I går udstedte Lyndon LaRouche på ny et presserende nødvendigt krav om, at Barack Obama omgående må fjernes fra USA’s præsidentskab ved forfatningsmæssige tiltag, for at han ikke skal føre hele planeten ud i en atomar udslettelseskrig. LaRouche henviste til Obamas seneste runde med militære provokationer imod Kina i Det sydkinesiske Hav, hans eskalerende krig i Syrien og hans massemorderiske droneprogram – blandt andre – som typiske eksempler på den politik, der som en skrigende nødvendighed må bringes til ophør.

LaRouche erklærede under en diskussion i dag med LPAC Policy Committee:

»Jeg mener, at problemet her ligger i det faktum, at Obama … Obama er grundlæggende set i færd med at foretage træk, som han gør med operationerne ved Kina osv., og han er fast besluttet på at lancere en atomkrig. Og alle tendenser i hans adfærd går i den retning. For eksempel som angrebet på den medicinske facilitet [i Kunduz, Afghanistan]. Fyren er i virkeligheden en morder. Han er slet og ret en morder, og han bør smides ud af embedet.«

»Og hvis vi ikke siger dette og fører en kampagne omkring dette, så mener jeg, at verden som helhed, verdens folk som helhed, står på randen. Se blot på, hvad Obama er i færd med at foretage sig i Kina, med angrebet på Kina, som er en absolut forfalsket operation.«

»Obama viser sine fæle poter, eller sine blodige poter, i diverse operationer. Denne mand må trækkes ud, hans embedsperiode må annulleres! Vi har et præsidentielt princip, under hvilket han må klassificeres, og under hvilket han må fjernes fra embedet. Hvis vi ikke fjerner ham fra embedet, så vil vi komme ud i en meget farlig situation.«

»Den anden side af sagen er, at vi ikke har en Kongres, der er kompetent til at udtrykke sig, som det er nødvendigt. Gå tilbage til præsidentskaberne før denne. Vi har før haft disse. Man kan ikke være useriøs med dette og behandle det ved at sige: ’Vi må forhandle os igennem det her.’«

»Vi må sige, ’Nej!’ Og jeg mener, at vores organisation har evnen til at sige ’nej’. Og jeg mener, at vi må sige nej ved simpelt hen at opregne nogle af de forbrydelser, han har begået. Og sige: Disse forbrydelser, alt imens de ikke er afgjort mht. en endelig afgørelse, så er faktum, at kravet er, at han må underkastes undersøgelse for at demonstrere, hvorfor han ikke skal smides ud af embedet. Det er der beviser nok til.«

Den seneste tids række af forbrydelser, som Obama har begået, inkluderer bl.a.:

• Provokationen den 27. okt. med at sende et amerikansk krigsskib ind i Det sydkinesiske Hav, mens han lover at fortsætte med lignede provokationer til vands og i luften i den nærmeste fremtid. En direkte militær nærkontakt mellem USA og Kina bliver højst sandsynlig, hvis dette fortsætter.
• Lækken fra Obamaregeringen den 27. okt. til Washington Post, Reuters og andre medier om, at hans regering har en operationel plan på bordet om at sende amerikanske specialtropper og andre tropper ind i Syrien – en total overtrædelse af USA’s Forfatning og af International Lov – der blot venter på grønt lys fra præsidenten. Dette kunne føre til en direkte militær konfrontation mellem USA og Rusland på den mellemøstlige arena.
• Det amerikanske militærs overlagte bombning den 3. okt. af et Læger uden Grænser-hospital i Kunduz, Afghanistan, der resulterede i over 30 dødsfald, til trods for, at der på forhånd var udgivet fuld information om koordinaterne for dette hospital. Dette udgør en krigsforbrydelse, der berettiger til retsforfølgelse. Obamaregeringens skamløshed opmuntrede tydeligvis Det saudiske Kongerige til at udføre en lignende grusomhed imod et LuG-hospital i Yemen den 26. oktober.
• Det løbske, illegale droneprogram for drab, under hvilket Obama personligt udvælger og ved sin underskrift godkender det koldblodige mord på mistænkte terrorister og uskyldige tilskuere over en kam, som det for nyligt er blevet afsløret af websiden The Intercept.
• Obamas fortsatte og ubøjelige engagerende forpligtelse til at redde (bailout) det bankerotte Wall Street-system ved at tage livet af Amerikas fysiske økonomi og Amerikas befolkning – et system, der i stedet bør fjernes og erstattes med LaRouches økonomiske program med Verdenslandbroen.
• Obamas principielle ansvar for at skabe den flygtningekrise, der har bragt Europa til den yderste klippekant, gennem de illegale krige, som han og hans forgænger George Bush lancerede i hele regionen, og senest i Syrien.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede i sine bemærkninger ved konferencen i Washington den 27. okt. med fhv. senator Mike Gravel, så har denne flygtningekrise nu nået kogepunktet og har konfronteret Europa med en knald-eller-fald-situation for sin blotte eksistens. Hele den Europæiske Union er ved at smuldre, stedt over for krisen, der er meget mere end en flygtningekrise: det er en massemigration og en eksistentiel krise. Den eneste løsning, understregede Zepp-LaRouche, er at bringe reel udvikling ind i Mellemøsten og Afrika ved at forlænge Verdenslandbroen ind i disse områder. USA og Storbritannien bør deltage i at sikre denne løsning, erklærede hun. Eftersom det var Det britiske Monarki, og i USA Bush- og Obamaregeringerne, der var årsag til krisen.

I går understregede LaRouche:

»Denne karl Obama må holdes tilbage, og hvis han ikke bliver det, er I alle døde, det er den risiko, vi løber. Og jeg mener, at vores fremgangsmåde må defineres ud fra disse referencerammer. Jeg mener, at vi må gøre dette drone-spørgsmål til det absolutte topspørgsmål. Hvis der er nogen, der siger, at det kan retfærdiggøres, er det en løgn – du narres til at godtage en løgn. Når man myrder folk, så myrder man dem! Og man siger ’du myrder dem’.

Og Obama er grundlæggende set en morder; han er en massemorder. Den aktuelle præsident for USA er en massemorder! Hvis man vil redde USA, så må man sige dette. Hvis man ikke siger dette, ja, så kunne du være den næste, der ryger.«

Med hensyn til dem, der har været så bange for Obama, at de har været paralyseret til handlingslammelse og til at tolerere hans nazistiske forbrydelser, erklærede LaRouche:

»Sandheden er af afgørende betydning: Obama er en morder, punktum. Hvis man ønsker, at civilisationen skal overleve, må man lukke ned for Obama. Ikke på længere sigt; lige nu.«    

27. oktober 2015 – EIR  leverede et nødvendigt chok til Washington, D.C. i dag på National Press Club, under titlen: »En afslutning på permanent krig og finansiel panik: Glass-Steagall og den Globale Silkevej«. Blandt mange andre gæster hørte og debatterede 35 personer fra ambassadestabe fra lande i hele verden præsentationer ved Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche og fhv. senator til den amerikanske Kongres Mike Gravel fra delstaten Alaska.

Missionen var at præsentere det umiddelbart tilgængelige, håndgribelige alternativ til krisen i den transatlantiske verden med økonomisk forfald og endeløse krige. Dette i en amerikansk hovedstad, der lider under økonomisk nedtrykthed og krigslede, og som skal vedtage nedskæringer af pensions- og sundhedsydelser samtidig med, at beskatningen af en befolkning, der er ved at gå under økonomisk, skal øges. Zepp-LaRouche og senator Gravel gjorde det klart, at, med genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall i den transatlantiske sektor, sammen med en opkobling til den udviklingspolitik, som repræsenteres af Den nye Silkevej, samt en afslutning af Barack Obamas katastrofale rolle som præsident, kan krisen i USA og Europa vendes til en økonomisk genrejsning.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche er hovedperson bag og forfatter til EIR’s udførlige specialrapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«,  der har fået opbakning fra mange økonomiske institutioner i Kina og nu er udgivet som kinesisk bog, der nyder bred cirkulation i Kina. 

Mike Gravel var den senator, der brød Washington-reglen, da han i 1971 i Kongressen oplæste de såkaldte »Pentagon-papirer« om Vietnamkrigen (og således sikrede, at disse oplysninger blev optaget i Senatets journal, -red.), og som i 2007, under en præsidentkandidatdebat, udfordrede Barack Obama ved, med stor forudseenhed, at kalde denne for en kandidat for krig, inklusive atomkrig.

Gravel udfordrer sine kolleger i den aktuelle søvngænger-Kongres til at åbne op for Obamas hemmelige dronekrige, hans uautoriserede, evindelige krige i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, samt krigskonfrontationer rettet mod Rusland og Kina. Han sagde til forsamlingen, at han samarbejder med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche, fordi han støtter konceptet med Silkevejens globale infrastrukturudvikling og den måde, hvorpå LaRouche-parret organiserer til fordel for dette. Han sagde:

»Vi befinder os i en ’Augusts Kanoner’-situation: Vi må have en fremgangsmåde over for Den nye Silkevej, som med en Marshall-plan.«

Med en beskrivelse af den forværrende flygtningekrise i Europa, som er skabt af Obama som det direkte resultat af hans krige, kaldte Helga Zepp-LaRouche dette for »de brændende skjorters tid«,[1] hvor ledernes skjorter brænder pga. krise, og hvor »en ny æra for menneskehedens fælles mål« kan initieres.

Under den timelange diskussion og debat fik gæsterne EIR-specialrapporter og tegnede abonnementer på EIR Alert-service. Zepp-LaRouche, Gravel samt Lyndon LaRouche blev interviewet af amerikanske og udenlandske medier.

I en senere diskussion efter forummets afslutning fokuserede Lyndon LaRouche på forummets centrale betydning som værende missionsorienteret. Han sagde:

»Hvad gør du for at skabe et højere udviklingsniveau for de levende og for dem, der følger efter? – Det er målestokken for din moralitet.«

»Wall Street er i færd med at ødelægge USA’s befolkning. Det påtvinger den amerikanske befolkning mere og mere fattigdom – ikke blot år for år, og sæson efter sæson! Det er en gift; skaf jer af med det. Obama er en morder af uskyldige civile, en krigsmager og en tyv. Hvad vil du gøre for at redde menneskeheden fra disse udyr?«

»Forsøm ikke, af mangel på lidenskab, at bringe i orden, hvad du burde have bragt i orden i din levetid.«

[1] Fra gr. Mytologi; den forgiftede skjorte, der brændte Herakles og fik ham til at kaste sig på ligbålet; en ’destruktiv kraft eller sonings-indflydelse’.

Her følger det engelske udskrift af hovedtaler v/ Helga Zepp-LaRouche og Mike Gravel: (en dansk oversættelse af Helgas tale kommer snarest):

Download (PDF, Unknown)

25. oktober 2015 – I den nuværende, historiske fase, i hvilken så godt som alle antagelser om samfundet, der regnes for at være sikre, bliver forældede, og hvor alle fornemmer, at det handler om de helt store spørgsmål om krig og fred, om at være eller ikke være og om en nedstyrtning i kaos eller en ny, klassisk renæssance, hører Tyskland til de få aktører på verdenspolitikkens store scene, der kan være med til at afgøre, hvilken af de to alternativer, der bliver virkelighed. Således tænker foreløbig kun ganske få mennesker i Tyskland, hvad der imidlertid ikke forklejner sandhedsindholdet i denne erklæring. Naturligvis er Kinas verdenshistoriske rolle mere selvfølgelig; med Xi Jinpings »win-win«-perspektiv om den globale opbygning af Den nye Silkevej har det sat en fuldstændig ny model for udenrigspolitiske relationer på dagsordenen, der, for første gang i historien, viser en måde, hvorpå den katastrofale geopolitik, som allerede har ført til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, kan overvindes gennem gensidigt samarbejde til gensidig fordel. Og ligeså selvfølgelig er Ruslands rolle, der, med sit strategiske partnerskab med Kina og ligeledes med sin militære flanke i Syrien, har skabt en ny magtkonstellation i verden, der tydeliggør, hvor hult Obamaregeringens unipolære krav i mellemtiden er blevet. Præsident Putin har netop, i sin tale ved årets møde i Valdai-klubben, med temaet »krig og fred« understreget den fare, der eksisterer, hvis USA forsøger at bruge det amerikanske antiballistiske missilforsvarssystem i Østeuropa til et førsteangreb, der angiveligt skulle sætte en modstanders våben ud af spillet med moderne, nukleare højpræcisionsvåben, for således at kunne ændre den strategiske balance til egen fordel og påtvinge hele verden sin vilje, alt imens en sådan handling kun kan føre til en garanteret, gensidig udslettelse. Efter den succesrige atomaftale med Iran kan påskuddet om en angivelig trussel, der skulle komme fra iranske raketter, ikke mere opretholdes, alt imens denne trussel i virkeligheden aldrig har eksisteret. Til hvilket formål opretholdes da missilforsvarssystemet fortsat?

Putin, hvis egne militæroperationer i Syrien imod ISIS og andre diverse oprørere skrider succesrigt fremad, påpegede samtidigt årsagen til den til sammenligning fejlslagne, amerikanske militæroperation i regionen. Det skyldes netop en uopløselig modsigelse mellem på den ene side at ville skride ind over for terrorister, og så samtidigt bevæbne dem for, ved hjælp af disse, at styrte legitime regeringer. Man bør under ingen omstændigheder gå glip af den kosteligt ironiske behandling af samme tema om den forvirrende amerikanske politik over for terrorismen i Mellemøsten, i den seneste udgave af satireprogrammet »Die Anstalt« med henvisning til den rørstrømske udsendelse »Herzblatt« (http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek#/beitrag/video/2583744/Herzblatt).

Og naturligvis påhviler det selve den amerikanske befolkning – den måske vigtigste aktør på den nævnte verdensscene – at sætte en stopper for og straffe de permanente overtrædelser af den internationale folkeret, der desværre er blevet reglen gennem fortsættelsen af den neokonservative politik fra Bush/Cheney-tiden og frem til den nuværende Obamaregering. Det handler om krigene i Sydvestasien, der byggede på løgne, og frem til droneangreb imod formentlige terrorister, uden nogen som helst korrekt retsproces, eller de berømte »kollaterale skader«, der, iflg. afsløringer fra den seneste whistleblower på websiden The Intercept, for op til 90 % ’s vedkommende har ramt uskyldige civilister.

Den undersøgelse i den amerikanske kongres, som flere organisationer kræver som en bydende nødvendighed, kunne meget hurtigt føre til, at præsident Obama stilles for en rigsret; Obama, der iflg. de offentliggjorte dokumenter hver tirsdag personligt sammensatte dødslisten. Det stormløb af flygtninge mod Europa, og frem for alt til Tyskland, er resultatet af disse krige og droneangrebene, der snarere har fremmet end inddæmmet ISIS’ fremmarch.

Historien har imidlertid på en særlig måde, netop på grund af flygtningekrisen, spillet den afgørende bold hen til Tyskland. Beredvilligheden til at hjælpe i betragtning af de mange fortvivlede menneskers nødsituation er fortsat stor hos et stort flertal af befolkningen. Men allersenest siden guillotinen, der demonstrativt blev medbragt til en demonstration, de, iflg. Forbundskriminalpolitiets oplysninger, omkring 500 overfald på flygtningehjem i år og mordforsøget på overborgmesterkandidaten fra Køln, Henriette Reker, er det også tydeligt, at grænselinjen mellem de »bekymrede borgere« og den rene ekstremisme, der ikke står tilbage for selv voldshandinger, er overskredet. Det truer med at gøre det til sandhed, som Putin for mange måneder siden advarede om, da han profeterede, at Vestens støtte til nazistiske organisationer i Ukraine ville føre til en udbredelse af sådanne organisationer i mange europæiske stater. Den ulykkelige situation for flygtninge i Slovenien, i hvilken mennesker i disse dage uden tøj, der passer til klimaet, gennes sammen som storforbrydere af fuldstændigt overdrevne sikkerhedsstyrker, uden at dette i mindste måde ville føre til, at trængslen stilnede af, er blot den øjeblikkelige registrering af en tragedie, der – hvis der ikke findes en løsning på et andet plan – inden for kort tid vil føre til en eskalering af situationen i hele Europa, for enden af hvilken kunne findes kaos og borgerkrig.

Der er en løsning på denne krise, men den kræver, at en hel række af fejlagtige aksiomatiske antagelser i de forgangne årtier i Vestens politik, og i Tysklands politik i særdeleshed, må korrigeres.

Den første, selvfølgelige konsekvens må være den omgående afslutning af krige under falske påskud. Tyskland har gjort sig til medskyldig i ikke alene den totale udspionering af egne borgere i samarbejde mellem BND og NSA, i den bevidste handling at stille militærbasen Ramstein til rådighed for droneangreb i Sydvestasien og en stiltiende og delvist eksplicitte støtte til Washingtons og Londons unipolære politik. Kun Tysklands ikke-deltagelse i krigene imod Irak under regeringen Schröder og imod Libyen under Merkel/Westerwelle har i det mindste reddet en lille del af landets ære.

Tyskland har på samme måde gjort sig til medskyldig, idet det i årtier har bidraget til IMF’s og Verdensbankens betingelsespolitik over for udviklingslandene, som har forhindret enhver form for virkelig udvikling til fordel for et gældsregime, der udelukkende kom det Britiske Imperiums finanssektors profitinteresser til gode, og for hvilket begrebet »globalisering« blot er et andet udtryk. Når millioner af flygtninge i dag ikke alene flygter fra krige på basis af løgne, men også fra fattigdom og sygdom – de såkaldte »økonomiske flygtninge« (»bekvemmelighedsflygtninge«) fra Balkan, fra Sydeuropa og fra Afrika – så er dette konsekvensen af denne politik.

Så længe Tyskland holder fast ved den samme monetarisme, der også er rettet mod Europa, med Schäubles »Sorte Nul«, dvs., at, for at tilgodese det hjernespind, der hedder et balancerende husholdningsbudget, må der skæres ned på daginstitutioner for børn, gymnastiksale, uddannelsesprogrammer, pensioner osv., for at forsørge flygtningene, og som går hånd i hånd med den brutale »nøjsomhedspolitik« over for Grækenland og hele Sydeuropa, så længe vil de sociale spændinger i Tyskland og i hele Europa vokse, til de eksploderer.

Og der findes en yderligere, dårlig, populær vane, som Tyskland må skille sig af med, hvis vi ønsker at finde en løsning på denne krise: Vi må smide den grønne ideologi over bord. Den forestilling, at vi kan spise de såkaldte udviklingslande af med »vedvarende, passende« udvikling – altså slutteligt slet ingen udvikling – og samtidigt kan bygge nye »Limes«-mure op omkring »Bastionen Europa«, må opgives. Vi må have reelle udviklings- og opbygningsprogrammer for Afrika, Sydvestasien og den sydlige hemisfære, som overvinder fattigdommen og underudviklingen. De gennem videnskab og kunst opdagede, universelt gyldige principper kaldes universelle, fordi de også gælder i udviklingslandene.

Om menneskeheden kan mestre de nuværende udfordringer vil afhænge af, om vi virkeliggør et nyt paradigme, som i kulturenes og civilisationernes mangfoldighed aktualiserer de højeste udformninger af det, som menneskehedens universalhistorie hidtil har frembragt. Og kun, hvis det lykkes os at bringe en dialog i stand mellem repræsentanterne for disse forskellige kulturers højeste perioder, vil vi i rette tid kunne imødegå den indskrænkede bogholdermentalitet og tåbernes enfoldighed med den storslåede idé om folkeforståelse og en forenet menneskehed.

Hvis Tyskland ville sige, at vi forlanger, at disse krige ophører, at en reel udviklingspolitik i fællesskab med BRIKS-staterne om opbygning af Verdenslandbroen kommer på dagsordenen, vi integrerer på kort sigt flygtningene, men vi udvikler deres hjemlande gennem opbygningen af den Nye Silkevej, vi husker vor egen klassiske højkultur og indleder en dialog mellem kulturer med de andre kulturers storhedstid – så kan vi tyskere skabe historie.

Jeg er optimistisk, hvad det angår.

17. oktober 2015 – Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings umiddelbart forestående besøg i Storbritannien fortsætter med at skabe kontrovers. Avisen Guardian skrev 16. oktober, at George Osborne, finansminister og øjensynligt hovedfortaler for tættere relationer med Kina, er fast besluttet på at bringe den Nye Silkevej frem til sin endestation i London. Xi Jinping med frue ventes til Storbritannien 20. oktober.

»Antikkens Silkevej, langs med hvilken karavaner af handelsfolk bragte fine kinesiske stoffer og udsøgt porcelæn til markederne i hele Asien, nåede aldrig så langt som til det kølige Britannien. Men George Osborne er fast besluttet på, at den antikke Silkevejs efterfølger i det 21. århundrede vil få terminus i London«, skrev Guardian.

Et afgørende element i Storbritanniens tilslutning til Kinas »Et bælte, en vej« er at udvide handel i renminbi i City of London og indvarsle en »gylden æra« med økonomisk og finansielt samarbejde med Kina.

Guardian citerer Mark Boleat, formand for politisk strategi i City of London Corporation, og som sagde: »I de senere år har samarbejdet mellem Det forenede Kongerige og Kina inden for den finansielle servicesektor været særlig stærk og har haft stor gavn af regeringsstøtte fra begge sider.«

De skriver, at, alt imens Tyskland tilbyder Kina kapitalgoder, inklusive maskinværktøj, så kan Storbritannien tilbyde finansielle serviceydelser og forretningsmæssige serviceydelser inklusive regnskabsførelse, rådgivning og jura.

Alt imens Osborne er meget forpligtet på denne politik, så er Washington »rasende« over den, og især over, at Storbritannien gik med i Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB).

Osborne fik støtte fra Kristin Forbes, et medlem af Bank of Englands komite for monetær politik, og som i en tale i Brighton og Hove Handelskammeret den 16. okt. sagde: »Blot et enkelt land – Kina – har været ansvarligt for over en tredjedel af væksten af det globale BNP siden 2011, og selv, når man medregner landets nylige langsommere vækst, forventes landet stadig at være drivkraft bag henved 35 % af den globale vækst i år … ethvert foretagende, der er ude efter muligheder for vækst, burde overveje disse regioner, der – så langt – er ansvarlige for de største bidrag til global vækst.«

Jonathan Ashworth fra Morgan Stanley citeres for at have sagt: »Hvis man medregner Hongkong, så er Kina nu Storbritanniens sjette største eksportmarked og den tredjestørste importkilde. Desuden er Kina nu topeksportmarked for flere sektorer, såsom automobilproduktion og højere uddannelse, og vokser hastigt inden for turisme.«

Præsident Xi forventes at afslutte en handel om kinesisk deltagelse i konstruktion af Storbritanniens atomreaktor i Hinkley, det første, nye atomkraftværk, der bygges i Storbritannien i flere årtier.

Stakkels Tyskland! Du er sunket dybt, hvis alt det, som de meningsdannende massemedier publicerer i disse dage, er sandt! Man må da spørge, hvordan tyskerne i både Øst og Vest klarede at genhuse og integrere henved 14 millioner flygtninge (!) for 70 år siden, umiddelbart før afslutningen af Anden Verdenskrig og i tiden umiddelbart derefter, flygtninge fra det tabte Øst og Sudeterlandet? Hvordan kunne tyskerne blive i stand til at genopbygge deres udbombede byer så hurtigt?

Se også: “Løs flygtningekrisen ved at realisere en ny, epokeskabende vision for fremtiden”, af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Schiller Instituttets delegation med seks aktivister, alle udstyret med T-shirts med vores slogan: “Win-win med BRIKS, ikke kollaps og krig”, diskuterede vores politik med mange ministre og folketingsmedlemmer. Det blev til samtaler med alt fra Lars Løkke Rasmussen og tre andre ministre, til fire partiformænd og ca. 15 andre folketingsmedlemmer.

Hovedpunkterne var nødvendigheden af en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling og udvidelsen af Kinas infrastrukturprojekt ”Den nye Silkevej” til ind i Mellemøsten og videre til Afrika for at skabe den økonomiske udvikling, der er helt nødvendig for at  fjerne grobunden for terrorbevægelserne og dæmme op for de mange tusinde flygtninge, der i øjeblikket søger til Europa for et bedre liv.

Vi gav medlemmerne vores publikationer om disse emner og  viste dem også EIR’s Specialapport ”The New Silk Road becomes the World Land-bridge”. Det er en drejebog for skabelse af  økonomisk udvikling i disse områder, og i hele verden. Flere af medlemmerne ville gerne  læse en pdf-version af rapporten, som er blevet sendt til dem.

11. oktober 2015 – Vladimir Yakunin, præsident og medstifter af Verdensforummet »Dialog mellem Civilisationer« (eller Rhodos Forum), på hvilket Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har talt gentagne gange i årenes løb – åbnede det 13. årlige Rhodos Forum den 10. okt. ved at meddele lanceringen af en ny, stor global tænketank, der fokuserer på globale infrastrukturprojekter.

Yakunin, der indtil for nylig også var chef for Russiske Jernbaner, brugte sine indledende bemærkninger til et kraftigt angreb på geopolitisk tankegang og faren for krig. »Vi har set, at en verden, der er domineret af en enkelt civilisation, ikke fungerer. Nylige konflikter i Afghanistan, Irak, Libyen og Syrien har vist, at Vestens interventionspolitik er en fiasko. Det står ud fra den aktuelle tilstand med konflikt i hele verden klart, at interkulturel dialog er af vital betydning.«

Blandt de fremtrædende talere på Rhodos var Jayshree Sengupta, økonom, Observer Research Foundation, fra New Delhi, Indien, der også talte på Schiller Instituttets konference i Paris i juni 2015. I sine bemærkninger på Rhodos understregede hun betydningen af infrastruktur og opfordrede især til samarbejde med Kina. Hun sagde, at der var 700 millioner indere i landsbyer i landdistrikter, der ikke har nogen infrastruktur, men, med BRIKS og dennes Nye Udviklingsbank (NDB), har vi håb om at kunne finansiere vore behov for infrastruktur. I BRIKS er vi alle lige, men det er vi ikke i IMF, udtalte hun. BRIKS’ reservevalutafond, CRA, vil tage sig af mange problemer, med overgangslån, når penge begynder at strømme ud. Men ulig IMF stiller CRA ingen forhåndsbetingelser, ingen diktater og ingen forhåndskrav (især om budgetnedskæringer og ’nøjsomhedspolitik’ over for befolkningen, -red.).

Under Kinas lederskab, sagde hun, er Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank, AIIB, operationel, og Europa har trodset USA og tilsluttet sig. Nogle folk i Indien er nervøse over Kina, idet de er bange for, at den ene stormagt skal afløses af den anden, nemlig Kina. Men jeg siger nej, fastholdt Sengupta: Vi er ligeværdige i AIIB og NDB, og det er grunden til, at jeg støtter dette.

Foto: Vladimir Yakunin åbner det 13. møde i Rhodos Forum 

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

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Ideen om Den nye Silkevej peger på skabelsen af et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden, sagde Zepp-LaRouche til sit publikum, og på, at man går bort fra »geopolitik« som en ideologi, der i løbet af det seneste århundrede har forår-saget to verdenskrige, og i stedet erstatter det med ideen om menneskehedens fælles interesser, der reflekteres i Xi Jinpings »Win-win-politik«.

Alt imens »Ét bælte, én vej« er blevet den gængse term for det kinesiske projekt, så lagde fr. LaRouche vægt på betydningen af præcedensen med Silkevejen. »Vi bør bevare termen Den nye Silkevej«, sagde hun, »da den er et klart udtryk for denne kulturelle vision om samarbejde, som den antikke Silkevej manifesterede.«

Der findes en løsning, der først og fremmest kræver et helt nyt paradigme og en helt ny tankegang. Kun, hvis Ruslands, og nu også Kinas, militære operationer i Syrien og muligvis Irak følges op af et omfattende, økonomisk genopbygnings-program, som virkelig udvikler området i Sydvestasien, der nu er bombet tilbage til stenalderen, og som giver de herlevende mennesker den fremtid, som de i øjeblikket ikke har, kan folkevandringen stoppes. Det samme gælder for Afrika.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Titelbillede: Frivillige på München Banegård sorterer donationer af forskellige artikler til de nyankomne flygtninge.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

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

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

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

Spørgsmålet om udvikling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

præsenteres på pressekonference i Beijing, 30. sept. 

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

Spørgsmålet om kvinders rettigheder

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

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

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

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

Repræsentation i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd

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

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

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

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

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

Video med CCTV’s program Dialogue kan ses her. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Den 29. september 2015 – Ved en pressekonference i Beijing, som var sponsoreret af EIR og Renmin Universitets Chongyang-institut for Finansstudier, holdt Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, og William Jones, EIR’s kontorchef i Washington, i dag hovedtalerne ved offentliggørelsen af den kinesiske oversættelse af EIR’s banebrydende rapport »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«.
Der var omkring 70 personer til stede, inklusiv 15 repræsentanter fra kinesiske medier, nogle repræsentanter fra regeringsinstitutioner samt flere tænketanke. Derudover kommenterede ni ledende kinesiske videnskabsmand på rapporten og dens vigtighed for det kinesiske projekt »Et Bælte, En Vej«. Chongyang-instituttet har også indvilget i at være medsponsor af rapporten.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche beskrev, hvordan Schiller Instituttet har udviklet projektet omkring Den Nye Silkevej/Verdenslandbroen over de sidste 20 år og skitserede de bestræbelser, der var fortsat i årtier for at realisere rapporten. Hun sagde, at udbredelsen af rapporten repræsenterede en enestående mulighed for at ændre verdenshistoriens kurs: »Vi skal væk fra geopolitik og bevæge os over til et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden,« sagde Zepp-LaRouche.
Kommentarerne til rapporten fra videnskabsmændene var fuldkomment overstrømmende. En videnskabsmand sagde, at han har kendt Schiller Instituttet i lang tid og lært meget fra dets ideer. »De har meget enestående økonomiske ideer og lægger vægt på fysisk økonomi. Lyndon LaRouche har udviklet ideen om negentropi for at forklare økonomiens love. Vi kan ikke tillade, at kapital kontrollerer alt. Vi skal kontrollere kapital,« sagde han.
En anden videnskabsmand bemærkede, at Schiller Instituttet har en anden tilgang til økonomi end de fleste andre, ved at lægge vægt på infrastrukturens grundlæggende vigtighed. Han sagde, at »Helga Zepp-LaRouche har gjort store fremskridt med sine ideer«. En videnskabsmand bemærkede, at Kinas politik »Et Bælte, En Vej« danner grundlag for begyndelsen af en ny verdensorden, og at vi skal finde ud af, hvordan den er forskellig fra den USA-ledede verdensorden. En videnskabsmand fra Kinas Nationale Udviklings- og Reformkommission (NDRC) understregede, hvor enestående rapporten var, priste det bagvedliggende arbejde og tilskyndede kinesiske eksperter til at tage notits af analysemetoden brugt i EIR-rapporten.
Yderligere en videnskabsmand, som lige var blevet færdig med at læse rapporten på kinesisk aftenen før, sagde, at den åbenlyst var skrevet med et globalt perspektiv og bemærkede, at den handler om at se ind i fremtiden og ikke blot forklare fortiden.
Der opstod en livlig diskussion i spørgetiden, og mange deltagere kom efterfølgende op til autorerne for at få deres kopi underskrevet. Chongyang-institut har allerede købt 1000 kopier af rapporten til fordeling i dets netværk og til videnskabsfolk i Kina.

Jeg mener, at, set ud fra det kinesiske standpunkt, så er det største problem, og samtidig det største håb, at USA responderer på dette – tilbuddet til USA er stadig på bordet, og jeg mener, at diverse kinesiske medier har gentaget dette tilbud: at europæerne, USA og Kina bør samarbejde.

28. september 2015 – Schiller Instituttets stifter, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, blev interviewet over telefon som del af et ekspertpanel i en 55 min. lang diskussion om relationerne mellem Kina og USA i en nyhedsudsendelse på Kinas Radio International Show, den 25. sept., med Liu Kun og Brian Kopczynski som studieværter. Andre gæster omfattede tre akademiske eksperter i kinesisk/amerikanske relationer: prof. Tao Wenshao fra Kinesisk Akademi for Samfundsvidenskab; prof. Rick Dunham, Tsinghua Universitet, og prof. Mark Beeson fra Universitetet i Vestaustralien.

China Radio Internatonal er Folkerepublikken Kinas statsejede radiokanal.

Det første spørgsmål lød: »Hvad får de to, politiske giganter, Kina og USA, til at synes om hinanden, og hvad skiller dem?«

Zepp-LaRouche svarede:

»Det er ekstremt vigtigt, at de to mest betydningsfulde lande i verden, med hensyn til størrelse og magt, har et stabilt forhold til hinanden; den bedre del af USA ser på Kina ud fra dette standpunkt. Fra præsident Xis side, så har han gjort det meget klart, at han ønsker en åbning med »win-win«-politikken. Jeg mener imidlertid, at der netop nu består en total ulighed i den måde, de to lande bærer sig ad.«

Intervieweren bemærkede, at »kun USA Today havde en hovedoverskrift om præsident Xis besøg [i USA].«

»Hvad er Kinas plads i USA’s nuværende, globale strategi, og vice versa?«, lød det næste spørgsmål.

Fr. LaRouche svarede:

»Jeg mener, at de forskellige forslag, der kommer fra Kina, og som jeg mener, i høj grad er baseret på den konfucianske opfattelse, at verden kun kan fungere, hvis den er baseret på en harmonisk relation nationerne imellem, virkelig er nøglen. Dette kommer til udtryk i præsident Xis tilbud om win-win-samarbejde; han inviterede rent faktisk på APEC-topmødet sidste år præsident Obama til at samarbejde med Kina om den Nye Silkevej; om politikken for »Ét bælte, en vej«, sammen med ideen om at have en ny model mellem de store nationer. Det er en helt anden idé om internationale relationer mellem nationer, baseret på suverænitet, gensidig respekt og anerkendelse af forskellige samfundssystemer. Jeg mener, at denne model netop nu er meget attraktiv, og som er blevet vedtaget af BRIKS-landene; den rækker ud til ASEAN, og også til de latinamerikanske lande, der har gavn af denne form for win-win-samarbejde med Kina.

Jeg mener, at, set ud fra det kinesiske standpunkt, så er det største problem, og samtidig det største håb, at USA responderer på dette – tilbuddet til USA er stadig på bordet, og jeg mener, at diverse kinesiske medier har gentaget dette tilbud: at europæerne, USA og Kina bør samarbejde.

Jeg kan blot håbe, at USA, som er i store vanskeligheder netop nu – jeg mener, dets finanssystem er i en forfærdelig forfatning; mange mennesker siger, at det er værre end i 2008; der kunne komme en alvorlig nedsmeltning af finanssystemet, hvad øjeblik, det skal være. Og den eneste måde, hvorpå USA kunne komme ud af det, ville være, hvis USA ville se chancen i dette tilbud netop nu; der er en stor splittelse; nogle mennesker siger, at det absolut ville være i USA’s interesse, og at USA bør samarbejde; andre siger, nej, vi er verdens eneste leder – verdens eneste stormagt; Rusland er blot en regional magt, og Kina bør holdes tilbage …

Selv chefen for Generalstabscheferne, general Martin Dempsey, har advaret om, at USA ikke bør gå lige ind i en Thukydides-fælde[1] og se Kina som en trussel, og forsøge at gå i krig. Og hvis USA’s chef for Generalstabscheferne advarer om dette, så må han have en god grund.«

Dette efterfulgtes af en diskussion om Kinas økonomi mellem de tre professorer, med prof. Dunham, der sagde: »Det bekymrer mig noget, at USA besluttede ikke at tage del i AIIB og i stedet går ind for den konkurrerende idé med TPP.« Prof. Tao bemærkede, at mange amerikanere, Henry Kissinger og andre, hilser AIIB velkommen og kritiserer Obama for ikke at gå med.

Intervieweren spurgte Zepp-LaRouche: »Kan økonomiske forbindelser og handelsforbindelser stadig fungere som den faste klippegrund for generelle relationer mellem USA og Kina?«

Hun svarede:

»Det mener jeg absolut, at de kan. Hvis der består stærke økonomiske bånd, er det en måde, hvorpå alle de nuværende spændinger kan overvindes. Af alle indgåede aftaler ville jeg understrege, at USA og Kina har aftalt at bygge et højhastighedstog mellem Los Angeles og Las Vegas; det er ikke min yndlingsrute, for den fører til et kasino, men kendergerningen er, at Kina leverer den meget, meget avancerede teknologi til fremme af handel – af hvilken 18.000 kilometer er blevet bygget internt i Kina, og som er af fremragende kvalitet. Enhver ved, at USA’s infrastruktur har et presserende nødvendigt behov for forbedringer; vejene; og der er ikke noget effektivt togsystem.

Jeg har foreslået, at USA tager imod tilbuddet om win-win-samarbejde. Der kunne blive et samarbejde om at udvikle togsystemet i hele USA. Hvorfor ikke bygge disse tværs over USA, fra Vestkysten til Østkysten, og på selve Østkysten; det ville blive langt mere overlegent end det nuværende system med fly. Hvis blot USA ville tilslutte sig initiativet med den Nye Silkevej, ville det betyde, at USA kunne genopbygges.«

Dernæst diskuterede professorerne faldet i den kinesiske økonomi og citerede en statistik fra Moody’s Analytics om, at, for hvert fald i den kinesiske økonomi på 1 %, falder USA’s vækst med 2 %, som et eksempel på den kinesiske økonomis bølgeeffekt på verden.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche afbrød:

»Jeg vil gerne kommentere på dette; der er en meget stor forskel, for den amerikanske økonomi drives hovedsageligt frem af værdipapirsaktiver – det drives meget frem på basis af værdipapirsaktiver; meget Wall Street; meget monetaristiske værdier, hvor den kinesiske økonomi derimod for det meste er baseret på realøkonomi. Kina har en utrolig vækst i industrien; det er engageret i industriprojekter med lande i hele verden.

Så selv om der var en lille problem med aktiemarkedet i Kina, så har det langt mindre betydning. Wall Street er fuldstændig bankerot. Jeg ville ikke foretage en sammenligning af disse to økonomier på denne måde. Kendsgerningen er, at Wall Street er totalt bankerot. Den amerikanske realøkonomi befinder sig i en absolut forfærdelig forfatning. Den kendsgerning, at den kinesiske økonomi er begyndt at forgrene sig til mange dele af verden, giver den kinesiske økonomi mere substans og gyldighed.«

Det endelige spørgsmål til Zepp-LaRouche lød: »Hvad kan man forvente vil blive opnået ved dette besøg mellem disse to ledere?«

Hun svarede:

»Jeg har skrevet en appel til de politiske ledere, der i løbet af de næste par dage skal tale på FN’s Generalforsamling, om, at de ikke må forpasse den måske sidste mulighed for at skabe et nyt paradigme for verden. Vi har så mange problemer; vi har faren for en finansiel nedsmeltning; krig, terrorisme, flygtningekrisen i Europa, der virkelig er ved at komme helt ud af kontrol, så jeg mener, vi behøver en ny æra for civilisationen. Og jeg mener, at præsident Xis »win-win«-tilbud er den bedste model hertil på dagsordenen.«      

[1] Gr. Historiker, ca. 460-400 f.Kr.; advarede republikken Athen, der var blevet et Imperium, om, at det ville forårsage sin egen undergang ved at indlede imperie-krige.

27. september 2015 – Xi Jinping fremlagde lørdag – først i en tale til FN’s konference »Sustainable Development Summit 2015« (Topmøde om Bæredygtig Udvikling 2015), og dernæst til et møde i Syd-Syd-samarbejdet (SSC) – flere store kinesiske udviklingsprojekter i hele verden, ud over Silkevejsprojektet, AIIB, BRIKS Udviklingsbank, de særlige udviklingsfonde osv., der allerede er sat i værk.

Han startede med at love en »foreløbig investering« på to milliarder dollars i den internationale fondspulje til bekæmpelse af fattigdom i de fattigste lande. Dette øger Kinas andel i denne FN-fond til tolv milliarder dollars over de næste 15 år.

Xi sagde ved SSC-mødet, at Kina vil starte 600 udviklingsprojekter i udviklingslandene over de næste fem år, 100 i hver af følgende kategorier: landbrug, reduktion af fattigdom, handel, beskyttelse af miljøet, sundheds- og uddannelsessektoren. Han udtalte i den forbindelse, at »samarbejde og fællesskab med udviklingslandene er og bliver det urokkelige grundlag for Kinas udenrigspolitik«.

Han sagde, at disse projekter er baseret på et princip om »retfærdighed over gevinst« (på ironisk og ynkelig vis påstod dækningen i New York Times, at Kina har været en dovendidrik mht. udviklingshjælp!)

Xi revsede ved topmødet om bæredygtig udvikling Vestens nuværende undertvingende, politiserende model for hjælp. Han fremlagde Kinas håb for fremtiden: at alle nationer og alle folkeslag ville modtage retfærdig bistand; at bistanden ikke kun går til »nogle nationer, men ikke til andre«, og at mindre og fattigere nationers stemmer skal blive hørt, »når nye, internationale regler udformes«. FN’s »2015-mål« (MDG’s) fra de sidste 15 år, der skal overtages af Målene for Bæredygtig Udvikling, var af en komplet undertvingende natur – hvis et fattigt land var »godt«, og gjorde alt, det fik besked på, ville det få nogle håndører.

Xi bekendtgjorde også etableringen af et »Center for Viden om International Udvikling« i Kina, som skal hjælpe udviklingslandene.

Han fremlagde også gældssanering for de fattigste lande og sagde, at Kina vil tilbyde 270.000 legater til studerende fra udviklingslande, som kan komme til Kina og få enten en højere uddannelse eller en erhvervsrettet uddannelse, mens han tilbød uddannelse til yderligere 500.000 studerende i deres eget hjemland.

“Vi kan ikke længere udholde verdens tilstand” – Vladimir Putin i De forenede Nationer.

Indenfor, udenfor og i stor afstand fra FN på Manhattans østside var det i dag åbenlyst, at den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin er i færd med at ændre den strategiske form af verdensbegivenhederne, og også har betydelig støtte blandt amerikanere for en reel, international koalition til bekæmpelse af terrorisme.

Putins tale i FN, hvor han forsvarede denne organisations charter, der havde Franklin Roosevelt som sin oprindelse, var ligefrem og effektiv. Han sagde, at der var blevet skabt en terrorisme, der hastigt bredte sig, og skabt forarmelse og tab af respekt for livet i hele Mellemøsten, Nordafrika og Sydasien, gennem krige for regimeskift, eller »demokrati-krige«, der krænker dette FN-charter og international lov, og at denne ødelæggelse ville brede sig, indtil den blev standset.

»Vi kan ikke længere udholde verdens tilstand.«

Et heldags demonstrationsmøde uden for FN med 40 aktivister fra LaRouchePAC oplevede en usædvanlig modtagelighed for sit banner-budskab: »Obama: Hjælp verdensfreden. Gå af.« Den totalt falske krig, som Obamas »60-nationer stor koalition« angiveligt skulle udkæmpe imod ISIS-terroristerne, er gået ned til at være et par luftangreb om dagen, mens tilfangetagne amerikanske våben og USA’s »allieredes« støtte til ISIS/al-Qaeda har fået terroristernes kamprækker til at svulme op til 30.000 alene i Syrien og Irak.

Som »ud af den blå luft« er en ny koalition, der rent faktisk vil bekæmpe terroristerne, imidlertid hastigt ved at vokse frem omkring Putins russiske initiativ ind i Syrien, med støtte fra Kina. Også hen over Europa, såvel som i Mellemøsten, fejer der et skift med hensyn til accept af dette initiativ.

EIR’s stiftende redaktør Lyndon LaRouche blev af medier bedt om at kommentere Putins 2 timer lange CBS-interview. Under diskussioner med LaRouchePAC’s Komite for Politisk Strategi mandag sagde LaRouche, at der er ved at fremkomme et fundamentalt skift, som er revolutionært, i den politiske strategi. Wall Street kollapser også. Verden vil snart repræsentere noget andet for menneskeheden, sagde han. Og dette i en periode, hvor man ikke længere tror på opdagelsen af fundamentalt nye principper – fysiske, økonomiske eller politiske!

Putin, sagde han, har netop demonstreret princippet om flanken – imod et afgørende punkt for den totale fiasko for Obamas politik, og har kastet Obamas Hvide Hus ud i forvirring og vrede.

I mellemtiden bekendtgjorde Kinas præsident Xi endnu en forpligtelse til 100 mia. dollars, gennem FN, til international infrastrukturudvikling. Kinas »win-win«-politik, eller konfucianske politik for økonomisk udvikling, er en integreret del af det globale skift, der er i gang.

Obamas mest effektive bidrag hertil? Gå af.

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Den 25. september 2015 – Mellem den pompøse reception i Det Hvide Hus denne morgen og den officielle middag i aften var mødet og pressemødet mellem Kinas præsident Xi Jinping og USA’s præsident Barack Obama karakteriseret af en tilsyneladende tendens til kun at snakke om forudsigelige emner og til nedtonede udtalelser. Det handlede om internetsikkerhed, adfærd i Det sydkinesiske Hav, det kinesiske aktiemarked, fremme af turisme, nogle andre emner og, især, den opreklamerede klimasnak.
Nogle få aftaler blev skitseret – deres detaljer er endnu ikke offentliggjort – f.eks. en hensigtserklæring om samarbejde om udvikling i forhold til katastrofehjælp, sikkerhed for fødevareforsyning og andre formål. Der kommer en fælles erklæring omkring klimaforandringer. Der er et nyt adfærdskodeks i forhold til møder i luftrummet, som skal supplere et eksisterende kodeks for marinefaretøjer osv.
Under den 57 minutter lange fælles pressekonference ved middagstid i dag i Rosenhaven i Det Hvide Hus blev disse emner gennemgået på nedtonet vis, indtil Xi i svaret til det sidste spørgsmål fra People’s Daily lavede en bemærkelsesværdig ændring. Han hev, uden at skjule det, en seddel frem og læste beskeden meget hurtigt. Spørgsmålet lød, »Vil Kinas vækst udfordre USA?«.

Xi: Kina bygger nationale systemer
Xi sagde, at den kolde krig er slut. Landende må opgive tanken om, at »jeg vinder, du taber«, som om det var et nulsumsspil. Hvis Kina udvikler sig, og hvis USA udvikler sig, vil det være til fordel for hele verden. Vores fælles interesser vil veje tungere end enhver uenighed.
Han sagde, at vi ved fælles indsats må udvikle »en ny model for de store nationers fællesskab«. Det skal være ikke-konfliktorienteret, ikke-konfronterende, baseret på gensidig respekt og samarbejde. Kina har initieret programmet med »Et bælte, en vej« og Den Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank, og alle disse initiativers mål virkeliggør målet for fælles udvikling. Han sagde, at Kina er en nation, der bygger nationale systemer.
Xi betonede, at vi må forsvare de mål, der blev opnået med den sejr, der blev vundet ved krigens slutning for 70 år siden.

14. september, 2015 – Forhenværende senator for USA, Mike Gravel fra Alaska, præsidentkandidat for det demokratiske parti i 2008, og mangeårig skarp kritiker af USA’s udenrigspolitik, inklusive Obama-regeringens, fortalte i dag FN’s presse i New York, at Kinas politik tilbyder løsninger på verdens økonomiske og politiske krise. Gravel henviste til Kinas udviklingspolitik med ”Et bælte, en vej” for global infrastruktur som løsningen på verdens økonomiske krise og sagde, at han ikke kunne se nogen løsning komme fra Obamas USA.

”Dette er Silkevejen, som ikke har noget at gøre med militarisme at gøre”, forklarede han. ”Dette er Silkevejen, som er designet til den økonomiske forening af Asiens og Europas kontinenter gennem Eurasien – og det vil være et system med jernbanetransport, med veje og med investeringer langs med vejen gennem denne proces, og derefter med udvidelser mod syd ind i Arabien og Iran.

”Så når vi ser på den totale plan – og organisationen EIR, Executive Intelligence Review, har udgivet et hæfte om den, som er helt fantastisk i sine detaljer.”

”Der er ikke involveret nogen plan om overherredømme”, sagde Gravel og tilføjede: ”Man kommer, man tilslutter sig, og det er ingen betingelse, at man er enig om alle facetter af deres politik. … Og BRIKS er også i færd med at etablere en finansinstitution for at imødegå det, der foregår med IMF og Verdensbanken.

Senator Gravel gjorde også rede for den ”forfærdelige” udenrigspolitik, som føres af USA’s neokonservative, så som Victoria Nuland, med Obamas støtte til Ukraine. Den russiske præsident Putin reagerede og handlede intelligent for at forhindre krigen i at eskalere, ved at annektere Krimhalvøen, fremførte Gravel. Obama, sagde han, er en fortsættelse af Bush-administrationen i 1988 og dens neo-konservative.

Gravels to timer lange pressekonference affødte mange spørgsmål fra de 20-30 fremmødte pressefolk. De indbefattede  Kinas People’s Daily, China Daily, Xinhua, og Wenhui Daily; Itar Tass fra Rusland; Deutsche Welle Radio, det tyske presseagentur og taz.de fra Tyskland; The Wall Street Journal og wnd.com fra USA; Italiens La Stampa og Ansa news agency; Canadas Global Research; Pakistans The Dawn og Associated Press fra Pakistan; Al Akbar fra Beirut; Al Hurra TV, fra Mideast Broadcasting Network; Salima Press, iransk, bulgarsk and japansk presse, samt andre.

Senator Gravel blev introduceret af medlem af FN’s korrespondentsammenslutning, Joe Lauria fra Wall Street Journal, som rapporterede, at han havde rejst sammen med Gravel i begyndelsen af 2008, da denne, som demokratisk præsidentkandidat, deltog i en debat med 8 andre kandidater, deriblandt Hillary Clinton og Barack Obama. Lauria sagde, at, i 1971 havde Daniel Ellsberg taget skridt til at afsløre de tophemmelige efterretninger, der var indeholdt i Pentagon-dokumenterne om Vietnamkrigen, men at ”kun senator Mike Gravel havde mod til at påtage sig at indlæse de klassificerede dokumenter i Kongressens Protokol. (Fordi der ikke var et beslutningsdygtigt Senat, måtte Gravel indkalde til en høring i Komiteen for Bygninger og Grunde, som han var formand for  29. juni 1971, og, under pressens tilstedeværelse, oplæste han ved høringen Pentagon-dokumenterne,  der senere blev udgivet af Beacon Press med titlen: ”Senator Mike Gravels udgave af Pentagon-dokumenterne.)

Senator Gravel fortalte tilhørerne fra pressen i dag:

”Vi behøver ikke prædike om dette forfejlede demokrati rundt omkring i verden. Obama er en fortsættelse af Bush-administrationen i 1988, og dens neo-konservative. I 1998 pressede disse neo-konservative Bill Clinton til at angribe Syrien, Irak og Iran. Formand for Den Nationale Fond for Demokrati; Det amerikanske Fredsinstitut, Steven Hadley krævede, at Syrien blev bombet og Ukraine militariseret. NATO er en forlængelse af hele dette kompleks, og dets virkninger strækker sig ind i indenrigspolitik.”

Som et eksempel på dette nævnte senator Gravel ”Obamacare”, som han sagde, er tre gange så dyrt som sammenlignelige sundhedssystemer i resten af verden, og tilføjede, at USA har det dårligste servicesystem. USA’s befolkning ønskede et regeringsbetalt system, sagde han; Obamacare støtter  forsikringsselskaber og medicinalindustrien.

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Mr. LaRouche said is,

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

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

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

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

But the Europeans were terrified of the war danger.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday, September 18, 2015

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

FDR, 1933.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

»I sådanne perioder er der en akkumulering af den kraft, der ligger i at kommunikere og modtage dybe og lidenskabelige idéer med hensyn til menneske og natur.«

– Percy Bysshe Shelley, Et forsvar for digtekunsten, 1821

Download (PDF, Unknown)