30. august, 2016 (Leder) – De næste par uger bliver langt mere afgørende for USA og menneskehedens fremtid, end det amerikanske præsidentvalg den 8. november.

I disse to uger vil vi opleve en fremmarch af tre, på hinanden følgende internationale topmøder, der afholdes i Asien, og som vil etablere den nye virkelighed, at det er Kina, Rusland og Indien – og ikke Obama og NATO – der skaber og former denne fremtid.

Og USA vil ikke være det samme efter 15-årsdagen for 11. september-angrebene, den første årsdag, hvor de, der var de reelle, udenlandske sponsorer af disse terrorangreb, står afsløret. Den forrykte tåbelighed, som var Bush-Obama krigene, og som fulgte i kølvandet på disse terrorangreb, er således blevet gjort klar og tydelig; det samme er også den russiske præsident Putins medmenneskelighed, med hans omgående tilkendegivelser af solidaritet med USA på daværende tidspunkt. I de næste to uger vil New York håndtere disse afsløringer gennem en slagkraftig række af minde-korkoncerter, opført af Schiller Instituttet, i hele byen.

Der er vægtige strategiske skift i gang. Putin har forpurret de amerikansk/europæiske præmisser om terroristbekæmpelse i Sydvestasien, idet han har vundet Tyrkiet for sin tilgang til problemet og nu er i færd med at vinde toneangivende røster, selv i Tyskland. Kinas, Ruslands og Indiens politik med at bygge landbroer og korridorer med ny infrastruktur i hele Eurasien og Afrika er blevet mere potent end Obamas forsøg på at provokere Rusland med krig, og »udstede regler« for Kina.

Alle Obamas giftige bestræbelser på at gøre Kina til en fjende af de 10 ASEAN-lande er endt ud med, at Kina er mere indflydelsesrigt i ASEAN end før. ASEAN’s årsmøde – efter weekendens Østasiatiske Økonomiske Forum og derefter G20-mødet i Hangzhou, Kina – vil være det tredje af de magtfulde topmøder, der alle fokuserer på at genskabe vækst og produktivitet for verdensøkonomien efter det sidste årtis sammenbrud, udløst af Wall Street.

Og Obamas anti-kinesiske »handelsaftaler«, TTP (Trans-Pacific Partnerskab) og TTIP (Trans-Atlantiske Handels- og Investerings-Partnerskab), bliver erklæret for døde, selv af deres tidligere tilhængere. Hvis vi optrapper vores indsats i løbet af disse to uger, er der bedre chancer for, at Kongressen snart vil gen-vedtage Glass-Steagall som lov, end tilfældet er for Obamas TTP eller TTIP.

Den nye, finansielle arkitektektur og Verdenslandbroens storslåede infrastrukturprojekter, som disse topmøder vil tage sigte på, er blevet promoveret af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche over fire årtier.

Vil de fremtvinge en accept af Glass/Steagall-bankregulering og en afskrivning af den finansielle atombombe, som de finansielle derivater udgør?

Det kræver, at vi nu optrapper vores mobilisering for det, som Lyndon LaRouche har kaldt sine Fire Kardinallove: Glass-Steagall; nationale kreditbanker; teknologiske fremskridt gennem infrastruktur-byggeri; fremme af videnskabens fremskudte grænser gennem udforskning af det ydre rum og udvikling af fusionskraft.

Der er et ubegrænset potentiale for menneskehedens økonomiske vækst og udvikling af kreative evner. Obamas Hvide Hus vil sandsynligvis modsætte sig dette nye paradigme på G20-topmødet. Det er vores ansvar at lave om på det.

Foto: Vladimir Putin og Barack Obama holdt et bilateralt møde på sidelinjen af Fn's Generalforsamlings-møde. 29. september 2015 [kremlin.ru] 

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

26. august, 2016 (Leder) – Uanset hvor meget tid, han har tilbage, må Obama afsættes, hvis der skal komme noget som helst fungerende nyt præsidentskab i USA i den kommende periode. Hans præsidentskab har været en fiasko, og én, der skaber ravage, død og kaos i USA og i verden gennem ulovlige krige, finansielle redningspakker (bailout), droneangreb, ødelæggelse af sundhedssektoren, narkotikarelaterede dødsfald, arbejdsløshed samt Obamas personlige psykotiske patologi. Samtidig med, at Eurasiens nationer under ledelse af præsident Putin konstruerer et nyt, strategisk og økonomisk system, må Obama fordømmes for det, han er: en ynkelig fiasko og en tjener for det døende, britiske monarki.

Det er det igangværende samarbejde mellem Rusland og Kinas lederskab om et nyt økonomisk system, samt presserende strukturelle ændringer i det globale finansielle system, der er af yderste betydning. Dette er den afgørende flanke for at undgå en atomar verdenskrig og finansielt kaos – resultaterne af Obamas mislykkede præsidentskab – og dette er også det toneangivende diskussionsemne blandt verdens ledere ved de mange internationale topmøder, der skal finde sted i løbet september og oktober måned.

Kinas præsident Xi Jinping har til hensigt at sætte det afgørende spørgsmål om et nyt, globalt, økonomisk og finansielt system på dagsordenen for det kommende G20-topmøde i Hangzhou, Kina. De officielle kinesiske medier, fulgt af russiske top-analytikere, har gjort det klart, at ethvert sådant nyt og funktionsdygtigt system må omfatte USA – hvilket betyder, at USA må opgive sine illusioner om at regere en unipolær verden, der ikke længere eksisterer, og begynde at samarbejde med store nationer om et nyt og retfærdigt, økonomisk system.

Dette blev d. 24. august fremhævet i et telegram fra Kinas officielle nyhedsbureau Xinhua, med titlen »Interview: Rusland og Kina bør samarbejde i G20-regi om at tackle udfordringer.« Andrey Kortunov, generaldirektør for det Russiske Råd for Internationale Anliggender, som står i tæt forbindelse med det Russiske Udenrigsministerium, sagde: »Jo længere, disse reformer udskydes, desto højere risiko er der for nye kriser og ustabilitet i verdensøkonomien.« Han tilføjede senere, »Hvis Beijing og Moskva i dag tilbyder deres koncept for stabilitet til det internationale samfund, er det ikke bare tomme ord, men forslag baseret på mange succesfulde erfaringer.« Han bemærkede, at USA kunne være »en kompleks og undertiden uforudsigelig partner«, men ikke desto mindre »bør både Rusland og Kina konsekvent søge fælles fodslag med Washington og undgå kriser, uden at gøre indrømmelser på principielle spørgsmål«.

En reportage i Xinhua på samme dag, også vedrørende G20, angreb »over-afhængighed af pengepolitikken« og fokus på »markeder« i modsætning til »nationer« – på bekostning af en politik, der sigter mod reel, fysisk-økonomisk vækst og er baseret på teknologisk innovation. »Kina vil bruge konferencen til at anspore til dialog mellem udviklede lande og udviklingslande omkring potentialet for at skabe vækst gennem reformer og innovation.«

Wall Street Journal har antydet, at det var på anmodning af Kina, at den Internationale Betalingsbank (BIS) i en nyligt udsendt rapport advarer om, at der på nuværende tidspunkt ikke er nogen mekanismer på plads, der kan forhindre en eksplosion af den globale, finansielle derivatboble på mere end $600 billioner, hvis nogen større spiller skulle gå i betalingsstandsning. I noget, der kun kan betegnes som en smertelig underdrivelse, blev Business Insider tvunget til at indrømme, at resultaterne af denne undersøgelse »er lettere skræmmende«, for, hvis det ikke lykkes for derivat-handelshuse at håndtere en krise, så bliver derivater til »u-eksploderede atombomber, der putter sig dybt i det finansielle system«. Wall Street Journal fortsætter med at bemærke, at Kina har placeret de centrale handelshuses sikkerhed »højt på dagsordenen« af G20-topmødet d. 4. – 5. september.

Der er nu en voksende og udbredt opfattelse blandt topembedsmænd i det transatlantiske område, at Europa og USA står på den yderste rand af en finansiel eksplosion, hvis enorme størrelse kun modsvares af deres egen benægtelse af både dens globale konsekvenser og af sammenbruddet af vestlig dominans. Bloomberg rapporterede tirsdag d. 23. august, at Deutsche Bank, Barclays og Credit Suisse sidder på sammenlagt $102,5 milliarder i »Level-3«-aktiver – dvs. aktiver, som er illikvide, uden markedsværdi, og som ikke kan dumpes i en krise. Economist gav sin udgave d. 20. – 26. august overskriften, »Mareridt på Main Street« og advarede om, at det amerikanske boligmarked på $26 billioner, som ligger til grund for et bjerg af derivater og andre spekulations-værdipapirer, både fra banker, men også uden for banker – atter er klar til at springe i luften.

Med hele Vestens politiske og økonomiske klasse, der i stigende grad er miskrediteret, er den eneste tilbageværende mulighed en omgående genindførelse af en fuld Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling i USA, og en tilsvarende implementering i hele Europa. Glass-Steagall, efterfulgt af en gældseftergivelse for udviklingslandene (i overensstemmelse med Alfred Herrhausen politik i 1989), samt udstedelse af langfristet kredit til industriel og videnskabelig udvikling, er blot nogle af de første, uomgængelige skridt hen imod skabelsen af en ny, global, finansiel arkitektur, og udgør forudsætningerne for et nyt, kulturelt paradigme, en ny renæssance for hele menneskeheden.

Grundlaget for en sådan ny global finansiel og økonomisk arkitektur er nu veletableret gennem den voksende integration af Eurasien, der væves sammen gennem samarbejdet i den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen (SCO), BRIKS, ASEAN og andre grupperinger. Det er Kinas »Ét Bælte, Én Vej«-initiativ baseret på Lyndon og Helga LaRouches oprindelige koncept om den Eurasiske Landbro fra midten af 1990'erne, der er det princip, som denne eurasiske og potentielt globale udvikling har som sin forudsætning.

Som den mexicanske præsident José López Portillo engang sagde: »Det er nu nødvendigt, at verden lytter til de kloge ord fra Lyndon LaRouche!«

Følgende er en tale, som Ulf Sandmark, repræsentant for Schiller Instituttet, holdt ved en todages konference i London til støtte for det yemenitiske folk imod den anglo-amerikanske-saudiske imperiekrig. Han blev også interviewet på konferencen, og det blev vist på Yemen Tv. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRcMfUoy19U

Af Ulf Sandmark, økonom, Schiller Instituttet, Sverige. 20. august 2016.

Jeg vil gerne takke arrangørerne af denne konference. Jeg anser denne konference for at være en milepæl i hjælpen til Yemen for at hævde dets suverænitet, i særdeleshed, fordi konferencen faldt sammen med den overvældende demonstration i Sanaa i går, med 4 millioner deltagere. Jeg er så imponeret af det yemenitiske folks mod, hvor de løber risikoen ved at demonstrere under direkte trussel fra det anglo-amerikanske-saudiske bombardement.

Det var en storslået manifestation af den yemenitiske nations suverænitet under landets nye regeringsråd og valgte parlament. Det, vi ser, er et folk, der har rejst sig for at befri sig selv fra den mest brutale aggression. Med denne demonstration har de allerede gjort sig til et frit folk i deres indre sind.

Yemen kunne nu gå med i den igangværende verdensrevolution, som organiseres af BRIKS-landene med deres voksende antal allierede. Det er mere end halvdelen af verdens befolkning, der har befriet sig selv rent mentalt fra den vestlige, globale, økonomiske og militære dominans. BRIKS har indledt en proces for at erstatte den gamle, anglo-amerikanske verdensorden og er begyndt at opbygge verden i et hæsblæsende tempo. BRIKS er nu i færd med at virkeliggøre de visionære infrastrukturprojekter, som allerede af Den alliancefri Bevægelse (NAM) og Bandung-konferencen i 1960’erne blev sat på dagsordenen. Hovedprojektet udgøres af Den Nye Silkevej [Det økonomiske Silkevejsbælte], der forbinder Eurasien over land, samt Det 21. Århundredes Maritime Silkevej, der fra Kina passerer Yemen på sin vej til den Nye Suezkanal.

BRIKS venter ikke. De opbygger deres egne finansinstitutioner, sikkerhedsorganisationer, infrastruktursystemer, industricentre, teknologi og videnskab. Dette betyder, at fredsbevægelserne har en ny måde, hvorpå de kan standse alle de geopolitiske krige, som krigen mod Yemen. Vi kan få Europa og USA til at gå med i projekterne i Den nye Silkevej. Dette ville gøre Europa og USA til BRIKS’ allierede, og allierede udkæmper ikke krige med hinanden. Krigshøgene kan omgås og gøres impotente. Samtidig kan dette gigantprojekt sætte alle vore arbejdsløse unge mennesker til at producere maskiner og andre nødvendige midler.

Jeg er her for at være med til at grundlægge en international koalition for at standse krigen imod Yemen, som vi i går diskuterede i workshoppen. Ideen i min organisation, det internationale Schiller Institut med Helga Zepp-LaRouche som leder, er at udbrede måder at virke for freden på, med en politik for økonomisk udvikling. Konstruktionen af Den nye Silkevej er det største fredsprojekt nogensinde, der opbygger freden ved at forbinde nationer i praksis, rent fysisk med jernbaner, hovedveje, kanaler og alle former for infrastruktur.

Vi vil erstatte de geopolitiske krige med et nyt paradigme for relationer i verden, en multi-polær verden i stedet for den døende verden under anglo-amerikansk dominans og finansbobler. Det nye paradigme er formuleret gennem den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings »win-win«-koncept, som er et koncept for fredeligt samarbejde, baseret på en genoplivelse af visdommen hos Kon Fu Tse (Konfucius). Den åbner Silkevejene for en fornyet dialog mellem civilisationer på det højeste filosofiske, kunstneriske og videnskabelige niveau, en dialog, hvori Yemen, »Visdommens land«, vil føle sig hjemme.

Blot inden for de seneste par måneder er Japan og Filippinerne blevet rekrutteret bort fra krigshøgene, der har presset på for at fremme en atomar konfrontation i det Sydkinesiske Hav. Japan begynder at samarbejde med BRIKS om gigantprojekter i det fjernøstlige Rusland, i Indien og Indonesien. Tyrkiet er i færd med at blive rekrutteret af Rusland og stabiliserer relationerne med Egypten, Israel, Kaukasus og den tyrkisktalende del af Centralasien og sandsynligvis med Syrien. Og Rusland har netop, hvad der er meget vigtigt, i FN blokeret en ny, saudisk resolution mod Yemen. Flere østeuropæiske lande, og ligeledes Grækenland, såvel som også det meste af Afrika og Latinamerika, er i færd med at orientere sig mod Den nye Silkevej og BRIKS. Selv her i London ønsker City [of London] at gå med i den kinesiske valutahandel, og der er således en modstand her, imod de krigshøge, der truer med atomkrig.

Dette kort over Verdenslandbroen (se fodnote) beskriver, hvorledes de Nye Silkeveje agter at nå ud til alle kontinenter. Forbindelsen over (under) Beringstrædet bliver en direkte forbindelse mellem Rusland og USA for at cementere deres fredelige samarbejde og opkoble de amerikanske kontinenter til Den nye Silkevej. Dette, sammen med opkoblingen af Afrika, vil skænke os en Verdenslandbro. Og Afrika kan opkobles, både i Egypten, til Spanien og Sicilien, men, hvad der er af afgørende betydning for Yemen, også under Bab El Mandeb-strædet til Djibouti. Dette kort er af Schiller Instituttet blevet udarbejdet på baggrund af diverse udviklings- og fredsprojekter, som vi har arbejdet med i løbet af de seneste 40 år. Det er en del af en Specialrapport med titlen »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«. I år har vi udgivet den udvidede arabiske oversættelse af denne rapport.

Den fremragende kamp for håb i Yemen

Uden håb findes der ingen fremtid. Med en plan for genopbygningen af Yemen gøres håbet konkret, om virkeliggørelsen af det yemenitiske folks potentialer, dets produktive evner, dets videnskab og dets rige arv. Schiller Instituttet er i kontakt med fremragende kæmpere i Yemen, der gør dette på trods af de anglo-amerikanske-saudiske bombardementer. De har stiftet Yemen-komiteen for Koordinering med BRIKS. Hver tirsdag mødes de modigt ved møder i Sanaa for at studere og udvikle planerne for Yemens genopbygning.

Deres leder, Fouad Al-Ghaffari, sendte en videofilm som en hilsen til Schiller Instituttets konference i Berlin for blot to måneder siden. Videoen demonstrerede det mest bevægende mod og den mest bevægede optimisme med kamp for menneskehedens højeste værdier. Jeg vil gerne afslutte min fremstilling med at dele denne video med jer, der viser hans rapport over, hvad de gør for at mobilisere håb og værdighed i Yemen.

Schiller Instituttets konference i Berlin blev dybt bevæget af denne video og vedtog følgende resolution:

Schiller instituttets konference i Berlin 25. – 26. juni (2016) sender de varmeste hilsener til støtte for den store, yemenitiske nation og Fouad Al-Ghaffaris studiegruppe. Deres modige, intellektuelle lederskab, bogstavelig talt midt i sataniske kræfters bombardement, har været en inspiration for tusinder af mennesker i USA, Latinamerika og Europa. Vi aflægger en højtidelig ed om, at vi vil kæmpe for udvidelsen af den Nye Silkevej til genopbygningen af Yemen, således, at de mange myrdede mænds, kvinders og børns liv vil blive æret i en renæssance i Yemen, der ligeledes vil genopbygge de smukke, gamle byer og disses arkitektur. Yemen må og vil blive en perle blandt Sydvestasiens nationer, og i verden, meget snart!

fodnote: Udførligt kort med forklaringer findes i Specialarapport: Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen 

Final  Declaration of the International Conference to Support of Yemeni People

Report by Ulf Sandmark.

Over the span of two days tens of scholars, academics, experts, journalists and activists met to declare their support for and solidarity with the Yemeni people who are facing cruel war by the evil Saudi-led coalition. Held at the Pullman Hotel, in St Pancras, London, more than 150 of these concerned people dealt with the war whose bloody chapters continue to unfold with no one from the "Free World" venturing to call for a ceasefire. These people came from UK, US, Canada, France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Italy, Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain, Egypt, Sudan, Kuwait, Iran, Malaysia and India to express in one voice their demand to stop the blood-letting, attend the wounded and fee the starving among the inhabitants of that country with its historic civilisation. They met for noble causes, ignoring political calculations or stands based on racial, religious or sectarian prejudice. They raised the banner of Peace, Justice, Love and Fraternity and  shouted in one voice: Stop the War on Yemen".

Over the two days, Saturday and Sunday 20^th and 21^st August 2016, the sessions of the "International Conference to support he Yemeni People" were held to discuss various issues related to the war; political background and consequences. The Saudi policies towards Yemen, past and present, its regional ambitions, and the ideology it seeks to spread in the world were debated. The religious dimensions of the Saudi policy towards Yemen were also dealt with especially Riyadh's insistence on spreading Wahhabism which is linked worldwide to extremism, exclusion and terrorism. The participants came from far afield to clear their conscience after they realised the direct complicity of several Western countries, especially the United States and the United Kingdom in the war which has now lasted over 17 months. It has led to the killing of more than 13 thousand Yemenis, mostly civilians and including over 3000 children. They have seen the comprehensive destruction which turned Yemen into rubble due to the persistent bombing by the F16s and Typhoon aircrafts. They shed light on the destruction of the human and Islamic heritage in Yemen and the implication for the history of mankind. The Sheba civilisation has been destroyed as well as the Ma'rib dam. This destruction is in line with the Wahhabi doctrines which have deep enmity to civilizational heritage, Islamic or otherwise. Their hearts were throbbing with anger as they saw images of destruction of the specific Yemeni architecture. They also dealt with the land, sea and air blockade imposed on Yemen and how the country is being throttled by the Saudi forces supported by American and British fleets in the Arabian the Red seas. They called for the immediate lifting of this blockade which is another form of war crimes. The international stands were reviewed by the participants who were horrified to remember how the United Nations was forced to remove Saudi Arabia from the list of countries that violate the rights of the children in Yemen. They also expressed outrage at the deafening silence that is preventing Western governments from calling for a ceasefire to spare the lives of Yemenis. They considered that allowing Saudi Arabia to continue its aggression on Yemen is dangerous hypocrisy and serious violation of the "war on terror". It is no longer secret to link this international terrorism as presented by AlQa'ida and ISIS to the sources of extremism, exclusion and terrorism enshrined the Wahhabi ideology which is promoted by Saudi schools and universities and supported with the petro-dollars. 

After two days of extensive discussion the participants presented the following recommendations:

1-      Ceasefire has become an immediate need that cannot be delayed any longer. The world must not hesitate to raise its voice and call on the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution to impose a ceasefire and stop the illegal aggression on Yemen. Failing to do this is tantamount to complicity in the cruel war and could be considered participation in war crimes.

2-       The participants call specifically on the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union to break the deafening silence and call for the ceasefire. They are also required to impose an immediate arms embargo on Saudi Arabia and other countries participating actively in killing the Yemeni people.

3-      The participants urge the World community to respect the right of the Yemeni for self-determination and to choose their own political system through the adoption of the known democratic means. As they inaugurated their conference the participants saw for themselves the millions of Yemenis marching in the streets of Sanaa in support of the newly-formed Political Council. Their choice must be respected.

4-      The files of destruction caused by the Saudi-led aggression were reviewed with bitterness at its cruelty and ferocity, especially in its huge human losses, the killing of children and women and the obliteration of the Yemen civilization. The scenes brought back to mind the devastation of the Second World War. An immediate ceasefire is thus necessary to spare the Yemenis further losses.

5-      The blockade on Yemen's sea, land and air ports must be lifted immediately. Relief convoys must be allowed to reach the victims of war and famine which are in millions according to UN figures. More than half the Yemenis are in a state starvation and many will perish as a result. Diseases have spread due to the lack of medical care resulting from the blockade.

6-      The participants reviewed the Saudi policy of targeting civilian sites like schools, hospitals, factories and mosques. They called on the UNESCO to break its silence, condemn the Saudi aggression and call for ceasefire. They hailed the efforts of the human rights bodies especially those that have produced reports confirming the war crimes by the Saudis. Particular appreciation was made to the efforts of Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Doctors Without Borders (MSF).

7-      The guests affirmed their rejection of extremism, exclusion and terrorism, pointing to the links between those phenomena and the aggression on Yemen. They pointed specifically to the spread of Al Qa'ida in half the land of Yemen under the control of the Saudi-led coalition. This needs special attention from the World community due to its negative impact on international peace and security.

8-      The participants urged the media, those active in the social networks and international NGOs to undertake campaigns to inform the public and break the news blackout imposed on Yemen and the destructive Saudi-led aggression. They expressed their unease about the indifference towards the bloodshed in Yemen. This aggression is unique; millions are spent only to keep it out of the television screens. That, in itself, is a war on the truth.

9-      The Conference called for the creation of a special international commission to investigate the extensive war crimes committed in Yemen and confirmed by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and UN's experts. They also called for the creation of the "Yemen War Crimes Tribunal" to take care of any such crimes.

10-   Finally, the participants expressed appreciation of the stands of the countries that have helped the Yemeni people or worked to facilitate a ceasefire, especially the Sultanate of Oman, the State of Kuwait and the Islamic Republic of Iran. They expressed gratefulness to the media outlets that covered the war and highlighted the plight of the Yemeni people. They also thanked the management of the Pullman Hotel, that have provided excellent services to the delegates.

The International Conference to Support the Yemeni People

21^st August 2016, London.

Den 18. – 20. august fandt den 8. årlige konference for Forbundet for Sammenslutninger af Kinesiske Eksperter i Europa (FCPAE) i Danmark sted, med titlen »Nye muligheder for kinesisk-europæisk samarbejde – inkl. initiativet for ’Ét bælte, Én vej’«.

Der var omkring 450 deltagere, med repræsentanter for kinesiske eksperter, der arbejder i Europa, danske, europæiske og kinesiske regeringsfolk, selskabsrepræsentanter, studenter og akademikere.

Schiller Instituttets delegation, der var blevet inviteret til at deltage, havde livlige diskussioner hele dagen med mange af deltagerne i området, hvor man får forfriskninger, i konferencesalens forhal, og fik kontaktinformation fra 85 personer fra Kina, Danmark, Sverige, Tyskland, Belgien, Frankrig og UK. De var meget interesseret, da de hørte, at vi mobiliserer for at få Europa og USA til at arbejde tæt sammen med Kina om bygningen af projektet for ’Ét Bælte, Én Vej’, og for at udvide dette til en økonomisk udviklingsstrategi for Verdenslandbroen i stedet for at forsvare det døende, transatlantiske system og konfrontation og krig med Kina og Rusland. Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale ved T20-konferencen i Beijing og reklamemateriale for Verdenslandbro-rapporten blev delt ud på kinesisk, dansk og engelsk. Dette vil blive fulgt op af en rekruttering af alle til at blive ambassadører for det nye paradigme i Europa.

En kontakt begyndte at forklare, hvorfor det vestlige finanssystem vil krakke, og hvordan dette kan føre til krig gennem provokationer i Ukraine og det Sydkinesiske Hav, og han købte omgående Verdenslandbro-rapporten. Andre gav udtryk for deres forundring over, hvor omfattende Schiller Instituttets vision var, og de kunne på den anden side forstå faren for kollaps og krig. En anden kontakt er endda koordinator for kinesiske børnekor i Danmark.

Selve konferencen blev også arrangeret af Sammenslutningen af Kinesiske Eksperter i Danmark (ACED), med co-sponsorering fra det Danske Udenrigsministeriums departement Invester i Danmark, Konfucius-erhvervsinstituttet i København ved Københavns Erhvervsskole, Hillerød kommune, hvor arrangementet afholdtes, og Københavns investeringsdepartement.

På den kinesiske side sagde den kinesiske ambassadør til Danmark, H.E. hr. Biwei Liu, at, konfronteret med den sløve verdensøkonomi præsenterer det afgørende initiativ med ’Ét bælte, Én vej’ (OBOR), med win-win-samarbejde, en ny mulighed for at revitalisere Eurasien. Det er meget betydningsfuldt for Kina og Europa at bygge OBOR i fællesskab. Han talte om væksten i de dansk-kinesiske økonomiske relationer, og at OBOR vil betyde endnu flere muligheder for samarbejde.

T.v. Den kinesiske ambassadør i Danmark H.E. hr. Biwei Liu, og præsidenten for den Kinesiske Kultur- og Kunstfond, Gu Changjiang, t.h.

Vicepræsidenten for Statens Administration for Udenlandske Ekpert-anliggender i Kina holdt også en tale. Desuden gav præsidenten for Kinas Kultur- og Kunstfond, Gu Changjiang, en meget interessant præsentation af »Ét Bælte, Én vej-museets Uddannelsesprogram«, som arbejder på at forbinde alle verdens museer gennem en internet cloud, og han viste en spændende video om projektet, der viste kinesiske skolebørn, som modtog undervisning af en museumsguide et sted i verden.

Udstrakte danske relationer med Kina tjener som en livline for det nye paradigme, selv, mens landet fortsat støtter sanktioner imod Rusland. Dette kom til udtryk gennem deltagelsen af højtplacerede danskere, inklusive videohilsen fra den danske udenrigsminister, der var i Argentina, og den danske kronprins Frederik fra Brasilien, så vel som også fra chefen for Handelsrådet ved Udenrigsministeriet, der havde været generalkonsul i Shanghai, samt lokalvalgte repræsentanter.

Danmark er det eneste land, der har haft en ubrudt diplomatisk tilstedeværelse i Kina siden 1908 og som var et af de første lande, der anerkendte Folkerepublikken Kina i 1950, og i 2008 blev et strategisk partnerskab etableret. Repræsentanten fra Handelsrådet sagde, at der nu er 500 danske selskaber i Kina, og 100 kinesiske selskaber i Danmark. Førende danske selskaber, der er involveret i Kina, præsenterede deres erfaring.

Der var også en interessant præsentation om det Kinesisk-danske Universitetscenter i Beijing, et fælles forsknings- og uddannelsesprojekt mellem otte danske universiteter, det Danske Ministerium for Højere Uddannelse og Videnskab, det Kinesiske Universitet ved det Kinesiske Videnskabsakademi, samt det Kinesiske Forskningsinstitut ved det Kinesiske Videnskabsakademi.

Alt i alt vil konferencen være med til at forøge de kinesisk-europæiske relationer og Schiller Instituttets kampagne for et nyt paradigme.     

Lad os sige, at, en skønne dag, f. eks. en søndag morgen, præsidenterne for hhv. USA og Kina og et par andre, efter et weekend-møde siger: »Vi har denne weekend besluttet, at vi, baseret på vore rådgivere samt den kendsgerning, at det internationale finansielle og monetære system er håbløst bankerot, som ansvarlige statsoverhoveder, af hensyn til almenvellet må erklære disse bankerotte institutioner konkurs og sætte dem under konkursbehandling. Og det er i vores interesse, at vi samarbejder om dette som nationer, for at undgå at skabe kaos på denne planet.«

Engelsk udskrift.

WHY HAVE WE ALLOWED AN EMPIRE TO DOMINATE OUR EXISTENCE FOR FAR TOO LONG?

International LaRouche PAC Webcast , Aug. 19, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It's August 19th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden. You're joining us for our weekly broadcast here
on Friday evenings of our LaRouche PAC webcast. I'll be your host
tonight. I'm joined in the studio by Jason Ross, from the
LaRouche PAC science team; and we're joined, via video, by Kesha
Rogers and Michael Steger, both leading members of the LaRouche
PAC Policy Committee.
        As we broadcast this show here tonight, the second edition
— newest copy — of the weekly publication, {The Hamiltonian} is
going to press. This is going to be flooding into the streets of
New York City close on the heels of the first edition, which came
out two weeks ago. Both Kesha Rogers and Michael Steger have
articles that are on the front page of this week's copy of {The
Hamiltonian}. Michael Steger wrote an article called "LaRouche
Was Right. End Wall Street, Now", and Kesha Rogers wrote a very
profound and beautiful article called "A Truly Human Culture —
an Expression of the Creative Human Mind."
        What Kesha addresses in this article is the inner
relationship between the minds of Lyndon LaRouche, Albert
Einstein, and Krafft Ehricke, and their conception of what a
truly human culture is.
        Joining us here today is Jason Ross, who has actually
prepared a condensed presentation on the subject of some of the
unique discoveries of Albert Einstein, which will add to our
discussion here today.
        But before we get to that, we've agreed to begin today's
broadcast with a sort of travel back into time. Now that we are
on the verge of a total consolidation of this new Eurasian
system, which is based around the original idea of the
Russia-India-China Strategic Triangle, which was championed by
Lyndon LaRouche and also championed by Prime Minister Yevgeny
Primakov of Russia in the 1990s, we are finding ourselves in a
completely unprecedented situation. It's, I think, very clear, as
we approach the G-20 Summit, the Vladivostok Economic Forum, and
also the United Nations General Assembly, that the entire
strategic geometry of the planet has shifted and has realigned.
        As is rightly pointed out in the lead of today's LaRouche
PAC website, this is not just a "practical" realignment of
nations, but, since we are talking about Einstein here today,
this is almost the "gravitational effect" of an idea which was
introduced almost 20 years ago by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche.
        The video that you're about to see is a very short excerpt
of a speech that Mr. LaRouche made at a forum in Washington, DC
in 1997 in conjunction with the release of the {Executive
Intelligence Review} {first} edition of the special report on the
subject of the Eurasian Land-Bridge. This was a presentation that
was made as part of a series of so-called "development
conferences" that were held in Washington during those couple of
years — 1996, 1997, 1998 — and I think what you'll see in this
video is the fact that it was Lyndon LaRouche's "marching
orders." It was sort of his creative vision of what the role that
China, with the New Silk Road, and also the role that Russia
would play in completely reshaping the strategic geometry of the
world.
        So, this is a short excerpt of that speech from 1997:
        LYNDON LAROUCHE: There are only two nations which are
respectable left on this planet, that is, nations of respectable
power: that is the United States, particularly the United States
not as represented by the Congress, but by the President. It is
the {identity} of the United States which is a political power,
not some concatenation of its parts. The United States is
represented today only by its President, as a political
institution. The Congress does not represent the United States;
they're not quite sure who they do represent, these days,
[laughter] since they haven't visited their voters recently.
        The President is, institutionally, the embodiment of the
United States in international relations. The State Department
can't do that; the Justice Department can't do it; no other
Department can do it; only the President of the United States,
under our Constitution, can represent the United States as an
entity — its entire personality, its true interest, its whole
people.
        Now, there's only one other power on this planet which can
be so insolent as that toward other powers, and that's the
Republic of China. China is engaged, presently, in a great
infrastructure-building project, in which my wife and others have
had an ongoing engagement over some years. There's a great reform
in China, which is a "trouble reform." They're trying to solve a
problem. That doesn't mean there is no problem. But they're
trying to solve it.
        Therefore, if the United States, or the President of the
United States, and China, participate in fostering {that}
project, sometimes called the Silk Road Project, sometimes the
Land-Bridge Project, if that project of developing development
corridors across Eurasia into Africa, into North America, is
extended, that project is enough work to put this whole planet
into an economic revival. I'll get into just a bit of that, to
make it more sensuously concrete.
        China has had cooperation with the government of Iran for
some time. Iran has actually been completing a number of rail
links which are an extension of China's Land-Bridge program (or
Silk Road project). More recently, we've had, on the side of
India, from Indian leadership which has met with the
representatives of China, to engage in an initial route, among
the land routes, for the Land-Bridge program. One goes into
Kunming in China. I was in that area, in Mishana, during part of
World War II. Out of Mishana we had planes flying into Kunming,
"over The Hump," as they used to say in those days. I'm quite
familiar with that area.
        But if you have water connections, canal connections, and
rail connections from Kunming through Mishana — that area —
across Bangladesh into India, through Pakistan into Iran, up to
the area just above Tehran, south of the Caspian — you have
linked to the Middle East; you have linked to Central Asia; you
have linked to Turkey; you have linked to Europe.
        Then you have a northern route, which is pretty much the
route of the Trans-Siberian Railroad, which was built under
American influence and American advice, by Russia. You have a
middle route, which is being developed, in Central Asia, with
China and Iran.
        India is working on a plan which involves only a few
hundreds of kilometers of rail to be added — there were a lot of
other improvements along the right-of-way — which would link the
area north of Tehran through Pakistan, through India, through
Bangladesh, through Myanmar, into Kunming, into Thailand, into
Vietnam, down through Malaysia and Singapore, across the Straits
by a great bridge, into Indonesia.
        There's a plan, also, for the development of a rail link
through what was northern Siberia, across the Bering Strait into
Alaska, and down into the United States. There's a Middle East
link — several links — from Europe, as well as from China, but
from China a Middle East link into Egypt, into all of Africa.
        So, what we have here, is a set of projects which are not
just transportation projects, like the trans-Continental
railroads in the United States, which was the precedent for this
idea, back in the late 1860s and 1870s. You have "development
corridors," where you develop, on an area of 50-70 km on either
side of your rail link, your pipeline, and so forth. You develop
this area with industry, with mining, with all these kinds of
things. Which is the way you {pay} for a transportation link.
Because of all the rich economic activity. Every few kilometers
of distance along this link, there's something going on, some
economic activity. People working, people building things, people
doing things.
        To transform this planet, in great projects of
infrastructure-building, which will give you the great
industries, the new industries, the new agriculture, and the
other things we desperately need. {There is no need for anybody
on this planet, who is able to work, to be out of work.} That
simple. And that project is the means.
        If the nations which agree with China — which now includes
Russia, Iran, India, other nations — if they engage in a
commitment to that project which they're building every day; if
the United States — that is, the President of the United States,
Clinton — continues to support that effort, as he's been doing,
at least politically, then what do you have? You have the United
States and China and a bunch of other countries ganged up
together, against the greatest power on this planet, which is the
British Empire, called the British Commonwealth. That's the
enemy!
        If on one bright day, say a Sunday morning, after a weekend
meeting, the President of the United States, the President of
China, and a few other people say, "We have determined this
weekend, that based on our advisors and the facts, that the
international financial and monetary system is hopelessly
bankrupt, and we in our responsibility as heads of state, must
put these bankrupt institutions into bankruptcy reorganization,
in the public interest. And it is in our interest to cooperate as
nations in doing this, to avoid creating chaos on this planet."
        The result, then, is that such an announcement, on a bright
Sunday morning, will certainly spin the "talking heads" on
Washington TV. [laughter] But otherwise it means that the entire
system, as of that moment, has been put through the guillotine,
and the head is rolling down the street. Alan Greenspan's head,
perhaps.
        That means we have at that point the impetus for building,
immediately, a new financial and monetary system. Now, in putting
a corporation which is bankrupt, into viable form, what do you
do? You've got to find the business that it's going to do, which
is the basis for creating the new credit to get that firm going
again.
        The Land-Bridge program, with its implications on a global
scale, is the great project which spins off directly and
indirectly enough business, so to speak, for every part of this
world, to get this world back on a sound basis again.

OGDEN: As you can see, this is a very prescient speech, and in
fact it was Lyndon LaRouche's active intervention, travelling to
Russia, his wife travelling to China in this period, the
publication of {EIR} Special Report about the Eurasian
Land-Bridge, which has shaped the current situation we find
ourselves in. One thing that's interesting to point out, is those
maps that you were seeing. At that time many of those rail routes
and other pipeline routes were merely proposals, but now many of
them are actually in the process of being built.
        I think it's clear, 20 years on, this is the emergent
dominant system on the planet. At the same time, the
trans-Atlantic system is in completely blowout mode. You have an
oncoming implosion of trillions of dollars of non-performing debt
and derivatives exposures, which are being projected into every
major bank across the trans-Atlantic system.
        In the meantime, in the build-up to the G-20 Summit and into
the United Nations General Assembly, you've got the role that
especially President Putin is playing, in consolidating a series
of alliances, mainly between Russia, China, and India; but also
this emerging alliance between Russia and Turkey; and, very
significantly, the very strengthened alliance between Russia and
Iran, where Russia is now using bases in Iran as a point of
departure for fighter jets to go in and fight against ISIS in
Syria.
        Putin, who is being honored as the Number One guest at the
upcoming G-20 Summit in China, is certainly at the center of all
of this. His career and Mr. LaRouche's career, over the past
twenty years since that speech was delivered in Washington, have
very closely paralleled each other.
        I think we can open up the discussion with that as a basis.

        KESHA ROGERS: Did you want to start, Jason?

        JASON ROSS: You can go ahead Kesha, or Michael.

        ROGERS: Okay. I think Michael might be having some technical
difficulties, so I will go ahead and get started.
        When we look at Mr. LaRouche has emphasized, first of all,
going back to this video that you just showed, it's extremely
important to look at this video as a characteristic of who Mr.
LaRouche is, and his 40- to 50-year track record in economic
development, and what he has been organizing around, from the
standpoint of the center of economics being based on the human
intervention, the human creative process.  And what actually
distinguishes him from all of the other so-called "economists"
out there, because as you just said Matt, what we're dealing with
right now is a breakdown crisis in the society that Mr. LaRouche
has recognized going back to his first forecast of the late
1960s, 1970s.  What were these forecasts based on?  They were
based on the fact that if you went along with a mathematical idea
about how society should function, then you were completely
misunderstanding — or should I say wrong in your understanding
of what actually fosters progress in society.  What fosters
progress in society is not money per se; and this has been Mr.
LaRouche's focus on the role of Alexander Hamilton. [That’s] why
right now as many people have seen, we've already put out one
edition of a new newsletter that you just showed Matt, called
{The Hamiltonian}.  This is extremely important because now we're
putting out the second edition of {The Hamiltonian}, which is
having reverberating effects, particularly throughout Manhattan;
which is the center of the fight for the nation.  That is the
fight where Alexander Hamilton led the fight for the development
of our US Constitution against the British criminals like Aaron
Burr, and against those who wanted to destroy what the United
States actually represented.
        But it goes deeper than that; because I think what we've
discussed a lot around Mr. LaRouche's current fight in Manhattan
and what we're doing with this {Hamiltonian} is what has defined
the mission for bringing about the new Presidency.  Michael wrote
an article last week on the question of the new Presidency
fostered by Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws and the bringing in of those
Four Laws.  The article that's in this week's {Hamiltonian} is by
Michael around LaRouche's track record in economics and why Wall
Street has to be brought down now.  It is followed by the article
that I wrote on the human creative process.  I think we'll get
more into that, but when we bring up this question of a New
Paradigm for mankind and the identity of a renaissance, some of
it becomes in most people's minds because of the society and
culture we live in, a little superficial.  It is based on this
idea that a renaissance has a different meaning to it.  When we
speak of the idea of creating a New Paradigm for mankind, first
and foremost, it is the idea of creating something that has not
yet existed; something that the human creative mind has to bring
into existence.  When you go back and you start to look at the
idea of what the conception of the Italian Renaissance was based
on historically, it was the idea of putting mankind and the human
creative process at the center of the Universe.
        I think it's important that we'll get into this; that this
is what has shaped the identity of Mr. LaRouche around his
emphasis on the unique creative role of Albert Einstein and the
unique creative of others such as was mentioned earlier — Krafft
Ehricke.  I think it's important for people to look at this,
because the question now is that with the collapse of the society
that we're seeing right now, the detrimental collapse of the
culture, what we're seeing in terms of what's taken over the
thinking of the population.  The population is not capable of
actually making decisions as human beings; they're making
decisions based on what somebody tells them is possible or is not
possible.  I think this is a problem we're running into.  How can
you actually say that you have the ability to make decisions as a
free citizen when you're making your decisions based on what you
think is already possible and has been determined as precedents
set and possibilities that are already a determining factor of
what can and cannot happen.
        So, I think that's important to look at as people are
thinking about this insane election process.  Instead of thinking
about what is going to shape your future; is it going to be
something that happens to you?  Or something that you actually
bring into existence?  That's what Mr. LaRouche has been
completely focussed on.  The population has to have a sense that
you're responsible for your future; you must bring that which
does not exist into existence, based on your understanding that
human beings are not animals.  We don't have to go along with the
insanity of what we're told we have to accept.
        So, I'll start with those remarks for now, and let you guys
go on with more.

        OGDEN:  Well, we just got Michael back, so maybe we should
hear him.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Hi.

        OGDEN:  Great!  Welcome back.  We were just discussing some
of the implications of going back and looking back at that video
of Mr. LaRouche's speech in 1997.  I think you actually had
something to point out about the timing of that speech and what
happened just immediately afterwards.

        STEGER:  Yeah, and part of the dynamic in organizing some of
the layers of China at that time was that it was not clear to
many in China at that time, or in Asia, that the western
trans-Atlantic system had major failings and weaknesses.  It was
just two months after that speech was made that the Asian
financial crisis erupted; dominating Southeast Asia and Japan —
the so-called "Asian tigers".  It really made it very clear that
the entire financial system could go.  It was just a year later
that the whole LCTM crisis happened.  So when Mr. LaRouche is
referencing the bankruptcy of the financial system, that was very
apparent in just months to come to almost everyone on the planet;
as apparent as it was in 2008 when the financial system blew
again.  As we point out in the article in the new {Hamiltonian},
the level of insanity that now dominates 20 years later, creates
what is clearly the largest financial breakdown in modern
history.  This is a kind of financial bankruptcy only comparable
to perhaps the blow-out in Italy in the 1300s; which brought a
Dark Age to Europe.
        But what is remarkable is how much these nations like China
— it's just striking; and maybe this has already been stated —
but the context of China and India collaborating on major routes
is an ongoing diplomatic process today.  Far more engaged, far
more serious than anyone can probably imagine; let alone the
integrations of countries like Iran, Turkey.  Everything that Mr.
LaRouche laid out about 20 years ago, is now on a far greater
active collaborative effort among these nations.  It is somewhat
a testament to the power of ideas and how that can shape history
at crisis moments; as we saw in '97 and what we see today.

OGDEN:  I think one thing that is very clear from just looking at
Mr. LaRouche's role in the middle of this, is his emphasis on the
mission that has to bring nations together.  In other words, this
is not just geopolitics in a cynical sense.  This based around a
concept of what is the human species?  What is real profit?  How
do we create a future for a growing population; and how do we
establish the kind of optimism that mankind has a future towards
which the current generations can work?  It's pointed out, I
think a lot of what we're seeing right now is not just a
projection of the past into the present.  This is a reflection of
a future intention.  You can look at what China is doing, for
example, in terms of their space program.  The fact that two
years from now, you're going to have a Chinese probe going to
where no man has gone before; to the far side of the Moon, to
discover things that perhaps we don't even know are questions
yet, in terms of man's relationship to the Universe.
        When we were discussing some of these questions with Mr.
LaRouche yesterday, he had one thing to say which I just would
like to quote verbatim from him which I think can provide the
basis for a furthering of this discussion.  What Mr. LaRouche
said was the following:  "Mankind is not based on the limitations
of individual human behavior; but, in fact, man as a species is
based on the individual powers of the human mind to go beyond
what mankind had conceived of prior.  Giving mankind a power over
the Universe greater than anything achieved heretofore."  We've
been putting a lot of emphasis on the personality of Albert
Einstein, but for what reason?  For the very reason that Albert
Einstein is paradigmatic of exactly that sort of individual,
revolutionary characteristic of genius.  That the genius takes
what was believed prior to that point and calls it into question,
and overturns major aspects of what mankind had believed and had
put into practice up to that point; and revolutionizes mankind's
understanding of the Universe and of himself.  So, I think that's
sort of a window into why the emphasis on Albert Einstein right
now.

        JASON ROSS:  It's difficult to speak for LaRouche; and he's
got opportunities to speak for himself on this site, too, which
he'll continue doing.  But the example of Einstein as a real
{mensch} you might say, a real human being, what it is to be a
person is essential for a couple of reasons.  One, if you think
about the role of LaRouche in history and the economic
breakthroughs he made several decades ago now, you look at the
courage that he had to stick with what he knew was right despite
whatever opposition might come his way; despite what was
effectively a life sentence in prison, to not compromise in the
face of that.  An economic forecasting record that's unparalleled
and proposals for polices that are now — as you heard in that
video, and as is taking place right now with China's One Belt,
One Road taking the world.  So, in terms of how Einstein fits
into that, I want to take up something that Kesha had brought up
about popular opinion.  Because where do you get a freedom in
your thoughts from?  How are you able to be a free thinking
citizen; or how are you able to come to conclusions that are your
own, as opposed to having a basis in their popularity.  Or
whether you think other people might think them, or whether you
think you ought to look like you think them to get ahead somehow.
Is there an actual standard for whether something is true or not?
Yes, there is; and unfortunately and deliberately, that's really
not part of our culture or our education right now.
        So, LaRouche has emphasized that the general understanding
of Einstein is false; it's wrong.  Most people's images of who
Einstein is as a person, his work to some degree, it's just not
true.  And we've got to clean that up in order to make a case
about what his approach was to the Universe, to mankind, to life;
and how that was important, it made it possible for him to make
the scientific breakthroughs that he did.  But he was a whole
person; he was an entire human being, including the role of his
violin — something that LaRouche has referred to a number of
times.
        So today, I want to go through a few things — somewhat
briefly. We're going to have a "New Paradigm for Mankind"
Wednesday show this coming week on Wednesday after a hiatus of
some period.  So, we'll be able to get into this in a bit more
detail then, but I want to take up three things.  First is
briefly, some thoughts from Einstein; quotes from Einstein.  How
did he think about things beyond his scientific work also.
Second, I want to talk about his most famous discovery —
relativity; and what that implies.  And then third, talk about
quantum mechanics as an example of Einstein's courage against
popular opinion; which is something that he had from a very young
age.  Then we'll see how that plays into these other concepts.
        When he was 67, Einstein was asked to write down a sort of
an autobiography; which he felt was like writing an obituary
before he had passed.  He was a nice guy, so he still did it.
I'm going to read some quotes from this; it's called his
"Autobiographical Notes".  He starts off very early; he says,
"Even when I was a fairly precocious young man, the nothingness
of the hopes and strivings which chases most people restlessly
through life, came to my consciousness with considerable
vitality.  Moreover, I soon discovered the cruelty of that chase;
which in those years was much more carefully covered up by
hypocrisy and glittering words than is the case today."  So, the
vain chase for success, this isn't a real identity.  He says, "It
was possible to satisfy the stomach by such participation, but
not a human being insofar as he is a thinking and feeling being.
Thus, I came — despite the fact that I was the son of entirely
irreligious Jewish parents — to a deep religiosity; which,
however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12.  Through the
reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the
conviction that much of the stories in the Bible could not be
true.  The consequence was a positively fanatical free thinking,
coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being
deceived by the state through lies.  It was a crushing
impression.  Suspicion of every kind of authority grew out of
this experience.  A skeptical attitude towards the convictions
which were alive in any specific social environment; an attitude
which has never left me."  It's not some popular opinion.
        He wrote that, "The contemplation of the huge world, the
vast riddle of the Universe around us," this to him was the
proper goal of life.  And that by considering it, you could be
really liberated from things that are merely personal or
insignificant.  He wrote: "Similarly motivated thinkers of the
present and the past, as well as the insights which they had
achieved, were friends that could not be lost.  The road to this
paradise of knowledge was not as comfortable and alluring as the
road to the religious paradise; but it has proved itself as
trustworthy, and I have never regretted having chosen it."
        In his thinking process, Einstein — who was a musician with
a deep love of Mozart in particular — didn't believe that
thinking required words.  He wrote: "For me, it is not dubious
that our thinking goes on for the most part without the use of
signs or words.  And beyond that, to a considerable degree, it
takes place unconsciously."  He writes that "Through our
experiences as we understand conflicts between our thought of how
the world works and experiences which counter that, we develop a
sense of wonder," which he says is the key to the development of
new thoughts.  So, how can that be developed?  How can that be
fostered?  Well, he complained about the school in his day; he
said there was too much testing and not enough freedom or actual
thought for the students.  I can hardly imagine what he would say
about schools now.  He wrote then that "It is, in fact, nothing
short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have
not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry.  For
this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly
in need of freedom.  It is a very grave mistake to think that the
enjoyment of seeing and of searching can be promoted by means of
coercion and a sense of duty."
        On the kinds of thoughts that make true discoveries, he said
that there are two requirements for such a theory.  One, it can't
be contradicted by observations; and second, he said it has to
have an inner perfection.  About that, he wrote — sounding very
much like Johannes Kepler, the first modern astronomer —
Einstein wrote:  "We prize a value more highly if it is not the
result of an arbitrary choice among theories which — among
themselves — are of equal value and analogously constructed."
That is, to be right, an idea also has to be necessary; not just
in keeping with observations.
        In his life, he was a courageous man; he stood up against
World War I; even when many great scientists like Max Planck had
written a letter supporting the war, supporting Germany's cause
in it.  Einstein didn't; he wrote a letter opposing it, and even
got Max Planck got rescind his support for the war.  He stood up
against racism in the US in many famous cases such as Marian
Anderson, who when she went to perform in Princeton, wasn't able
to actually spend the night anywhere; she was turned away by
hotels.  So, she stayed at Albert Einstein's house, which is
where she'd stay whenever she visited that town.  And his
opposition to the FBI and the thought policing it was doing.
When he was coming to the US, they had a list of questions for
him; they wanted to do an interview, find out what kind of
thoughts Einstein had.  He said, I'm not going to answer these.
If this is the condition for coming to the US, I'm not going to
come; forget it.  They gave in.  So, I'll let those brief words
from Einstein stand for themselves.
        Let's take a look at the second part, which is a few
thoughts about his famous discovery of relativity.  As far as the
context for this, ever since the general hegemony of Newton's
outlook — which didn't have to happen, but it did — according
to Newton, when we make observations, when we do science, things
take place in a space that is indifferent to those things; it's
just there.  It existed before anything was in the Universe.
According to Newton, space existed before God created everything;
it was just the primordial space.  Newton also believed that
there was a time; a single time, a universal time that flowed on
of its own accord, had no particular characteristics and was not
dependent on or related to anything that actually took place over
time.  So, according to Newton, there was an absolute space, an
absolute time; and objects in that space at various times.  Now,
this had already been shown to be wrong by Gottfried Leibniz, who
in a debate with Newton, demonstrated that requiring an absolute
space and then saying that God created everything somewhere in
that space, as opposed to somewhere else; would be a decision
without any good reason.  And that God couldn't do something like
that; everything in the Universe had a reason for it, and that
therefore there couldn't have been this space in the first place.
Newton used the same example to say that shows you how powerful
God is, because He could do whatever He felt like.  So, He put
the Universe somewhere.  Anyway, Leibniz had already shown that
this Newtonian idea was wrong; but Newton gained hegemony.  So,
it has the result that people think of facts, of things taking
place in locations at certain times.  But Einstein showed that
this actually isn't true; that there is no time that any event
takes place.  That the time an event occurs, depends on who is
looking at it.  Not in the way of uncertainties or anything like
that; but the time itself doesn't exist as one thing that's
independent of who's doing the looking, or of their location.
What he did was, he created a new concept that resolved the
contradiction between two concepts that were actually mutually
contradictory.  So, these two concepts were, first off,
relativity; which existed before Einstein as a concept or
equivalence.  Leibniz believed this, for example; which was that
no matter where you are, or how you're moving — any of those
kinds of particular conditions — mind is universal.  Mind is
everywhere; mind is everywhere in the Universe; mind doesn't have
a speed or motion or anything like that.  Concepts that govern
how the Universe unfolds — true physical principles — are
independent of how you look at any particular fact or observation
that's occurring.  So, you can't change mind by moving something
physically — more on that in a minute.
        The second concept was that the speed of light is the same
for any observer; and that's not something that was immediately
apparent.  This was definitely debated.  To contrast that,
imagine that you're driving on a road and there's a car next to
you that's moving at a similar speed.  To you, it looks like the
car isn't really moving; to a pedestrian, the car is moving at
whatever speed you're driving.  Light is different than a car
moving, where you can catch up with its speed and make it look
like it's still.  For light, no matter how you're moving, light
beams to you all appear to move at the speed of light.  So, you
can't put those two concepts together; you can't have relativity
and a constant speed of light if you have one time and one space.
Instead, what Einstein said was that the time between events or
the distance between locations can actually differ based on how
you're looking at them.  So that simply being in motion — it's
not perceptible except at very high speeds — but simply being in
motion changes the lengths of everything around you, the time
between events that take place.
        I'll just briefly outline one example of this — we can get
into it with some pictures and things on Wednesday.  He shows a
lot of examples of thought experiments using trains moving
through train stations or embankments.  He gives one example
which is, let's say that as a train is moving, someone on the
ground sees flashes of lightning hit both sides of the train at
the same time.  For them to say "at the same time", what it means
is if you're standing in the middle, the light from both of those
flashes reaches you at the same time.  You say, "I'm in the
middle between these two points, therefore they must have
happened at the same time and then it took the light a little bit
of time for me to see it."  But you'd also recognize that if
someone on the train was to see those same two lightning bolts,
which to you occur simultaneously, as the train is moving this
way and you picture light moving at a constant speed from your
viewpoint, the light that was at the front of the train is going
to be observed first by somebody standing in the middle of the
train.  Someone on that train would say that those lightning
flashes didn't occur at the same time; that one preceded the
other.  What that means is that there's no simultaneity; there's
no ability to say anything took place at a certain time.  Time
now depends on who's looking at it.  If there's no simultaneity,
then there's nothing instant that can take place in the Universe;
because there's no instant for anything to occur instantly in.
So, for example, gravitational pull can't occur instantly; there
can't be an instant action at a distance.  In fact, nothing, no
effect could go faster than light; including gravitational
changes.  It meant a couple of things.  One is that you can't
separate space and time; but the other thing is that it makes you
really have to reconsider what makes up reality.  The idea that
objects at places in times are facts; that's not reality.  The
thing that's most real is the principles that you're able to
discover that don't change based on how you look at them, or how
you're moving.  Something like the way that light moves — that's
a physical principle; no matter how you look at it, it's the same
thing.  It's a principle.  A distance between two things?  That's
not a principle; that's not invariant.  That can change,
depending on how you look at it.  So that the naïve sense that
we get of the world around us, of our very concept of space, is
just not right.  Even though it seems totally intuitive and very
popular, you have to force a different kind of understanding.
        Now, there's a lot more to relativity than that, that's just
a component of it.  But it's undergone many, many tests over the
decades.  Things like starlight being deflected as it passes
around the Sun; atomic clocks going in airplanes and rockets;
light made by stars being a different color by virtue of their
gravitation.  Gravity waves, recently discovered somewhat
directly by the SLIGO experiment, but a paper written about them
in the '70s; having discovered indirect evidence for them from a
pulsar.  So, his thoughts have definitely stood the test of time
on this.  Nothing shows that he was wrong.  So that says
something about how we think about the world.
        Just to say something about Einstein's courage, on the third
topic is the quantum world.  In 1900, Einstein later colleague,
Max Planck had made a discovery that he was able to explain the
kind of light that hot bodies emit.  Something that's hot and
glowing like the filament in a light bulb; Planck was able to
explain that based on an hypothesis that the way light was
emitted from and absorbed by that hot body took place in pieces.
That the light energy had to interact with that body in
individually in quanta, the plural of quantum.  A few years
later, in Einstein's so-called "miracle year" of 1905, he
generalized this and said that's just how light is; it comes in
pieces.  Light is not purely a wave; light is also somewhat of a
particle.  The field developed, and one of the things that came
out of it that Einstein had realized, was a phenomenon called
entanglement.  To say it very briefly, it's the characteristic
where you're able to make two particles, say two photons that
have characteristics that are shared.  In the case of photons,
they have opposite polarizations.  Or maybe you can make two
electrons that have opposite spins.  After you make them, here's
the thought experiment Einstein would say.  Let's say you make
two of them; you don't look at them, and they go to very
different places.  One's in Tokyo and one's in New York.
According to the theory, once you measure one in Tokyo and you
get some sort of number for whatever its spin is; the one in New
York automatically has the opposite spin.  So Einstein said, does
this mean that measuring something in New York changed something
in Tokyo, or vice versa?  Could it have an instant effect
somehow?  How did it change the other particle that's so far away
from it?  Nothing can occur instantly anyway, because there are
no instants.  What's going on?
        What it came to was a debate over decades, that was
unresolved.  Einstein believed that the way work in this field
was going, was that people were giving up on reality; that they
were saying that all we really ever know is an observation.  That
the world doesn't exist in a certain state independent of our
measuring it.  Not just because our measurements affect things —
especially when they're very small; but that even God himself, so
to speak, doesn't really know the state of say an atom.  It
simply doesn't have one; all that is really real is when you
observe it later.  So, Einstein made a lot of polemics against
this, a lot of pedagogies about it, a lot of demonstrations; and
although there have been experiments since the decades after his
life that shed new light on it, I think the key thing to take
from that is that Einstein recognized that there was something a
bit unsettling about the way science was going.  That people were
willing to give up on the idea that things occurred for a reason.
To Einstein, that was throwing away reality; bidding farewell to
the idea that there is a real world.  Some of his thoughts on
that, you might have heard him say he'd like to think that the
Moon is still there even when he doesn't look at it.  But I think
the thing to take from that is his courage; even when almost
everyone was against him, he stuck to his guns on that.
        So, in terms of concluding on that, or drawing a reflection
from it, it's a constantly under-appreciated miracle that our
minds are able to understand the Universe in a way that gives us
power over it.  That unlike a koala bear or a grasshopper, that
are unable to use their understanding of nature to change their
relationship to it to transform their species, we're able to do
that.  There's something coherent between the way our minds piece
together and understand the world around us through our thoughts,
through our concepts.  There is a harmony between those concepts
and the way the Universe actually operates that gives us access
to act on those principles to bring about new states of
existence; and is the basis of economics.  So, I think that in
addition to a radical transformation and improvement in culture
that's needed, people like to think that they've got a lot of
scientific knowledge these days; because you own a smart phone
and you think you know something about science.  Or you say that
everybody knows there's global warming and only anti-scientific
people disagree with that.  That's not a basis of knowing
anything; and there's a lot of room for a dramatic improvement.
A real renaissance of taking Einstein's identity as an example
and really developing a fresh and powerful view of science to
solve many of the problems that we're confronted with right now,
that without a different approach, might never be solved.
        So, that's a very inadequate beginning about Einstein; but
it's a job for all of us to do.  To figure out who is this man;
what can we learn from his approach?  I think we'll be hearing
more from LaRouche and his thoughts on how he views his
importance as an individual for us today.

ROGERS:  I think that's very important.  What I think is
important to go back to in terms of LaRouche's role and what he
said in the presentation that we showed earlier.  And going to
the understanding of what is actually happening with the role
that Russia, under President Putin, and the role that President
Xi Jinping is playing in relationship to what Mr. and Mrs.
LaRouche had set into motion several decades ago with the
development of the Productive Triangle, of the Eurasian
Land-Bridge, the Silk Road Development Plan.  This coming into
motion now, and at that very time, during that presentation that
we saw in the beginning of this program, made the point that
these nations would be brought together in collaboration and form
a coalition of nations representing nations such as Iran, China,
Russia, India, and so forth, to put an end — once and for all —
to the British Empire.  And the intentions of the British Empire
to destroy this very conception of what is the truly human
identity; the identity of the creative human process.  I think
it's very important to look at that from the standpoint of the
presentation you just gave, Jason.  Because that's what missing.
        What we're talking about is not a political fight from the
standpoint of how do you bring down one political candidate over
the other; but how do you destroy a system, particularly the
British Empire, in all of its facets and what it represents, that
denies this creative human process.  Right now, what we're
looking at from the United States is that as the rest of these
nations are moving in the direction of creating a New Paradigm
for mankind, moving with the Silk Road economic development plan;
where is the United States right now?  The United States is
continuing to go along with the evils and destructive policies of
the British Empire.  This has been the case for decades now; this
has been the case under the murderous, insane agenda of President
Obama, who should have been removed a long time ago.  Or the
policies of the Bush administration, and the lies and the
cover-up.  Now, we have an opportunity.  What we're discussing
here is not just some nice scientific ideas, and let's look at
Einstein and people think they have their different conceptions
and understanding and "Oh, I studied this in elementary school."
No; the idea is, what has been taken away from society?  Why have
we allowed an Empire to dominate our existence and our nation and
culture for far too long?
        So, I think it is the case that in 1997, when Mr. LaRouche
made the point that what we're dealing with is nations have to
come together to bring about that truly human identity to destroy
this empire once and for all; that's what we're going to use
Einstein to do.  I'll just make that point.

        STEGER:  Just to add, because I think it's worth
considering; there are so many developments that we're on the
verge of.  This coming six weeks have such a dramatic nature that
we've already seen a certain sense of in terms of a consolidated
effort to end this British Empire system; the very key emphasis
Lyn took up in 1997.  That there is now an orientation to resolve
the question of the Balkans, the Caucuses, Kashmir, the South
China Sea; even North Korea are essentially on the agenda of
these major nations.  To end the potential of world war, and to
really consolidate a new economic system.  So, it is kind of
striking that Lyn's emphasis is, as Matt you raised, on Einstein.
Why the emphasis now?  But it's clearly because in the minds of
this collaborative effort among these nations and among any
patriotic Americans, as we see in the performances we're
developing in New York around the 9/11 anniversary, the question
has to be the long-term development of mankind.  Not one's
children, not one generation ahead, but the actual ongoing
development that now is possible to embark upon as a human
species on this planet.  And I think Einstein craved and desired
no less.  His discoveries and passion unleashed that kind of
potential, which he probably saw as a young man himself, and that
quality.  It's not just simply a liberal emotion; it is of a
scientific endeavor which Einstein really captured.  I think
Lyn's comments then and today also do as well.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think it's with a full amount of confidence
that we can move forward and understand that the epic
era-changing kinds of developments that are occurring around us
right now, are things that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have been in the
middle of for decades, literally.  They've had their fingers on
the pulse of history right up to this point.  Helga LaRouche
pointed out yesterday that the speech that she gave at the Rasina
Dialogue in India just a couple of months ago, seems like it's
exactly what is now being undertaken by the Indian government in
terms of their collaboration with China and Russia to project the
Silk Road into the Middle East to resolve this terrible crisis
that exists there.  And Mr. LaRouche's continuing role in terms
of the intellectual sounding board around which the rest of
history is continuing to move.  It's with confidence that we can
look back at that speech and everything else that is on the
record in terms of their role.  It's an identity which we need to
maintain within ourselves and those who are collaborating with
us, that yes, your finger is on the pulse of history; the
imagination of what the future can become is what is continuing
to shape the actions in the present.  And it's a moment of
decision; it's the {punctum saliens} moment in terms of which
direction does mankind go right now.  We have a rich potential,
and I think it's extremely clear; but it's also extremely
dangerous.
        I'd really like to thank Jason for giving a little bit of a
foretaste of what's going to be elaborated much more, I'm sure,
on the show next Wednesday.  That's going to be broadcast, and we
would ask you to tune in to that.  I also want to encourage
people to continue to participate in the process of inundating
Manhattan with this new publication, {The Hamiltonian}.  This is
issue 2, and it continues to be the center of our intervention
into shaping the United States and answering the question that
Kesha asked:  Why is the United States not yet a part of this
emerging dynamic on the planet?  What must be done to cause that
to occur?
        So, I'd like to thank all of you for tuning in; and
encourage you to stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  And we'll see
you next week.

Alt imens de asiatiske Stillehavsnationer har brug for den videnskabelige viden, teknologi og fordele ved vores form for regering, såsom et statsligt kreditsystem efter Alexander Hamiltons principper, så står det klart, at, med hensyn til inspiration, så må vi nu se hen til Stillehavsområdet.   

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Titelfoto: Helga Zepp-LaRouche på Kinas kyst, »Den Eurasiske Landbros Terminal Øst«, 1996.

Det følgende videoklip er et meget kort uddrag af en tale, som hr. LaRouche holdt ved et forum i Washington i 1997 i sammenhæng med EIR’s førsteudgave af specialrapporten om den Eurasiske Landbro. Denne præsentation var en del af en række af såkaldte »udviklingskonferencer«, der blev afholdt i Washington i løbet af disse år – 1996, 1997 og 1998 – og jeg vil mene, at det, I får at se i denne video, er Lyndon LaRouches »marchordrer«. Det var på en måde hans kreative vision om, hvilken rolle, som Kina, med den Nye Silkevej, og ligeledes hvilken rolle Rusland ville komme til at spille i den totale omformning af den strategiske geometri i verden.

Her følger det korte uddrag: 

Lyndon Larouche: Der er kun to respektable nationer tilbage på planeten, dvs. nationer med en respektabel magt: det er USA, nærmere bestemt ikke det USA, der repræsenteres af Kongressen, men af præsidenten. Det er USA’s identitet, der udgør en politisk magt, ikke en eller anden sammenkædning af dens bestanddele. USA repræsenteres i dag udelukkende af dets præsident, som en politisk institution. Kongressen repræsenterer ikke USA; de er ikke helt sikre på, hvem, de repræsenterer nu om stunder, eftersom de ikke har besøgt deres vælgere for nylig.

Præsidenten som institution er legemliggørelsen af USA i internationale relationer. Det kan Udenrigsministeriet ikke gøre; Justitsministeriet kan ikke gøre det; intet andet ministerium kan gøre det; kun USA’s præsident kan, under vores forfatning, repræsentere USA som en enhed – hele dets personlighed, dets sande interesse, dets hele folk.

Der findes kun én anden magt på denne planet, der kan være ligeså respektløs (arrogant) over for andre magter, og det er Den kinesiske Folkerepublik. Kina er i øjeblikket engageret i et stort projekt for konstruktion af infrastruktur, i hvilket min hustru og andre i en årrække har haft et uophørligt engagement. Der finder en stor reform sted i Kina, som er en »reform af vanskeligheder«. De forsøger at løse et problem. Det betyder ikke, at der ikke er et problem. Men de forsøger at løse det.

Hvis derfor USA, eller USA’s præsident(skab), og Kina, deltager i at begunstige dette projekt, der undertiden kaldes Silkevejsprojektet, undertiden Landbro-projektet, som, hvis dette projekt med udviklingskorridorer over hele Eurasien og ind i Afrika, ind i Nordamerika, udvides, så er dette projekt tilstrækkeligt til at sætte hele denne planet på en kurs for økonomisk genrejsning. Jeg vil gå lidt i detaljer med dette for at gøre det mere konkret.

Kina har i nogen tid haft et samarbejde med Irans regering. Iran har faktisk været i gang med at fuldføre en række jernbaneforbindelser, der er en forlængelse af Kinas Landbro-program (eller Silkevejsprojekt). For nylig har vi fra Indien set, at det indiske lederskab er mødtes med repræsentanter for Kina for at påbegynde en indledningsvis rute, blandt landruterne, under Landbro-programmet. Én rute går ind i Kunming i Kina. Under Anden Verdenskrig, i dette område, Myitkyina (Burma/Myanmar), havde vi fly, der fløj ind i Kunming, »over Knolden«, som de plejede at sige dengang. Jeg er ganske godt bekendt med dette område.

Men, hvis man har vandvejsforbindelser, kanalforbindelser, og jernbaneforbindelser fra Kunming gennem Myitkyina – dette område – tværs over Bangladesh og ind i Indien, igennem Pakistan og ind i Iran, op til området lige over Teheran, syd for det Kaspiske Hav – så har man en forbindelse til Mellemøsten; man har forbindelse til Centralasien; man har forbindelse til Tyrkiet; man har forbindelse igennem til Europa.

Dernæst er der den nordlige rute, der stort set er den samme rute som den transsibiriske Jernbane, der blev bygget under amerikansk indflydelse og amerikansk rådgivning, af Rusland. Så har man en mellemliggende rute, der er i færd med at blive udviklet, i Centralasien, med Kina og Iran.

Indien arbejder på en plan, der blot involverer at tilføje nogle få hundrede kilometer jernbanelinje – der var mange andre forbedringer langs med den lige linje – og som ville forbinde området nord for Teheran, gennem Pakistan, gennem Indien, gennem Bangladesh, gennem Myanmar og ind i Kunming, ind i Thailand, ind i Vietnam, ned gennem Malaysia og Singapore, over stræderne via en stor bro og ind i Indonesien.

Der er ligeledes en plan for udviklingen af jernbanelinjen gennem det, der var det nordlige Sibirien, over Beringstrædet og ind i Alaska, og herfra ned og ind i USA. Der er en forbindelsen til Mellemøsten – flere forbindelser – fra Europa, og også fra Kina; men fra Kina en forbindelsen til Mellemøsten og ind i Egypten, ind i hele Afrika.

Så hvad vi har her er en række projekter, som ikke blot er transportprojekter, ligesom den transkontinentale jernbane i USA, der var forløberen for denne idé tilbage i slutningen af 1860’erne og 1870’erne. Man har »udviklingskorridorer«, hvor man i et område, der strækker sig 50-70 kilometer på hver side af jernbaneforbindelsen, har olie- og gasledninger, og så fremdeles. Man udvikler dette område med industri, minedrift, alle sådanne ting. Og det er sådan, man betaler for transportforbindelsen, pga. al den rige, økonomiske aktivitet, der skabes. Med en indbyrdes afstand på nogle kilometer langs hele denne forbindelse foregår der noget, en eller anden økonomisk aktivitet. Folk, der arbejder, folk, der bygger ting, folk, der gør ting. For at transformere denne planet ved hjælp af store projekter for byggeri af infrastruktur, som vil skabe store industrier, nye industrier, nyt landbrug og de andre ting, vi har så desperat brug for. Der er ingen som helst grund til, at noget menneske på denne planet, der kan arbejde, skulle være arbejdsløs. Så enkelt er det. Og dette projekt er midlet til dette mål.

Hvis nationerne – som nu omfatter Rusland, Iran, Indien og andre nationer – kommer overens med Kina, og engagerer sig i en forpligtelse til dette projekt, som de bygger hver dag; hvis USA – dvs. USA’s præsident, Clinton – forsætter med at støtte denne indsats, som han har gjort, i det mindste rent politik, hvad får man så? Man får USA og Kina og nogle andre lande, der går i samlet flok op imod den største magt på denne planet, som er Det britiske Imperium, kaldet det Britiske Commonwealth (statssamfund). Det er fjenden!

Lad os sige, at, en skønne dag, f. eks. en søndag morgen, præsidenterne for hhv. USA og Kina og et par andre, efter et weekend-møde siger: »Vi har denne weekend besluttet, at vi, baseret på vore rådgivere samt den kendsgerning, at det internationale finansielle og monetære system er håbløst bankerot, som ansvarlige statsoverhoveder, af hensyn til almenvellet må erklære disse bankerotte institutioner konkurs og sætte dem under konkursbehandling. Og det er i vores interesse, at vi samarbejder om dette som nationer, for at undgå at skabe kaos på denne planet.«             

Resultatet vil så være, at en sådan meddelelse en skønne søndag morgen med sikkerhed vil få »snakkehovederne« på Washington Tv til at ’spinne’. Men bortset fra det, så betyder det, at hele systemet, fra dette øjeblik, har været en tur i guillotinen, og at hovedet ruller hen ad gaden. Alan Greenspans hoved, måske.

Det betyder, at vi nu har tilskyndelsen til omgående at opbygge et nyt finansielt og monetært system. Når man skal genrejse et selskab, der er bankerot, til en levedygtig form, hvad gør man så? Man må finde de erhvervsaktiviteter, som selskabet skal gøre, hvilket danner grundlaget for at skabe den nye kredit, der skal få firmaet til at køre igen.

Programmet for Landbroen, med sine globale implikationer, er det store projekt, der direkte og indirekte vil afkaste tilstrækkelig med aktivitet, så at sige, i alle dele af verden til, at vi atter kan få denne verden tilbage på et sundt fundament.

Matthew Ogden: Som man kan høre, så afslører denne tale stor forudviden; og det er i realiteten Lyndon LaRouches aktive indgriben, med rejser til Rusland, med hans hustrus rejser til Kina i denne periode, og med udgivelsen af EIR’s specialrapport om den Eurasiske Landbro, der har formet den nuværende situation, vi befinder os i. En ting, der er interessant at fremhæve, er de kort, I så. Dengang var mange af disse jernbanelinjer og andre olie/gasledninger blot forslag; men nu er flere af dem faktisk under opførelse.

Jeg mener, at det, 20 år senere, står klart, at dette er det dominerende system, der er ved at vokse frem på denne planet. Samtidig står det transatlantiske system foran en umiddelbar nedsmeltning. En umiddelbart forestående implosion af gæld og eksponering til derivater i betalingsstandsning til billioner af dollars projiceres nu ind i alle storbanker i hele det transatlantiske system.

For et engelsk udskrift af hele fredags-webcastet, se http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=14279

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: »Jeg mener, at vi må mobilisere befolkningen til at blive aktiv; for tiden er ikke til at sidde på stakittet og blot kigge på, hvad disse såkaldte ’eliter’ foretager sig … befolkningerne har mistet tilliden til disse eliter, der repræsenterer dette globaliseringssystem. Ansvaret for at finde løsninger på situationen må derfor gå over til dem, der har ideer om, hvordan vi kommer ud af situationen. Hvilket er, hvad vi gør i New York med Manhattan-projektet; det, som det Internationale Schiller Institut gør; men jeg mener, at vi har brug for jeres støtte – I, som ser dette lige nu. Jeg vil gerne appellere til jer om at blive aktive sammen med os og være med til at gennemføre disse løsninger.«

Download (PDF, Unknown)

For at give håb om en bedre fremtid for hele menneskeheden, et håb, der er gået tabt i mange dele af verden, må G20-topmødet fremkomme med en vision, der kan tilbyde en løsning, en vej til at overvinde de nævnte kriser, og en etablering af et højere niveau af fornuft for at realisere menneskehedens fælles mål.

4. august, 2016 (Leder) – Følgende tale blev holdt af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og forkvinde for Schiller Instituttet, den 29. juli ved »Tænk 20 Forum« i Beijing. Forummet var arrangeret af tre kinesiske tænketanke: Instituttet for Verdensøkonomi og Verdenspolitik (IWEP) ved det Kinesiske Akademi for Samfundsvidenskaber (CASS), Shanghai Instituttet for Internationale Studier (SIIS) og Chongyang Instituttet for Finansielle Studier ved Kinas Renmin Universitet (RCDY), med deltagelse af 500 eksperter fra tænketanke og politikere og repræsentanter for internationale organisationer fra 25 lande, med det formål at formulere forslag til statsoverhoveder og regeringsledere i G20-medlemslandene. Fr. Zepp-LaRouche talte på det første panel under den to dage lange konference, dedikeret til »Global Ledelse: Systemforbedring og opbygning af Kapacitet«.

Eftersom G20 repræsenterer den mest magtfulde kombination af industrilande og fremvoksende lande på planeten, er der i øjeblikket ingen anden organisation, der kan adressere de eksistentielle udfordringer, som civilisationen står overfor, og i tide gennemføre løsninger på disse. De fleste landes befolkninger har den meget reelle oplevelse af at være opslugt af frygtindgydende kriser – en international terroristtrussel, der er ude af kontrol, en folkevandring af millioner af mennesker, der prøver på at undslippe krig, sult og død; den resulterende flygtningekrise, der ryster EU i sit fundament; fremgang for anti-etablissement-partier i mange lande: Brexit, som et advarselsskud for den potentielle disintegration af EU; det voksende gab mellem de rige og de stadigt flere lag af samfundet, der har mistet deres velfortjente status som middelklasse, eller som lever i fattigdom; oplevelsen af virkningerne af »uortodokse monetære foranstaltninger« på livsopsparinger og forventninger til fremtiden; grænserne for samfundets acceptabilitet af bailout og bail-in; samt den voksende frygt for, at verden nu er gået ind i en ny kold krig og en atomoprustnings-spiral. Kort sagt, et voksende tab af tillid til etablissementet, i det mindste i den transatlantiske sektor.

Hvis det forestående G20-topmøde afviser at anerkende denne situation; hvis man forsøger at skjule den fremherskende politiks fiasko, i særdeleshed siden 2008, bag retorikken i den offentlige propaganda; samt hvis man ikke bruger det forestående topmøde som en anledning til at fremlægge reelle løsninger på disse kriser, vil det ikke få nogen indvirkning i en virtuel reality, men det vil derimod få en indvirkning på det reelle historiske forløb og milliarder af menneskers liv og lykke.                                                                                                                   

Umiddelbare løsninger er forhånden, men de kræver, at de ledende institutioner er villige til at revidere den nuværende politiks aksiomer og vende tilbage til en politik, der ikke alene har vist sig at være effektive i tidligere situationer, men som også repræsenterer et nyt paradigme, der kan udgøre grundlaget for den menneskelige art i de næste hundrede år, og længere.

For at give håb om en bedre fremtid for hele menneskeheden, et håb, der er gået tabt i mange dele af verden, må G20-topmødet fremkomme med en vision, der kan tilbyde en løsning, en vej til at overvinde de nævnte kriser, og en etablering af et højere niveau af fornuft for at realisere menneskehedens fælles mål.

1. Det eneste »praktiske« udtryk for denne vision – og dette er ikke en selvmodsigelse – perspektivet for den Nye Silkevej, som den kinesiske regering nu i tre år har fremlagt og ført ud i livet. Foreløbig deltager over 70 lande i forskellige aspekter af dette program, samt i programmets infrastruktur- og udviklingsprojekter. Det, som Kina kalder for et »win-win« -samarbejde om sådanne fællesprojekter er ikke alene den eneste effektive måde, på hvilken geopolitiske konfrontationer kan overvindes, der har været roden til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, og ligeledes den underliggende fare for en tredje global krig i dag, som, givet eksistensen af kernevåben, ville blive en tilintetgørelseskrig. »Win-win«-perspektivet er også i overensstemmelse med principperne for den Westfalske Fred, ifølge hvilken enhver succesfuld fredsorden må baseres på »den anden parts interesse«. Konceptet for den Nye Silkevej må derfor udstrækkes til alle verdens områder, som en »Verdens-Silkevej«, som et konkret tilbud om at overvinde underudvikling. Hvis G20-medlemmerne ville afgive et sådant løfte, med en højtidelig forpligtelse til at overvinde sult og fattigdom og tilvejebringe rent vand til alle inden for få år, hvilket rent teknologisk kan gennemføres – så ville det skabe en revolution af håb og optimisme i verden.
2. For at eliminere både årsagerne til massemigrationen fra Sydvestasien og Afrika og grobunden for rekruttering af terrorister, må der i begge disse områder iværksættes en omfattende industriel udvikling, som ikke blot genopbygger de krigshærgede områder, men som også fremlægger en integreret plan for infrastruktur, industri, landbrug og uddannelse, for at transformere disse dele af verden til at blive områder med høj produktivitet af arbejdskraft og fremstillingskapaciteter. Generelt må Verdens-Silkevejens projekter defineres således, at de får optimal indvirkning på befolkningens kognitive evner i de respektive lande, for derved at muliggøre den bedst mulige forøgelse af verdensøkonomiens produktivitet. Fokus må derfor ikke alene ligge på innovation, men på kvalitative gennembrud i forståelsen af kvalitative, nye fysiske principper i vort univers. Eksempler herpå er forcerede programmer for udvikling af termonuklear fusionskraft, der vil tilvejebringe forsyningssikkerhed for energi og råmaterialesikkerhed for menneskeheden, såvel som også udvikling af nye vandressourcer gennem den fredelige udnyttelse af kernekraft til afsaltning af store mængder havvand, ionisering af fugtighed i atmosfæren og andre former for innovativ teknologi. Internationalt samarbejde om rummet, mht. forskning, rumfart og kolonisering, definerer vejen for de kommende, nødvendige gennembrud inden for videnskab og teknologi. Det repræsenterer også en fremtidsorienterede platform for en fredsorden for det 21. århundrede. Og vigtigst af alt, så markerer det transformationen af den menneskelige art hen imod en større bevidsthed om dets egen identitet som den eneste, hidtil kendte, kreative art i universet.
3. Et ukontrolleret kollaps af den transatlantiske sektors finansielle system ville true med at kaste store dele af verden ud i kaos, med uforudsigelige konsekvenser. Den såkaldte »værktøjskasse« med finansielle instrumenter, som man besluttede at bruge efter krisen i 2008 fremfor at gennemføre reelle reformer, er nu opbrugt. De efterfølgende »uortodokse monetære instrumenter,« såsom kvantitativ lempelse (’pengetrykning’), negative rentesatser, og ’helikopterpenge’, har for en stor dels vedkommende produceret det modsatte af de ønskede virkninger. Den kendsgerning, at genindførelsen af Franklin D. Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingslov er blevet vedtaget i både det Demokratiske og Republikanske partis valgplatform i USA, samt den kendsgerning, at der er en voksende diskussion i flere europæiske lande om at reducere de fremtidige risici i det finansielle system ved at indføre Glass/Steagall-kriterier også i Europa, skaber en meget favorabel forudsætning for at indgå aftale om en global Glass/Steagall-lovgivning ved det kommende G20-topmøde. Hvis G20-topmødet sætter Verdens-Silkevejen på dagsordenen, ville den kinesiske drøm blive til en verdensdrøm.

Men, som hr. LaRouche har understreget, især i de seneste par år, så er Glass-Steagall det nødvendige, absolut uundværlige første skridt: Den udsletter kasinoerne. Den udsletter gearede derivatkontrakter til anslået 2 billiarder (2, med femten nuller!) dollars, der som en cancer rider på toppen af verdens banksystem og på toppen af verdens reelle, fysiske økonomi.

Men, Glass-Steagall som sådan genstarter ikke realøkonomien. Den skaber ikke som sådan jobs. Det er her, man behøver de andre elementer af disse fire kardinallove: Man må skabe en statslig bankmekanisme, gennem hvilken man, som Hamilton gjorde det, som Lincoln gjorde det med ’greenback’-dollaren, udsteder kredit til realøkonomien til den form for projekter, der genopbygger vores infrastruktur, og som vil skabe meningsfulde og produktive jobs i sektorerne for varefremstilling og landbrugsprodukter.

Uddrag af ‘Fireside Chat’ (28. juli) med Jeffrey Steinberg:

Spørgsmål 3: Jeg undrer på, hvem, der skal køre dette nye system, for jeg tror ikke, nogen af vore to kandidater ønsker at køre det. Og vi kan med garanti ikke få nogen hjælp fra Kongressen, så hvem skal gøre alt dette?

Jeffrey Steinberg: Vi har et lederskab, der er i færd med at vokse frem i andre dele af verden, i Kina, i Rusland, i Indien; vi har den japanske regering, der nu ser hen til at komme på linje med en hel ny række af arrangementer, som er ved at blive den dominerende faktor i store dele af Eurasien. Kinas politik for ’Ét bælte, én vej’ er ikke en eller anden abstrakt idé. Der er jernbaneforbindelser, der allerede er fuldt ud operationelle, og som løber fra dele af Kina og til havne i Tyskland og Frankrig. Grækenlands Piræushavn, nær Athen, er ved at blive opbygget som et hovednav for handel mellem Asien og Sydøsteuropa, og som når hele vejen til Donau-flodbækkenet.

Forslag er blevet diskuteret på konferencer i Moskva, med deltagelse af nogle ledende amerikanske personer, inklusive vore egne repræsentanter, og som opfordrer til en forlængelse af den Eurasiske Landbro ind i den vestlige verdensdel gennem konstruktion af bro og tunnel over Beringstrædet, og med opkobling til jernbanelinjer og vandsystemer, der løber fra Alaska og Canada, ned ad hele USA’s vestlige rygrad.

Der er således grundlæggende set en opfattelse af, at disse ideer findes, og det vil ikke nødvendigvis komme fra oven og ned, fra de såkaldte ’præsidentkandidater’; men det vil komme fra den kendsgerning, at der er meget begrænsede muligheder for en politik, og at det amerikanske folk kræver forandringer. Og jeg siger jer, at vi befinder os på et tidspunkt, hvor ideernes magt er meget, meget betydelig, og meget magtfuld. Hvordan kan det være, at begge partier har Glass-Steagall på deres valgplatforme? Fordi der har været en politisk kamp, en mobilisering, som denne politiske bevægelse i årtier har anført i dette land, og fordi det har været et element i hr. LaRouches revision af hele USA’s finansielle og økonomiske system. Da disse dokumenter blev inkluderet i begge partier, altså genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall, så var der ingen tvivl i mange af de førende kongresmedlemmers sind, mange folk i begge politiske partier, om, at det var et resultat af vores arbejde. Det væltede ind med enestående lykønskninger til os; og lykønskningerne væltede endnu mere ind, da de 28 sider fra den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelses-rapport af begivenhederne den 11. september, 2001, blev frigivet og offentliggjort den 15. juli. Der var ingen, der var i tvivl!

Så jeg mener altså, at vi må have en totalt anden tilgang til dette spørgsmål: Snarere end at se hen til andre, om hvem vi ved, at de ikke er kvalificeret til at give os et lederskab, så lad os overveje de midler, ved hvilke vi kan tage lederskabsansvar og virkelig følge det helt frem til det punkt, hvor vi fremtvinger disse forandringer i politikken. Der er nu mange mennesker, som indser, at de må tænke over en helt anden økonomisk model for USA, for vi har nu sådan omtrent nået bunden af spanden mht. realøkonomien, og mange mennesker, der for blot nogle få uger siden var afvisende, higer nu efter diskussioner med os om, hvordan den proces skal være, hvorigennem vi kan genskabe et statsligt banksystem (hermed menes et banksystem, der styres af USA’s regeringsinstitutioner, og som har USA’s udvikling, og ikke enkeltpersoners berigelse på samfundets bekostning, til opgave, -red.), som har været hjørnestenen i alle store præsidenters succesfulde politik, i dette lands historie – fra George Washington, hvis finansminister var Alexander Hamilton; til John Quincy Adams; til Abraham Lincoln med sin politik for ’greenback’-dollaren; til Franklin Roosevelt med Reconstruction Finance Corporation (svarer til Kreditanstalt for Genopbygning, -red.). Dette er en politik, vi har forstand på!

Det rette svar på dit spørgsmål er derfor, at vi befinder os i en position, hvor vi kan tilvejebringe et sådant lederskab, og det er allerede en fastslået kendsgerning. Det er ikke noget, vi siger for at prale, eller som er en misrepræsentation. Se ikke hen til de personer, som du ser på CNN eller Fox, for at tilvejebringe lederskab, når alle og enhver ved, at de ikke har nogen lederskabsegenskaber. Vi kan gennemtvinge disse spørgsmål om den rette politik; i et valgår responderer folk til vælgernes krav på en måde, der ellers ikke har sin lige. Der ville ikke have været nogen Glass/Steagall-platform i begge partier, havde det ikke været for vores arbejde. Vi ville, uden vores indgriben, stadig gå rundt og beklage os over, at de 28 sider, der grundlæggende set anklager saudierne, og gennem forlængelse, Bush og Cheney, for 11. september, ikke var blevet offentliggjort. De er nu offentliggjort, takket være vores indsats. Ellers ville det ikke være sket.

Under andre omstændigheder kunne jeg bruge timer på at gennemgå i detaljer, præcis hvordan, det skete. Men pointen er, at det skete, fordi vi tog ansvaret for at gennemtvinge en forandring i tankegangen, og for at udvikle den form for politik, der vil virke. Og lige nu står vi et sted, hvor forhindringerne til at gennemtvinge denne politiks vedtagelse, er stærkt begrænsede.

Tænk over udsigten til, at du kunne vågne i morgen, eller i næste uge, eller på et hvilket som helst tidspunkt fra nu af og til valget i november, og finde ud af, at der er et finansielt sammenbrud i gang, som er mange gange mere alvorligt og udbredt end sammenbruddet i september 2008. Og denne gang er folk ikke til sinds ganske enkelt at lægge sig ned og acceptere en bail-out eller en bail-in, hvor deres egne opsparinger (pensioner, bankindskud osv.), eller hvad der måtte være tilbage af dem, plyndres.

Så vi må være parat til at tage den form for lederskab, som andre ikke vil tilvejebringe, især ikke de andre, som vi allerede ved, er afgrundsdybe fiaskoer, fordi de har fået chancen for at lede, og de har ledt os til dette totale krisepunkt.

Spørgsmål 4: God aften, jeg er J fra Fredericksburg, Virginia. Jeg ville stille tre spørgsmål, men eftersom tid betyder alt, vil jeg stille ét spørgsmål i aften. Og, mht. Glass/Steagall-loven, så er begge partiers platform Glass-Steagall; men når man læser erklæringerne fra f.eks. Bernie Sanders og det Demokratiske Parti, så refererer de til »det 21. århundredes Glass/Steagall-lov«. Mit spørgsmål lyder, hvilken type Glass-Steagall vil det blive?

Jeff Steinberg: Den særlige formulering refererer til et lovforslag, der blev fremstillet i både Senatet og Repræsentanternes Hus. Det er det navn, som blev givet til det lovforslag, som blev fremstillet af Elizabeth Warren, Maria Cantwell, John McCain og Angus King fra New England. Og vi læste dette lovforslag meget omhyggeligt: Det afviger ikke på mindste måde fra den oprindelige Glass/Steagall-lov. Dette er ikke lovforslag, der kræver et helt hold jurister for at granske og regne ud, hvad de siger. Den oprindelige Glass/Steagall-lov var på 37 sider med tre spalter. Og disse lovforslag til genindførelse af Glass-Steagall er endnu kortere. Der er fremstillet to lovforslag i Huset og ét i Senatet.

Grundlæggende set, så gør loven det, at den bryder bankerne op, den adskiller fuldstændigt kommercielle bankaktiviteter (dvs. almindelige bankindskud, långivning til lokale aktiviteter o. lign., -red.) fra investeringsbankaktiviteter, hedgefunds, forsikringsaktiviteter. Og hvad loven med størst tydelighed ville betyde, er, at der ikke kommer flere statslige bankredninger til de kriminelle hasardspils- og spekulationsaktiviteter, som disse finansinstitutioner er engageret i. Det, som bliver tilbage, vil være udrensede, men underkapitaliserede, kommercielle bankoperationer, og på den anden side, investeringsbanker og forsikringsoperationer, der næsten omgående vil nedsmelte. I selv samme sekund, der ikke længere forefindes nogen lovlig udsigt til at blive ’reddet’ ved hjælp af skatteborgerpenge, og det ud over skalaen fra 2008,vil historiens hurtigste og største margin calls komme (hvor kreditor kan forlange en omgående merindbetaling som sikkerhed for det nu usikre lån, -red.). Og alle disse ting vil ganske enkelt nedsmelte.

Og hr. LaRouches holdning til det, er »godt, de skred; vi har ikke brug for dem!« Vi behøver en statslig kreditpolitik; vi behøver kommercielle banker som de instrumenter, gennem hvilke man udbetaler kredit til realøkonomien, til investeringer i infrastruktur, til research og udvikling, til jobskabelse, og til alle ting, der knytter sig til arbejdskraftens produktive evne i en virkelig økonomi (realøkonomi).

Og det andet; alle de der hasardspilsoperationer er totalt unødvendige. Så vi har altså disse lovforslag, det 21. århundredes Glass-Steagall, og de forsøger grundlæggende set at sige, »man må gøre det udtrykkeligt, at der ikke mere kan komme bailouts af derivater og sådanne ting.« Det er, hvad vi har med at gøre.

Vi skabte momentum for dette spørgsmål. Igen, jeg kan ikke gennemgå det hele her; men jeg kender personligt bogstavelig talt hver eneste begivenhed, hvor kongresmedlemmer enten fremstillede disse lovforslag, eller også skrev under på dem, og det var, ved hver eneste begivenhed, uden undtagelse, en refleksion af det arbejde, vi har gjort. I hele landet står Manhattan-projektet som et flagskib for denne indsats, fordi Manhattan, New York City, er et verdenscenter, og den indvirkning af det, vi har gjort, og som udstråler til hele landet, efterhånden som det har indvirkning i New York, i Washington, har skabt en situation, som ellers ikke ville have eksisteret.

Så de Glass/Steagall-lovforslag er fine, som de er. Men, som hr. LaRouche har understreget, især i de seneste par år, så er Glass-Steagall det nødvendige, absolut uundværlige første skridt: Den udsletter kasinoerne. Den udsletter gearede derivatkontrakter til anslået 2 billiarder (2, med femten nuller!) dollars, der som en cancer rider på toppen af verdens banksystem og på toppen af verdens reelle, fysiske økonomi.

Men, Glass-Steagall som sådan genstarter ikke realøkonomien. Den skaber ikke som sådan jobs. Det er her, man behøver de andre elementer af disse fire kardinallove: Man må skabe en statslig bankmekanisme, gennem hvilken man, som Hamilton gjorde det, som Lincoln gjorde det med ’greenback’-dollaren, udsteder kredit til realøkonomien til den form for projekter, der genopbygger vores infrastruktur, og som vil skabe meningsfulde og produktive jobs i sektorerne for varefremstilling og landbrugsprodukter.

Vi har det værste infrastrukturunderskud i noget land i den avancerede sektor. Vi har ingen højhastighedsjernbaner: Der er bogstavelig talt nul miles med højhastighedsjernbaner i USA. Der skal angiveligt være en Acela-linje, der løber mellem Washington og New York City, og som skal forestille at være et højhastighedstog, men det kan ikke køre med høj hastighed, fordi man ikke engang har vedligeholdt sporene, så man kan køre i høj hastighed. Husk den togulykke, der fandt sted lige uden for Philadelphia, da et af disse tog forsøgte at køre tilnærmelsesvist stærkt.

I Kina er der 18.000 km med højhastighedsjernbaner, og kineserne har planlagt, at der om få år skal være 30.000 km. Jeg har kørt med et af disse højhastighedstog fra Shanghai til Nanjing; det svarer til lidt længere end afstanden mellem Washington og New York. Og i Kina, med eksprestoget, hvor billetten på første klasse kostede omkring 25 dollars, tog det 55 minutter; toget kørte med over 300 km/t, gennemsnitligt, og der findes intet blot tilnærmelsesvis lig dette nogen steder i hele USA. Vi er i en situation, hvor vores fysiske økonomi er forfalden og kun bliver værre, og vi har virkelig brug for denne form for gennemgribende udbedring.

Så uanset, hvilke snurrefinurlige titler, folk ønsker at give det, så betyder Glass-Steagall kun ét: Bryd de store banker op; udskil de kommercielle bankfunktioner; sørg for, at disse kommercielle banker er sikrede (gennem en statslig indskudsgarantifond), og at de udsteder lån til reel, produktiv aktivitet, der støtter økonomiens produktive evner. Hvis vi gør disse basale ting, vil vi meget, meget hurtigt se, at økonomien vender, især, fordi vi kan slutte os til andre i hele verden, der allerede følger denne kurs. USA er ikke blot en atlantisk nation; det er også en Stillehavsnation. Og hele det asiatiske Stillehavsområde gennemgår i øjeblikket en videnskabelig, kulturel og økonomisk renæssance. Og vi må sikre, at USA, der faktisk er kildevældet til de fleste af disse ideer, kommer med ind igen.

(Hele ’Fireside Chat’ fra 28/7 med Jeffrey Steinberg, med engelsk udskrift, kan høres/læses her: https://larouchepac.com/20160727/fireside-chat-jeff-steinberg-july-28-2016)

(Se også LPAC-video: De 7 nødvendige trin, herunder projekter som NAWAPA og en forbindelse over Beringstrædet.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pJLF3UBHHk

19. juli 2016 (Leder) – I de seneste to uger har vi – som en uopsættelig aktion, der skal gennemføres nu, i denne økonomiske og kulturelle krise – fremlagt Lyndon og Helga LaRouches forslag til at redde Deutsche Bank fra overhængende bankerot, og til at afværge krig. Fordi Tysklands økonomi er den eneste, der har et produktivt potentiale til at redde vraget af Europa ved at koble sig til Kinas storslåede projekt for den Nye Silkevej til udvikling af Eurasien, Mellemøsten og Afrika.

I modsat fald får vi krig med Kina, eller med Rusland. Obamas Hvide Hus forsøger støt og roligt at fremprovokere krigskonfrontationer med både Rusland og Kina og kræver, at Europa fremmer disse provokationer gennem NATO. Hvis terrorsplinterne fra Obamas krige i Mellemøsten og Libyen er i færd med at bombe Europa ind i en tilstand af chok, så har de hans sympati, så længe, de fortsat går med i militære konfrontationer med Rusland og Kina. Hillary Clinton er lige så fast besluttet på denne krigspolitik.

Der er, især efter Brexit, ingen tvivl om, at Tyskland er Europas fremtid. Men hvis det er Angela Merkels og Wolfgang Schäubles Tyskland, forfalsket med det endnu mere krigeriske Grønne Parti, så får vi verdenskrig.

Derfor foreslog hr. og fr. LaRouche: Det må være Tyskland i Alfred Herrhausens ånd, den myrdede leder af den engang produktive, men nu elendige og kriminelle kæmpe, Deutsche Bank. Mere specifikt den Alfred Herrhausen, der i 1989 var i færd med at lancere en udviklingsbank til at løfte Polen og det sovjetiske Østeuropa økonomisk, mens Sovjetunionen kollapsede – og han blev myrdet.

Herrhausens plan dengang for Deutsche Bank og Tyskland, var et paradigme for, hvad Tyskland atter kan blive, såvel som også for Europas fremtid nu.

Det transatlantiske banksystem og finansielle system er ved at falde fra hinanden. Det er offer for sine egne medlemmer, de City of London-centrerede europæiske storbanker og Wall Street-storbankerne, der har knust de reelle, produktive økonomier under sig i løbet af årtiers globalisering. Det, der udløser det umiddelbart forestående krak, er ikke simplet hen italienske bankers dårlige lån, eller ejendomsfonde i London, der lukker, eller at de store tyske og schweiziske banker er i vanskeligheder, og ikke engang ECB’s og Federal Reserves sindssyge politik; men derimod ødelæggelsen af de underliggende økonomiers produktivitet hen over årtier, mens kasinoet voksede på toppen af dem.

Hvis man skal genkapitalisere de fallerede storbanker i Europa, må de tvinges til at afskrive deres kasinoer som totale tab og genvedtage de produktive formål, som Herrhausens lederskab af Deutsche Bank var indbegrebet af. Så kan man skabe statskreditter på samme måde, som Kina har været alene om at gøre i dette århundrede, til den form for projekter, der genopliver menneskers og økonomiers produktivitet.

I løbet af de to uger, hvor vi har fremlagt dette uopsættelige forslag fra LaRouche, har der været betydningsfulde gennembrud i USA. »Det saudiske kapitel« af 11. september-historien er blevet tvunget offentliggjort.

En genindførelse af Glass-Steagall er inkorporeret i valgplatformene hos både Demokrater og Republikanere.

Men den rette måde at kæmpe for en Glass/Steagall-reorganisering af bankerne på, er ved at bruge den »vægtstang«, som er LaRouches forslag. Så bliver denne kamp en kamp for Europas, og også USA’s, fremtid. 

5. juni 2016 (Leder) – NATO’s chef Jens Stoltenberg gentog, i en tale i Bruxelles på den amerikanske uafhængighedsdag, sit vanvittige krigsråb mod Rusland og pralede med, at NATO har gennemført den største mobilisering af militære styrker siden den Kolde Krig, men fremførte, at dette ikke er nok. »Vi må nu tage de næste skridt«, sagde han og udtalte, at NATO-topmødet i Warszawa i denne uge »yderligere vil forstærke vores militære tilstedeværelse i alliancens østlige del« – dvs. på Ruslands grænse.

Polens forsvarsminister Antoni Macierewicz gik videre og fantaserede over for Associated Press om, at NATO’s nye militære indsættelser vil udgøre »afslutningen af frygten« i Østeuropa. »Kun en demonstration af, at vi reelt er parat til at forsvare vore grænser, kan effektivt standse Ruslands aggressive planer«, sagde han og tilføjede: »Rusland kan glemme alt om at true Polen, de europæiske lande og andre lande i verden.« Selv, mens NATO deployerer tropper, kampvogne, militærfly, krigsskibe og missilsystemer hele vejen langs Ruslands grænse, beskyldte den forrykte Macierewicz Rusland for at »forøge intensiteten af Ruslands aggression i de seneste dage« og pegede på, at Rusland flytter tropper rundt inden for sine egne grænser!

Der er imidlertid voksende tegn på fornuft i Europa, med modstand mod krigspolitikken mod Rusland og Kina, såvel som også mht. den økonomiske ødelæggelse af de europæiske økonomier. General Harold Kujat, den tidligere chef for de tyske væbnede styrker, sagde i et interview i dag, at han fuldt ud støtter den tyske udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeiers fordømmelse af »NATO’s sabelraslen« over for Rusland.

Den græske premierminister Alexis Tsipras er på rejse i Kina, hvor han yderligere bestyrker »Silkevejs«-transportforbindelserne mellem Europa og Kina.

Selv Italiens premierminister Matteo Renzi viser modstand og er uvillig til at give efter for EU’s krav om, at Italien tvinger en »bail-in« ned over sine truede banker. Det rapporteres, at Renzi kræver ret til at re-kapitalisere bankerne med statslig kapital, snarere end at lukke dem ned, eller stjæle indskydernes og obligationsholdernes penge gennem en bail-in, for at betale dem, der har dyrket hasardspil med derivat-værdipapirer.

Lyndon LaRouche svarede i dag, at disse og andre lignende skridt er korrekte og nødvendige, men ikke tilstrækkelige. Ingen af dem vil fungere, sagde han, medmindre et »skifte på et højere niveau« bliver gennemført fra oven af. Enhver enkeltstående indsats for at standse den finansielle panik, der nu fejer hen over Europa, og snart også USA, eller for at standse den gale dræber Obamas virke for krig, vil være utilstrækkelig uden et sådant »skifte på et højere niveau« til et nyt paradigme. Dette skifte må være baseret på en Glass/Steagall-bankreorganisering for at lukke de banker, der er ’for store til at lade gå ned’, og for at genetablere produktiv kredit, samarbejde med Kinas Nye Silkevejsproces og Vladimir Putins »Projekt Storeurasien«, og, hvad der er særdeles vigtigt, en mobilisering af vore borgere – i særdeleshed ungdommen – til skønhed, gennem en genoplivning af klassisk musik og kultur.

LaRouche har advaret om, at NATO’s krigsmobilisering er bluff – om end en meget farlig bluff. I dag gentog den russiske analytiker Dmitry Yevstafiev LaRouches advarsel i en artikel i Izvestia. Yevstafiev anfører, at de massive NATO-øvelser på Ruslands grænser faktisk er en »dækoperation« for et førsteangreb med strategiske styrker. At tro, at Rusland vil tillade den form for systematisk oprustning på sine grænser, i lighed med, hvad Hitler gjorde før sin Operation Barbarossa-invasion af Sovjetunionen, ville være det samme som at anse Ruslands ledere for at være imbecile. Kendsgerningen er den, tilføjede han, at NATO ikke længere har evnen til at understøtte sådan en konventionel krig og dækker over gabet med propaganda. Men dette »fremprovokerer en tiltagende efterspørgsel« af krig. Lige som Japan ved Pearl Harbor kan en sådan svag stat tænkes at ville angribe først og »håbe på at opnå en fordel«, afsluttede han. 

En vækkelse af menneskehedens kreative gnist, der i de vestlige lande er blevet slået ned af de evindelige krige, økonomiske kriser og den kulturelle degenerering, er den nødvendige forudsætning for at standse denne fare og få menneskeheden til at gå videre til det nye paradigme, der nu er i færd med at blive skabt fra Kina, Rusland og Indien, som repræsenterer flertallet af den menneskelige race og det moralske lederskab i verden.

Foto: Den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry, viceudenrigsminister for europæiske og eurasiske anliggender Victoria Nuland sidder sammen med NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg og deres modparter i NATO’s hovedkvarter, 27. juni 2016 [flickr/statephotos]

3. juli 2016 (Leder) – Den årlige borgmesterkonference i Indianapolis, USA, fra 24. – 27. juni, udstedte en sønderlemmende kritik af Obamaregeringen, som direkte angreb de massive NATO-øvelser, der nu finder sted på Ruslands grænser, Obamas 1 billion dollar store modernisering af atomvåben, det faktum, at han ikke har taget initiativ til at reducere atomvåbnene, hans krigsgale politik over for Rusland og Kina, og hans negligering af det drastiske kollaps, der kendetegner USA’s basale infrastruktur og befolkningens almene vel. Det er værd at bemærke, at end ikke én eneste af de større amerikanske aviser så meget som har rapporteret om denne aktion.

Borgmesterkonferencen fandt sted samtidig med den historiske Schiller Institut-konference i Berlin, hvor Helga Zepp-Larouche indledte sin tale med at sige, at

vi oplever en systemisk og eksistentiel civilisationskrise, der er absolut uden fortilfælde. Vi har sammenfaldet af en fare for krig, hvor NATO konfronterer Rusland på en meget, meget aggressiv facon – hvilket kan føre til en tredje verdenskrig. Vi har en amerikansk konfrontation mod Kina i det Sydkinesiske Hav. Der er risikoen for en ny finanskrise af samme type som i 2008, og som kan sprænge det finansielle system.

Borgmestrenes resolution erklærer dernæst, alt imens den kommer med en svag ros for Obamas besøg i Hiroshima og hans indgåelse af en aftale med Iran:

Samtidig har Obamaregeringen reduceret USA’s lager af atomvåben mindre, end noget præsidentskab efter den Kolde Krig, og den har lagt fundamentet til, at USA skal bruge en billion dollars hen over de næste tre årtier for at vedligeholde og modernisere sine atombomber og sprænghoveder, produktionsfabrikker, affyringssystemer og kommando og kontrol, og de øvrige atombevæbnede stater følger trop … De atombevæbnede lande kommer stadigt nærmere til randen af en direkte militær konfrontation i konfliktzoner i hele verden, og det største NATO-krigsspil i årtier, der involverer 14.000 amerikanske tropper samt aktivering af amerikanske missilforsvarssystemer i Østeuropa, bærer ved til bålet af voksende spændinger mellem atombevæbnede giganter, og iflg. tidligere forsvarsminister William Perry: ’Sandsynligheden for en atomar katastrofe er større i dag, mener jeg, end den var under den Kolde Krig.’

Denne fare og dette enorme spild af ressourcer står i direkte kontrast til den kollapsende, amerikanske økonomi:

»Den stadigt mere forværrede infrastruktur udgør en fare for befolkningens sikkerhed og livskvalitet, og den voksende ulige fordeling af rigdom tvinger folk til at forlade Amerikas byer, og vore lokalsamfund har et desperat behov for statslig investering til opførelse af billige boliger, jobskabelse til lønninger, man kan leve af, forbedring af offentlig transport og udvikling af bæredygtige energikilder«. Resolutionen kræver en omfordeling af de midler, der bruges på atomoprustningen, for at »løse vore byers presserende behov og genopbygge vor nations smuldrende infrastruktur.«

Resolution fremkommer ikke med det krav (der turde være åbenlyst), at denne præsident omgående må fjernes for den beskrevne forbrydelse – dvs., for at skabe en umiddelbar eksistentiel trussel mod menneskeheden gennem atomkrig. I stedet kræver den, at »den næste præsident« må gribe til handling. Ikke desto mindre kræver den, at »der tages nye, diplomatiske initiativer, som en hastesag, for at nedbringe spændingerne med Rusland og Kina.«

Det, som mangler, er selvfølgelig løsningen, og heri ligger den afgørende forskel mellem Borgmesterkonferencen og Schiller Instituttets konference i Berlin. Zepp-LaRouche sagde til tilhørerne i Berlin:

Denne konference har ét emne, eller ét underliggende emne, og det er at definere løsninger på disse kriser: at diskutere, hvad det nye paradigme skal være, og hvorvidt menneskeslægten er i stand til at løse en sådan eksistentiel krise. Vi har fremtrædende talere fra fire kontinenter og fra mange lande, og dette er selvsagt mennesker, eller repræsentanter for mennesker, der er fast besluttet på, at en løsning skal findes.

Og næsten hver eneste af talerne talte vitterligt om, at det hastede med at gennemføre de løsninger, der længe har været knyttet til Lyndon og Helga LaRouche – nemlig reorganiseringen af det bankerotte, vestlige finansielle system gennem vedtagelse af en Glass/Steagall-lov i USA og Europa, samt udvidelsen af Kinas projekt for Den Nye Silkevej til at omfatte hele verden, et projekt, der vil gøre en ende på geopolitik til fordel for udviklingsprojekter, der imødekommer menneskehedens fælles mål.

Det mod, der udvistes på USA’s Borgmesterkonference, en upartisk institution, der repræsenterer alle byer i USA med flere end 30.000 indbyggere, og hvor den igangværende trussel om en global atomkrig blev identificeret, pålægger alle amerikanere et endnu større ansvar – for at mobilisere disse borgmestre og deres vælgere til at gennemføre LaRouches program, før Obama kan trykke på knappen.

Foto: Præsident Barack Obama holder sin første, større tale, hvori han erklærer sit forpligtende engagement over for at søge at opnå fred og sikkerhed i en verden uden atomvåben, foran tusinder af tilhørere i Prag i den Tjekkiske Republik, 5. april 2009. [flickr/whitehouse]  

Før jeg kommer ind på disse forskellige dødbringende farer, så ligger løsningen ligefor. Så vær fattede og bevar roen, og lad mig tale til jer. Hvis menneskeheden forenes omkring en god plan og handler solidarisk og modigt, kan enhver krise i den menneskelige civilisation overvindes, for det er menneskets natur – at, når vi bliver udfordret af et stort onde, vækkes en endog endnu større kraft for det gode i vores sjæl.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Aftenens webcast omfatter en eksklusiv video-premiere fra Schiller Instituttets internationale konference i Berlin, 25.-26. juni – en global intervention, der ikke kunne være kommet på et vigtigere tidspunkt. I kølvandet på Brexit-valget ser vi det finansielle systems sammenbrud dukke op igen og en accelerering af fremstødet for krig – udviklinger, der ikke blev forårsaget af Brexit-valget, men som er udtryk for det samlede transatlantiske systems sammenbrudsproces som helhed. Lyndon LaRouches vurdering er klar: diverse manøvrer og spil internt i systemet kan ikke fungere; systemet er gået ned, og der er ingen måde, hvorpå det kan overleve i sin nuværende form. Dette betyder ikke, at vi absolut skal i krig, men man spiller et meget farligt bluff. Som det blev demonstreret på denne historiske konference, så er den eneste løsning den at indføre en ny tankegang, et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden, et skifte i lighed med det, der fandt sted med den berømte, 14-hundredetals Gyldne Renæssance, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche uophørligt har understreget.

Lyndon LaRouche på Schiller Institut-konference i Berlin (uddrag; se video min. 14:05):

»For det første undersøger vi dette spørgsmål med, hvad er mennesket pr. definition? Menneskets evne til at skabe højere niveauer af udvikling af menneskehedens menneskelige evner?

Det andet er: Hvordan finder vi ting, der vil gøre menneskeden mere succesfuldt eksisterende? Det er endnu et spørgsmål. Alle disse ting er enkle, videnskabelige spørgsmål, og det, vi er afhængige af, er det, vi kalder at fremme fysisk videnskab, og at fremme det til et højere niveau, pr. person, uophørligt. I denne proces må man definere, ved hvilke midler, dette skal gøres. Det har altid været min interesse at komme frem til en ny, mere avanceret teknologi; en teknologi, der vælter og fjerner behovet for en eksisterende teknologi. Mit speciale er at koncentrere mig om revolutionen i anvendelige teknologier. Og dette er det eneste redskab, jeg kender til, ved hvilket mennesket kan forbedre det, mennesket nu har behov for [for fortsat at eksistere].«

Engelsk udskrift.      

 – THE TIME FOR A NEW RENAISSANCE FOR MANKIND IS NOW! –

LaRouche PAC Friday webcast for July 1, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It's July 1st, 2016. My name is
Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly webcast here
on Friday evening from LaRouchePAC.com. As you'll see, I'm joined
in the studio by my colleague Benjamin Deniston; and we're joined
via video by two members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee:
Bill Roberts, joining us from Detroit, Michigan; and Michael
Steger, joining us from San Francisco, California.
        We have a very special broadcast tonight in which we will be
featuring a short video "teaser," which will provide you a
substantial overview of the conference, the very important and
historic conference, which just recently concluded over last
weekend in Berlin, Germany, sponsored by the Schiller Institute.
        As a preface to that video, which will provide us the
material for a further discussion here tonight, let me just say
that it couldn't have come at a better time — this conference.
It's clear to see that there's an absolute disintegration of the
trans-Atlantic system, which we are experiencing right now. This
is not {only} an economic or financial disintegration, but this
is in fact a disintegration of the entire {system} as a whole.
This is a political breakdown, this is a social breakdown; this
is an intellectual breakdown of the axioms which have provided
the foundation of that failed system. The axioms underlying this
trans-Atlantic system have failed. It's bankrupt in every sense
of the word, not only financially, but also politically,
culturally, intellectually, and the only solution to that would
be replacing this failed system with an entirely new paradigm.
        This is exactly what Mr. LaRouche had to say when we had an
extensive discussion with him yesterday. The people who are on
this broadcast tonight all participated in that discussion. What
Mr. LaRouche said is that there is no way that this
trans-Atlantic system can survive. It's not to say that it is not
very dangerous and that it could have very terrible consequences
if the war were to be launched or if other things were to get out
of hand. But what's being done under these circumstances by the
so-called "leadership" of this failed trans-Atlantic system "is a
complete bluff. It will not work," Mr. LaRouche said. He said,
"We're facing a very serious kind of collapse, one which mankind
is not well-prepared to deal with."
        This is very clear. At the same time that you have a
plummeting of the entire financial markets in the trans-Atlantic
system, you've got an inverse escalation in the bellicosity and
the aggressive stance that is coming out of Obama and his
colleagues, against Russia and China, both. Obama was in Ottawa
just yesterday at [the “Three Amigos”] summit of the North
Americas, in which he was {twisting} the arm of the Canadians,
telling them that they need to participate in a much more
prominent way in combatting so-called "Russian" aggression, by
lending their troops to this NATO deployment.
        The Atlantic Council is calling for this NATO deployment to
become a {permanent} deployment on the borders of Russia. Russia
is very clear: Shoigu, the Defense Minister, responded, saying
that NATO has already doubled its deployment along the border of
Russia and this is already before the NATO Summit has happened,
which is scheduled to occur in Warsaw, where you can expect that
that deployment will "significantly increase."
        Mr. LaRouche went on to say, when we were discussing this
with him yesterday, that you can see that all the so-called
"leadership" of this system is bankrupt. "The leadership itself
is bankrupt as an institution. Not that they {have} a problem,
but that they {are the} problem." "They are fraudsters," he said,
"and we are, in fact, the only leadership available on the
scene."
        What Mrs. LaRouche had to say — and this is, again, in the
aftermath of her experience as the primary organizer and keynote
speaker of this very important conference which you are about to
see some excerpts from — she said, "Look, this could not have
come at a better time. This was literally two days after the
Brexit vote. And the Brexit is merely paradigmatic of the entire
breakdown crisis. You have an ongoing disarray, ongoing chaos and
disintegration coming out of this. You have the breaking apart of
the entire leadership of the United Kingdom. All of the major
political parties are like gangs of wolves at their own throats,
and it's very possible that Scotland, Ireland could both leave
the United Kingdom, turning 'Great' Britain into 'Lesser'
Britain, or 'Very Small' Britain."
        She said we have no idea where this is going, but it makes
it very clear that this conference couldn't have occurred at a
better time, because what was presented and what you will see in
this brief overview that we're about to play for you, is that
{there can be no piecemeal solutions.} Too little, too late. You
can't solve this problem here and this problem there, and try to
piece it all together. The only thing that will work is an
entirely new paradigm that supplants the failed way of thinking
with an entirely new of principles, she said, "A new era of
civilization. And, if you don't make the jump," she said, "you're
just not going to make it."
        With that said, I would like to present to you a brief
overview of the conference which occurred in Berlin. This is to
entice you to watch the full proceedings, which will be available
in video form in due time.

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think we all have all come to this
conference because everybody who is in this room knows that we
are experiencing an absolutely unprecedented, systemic, and
existential crisis of civilization. You have the coincidence of a
war danger, where NATO is confronting Russia in a very, very
aggressive fashion which could lead to a third world war. You
have a U.S. confrontation against China in the South China Sea.
You have the danger of a new 2008-type of financial crisis which
could blow up the financial system. And, two days ago, you had
the Brexit — Great Britain voting to leave the European Union.
As we all know, this was not a vote against Europe as such, but
it was a vote against a completely unjust system and a corrupt
elite.
        The conference has one subsuming topic, and that is to
define solutions to these crises, to discuss what would be the
new paradigm, and is mankind capable of solving such an
existential crisis?
        We have distinguished speakers from four continents, from
many countries. They are representative of the kinds of people
who are determined that a solution is being found. Before I go
into touching upon these various mortal dangers, the solution is
easy. So, be addressed and be calm. If men unite for a good plan
and act in solidarity with courage, {any} crisis in human
civilization can be overcome, because that is the nature of human
beings: that when we are challenged with a great evil, an even
greater force of good is being awoken in our soul.

AMB. (ret) CHAS W. FREEMAN, JR: Helga, I'd like to thank you for
that very inspiring set of opening remarks. We have entered a
world in which, as William Butler Yeats put it in 1919: "Things
fall apart; the center cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon
the world." In Europe, in America, and in parts of Asia there is
a sense of foreboding — an elemental unease about what is to
come. There is vexing drift amidst political paralysis.
Demagoguery is ascendant and the stench of fascism is in the air.
        This is the global context in which China has proposed to
integrate the entire Eurasian landmass with a network of roads,
railroads, pipelines, telecommunications links, ports, airports,
and industrial development zones. If China's "One Belt, One Road"
concept is realized, it will open a vast area to economic and
intercultural exchange, reducing barriers to international
cooperation in a 65-country zone with 70% of the world's
population, with over 40% of its GDP, generating well over half
of its current economic growth.
        In concept, the Belt and Road program, which is one of the
major topics of this conference, is the largest set of
engineering projects ever undertaken by humankind. Its potential
to transform global geo-economics and politics is proportional to
its scale.

        COL. (ret) ALAIN CORVEZ: I want to congratulate the Schiller
Institute for organizing this conference at a critical moment
when the threat of a nuclear war which would lead to the
extinction of humanity becomes clearer every day, because of the
concentration in the heart of Europe of weapons capable of
destroying the planet within seconds.
        To respond to the reinforcements of U.S. strategic forces
inside NATO on European territory, Russia was forced to deploy an
equivalent arsenal of deterrence on its western borders. It's
therefore high time that the strategists of various countries,
even those far from the European Theater, demand restraint and
more wisdom from the heads of state of the entire world.
        This is the purpose of this beneficial institute founded by
Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, whom I wish to compliment personally.

        JACQUES CHEMINADE; French Presidential candidate: So,
LaRouche thinking proceeds from the becoming, as a science which
is the active principle of the economy. The trans-Atlantic
financial system in which we are living, based on accumulation of
money, is leading to the opposite, not to increasing the size of
the physical economy, but to chaos and war, or, more precisely
and more tragically, to a combination of both.
        The preceding speakers have shown that the current world is
more dangerous, yes, more dangerous, than it ever was during the
height of the Cold War. Those proclaiming themselves "realists"
and "reasonable," while following the rules of the system, in
reality contribute to its collapse by the mere fact that they
operate inside the system without fighting it.
        Now we have arrived at the point in history where systemic
change, a just concept of economy and man, are necessary for the
survival of all. Money has no intrinsic value. It is nothing but
an instrument, acquiring value through what it promotes. From
there on, what is the goal to reach?

        LYNDON LAROUCHE: First of all, we're looking at this issue
of man, as such — man's ability to create higher levels of
development of the human powers of mankind. The next thing is:
how do we understand, how do we find things that are going to
make mankind more successfully existent? That's another question.
All these things are simple, scientific questions. What we depend
upon, is driving what we call "physical science," and driving it,
{per capita}, to a higher level, always.
        In that process, you have to define what the means is by
which you're going to do this. My concern is always to come up
with a new technology, a more advanced technology, one which
overturns and obviates the need for an existing technology.  My
specialty is concentrating on the revolution in the applicable
technologies; and that is the only device by which I know that
mankind can improve the requirements for mankind now.

        MARCO ZANNI; head of M5S delegation in the Eco. and Monetary
Affairs Cttee. of the European Parliament: The European financial
system is collapsing; it's collapsing because of wrong policies
brought about by European governments and by the European Union.
Clearly, a first step — and we proposed one bill in the Italian
Parliament and one in the European Parliament in the framework of
the banking structure reform is restoring banking separation.  We
think that we have to set up a sort of modern European
Glass-Steagall that will simplify the regulation on the banking
system, and will make the separation between the core part of a
bank and a speculative bank in order to create a banking system
that is no longer focussed on speculation, on the financial
system; but on the needs of the real economy, on the needs of
people.  This is the first step.

        AMB. (ret) LEONIDAS CHRYSANTOPOULOS:  Another threat facing
humanity is the US animosity towards Russia, as if we were still
in the Cold War period.  This was discussed in the previous
panel, but very roughly I would just say about it.  A missile
system is being set up to encircle Russia; and of course, Moscow
is preparing a defense field to counter it.  The EU embargo on
Russia after the Ukrainian crisis is not at all helping the
situation.  Also, threats have been recently made by Obama
against China and the need to restrict her economic power.  With
a collapsing EU and a USA looking for confrontation with Russia
and China, a solution for humanity can be the BRICS initiative;
which is the initiative of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and
South Africa to pursue a policy of economic development for the
benefit of humanity.  They have created their own development
bank to invest in the necessary development projects.  China has
established the Asia Infrastructure [Investment] Bank; joined by
over 20 Asian nations as founding members, and has set up a Silk
Road Development Fund.

        AMB. HAMID SIDIG; current Ambassador of Afghanistan to
Germany:  I would like to express my gratitude and honor to be
part of this important event.  Over the past 30 years, the
Schiller Institute has played a significant role in promoting
international discussion on major topics, and has shaped the
future of our work.  Since ancient times, the Silk Road has been
a symbol of the commercial artery to connect Asia and Europe;
creating wealth and cultural exchange to benefit all countries
involved in this area.  Our conference today — and I hope to
build on this ancient tradition, by bringing together scientists
and politicians to develop a New Silk Road; and begin the process
of healing, integrating, and regenerating this very important
region — Central Asia.  Our vision is to create a secure and
peaceful life for our region, which will allow thousands of
refugees to return back to their homes and rebuild their
communities again.

        BEREKET SIMON; chairman of Commercial Bank of Ethiopia,
advisor to PM:  I would like to express my heartfelt sympathy and
support to the people of Syria, Iraq, Libya, and the larger
Middle Eastern and North African countries who are subjected to a
wanton destruction as a result of a mistaken policy of regime
change by some global powers.  Allow me also to thank the
Schiller Institute for inviting me to speak on a broad topical
issue — the importance of the economic development of Ethiopia
in the context of the New Silk Road and the greater African
region.
        Dear Friends, Ethiopia considers China's Silk Road economic
projects and maritime Silk Road projects jointly known as One
Belt, One Road as another milestone opportunity that could
contribute to sustain its economic development together with all
the countries in our region.  We believe that the last decade or
two have witnessed the resurgence of trade between Africa and the
East.  The New Silk Road would also further strengthen the mutual
benefits of expanded trade between nations.  This will apply to
the relationship between Ethiopia and its traditional partners
[inaud; 20:49].  Together with our neighbors in the region, we
are determined to an Ethiopian, and indeed African, renaissance
which can harness the new possibilities opened by developments
like the New Silk Road.  I thank you.

        AMB. (ret) MICHEL RAIMBAUD:  Good morning.  I want to talk
to you about Syria and the title of my intervention is "In Syria
and Elsewhere, Against the War Party and the Law of the Jungle,
We Have to Rebuild Peace and International Law"; these are my
themes.  First of all, the world today is in great danger of war;
more than ever before.  It's going through a global crisis —
that has been said already.  One hears much about a new Cold War,
which would lead us back to the old confrontation between the
free world, so-called, the Axis of Good, and the totalitarian
bloc, dubbed the Axis of Evil by George Bush.
        We have lift immediately the sanctions; if there's a message
I want to give you, these sanctions have to be lifted.  It's a
crime of war; it's a major crime of war.  This has to be lifted
right away; we have to fight for this.

        Message from FOUAD AL-GHAFFARI; Chairman of Advisory Office
for Coordination with BRICS, Yemen:  Dear Mrs. Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, the noble chairwoman of the Schiller Institute and
the New Silk Road Lady; dear Mr. Hussein Askary, the Middle East
coordinator of the Schiller Institute, Ladies and Gentlemen who
are gathered in this conference here in Berlin today; I carry a
great deal of joy and gratitude for you and for your team for the
outstanding awareness achieved in my country about the New Silk
Road and the World Land-Bridge, and the new economic system of
the BRICS.  All that awareness delivered special marks that is
occurring through our advisory office, the rights to publish and
distribute the Arabic of the EIR Special Report, "The New Silk
Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge"; and printing 1000 copies for
the Yemeni market.

        DR. BOUTHAINA SHAABAN; from the Presidency of Syria: If we
need to create a world for all, if we need to create a peaceful
world, if we need to create a prosperous world for all, we need
to create a conceptual, intellectual concept of one world; we
need to create a conceptual concept of the Silk Road.  Not only
an actual Silk Road, but an intellectual Silk Road.  All of you
know that Aleppo and Syria were extremely crucial in the ancient
Silk Road that connected Asia to Europe.  Syria and the Syrian
people will be more than happy to be also very active in a New
Silk Road, in a political, social, intellectual Silk Road that
connects Asia to the West; that connects Eurasia to the West.

PROJECT PHOENIX video:  Not only Aleppo, but all of Syria with
its people, culture and artifacts, represents a unique and living
testimony to the coexistence and continuity of different human
civilizations.  It is imperative that the world defend and
preserve it; and when peace is established, make it the world
capital for the dialogue of civilizations.

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  So, I think we should be fully
conscious that in this present crisis lies a tremendous chance to
reach a new Renaissance as significant, and maybe even more
significant, than the change from the Middle Ages to the modern
times.  That if we break with the axioms of the globalization, of
the deductive thinking, of all the things which have led to this
crisis; and focus on the creativity of mankind as that which
distinguishes us from other species, that many of us can probably
live to see a world where each child is educated universally and
that the normal condition of mankind will be genius.  That that
which is human will be fully developed, to have all the
potentials developed of the human species as creative composers,
scientists, engineers, extraordinary people discovering things
which we doesn't even know the question here of; like China going
to the far side of the Moon.  We will understand secrets of the
Universe which we don't even know yet to ask.  And people will
become better people.  I believe that the true nature of human
beings is good; that every human being has a capacity of
limitless perfection and goodness of the soul.  And to accomplish
that, is within reach; and let's work for it.

        OGDEN:  So, as you can see, this was an absolutely
extraordinary conference.  And on the final screen, you saw
briefly the website displayed where you can find the full
proceedings of the conference.  It's
newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com.  And although that was a tour
de force of incredible speakers of a really incredible caliber,
that was not even all of the speakers who were present.  So, we
encourage you to go to the website and watch all of the
presentations in full.  Mrs. LaRouche was emphatic in saying
after the fact, that this was an absolute breakthrough in terms
of the activity of the LaRouche Movement, the types of people,
the caliber of people who were there.  This was not just an
analysis, or talking about issues, or the problems of the planet.
But it could be seen very clearly that we are the center of
organizing the solution, organizing the change in paradigm.
        One of the other things that was a major feature of this
conference, which we just couldn't include in that overview, was
an outstanding Classical musical concert that was organized on
the evening of the conference.  This included a Russian
children's choir singing Russian songs; it included a string
orchestra based out of London that plays professionally at the
lower Verdi tuning of A-432; it included a performance of Chinese
folk songs and other Classical music; and then a grand finale
performance of the Mozart Coronation Mass by the greater European
Schiller Institute Chorus, joined by other choruses from around
Berlin.
        So, this is an absolute breakthrough; and as Mrs. LaRouche
said, the conceptions which lie at the heart of the solutions to
the crisis were there.  And this was representative of the
leadership of the world.  And I think that's what we have to
offer in this moment of danger and uncertainty.
        So, I think we can open up the discussion from there; it's a
hard act to follow, I'm sure, but …

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Well I think that the point that Helga made
that you just referenced, Matt, on this question of shaping
policy; what you see increasingly now not only in Eurasia, but
what we saw with the participation at the conference with
significant participation from Europe, high-level participation
from the United States.  You see an increasing desire to look at
the fact that this current system, even the {New York Times} had
the intellectual ability to recognize that this post-World War II
system, the system set up by Churchill, by the FBI — this Wall
Street system — since Franklin Roosevelt's death, is essentially
now coming to an end.  That's what the Brexit references.  The
conference as a whole was in the context of the Brexit vote; but
it's not simply a vote to leave the European Union.  This is a
reaction by an increasing majority in the trans-Atlantic within
the population; which recognizes that the system is dying.  It's
dead.  There's no longer a future, a life in the current system
they're living in.  Whether that's Great Britain, whether it's
the United States, where you see the major populist revolts here;
this was discussed by many of the speakers.  And many of them
didn't expect it to occur; and yet, when you're on the ground and
you're organizing the population, when you have increasing
suicide rates, increasing drug overdoses, increasing levels of
unemployment, it's not hard to figure out when talking to the
population.
        It's a new system, a system of value, a financial system;
but it's a policy.  It's a policy for the long-term development
of mankind that has to be conjured and redeveloped in the minds
of the population.  And I think that's what's so essential about
the conference is that Helga's entire intent with this
conference, and why Lyn's participation was so important, was
because it provokes a quality of discussion.  A new conception of
where mankind must go and what mankind must become; and that
really is the essential nature.  Because at this point, this
trans-Atlantic system has no longer any life; it almost like it's
breaking, it's fracturing.  Each break leads to more breaks.  The
question is, what's the new whole; what's the new conception of
mankind in the trans-Atlantic and for the world?
        And I think we have a lot of work to do, but clearly it's
the most open situation politically that we've ever seen.

        WILLIAM ROBERTS:  I would just add that I think for an
American audience, the thing really to take away from this whole
process is that clearly what we're seeing in terms of the process
of development of the New Silk Road, and in terms of the beauty
of the idea which I think people, as they have a chance to
experience the cultural panel, the musical process from this
conference, will geopolitics is irrepressible at
this point.  What that means is that there's no turning back;
there are no half measures or piecemeal measures to do anything
of a halfway nature at this point.  I would say that this
includes that it really should be very obvious to the American
population that this current election process is a complete and
utter sham.  A so-called "democratic" election process, where you
have a couple of candidates, but there's absolutely no discussion
of the ridiculous war crimes of the last 15 years of
administrations in the United States.  Even in Britain now, you
have Jeremy Corbyn who is threatening to bring a war crimes
tribunal, should he come into government, against Tony Blair. The
Blair crowd is shaking in their boots, and you can see that there
is a complete and total situation of weakness of this entire
British Empire at this moment.  And because this is really
unclear in the minds of the American people, and because it's
very unclear how close we are to thermonuclear war, how
aggressively the threat of thermonuclear warheads is being used
against China and Russia.  Because the ignorance to that is the
most dangerous thing that's contributing to the danger that's
facing this planet right now.
        I think the one pathway or one tool in the United States
that expresses that level of an abrupt shift against geopolitics
in particular, is what is now the motion around the 28 pages to
expose the role of the British and the Saudis and the cover-up of
that process.  Sen. Bob Graham has made the point in a recent
interview in the {Daily Beast} that it's very clear now that the
two-month period that the Obama administration gave him
assurances of that they would review the pending release of the
28 pages.  That's come and past now; and it's clear the intent is
to keep this thing in the dark and continue the desperate war
push.
        I'll just mention one more thing.  There are also now, the
Obama administration is completely pushing a lie and vastly under
counting the number of innocent civilians that have been killed
by drone strikes throughout the countries that we're not at war
with.  It should really just hit people, the contrast between the
beauty of this process of a world beyond geopolitics and the
unconscious war crimes and the acceptance of the legitimacy of a
process which completely covers over and overlooks the tremendous
war crimes of these recent two administrations.  So, I think that
should be a real immediate wake-up call that we do have to, as
Americans, break out of this current paradigm.

        OGDEN:  What Helga began the discussion with, which I think
shaped the entire quality of all of the panels, was the statement
— which was a very profound statement — that in the face of
great evil, mankind is capable of finding within himself great
good.  And I think that you were witnessing that in all of the
speakers.  The spirit that was moving all of these speakers, is
one that this system can no longer be allowed to continue; it has
reached the point where it is too horrible to contemplate the
logical outcome of following through with a continuation of the
values that underlie this system as a whole.  And we see it
breaking itself down all around us.  None of these events that
have occurred are somehow causal of the breakdown of the system;
they are merely systematic, they are paradigmatic.  The Brexit is
paradigmatic; everything that you see in terms of what Michael
was sighting about the depression, the demoralization, the
despair in the populations in both the United States and Europe.
This is symptomatic of a system that is in dire need of dramatic
change.
        The good news is that that change, the wind is blowing in
from the East.  You have a new system, which has come to life
based on proposals that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche laid out in
their seed form 30 or 40 years ago.  It's now taken the form of
the official policy of the most populous country in the world.
You have the official, public integration between the New Silk
Road and the Eurasian Economic Union; this is explicitly based on
a return to the values that Franklin Roosevelt envisioned would
dominate the world following World War II.  However, [they] were
supplanted by some very evil and destructive forces.  Now you
have the New Silk Road, you have the opportunity for an entirely
new paradigm, which Helga says repeatedly; and which she said at
that conference.  It would be so easy; this is not some daunting,
never-ending distant dream of a new system which is a fantasy.
It's very real; it's very present; and it's something that, on
the turn of a dime, by a handful of leaders comprised of many of
the people you saw speaking at that conference and the circles
that they represent.  A decision overnight to enter this new
paradigm and to drop some of the failed values that have led us
down this path to danger and destruction, would be sufficient to
bring Europe, to bring the United States, to bring the Western
world into harmony with a New Paradigm which is already emerging.
Not that anything is perfect, but there is a directionality,
there is an impulse towards the perfection of man, towards the
increase of the productive powers of the human race, towards the
greater good of the human species; which is guiding us or pulling
us into the future.  And if we're willing to listen to that
voice, the voice from the future; we can save man at this
critical juncture in our history.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think it really goes to the issue to the
power of ideas in this whole process.  Because I think Helga made
the very emphatic point that this was a major breakthrough
conference.  If people are familiar with the Schiller Institute,
much of its activity is centered on these international
conferences.  And if you go back to the mid-'90s, the conferences
we were involved in, Helga was involved in then, and the
launching of the whole Eurasian Land-Bridge perspective when it
was just an idea.  It was just a conception; it was a right idea,
it was true, it was on principle.  And Lyn and Helga fought for
that conception; and now you see it coming to fruition.  So I
think this whole process is useful, especially for people who
watch too much TV in the United States and are immersed in the
insanity of the United States, to get a sense of what's actually
real; what's actually powerful.  What matters in history.  It's
not the crap you see thrown around that this culture is inundated
with; that is a passing breeze in history that's going to come
and go.  What matters is your truthful commitment to principles,
to true ideas.
        And I think Helga's concluding remark about looking at where
we are from this much longer historical perspective and saying
"We need a new shift in our very recognition of what mankind is.
We need to look to things like the Golden Renaissance; and look
at mankind in the Middle Ages, in the Dark Ages.  And compare
that to what mankind became after the Renaissance.  It's a
complete transformation of the human species that I think Lyn was
intervening with in some of the discussions; that we have to
recognize that that character of continual complete revolution in
the very nature of our existence, is human.  So you're looking at
a moment like this, and Lyn really emphasized the self-breakdown
of this trans-Atlantic system.  This self-feeding breakdown
process.  People talk about the Brexit like what maneuvering are
they doing; why did they decide to do that.  They're panicking;
they're responding to crises that are being created by the
breakdown process itself.  This is not something that's in
control.  In that complete disintegration, it's these
conceptions, these ideas, this gathering of people of this
caliber for international discussion around what does mankind
really need to be doing as mankind on this planet.  Can we
finally reach the point where we actually unite nations around a
real conception of what is a universal, unifying, truthful
principle about humanity?  About what makes our species unique
and different from anything else we see on this planet.  That's
us; that's mankind.  We can have that as a common goal, as a
common unifying factor; and that's emerging now.
        So, I think for people inundated with the degeneracy of the
political process, the cultural process, this stands out as a
reference point that people can use to lift their minds out of
the gutter of popular opinion and into history and see what's
actually happening right now.

        OGDEN:  Absolutely.  One thing that people will have noticed
from that overview video that you had the opportunity to watch,
is that there was a very significant involvement from leadership
within Syria.  Right in the war zone, including a government
advisor, Her Excellency, the advisor who you saw speaking; which
was a live video hook-up directly from Damascus.  And she engaged
in a dialogue process with the attendees of that conference,
which was very significant.  Helga LaRouche said that that panel,
which was an entire panel on the reconstruction of Syria.  What
happens after we bring peace?  How can we bring peace to this
region?  A region which is a crossroads of civilization; was a
crossroads of the old Silk Road, is a crossroads between three
continents.  She raised the fact that President Assad, prior to
the outbreak of the fighting, had proposed an idea called the
Five-Sea Strategy.  And if you look at the five oceans — the Red
Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and the
Persian Gulf — you have Syria situated right in the middle of
those.  So, it's not only a crossroads of the Silk Road as a land
route from Asia to Europe to Africa; but it's also a crossroads
of the Maritime Silk Road, and the connections between these five
seas.
        There was a video presented which was prepared prior to the
conference called "Project Phoenix"; which is a vision for the
reconstruction of Syria.  And there was other dialogue at the
conference from very high-level persons from within cultural
circles and also government circles within Syria.  So, Helga was
emphatic to say that this panel on the reconstruction of Syria
was certainly a highlight of the conference; and I think it was
just exemplary of the fact that the Schiller Institute really is
the go-to body in terms of these people who are desperate for a
solution, desperate for a future for their countries.  They know
who has the ideas, they know where to go to get those ideas.  So,
the combination between the expansion of the New Silk Road, the
reconstruction of Syria, there were three resolutions that were
passed at the conference.  One for the immediate end to the
sanctions against Russia; another for an immediate end to the
sanctions against Syria; and also one against the Saudi
bombardment of Yemen, which is ongoing to this day.  And you saw
a gentleman who sent in a video from Yemen; right from the war
zone there.
        I can't emphasize enough, and I think you got a little bit
of a flavor during that overview, of the caliber of this
conference.  But I really can't emphasize enough:  You need to
watch this conference in full.  You need to share this; you need
to get this around to everybody who you know.  As you were
saying, Ben, this is a completely different perspective on the
world than what you would normally get from your average
mainstream media.  So, I just wanted to encourage you, again, to
— as the videos become available — to go the
newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com website.

        STEGER:  Just to add to that, Matthew, I think you might
have mentioned this at the beginning; but in the discussion with
Helga and Lyn yesterday, the reality is that the kind of collapse
and crisis we are now incurring is something beyond anything
mankind has experienced up to this point.  This is not a collapse
of the stock market; it's not a Lehman Brothers financial
collapse.  You're now seeing the political dissolution.  The
Presidential spokesman for Russia, Peskov, made some comparison
to the breakdown of the Soviet Union; but you see that this is
even of a greater scale than that kind of collapse.  You might
say that the world is better prepared for this crisis than the
one in 1989, but I would say that it's not prepared sufficiently.
And the leadership in the United States and the trans-Atlantic is
not prepared sufficiently at all at this point.  And the
population has to bear some responsibility on this.  There's so
much emphasis on democracy in the West; democracy in and of
itself is not a principle.  As Ben referenced, we need an actual
return to a sense of universal principles; knowable scientific,
physical characteristics of the Universe to shape our policies.
But those principles cannot exist within a small set of people;
you can't expect an elite to somehow solve and address the
problems we now face.  The population as a whole — and this is
why our outreach in the United States to uplift people beyond
this Presidential fiasco; and to recognize that there is not a
preparation, there is not yet a capability to address this
problem sufficiently.  But what this conference addresses is the
level of discussion, the level of participation that begins to
move it in that direction.  And that is of an urgent nature;
because these events, as we saw last week, are only going to
increase in the weeks ahead.
        Just in the last couple of weeks, you've seen fundamental
changes in orientation from Japan towards Russia and China.  The
new Philippine President Duterte made major motions toward the
FDR and Lincoln tradition and a collaborative effort towards
China.  You've seen major changes even in the last week by Turkey
and their rapprochement towards Russia.  There are major
developments constantly happening which are reshaping the world.
But the crisis of a collapse of this trans-Atlantic system is far
beyond anything most people have ever imagined; and I think the
seriousness and urgency to develop these ideas and participate in
this dialogue has never been greater.

        DENISTON:  The collapse goes to the heart of this British
system.  A lot can be said, but go to Adam Smith, go to the
original fundamental cultural assumptions, ideas about the nature
of man.  Man is governed by pleasure and pain; that mankind is
just a species that can respond only to pleasure stimulus, avoid
pain stimulus.  The whole ideological framework of the British
system, which has increasingly infected and taken over the United
States and run the trans-Atlantic system, goes to those deep
issues about what is your understanding of the nature of mankind
in the Universe.  And we're seeing the breakdown of this entire
British ideological imperial cultural system that has dominated
really for centuries.  I think that is the scale that we're
looking at.  This is the breakdown of a century-spanning imperial
outlook that's had ebbs and flows and increases and decreases of
its dominance; but it's not reaching the point of self-inflicted
collapse.  So in a certain sense, Americans have a certain
tradition in direct opposition to that clearly; and people should
be celebrating that in the next couple of days, not just hot dogs
and fireworks.  But actually use this as an opportunity to get a
real rooted sense of what is our mission as Americans in
opposition to this imperial ideology.  In direct resonance and
collaboration with what you're seeing out of Asia right now; this
is the time to bring that back.

        OGDEN:  Right.  It's exactly what you said — to constantly
come back and say what is the ideological failure which is
underlying all of the events that you're seeing.  The breakdown,
the refugees, the disintegration politically, financially,
culturally of the European system; and as Helga emphasized at
this conference, it's only a paradigm shift on the level of
change from the Dark Age to the Renaissance which will something
that will function at this moment.  That didn't just happen; that
was not some sort of organic process of historical materialism
transforming itself.  That was a willful change; that was a
willful change in the fundamental ideas underlying society and
the way that society worked.  It's people who have to ability to
self-consciously reflect on the fact that we are facing the
failure of a system of thinking; and then to say to examine what
those failed ideas are.  And then to say, how do we replace them;
how do we discover a new principle and create a fundamental
intellectual revolution which will allow mankind to carry itself
forward into the future?  I think that's what we witnessed in the
proceedings of that conference; but as Michael said, it's
something which cannot stay within the confines of that
conference and the people who attended it.  It is something which
must become an integral part of our national dialogue as a
people; and it's our responsibility to bring that about.  That's
not something that we can sit back and wait for somebody else to
do.
        So, I think that's a good Independence Day message.

DENISTON:  People think they are what they experience; they think
that's what they are.  That's not what you are; people are what
they create, or what they fail to create.  People are not just
your experiences in life; people are what is your new fundamental
contribution you're making to human society, or you're failing to
make to human society.  Until people completely transform their
understanding of what they think their lives mean, we're not
going to reach the level needed to make the transition that was
presented very clearly this past weekend.

        OGDEN:  All right.  I'm going to bring a conclusion to our
show at this point, but what you should immediately do is visit
the newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com website.  Some of the
videos are available; I know that Helga Zepp-LaRouche's keynote
video is available in full.  That's a 30-35-minute length video;
so at least please watch that.  And then, as the other videos
become available, it'll be posted on that website; so bookmark
it, make sure that you follow the YouTube channel, and you'll be
notified as soon as those videos are made available.
        So, I'd like to thank all of you for joining us today.  And
I'd like to thank Bill and Michael for joining us via video.  And
again, to emphasize:  newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com.  And we
will have continuing coverage on larouchepac.com as well.  So,
thank you very much.  Happy Independence Day, and good night.
 

28. juni 2016 – I historiens løb har Aleppo været vidne til mange øjeblikke af storhed, så vel som også nedgang og urolige tider, men byen har altid igen rejst sig af asken, som Fugl Fønix. Det syriske folk og den syriske regering har holdt denne samme ånd i live, konfronteret med den værste krise i landets historie.

I denne fremlæggelse gennemgår vi et forslag til genopbygningen af Syrien, ved navn Projekt Fønix, og som fokuserer på, hvordan Syrien, der har en ideel placering ved korsvejen, hvor tre kontinenter mødes, kan få gavn af at blive opkoblet til Den Nye Silkevej og den fremvoksende Verdenslandbro. Denne video blev optaget til Schiller Instituttets Internationale konference i Berlin, Tyskland, 25.-26. juni, 2016: »En fælles fremtid for menneskeheden, og en renæssancekultur for klassiske kulturer«

Se også: Projekt Fønix – diskussionspunkter for en genopbygning af Syrien.

Se også: En fredsplan for Sydvestasien, af Helga Zepp-LaRouche. EIR-Pressemeddelelse i anledning af udgivelsen fa den arabiske version af rapporten “Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen”.

Se også: Playlist: The World Land-Bridge & Global Development

28. juni 2016 – Schiller Instituttets internationale todages konference samlede flere end 300 gæster fra 24 nationer og fire kontinenter til en intens og dybtgående dialog om, hvorledes den umiddelbare fare for en verdenskrig kan standses ved i stedet at skabe et nyt paradigme for globalt samarbejde og udvikling, baseret på en dialog mellem civilisationer og den menneskelige arts enestående kreativitet. Konferencedeltagerne var ekstremt opmærksomme på optrapningen af den vestlige, geopolitiske konfrontation mod Rusland og Kina og faren for atomkrig, og en resolution vedtoges, der krævede den omgående afslutning af sanktioner mod Rusland og Syrien. At gøre en ende på krigen og genopbygge det krigshærgede Syrien og hele det sydvestasiatiske område var et hovedfokus på konferencen, hvor dr. Bouthaina Shaaban, medlem af Syriens præsidentskab, talte til konferencens tilhørere og deltog i en bevægende, Spørgsmål & Svar-live stream.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

28. juni 2016 (Leder) – Ved afslutningen af todages-konferencen i Berlin, sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet, hvor ledende talere fra fire kontinenter fremlagde det rædselsvækkende billede af både den ’evindelige krig’, der finder sted i dag, og truslen om en atomkrig i morgen, samt de nødvendige løsninger med den Nye Silkevejs-proces, kom Lyndon LaRouche med følgende bemærkninger (parafrase):

Vi kan som et folk indgå aftale om ideer om en fredelig løsning på den krise, vi står overfor, hvilket er afgørende. Send et stærkt og klart opråb; spred ordet. Vi søger ikke krig. Der er en anden løsning end atter at blive krigens offer.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche afsluttede dernæst konferencen, som stifter af og præsident for Schiller Instituttet, med ordene: »Jeg opfordrer jer til at tilslutte jer Schiller Instituttet og, hvad der ligeledes er vigtigt, at følge Lyndon LaRouches vise ord.«

Aldrig har den overhængende krise stået mere skarpt. Den britiske Brexit-afstemning sidste torsdag afslørede den kendsgerning, at Imperiets finansielle system går rundt i den bare natskjorte. Brexit forårsagede ingenting – den afslørede simpelt hen den kendsgerning, der i mange år har været åbenlys for alle, for nær de blinde, at det enorme spillekasino, kendt som det transatlantiske finansielle system, ikke kan »reddes« – og ganske bestemt ikke ved, at man trykker flere penge for kunstigt at stive de bankerotte banker af i endnu nogle uger eller måneder. Londons førende bankaktier er kollapset med over 30 % siden Brexit-afstemningen torsdag, og med halvdelen i løbet af det seneste år. Alle de vestlige »To Big to Fail«-banker – ’for store til at lade gå ned-banker’ – står over for en lignende skæbne, der allerede er i gang.

Vi må gøre en ende på systemets elendighed med en total Glass/Steagall-afskrivning af de værdiløse værdipapirer, der dominerer de såkaldte aktiver i storbankerne. Først da kan et kreditsystem efter Hamiltons principper blive genindført, som det kræves, for at Vesten kan tilslutte sig Rusland og Kina i den globale udviklingsproces, der nu er i gang, sammen med verdens nationer og folk, gennem programmet med Ét bælte, én vej, Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen, den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, den Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank, BRIKS’ Nye Udviklingsbank – som alle er helliget til, og nu aktivt investerer i, regionale infrastrukturprojekter i stor skala i hele verden. Som LaRouche har understreget hele sit liv – udelukkende kun en sådan kreativ transformation af verdens borgeres produktivitet, gennem videnskabelige opdagelser, kan gøre en ende på det mareridt, menneskeheden nu står overfor.

Det vestlige finansoligarkis frygt er, at Storbritanniens afgang fra EU vil indgyde mod i det voksende antal ledere i Europa, der ønsker at afkaste City of Londons og det sjælløse EU-diktatur i Bruxelles’ lænker. Den tyske udenrigsminister Steinmeiers fordømmelse af, at NATO rasler med atomsablen og udøver militære provokationer mod Rusland, har mange støtter, der blot mangler modet til at tale offentligt. Dette er vores opgave – LaRouches »stærke og klare opråb« om, at der er en løsning, hvis folk finder det sublime i sig selv og handler på vegne af menneskeheden som et hele.

Foto: Lyndon og Helga LaRouche på Schiller Instituttets Konference i Berlin,  25. – 26. juni, 2016.

Det er i dag den 24. juni, 2016 – en særdeles lovende dato. Det er en meget, meget farlig periode, og vi står med ekstraordinære udviklinger på hånden. Det kunne vel næppe være tydeligere netop nu, forskellen mellem sammenstillingen med det døde-og-døende transatlantiske system, centreret omkring den Europæiske Union; og så fremtiden med det Eurasiske System. På den ene side, med det totale sammenbrud og den bogstavelige disintegration af det europæiske system – briternes exit af den Europæiske Union, samt det transatlantiske finansielle systems totale bankerot, der nu afsløres. Og, på den anden side, Vladimir Putins og Xi Jinpings igangværende indsats for en konsolidering og sammensmeltning af den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, den Nye Silkevej, og hele verden centreret omkring Stillehavet, som Lyndon LaRouche i mange årtier har arbejdet hen imod, i form af samarbejde mellem de store nationer Rusland, Kina, Indien og andre. Valget er meget, meget klart.

Engelsk udskrift.

(En oversættelse af første del af webcastet følger snarest. Bliv på kanalen! -red.)

BREXIT VOTE IS MUCH MORE SERIOUS AND DEADLY THAN MERELY A REACTION.  WE MUST PROVIDE THE LEADERSHIP TO AVOID WAR.

LaRouche PAC Webcast, June 24, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon!  It's June 24th, 2016. My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly
LaRouchePAC Friday evening webcast. I'm joined in the studio by
Ben Deniston from the LaRouchePAC Science Team; and via video, by
three members of our Policy Committee: Diane Sare, from New York
City; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, TX; and Rachel Brinkley, from
Boston, MA.
        Today is June 24th, 2016 — a very auspicious date. It's a
very, very dangerous period, and we have extraordinary
developments on our hands. I think it could not be more clear
right now the distinction between the juxtaposition of the
dead-and-dying trans-Atlantic system, centered in the European
Union; and the future, of the Eurasian system. On one hand, with
the complete breakdown and {literal} disintegration of the
European system — the exit by the British from the European
Union, and the complete bankruptcy which is now being exposed of
the trans-Atlantic financial system. And on the other hand, the
ongoing efforts by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping to consolidate
and coalesce the Eurasian Economic Union, the New Silk Road, and
the entire Pacific-centered world that Lyndon LaRouche has been
working towards for many decades in the form of the collaboration
between the great nations of Russia, China, India, and others.
The choice is very, very clear.
        Earlier today we had a discussion with Mr. LaRouche. He was
very emphatic to emphasize that the crash that we're now seeing
in the trans-Atlantic financial system must be blamed on Obama.
This is not something which can be construed as a reaction to an
event, but in fact the bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic financial
system was already a reality before this [Brexit] vote even
occurred. This is not a reaction, he said. This is something
that's much more dangerous, and much more serious, and much more
deadly, especially when you consider the fact that Obama is
continuing to push the world towards the brink of thermonuclear
war with the emerging Eurasian system of Russia and China.
        Mr. LaRouche said we're experiencing a complete change in
the whole fundamental situation. Everything is now going towards
a crash. And it's not because of a reaction to an event, but it
was already pre-determined. Mr. LaRouche said, "We're on the edge
of thermonuclear war, which under the current circumstances Putin
would probably win; but Obama is insane enough to continue to
push the world in that direction." He said, "Putin is currently
in charge, in terms of his role being hegemonic. That was very
clear by the recently concluded events in the St. Petersburg
International Economic Forum, and then the bilateral meetings
that are going to happen this weekend between Putin and Xi
Jinping."
        Mr. LaRouche said, "We're on the edge of something very big.
You must get Obama out! It's very dangerous to have him in office
under these circumstances. Our job is to calmly bring a solution
to this crisis from inside of our role here in the United States,
with Putin playing a key leadership role internationally. We are
in a position," Mr. LaRouche said, "to enter into a phase in
which a solution is possible."
        Now, I want to open up the discussion; I want to invite
Diane to elaborate a little bit more on the role that Obama,
together with David Cameron, played in creating the circumstances
that we are now observing in terms of the aftermath of the
Brexit.

        DIANE SARE:  Well, everyone has heard of the famous
expression "the kiss of death"; and Obama delivered this in
London on April 22nd when he went there for two purposes.  One
was to express his firm support for Great Britain remaining in
the EU; and I'm going to read his exact comments, so that there's
no question on that.  And then also, to celebrate the birthday of
Her Majesty the Queen, whom he says is one of his favorite people
— I'm reading from his remarks; and he said, "And we should be
fortunate enough to reach 90, may we be as vibrant as she is. She
is an astonishing person and a real jewel to the world; not just
to the United Kingdom."  And in fact, that has been Mr.
LaRouche's point — that the Queen of England does not see her
realm as the United Kingdom; she's been trying to run a global
dictatorship, and Barack Obama is one of her tools.  And like a
typical malignant narcissist, Obama either intended to crash the
entire system; or is blithely unaware of how despised he is.  So,
at a joint press conference at 10 Downing Street with a British
Prime Minister who is now resigning, David Cameron, Obama admits
he said, "Yes, the Prime Minister and I discussed the upcoming
referendum here on whether or not the UK should remain part of
the European Union.  Let me be clear:  Ultimately, this is
something that the British voters have to decide for themselves;
but as part of our special relationship, part of being friends is
to be honest and to let you know what I think.  And speaking
honestly, the outcome of that decision is a matter of deep
interest to the United States; because it affects our prospects
as well.  The United States wants a strong United Kingdom as a
partner, and the United Kingdom is at its best when it's helping
to lead a strong Europe.  It leverages UK power to be part of the
European Union."  And then he adds:  "Let me be clear.  As I
wrote in the op-ed here today, I don't believe the EU moderates
British influence in the world, it magnifies it.  The EU has
helped to spread British values and practices across the
continent.  The single market brings extraordinary benefits to
the United Kingdom; and that ends up being good for America,
because we're more prosperous when one of our best friends and
closest allies has a strong, stable, and growing economy."
        So presumably, the time between April and this referendum
was enough for people to stop vomiting and make it to the polls,
and vote to get out of the European Union as quickly as possible;
which is what many of them did.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think also, according to what Mr. LaRouche
said — and this is absolutely the case — the crash was already
happening.  It's a faulty view of history to say, "Well, an event
happened, and therefore there was a reaction."  And Mr. LaRouche
is saying, the problem is that people think in terms of
reactions; one thing happens and then another thing happens.  In
fact, Europe was already bankrupt.  Think about what was already
happening.  You had major European banks refusing to put their
money into the ECB; you had negative interest rates at the ECB,
which is an unprecedented, never-before-happened event in the
history of that system.  And you had a complete breakdown of the
ability of both the European and the American workforce to be
able to have productive jobs or anything of that means.  So, we
already were in a complete bankruptcy of this entire
trans-Atlantic financial system; and now today, it is more clear
than ever that the New Paradigm — which is represented by
Vladimir Putin's and Xi Jinping's collaboration; the combination
between the Eurasian Economic Union and the New Silk Road policy
of China, which is based not on an idea of rival blocs or
economic competition or something like that.  It's based on the
idea of a win-win collaboration.  Now's the time for the European
countries and for the United States to finally reject this Obama
paradigm; and say we are going to join this New Paradigm.  And
many other nations in Europe could follow very closely behind
Britain and leave the European Union, since it's now clear that
it's a completely bankrupt institution.

KESHA ROGERS:  And Obama can follow behind Cameron and leave the
United States immediately.  What you're seeing right now, as Mr.
LaRouche once said, is the end of a delusion; an end of a dead
system.  And the end of an era of a zero-growth paradigm; which
has dominated the culture and society for far too long.  And it
actually goes against the true essence of our nature and being as
human beings.  And this is exactly the strategic conception of
man and the fundamental understanding of human beings that Putin
actually understands; and those who are taking this direction of
the New Paradigm forward.  Because it's based in the identity for
the future, of actually creating the future.
        I just wanted to say that tomorrow, there will be several
meetings, including one I'm going to be hosting here around the
space program and the identity of the great mind of Krafft
Ehricke.  The title of the event is going to be "Free Mankind
from Terrorism and War; Embrace Krafft Ehricke's Age of Reason".
I think that's where we are right now; the question is, can we
bring about an age of reason by getting the population to
understand that what they have accepted in terms of the policy of
dictatorship and backward, degenerate culture that we have been
under for the last 15 years.  Namely, with the destructive and
murderous policies of 9/11, that have not to this day been
brought to justice; and 9/11 never ended.  That's why Obama is
continuing to get away with the murderous policies that are
influencing the entire world right now.  That we haven't brought
these crimes to the forefront; that we haven't brought the
perpetrators of these crimes — Obama, the Saudis, the British —
to justice and actually declared that we are going to join with
this New Paradigm.  That's what really has to come across right
now.
        The conception of Krafft Ehricke is very crucial in
understanding what has to be the turning point for the thinking
and identity of our nation, based on its foundation around being
the example of a true Renaissance culture.  When you think about
the Apollo mission, and you think about what we did with the
space program; and why Obama has targetted the space program.  It
wasn't a matter of opinion or a budgetary question; it was a
direct targetting on this potential for human progress and to
continue to promote this zero-growth paradigm.  What we're seeing
right now is that Russia and China are saying that this is not
the direction that we will allow and have mankind to go in; we're
going to actually develop and promote the true conception of what
human destiny actually is.
        So, what you see right now in terms of after this vote
indicating the further breakdown of Europe and the trans-Atlantic
system, which was already in the process on the opposite side,
you have something that is completely remarkable being brought
in.  Putin and Modi — the Prime Minister of India, President Xi
Jinping in China, the SCO summit this weekend, and the signing of
massive agreements for economic cooperation and development,
including space collaboration.  The question is, where is the
United States in this?  The idea that the Renaissance conception
of mankind based on this identity of creating the future and
restoring a moral value to society, is seen directly in what
Russia and China are doing right now; and why this is a critical
call to the moral of the United States to change that and to join
with that direction.

        RACHEL BRINKLEY:  Another important aspect is what is the
solution; what are the new systems.  And the question of the
space collaboration between Russia and China is not just over a
few projects; this is what they emphasized over the last few
days.  They're looking at two things — space travel for one, and
space station collaboration for two; and also with an emphasis on
health and the implications [of space] on human bodies.  So,
these are big questions; these are not just, let's put a rover
and test geology or something.  This is looking at how the
Universe works, how the Solar System works, how the human body
works; and saying that this is going to have implications on
Earth in medicine, to give people a sense that this is how
mankind makes advances.
        This has to be in the context of the question of Alexander
Hamilton, which LaRouche has emphasized, and he recently made the
point that what was it that was important about Hamilton?  He
said, what he did in Philadelphia, what he did in creating the
Constitutional system of the United States.  He knew that it
wasn't just the military victory that would enable the United
States to survive; the intention of the United States was to be a
system that created a better future for every single individual,
not a slave system.  So, he created the inherent economics of
political economy to create that better future; and that is what
the discussion is right now.  This is not just Russia and China
making some oil deals, or a new pipeline or something like that;
it's actually above nations as such.  That's what LaRouche said
about this Brexit vote; it's not just business as usual, this is
not a vote on pragmatic politics.  There's something bigger
acting.  People did not want war; they're tired of Obama's kill
policies which have terrorized the planet through his support for
ISIS, the refugee crisis out of Syria; this is clear.  So, this
is something that's being called for, there's something acting
which is coming from the future.
        The problem with Americans is that they've lost the sense of
how to think about that, about the future.  So, that's our job
right now, to create that discussion and that optimism about how
to do that.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think that's the question now.  What can we
create?  I was just reflecting on the discussion with Mr.
LaRouche earlier and some of his remarks throughout the week, and
I think his emphasis that you can't respond to or interpret
events is really critical at a time like this.  When you're
seeing these types of developments — because the Brexit vote is
one example; these are not events causing the process.  These are
events caused by the process; you have a breakdown process.  This
is an explosive development in that context, but there's already
an ongoing breakdown of the trans-Atlantic system; the cultural
system as much as the monetary system, the whole political
system.  Look at the British imperial ideology.
        But the point is, if you're responding to the events of that
process, you are still contained by that process.  How do you
break free from that process?  It's a question of creativity.
What are you doing to actually bring something fundamentally new
to the world situation?  I think that's why what you're seeing
out of Russia and China now is that; it's something new.  It's
not just a response, crisis management or trying to handle it, or
trying to respond to the events per se.  We're beyond that; the
events per se are death, that's where this thing is going.  Be it
a complete breakdown of the system, or whether it's that drive to
thermonuclear war.  So the question on the table now is, what can
you create?  What can you do that's fundamentally new to create a
new system; to actually generate a new orientation for mankind,
for leading nations, that doesn't come from a response to current
events?  That comes from a new orientation to create in the
future.
        The coverage of this in the media — the markets responding
this way or that way — it's just ridiculous.  The whole thing
has been going down for years; and we've  known it.  The question
now is, not who has the best spin on what mechanism caused what;
that doesn't matter.  The question now is, who's actually got an
insight into what the necessary future has to be?

        SARE:  I just wanted to say along those lines, to really
caution our viewers and anyone who's thinking that the way to
think about this is not to say how do we put together this broken
system; like Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall.  It's over;
and only recognizing that almost every fundamental axiom that
people had about economics in the trans-Atlantic was faulty.  And
I do have to point out that in 1988, Mr. LaRouche called for the
reunification of Germany based on his knowledge of the collapse
of the Soviet Union's economy.  And he made a proposal that the
West would provide food to Poland in return for early steps
toward an early reunification of Germany; and exactly one year
later, the Berlin Wall came down, and one year after that, Berlin
was the capital again and Germany was re-unified.  And he and his
wife both said at that time, the Soviet communist system has
failed; but that does not mean that the free trade trans-Atlantic
system is a success.  This, too, is finished; and it's end will
be much larger and more catastrophic than the disintegration of
the Soviet Union as we saw in '89.  So now we are truly there;
and the point is for the United States to recognize what Rachel
just said about Alexander Hamilton, what's embedded in our own
Constitution.  That that understanding of the intent of our
republic, combined with what Kesha represents in terms of the
space program and a true scientific orientation, is the platform
from which the United States can move to the future.
        And I just want to add — because Ben had sent something out
and I think Kesha, too — there's something circulating on the
web of 30 gigantic projects that China is engaged in building
which are changing the whole planet; these are huge
infrastructure projects.  One of them is a 16-mile long
suspension bridge across the Yangtze River; another is a group of
nuclear power plants; and so on.  I think the most expensive any
of these projects was, was something like $3.4 billion.  The
bridges might have been $1 billion or $750 million or something.
Think about that and think about the bail-out.  The first
bail-out of AIG — and there was more than one; but the first
bail-out of AIG was $80 billion.  Now, $80 billion is probably
more than the sum of what was spent on all of these 30 giant
projects combined.  You will also argue that this is not the same
kind of dollars; just like that's the problem with the metric of
what the space program generated, but I'm just using it as an
example.  Because particularly in the United States and Western
Europe, people have a totally insane view of what constitutes
value and what is money.  And if you just look at something like
this, you can see that the destruction, the degradation and
collapse of the United States has absolutely nothing to with
money per se; because we could have taken that $80 billion from
the AIG bail-out and invested it into high speed rail, nuclear
power, getting back to the Moon, any of these things.  And I
think we've done a number of $80 billion [bail-outs] just for
AIG, but the policy decision was not to do that.  And that's the
point of the insanity; and that's what we have to change, because
money itself has no intrinsic value.  Once you understand that,
you can stop panicking about all the money that's going to be
wiped out if everyone crashes and has their silly irrational
responses, or maybe it's finally rationality setting in.  Money
doesn't matter per se; the question is, what is the direction of
human progress, what is the direction of humankind?  From that
standpoint, we can turn on a dime; not that everything is going
to be repaired instantaneously.  It'll take probably two
generations for the United States to achieve a standard of living
that would be appropriate for this nation.  But nonetheless, the
direction could occur tomorrow; provided we do what Kesha said
first at the beginning, which is that Obama is no longer in
control of running the direction of this country — nor anybody
who thinks like Obama.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think it's very important that you brought
up this question of the fictitious values at the root of this
entire trans-Atlantic system; because what we're seeing in the
distinction between the bankrupt collapsing system in the
trans-Atlantic Europe-centered area, and then the growth in
China, in Russia, in India, and in that new Eurasian system.
These are not comparable types of systems; this is not one
person's loss is another person's gain or something like that.
These are completely two distinct species of outlook on the
world; and I think that's what we're getting at here.  What we're
experiencing with these crashes within the span of just a few
hours, HSBC lost 10% of its stock value; Standard Charter lost
10% of its stock value; the pound was down to a 31-year low —
lower than it's been since 1985.  But what is all of this?  This
is just the evaporation of fictitious value.
        On the other hand, you have substantial, real growth in the
form of the reconstruction of the New Silk Road, the development
of the vast interior Eurasian continent, the development of new
transport routes, these new development corridors.  Diane, I
think it's appropriate that you brought up the turning point in
1989 with the crash of the Soviet Union, because what we're
experiencing now is something at least of that caliber, if not
far, far greater than the caliber of 1989.  And you're right, Mr.
LaRouche was clear at that point that the Soviet system was
merely the first show to drop; now we're experiencing the second
shoe has dropped.  This system is bankrupt.  And at that time in
1989, is when Lyndon and Helga LaRouche planted the seeds for
what has now emerged as the New Paradigm, as the new Eurasian
economic system.  At that time it was first — in its nascent
form — the Productive Triangle; then it became what was the
Eurasian Land-Bridge.  This was adopted in the form of the New
Silk Road; and now this is being expanded to the World
Land-Bridge.  This is a vision for a global and extraterrestrial
development policy.  But Mr. LaRouche made several trips to
Russia during the 1990s; several trips to India as well.  Mrs.
LaRouche has travelled now multiple times to China in the last
several years.  This is the center; this is Mr. LaRouche's
emphasis on the impetus of leadership, the hegemonic influence at
this time of the creative leadership of the leaders of these
nations.  President Putin, President Xi Jinping, Prime Minister
Modi, and others.

DENISTON:  I think it's worth underscoring that it's still
playing out, too.  We have this SCO summit going on right now, in
which the heads of these nations are going to meet.  After that,
Putin is going to be travelling to China for a heads-of-state
meeting with Xi Jinping.  In this whole process, you're having
these dialogues to solidify — and I think this is really big —
solidify the Eurasian Economic Union cooperation with the New
Silk Road; which I think is a huge step in these very large but
regional projects moving closer to this Eurasian Land-Bridge,
World Land-Bridge perspective that Lyn and Helga have defined.
        So another point of emphasis that Mr. LaRouche has had over
the past weeks, I think is very sobering and represents a very
high level of thinking, is don't assume we know how any of this
is going to play out.  This is a developing, creative process;
there's a lot more things going on right now.  And we should be
orienting towards not trying to assume we know how all these
things are going to be finished, or what the results are going to
be.  This is an ongoing, creative process right now, and this is
how you have to think about it.  In the next days, as was
mentioned, out of the activity we're going to be engaged in over
this weekend which is very significant — both here in the United
States and in Europe — that's going to be a critical escalation.
But then over the next weeks also, we're just going to see a lot
of important developments coming.

        ROGERS:  I think it's important what Diane brought up on the
point of the system of monetarism that has dominated the culture
and society, that has actually set mankind backwards from what
the intention of the foundation of our republic actually
represented under the conception of Alexander Hamilton.  That's
really what you have to look at, too, when you think about the
cultural pessimism and the zero-growth paradigm that has
continued to dominate for the past several decades now.  It's
interesting, because people try to say that the targetting of the
space program has to do with not having enough money; we just
have to take these budget cuts.  And that's the same point.  How
much bail-outs have we put on these various financial speculators
and derivatives and so forth that we could not put into the space
program?  The idea was that it was never about the fact there
were not enough financial resources to put into the space
program.  It was in the intention not to invest into the future.
And there were many people who promoted this zero-growth paradigm
that Krafft Ehricke took on directly, who stated that the space
program represented too much of a "false optimism" for the
population; that it actually gave the population a sense of
optimism and a sense of their identity as human beings and a
commitment to the future.  The empire and those promoters of
zero-growth were adamant that they had to put a stop to that.  I
was reading an article from back in 1963 in the {New Atlantic};
it was referenced in a book by Marsha Freeman — "The Conquest of
Space and Stature of Man" by Hannah Arendt.  Hannah Arendt was
one of these major promoters of zero-growth and backwardness; and
she made the point that the fight against the space program is
not that of money, but a question of man being inherently corrupt
and that nothing good could come out of scientific progress.
        And that's the thing right now, is that what Russia and
China and this New Paradigm are promoting that only good can come
out of the nature of mankind's creative mental process in terms
of shaping and defining the future and creating that which has
never been created before.  As we're seeing with the outcome of
what China is doing with their space program.  That used to be
our mission; why we went to the Moon in the first place, and why
President Kennedy made the announcement that we would send a man
to the Moon and bring them back before the decade was out.  It
was our obligation to take on something that was fundamentally
new; that's our creative nature.
        That just puts the question that this monetary system has to
be thrown out the window; a new system of economic value based on
the real conceptions of the creative powers of the human mind has
to be brought in.  And the best conception to bring that about is
the space program.

        BRINKLEY:  Absolutely.  And Mr. LaRouche made the point that
also what do we replace this system with?  The idea has to be a
Eurasian policy; and that's what you see in space, that's what
you see in real economy is what are the mutual interests.
Europe's only chance is to join with this policy; so Obama has
explicitly prevented that.  He's called for everybody on the
planet not to join with Russia and China; he tried to prevent it,
whether it was Japan, Mexico, all the coups going on in South
America right now — Argentina.  Puerto Rico is being destroyed
and murdered by Obama and Wall Street.  LaRouche said this is
also why the [Brexit] vote occurred; Obama's economic policies,
his defense for this doomed system is clear.  Also the question
of Obama said our great ally is Great Britain, and it will be now
and forever.  Well, what are we showing with the 28 pages?  Saudi
Arabia did not act alone; actually this part might not be in the
28 pages, but it's in many other pages that are there to be
released.  Through the BAE deal, Prince Bandar, to be found out
that Great Britain might not be our greatest ally.  And Obama's
defense of Britain, of Wall Street, his continual murder policy,
the fact that somewhere 111-114 Americans commit suicide every
day; that this is Obama's policy. He is a murderer; and he has
got to be removed.  That's the fact; it's an absolutely evil
intention, and he's got to be thrown out.

        SARE:  I'd just like to add along those lines:  One is we
are having our regular Saturday meeting here in Manhattan,
although it's slightly expanded.  I will be keynoting it; and we
have Jason Ross from the Science Team is here and others, to
present these two views.  We also are holding a concert on Sunday
afternoon, dedicated to Sylvia Olden Lee, called "In Praise of
Sylvia Olden Lee", who was one of our very important
collaborators in the Schiller Institute in this fight for the
question of Classical beauty.  And Classical music is something
which can strengthen people, which strengthens our better angels,
as Abraham Lincoln might have said, to actually insure that
justice is done.  And I bring these things up, because here in
the US, you have this really diversionary, silly spectacle of
debates about gun control and Congressmen rolling around on the
floor and things like that; pretending that they're in some kind
of civil rights sit-in, when here you have the murderer-in-chief
— President Obama — presiding over a weekly kill session on
Tuesdays, deciding who he's going to kill.  Then you had
September 11th, which Rachel was alluding to, where close to 3000
Americans were killed; and justice has not been done.  And Obama
— as Bush before him — is covering up for the perpetrators of
othe crime and colluding with them as best we know.
  And I think this is a very important flank for those people
who say, "Well, it's impossible; we only have a couple more
months.  In January, we have a new President anyway."  Well, just
look at what's been happening in the last few weeks, to see how
quickly things can change.  NATO has deployed 50,000 troops in
exercises on the border of Russia.  Do you really think we should
just presume that we're going to safely avoid thermonuclear war
while we have a killer lunatic who is now more desperate than
ever as President of the United States?  I think it's very
important that people stop pretending or picking other so-called
"issues" which are really non-issues; when we have a great crime
which was committed 15 years ago on September 11, 2001, which has
not been addressed.  By addressing this and getting to the truth
of what was involved in this — the Saudi role, the British role,
the Wall Street role, the FBI role, the Bush role, Obama's role;
by addressing that, we have a lever by which to expel the current
President from the White House and hopefully land him safely in
jail where he belongs.  And to change therefore, the direction of
the United States.

        OGDEN:  If Obama was so interested in Britain's staying in
the EU, perhaps as Kesha suggested, he could follow suit after
David Cameron and announce his resignation as well.  To his
credit, David Cameron has announced that he is leaving his post
as Prime Minister before his term is over.

        DENISTON:  Obama might be too big of a narcissist; it'll
take more aggressive action for that one.

OGDEN:  But I do think that absolutely, Diane, what you just said
about the events that are coming up this weekend — both in New
York and then, Kesha, what you're hosting down in Texas — the
emphasis has got to continue to be, what is the creative
intervention that can be made to uplift the American people and
to lead the American people.  That was one thing that really did
stick out when we were speaking with Mr. LaRouche earlier today;
that it's never enough just to have the correct analysis of
events.  Our emphasis has got to be, how do we calmly bring a
solution to the table that will be the solution to this crisis?
And that's what you were saying, Ben, that we're in completely
uncharted territory; this is an unprecedented situation in the
history of mankind.  You have no idea what's going to happen
tomorrow, what's going to happen the next day.  It was almost a
comedy to watch how surprised all the pundits and the investors
and the big masters of universe and everybody were, when they
thought that they were going to sleep last night with the remain
vote having come out on top.  And then they wake up this morning
and lo and behold, it's the completely opposite result.  That
proves to you that these guys have no idea what they're doing.
        Diane, you brought this up in the webcast last week.  Why
would you give anybody any credit, when they had no idea that the
Crash of 2008 was right around the corner?  Why would you put
your trust in these people?  So, you have a completely
unprecedented situation.  The rise of the Eurasian system is not
something which is a fait accompli; this is what's driving the
directionality of the possibility of a thermonuclear war breaking
out.  Granted, the support for the sanctions and for the NATO
maneuvers in Europe is now becoming increasingly less strong; but
that doesn't mean that you're by any means guaranteed that we can
avoid a fate such as that.  So, it's decisive action and it's
creative leadership in the case of what we are able to provide;
and Mr. LaRouche was clear that it's the unique capability of the
members of this Policy Committee to provide that kind of
leadership within the United States.
        So again, I just want to emphasize the importance of these
two events that we have coming up this weekend.  So, I think with
that said, you can watch for coverage of those events as they are
broadcast.  The regular Saturday meeting will be live, available
on the LaRouche PAC website tomorrow for Manhattan; and we
encourage you to participate in that in person if you are in the
area, as well as the events in Texas.  And please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com as things rapidly change.
        If you haven't yet, make sure you subscribe to our YouTube
channel; make sure you don't miss any of these critical
discussions.  And also become a regular subscriber to our Daily
Updates which are delivered directly to your inbox via email.
So, thank you for tuning in, and please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.

21. juni 2016 (Leder) – »Formålet med øvelsen er klar«, sagde den polske præsident Andrzej Duda. »Vi forbereder et angreb.«

USA’s befolkning er ubevidst om de to mest betydningsfulde, geopolitiske faktorer på planeten. På den ene side finder vi de igangværende tiltag hen imod en global, generel atomkrig, og på den anden finder vi potentialet til at udløse den største periode med global, økonomisk vækst i menneskehedens historie. Ovenstående udtalelse fra den polske præsident, mht. den nylige, 50.000 mand stærke NATO-øvelse, »Anakonda 16«, der simulerer en invasion af Rusland, er en demonstration af desperationen på Wall Street og i [City of] London, der gør fremstød for at fremprovokere en udslettelseskrig med Rusland og Kina.

Der er en udviklingsvej for en fremtid med menneskelig fremgang – men denne vej fastlægges uden for USA – i takt med, og vores politiske proces fortsat befinder sig i Wall Streets fallerede, monetære systems kvælergreb, samt den pomp, der omgiver dette cirkus for folket og de etablerede medier. I kontrast hertil var det nyligt afsluttede Skt. Petersborg Økonomiske Forum i Rusland, som Obama forsøgte at sabotere, en total succes, der indbragte $12 mia. store økonomiske aftaler blandt 40 lande, og hvor højtplacerede europæiske ledere, der krævede en afslutning af sanktionerne mod Rusland og krigsprovokationerne, deltog. Den tidligere franske præsident Nicolas Sarkozy udtalte på konferencen:

»Vi har mange andre problemer, og vi har ikke råd til at lide pga. disse kunstigt skabte problemer. Og den stærkeste bør strække hånden frem, for den stærkeste spiller er Rusland, repræsenteret af præsident Putin.«

Det, som en stor del af verden allerede har erkendt, er, at nationens interesse ikke er bygget på militær aggression eller økonomisk krigsførelse, men derimod bygger på fremskaffelsen af en fremtid for ens egen befolkning, inklusive gennem internationalt samarbejde, for at skabe højere levestandard og bedre teknologier således, som nye indsigter i universet kan give os. Af fundamental betydning for denne udviklingsproces er rumprogrammet.

Lyndon LaRouche har peget på rumforskningspioneren Krafft Ehricke som den person, der »har skabt selve ideen om et rumprogram«. Ehricke var forpligtende engageret over for princippet om fremskridt og fordømte nejsigernes ikke-forandring, og udtalte:

»en filosofi med anti-vækst, der af menneskene forlanger, at de skal leve med mindre af alting, kan sætte os tilbage til Middelalderen, fordi en hund-æder-hund-kamp med sikkerhed vil bryde ud under sådanne omstændigheder … Livet viser os, at teknologiske fremskridt er vejen ad hvilken. Men, baseret på disse teknologiske fremskridt, må vores art og vores civilisation ligeledes gøre fremskridt. Så kan vi gå videre.« 

Rusland, Kina, Indien og andre har erkendt det uundgåelige, elendige resultat af »nul-vækst«-geopolitik og har afvist det og vist, at de er forpligtet over for økonomiske projekter og rumteknologi, der vil fremme menneskehedens fysiske økonomi og lykke. Kra-kanalen i Thailand, den forbedrede Suezkanal i Egypten, udviklingen omkring Mekongfloden, nye jernbanelinjer i Pakistan og Afghanistan og Chabahar-havnen i Iran er blot nogle få af disse. For nylig har Kina inviteret til internationalt samarbejde omkring sin fremtidige rumstation. Vicedirektøren for Kinas bemandede rumprogram, fr. Wu Pung, sagde for nylig til FN’s Komite for den fredelige anvendelse af det ydre rum, i forbindelse med aftaler om nye rumstationer:

»Udforskning af rummet er menneskehedens fælles drøm og ønske. Vi er overbevist om, at implementeringen af aftalerne afgjort vil fremme det internationale samarbejde om udforskning af rummet og skabe muligheder for FN’s medlemsstater, i særdeleshed udviklingslande, til at deltage i, og drage fordel af, anvendelsen af Kinas rumstation.«

Rusland og Kina har også for nylig annonceret et fuldt ud omfattende samarbejde omkring rummet. Ruslands ambassadør til Kina Andrey Denisov forklarede i et nyligt interview:

»Jeg ville lægge vægt på samarbejde omkring aktivitet i det ydre rum som et hele, snarere end en specifik leverance af et parti varer. Pointen er ikke at levere specifikt udstyr, men at organisere langsigtet, gensidigt fordelagtigt samarbejde mellem alle siderne, der objektivt set har tætte forbindelser ud fra et standpunkt om teknisk og teknologisk kompatibilitet.«

Dette er vejen til fremtiden. Mens USA plages af selvmord, narkotikamisbrug, masseskyderier og økonomisk disintegration, så går et flertal af menneskeheden videre til det næste niveau. London-Wall Street-finanssystemet er dødt. Vi har kun ét valg. Valget mellem krig, terror og økonomisk fortvivlelse på den ene side, kontra, at vi dumper Obama og alt, hvad han står for, og kræver en fremtid, der passer sig for menneskeheden.

Billede: »Anakonda 16«-vejen til Anakonda – NATO’s mere og mere virkelige »march mod Moskva«. Truslen om Tredje Verdenskrig har aldrig været større. (www.eur.army.mil/Anakonda)

20. juni 2016 (Leder) – Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin brugte Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum den 16.-18. juni som anledning til at fremlægge det eksistentielle spørgsmål, som nu konfronterer menneskeheden: Gå enten med i det, han kalder ’Planen om Stor-Eurasien’ for økonomisk udvikling og sikkerhed, eller også, stå over for den umiddelbart overhængende fare for det transatlantiske systems kollaps og en meningsløs global krig, som kunne udvikle sig til en udslettelseskrig.

Under en to timer lang dialog, der blev præsideret af CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, med deltagere, annoncerede Putin, at den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union (EAEU) nu vil indlede forhandlinger i denne måned med Kina om fuld integration i ’Ét bælte, én vej’-projektet, og han understregede, at 40 lande søger handelsforbindelser med EAEU, og at Rusland hilser Vesteuropas fulde deltagelse i dette ambitiøse program velkomment.

I den samme dialog talte han åbenhjertigt om USA’s og NATO’s »blodige kup« i Ukraine, samt indsatsen af nyere dato for at inddæmme Rusland med NATO-styrker.

Putins handlinger, samt det vanvittige, anglo-amerikanske krigsfremstød mod både Rusland og Kina, har udløst et voksende oprør blandt vesteuropæere, der ser krigsfaren mere og mere klart. Ikke alene deltog flere europæiske ledere i Skt. Petersborg-forummet, imod Obamas og Londons udtrykkelige krav. Den tidligere franske præsident, Nicolas Sarkozy krævede en afslutning af sanktionerne mod Rusland og opfordrede Putin, som, sagde han, befinder sig i en stærkere position, til ensidigt at afslutte de russiske gengældelses-sanktioner mod Europa. Putin responderede positivt til Sarkozys krav, så vel som også til udtalelser, som den italienske premierminister Matteo Renzi kom med, men han advarede om, at Rusland ikke er indstillet på igen at lade sig bedrage.

Den tyske udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier gav et interview til det meget læste Bild am Sonntag, hvor han angreb de netop afsluttede NATO-øvelser langs den russiske grænse for at være en krigsprovokation, og han krævede et stop for de »krigshyl«, der kommer fra NATO. Steinmeiers handlinger har udløst et totalt skænderi mellem grupperinger i den tyske, politiske klasse, lige så vel som, at Sarkozys tale i Skt. Petersborg har udløst en seriøs debat i Frankrig. Steinmeiers intervention er blevet støttet af den ledende militæranalytiker fra CDU, Michael Stürmers nylige angreb på NATO’s provokationer, samt af udtalelser i denne uge fra tidligere tyske kansler Gerhard Schröder, der også har fordømt tendensen hen imod et nyt våbenkapløb og en Kold Krig med Rusland.

Alle disse fundamentale skift i det politiske landskab kommer blot få dage før Brexit-afstemningen i Storbritannien den 23. juni, og blot få uger, før topmødet mellem NATO’s stats- og regeringsledere finder sted i Warszawa i begyndelsen af juli, hvor NATO’s deployeringer ind i De baltiske Stater og Polen efter planen skal ratificeres. Sunday Telegraph, en flagskibs-publikation fra Tory-grupperingen i Storbritannien, havde en barsk formuleret lederartikel til fordel for britisk exit af den Europæiske Union. Lederartiklen konstaterede åbenlyst, at EU er død.

Vi er nået til et punctum saliens-øjeblik, hvor menneskeheden enten går fremefter med det nye paradigme, som bedst kommer til udtryk i ideen om Verdenslandbroen, eller også styrter den ud i en udslettelseskrig. Der er ingen steder at gemme sig, for menneskehedens fremtid ligger i vægtskålene. Putin har totalt fod på dette opgør, og man kan forvente, at han vil gøre det, der er uventet, i de kommende dage og uger, for at vinde kampen om menneskehedens fremtid.

Her i USA består den største fare i, at disse voksende kræfter, der klart ser faren for en atomkrig, vil holde sig tilbage fra at bringe Obamas præsidentskab til fald – før han starter en krig. Ledende røster i den Amerikanske Komite for Øst-Vest-aftaler, inklusive dr. Stephen Cohen og Gilbert Doctorow, er noget forsinket ved at indse, at Obama ikke er en person, man »overtaler« til at gøre det rigtige. Han har begået forbrydelser, der klart berettiger til en rigsretssag, inklusive hans afvisning af at arbejde sammen med Rusland for at knuse Islamisk Stat, al-Nusra og andre anglo-saudisk sponsorerede, jihadistiske bander. Hvor mange uskyldige liv er gået tabt, fordi Obama nægtede at samarbejde med Putin og de russiske tjenester – der ved, hvordan man fører en kontra-terrorist-operation?

I takt med, at denne kamp når nye dimensioner i Europa, fortsætter den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping sin turne i Central- og Østeuropa, hvor han indgår betydningsfulde aftaler med Serbien, der er et afgørende omdrejningspunkt for den Eurasiske Landbro.

Frem for alt andet pålagde Lyndon LaRouche sine kolleger i søndags, nøje at overvåge Putins træk. Han vil tage skridt til flankeoperationer, baseret på hans opfattelse af hele den globale situation. Han stoler ikke på andre, i særdeleshed ikke Obama og briterne. Han vil handle på overraskende måder, som på bedste måde vil reflektere virkeligheden i dette øjeblik med et globalt opgør. Han er, understregede LaRouche, det bedste referencepunkt for handling.    

Foto: Den russiske præsident Putin under et møde med lederne af verdens førende nyhedsagenturer, på sidelinjen af det 20. Internationale Økonomiske Forum i Skt. Petersborg (SPIEF 2016), Rusland, 17. juni 2016. Mikhail Metzel/TASS

Supplerende materiale:

Putin langer ud efter sanktioner, NATO’s udvidelsespolitik og driften mod kold krig

20. juni 2016 – Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin talte i flere timer på den sidste dag af Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum. Han konfronterede direkte realiteterne omkring den nuværende strategiske krise, der bliver smidt efter det nye paradigme, som er under skabelse af Rusland og de andre BRIKS-nationer. I et interview med Fareed Zakaria efter topmødet, vred han sig behændigt ud af udtalelser om, at han støttede Donald Trump, ved at påpege, at han var blevet fejlciteret af journalister såsom Zakaria, der ikke er analytikere, og idet han understregede, at vi ”er rede til at arbejde med USA,” uanset, hvem der vælges til ny leder. Han påpegede, at ”Trump har udtalt, at han er parat til at genoprette det fulde format af russisk-amerikanske relationer … det hilser vi alle velkommen.”

I sin udtalelse på topmødets sidste dag sagde Putin, at USA kunne være til gavn for verden, inklusiv Rusland, så længe USA ikke blander sig i andre landes anliggender:

”Vi behøver [USA]. Men vi har ikke brug for, at de konstant blander sig i vore anliggender, fortæller os, hvordan vi skal leve, og hindrer Europa i at opbygge relationer med os.”

Putin påpegede, at Obama-administrationen gav sine europæiske partnere besked på at tåle sanktioner mod Rusland, sanktioner, der havde ødelæggende konsekvenser for Europa, men ikke for USA.

Putin sagde, at europæiske erhvervskredse i Frankrig, Tyskland og andre steder har udtrykt villighed til at samarbejde med Rusland, og nu er det op til politikerne ”at udvise visdom, forudseenhed og fleksibilitet.”

”Vi bærer ikke nag og er rede til at møde vore europæiske partnere på halvvejen,” sagde Putin til forummet. Han pegede på, at det ikke var Rusland, der begyndte det nuværende ”nedbrud” i relationer mellem Europa og Rusland, forårsaget af sanktionerne. ”Alle vore handlinger har været, og forbliver, alene gengældelse.”

Putin fortsatte, ”Vore seneste møder med repræsentanter for tyske og franske erhvervskredse har vist, at europæisk erhvervsliv er villigt og parat til at samarbejde med vort land. Der er behov for, at politikere møder forretningsfolk på halvvejen, og udviser visdom, forudseenhed og fleksibilitet. Vi har brug for at styrke tilliden i russisk-europæiske relationer og genetablere niveauet af interaktioner.

Putin tog, hvad angår NATO’s udvidelsespolitik, ligeledes tyren ved hornene og sagde, at det ikke giver mening: “Sovjetunionen er der ikke mere, Warszawapagten [mellem Sovjetunionen og de østeuropæiske lande] er ophørt med at eksistere, så hvorfor behøver NATO konstant at udbrede sin infrastruktur og bevæge sig mod Ruslands grænser? Nu tager de Montenegro ind. Hvem har truet Montenegro?” spurgte Putin, leende over absurditeten i det.

Han hævdede, at NATO har ”en absolut ligegyldig og tankeløs attitude i forhold til vores position på alle områder,” og noterede, at det var USA, der ensidigt afsluttede missilforsvars-traktaten, der til at begynde med var underskrevet for at ”bringe strategisk balance ind i verden.” Putin fortsatte med at berolige verdenssamfundet med, at han ikke ønsker at gå videre til en ny kold krig, som ”ingen ønsker”. ”Uanset, hvor dramatisk tankegangen i udviklingen af internationale relationer måtte se ud udefra, er det ikke en global konfrontations-tankegang.”

Putin udtalte, at det amerikanske missilskjold i Østeuropa udgør en trussel mod magtbalancen. ”Vi vil perfektionere vores kapacitet for missilangreb for at opretholde balancen, alene på grund af det.”

Putin påpegede, at problemer i verden kun kan håndteres, som det i øjeblikket sker i Syrien. I det tilfælde, sagde han, arbejder nationer i verden, inklusiv Rusland og USA, sammen om at hjælpe med at løse krisen i Syrien. Han konfronterede regimeskifte-politikken, idet han insisterede på, at Syriens integritet må opretholdes som topprioritet. Putin sagde ligeud, at disintegrationen af Syrien ville blive en ”destabiliserende faktor, ikke kun for regionen, men for hele Verden”.

Han udtalte, at fred i Syrien kun kan nås ved en politisk proces: “Hvis vi ønsker at fremme princippet om demokrati, så lad os gøre det med demokratiske instrumenter,” sagde han til forummet.

Han anførte, at den ukrainske krise blev skabt med overlæg af Obama-administration, for at tilvejebringe en grund til NATO’s eksistens, og at det ikke er sådan, at situationer i den internationale arena burde håndteres: ”Efter det Arabiske Forår sneg [USA] sig op til vore grænser. Hvorfor havde de behov for at støtte et kup i Ukraine? Det er sandsynligt, at oppositionen, der er ved magten nu, kunne have opnået det ved demokratiske valg, og vi ville have arbejdet med dem, netop på samme måde, som vi arbejdede med dem, der var ved magten før præsident Janukovitj … Men nej,” fortsatte Putin, ”de skulle nødvendigvis føre det til et blodigt kup med ofre, skulle absolut forårsage borgerkrig.”

Putin sagde, at den udvikling “arrede” Ukraines russisk-talende befolkning i det sydøstlige Ukraine og på Krim, og ikke gav Rusland andet alternativ end at tage forholdsregler ”for at beskytte visse grupper af folk.”

Grunden, sagde han, er, at: NATO ”har brug for en fremmed fjende, hvad skulle grunden ellers være til eksistensen af en sådan organisation?” Putin sagde, at hele konflikten blev påtvunget Ukraine ”for at underbygge selve eksistensen af den nordatlantiske alliance.

USA: Senator Feinstein og kongresmedlem Tauscher langer ud efter planerne for nye atomvåben

20. juni 2016 – Senator Dianne Feinstein og tidligere kongreskvinde og viceudenrigsminister for våbenkontrol og international sikkerhed, Ellen Tauscher har sammen skrevet en ledende artikel, der blev bragt i New York Times d. 18. juni, og hvori de krævede et stop for den planlagte produktion og indsættelse af det nye ’Long-Range Standoff Weapon’ (LRSW), en ny generation af kernevåben, der stærkt øger faren for termonuklear krig. Forfatterne advarede:

”Luftvåbnet er bestemt for, til næste år, at accelerere udviklingen af dette nye nukleare krydsermissil. Det vil fremføre et opgraderet W-80 atomsprænghoved, og være i stand til at penetrere verdens mest avancerede luftforsvarssystemer … fremstilling af nye kernevåben som dette kan imidlertid være unødvendigt, kostbart og farligt.”

Feinstein og Tauscher citerede tidligere forsvarsminister Bill Perry, som for et år siden advarede om, at deployeringen af LRSW-våbensystemet ville øge risikoen for atomkrig ved at udviske linjen mellem konventionelle våben og kernevåben (LRSW kan bruge både nukleare og konventionelle sprænghoveder). De to forfattere af New York Times-artiklen forlangte, at forsvarsminister Ashton Carter frembringer en detaljeret offentlig redegørelse for planerne om LRSW, inklusiv, hvorvidt det ville blive betragtet som et potentielt offensivt våben, snarere end en tilføjelse af et element til den amerikanske atom-afskrækkelse. De citerede estimater fra Føderationen af Atomvidenskabsfolk (FAS) er, at det nye våbensystem vil koste $30 milliarder:

“På et tidspunkt, hvor Forsvarsministeriet har besluttet at modernisere hvert ‘ben’ af den nukleare triade (strategiske bombefly, interkontinentale ballistiske missiler og ballistiske missiler fra undervandsbåde, -red.), er det uansvarligt at investere $30 milliarder i et unødvendigt og farligt nyt atomvåben.”

De understregede også, at

”Vi ønsker at eliminere enhver uklarhed om, hvorvidt dette nye missil er et offensivt våben.”

Forfatterne bemærkede, at revurderingen ’holdningen til atomvåben’ i 2010 (2010 Nuclear Posture Review) opfordrede til en reduktion af det amerikanske atomarsenal og en øget afhængighed af konventionelle systemer, som luftvåbnets ’Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile’ og flådens Tomahawk-krydsermissil, der ikke indebærer risiko for nuklear optrapning.

Netop nu befinder den generelle menneskehed sig under en alvorlig trussel om undergang, på global skala. Det betyder ikke, at det nødvendigvis vil finde sted. Det betyder, at, hvis vi gør de rigtige ting, kan vi undfly disse trusler. Det er, hvor vi står generelt, lige nu.  Og hvis du vil gøre noget ved det, så lad os tale om det

9. juni 2016 (Leder) – I går lykkedes det næsten indgriben fra FBI at forhindre Lyndon LaRouches deltagelse via internet i en stor konference i Nordcalifornien, arrangeret af hans medarbejdere. Hvis ikke lederskabet dér havde grebet ind i tide, ville LaRouche ikke have kunnet deltage.

Da LaRouche endelig kunne tale, var hans udgangspunkt den aktuelle, akutte trussel mod den menneskelige eksistens.

»Det væsentligste spørgsmål, jeg bekymrer mig om, er truslerne mod den menneskelige arts eksistens, i det totale område, lige nu. For, lige nu, på dette tidspunkt, står hele den menneskelige arts eksistens på den yderste rand, og vi må derfor være lydhøre over for at forstå, hvad det er for problemer, der er involveret i det her, og hvad det er for midler, der kan sikre en udvej for menneskeheden generelt.

Netop nu befinder den generelle menneskehed sig under en alvorlig trussel om undergang, på global skala. Det betyder ikke, at det nødvendigvis vil finde sted. Det betyder, at, hvis vi gør de rigtige ting, kan vi undfly disse trusler. Det er, hvor vi står generelt, lige nu.  Og hvis du vil gøre noget ved det, så lad os tale om det.«

 Men fra dette øjeblik og fremefter – lad os sige det ligeud – rev hovedindholdet i LaRouches bemærkninger slemt i nerverne på mange lyttere. Han blev ved med at komme tilbage til spørgsmålet om personlig identitet, men især spørgsmålet om hans egen personlige identitet. På et spørgsmål om, hvordan det individuelle sind overvinder forhindringer for at vinde en kamp for menneskeheden, svarede han:

»Lad mig sige, at jeg har temmelig gode levnedsegenskaber. Jeg er en aktiv person i samfundet, og jeg er en ældre person, og en erfaren, ældre person, en af de mest erfarne af alle personer i denne kategori. Så jeg tror ikke, nogen ville have nogen vanskeligheder med at forstå, hvem jeg er, hvad jeg er, hvor jeg kom fra og hvad jeg gør.

Andre personer holder måske fast ved en idé om en anden identitet hos en anden person, som jeg ikke kender, men sådan synes det at være.«

LaRouche drejede næsten hvert spørgsmål rundt på denne måde. Dette her irriterer dig måske, men det første spørgsmål, du skal stille dig selv, er: er det sandt? Er det sådan, at »tingene bare sker«, eller er det sådan, at »tingene bringes til at ske« af mænd og kvinder, der, som LaRouche sagde, er »kvalificeret til at skabe historie?« Da MacArthur blev tvunget ud af Filippinerne den 12. marts 1942, var det da rigtigt af ham at sige, »Jeg vender tilbage«, eller burde han have ændret det til »vi vender tilbage«? Ville mennesket have klaret at komme til Månen i 1969 – eller nogensinde – hvis det ikke havde været for den enlige skikkelse, den første og største tyske rumpioner, Hermann Oberth (1894-1989). Oberth var fattig det meste af sit liv. Efter at have kæmpet for rumrejser i årtier, havde han næppe mødt en eneste person, der både var enig i, og forstod, disses betydning. Men det er takket være denne »næppe en eneste person«, såsom Werner von Braun, at vi fik den revolution, som var rumprogrammet.

På et spørgsmål om, hvordan vi kan afgøre, hvorvidt vore forestillinger er fantasteri eller er sandfærdige, svarede LaRouche:

»Hvorfor siger vi simpelthen ikke, lad os identificere et sandfærdigt eksempel, en sandfærdig identitet. Jeg er. Og enhver, der vil benægte dette, ville tage fejl, ville være tåbelig.

Jeg er kendt som, identificeret som en historisk skikkelse igennem det meste af det 20. århundrede, og de fleste mennesker fra det 20. århundrede bør vide, hvem jeg er, og de bør vide, hvad jeg gør. De kender måske ikke alle detaljer omkring, hvad jeg gør, men sådan er det: Jeg er en prominent, en særdeles prominent, skikkelse på denne planet, blandt de mest prominente.«

Den senere del af det 20. århundrede ville have været uigenkendelig, hvis det ikke havde været for LaRouches sejr over det britiske, økonomiske system i en debat i 1971 på Queens College, New York, som dernæst, ad indirekte veje, førte til hans sejr med det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ i Reaganregeringen i 1983.

Dette banede igen vejen for hans og hans hustru Helgas initiativ, som nu er blevet til den Eurasiske Landbro og den Nye Silkevej, og som er det 21. århundredes hovedudvikling frem til i dag.

Hvorfor er det så irriterende at lytte til det indlysende: at LaRouche er en hovedskikkelse i det 20. og 21. århundrede? Fordi vi i skolen lærte om demokratiets dyder? Er det den virkelige årsag, eller skyldes det snarere, at vi lukker ørerne, fordi vi finder det mere beroligende for os personligt at benægte, at nogen mand eller kvinde rent faktisk kan være ansvarlig for menneskets tilstand og menneskehedens skæbne?

Læs her Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedindlæg på konferencen i San Francisco, Californien, den 8. juni:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Jeg vil indlede vores diskussion med at påpege, hvad hr. LaRouche i de seneste dage meget klart har sagt: Vi befinder os i en ekstraordinært farlig periode i verdenshistorien. Det kan ikke ses tydeligere end af disse militærmanøvrer, der finder sted på de østeuropæiske grænser (Ruslands vestlige grænser). Disse kombinerede NATO-øvelser, der finder sted hele vejen op og ned langs Ruslands grænse, fra De baltiske Stater, ind i Polen og derfra mod syd. Dette er en kombination af fire forskellige, angiveligt uafhængige krigsspil, men det involverer live troppemanøvrer, af hvilke den største hedder ”Anaconda 2016”. Denne manøvre involverer 30.000 tropper fra 24 forskellige lande, inkl. 14.000 amerikanere, 12.000 polakker, 1000 faldskærmstropper og den virkelige krydsning af nøglefloden dér, Vistuta-floden; samt træning af natlige angreb, tungt militærisenkram, 35 helikoptere, 3.000 militærkøretøjer, flådemanøvrer osv.

Engelsk udskrift.

 WE MUST BECOME TRUE AMERICANS AGAIN!

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast; June 10, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Evening! It's June 10th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you joining us for our weekly Friday
evening webcast here from larouchepac.com. As you'll notice,
we're taking a little bit of a different format than customary
today. We have a roundtable format, joined in the studio by Megan
Beets and Ben Deniston, from the LaRouche PAC basement science
team; and also Kesha Rogers and Mike Steger are both joining us
from the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee via video. So, we're going
to have a little bit of a freer kind of roundtable discussion
here.
        I'd like to begin our discussion by just pointing out, what
I think has been said very, very clearly in the recent days by
Mr. LaRouche, that we're in an extraordinarily dangerous period
of world history. This couldn't be made more clear than seeing
these military maneuvers which are happening on the eastern
border of Europe (the western border of Russia). These combined
NATO maneuvers which are happening all the way up and down the
border of Russia, from the Baltic States, into Poland, and then
south from there. This is a combination of four different,
supposedly independent, war games, but it involves live troop
maneuvers, the largest of which is called "Anaconda 2016." That
one involves 30,000 troops from 24 different countries, including
14,000 Americans, 12,000 Polish soldiers, 1,000 paratroopers, the
actual crossing of the key river there, the Vistula River; and
the exercise of nighttime assaults, military hardware, 35
helicopters, 3,000 military vehicles, naval maneuvers, and so
forth.
        If you take that, together with the three other maneuvers
that are happening right now, you have approximately 60,000
troops that are engaged in military maneuvers all along the
border of Russia. As Helga LaRouche pointed out, this the
greatest troop and military hardware maneuver that you've had on
Russia's border since World War II — the mobilization by Hitler
of the Nazi forces prior to the invasion of what was then the
Soviet Union. Obviously, this many troops engaged in live
military maneuvers, not only creates a very strong possibility
for some accident occurring, which could trigger a rapid
escalation towards a very hot war, which could escalate very
quickly; but also it's very clearly a provocation, which is being
taken by NATO with Obama in the leadership, directly towards
Russia. And it's being seen as such in the context of other
things, by the Russian President and other leading members of the
Russian military. It's also being recognized as such by various
forces within Europe. {Der Spiegel}, one of the leading news
magazines in Germany, put out a story on Wednesday, saying these
war maneuvers along the Russian borders, are "going too far", and
"are playing at real war". Clearly, any war that were to break
out between NATO and Russia would very quickly lead to not a
limited, not a tactical, but an all-out strategic, thermonuclear
war.
        If you combine this with Obama's upcoming to trip to attend
the NATO Heads of State Summit in Warsaw, Poland, while these war
games are actively taking place, along with his refusal to sit
down with President Putin to discuss the deployment of these
AEGIS anti-missile systems along the Russian border, which have
been characterized as a "Cuban Missile Crisis in Reverse," along
with the trillion dollar allocation that Obama has recently
signed off on, to modernize the U.S. military arsenal, including
these B61-12 nuclear warheads, and the long-range LRSO [Long
Range Standoff] cruise missiles; all of these, taken together,
along with the simultaneous provocations that are happening by
U.S. forces against China in the South China Sea.
        Any sane person should be asking themselves, "Why are we
driving the world towards the point of a war of extinction, when
we could be taking up Chinese President Xi Jinping's offer to
engage in a new strategic and economic architecture for the
planet, based on win-win cooperation?" This danger, and also the
very real possibility of a paradigm shift, were both put on the
table at a very significant seminar sponsored by the Schiller
Institute that occurred on Wednesday in San Francisco,
California. Both Kesha and Mike were participants. It was titled,
"Will the U.S. Join the New Silk Road? Global Scientific
Development, or Nuclear War?" Mrs. Helga LaRouche gave an
extensive and very thorough overview of this war danger in her
keynote address; and Mr. LaRouche, in his remarks, said very
clearly — this is the very beginning of what Mr. LaRouche said,
"The key thing I'm concerned about, is the threats to the
existence of the human species in the total area right now;
because right now, at this time, the existence of the entire
human species continues to be on the edge of jeopardy. And
therefore we have to attune ourselves to understanding what the
problems are that are involved in this, and what are the remedies
for which we can get an escape for humanity in general. Humanity
in general right now is under serious threat of jeopardy on a
global scale." So, that's very clearly said by Mr. LaRouche.
        Also, I consider very significantly, in response to a
question which was posed from former United States Senator Mike
Gravel, who was also a participant, a speaker in this seminar. He
posed a question to one of the other participants, Sergey Petrov,
the Consul-General of the Russian Consulate in San Francisco, to
which Mr. Petrov said that there is no such thing as a limited
nuclear war, as some as some people would be delusional enough to
believe. What the Consul-General of Russia said at the Schiller
Institute gathering in San Francisco, is the following: "I share
the understanding that we are very close to a major conflict. And
I add that there is no possibility of a 'limited nuclear war.' If
that starts, it will be the end of the world."
        I think the starkness of this statement, combined with what
Mr. LaRouche and Mrs. LaRouche both had to say, really
underscores the sobriety with which we have to approach the
discussion which we will have here today. Since both Kesha and
Mike were participants in that seminar, I'm going to leave a
little bit of the further discussion of the proceedings of that
event until a little bit later in the show. The seminar also
involved Mr. Howard Chang, an internationally renowned expert on
water projects.
        But before we open up the discussion, I would like to play a
short — approximately 10 minute — excerpt from the keynote
speech that Mrs. Helga LaRouche gave. This is the concluding
excerpt of her remarks. She asked two questions: (1) How did we
get here?; and (2) What is the solution to the crisis we now
face? I just want to underscore, what you'll hear Mrs. LaRouche
say in this excerpt, is what Mr. LaRouche reiterated, and I think
is the subject that we have to pay attention to here today: that
both the LaRouche movement in general, and Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche
as individuals, {have played the crucial, central, historical
role} in not only creating the possibility for a solution to this
crisis, going all the way back to their proposal for the Eurasian
Land-Bridge: the New Silk Road, in the aftermath of the collapse
of the Soviet Union; but also continued to play the crucial role
in providing the possibility for humanity to escape this crisis.
        This seminar in San Francisco was a crucial element of that,
but it's part of an ongoing series of interventions
internationally, which include a very prominent conference in
Europe that the Schiller Institute is sponsoring, coming up
within the next two weeks. So, we'll have more discussion on all
of that after we hear this short except from Mrs. Helga
LaRouche's keynote speech.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Okay, now, let me introduce the third
[subject I want to talk about]. The solution to all of this would
be a piece of cake. It is already there! A New Silk
Road is integrated. We called it at that time, first, the
Productive Triangle; in 1991 we called it the Eurasian
Land-Bridge: the New Silk Road, which was the idea that when the
Iron Curtain had fallen, [to integrate] the populations in the
industrial centers of Europe with those of Asia, through
development corridors. This New Silk Road program would have
changed the world in the direction of a peace order already in
'91, but, unfortunately, you had Bush, Sr., you had Margaret
Thatcher, you had François Mitterrand, who all had completely
different ideas. They [wanted to reduce Russia] from a superpower
into a Third World, raw-material-producing country, and they
imposed the "shock therapy" in the Yeltsin period. They
dismantled the Russian potential in three years , and
they had no intention to allow Germany to have any kind of
economic relation with Russia. So it did not happen.
        You had the '90s, which were genocide against Russia. You
had all of the consequences of the Bush period. You had the eight
years of Clinton, which was a certain interruption; but then with
Bush, Jr. and Obama, you went back to the old project of an
American Century doctrine and the idea of a unilateral world.
        Fortunately, in 2013, President Xi Jinping announced a New
Silk Road to be {the} strategic objective of China. In the almost
three years which have passed since, this idea to end
geopolitics, to establish in the tradition of the ancient Silk
Road, a win-win cooperation among all nations on the planet, is
progressing extremely quickly. Remember, the ancient Silk Road
was a fantastic cooperation in terms of exchange of culture,
goods, paper, technology, porcelain, silk, silk-producing, and
many other cultural manifestations. It led to a tremendous
benefit for all the countries which participated, from Asia to
Europe.
        The New Silk Road, obviously, is doing exactly that. The
amount of projects which have been concluded between China and
ASEAN countries, China and Latin American countries, China and
Europe, China and African countries, China and East European
countries, and now, in a very clear fashion, the economic
integration between the Eurasian Economic Union, headed by
Russia, and the New Silk Road, [is progressing very well. An
alliance] has been formed between Russia and China, with India
being the third factor in the situation. Many, many other
countries have been joining.
        Contrary to what you read and hear in the mass media, China
is not doing badly. They are shifting their economic orientation
from an export orientation, because the export markets in the
trans-Atlantic sector are shrinking. They are now going more in
infrastructure investment in many countries in the world, and to
develop the inner region of China. [To raise the] consumer [to a]
higher standard of their own population, since they have lifted
600 million people out of poverty, [into a] decent living
standard in China. This is indeed the absolute correct policy, to
say we will uplift the remaining people who are still poor, and
also make them participate in the Chinese economic miracle.
        Xi Jinping has [offered] to President Obama that the United
States [should] not only by helping to ,
which I think is the moral obligation of the United States, given
the fact that they were the key reason why these countries are
now in such disarray; by participating in the building of Africa,
which I think the West has an absolute moral obligation. The
reason why you have millions of people as refugees, not only
risking their lives, drowning in the Mediterranean, dying in the
Sahara, which has even more victims than even the Mediterranean.
Fifty years of IMF policy has denied economic development to
Africa! The reason why people are taking a risk of a 50% chance
that they will die, to cross the Mediterranean, is because they
are running from war, from hunger, from epidemics, and this is
the result of Western policy denying this continent economic
development! We have a moral obligation to join hands to develop
southwest Asia, to develop Africa.
        The United States also needs a Silk Road. If you look at the
figures of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, productivity has
collapsed over seven years in a row. All the indexes are going
down. The United States population is in a terrible condition, or
at least in the poorer parts; while the rich become more rich and
Wall Street is having a heyday with cocaine parties and plotting
destruction for the rest of the world.
        The United States needs an infrastructure project. The roads
are bad, the traffic is ridiculous. People spend hours and hours
every day in commuting, risking to disappear with their cars into
a pothole. They have no rail system. China has built 20,000 km
fast train system up to the end of last year; they plan to have
50,000 km by the year 2020, uniting every major city in China
through a fast train system, which are fantastic — they're
smooth, they're fast, they're quiet. How many kilometers of fast
train systems has the United States built? Zero!
        So, for the United States to build its own Silk Road, to
connect with the global development perspective is a question of
its own best self-interest. We have to get the United States off
this confrontation course, and simply say, we have to shift this
policy and all this trillion-dollar investment in modernization
of nuclear arsenals and the largest military budget in the world,
trying to maintain an empire which is collapsing anyway.  Rather,
shift, get rid of Wall Street, impose Glass-Steagall, get back to
a policy of Alexander Hamilton, a credit policy; invest in
infrastructure and go in the direction of a win-win cooperation
with the other nations of the world — with Russia, China,
European nations, India; build up Latin America, build up Africa
and Southwest Asia.
        This is really the choice before the United States. I know
this is very difficult for you to think how this should be done,
but you know, think about Kennedy; think about the kind of
optimistic country the United States used to be. Think about the
idea that America was built to be "a beacon of hope and a temple
of liberty," where people from the whole world would go and try
to be free. The U.S. singing the National Anthem, "the land of
the free." Is the United States the land of the free today? I
don't think anybody who is in their right mind would say that
today.
        Go back to the values of the American Republic, as it was
founded by people like Benjamin Franklin, or George Washington;
go back to the policies of Alexander Hamilton, Franklin D.
Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King. I think if the
United States could mobilize itself to bring back that nation,
the whole would world would love to be friends of the United
States again. Right now, I can tell you, the rest of the world
has almost given up on the United States, and when they look at
the election process, the choice between a very, very irrational
Donald Trump and unfortunately a very, very predictable Hillary
Clinton, given her statements about confrontation against Russia
and China. I think you have to really mobilize now. And I think
the 28 pages, Glass-Steagall — these are flanks which can derail
the situation long before this election is going to take place.
        We have to have a completely new world. Remember, mankind is
not a beast, and mankind is not bound to do what seems to be
inevitable. Mankind is the only species capable of reason,
capable of free will, of defining and designing a beautiful
future, and then going to implement that. The last time was with
Kennedy, the Apollo Project. I think we can absolutely do it
again! I think you have a great possibility in front of you. I
would encourage you — be American! Be true Americans again, and
the whole world will be the most happy and embrace you!

OGDEN:  So, that was a short excerpt from Helga LaRouche's
opening remarks at the San Francisco seminar; and the full
proceedings of that seminar will be made available as they are
processed.  The first panel is available on YouTube now.  And as
I said, both Kesha and Michael Steger were participants in that
event; so maybe I can just throw the discussion open to one of
the two of you guys right now, to follow up on what we just heard
from Helga.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Sure, thanks Matt.  One of the most
interesting, one of the key aspects of this whole process and
what our organization does, was demonstrated at the discussion
process in San Francisco on Wednesday.  You have key people in
their areas:  Obviously, Senator Mike Gravel represents what is a
true American political tradition; to recognize that you fight
for what's true, you go against popular opinion and peer
pressure.  And he was very clear on that question; you don't go
along to get along.  As Lyndon LaRouche often says, "You can't
fight politically and go along with the popular opinion."
        Dr. Howard Chang is a leading civil engineer; obviously the
Consul-General of Russia was someone who spoke on behalf of his
country.  But the key question is that the standards our
organization represents in this existential crisis is something
unique; it gives these individuals an opportunity to wage a
political fight at the level necessary that inspires them towards
what mankind can accomplish, and also addresses the real crisis
in the world today.  It's far too often that people who want to
address the economic crisis, people who want to address the
increasing and escalating war danger, fall far short of the
necessary to want to work with us.  And two, to recognize the
quality of method which is necessary to address these problems.
These problems are of great scope and magnitude; it's not fixing
a pothole, although we have many potholes to fix as Helga points
out.  And apparently, the Chinese won't even be allowed to build
— they wanted to build a small segment of high-speed rail
between Los Angeles and Las Vegas; very easy.  Actually, east of
Los Angeles in the desert.  And I guess apparently they won't
even be allowed to build that in the United States.  So, we can't
build any high-speed rail; it's just been outlawed basically.
This just came out.
        But the size and scope of these problems cannot be — steps
cannot be taken that simply alleviate one's guilt; or the tension
on one's own identity regarding the dangers of nuclear war, or
the increasing crisis that the economic collapse presents to many
Americans.  Too many people want to look for a quick solution; an
easy mechanism that "Maybe I can vote for this person, or that
person."  At this point, I think most people realize they can't
vote for either of these people; yet you'll still find them
consumed to discuss "Well, who do you vote for, though?"  They're
not willing to recognize that there's a higher method which is
required to act to address this kind of crisis.  And I think if
you look at Lyndon LaRouche's comments at the discussion, he
makes this somewhat clear in his remarks.  Because there is
something unique towards mankind's ability to advance.  Mankind
does not advance — unlike any other animal species on the planet
— simply because it doesn't like the problems it sees.  It's
able to advance and evolve because of a unique creative capacity;
essentially to become more beautiful, to become more creative. To
make the discoveries about the Universe that have not been
discovered before.  And that commitment, that approach is
oftentimes what's lacking; and as Helga said, we need real
leadership in the United States, we need leadership in Europe
today.  The problem can be solved so easily.
        The New Silk Road, the Eurasian development projects are so
extensive, they're ongoing; there are collaborations between
China, India, and Russia.  And then the nations of central Asia,
of Southeast Asia; the strategic intervention in the war domain
in Southwest Asia; all of these are now being addressed in a
fundamentally different way than they were by the United States
and NATO for the last 15 years since the 9/11 attacks.  Which has
just been ongoing war and destruction.
        So, there's a comprehensive picture that the United States
and Europe could participate in.  So, why aren't we?  Why don't
we take those steps?  Simply raising red flags that we're near
nuclear war, or simply complaining and trying to figure out which
of the lesser evils you vote for, are just obviously
insufficient.  So, why does that remain the discussion?  The
discussion has to take on a higher standard; and I think that's
what Lyn has already recognized over these 50 years.  Because if
you think of it, 50 years ago, there was a quality of leadership
of this nature.  John Kennedy recognized that the way you uplift
and strengthen a country is to set out on a mission that's never
been accomplished before; but it wasn't just the Moon.  It was
the largest water projects, and the development of Africa.  John
Kennedy's view of the world and of the Universe had a great scope
and magnitude to it, to help uplift the population; it wasn't a
practical campaign.  Someone like Martin Luther King had a
similar outlook; and you saw that inspire people like Bobby
Kennedy and Malcolm X, but there was a resonance.  You saw the
same thing from the great scientists like Krafft Ehricke; the
visionaries in the space program didn't look at it as kind of fun
engineering projects.  They saw it as something of a cultural
advancement of the human species. And there was a resonance with
this quality of leadership politically, that unfortunately, I
think what was made clear by the seminar, is that many people are
attracted, they gravitate towards this quality of leadership if
they have a sense of honesty; but that the ability to demonstrate
this method, to act upon that quality of the human mind and human
creativity is a challenge for much of the population in the
United States and Europe today.  And the standard that they have
to come up to, is not just acknowledging the dangers, but a
standard of operating to embolden and strengthen the population
to solve these problems and to move our civilization upwards.
        And I think that really was the culminating nature of the
discussion on Wednesday at the seminar; and it really is to bring
more people into this quality of an organization.  Of what we are
as a political organization, but that we are must become what the
nation is.  And that requires our population must become better;
they must become more courageous, more intelligent, and more
beautiful if we're actually going to address these problems.
Because they're not going to be addressed from any simple
mechanisms; and I think that really was the fight we waged here
for the seminar, and I think the only way to deal with the
current crisis you presented at the beginning.

KESHA ROGERS:  I want to continue with that theme, and add that I
think what we have to look at is the unique role of Mr. LaRouche
over these years to identify a science of physical economy; which
characterizes him in a way that was the understanding of both
Krafft Ehricke and other leaders from the standpoint of the
rejection — shall we say people that Michael brought up, such as
John F Kennedy, such as Lincoln, Martin Luther King.  A rejection
of a limits to growth policy.  And this is what Mr. LaRouche has
organized as the founding principle of his economic policy in
terms of what is the essential role of the advancement of
mankind.
        During the presentation, I had an opportunity to actually
work with Michael and others there for the conference that was
just held in San Francisco.  And I presented on the unique role
of Krafft Ehricke, the German space pioneer; and what he
represented from the standpoint of putting forth the epistemology
and the philosophy on human nature's identity in terms of
creating an open world system.  Which was this idea that you
reject the Club of Rome meadows and foresters limits to growth
population reduction; the Malthusian policy that human beings are
nothing more than small lily pads, mindless beings.  That they
have no conception of advancing human creativity.  And this is
what was the unique role defining Krafft Ehricke from the
standpoint that he knew that is was not just a matter of
promoting technological advancements; but what do these
technological advances do to improve upon the conditions of human
life and the progress of mankind overall.
        And this has been something that Mr. LaRouche understood is
crucial in his science of physical economy, from the standpoint
that you're not just looking at technological advancement from
speaking of just one leap.  But you're talking about a succession
of leaps in economic progress in society.  And during the
relationship that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche developed with the
identity and role of Krafft Ehricke as a scientist and genius of
his time, is really exemplified in what Mr. LaRouche continued to
develop around his policy for a Moon-Mars colonization program. I
think that people who have not actually studied the significance
of Mr. LaRouche and why he became a threat to this zero-growth
policy, because he continued to push the limits, push mankind
beyond the so-called limitations that have been put on mankind;
just as Krafft Ehricke understood that our extraterrestrial
imperative was to actually remove all limitations and barriers
from the progress of mankind.  And the best way to do this was
through the advancement of man into the colonization of space.
        And I think it's important to note, that some people start
to put themselves into this smallness of thinking, in this
mindless thinking.  "Well, how are we going to travel into space
if we can't actually solve the problems here on Earth?"  And Mr.
LaRouche made it a priority to actually organize an understanding
of what real technological advancement is; this was exactly the
thinking of John F Kennedy in the progress of the commitment of
the Moon landing, of sending a man to the Moon and bringing him
safely back to Earth.  That this was going to lead to
technological advancements that would pay themselves off several
times over; but what was going to be essential for it, is that
you had to have breakthroughs as Mr. LaRouche called for, in
several categories of technology that was actually going to be
essential for bringing about an increase in the productivity of
society.  You take the example; you look at this massive
undertaking of what Krafft Ehricke did in the design and
development of what took men to the Moon, in terms of the Saturn
V rocket.  It wasn't something that was just thrown together on
the cheap; you couldn't have just Wall Street and Elon Musk going
in there and saying, "OK, let us just throw a spacecraft up."
This took some real engineering; it was a total transformation in
terms of the economic conditions of society.  Thousands, millions
of people were put to work; the spin-off technologies that went
into it.  Mr. LaRouche called for the advancement of four
categories of technology, in thermonuclear fusion and related
plasma technologies; or development of electromagnetic radiation
of high energy density.  Basically promoting new synthetic
materials or the production of the colonization of Mars; that you
were going to actually have to have flotillas in developing
low-Earth orbit.  And putting materials on the Moon to actually
lead to the colonization of Mars.  How are we going to get there?
We had to have engineers, we had to have astrophysicists.
        The technical considerations are all laid out very
prominently, but I think what it really represents is a
transformation of the human species; and that's what Mr. LaRouche
was very crucial in, saying that you had to actually have a
different identity of who we are as human beings.  That we are
actually distinct from the animal species; and that no
limitations can be put on mankind to keep them in a state of
bestiality.  And the question of technological advancement is,
are these advancements being made in a so-called barbaric society
that wants to keep human beings down and keep them enslaved; and
promote a policy of limitations on growth and population
reduction so these policies would not be advanced.  Or, are we
talking about a cultural Renaissance, where these advancements
are made as Krafft Ehricke understood, from the standpoint of a
new conception of mankind.  This is what has really brought
together the minds, and why Mr. LaRouche sees Krafft Ehricke as
extremely fundamental to how we overcome the threats facing us
today in society.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think that's something that certainly you
elaborated very clearly in your speech at the conference, and I
think as we had a discussion with Mr. LaRouche yesterday;
everybody who is on this show was engaged in that discussion. Mr.
LaRouche put a very emphatic emphasis on the personality of
Krafft Ehricke and his courage in fighting for a vision which was
not a popular vision even among the people in the space
community.  And Mr. LaRouche asked that more research be done on
this; and I know that both you, Ben, and Megan have been immersed
in this a little bit in the recent few days and weeks.  So, maybe
you want to give people a broader idea of some of this.

MEGAN BEETS:  Well, I can say something briefly.  I was just
looking back at comments that were made by both Helga LaRouche
and Lyndon LaRouche at the memorial conference that was held in
honor of Krafft Ehricke in 1985, following his death in 1984. And
both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche reflect something which I think
really does go to the essence of the importance of the
personality of Krafft Ehricke in what we were able to achieve in
the space program.  And what they both reflected was the fact
that his life made a contribution to moving the species as a
whole forward; but why?  It's exactly because he was not
motivated by the kinds of practical considerations that were
impinging on most of the population at the time; and both Lyn and
Helga reflected the fact that Krafft Ehricke was motivated by a
total cultural optimism.  That not only was it necessary, but it
was also possible to move mankind forward into the Age of Reason;
to move man into a paradigm where we completely left the cultural
vestiges of the beast behind us.  And if you look at Krafft
Ehricke's work, which ranges from extremely technical papers on
the use of liquid hydrogen fuel to fictional stories which are
envisioning the first manned mission to Mars; but all of them I
think are motivated by this passion and vision for a better
mankind as a whole.  And he came to the conclusion himself as a
young man, that the way to realize that had to be space travel;
had to be space colonization.
        Just to add one more thing, Mrs. LaRouche was reflecting on
a speaking tour that Krafft Ehricke did with the Schiller
Institute in the 1980s in Germany.  And what she reported was,
that at that time, the resistance from the Greenie movements was
so intense at some of these meetings, the police had to be called
in.  What Krafft Ehricke reflected on at the time was that these
Greenie movements were very reminiscent of the fascist movements
of the 1930s; and that's why the only way to move forward had to
be by addressing exactly what you just raised, Kesha.  The
essence of the cultural morality of mankind; is mankind a culture
of beasts, or is mankind actually representing a culture of what
Schiller would call beautiful souls?

        BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think highlighting the fight for that;
he fought for that.  He went against the opposition even within
the scientific community for that kind of idea; and I think that
also goes back to something that Michael was saying about what's
needed today.  It's people like that; it's people who are going
to fight for what's true.  Not because they think it's what their
neighbors will like, or because they think it's what will make
them popular; it's because they have an internal drive that they
know that's what's needed.  You pulled up this quote — it's just
one thing among many — I just thought it was indicative; this
quote of Krafft testifying in Congress in, I believe it was in
1960, the early '60s.  And really emphatically pushing the need
for nuclear power for space; he said, the Universe runs on
nuclear power.  The stars are run by nuclear power; this nuclear
power is an inherent part of the Universe and mankind is going to
be obsolete in his attempt to be part of the Universe more
broadly — go beyond Earth, fulfill this extraterrestrial
imperative — if we reject nuclear power.  That's one thing.
Already in the early '60s, he said, if we don't do this by the
end of the decade, we're going to be obsolete in terms of our
space efforts.  Nuclear power is one issue; one critical issue,
obviously, for mankind as a whole, for space development.  But
you see this visionary quality of fighting against the opposition
to these breakthroughs; and being the force that says, "No, this
is what's needed," against massive opposition.  The tragedy is
that the opposition has taken over.
        We had, under the leadership of Krafft Ehricke and people
working with him, we had a nuclear rocket pretty much built by
the early '70s; it was basically a few steps away from being
ready to go, and it was just cancelled.  It was not found to be
too difficult; it was not found to be some failure; it was not
found to be too expensive; it was just cancelled.  And we've had
this zero-growth policy take over at that crucial pivot point —
the late '60s, early '70s — when Lyn really came on the scene
and started to continue this fight.  Obviously, Krafft resonated
with that, and came to work with the LaRouches directly based on
that; but you see the failure of departing from this visionary
quality and this fight to move into the future.  But I think he
exemplifies what's needed from the US population right now;
you're not going to find solutions from the existing cultural,
social framework.  It's failed; that's expressing the failure of
society.
        We heard at the beginning, one of the things that strikes me
in discussing this whole war danger and the fact that we're
taking steps towards nuclear war, which I think it's important,
it was stated clearly.  There's no limited nuclear war; there's
no small nuclear war, you don't take small steps.  If it happens,
everything's over; it's gone.  But what's potentially even more
striking than that actually being a reality on the table?  Who's
talking about it?  We have a Presidential election; are these
candidates raising this as an issue?  Is there any discussion
about this?  I think it just underscores the importance of that
quality of leadership needed; and exemplified by what was done in
San Francisco.  We're going to be having, coming out of the
Schiller Institute conference in Germany coming up; and what
really this movement represents in the United States.
        And I think this should also be an appeal to our viewers.
Really, this is a time when we need escalation; we need increase;
we need more support; we need more people to be these type of
creative leaders like Krafft Ehricke, like Lyndon LaRouche.
That's the only thing that's going to save the country at this
point.

OGDEN:  Yeah, Michael made a point which I thought was very
significant.  That, at a time like this, when it's very clear how
huge the dangers are, you cannot allow yourself to be any less
than the magnitude of the crisis challenges one to be.  And the
magnitude and scope of thinking which is necessary to solve a
crisis of this sort, of a civilizational scale, must be huge in
those terms.  And I think one thing out of this discussion about
Krafft Ehricke, that occurred to me is, when you're thinking
about where the entire idea of the geopolitics of the last 70
years has been rooted; it is rooted in the zero-growth
technology, no development kind of paradigm.  The idea that there
are limited resources that a growing population is fighting over,
and these territories and so forth; that is the fundamental tenet
of the geopolitics that has dominated this paradigm which has now
failed.  When you talk about a New Paradigm, when you talk about
"win-win" as Xi Jinping says it, instead of winner take all, all
are winners.  That fundamentally requires, it begs a new attitude
towards our concept of growth; that there is no idea of limits to
growth, of fixed natural resources.  But that you have an
ever-expanding possibility of ever-increasing potentials of
growth.  I think as very demonstrated, China, in a certain way,
does understand that in the way that Krafft Ehricke understood
it; is a central element of their current policy, is not only the
One Belt, One Road policy, but it is also this exploration of the
Moon. Now just going to the Moon, as a sort of space race or
setting your foot on a foreign body or something like that; but
saying we're going to discover fundamentally new about the
Universe.  And as Mr. LaRouche has been emphasizing, this Chang'e
mission to explore the far side of the Moon and everything that
is there to be discovered.  We don't even know; we don't know the
extent to which we will discover brand new things about the
structure of the Universe when we explore this new territory.
That, I think, speaks to this idea that the idea of a New
Paradigm, a new "win-win" system, is rooted in overturning the
last 70 years of this Malthusian concept of zero-growth, zero
technological development, and fixed resources.
        And it's only natural that Krafft Ehricke understood it in
those terms.

        DENISTON:  Anything else just goes to the longer legacy of
the Zeus vs. Prometheus fight.  You talk about this zero-growth
paradigm; where did this come from?  The British; the British
royal family.  People like Prince Philip; people like Prince
Bernhard.  This oligarchical mindset.  These guys are so
explicit, their view of mankind is just disgusting cattle to be
managed.  Zeus would just pal up with these guys; they wouldn't
even need to introduce themselves.  They would just get together
like they've know each other for ages.  That mentality of this
imperial conception of the management of mankind as a bestial
species; that's where this zero-growth paradigm came from in this
recent period, but it stretches back through history.  You look
at the writings of Aeschylus on the Prometheus vs. Zeus fight;
the attack on Prometheus.  And you see that as a reflection of a
true negative principle of society at the time, which is carried
through to today.  This hatred of human progress; this hatred of
creative development; this desire to keep mankind suppressed to
this lower level.  What angered Zeus wasn't just that he had
something stolen from him; it's that he had a whole class of
people he was managing, that Prometheus then gave an ability to
uplift and realize their own humanity.  And for that, Zeus
punished him.
        It's the same fight today; but today, Zeus has thermonuclear
arsenals at his fingertips.  We're at a clear, and I think this
was very well expressed even in the discussions back in the '80s
that we're talking about, with the need to move to the Age of
Reason.  We're at the point where mankind has developed
technologically to the point where if we allow that type of
process to continue, you're talking about mankind annihilating
himself; and that's what we're talking about right now, with
these NATO deployments.  It's complete insanity.  But again, as
we're saying, it's not going to be solved in the negative, by
just saying, "Stop that. Don't do that."  It's going to have to
be resolved in the higher realization and actualization of the
true nature of mankind as a Promethean force; as Krafft Ehricke
represented.  Today, as much as then, this need for an Age of
Reason is the imperative; and space is emblematic of the Age of
Reason, the age of mankind, really.

OGDEN:  Well, I think it's important in the context of everything
that we've discussed, also to note that we really are on the edge
of a meltdown of the trans-Atlantic financial system.  It was
noted this week that now major European banks are beginning to
cease their investment into the ECB, because of the ECB's
negative interest policy.  They said, why should we be putting
money into the ECB if they're just going to be charging us for
putting our money there?  So, Helga LaRouche said, there's a lot
of European bankers who are sleeping with billions of dollars
underneath their pillows in the current days.  But this is, even
without the instability of what could happen in the build up to
the Brexit vote at the end of this month.  I know our
institutional question for this week, which we haven't addressed;
was on the subject of the Brexit.  And Mrs. LaRouche said, if
this means that Ireland and Scotland are going to leave the UK,
and the UK will break up; then sure, I welcome this.  But in
seriousness, we are on the verge of the meltdown of the
trans-Atlantic financial system; the productivity of the United
States is through the floor; unemployment in this country is
unbelievable, especially youth unemployment.  It's at levels that
are unprecedented in the modern history of this country.  And at
the same time, you have the possibility of an entirely economic
paradigm presenting itself in the form of the New Silk Road;
everything that's coming out of the BRICS.  We have the visit by
Narendra Modi to the United States this week; he spoke to a joint
session of Congress.  There's a lot that could just happen; as
Helga LaRouche said, it would be very easy.  It would be a piece
of cake for the United States to join this New Paradigm; and I
think that's the ongoing of the LaRouche Movement
internationally, is making that possibility very, very real.  It
requires a policy revolution in the United States to bring that
about; but as was clear from the seminar in San Francisco this
week — and I think will continue to be clear in our
interventions in New York City around the Manhattan Project that
Mr. LaRouche has initiated; and then this upcoming conference
that's being sponsored by the Schiller Institute in Europe in the
coming weeks.  The activities of the LaRouche Movement
internationally are crucial; and it's very significant that we're
at the breaking point in terms of several aspects of this.
        Mrs. LaRouche also put a big emphasis on the continued fight
around the declassification of the 28 pages, because of what this
would imply in terms of the potential to bring down the entire
Anglo-Saudi empire.  And also everything that was contingent on
the lies that were told in the aftermath of 9/11; and what that
has led to in terms of the perpetual war policies, the refugees
who are coming into Europe from North Africa and the Middle East.
        So, all of these things taken together, represent a
situation which is dynamic, it's changing very rapidly, and it is
fertile ground for the types of interventions that the LaRouche
Movement is making internationally right now.
        So, let me invite Kesha or Mike, if you want to say anything
more, in terms of reflections at the conclusion of this
discussion, you're welcome to.

        STEGER:  I'd say, let's get rid of Obama and join the New
Paradigm.

        ROGERS: Yeah.  I think it's true; we are at the end of an
era of representation of barbarism, war, and these limits to
growth consequences that Krafft Ehricke was very well aware of.
We're seeing the emergence of a new system of cooperation, a new
collaboration and dialogue among civilizations that's being led
by Russia and China.  And I think the continued question being
presented by our activity is, will people actually join with
LaRouche and join with the nations who are representing this new
direction for mankind?  And that means doing what Krafft Ehricke
did, and breaking with all practicality, and as you said Ben,
popularity; and actually going out and doing that which is
seemingly impossible.  I think China gives us the light and the
inspiration as to human beings; that is our mission, that is what
we do.  We do those things which seem almost impossible.  And we
do those things that actually help to bring about the solutions
that are going to lead to a greater condition for mankind.  So, I
think that's what we're representing right now, and we're on the
brink of a total breakthrough; unlike anything that's been seen.
But also, as Mrs. LaRouche said in her opening remarks, this
breakthrough is going to come with rejecting the absence of any
discussion on the threat of this thermonuclear war and what
mankind really faces.  Because the question is, what kind of
society are we going to actually demand be brought into
existence?  What kind of future are we going to actually bring
about for those generations not yet born?  And Mr. LaRouche is
committed to that, and many more people as we've stated, need to
do the same.

        OGDEN:  OK.  Well, thank you very much, Kesha.  With that,
I'm going to bring a conclusion to this webcast here this
evening.  I'd like to thank both Kesha and Michael for joining
us; and also thank you to Megan and to Ben.  So, please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com; and as I think you can tell, we have a
very busy few weeks ahead of us, and a lot of responsibility. So,
thank you very much; good night.

Schiller Instituttets Strategiske Seminar i San Francisco den 8. juni tiltrak 70 gæster og eksperter for at diskutere det presserende nødvendige spørgsmål: »Vil USA gå med i Den Nye Silkevej? Global, videnskabelig udvikling, eller atomkrig«. Denne plan går ud på at tilslutte sig en plan for infrastruktur i hele verden, med navnet Ét bælte, én vej, og som Kina har fremlagt, eller også blive sammen med de kollapsende, vestlige økonomier, hvis bankerot leverer ved til det bål, som er en global atomkrig. Listen to the entire seminar on SoundCloud

De højtplacerede talere inkluderede Lyndon LaRouche, berømmet strategisk og økonomisk tænker; Helga Zepp-LaRouche, også kendt som »Silkevejsladyen« pga. sin verdensomspændende kampagne for at skabe den »Silkevejspolitik«, som Kina nu har fremlagt, og for at få denne politik vedtaget på verdensplan som alternativet til krig; den amerikanske senator Mike Gravel (senator 1969-1981), der indlæste de hemmeligstemplede »Pentagon Papers« ind i Kongresprotokollen i 1971; honorære konsul Sergei Petrov, generalkonsul for det Russiske Konsulat i San Francisco; dr. Howard Chang, internationalt kendt ekspert i vandsedimentering, samt Kesha Rogers, to gange demokratisk kandidat i Houstons 22. C.D. (kongresdistrikt) – hjemsted for NASA. De stedlige russiske, kinesiske, japanske og filippinske lokalsamfund var repræsenteret blandt publikum.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche præsenterede tilhørerne for det faktum, at NATO’s deployering på Ruslands grænser, med AEGIS-systemet i Rumænien, og krigsskibet USS Ross i Sortehavet, efterlader russerne i en position, hvor NATO-missiler kunne nå Moskva på fem minutter – hvilket nødvendiggør en politik med »Affyr ved varsel«. Ulig i 1980’erne, hvor tusinder af mennesker demonstrerede imod atommissilerne i Europa og Rusland, der var sat til »affyring ved varsel«, så har de neokonservative i Obamaregeringen genskabt denne fare, uden nogen protester i Vesten. Faren for en konfrontation med Kina i Det sydkinesiske Hav er også til stede.

I dette klima traf Kinas præsident Xi Jinping i 2013 beslutningen om at gøre en ende på geopolitik og at genetablere den Nye Silkevej, og at bygge infrastruktur for vand, elektricitet og transport i hele verden. Zepp-LaRouche påpegede Kinas 20.000 km højhastigheds-jernbanelinjer, som er bygget i løbet af 2015, hvorimod der ikke findes nogen hurtigtog i USA. Hun konkluderede: »Gå sammen med Kina i jeres egen interesse, eller stå over for atomkrig.«

Fr. LaRouche adresserede problemet med, at Obama fortsat er præsident, ved at påpege den presserende nødvendige frigivelse af de klassificerede »28 sider« af Den Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, 2001, og Obamas afvisning af at frigive disse sider, der vides at indeholde bevis for saudiernes finansiering og sponsorering af terrorangrebet 11. september, hvilket kunne sprænge hul i amerikansk politik og gøre det muligt at vælge en kvalificeret kandidat, af samme støbning som Franklin D. Roosevelt eller præsident Kennedy. Herefter fulgte spørgsmål fra tilhørerne.

Efter Helga Zepp-LaRouche kom et indlæg fra den russiske konsul i San Francisco, Sergei Petrov: »For et stort land som USA, er det gavnligt at se på verden.« På et spørgsmål fra senator Mike Gravel om, hvorvidt han (Petrov) var enig i Helga LaRouches vurdering, svarede han: »Jeg er enig i den forståelse, at vi er meget tæt på en storkonflikt. Og jeg tilføjer, at der ikke er nogen som helst mulighed for en ’begrænset atomkrig’. Hvis den begynder, bliver det verdens ende.«

Hr. Petrov beskrev USSR’s opløsning i Statssamfundet af Uafhængige Stater, med alvorlige, økonomiske problemer, og trinnene i den lange proces med at opbygge den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union. EAEU søger nu at indgå aftaler med Mercosur, SCO og EU om økonomisk og humanitært samarbejde. Næste skridt bliver at indgå forbindelse til Nordamerika. På denne dag, sagde hr. Petrov, »vil jeg føle, jeg har været en god diplomat«.

Show Helga Zepp-LaRouche Keynote and Q&A
Show Lyndon LaRouche Q&A