Helga Zepp-LaRouche i København den 27. april 2015: engelsk afskrift

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE ADDRESSES “CHINA’S ‘ONE BELT, ONE ROAD’
POLICY’ SEMINAR IN COPENHAGEN, April 27, 2015

Here is the transcript of Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s address to the
Schiller Institute seminar in Copenhagen, which was held
Copenhagen Business Confucius Institute, Copenhagen Business
School. Click her for the audio and video from Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s speech and the other speeches from the seminar.

TOM GILLESBERG: I have the great honor of introducing Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, who has come here from a rather busy schedule both
in Germany and the United States, but also the whole world she’s
intervening to. Just as a short introduction, Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche
has been since 1977 the wife and very close collaborator of
Lyndon LaRouche in the United States, the economist, philosopher,
statesman who is giving leadership in the U.S., for the U.S. to
return to the intentions of its founders, to be a promoter of
sovereign nations that can collaborate on an equal footing to
secure the benefits for all nations and peoples.
And Helga has a very, I think, close connection to China.
As a young journalist she traveled to China in 1971, in the
height of the Cultural Revolution as one of the first Western
journalists and actually saw on the spot what was going on. She
then became politically active with the LaRouche movement and
embarked on a life-long battle for a new just world economic
order, for the possibilities of development for all nations and
peoples.
She then founded, among many other things, the Schiller
Institute, in 1984. She is presently the chairwoman of the
German political party, the BüSo — the Bürgerrechtsbewegung
Solidarität, or Civil Rights Soliarity Movement. She was vry
active after the Fall of the Berlin Wall and one of the authors
of the Schiller Institute program for the development of the
world after the Iron Curtain had fallen of the program the
Paris-Berlin-Vienna Productive Triangle, a Locomotive for the
World Economy. And when that did not materialize, she was very
active in extending that program to the program for the Eurasian
Land-Bridge, going from China and Asia to Europe and having a
development of the whole region. And as part of that, she then
became a visitor many times to China to speak on the need for a
New Silk Road and actually earned her nickname in China as the
“Silk Road Lady,” for her efforts to have China embark on this
policy.
And since then, she has been also the driving force in
holding many scores of conferences in Europe and the United
States on the need for creating a paradigm shift, to get the
Western world out of its long-term economic, strategic, and
cultural crisis. And, over the last couple of years, she has
been one of the architects of this report, “The New Silk Road
Becomes the World Land-Bridge.” She has also been leading the
campaign to stop the present geopolitical games that threaten to
detonate thermonuclear war and instead get the United States and
Europe to accept the offer of the BRICS countries to join forces
in an inclusive world order, where all nations of the world, on
an equal footing, collaborate to secure the peace and development
of all nations.
So I think it’s very appropriate that you are here to
directly lay what’s going on, so please, welcome. [applause]

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Thank you, Tom, for these kind words of
introduction.
Well I have a certain dilemma, because I want to present to
you the potential, which lies in this program, and given the fact
that the Western media have reported very little about it, I have
a dilemma, that I need to tell you, that this is {the} most
important political initiative on the planet right now. The
dilemma comes from the fact that, by introducing this idea, have
to tell you immediately why this is the case, and that is the
reality, that the world is much more close to a new global war,
than most people have an inkling of. And this New Silk Road
initiative, which comes from China, but which in the meantime has
been joined by many countries, is the only available
war-avoidance policy.
Now there was just on the April 18- 19 in Moscow the Fourth
Moscow International Security Conference, and the main subject of
this conference was the danger of nuclear war. And this is a
reaction to the fact that NATO has been expanding eastward, up to
the borders of Russia. You have a whole bunch of strategic
doctrines which Russia regards as a threat to their security
interests, and naturally you have the horrendous situation in
Ukraine, which contrary to what the Western media have been
reporting on — or not reporting actually — is it’s really
something which the West must make up. I just participated in the
last two days, or Friday and Saturday in a conference in
Baden-Baden in Germany, the German-Russian Cultural Days. It’s an
annual conference, and there was a large gathering of German
industrialists and Russian speakers and Russian people. And we
had the fortune to have a videoconference connected to this
conference, which brought in a live program from the former Prime
Minister of Ukraine, Mr. [Mykola] Azarov. And he gave an
absolutely hair-raising report about the conditions in Ukraine,
the fact that the country is being torn apart. Political leaders
are either forced to go into exile or are threatened to be
assassinated; journalists are being killed openly in the street;
trenches are being built; and, as you know, American soldiers are
now training the National Guard, which has a lot of Nazi
components in it. And for the Russians this is extremely severe,
because we are shortly before the 70th anniversary of the end of
Nazism and the end of the Second World War, and the mood of the
people were really horrified to see this endorsement of Nazis 70
years after the Second World War.
Now, I don’t want to go into this in depth, we can do that
in the discussion if people have questions about it, but I think
this crisis, in Ukraine in particular, I could also point to the
Middle East, which is in a similar horrible condition, makes
very, very clear, that if we as humanity cannot move away from
geopolitics — geopolitics was the reason for two world wars in
the 20th century, and right now the continuation of geopolitics
is threatening a new global war. I just want to mention an
article in {New York Times} from 19th April, where two generals,
Gen. James Cartwright, who is former head of the U.S. Strategic
Command, and Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, who is the chief of
intelligence of the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces, they penned
together an article, In which they said that the world has never
been so close to the danger of nuclear war globally, and
therefore extinction, as right now. And the reason is obviously
that even the normal code of behavior among nations, which
existed in the Cold War, that you had a red telephone between
Kennedy and Khrushchev, this no longer exists; and you have the
two nuclear forces, from NATO and the West and Russia, all the
time on launch on warning. And launch on warning means there are
only a few minutes time, if one side perceives a launch, either
by intention or by accident, they have a few minutes, actually
it’s estimated three minutes’ time, to respond or be eliminated.
So that shows you how extremely close we are to the danger
of a global extinction of civilization. Because if this would
happen, we would not exist as humanity. And I’m saying it with
that gravity, to say that this calls all the more urgently, for a
different approach. And the different approach must be to move
away from geopolitics and move in the direction of the common
aims of mankind.
And it just happens to be, that the policies which are
proposed by President Xi Jinping, which he calls a “win-win”
policy, is exactly that. It’s the idea, that with the New Silk
Road, you have a policy where every country which participates in
it, will have a benefit for it. The New Silk Road, Maritime Silk
Road policy by China is {not} a new imperial policy replacing the
Anglo-American imperial policy, but it is a completely new model
of the nations among nations, where the enormous example of the
Chinese economic miracle, which China was able to develop in the
last 30 years — you know, where China in {30 years}, developed
as much as most industrial nations needed 100 or 200 years to
develop — and China is now offering to export that model and
have other countries benefit in a similar way from that kind of
economic miracle, which China did.
Can you move to the first slide?
So the world has changed since July last year, the summit of
the BRICS countries in Fortaleza in Brazil. And this is a
picture which was made at this occasion, showing the leaders of
Russia, India, Brazil, China and South Africa. And they basically
concluded a new strategic alliance — economic alliance, which
Prime Minister Modi characterized in the following way: He said,
“This is the first alliance of nations, which are not defined by
their current capacity, but by their future potential of
development.” And at another occasion, Modi said that the biggest
potential of India is, that 60% of its people are below 30 years
of age, and therefore, if they are well-educated and developed,
they can come to the help of other nations, which has demographic
problems, like Germany, for example.
What these countries did, is they concluded an enormous
amount of economic treaties, of economic cooperation, including
peaceful development of inherently safe nuclear energy, the
development of fusion energy, joint space projects, space travel,
and numerous other high-tech cooperation areas.
Then, the next day, they met with the leaders of South
America, the organizations of CELAC [Community of Latin American
and Caribbean States] and Unasur [Union of South American
Nations]. Then a little bit later they also had meetings with
countries of ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] and
actually you have now a completely parallel system of economics,
which is really going to be the infrastructure development of the
world.
Now this here is an official picture of the New Silk Road
and the Maritime Silk Road, which shows you the old Silk Road
from Xi’an, actually it goes even farther to the west,
Lianyungang, where the end of that Silk Road is on the China Sea,
all the way through Urumqi, then Central Asia into Europe; and
then Maritime Silk Road is actually connecting even Africa and
much of the Pacific also into Europe. And this is modelled on the
famous Maritime Silk Road of the 15th century, which connected
the nations of the world already at that time.
Now, I want to very quickly say that this made us very
happy, when Xi Jinping announced the New Silk Road in Kazakhstan
in 2013, we jumped that high — you know, in the Schiller
Institute — because we had promoted this idea. This was our
proposal when the Berlin Wall came down, in ’89, and the wall no
longer was there. So we said let’s connect Paris with Berlin and
Vienna, which is a triangular area of the size of Japan, and has
the highest concentration of industrial capacity in the world;
and let’s make corridors to Warsaw, to Kiev, to the Balkans. And
it would have been a perfect way to intervene.
Unfortunately at that time, despite the fact there was a
very good resonance, you had Bush Sr., you had Margaret
Thatcher, and they had completely different ideas: They wanted to
reduce Russia from a superpower to at Third World, raw
materials-exporting country, and therefore they introduced the
shock-therapy, instead, which dismantled the Russian industrial
potential between ’91-’94, to only 30% left.
But then, when in ’91, the Soviet Union collapsed, we
connected this triangle, Paris-Berlin-Vienna, and we said: OK,
now the Iron Curtain is gone, now we can have development
corridors connecting the population and industrial centers of
Europe with those of Asia, through corridors. And then we looked
at the best geographical conditions. I should say, we were
inspired very much by the railway program of Sun Yat-sen, the
founder of modern China, who had developed a whole network of
Chinese railways, and that went into this program. So, at that
time we said let’s look at the best geographical preconditions,
and we found, not so accidentally, that the old Trans-Siberian
Railroad and the old Silk Road, the ancient Silk Road, had the
best geographical conditions to build such infrastructure.
So at that point the shock therapy started to destroy
Russia’s economy, but we kept holding seminars — we had hundreds
of seminars, in Europe, in United States, and then, eventually,
in Warsaw, in Budapest, in Moscow. And in ’96 even in Beijing,
where the Chinese government had responded to our proposal to all
the governments, to hold a big conference promoting the regions
along the Silk Road. And I was there as a speaker, but then came
the Asia Crisis in ’97, and China, at that conference said, that
this will be the long-term strategy for China until 2010. But
then the Asia crisis brought chaos and then the Russian GKO
crisis [in ’98].
So in the mean time we kept working on this initial proposal
which grew. And the latest of this, is this report: It’s a
370-page study which is really the idea of connecting the world
through infrastructure corridors.
Now, here you see some of these projects, which are already
being built, by the BRICS, by some of the other countries — for
example China is now building a transcontinental railroad from
Brazil to Peru, this is letter A [on the map]. This has already
started — you know, Latin America does not have an
infrastructure network! It is still in the colonial condition,
where you have little railroads from the iron ore mountain to the
coast, but if you want to travel from Peru to Brazil, you have to
go via Miami. So this is the idea, to develop a continental
railroad system.
Then number 1 there is the canal built in Nicaragua, it will
be the second Panama Canal, which obviously is an extremely
important project, which will mean that Nicaragua has a very good
chance to become an industrial country, with improving living
standards of its population. Naturally the Greenies are going
crazy and they say there are two fishermen who have to be
resettled. But, first of all, these people will be compensated,
and secondly without infrastructure, there is {no} industrial
development; without infrastructure there is not even
agriculture, because without infrastructure you cannot transport
and process food.
So then, naturally you have the Bering Strait, this number
2. This has been recently announced by Vladimir Yakunin, who is
the head of Russian Railways. And he proposed (I don’t think I
have that slide), a fast train connection from London all the way
through the Bering Strait to New York. A couple of years ago, Mr.
LaRouche and I participated in a conference in Moscow where the
fathers of the Bering Strait Project were present. These were all
older men over 80, and they said: “Oh, in 20 years, we can go
with a maglev train from Acapulco through the Bering Strait to
Mumbai, and this will be much faster than you can go by ship
today,” and they had a very pioneering spirit.
So this is very important because this connection not only
would connect the transport lines of North America with those of
Eurasia, but it would be absolutely crucial to open up the Arctic
Region. In the Far East of Russia you have all the raw materials
which are in the periodic table of Mendeleyev, and they represent
for the next 100 years a very important raw-material potential
which will be important not only for Russia, but for Europe, for
the United States, for China, for Japan, for Korea. So this will
be the way to develop it, because these raw-material are in
permafrost conditions, and you have to build, you have to build
cities, which have a dome, because people have to live — you
cannot live in permanfrost conditions like that, you have to have
a special way of developing it.
Now, I could go into many other projects — the Seikan
tunnel between the Japanese islands does already exist, it
connects the two important islands in Japan. Then the Bohai
Tunnel will connect two Chinese cities and shorten the transport.
The brown line there, this is the actual Silk Road [Silk Road
Economic Belt], which is now being promoted by China; this larger
gray line is the [21st-Century] Maritime Silk Road; but as you
can see, it stretches all the way to Europe and into Africa.
Prime Minister Li Keqiang was several times last year in Africa,
and he proposed to connect all African capitals through a fast
train system. And I know from many Africans, leaders and leading
politicians, they are very happy about that, because Africa right
now urgently needs development. And I think, if you look at the
horrendous refugee crisis, the people drowning by the thousands
in the Mediterranean, it makes it {so} clear that to bring
development to Africa is the only way how you can overcome this
unbelievable tragedy. And if Europe would have a right mind, they
would join! You know, rather than sending the Triton boats to
chase the refugees back, which is a complete moral bankruptcy of
Europe.
Now this is very interesting, because the big question
always comes, “who should finance all of this?” As you know,
already at the Brazil Fortaleza summit, the BRICS countries
agreed, together with some of the other countries, to create new
financial institutions: the New Development Bank of the BRICS,
the AIIB [Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank] was already
founded in last October, but also a whole set of other banks.
And it came from the idea, that when the Asia crisis happened in
’97, in which speculators like George Soros speculated against
the currencies of countries like Korea, Philippines, Thailand, in
one week up to 60-80% downward, and these countries had no
defense; so they concluded, “OK, we have to protect ourselves,”
so they created the Contingency Reserve Arrangement [CRA], which
is a pool of currencies of a $100 billion, which will defend all
of the participating countries against speculative attacks.
Now, the AIIB, the New Development Bank, the New Silk Road
Fund, the Maritime Silk Road Fund, the bank of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization [SCO Development Bank], and the SAARC
[South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation] Development
Fund, are all new banks which follow a completely different
principle than Wall Street and the City of London, or Frankfurt,
for that matter. They say, we do not participate in speculation,
but we will use these funds only for investment in the real
economy, into these projects. And this is urgently needed,
because as you know, despite all of the quantitative easing of
the Federal Reserve, and now [ECB President] Mr. Draghi, who are
printing money as if there would be no tomorrow, the money does
not arrive at the industries! Because the banks, the speculators
prefer to keep the casino going, and this is actually reaching a
point where at the IMF annual spring meeting which just took
place in Washington, the IMF itself put out a report saying that
we are facing a collapse {bigger} than 2008 with the collapse of
Lehman Brothers. And several economists from J.P. Morgan and
other banks warned that you could have a simultaneous stock and
bond crisis, causing a meltdown of the system; or, if the Federal
Reserve would increase the interest rate only by a tiny, tiny
amount it could blow up the whole derivatives bubble of $2
trillion. And if the Troika and the ECB are pushing Greece out
of the Eurozone, that could also trigger a collapse, because it
would not so much hurt Greece, but it would blow up the European
banks.
So therefore, the existence of these banks are de facto a
lifeboat in the face of the immediate danger of a collapse.
Now, as you probably have noticed, when the question came,
who would be a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank, which was already constituted last October, but
the date until which countries could join as founding members was
end of March [2015]. And the United States put a lot of pressure
on the allies, not to join; they didn’t want Korea to join;
naturally, they didn’t want Europe to join, and they put maximum
pressure on Asian countries not to join. But then, it just so
happened, that the best ally of the United States, Great Britain,
was the first European country to join, and that caused a kind of
a dam break, and then Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland,
Austria, and all the Scandinavian countries joined. And the
actual founding members included 57 countries. And they
basically participate in different degrees in this new bank,
which obviously people realize that what China is offering with
the economic cooperation in these projects, is much, much more
attractive than to participate in more speculative bubbles which
eventually will pop. So, this was from the founding meeting in
October, already, but in the meantime, it become many more
states.
Now, this is also very interesting, because this is a
proposal which my husband made in 1975. It was called the
International Development Bank, and it was basically the same
idea as the AIIB, today, saying that the IMF and the World Bank
do not provide enough credit for Third World development. This
was a proposal he made in ’75, and it went into the final
resolution of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1976 in Colombo, Sri
Lanka, and it had the same idea as the AIIB.
The World Bank only spends per year $24 billion for
projects. But the actual requirement of the developing
countries, is about $8 trillion in the next years! So there is
no way the World Bank can manage that, and this bank, on the
other side, the AIIB, and the other banks will grow and will
become more productive.
Now, this is very important because what the AIIB and the
New Development Bank and this new economic system which is
emerging represent, is something completely different than
monetarism. Monetarism is the idea that you have to have maximum
profit, the real economy doesn’t count; as a matter of fact, you
all know, that if you have an industrial firm which lays of
10,000, the stock goes up! It doesn’t make any sense. In the
realm of monetarism, this is explained by the idea that the firm
becomes “more productive” because fewer workers work more, and
therefore the profit is greater; but from the standpoint of the
real economy this makes no sense at all.
And it is exactly that philosophy which has caused the
Troika to destroy Greece. What they managed to do is to reduce
the Greek economy by one-third, to increase the youth
unemployment to 65%, and people are extremely unhappy, not only
in Greece, but also in Italy, in Spain, Portugal and so forth.
What we propose, both the IDB and these new banks, is really
going back to a completely different model. It’s based on the
idea of this man, whom you all recognize, I’m sure — he is
Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury of the
United States. And he created, actually, the United States, by
creating the National Bank and the credit system, because, what
he did, was after the War of Independence, the different states
in the United States were totally indebted. So he unified the
United States by taking over the debt obligations of these
states, and basically saying, it’s no longer your business, we’ll
take these debts as a Federal state, as a national state, and we
will transform that into a credit mechanism, only aimed at areal
production.
And that was really the actual founding of the United
States. And this idea of a credit system which is not
monetarism, but it is the idea that credit can only be given for
future production in the real economy, not for speculation, that
model was what made the United States a great industrial power.
Because, despite the fact that some following Presidents then
tried to dismantle it, the United States went back to it, again
and again. It was the policies of John Quincy Adams; it was the
policy of Abraham Lincoln with the greenbacks; it was the policy
of Franklin D. Roosevelt. This is how Roosevelt brought the
United States out of the Depression of the ’30s by building the
Reconstruction Finance Corp. which financed the New Deal, and
that’s how America got out of the Depression. And, also, it was
the basis for the German Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, the
state bank, which help to finance the reconstruction and the
economic miracle of Germany in the postwar period — which was
modeled on the Reconstruction Finance Corp.
So this is therefore, not something new. It’s a tested
model, it has always been the basis when there was progress in
the real economy, as compared to the financial markets. I’m not
talking about the financial markets, I’m talking about real
production for the livelihood and the common good of the people.
So the first step there, we have called for — Tom
mentioned it — that we think it is an absolute matter, actually
of war and peace, if we succeed to get the European nations {and}
America to join with this “win-win,” all-inclusive,
non-geopolitical system. And, as I said, the financial system of
Wall Street and the City of London {is} about to blow up, bigger
than 2008, and the only way how that can be avoided from leading
to a chaotic collapse, is by going back to the Glass-Steagall
legislation which was introduced by Franklin D. Roosevelt in
1933, which was his answer to the collapse of ’29-’33 period.
And he separated the banks, by making the commercial banks
separate from the investment banks, so that the investment bank
could not have access to assets of the commercial banks.
And this exist from 1933 until 1999 in the United States,
and in Europe you had practically the same thing, because you had
a very regulated banking sector. But the Wall Street forces did
not like it, because naturally it reduced their profit, so they
worked very hard to eliminate it, which they were able to do in
1999, and the whole super-expansion of the speculative area only
occurred after this law was eliminated. And the good news, is
that there is a right now a Presidential candidate in the United
States, who has said that his first act if he would move into the
White House, would be to reintroduce this Glass-Steagall law: And
that is the former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, about whom many
papers are writing that he has a very good chance to take the
Democratic nomination, because many people think Hillary Clinton
has made too many compromises with bad policies, when she was
Secretary of State. But, O’Malley is not alone, but you have a
whole bunch of people around him, who say the United States must
go back to being a Republic; it must go back to putting the
common good above the interests of Wall Street. And that is
really the “to be or not to be” question of the whole world.
Now, if this reorganization would take place, then, the
United States could easily join with the BRICS countries in such
efforts as the AIIB and other such things. And, as you know, the
Greek government has also demanded that there is no way how they
can pay their debt, because as you know, of all the rescue
packages which went to Greece, only 3% of that money remained in
Greece, while all the rest really went to the European banks.
And therefore, to demand that Greece should pay back these debts,
it’s just impossible! And the Greek government has made the
point that they want to have a European Debt Conference, like
Germany in 1953, without which the German economic miracle would
never have taken place. So if this all happens, and that could
happen in the short term, Europe could easily participate in
that.
Now, I just want to say, the ancient Silk Road was not only
an exchange of silk, and porcelain, and paper, printing,
gunpowder, and many, many other goods, but much more important
than that, it was an exchange of ideas and technologies: Silk
making is more important than silk; how to print books is more
important than the book. So the ancient Silk Road was an
extremely important exchange of goods and culture, and ideas, and
understanding among people — and so will be the New Silk Road,
just with modern means.
Now, if you go back to the picture, this is why we have
said, “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge” where we
have the camels, sort of symbolizing the old Silk Road, and here
you see a maglev train, and here you see a rover on the Moon, to
give you an idea that the exchange of technologies and goods in
the modern world will be the most advanced technologies to the
benefit of all of mankind.
So going back to the problem here, is, obviously, if you
look at that map, you see, these are the deserts of the world: A
very broad desert band which goes from the Atlantic coast of
Africa, through the Sahara-Sahel zone, the Arab Peninsula, the
Middle East, all the way to China. And that desert is growing.
It’s expanding. And then you have the desert in the West of the
United States, which is right now ruined by a big drought in
California, in Texas, in all the states west of the Mississippi;
and naturally, Brazil has a drought.
In the United States this is very severe. Here you have a
global water scarcity map; here you have the water stress
indicator. In the United States, just to mention that, Governor
Brown of California has just announced that the water consumption
will be cut by 25% up to 36%! Now that is the death to
Californian agriculture; in the south of California, for example,
in the Central Valley, in this region, 40% of the entire
agriculture of the United States is produced, and this is now
being completely destroyed. Here you see, this is a former
reservoir, which is almost dried up. This is the snowpack: in
2013, it was relatively, a lot of snow, and last year, no snow,
so the drought is expanding, and obviously, to cut consumption
means you kill people. I mean, you cannot cut water — where
should these people go? There are already cities and towns where
people are — it’s not just not watering their lawn — it’s
taking public showers, of getting water rations, and then
eventually people have to move away, because if there is no water
there is no life. There were already herds being transformed, of
hundreds of thousands of head of cattle, and the idea to just
accept that, and as Governor Brown said, “California historically
has only a carrying potential of 400,000 people,” is ridiculous,
because there are presently 39 million people living in
California! And the idea to say there’s only room for 400,000 is
completely ahistorical about what is the role of human beings,
who differentiate themselves from animals by being able to
increase the living capability for more people by improving
productivity, by transforming the industry, the infrastructure,
and in that way, developing the planet.
So obviously, China has taken a completely different
approach. Here you see, China is actually the only country which
has taken a very big water diversification: There is on the one
side, the Three Gorges Dam, which is now producing, I think 22
gigawatts of electricity per year, and it has eliminated flooding
which killed many thousands of people in the past; and even more
important, is the water diversification project from the southern
area of the Yangtze River through a Northern Route into the
Yellow River and the desert area of China; and the Middle Route
to the region around Beijing.
So this is actually a model which is now being followed by
Narendra Modi for India, who just agreed to make gigantic water
projects to tame the water coming down from the Himalayas, and
also making canals out of 101 Indian rivers.
Now, what most people don’t consider is, that water is not a
natural resource like iron ore, or gold, or whatever: You can’t
use up, because water is organized in global cycles, where 90% of
the precipitation rains down over the ocean, only 10% rains down
over the land. And that water, the Sun causes evaporation, this
leads to cloud formation, and then the water rains down, and it
is human activity, which can make these cycles more efficient.
It’s not just, that it rains down over land and then flows back
into the ocean. You can use it in agriculture, you can use it in
industrial production, you can use it in other urban activities,
and it is actually the ability of man to make that more
efficient.
Here you see a very interesting comparison — you see here
the water diversion of the United States. Even though the water
diversion of China has started much more recently, it’s almost
double, which shows you the completely different philosophy.
This is a very important project, which is part of the
approach to fight the desert, and this is the Lake Chad Transaqua
project, which is the idea, that you could eliminate a lot of the
drought in the Sahel zone and around Lake Chad by bringing some
of the surplus water from the headwaters region of the Congo on
the one side, through rivers and canals into Lake Chad, which has
been reduced to less than 10% right now; and also through a
second canal along the Nile to increase the agricultural land in
Africa tremendously. And also now to bring real development to
these countries, without which you will have more people running
away from Boko Haram, which is now at Lake Chad and Nigeria. And
without a real development perspective, there is no way how you
can contain these projects.
Human beings are the only species, which can improve the
conditions of mankind again and again and again, and the last
10,000 years, or 20,000 years since the last Ice Age, just think,
what an enormous development mankind has made. We have increased
the population potential of the Earth from about 5 million at
most, to presently around 7 billion. This is due to the fact that
man, unlike animals, can make new discoveries, discovers the
universal principles of our physical universe, and think things,
which have never been thought before.
Therefore, the attack on the water crisis is not just a
question of using the aquifers, because the aquifers can — they
replenish, but this goes much too slowly. It’s not only
re-diverting the rivers, dams, but it’s especially influencing
the global cyclical process of water. There is a relationship
between what happens in our Solar System and the rain. Because
the Sun, which shines on the oceans, causes evaporation, but the
Sun is not the only solar impact on the weather; it’s also the
cosmic radiation, which comes from our galaxy, which leads to
cloud formation, ionization of moisture, and therefore to rain.
That is not just something where we have to wait passively until
it happens, but we can study, for example, what is happening in
our galaxy, which influences the weather, and then understand
better, how we can create more water.
Here, you see our Solar System in a 32 million year cycle,
moving along the Milky Way. The Milky Way is basically a flat
plateau, in which our Solar System is moving up and down in
cycles, and you have a complete change in the weather patterns,
which comes from the position of our Solar System in our galaxy.
I’m not saying, that we know everything about that yet. We
know, that there is a lot of connection between the Solar System,
the galaxy and the weather patterns on our Earth, and I can
assure you, that if you look at the long-term changes in our
weather patterns, then {these} things are a lot more important,
than whatever you use in your little car as CO2 production.
Because these are forces, which are of a completely different
magnitude, and naturally, the climate is changing, but galactic
processes are really what is the cause of it.
Anyway, the idea of using cosmic rays and ionization of
moisture is already successfully being done by Israel and by some
of the Gulf States; Russia is doing a lot of research on this,
and this is, what we have to do. The reason, why I’m saying this,
is, the Silk Road is not just building railways from Dunhuang to
Lisbon or wherever; it’s not just building roads, it’s not just
building canals. The modern Silk Road, the New Silk Road is,
exactly as the old Silk Road was, {an exchange of ideas, of
technology, for the common good of all.}
Obviously, today the big challenges are world poverty, are
the danger of war, are the danger of water scarcity, which could
become the reason for new wars. So the New Silk Road — and this
is what we understand with it, and I’m sure that our Chinese
friend will show his perspective — but that is the philosophy,
which we have taken as a basis in our approach, that the New Silk
Road is {a vision}, of how humanity can move away from
geopolitics and the stupid idea that we have to fight over scarce
resources, that we have to create wars because we don’t like
another system, that we have to eventually self-destruct, but
that we have to make the evolutionary jump to the idea of the
common aims of mankind and to define the next phase of evolution
in the interest of all.
If you look at this, the Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry
Rogozin of Russia just two days ago, pointed to the fact, that
the BRICS countries are all space travelling nations. China is
the leader in space travel. When China in December 2013 landed
the Yutu rover on the Moon, with was the idea, that in a few
missions later, I think it was in 2017, this Yutu — “Jade
Rabbit” — that they will bring back helium-3. Helium-3 is an
isotope, which is actually a fuel for fusion power. It’s much
more efficient than deuterium or tritium, because with this heavy
deuterium and tritium in the fusion process, you are still using
turbines, and you use turbines to create electricity in the old
way. But with helium-3 you can directly gain electricity from the
physical process of fusion power, and therefore, naturally, the
energy efficiency is much, much higher. And once we have fusion
power, for example, this will create for the first time energy
and raw materials security for the Earth. Energy security,
because on the Moon, you have several tons of helium-3, which
will be sufficient for many tens of thousands of years of energy
security on the Earth; and raw materials security, because with
the high heat of the plasma torch, you can take any waste,
including nuclear waste, including waste in your household, and
turn it back into isotopes, which you then can reconstruct and
make new raw materials.
So this is the vanguard of where mankind must go, and China
has made that its national pride. And China, contrary to Germany,
which is very stupid with respect to energy — you know, this
stupid exit from nuclear energy without having an alternative, is
completely crazy — but China has basically created a situation,
where they are in the right position to solve this problem, and
Rogozin, the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, has said, that the
BRICS countries will cooperate in space to solve these problems.
So this is extremely important, because if mankind makes
that jump to not have war as a conflict resolution, which in a
time of nuclear energy, it should be obvious that we must move to
a different regime, that we must define the common aims of
mankind, that which is, — if you have seen these pictures with
astronauts and cosmonauts and taikonauts, they all report the
same: When they are in space and look at our little planet, this
blue planet, they realize that there are no borders. They also
realize that our planet is extremely small in a very big Solar
System, in an even bigger galaxy, and there are {billions} of
galaxies. So, there are dangers from space, like cosmic
radiation, like asteroids; there are all kinds of dangers, which
we don’t manage right now. But if we don’t want to have the same
fate as the dinosaurs, who became eliminated 65 million years
ago, because probably a meteorite hit the Earth and created so
much cloud cover, that all the vegetation stopped, and then the
dinosaurs, and 96% of all other species were eliminated; if we
as a creative species, {are} really the creative species, we
should put our efforts together and defend against common dangers
to our planet, common dangers to our civilization, and unite.
And there is no better image for that than space collaboration.
This whole question also has a philosophical dimension.
Because people think, China is just doing an imperial expansion,
they want to have their interests. Well, I have the deepest
conviction that what is working in China right now, especially
with President Xi Jinping, {is} the 2,500-year-old Confucian
tradition in China. And I go even so far to say the Chinese
people have Confucius in their genes. Confucius was a
philosopher, who reacted to a historical period in China, which
was characterized by war, by great unrest, by turmoil. And he
developed the Confucian philosophy, which is beautiful. I can
only advise you, in case you are not doing it, study Confucius.
Because Confucius has this idea that there must be harmony in the
world, on the planet. And that, for example, the best way to
have harmony is, there is one key notion, which is {li}, which is
the idea, that each person, each nation, should take its proper
place, and develop in the best possible way, and then you have
harmony. Because if everybody develops their creative potential
and their best maximum capacity, and takes the development of the
other as their own interest, and vice versa, then you have peace.
And that should also be based on the other notion of {ren}.
{Ren} basically means the same thing as love, or {agapë}, or the
Christian idea of charity.
And it happens to be that these ideas are also in the
European best tradition. There is a very important philosopher of
the 15th century, called Nicolaus of Cusa, who was the founder of
modern science, the founder of the modern nation-state, and he
was very important: He broke through the barrier from the Middle
Ages to modern times. Because he was actually the person, who
brought the Council of Florence into being by first finding
handwritings in Byzantium, which were then the basis for the
unification of the Orthodox Church with the Roman Church; but
when he brought the Orthodox delegation in 1453 to the Council of
Florence, he had a stroke of genius: He said, now, I am thinking
something, which no human being has ever thought before. He then
wrote his {De Docta Ignorantia}, and he developed this notion of
the coincidence of opposites, the {coincidentia oppositorum},
which was the idea, that the One has a higher quality than the
Many, and that the human mind is capable of synthesizing some
hypothesis, which gives you a deeper insight into the laws of the
universe, into Classical art — in other words, it’s the
creativity of the human mind, which is the driving force in the
development of the universe. And that’s for example, what the
Russian philosopher Vladimir Vernadsky called, that the
creativity of man is a geophysical force in the universe. Now,
what he did basically, is to say — he didn’t say it in this way,
but the effect of it was — that in order to move away from the
Middle Ages, from the Scholasticism, from the Neo-Peripatetics
and the Aristotelean ideas, you had to basically break with the
axioms of the Middle Ages thinking, and that you had to create
something basically completely new, a new method of thinking.
And I’m saying, that with the New Silk Road, we have to do
exactly that: We have to break away from money, greed,
monetarism, all of these things, which really are a decaying
culture. If you look at the European, American, Western culture,
it {is} a decaying culture. Just look at the youth culture. Look
at what our young people watch in terms of pop music, video
games, the violence, just the popular entertainment has become
really degenerate. And we have to break with that, and we have to
combine the New Silk Road economic model — which I did not go
into so much today, because I already spoke about it two months
ago here in Copenhagen — but we have to break with the whole
axiomatic of globalization and basically go for a New
Renaissance, a new cultural renaissance of thinking, which will
build on the best traditions of each country: on Confucianism,
on Vedic tradition of India, on Avicenna [Ibn Sina], and other
thinkers, Al-Farabi, Abu Al-Kindi in the Arab world; in Europe,
the great Classical music tradition, the Italian Renaissance, the
German Classical music. We just have to take the high points of
all civilizations, and study that, and start to love the culture
of the other countries, and then we will create out of this a
completely New Renaissance, which will bring mankind into a
completely new phase of evolution.
Because I do not believe, that the present condition of
mankind is, what we are here for! We are not here to kill each
other; we are not here to eat caviar, until we have it coming out
of our ears. We are here to be creative! We are here to discover
the laws of the universe, to write beautiful poems, to write
beautiful music, to celebrate the creativity of civilization. And
I think, that the idea of man in space, man going into the next
phase of the evolution of man, is really what will get us out of
this crisis. So that is, what the New Silk Road is all about.
[ovation]




Leder fra LaRouche-bevægelsen 4. maj 2015:
Det er »Win-Win« for at stoppe »Kill-Kill«

Mens verden har kurs mod nogle uger, der er afgørende for Det britiske Imperiums desperate forsøg på at fremprovokere et opgør gennem økonomisk fascisme og atomkrig, udstedte Hung Tran, direktøren for Instituttet for International Finans – IIF, også kendt som Ditchley-gruppen eller »bankierernes kartel« – en skarp advarsel om, at, hvis Grækenland skubbes ud af eurozonen ved at insistere på, at landets regering gennemtvinger umulige nedskæringsbetingelser, så »kunne der opstå tvivl om hele sammenhængen i den vestlige alliance«, og det kunne bringe hele det transatlantiske finanssystem til fald med kort varsel.

Dette er fuldstændigt sandt, lød Lyndon LaRouches kommentar i dag. Hele systemet kan falde, hvad øjeblik, det skal være, og Grækenland kunne bliver aftrækkeren. Men, forklarede LaRouche, man behøver ikke få denne krise; den vil kun fremkomme, såfremt Europa fortsat forsøger at forpligte sig til et svindelnummer, som består i de falske, finansielle værdier i forbindelse med den græske og tilsvarende gæld. Dette svindelnummer består af alt, hvad Wall Street foretager sig.

Alt dette kan forandres gennem en tilbagevenden til Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-politik. Glass/Steagall er toneangivende for alt det, der må gøres, og vi må presse på med det i USA og lægge alle vore kræfter bag et sådant fremstød, sagde LaRouche. Det er blevet gjort til det centrale spørgsmål i præsidentkampagnen af Martin O’Malley, hvis mission foreløbig er fin og kvalificerer ham til præsidentskabet. En sådan genindførelse af Glass/Steagall ville være meget smertefuld for Wall Street, men det er præcist, hvad landet og verden har brug for. O’Malley som potentiel præsidentkandidat med en kampagne for denne politik frembyder en global løsning.

Men vi kan ikke bare vente og se, om det sker, fortsatte LaRouche. Vi må gribe forebyggende ind, både mht. Glass/Steagall og den hermed tilknyttede politik for at løse den såkaldte »ferskvandskrise« gennem at rejse spørgsmålet om det galaktiske princip, som er blevet udarbejdet og fremlagt af LaRouches videnskabspolitiske team. Det er dette galaktiske, universelle, fysiske princip, der er årsag til vandcyklussen på Jorden, understregede LaRouche i dag, og ikke omvendt. Det, man skal tænke, er ikke på Jorden her og nu, men ud mod galaksen (mindst) og tænke frem 32 millioner år ud i fremtiden (mindst) for at danne sig et begreb om de universelle, skabende processer, der styrer de lokale, planetariske udviklinger i dag.

Som LaRouche erklærede det under drøftelser med sine medarbejdere her til eftermiddag:

»Der er ingen knaphed på vand. På planeten Jord er der ingen knaphed på vand! For knapheden på vand udgør en forbindelse mellem de overordnede kræfter, galaksen, og de lokale kræfter, som er planeten Jord. Planeten Jord er en mindre, underordnet enhed i det galaktiske system … Og det eneste, vi behøver at gøre, er at tænke over den teknologi, som vi må anvende for at udnytte de fordele, som det galaktiske system frembyder. Det betyder mange ting, og mange formodninger hos en masse mennesker, i USA og andre steder, må ændres.«

»Problemet er, at vi må få folk i USA i særdeleshed til at forlade den politik, som er den aktuelle politik under Obamaregeringen. Med andre ord, så må Obama fjernes fra [regeringsmagten i] USA. Det er den nødvendige handling … Vi må ganske enkelt ændre USA’s politik og USA’s relation til andre nationer i det transatlantiske område. Vi må ændre vores politik i overensstemmelse med denne forudsætning. Og det kan lade sig gøre. Spørgsmålet er, vil det blive gjort? Og hvad der er vigtigere: Vil vi, som nation, få lov til, få tilladelse til at tage de skridt, der kan tages for at løse dette problem?«

Denne krise, og den foreliggende løsning, er grunden til, at briterne og Obama ønsker at dræbe, dræbe og dræbe, sagde LaRouche. Folk indser ikke, at Obama blot er en farlig idiot. De er forvirrede, fordi han udviser de kendetegn på magt, som er forbundet med det amerikanske præsidentskab. Men han er ikke en intellektuel person, uanset, hvor meget man strækker sin forestillingsevne; han er en tåbe, om end en farlig én af slagsen.

Briternes/Obamas ’kill-kill’-politik er deres svar på Kinas ’win-win’-strategi. Den udstilles gennem de fortsatte mord på migranter i Middelhavet, som er en direkte konsekvens af Obamas krig og statskup i Libyen i 2011, der igen var en direkte efterfølger for den britisk/amerikanske promovering af den tjetjenske opstand mod Rusland, der så levende blev fordømt af LaRouche i hans videoberetning, »Storm over Asia«, fra 1999.

Dette tjetjenske spørgsmål er stadig afgørende i dag som omdrejningspunkt for fremvæksten af den britisk-sponsorerede jihadist-terror, som stedfortræderkrig imod Rusland, og imod et civiliseret menneskebegreb generelt.

Denne ’kill-kill’-politik ses også i den seneste nedslagtning af yazidier (kurdisk stammefolk, hovedsageligt i Irak, -red.), udført af ISIS-udyrene, som Obama har bragt til magten tværs over hele Nordafrika og Sydvestasien. Og politikken er skarpt udstillet i det ukrainske brændpunkt for krig mod Rusland og Kina, hvor det samme slæng, som frembragte Anden Verdenskrigs nazister – dvs. Det britiske Imperium og Prescott Bush og hans lige – er fanatisk besluttet på at sikre, at ingen i dag vil fejre 70-året for sejren over deres nazister, med mindre disse samme nazister stoppes igen i dag.

»Er der noget at fejre?«, kan man næsten høre Dronningen (den britiske, -red.) mumle, med en vis irritation.

 

Foto: Franklin D. Roosevelt, USA’s præsident 1933-45.

(FDR underskrev den 16. juni 1933 Glass/Steagall-loven, der var i kraft frem til 1999, og som indførte en skarp adskillelse mellem kommercielle banker med normal indlåns- og udlånsaktivitet, og så investeringsbanker, der promoverer hasarderet spekulation, der ikke investerer i et lands fysiske realøkonomi, herunder infrastruktur, og som, uden Glass/Steagall-loven, har adgang til almindelige indskydermidler til at spekulere med. (-red.))




SI-seminar i København den 27. april 2015: Kinas politik for “Et Bælte, En Vej”
SI Copenhagen seminar, April 27, 2015: China’s One Belt, One Road Policy

Titelbillede: Dr. Liu Chunrong og Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Schiller Instituttets seminar fandt sted på Copenhagen Business Confucius Institute under Copenhagen Business School.

The Schiller Institute seminar was held at the Copenhagen Business Confucius Institute, Copenhagen Business School.

Li xiauguang

Hr. Li Xiaoguang, kinesisk meddirektør for Copenhagen Business Confucius Institute, holdt en velkomsttale.

Mr. Li Xiaoguang,  the Chinese co-director of the Copenhagen Business Confucius Institute, welcomed the participants to the Institute.

H.E. Ambassador Liu Biwei

H.E. Ambassador Liu Biwei (right)

HE hr. Liu Biwei, Den kinesiske Folkerepubliks ambassadør til Kongeriget Danmark holdt åbningstalen.

His Excellency Mr. Liu Biwei, Ambassador of the People’s Republic of  China to the Kingdom of Denmark delivered opening greetings to the seminar.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, stifter og formand for det Internationale Schiller Institut, holdt en tale om ‘Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen, med introduktion v/Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and president of the international Schiller Institute spoke about The New Silk Road becomes The World Land-bridge. Introduced by Tom Gillesberg, chairman of The Schiller Institute in Denmark:

 

Video af Zepp-LaRouches tale, med dia-billeder; en dansk oversættelse følger lige under videoen.

(Video of Zepp-LaRouches speach, with the slides included. An english transcript can be found further down the page)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

Audio:

Hr. Liu Chunrong, PhD., associeret professor, School of International Public Affairs, Fundan Universitetet; eksekutiv vicedirektør for Fundan-European Centre for China Studies, Københavns Universitet, præsenterede Kinas “En Bælte, En Vej” politik.

Dr. Liu Chunrong, PhDAssociate Professor, School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University, and Executive Vice Director Fudan-European Centre for China Studies, NIAS,  University of Copenhagen, presented China’s One Belt, One Road policy.

Video:

Audio:

Discussion period:

Video:

Audio:

(See English report below.)

Stor succes for Københavner-seminar om Kinas politik for »Et Bælte, En Vej«

København, 27. april 2015 – Omkring 80 mennesker deltog i dag i et seminar, som blev holdt på Copenhagen Business Confucius Institute under Copenhagen Business School.

Følgende personer var talere på seminaret:

Velkomsttale: Hr. Li Xiaoguang, kinesisk meddirektør for Copenhagen Business Confucius Institute.

HE hr. Liu Biwei, Den kinesiske Folkerepubliks ambassadør til Kongeriget Danmark – åbningstale.

Fr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger af og international præsident for Schiller Instituttet og en betydningsfuld medforfatter af »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«; mangeårig leder i LaRouche-bevægelsen og gift med den amerikanske statsmand, økonom og filosof Lyndon LaRouche; forkvinde for det tyske politiske parti Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidarität (Borgerrettighedsbevægelsen Solidaritet), BüSo. Introduktion v/Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark.

Hr. Liu Chunrong, PhD., associeret professor, School of International Public Affairs, Fundan Universitetet; eksekutiv vicedirektør for Fundan-European Centre for China Studies, Københavns Universitet.

De ca. 80 deltagere inkluderede fem ambassadører samt diplomater fra seks andre ambassader, mange medlemmer og kontakter af Schiller Instituttet, og andre interesserede som har specielle tilknutning til Kina.

Denne konference er den tredje i rækken af ’Manhattan-projekt’-konferencer i København siden januar, som Schiller Instituttet har arrangeret. En mere udførlig rapport vil følge, inkl. links til video- og audiooptagelser.

 

English:

Very Successful Copenhagen Seminar on “China’s ‘One Belt,
One Road’ Policy”

The Schiller Institute in Denmark held a very successful seminar about China’s “One Belt, One Road” policy, at the Copenhagen Business Confucius Institute, attended by approximately 80 people. Video and audio recordings can be found at:  http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=6387

Li Xiaoguang, the Chinese co-director of the Copenhagen Business Confucius Institute, welcomed the speakers and attendees.

The seminar participants had the honor to have opening remarks by His Excellency Mr. Liu Biwei, Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China to the Kingdom of Denmark.

The next speaker was Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and president of The Schiller Institute, and a major author of the EIR Report “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.” She was introduced by Tom Gillesberg, chairman of The Schiller Institute in Denmark. Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche presented the world land-bridge policy and the new BRICS paradigm, as the alternative to the danger of economic and financial collapse, and nuclear war. One area of special emphasis was the growing crisis of fresh water scarcity, counterposing the lack of action in the U.S., with the great infrastructure project approach in China.

The Chinese point of view of the “One Belt, One Road” policy was presented by Dr. Liu Chunrong, PhD, Associate Professor, School of International Relations and Public Affairs, Fudan University, and Executive Vice Director Fudan-European Centre for China Studies, NIAS, University of Copenhagen.

Among the audience were: five ambassadors, plus diplomats from another six other embassies; people who have a special connection to China representing a Danish think tank, academia and businesses; plus many Schiller Institute members and contacts.

This seminar was the third in a series of Manhattan project-style Schiller Institute conferences held in Copenhagen since January.

 

English transcript of Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s speech, and Tom Gillesberg’s introduction:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE ADDRESSES “CHINA’S ‘ONE BELT, ONE ROAD’
POLICY’ SEMINAR IN COPENHAGEN, April 27, 2015

Here is the transcript of Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s address to the
Schiller Institute seminar in Copenhagen, which was held
Copenhagen Business Confucius Institute, Copenhagen Business
School. Click her for the audio and video from Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s speech and the other speeches from the seminar.

TOM GILLESBERG: I have the great honor of introducing Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, who has come here from a rather busy schedule both
in Germany and the United States, but also the whole world she’s
intervening to. Just as a short introduction, Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche
has been since 1977 the wife and very close collaborator of
Lyndon LaRouche in the United States, the economist, philosopher,
statesman who is giving leadership in the U.S., for the U.S. to
return to the intentions of its founders, to be a promoter of
sovereign nations that can collaborate on an equal footing to
secure the benefits for all nations and peoples.
And Helga has a very, I think, close connection to China.
As a young journalist she traveled to China in 1971, in the
height of the Cultural Revolution as one of the first Western
journalists and actually saw on the spot what was going on. She
then became politically active with the LaRouche movement and
embarked on a life-long battle for a new just world economic
order, for the possibilities of development for all nations and
peoples.
She then founded, among many other things, the Schiller
Institute, in 1984. She is presently the chairwoman of the
German political party, the BüSo — the Bürgerrechtsbewegung
Solidarität, or Civil Rights Soliarity Movement. She was vry
active after the Fall of the Berlin Wall and one of the authors
of the Schiller Institute program for the development of the
world after the Iron Curtain had fallen of the program the
Paris-Berlin-Vienna Productive Triangle, a Locomotive for the
World Economy. And when that did not materialize, she was very
active in extending that program to the program for the Eurasian
Land-Bridge, going from China and Asia to Europe and having a
development of the whole region. And as part of that, she then
became a visitor many times to China to speak on the need for a
New Silk Road and actually earned her nickname in China as the
“Silk Road Lady,” for her efforts to have China embark on this
policy.
And since then, she has been also the driving force in
holding many scores of conferences in Europe and the United
States on the need for creating a paradigm shift, to get the
Western world out of its long-term economic, strategic, and
cultural crisis. And, over the last couple of years, she has
been one of the architects of this report, “The New Silk Road
Becomes the World Land-Bridge.” She has also been leading the
campaign to stop the present geopolitical games that threaten to
detonate thermonuclear war and instead get the United States and
Europe to accept the offer of the BRICS countries to join forces
in an inclusive world order, where all nations of the world, on
an equal footing, collaborate to secure the peace and development
of all nations.
So I think it’s very appropriate that you are here to
directly lay what’s going on, so please, welcome. [applause]

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Thank you, Tom, for these kind words of
introduction.
Well I have a certain dilemma, because I want to present to
you the potential, which lies in this program, and given the fact
that the Western media have reported very little about it, I have
a dilemma, that I need to tell you, that this is {the} most
important political initiative on the planet right now. The
dilemma comes from the fact that, by introducing this idea, have
to tell you immediately why this is the case, and that is the
reality, that the world is much more close to a new global war,
than most people have an inkling of. And this New Silk Road
initiative, which comes from China, but which in the meantime has
been joined by many countries, is the only available
war-avoidance policy.
Now there was just on the April 18- 19 in Moscow the Fourth
Moscow International Security Conference, and the main subject of
this conference was the danger of nuclear war. And this is a
reaction to the fact that NATO has been expanding eastward, up to
the borders of Russia. You have a whole bunch of strategic
doctrines which Russia regards as a threat to their security
interests, and naturally you have the horrendous situation in
Ukraine, which contrary to what the Western media have been
reporting on — or not reporting actually — is it’s really
something which the West must make up. I just participated in the
last two days, or Friday and Saturday in a conference in
Baden-Baden in Germany, the German-Russian Cultural Days. It’s an
annual conference, and there was a large gathering of German
industrialists and Russian speakers and Russian people. And we
had the fortune to have a videoconference connected to this
conference, which brought in a live program from the former Prime
Minister of Ukraine, Mr. [Mykola] Azarov. And he gave an
absolutely hair-raising report about the conditions in Ukraine,
the fact that the country is being torn apart. Political leaders
are either forced to go into exile or are threatened to be
assassinated; journalists are being killed openly in the street;
trenches are being built; and, as you know, American soldiers are
now training the National Guard, which has a lot of Nazi
components in it. And for the Russians this is extremely severe,
because we are shortly before the 70th anniversary of the end of
Nazism and the end of the Second World War, and the mood of the
people were really horrified to see this endorsement of Nazis 70
years after the Second World War.
Now, I don’t want to go into this in depth, we can do that
in the discussion if people have questions about it, but I think
this crisis, in Ukraine in particular, I could also point to the
Middle East, which is in a similar horrible condition, makes
very, very clear, that if we as humanity cannot move away from
geopolitics — geopolitics was the reason for two world wars in
the 20th century, and right now the continuation of geopolitics
is threatening a new global war. I just want to mention an
article in {New York Times} from 19th April, where two generals,
Gen. James Cartwright, who is former head of the U.S. Strategic
Command, and Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, who is the chief of
intelligence of the Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces, they penned
together an article, In which they said that the world has never
been so close to the danger of nuclear war globally, and
therefore extinction, as right now. And the reason is obviously
that even the normal code of behavior among nations, which
existed in the Cold War, that you had a red telephone between
Kennedy and Khrushchev, this no longer exists; and you have the
two nuclear forces, from NATO and the West and Russia, all the
time on launch on warning. And launch on warning means there are
only a few minutes time, if one side perceives a launch, either
by intention or by accident, they have a few minutes, actually
it’s estimated three minutes’ time, to respond or be eliminated.
So that shows you how extremely close we are to the danger
of a global extinction of civilization. Because if this would
happen, we would not exist as humanity. And I’m saying it with
that gravity, to say that this calls all the more urgently, for a
different approach. And the different approach must be to move
away from geopolitics and move in the direction of the common
aims of mankind.
And it just happens to be, that the policies which are
proposed by President Xi Jinping, which he calls a “win-win”
policy, is exactly that. It’s the idea, that with the New Silk
Road, you have a policy where every country which participates in
it, will have a benefit for it. The New Silk Road, Maritime Silk
Road policy by China is {not} a new imperial policy replacing the
Anglo-American imperial policy, but it is a completely new model
of the nations among nations, where the enormous example of the
Chinese economic miracle, which China was able to develop in the
last 30 years — you know, where China in {30 years}, developed
as much as most industrial nations needed 100 or 200 years to
develop — and China is now offering to export that model and
have other countries benefit in a similar way from that kind of
economic miracle, which China did.
Can you move to the first slide?
So the world has changed since July last year, the summit of
the BRICS countries in Fortaleza in Brazil. And this is a
picture which was made at this occasion, showing the leaders of
Russia, India, Brazil, China and South Africa. And they basically
concluded a new strategic alliance — economic alliance, which
Prime Minister Modi characterized in the following way: He said,
“This is the first alliance of nations, which are not defined by
their current capacity, but by their future potential of
development.” And at another occasion, Modi said that the biggest
potential of India is, that 60% of its people are below 30 years
of age, and therefore, if they are well-educated and developed,
they can come to the help of other nations, which has demographic
problems, like Germany, for example.
What these countries did, is they concluded an enormous
amount of economic treaties, of economic cooperation, including
peaceful development of inherently safe nuclear energy, the
development of fusion energy, joint space projects, space travel,
and numerous other high-tech cooperation areas.
Then, the next day, they met with the leaders of South
America, the organizations of CELAC [Community of Latin American
and Caribbean States] and Unasur [Union of South American
Nations]. Then a little bit later they also had meetings with
countries of ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] and
actually you have now a completely parallel system of economics,
which is really going to be the infrastructure development of the
world.
Now this here is an official picture of the New Silk Road
and the Maritime Silk Road, which shows you the old Silk Road
from Xi’an, actually it goes even farther to the west,
Lianyungang, where the end of that Silk Road is on the China Sea,
all the way through Urumqi, then Central Asia into Europe; and
then Maritime Silk Road is actually connecting even Africa and
much of the Pacific also into Europe. And this is modelled on the
famous Maritime Silk Road of the 15th century, which connected
the nations of the world already at that time.
Now, I want to very quickly say that this made us very
happy, when Xi Jinping announced the New Silk Road in Kazakhstan
in 2013, we jumped that high — you know, in the Schiller
Institute — because we had promoted this idea. This was our
proposal when the Berlin Wall came down, in ’89, and the wall no
longer was there. So we said let’s connect Paris with Berlin and
Vienna, which is a triangular area of the size of Japan, and has
the highest concentration of industrial capacity in the world;
and let’s make corridors to Warsaw, to Kiev, to the Balkans. And
it would have been a perfect way to intervene.
Unfortunately at that time, despite the fact there was a
very good resonance, you had Bush Sr., you had Margaret
Thatcher, and they had completely different ideas: They wanted to
reduce Russia from a superpower to at Third World, raw
materials-exporting country, and therefore they introduced the
shock-therapy, instead, which dismantled the Russian industrial
potential between ’91-’94, to only 30% left.
But then, when in ’91, the Soviet Union collapsed, we
connected this triangle, Paris-Berlin-Vienna, and we said: OK,
now the Iron Curtain is gone, now we can have development
corridors connecting the population and industrial centers of
Europe with those of Asia, through corridors. And then we looked
at the best geographical conditions. I should say, we were
inspired very much by the railway program of Sun Yat-sen, the
founder of modern China, who had developed a whole network of
Chinese railways, and that went into this program. So, at that
time we said let’s look at the best geographical preconditions,
and we found, not so accidentally, that the old Trans-Siberian
Railroad and the old Silk Road, the ancient Silk Road, had the
best geographical conditions to build such infrastructure.
So at that point the shock therapy started to destroy
Russia’s economy, but we kept holding seminars — we had hundreds
of seminars, in Europe, in United States, and then, eventually,
in Warsaw, in Budapest, in Moscow. And in ’96 even in Beijing,
where the Chinese government had responded to our proposal to all
the governments, to hold a big conference promoting the regions
along the Silk Road. And I was there as a speaker, but then came
the Asia Crisis in ’97, and China, at that conference said, that
this will be the long-term strategy for China until 2010. But
then the Asia crisis brought chaos and then the Russian GKO
crisis [in ’98].
So in the mean time we kept working on this initial proposal
which grew. And the latest of this, is this report: It’s a
370-page study which is really the idea of connecting the world
through infrastructure corridors.
Now, here you see some of these projects, which are already
being built, by the BRICS, by some of the other countries — for
example China is now building a transcontinental railroad from
Brazil to Peru, this is letter A [on the map]. This has already
started — you know, Latin America does not have an
infrastructure network! It is still in the colonial condition,
where you have little railroads from the iron ore mountain to the
coast, but if you want to travel from Peru to Brazil, you have to
go via Miami. So this is the idea, to develop a continental
railroad system.
Then number 1 there is the canal built in Nicaragua, it will
be the second Panama Canal, which obviously is an extremely
important project, which will mean that Nicaragua has a very good
chance to become an industrial country, with improving living
standards of its population. Naturally the Greenies are going
crazy and they say there are two fishermen who have to be
resettled. But, first of all, these people will be compensated,
and secondly without infrastructure, there is {no} industrial
development; without infrastructure there is not even
agriculture, because without infrastructure you cannot transport
and process food.
So then, naturally you have the Bering Strait, this number
2. This has been recently announced by Vladimir Yakunin, who is
the head of Russian Railways. And he proposed (I don’t think I
have that slide), a fast train connection from London all the way
through the Bering Strait to New York. A couple of years ago, Mr.
LaRouche and I participated in a conference in Moscow where the
fathers of the Bering Strait Project were present. These were all
older men over 80, and they said: “Oh, in 20 years, we can go
with a maglev train from Acapulco through the Bering Strait to
Mumbai, and this will be much faster than you can go by ship
today,” and they had a very pioneering spirit.
So this is very important because this connection not only
would connect the transport lines of North America with those of
Eurasia, but it would be absolutely crucial to open up the Arctic
Region. In the Far East of Russia you have all the raw materials
which are in the periodic table of Mendeleyev, and they represent
for the next 100 years a very important raw-material potential
which will be important not only for Russia, but for Europe, for
the United States, for China, for Japan, for Korea. So this will
be the way to develop it, because these raw-material are in
permafrost conditions, and you have to build, you have to build
cities, which have a dome, because people have to live — you
cannot live in permanfrost conditions like that, you have to have
a special way of developing it.
Now, I could go into many other projects — the Seikan
tunnel between the Japanese islands does already exist, it
connects the two important islands in Japan. Then the Bohai
Tunnel will connect two Chinese cities and shorten the transport.
The brown line there, this is the actual Silk Road [Silk Road
Economic Belt], which is now being promoted by China; this larger
gray line is the [21st-Century] Maritime Silk Road; but as you
can see, it stretches all the way to Europe and into Africa.
Prime Minister Li Keqiang was several times last year in Africa,
and he proposed to connect all African capitals through a fast
train system. And I know from many Africans, leaders and leading
politicians, they are very happy about that, because Africa right
now urgently needs development. And I think, if you look at the
horrendous refugee crisis, the people drowning by the thousands
in the Mediterranean, it makes it {so} clear that to bring
development to Africa is the only way how you can overcome this
unbelievable tragedy. And if Europe would have a right mind, they
would join! You know, rather than sending the Triton boats to
chase the refugees back, which is a complete moral bankruptcy of
Europe.
Now this is very interesting, because the big question
always comes, “who should finance all of this?” As you know,
already at the Brazil Fortaleza summit, the BRICS countries
agreed, together with some of the other countries, to create new
financial institutions: the New Development Bank of the BRICS,
the AIIB [Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank] was already
founded in last October, but also a whole set of other banks.
And it came from the idea, that when the Asia crisis happened in
’97, in which speculators like George Soros speculated against
the currencies of countries like Korea, Philippines, Thailand, in
one week up to 60-80% downward, and these countries had no
defense; so they concluded, “OK, we have to protect ourselves,”
so they created the Contingency Reserve Arrangement [CRA], which
is a pool of currencies of a $100 billion, which will defend all
of the participating countries against speculative attacks.
Now, the AIIB, the New Development Bank, the New Silk Road
Fund, the Maritime Silk Road Fund, the bank of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization [SCO Development Bank], and the SAARC
[South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation] Development
Fund, are all new banks which follow a completely different
principle than Wall Street and the City of London, or Frankfurt,
for that matter. They say, we do not participate in speculation,
but we will use these funds only for investment in the real
economy, into these projects. And this is urgently needed,
because as you know, despite all of the quantitative easing of
the Federal Reserve, and now [ECB President] Mr. Draghi, who are
printing money as if there would be no tomorrow, the money does
not arrive at the industries! Because the banks, the speculators
prefer to keep the casino going, and this is actually reaching a
point where at the IMF annual spring meeting which just took
place in Washington, the IMF itself put out a report saying that
we are facing a collapse {bigger} than 2008 with the collapse of
Lehman Brothers. And several economists from J.P. Morgan and
other banks warned that you could have a simultaneous stock and
bond crisis, causing a meltdown of the system; or, if the Federal
Reserve would increase the interest rate only by a tiny, tiny
amount it could blow up the whole derivatives bubble of $2
trillion. And if the Troika and the ECB are pushing Greece out
of the Eurozone, that could also trigger a collapse, because it
would not so much hurt Greece, but it would blow up the European
banks.
So therefore, the existence of these banks are de facto a
lifeboat in the face of the immediate danger of a collapse.
Now, as you probably have noticed, when the question came,
who would be a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank, which was already constituted last October, but
the date until which countries could join as founding members was
end of March [2015]. And the United States put a lot of pressure
on the allies, not to join; they didn’t want Korea to join;
naturally, they didn’t want Europe to join, and they put maximum
pressure on Asian countries not to join. But then, it just so
happened, that the best ally of the United States, Great Britain,
was the first European country to join, and that caused a kind of
a dam break, and then Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland,
Austria, and all the Scandinavian countries joined. And the
actual founding members included 57 countries. And they
basically participate in different degrees in this new bank,
which obviously people realize that what China is offering with
the economic cooperation in these projects, is much, much more
attractive than to participate in more speculative bubbles which
eventually will pop. So, this was from the founding meeting in
October, already, but in the meantime, it become many more
states.
Now, this is also very interesting, because this is a
proposal which my husband made in 1975. It was called the
International Development Bank, and it was basically the same
idea as the AIIB, today, saying that the IMF and the World Bank
do not provide enough credit for Third World development. This
was a proposal he made in ’75, and it went into the final
resolution of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1976 in Colombo, Sri
Lanka, and it had the same idea as the AIIB.
The World Bank only spends per year $24 billion for
projects. But the actual requirement of the developing
countries, is about $8 trillion in the next years! So there is
no way the World Bank can manage that, and this bank, on the
other side, the AIIB, and the other banks will grow and will
become more productive.
Now, this is very important because what the AIIB and the
New Development Bank and this new economic system which is
emerging represent, is something completely different than
monetarism. Monetarism is the idea that you have to have maximum
profit, the real economy doesn’t count; as a matter of fact, you
all know, that if you have an industrial firm which lays of
10,000, the stock goes up! It doesn’t make any sense. In the
realm of monetarism, this is explained by the idea that the firm
becomes “more productive” because fewer workers work more, and
therefore the profit is greater; but from the standpoint of the
real economy this makes no sense at all.
And it is exactly that philosophy which has caused the
Troika to destroy Greece. What they managed to do is to reduce
the Greek economy by one-third, to increase the youth
unemployment to 65%, and people are extremely unhappy, not only
in Greece, but also in Italy, in Spain, Portugal and so forth.
What we propose, both the IDB and these new banks, is really
going back to a completely different model. It’s based on the
idea of this man, whom you all recognize, I’m sure — he is
Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury of the
United States. And he created, actually, the United States, by
creating the National Bank and the credit system, because, what
he did, was after the War of Independence, the different states
in the United States were totally indebted. So he unified the
United States by taking over the debt obligations of these
states, and basically saying, it’s no longer your business, we’ll
take these debts as a Federal state, as a national state, and we
will transform that into a credit mechanism, only aimed at areal
production.
And that was really the actual founding of the United
States. And this idea of a credit system which is not
monetarism, but it is the idea that credit can only be given for
future production in the real economy, not for speculation, that
model was what made the United States a great industrial power.
Because, despite the fact that some following Presidents then
tried to dismantle it, the United States went back to it, again
and again. It was the policies of John Quincy Adams; it was the
policy of Abraham Lincoln with the greenbacks; it was the policy
of Franklin D. Roosevelt. This is how Roosevelt brought the
United States out of the Depression of the ’30s by building the
Reconstruction Finance Corp. which financed the New Deal, and
that’s how America got out of the Depression. And, also, it was
the basis for the German Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, the
state bank, which help to finance the reconstruction and the
economic miracle of Germany in the postwar period — which was
modeled on the Reconstruction Finance Corp.
So this is therefore, not something new. It’s a tested
model, it has always been the basis when there was progress in
the real economy, as compared to the financial markets. I’m not
talking about the financial markets, I’m talking about real
production for the livelihood and the common good of the people.
So the first step there, we have called for — Tom
mentioned it — that we think it is an absolute matter, actually
of war and peace, if we succeed to get the European nations {and}
America to join with this “win-win,” all-inclusive,
non-geopolitical system. And, as I said, the financial system of
Wall Street and the City of London {is} about to blow up, bigger
than 2008, and the only way how that can be avoided from leading
to a chaotic collapse, is by going back to the Glass-Steagall
legislation which was introduced by Franklin D. Roosevelt in
1933, which was his answer to the collapse of ’29-’33 period.
And he separated the banks, by making the commercial banks
separate from the investment banks, so that the investment bank
could not have access to assets of the commercial banks.
And this exist from 1933 until 1999 in the United States,
and in Europe you had practically the same thing, because you had
a very regulated banking sector. But the Wall Street forces did
not like it, because naturally it reduced their profit, so they
worked very hard to eliminate it, which they were able to do in
1999, and the whole super-expansion of the speculative area only
occurred after this law was eliminated. And the good news, is
that there is a right now a Presidential candidate in the United
States, who has said that his first act if he would move into the
White House, would be to reintroduce this Glass-Steagall law: And
that is the former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, about whom many
papers are writing that he has a very good chance to take the
Democratic nomination, because many people think Hillary Clinton
has made too many compromises with bad policies, when she was
Secretary of State. But, O’Malley is not alone, but you have a
whole bunch of people around him, who say the United States must
go back to being a Republic; it must go back to putting the
common good above the interests of Wall Street. And that is
really the “to be or not to be” question of the whole world.
Now, if this reorganization would take place, then, the
United States could easily join with the BRICS countries in such
efforts as the AIIB and other such things. And, as you know, the
Greek government has also demanded that there is no way how they
can pay their debt, because as you know, of all the rescue
packages which went to Greece, only 3% of that money remained in
Greece, while all the rest really went to the European banks.
And therefore, to demand that Greece should pay back these debts,
it’s just impossible! And the Greek government has made the
point that they want to have a European Debt Conference, like
Germany in 1953, without which the German economic miracle would
never have taken place. So if this all happens, and that could
happen in the short term, Europe could easily participate in
that.
Now, I just want to say, the ancient Silk Road was not only
an exchange of silk, and porcelain, and paper, printing,
gunpowder, and many, many other goods, but much more important
than that, it was an exchange of ideas and technologies: Silk
making is more important than silk; how to print books is more
important than the book. So the ancient Silk Road was an
extremely important exchange of goods and culture, and ideas, and
understanding among people — and so will be the New Silk Road,
just with modern means.
Now, if you go back to the picture, this is why we have
said, “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge” where we
have the camels, sort of symbolizing the old Silk Road, and here
you see a maglev train, and here you see a rover on the Moon, to
give you an idea that the exchange of technologies and goods in
the modern world will be the most advanced technologies to the
benefit of all of mankind.
So going back to the problem here, is, obviously, if you
look at that map, you see, these are the deserts of the world: A
very broad desert band which goes from the Atlantic coast of
Africa, through the Sahara-Sahel zone, the Arab Peninsula, the
Middle East, all the way to China. And that desert is growing.
It’s expanding. And then you have the desert in the West of the
United States, which is right now ruined by a big drought in
California, in Texas, in all the states west of the Mississippi;
and naturally, Brazil has a drought.
In the United States this is very severe. Here you have a
global water scarcity map; here you have the water stress
indicator. In the United States, just to mention that, Governor
Brown of California has just announced that the water consumption
will be cut by 25% up to 36%! Now that is the death to
Californian agriculture; in the south of California, for example,
in the Central Valley, in this region, 40% of the entire
agriculture of the United States is produced, and this is now
being completely destroyed. Here you see, this is a former
reservoir, which is almost dried up. This is the snowpack: in
2013, it was relatively, a lot of snow, and last year, no snow,
so the drought is expanding, and obviously, to cut consumption
means you kill people. I mean, you cannot cut water — where
should these people go? There are already cities and towns where
people are — it’s not just not watering their lawn — it’s
taking public showers, of getting water rations, and then
eventually people have to move away, because if there is no water
there is no life. There were already herds being transformed, of
hundreds of thousands of head of cattle, and the idea to just
accept that, and as Governor Brown said, “California historically
has only a carrying potential of 400,000 people,” is ridiculous,
because there are presently 39 million people living in
California! And the idea to say there’s only room for 400,000 is
completely ahistorical about what is the role of human beings,
who differentiate themselves from animals by being able to
increase the living capability for more people by improving
productivity, by transforming the industry, the infrastructure,
and in that way, developing the planet.
So obviously, China has taken a completely different
approach. Here you see, China is actually the only country which
has taken a very big water diversification: There is on the one
side, the Three Gorges Dam, which is now producing, I think 22
gigawatts of electricity per year, and it has eliminated flooding
which killed many thousands of people in the past; and even more
important, is the water diversification project from the southern
area of the Yangtze River through a Northern Route into the
Yellow River and the desert area of China; and the Middle Route
to the region around Beijing.
So this is actually a model which is now being followed by
Narendra Modi for India, who just agreed to make gigantic water
projects to tame the water coming down from the Himalayas, and
also making canals out of 101 Indian rivers.
Now, what most people don’t consider is, that water is not a
natural resource like iron ore, or gold, or whatever: You can’t
use up, because water is organized in global cycles, where 90% of
the precipitation rains down over the ocean, only 10% rains down
over the land. And that water, the Sun causes evaporation, this
leads to cloud formation, and then the water rains down, and it
is human activity, which can make these cycles more efficient.
It’s not just, that it rains down over land and then flows back
into the ocean. You can use it in agriculture, you can use it in
industrial production, you can use it in other urban activities,
and it is actually the ability of man to make that more
efficient.
Here you see a very interesting comparison — you see here
the water diversion of the United States. Even though the water
diversion of China has started much more recently, it’s almost
double, which shows you the completely different philosophy.
This is a very important project, which is part of the
approach to fight the desert, and this is the Lake Chad Transaqua
project, which is the idea, that you could eliminate a lot of the
drought in the Sahel zone and around Lake Chad by bringing some
of the surplus water from the headwaters region of the Congo on
the one side, through rivers and canals into Lake Chad, which has
been reduced to less than 10% right now; and also through a
second canal along the Nile to increase the agricultural land in
Africa tremendously. And also now to bring real development to
these countries, without which you will have more people running
away from Boko Haram, which is now at Lake Chad and Nigeria. And
without a real development perspective, there is no way how you
can contain these projects.
Human beings are the only species, which can improve the
conditions of mankind again and again and again, and the last
10,000 years, or 20,000 years since the last Ice Age, just think,
what an enormous development mankind has made. We have increased
the population potential of the Earth from about 5 million at
most, to presently around 7 billion. This is due to the fact that
man, unlike animals, can make new discoveries, discovers the
universal principles of our physical universe, and think things,
which have never been thought before.
Therefore, the attack on the water crisis is not just a
question of using the aquifers, because the aquifers can — they
replenish, but this goes much too slowly. It’s not only
re-diverting the rivers, dams, but it’s especially influencing
the global cyclical process of water. There is a relationship
between what happens in our Solar System and the rain. Because
the Sun, which shines on the oceans, causes evaporation, but the
Sun is not the only solar impact on the weather; it’s also the
cosmic radiation, which comes from our galaxy, which leads to
cloud formation, ionization of moisture, and therefore to rain.
That is not just something where we have to wait passively until
it happens, but we can study, for example, what is happening in
our galaxy, which influences the weather, and then understand
better, how we can create more water.
Here, you see our Solar System in a 32 million year cycle,
moving along the Milky Way. The Milky Way is basically a flat
plateau, in which our Solar System is moving up and down in
cycles, and you have a complete change in the weather patterns,
which comes from the position of our Solar System in our galaxy.
I’m not saying, that we know everything about that yet. We
know, that there is a lot of connection between the Solar System,
the galaxy and the weather patterns on our Earth, and I can
assure you, that if you look at the long-term changes in our
weather patterns, then {these} things are a lot more important,
than whatever you use in your little car as CO2 production.
Because these are forces, which are of a completely different
magnitude, and naturally, the climate is changing, but galactic
processes are really what is the cause of it.
Anyway, the idea of using cosmic rays and ionization of
moisture is already successfully being done by Israel and by some
of the Gulf States; Russia is doing a lot of research on this,
and this is, what we have to do. The reason, why I’m saying this,
is, the Silk Road is not just building railways from Dunhuang to
Lisbon or wherever; it’s not just building roads, it’s not just
building canals. The modern Silk Road, the New Silk Road is,
exactly as the old Silk Road was, {an exchange of ideas, of
technology, for the common good of all.}
Obviously, today the big challenges are world poverty, are
the danger of war, are the danger of water scarcity, which could
become the reason for new wars. So the New Silk Road — and this
is what we understand with it, and I’m sure that our Chinese
friend will show his perspective — but that is the philosophy,
which we have taken as a basis in our approach, that the New Silk
Road is {a vision}, of how humanity can move away from
geopolitics and the stupid idea that we have to fight over scarce
resources, that we have to create wars because we don’t like
another system, that we have to eventually self-destruct, but
that we have to make the evolutionary jump to the idea of the
common aims of mankind and to define the next phase of evolution
in the interest of all.
If you look at this, the Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry
Rogozin of Russia just two days ago, pointed to the fact, that
the BRICS countries are all space travelling nations. China is
the leader in space travel. When China in December 2013 landed
the Yutu rover on the Moon, with was the idea, that in a few
missions later, I think it was in 2017, this Yutu — “Jade
Rabbit” — that they will bring back helium-3. Helium-3 is an
isotope, which is actually a fuel for fusion power. It’s much
more efficient than deuterium or tritium, because with this heavy
deuterium and tritium in the fusion process, you are still using
turbines, and you use turbines to create electricity in the old
way. But with helium-3 you can directly gain electricity from the
physical process of fusion power, and therefore, naturally, the
energy efficiency is much, much higher. And once we have fusion
power, for example, this will create for the first time energy
and raw materials security for the Earth. Energy security,
because on the Moon, you have several tons of helium-3, which
will be sufficient for many tens of thousands of years of energy
security on the Earth; and raw materials security, because with
the high heat of the plasma torch, you can take any waste,
including nuclear waste, including waste in your household, and
turn it back into isotopes, which you then can reconstruct and
make new raw materials.
So this is the vanguard of where mankind must go, and China
has made that its national pride. And China, contrary to Germany,
which is very stupid with respect to energy — you know, this
stupid exit from nuclear energy without having an alternative, is
completely crazy — but China has basically created a situation,
where they are in the right position to solve this problem, and
Rogozin, the Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, has said, that the
BRICS countries will cooperate in space to solve these problems.
So this is extremely important, because if mankind makes
that jump to not have war as a conflict resolution, which in a
time of nuclear energy, it should be obvious that we must move to
a different regime, that we must define the common aims of
mankind, that which is, — if you have seen these pictures with
astronauts and cosmonauts and taikonauts, they all report the
same: When they are in space and look at our little planet, this
blue planet, they realize that there are no borders. They also
realize that our planet is extremely small in a very big Solar
System, in an even bigger galaxy, and there are {billions} of
galaxies. So, there are dangers from space, like cosmic
radiation, like asteroids; there are all kinds of dangers, which
we don’t manage right now. But if we don’t want to have the same
fate as the dinosaurs, who became eliminated 65 million years
ago, because probably a meteorite hit the Earth and created so
much cloud cover, that all the vegetation stopped, and then the
dinosaurs, and 96% of all other species were eliminated; if we
as a creative species, {are} really the creative species, we
should put our efforts together and defend against common dangers
to our planet, common dangers to our civilization, and unite.
And there is no better image for that than space collaboration.
This whole question also has a philosophical dimension.
Because people think, China is just doing an imperial expansion,
they want to have their interests. Well, I have the deepest
conviction that what is working in China right now, especially
with President Xi Jinping, {is} the 2,500-year-old Confucian
tradition in China. And I go even so far to say the Chinese
people have Confucius in their genes. Confucius was a
philosopher, who reacted to a historical period in China, which
was characterized by war, by great unrest, by turmoil. And he
developed the Confucian philosophy, which is beautiful. I can
only advise you, in case you are not doing it, study Confucius.
Because Confucius has this idea that there must be harmony in the
world, on the planet. And that, for example, the best way to
have harmony is, there is one key notion, which is {li}, which is
the idea, that each person, each nation, should take its proper
place, and develop in the best possible way, and then you have
harmony. Because if everybody develops their creative potential
and their best maximum capacity, and takes the development of the
other as their own interest, and vice versa, then you have peace.
And that should also be based on the other notion of {ren}.
{Ren} basically means the same thing as love, or {agapë}, or the
Christian idea of charity.
And it happens to be that these ideas are also in the
European best tradition. There is a very important philosopher of
the 15th century, called Nicolaus of Cusa, who was the founder of
modern science, the founder of the modern nation-state, and he
was very important: He broke through the barrier from the Middle
Ages to modern times. Because he was actually the person, who
brought the Council of Florence into being by first finding
handwritings in Byzantium, which were then the basis for the
unification of the Orthodox Church with the Roman Church; but
when he brought the Orthodox delegation in 1453 to the Council of
Florence, he had a stroke of genius: He said, now, I am thinking
something, which no human being has ever thought before. He then
wrote his {De Docta Ignorantia}, and he developed this notion of
the coincidence of opposites, the {coincidentia oppositorum},
which was the idea, that the One has a higher quality than the
Many, and that the human mind is capable of synthesizing some
hypothesis, which gives you a deeper insight into the laws of the
universe, into Classical art — in other words, it’s the
creativity of the human mind, which is the driving force in the
development of the universe. And that’s for example, what the
Russian philosopher Vladimir Vernadsky called, that the
creativity of man is a geophysical force in the universe. Now,
what he did basically, is to say — he didn’t say it in this way,
but the effect of it was — that in order to move away from the
Middle Ages, from the Scholasticism, from the Neo-Peripatetics
and the Aristotelean ideas, you had to basically break with the
axioms of the Middle Ages thinking, and that you had to create
something basically completely new, a new method of thinking.
And I’m saying, that with the New Silk Road, we have to do
exactly that: We have to break away from money, greed,
monetarism, all of these things, which really are a decaying
culture. If you look at the European, American, Western culture,
it {is} a decaying culture. Just look at the youth culture. Look
at what our young people watch in terms of pop music, video
games, the violence, just the popular entertainment has become
really degenerate. And we have to break with that, and we have to
combine the New Silk Road economic model — which I did not go
into so much today, because I already spoke about it two months
ago here in Copenhagen — but we have to break with the whole
axiomatic of globalization and basically go for a New
Renaissance, a new cultural renaissance of thinking, which will
build on the best traditions of each country: on Confucianism,
on Vedic tradition of India, on Avicenna [Ibn Sina], and other
thinkers, Al-Farabi, Abu Al-Kindi in the Arab world; in Europe,
the great Classical music tradition, the Italian Renaissance, the
German Classical music. We just have to take the high points of
all civilizations, and study that, and start to love the culture
of the other countries, and then we will create out of this a
completely New Renaissance, which will bring mankind into a
completely new phase of evolution.
Because I do not believe, that the present condition of
mankind is, what we are here for! We are not here to kill each
other; we are not here to eat caviar, until we have it coming out
of our ears. We are here to be creative! We are here to discover
the laws of the universe, to write beautiful poems, to write
beautiful music, to celebrate the creativity of civilization. And
I think, that the idea of man in space, man going into the next
phase of the evolution of man, is really what will get us out of
this crisis. So that is, what the New Silk Road is all about.
[ovation]

 

Slides from the presentation (click to enlarge):

Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia1 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia2 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia3 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia4

Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia5 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia6 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia7 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia8

Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia9 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia10 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia11 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia12

Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia13 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia14 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia15 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia16

Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia17 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia18 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia19 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia20

Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia21  Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia22 Copenhagen_27-04-2015_dia23

 




USA: Martin O’Malley: Den amerikanske drøm med
økonomiske muligheder for alle, og hårdt arbejder betaler sig

16. apr. 2015 – Demokratisk præsidentkandidataspirant Martin O’Malley holdt en tale her til aften med titlen, »At opbygge en økonomi, der er til fordel for alle«. Til trods for, at den tyve minutter lange tale, der blev holdt i en lille sal på Instituttet for Politik ved Harvard Universitetets Kennedy-skole for Regering var meget intens i sit emne, var O’Malley meget afslappet, smilede ofte og formidlede, at han vidste, hvad han talte om og ikke bare afleverede en kampagnetale. De følgende noter til talen er meget skematiske og yder slet ikke talen fuld retfærdighed; der var mange nuancer og poetiske talemåder, der ikke er med i teksten. Læsere opfordres kraftigt til at se talen, der skulle være registreret på IOP’s webside: https://forum.iop.harvard.edu/content/ building-economy-works-everyone.

Efter de indledende bemærkninger talte O’Malley om at arbejde som student i et job, hvor hans boss arbejdede hårdere, og hvordan han spurgte sin boss, hvorfor han arbejdede så hårdt. Svaret var, »For min datter«. Dette anslog talens tema: Amerikanernes hårde arbejde for at skabe fremtiden. Han sagde, at den amerikanske nationalkarakter er bestemt af en magtfuld idé: Amerika yder økonomiske muligheder for alle, og hårdt arbejde betaler sig og giver vore børn og børnebørn en bedre fremtid. Han talte om den nationale opgave at gøre den amerikanske drøm om en stadig udvidelse af fremskridt for det amerikanske folk, en inkluderende vækstteori, til virkelighed.

Senere i talen diskuterede O’Malley en teori, der fokuserede på koncentrationen af rigdom på få hænder, der, gennem deres investeringer i økonomien, samt frihandel, ville skabe økonomisk vækst. I denne teori, sagde han, blev regering til fjende. Han citerede Ronald Reagan, der sagde, at regering er problemet. Denne ’så-drypper-det-på-degnen’-teori, sagde han, havde tre store strategier: skattelettelser, som i realiteten svækkede vores land alvorligt; afregulering af Wall Street; og en lavtlønspolitik for at bevare landets konkurrenceevne. Han sagde, at alt dette faldt fra hinanden i 2008-kollapset, men vi har stadig en koncentration af rigdom som aldrig før i vores land. Det betaler vi for med lavere lønninger og formindskede muligheder. Han sagde, »Det store flertal af vort folk arbejder hårdere, men resultatet er alligevel, at familier sakker bagud.«

Hvordan ændrer vi dette? spurgte O’Malley. Hvordan skal vi igen gøre det lønsomt at foretage produktive investeringer? Han fremlagde fem punkter til belysning af dette – især det første – forholdsvis detaljeret:

  1. En lønningspolitik baseret på sund fornuft, og som støtter middelklassen.
  2. Genindfør offentlige investeringer i f.eks. forskning og udvikling, samt i uddannelse.
  3. Genindfør juridisk ansvarlighed i de finansielle markeder. Han sagde, at ingen chefer fra Wall Street var blevet dømt for forbrydelser efter krakket i 2008, og det kunne han simpelt hen ikke forstå. Han sagde, at straffen for at blive taget for at køre med en beskadiget baglygte nogle gange er højere end for at ødelægge vores nationaløkonomi. Genindfør Glass/Steagall, så banker ikke kan spille hasard (spekulere) med indskydernes penge. Hvis banker er for store til at lade gå fallit, må vi bryde dem op, før de knækker os.
  4. Ophøre med at gå ind i dårlige handelsaftaler som Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Jeg går helt ind for international handel, sagde han, men ikke handel, der har skadelig indvirkning på amerikanske lønninger og middelklassen.
  5. Skab en tryg fremtid for vore pensionister.

Slutteligt understregede han, at en stærk og voksende middelklasse ikke er RESULTATET af en voksende økonomi, men snarere er ÅRSAGEN til en voksende økonomi. Han understregede, at dette ikke er nye eller radikale idéer, men snarere er de idéer, der gjorde Amerika stort; idéer, der virker.




USA: Få Glass/Steagall til at ske

15. apr. 2015 – Hillary Clintons officielle annoncering af sit kandidatur til præsidentvalgkampen har kun fået trommerne til at lyde højere for en ægte demokratisk præsidentkandidat, én, der har modet og forpligtelsen til at gå op imod Wall Street og genindføre Glass/Stegall. Den tidligere guvernør fra Maryland Martin O’Malleys kampagne har sat Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov på den nationale, politiske dagsorden igen, og det har Wall Street endnu ikke fået ændret.

Senator Elizabeth Warren brød i dag flere måneders bemærkelsesværdig tavshed om Glass/Steagall, idet hun gjorde nødvendigheden af at genindføre loven til hovedemnet i sin tale, »Arbejdet med en finansreform er ikke færdigt«, som hun holdt ved en konference i Levy Institute i Washington, D.C. Tre skridt, der blev vedtaget af regeringen under Wall Street-krakket i 1929, fungerede i et halvt århundrede, indtil de blev blæst af vejen af afreguleringens politiske vinde, erklærede hun i begyndelsen: oprettelsen af SEC, FDIC og »en tydelig opdeling mellem institutioner, der modtager indsættelser, og så investeringsbanker – Glass/Steagall-loven – så banker ikke kunne bruge indskud, der var garanteret af staten, til højrisiko-spekulation«.  De største banker skal opdeles, og »der er to strukturmæssige måder at gøre det på; vi kan nedskære størrelsen af de største finansinstitutioner … Og vi kan vedtage en Glass/Steagall for det 21. århundrede, der genopbygger muren mellem kommercielle banker og investeringsbanker«, sagde hun og henviste til det lovforslag, hun havde fremstillet i den forrige kongressamling med tre medsponsorer.

Bart Naylor, der er fortaler for finanspolitik for den progressive lobby-gruppe, Public Citizen, og som er endnu en Glass/Steagall-tilhænger, der har været tavs om spørgsmålet i flere måneder, sprang også ind i kampen igen.

»Ifølge Naylor er der to hovedspørgsmål i dag i D.C. med hensyn til Wall Street og storbankerne: for store til at lade gå fallit, og for store til at sætte i fængsel … Og der er en løsning: Få Glass/Steagall tilbage og gennemtving en hård nedskæring af bankernes størrelse«, skrev Corporate Crime Reporter i indledningen til sit interview med Naylor, publiceret 14. april. Hvis man kunne fjerne »Store Penge« fra hele denne blanding«, ville hele denne lovgivning blive vedtaget, baseret på sin fortjeneste. Jeg ved ikke, hvordan Glass/Steagall ville fare ved en afstemning i dag, hvis der af en eller anden grund var en åben afstemning i Senatssalen.« Naylor nævnte de 100 medsponsorer til Marcy Kapturs lovforslag om at genindføre Glass/Steagall i den forrige Kongressamling, samt de 10 medsponsorer til Elizabeth Warrens tilsvarende lovforslag i Senatet.

Den tidligere arbejdsminister i Bill Clintons regering, Robert Reich, der er jævnlig skribent til agenturer, som fordeler artikler til mange medier, skriver i sin seneste artikel, at Glass/Steagall er det hovedspørgsmål, som Hillary Clinton må tage op, hvis hun ønsker at vinde vælgernes tillid. »Hvis hun skal opnå det mandat, hun behøver for at få Amerika tilbage på sporet, må hun være åbenrigtig over for det amerikanske folk … hun bliver nødt til at indrømme, at Wall Street stadig kører en stor del af økonomien, og stadig er ude af kontrol. Så vi må genoplive Glass/Steagall-loven og bryde de største banker op, så millioner af amerikanere aldrig mere vil miste deres hjem, jobs og opsparinger pga. Wall Streets udskejelser«, skrev han.

Klummeskriver ved Los Angeles Times Doyle McManus fremfører i dag, og redaktør for The Nation Katrina van den Heuvel den 14. april i sin spalte i Washington Post, at der vil komme »en energisk debat under demokraternes kampagne til primærvalgene«, ikke om, hvem der skal nomineres til kandidat, men om, »hvad det betyder at være demokrat i 2016, og hvilket budskab, partiet bør tage med i den generelle valgkamp«, som McManus udtrykte det. Begge skribenter sætter »opbrydning af de store banker og genindførsel af Glass/Steagall-loven« i frontlinjen af dette budskab, som O’Malley har gjort det.




Helga Zepp-LaRouche:
Verden ved en skillevej: Win-win for alle
– eller ind i 3. Verdenskrig med geopolitik?

… Lad os i stedet tage imod den udstrakte hånd, der ligger i Xi Jinpings og BRIKS-landenes tilbud om at samarbejde om opbygningen af den Nye Silkevej og det nye finanssystem, som for tiden hastigt er under udvikling – med AIIB … og en hel række af andre finansinstitutioner, der alle principielt har den samme funktion, som Kreditanstalten for Genopbygning havde for virkeliggørelsen af det tyske, økonomiske mirakel efter Anden Verdenskrig –, så kan vi løse alle de problemer, der i øjeblikket synes uløselige.

 

11. april 2015 – Den beslutsomhed, hvormed 50 stater, på trods af USA’s massive opposition, har bekendtgjort, at de ønsker at blive grundlæggende medlemmer af Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB), som er initieret af Kina, demonstrerer, at det strategiske tidevand har nået det punkt, hvor det fundamentalt vender. Utallige internationale kommentarer refererer til, hvilken alvorlig fejltagelse det var af den amerikanske regering at gøre spørgsmålet om en regional bank til finansiering af infrastruktur til en strategisk magtkamp mellem Kina og USA – og så dernæst tabe kampen.

Stadigt flere kræfter i verden indser, at det kinesiske perspektiv med en såkaldt »Win-Win«-politik, altså et økonomisk samarbejde, der gavner alle deltagere, er langt mere attraktivt end den angloamerikanske politik med geopolitik, der har efterladt et grusomt spor af ødelæggelse i Sydvestasien, Nordafrika og Ukraine, og pga. hvilken tropper ved grænsen til Rusland nu står over for noget, der kan føre til en krig mellem atommagter. Dertil kommer, at selve USA har et fortvivlende presserende behov for en anden politik. Store dele af Californien, Texas og andre stater vest for Mississippi er udsat for en tørke, der har stået på i årevis, og som har ødelagt nogle af de vigtigste landbrugsområder i USA. Den radikale, grønne, californiske guvernør Brown har netop beordret en 25 % ’s nedskæring af vandforbruget for alle områder – undtagen landbrug og fracking (!) – uden at tage noget som helst perspektiv til overvindelse af manglen på vand i betragtning. Californien skulle angiveligt kun være egnet til et befolkningstal på 400.000, mener Brown – en bemærkning, der, i betragtning af, at der lever omkring 40 millioner mennesker i Californien, er en monstrøsitet og åbenbart tager en massiv affolkning med i købet.

Øjensynligt i forventning om en vandmangel, der længe har aftegnet sig, har Wall Streets store »TBTF«-banker og de internationale finanscentre – netop dem, der angiveligt skulle være for store til, at man kan lade dem gå bankerot – såvel som også medlemmer af Bush-klanen og multimilliardæren T. Boone Pickens, i de seneste ti år opkøbt alt, der har med vand at gøre: Jord, hvorunder der findes grundvandsførende lag, søer, alle områder inden for vandbygningsteknik, rustfri rør, pumper, kemikalier til vandforbedring osv. – simpelt hen alt, man skal bruge for at generere profit i en privatiseret vandøkonomi. Allerede i 2011 lovede Citigroups cheføkonom, Willem Buiter: »Vandmarkedet bliver snart varmere end oliemarkedet. Vand som fabriksanlæg vil, efter min mening, snart blive den vigtigste kategori af fabriksanlæg på basis af fysiske varer, og vil langt overgå olie, kobber, landbrugsprodukter og ædelmetaller.«

En ny Enron-svindel aftegner sig tydeligt, hvor prisen på el nærmest blev firdoblet over en nat, og hvor en hel række af Enrons bagmænd måtte gå i fængsel pga. insiderhandel. Med alle midler presser vandspekulanterne på for, med en tørke, der forværres, snart at få lov til at handle med vand på Markedet for Varefutures.

I betragtning af denne dramatiske situation vinder præsidentkandidataspiranten O’Malleys kampagne, med sin bebudelse af, at han som sit vigtigste fokuspunkt har at bryde Wall Streets magt gennem at genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven for en bankopdeling, strategisk betydning. Bestyrelsesformændene for nogle TBTF-banker lod for omkring to uger siden førende medlemmer af det Demokratiske Parti true med, at de ville blive afskåret fra enhver finansiel støtte fra Wall Street – læs: at man ville købe det næste præsidentskab for det Republikanske Parti – ifald demokrater som senator Elizabeth Warren (O’Malley blev forsigtigvis ikke nævnt) ikke holdt op med sine angreb på Wall Street.

Det er endnu uvist, om det Demokratiske Parti vil blive splittet over dette spørgsmål: På den ene side opportunisterne fra det horisontale erhverv, der argumenterer med, at man i Amerika ikke kan vinde et valg uden Wall Streets penge, og på den anden side patriotiske demokrater som O’Malley, der har indset, at USA kun kan overleve, hvis Wall Streets kriminelle magt bliver brudt gennem Glass/Steagall-loven. Til denne gruppe hører også Robert Reich, tidligere arbejdsminister i Clinton-regeringen, og kongresmedlemmet Donna Edwards, der kæmper for den afgående Baltimore-senator Mikulskys plads i Senatet, og som har erklæret, at hun ikke vil modtage nogen penge fra Wall Street. Hillary Clinton, der vil annoncere sit kandidatur på søndag, har derimod taget folk ind i sin kampagnestab, der er kendt for at tage store bidrag – altså penge fra Wall Street – hjem, som f.eks. John Podesta.

Konfronteret med den fundamentale krise, som USA befinder sig i, drejede det sig ikke blot om embedet som præsident, selv om O’Malley utvivlsomt er den hidtil eneste kvalificerede præsidentkandidat, erklærede Lyndon LaRouche med eftertryk og lancerede en omfattende kampagne for at placere præsidentskabet som helhed på en kvalitativt højere platform og for dette formål at vinde et team af videnskabelige eksperter, der under et O’Malley-præsidentskab kan hjælpe med atter at gøre USA til en fungerende republik.

LaRouche understregede, at overvindelsen af ferskvandskrisen i det sydvestlige USA vil blive nøglespørgsmålet for dette nye præsidentskabs succes. LaRouche, der allerede for 40 år siden advarede om den ferskvandskrise, der allerede dengang aftegnede sig, og som påviste veje til løsning af krisen, har nu fastlagt en helt ny fremgangsmåde med et team af sine unge videnskabsfolk. Ben Deniston, der er en del af dette videnskabsteam, præsenterede et koncept, der er fuldstændig revolutionært i det aktuelle politiske klima i USA: I stedet for at affinde sig med, at den grønne ideologi og spekulanternes rovgriskhed affolker den nuværende mest folkerige stat i USA, må kimen til en videnskabelig løsning som forudsætning have, at der er tilstrækkeligt med vand på vores planet, men at dette vand ikke er til rådighed i en tilgængelig form; det vil sige, at det enten forekommer som saltholdigt havvand, er indeholdt i atmosfæren som fugt og regner ned over havene, eller flyder uproduktivt ud i havene (som smeltevand/afvanding fra floderne.)

Nye videnskabelige undersøgelser giver belæg for sammenhængen mellem vort Solsystems galaktiske cyklus over mange år og forandringer i vort vejrmønster, der i størrelsesorden overgår virkningerne af menneskeskabt aktivitet i en grad, der gør disse fuldstændigt negligerbare. Det afgørende spørgsmål er derimod, hvordan menneskeslægten bevidst kan udnytte de processer, der optræder i vor galakse og vort solsystem, såsom den kosmiske stråling og ionisering af fugten i atmosfæren, for at forandre vandcyklusserne på Jorden i en sådan grad, at de kan modvirke den tiltagende ørkendannelse.

Frem for alt har Kina, med to store vandstyringsprojekter, demonstreret menneskets evne til at overvinde oversvømmelser såvel som tørke. Projektet med de Tre Slugters Dæmning har allerede reddet tusinder fra at drukne og producerer årligt 98,8 mia. kWh (2014) elektricitet, og omdirigeringen af vandet fra Yangtzeflodens kildeområde til Kinas tørre områder i nord og området omkring Beijing er en model for overvindelse af vandmangel i andre egne af verden.

Hvis Tyskland og de andre europæiske nationer forbliver i EU’s spændetrøje og i slaveagtig, forudbestemt lydighed støtter Londons og Wall Streets geopolitisk motiverede politik imod Rusland og Kina, da kan man frygte, at opstillingen af våbensystemer og tropper på grænsen til Rusland, og Saudi Arabiens krig i Yemen, samt krige andre steder, der også promoveres af London og Washington, meget snart vil føre til udløsningen af en global, atomar udslettelse af menneskeheden.

Lad os i stedet tage imod den udstrakte hånd, der ligger i Xi Jinpings og BRIKS-landenes tilbud om at samarbejde om opbygningen af den Nye Silkevej og det nye finanssystem, som for tiden hastigt er under udvikling – med AIIB, den Nye Udviklingsbank (NDB) og en hel række af andre finansinstitutioner, der alle principielt har den samme funktion, som Kreditanstalten for Genopbygning havde for virkeliggørelsen af det tyske, økonomiske mirakel efter Anden Verdenskrig –, så kan vi løse alle de problemer, der i øjeblikket synes uløselige.

Det altafgørende spørgsmål er: Kan vi i tide frigøre os fra geopolitikkens oligarkisk-snæversynede tankegang, som den netop på klinisk måde er blevet repræsenteret af vasallerne Norbert Röttgen i Maybritt Illners Talkshow fra den nye »Sorte Kanal Vest«[1]? Og kan vi i tide placere os på det højere standpunkt, der repræsenterer én menneskehed, og som tilbydes af Kina og BRIKS-politikken? Det er netop dette, som tilbydes af den græske regering, når denne tilbyder at blive en bro mellem BRIKS og Europa.

Ironisk nok afhænger såvel USA’s som Tysklands overlevelse af, at vi griber denne chance – også selv om hr. Schäuble, af kulturelle årsager, ikke kan forstå det.

 

[1] ’Den sorte Kanal’ var en serie af politiske programmer, der blev sendt hver uge mellem 1960 og 1989 af Østtysk Tv. Hver af udsendelserne blev lavet over optagede uddrag fra nylige vesttyske Tv-programmer, der blev genredigeret til at indeholde en kommunistisk kommentar.

 




Leder 7. april 2015:
Jordklodens fulde potentiale for ferskvand er ved at blive opdaget

Magasinet EIR vil 15. april udgive en helt nummer, dedikeret et gennembrud i forståelse og genvinding af jordklodens virkelige vandforsyning, som denne skabes af sol-, galakse- og biosfæreaktivitet. »Lad ikke Californien blive ’Brown’[1]: Vandet er der, udvikl det«, lyder titlen, og gennembruddet – som udtrykkes i rapporten den 27. marts af Ben Deniston fra LaRouchePAC Videnskabsteam – diskvalificerer pessimisme og anti-humane, tvungne nedskæringer i vandforbruget, konfronteret med tørken i de vestlige stater [i USA]. I stedet kræver den en mobilisering af videnskab og atomteknologi for at udvikle de virkelige forsyninger af vandtilførsel, og bruge dem. Denistons rapport lyder »Memo for den næste præsident: Nye perspektiver for ferskvandkrisen i det vestlige USA.«

Det blev uddybet i webcastet »Nyt paradigme for menneskeheden« den 1. april.

Dette giver os allerede ammunitionen til at mobilisere pro-progressive aktivister og eksperter over alt i USA til en kampagne for at udvikle vandforsyningerne – afsaltning af havvand med atomkraft, atmosfærisk ionisering og vejrmodificering; vandstyringsprojekter på kontinental skala – og redde Californien og de vestlige stater.

EIR’s grundlæggende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, bemærkede imidlertid i dag, at den nye EIR-specialrapport kan skabe et internationalt skift i principperne for vandforbrug – et skift, som især i Kina vil blive forstået og påskønnet. Kina har været førende inden for teknologi for vandstyring, udvikling af fissions- og fusionskraft, og videnskab om Solsystemet. Det har flyttet mere vand til produktive formål i løbet af to årtier, end USA gjorde i det 20. århundrede. Kinas Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB) er blevet accepteret af 55 lande som den førende, internationale udviklingsbank for infrastruktur; hvis USA gik med nu [i AIIB], kunne nye, store projekter for vandinfrastruktur skabes, inklusive i Nordamerikas vestlige stater, hvor ørkendannelse er i tiltagende.

»Potentialet for vandforsyning på planeten Jord er blevet revideret, i opadgående retning, gennem det, som Ben Deniston har gjort med sit arbejde«, sagde LaRouche i dag. »Og det betyder, at hele ferskvandspolitikken for USA som nation er et spørgsmål, hvor alt, hvad man fortæller os fra officielt hold, er et eneste, stort bedrag …

Det er nu vist, at Kepler-systemet har potentiale for vandforsyning til menneskeheden på Jorden, som aldrig tidligere rigtigt er blevet fastslået som reelle forslag. For at virkeliggøre dette større potentiale må vi nu i gang med at arbejde for at forstå implikationerne af det, Ben har gjort, og omsætte det til praksis.«

Dette kræver virkelig som en forudsætning, »den næste præsident«, og det kræves nu: Barack Obama forsøgte uden held at ødelægge AIIB, forsøger at provokere Rusland og Kina ind i krigskonfrontationer og har ikke foretaget sig andet end ivrigt at tilslutte sig Wall Street, siden krakket i 2008. Han må smides ud. Blandt dem, der befinder sig ude i marken, har kun guvernør Martin O’Malley indtil videre vist kvalifikationerne og forpligtelsen til at bekæmpe Wall Street og genindføre Glass/Steagall.

Og en hvilken som helst kvalificeret kandidat vil, hvis han bliver præsident, få brug for et præsidentskab. Denne mobilisering har til formål at skabe et sådant præsidentskab. Det, der er nødvendigt som en betingelse, er skabelsen af et præsidentskab, ikke en »præsident, med sit følge«. Eftersom vi ganske bestemt ikke har en præsident, og for tiden ingen præsidentkandidat, der er kvalificeret til at imødegå de udfordringer, som denne krise stiller, må det være vores hensigt at sørge for, at der skabes et præsidentskab omkring en kandidat.

I denne forbindelse er O’Malley den eneste, vi har kendskab til, der er i besiddelse af kvalifikationer, der kan stå i spidsen for et nyt præsidentskab – ikke et politisk parti, men et præsidentskab, der adresserer spørgsmålene i forbindelse med en global krise i forsyning af ferskvand.

Dette må gøres sammen med Kina. Den idé, vi hidtil har haft om nationale regeringer i verden, må reformeres, for nu er Kina langt bedre kvalificeret end regeringerne i USA eller Europa til at håndtere spørgsmålene i denne krise.

Vi må derfor, med dette samarbejde for øje, skabe præsidentskabet under den Amerikanske Forfatnings betingelser for at håndtere truslen fra ferskvandskrisen, der i modsat fald ville føre til frygtelige ødelæggelser, både i USA og internationalt.

Løsningen eksisterer. Vi er kvalificeret til at opfylde den. Vores mission er at skabe et præsidentskab omkring denne løsning.

[1] Californiens guvernør Jerry Brown, hvis fantasi og problemløsningsforslag ikke rækker længere end til forslag om at ’spare på vandet’, eksempelvis ved, at man begynder at tage brusebad sammen! (-red.)




Nicolaus Cusanus’ mission:
BRIKS og en ny, international
orden for menneskeheden.

Hovedtale af Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Lyder det ikke som sund fornuft? Giver det ikke mening, at alle disse lande slutter sig sammen, overvinder fattigdom, overvinder sygdom, har en fælles fremtid … at forsvare vores menneskehed imod alle farer og definere den næste fase og epoke i menneskets evolution …?

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Grækenland: I stedet for Trojkaens diktater, en løsning i Roosevelts tradition

30. mrs. 2015Neues Deutschland, den mest venstreorienterede avis med forbindelse til Tysklands Die Linke – søsterparti til Grækenlands Syriza-parti – bringer en artikel i dag, der kræver en fremgangsmåde i traditionen efter Roosevelt som Grækenlands eneste alternativ til Trojkaens katastrofale politik.

Artiklen siger, at selv om Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal bestemt var en intern, kapitalistisk reform og ikke en socialistisk revolution, så blev den anset for at være en nødvendig politik, selv af magtfulde industriforetagender som ITT, International Harvester, United Fruit og andre, for at komme ud af depressionen 1929-30. Mange industrifolk støttede FDR. Det var ikke tilfældet med de store banker: Roosevelts tale i Madison Square Garden i oktober 1936 var en kampråb mod finanskapitalismen og spekulanterne, hvem FDR sammenlignede med organiseret kriminalitet, skriver ND. Glass/Steagall-loven fra 1933 påførte senere FDR de store bankers fjendskab.

Roosevelts New Deal-politik, i særdeleshed Reconstruction Finance Corp.’s (kreditforening for genopbygning) rolle, der skabte arbejdspladser, som brødfødte 30 millioner tidligere arbejdsløse amerikanere i en periode, er modellen for, hvad Grækenland burde gøre i sin aktuelle, usikre situation, skriver artiklens forfatter Dieter Klein, fra den venstreorienterede Rosa Luxembourg Foundation. Han tilføjer, at dette også ville være løsningen for Portugal og Spanien.

 

Foto: Præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt i Madison Square Garden, 1936: ‘Vi ved nu, at regering ved organiseret penge er lige så farligt, som regering ved organiseret kriminalitet’.

 




USA, Glass/Steagall:
Senator Warren skyder tilbage mod ’Banksterne’: »Jeg stopper ikke!«

30. marts 2015 – Senator Elisabeth Warren (demokrat) havde udlagt en blog på sin webside den 27. marts med en alvorlig respons, af »Vi er først lige begyndt«-typen, til Citibanks nylige trusler om at fjerne enhver finansiel støtte til demokratiske kandidater. Under overskriften »Wall Street er ikke tilfreds med os«, citerer Warren først fra Reuters, der forklarer, at Wall Street vil have »et udbytte på sine investeringer i Washington«, og dernæst siger, »Glem det. De kan true eller tyrannisere eller sige, hvad de vil, men vi har ikke tænkt os at ændre vores spilleplan.«

»Jeg vil ikke stoppe med at tale om det uhørte greb, Citibank har om vores regerings politiske beslutningsapparat om økonomi. Jeg vil ikke ophøre med at tale om de aftaler om juridiske afgørelser, som JPMorgan laver med vores Justitsministerium, der er så svagt, at banken fejrer det ved at give deres eksekutive en lønforhøjelse. Og jeg vil ikke foregive, at arbejdet med finansielle reformer er udført, når de såkaldte ’for store til at gå ned’-banker nu er endnu større, end de var i 2008.«

»De store banker har udstedt en trussel, og det er vores opgave at kæmpe imod. Det er op til os at kæmpe mod et finanssystem, der gør det muligt for dem, der ødelagde vores økonomi, at komme ud af krisen i en god form, der slår alle rekorder, mens almindelige amerikanere fortsat kæmper mod økonomiske vanskeligheder. Det er op til os at kæmpe mod et lovreguleringssystem, der er så belejret af lobbyister – og deres venner i Kongressen – at vore lovgivere glemmer, hvem det er, de arbejder for.«

 

Foto: Elisabeth Warren (f. 1949), demokrat, senator for staten Massachusetts




USA: Salon Online angriber Wall Streets »politiske afpresning« af Glass/Steagall-demokrater

29. mrs. 2015 – Helga Zepp-LaRouche gik lige til hjertet af Wall Streets »afpresning« af demokrater i sin hovedtale ved Schiller Instituttets konference på Manhattan lørdag, den 28. marts , hvor hun opfordrede deltagerne og alle borgere til ikke at tillade JPMorgan, Citibank, Goldman Sachs og Bank of America at honorere planen fra deres hemmelige møde, om at standse Glass/Steagall.

I dag identificerer den liberale udgivelse Salon Wall Streets onde plan i en artikel med titlen »Wall Streets politiske afpresning«, der identificerer Glass/Steagall som et af de primære angrebsmål for Wall Streets plan.

Luke Brinker, Salons politiske redaktør, siger, at pengetruslerne i sin essens er en kriminel handling, der »afslører løgnen i højesteretspræsident John Roberts tilsyneladende følelsesforladte påstand, når han i Citizens United-sagen[1] skriver, at kampagnebidrag ikke har til hensigt at influere kongresmedlemmers officielle pligter.«

»Og dog har vi en industri, der meget vel kunne afskære et politisk parti, hvis det ikke skrotter forslag som at opdele institutioner, der er for-store-til-at-gå-ned, ved at genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven, der adskiller kommercielle banker fra investeringsbanker og tøjler skrupelløs spekulation«, skriver Brinker.

Han nævner på intet tidspunkt [demokratisk præsidentkandidatemne] Martin O’Malleys fremstød for Glass/Steagall, men siger, at den politik, Wall Street hader og frygter, identificeres med det Demokratiske Partis »Warren-fløj«[2], der »langt fra er dominerende«. Han advarer om, at hvis Wall Street får sin vilje, vil Senatets lederskab – og endda potentielt set den næste demokratiske præsidentkandidat – blive indsat af Wall Streets penge pga. af »det Demokratiske Partis neoliberale, der har vist sig kun alt for ivrige efter at smede en vanhellig alliance med de store penges forfølgere af onde gerninger«, og at »denne Wall Street-afpresning blot vil fordoble deres [de neoliberale demokraters] dedikerethed til at holde de finansielle magter pacificeret.«

 

Foto: Angribende Tyr, der undertiden refereres til som Wall Street Tyr eller Bowling Green-tyren, er en bronzeskulptur af Arturo Di Modica, der står i Bowling Green Park i Manhattans finansdistrikt i New York City.

.

 

[1] Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) er et amerikansk forfatningsmæssigt sagsanlæg, der drejer sig om lovregulering af organisationers valgkampagnebidrag. (-red.)

[2] Elizabeth Warren, demokrat, senator for staten Massachusetts (-red.)




Videooptagelse af Schiller Instituttets konference i New York 28. marts:
New Dark Age or Renaissance?
The BRICS Option: The Only Sure Way Out of World War III

Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale starter ca. 25 min. inde i videoen.

En oversættelse af Helgas tale kommer senere på ugen.

Se invitationen til konferencen her 

God fornøjelse.

Vi bringer her en dansk oversættelse af den meget åndrige invitationstekst. Noteapparat er tilføjet af redaktionen.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




RADIO SCHILLER den 23. marts 2015:
Danmark skal gå med i Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank

Med formand Tom Gillesberg




Helga Zepp-LaRouche:
Verdensordenen under opbrud:
Kaos, eller nyt paradigme?

21. marts 2015 – Det er kun logisk, at i en verden, der i de sidste 25 år systematisk har været underkastet globaliseringen, også gennem rent overfladiske, forskellige processer spiller ekstremt tæt sammen og forstærker hinanden – og det så meget desto mere, som den transatlantiske verden har kurs mod et nyt kæmpekrak, og store dele af verden er styrtet ud i oprør gennem geopolitiske manøvrer.

Denne indre sammenhæng eksisterer f.eks. i øjeblikket mellem det verdensomspændende sejrstog, som virkeliggøres gennem Kinas nye økonomiske Silkevejsmodel og den hermed forbundne Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB), og så det voksende momentum for genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingen. I USA fører det demokratiske præsidentkandidatemne, Martin O’Malley, an i denne kampagne.

Her kort før udgangen af marts måned – som er deadline for staters anmodning om optagelse som stiftende medlem af den kinesisk-initierede Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank, AIIB – er antallet af stater i Asien allerede steget til 27, og ud over disse asiatiske stater kommer, efter Storbritannien, nu også Tyskland, Frankrig, Italien, Luxembourg, Schweiz, Ny Zealand og Australien til, og Sydkorea og selv Japan kunne også komme med. Det attraktive ved AIIB ligger i, at banken, i modsætning til den transatlantiske banksektor, som, på trods af ECB’s pengestrøm, knap nok udsteder kredit til middelstanden, udelukkende finansierer realøkonomiske projekter og indbefatter alle lande, der samarbejder inden for det ekspanderende område for det kinesiske perspektiv om »Et bælte, En vej«.

Ved hjælp af brutalt pres havde Obamaregeringen forgæves forsøgt at afholde andre stater fra at deltage i AIIB, og de får nu massiv kritik fra alle sider over, at det var en fejltagelse af format at gøre spørgsmålet om en bank, hvis formål er den regionale finasiering af infrastruktur, til en konkurrencekonfrontation mellem USA og Kina, og så dernæst så åbenlyst tabe denne kamp. Årsagen til denne fejlvurdering, at man mener at kunne standse noget, der allerede skrider fremad, hvad enten man støtter det eller ej – således formuleredes det af Paul Haenle, direktør for Carnegie-Tsinghua-Centret i Beijing – ligger naturligvis i den amerikanske fordring på at ville være den eneste, tilbageværende supermagt i verden. De neokonservatives præmisse om doktrinen om »New American Century«, der går ud på, at man ikke må tillade, at nogen stat eller gruppe af stater nogensinde vil overhale USA i politik eller økonomisk magt, var under tre Bush-regeringer, og i de seneste mere end seks år også under Obamaregeringen, hovedlinjen. Da Kina efter Lehman Brothers-krisen i 2008 krævede at få mere indflydelse i IMF og Verdensbanken, blev dette afvist gennem en afstemning i den amerikanske Kongres. Som konsekvens af denne afvisning tænkte Kina sig om og kom frem til, at de, med deres tre billioner i valutareserve, rådede over tilstrækkelig likviditet til ganske enkelt selv at kunne indlede oprettelsen af en ny finansinstitution, der dækker de fremvoksende landes og udviklingslandenes behov for kredit til finansiering af infrastruktur og realøkonomiske projekter. Og eftersom samarbejdet med AIIB, såvel som også den fælles opbygning af den Nye Silkevej, skal give alle deltagere ligeværdige fordele, altså en »win-win«-strategi, som præsident Xi Jinping hele tiden understreger, viser dette perspektiv sig at være den overlegne model.

Det samme er tilfældet med meddelelsen om det demokratiske præsidentkandidatemne Martin O’Malley, der som den eneste demokrat allerede klart har tilkendegivet, at han har til hensigt at deltage i primærvalgene til næste år. Med sine klare krigserklæringer mod Wall Streets kriminelle politik fører han i øjeblikket valgkamp i staten Iowa og lagde i et interview med avisen Des Moines Register ikke fingrene imellem: De officielle statistikker over det angivelige opsving i den amerikanske økonomi tilslørede blot den kendsgerning, at millioner af familier stadig må lide under følgerne af Wall Streets hensynsløse politik, der førte til krakket i 2008, og som iflg. en undersøgelse har kostet hver amerikansk husstand 120.000 dollar. Hvis Glass/Steagall-loven, der i 70 år beskyttede Amerika mod en større finanskrise, ikke var blevet ophævet i 1999, ville det aldrig være kommet til dette krak. Derfor er, iflg. O’Malley, genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall den alvorligste strukturreform, som i dag er en nødvendighed.

I dag skulle USA’s fem største banker kontrollere 15 billioner dollar. Disse banker, der angiveligt skulle være for store til, at man kan lade dem gå ned, er i virkeligheden for store til at have succes, og de må, som en presserende nødvendighed, opdeles i kommercielle banker og investeringsbanker. En fundamental ændring i Wall Street-kulturen var nødvendig, der må atter indføres ansvarlighed, kriminelle banker må retsforfølges, fjernes fra deres position og forhindres i at betale deres bøder med aktieindehavernes penge eller trække dem fra i skat. I tilfælde af en gentagelse skal bankernes licens inddrages.

Det var på højeste tid, sagde O’Malley, at nationale interesser gik forud for Wall Street.

O’Malley får i hemmelighed eller åbenlyst støtte fra mange tidligere Hillary Clinton-tilhængere, som er skuffede over hendes mange udsalg over for Obama. O’Malley er netop den kat i den amerikanske valgkamp, der kan sætte musene en skræk i livet.

AIIB har principielt den samme betydning for kampen for atter at gøre banksektoren til realøkonomiens tjener, som O’Malleys kamp imod Wall Streets kasinoøkonomi har for atter at sætte menneskers almene vel i centrum for økonomien. I Europa udkæmpes den samme krig mellem den nye, græske regering og Trojkaen. Italiens tidligere økonomiminister og nuværende senator, Giulio Tremonti, karakteriserede den aktuelle situation i en tale til det italienske Senats plenarforsamling: ikke engang Margaret Thatcher ville have vovet at gennemtvinge det nuværende EU’s reformer; problemet var ikke, at Grækenland var kommet ind i Europa, men at Europa var kommet ind i Grækenland. Han sammenlignede EU med den romerske Kejser Elagabal, der anses for at være en af de mest degenererede i den lange række af degenererede romerske kejsere. Hvorfor ECB, Dijsselbloem og Schäuble, på trods af, at deres politik, der har styrtet den græske befolkning ud i elendighed og iflg. FN er en overtrædelse af menneskerettighederne, er en åbenlys fiasko, alligevel holder fast på deres hårde linje, gør de såkaldte økonomiske vismænds chef Christoph Schmidts mening klart: De politiske virkninger ville være endnu farligere end de økonomiske følger af en græxit, hvis Grækenland fik lov til ensidigt at opsige de traktatmæssige betingelser for redningspakkerne. I så fald kunne politiske strømninger i Europa, der lovede angiveligt lette løsninger på krisen, få et opsving og mere tilslutning, sagde Schmidt i Neuen Osnabrücker Zeitung.

Det er karakteristisk for bureaukrater, at de ikke føler sig ansvarlige for konsekvenserne af deres underskrift. At ikke blot Grækenland, men hele Sydeuropa er i oprør imod Trojkaens system, der som følge af en gigantisk svindel til gavn for bankerne forkorter menneskers liv og styrter mennesker ud i fortvivlelse, betyder intet for denne verdens mennesker af typen Schäuble, Draghis, Dijsselbloem og C. Schmidt. Heller ikke den bekymrende situation i Tyskland, som blev belyst i en udsendelse i Deutschlandfunk den 18. marts med overskriften, »Ubehaget over for politik og medier«, bekymrer dem.

I øjeblikket er tre græske ministre i Kina for at forberede premierminister Tsipras’ besøg i maj, og yderligere to andre er i Moskva for at forberede Tsipras’ rejse dertil i april. Hvis EU holder fast ved sin konfrontationspolitik, er det kun et spørgsmål om meget kort tid, før Grækenland tilslutter sig BRIKS.

Hvad enten det er vanskeligt at fatte for de mennesker, der er ofre for massemediernes sorte propaganda eller ej: BRIKS-staterne er i færd med at sætte en helt anden standard for samarbejde mellem suveræne nationer, hvor målet er gensidig fordel til gavn for hele menneskehedens almene vel, og derfor er det den mere attraktive model af de to, som flere og flere nationer vil tilslutte sig.

Vi er, som menneskehed betragtet, kommet til et punkt i vores arts evolution, hvor vi kun vil overleve, hvis vi gør det, der adskiller os fra alle andre levende væsener, til vores almene identitet: nemlig, at vi til stadighed kan opnå nye erkendelser om den fysiske skabelsesorden og ved hjælp af disse kan videreudvikle denne orden. Vi er den eneste art, der kan gøre sig forestillinger om en fremtid for menneskeheden og en bedre, skønnere orden for nationernes sameksistens på denne planet, der i tiltagende grad modsvarer den kosmiske orden.

I denne ånd, og i overensstemmelse med den konfucianske filosofi, har den kinesiske regering nu gentaget sin invitation til USA om at være med i AIIB og opbygningen af Den nye Silkevej. Og listen af underskrivere af en resolution/appel, som Schiller Instituttet cirkulerer over hele verden med denne opfordring (se http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=2702), vokser og vokser.

Hjælp også du os med at føre menneskeheden ind i en ny, bedre epoke!

 

Billede: Power point, som blev brugt til at oplyse danske politikere om dannelsen af BRIKS og AIIB og nødvendigheden af, at Danmark går med i dette samarbejde, ved Schiller Instituttets foretræde for Folketingets udenrigsudvalg den 2. dec., 2014.  




Nyhedsorientering marts:
Tre mænd giver håb om fred

Den 12. marts blev verden forandret. Den tyske udenrigsminister gjorde det over for Washington klart, at en militær løsning på konflikten i Ukraine ikke er en mulighed, da amerikansk våbenhjælp vil føre til storkrig. Den tidligere kansler Helmut Schmidt advarede samtidig i Bild Zeitung om, at man ikke måtte lade situationen i Ukraine eskalere. Krisen skyldes Vestens handlinger, og man må have forståelse for Putin og samarbejde med ham. Samtidig udfordrede Martin O’Malley, mulig demokratisk præsidentkandidat i 2016, Wall Street gennem at foreslå genindførelsen af en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, som det vigtigste programpunkt. Lyndon LaRouche erklærede, at summen af de tre handlinger giver os en forandret strategisk situation og et alternativ til økonomisk kollaps og atomkrig. Dette er en redigeret udgave af en opdatering fra den 16. marts af Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, som kan høres på www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=5615

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Stop 3. Verdenskrig
– LPAC-aktivister bombarderer Washington med LaRouches artikel
»Om spørgsmålet om Tysklands rolle«

19. mrs. 2015 – Et team af aktivister fra LaRouche-PAC var på Capitol Hill i Washington, D.C., i går, hvor de bragte LaRouches erklæring om den historiske betydning af sidste uges interventioner fra de tre statsmænd, Schmidt, Steinmeier og O’Malley, til kongresmedlemmernes kendskab.

Henved 20-30 kongresmedlemmer og et halvt dusin senatorer blev direkte briefet og fik kopier af LaRouches artikel, »Om spørgsmålet om Tysklands rolle« og LPAC/Schiller Instituttets brochure »Hvorfor USA [og Europa] må gå med i BRIKS«, der gav genlyd i debatten, der nu er blevet sat i gang af Tysklands, Frankrigs, Italiens og Storbritanniens beslutning, der har rystet verden, om at tilslutte sig det kinesiske initiativ for den Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB). Hvor de fleste af disse kongresmedlemmer før denne uge knap nok havde været klar over den kinesiske præsident Xi Jingpings tilbud om, at USA kunne gå med i AIIB (for slet ikke at tale om, hvad disse initialer stod for) og ville have været uvidende om betydningen af denne nye, fremvoksende, økonomiske orden, der udstråler fra Kinas initiativer, så var de nu ivrige efter at diskutere implikationerne af, at Amerikas fire ledende, europæiske allierede meddeler, at de har skiftet kurs for at komme på linje med dette kinesiske initiativ, i modstrid med Barack Obamas nu vanærede forsøg på at undertrykke vestlig deltagelse i AIIB – et klinisk eksempel på den endemiske inkompetence hos disse kongresmedlemmer, der evindeligt lever i en verden af »gårsdagens nyheder«, for blot at blive taget uforberedt på sengen af dem, der snarere handler ud fra fremtiden som sande ledere, for at skabe historie.

Martin O’Malleys interventioner for at genoplive kampen for Glass/Steagall havde en lignende virkning. Før den forløbne uge havde kongresmedlemmer ladet sig trække ind i irrelevante sidespørgsmål. Men med nyheden om O’Malleys intervention fik selv folk, der længe har været tilhængere af Glass/Steagall, et fornyet fokus og blev inspireret på ny over at høre, at der var nogen, der udfordrede den folkelige debats samtaleemner, der dominerer massemediernes dækning af præsidentvalgets forløb, og i stedet indfører sandheden omkring kendsgerningen om den finansielle sammenbrudskrise og kræver fokuseret og omgående handling for at genindføre Glass/Steagall, selv på bekostning af at fordømme sit eget parti for at kravle ned i Wall Streets lommer ved at blive til »Dodd-Frank-Lite-partiet«. Nyheden om dette initiativ blev generelt vel modtaget – dvs., med undtagelse af Obamas finansminister Jack Lew, der, da han blev briefet om O’Malleys krav om Glass/Steagall og udviklingerne i forbindelse med AIIB, fuldstændig mistede mælet af raseri, da Obamaregeringens impotens mht. at kontrollere historiens march fremad gik op for ham.

En særlig betydningsfuld respons kom fra kongresmedlem Keith Ellison (D.-Minn.) under et frokostmøde, der var sponsoreret af Amerikas Progressive Demokrater, hvor han talte til forsamlingen om, hvilken katastrofe, Obamas Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) handelsaftale ville være for den allerede trængte, amerikanske økonomi. LaRouchePAC’s Alicia Cerretani rejste den indlysende modsætning til TPP’s ’omdrejningspunkt Asien’-fremgangsmåde med at »holde Kina tilbage«, og informerede forsamlingen om BRIKS-revolutionen og opfordrede indtrængende Ellison og hele den Progressive Forsamling til at kræve, at USA tog imod Xi Jinpings tilbud og tilsluttede sig AIIB. Ellison erklærede sig som varm tilhænger heraf og sagde, at han mente, det var noget, som hele den Progressive Forsamling burde tage stilling til. Han sagde, at de Progressive længe havde været fortalere for en infrastruktur-investeringsbank i USA, men alt imens man ikke har handlet herfor i USA, så har kineserne nu taget initiativet.

Bagefter, under diskussionen, rapporterede Ellison, at han havde hørt en lille fugl synge om AIIB i de seneste 24 timer, og var meget oprømt over at få det baggrundsmateriale, som er indeholdt i brochuren »Hvorfor USA må gå med i BRIKS«. Andre medlemmer af organisationen Progressive Demokrater deltog også i lange samtaler om implikationerne af BRIKS-revolutionen, den voksende liste af støtter til Schiller Instituttets appel/resolution, faren for krig og nødvendigheden af en omgående national mobilisering for Glass/Steagall.

 

 

STØT OS MED ET BIDRAG

KONTAKT OS

TAG SKRIDT TIL HANDLING

 Tlf.nr.: 35 43 00 33 ● si@schillerinstitut.dk

● Giro: 564-8408 ● Homebanking: 1551-5648408

 




LaRouche: O’Malley har ret mht. Glass/Steagall

Siden fredag, den 6. mrs., i Concord, New Hampshire, USA, har tidligere guvernør Martin O’Malley promoveret sin forsøgsvise opstilling til at blive nomineret til demokraternes præsidentkandidat omkring det centrale spørgsmål om genindførelsen af Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov fra 1933, der blev væltet i 1999.

»Vi bør udbrede det her overalt«, sagde LaRouche i dag.

 »Både Glass/Steagall og det faktum, at O’Malley stiller op med det. O’Malley har rejst spørgsmålet, og enhver, der er modstander af denne politik, må anses for at være et mangelfuldt valg til præsidentkandidaturet. O’Malley er i øjeblikket den eneste, der er kvalificeret til at blive præsidentkandidat. De andre bliver nu nødt til at forklare deres standpunkt om dette spørgsmål. Man kan ikke i al evighed føje Wall Street for at tækkes dem.«

Hvad er problemet i USA? Det er, at den finansielle side af sagen, ud fra Washingtons standpunkt, ikke er i overensstemmelse med USA’s interesser. Problemet er det samme i Europa: pointen er, at visse interesser ønsker at beskytte deres finansielle interesser, også selv om disse finansielle interesser nu er ved at blive værdiløse.

Se på hele den europæiske affære. Europa er rent faktisk i gang med at voldtage Grækenland, og det har de gjort i nogen tid. Og det gør forbandet ondt, hvis man ikke går med på det. Så folk kerer sig ikke det mindste om verden; de kerer sig udelukkende om deres egne, smålige, vulgære interesser.

Tiden er inde til at opløse Eurozonen. Den skal bare opløses. Man skal give dem besked om, at tiden er inde til at opløse den, med den begrundelse, at denne institution ikke ved, hvordan man opfører sig. Tiden er inde til at skaffe sig af med den, fordi den er ved at blive ligesom en arrogant slyngel. Den har intet retmæssigt krav på myndighed over andre nationer.

Det, som Europa gør i sit system med hasardspil, betyder, at det er umuligt at få fred i Mellemøsten eller nogen andre steder. Det betyder, at hvis Grækenland trækker sig ud, på den ene side, så vil Eurozonen kollapse. Men det modsatte virker på samme måde. Hvis de bliver, vil den disintegrere under vægten af deres tilstedeværelse.

Det hele er et falskneri. Det her har ingen værdi: dette banksystem. Og de skal se at komme tilbage til amerikansk politik. Glem det faktum, at et par klovne nedstemte amerikansk lovgivning i 1999: Glass/Steagall skal genindføres. Vi må have denne genindførelse af Glass/Steagall og kaste den i hovedet på Kongressen og sige: »Dette falskneri er det, der var årsag til vore problemer.«

»O’Malley har ret«, sagde LaRouche.

»Det skal gøres. Det er det afgørende skridt. Det ville, selvfølgelig, sænke Wall Street. Det er hele pointen. Enhver, der fører kampagne på Wall Streets side, har ikke gjort sig fortjent til at blive valgt.«

Foto: Præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt underskriver Glass/Steagall-loven, der trådte i kraft den 16. juni, 1933.

 

  




Fra LaRouche-bevægelsen 17. mrs. 2015:
Tre verdensledere intervenerer imod krig og økonomisk disintegration

To ledende, tyske skikkelser og en demokrat fra Maryland, USA, der overvejer at stille op til præsident, er trådt ind i det farlige, transatlantiske, politiske vakuum for at fremkalde et fundamentalt skift i den politiske kurs, for at undgå en potentiel verdenskrig og et i øvrigt umiddelbart forestående kollaps af det transatlantiske finanssystem.

Størrelsesordenen af den aktuelle, globale krise taget i betragtning og den fremtrædende position af disse personer, der således har interveneret, har den amerikanske statsmand Lyndon LaRouche givet sin fulde, utvetydige støtte til deres handlinger og har opfordret til en fuld mobilisering af opbakning til deres indsats for at undgå en global ulykke.

Torsdag, den 12. marts, leverede den tyske udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier et kraftfuldt budskab om at undgå krig til et publikum i Washington, D.C., i Centret for Strategiske og Internationale Studier (CSIS). Steinmeiers ligefremme sprog og hans diplomatiske, men barske kritik af Obamaregeringens planer om at forsyne dødbringende hjælp til den ukrainske regering, var uden fortilfælde. Ingen tysk udenrigsminister i nyere tid har vovet at fremkomme med en så stærk og offentlig kritik af den amerikanske udenrigspolitik og nationale sikkerhedspolitik, i særdeleshed ikke på et så fremtrædende sted som CSIS’ hovedkvarter. Steinmeier havde den foregående dag mødt den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry og nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver dr. Susan Rice, og havde utvivlsomt leveret et endnu mere ligefremt budskab under disse private samtaler.

Steinmeier indledte sin tale til CSIS med en ærlig vurdering af den globale krise og advarede:

»Vi konfronteres med en mangfoldighed af kriser over hele planeten, der, over for en person af min generation, synes uden fortilfælde med hensyn til deres intensitet og chokerende voldelighed.«

Med hensyn til Ukraine-krisen erklærede Steinmeier:

»Vi må se videre end til denne konflikt, til vores fremtidige relation med Moskva. Det betyder, at vi ikke må ophøre med at involvere Rusland og bruge de sidste, eksisterende kommunikationskanaler for at udforske en mulig frakørselsvej og – for fremtiden – udforske veje til en mere samarbejdsvenlig relation.«

Steinmeier afviste udtrykkeligt idéen om at opruste Ukraine og advarede om, at dette blot ville optrappe krisen, til den kom ud af kontrol:

»Jeg forstår, at mange af jer, mange eksperter, kræver en hurtigere – og derfor … militærbaseret løsning … Men, når man kender oprindelsen til og strukturen af konflikten, status af parterne i konflikten og disses kapaciteter, er det ud fra mit standpunkt selvindlysende, at de diskuterede alternativer til vores fremgangsmåde har potentialet til at øge antallet af ofre, øge udvidelsen af konfliktzonen og flytte konflikten til en ny fase med optrapning. Måske til et punkt, hvor der ikke er nogen vej tilbage. Der er ingen garanti for, at vores fremgangsmåde, Normadiet-fremgangsmåden, vil føre til succes. Men jeg er helt sikker på, at der ikke er nogen garanti for succes i de alternativer, man diskuterer. Jeg er bange for, at det modsatte er tilfældet.«

Senere gentog han:

»Det tager måske kun nogle få dage at skabe en krise, men det kan meget vel tage år at løse den. I diplomatiske bestræbelser gælder det, mere end i det almindelige liv, at stædighed er en dyd!… For os i Europa vil Rusland altid være vores største nabo … Det er ingen hemmelighed, at, hvad Rusland angår, så er tilliden på et absolut lavpunkt. Men vi må finde et nyt grundlag for engagement, selv om det måtte tage år eller årtier.«

Steinmeiers skarpe intervention imod Obamaregeringens oprustning af Ukraine blev understøttet af en af Tysklands ledende, ældre statsmænd, tidligere kansler Helmut Schmidt. I et interview med den tyske sensationsavis Bildzeitung den 12. mrs., advarede Schmidt om, at enhver yderligere optrapning i Ukraine kunne eskalere »endda til en ’varm krig’«. Schmidt berørte dernæst et af de mest følsomme spørgsmål i Rusland: EU’s og NATO’s udvidelse mod øst, som han sporede hele vejen tilbage til den oprindelige Maastricht-traktat i begyndelsen af 1990’erne, der dannede grundlaget for udvidelsen ind i den tidligere Warszawapagts og det tidligere Sovjetunionens territorium.

»Vi er ikke forpligtet til at påskønne Putins politik«, sagde han til avisen. »men vi må forstå den på baggrund af historien og tage den alvorligt.«

Lyndon LaRouche understregede betydningen af interventionen af disse to, prominente, tyske, politiske skikkelsers intervention direkte ind i den voksende fare for en krig i centrum af Eurasien.

»Deres handlinger kan rent faktisk ændre historiens kurs på et tidspunkt, hvor det umiddelbare spørgsmål på bordet foran os er krig eller fred, kaos eller genrejsning.«

Den samme kvalitet af intervention er blevet lanceret af tidl. guvernør for staten Maryland, USA, Martin O’Malley, der har krævet den omgående genindsættelse af Glass/Steagall-loven fra 1933, som ville opdele for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-bankerne i adskilte kommercielle banker og investeringsbanker. O’Malley, der overvejer at stille op til at blive nomineret til demokraternes præsidentkandidat, har været på turné i landet og har givet interviews, alt sammen om spørgsmålet om Glass/Steagall.

Typisk for hans magtfulde intervention var hans interview den 12. marts på MSNBC, hvor han til værten Joe Scarborough sagde:

»Det er os, der skaber lovene. Og vi kan skabe bedre love, med det formål at genoprette forbindelsen mellem hårdt arbejde og muligheden for at komme frem i tilværelsen … Genindfør Glass/Steagall. I 70 år forhindrede vi bankerne i at spille hasard med vore penge og ødelægge vores økonomi og med pigsko tromle hen over det almene vel, som vi deler som et folk; og at have en stabil og god økonomi. Alle – jeg mener på begge sider af midtergangen – jeg mener, så mange mennesker siger, at det er, hvad vi bør gøre, og dog forbliver det ugjort. Og nogle folk i mit eget parti fremstiller sig selv som folk, der promoverer en eller anden form for Dodd/Frank-lite – ’Vi vil ikke fornærme nogen på Wall Street, så lad os ikke tale ærligt om, hvordan vi kan tøjle denne udsvævende adfærd.’

»For en af de ting, som vi ikke har talt så meget om, er, at på trods af al smerten fra hjem, der går på tvangsauktion, og job, der mistes, så steg koncentrationen af rigdom efter hvert af disse seneste to opsving på aktiemarkedet rent faktisk! Med andre ord, mens andre mennesker mistede deres hjem, så kom folk i toppen ud af det endnu bedre stillet.«

Lyndon LaRouche har opfordret til fuld mobilisering til støtte for O’Malleys krav om, at kampen for Glass/Steagall skal være det afgørende spørgsmål ved de kommende valg. LaRouche sagde:

»Vi taler ikke om 2016, vi må have Glass/Steagall nu, før hele det transatlantiske finanssystem braser sammen, og vi konfronteres med den umiddelbare trussel om en global krig eller en nedstigen i totalt kaos, og helvede.«

LaRouche understregede, at de tyske statsmænds, Steinmeiers og Schmidts, nylige handlinger ligeledes er den eneste vej til en »virkelig forhindring af krig«.

»En konflikt med Rusland som den, der promoveres internt fra Obamas Hvide Hus, er ikke en begrænset krig. Det er generel krig, der fører til en termonuklear udslettelseskrig. Det må standses, og Steinmeiers og Schmidts interventioner kan vise sig at være afgørende.«

 

Billede: Imperial War Museum, London




RADIO SCHILLER den 16. marts 2015:
Tysk udenrigsminister Steinmeier og Helmut Schmidt
siger fra over for krig med Rusland // Glass-Steagall i USA

Med formand Tom Gillesberg




Helga Zepp-LaRouche:
USA: Kandidat O’Malley er fortaler for Glass-Steagall;
Steinmeier intervenerer for fred

14. mrs. 2015 – Den tidligere guvernør for Maryland, Martin O’Malley, skaber i øjeblikket store overskrifter i USA, fordi han er den første kandidat fra det Demokratiske Parti, der hidtil entydigt har erklæret, at han stiller op til præsidentvalget, og at den første forholdsregel, som han ville gennemføre som præsident, er genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven. Denne meddelelse kunne vise sig at blive et afgørende vendepunkt for hele den amerikanske politik, for herefter vil alle andre kandidater – og selvfølgelig også Hillary Clinton – blive målt op mod denne målestok, om han/hun er parat til at forsvare det almene vel med Glass/Steagall, eller om han/hun accepterer Wall Streets kriminelle system.

Af strategisk betydning var ligeledes den tyske udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeiers intervention i Washington, hvor han under samtaler med den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry og i en tale for tænketanken CSIS indtrængende advarede mod levering af tunge, amerikanske våben til Ukraine, fordi dette ville optrappe konflikten til en ny fase, hvor man ikke længere kunne vende om. Hvis Ukraine fik amerikanske våben, ville Rusland til gengæld udruste separatisterne med flere våben, og balancen ville forblive den samme, men på et højere niveau; men konflikten kunne komme ud af kontrol, og ville ikke være til gavn for nogen, og slet ikke ukrainerne. Ikke en eneste militær løsning i nyere tid havde været succesfuld, og der var intet alternativ til den møjsommelige proces med diplomatiske forhandlinger, iflg. Steinmeier.

Samtidig advarede tidl. kansler Helmut Schmidt om, at konflikten i Ukraine truer med at blive til en ’varm krig’, hvis Vesten forsømmer at tage Putins berettigede bekymringer i betragtning. Iflg. Schmidt blev den grundlæggende fejl, der har ført til denne krise, skabt for et kvart århundrede siden i Maastricht, da EU’s udvidelse mod øst blev besluttet.

Steinmeier kritiserede i Washington også de nye lovforslag fra 47 senatorer om yderligere sanktioner mod Iran, som kunne medføre fiasko for slutfasen af »5+1-forhandlingerne« om det iranske atomprogram, en fiasko, der ville få katastrofale følger for hele Mellemøsten og måske endda hele planeten. Dette indbragte ham et udbrud fra den uudsigelige senator McCain, som Steinmeier til gengæld klandrede for at tilhøre »diplomatiets Neville-Chamberlain-skole«.

Fælleselementet mellem O’Malleys meddelelse om, at hans første embedshandling som præsident ville være genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven, og Steinmeiers intervention i Washington mod de truende våbenleverancer fra USA til Ukraine, består i, at begge handlinger ganske vist endnu ikke løser den strategiske, eksistentielle krise, men dog viser et potentiale til at løse den.

O’Malleys fokus på de dramatiske hårde livsbetingelser, som spekulanternes og Wall Street-storbankernes profitgriskhed har haft som konsekvens for befolkningen, og nødvendigheden af at rehabilitere den oprindelige Glass/Steagall-lov, er ikke betydningsfuldt for 2016, men for lige nu. For ECB-chef Mario Draghis beslutning om, hver måned at pumpe 60 mia. euro(!) – i alt 1,2 bio. euro frem til september 2016 – ind i finanssektoren, og dermed atter »redde« bankerne, der er i en elendig forfatning, på bekostning af borgerne, afspejler det transatlantiske finanssystems desperate tilstand. Den samtidige beslutning om at forværre den græske regerings akutte pengenød gennem det skærpede handikap mht. nu at måtte benytte nødkreditter, efter at de græske banker allerede var blevet udelukket af den »kvantitative lempelse« med opkøb af statslån, betyder ikke andet, end at enden på Eurozonen er nær.

For Draghi frygter tydeligvis, at en imødekommenhed over for Grækenland gennem mildere betingelser ville have signalvirkning for Italien, Spanien, Portugal og Frankrig om også at smide Trojkaens nedskæringsdiktatur over bord! Og Grækenland hænger på hele den transatlantiske sektors absolut ubetalelige derivatboble. Netop derfor er finanssektorens og mediernes hysteri og aktuelle, næsten racistiske hetz mod et lille land, der kun udgør 1,6 % af Eurozonens BNP, så overproportioneret voldsom. Og kun således kan det forklares, at Schäuble konkurrerer med McCain om, hvem der kan komme med de største fornærmelser.

Den eneste mulighed for at standse finanssystemets truende, ukontrollerbare sammenbrud er netop ved at genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven, hvis ophævelse i 1999 blev mulig gennem en udspekuleret operation fra Det britiske Imperiums side imod Bill Clinton. Det var først efter ophævelsen af Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven, der havde muliggjort en 70 år lang stabilitet i det amerikanske, og også det transatlantiske, banksystem, at det kom til disse uhyrlige spekulationsprofitter og den stadig større kløft mellem rig og fattig, som vi ser i dag. Med O’Malley er Glass/Steagall igen kommet på dagsordenen.

Det hjælper, at den græske europaparlamentariker Notis Marias har opfordret til indførelsen af Glass/Steagall-loven i Europaparlamentets plenumforsamling. For først, når USA og Europa har befriet sig for den enorme vægt af henved to bia. i udestående derivater, og en dermed forbundet statsgæld, gennem en lovreguleret reorganisering af bankvæsenet, er der en chance for at forhindre både det truende kollaps og faren for krig.

Det nye økonomiske system og finanssystem, som BRIKS-staterne og frem for alt Kina har skabt i løbet af det seneste halvandet år med politikken for den Nye Silkevej, og, i løbet af de seneste seks måneder, med diverse nye banker, der udelukkende er orienteret mod at finansiere realøkonomien, vokser i mellemtiden stærkt. I mellemtiden har 50 stater gjort det klart, at de vil samarbejde med BRIKS-staterne. Den 6. marts bekendtgjorde den kinesiske finansminister Lou Jiwei, at 27 stater allerede ønskede at deltage i oprettelsen af den Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB) som stiftende medlemmer.

Storbritannien meddelte sidste torsdag, at det vil blive det 28. medlem. Inden for halvanden time angreb Det hvide Hus dette skridt fra briterne med, at det ikke var blevet aftalt med USA og var et yderligere udtryk for en fortsat imødekommenhed over for Kina. Briterne har rent historisk altid placeret sig i alle lejre – og frem for alt, i den vindende lejr!

Den eneste chance for at imødegå det truende, ukontrollerede finanskollaps og den akutte fare for en »varm krig« i Europa, som Helmut Schmidt siger, og som ifølge sagens natur ville udvikle sig til en global, termonuklear verdenskrig, ligger i de europæiske nationers og USA’s samarbejde med BRIKS-staterne om opbygningen af den Nye Silkevej, til at blive til en Verdenslandbro, der forbinder folkeslag og kontinenter. For kun på denne måde kan springet fra de formentlige geopolitiske interesser, der allerede har ført til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, erstattes med et konkret grundlag for et nyt paradigme om menneskehedens fælles mål.

O’Malleys meddelelse demonstrerer, at den kampagne, som Lyndon LaRouche siden 2008 har ført for genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall i USA, og som de organisationer, der er forbundet med BüSo her i Europa, ligeledes har sat på dagsordenen, atter kan bringe Amerika tilbage til sin sande identitet som republik.

Steinmeiers intervention i Washington viser, at Tyskland og de andre europæiske nationer udmærket kan forsvare deres interesser, når det drejer sig om det eksistentielle spørgsmål og krig eller fred og, i dette tilfælde, om menneskeheden i fremtiden skal eksistere eller ej.

Storbritanniens beslutning om at arbejde med som stiftende medlem af AIIB understreger, at det også er ganske ligetil for de andre europæiske nationer at tage imod Xi Jinpings tilbud om at samarbejde om opbygningen af den Nye Silkevej og BRIKS-staternes nye finansarkitektur.

De første skridt til en bedre fremtid er taget.

Det, der nu er behov for, er en bred mobilisering af befolkningen, en massebevægelse for udvikling, for også at virkeliggøre dette eksisterende alternativ. Mange mennesker i er øjeblikket udmærket klar over faren for en stor krig, det beviser meningsmålinger, såvel som personlige samtaler. Det, som de fleste mennesker mangler, er håbet om at erkende et alternativ eller at kunne bidrage med noget til at bevæge verdenshistorien i en anden, mere positiv retning. Med O’Malleys præsidentskabskamp for Glass/Steagall, udenrigsminister Steinmeiers intervention i Washington imod krigspolitikken og Storbritanniens – af alle ting! – deltagelse i stiftelsen af AIIB viser, at de løsninger, som LaRouche og BüSo/Schiller Instituttet længe har foreslået, kan virkeliggøres.

 




RADIO SCHILLER den 9. marts 2015:
Grækenland bygger en bro til BRIKS
/Schweiz, Danmark og finansverdenen

Med formand Tom Gillesberg




Helga Zepp-LaRouche:
EU-magtopgør med Grækenland og Rusland styrker BRIKS-organisationen!

Grækenland og Cypern kunne repræsentere en bro mellem EU og Rusland, da relationerne mellem disse to stater og Rusland aldrig har haft den negative karakter, som de har haft i de andre EU-stater. De ville begge ganske vist forblive som medlemmer af EU, men de har også rent historisk dybe relationer til BRIKS-staterne. Til Indien, f.eks., har der siden antikken bestået nære relationer, lige såvel til Kina, fra den tid, hvor de begge var store kulturer, Kina for Asien og Grækenland for Europa – henover tre til fire tusinde år. Og med Rusland er der ligeledes dybe historiske, kulturelle og religiøse forbindelser.

7. mrs. 2015 – Det desperate skridt fra ECB-chef Mario Draghi, hvor han vil oversvømme Eurozonen med 1, 14 bio. Euro i den såkaldte »kvantitative lempelse« samtidig med, at Grækenland og Cypern udelukkes af denne tvivlsomme pengevelsignelse[1], vil vise sig at fremskynde det transatlantiske finanssystems sammenbrud. Den samtidige optrapning af provokationerne mod Rusland gennem NATO-manøvrer i Sortehavet, samt den fremskudte udstationering af NATO-tropper og tungt militærudstyr i De baltiske Stater på Ruslands grænse, hænger direkte sammen med truslen om finanssystemets umiddelbart forestående bankerot.

I begge tilfælde – både den hårde linje over for Grækenland og optrapningen mod Rusland – drejer det sig til syvende og sidst om et bluff. Grækenland skal tvinges til fortsat at holde fast i Trojkaens nedskæringspolitik, uagtet den kendsgerning, at denne morderiske politik er blevet fravalgt af den græske befolkning i et demokratisk valg. Klaus Regling, chef for den Europæiske Stabilitetsmekanisme (ESM), understreger: »Grækenland må tilbagebetale hele denne kredit. Det er, hvad vi forventer, og der er intet forandret i det.« Hverken den kendsgerning, at kun 3 % af denne kredit er forblevet i Grækenland, mens resten derimod kom de europæiske banker til gode, og heller ikke resultatet af et demokratisk valg, som klart har sagt nej til en politik, der har skrumpet den græske økonomi med mere end en tredjedel, og som slår befolkningen ihjel, synes åbenbart at interessere ham.

Som medlem af det finansielle etablissement er han derimod vidende om, at såvel en græsk udtræden af euroen som en nedskæring af gælden, som Tsipras har krævet, ved en forbliven i Euroen, ville have Eurozonens, City of Londons og Wall Streets øjeblikkelige kollaps til følge, for den totale gældspyramide, inkl. den seksten-cifrede (!) derivatboble ville eksplodere. Trojkaen har naturligvis en massiv interesse i, at Tsipras-regeringen ikke får sine krav gennemført, fordi de frygter den positive signalvirkning på Italien, Spanien, Portugal, Irland og Frankrig, som ville udgå fra Grækenlands succes, mere, end Djævelen frygter vievand. Og det tyske Finansministerium undså sig ikke for at besvare en forespørgsel om dette fra den parlamentariske gruppe fra partiet Die Linke i Forbundsdagen med, at man, ud fra gældskonferencen for Tyskland i London i 1953, ikke kunne drage nogen følgeslutninger for en sådan konference for Grækenland, da man jo ikke kunne vide, hvordan den tyske økonomi ville have udviklet sig i ’50’erne uden denne konference!

Men sandheden er tværtimod, at Konrad Adenauer og Hermann Abs udmærket vidste, at der ikke ville have været noget tysk, økonomisk mirakel, hvis Tyskland dengang ikke havde fået eftergivet 60 % af sin totale gæld, og den resterende tilbagebetaling ikke var blevet knyttet til eksportoverskuddet. Frem for alt var de, til forskel fra den nuværende besætning i Finansministeriet, kompetente og havde Tysklands interesser på sinde.

 

NATO-konfrontation over for Rusland

Den samme konfrontationsstrategi, som man, i betragtning af den højspændte situation, kun kan opfatte som en provokation, kommer til udtryk i NATO-manøvrerne i Sortehavet, som er påbegyndt med den bulgarske, rumænske og tyrkiske marine. Man træner bl.a. forsvaret mod angreb fra luften såvel som fra ubåde eller mindre skibe. Samtidig afholder Rusland manøvrer, hvor, frem til 10. april, 2.000 soldater deltager i luftværnsøvelser og kamptræning, først og fremmest i det sydlige Rusland og i Nordkaukasus, og hvor også militære støttepunkter på Krim, i Armenien og Georgien indgår.

Med hensyn til de stadig mere højrøstede krav fra den britiske regerings side og fra republikanernes side i USA om en bevæbning af den ukrainske hær med »dødbringende våben«, den fremadskridende, fremskudte udstationering af NATO-tropper og hovedkvarterer i de østeuropæiske stater langs med Ruslands grænse, så nærmer vi os hastigt en »omvendt Cubakrise«, som William Polk, den tidligere militærrådgiver til præsident Kennedy på den tid, i disse dage skriver. I modstrid med de løfter, der blev givet af den tidligere, amerikanske udenrigsminiister, James Baker jr., har man integreret det ene, forhenværende sovjetiske land og Warszawapagt-land efter det andet i NATO, og nu er man i gang med det i Ukraine; visse indflydelsesrige amerikanere har allerede foreslået, at man skal fortsætte fremad, helt til »Moskvas porte«. Bevæbningen af Ukraine er et yderligere skridt i denne retning. Desuden er det umuligt at bevæbne Ukraine så meget, at de kan udligne den russiske militærmagt; man nærer altså de urealistiske forventninger i Ukraine, men lancerer samtidig aktioner, der ville blive betragtet som offensive af Rusland, og som Rusland ville føle sig tvunget til at reagere på. Det kunne alt sammen føre til en krig, som ingen kan ønske. Rusland kan lige så lidt acceptere, at Ukraine bliver medlem at en fjendtlig militæralliance, som USA ville have tilladt, at Mexico var blevet medlem af Warszawa-pagten.

En hel række af militæreksperter går, i ikke-officielle samtaler, ud fra, at den nuværende konfrontation mellem NATO på den ene og Rusland og Kina på den anden side har direkte kurs mod en sådan omvendt Cubakrise, men at, i betragtning af den manglende, røde telefon mellem Obama og Putin, og frem for alt den illusion, at man kan vinde et nukleart førsteangreb, faren for en fejlberegning er ekstrem høj, og at hele denne politik vil føre til menneskehedens udslettelse.

Den truende kulisse, der således er opbygget, skal formidle budskabet: Enten kapitulerer Rusland og Kina, eller også er man parat til at gennemføre spillet med »dødskørsel«[2] til den bitre ende, altid med den antagelse, at den anden side i sidste øjeblik kapitulerer. Men netop denne mulighed har Rusland og Kina med al tydelighed udelukket. Chefen for Centralkommandoen for den russiske Strategiske Missilstyrke (SMS), generalmajor Andrei Burbin[3], har netop i et interview bekræftet Ruslands parathed til, i tilfælde af et angreb på landet, at gennemføre et modangreb med strategiske atomvåben. Enhver »utopisk« militærplan om en »begrænset atomkrig« eller et forsøg på, efter »Prompt Global Strike«-doktrinen, at udbombe den russiske gengældelseskapacitet med konventionelle våben, ville blive besvaret med et gengældelsesangreb med interkontinentale ballistiske missiler mod USA.

 

»Plan B«

Den græske finansminister Varoufakis omtalte for nylig, at der var en Plan B for det tilfælde, at Grækenland af ECB blev afskåret fra kreditlinjer. Udenrigsminister Nikos Kotzias fortalte, hvori dette alternativ består: Grækenland og Cypern kunne repræsentere en bro mellem EU og Rusland, da relationerne mellem disse to stater og Rusland aldrig har haft den negative karakter, som de har haft i de andre EU-stater. De ville begge ganske vist forblive som medlemmer af EU, men de har også rent historisk dybe relationer til BRIKS-staterne. Til Indien, f.eks., har der siden antikken bestået nære relationer, lige såvel til Kina, fra den tid, hvor de begge var store kulturer, Kina for Asien og Grækenland for Europa – henover tre til fire tusinde år. Og med Rusland er der ligeledes dybe historiske, kulturelle og religiøse forbindelser.

Netop i dette forsøg ligger chancen for at imødegå den vanvittige kurs mod selvødelæggelse, som vi i øjeblikket synes at være fast besluttet på at følge, med et fornuftigt alternativ. EU’s brutale konfrontation over for Grækenland er en gyde, for enden af hvilken den sandsynlige udslettelse af menneskeheden i en atomkrig vil stå. Hvis vi i stedet tager imod Grækenlands tilbud, kunne vi via denne bro finde vejen til samarbejde med BRIKS-staterne i et nyt økonomisk system, som i øjeblikket virkeliggøres af disse stater i højt tempo.

Vi har ikke kun brug for en gældskonference for Grækenland i samme tradition som Londonkonferencen i 1953 for Tyskland, men derimod også for en gældskonference for hele Europa, og derudover for hele det transatlantiske system.[4] Det første skridt må være realiseringen af et system for bankopdeling, i traditionen efter Glass/Steagall-loven, sådan, som det blev gennemført af Franklin D. Roosevelt i 1933[5], og hvor den hidtil ubetalelige del af gælden og derivatboblen afskrives. Dernæst må det nuværende, monetaristiske system erstattes af et kreditsystem, der atter sætter realøkonomien, og dermed menneskene, i centrum for politik og økonomi. Og efter denne absolut nødvendige udrensning vil den transatlantiske sektor have alt at vinde, hvis den samarbejder med BRIKS-staterne, og frem for alt Kina og præsident Xi Jinpings »win-win«-politik, om bygningen af den Nye Silkevej.[6]

Tyskland har nøglerollen i denne opblødning. Hvis vi beslutter at samarbejde med BRIKS-staterne om bygningen af den Nye Silkevej, vil hele Kontinental-Europa følge efter – og det vil også være den eneste løftestang, der kan føre Amerika tilbage til sin bedste tradition som Den amerikanske Revolutions republik.

Vi har alle ansvaret for at vælge menneskehedens fremtid.

 

[1] Se 6. mrs.: ’Draghi annoncerer kvantitativ lempelse, men udelukker Grækenland og Cypern, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=5370

[2] Eng. ’chickengame’; når to biler i en konkurrence om, hvem der først taber modet, kører frontalt mod hinanden, indtil den ene viger – ’kyllingen’ – eller de begge bliver dræbt!

[3] Se 6. mrs.: ’EIR Internationalt: Lyt til disse russiske advarsler – De kan måske redde dit liv’, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=5362

[4] Se 23. jan.: ’EIR Fokus: Et græsk forslag: Sammenkald til en europæisk konference om statsgæld’, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=4759

[5] Se: ’Hovedartikel: 80-års-dagen for Glass/Steagall: Franklin D. Roosevelts 100 dage’, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=3063

[6] Se Nyhedsorientering, februar: Helga Zepp-LaRouche: ’Byg Verdenslandbroen for verdensfred’, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=5342




BYG VERDENSLANDBROEN
FOR
VERDENSFRED

Helga Zepp-LaRouche var taler ved et seminar for diplomater, der blev afholdt i Det russiske Kulturcenter i København den 30. januar 2015, med titlen:  »Økonomisk udvikling og samarbejde mellem nationer, eller økonomisk kollaps, krig og terror? Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«. Nyhedsorientering febr. 2015.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

 




LaRouchePAC demonstrerer i New York for Grækenland
– Glass/Steagall, eller 3. Verdenskrig!

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Fra LaRouche-bevægelsen 25. feb. 2015:
London og dets neonazister presser hårdt på for at få verdenskrig

På trods af det faktum, at våbenhvilen, der blev forhandlet igennem mellem Putin, Poroshenko, Merkel og Hollande, skrider frem i det østlige Ukraine, er der et fælles fremstød, med London som spydhoved, for at fremprovokere en generel krig med Rusland i de nærmeste dage. Victoria Nulands kæledyr, den ukrainske premierminister Arsenij Jatsenjuk, var på Fox Tv i søndags, hvor han falbød den løgn, at der ikke er nogen våbenhvile, og at Rusland er engageret i en fuld invasion af det østlige Ukraine. Disse ord var en gentagelse af erklæringer i løbet af weekenden fra en stadig mere hysterisk, britisk regering, der hævdede, at Putin var på kanten til at indtage de baltiske stater, og at der måtte gennemtvinges nye, drakoniske sanktioner mod Rusland. Obama, der føler presset fra Frankrig og andre europæiske allierede for at tilbageholde våben til det ukrainske militær, truer også med nye, tunge sanktioner – den økonomiske ækvivalent til regulær krig.

LaRouchePAC demonstration i New York City 21. feb. 2015:

(Se engelsk sangtekst her)

 

Se også: Fyr Nazi-elsker Nuland, eller stå over for verdenskrig

Det, der i stigende grad bør stå klart, er, at dette London-dirigerede fremstød for krig igen drives frem af panikken i City [of London] og på Wall Street over hele det transatlantiske, britisk-imperiale finanssystems håbløse bankerot. Grækenland er detonatoren, og Eurozonens finansministres beslutning fredag om at forlænge den aktuelle aftale om redningspakken i endnu fire måneder er simpelt hen baseret på den kendsgerning, at ingen er parat til at trykke på aftrækkeren mod hele det transatlantiske finanssystem. Liam Halligan advarede, i en artikel i Sunday Telegraph om, at euro-eksperimentet er dødt, og at eneste udvej er at organisere en lovformeligt reguleret græsk udgang af euroen, som første skridt i en tilbagevenden til adskilte og suveræne valutaer i hele Europa.

Lyndon LaRouche understregede, at et sådant initiativ må begynde med genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven i USA og i hele Europa. Udelukkende kun en tilbagevenden til et kreditsystem i Hamiltons forståelse kan afvende verdenskrigen og lancere en ny renæssance.

Betydningsfulde kredse i Washington er bekymrede over, at vi befinder os i den form for periode, i hvilken oligarkiet, i sin desperation for at klamre sig til et afdødt system, vil ty til politiske mord på højt niveau for at få deres vilje. Den indlysende liste over statsoverhoveder fra BRIKS og deres allierede udgør den overordnede bekymring. Disse kredse advarer om, at Obama og hans CIA-chef John Brennan nemt kunne være på mordernes side. Det, der driver London til dobbelt vanvid, er det fremvoksende BRIKS som sæden til en ny, retfærdig, finansiel verdensorden – befriet for oligarkiets magt.

Se Brochuren:

HVORFOR USA OG EUROPA MÅ GÅ MED I BRIKS

– En ny, international orden for menneskeheden 

Ifølge nyhedsrapporter rejser Sektor Højre-dræberen Andrij Parubij til Washington i denne uge for at tale for dødelig hjælp til Ukraine. Hollande og endda Merkel konkluderede for flere dage siden, at USA’s fremsendelse af våben til Ukraine kan blive udløseren for generel krig, og at dette motiverede deres fælles indsats, sammen med Putin, for at opnå en aftale i Minsk 12. februar. De nu offentligt erkendte neonazister – som Parubij – er Londons nøgleinstrumenter i det aktuelle krigsfremstød, og de må, sammen med troppefører Victoria Nuland, ubetinget væltes fra enhver magtposition, hvis vi skal undgå krig. Obama må enten fjernes fra embedet eller gøres så magtesløs, at han ikke længere kan udføre Londons og Wall Streets ordrer.

Se: Kiev Ambassador: We Needed the Neo-Nazi Battalions

Vi har nogle vigtige flanker i denne kamp. HSBC, Kronjuvelen for British Dope, Inc., er på vej ned, og det er frugten af en langvarig indsats, der går tilbage til udgivelsen af Dope, Inc. i 1978, der afslørede HSBC’s rolle – dengang Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Company – som den centrale clearingbank for verdens opiumhandel. Siden 1865 har Hong Shang beskæftiget sig med narkohandel – som det britiske monarkis eksklusive agenter – og intet er forandret i dette arrangement frem til nutiden. Det er dette Dop., Inc.-apparat, som Obama, Holder og den nominerede til justitsministerposten, Loretta Lynch, så stædigt beskytter. Alene dét er tilstrækkelig grund til af fjerne Obama fra embedet – i denne uge!

dope_inc

 Dope, Inc.

Diane Sare, mangeårig aktivist i LaRouchePAC, siger det ligeud til New Yorkerne,

på dansk her.

STOP 3. VERDENSKRIG! 

VI HAR FORTSAT BRUG FOR DIN STØTTE

TIL SCHILLER INSTITUTTETS OG LAROUCHE-BEVÆGELSENS KAMP.

Bliv medlem her

Eller send os et bidrag:

Giro: 564-8408 * Homebanking: 1551-5648408