franklin Roosevelt died, we have been on a downward trajectory. We’ve lost the ability to expand productivity in the real economy. The levels of morality have gone downward with every successive generation, and now we’ve reached the bottom of the barrel, with both the Obama Presidency and with the level of overall cultural morality here in the United States.

Now, in our discussion with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche,—and I should say, by the way, that this is now Thursday late afternoon, and we’ve prerecorded this broadcast, so there may be events over the next 24 hours before you’re viewing this broadcast that change things rather dramatically; it’s the nature of the period that we’re in, that things are changing on an hourly and daily basis.

But Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche recounted the fact that they were watching a show on German television on Wednesday evening, which was a kind of interview/interrogation of German Angela Merkel. Now as those of you who’ve been regularly following these broadcasts, and have followed the LaRouche movement over the years, are aware, we’ve been harshly critical of Frau Merkel: that she’s not been an effective Chancellor. She’s presided over some of the most disastrous decisions that have been made in Germany in the entire postwar period, such as the complete dismantling of Germany’s nuclear power sector.

But, she made the right decision under enormous public pressure, to not go into a xenophobic attack against the urgent needs of the refugees flooding into Europe from North Africa and from the Middle East, escaping the devastating wars that President Obama, and before him President George W. Bush, were absolutely responsible for.

So, Merkel was under vicious attack from some of the interviews on the question of why she was tolerating the flow of these Middle East refugees into Germany.  And why didn’t they just simply create refugee camps on the outskirts of Europe in the Middle East; virtually concentration camps?  And so Merkel, in her own quiet way, held her ground; and Mr. LaRouche’s comment was that basically she steadfastly maintained the view of the majority of Germans.  If you didn’t have Putin taking the actions that he has taken in Syria and elsewhere, and if you didn’t have a majority of the population in Germany sticking with the view that it’s time to open your arms and help out these refugees who are fleeing from wars that are not of their own making, but came from the disastrous policies of the West — particularly from Britain and the United States — we would be on the very edge of war; if not already in a general warfare situation at this moment.

You’ve got a stark contrast in personal experience and personal morality between President Obama and President Putin. Obama was brutalized as a very young child by his Indonesian stepfather; who was by all accounts himself a killer, and who brutalized both Obama’s mother and himself to the point that eventually the mother decided to get him out of there and send him back to Hawaii.  These kinds of experiences can run very deep in your psyche; and can produce the kinds of socio-pathological behavior that we’ve seen.  The case of the bombing of the hospital in Afghanistan, which we’ll take up a bit later, is but one example of this.

So, we’re faced with a degenerate culture; we’re faced with a Wall Street that is thoroughly and completely bankrupt; and must be put through bankruptcy elimination.  It’s got to be completely shut down.  And we’ve got the problem, that, on the Republican Party side, you have a sick spectacle of candidates running for office.  And on the Democratic Party side, while you have individuals who have certain credibility and talent — Martin O’Malley quite clearly is aware of the immediate urgency of Glass-Steagall and the need to put Wall Street in its place; but there is an enormous gap — Mr. LaRouche emphasized this, that there is no one candidate who can be counted on to actually do the job.  To present a comprehensive solution to the gravest crises, that this nation and the world have faced in memory.  And therefore, what you need is an array of candidates who bring a certain kind of view and talent to the table; so that we can establish a Presidency under very grave circumstances that assembles the kind of necessary talent to be able to do the job.

Now in fact, certain things must happen immediately; and cannot wait for the Presidential primary elections, the conventions, and the elections in November of 2016.  What we need immediately — right now — as preemptively action before Wall Street blows out; we need to reinstate Glass-Steagall. Glass-Steagall is by no means the total solution; but it is the indispensable first step.  Glass-Steagall reinstated; full and complete bank separation will accomplish two things immediately. It will wipe out Wall Street, because once you separate out legitimate commercial banking activity from all of the gambling activity, and make it clear gambling debts will no longer be bailed out by taxpayers; at that moment, that entire Wall Street gambling bubble will evaporate.  It’ll be clear that nobody is going to bail it out; that it could never, ever be bailed out. It would be an act of moral horror to bail it out; and therefore, it will just disappear.  And under those circumstances, it will almost certainly mean the immediate demise of Obama.  Either Obama signs Glass-Steagall into law, which is highly unlikely; or his effort to block it on behalf of a Wall Street that’s already dead, will mean that he will be drummed out of office.  He will cause such an enormous backlash, that’s been building and building and building for so long already; that he’ll be gone. So, Glass-Steagall as a first step towards adopting the entire array of Franklin Roosevelt American System solutions to this crisis, is absolutely indispensable in the short term.

And the mood in the country is shifting, particularly among certain patriotic institutions.  The Pentagon is well aware that President Obama represents an horrific danger of war confrontation with Russia.  And now the center of gravity of that danger has shifted from eastern Ukraine to Syria; but the danger remains the same.  Secretary of State Kerry is trying to do certain things with the Russians to maintain a certain war prevention, war avoidance dynamic.  And he has institutional backing for those actions; otherwise, I doubt he would be simply taking them on his own.  But all of these measures, as useful as they are, are simply holding back the tide.  Wall Street must be put out of its misery; Obama must be removed from office.  The 25th Amendment, which provides for the means to remove a President who is no longer mentally fit to serve, is the most efficient means to carry this out.

But we are talking about events and actions that are going to have to be taken right away; immediately in the coming days ahead.  Because if those measures are not taken, and if the holding line actions being taken by people like Angela Merkel, with all of her flaws and weaknesses, in Germany; if there were to be a pushback against what President Putin is doing in Syria right now, then we’d go over the edge. And the driving factor in all of this, again, is that Wall Street is finished; it’s bankrupt, it’s doomed, it can never be put back together again. And either Wall Street is put out of its misery, or we’re headed for a moment of total and absolute chaos.  You had, for example, in Thursday’s Washington Post, an article by none other than Larry Summers — who was the architect of the end of Glass-Steagall; and he has an article called “The Global Economy in Peril”.  In the article, he says that the whole policy of QE [quantitative easing] can’t be done again; interest rates are at zero, the Fed has no ability to do anything.  The only option is to begin investing in capital investment in the real economy. Now, Larry Summers is a numbskull; and the idea that he’s even acknowledging the desperation of the present situation, tells you where things really stand right now.  So, we need Glass-Steagall immediately; that will bring about the end of the Obama tyranny, the Obama Presidency.  And nothing short of those measures is going to even remotely come close to solving the problems that are staring us right in the face.

ROSS:  Well, let’s take up the bombing of the hospital in Afghanistan.  As I’m sure everyone is aware, on Saturday, the U.S. military struck a hospital that was run by Doctors without Borders; commonly known by its French acronym MSF (Medecins sans Frontieres), in Kunduz, Afghanistan.  Destroying part of it, killing 10 staff members, 10 patients, including 3 children, and injuring 37.  This is a hospital that the coordinates of it had been communicated by MSF repeatedly to the U.S. military, Afghanistan, NATO — including only a short period before the attack.  After the bombing started, MSF tried to alert the U.S. military and yet the bombing continued for another 30 minutes.  So, I wanted to read some portions of a speech that was given by Dr. Joanne Liu, the President of Doctors without Borders, and ask Jeff to comment; put this into context for us.  So, Dr. Liu said:

“On Saturday morning, MSF patients and staff killed in Kunduz joined the countless number of people who have been killed around the world in conflict zones and referred to as ‘collateral damage’ or as an ‘inevitable consequence of war’. International humanitarian law is not about ‘mistakes’. It is about intention, facts and why.

“The U.S. attack on the MSF hospital in Kunduz was the biggest loss of life for our organization in an airstrike. Tens of thousands of people in Kunduz can no longer receive medical care now when they need it most. Today we say: Enough.  Even war has rules.”

Dr. Liu said, “This was not just an attack on our hospital — it was an attack on the Geneva Conventions. This cannot be tolerated. These Conventions govern the rules of war and were established to protect civilians in conflicts — including patients, medical workers, and facilities. They bring some humanity into what is otherwise an inhumane situation.”

She said, “It is precisely because attacking hospitals in war zones is prohibited that we expected to be protected. And yet, 10 patients including 3 children, and 12 MSF staff were killed in the aerial raids.

“The facts and circumstances of this attack must be investigated independently and impartially, particularly given the inconsistencies in the U.S. and Afghan accounts of what happened over recent days. We cannot rely on only internal military investigations by the U.S., NATO, and Afghan forces.”

She said, “Today we announce that we are seeking an investigation into the Kunduz attack by the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission. This Commission was established in the Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions and is the only permanent body set up specifically to investigate violations of international humanitarian law.”

So, I’d like to ask Jeff to put this into context, and let us know how to think about this.

STEINBERG:  First of all, Mr. LaRouche completely endorses the need for the kind of investigation that will presumably be carried out by this body under the Geneva Convention; because it would be a terrible tragic mistake to carry out an investigation that works from the bottom up.  This was a policy action, and ultimately it was a policy action of the Obama administration; and as Mr. LaRouche put it, it is characteristic of the state of mind of the President himself.  I don’t have to remind regular viewers of this broadcast about the Tuesday kill list sessions; or about the fact that at least four American citizens have been willfully put on those kill lists and murdered without any due process whatsoever.  These are crimes against the U.S. Constitution, crimes against humanity.

So, that’s the character of what we’re dealing with. Remember the decision that was consciously made by President Obama, Prime Minister Cameron, and former French President Sarkozy, when they had Muammar Qaddafi actually ready to be detained; and the decision instead was made to kill him.  To have him murdered in cold blood in order to accelerate the kind of chaos that ensued; and particularly the targeting of Russia and China that followed off of that.  So, these are important contextual factors to take into account, that cry for a full-scale actual independent investigation.

Now, one that I think must be factored in, as this serious investigation goes forward, is that there’s a recent prehistory of relations between President Obama and Doctors without Borders. Back six months ago, during an earlier phase of the negotiations around the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Doctors without Borders put out a policy statement in which they said that unless the entire TPP agenda relating to pharmaceuticals was changed, they would campaign aggressively against it; because the agreements that were under discussion — some of which were leaked by Wikileaks, and that’s about the only transparent public revelation about what this treaty actually says — but in the section relating to pharmaceutical patents, effectively they shut out the ability of generic drug manufacturers to actually do their job.  And the Doctors without Borders estimate was that one-half billion people would be shut out of access to vital, lifesaving generic drugs under the terms of TPP.  To my knowledge, there’s been no change in that aspect of the treaty, which the Obama administration rammed through earlier in the week. So, you’ve got a context here, where what happened with Doctors without Borders, issuing a clarion call to defeat one of President Obama’s signature legacy efforts cannot be ignored when you have to deal with taking into account the psychology of this President.

Now, I think it’s also very important to once again look at the events that are going on, the backdrop — the psychological context — for understanding this brutal attack in Kunduz. Because look, the initial comments coming out of the administration; they made no attempt whatsoever to deny what happened.  They just simply tried to issue a blanket statement that the Taliban took over Kunduz, and therefore, everyone living in that city could be presumed to be a terrorist.  Now, I mean, that kind of madness is, again, unfortunately typical of the kinds of squirming logic that are used by this White House, this President to justify actions that do belong before the International Court of Justice for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

So, then in contrast to that, you’ve got the actions that the Russians have taken in Syria.  They’ve been invited in officially by the Syrian government; they have formed a treaty agreement, in effect; a Memorandum of Understanding among Syria, Russia, Iran, and Iraq, to decisively go after and wipe out the Islamic State, the Army of Conquest, the al-Nusra Front — all of the groups that share a radical Salafist, jihadist commitment. And so, whereas the United States and the so-called coalition of 60 countries has been playing both sides of the fence; carrying out minor little incidental attacks against the Islamic State, supporting the Kurds here a little bit, doing certain other things.  Those same countries have been instrumental in actually going after and supporting the Islamic State, because as President Bush said way back in the summer of 2011, “Assad must go.”  The Saudis are behind the Army of Conquest; they created it, they’ve poured money and weapons into it.  They’re part of the so-called coalition against the Islamic State; but the core of the Army of Conquest — backed by the Saudis — is the al-Nusra Front, which is al-Qaeda.  So, in other words, the United States is part of a coalition which has absolutely no intention whatsoever of eliminating the threat to humanity posed by the Islamic State.

You have members of Congress — most recently Tulsi Gabbard — who said, look you might not like everything that Russia does, but back in World War II, there was an agreement that the threat to mankind represented by Hitler and the Axis powers was so great, that the only viable option was to work with the Soviet Union, to work with Stalin, to defeat Hitler and defeat the Nazi cause.  And as Mr. LaRouche emphasized, it was in fact the Soviet involvement that was decisive in defeating Hitler.  If it were not for the suffering of the Russian people — 22 million killed, for starters — and if it were not for the kinds of actions at places like Stalingrad, the outcome of World War II would probably have been very different; even despite Roosevelt’s Arsenal of Democracy.

So, now you’ve got Russia moving into Syria.  And very clearly, if you study the 2nd Chechen war, which took place soon after Putin became President, if you look at the 2008 Georgia war, you know that the Russians aren’t going in there to fight to a stalemate.  They are going in there for a total victory; whereas the United States has not even entertained the concept of total victory in the period following the death of Franklin Roosevelt.  We had a total victory concept in World War II; we abandoned it.  Vietnam was the new Rand Corporation conflict resolution, systems analysis mode of warfare; where mathematics are the dominant factor.  Never a concept of victory.  The real crisis going on right now between the United States and Russia in Syria has nothing to do with no-fly zones, or areas of operation, or anything like that.  The difference is that Russia is going in for absolute, decisive victory over the terrorists; and as Lavrov said pointblank in his discussions with Secretary of State Kerry very recently, he said, “If it walks like a terrorist, if it quacks like a terrorist, then it is a terrorist; and we’re going to treat it that way.”  So, these shades of gray differences between al-Nusra, the Army of Conquest, and ISIS, are outside the Russian concept of war.

So, Putin is going in for the kill.  Over the last 48 hours, Russia — in conjunction with Syrian military, as well as Iraq and Iran — has launched an air-land-sea total offensive against the terrorist infrastructure in Syria.  It’s changed the rules decisively; it’s changed the likely outcome of the entire situation.  And since the Obama administration and President Obama personally never abandoned the idea that the first priority is to get rid of President Assad and worry later about the consequences, what the Russians have done has stolen the moment completely.  In warfare, victory is very often measured by the ability to anticipate and know what the other command is thinking and doing; and to move on a flanking basis way out ahead of them and catch them by surprise.  That’s what happened this week.  The fact that the Russians have launched cruise missile strikes on terrorist targets inside Syria from 900 miles away, from four ships in the middle of the Caspian Sea accessing Iranian and Iraqi airspace en route into Syria, indicates that there is a serious military operation here.  Yesterday, the New York Times finally acknowledged that the Russian war plan in Syria has been mapped out in partnership with Iran and Iraq and Syria, and probably with Hezbollah, for at least the past four to six months.  The United States was blindsided by and large to these developments, because President Obama — in his supreme arrogance — presumed that the “coalition” was the only game in town.

So, now the Russians have stolen the march, and are committed to a dynamically different policy; and there is a very strong possibility that the Russians will succeed, because they’re committed to victory.  Whereas, the policies coming from the Obama administration and the Bush administration before that, were simply a commitment to perpetual wars; wars that ultimately get measured in the body count.  How many people are killed?  How long is the war sustained?  How much infrastructure and economic capacity can be permanently destroyed?  Already, much of the middle class of Syria, which was a modern secular large middle class country, have been driven out.  So that the brain drain on Syria is in itself another major kind of crisis.  These are the kinds of calculations that have dominated the thinking of the 20th Century:  population wars; Malthusian methods of reducing population in absolute terms; breaking down any prospects for genuine scientific and technological progress and advancement; no increase — in fact a net collapse — of real productivity. That’s been going on pretty much nonstop since the death of Roosevelt.

So, Obama is carrying out a policy that’s doomed to fail; and could very well bring the world to the very brink of thermonuclear war.  The Russians are carrying out a strategic and military flanking operation with a large element of diplomacy thrown in as well.  Turkey has already worked out de-confliction agreements with Russia; and the acting Prime Minister of Turkey, Davutoglu, said yesterday that Russian/Turkish relations are perfectly fine.  Syria will not interfere with the Russian and Turkish neighborly cooperation.  There was a high-level military delegation from Russia in Israel, talking about the fact that Israel no longer has carte blanche to carry out bombing attacks inside Syrian territory against Hezbollah targets.  So, you’ve got Iraq now saying that they want Russia to come in as the primary ally in the war against the Islamic State.

The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA], Gen. Michael Flynn — whom we’ve talked about on a number of our recent shows — who came out and blew the whistle on the fact that Obama supported the growth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, and ultimately the Islamic State, and refused to take DIA warnings seriously because it interfered with his plans of overthrowing Assad; even if it meant being in bed with the very people who did the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and then did the Benghazi.  So, General Flynn was interviewed several days ago on Russia Today; and he said pointblank “We must be working with Russia.  Russia has more strategic interests in defeating the Islamic State in Syria than the United States does by far.”  There are thousands — an estimate of 2500 to 5000 — Chechen and other Russian Muslims who’ve been recruited into the Islamic State, the al-Nusra Front, and are now fighting in Iraq and Syria.  And if they are not defeated right there in the Middle East, they will go back to Russia; and Russia will be facing an absolute hellish situation. So Putin, whose parents suffered greatly during the 2nd World War, as almost all Russians did; Putin, who lost a brother in the 2nd World War, has that kind of sense of morality to be willing to wage a total war to defeat an enemy that is clearly the enemy of humanity.

So, if you put all of those elements together, and then go back to the question of the investigation, and the need for an investigation, into the hospital bombing in Kunduz; I think it’s very clear that the findings of that investigation, if they are allowed to consider the full top-down implications, will be extremely important and will be extremely bad news for President Obama.

OGDEN:  Well, with that said, I want to bring a conclusion to this evening’s broadcast.  I want to thank both Jeff and Jason for joining me here in the studio.  And I think we can proceed with a substantial amount of clarity as to the dramatic nature of the current situation, and how important the intervention that LaRouche PAC and the LaRouche movement nationally have at this present time.  So, the mobilization that we initiated this week I think will continue into this following week; and if you haven’t yet, please take the statement that I read at the beginning of the broadcast tonight — the Urgent Message to Congressmen and Other National Leaders — and circulate it as widely as you can. We need to continue to spread this as widely as is possible; and take the proceedings of also the Fireside Chat that Mr. LaRouche continues to do on Thursday nights and his discussion with the group up in Manhattan on Saturdays.  And make sure that you are getting as many people as you can to study this in dept and to join our mobilization.

So, with that, I’d like to thank you all for listening; and stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.

8. oktober 2015 – Larry Summers, der spillede en central rolle i ødelæggelsen af Glass-Steagall fra sine stillinger i USA’s Finansministerium fra 1995-2001, har skrevet en lang kronik, der er publiceret i dagens Financial Times, Washington Post og andre publikationer, og hvor han udsteder et presserende krav om »substantielle ændringer i verdens økonomiske strategi« for at håndtere den fremstormende nedsmeltning.

For altid en fortaler for aggressiv kvantitativ lempelse (’pengetrykning’), lægger Summers nu stemme til den udprægede panik, der fejer hen over finanskredse, ved at sige, at en sådan »traditionel kvantitativ lempelse« i den monetære politik ikke længere ville have nogen virkning på krisen. Han kræver udløsningen af, hvad der svarer til en finansiel, udvidet kvantitativ lempelse og opfordrer indtrængende regeringer på begge sider Atlanten, og især de såkaldte fremvoksende økonomier, til at påtage sig rene bjerge af ny gæld ved, at de selv og deres centralbanker direkte opkøber junk-obligationer i halsbrækkende tempo. Man skal ikke bekymre sig om gæld-til-BNP på 60 % og mere, erklærer han; »et langt højere tal er bestemt passende i dag«.

Man bør erindre sig, at Summers, der var USA’s vicefinansminister under Robert Rubin fra 1995-1999, og dernæst selv finansminister fra 1999-2001, da Glass-Steagall formelt blev ophævet, i dag er en af Hillary Clintons vigtigste rådgivere i økonomisk politik. Hans artikel opfordrer til, at hans klinisk hysteriske forslag diskuteres på det årlige IMF-møde med verdens finansministre og centralbanker, der vil finde sted den 9. okt. i Lima, Peru.

5. oktober 2015: 

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

2) Dette skyldes umiddelbart Wall Streets bankerot. ..

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Den voksende europæiske flygtningekrise havde fundet vej til statsminister Lars Løkke-Rasmussens åbningstale til Folketinget den 6. oktober, men ellers var den totalt forandrede internationale situation, der er afgørende for Danmarks fremtid, ikke på dagsordenen: Wall Street og verdens finansmarkeder er bankerot, og spekulanterne kræver en hjælpepakke, der er endnu større end i 2008, for at overleve.

En sådan hjælpepakke vil dræbe det, der er tilbage af realøkonomien og befolkningens levestandard i USA og mange andre steder. Derfor skal der omgående gennemføres en lang række økonomiske tiltag, begyndende med en genindførelse af en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling og en ordnet afvikling af Wall Street og den globale finansspekulation.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Rusland har nu lanceret en dynamisk luft-, land- og vandoffensiv i Syrien, sammen med den Syriske Hær, og med opbakning fra Hezbollah og IRGC-styrker (Den iranske Revolutionshær). De primære mål er Islamisk Stat og Erobringshæren, der er en saudisk skabelse domineret af al-Qaeda (Nusra Front). I går mødtes præsident Putin med forsvarsminister Shoigu, og deres møde blev delvist vist i fjernsynet. Shoigu meddelte, at den Russiske Flåde havde sluttet sig til kampen mod ISIS, med fire, russiske flådefartøjer i det Kaspiske Hav, der affyrede 26 krydsermissiler på en afstand af 900 mil mod ISIS-mål i det nordlige Syrien.

Irak har indikeret, at det vil bede Rusland om at påbegynde bombeoperationer imod ISIS inde på irakisk jord. Tyrkiet har, i modstrid med NATO’s og Obamaregeringens højtravende snak, meddelt, at relationerne med Rusland er fine, og at man har etableret en militær kanal for at sikre, at der ikke opstår nogen hændelser mellem russiske og tyrkiske fly i området langs den syriske grænse. Fungerende premierminister Davutoglu sagde til reportere onsdag, at russisk-tyrkiske relationer er venskabelige og udviser godt naboskab, og at der ikke vil komme nogen tyrkisk-russisk konflikt ud af situationen i Syrien.

Obama er blevet grundigt udmanøvreret og trængt op i en krog af de russiske handlinger, der har udløst et betydningsfuldt brud væk fra Obama af traditionelle amerikanske nøgleallierede i Europa og Mellemøsten. For at føje spot til skade, så kom fhv. udenrigsminister Hillary Clinton, under sin valgkampagne i Iowa, i onsdags med en udtalelse om, at hun var imod Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Det betyder, at alle de tre, vigtigste, demokratiske præsidentkandidater har brudt med Obama over TPP.

Obama er blevet overgivet af alle sine »gamle venner«, med saudierne som eneste undtagelse.

Alt imens Obama fejrede TPP-aftalen i weekenden, så bliver det mere og mere sandsynligt, at det vil slå tilbage mod ham som en boomerang og kunne katalysere alle hans fjender til en enkelt styrke, der slår ham ned over TPP.

Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at det er tydeligt, at Obama nu overgives af alle sine tidligere venner, inklusive Hillary Clinton. Han kan, og må, fjernes fra embedet, i dette øjeblik, hvor spørgsmålet om krig of fred ligger på vippen. Fra Rusland lyder der advarsler om, at Obama totalt kunne flippe ud over Putins diplomatiske successer i de seneste uger og kunne forsøge at starte nye krigsprovokationer med ’farvede revolutioner’ imod Rusland. Disse provokationer kunne komme i det østlige Ukraine, i Moldova, i enklaven Transnistrien, eller i det armensk-aserbajdsjanske område omkring det Kaspiske Hav.

Obama sidder i kviksand op til navlen, men han er stadig en trussel, og intet mindre end hans fjernelse fra embedet vil fuldt ud løse krisen.

Timing er af afgørende betydning. Wall Street og London er irreversibelt bankerot, og en hvilken som helst udløser, kunne detonere hele systemets nedsmeltning. Glass-Steagall må vedtages, før denne nedsmeltning. Federal Reserve står magtesløs og hænger på en regnskabsopgørelse på 5,2 billioner dollars, takket være bailout (bankredning) via kvantitativ lempelse og en nulrentepolitik, der yderligere har næret boblen.

Obamas fjernelse, gerne under det 25. forfatningstillæg, samtidig med vedtagelse af en lovgivning, der genindfører Glass-Steagall, repræsenterer den eneste, fornuftige mulighed. Putins flankeoperationer i Syrien har skabt den nødvendige åbning for at bringe hele dette Obama-rod til fald. Gå ikke glip af denne historiske chance. Den kommer måske ikke igen.

Mens du læser denne rapport, er en stærk delegation af LaRouchePAC-aktivister fra New York City – garvede veteraner fra Lyndon LaRouches »Manhattan-projekt« – ankommet til Washington, D.C. for at lede dagens mobilisering og lobbyvirksomhed på Capitol Hill den 7. okt., for indtrængende at opfordre ansvarlige nøglepersoner blandt kongresmedlemmerne og senatorerne til omgående at tage skridt til at lukke Wall Street ned og gennemtvinge Glass-Steagall. Som det specificeres i LPAC’s 7-punktserklæring, »Til kongresmedlemmer, senatorer og andre medlemmer af USA’s regering, til omgående handling«:

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

hvilket kræver handling nu, i denne uge.

Panikken blandt bankierer på Wall Street og i City of London er mærkbar, lige under overfladen. Lederen i 3. okt.-udgaven af The Economist, medieflagskibet for City of Londons finansinteresser, advarer om, at »systemet er ved at bryde sammen« og kræver en massiv indsats for at understøtte boblen med nye bølger af kvantitativ lempelse – nøjagtig, som Lyndon LaRouche har advaret om, at deres plan går ud på. På samme måde klynker magasinet Forbes, at »der er for over 600 billioner dollar i udestående OTC-derivater (over-the-counter; ’over disken’) på storbankernes regnskaber (selv om det virkelige tal sandsynligvis er det dobbelte), som kunne sprænge hele systemet i stykker, når et stormløb først tager fat.

»For sådanne som JP Morgan, Bank of Amerika, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs og Morgan Stanley er disse ting fortsat et spørgsmål om liv og død.«

Det britiske Imperium er også i panik, fordi deres bydreng Barack Obama er ved at synke, og det hurtigt, både internt i USA og internationalt. Virkningen af FN’s Generalforsamling og den russiske præsidents dristige handlinger i Syrien ruller kloden rundt, og folk er ved at vågne op til den kendsgerning, at et ny, international orden er mulig. De har set på, mens Putin hængte Obama til tørre i Syrien, og ikke alene overlevede til at fortælle historien, men er i fin form, mens Obama smøler frustreret omkring. Ideen om, at

»vi måske ikke behøver at tolerere Obama mere; måske ikke længere behøver underkaste os Wall Street og se på, at vore nationer dør«,

er en voksende kraft over hele planeten.

Dette er et historisk øjeblik, der er svangert med potentiale, har Helga Zepp-LaRouche understreget. Det er et øjeblik, hvor vi ikke alene kan sænke Wall Street og genindføre Glass-Steagall, men også skifte radikalt over til en politik med Verdenslandbroen og global genopbygning. Det faktum, at ledende, akademiske lærde, folk fra tænketanke og andre i Kina offentligt har støtte LaRouche-parrets Landbro-politik; at verdens andenstørste økonomi grundlæggende set har vedtaget denne politik, er af dramatisk, global betydning. Nu, hvor den kinesiske udgave af EIR’s bog, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«, er blevet udgivet med så magtfuld opbakning, vil vi bringe dette budskab med tilbage til USA, med et stort oplag af Specialrapporten til en pris, der muliggør bred cirkulation i hele landet.

Lyndon LaRouche erklærede, hvad der står på spil her, den 5. okt. i sin ugentlige webcast med LPAC’s Komite for Politisk Strategi:

»Vi kan ikke længere tolerere de risici, der er involveret med en fornyelse af Wall Streets betingelser. Vi må derfor, af denne grund, lukke Wall Street ned for at beskytte USA’s befolkning … Vi må handle forebyggende. Det, vi har gjort, og det, som jeg har presset på for, er at få en omgående beslutning fra relevante medlemmer af Kongressen om at afholde et møde og håndtere situationen som sådan. Denne situation påbyder at lukke Wall Street, uden at de får en indsats for en bailout (bankredning). For, at give endnu en mulighed for en bailout til Wall Street ville næsten med sikkerhed garantere en stor katastrofe for befolkningen i USA.«

»Vi må derfor beskytte befolkningen. Vi må annullere Wall Street. Og vi må fortsætte fremefter med at omstrukturere organiseringen af vores beskæftigelse med den hensigt at rent faktisk få produktive processer sat i gang, grundlæggende set, et krav, der er mere presserende end det, Franklin Roosevelt gjorde. Men det, som Franklin Roosevelt udstod, og måtte konfrontere og håndtere, er ubetydeligt, sammenlignet med de vilkår, der hersker i USA netop nu.«

Supplerende dokumentation:

Wall Street bankierer diskuterer åbenlyst det kommende krak:

»Systemet er ved at bryde sammen«

Samtidig med, at LaRouche-bevægelsen skifter til højeste gear for at lukke Wall Street ned og vende tilbage til Glass-Steagall, før krakket slår til, diskuterer bankierer på Wall Street og i City of London nu åbenlyst det kommende krak … og er i stille panik over, hvordan de skal håndtere det.

Lederen i 3. oktober-udgaven af The Economist, medieflagskibet for City of Londons finansinteresser, advarer om, at »systemet er ved at bryde sammen« og kræver en massiv indsats for at understøtte boblen med nye bølger af såkaldt kvantitativ lempelse – nøjagtig, som Lyndon LaRouche har advaret om, at deres plan går ud på. Artiklen klynker imidlertid, at denne hyperinflationsskabende bailout-politik muligvis ikke vil virke, som den gjorde i 2008, fordi Den amerikanske Kongres måske i stedet vil gå ind for mere regulering af bankerne – selv om artiklen omhyggeligt undgår at nævne de frygtede ord, »Glass-Steagall«.

Et stort problem i dag, skriver The Economist,

»er manglen på en opbakning til det oversøiske dollarsystem, hvis det står over for en krise. I 2008-09 kom Federal Reserve modvilligt til hjælp og optrådte som den sidste lånemulighed ved at tilbyde dollarlikviditet til 1billion til udenlandske banker og centralbanker. De summer, der vil være involveret i en fremtidig krise, ville være langt højere. Den oversøiske dollarverden er omtrent dobbelt så stor, som den var i 2007. I år 2020 kunne den være lige så stor som Amerikas bankindustri. Siden 2008-09 er Kongressen blevet forsigtig med Feds nødlån. I den næste krise kan Feds planer om at udstede udstrakte swaplinjer muligvis blive mødt med modstand fra lovgivning og Kongres.«

 Artiklen i The Economist slutter:

»Der er ting, som Amerika kan gøre for at påtage sig mere ansvar – f.eks. ved at etablere større nød-swaplinjer til flere centralbanker. En splittelse af systemet er mere sandsynlig, med andre lande, der vælger at isolere sig fra Feds beslutninger ved at indføre begrænsninger på finanstransaktioner. Dollaren har ingen ligemand. Men det system, som det forankrer, er ved at bryde sammen.«

 På samme måde skrev magasinet Forbes’ Antoine Gara den 2. okt. om faren for en ny nedsmeltning, og indrømmer som noget usædvanligt, at det underliggende problem er den gigantiske bunke af derivater, der yderligere er knyttet til utallige nominelle gældsbobler. Gara forsøger at lade, som om alt er i skønneste orden, og fremfører, at »Glencores opløsning ikke vil udvikle sig til det næste Lehman Brothers-tilfælde«. Han siger, at det skyldes, at Glencore ikke har den samme eksponering til derivater, som Lehman havde.

Men, indrømmer han,

»hvis Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley eller en anden, stor investeringsbank skulle blive kastet ud i de samme vanskeligheder, som Glencore nu befinder sig i, ville der være god grund til at være bekymret for en Lehman 2. Der er over 600 billioner dollar i udestående OTC-derivater (faktisk er der nok det dobbelte, -red.), et beløb, der er større end før krisen, og mange af disse kontrakter fortsætter med at handle bilateralt mellem banker og forbinder firmaer.

 Gara slutter:

»For sådanne som JP Morgan, Bank of Amerika, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs og Morgan Stanley er disse ting fortsat et spørgsmål om liv og død. I sidste kvartal viste hvert selskab for billioner, hvis ikke et titals billioner af udestående OTC-derivatkontrakter. Ingen mængde af rejst, tilbageholdt kapital ville beskytte disse selskaber, hvis der kom en grim, Lehman-lignende bankerot.«

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

2) Dette skyldes umiddelbart Wall Streets bankerot. ..

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

——————-

Ansvarlige hovedpersoner blandt kongresmedlemmer og senatorer (og sådanne findes), samt andre repræsentanter for den amerikanske regering, må omgående afholde et møde for at udstede faktiske konstateringer og hensigtserklæringer, som i store træk følger nedenstående, til omgående vedtagelse som lov og omgående ikrafttræden.

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

2) Dette skyldes umiddelbart Wall Streets bankerot. Wall Street er totalt og uigenkaldeligt bankerot. Bush- og Obamaregeringernes successive bailouts – bankredninger – samt runderne med »kvantitative lempelser« har blot haft held til at gøre Wall Streets værdier værdiløse og gøre dets bankerot endegyldig.

3) Hvis Wall Street får lov til atter at nedsmelte på sine egne betingelser, hvilket nu synes at være umiddelbart forestående, vil resultatet blive historiens værste panik, som vil lukke alt, hvad der er tilbage af USA’s økonomi, ned. Vi vil få massive tabstal, på samme skala som den Sorte Død, der udslettede en tredjedel af Europas befolkning. Endnu en bailout af Wall Street, som Obama vil kræve, hvis han får lov til at blive i embedet, ville udløse en hyperinflation med samme, dødbringende virkning.

4) Det følger heraf, at Wall Street må nedlukkes som en forebyggende foranstaltning gennem en handling fra den amerikanske regering, i samme ånd som det, Franklin Roosevelt ville have gjort, havde han levet i dag. (Selv om den krise, han stod overfor, var langt mildere.) Udelukkende kun aktiviteter, der er i overensstemmelse med en Glass/Steagall-standard, må få lov at fortsætte.

5) USA’s regering må udstede amerikanske dollars som kredit for at bevare befolkningens liv og skaffe beskæftigelse til alle, der kan arbejde, i samme ånd, som Roosevelts og Harry Hopkins’ beslægtede handlinger.

6) Hen over et lidt længere tidforløb må statskredit anvendes til en hurtig hævelse af den amerikanske arbejdskrafts produktivitet, gennem en forøget energigennemstrømningstæthed med teknologiske og videnskabelige fremskridt.

7) Den endelige fjernelse af Barack Obama fra embedet ville udgøre et fremragende udgangspunkt for disse presserende nødvendige reformer.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Udelukkende kun en hurtig mobilisering, som en del af en plan for sejr, kan ændre situationen. Glass-Steagall må omgående genindføres. En folkelig mobilisering for de eneste, farbare løsninger, på dette fremskredne tidspunkt, haster som højeste prioritet. …  At vente på, at katastrofen skal ramme, er en opskrift på total død og ødelæggelse.

Den russiske præsident Putins flankeoperationer i Syrien har ikke alene allerede leveret et dødbringende slag mod jihadisterne i ISIS og Nusra. De har på afgørende vis demonstreret, at USA’s præsident Obama er en egomaniker, der er ude af stand til strategisk tænkning eller planlægning.

Obamas sindssyge er en af faktorerne i den amerikanske regerings totale disintegration. De nye medlemmer af Kongressen, både i Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, er for det meste også af en tilsvarende, lav kvalitet således, at nationens styrelse befinder sig i en tilstand af disintegration.

Den største, umiddelbare fare som følge af denne disintegration i Washington, er, at det håbløst bankerotte Wall Street vil implodere – før de korrekte forholdsregler, med genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall(1) som den første forholdsregel, kan gennemføres. Dette er en alvorlig fare. Wall Street er allerede død. Den afgørende faktor er, at det amerikanske folk må mobiliseres til at gennemtvinge en radikal ændring i politikken, før systemet evaporerer og fører til kaos, massiv panik og den totale disintegration af det, der er tilbage af USA’s økonomi.

Det betyder nu – ikke i næste uge, ikke i næste måned, men Nu!

Hvis man ikke genindfører Glass-Steagall og får smidt Obama ud, før systemet ryger, bliver der total katastrofe. Det er den mest umiddelbare og alvorlige udfordring, der konfronterer os alle. Wall Street er en død institution og må nedlukkes totalt. Det er super-bankerot. En fremgangsmåde som den, Franklin D. Roosevelt anvendte, er, hvad vi omgående har brug for. Det begynder med at genindføre Glass-Steagall, der omgående vil gøre en ende på Wall Streets elendighed. Det amerikanske folk er blevet kollektivt demoraliseret af de seneste 15 års vanrøgtede lederskab og fraværet af enhver strategi for en reel, økonomisk genrejsning.

Den umiddelbare fare er, at USA’s almene befolkning hænger på den yderste kant, og de kan knækkes. Obama er ansvarlig for denne katastrofe. Det amerikanske folk er i umiddelbar, overhængende fare. Hele den amerikanske økonomi befinder sig i en tilstand af fremskreden sårbarhed.

Udelukkende kun en hurtig mobilisering, som en del af en plan for sejr, kan ændre situationen. Glass-Steagall må omgående genindføres. En folkelig mobilisering for de eneste, farbare løsninger, på dette fremskredne tidspunkt, haster som højeste prioritet. Opbyg det amerikanske folks mod ved at give dem en retning for sejr. At vente på, at katastrofen skal ramme, er en opskrift på total død og ødelæggelse.

Se på, hvad det var, Putin gjorde med sin deployering i Syrien. Dette har skabt betingelserne for et dramatisk skift i Europa, anført af Tyskland, og som hastigt kan ændre den globale situation.

Obama er et produkt af sin brutale, indonesiske stedfader, der var en regulær morder, og som forvandlede Obama til en ego-drevet, sindssyg dræber. Se blot på Obamas løgnagtige opførsel, hvor han forsøger at benægte, at USA bombede et hospital under Læger uden Grænser i det nordlige Afghanistan og dræbte et dusin mennesker fra det lægelige personale. Bombningen fortsatte en halv time efter hektiske opkald til USA’s og NATO’s kommandører om at stoppe. Hospitalet blev forvandlet til en ruinhob, og Obama unddrog sig blot ansvaret, »indtil undersøgelsen af hændelsen er fuldført«.

Stik denne grusomhed lige op i Obamas ansigt. Knæk ham nu, og tag omgående initiativ til en økonomisk genrejsning, modelleret efter Franklin Roosevelts politik. Der eksisterer ingen anden mulighed, hvis det amerikanske folk skal reddes fra undergang.

(1) Se også LPAC’s Glass-Steagall-page

Ja, jeg er parat til at hjælpe med kampagnen for vedtagelse af Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven i Danmark!

Kontakt: tlf. 35 43 00 33, eller e-mail: si@schillerinstitut.dk

Zepp-LaRouche: » For jeg mener, at vi befinder os i en forandringens epoke, hvor både geopolitik må lades tilbage i fortiden;  …  Jeg mener, at vi, som menneskehed, må komme frem til et nyt paradigme, hvor menneskehedens fælles mål virkelig er fokus for hele den menneskelige familie, og ud fra dette standpunkt mener jeg, at alle lande virkelig må være klart repræsenteret.«

2. oktober 2015 – Helga Zepp-LaRouche, stifter af Schiller Instituttet, var en af tre panelister på CCTV’s show »Dialogue: Ideas Matter« (Dialog: Ideer er vigtige), den 28. september. Vært for showet var Yang Rui, og deltagerne var prof. Jin Canrong fra Kinas Renmin Universitet, der var i studiet sammen med fr. LaRouche, og prof. M.D. Nalapat, formand for UNESCO Peace ved Manipal Universitetet i Indien, over video.

Showet, der varede en halv time, var helliget spørgsmål, der er blevet rejst under det nylige sammentræde af FN’s Generalforsamling. Her følger fr. LaRouches interventioner:

Spørgsmålet om udvikling

Da værten Yang Rui bad fr. LaRouche om at kommentere præsident Xi’s forpligtelse til at yde 2 mia. dollar til fattige nationer i hele verden, svarede hun:

»Jeg mener, at det bør ses i lyset af den fremragende tale, han holdt i FN, der var den mest optimistiske, mest opmuntrende tale af alle lederne, efter min mening, fordi han understregede den lovede udvikling for hele verden som en del af Kinas win-win-politik. Han understregede f.eks. innovation. Så disse 2 mia. dollar er blot en slags gestus for den langt bredere politik med win-win-politikken og den kinesiske model, som Kina netop nu tilbyder.«

[… Prof. Nalapat bemærkede, at Kina har bragt 500 mio. mennesker ud af absolut fattigdom i løbet af den seneste generation, samt har fremmet kvinders rettigheder.]

Værten Yang Rui spurgte fr. LaRouche, om Xis og Modis oplevelser af fattigdom tidligt i deres liv har haft, og i hvilken grad, en indflydelse på deres politik.

Zepp-LaRouche: »Meget, tror jeg. Jeg mener, at begge de to ledere virkelig er exceptionelle ud fra et standpunkt om at kere sig om deres befolkning. De har begge givet udtryk for en enorm optimisme for fremtiden. Narendra Modi har f.eks. sagt, at BRIKS-landene er den første alliance af lande, som ikke defineres ud fra deres nuværende kapaciteter, men af deres fremtidige potentiale.

Jeg mener, at de begge, med deres egne erfaringer om fattigdom, og om vanskelige tider – i Xi Jinpings tilfælde var perioden under kulturrevolutionen meget vanskelig … « [afbrydes]

Efter nogen diskussion om den internationale flygtningekrise, spurgte værten Yang Rui alle de tre paneldeltagere om Millennium Udviklingsmålene, der erklærer, at fattigdom på nuværende tidspunkt efter planen angiveligt skulle have været halveret, samt om Pave Frans’ holdning til den ukontrollerede grådigheds voldsomhed. Prof. Nalapat rejste spørgsmålet om præsident Clintons ophævelse af Glass-Steagall og antydede, at dette førte til krakket i 2008 og til store uligheder i indkomster.

Yang: Er Kina et »udviklet« land eller et »udviklingsland«?  Værten bemærkede, at der eksisterer et nyt niveau af aftaler mellem Kina og USA, inklusive løfter fra Washington om at støtte AIIB’s indsats. Vil Kina yde store bidrag til folkeslagenes udvikling?

Zepp-LaRouche: »Det mener jeg, Kina allerede har gjort. For, i BRIKS-politikken, og i Xi Jinpings win-win-politik, har Kina bidraget til eller taget lederskabet for at skabe en totalt alternativ, økonomisk model; og det på et tidspunkt, hvor det transatlantiske finanssystem står umiddelbart foran at nedsmelte i et krak, der er større end det i 2008.

Jeg mener, at hele verden har tilsluttet sig AIIB, f.eks., fordi den er en mere attraktiv model, fordi den er målrettet mod reel investering, infrastruktur og andre aspekter af realøkonomien, mens den transatlantiske verden står umiddelbart foran en bankerot. De europæiske banker er totalt bankerot; Wall Street er mere end bankerot. Og da nu herren fra Indien nævnte Glass-Steagall – der er i øjeblikket en stor bevægelse for at genindføre Glass-Steagall, hvilket ville betyde at erklære de bankerotte Wall Street-banker bankerot. Det ville være en meget god ting.

Så det er virkelig en gave fra himlen, næsten, at Kina er begyndt at skabe dette alternative system, som en redningsbåd netop, som Titanic er ved at gå ned.

Så alt imens det er godt, at der nu er en bedre forståelse mellem USA og Kina, så løser det ikke problemet med, at USA’s tilbøjelighed stadig går i retning af en unipolær verden.

Jeg mener, at vi befinder os i en periode med enorme forandringer. Europa er ved at forandres; der er stor respons på flygtningekrisen, for det har ’prikket hul på boblen’ om, at vi lever i en verden, hvor krige, der begynder i én del af verden … « [afbrudt]

Yang: De er også forfatter til rapporten, »Fra Silkevejen til Verdenslandbroen« [viser den frem], en fantastisk, meget imponerende rapport.

Se også: “Silkevejen bliver til Verdenslandbroen” udgivet på kinesisk

præsenteres på pressekonference i Beijing, 30. sept. 

De ser »Dialog« med fr. LaRouche, stifter af Schiller Instituttet, og prof. Jin Canrong og prof. M.D. Nalapat. Vi diskuterer spørgsmål fra FN’s Generalforsamling New York.

Spørgsmålet om kvinders rettigheder

CCTV-værten Yang rejste spørgsmålet om angrebene på Kina for sin tilstand mht. kvinders rettigheder, og beder om alle paneldeltagernes mening. Efter at de andre havde talt, sagde fr. LaRouche:

Zepp-LaRouche: »Jeg mener, at den eneste måde, hvorpå man kan overvinde kvinders underprivilegerede stilling, er, hvis begge kønnene lever et kreativt liv; for kun, når alle mænd og kvinder opfylder deres skabende potentiale fuldt ud, kan der blive ligestilling.

Og i denne henseende mener jeg, at der i hele verden er behov for at gøre mere, uden tvivl. Men jeg mener, at Kina promoverede kvindelige taikonauter – kvindelige astronauter – og dette er et godt tegn. Vi har i Tyskland udgivet en bog, hvis forside viser et foto af en kvindelig, kinesisk taikonaut, der kommer tilbage fra rumfartøjet – det er fuldstændig optimistisk.

Det er denne form for rollemodeller, vi har brug for. For det er ønskeligt med et image, hvor kvinder befinder sig i avantgarden af videnskab og kultur: og det mener jeg er meget godt. Det er meget bedre end i mange dele af USA … «

Repræsentation i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd

Efter en drøftelse af kravet fra flere lande, inklusive Japan, Indien, Tyskland og Brasilien, om at have en permanent repræsentation i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, spurgte Yang fr. LaRouche: Bør Tyskland blive permanent medlem af Sikkerhedsrådet?

Zepp-LaRouche: »Ja, det mener jeg, men spørgsmålet rækker ud over dette. For jeg mener, at vi befinder os i en forandringens epoke, hvor både geopolitik må lades tilbage i fortiden; men også, at jeg ikke nødvendigvis er enig i, at ideen om en multi-polær verden skulle være særligt meget bedre end en unipolær verden, for det indeholder stadig ideen om geopolitik. Jeg mener, at vi, som menneskehed, må komme frem til et nyt paradigme, hvor menneskehedens fælles mål virkelig er fokus for hele den menneskelige familie, og ud fra dette standpunkt mener jeg, at alle lande virkelig må være klart repræsenteret. Så jeg mener, at vi må finde en modus operandi, hvor Afrika, Latinamerika og Asien er repræsenteret på en passende måde.

Men jeg mener, at hovedspørgsmålet er, at vi må have et Nyt Paradigme, i hvilket hele menneskehedens interesser, menneskeheden som den udødelige art for fremtiden, må være det, der er vejviser for, hvad alle lande gør. Jeg mener, at tiden er inde til, at et folks legitime interesse, eller endda en gruppe af folkeslags legitime interesse, som et modsætningsforhold til en anden gruppe af folkeslag, nu må tilsidesættes, og at vi i stedet må definere, hvad menneskehedens fælles problemer er, hvilket vil sige at fjerne sult og indføre sikkerhed for energiforsyning og forsyning af råmaterialer.

Her igen mener jeg, at Kina har taget føringen med sit Måneprogram. Kinas Månemissioner viser virkelig, hvordan videnskab og teknologi kan håndtere spørgsmålene om sikkerhed for forsyning af råmaterialer og energi. For, Kina arbejder hen imod at udvinde helium-3 på Månen til brug for, at der i fremtiden endelig kan komme produktion af fusionsenergi på Jorden.

Jeg mener, at det mere er et spørgsmål om en vision for fremtiden. Det er mere et spørgsmål om at definere menneskehedens fælles mål, og dernæst bør repræsentationen reflektere denne holdning.«

Video med CCTV’s program Dialogue kan ses her. 

Helga Zepp-LaRouche-pressekonference i Kina: “Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen” udgivet på kinesisk. Wall Street er dømt til snarlig undergang, færdig; Indfør omgående Glass-Steagall, forebyggende! LaRouche om koalitionen mod ISIS: Gør det!  Der er en global, strategisk alliance: En Geneve III-politisk løsning på krisen i Syrien vil nu være mulig. Engelsk udskift.

LaRouche PAC Webcast, October 2, 2015
        [proofed against the audio]

The World Is a Better and Safer Place Without Wall Street:
Dump Wall Street, Get Glass-Steagall, Bring Back Hamilton

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s October 2, 2015. My name is
Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly webcast here
from larouchepac.com. We are recording here a few hours before
live show time, just to let you know, in case anything drastic
changes, but we are fresh from a discussion which we had with Mr.
LaRouche earlier today. I’m joined in the studio by Jeffrey
Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}, and Benjamin
Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Scientific Team.
Obviously, we’re convening here at a very momentous time in
history. This is a week which began with the events at the United
Nations General Assembly meeting, most significantly, the
speeches on Monday by both Vladimir Putin and President Xi
Jinping of China. Now that was happening on the inside of the
United Nations building. On the outside, and in the entire
general area of Manhattan, the LaRouche movement was making a
very significant intervention which had a significant impact on
the proceedings of the United Nations, and the discussions around
that. And those of you who listened to, or had the opportunity to
listen to the 20th Fireside Chat with Mr. LaRouche that occurred
last night, Thursday night, you heard a short report by one of
the LaRouchePAC activists about what those interventions have
been. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imkd4v0hiiY]
Now, simultaneous with the United Nations General Assembly
meeting in New York City, another significant leader of the
LaRouche movement, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, was in China. She was
participating in a series of meetings, and very significantly,
got to participate in a press conference announcing the
publication of the {Executive Intelligence Review} Special
Report, “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” which
was now published in Chinese, and is available in the Chinese
language, and we can be sure is already beginning to circulate
widely in China.
[https://larouchepac.com/20150930/eirs-silk-road-report-chinese-
presented-beijing-press-conference]
In the days subsequent to the beginning of this week, we’ve
seen a very significant, dramatic shift in world events, and I
know this is something which will be elaborated a little bit
later in our broadcast. But obviously we’ve seen the Russian air
strikes against ISIS in Syria, and this has created really a
chasm, a schism, inside the United States, where Obama himself is
finding himself completely edged out, and isolated, whereas
significant leadership inside the senior leadership of the United
States, including John Kerry and others, and also other members
of Obama’s own Democratic Party–Congressman Tulsi Gabbard is one
significant example of this–have distanced themselves, and
distinguished themselves, from Obama, and have said, this is a
necessary action on the part of Vladimir Putin, and one that
should be supported.
Mr. LaRouche was also clear to point out that Europe is
beginning to realign itself as well vis-à-vis these actions by
Russia.
Now, the primary point that Mr. LaRouche wanted us to begin
tonight’s broadcast with, was the implosion of the Wall
Street-based financial system. And this is what I’m going to ask
Jeffrey Steinberg to elaborate on, to begin our broadcast here
tonight.
Let me just paraphrase a little bit of what Mr. LaRouche had
to say in our meeting earlier, before I ask Jeff to come to the
podium. What Mr. LaRouche emphatically stated was that this
financial system is on the verge of a total implosion. It’s not
just a crash, but the entire thing is about to cease to exist.
And that means the entire system must be changed. What do we say?
Dump Wall Street! We need a total reorganization of this entire
bankrupt system, because we’re experiencing a general breakdown
of both the U.S. and the European financial systems. Therefore,
action must be taken to shut this thing down. Nothing can be done
to save it, he said.
The United States, as a nation, isn’t bankrupt, but Wall
Street is, and there’s no solution within the current form of
this financial system. The entire system must be put into
receivership. He said, either way, Wall Street is finished.
Either finished on its own accord, or finished because of a
decisive action that’s taken by patriots within the United States
government. It’s intrinsically bankrupt, according to any
rational physical economic standard of measurement, and all you
have to do is look at the facts. It’s happening now, and that’s
not a bad thing. It’s actually good, and we should make the point
that Wall Street disappearing is good for the future of the
American people.  It should have happened a long time ago; it
just needs to be cleaned up. The garbage has to be taken out, so
that we can get our people back to productive work.
So that was a short paraphrase of what Mr. LaRouche had to
say. I’m going to ask Jeff to come to the podium, elaborate a
little bit more on the context of this, to begin our broadcast
here tonight.

JEFF STEINBERG:   Last week a number of leading figures in
both Wall Street and the City of London were bracing themselves,
waiting to see whether the Federal Open Market Committee at the
Fed was going to begin the process of normalizing interest rates,
by raising them for the first time in seven or eight years by
one-quarter of 1%. There was {absolute} panic and pandemonium
over the prospect of that taking place, and statements were
issued from the City of London, the IMF Managing Director
Christine Lagarde, saying that if the Fed raises rates, it may
very well trigger a blowout of the entire system, and then the
Fed will be holding the bag, taking the blame for a financial
blowout.
Well, the simple fact of the matter is that the Wall Street
system is bankrupt, and by Wall Street system, I mean the
extended system of gambling that exists on Wall Street, that
dominates the City of London. You would got around the globe.
You’ve got Frankfurt. You’ve got Paris. You’ve got Dubai in the
Middle East. You’ve got Macao and Hong Kong in the Pacific region.
These are all centers in which there is virtually no connection
any more between the activities in the real economy, and the
gambling and churning of gambling money that’s going on in the
financial sector.
So there is nothing that can be done to avoid the fact that
at some point very soon, there will be a trigger incident. It
could be virtually anything. And it could be the beginning of a
very rapid, total evaporation of this entire mountain of debt,
and what Mr. LaRouche has also been emphasizing, is that the
danger in this situation is that if there is not immediate
pre-emptive action,  before that blowout occurs, then what you’re
likely to see is a period of total chaos, in which the bankruptcy
of the financial bubble creates a system of chaos in the real
economy, where you wind up with very destructive developments,
with social chaos, in which the real people of the United States
and other parts of the world become once again, but on a much
more dangerous scale, the victims of this kind of chaos.
So the point is very simple. There’s got to be pre-emptive
action now to put Wall Street in its entirety out of its misery.
And the simple first step to be taken in that direction is to
reinstate Glass-Steagall. By reinstating Glass-Steagall, and
making it clear, that this mountain of gambling debt will never
again be bailed out by taxpayers’ funds.
The simple fact of stating that means, that the entire Wall
Street system will immediately blow out.  Someone is going to
panic; someone is going to make a margin call, because so much of
this gambling debt, is built on borrowed money that the whole
thing will evaporate.  But the crucial thing is that you’ve got
to first create a clean and total separation between commercial
banking, which does impact on the real economy and this gambling
debt; this mountain of gambling debt that’s sitting there as a
parasite on the real economy.  If you make that separation by
passing Glass-Steagall in the United States, this will be the
basis for immediate action in other parts of the world.   So in
effect, by acting here in the United States, we will create the
conditions for a global Glass-Steagall separation, and then all
of this gambling debt can just evaporate.
Now, an illustrative case of this:  Back in 1998, when you
had the beginnings of a whole sequence of debt blow-outs, in
Japan, you had a large number of Japanese banks that were
basically bankrupt and were going to have to be put through
bankruptcy reorganization.  Under those conditions, those banks
posed a systemic risk, not just in Japan, but globally.  There
were some people in the Japanese Finance Ministry who understood,
and still had a memory of the difference between productive
investment, legitimate commercial banking activity, and the
gambling activities that had infected the whole international
banking system.
And so, those banks were basically audited, and all of the
derivative contracts, all of the international gambling
contracts that those banks had were simply cancelled. The
counterparties were contacted and given the option, of netting
out those contracts; or facing the consequences of losing those
funds, those gambling debts that nobody had sufficient funds to
be able to even remotely cover.  So, in the case of Japan, the
gambling debts were cancelled, and then the banks were put
through reorganization; there was no systemic risk.
At the same time, in the Summer of 1998, Alan Greenspan —
who was in the final phases of the elimination of Glass-Steagall
as the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and formerly a senior
partner at JP Morgan when the plan was hatched in the mid-’80s to
wipe out Glass-Steagall.  Instead what Greenspan did was, he
called in all of the counterparties of Long Term Capital
Management [LTCM], a relatively small, offshore hedge fund
located in the Dutch Antilles.  But they had derivative contracts
tied to the Russian debt, which the Russians defaulted on, the
famous GKO scandal of 1998.
And so, LCTM, rather than being put through an orderly
reorganization by netting out those derivatives contracts;
Greenspan called in all of the counterparties, and wouldn’t let
them leave the room until they bailed out LTCM.  So, on the one
hand, you had a cancellation of the derivatives; on the other
hand, you had a hyperinflationary bail-out.  Really just the
beginning of a hyperinflationary process that went off the charts
a year later, when Glass-Steagall was repealed.  And then it was
really off to the races; with everything invested in gambling
and virtually nothing going into the real economy.
So now here we are, it’s October of 2015.  We had a
shake-out of the bubble in 2008, and now it’s back once again
with a vengeance, because there was no change in policy.  The
Dodd-Frank bill with the Volcker Rule was a sick joke; it did
nothing to change anything.  So now, the too-big-to-fail banks
have accrued a greater amount of gambling debt than they
previously had.  That debt cannot and will not ever be paid.
So, by any scientific measurement, all of Wall Street is
hopelessly bankrupt; and so long as you remain in the trap of the
current system, nothing can be done about that.  And we’re headed
very soon — perhaps in a matter of days or weeks or months — to
a point where the entire system blows out; the entire
trans-Atlantic system evaporates, literally overnight.  And then
you’ve got social chaos on a very, very broad and dangerous
scale.
So, there is no money. Your money, your personal
investments in mutual funds or Wall Street stocks, or anything
like that; there’s nothing there to protect.  It can’t be
protected; and in fact, what’s going on right now on the eve of
the annual Autumn meeting of the IMF, scheduled to take place in
the next few weeks in Peru, are calls all over the place for a
new surge of hyperinflationary quantitative easing.  You’ve got
the European Central Bank about to extend its QE program towards
the end of 2018; in other words, a massive hyperinflationary
bail-out that will further erode the real economy.
So, Wall Street is dead; the funeral should have already
taken place long ago.  And now we’re at a point where that system
must be completely shut down.  Cancel out all the derivatives;
separate the banks under Glass-Steagall, into commercial banks
and let everything fall off the edge of the cliff.  Because it’s
unpayable, it’s illegal, it’s commingled with massive amounts of
criminal money; it serves no purpose whatsoever.  The world is a
better and safer place without those Wall Street activities;
without the City of London, without the activities in Frankfurt
and Paris and these other parasitical financial capitals.
Glass-Steagall right now, immediately.  And we’ve got a
political context in which President Obama, although he is not
down all together, is greatly weakened.  And you can put a {fait
accompli} on his desk and force the signing of Glass-Steagall.
If he refuses to do that, then he’s out under the 25th Amendment;
because to not do it, in the face of this imminent blow-out of
Wall Street, would be an act of criminal insanity that warrants
his removal from office.
So, that’s the story.  Wall Street is doomed.  If you listen
to idiots like Christine Lagarde, or Ambrose Evans-Pritchard over
at the London {Daily Telegraph}, they’re saying, “Gee, we’re not
sure if this is a systemic crisis, or some minor cyclical problem
that we can just weather by printing a bit more money.”  They’re
either idiots, or criminal liars, or both.
The fact of the matter is, Wall Street is dead; it’s dead in
the water.  Nothing can be done to save it.  And the question is,
do you want that doom to spread to the real economy; to the real
population that’s already suffering enough?  Or, are you prepared
to fight to insure that the right preemptive measures are taken
now?  Because a week from now may be too late; we don’t know how
close we are to the edge.  Well-informed insiders from London and
Wall Street thought that we were about to blow out a week and a
half ago, had the Fed gone through the small step of simply
raising interest rates and shifting the directionality.  There’s
a million and one potential small triggers out there, but the
triggers are not the real issue.  The real issue is that the
entire system is doomed; and we’ve got to take the right remedial
action before the doom spreads into the real world of real
people, and then it’s too late.
Franklin Roosevelt had an understanding of the kinds of
measures that have to be taken.  On the one hand, the
Glass-Steagall Act and other measures that secured depositors
funds in the commercial banks; shut out the gambling debt.  But
then Franklin Roosevelt also moved on for massive credit
emissions into the real economy.  He did the TVA; he created a
massive number of jobs through various public works programs,
much of which became the kind of infrastructure-building
projects,  major dam projects, municipal buildings, roads; all
the kinds of things that were the necessary preparations and
foundations for what became the “arsenal of democracy,”  the
enormous economic surge that occurred, when the United States was
on the verge of entering into war, against Nazi Germany and
Japan.  So, Roosevelt had the formula.
The situation today is far more dangerous, far more severe,
than it was at the time of Roosevelt. But the principles, the
American System principles, that Roosevelt understood and acted
on, are the recipe for success today. But the starting point is
to simply face the reality and act preemptively on the fact that
Wall Street’s dead. Give it a decent funeral, but pay no respect
whatsoever to this quadrillions of dollars, of strictly gambling
debt that have been built up since the repeal of Glass-Steagall
in particular.
What Mr. LaRouche has emphasized, is that this process goes
back–really the beginning of the decline in actual productivity
in the U.S. economy, started with the death of Franklin
Roosevelt. It accelerated tremendously after the assassination of

John Kennedy, and particularly after Nixon took the world off the
Bretton Woods fixed- exchange-rate system. That was the era when
people like George H.W. Bush and his underlings began to come in
and greatly accelerated the process of take-down of the real
economy.
So, we’re at the point now: Wall Street’s doomed; it’s
finished. So, let’s do the right thing.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  Thanks, Jeff. Now for the second element
of our show today, I’m going to shift to the dramatic and ongoing
change in the world strategic framework, specifically with the
situation in and around Syria, as the major focal point for this
shift.
Now, this is the subject of the institutional question which
has been posed to Mr. LaRouche this week. But before posing that
question and asking Jeff to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response, I’d
like to add just a little bit of background.
Over the recent few weeks, we have been seeing the
development of a very clear and decisive break with Barack Obama.
This has been coming from, really, around the entire world,
coming from Russia, coming from China, coming from Europe, and as
Matthew mentioned in the opening, as well as from within
institutions of the United States. And I think it’s important to
recall, that it was just a few months ago, in late July, that the
former director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Gen.
Michael Flynn, in an interview with Al Jazeera, had said that for
years President Obama has been willfully ignoring the DIA’s
warnings about the growing threat of radical jihadist-terrorist
networks in Iraq and Syria, the forces which have subsequently
become what we now call ISIS. General Flynn made it absolutely
clear that this was not just negligence or a failure, but this
has been the conscious policy of the Obama White House, in effect
protecting and supporting the growth and the solidification of
ISIS.
Now, at the same time, in this recent period, there’s been
an increasing recognition that this massive surge of refugees
fleeing into Europe, are actually running from the effect of
Obama’s policies; that Obama’s policies have been responsible for
driving this refugee crisis.
In this context, just this past Wednesday at the United
Nations Security Council, there was a meeting to discuss how to
combat the growing threat of terrorism. And both the Chinese and
Russian foreign ministers have made very clear, that in this
fight against terrorism–what’s happening in the Middle East–the
sovereignty of the Syrian nation must be respected, obviously in
direct contradiction and conflict with Obama’s calls for regime
change in Syria, and the removal of the government there.
Also this week, we saw more signs of support of this shift,
also coming from Europe, with the Swiss foreign minister saying
that the Syrian government needs to be included in a broad
dialogue to settle the conflict there, and the president of the
European Parliament calling for the inclusion of Russia and Iran
in an international coalition to resolve the conflict in Syria.
Perhaps most dramatic, as, again, Matthew referenced in the
beginning, and as I’m sure all of you have seen, Russia has now
initiated a series of coordinated air campaigns and strategic
bombings against ISIS and other terrorist elements which have
been otherwise, frankly, operating under the protection of
Obama’s policies.
So, in this context of a whole array of moves indicating a
shift in the world situation, around this pivot in Syria, the
following institutional question was posed to Mr. LaRouche:
“At the special UN Security Council session on terrorism
this week, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi called for the
convening of a Geneva III conference on Syria, with no
preconditions, and with participation of all interested parties.
What are your thoughts on China’s proposal at the UN Security
Council?”
I’d like to invite Jeff to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response
to this question.

STEINBERG:  The short answer that Mr. LaRouche gave to the
question, was two simple words: “Do it!” I’ll elaborate a bit.
You’ve had a policy, as Ben just indicated, of tolerance for
the growth and expansion of the Islamic State, of the Nusra
Front, of other similar jihadist-Salafist organizations; you’ve
got the so-called Army of Conquest, of which Nusra is now a
part–all of them operating inside Iraq and inside Syria. Despite
the fact that there’s a supposed coalition of 60 countries waging
combat against these organizations, they seem to miraculously
continue to expand their territorial holds. Despite the fact that
they’re under attack and under surveillance and scrutiny, they
keep managing, somehow or other, to get new recruits slipping
across the international borders, into Syria, into Iraq, to the
point, that several months back, the CIA estimated that the
Islamic State had 15,000 fighters total; and just in the last
several weeks, they’ve revised that number up to at least 25,000,
perhaps 30,000.
In other words, if you factor in the fact that some of them
are being killed, through the bombings, through combat
operations, —  particularly the Kurds have been quite effective
against ISIS–they’ve obviously been swelling their ranks, with
very little to stand in the way.
Now, here you have a coalition. Some of the leading players
in the, quote, “U.S.-led coalition,” are Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Kuwait; and it’s well-known, that the major entrée point
for foreign fighters coming into Syria, is across the border from
Turkey. There’s a very lucrative black-market smuggling route,
that runs between Turkey and Raqqa , which is the capital city of
the ISIS area in northern Syria. The Turkish government, the
ruling party, the AKP, and particularly, the immediate circles
around President Erdogan, are making money hands-over-fist
through these black-market dealings with the Nusra Front, with
the Islamic State, and with these other Salafist terrorist
networks.
So, a simple question is: What coalition against ISIS? It
doesn’t exist! It’s been a fraud from the beginning.
So now the Russians have stepped in, and they’ve done it
within the framework of international law. There was a formal
authorization for the use of military force, that the Russian
Federation Council voted up unanimously to President Putin. So,
in other words, unlike President Obama, who never went to
Congress, the Russian state structures have given authorization.
The Syrian government of Bashar Assad formally invited Russia to
participate. Russia has established an information-sharing center
that will be up and functioning within a matter of days or weeks
in Bagdad, with Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Russia participating. So,
in other words, all the elements are being put in place for an
actual serious assault against this terrorist infrastructure. And
last night overnight, Russian bombers carried out 18 sorties
against Raqqa, which is the province and the capital city of the
entire ISIS-controlled area inside northern Syria and Iraq.
So, in other words, you’re seeing a serious military
operation for the first time. And the Syrian armed forces have
been depleted dramatically by four years, four and a half years,
of combat against a force that’s been continuously beefed up,
armed, supplied with new recruits, from an entire jihadist
apparatus from around the world.
And the Russians know, by the way, that there are now an
estimated 5,000 Chechen fighters in the ranks of the Islamic
State, fighting inside Iraq and Syria. And so this poses an
immediate serious, really grave security threat to Russia.
So Russia is not sitting back, is not running a phony war.
Russia is in there. They’re serious, and this is a strategic
game-changer.
The reason that the White House is hysterical over this is
that there is this so-called coalition. The United States is
protecting Saudi Arabia, and by extension, protecting the
British-Saudi Arabian dirty deals that have created this jihadist
problem in the first place. Qatar, Turkey, all supposed members
of the Obama-led coalition, are all on the other side. They’re
all actively supporting the spreading of the Islamic State and
the Nusra Front.
General David Petraeus, the so-called hero of the surge, who
is now an official adviser to the Obama White House and the
National Security Council, has called for the United States to
openly support the Nusra Front. That’s to say, openly support
al-Qaeda, the same al-Qaeda that did 9/11; the same al-Qaeda that
in 2012 killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, and three other
American diplomats. But fortunately, that noise, that policy from
the Obama White House, has been substantially suppressed.
There are other elements in the U.S. military that are
prepared very much to work with the Russians. Secretary of State
John Kerry has become the point person for a different U.S.
policy, a policy that he’s been working out for months in
coordination with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, and back
during his meeting in the spring in Sochi, directly with
President Putin. So Kerry in a CNN interview several days ago,
made it clear: He said, there is a new policy. And the new policy
is, we are not insisting on instantaneous regime change. We’re
not going to go there. We’re not going to do a Saddam Hussein.
We’re not going to do a Muammar Qaddafi. There’s going to be a
transition. The governing institutions are going to be preserved.
We’re going to be patient. We’re not going to allow Syria to fall
into chaos, and we’ll work with the Russians militarily.
So the Russians are making it clear. They’re carrying out
real combat operations, and they are out for blood. They’re going
to wipe out the Islamic State, and increasingly, China, India,
Germany, France, many of the countries in Europe that are now
overwhelmed by the refugee flow from ISIS, from Nusra, they’re
onboard.
So you have a global strategic realignment, which means,
yes, the prospects of a Geneva III political solution to the
Syria crisis is now viable, and feasible. You’ve got China,
Russia, India, Germany, France somewhat more reluctantly, all
ready to go on this, and you’re got Iran, Syria, and elements
within the United States who have basically sidelined, but not
yet eliminated the Obama presidency, who are ready to go with
this.
Again, as Mr. LaRouche said very simply, “Do it!”

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff.  So with those two
elements of the current strategic picture presented to you here,
before I conclude this webcast, I just want to go back and
re-emphasize what Mr. LaRouche asked us to open this broadcast
with. And I want to do so by reading a short passage from what
Mr. LaRouche had to say last night on the National Activists’
telephone call, the so-called Thursday night Fireside Chat. And
this is what Mr. LaRouche said about Wall Street:
“The United States economy is about to collapse, and it’s a
real collapse. All of Wall Street is bankrupt, and worthless. If
the United States were to try and go along, and try to do
business with Wall Street, and Wall Street institutions, that
would be a disaster. Because Wall Street would itself collapse,
since it’s already in a rate of collapse. If we let Wall Street
go ahead, and do its own collapsing, the result would be a
disaster for most of the people of the United States on a very
large scale.
“So we have to get rid of Wall Street, immediately. We have
to junk it. Point out the fact that it’s worthless, that it’s
only a complete fraud. It has no economic value whatsoever,
except that of trash. And so therefore, we’re going to have to
get a radical change in the organization of the financial system
of the United States for two reasons: first of all, to maintain
an economy that will function for the United States population;
second of all, to protect the United States {against} the
influence of Wall Street. Because if Wall Street goes on its own,
and takes the dive that it will take, automatically, under those
circumstances the people of the United States may be starving all
over the place. Because if the United States collapses, then the
U.S. economy will itself be in a disastrous condition. That is,
the financial system will collapse.
“And therefore, we have to get rid of the Wall Street
system, and {we} have to collapse it in a controlled way. And
then use that method of controlled action against Wall Street, in
order to make the kind of re-organization that Franklin Roosevelt
did in dealing with Wall Street in an earlier period. And that’s
what has to happen.”
So, with that said, I’d like to encourage everybody, if you
haven’t heard it yet, go back and listen to this discussion with
Mr. LaRouche last night. This is the 20th Fireside Chat. Mr.
LaRouche will also be engaging in his weekly discussion with
activists in New York City tomorrow, and the intervention of the
LaRouche movement on the streets of Manhattan is continuing, as
we come out of this week, and into the following.
So, I’d like to thank you for joining us here tonight, and
please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Senator Elizabeth Warren holdt den 28. september en tale i Edward M. Kennedy Instituttet i Boston, hvor hun svarede på et spørgsmål om at genindføre Glass-Steagall:
»Tilbage i 30’erne, da vi have den store depression, skete der noget bemærkelsesværdigt i dette land… at, som et folk sagde vi, at vi ikke behøver at leve i en op- og nedturs-økonomi.«
»Og således gjorde vi tre ting. Vi gjorde det sikkert at sætte penge i banken. Det hedder FDIC [Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] forsikring… Og vi satte en betjent til at holde øje. Det er SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] for at sikre, at de ikke solgte falske aktier og sådan noget.
»Og det tredje var, at vi adskilte… lønkonti og opsparingskonti fra Wall-Streets høj-risiko, høj-profit, høj-tabs handelsverden; og det var Glass-Steagall.
”Bankerne hadede det, fordi de ville have profitten fra storhandelen. Du kan få de høje CEO lønninger og mere afkast til aktionærerne.«
»Og Wall-Street hadede det, fordi de ville have adgang til pengene på bedstemors opsparingskonto, fordi det er billige penge, og de kræver ikke samme slags afkast.«
Warren benævnte 1930’erne til 80’erne som perioden, hvor Glass-Steagall brandmuren var solid og 1980’erne til 90’erne som den periode, hvor der blev introduceret huller i den, indtil den blev slået ned. »Hvad der skete, var, at i de største finansielle institutioner blev der en større og større koncentration af penge og magt, og det var sådan vi endte op i 2008 med banker, der var for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned, og $700 milliarder i TARP bankredningen og bogstavelig talt billioner af dollars i bankredningspakker under bordet fra Federal Reserve.«
Mens hun hævdede, at Dodd-Frank siden da har »gjort en masse,« sagde Warren, at genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall vil gøre reguleringen af de store banker »meget lettere… Det ville nedbringe størrelsen på bankerne. Det ville gøre det finansielle system mere sikkert. Men det vil betyde, at de folk, der gerne vil handle med høj risiko, ikke kan få adgang til jeres opsparingskonti, og jeres banker vil ikke lave den slags profitter mere – hvis det er en af de store banker – som de ellers kan lave.«
»Og det er nøjagtigt, hvad vi skulle gøre. Så ja, Glass-Steagall for det 21. århundrede hele vejen. Hele vejen.«

Foto: Senator Elizabeth Warren

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video: (tilgængelig senere i dag, den 2. oktober)

Lyd:

I går advarede Lyndon Larouche medarbejdere om, at hele det transatlantiske finanssystem er på randen af totalt kollaps, og Wall Street må lukkes ned gennem lovmæssige handlinger, med præsident Franklin Roosevelts nedlukning af Wall Street som model.

»Hvis Wall Street kollapser i en gældspanik, så kan denne kaotiske, destruktive kraft føre til død og ødelæggelse i USA og i hele verden. Wall Street-systemet må erstattes – før det slår dig ihjel«,

erklærede LaRouche.

Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putins nylige handlinger i Syrien har skabt muligheden for sådanne nødhandlinger. Obama er ved at blive skyllet ud, selv om denne proces endnu ikke er fuldført. Selv her i USA allierer fornuftige kræfter sig med Putin, modsat Obama. Putins handlinger er ved at få en positiv effekt. Saudierne har store vanskeligheder, som det reflekteres i et brev, der cirkulerer i kongefamilien, fra en højtplaceret, saudisk prins, der sætter spørgsmålstegn ved tronfølgen og den skrantende Kong Salmans og hans ansvarsløse søns, vicekronprins Mohammad bin-Salmans, fejlslagne politik.

Der finder betydningsfulde ændringer i den globale, strategiske situation sted.

Under disse omstændigheder kan narcissist-chefen Barack Obama forventes at tage desperate, onde forholdsregler, selv på trods af sin stærkt svækkede position. Fjernelsen af Obama er fortsat en hovedprioritet, og muligheden for hans afsættelse er nu større end nogen sinde. Skulle Obama tage initiativ til at fremme krig eller forsøge andre provokerende handlinger, må han omgående fjernes under bestemmelserne i det 25. forfatningstillæg. Dette må have en fremtrædende plads på bordet, som et konstant sværd, hængende over Obamas hoved.

John Boehners fald som formand for Repræsentanternes Hus er i sig selv både en klar påmindelse om, hvor hurtigt Obama også kunne være ude, lige så vel som det peger på Kongressens disintegration som et effektivt instrument i vores Føderale Forfatningssystem. Den præsidentielle institution har et presserende behov for forandring, begyndende med fjernelsen af Obama.

Wall Street må nedlukkes ved hjælp af Glass-Steagall og relaterede forholdsregler, der med held blev anvendt af FDR. Putins handlinger i Syrien har skabt mulighed for, at sådanne nødforanstaltninger kan vedtages, før Wall Street-krakket og det efterfølgende kaos. Obama er svag, han er ude i tømmerne, men der må nu komme effektive handlinger for fuldt ud at udnytte den mulighed, der er blevet skabt. Wall Street er et stinkende lig, og lugten alene kan slå dig ihjel. Luk det ned nu.

EIR, 22. september 2015 – Verden vil snart forsamles i Manhattan til den sidste uge i september til De Forenede Nationers Generalforsamling. Obama vil tale den 28. september, en måned før 70-års dagen for ratificeringen af FN’s Charter i oktober 1945.Verden vil imidlertid ikke længere lytte til Obamas diktat, der fremsættes på vegne af hans herrer i Det britiske Imperium. I stedet vil verden samles, idet et nyt paradigme er i færd med at blive konsolideret, anført af BRIKS-udviklingen, der har et særdeles reelt potentiale for at lancere en Renæssance for hele menneskeheden, stedt over for Det britiske Imperiums smuldrende bygningsværk. Som Lyndon LaRouche for nyligt erklærede, så er den onde Bertrand Russells verdensøkonomiske system dømt til undergang.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

22. september 2015 – Mens EIR’s og LaRouchePAC’s mobilisering omkring det forestående sammentræde af FN’s Generalforsamling i dag fortsatte med et stort, offentligt møde i New York, reagerede diplomater, journalister og New York’ere – som Lyndon LaRouche udtrykte det – »I synes at gå fremad, mens Wall Street går tilbage.«

LaRouche kaldte det bemærkelsesværdigt, at flere bankierer og økonomer i løbet af de seneste dage over for EIR har understreget, at det, som Federal Reserve og andre centralbanker nu gør på Wall Streets bud, er dybt destruktivt for økonomien og for levestandarden. Desuden signalerer det, at Wall Streets finansinstitutioner ikke længere er levedygtige og står over for en total nedsmeltning.

Den amerikanske økonomi i sin Wall Street-dominerede form er død. Selve Wall Street, anført af Goldman Sachs, kræver nu desperat »mere lempelse« – negative renter, konfiskering af indskyderkonti – fra Federal Reserve og andre centralbanker, for at afværge dets kollaps. Dette er blot en defensiv taktik, der intet løser for Wall Street, men som i høj grad kunne forværre økonomien, hvis det ikke stoppes.

Tiden er inde til at lukke Wall Street ned: muligheden for en reorganisering af banksystemet under Glass-Steagall og et økonomisk genrejsningsprogram efter FDR-modellen er klar.

Tirsdag morgen ved FN går vi i direkte kamp mod Wall Streets/City of Londons »grønne« nulvækstpolitik, med en pressekonference, der annoncerer den nye EIR-rapport, »Global Warming Scare is Population Reduction, Not Science« (»Global opvarmning som skræmmevision er befolkningsreduktion, ikke videnskab«).

Vi befinder os helt tydeligt på randen af et pludseligt skift. Det er LaRouches synspunkt, at den russiske præsident Putins strategiske initiativ, der støttes af Kina, for en reel koalition imod ISIS/al-Qaeda-terrorisme, klart er ved at lykkes internationalt. Hele den betydeligste del af den amerikanske presse indrømmer åbent – om de så er nok så rasende over det – at Putins »tour de force« – kunststykke – vælter præsident Obamas mislykkede og katastrofale politik med krige for regimeskift.

Dette er, kommenterede LaRouche, en ændring i de globale anliggender, foretaget af Putin – igen, støttet af Kina – og ikke en lykkelig ændring for ham. Det er strategisk og har haft en stærk virkning i hele Eurasien. Krigsmageren Obama er udmanøvreret; men bliver han smidt ud af embedet? Hvis han bliver smidt ud, kan USA finde sammen med andre større nationer over dette og andre afgørende spørgsmål.

Men USA’s reaktion på denne nye situation er stadig ekstremt vigtig. For at være positiv må denne reaktion inkludere, at Obama fratages al magt.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

19. september 2015 – I disse, verdenspolitikkens stormfulde dage, ser vi to, grundlæggende forskellige typer af politiske og finanspolitiske beslutningstagere: de, der ud fra et optimistisk menneskesyn fremlægger en klar vision for menneskehedens fremtid, og de, hvis kræmmersjæl slet ikke lader nogen plads tilbage til noget som helst menneskesyn, men kun med tilbagevirkende kraft søger at opretholde deres magt og gæld fra fortiden, selv om disse for længst er ophørt med at være erholdelige. I de dramatiske ændringer, der vil finde sted i de kommen-de uger, vil vi kun kunne løse de problemer, vi står over-for, hvis det lykkes at vinde de europæiske nationer og USA for det nye paradigme, som BRIKS-nationernes økonomiske politik og Kinas »win-win«-politik med den Nye Silkevej repræsenterer.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Wall Street er død, og USA’s regering må gøre en ende på dets lidelser og sætte det under konkursbehandling under Glass-Steagall. Hvad sker der så? Hvordan ville en “New Deal” for det 21. århundrede se ud? Dette og mere diskuteres på aftenens webcast. Engelsk udskrift. 

Wall Street is dead and the federal government needs to put it out of its misery beginning with a Glass-Steagall banking reorganization. What follows? What would a 21st century New Deal look like today? This and more discussed in tonight’s webcast. This webcast was prerecorded.

LaRouche on Bankrutcy of the Fed, the Total FDR Approach
Federal Reserve Makes an Error Based on a Lie

 Transcript- JASON ROSS: Good evening. This is the LaRouche PAC webcast for September 18, 2015. My name is Jason Ross, and joining me in the studio tonight are Jeff Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, and Benjamin Deniston from LaRouche PAC. As a note to our viewers, we are pre-recording this event on September 17.

So, to jump right in to our first topic, which is the economy and Wall Street. LaRouche’s assessment is that Wall Street is breaking down; that we need Glass-Steagall, but that this can’t be seen as one bill in isolation, but rather as part of an entire FDR approach to the economy. One in which value is placed on something real, rather than simply money. So, I’d like to ask Jeff Steinberg to come up and tell us what is going on in the economy; and what do we do?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Jason. Well, just in the last several hours, the Federal Open Market Committee announced that they will not raise interest rates. This comes in a context in which virtually everyone who has a view of what’s been going on inside the trans-Atlantic system is convinced that we are on the edge of a massive blow-out; something that goes way beyond what happened in 2007 and 2008 with the blow-out of the real estate bubble in the United States, which spread to the entire banking and insurance sector of the US. And then, over a period of time, spread into Europe. Nothing fundamental was done to change the nature of the situation; in fact, in the aftermath of the trillions of dollars of bail-out of Wall Street — in the range minimally of $15-20 trillion in direct taxpayer bail-out of hopelessly bankrupt financial institutions, those institutions took the message very clearly. Continue with the same reckless, irresponsible gambling behavior, and once again, taxpayers will be looted to bail out the bubble.

So, here we are in 2015, seven years this month virtually this week, since the Lehman Brothers debacle, and the too-big-to-fail banks are bigger by both capitalization, by derivatives exposure, and by percentage of the US banking sector that they have a vise-grip control over; and they’ve continued with the same exact behavior. Dodd-Frank was a pathetic, sick joke; the Volcker Rule was never even intended to be implemented. All it was, was a diversion to prevent the only viable starting point for a meaningful solution; and that’s the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall exactly as it was done in 1933 by Franklin Roosevelt, when Glass-Steagall was simply the obvious and necessary first step to launching a major economic recovery based on wiping out Wall Street’s bubble, and moving toward state credit directed at job creation and real economic recovery. That same solution is required today; Wall Street is far bigger, is far more bankrupt than it was at the time of the 1929 Crash and the follow-on crashes that were inherited by Franklin Roosevelt when he was elected President.

The global derivatives alone, is in the range of $1.5-2 quadrillion; and you’ve had a net decline in the actual global GDP by any kind of measurement of real physical economy. The GDP numbers, of course, are completely hoked up; and are virtually useless because they reflect so much activity that is purely parasitical and has nothing to do with the needs of the real world population or the requirements of a real economic recovery. So, we are at the very edge of a blow-out of the entire global financial system. Centered in the trans-Atlantic region, you’ve got Wall Street, which is now the epicenter of this financial bubble that can never be paid, that is thoroughly worthless; and is a reflection of the extreme to which we’ve gotten into a money system in which everything is measured by money, and there is no concern whatsoever for real, physical economic measurements of wealth. Mr. LaRouche, as many of you undoubtedly know, has been the author of critical writings on the subject of how to measure real economic value. And he’s developed several unique concepts; concepts of energy flux density, potential relative population density, that measure the actual physical capacity of the planet to sustain an expanded population.

Ultimately, the issue comes down to the fact that human beings are not animals. That human beings can conceptualize the future; can make decisions about the nature of the future that will inform policy decisions today. The greatest recent memory example of that kind of policy approach was the actions taken by President Franklin Roosevelt; and particularly in the first 100 days of his Presidency, where the Wall Street bubble was wiped out. The original Glass-Steagall Act of June 1933, completely broke up the Wall Street too-big-to-fail banks of that period; and established an absolute iron-clad separation between traditional commercial banks and investment banks and insurance companies and other institutions that engaged in wild speculative activity leading to the blow-out. And Roosevelt established the FDIC that insured citizens’ deposits in the banks, to prevent future bank runs. That system worked effectively; we had no systemic crises from 1933 until 1999, when, under impeachment threat and under the cloud of other scandals, President Bill Clinton capitulated to the like of Larry Summers, and signed into law the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall. There was no reason and no excuse for President Clinton to have done that at the time.

As a consequence of that action and other deregulation acts that followed after that, you had in a very short period of time, a build-up of the largest financial bubble in recorded history; which blew out in 2007-2008. It was bailed out — out of the hides of taxpayers — and then proceeded to build up once again to an even greater level. The Richmond Federal Reserve issued a report several months ago that basically said that were there to be a “new bail-out” of the banks in the event of a new banking crisis, the taxpayers would be obliged to more than they were obliged to in 2008, when the total bail-out fund made available to the banks was $23.7 trillion. That is according to Senate testimony by Leo [neil] Barofsky, who was the Inspector General of the TARP program at the time. Now the Richmond Fed estimate is that the immediate figure of bail-out would be $26.5 trillion; but that’s just a drop in the bucket. The entirety of Wall Street is hopelessly, irreversibly bankrupt, and the only viable course of action, for starters, is to reinstate Glass-Steagall.

By doing that, you immediately begin an audit of all of the US banks; and you separate out legitimate commercial banking activity from all of the gambling, all of the derivatives, all of the activities that should never have come under the umbrella of the FDIC under a Glass-Steagall system. The moment that that gambling debt is separated out, and is no longer subject to taxpayers’ bail-out, you will immediately have a blow-out of that entire system. Wall Street will vaporize, because some wise guy right off the bat will make a margin call; and in one fell swoop, the entire derivatives bubble, all of the insurance and gambling activities, the credit default swaps, all of those things will be gone. And basic message of Mr. LaRouche is “Good riddance!” This is a parasite that has been destroying the real economy, the real conditions of life for the overwhelming majority of Americans and citizens around the world. So, we don’t need it! Wall Street can basically disappear; it’s already dead, and the fact that it hasn’t yet been buried, simply means that there is a terrible stench over southern Manhattan.

So, this is the reality of the situation. I can just say, anecdotally, that in the last 48 hours, I’ve had discussions with two very prominent international bankers — one in London, one who commutes back and forth between London and New York — and they both said very bluntly, “The game is up. The system is hopelessly bankrupt. The mountain of debt that has been built up, the quantitative easing policies of the European Central Bank and the Bank of Japan, and until recently the US Federal Reserve, have created such a massive debt bubble that it is unpayable; and all it’s doing is choking the life out of the real economy.”

So, what do we need to do? We need: 1. Glass-Steagall immediately; and this should be done preemptively, because we don’t know whether we’re going to wake up tomorrow morning to find out that we’ve had a blow-out of the whole system. Now, one of the reasons to be sure, that the Federal Open Market Committee did not go with the quarter-point interest rate increase today is because there were hysterical warnings. Reports this week by the Bank for International Settlements, the World Bank; absolute hysteria coming from people like Ambrose Evans-Pritchard — one of the leading mouthpieces for the City of London — writing in the Daily Telegraph, warning that there must be a massive new quantitative easing. No interest rate hike can be tolerated; the bubble has to be bailed out one more time. Otherwise, the sky will fall in, and we’re all doomed.

Well, the reality is, the sky will not fall in if Glass-Steagall is followed by an orderly process of emission of credit through the existing commercial banks for viable projects, capital investment in critically-needed infrastructure projects, job creation projects, and emphasis on those programs which represent the kind of science-driver policy that Franklin Roosevelt enacted particularly with the launching of the Tennessee Valley Authority. So, there is no magic here. Wall Street is gone; it’s finished. There is nothing that can be done to salvage it. And the more that it’s kept from being buried, the more the pain will be inflicted. We need a series of emergency steps; we need directed Federal credit to inject capital into the legitimate commercial banks, because those banks will be greatly under-capitalized because they’ve been looted in the post-Glass-Steagall period. So, we need not only Glass-Steagall in the United States, but we need it internationally. And I am confident, based on some of the recent developments in Europe — particularly some of the dramatic shifts that we’ve seen in Germany in the past several weeks — that a Glass-Steagall action by the US Congress will be rapidly followed in Europe and in other critical parts of the world.

But then the critical thing is the full FDR agenda. Roosevelt used the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which had been created by Herbert Hoover, as a quasi-national bank structure through which to provide credit for job creation. Both jobs that fulfilled an urgent emergency need because of the massive rates of unemployment; and secondly investment in capital-intensive programs, again, typified by the TVA. So that by the time we reached the late 1930s, when war had already erupted in Europe and President Roosevelt knew it was inevitable that the United States would be brought into the war, we had built up productive capacity in this country; through modernization of infrastructure, through revival of manufacturing and particularly the machine tool sector, through the kind of innovative scientific and technological work being done already through projects like the TVA. And it was those programs that made it possible for the United States to carry out the biggest military mobilization in human recorded history, to defeat fascism both in Europe and Asia.

So, in the current context, we want to avoid war at all costs, because war means thermonuclear war of extinction. But in all other modes, the lessons and the policies that were adopted by Franklin Roosevelt are exactly what must inform the policies that are carried out right now. That means, by the way, that Glass-Steagall must be immediately enacted preemptively in order to create the foundation of a functioning, effective commercial banking system with Wall Street buried and long gone. And actions along those lines will also have the further beneficial effect of ending the Obama Presidency; because he’s been nothing but a tool of those Wall Street and London interests that will be basically vaporized by the kind of policy initiatives that Mr. LaRouche has been spelling out.

So, we’re in a moment of crisis. As I say, people whom I spoke to in London and New York are absolutely crystal clear on the fact that the system is doomed and it’s a matter of days and hours, and perhaps weeks and not much longer than that before some incident, some factor will trigger the detonation of the entire system.

ROSS: Moving over to the strategic situation involving Syria and Russia, this is the institutional question for this week. It says:

“Mr. LaRouche, Secretary of State John Kerry called his counterpart Sergei Lavrov and re-affirmed the US commitment to fight ISIL terrorist groups in Syria with a coalition of more than 60 countries — of which Assad could never be a credible member, according to Kerry — and emphasized that the US would welcome a constructive Russian role in the anti-ISIL efforts. The Russian Foreign Ministry said that during the call, Mr. Lavrov again stressed the need to form a united front to fight terrorist groups in Syria. In your view, can there be a collaborative process leading to the inclusion of Russia in the counter-ISIL efforts?”

STEINBERG: In a moment, I want to go to the notes that I took during that discussion with Mr. LaRouche, because I want to present his formulations very precisely. But let me start by saying that some elements of the question I think have to be commented on. The idea that there is actually a coalition of 60 countries fighting against ISIL today is in and of itself a fraud. How can you have a coalition that’s fighting against ISIL, when it includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, and Qatar, who are the four leading countries in the region who have promoted and facilitated the rise of ISIS? In fact, you’d have to go all the way back to the late 1970s and ’80s when we were labelling what became al-Qaeda as mujahideen freedom fighters, because they were terrorists who were financed and recruited by the United States, Britain, France, Israel, Saudi Arabia and others, to go into Afghanistan and wage warfare against the Soviet Red Army. When the Soviets left Afghanistan, those networks remained intact and turned their sights against the West, against the United States, as anybody with a brain would have anticipated and forecasted. So, the United States bears responsibility, along with the Saudis, along with the British, along with other Gulf countries, for creating this terrorist fiasco in the first place. Jihadist terrorism as it exists today, would not be the global threat that it is today, were it not for the actions that were undertaken to create these organizations that were ostensibly put together to fight against the Soviets.

So, there’s a real irony here. To this day, Saudi Arabia is widely known to be the largest financier and overall promoter of the spread of Salafist Wahabi terrorism around the globe. The Saudis have not taken in any of the refugees from the wars that are Obama’s wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan; but very cutely, they offered to build 200 Wahabi mosques in Germany alone, in order to provide religious training to the 800,000 Syrian and other Middle East and North African refugees that Germany will be taking in this year. In other words, the Saudis are saying, “We’ll come in there, and we’ll create another generation or two generations of new recruits to Salafist terrorism.” So, with that in mind on Saudi Arabia, with the fact that Obama’s wars in Libya, in Syria, in Iraq, have been responsible for the emergence of the Islamic State. The fact that Turkey has been making billions of dollars in black market profits for President Erdogan’s AKP Party as part of the support for the Islamic State and for the Nusra Front, simply tells you that this idea that there is a coalition of nations fighting against the Islamic State and Syria, is an absolute preposterous fraud. It’s untrue; it never happened, and it hasn’t happened.

What has happened is, as we’ve been discussing over several weeks now on this Friday night broadcast, is that Russian President Putin instituted a brilliant flanking move, by sending Russian military equipment, Russian military personnel, into Syria at a point that the onslaught from these Saudi- and US- an British-backed Salafist terrorists had reached the point where the survival of the Assad government was in jeopardy. So, Russia has stepped in, and Russia is now building up the military force capabilities; they’re establishing an air base south of the Syrian town of Latakia on the north Mediterranean coast of Syria. They’re building up a new naval facility. They’ve already airlifted and boatlifted into Syria significant military equipment — tanks, artillery pieces, and other capabilities including fighter planes. So that within a very short period of time, and this is fully at the invitation of the Syrian government through established treaty agreements between Russia and Syria that go back a long time, that in some cases predated Russia, and went back to the Soviet period.

So, what the Russians are doing in Syria is legal under international law, and under bilateral treaty agreement between Syria and Russia. And so therefore, the Russians are on the verge of launching conventional military operations — ground and air operations — against the Islamic State. We don’t know for certain whether that will happen; we don’t know for certain how many Russian troops will be sent in to Syria. But what we do know is that the mere fact that the Russians made this move, has fundamentally altered the strategic surface in the Middle East as a whole, and more broadly, on a global scale. So, this was a crucial flanking initiative by Putin, and were there to be an agreement between Russia and the United States to cooperate in a genuine campaign against the Islamic State, and against the Nusra Front, and against the Army of Conquest, which is the latest name for another element of the Saudi-bankrolled Salafist terrorist apparatus. Under those circumstances, so long as Putin was in the driver’s seat and Russia was playing a leading role and President Obama was sidelined all together, this could work.

What Mr. LaRouche said is,

“Without Russian participation, any such effort would be doomed to complete failure. And by inclination, President Obama will wish to see that process fail. So therefore, any effective military operation combined with a diplomatic initiative, has to begin by removing President Obama’s influence, which is one of the main blockages towards an effective operation. Obama has to be induced to back down, or he will make a mess of everything. Obama is an ugly loser; and nothing should be done to encourage Obama. And so, action is needed, surely; and that action must be taken under the Putin leadership.”

And Obama can, of course, be included; he can play a token role. He can even take credit to an extent; but under no circumstances can he actually have a real say in how such an operation is going to be conducted.

Now, President Putin has made three proposals, very specifically. He will be giving a major address at the UN General Assembly at the end of this month, and in that speech, we already know his intention is to call for a creation of a genuine, serious committed coalition to wipe out the scourge of terrorism. Secondly, he has made it clear that he would like very much to have a face-to-face, sit-down meeting with President Obama on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York. They’ll both be in town at the same time. Perfectly normal for such a discussion to take place, and the White House is terrified over the prospect of such a meeting. Why? Because they don’t understand what Putin is doing. They don’t understand how his mind works. And they’re afraid that any such meeting would be impossible for Obama, because you could never bring in a teleprompter that anticipates in advance everything that the President would be saying in his discussion with Putin.

So, yes, there is a possibility, but, as Mr. LaRouche said, you’ve got to humiliate Obama into a corner. Now, you’ve had a dramatic shift just in the last several weeks, in which Europe, the leading countries in Europe, namely Germany, first, and now France along with that, have realigned in a fundamental way. The Europeans wereterrified, even before the Putin initiative in Syria. They were terrified that Europe was headed for another world war to be fought on European soil, but this time, centered around the Ukraine situation. This would be a thermonuclear war, perhaps beginning as an exchange of tactical nuclear weapons, because both sides are building up large arsenals of modernized tactical nuclear weapons, right in the center of Europe.

But the Europeans were terrified of the war danger.

President Putin, as part of the Normandy Four discussions, and as part of the Minsk agreements, has clearly made a move to ensure that the ceasefire that began September 1st, is being fully enforced by the Russian minorities in the Donbass region in Eastern Ukraine. And so, the Russians have taken definitive steps to de-escalate the danger of a war of that sort in Europe.

Leading European statesmen, people associated with the European Leadership Network, former defense ministers, former heads of state, former foreign secretaries, have come out and said, we must take actions to de-escalate, to reduce the danger of thermonuclear war, general war, in Europe. And as a part of that concern, that real existential fear about that war danger, the Germans first, and now joined by the French, have said that they would fully support President Putin’s initiative in Syria, and would welcome the idea of sitting down in an inclusive collaborative way with Russia, to solve the Syria problem, just as the Normandy Group has been making progress in de-escalating the danger of war over Ukraine.

The German population opened their arms and their hearts to the refugees from the Middle East, from North Africa, and this also has changed the character of the German leadership in Europe. Instead of taking the lead in pushing for murderous austerity, the Germans have now taken the lead in showing genuine compassion, and a willingness to go out of their way to basically save the lives of these hundreds of thousands, millions, of refugees fleeing into Europe from these Obama wars in North Africa and the Middle East.

So, that’s a fundamental break in the situation, and now, between Russia and the Europeans, you have a situation in which you don’t have to go to Obama for Obama’s approval. With European backing, with a new Russian fact on the ground — Russian forces now actively engaged on the ground in Syria, through airlifts and boatlifts that have been ongoing for weeks —you now have a different situation.

Mr. LaRouche concluded by saying, Obama is almost stymied. He’s been weakened. He’s been cornered. And the next step is to invoke the 25th Amendment, and remove him from office altogether. The crisis around the death of Wall Street, and the need for a fundamental revolution in policy, a return to FDR, and the need to remove Obama to be absolutely certain that the danger of a thermonuclear war of extinction is eliminated — these two situations now converge, and there is nothing more important, now that Obama has been weakened and marginalized, than to have him removed from office by Constitutional means, so that we can actually move on to genuinely solve these crises — whether it’s Syria, with a critical role by Russia; or whether it’s wiping out Wall Street, and replacing it with a Glass-Steagall-FDR system.

In both cases, Obama’s the blockage. The crisis is here and now. So, let’s use the Constitution to solve the problem.

JASON ROSS: For a final topic today, we’re going to talk about the discussions that have been taking place among Russia, South Korea, and China shaping up towards the creation of a North Asia Development Bank that would include the Koreas, Russia, China, and Japan. This comes in the context of the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, held directly after the Victory Day celebrations in China at the beginning of this month, where Russian President Putin and Korean President Park were very prominent guests of President Xi.

Lyndon LaRouche responded to the development around the possibility of this North Asian Development Bank by stressing the necessity for completing, building, the Kra Canal, a project whose recent planning goes back to the 1980s, to build a canal across the Isthmus of Kra in Thailand, relieving the overburdened Straits of Malacca, providing new transportation route, development for the region, especially today, as seen in the context of the New Silk Road.

I’d like to ask Benjamin Deniston, who has some remarks on this topic, to tell us about the Kra Canal.

BEN DENISTON: Thanks, Jason. Just to open up, I think this is an excellent counterpoint to what we just discussed with the insanity of Wall Street, and the Wall Street system. The Wall Street idea of money, this money system that is now blowing out, where there’s this religious belief in the value of money per se, and this insanity around trying to defend this bubble, which is full of financial assets which don’t actually mean anything.

Now you contrast that with what was just referenced, with what China is doing in collaboration with Russia, the BRICS nations, their other allies, other nations they’re working with around the world, in this completely new orientation, where they’re created institutions, new financial institutions — some might say new monetary institutions: like the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (the AIIB); or as Jason just mentioned, the discussion of a prospective North Asian Development Bank.

So, new financial institutions, new financial structures, to deal with what some people might call money. I think what Mr. LaRouche would define, more rigorously, as credit, as distinct from simply a monetary policy. Institutions to provide credit, specifically for projects like the Kra Canal.

Now, if we can get the first graphic up on the screen: (Figure 1). Now, we’re particularly talking about a region in Southeast Asia, and currently all shipping that goes from East Asia — from China, from South Korea, from Japan, from this entire region, which has a substantial amount of economic activity — any of the shipping from this region that goes to India, to the Mediterranean, up into Europe, goes through [the Straits of Malacca] — and including the discussion on China’s work on the New Maritime Silk Road, which is the maritime aspect of their Silk Road project, cover this exact same territory as well.

The shipping goes through a very congested bottleneck, which you can see displayed here, the Malacca Straits. Here you have a very narrow canal, a very narrow region, which currently is something on the order of one-fifth of the entire world’s trade. Not just for this region. But if you take the entire world trade, something on the order of one-fifth goes through these narrow straits.

If you bring up the second graphic (Figure 2), you can get a sense of the scale of this. This was from a 2013 video production by the LaRouche PAC, which you can find linked to the video description here. It’s entitled “The Kra Canal and the Development of Southeast Asia, produced in 2013.” But in this graphic from that video, you can see that through these Straits of Malacca, which we just saw in the previous map, in 2012, for a representative year, you had something like 90,000 ships travelling through those straits, which was around three times the combined number of ships that travelled through the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal.

So the Panama and Suez Canal combined, times three, is the number of ships passing through the Straits of Malacca. And at the time of our production of this video, it was estimated that the traffic through the Malacca Straits was going to be increasing by about 20% each year, putting on a direction to rather soon reach just a maximum capacity. You can only fit so many ships through this region. And it’s also relatively shallow, making it difficult for larger ships to even be able to get through this region at all.

So, it has been long known that this particular point in Southeast Asia, these Straits of Malacca, is a critical bottleneck for world trade, and world development. If you’re going from East Asia to India, you’ve got to pass through this region. If you’re going from East Asia into the Mediterranean, you have to pass through this region. If you want to go from East Asia into Europe, to the Atlantic in this route, you have to pass through particular region.

There’s been a long-standing proposal to develop a new shipping route, a new canal through Thailand, through the Kra Isthmus, and you can see this on the third graphic (Figure 3) here displayed. Again, a screen shot from our video, which presents this entire project, and its history in greater detail. Now you can see the path running through this rather narrow isthmus, through Thailand, through the Kra Isthmus. And here we have the proposal to make this canal, which would cut out the need to got through these Straits of Malacca. This would cut off something like 1000 miles from the trip, from the South China Sea into the Indian Ocean — not a huge, a modest reduction in the actual distance travelled. Not the biggest in the world, but something certainly significant.

But probably more important than the distance, is this would be a keystone project in just alleviating this bottleneck for this whole region, and being able to rapidly expand trade, and facilitate the continued expansion of trade through the Maritime Silk Road, from the developments in Asia, East Asia, in particular, again over to India, and as you can see in the fourth graphic (Figure 4) here, if you pair this with the recent incredible developments with Egypt’s development of the New Suez Canal, and we pair that with this prospect for a Kra Canal, you have a completely new potential for economic linking between the Pacific Ocean, between China, Russia’s eastern borders, South Korea, Japan, this entire region, through the Kra Canal to India, to the entire Indian Ocean, up through the New Suez Canal into the Mediterranean, into Southern Europe, and then into the Atlantic.

So we have a new picture of linking, as LaRouche was saying earlier today, the entire Pacific, the Atlantic, in a completely new way.

Again, I’d like to direct people to the feature video that we produced in 2013 on this subject, The Kra Canal and the Development of Southeast Asia. You can see this in graphic 5 (Figure 5), just an advertisement for the video.

As we discussed there, this project has a long and important history, designs going back to the 70s, and earlier, and in particular, Mr. LaRouche’s important role directly in the early ’80s, with his Fusion Energy Foundation, and his Executive Intelligence Review magazine sponsoring, in collaboration with the government of Thailand, collaborators from Japan, in sponsoring a series of conferences dedicated to the development of Southeast Asia, to the building of the Kra Canal, which Mr. LaRouche himself attended in the early ’80s on this subject.

And so it’s only appropriate now, given the shifting world economic dynamic towards China, towards the BRICS, that we’re seeing come back up and being put back on the table, as a perspective development project now.

I’d just like to conclude by looking at — again, I think this is an excellent case study in the type of shift in thinking that we need in the United States now. The difference between this insanity of Wall Street, where people are panicked about defending money that doesn’t mean anything. Money that has no actual existence in terms of any actual physical activity in the real economy. A completely worthless speculative bubble.

Versus what we’re seeing with things like the prospect for the Kra Canal, the construction of the Suez Canal. You have new financial institutions being developed, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the North Asian Development Bank, the New Silk Road Development Bank. We have new financial institutions ready to create the credit to invest in these types of actual development projects. Projects that actually physically transform the physical economic potential of — as the case of the Kra Canal. Not even of this entire region, but really of the whole world economy. You’re talking about a region which currently — around one-fifth of the entire global trade goes through this region.

So, if you’re going to reduce the time of trade through this region, if you’re going to lower the physical costs, you’re having a net physical impact on the entire world economy. You’re lowering the physical costs of the goods, and in effect, you’re raising the physical value provided to the entire world economy by those goods, by investing in these types of projects which can facilitate this whole process more efficiently.

It’s a useful case in the use of actual credit, a real credit system, to invest in real physical development, which actually has a measurable, understandable increase in the productive powers of the world economy. As measurable increase in the physical wealth, the lowering of the physical costs, increasing the physical wealth of the productive process of the entire world economy.

So I think this is one among many of a critical lesson for what the United States needs to start doing, and thinking towards, in a post-Wall Street era. And this should remind us of what we used to do, we did under Franklin Roosevelt, of the types of real physical investment policies which contribute to creating a higher order future for our country, for the coming generations. And this is absolutely what we need today.

I think that Mr. LaRouche’s remarks about emphasizing the Kra Canal is an incredibly important and exciting keystone development for this entire perspective, and it shows us, again, another resounding clear message of where the rest of the world is going, where the rest of the world is going in creating a new economy, a new economic stage, a new higher-order future for their societies. And this is just another message for the United States to get away from the control of Wall Street, and get serious and participate in this type of development, these types of projects.

JASON ROSS: Thank you, gentlemen. That will conclude the webcast for this evening, so thank you for joining us, thank you for your support, past, present, and future — and we will see you again.

Friday, September 18, 2015

18. september 2015 – Jeg hedder Diane Sare fra LPAC Policy Committee, og jeg taler fra Manhattan foran FN, der fejrer sin 70-års fødselsdag her i New York City. Lad mig sige det diplomatisk, at præsident Barack Obama er et r..h.. . Han er blevet fuldstændig udmanøvreret af handlingerne foretaget af den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin, der korrekt har besluttet at intervenere militært i Syrien for at knuse ISIS og forhindre den tvungne afsættelse af præsident Assad på kort sigt. Faktisk er præsident Obama blevet så destabiliseret af disse nylige handlinger, at han ikke engang har været i stand til at besvare præsident Putins forslag om, at de to bør mødes privat på sidelinjen af FN’s Generalforsamling, der vil finde sted her i de næste tre uger.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder, 19. september 2015 – Lyndon LaRouche har følgende kommentarer, efter han var blevet briefet om den respons, EIR har fået fra flere økonomer om Federal Reserves ikke-handling mht. at hæve diskontoen, og Janet Yellens (direktør for Fed) løgnagtige retfærdiggørelse af denne ikke-handling:

Jeg har altid advaret imod dette. Federal Reserve-systemet og Wall Street er kernen i problemet. De er totalt bankerotte, og dog udøver de politisk kontrol over regeringen, når de rent faktisk er værdiløse.[1] Vi må begynde med at vise, at Wall Street har langt lavere værdi, end de repræsenterer – at de faktisk er bankerot. Vi må have en generel reform, der fjerner Wall Street.

USA nægter at anerkende sandheden, at Wall Street forhindrer en økonomisk genrejsning. Vi må nedskrive Wall Street til dets værdi på næsten nul. Vi har et mere ekstremt tilfælde, end FDR stod overfor, da han lukkede Wall Street ned, men det må udslettes, for ellers bliver der ingen genrejsning.

I Europa er den grønne politik den faktor, der er mest skærpende i at holde Europa nede. Der er lighedstegn mellem at blive den grønne politik kvit og at dumpe Wall Street.

»Kaos« er en underdrivelse af denne ting. Folk vil ikke høre – vi må lukke Wall Street ned. For at gøre det, må vi smide Obama ud af embedet. Se på Wall Street i 1920’erne og ’30’erne, og se på, hvad FDR gjorde.[2] Den aktuelle situation er langt værre end i FDR’s tid. Det findes intet, undtagen pseudo-værdier, i de banker – afskriv dem!

Gå tilbage til Bertrand Russels indflydelse i begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede, sammen med de politiske mord på amerikanske præsidenter. Bush, Cheney, Obama – fire embedsperioder med dette – plejede hver uge at udstede rapporter om den »lempelse«, der havde fundet sted i den uge, hvor man hver uge fik mere og mere kvantitativ lempelse (pengetrykning), i stedet for at sætte hele foretagendet under konkursbehandling, lige på stedet.

Vi har sænket arbejdskraftens produktivitet med den grønne politik og kvantitativ lempelse. Nu er Wall Street håbløst bankerot. Det er ikke dinosaurerne denne gang, der uddør – det er bankiererne.

[1] Se: Video, Lyndon LaRouche: »Om det amerikanske, økonomiske System«

[2] Se: Tema-artikel: »Wall Street er bankerot, og Obama gennemtvinger ved magt et termonukleart Armageddon: Foregrib! FDR’s Første 100 dage« 

Leder, 18. september 2015 – Wall Street er totalt bankerot og er hastigt på vej til at krakke. De eneste løsninger er dem, der er foregribende, og som begynder med genindførelsen af Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov. MEN – hvis man ikke præsenterer den generelle løsning som en løsning, der begynder med det gennerelle koncept af Franklin Roosevelts totale, generelle løsning, og arbejder sig nedefter herfra – ja, så ender man blot med kaos.

Og om et nært forbundet spørgsmål: Ikke alene må vi fuldstændigt udslette Wall Street og få regeringen til at træde til. Vi må også fastslå en reel værdisætning, i modsætning til den nuværende, og falske, værdisætning som værende et spørgsmål om penge. Så går vi videre herfra, igennem de første, vanskelige trin med genopbygning, og videre til en fysisk-økonomisk genrejsning, der er selv-fortsættende og selv-accelererende, og ind i en ny æra for menneskeheden.

Wall Street står umiddelbart foran et totalt, kæmpemæssigt krak. Vi skal rent faktisk helt tilbage til begyndelsen af det tyvende århundrede, før pengesystemet blev gennemtvunget, et system, hvis præmisser først og fremmest var den store forbrydelse, som var mordet på præsident William McKinley i 1901.[1] På nuværende stadium har vi nået til det punkt under pengesystemet, hvor der overhovedet ikke eksisterer nogen måde, hvorpå man kan måle ægte, iboende værdi. Nu må hele Franklin Roosevelts koncept, som helhed, bringes i spil, hvis der skal være noget håb om en løsning.

Samtidig har Rusland taget initiativet i Syrien og presser nu en løsning igennem for den katastrofe, som Obama har påført dette land, og mere generelt. Hele verden støtter i stigende grad det, som Putin gør her – inklusive mange kræfter i USA. I dette russiske initiativs fravær ville Syrien og Irak blive totalt besejret. Faktisk kan alle Obamas politiske tiltag ikke producere andet end nederlag. Hans indflydelse må fuldstændigt blokeres; med mindre Obama kan formås til at trække sig, vil han ødelægge alting. Obama er en dårlig taber. Han må under ingen omstændigheder få nogen støtte; alt må gøres for at støtte Putins lederskab. Obama kan allerhøjst få lov til at udføre symbolske handlinger uden virkninger.

Hør engang: De større, europæiske lande har vendt sig imod Obamas politik. Rusland anfører verden imod Obamas politik. Når man har Europa og Rusland, er der ingen brug for Obamas OK; han er næsten helt blokeret. Det, vi behøver nu, er det 25. forfatningstillæg for fuldstændig at fjerne hans skadelige indflydelse.

[1] Se: »Londons mord på McKinley lancerede et århundrede med politiske mord«, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=6895

»De samvittighedsløse pengevekselerers handlemåde står anklaget ved den offentlige menings domstol, og menneskers hjerte og sind har forkastet dem. …  De har ingen vision, og hvor der ikke er nogen vision, går folket til grunde.« 

FDR, 1933.

Download (PDF, Unknown)