Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 30. oktober, 2016 – I sidste uge fremførte kandidat Donald Trump et direkte krav om gennemførelse af det 21. Århundredes Glass/Steagall-lov samtidig med, at han udstedte en ligefrem advarsel om, at Hillary Clintons sindssyge dæmonisering af Vladimir Putin og hendes krav om militær konfrontation med Rusland og Syrien allerede har bragt verden til randen af atomkrig. Hvad så siden Trumps motivation er, så har dette placeret de spørgsmål, som med Lyndon LaRouche er blevet internationalt fastlagt, i centrum for den amerikanske, politiske krise.

I dag responderede LaRouche til dette skift under en diskussion med sine medarbejdere, ni dage før det amerikanske præsidentvalg:

»Trump er kommet ud med Glass-Steagall. Han fremlagde argumentet. Desuden hader han Hillary Clinton og foragter Barack Obama. Trump har et enormt ego, og det betyder, at han ønsker at gøre noget stort og vigtigt. Men alt dette betyder, at der er noget, vi potentielt kan arbejde med. Dette betyder, at det vigtigste er det, som vi må sige den til kommende administration om det, der må gøres. Det faktum, at Trump støtter Glass-Steagall, er nu en fastslået kendsgerning, og dette er et sted at begynde, men kun et sted at begynde. Vi forstår, hvad der må gøres, overordnet set, for at vedtage en politik i Hamiltons tradition for at redde USA. Det er, hvad der virkelig tæller. Og dette budskab giver genlyd.«

Situationen i USA er fuld af dæmonisering og frygt i takt med, at amerikanske familiers levestandard i hastigt tempo kollapser, og i takt med, at borgerne ikke ser noget håb i valget.

LaRouche bemærkede:

»Situationen her er så rådden, at det giver anledning til stor bekymring. Den typiske, amerikanske borger har ingen stolthed eller tro på sig selv. Der findes ingen pragmatiske løsninger. Der findes intet i USA, med undtagelse af det, vi stiller krav om som presserende løsninger, og som begynder med Glass-Steagall, men dernæst fortsætter med en omgående lancering af massive kapitalinvesteringer af statslig kredit til infrastruktur og andre projekter, for at styrke økonomiens produktivitet som helhed. Dette betyder en genoplivelse af et statsligt, nationalt banksystem efter Hamiltons principper. Sådan skal det være.«

»Der er en reel fare for afslutningen af civilisationen. Der findes ingen andre muligheder end afgørende handlinger, af den art, som jeg har forklaret i mine Fire Økonomiske Hovedlove. Det er den virkelige proces.«

Disse Fire Hovedlove begynder med Glass-Steagall, sammen med en tilbagevenden til et Nationalt Banksystem i Hamiltons tradition, som middel til at udstede kredit til realøkonomien, der som sin spydspids og drivkraft har videnskab, med udvikling af fusionskraft og en genrejsning af NASA og rumforskning og rumfart.

»Vi er på vej ind i noget, vi aldrig før har set – lige nu«,

sagde LaRouche.

»Der findes ingen vilje inden for det transatlantiske område til at handle for at løse nogen af disse problemer. Det er i Eurasien, at vi finder den reelle indsats. Det er dér, de store initiativer finder sted. Putin gør vigtige ting, men han er også bevidst om sin egen positions svaghed, og han medregner dette i sine beslutninger og handlinger.«

Det er presserende nødvendigt at dumpe Obama, men tiden er knap. Vi må omgående, nu, såvel som også dagen efter valget, handle på det skift, som Trumps initiativ har skabt, uanset udfaldet af valget – at gennemføre Glass-Steagall og det fulde LaRouche-program for at genindføre en politik efter Hamiltons principper. 

»Jeg tror, vi kan sige, at vi befinder os ved et meget dramatisk vendepunkt i verdenshistorien, og ved et meget dramatisk vendepunkt for vores nation. I løbet af de seneste uger, som I har kunnet følge på LaRouchePAC’s webside, har vi mobiliseret en national mobilisering for at sætte hr. Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske program på dagsordenen, under betegnelsen ’De Fire Hovedlove; de Fire Nye Love til USA’s økonomiske genrejsning’, og disse love er baseret på Alexander Hamiltons fundamentale principper og hans arbejde med at etablere en videnskab om økonomi, der opbyggede USA. Vi har lanceret en kampagneside for mobilisering, og jeg vil direkte fremhæve, at det er vores dagsorden at bringe det amerikanske folk ind i denne mobilisering for at gøre jeres forståelse af, hvad det er for økonomiske principper, som Hamilton skabte, dybere; og hvad det er, som hr. LaRouche har inkorporeret i disse Fire Love.«

Engelsk udskrift:

Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast October 28, 2016

ALEXANDER HAMILTON'S VISION & LAROUCHE'S FOUR LAWS —
ESSENTIAL TOOLS TO SAVE THE UNITED STATES

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening, it's October 28, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us here for our Friday
evening webcast from larouchepac.com.  I'm joined in the studio
tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence
Review}, and we have via video, Kesha Rogers, a member of the
LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, former candidate for the United
States Congress and United States Senate, joining us from
Houston, Texas.
        I think it can be said that we are at a very dramatic
turning point in world history and a very dramatic turning point
for our nation.  Over the last several weeks, as you've been
following the LaRouche PAC website, we have mobilized a national
mobilization to put on the agenda Mr. Lyndon LaRouche's economic
program; this is under the name of "The Four Cardinal Laws; the
Four New Laws for the Economic Recovery of the United States",
and it's grounded in the fundamental principles of Alexander
Hamilton and his work establishing a science of economics which
built the United States.  We have launched a mobilization page,
and I'll say right up front that our agenda is to bring the
American people into this mobilization to deepen your
understanding of what the economic principles are that Hamilton
created; and what Mr. LaRouche has embodied in these Four Laws.
        This is not something which is only important for the
national stage; but this is shaping a paradigm shift which is
currently ongoing on the international stage.  We saw two weeks
ago the dramatic shift, the realignment of the Philippines with
President Duterte's trip to China; saying that he is realigning
his country with the ideological flow of the Eurasian allied
countries that are now creating a new economic paradigm.  And we
saw this expressed very clearly in a speech that Russian
President Vladimir Putin gave at the 2016 annual Valdai
international discussion club proceedings.  We'll get into some
of the details of that, but Putin's emphases are very clear, and
I think they include some of the subjects that we will be
discussing here tonight.  Number one, the danger of the
NATO/Obama posture which has now brought us perilously close to
the outbreak of World War III; a war that nobody is seeking on
the Russian side, as Putin made very clear.  And also, the urgent
necessity of an entirely new economic paradigm to bridge the gap
between a small number of very wealthy Wall Street speculators
and a very large number of poverty-stricken, not only people, but
also nations; and to bring technological progress to all, and to
have that be the paradigm for relations among nations.
        So, we'll get into those subjects, but I think first and
foremost, the issue of Glass-Steagall; the necessity of shutting
down what is now clearly the bankrupt Wall Street regime, and
what has to necessarily follow after that.  The Hamiltonian Four
Laws that Mr. LaRouche has specified, I think is now very clearly
on the agenda.  So, I'm going to ask Jeff to just start with a
quick briefing of some of the matters that we've discussed with
Mr. LaRouche over the last 24 hours, and then we can proceed with
a discussion of the implications of these developments.

        JEFFREY STEINBERG:  Thanks, Matt.  I think that there are
four or five things that I would really highlight in terms of
significant new developments just in the time since last Friday's
broadcast.  Number one, as Matt indicated, President Putin
delivered a very powerful speech at the closing session of the
Valdai conference that took place this week in Sochi, Russia.
There were representatives there from all over the world,
including at least a number of people there from China.  I think
what President Putin did was not so much break new ground, but
make very clear that Russia and he himself are fully committed to
moving ahead with the collaboration with China, with the other
BRICS countries on bringing about a new paradigm of relations
among nation-states; based on a policy of clear war avoidance
built around cooperative economic investments in great projects
— including major advances in science, including the advancement
of man's mastery over space.  So, Putin in a certain sense,
reinforced what we saw at the G20 meeting in Hangzhou in China;
what we saw at the BRICS heads of state summit meeting more
recently in Goa, India.  So, Russia is all-in on that, and he
made the point very clearly, that the collapse of the Western
financial system is the principal factor driving the world
towards an extraordinarily dangerous situation, where you could
have an outbreak of world war — even thermonuclear world war —
as the result of provocative actions born of desperation.  I
think that whole picture is one element of what's really changed
in this last week.
        Now, I spent the last 48 hours — Wednesday and Thursday of
this week — attending an annual conference in Washington, DC of
the National Council on US-Arab Relations.  There were about 1000
people there, and it was widely attended by the diplomatic
community, particularly the Arab diplomatic community; by the US
business sector that deals with the Gulf States.  At the very
closing of the conference, Thursday evening, there was a
concluding keynote presentation by General David Petraeus —
formerly the head of the Central Command, formerly the Director
of the CIA.  He made a very bold set of proposals that
unfortunately dovetailed very precisely with the kinds of things
that have been coming out of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton
campaign throughout this Presidential election.  What General
Petraeus called for was both the creation of safe zones inside
Syrian sovereign territory, the creation of a no-fly zone over a
large portion of Syrian territory, and he called for the United
States to use both sea-based and air-based cruise missiles to
knock out the Syrian air force.  Now, he very cavalierly said of
course this brings on the danger of a war with Russia; but he
brushed that aside, saying, Vladimir Putin responds to power, and
responds to serious threats to use power.  Therefore, in the face
of these kinds of actions, Putin will back down.
        Now, we're talking about American and Russian air assets
engaging in a very limited theater of action, where we've so far
avoided a major incident that could have led to general war
because of a deconfliction agreement that fortunately still
remains in force between the US-led coalition on the one side,
and Russia on the other.  But what's being proposed here is a
complete overturning of that policy.  We know that this is
exactly what Hillary Clinton is calling for in her own
Presidential campaign speeches.  There have been recent studies
presented on behalf of the Clinton campaign by the Center for a
New American Security and the Center for American Progress, that
go almost as extremist as General Petraeus' statements.
Basically, the war danger cannot in the least underestimated; and
the fact is that President Putin — in his Valdai speech — was
very clear about that danger.
        Now, on the larger issue of the immediacy of the blow-out of
the financial system of the trans-Atlantic region, everybody is
really on the edge of their chairs over the fact that the US
Department of Justice and Deutsche Bank are still parrying around
back and forth and have not reached a decision yet on a proposed
14 billion euro fine for Deutsche Bank's criminal activity during
the mortgage-backed securities crisis leading into the 2008
blow-out.  Deutsche Bank is on the edge of collapse; it's widely
acknowledged.  The major German financial press, led by
{Handelsblatt}, writes about this virtually every day.  We know
that the Italian banking system is also on the verge of a
blow-out with 360 billion euro in non-performing debt on the
books of the larger Italian banks.  So, it is absolutely true
that we're on the precipice of a potential financial blow-out far
worse than Lehman Brothers in 2008.
        It's in that context, that I think it's very important to
take note of the fact that earlier this week, Donald Trump
delivered a speech in Charlotte, North Carolina, in which he
explicitly called for the implementation of a 21st Century
Glass-Steagall.  He also warned that if Hillary Clinton is
elected President, the chances grow enormously that we will be
facing World War III at some point very soon; and he cited the
Syria events that I've already talked about as a kind of a key
element of that situation.  Many people are scratching their
heads and saying, where did this from in terms of Trump suddenly
coming out for Glass-Steagall?  It's only 12 days before the
Presidential election that this speech came out.
        I had the opportunity to someone who's been involved in
Washington politics as a kind of insider for a very long time;
and his view was that he was expecting something like this to
come out of the Trump campaign, out of Donald Trump.  It could
have been more effective if it had happened in September, but
whether he's being opportunistic or whether he genuinely means
it, the fact is that the Glass-Steagall issue has now been
basically re-infused into the Presidential elections at a
critical kind of countdown moment before November 8th.  And
there's really no downside to that.  Whatever the outcome of the
election, Glass-Steagall is an essential policy issue that must
be implemented immediately.  It's the first step of Mr.
LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws for how to carry out an economic
recovery; and Mr. LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws on based
explicitly on the four key reports to Congress by Alexander
Hamilton when he was Secretary of the Treasury.  So, we're
reaching back for policies that have a long-time proven track
record of success.  Donald Trump didn't just simply blurt out
"Let's have Glass-Steagall."  By accounts of people who closely
watched that speech down in Charlotte, this was the most
thoroughly composed and well organized speech of his entire
Presidential campaign.  The next morning, in a TV interview with
Fox, Wilbur Ross, who is one of a group of "billionaires" who are
key economic policy advisors to Trump, basically reinforced the
point that Trump had made the day before in Charlotte.  This is a
bit of an exchange between Fox News' Maria Bartolino and Wilbur
Ross:
        BARTOLINO:  Donald Trump yesterday called for a 21st Century
version of the 1933 Glass-Steagall law that requires the
separation of commercial and investment banking.  Talk to us
about this, because we all know what Dodd-Frank has done to the
financial services sector; and lending has become tougher.
That's become one of the issues for this economy.  Tell me about
the 21st Century version of Glass-Steagall.

        Ross was absolutely clear and familiar with what Trump was
referring to the night before.  He said:
        ROSS:  Well, the banks.  It isn't so much that they're too
big; it's that they're too complex.  Too complex and too
complicated internally.  Think about how much the big banks —
you have to know every geography in the world; you have to know
every kind of obscure kind of product in the derivatives market.
That's an awful big menu for anybody to absorb.  We think it
might be better for the banks to stick to lending, and instead of
making more restrictions on lending, make it easier for them to
make loans.  Think about it.  When you were suing banks every day
for the loans that they've made the day before, it's not the way
to encourage them to make new loans.  They're making banks
gun-shy.

        And she asks, "Are you saying there should be more
separation?"

        ROSS:  I think the more important thing is sensible
regulation rather than just regulation for the sake of
regulation.  When you think about it, with all these fines over
sub-prime lending, can you name a single person who was ever
dispossessed from a house that didn't actually have a mortgage,
wasn't delinquent on it and deserved to be foreclosed?  There
isn't one case where that's been proven, so it's punitive
regulation, it's punitive law enforcement rather than anything
very sensible.

        This was clearly not just simply a stab in the dark. We
don't know whether this is a serious commitment to the policy.
But we do know that there is mass popular support for
Glass-Steagall. That's why it wound up in the platforms of both
the Democratic and Republican Parties. We know there was a fight
inside the Hillary Clinton campaign, in which a number of her key
advisors urged her to also come out and support Glass-Steagall,
which she refused to do. The Bernie Sanders supporters, the
Elizabeth Warren supporters, those who are mainstay voters for
the Democratic Party, are as adamant about the need for
Glass-Steagall as some on the Republican side.
        So, the issue is that this now squarely on the table. It's
the final ten days before the Presidential elections, and so
therefore, now is the moment for this issue to be driven home,
forcefully, and for Congress to take this up as their first order
of business when the return after the November 8th elections,
regardless of the outcome. The mandate is there. It's now a
fundamental issue in the Presidential debate in these closing
days. Again, whether Trump is serious about this, or this was a
political stunt, nevertheless, the issue has been injected very
substantially into the final moments of this Presidential
campaign, and there's no downside to that having happened.

        OGDEN: Mr. LaRouche's ideas are very powerful, and they
stand on their own. Mr. LaRouche has not responded to the change
of the time. He has been very, very clear for years, on the
{urgent} necessity of Glass-Steagall, and has forecast that we
would in fact reach this point again. Deutsche Bank is blowing
out. It's worse than Lehman 2008. The fact that Glass-Steagall
was not reinstated, as Mr. LaRouche called for, immediately
following the 2008 crash, is what has brought us to this point.
Kesha was involved in a high-profile Senate campaign, several
high-profile House campaigns. Other members of the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee also ran for federal office four, six years ago,
on a Glass-Steagall platform, and made that the definitive
national issue. To the extent that there's been any serious
discussion in this Presidential campaign, it has been around the
question of Glass-Steagall. This was brought up in the Democratic
debates by two candidates — Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders also
brought it up; Hillary Clinton said, "No!"
        This is now the {defining} question. And as you said, Jeff,
what this shows is that there is {overwhelming} popular support:
both Party platforms. Now you have a situation in which the
reinstatement of Glass-Steagall is virtually hegemonic. It would
be tragic were the Congress not to take the immediate action to
reinstate this — do not wait for the inauguration — immediately
after returning to Washington. Glass-Steagall has got to be
reinstated, because if we wait, and Deutsche Bank or one of these
other banks blows out, I guarantee you, we are in a far worse
situation that we were, even in the Crash of 2008.
        So I think the defining question is there. The necessity for
the depth of the Hamiltonian principles — which Mr. LaRouche has
made very clear — stand on their own. It's not a question of has
somebody validated Lyndon LaRouche; the question is Lyndon
LaRouche's ideas stand on their own, and have been the defining
questions, and have now reached the point where it's undeniably
hegemonic, and the point of no return is coming very soon, unless
these ideas are acted on.

        STEINBERG: Let me throw something else in on this. I think
there's an important lesson to be learned from the
just-concluded, successful fight over the summer into September,
around first, the release of the 28 pages from the original Joint
Congressional Inquiry into 9/11; and then what followed after
that, with the overwhelming House and Senate override of
President Obama's veto of the JASTA Bill, the Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism Act. As was the case for some time with
JASTA, the issue is that once it was going to come to a vote,
there was no question that there was overwhelming support for it.
There was a political mobilization. LaRouche PAC led that fight,
along with the families and survivors of 9/11, and others as
well, to make sure it was actually brought to a vote. The same is
true of Glass-Steagall right now. There's got to be a groundswell
of pressure on the leadership of the House and Senate, to bring
it to a vote.
        I have no doubt whatsoever that given all of the factors
that we've been discussing, that if a vote were allowed to be
taken, say on November 14-15, whatever it is the day that the
House and Senate return to Washington for the beginning of the
"lame duck" session, that should be on the table. It should be
brought to the full floor of the Senate and the House. The bills
exist in both Houses. The language is compatible. This could be
done in a very short period of time. If you look at the way that
the JASTA vote proceeded just before the recess, the whole thing
took place in the course of {one day}. There was a morning vote
and debate in the House. It went immediately to the Senate in the
afternoon; because the leadership recognized that the American
people {demanded} that this happen. There was a mobilization.
There was a sense of timing. And there is no reason in the world
that the same thing can't happen before the middle of next month
with respect to Glass-Steagall.
        As Matt just said, and as Thomas Hoenig, [vice chairman of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] has been arguing for
years, Glass-Steagall has to be put in place {before} the
blow-out, because once you get that blow-out, Congress will be
stampeded by Wall Street and London into another bail-out, and
you're going to be off to the races. It's going to be a disaster.
        This is something where the will of the American people has
to be heard. That's the context in which we're looking at the
fact that Trump chose at the last moment to inject Glass-Steagall
into his campaign rhetoric for the final countdown days before
the election.

        KESHA ROGERS: Yes. I think it's important to understand that
LaRouche "drew the line in the sand" a long time ago. He set the
standard of the Glass-Steagall representing the first step to
bringing down Wall Street, this financial speculation, and the
continued protection and defense of Wall Street, of this British
imperial system of the City of London, meant the death of the
nation and society as a whole, because we're seeing what this is
doing to impact the United States through the continued economic
collapse that's devastating the entire nation, the rate of
increase in poverty. This has all been a product of Wall Street's
total destruction of our nation.
        And so, this fight for Glass-Steagall — LaRouche has led it
in the highest terms possible, because it represents a saving of
the American people. It's the identity of what has to shape the
future for this nation. I think it's really important that, as
we've continued to have discussions with Mr. LaRouche — the
Policy Committee and others — he defined very clearly that the
issue at hand is, what is going to be necessary and the standard
set for creating a standard by which credit is defined. And this
is what he has gone back to, with implementing the Hamiltonian
standard for the United States and for the world with his Four
Laws. Representing the context by which we can instill in the
American people a standard of economic value which is not based
on money, not based on the idea that you can just pump money into
small infrastructure projects here and there. But he made very
clear that you have to have an international program based on the
principle of a credit policy as Alexander Hamilton understood —
and this is why he has been very emphatic; that the American
people have to read, master and understand the works of Hamilton
today as never before. This is what Franklin Roosevelt
understood. People are adopting and taking up the policy for
restoring Glass-Steagall which LaRouche has made a household
name. Franklin Roosevelt really understood the enemy. He
understood that this house of cards of Wall Street was crumbling,
it had to be brought down; just as LaRouche understands today.
Many people who've put their name on the docket for
Glass-Steagall have been called by Wall Street "Public Enemy
Number One," and so forth.
        How do we really look at this, from the standpoint of what
we're dealing with a population that has lost a sense — and Mr.
LaRouche really captured this today, very profoundly — of their
own mind; the ability of their own mind to actually know how to
fight this enemy and know how to create the future which they so
desperately desire and need? What you really see right now is
that they're being given an opportunity to participate in
something very profound and unique. If we look at what's being
presented by LaRouche's policies being adopted throughout the
world right now, the standard that's been set in China. The
standard for the future that's been set in Russia to defy and to
deny this policy of thermonuclear war and destruction. Of going
after the future and the youth of the nation, that the
international standard that's being set right now for a program
based on these Hamiltonian principles, can {clearly} be seen by
what China is doing and actually representing for a total
revolution, total renaissance for generations to come, in the
standards they're setting with their space program.
        Because when Mr. LaRouche said you have to have an
international program that defines an economic standard of value,
of credit, in this nation and across the planet, that's the first
thing to look at. The fact that China just launched a new
initiative, a total breakthrough putting them front and center
stage in the development of their space program; when Obama has
continued to kill the space program with the egregious budget
cuts, with the turning over our space program to the private
sector in the United States. The policy to continue to bail out
Wall Street financial speculation instead of actually giving a
national mission, as Kennedy understood was absolutely important,
is something that can no longer be tolerated.
        The inspiration is the crucial key at hand right now. People
have lost faith and confidence and inspiration in this nation, in
the system of this nation, because it has become a system of
gambling, of debt, and it has gone away from the principles which
were defined by our US Constitution. So when you look at the
inspiration you're seeing from China, with the just launching of
their spacecraft with two tyconauts from China, the Shenzhou-11
to dock with the Tiangong-2 space lab, what we have now seen
China do is to actually create an international process of
collaboration and development. Just as they've offered for the
United States to cooperate, in a win-win strategy for the Silk
Road, which nations around the world are taking up. This is
defining a new standard of value and wealth.
        Now, what's the standard in the United States? Jeff can say
more on this, because he just did a presentation that I would
encourage people to look at on the website. It's death. The drug
overdoses.  If you don't have a policy of inspiration for your
youth and for the nation, what are people going to turn to?  What
is going to be the standard and value and the understanding of
the creativity, the creative potential of their own minds?  I'll
just say, before I got on this discussion, I was speaking to a
lady 40 years old; she has a 23-year old son who she's paying
thousands of dollars to get him off of drug overdoses from
prescription medicines and pills.  Three of his friends who she
knows very closely just died within the last year of drug
overdoses from heroin.  First starting with painkillers, then
finding this heroin, just as you said, Jeff.  Because people have
been denied a future that they can have a sense of their truly
human identity; that they have a purpose and reason to live.
Wall Street can and must be brought down, because the fight that
was won with JASTA was just the beginning.  If we don't finish
off this policy of the British Empire and the Saudis funding of
terrorism and funding of drug epidemics in the United States
coming from Afghanistan, the drug trafficking, everything we've
been seeing as the destruction of this nation, then we won't have
a nation.  We're seeing that very rapidly take place; this dark
age has to be stopped.
        I think a lot of people are understanding that LaRouche is
giving them an opportunity for life and for determining and
fighting for a future.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, I do want Jeff to say more about that
interview, that short statement that he posted on the website.
Let me just underscore what you just said; I think it's
extraordinarily important.  People lack the confidence in their
own mind; they lack the confidence in their own ability to
positively imagine and create and define a future.  What comes in
the void of that?  It's anger, it's fear, it's demoralization.
Our job is to give people their dignity back.  We have to give
them the confidence in themselves as meaningful human beings.  I
think that was very clearly demonstrated with what we
accomplished — the Schiller Institute along with the Foundation
for the Revival of Classical Culture — with this extraordinary
series of concerts over the weekend of the 15th anniversary of
September 11th in New York City.  This was a presentation of
Mozart's {Requiem} and four African-American spirituals at four
different venues across New York City and New Jersey.  The
confidence and the dignity that gave to people, including people
who were engaged as you said, Jeff, in the fight, the victorious
fight to declassify the 28 pages and to pass the JASTA bill and
override the White House's veto, I think speaks directly to that
point.
        Coincidentally, there's one very short passage in this
speech that Putin gave at the Valdai discussion which says almost
exactly what you just said, Kesha.  He said, "It is very clear
that there is a lack of strategy and a lack of ideas for the
future.  This creates a climate of uncertainty that has a direct
impact on the public mood.  Sociological studies conducted around
the world show that people in different countries and on
different continents tend to see the future as murky and bleak.
This is sad.  The future does not entice them, but rather,
frightens them."
        So, our job is to create a potential for a future which
entices the creative dignity of people and allows them to escape
this — as you eloquently said — dark age of drug overdoses,
death, and depression.

        STEINBERG:  I think it's important to also take note of the
fact that just in the past two weeks, millions of American
households have received word that their Obamacare health
insurance premiums are going up by 20%, 30%, 50%, in some cases I
know of directly, 70-80%.  The administration was facing a
torrent of news coverage admitting that Obamacare was finished.
Insurance companies are pulling out of the pools, and Obama came
out with this completely vacuous, lying statement claiming he'll
create some kind of a federal pool so that people can get
reasonably-priced health insurance.  The fact of the matter is,
at the very outset of this whole business, Obama shut the door on
expanding Medicare for all; shut the door on any other
formulation of a single-payer plan.  The cutbacks in the amount
of money being spent on health care has meant that by Hill-Burton
standards — in other words, the physical requirements; how many
hospital beds, how many doctors, how many nurses, what kinds of
specialty care have to be made available — the physical
infrastructure of health care has collapsed under Obama, as
people are finding their rates skyrocketing through the ceiling.
Obama personally came out with another lie to cover for the
reality of what he created; namely claiming that the premium
increases for most people will be covered by increases in
taxpayer subsidies.  But what he failed to say was that the only
people who qualify for those subsidies are people who are living
at or below one and a half times the poverty rate.  So, anybody
in the middle class, anybody even barely above that 1.5 times the
poverty rate is out of luck; and they're being confronted with a
choice — health care vs. housing; health care vs. food; in many,
many cases health care vs. whether you can get your kids a
college education.  So, you've got that phenomenon that's staring
the American people in the face; it's the collapse and
disintegration of Obamacare, which is what Lyndon LaRouche warned
about and forecast all the way back in 2009 when this thing was
first started.
        Then you've got the second phenomenon.  Remember that
President Obama, during his initial campaign for office back in
2008, basically distanced himself from the Bush-Cheney Iraq war,
but took full ownership of the Afghanistan war; which he called a
war of necessity as opposed to a war of choice.  Well, we're now
eight more years into it, and the United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime last week came out with a report that Afghanistan —
under US and NATO occupation — has produced a bumper crop of
opium; up 43% to 4800 tons of pure opium produced this year.  We
know the consequences of that; cheap heroin is flooding onto the
streets of the United States in every community, not just
inner-city ghetto areas, but middle-class suburbs, rural areas.
There is not a county in the United States that is not
experiencing an opioid epidemic; and that's not our words, those
are the words of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention —
"epidemic".
        You've had a major increase every year under Obama of deaths
by opioid overdoses.  It goes hand-in-glove with the shutdown of
the health system, the flooding of the country with illegal
drugs, the refusal of the Obama administration, number one, to
crack down on HSBC — the British Opium War bank that was caught
by the United States Senate as the number one drug-money
launderer for the Latin American drug cartels.  Nothing was done;
a slap on the wrist.  They've even violated the deferred
prosecution agreement, but we hear nothing about the
consequences.  Secondly, the big pharmaceutical companies and the
major drug distribution companies are flooding the black market
with oxycontin and other opioids.  This is also being done under
the watchful eye of the Department of Justice that has refused to
prosecute big Pharma and these big drug distribution companies
for the same argument that they make why they won't prosecute and
criminally jail major bankers; they're too big to jail.  The
too-big-to-fail banks, the giant pharmaceutical companies that
are pumping out these opioids; they are above the law, at least
under the policies of the Obama administration.
        So, you've got a track record of death, destruction, and
despair emanating from the policies of the White House for the
past eight years.  Now we are at a crisis point, a social and
economic crisis, a crisis of the morale of the population; yet
there are clear and obvious solutions to all of these problems.
It doesn't take brain surgery to figure out that Glass-Steagall
and the other core principles put forward by Mr. LaRouche, which
are a revised version of the core ideas on which this economy of
this great nation was built in the first place, under the
leadership of Alexander Hamilton.  So, these things {can} be
done.  One of the biggest obstacles is the fact that the collapse
of the health care system, the mass opioid addiction that's been
basically allowed to occur as an Opium War against the American
population, has reached the point where it's created a morale
crisis.  And that's got to be reversed.
        Matt just referenced the impact of the concerts
commemorating the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that took
place in the greater New York City area the weekend of September
11th.  Those kinds of things can be replicated everywhere.  We
can turn the situation around very quickly.  We can end the
scourge of Wall Street and the City of London; we can end these
wars.  You've got with Russia, with China, with India, with the
other countries in Asia — Japan, Southeast Asia; they're all
coming together around a new economic paradigm that's built on
cooperation among nations for great projects across a vast area.
The United States desperately needs to get in on this; and
President Xi Jinping's standing invitation, delivered to
President Bush face-to-face, still stands.  The United States
should join in and become part of this World Land-Bridge process;
and if you do that, then the folly of these continuing wars and
this confrontation with Putin and Russia become very obvious.
It's completely ludicrous.  We can move on and participate in
this alternative paradigm which is right there; it's not a
theoretical, it's not something in abstraction.  It's going on
every day of the week across all of Eurasia down into Africa.
China is building a trans-continental railroad across South
America.  The plans for that railroad were in place in the 1870s,
when American rail engineers who worked on the transcontinental
railroad in the United States, went down to Peru, and went down
to Brazil, and were working on those projects.  The time is long
overdue for the United States to get on board on something that
we, as a nation, forged as key concepts back during a better
period in our history.

        ROGERS:  And what you're dealing with is a cultural
transformation.  I just wanted to add that this is not something
that is up to people "Oh, this is a problem I'm having in my
family.  The drug overdose or something that I have to deal
with."  You have people who have health care premiums that are
going up to $1500-2000 per month, and then they're spending
thousands of dollars to get their kids and loved ones off of
these drugs, and you have no help from society because the
society is completely degenerating.  It's only going to be
through a cultural transformation based on the beauty that was
exemplified and continues to be exemplified by what we're
representing with these {Requiem} concerts in New York; with a
commitment towards a revival of truly Classical culture.  One
person I was talking to, who was going through such a crisis, was
saying it would just be so beautiful and so important if you can
come into my area to sing; because these people desperately need
beauty.  It's not going to just take each individual; but as
Putin recognized, you have to have a total transformation of the
culture.  I was just thinking at the very end, that Matt you
brought up a few quotes earlier of this speech, and I don't want
to read long quotes; but I think this captures what we were just
discussing very well.  At the very end of Putin's speech at
Valdai in Sochi, he said: "In short, we should build the
foundation for the future world today by investing in all
priority areas of human development.  And of course, it is
necessary to continue a broad-based discussion of our common
future, so that all sensible and promising initiatives are
heard."
        This is absolutely what has to be the standard of the United
States right now; shaping that future that must be brought into
existence.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, I would recommend people read some more
extensive excerpts of this speech; it's very all-encompassing.
But at the same place where he said what you just cited, he
called for a Marshall Plan to rebuild the war-torn areas —
especially in the Middle East and North Africa; but a Marshall
Plan type of approach.  He called for a New International
Economic Order, which would make the fruit of economic growth and
technological progress accessible to all.  He celebrated the
joining together of the Eurasian Economic Union with the New Silk
Road, the One Belt, One Road policy of China, to create an
integrated Eurasian space where these kinds of massive
development projects can take place, as Jeff just cited.  He said
that the major question, the principle, has got to be how do you
develop human potential?  He said, "An important task of ours is
to develop human potential.  Only a world with ample
opportunities for all, with highly-skilled workers, with access
to knowledge, and a great variety of ways to realize their
potential, can be considered truly free.  Only a world where
people from different countries do not struggle to survive, but
lead full lives, can be stable."
        I would recommend going back and reading some of the
excerpts from Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures",
because he makes exactly the same point.  He says it's only a
world where the diverse talents of the various of your society
can be developed to their fullest potential through the
application of technology, and the availability of this on the
widest possible scale, that you can create the future potential
for the creative labor, not just the manual labor, but the
creative labor of your labor force, of your workforce, of your
citizenry, which increases the potential population density of
your nation; increases the productive powers of that labor force,
and improves the quality of the lives of all.  And only a society
like that can be defined as truly free.  In Hamilton's time, it
was the fight against slavery; it was the fight against the
manual, bestial labor of the African slaves imported to the
southern states of the United States.  In our time, it's the
fight for a Hamiltonian policy in the present period; and I think
we just keep coming back to the point.  This is the Four New Laws
of LaRouche; this is the principle of Alexander Hamilton.  It is
happening on the international stage, as Jeff said.  The One
Belt, One Road policy from China; this new economic paradigm;
these are taking place every single day.
        The defining question is:  Will the United States join that
New Paradigm?

        STEINBERG:  It's ironic that one of the cornerstones, in
light of what's going on in the real guttural side of this
Presidential campaign, one of the cornerstones of Hamilton's
concept in the "Report on Manufactures" was immigration; mass
immigration.  His policy was, bring 'em in; we'll educate them;
we'll make productive American citizens out of them, no matter
where they come from.  That idea that there's always a shortage
of precious creative labor.  I think it's another point very much
worth reflecting on; rather than thinking about walls and things
like that.  He just said, we've got to bring more people in here;
because we've got productive work for them to do to build a
nation.

        OGDEN:  Right; apropos.  I just want to read the one section
from the Putin speech where he says this specifically.  He says,
"We cannot achieve global stability unless we guarantee global
economic progress.  It is essential to provide conditions for
'creative labor' and economic growth at a pace that would put an
end to the division of the world into permanent winners and
permanent losers."
        On that note, I want to just announce to people that
{Executive Intelligence Review} is putting out a republication of
the four economic reports of Hamilton.  These will be available
in book form, hopefully coming up the beginning next week.  It's
titled, {Alexander Hamilton's Vision}, and it's a republication
of these four central economic reports; the "Report on Public
Credit", the "Report on Manufactures", the "Report on National
Banking", and Hamilton's argument "On the Constitutionality of
the National Bank".  As an appendix to that book, we also include
the full text of Mr. LaRouche's new economic laws.  That is also
the headline of a special double edition of the {Hamiltonian}
which came out at the beginning of this week — "The Four New
Laws to Save the USA Now!"  This is edition 10 of the
{Hamiltonian}, and included in this is also an elaboration of
some of the principles of the "Report on Manufactures", which I
wrote up; "The LaRouche-Hamilton Science of Physical Economy",
and there's also an article on the background of Alexander
Hamilton's fight against slavery and his establishment of a new
political order for the United States through the founding of
this science of economics.  There's also a very entertaining
cartoon which was drawn by a member of the LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee, Dave Christie, called "Obamandias" based on
"Ozymandias" which was a famous sonnet by Percy Bysshe Shelley.
So that's available on the LaRouche PAC website.
        So, I think we have definitely defined the fact that we are
at a turning point in the history of this country and the history
of the world.  This is certainly not business as usual; and the
hegemony of the principles that Mr. LaRouche has put on the table
as the urgent steps to create an economic recovery for this
country now, has certainly been demonstrated very clearly.  It's
our job to continue to draw people towards the mobilization page
on the LaRouche PAC Action Center; this is
actioncenter.larouchepac.com/four laws.  You can sign up directly
on that website; you will receive an email, you will become part
of our national network of activists.  You can participate in the
weekly activists calls that we hold every Thursday night — our
Fireside Chats.  You can submit reports of activities that you've
engaged in.  You can have all of the background material
available there — Hamilton's four economic reports are linked on
that page — and you can become part of this movement which is
clearly defining world history.
        So, thank you very much, and I'd like to thank both Jeff and
Kesha for joining us here today.  Please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.  Thank you and good night.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 26. oktober, 2016 – Erkendelsen af, at verden er på randen af verdenskrig, er nu ved at komme åbent til udtryk i den amerikanske og europæiske befolkning. Breve til avisredaktører skriger, at Obamas rænker for at optrappe krigen i Syrien vil bringe os i konflikt med Rusland. LaRouchePAC-aktivister på universitetsområder rapporterer, at studenter pludselig rejser børster, med ængstelige diskussioner om truslen om krig. Selv Donald Trump, der vil bruge enhver mere eller mindre fornuftig, populistisk idé til at fremme sin kampagne, har nu advaret om, at valget af Hillary Clinton, med hendes trusler om krig mod den syriske regering, vil antænde gnisten til »Tredje Verdenskrig«.

Borgerne er med rette bange. Obama fortsætter i embedet, trods det, at alt, hvad han har rørt ved, er brudt sammen: Obamacare er kollapset i takt med, at forsikringsselskaberne dropper ud og præmierne stiger til tårnhøje niveauer, i nogle stater med næsten 100 %; Deutsche Bank og Italiens Monte dei Paschi er ved at kollapse i Europa, samt med smitten, der er klar til at ramme Wall Street, hvor Obamas obstruktion af Glass-Steagall har skabt en boble, der er langt større end den var ved sammenbruddet i 2008; narkotika truer nu med at ødelægge en generation af unge, alt imens præsidenten prædiker legalisering og »ingen retsforfølgelse« af banker, der er taget i hvidvaskning af narkopenge; og med Bush’ og Obamas »uophørlige krige«, der nu truer med at blive til atomkrige.

Der er grund til at være bange. Begge kandidater har allerede vist sig at være totale fiaskoer, en kendsgerning, som næsten alle amerikanere og det meste af verden erkender. Men, insisterede LaRouche i dag, katastrofen kan afværges ved netop at fjerne Obama, før han kan trykke på knappen; og ved at gennemføre Glass-Steagall og et kreditsystem for udvikling efter Hamiltons principper – nu, før sammenbruddet af finanssystemet fører til kaos. Både det Republikanske og det Demokratiske Parti vedtog Glass-Steagall i deres valgplatform – ikke, fordi kandidaterne støttede det, men for at formilde de enorme understrømme i befolkningen, som er rasende over statens redning af Wall Street (bail-out), og som kræver, at spekulanterne nu afvises. I dag responderede Trump atter til det folkelige raseri og krævede gennemførelsen af en version af Glass-Steagall »for det 21. århundrede«.

For at opnå dette, må vi inspirere folk til at rejse sig og erklære, »Jeg nægter at være bange«. Det skete i september måned, da, på trods af, at Obama, Wall Street og saudierne kørte en frygtkampagne, det amerikanske folk fyrede op under deres repræsentanter i Kongressen med henblik på at tilsidesætte Obamas veto af JASTA-loven, som giver ofre for de saudiskledede terrorangreb på USA den 11. september (2001) mulighed for at lægge sag an imod dem, der var ansvarlige i den saudiske regering og det saudiske kongehus.

I normale tider vil dagene efter et præsidentvalg være kendetegnet ved en forlænget pause, en ’afdragsfri’ periode, mens den nye præsident udvælger en administration og formulerer en politik, og mens borgere tager mål af denne politik. Men dette er selvfølgelig ikke normale tider. Begge kandidater er så forhadte af befolkningen – der i de fleste tilfælde hader begge kandidater lige meget – og deres politik er så moralsk depraveret og morderisk, at dagen efter valget vil blive en dag med raseri, måske endda kaos. I endnu højere grad end før valget, vil der hos de fleste amerikanere findes en forudanelse om den fare, som konfronterer Amerika og verden. Den kendsgerning, at der kun findes én løsning – nemlig, at Obama fjernes, og LaRouches uopsættelige love gennemføres – vil ikke ændre sig på grund af valget, men vil være endnu mere indlysende og nødvendig.

I hele den næsten to år lange valgproces har der stort set været nul dækning af det faktum, at verden uden for det transatlantiske område er blevet transformeret, et spørgsmål, der nu aktivt diskuteres på Valdai Internationale Diskussionsklubs 13. årlige konference i Sotji, Rusland. BRIKS, den Nye Silkevejsproces og de nye internationale finansinstitutioner, der er etableret af Kina, Rusland og deres partnere på alle kontinenter, har bragt resten af verden sammen omkring et nyt paradigme for harmoni, udvikling af infrastruktur, samarbejde om rummet og en fælles front mod den terroristsvøbe, som er skabt af de amerikanske og britiske, ulovlige krige i Sydvestasien. Viden om dette nye paradigme, som EIR-rapporten Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen indfanger det, udgør den gnist, der behøves for at vende frygt og raseri til optimisme og kreativ tænkning, med henblik på at bygge en fremtid for menneskeheden.

Vi har intet valg.

Foto: Præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt udsender sin første 'Fireside Chat' om bankkrisen, fra Det hvide Hus, Washington, D.C., 12. marts, 1933.

Uddrag af LaRouchePAC Internationale webcast, 21. oktober, 2016.

Efterfølgende kan udskrift af hele webcastet læses på engelsk.

Matthew Ogden: Vi vil begynde med en kort gennemgang af verdenssituationen; men vi har også et særligt ’traktement’ til jer i dag, som er at give jer de redskaber, I behøver for at blive de aktivister, som I må være for at gå med i vores presserende mobilisering omkring LaRouches Fire Love.

Men til en start mener jeg, at vi kan bedømme vores situation som følger: Til trods for valggalskaben, som virkelig dominerer den gennemsnitlige amerikaners psyke lige nu, og, tror jeg, som forårsager en hel del psykologisk trauma, så er den virkelige, store historie den, at den globale omorganisering nu skrider frem. Vi ser noget, som er hidtil uset i nyere historisk tid. Denne globale omorganisering af historiske proportioner er åbenlys for alle at se. Den finder virkelig sted langs linjerne af det, som hr. og fr. LaRouche i årtier har ført kampagne for, omkring et nyt, økonomisk og strategisk paradigme for planeten. Dette sås i meget skarpe vendinger, som helt sikkert overraskede mange folk i Obama-administrationen, med den filippinske præsident Dutertes besøg i Kina; hvor han, i meget klare vendinger, meddelte, at han skiftede kurs, og skiftede Filippinernes kurs, hen imod det, han kaldte »Kinas ideologiske strømning«, og ligeledes Ruslands. Dette er blot det seneste i et mønster af lande, der engang ansås for at være solide og indiskutable, amerikanske allierede, og som skifter kurs og kommer på linje med BRIKS, det Nye Paradigme og perspektivet for den Nye Silkevej. Det skal siges, at dette ikke er et spørgsmål om, hvem, der bliver præsident om tre uger eller tre måneder; men det er i virkeligheden et spørgsmål om, hvem, der har været præsident i de seneste syv et halvt år.

Dette er, på trods af alt det, Obama forsøger at gøre krav på, i form af hans store, økonomiske successer osv., Obamas sande eftermæle på verdensscenen. Pointen er, at disse nationer, der ser den disintegration, som nu finder sted i Europa og i det transatlantiske system, samt spredningen af kaos og evindelige krige og terrorisme osv.; disse nationer har set, at der findes et alternativ derude, som nu er fremme på bordet; og det er et både økonomisk og strategisk levedygtigt alternativ, der er vokset frem. De er ved at beslutte at springe med om bord og opgive dette døde og døende system; og i stedet gå med i et nyt paradigme, som klart viser sig at være fremtidens bølge.

Det bør understreges, at dette på ingen måde er en ekskluderende, geopolitisk blok, og heller ikke er en slags forældet geopolitik i kynisk koldkrigs-stil. Som Xi Jinping gentagne gange har sagt, så er dette et fuldstændigt nyt paradigme for internationale relationer, og det er et »win-win«-paradigme; det er noget, som alle kan tilslutte sig, inklusive USA – som Xi Jinping udtrykkeligt har indbudt, under en fælles pressekonference med Obama for næsten to år siden. Obama afviste det; men det betyder ikke, at USA ikke kan gå med i dette nye paradigme.

Det er vores ansvar, og det er vores job at skabe præcis dette dramatiske skift i amerikansk politik. Det bringer os frem til denne afgørende kampagne omkring den mobilisering, som vi nu er engageret i, for at få LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love vedtaget og sat i kraft, og for at vende tilbage til Alexander Hamiltons principper, som det forklares i hans fire, banebrydende økonomiske rapporter til Kongressen. Vi vil foretage en ny gennemgang af substansen i disse rapporter; og vi vil også præsentere jer for en ny kampagneside på vores handlingscenter (på LaRouchePAC’s hjemmeside), som vil give jer redskaberne til at gå med i denne mobilisering og til at opnå den form for fast baggrund, som I behøver til at aktivere jer selv omkring.

Men før vi kommer til det, så er der et par afgørende udviklinger, der er sket blot inden for de seneste par timer – 24 timer eller mindre – omkring LaRouche-bevægelsens aktiviteter, både her i USA og internationalt. For det første, så er de første rapporter om en begivenhed i Tyskland, der stadig er i gang, ved at løbe ind; et Schiller Institut-seminar, der finder sted lige nu i Essen. Et seminar med 80 deltagere; med folk, der deltager, og med en hovedtale af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, hvor hun understreger denne dramatiske omorganisering og nødvendigheden af, at Europa går med i den Nye Silkevej. Højtplacerede repræsentanter deltog i begivenheden. De navne, vi foreløbig har fået, er: en embedsperson fra den Kinesiske Ambassade i Berlin, Tyskland; en repræsentant fra en førende, kinesisk tænketank, Kinesisk Institut for Internationale Studier; en repræsentant fra Etiopien; og også nogle eksperter fra den teknologiske sektor – en ekspert i maglev-teknologi, en ekspert i laserfysik og flere andre personer af denne kaliber. Vi vil få flere rapporter om begivenheden, og en audio af begivenheden vil blive tilgængelig, forhåbentlig ved dagens slutning, som I kan lytte til.

Der har også fundet en meget spændende begivenhed sted, som foregik i går aftes i New York City; hvor Jason Ross, medlem af LaRouchePAC Videnskabsteam, var inviteret til at fremlægge en meget detaljeret gennemgang af dette Nye Paradigme, den Nye Silkevej, BRIKS-perspektivet og alle de store infrastrukturprojekter, der er i dette program, ved et møde i New York-afdelingen af det Amerikanske Civilingeniør-Selskab. Jason Ross var hovedtaler ved denne begivenhed, med en detaljeret præsentation, før middagen, af udviklingen med Suezkanalen i Egypten, og ligeledes en endnu mere detaljeret gennemgang, efter middagen, af hele perspektivet med den Nye Silkevej og dennes implikationer mht. en potentiel fremtid med Verdenslandbroen. Dette var et meget aktivt forum med nogle højt kvalificerede ingeniører, der var engageret i en meget livlig og aktiv dialog. Så videoen af denne begivenhed vil forhåbentlig også blive tilgængelig på et tidspunkt; og vi vil også have en rapport om dette.

Jeg tror, dette giver jer en forsmag på præcis den form for aktiviteter, som vi hele tiden må være engageret i; og hold jer gevinsten for øje, som er det økonomiske program med LaRouches Fire Love efter Hamiltons principper. For, vi befinder os midt i en historisk omorganisering af globale proportioner, og som vil bestemme fremtiden for den kommende menneskehed.

Jeg tror, vi kan gå over til at diskutere disse ting, og så vil vi også, på et tidspunkt i udsendelsens forløb, præsentere denne nye kampagneside.

Engelsk udskrift:

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast, October 21, 2016

           USE THE ACTION CENTER ON LAROUCHEPAC.COM
            TO MOBILIZE EVERYONE — EVEN YOURSELF!

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening, it's October 21, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden and you're joining us for our weekly
broadcast here on larouchepac.com on Friday evening for our
weekly webcast.  I'm joined in the studio by Benjamin Deniston —
my colleague from the LaRouche PAC Science Team; and via video by
two members of the Policy Committee: Bill Roberts from Detroit,
Michigan; and Diane Sare from New York City.  We're going to
begin with a brief overview of the world situation; but we also
have a special treat for you tonight, which is to give you the
tools to become the activist that you need to be to join us in
our urgent mobilization around LaRouche's Four Laws.
        But just to begin, I think we can situate ourselves as
follows:  Despite the election madness which is really dominating
the psyche of the average American right now, and I think causing
quite a bit of psychological trauma, the real story is the global
re-alignment that is now in progress.  We are looking at
something which is unprecedented in recent historic memory.  This
global re-alignment of historic proportions is obvious for anyone
to see.  It really is right along the lines of what Mr. and Mrs.
LaRouche have been campaigning for, for decades, around a new
economic and strategic paradigm for the planet.  This was seen in
very stark terms and which certainly caught a lot of people in
the Obama administration by surprise, with the recent trip by
Philippine President Duterte to China; where he announced in very
clear terms that he is re-aligning himself and re-aligning the
Philippines with what he called the "ideological flow of China"
and of Russia, too.  I think this is just the latest in a pattern
of countries which were once considered to be solid and
unquestioning US allies, re-aligning themselves with the BRICS,
the New Paradigm, the New Silk Road perspective.  It has to be
said that this is not a question of who is going to be President
in three weeks or three months; but this is really a question of
who has been President for the last seven and a half years.
        This, despite everything that Obama is trying to claim in
terms of his great economic successes and so forth, this is
really Obama's true legacy on the world stage.  The point is that
these nations, seeing the disintegration that's now happening in
Europe and the trans-Atlantic system and the spread of chaos and
perpetual war and terrorism and so forth, have seen that there is
an alternative out there that's now on the table; and it's a
viable alternative that's emerged, both economically and
strategically.  They are deciding to jump on board and abandon
this dead and dying system; and rather, join a New Paradigm which
is clearly demonstrating itself to be the wave of the future.
This should be emphasized that this is in no way an exclusive
geopolitical block, or some sort of old, cynical Cold War-style
geopolitics.  As Xi Jinping has repeatedly said, this is an
entirely new paradigm of international relations, and it's a
"win-win" paradigm; it's something which everybody can join,
including the United States.  Which Xi Jinping explicitly
extended the invitation for, at a joint press conference with
Obama almost two years ago.  Obama rejected it; but that does not
mean that the United States cannot join this New Paradigm.
        That's our responsibility, and it's our job to generate
precisely that dramatic change in US policy.  That brings us to
this crucial campaign around the mobilization that we are now
engaged in to institute Lyndon LaRouche's Four Economic Laws, and
to return to the principles of Alexander Hamilton, as was
elaborated in his four watershed economic reports to Congress.
We will be revisiting those in their substance; and we will also
be presenting you with a new campaign page on our action center,
which is designed to give you the tools to join that mobilization
and to obtain the kind of substantive background that you need to
activate yourself around that.
        But before we get to that, there's a couple of very crucial
developments that have occurred just in the last few hours — 24
hours and less — around the activities of the LaRouche Movement
both here in the United States and internationally.  First of
all, we are just now receiving the first reports of an event
which is still ongoing in Germany; a Schiller Institute seminar
which is occurring right now in Essen.  An eighty-person seminar;
people who are participating in this with a keynote speech by
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, where she emphasized this dramatic
re-alignment and the necessity of Europe to join the New Silk
Road.  There were very high-level representatives participating
in this event.  The names that we have so far, are: an official
from the Chinese Embassy in Berlin, Germany; an official from a
leading Chinese think tank, the Chinese Institute on
International Studies; a representative from Ethiopia; also some
experts in terms of the technology sector — an expert in maglev
technology, an expert in laser physics, and several other people
of that caliber.  We will be receiving more reports on that, and
the audio of that event will be made available, hopefully by the
end of the day today, for you to listen to.
        Also, we had a very exciting event that happened just last
night in New York City; where Jason Ross, a member of the
LaRouche PAC Science Team, was invited to present a very in-depth
overview of this New Paradigm, the New Silk Road, the BRICS
perspective, and all of the great infrastructure projects that
are coming out of that program, to a meeting of the New York
division of the American Society of Civil Engineers.  Jason Ross
was the featured speaker at this event, with a pre-dinner
presentation in detail on the Suez Canal developments in Egypt,
and also an after-dinner more in-depth overview of the entire New
Silk Road perspective and what this implies in terms of a
potential future with the World Land-Bridge.  This was a very
active forum, with some very highly qualified engineers engaging
in a very excited and active dialogue.  So hopefully, the video
of that will also be available at a certain point; and we will
have a report on that.
        But I think that just gives you a flavor of exactly the kind
of activities that we need to keep engaged in; and keep our eyes
on the prize around this Hamiltonian-LaRouche Four Laws economic
program.  Because we are in the midst of an historic re-alignment
of global proportions, which will define the future of humanity
to come.
        So, I think we can have a little bit of a discussion on
that, and then we will also present this new campaign page which
I mentioned, at a certain point during this broadcast. We're going to
begin with a brief overview of the world situation; but we also
have a special treat for you tonight, which is to give you the
tools to become the activist that you need to be to join us in
our urgent mobilization around LaRouche's Four Laws.
        But just to begin, I think we can situate ourselves as
follows:  Despite the election madness which is really dominating
the psyche of the average American right now, and I think causing
quite a bit of psychological trauma, the real story is the global
re-alignment that is now in progress.  We are looking at
something which is unprecedented in recent historic memory.  This
global re-alignment of historic proportions is obvious for anyone
to see.  It really is right along the lines of what Mr. and Mrs.
LaRouche have been campaigning for, for decades, around a new
economic and strategic paradigm for the planet.  This was seen in
very stark terms and which certainly caught a lot of people in
the Obama administration by surprise, with the recent trip by
Philippine President Duterte to China; where he announced in very
clear terms that he is re-aligning himself and re-aligning the
Philippines with what he called the "ideological flow of China"
and of Russia, too.  I think this is just the latest in a pattern
of countries which were once considered to be solid and
unquestioning US allies, re-aligning themselves with the BRICS,
the New Paradigm, the New Silk Road perspective.  It has to be
said that this is not a question of who is going to be President
in three weeks or three months; but this is really a question of
who has been President for the last seven and a half years.
        This, despite everything that Obama is trying to claim in
terms of his great economic successes and so forth, this is
really Obama's true legacy on the world stage.  The point is that
these nations, seeing the disintegration that's now happening in
Europe and the trans-Atlantic system and the spread of chaos and
perpetual war and terrorism and so forth, have seen that there is
an alternative out there that's now on the table; and it's a
viable alternative that's emerged, both economically and
strategically.  They are deciding to jump on board and abandon
this dead and dying system; and rather, join a New Paradigm which
is clearly demonstrating itself to be the wave of the future.
This should be emphasized that this is in no way an exclusive
geopolitical block, or some sort of old, cynical Cold War-style
geopolitics.  As Xi Jinping has repeatedly said, this is an
entirely new paradigm of international relations, and it's a
"win-win" paradigm; it's something which everybody can join,
including the United States.  Which Xi Jinping explicitly
extended the invitation for, at a joint press conference with
Obama almost two years ago.  Obama rejected it; but that does not
mean that the United States cannot join this New Paradigm.
        That's our responsibility, and it's our job to generate
precisely that dramatic change in US policy.  That brings us to
this crucial campaign around the mobilization that we are now
engaged in to institute Lyndon LaRouche's Four Economic Laws, and
to return to the principles of Alexander Hamilton, as was
elaborated in his four watershed economic reports to Congress.
We will be revisiting those in their substance; and we will also
be presenting you with a new campaign page on our action center,
which is designed to give you the tools to join that mobilization
and to obtain the kind of substantive background that you need to
activate yourself around that.
        But before we get to that, there's a couple of very crucial
developments that have occurred just in the last few hours — 24
hours and less — around the activities of the LaRouche Movement
both here in the United States and internationally.  First of
all, we are just now receiving the first reports of an event
which is still ongoing in Germany; a Schiller Institute seminar
which is occurring right now in Essen.  An eighty-person seminar;
people who are participating in this with a keynote speech by
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, where she emphasized this dramatic
re-alignment and the necessity of Europe to join the New Silk
Road.  There were very high-level representatives participating
in this event.  The names that we have so far, are: an official
from the Chinese Embassy in Berlin, Germany; an official from a
leading Chinese think tank, the Chinese Institute on
International Studies; a representative from Ethiopia; also some
experts in terms of the technology sector — an expert in maglev
technology, an expert in laser physics, and several other people
of that caliber.  We will be receiving more reports on that, and
the audio of that event will be made available, hopefully by the
end of the day today, for you to listen to.
        Also, we had a very exciting event that happened just last
night in New York City; where Jason Ross, a member of the
LaRouche PAC Science Team, was invited to present a very in-depth
overview of this New Paradigm, the New Silk Road, the BRICS
perspective, and all of the great infrastructure projects that
are coming out of that program, to a meeting of the New York
division of the American Society of Civil Engineers.  Jason Ross
was the featured speaker at this event, with a pre-dinner
presentation in detail on the Suez Canal developments in Egypt,
and also an after-dinner more in-depth overview of the entire New
Silk Road perspective and what this implies in terms of a
potential future with the World Land-Bridge.  This was a very
active forum, with some very highly qualified engineers engaging
in a very excited and active dialogue.  So hopefully, the video
of that will also be available at a certain point; and we will
have a report on that.
        But I think that just gives you a flavor of exactly the kind
of activities that we need to keep engaged in; and keep our eyes
on the prize around this Hamiltonian-LaRouche Four Laws economic
program.  Because we are in the midst of an historic re-alignment
of global proportions, which will define the future of humanity
to come.
        So, I think we can have a little bit of a discussion on
that, and then we will also present this new campaign page which
I mentioned, at a certain point during this broadcast.

        DIANE SARE:  Good.  Well, I'll just add that what's come out
in the last days is the question of the Obama administration's
obsession with Lyndon LaRouche, through various of the Hillary
Clinton emails that have recently been released.  One, LaRouche
is mentioned over 40 times in these emails; in particular around
the question of Obamacare, which is just in its complete meltdown
phase.  I think they're trying to cover over the meltdown by
having doctors do 20 times more paperwork than they've already
been saddled with for their Medicare patients.  The whole thing
is insane; and what LaRouche had identified was that this was a
program like Adolf Hitler's T4 program to target these so-called
"useless eaters".  Ezekiel Emmanuel, Rahm Emmanuel's brother, who
was key in drafting the bill, in some of his writings made it
very clear that in his mind it was a real question; if a person
could not become a fully participating member of society, if they
were suffering dementia or other terminal illnesses, whether it
really was worth trying to save them at all financially, from a
dollar standpoint.  What happened — I'll just say to the credit
of the American people — is that in 2009, people may remember,
everybody came out with their pitchforks to skewer their
Congressmen; you had all of these completely raucous town hall
meetings in which the Congressmen were calling the police to
escort them home, because they were so afraid.  You had a quality
of fight.
        We also saw again a certain quality of fight around the
question of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act
[JASTA], where the American people, led particularly by the
LaRouche Movement and the 9/11 Families, made it very clear that
there just are certain things that we are not willing to
tolerate; namely, the cover-up of who was responsible for
murdering Americans on that date, and the death toll in the
aftermath.  But I bring that up, because as Matt referenced early
on, there is enormous frustration, fear, and anxiety about the
fact that we have arguably the two worst candidates that we have
ever had in the history of this country; and we've had some
pretty bad ones.  People are thinking, "Well, how is this going
to work?  This is a disaster."
        I think people should also look at themselves, because: 1)
Had Bush been impeached when that was being discussed and was put
on the floor by Kucinich, and Nancy Pelosi took it off the table.
Had Cheney and Bush been impeached for all of their crimes — the
illegal wars, torturing people, and so on — you never would have
had an Obama administration.  The fact that Obama has not yet
been thrown out of office, when every single Tuesday he is still
holding meetings to decide who he is going to assassinate with
drones; and somehow this is not considered grounds to throw him
out and frankly put him in prison or put him in the criminal wing
of a mental institution or something.  In other words, that's the
cause of this crisis, not the so-called people who are before us
now in the elections.
        What we've seen in Manhattan is a shift; I think it's
dawning on people that perhaps if they want to change things,
they should start by changing themselves and changing the level
of their understanding and their thinking about what it means to
be a citizen in the United States.  We've started reading
Alexander Hamilton's original papers, which are posted now on the
website: "Report on Public Credit"; "Report on a National Bank";
"On the Constitutionality of a National Bank"; and "Report on the
Subject of Manufactures".  [We’re doing this] as a way of
qualifying ourselves to shape the policy of the nation.  This is
very important, because the United States in this way is
relatively unique; that is, the citizens of the United States do
have an enormous amount of power, which is not the same as what
you have in parliamentary systems.  The citizens are able, if
they are informed, to cause policy to be changed.
        That's why Obama's and Hillary's advisors were so freaked
out about Lyndon LaRouche.  Because LaRouche has demonstrated a
capacity through what he termed "the power of reason" to move the
American people.  We saw that with the concerts on September 11th
in memory of the 9/11 attacks; and we're seeing that now.  So, I
think this is a very important factor not to be left out of the
equation in terms of the shift which is occurring globally in the
direction of the BRICS.  Probably Bill or someone will something
[to say] about the situation in the Philippines, which I think is
remarkable in that regard, but we are absolutely I think in a
pre-revolutionary situation in the United States; and it's up to
us to put it in the proper domain.

        BEN DENISTON:  Because it's coming up now, I think it's
really worth just emphasizing for our viewers, for our
associates, for our activists that this issue around Mr.
LaRouche's role in the Obama campaign is just typical of what
makes Mr. LaRouche and our movement so unique.  Mr. LaRouche
acted in the future; he didn't respond, he didn't wait for the
kill lists to come out.  He didn't wait for Obamacare to be fully
demonstrated as it's being demonstrated now with people's rates
going up; the care people are getting is collapsing.  Even Bill
Clinton, who's been completely shackled under the Hillary/Obama
policy, came out saying this thing is insane and then backed down
from that when he was asked about it; but it's on video, you can
see it.  [LaRouche] didn't wait for that; he came out right way
and didn't just say it was going to be bad.  He said, "This is a
Hitler policy."  He forced the issue {before} it came up.  And
the reason why we put the Obama administration on its heels from
Day One, is because Mr. LaRouche took the lead; and didn't say,
"Oh, well this is the first black President, so we have to be
polite.  He's a Democrat, so we have to be polite."  He said,
"No, we can see now, this guy's going to implement a killer
policy, so we're going to call him out on the principle, on the
hardest level of the reality of what he's doing. This is a Hitler
healthcare policy. We're going to force the issue, and take the
fight to him right up front." That's what makes our Movement
effective. We act in the future, we don't wait for events to
come, and respond to them. We act on what the future is going to
be and what it needs to be.
        I think that's a really important precedent for what we're
facing right now, again, in this insanity around the "election
process," this Jerry Springer Show repeat of these "debates."
We're not responding to that. We're responding to the future, to
reality, what we're talking about with the world {shifting},
completely towards China's leadership on this New Paradigm, on
the absolute necessity for LaRouche's Four Laws for this
Hamiltonian program to save the United States.
        Those are the issues that are going to shape the future, not
responding to how ridiculous these debates are, who's saying
what. [With] the level of insanity going on in the United States
right now, it's worth instilling in people a sense of how you
actually fight to change history. It's this kind of process. It's
taking the lead, based on where history is moving, where society
is moving, what are the actual underlying principles driving the
process forward? — and acting on those, acting on the future,
not responding.
        Mr. LaRouche is mentioned in the Hillary Clinton emails.
That's no surprise. He came out, right out front, and forced the
issue, and drew the line, and that's been a critical factor in
ensuring the Obama administration didn't go full-scale Hitler
policy, even though they've gone that [way] to a very large scale
across many domains — healthcare, foreign policy, etc. But
that's leadership! That's what we're doing. That's why people
need to drop everything and work with our Movement more closely
and really get involved in our campaign, especially on this
Hamiltonian program. Because that's what's going to matter. Not
who has the best commentary on what's happening today, or
yesterday, or last week, but who's got an idea for where we need
to go and how to make that happen.

        OGDEN: The other thing that you can measure, in terms of
what the Obama Presidency has been, is how much closer to World
War III are we right now, than we were when Obama entered office.
If you look at the progression of history since the overthrow and
killing of [Libya’s Muammar] Qaddafi, and the spread of that
policy throughout North Africa and the Middle East, and the
attempt to do the same thing in Syria and elsewhere, {how much
closer we actually are}, right now, to an eruption of what would
become, in a very short period of time, thermonuclear war. And
this is being acknowledged by {everybody}, I mean [former
President of the Soviet Union Mikhail] Gorbachov, Kissinger,
people who you would not necessarily expect. It's a very
dangerous prospect.
        Americans should {resent} the fact that they're really being
{set up} by this election campaign, where there is a new
McCarthyism almost which is being instituted against the American
people, where if you question the no-fly zone [proposal for
Syria] or this Russia bashing propaganda or any of these
policies, then you are automatically classified as "Oh well, you
must be a Trump supporter," which is a ridiculous. Americans
should {resent} that kind of situation, and should say, "No!
Absolutely not. Not in our name. We do not accept being used and
manipulated into this kind of new Cold War, but really World War
III kind of program." It must be said that over the last 7-1/2
years, we have gotten perilously close to that threat. Again, Mr.
LaRouche was quite outspoken and quite explicit on that from the
very beginning. As soon as the Libya invasion happened, and as
soon as the death of Qaddafi occurred, Mr. LaRouche was on record
saying this is taking us down the slippery slope towards World
War III.

        BILL ROBERTS: I would also emphasize that there have been
important Presidential elections. There have been Presidential
figures who were effective such as Franklin Roosevelt, largely
because their Presidential campaigns were actually used to create
a current of real leadership in the population to be ennobled and
encouraged to fight. We haven't had an election like that for
years. There hasn't been a figure like that running for
President. Mr. LaRouche ran, literally, all of his [Presidential]
campaigns in this way, to educate and build up a constituency for
policies.
        Obviously [the current] election process is the complete
opposite. It's a psychological warfare operation on the
population. But we have an opportunity to create and educate the
kind of current of citizenry that can actually win the policy
fight, despite how insane this election is. This should be one of
the lessons of what Putin has effectively done, what Xi Jinping
[has done], this entire BRICS process. We have to actually build
up a capacity within the population to respond, now, on the basis
of knowing exactly what to do, to implement an economic solution.
        That's the Fourth Branch of government. That is the sense in
which Mr. LaRouche actually has been the Presidential figure
during this period. These emails, the process that's been
unleashed in the BRICS, has largely come out of Mr. LaRouche's
and Helga's life's work to educate the world on the principles of
economics, real economic development. Americans just have to be
encouraged to locate their responsibility and their duty in
something which is much, much higher that just voting in an
election. That doesn't require any courage at all. The fight for
ideas {does} require a little bit of courage, because we have to
challenge people to face their fears and confront the crisis that
requires specific qualities of ideas.

        OGDEN: Along the lines of exactly that "quality of ideas,"
our last two webcasts, here, the previous two Fridays, have been
focused around Mr. LaRouche's Four Economic Laws, and Alexander
Hamilton's four economic reports. We've really encouraged you, as
Diane said I think very correctly, "to qualify yourself as a
leading citizen in this campaign." And the way that you can
"qualify yourself" is to use that material to educate yourself
and to also engage in a mass-education process of the rest of the
American people.
        The average American citizen of that time, who Benjamin
Franklin proudly referred to as the "Latin farmer," was a very
literate, classically educated individual, who understood the
essential questions of the revolution, and prided themselves in
that. Hamilton educated those Americans about his ideas. He used
{The Federalist} letters. He used the media of his day — the
print media and otherwise.
        We're using the media of our day to do exactly the same
thing. That's what the LaRouche PAC website has been. It's been a
hub for that kind of self-education, and mass-education. The
community coming together around that kind of process,
nationally, is carried in the LaRouche PAC Action Center. On the
Action Center, we are proud to announce the launch, today, of a
new tool for you to use in that regard, and we're going to have a
little bit of a guided tour led by Ben Deniston, of this new
campaign page on our Action Center. This is on the
LaRouche-Hamilton Four Laws. We're going to walk you through that
here, but we also encourage you to immediately, on your own, get
onto this website, to sign up, and to be an active participant in
this new educational hub.

        DENISTON: We should be able to pull up the webpage for
people directly, so they can see it. What you'll see, if you're
newly visiting to the site, is right at the very top we have a
banner, advertising this new campaign page Action Center. This
could be, as Matt said, the hub, the mobilization center, to get
this policy through. If you don't see this banner, we will have
it featured in many other ways, including LaRouche's 4 Laws under
Our Policies. You can see this takes you immediately to a new
page, which is the landing page for this new campaign. Right
away, we're encouraging people — yourself, if you haven't done
so already, but if you have, encourage your friends, your
colleagues, your neighbors to do so — to sign up, to join the
mobilization. If you know LaRouche PAC, we're not just a news
service to throw things out to you; we're not just a commentary
service; we're a political {action} committee. We're putting the
emphasis on {action} in political action committee, and we're
asking {you} to make sure you get involved.
        We're doing stuff all around the country. Manhattan is a
major center of activity. We're leading the fight. But we also
have activity from around the nation, getting congressmen, labor
unions, state legislators, whatever groups, farm groups, all
kinds of organizations, on board in support of LaRouche's
economic reform program. We're asking you to get involved in that
process. Help make it happen, take action yourself. And its
starts here — on this page.
        If you return to the page, we can see that, right away,
there are three main sub-pages to this main landing page. On the
far left we see What You Can Do. If you simply click on that,
again, we're encouraging people to sign up, because the most
effective action activity is going to be in coordination with us,
nationally and, really, internationally. Again, we're running a
top-down coordinated campaign on this.
        But there's a series of measures that are being taken around
the country, and we're asking you to take also. There's a major
push to get elected officials on board with this, obviously.
There are bills to reinstate Glass-Steagall in both the House and
the Senate. That is a very straight-forward and easy task that
you can get your congressman to do — sign on to those bills, and
then push them to go farther, to understand the whole Hamiltonian
campaign. We'll get into that in a second. Intervene into local
meetings. Write a "Letter to the Editor." Under Print and
Distribute, we're going to feature, here, some leading material
which you can print out and take to these meetings and organize
with. So, these are some of the many things you can do.
        If you return back to the landing page, on the right side,
we're encouraging people to engage in a real social dialogue
around your activities. So, Report Back. We're going to be having
some breaking reports coming in, in just the coming days and
week. We've got some of the activity that Jason Ross was involved
in, which will be featured here, as was reported earlier. There's
other activity from Kansas, on major support from the Kansas
State Cattlemen's Association, in support of Glass-Steagall, and
LaRouche's program. Which is just a good illustration. If you go
out and organize these groups, people recognize that we need this
kind of reform, and we can bring these kinds of organizations on
board in support of this. So here is going to be our location to
report back, to comment on reports, to engage in discussion about
the campaign and the activity you are doing.
        Essential to this whole thing is the relevant background and
material you need to understand this campaign and to organize
around it. So, as you'll see, linked all over this page and the
sub-pages, including right here on the main landing page, the key
document is Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws paper. If you haven't read
this yet, this is a priority to read. You can access it directly
from here. It is a relatively short, very dense, very
well-composed presentation of the necessary program, in its
entirety. And it's the source of these Four Laws, four
components, but as Mr. LaRouche presents it.  If you understand
the necessity of this program, it's not four separate elements;
it's one policy, rooted in one scientific understanding of
economics.  Something rooted in Hamilton's work and developed
further by Mr. LaRouche in his work.  This is obviously the
central document to this entire campaign; and you can find it
linked all over the page.
        If you want more background, we have plenty of resources on
"Know the Full Story".  Some background on the crisis; again, Mr.
LaRouche's Four Laws paper linked multiple times.  And then
relative background on each of the Four Laws.  So, some of the
background needed for Glass-Steagall, for example; information
about the bills that currently exist in the House and the Senate.
Other resolutions and support for Glass-Steagall from all over
the country and internationally; if you haven't seen that, it's
quite impressive — the whole level of support already.  And
other relevant background, including some of the Obama campaign's
lies about Glass-Steagall; their Wall Street lies that it has no
relevance to the crash.  Something you've properly heard spread
throughout the media.  We debunk these kinds of things.  The
fraud of the Dodd-Frank issue, etc.  So again, relevant material
for people who are really organizing around this.
        Regarding the second policy point of Mr. LaRouche's Four
Laws — a Hamiltonian national banking system, again, we have
relevant background information for you here.  Mr. LaRouche's own
writings on the subject of national banking and credit, here and
featured in other locations, we have Alexander Hamilton's own
four reports to Congress; which as was mentioned by Diane and
Matthew, are a major focus of educating the American people on
the needed program today.  So again, we encourage to go directly
and actually read these reports; study them.  If you have
questions, or you want to get more information, engage with us.
The point is, we need people to understand the real roots of
American economics as Hamilton developed it and presented it; as
it was the founding core of our nation; and as Mr. LaRouche has
developed it to further degrees in the present period.  This is
what's needed in its entirety today.  Additional background on
how this Hamiltonian program has been brought to bear at multiple
points in the history of the United States: under John Quincy
Adams; under Abraham Lincoln; in certain degrees, under Franklin
Roosevelt operating under the constraints he could work in at the
time.  It's no secret to people who really know American history,
that this policy has returned repeatedly in any period of
economic recovery or upsurge.  That's what's needed today.
        Regarding the role of credit as Mr. LaRouche defined it,
specifically for the increases in the productive powers of labor
and the increases of energy flux density, we have some relevant
background material to understanding Mr. LaRouche's science of
physical economics and the role of credit in increasing these
critical metrics of real human economic progress.  So,
understanding Mr. LaRouche's concept of energy flux density,
understanding Mr. LaRouche's concept of the productive powers of
labor, this information is all available here for you to study;
some in video format, some in written form.  I would even
highlight Mr. LaRouche's own 1984 economics textbook, {So, You
Wish To Learn All About Economics?}; which is an excellent source
to understand the real science of economics as it is needed to be
understood today.
        And the fourth point, Mr. LaRouche highlights a science
driver program for fusion power and space exploration.  Again,
some background work from Mr. LaRouche directly on these
subjects; relevant material on fusion power; the role of a fusion
driver program for the economy — why this is critical.  And
similarly with space; why the space program is a critical
component to driving the economy forward.
        So, I would just restate that while we break down here
relevant background material for each of these four laws, these
four components, it is one program as Mr. LaRouche presented it.
What we're doing here is presenting you with secondary, tertiary
background material to understand all the elements.  But the
challenge we have before us is this Hamiltonian conception; we
have to educate the American people on this Hamiltonian-LaRouche
conception of real economics.  Most people probably know —
especially viewers of our channel, our website — there is major
support for Glass-Steagall out there; it's massive.  It's moving
forward; it's been moving forward, and that's critical.  But that
along is not enough.  Just Glass-Steagall alone is an absolutely
indispensable step, but it's only a step; it's a component of the
whole program.  We need to cut off Wall Street; we need to
separate speculation from the financial system; we need a stable,
regulated commercial bank system.  But, we need to actually
utilize that with a Hamiltonian program, with a National Bank,
with public credit to actually drive increases in the economy.
If we don't do that, we're not going to make it as a nation.
Glass-Steagall alone will not do that; it requires the
understanding that Hamilton understood.  We need to increase the
productivity of the labor force; we need to increase the energy
flux density of the economy as a whole; and people need to know
the science underlying these policies.
        I think we have a multi-faceted, but unified campaign here;
leading with Glass-Steagall as the first step, but then building
support among these people who support these reforms around a
real science of what it's going to require to grow again.  We
need real growth; we need real leaps in the productivity, the
value created by the US economy, by the US labor force.  We have
a wide-open opportunity to join with China, Russia, other
nations, in collaborating around those kinds of programs; but
it's going to require that shift in the United States to
recognize that's where we need to go.
        So, we have this new campaign page; it's an Action Center
location, it's a place for you, the activist, the members of the
LaRouche PAC to get involved in making this full Hamiltonian
program known to the American people.  Make it so you understand
all the elements integrated in their totality yourself, and you
can organize other leaders in your community — from regular
citizens all the way up to Federal elected officials around this
program.
        Just to reference back to some of the discussion, we're
acting in the future; this is what needs to happen in the future.
This is what you need to take action on now to shape where this
country goes; not responding to the insanity that's currently
called the news cycle, but getting active in shaping the future
of the country.  That's what makes this movement unique; that's
what gives us the chance to save this country at this late hour.
We would encourage you to get on these pages, to share these
pages; to get intimately connected to them and understand them.
And to get more involved in this campaign.

        OGDEN:  To accomplish this, we need to create the qualified
leadership.  This is not something where you can depend on
somebody else to do this; you can't depend on the "political
class" — so-called — to accomplish this.  We are going to need
to create a citizens' intelligentsia; and there is work that
needs to be done.  As Ben just went through, all the tools are
available to you.  You can attend these Congressional town hall
meetings; you can set up with your Congressional offices in the
districts and in Washington.  You can write letters to the
editor; this is a very important institution in the United
States.  Share your ideas with a mass-based readership of your
local newspaper, or national newspapers; and communicate the
substance of these principles — the Four Laws and the
Hamiltonian economic reports.  You can set up house meetings to
read Hamilton's papers in their entirety.  We've already begun
that process in Manhattan; there are weekly meetings now, every
Saturday, where some of the leading activists and leading
citizens in Manhattan come together and read these Hamilton
reports and discuss them, and discuss their implications for
today.  What's wonderful is that these are largely the same
activists who were involved in the presentation of the Mozart
{Requiem} on the anniversary of 9/11.  We are witnessing the
creation of this citizens' intelligentsia — a qualified
leadership for this country who are going to take the
intellectual responsibility to develop the knowledge they need to
exert the kind of leadership that's necessary.
        I might invite Diane to just say a little bit more about
this process of these weekly readings in Manhattan, as a model
for what can happen elsewhere in the country.

        SARE:  I know some people have discussed organizing such
readings; and I think that would be absolutely appropriate,
because that is in a sense, how the American Revolution was
organized.  In small circles of people discussing ideas; and it
is how Alexander Hamilton organized the republic with his
{Federalist Papers} with his collaborators John Jay and others.
I also just want to say, because part of the attempt to
intimidate and demoralize the American people is this big
promotion of this nonsense about Obama's great popularity and his
brilliant legacy of — as he himself puts it — "the greatest
economic recovery ever to happen in memorable recorded history of
mankind and civilization in general".  Which no one is
experiencing whatsoever.  And as far as his great surge in
popularity, the override of his JASTA veto in the Senate was 97 –
1; I would not say that 1 out of 100 constitutes a great spike in
popularity.
        I do think this case of the Philippines, I want to bring it
up because it's significant.  The Philippines, as people may
know, is not a particularly large or powerful nation. It's had a
special relationship with the United States, which had been
better when Douglas MacArthur was living.  The President has just
said to the US, "No, I am shifting our relationship to China.
We're not going to have a special relationship with the US
anymore; it's going to be with China, and with Russia."  What can
the United States do about this?  Absolutely nothing; we have
nothing to offer.  All we have is a lunatic who is having his
Vice President on his behalf and on behalf of the dying British
Empire, make threats about covert cyber-war attacks on Russia.
Of course, Ed Snowden asked the relevant question — maybe
someone should explain what "covert" means to these idiots.  I
think Americans should really take heart.  There is no reason for
you to be suffering, except a decision to go along with this
crap.  As we inform and educate ourselves as to what the Founding
Fathers actually intended with our republic, which is that
knowledge which is the bedrock of Lyndon LaRouche's life's work;
which he has taken to even higher levels in the realm of physical
science and physical economy.  That's our power; that's our
strength.
        And in these last two weeks before this dreaded election,
when it's clear to everybody that we are the best hope of the
United States, we should just be organizing.  I think that
webpage looks fantastic; that is a great resource.  So, we should
make use of it; everyone watching should forward it to all your
friends and neighbors.  Take this material and get on the warpath
a little bit.  There's no need to sit back and take this.  And by
all means, you certainly don't have to vote for either one of
these idiots.  So, I think it's a great moment of opportunity;
and the shift is being led right now by Putin and Xi Jinping and
Lyndon LaRouche.  We are the leaders of that in the United
States; and that's really your role and our role right now.

        OGDEN:  Wonderful!  So, I think that's sufficient for today.
Again, please become an active member of this new community that
we've set up with its hub on the LaRouche PAC Action Center.
There will be a free flow of ideas; report back, there's a field
there where you can type in your reports.  We want to share these
with as many people as we can to just sort of inspire people as
to what are the kinds of things that can be done.  There's
probably new ideas out there that haven't even been thought of
yet, but there's a lot that can be done right now.  All of the
material is available; this is something that you can use to pull
your friends into this orbit and lift people up out of the swamp
of this psychological trauma of this election period.  You can
inspire people and say, "No.  Don't become cynical; don't become
demoralized."  We have a lot that we can do.  This is an historic
and potentially wonderful time in human history; it is a
pre-revolutionary kind of situation on a world scale.  This is
your tool in order to become an active part of that.
        So again, it's on the LaRouche PAC Action Center, there's a
big banner right on the top of the larouchepac.com website right
now.  You can access it right there.  Please, sign up.  You will
receive updates and become part of the network; you can join the
Thursday Fireside Chat activists' calls; share your ideas, ask
questions to leading members of the LaRouche Political Action
Committee.  You can receive daily emails; you can receive the
weekly updates from LaRouche PAC in your email inbox.  You can
subscribe to both the LaRouche PAC Live and the LaRouche PAC
videos YouTube channel.  Just get everything that you can, and
become an active member.  You can expect some reports, I think,
from this historic seminar that occurred today in Essen, Germany
that was sponsored by the Schiller Institute; so please stay
tuned to the LaRouche PAC website for that, and for that numerous
other developments that we don't even know yet to have occurred.
But I'm sure that there will be a lot that will change over the
coming days and weeks.
        Thank you very much for watching today.  We look forward to
seeing you on the LaRouche PAC Action Center.  Stay tuned to
larouchepac.com, and good night.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 18. oktober 2016 – I denne uge finder der intense møder mellem europæiske og amerikanske, politiske og militære ledere sted i hele Europa, møder, hvor man diskuterer og planlægger krige – krige i Syrien, i Irak, i Yemen og i Ukraine. Det underliggende grundlag for alle disse forhandlinger er Obamas og Londons hektiske bestræbelser på at få støtte til krig mod Rusland og Kina. Europæiske regeringer og/eller ledende institutioner yder i stigende grad modstand mod dette vanvid, men Obama og hans forsvarsminister Ash Carter er i færd med at planlægge provokationer, som kunne kickstarte en irreversibel proces hen imod krig, og således true selve civilisationen med et atomart holocaust.

Og dog er det således, at det store flertal af verden ser hen til Kina, Rusland og Indien, der i sidste uge mødtes med deres BRIKS-partnere Brasilien og Sydafrika i Goa, Indien, hvor de kickstarter, ikke krig, men global udvikling, med højhastigheds-jernbaneprojekter, der forbinder nationer gennem en Verdenslandbro; hvor de underskriver aftaler om opbygning af kernekraft og anden infrastruktur og andet samarbejde omkring rumforskning; og hvor de løfter de mange millioner mennesker i Asien, Afrika og Sydamerika, der er ramt af fattigdom, op til en menneskelig levestandard sådan, som Kina har løftet 700 millioner sjæle op af fattigdom.

Hvilket paradigme vil afgøre menneskehedens fremtid? Den vil, et langt stykke hen ad vejen, blive afgjort af USA. Samtidig med, at krigspartiet mobiliserer sine kræfter, og i takt med, at det uafvendelige kollaps af Deutsche Banks derivatmættede aktiver spreder panik i det vestlige finanssystem, så undertrykkes Obamaadministrationens ødelæggelse og befolkningens had til Obama og hans klon Hillary Clinton kun delvist af det pornografiske klovneshow, som præsidentkandidaterne opfører, eller som de syge medier promoverer.

Valg til regering, som det forudsås af Amerikas grundlæggende fædre, handlede om mere end at vælge politiske repræsentanter – de udgjorde en periode, hvor intelligente mennesker adresserede og opdragede borgersamfundet omkring de fundamentale principper for naturlig lov og den mission, nationen spiller for verdens fremtid. Det er grunden til, at Lyndon LaRouches præsidentkampagne hen over tre årtier har haft en dyb og varig indvirkning på nationen, på trods af relativt få stemmer, og på trods af konstante angreb fra regeringens og mediernes side.

Aldrig i denne nations historie er kandidater blevet så udskældt af befolkningen, som i det aktuelle valg, selv om ingen af kandidaterne i mange tilfælde var kvalificeret til stillingen. Befolkningen har kun ét valg – at stemme for principper, og at mobilisere borgersamfundet til fordel for LaRouches ideer, hans Fire Love baseret på Alexander Hamiltons gennemgribende opdagelser, samt en genindførelse af klassisk musik og kultur.

Som Friedrich Schiller sagde, så må vi alle på én og samme gang være patrioter for vore nationer og verdensborgere. På denne måde kan borgere i alle nationer være med i den ærefrygtindgydende opgave, at omstøde Amerikas deroute ned i et britisk imperiehelvede, og bringe denne engang så storslåede nation ind på linje med paradigmet for menneskeligt fremskridt.

Hvad ville Hamilton have gjort? Find ud af det. 

Foto: Den russiske præsident og udenrigsminister Lavrov diskuterer med den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry. December 2015. (Foto: kremlin.ru).                

Med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen

N.B. den 25. oktober: Det blev meddelt i går, at vi ikke kører en kampagne for at få amerikanerne til at skrive LaRouches navn ind, når de vælger præsident, men at vi vil intensivere vores kampagne for at få LaRouches fire økonomiske lov vedtaget.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 17. oktober, 2016 – Den amerikanske præsidentvalgkamps fornedrede tilstand ligger som en tung sten og tynger brystet af, ikke alene det amerikanske folk, men af verden som helhed. Amerikanere rapporterer, at de har »valgstres« i sådanne ekstreme grader, som ellers kun forårsages af de værste tilfælde af økonomisk kollaps og krig.

Medierne, med al deres »meningsløse støj og voldsomme fagter«, demoraliserer bevidst amerikanere med hensyn til deres lands fremtid. De driver med fuldt overlæg deres repræsentanter til at skjule sig i dybe, partiske rævegrave – de samme repræsentanter, der, for blot lidt over en måned siden, var i stand til at forenes i en stor sejr over saudisk/britisk støtte til islamisk terrorisme og nedkæmpe præsident Obamas forsøg på at blokere eller nedlægge veto imod Loven om Juridisk Retfærdighed mod Sponsorer af Terrorisme, JASTA.

Det, som nationen og verden har brug for, er at »vælge principper«: Alexander Hamiltons økonomiske principper, på hvilke denne nation blev grundlagt.

Hamiltons økonomiske principper er på ny givet udtryk i Lyndon LaRouches, fra 2014 og fremefter udviklede, »Fire Love til USA’s Redning«. De udtrykker naturlig lov, anvendt på økonomi.

Dette er i realiteten et internationalt spørgsmål; verden må nødvendigvis vedtage Hamiltons arbejder, og LaRouches Fire Love, sådan, som Kina er begyndt at demonstrere. De transatlantiske landes forskellige »Deutsche Banker«, billedligt talt, er klar til at sprænge det Londoncentrerede finanssystem gennem en nedsmeltning, og til at sprede en fattigdom, værre end den, krakket i 2008 var skyld i. Truslen om kollaps fører nu til trusler, der kommer fra Obama og briterne, om krig med Rusland.

Det, som vil være i stand til at forhindre dette, er genoprettelsen af økonomisk fremskridt og produktivitet i hele verden. Det var, hvad Alexander Hamiltons principper – på enestående vis – udrettede lige fra USA’s grundlæggelse. Som USA’s første præsident George Washington i et brev fra 1793 bemærkede, så syntes virkningen af Hamiltons politik »at være et mirakel«, der løftede de nye Forenede Stater ud af bankerotten og til hastig investering og vækst.

Nu anvender LaRouches Fire Love atter Hamiltons principper.

Amerikanske borgere bør indskrive Lyndon LaRouches navn på stemmesedlen ved præsidentvalget for genvedtagelsen af Alexander Hamiltons økonomiske principper således, som LaRouche på ny har udlagt dem.

»Jeg indskriver LaRouche og Alexander Hamilton; lad os få nationen til at vælge de rigtige principper« vil skære igennem de af rædsel slåede spørgsmål, amerikanere stiller hinanden med hensyn til den forestående valgdag. Den eneste mulighed, som USA, og verden, har for at overleve, frembydes af Hamiltons principper, som disse udlægges af LaRouches Fire Love. Så træf da beslutning om fremtiden.

»Det er ikke livets formål at leve, så længe man kan.

Det er livets formål at skabe en fremtid for menneskeheden.«

Lyndon LaRouche – maj, 2015.

Hr. LaRouche har leveret den klare recept, såvel som løsningen. Vi begyndte at forklare dette sidste fredag med vores særlige webcast med Paul Gallagher (dansk: Glass-Steagall: Det presserende første skridt); men vi er gået videre med at forklare dette spørgsmål. De Fire Økonomiske Love efter Hamilton, som Lyndon LaRouche udarbejdede for næsten to år siden, og som begyndte med genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall, men som omfatter en recept, der er en meget præcis og videnskabeligt funderet fremgangsmåde for, hvordan man totalt skal reorganisere og genoplive ikke alene USA’s økonomi, men også skabe et helt nyt, økonomisk paradigme for det transatlantiske system, i harmoni med det, der allerede stråler ud fra Eurasien. I sammenhæng hermed har hr. LaRouche prioriteret de fire, økonomiske rapporter, som blev skrevet og forelagt Kongressen af vores første finansminister, Alexander Hamilton, i 1790’erne ved selve den amerikanske republiks fødsel. Disse fire rapporter er: »Rapporten om statslig kredit«; »Rapporten om statslig bankvirksomhed«; »Argumentet for forfatningsgrundlaget for Nationalbanken«; og »Rapporten om varefremstilling«. https://larouchepac.com/20161013/alexander-hamiltons-four-economic-papers

Engelsk udskrift:

Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast October 14, 2016

HAMILTON'S FOUR REPORTS AND LAROUCHE'S FOUR LAWS —
BASIC NECESSITIES FOR MANKIND'S CONTINUED EXISTENCE

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening; it is October 14, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden and you're watching our weekly Friday
evening webcast here from larouchepac.com.  I'm joined in the
studio today by Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science
Team; and we're joined via video by Kesha Rogers from Houston,
Texas; and Michael Steger from San Francisco, California.  Both
of whom are leading members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.
        Now, I just want to begin our broadcast here today by
re-emphasizing exactly what Mr. LaRouche has been emphasizing
every single time we've spoken to him this week.  That it cannot
be said enough that the American people scored a major victory
against Obama with the defeat of his treasonous veto of the JASTA
bill and the overwhelming veto override that was delivered as the
final act of the United States Congress before they left for
their districts.  This only demonstrates what the American people
are capable of when they overcome whatever fear, whatever
intimidation has come from this Barack Obama administration; and
we can see that it's been a force for seven and a half years to
try to intimidate the American people out of taking their country
back and acting in their own self-interest.  But Obama's decision
to ally with the British-Saudi treason terror faction and to veto
this JASTA bill, demonstrated who he was; it demonstrated his
true colors.  And the American people drew a line in the sand and
said, "Enough is enough!  No more of this."
        You can look at what has happened in the weeks following
that event.  We are now directly involved through missiles and
bombing in the war in Yemen; this is the decision by Barack Obama
to become involved in yet another unnecessary foreign war.  We
are siding with the genocide and war crimes of the Saudi regime
there in Yemen.  The lies and the propaganda that are coming out
of the Obama White House against Russia, and the actions that
Russia is taking in alliance with the Syrian government in
attempting to defeat ISIS and the terrorists in Aleppo are
unprecedented; along with the completely unfounded propaganda and
lies about so-called Russian cyber warfare and hacking and all
the rest.
        You can see the utter denial of the fact that we are right
on the verge of a complete blow-out of the entire trans-Atlantic
financial system.  All you have to do is read the headlines of
the major financial press to see that even {they} are admitting
that Deutsche Bank is more leveraged than even Lehman Brothers
was at the time of its collapse; and that Deutsche Bank could, in
fact, be the next Lehman.
        So, all of these three items combined should show you, as we
emphasized earlier this week on the Policy Committee show on
Monday, that you would have to be completely out of your mind not
to see how close we are to the combined threat of a complete
blow-out of the financial system and the very real threat of the
eruption of a nuclear war.  Even Mikhail Gorbachov is saying we
are closer to a Third World War than we have ever been before.
This is the remaining months in office that Obama has.
        What Mr. LaRouche has delivered as the prescription, as the
solution, is very clear.  We began to elaborate this last Friday
during our special webcast with Paul Gallagher; but we've
continued to elaborate this question.  The four Hamiltonian
economic laws, drafted by Lyndon LaRouche almost two years ago,
which begin with the re-institution of Glass-Steagall, but
contain a prescription which is a very precise and scientifically
grounded approach to exactly how to completely reorganize and
revive not only the United States economy, but to create an
entirely new economic paradigm for the trans-Atlantic system in
accord with what's already emerging out of Eurasia.  In
conjunction with this, Mr. LaRouche has put a premium on the four
economic reports that were written and submitted to Congress by
our first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, in the 1790s at
the very birth of the United States republic.  These are:  the
"Report on Public Credit"; the "Report on National Banking"; the
"Argument for the Constitutionality of the National Bank"; and
the "Report on Manufactures".
        So, as a key component of our show today, Ben and I in
conjunction with Kesha and Michael are going to elaborate a
little more on what is the contents, what is the substance of
those reports from Alexander Hamilton; and then, how do they
translate today in the four economic laws of Lyndon LaRouche,
with a major emphasis on how a breakthrough in terms of man's
exploration of space and everything that that entails in terms of
the great economic leap and scientific revolution for mankind, is
the application of the Hamiltonian principle for today.
        But before we get to some of that more detailed discussion,
I think we should just revisit a couple of the urgent points in
terms of the current mobilization.  The channeling of the spirit
of the JASTA victory into the mobilization for the re-institution
of Glass-Steagall and the proceeding toward the entirety of the
four LaRouche economic laws.

        BEN DENISTON:  Plenty can be said, but I would just
emphasize — you said it already, but I think given the state of
our nation today; and I hate to mention the elections, but this
is really a form of psychological warfare.  This is not an
election; this is a Jerry Springer episode, this is insane.  But,
as Matthew cited, look at what we did with JASTA.  That did not
require either of these candidates to do anything on that; that
was an action demonstrating the institutions of the United
States, the republican system of the United States.  The
integration between the work that we've been leading and the work
the 9/11 victims' families have been leading on the ground,
working with various institutions, various regions of the country
as a totality came together and slammed Obama, slammed the
British, slammed these degenerate Saudis on this issue; in spite
of the insanity leading the Presidential election process.  So,
that's the spirit we need to take right now to the current
Glass-Steagall fight.  This financial system is collapsing; as
was said, you can see that in any major press at this point.
There is no solution left in the monetarist framework the way
these guys are playing it.  Bail in; bail out; QE; they've been
playing these games for years now, and they're reaching the end.
This can't keep going; we need a reorganization of the system.
If we're not going to have a Presidential candidate who's going
to take the lead on that, that doesn't matter; we need to make it
happen.  We're not going to wait 'til after the election; we're
not going to wait for one of these ridiculous fools to take the
lead on this.  We're going to make it happen.  That's what we did
with JASTA; that happened.
        So, people who are cynical out there — we did it!  That
happened.  It can happen again, and it needs to happen again.
Glass-Steagall is going to completely cut off Wall Street; this
is going to be a massive revolution in the United States, a
massive shift of power in the United States away from the
interests of Wall Street and international finance back to the
sovereignty of the United States.  It is the necessary
indispensable first step for opening up this full recovery
program.  But I think people need to have the urgency of getting
this through now.  Again, don't let your friends, your
associates, the people you're talking to, fall into this cynical
pessimism; which is really being pushed at this point, with the
Jerry Springer show — aka these debates.  These things can
change; we can get these laws through.  There's already huge
momentum around the country on Glass-Steagall; there's growing
recognition of LaRouche's Four Laws as the necessary next steps.
So, I think the message to take away at this critical time is go
out and move!  This is the time to make this happen.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Yeah, I think that's right.  I think it's
important to take a look at a couple of things in the context of
this Hamilton question. Because it was about two years ago that
Mr. LaRouche launched the Manhattan Project with the key focus of
Alexander Hamilton at the foundation of that, as well as a
commitment towards a Classical renaissance.  And what we saw in
the process of these last two years, was the mobilization of a
key part of the American population — the New York City area;
because of the questions of Glass-Steagall and of Wall Street
implicitly, and the question of 9/11.  There was a mobilization
of that population around an optimistic vision of the country,
both through Hamilton's policies, really the foundation of
Hamilton setting forth the most advanced conception of human
economy as a scientific practice that has been conceived yet.
Mr. LaRouche said this  himself, that what he took as the Four
Laws was essentially a patenting of what Hamilton had set forth
in these documents.  Both the power of the Federal government,
and the means and mechanisms by which you can develop and foster
a perpetual growth of the human species.  But I think it's also
important — because I think this is something that too many
Americans overlook, either voluntarily, but more so
involuntarily, because of the black-out in the media; that in
June of 2014, we saw consolidated what Xi Jinping had put out as
an international policy at the end of 2013, which was the New
Silk Road perspective.  In June 2014, that was consolidated by
the BRICS; and largely what we've seen, given the attempts to
undercut Brazil and South Africa, but we've seen an increasing
level of coordination and collaboration between Russia, China,
and India, that has fundamentally shifted world history.  We are
talking about a fundamentally new economic system; one that looks
at the very policy Mr. LaRouche laid out beginning in the 1970s.
At the core of that, is the question of an International
Development Bank; or what the BRICS have entitled the New
Development Bank.  Or as a LaRouche-Hamiltonian conception of a
new international credit system; that is there.
        Now, not only is that economic perspective there; it is
recruiting nations like Japan, the Philippines, Australia,
Canada.  Many nations joined the Asia Infrastructure Investment
Bank; nations like Egypt, and Iran.  But there is also a very
clear strategic component; we see this specifically in Syria.  We
see what Russia has done to confront Obama's war agenda.  Then
the coordination between Russia and China, India, and increasing
numbers of other nations throughout Eurasia.  This is a unique
opportunity for the American people to create a new Presidency
that looks to realign with Russia, China, and these major
nations.  All of the propaganda against Putin, all the attacks,
the lies, the mass of lies against Putin coming out of the Obama
operation right now in the Presidential election is a mass
cover-up of what really exists for the American people; which is
a chance to go back to a LaRouche-Hamilton perspective in
economic policy in the United States with very key collaborators
internationally.  That really is shaping the intervention we made
around JASTA, both the Manhattan Project and this Russia-China
intervention.  The BRICS is larger, but those nations most
specifically.  We really have a unique opportunity to shut down
this London-Wall Street financial system, which for 50-60 years
and longer, essentially, but since the end of World War II has
been a mass genocide program in Africa, in South America.  Forced
sterilizations; imposed famines; scientific frauds like global
warming, the ozone layer, or human overpopulation; all of these
things have been concocted as ways of undermining and destroying
the human economic growth potential.
        And we now see a potential today to change that.  An
intervention by the American people like we saw with JASTA,
around this LaRouche-Hamilton perspective is absolutely key.  But
I think this global perspective is essential to that, to
understanding why we can be so optimistic today.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, I think that if you go and look at what was
presented last week, Paul Gallagher presented a clear picture in
terms of the proximity of the complete breakdown of this
financial system; and the causes for that, the reason for that.
The insanity of 0% interest rate QE bail-in, bail-out regime that
has reigned since 2008; but really since the repeal of
Glass-Steagall in 1999.  The fact that what would be a productive
economy has been completely drowned and suffocated by a shark
tank — as he characterized it — of this just robbery, looting,
criminal practices and complete insanity as it reigns in terms of
economics.  The fact that Mr. LaRouche is on the scene, and has
for 50 years what has now been adopted in part by several major
nations on this planet — I think most clearly evidenced by the
policies of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank and the New
Silk Road projects coming out of China.  We have the ability to
bring Alexander Hamilton's principles to bear on this current
situation.  The vacuum of leadership in the face of this total
meltdown of the financial system gives us a great opportunity for
optimism.  In fact, through reasoned leadership of the type that
was exerted in the midst of this fight for JASTA, but which was
really a fight against the entire imperial apparatus that has
dominated this country since 9/11; you can in fact create a
policy revolution of a type which has not been seen for a long
time, especially since John F Kennedy with his commitment to the
space program.  But really not since Franklin Roosevelt in the
full extent of that kind of economic approach.
        I think we should revisit these four economic principles of
Mr. LaRouche before getting a little bit more deeply into the
content of the Hamilton economic reports. We begin with [No.1]
the principle of Glass-Steagall, re-instituted exactly as
Franklin Roosevelt did it. It proceeds directly from there, that
through a restored actual commercial banking system in which you
have the Treasury of the United States restored to its original
intended role, as Alexander Hamilton created it; the power of the
Presidency, as Abraham Lincoln demonstrated very clearly through
his use of the Greenbacks and also his national banking bills of
1863 and 1864, can reorganize this banking system, from the top
down, to restore it to its original intent; that it should be
used for the productive investments of productive enterprise in
the United States and the improvement of productive enterprise.
        But that's not enough! What you have to have from that
standpoint, is [No. 2] a scientifically-grounded and principled
understanding of how credit, through the mechanisms that were
provided by Alexander Hamilton, must be directed to {increase}
the productive powers of your labor force. [No. 3] What are the
specific projects? What are the specific investments? What are
the specific cutting-edge discoveries that must be pursued that
in a scientifically provable and knowable way that will increase
the productive powers of your labor force, both individually and
as a whole? And that has to be defined from an understanding, as
Mr. LaRouche has uniquely developed it, of the principle of
energy-flux density, not a one-to-one labor power, as manual
labor per individual member of your society, but the application
of technology and ever-higher forms of technology, to create the
increases of productive powers of labor, upon which progress in
your society depends.
        And then, No. 4, what are the specific future-oriented
drivers that express the unique character of man? What makes man
different from a beast? How is mankind, as Vernadsky would define
it, a unique and distinct species, distinct from all other forms
of animal and other kinds of life? And, what is our imperative,
as that sort of species? I think it is no better expressed than
in the space program, as it was conceived and elaborated, as
Kesha has emphasized, by Krafft Ehricke, who Mr. LaRouche
directly mentions in that "Four Economic Laws" paper of two years
ago.
        So, that was elaborated on the webcast last week. We've got,
I think, a little bit more specificity for especially that third
economic law, but I think between what Ben and I have, and then
the discussion with Kesha and Michael, you can see the resonance
between what Mr. LaRouche is addressing in these four economic
laws, and what Alexander Hamilton originally laid out in the
content of those four economic reports that he drafted to
Congress in the 1790s.

        BEN DENISTON: You had some quotes from those reports that
you want to read?

        OGDEN: Sure, we can start with that.

        DENISTON: Okay.

        OGDEN: Let me bring up on the screen the first slide from
these Hamilton reports. [Slide 1] I'm going to focus mainly on
the "Report on Manufactures." This was written in December 1791,
but, as I mentioned earlier, this is merely one out of four, and
in the "Report on Manufactures," actually, Hamilton refers
repeatedly to his other three reports, "On the National Bank,"
"The Defense of the Constitutionality of the National Bank," and
"On the Public Debt," or, "On the Public Credit."
        I think the "Report on Manufactures" is a very important and
useful place to start, because it really is nothing less than the
study of the science of how the human mind, through its
application by means of technology, can in fact increase the
potential population density of any given economy or any given
nation. This is the way that Mr. LaRouche came at this, but in
fact it's very much demonstrated and laid out, explored, in an
exploratory way, in this "Report on Manufactures."
        Quickly, the context of the "Report on Manufactures" — you
could really call it Hamilton's "Defense of Manufactures," in the
context of what was becoming a prevailing but fraudulent
argument, coming from circles such as Thomas Jefferson circles
and others. That the United States, as a new nation, should
merely be an agrarian economy, an agrarian economy in one form or
another — landlords and peasants — or just an infinite
extension of agricultural lands westward, and just depend on the
product of the soil as the driver of the economy. Hamilton said,
this is false, this is a fraud, this must be addressed, and he
wrote the "Report on Manufactures" to address this.
        What Hamilton elaborates is that in fact an economy which is
dependent merely on agriculture will be able to support far less
people at a far lower standard of living and a far lower density
of population, than an economy which also includes manufacturers,
science, technology, and the application of that, through
technology. A kind of argument generally used, said that anybody
who was not farming and was doing something else, like
manufacturing, would be producing less food, and so we would have
fewer people; we would be able to support fewer people. Hamilton
destroys this argument, saying in fact that it's the other way
around: the more division of labor that you have, if two people
are just doing agriculture, they can only support themselves. If
instead one of them is engaged in agriculture and one in
manufacturing, not only can they support the two of them, but
they can support themselves and others.
        Let me go back to that first slide, with that quote.
Hamilton says, the purpose of this report is "to evince that the
establishment and diffusion of manufacturers have the effect of
rendering the total mass of useful and productive labor in a
community greater than it would otherwise be." So, you can see,
he's very clear in what the purpose of this study is.
        Next slide. [Slide 2] He says "It may be inferred that
manufacturing establishments not only occasion a positive
augmentation of the produce and revenue of the society, but that
they may contribute essentially to rendering them greater than
they could possibly be without such establishments." So, without
the use of manufacturing, the ability of the economy would be
lesser than it would be with manufacturing establishments.
        He says there are seven reasons for this. I'm not going to
elaborate all seven, but you can see on the screen on the next
slide [Slide 3] the seven reasons he has listed: "(1) The
division of labor." I touched on that briefly. "(2) An extension
of the use of machinery." We'll elaborate on that a little bit
more. "(3) Additional employment to classes of the community not
ordinarily engaged in the business." "(4) The promoting of
emigration from foreign countries." That's an apropos point. "(5)
The furnishing greater scope for the diversity of talents and
dispositions which discriminate men from each other." We'll touch
on that a little bit more. That's an important one. "(6) The
affording a more ample and various field for enterprise." And
"(7) The creating in some instances a new, and securing in all, a
more certain and steady demand for the surplus produce of the
soil." This one is actually often overlooked, but Hamilton says
this is the most important one, and I think it will be
appropriate for what Ben's going to get into.
        Let me elaborate just a couple of these ones. We're going to
take a look at No. 2: "An extension of the use of machinery."
Here's what Hamilton says about that. This is the next slide.
[Slide 4] Alexander Hamilton says, "The employment of machinery
forms an item of great importance in the general mass of national
industry. 'Tis an artificial force brought in aid of the natural
force of man; and, to all the purposes of labor, is an increase
of hands; an accession of strength,{unencumbered, too, by the
expense of maintaining the laborer}. He's saying you have an
increase of hands, almost artificial labor, and you don't need to
feed that labor.
        Next slide. [Slide 5] [Hamilton continues,] "May it not
therefore be fairly inferred, that those occupations, which give
greatest scope to the use of this auxiliary, contribute most to
the general stock of industrious effort, and, in consequence, to
the general produce of industry?" So, that's the use of machinery
in manufacturing.
        Let's take a look at the next slide. [Slide 6] This is where
he elaborates the point [No. 5] "As to the furnishing greater
scope for the diversity of talents and dispositions, which
discriminate men from each other." He says, "It is a just
observation, that minds of the strongest and most active powers
for their proper objects fall below mediocrity and labor without
effect, if confined to uncongenial pursuits. And it is thence to
be inferred, that the results of human exertion may be immensely
increased by diversifying its objects. When all the different
kinds of industry obtain in a community, each individual can find
his proper element, and can call into activity the whole vigor of
his nature. And the community is benefitted by the services of
its respective members, in the manner, in which each can serve it
with most effect."
        Next slide please. [Slide 7] He continues, "If there be
anything in a remark often to be met with — namely that there
is, in the genius of the people of this country, a peculiar
aptitude for mechanic improvements, it would operate as a
forcible reason for giving opportunities to the exercise of that
species of talent, by the propagation of manufactures."
        OK; next slide. [Slide 8] In this one, he's elaborating his
point [No. 6] about "affording a more ample and various field for
enterprise." This is quoted, but I think it's very important. He
says, "To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind,
by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least
considerable of the expedients, by which the wealth of a nation
may be promoted."
        Next slide. [Slide 9] He continues, "Even things in
themselves not positively advantageous, sometimes become so, by
their tendency to provoke exertion. Every new scene, which is
opened to the busy nature of man to rouse and exert itself, is
the addition of a new energy to the general stock of the effort."
        Next slide. [Slide 10] He continues, "The spirit of
enterprise, useful and prolific as it is, must necessarily be
contracted or expanded in proportion to the simplicity or variety
of the occupations and productions, which are to be found in a
society. It must be less in a nation of mere cultivators, than in
a nation of cultivators and merchants, less in a nation of
cultivators and merchants, than in a nation of cultivators,
artificers and merchants.
        Next slide. [Slide 11] I want to put special emphasis on
this one, because I think it opens up the point that Mr. LaRouche
was exploring in his Four Laws paper about physical chemistry.
Alexander Hamilton says under this one [Point No. 7], the heading
of "As to the creating, in some instances, a new, and securing in
all a more certain and steady demand for the surplus produce of
the soil." Hamilton says, "This is among the most important of
the circumstances which have been indicated. It is a principal
mean, by which the establishment of manufacturers contributes to
an augmentation of the produce or revenue of a country, and has
an immediate and direct relation to the prosperity of
agriculture."
        Next slide. [Slide 12]  "It is a principal mean by which the
establishment of manufactures contributes to an augmentation of
the produce or revenue of a country."
        Next slide [Slide 13] After elaborating a little bit why
it's advantageous to have a domestic market rather than just
depending on foreign markets for your produce and products, he
says:
        "It merits particularly observation that the multiplication
of manufacturies not only furnishes a domestic market for these
articles which have been accustomed to be produced in abundance
in a country; but it likewise creates a demand for such as were
either unknown or produced in considerable quantities.  The
bowels as well as the surface of the Earth are ransacked for
articles which were before neglected.  Animals, plants, and
minerals acquire a utility and value which were before
unexplored."
        Then, jumping forward quite a bit, I just wanted to go to
Hamilton's conclusion of the entire paper, after discussing
public credit and national banking. [Slide 14]  He says:
        "In countries where there is a great private wealth, much
may be affected by the voluntary contributions of patriotic
individuals.  But in a community situated like that of the United
States, the public purse must supply the deficiency of private
resource.  In what can it be so useful as in promoting,
prompting, and improving the efforts of industry?"
        So, just before Ben picks it up, I just want to emphasize
that what Alexander Hamilton is exploring, is the science of how
the human mind can increase the productive powers of labor and
through that, by means of the application of technology and
principles that were hitherto unexplored or undiscovered, can
increase the potential population density of a nation or an
economy.  I think this seventh point, which he puts the most
premium on, is the role that manufactures can play in spurring
the discovery of resources that we didn't even know were
resources before.  What had been previously considered just rocks
or otherwise, become the most valuable resources — minerals,
fuels, coal, oil, uranium; the most valuable resources for your
economy.  I think Alexander Hamilton would be particularly
excited if he knew about the potential of the Moon to be mined
for a resource that I'm sure they did not have any conception of
in 1791 — helium-3 — as a source of fuel for nuclear fusion,
for example.  So, I just wanted to give a little bit of actual
content of Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures; and maybe
we can use that to contextualize a little bit of what Ben's going
to present here.

        DENISTON:  People should know, we are making these — in
their totality — available on the LaRouche PAC website.  This is
admittedly some pretty heavy material for some of our viewers,
but this is really what's needed right now.  I would just
emphasize looking where we are in the United States right now,
and again, a lot of people know Glass-Steagall needs to happen; a
number of people have a sense of having some sovereign control
over our money supply.  But what Hamilton understood and what
LaRouche understands, is what is the science of growth.  You can
have sovereign control of your money, you can cut off destructive
speculation like Wall Street; you can throw that in the trash.
But how do you create growth?  How do you actually create a more
productive economy in totality?  That is what Hamilton
understood; that a true credit system can facilitate these
increases in the productive power of labor.  That's what the
American people need to understand right now; that's what we have
a chance of joining internationally with what's going on around
the world.  But it's going to require that the United States
return to our understanding of these core principles.  I wanted
to just take a second and pull a little bit out of what Mr.
LaRouche defined as his Third Law in his policy document; and
just go through a couple of historical examples to put a little
bit more of a picture on this relation of the actual
understanding of the productive powers of labor and the critical
role that Mr. LaRouche has defined in his work furthering
Hamilton's own understanding to a new degree.  Mr. LaRouche's
work on what he defines as "energy flux density".
        But if we can go back to the slides, I have the full quote
of Mr. LaRouche's Third Law up there.  [Slide 15] Again, the
policy document as a whole is available on our website.  I just
wanted to read this and then go through a couple examples.
Again, the First Law being Glass-Steagall; the Second Law being a
national banking system, as Hamilton had defined.  And then he
presents a Third Law with this national banking system:
        "The purpose of the use of a Federal credit system, is to
generate high-productivity trends in improvement of employment
with the accompanying intention to increase the physical economic
productivity and the standard of living of the persons and the
households of the United States.  The creation of credit for the
now urgently needed increase of the relative quality and quantity
of productive employment must be ensured this time once more, as
was done successfully under President Franklin Roosevelt or by
like standards of Federal practice used to create a general
economic recovery of the nation, per capita.  And for rates of
net increases in productivity and by reliance on the essential
human principle which distinguishes the human personality from
the systemic characteristics of lower forms of life; the net rate
of energy flux density of effective practice.  This means
intrinsically a thoroughly scientific, rather than a merely
mathematical one; and by the related increase of energy flux
density per capita and for the human population when considered
as each and all as a whole.  The ceaseless increase of the
physical productivity of employment, accompanied by its benefits
for the general welfare, are a principle of Federal law which
must be a paramount standard of achievement of the nation and the
individual."
        I think really, again, illustrates Mr. LaRouche's work
furthering this scientific understanding of economy really rooted
in the work of Hamilton and those who continued this American
System tradition; but applying a new scientific understanding to
it.  If we go to the next slide [Slide 16], I wanted to highlight
a study that was done under Mr. LaRouche's direction back in the
'80s.  Mr. LaRouche has a long history of trying to educate the
American people and institutions about real economics.  I thought
this was just one example, but I think it may be a helpful,
specific case study to try and put some depth to the idea of the
productive powers of labor and the relation of energy flux
density to the productive powers of labor.
        So, what do we mean by that?  This is one expression of
that; this is a measurement of the productivity of iron
throughout the history of the United States up to 1975.  Iron
being by weight the most-used element by mankind as a whole.
Obviously, it's the main component of steel, so this is a major
part of any modern economy, is iron production.  This is a rather
fascinating study, where Mr. LaRouche said, don't just look at
tons produced; don't just look at people employed.  Look at the
relation between productivity — how productive is your average
laborer producing iron — and energy flux density; what's the
actual energy density per time used in the actual manufacturing
process of blast furnaces?  If you examine this historically, you
get this very fascinating and clear demonstration of what Mr.
LaRouche is talking about in terms of energy flux density and
productivity.  You see a consistent increase in the tons produced
per average iron worker per year in this case is the actual
number being used; measured against the energy flux density of
the production process.  The energy per area, per time; so the
concentration and density of energy used in the blast furnaces to
produce this iron.  And you see a dramatic, many-fold increase in
how productive each individual worker is as a direct function and
relation of the increasing energy flux density of the productive
process.
        More interesting, you see this kind of comes in successive
waves; and each of these waves is associated with — you'll get a
rise for a certain period, and then the productivity increase
will tend to level off.  Then, you'll get a new technological
revolution; you'll move to a higher energy density fuel, for
example.  Moving into better forms of coal was one example of
this; types of coal that have more energy per mass, per weight.
Or moving to coke — a derivative of coal that can operate at
higher temperatures and enable higher production rates.  Or
moving to higher technologies in the more recent period of
injection of pure oxygen into the process to create even more
heat and a more intense productive process.  There are various
technologies associated with each of those steps; you have
increases in technology, increases in the energy density of the
fuel producing the process.  You can kind of measure that
together as expressed in energy flux density; and you can see
that to really understand progress — but also these qualitative
shifts in progress; these leaps that occur, these are the kind of
metrics we want to look at.
        When you talk about this idea of — it's not a question of
the number of people you have employed; it's a question of what's
the capability of your labor force to produce the goods needed at
higher rates or efficiency, etc.  So, I think it's just one
useful case study to give some concept of the relationship
between the productive powers of labor and energy flux density.
It doesn't show it in this graphic, but as I think many of our
viewers wouldn't be surprised, these metrics have gone down
significantly since 1975; since we really settled into a
post-industrial economy which has led us to this collapse process
— the abandonment of this real industrial, forward-oriented
economic policy.
        If we go to the next graphic [Slide 17], it's just another
illustration of the same thing from the same study; but it's also
just interesting to note that with each of these successive
leaps, you also get higher rates of productivity per amount of
energy.  So, this is literally the productive output of iron per
amount of energy put in.  This idea that energy as a scalar value
in and of itself means something is not true.  The amount of
energy you're using does not necessarily tell you what your
economy can do, how productive you can be; but it's an issue of
energy flux density.  Higher energy flux densities, the same
amount of energy measured in just scalar, quantitative terms
becomes much more productive; because you're employing it with
higher technologies and at higher energy flux densities.
        This is just one example.  Similar studies can be done in
various sectors of the economy; but this is the type of process
that enables the productive section of your economy to continue
to — as Mr. LaRouche said in the concluding section of this
Third Law:  "[T]o continue this process of ever increasing the
productivity and ability of your labor force to produce more
goods, higher quality goods, that are needed to support society."
Those are the metrics that we need to understand that the credit
must facilitate and go to.
        I just wanted to highlight one other illustration of this
energy flux density issue, but on a national scale.  If we return
to the slide [Slide 18], you can also see this in terms of the
economy as a whole.  This is a study that we developed in the
Basement Team looking at the history of the United States;
looking at what you could consider one metric for the energy flux
density of the nation as a whole.  Now, we're looking at the use
of power per capita; not just what any one individual uses, but
everything that goes into all forms of transportation,
manufacturing, agriculture.  You take the net energy investment
in totality across the entire nation, average it per capita.
Then here we have it divided by power sources.  You can clearly
see the history of the growth of the United States very clearly
expressed in the increasing energy flux density of the nation.
You clearly see the Great Depression illustrated by a significant
drop in the energy flux density — measured in per capita terms
— of the nation.  You see a dramatic rise in Franklin
Roosevelt's mobilization coming out of the New Deal programs into
the World War II mobilization; you clearly see that reflected in
this graphic.  What's the next dramatic rate of increase?  Well,
it's certainly associated with Kennedy's space program, starting
there in the early '60s you see a dramatic leap in rate of
increase of energy flux density of the nation as a whole.
        Then what do you see since then?  This leveling off and
collapse, which is directly associated with the collapse we're
seeing now today in the United States; expressed in these
physical metrics.  You see that what should have been an
explosion of nuclear fission power was suppressed to just that
tiny, red segment there.  If you could see it — you might not be
able to at all — there's a little green tiny layer on the very
top there which is wind, solar, geothermal all combined.  So, if
you think you're going to support the US economy on Green
technologies, you're living in a fantasy.  All of the massive
subsidies and investment and propping up these things has barely
done anything to contribute to our actual net energy flux density
for our country as a whole.
        This is where we are today; this is one expression of the
collapse.  This is the process we have to reverse.  Maybe just to
illustrate one last example, I think it's really worth comparing
this with the next graphic [Slide 19]; which was the forecast by
the Kennedy administration in the '60s.  It was forecast that
this process would increase; and the next major component would
be the rapid expansion of nuclear fission power.  You'd get this
interesting process of these waves of fuel sources being used and
then surpassed as society moves to the next level.  The gray on
the far right, if you haven't read it yet, that's mostly
wood-powered; in very early times, wood was the main energy
source.  That was superseded by coal, as you can see in the
brown.  That began to fall off as other fossil fuels — namely,
gasoline, diesel, and natural gas — became a major component of
the economy.  As you can see, under a healthy orientation, it was
understood in the early '60s by the Kennedy administration, that
that should then fall off, and we should see a rapid expansion of
nuclear fission power as the next wave.  So, this is what a
healthy growth process would have looked like.  This is the kind
of process we need to return to; and as Mr. LaRouche says,
increasing the energy flux density of the nation, of the
productive powers of labor, of the labor force, these are the
kinds of metrics we need to be looking at.  Today, that means
fusion power.  It's not illustrated in the graphic here, but if
we're going to overcome those 30-40 years of stagnation, if we're
going to overcome the dramatic collapse in the productive
capabilities of our labor force; we can't just continue what was
done before.  As you've seen in all these historical examples, we
need to go to the new leaps in technology, the new leaps in
energy flux density, to drive the greatest increase in the
productive capabilities of the labor force.
        Then you have a system that will work; then the Four Laws
will work.  Now, a national bank will work; now, Glass-Steagall
will work, because it will facilitate this physical growth
process.  As we've talked about, this means fusion power, this
means the space program.  It's no accident that in those graphics
we were looking at, the period of the space program is very
clearly expressed in both of those; driving the increase in the
productive powers of labor, even in industries not seemingly
related to the space program.  But you see that driver program
reflected in this iron production, for example; you see it
reflected in the totality of the national energy flux density.
        Which brings us to Mr. LaRouche's Fourth Law; a fusion drive
program.  As he's increasingly emphasized, that is truly
integrated with a real space program.  So that has to be the
front end of a recovery program.  That'll come with all kinds of
things:  rebuilding our infrastructure; rebuilding the national
transportation system; power systems; all kinds of soft
infrastructure.  But it has to be understood as unified around
this increase of your productive capabilities; that's how an
economy works.
        That's what Hamilton understood, as Matthew showed us.
Smash the idea that we should be just agrarian, or should we be
manufacturing?  If you take people away from the other — a
complete lack of understanding of the synergistic relation of
actual human revolutions in technology; revolutions in the very
nature of mankind's relation to the environment more generally,
which are driven by real creative discoveries, creative thought,
real unique human growth.  This is the message, the unifying
conception that the American people need to understand and rally
around, if we're going to get out of the mess we're in now.  It's
not going to come from any form of monetarist jiggering of the
system; it has to be rooted in a real understanding of the true
science of human growth, of human progress.
        I know that might be a lot to throw at our viewers today,
but this is the historical challenge that we're facing.  We have
it in our history; we have it in Hamilton; we have in Lincoln; we
have it in Franklin Roosevelt.  We have it in a more developed
form than even them, with Mr. LaRouche's work.  But it's on us to
bring this to bear now as the revolution needed in the United
States.

        ROGERS:  Before we close out, let me just add one principle
from the standpoint that the underlying principle at the
foundation and at the core of Hamilton's four Reports and
LaRouche's Four Laws gets right at the heart of formation of our
US republic and the formation of Union as Hamilton saw it.  It is
what is defined directly in the US Constitution, but more
directly in the Preamble to the Constitution; the idea that
Hamilton was instrumental in developing.  This conception that
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the General Welfare, and
secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of
America."  What's at the core of that is the principle of the
General Welfare; which is directly under attack right now by the
actions of Obama.  That is explicitly shown in the attacks on not
only the General Welfare of the nation, but attacks on this very
principle of the increase of the productive powers of your
society, and on the creative and productive powers of the human
mind.  You can see this most explicitly in the insane recent
announcement by President Obama advocating the United States go
to Mars under the direction, should we say, and direct support of
private industry.  But in a recent conference President Obama was
in — the White House Frontiers conference — the key person he
was there with was a man by the name of Atul Gawande.  This is a
person who's been promoting the idea that the population doesn't
need health care, we need to cut healthcare; we need to kill off
more people.  That's what's at the core of the attack on the
General Welfare of our nation, is this idea of population
reduction — killing off of the population.
        When you look at what it was that was understood by
Alexander Hamilton on this question of advancing the productive
powers of labor, that was most directly expressed over a century
later after the death of Alexander Hamilton, with the birth of a
great pioneer by the name of Krafft Ehricke.  Krafft Ehricke's
understanding of the increase in the formation of a more perfect
union and the productive powers of labor, came with the
understanding that it was not until mankind left the confines of
one small planet — Earth — and actually went out into the far
reaches of our Solar System and developed the Solar System.  He
called explicitly for developing the Solar System through the
increase in the productivity of society, the increase of
manufactures, and the increase of everything that Ben just went
through very thoroughly in his remarks.
        I think what we get back to again, which was very clearly
understood by Alexander Hamilton, as Mr. LaRouche in the
foundation of his policies on physical economy, and by Krafft
Ehricke, is at the heart of this is the conception of, and the
principle of, the human mind.  The human mind in the power of
reason.  What I wanted to do is just read a quick quote from
Krafft Ehricke on this conception of the reasoning of the human
mind at the foundation of this very principle of what increases
the productive powers of labor in our society — or throughout
our universe.
        He says:  "We are cosmic creatures by substance; by the
energy on which we operate, and by the restless mind that
increasingly metabolizes information from the infinitesimal to
the infinite.  And on the infrastructure of knowledge, pursues
its moral and social aspirations for a larger and better world
against many odds.  Through intelligences like ourselves, the
universe — and we in it — move into a focus of
self-recognition.  Metal ore is turned into formation-processing
computers, satellites, and deep space probes; and atoms are fused
as in stars.  I cannot imagine a more foreboding, apocalyptic
vision of the future than a mankind endowed with cosmic powers,
but condemned to solitary confinement on one small planet."
        He goes on to take the principle which Alexander Hamilton
had defined in his four Reports, in his Report on Manufacturing,
and applies that to the development of space; particularly to the
development of our sister body, the Moon.  He says that the
manufacturing and the development of the process which would
organize the increase of society, the formation of a more perfect
union, off of the planet, would actually start with the
development of the Moon.  And he says:  "Lunar industry should be
viewed as an organism that over time evolves to progressively
more complex capabilities and generates sufficiently strong
foundations for expansion.  Lunar industry must be broad-based
and diverse if it is to last.  The need for economic feasibility
and early returns will require a skillful interplay between
market, consumer-oriented products and services, and
infrastructural investments such as transportation, energy, and
surface-space installations that expand food production and
diversity in industrial productivity."
        So, I think what is essential to understand is that
Hamilton's conception was not something that was confined to one
period in time, one period of history.  It wasn't confined to one
planet.  It was actually organized — as was later understood by
Krafft Ehricke — to the idea that man cannot be confined to one
planet.  If we are going to truly form a more perfect union, we
have to get off the Earth and develop the entirety of the Solar
System and universe we live in.  And only the human mind can do
that.

        OGDEN:  Well said. I think Hamilton would concur with that
one.  We can only encourage to do your own reading of these four
Hamilton Reports; and as Ben said at the beginning of the show,
we did make those four available on the LaRouche PAC website.
There's a big picture of Hamilton; you can click on it.  It's got
links to the four separate reports by Hamilton; each one is a
nicely formatted pdf.  You can print them out and read them on
your own.  I would also just emphasize that
larouchepac.com/fourlaws is the place where you can find
LaRouche's paper from close to two years ago, as you can see on
the screen.  This contains the four principles of LaRouche.  Put
those two together, and I think if you can do the work, we can
create the educated citizenry that's necessary to put these
policies into practice.
        So, the urgency of the mobilization for Glass-Steagall
absolutely persists; we are right on the cusp of a complete
meltdown of this financial system.  The Glass-Steagall
mobilization is one which must be generating the kind of activity
that we had during the JASTA mobilization.  That victory rendered
the Obama regime impotent.  Don't fall for the bluster and the
intimidation; don't give in to the fear that the Obama
administration is attempting to project right now.  We had a
revolution in this country with the override of the JASTA veto;
and it's a completely new situation.  If we maintain that kind of
sense of victory and urgency, we can continue to make some very
incredible breakthroughs.
        I'd like to thank Ben; thank you, Kesha; thank you, Michael.
Please stay tuned.  Obviously, we're going to just elaborate
these discussions much more in the days to come.  Thank you very
much, and good night.

Jeg mener, at LaRouches understregning af spørgsmålet om Alexander Hamilton og hans arbejde, og LaRouches Fire Love – for forpligtelsen til varefremstilling handler jo ikke om varefremstilling som sådan; det handler om videnskab som drivkraft for fremskridt. Det drejer sig om spørgsmålet, om vi kommer frem til en økonomi, baseret på fusionskraft? Og når vi først har udviklet termonuklear fusion, går vi så videre frem til plasma, til stof/antistof? Og hvilket potentiale åbner det op for?

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 8. oktober, 2016 – Den 1. december, 1998, udtalte José López Portillo, tidligere præsident for Republikken Mexico, »Det er nu nødvendigt for verden, at den lytter til de vise ord fra Lyndon LaRouche«. 

Denne advarsel, denne formaning, lyder med større skarphed og presserende nødvendighed i dag, end da den blev udtalt.

I takt med, at begivenhederne udfolder sig, med advarsler fra mange sider og fra flere personer om et umiddelbart forestående finanskrak, er det af yderste vigtighed, at vi alle lytter til de »vise ord« fra Lyndon LaRouche. Det skal i sandhed siges, at ingen af de transatlantiske spillere i feltet, selv blandt de mere indsigtsfulde, har fremlagt forslag, der indikerer, at de ved, hvad det er, der må gøres. Deres intellekt opererer inden for et kassesystem, og deres løsninger er i heldigste fald blot brudstykker; i værste fald er de latterlige.

Det er vores mission at repræsentere den højeste standard og at kæmpe, ud fra et historisk standpunkt, samt som allierede og venner af Lyndon LaRouche, for LaRouches politik. Vi bør ikke være fortalere for, og kæmpe for, mindre end dette.

Under en diskussion med LPAC’s Policy Committee (Komité for Politisk Strategi) og andre, den 7. oktober, sagde LaRouche det følgende:

Det eneste, I behøver at gøre, er at tage mine love, som jeg har fremlagt. Disse love, mine love, definerer nøjagtigt dét, der løser problemet, ved at skabe en standard, gennem hvilken kredit defineres. Dette blev udviklet af USA’s finansminister (Alexander Hamilton). Det er den eneste måde, hvorpå det vil virke …

Mine nationale love. Hvis love var det? Ikke mine. Det var mig, der fastlagde standarden for det, og de gjorde ikke meget ved det. Det eneste, I derfor behøver at gøre, er at satse på et internationalt program baseret på dette princip, det samme princip, og I må få nationernes befolkninger til at arbejde sammen for at forstå, hvilken form for handling, dette er. I skal bare læse (Hamiltons) skrifter om lov. Han skrev lovene. De står skrevet dér. Men det gør folk ikke. De taler om noget andet. Derfor forstår de ikke, hvad det er, der skaber historie, hvad det er, der får historien til at virke. Jeg gjorde det, at jeg faktisk skabte en mekanisme til at definere den måde, hvorpå det oprindelige system var blevet etableret. Af Hamilton. Det er alt, hvad I behøver at gøre …

I taler om Hamiltons love, og I taler om mine love. Det er, hvad I taler om. Lad være med at skifte emne … I må skabe en international aftale mellem nationer, mellem et betydeligt antal nationer, og som vil skabe et kreditsystem, et internationalt kreditsystem eller noget tilsvarende dette, og som vil håndtere dette problem. Det taler vi endnu ikke om. Vi må tale om det; vi må tale om Hamiltons arbejde. Vi må have Hamiltons navn med i det, og vi må have mit navn med i det. For det er den eneste måde, hvorpå vi kan få dette her gjort.

Få fat i nogle bøger om Hamiltons økonomi. Det står der alt sammen. Det eneste, jeg gjorde, var at opstille standarder for det, som er i overensstemmelse med det, Hamilton fremlagde. Folk må tage håndbøgerne, Hamiltons optegnelser; læs de ting, som Hamilton sætter som betingelser. Brug det. Gør det! Så kan man gå til forhandlingsbordet og sige, ’Nu kan vi skabe et kreditsystem’. Tag Hamilton, og tag det, jeg har gjort. Læg disse to ting sammen, og så indeholder dette arbejde tilstrækkelig information til nøjagtigt at definere, hvad det er, der må gøres. Det bliver blot ignoreret, fordi folk vil være dumme.

Faren ved blot at citere fra Lyndon LaRouche er, at det, der fremlægges, er et ensidigt argument, hvor LaRouche siger »det følgende«, og ofte responderer medlemmer ved at sige, »LaRouche siger sådan, men jeg vil gøre noget andet, for jeg ved bedre«. Noget, der er mere praktisk (pragmatisk), mere begrænset. Og en anden dagsorden sættes.

De ovennævnte citater af Lyndon LaRouche er ikke »hans« politik. De må være kursen for vores politik, for os alle. LPAC, EIR, Schiller Instituttet, Manhattan-projektet, og hvert eneste medlem. Vi repræsenterer lederskabet, under Lyns direktiver, i denne krise. Det, vi siger; det, vi gør, er afgørende, og vi må handle i overensstemmelse hermed. Vi er agenter for historien, ikke praktiske politikere.

Foto: En statue af Hamilton står i Central Park langs med East Drive og 83. Gade (New York).

Vi befinder os midt i en forhøjet mobilisering, og jeg kan sige, at netop, mens vi taler, bliver eksemplarer af det allerseneste nummer af avisen The Hamiltonian, den ugentlige avis fra LaRouchePAC, uddelt i New York City; men også på gaderne i Washington, D.C., uden for det årlige IMF-møde. Hovedoverskriften i The Hamiltonian i denne uge er meget klar; den har titlen »Ét minut over midnat, krakket er begyndt!« Og det kunne dårligt opsummere vores diskussion her i aften bedre. De andre artikler er også apropos; hvis I endnu ikke har læst dem, opfordrer jeg jer til at gøre det. Vi har »Økonomi handler ikke om penge« af Jason Ross; »Finanskrise i oktober; Vedtag Glass-Steagall nu« af Rachel Brinkley; »Et lille skridt for Kongressen, Et kæmpespring for menneskeheden«, af Dennis Speed, om gennembruddet med underkendelsen af JASTA-vetoet; og »Nero-Obamas sidste dage: Fremstød for atomkrigs-folkemord«, af Carl Osgood.

Så avisen uddeles nu, mens vi taler; og vi har allerede sidste-minut-rapporter fra uden for IMF-mødet, hvor personer responderer meget ivrigt, inklusive nogle tyske økonomer, der kendte Alfred Herrhausen personligt, inden han blev myrdet, og som responderer til Alexander Hamiltons stemme via de forslag eller det politiske perspektiv, som Lyndon LaRouche fremlægger netop nu.

Engelsk udskrift.

Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast October 7, 2016

"ONE MINUTE AFTER MIDNIGHT!"

GET CONGRESS BACK IN WASHINGTON TO PASS GLASS-STEAGALL NOW!

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening; it's October 7, 2016.  My name is Matthew Ogden and you're joining us for our Friday evening webcast from larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio tonight by a guest — Paul Gallagher from Executive Intelligence Review — and by two members of our Policy Committee via video; Bill Roberts joining us from Detroit, Michigan, and Kesha Rogers
joining us from Houston, Texas.
        We are in the midst of a heightened mobilization, and I can say that as we speak, copies of the very latest edition of the Hamiltonian, the weekly broadsheet from LaRouche PAC, are being distributed in New York City; but also on the streets of
Washington DC outside of the annual IMF meeting. The headline of the Hamiltonian this week is very clear; it's titled "One Minute after Midnight, the Crash Is On!"  And I think that couldn't summarize our discussion any better here right now.  The other articles are also apropos; and if you haven't read them yet, I'd encourage you to.  We have "Economics Isn't About Money" by Jason Ross; "Financial Crisis in October; Pass Glass-Steagall Now" by Rachel Brinkley; "One Small Step for Congress, One Giant Leap for Mankind" by Dennis Speed, about the breakthrough with the JASTA veto override; and "Nero Obama Pushes Nuclear Genocide in Final Days" by Carl Osgood.
        So, that is now being distributed as we speak; and we already have up-to-the-minute reports from outside of the IMF meeting, where individuals are responding very keenly, including some German economists who personally knew Alfred Herrhausen before his assassination and who are responding to the voice of Alexander Hamilton via the proposals or the policy perspective that is being laid out by Lyndon LaRouche right now.
        What I want to begin with is a very quick brief overview of the crash as it stands, and as it is unfolding over the coming few days and few hours.  We will also discuss a little bit of the mobilization that we're engaged in.  But we're going to move very quickly from that discussion to an elaboration of what Mr. LaRouche wished to convey as he communicated during the discussion that we had with him a few hours ago.  But before we get to that, Paul, let me just ask you to give us a very quick
overview of the crisis.

PAUL GALLAGHER:  The crash has been on since January 1, 2016.  That's when all the rules in Europe were changed so that banks could not be bailed out.  Supposedly they were going to be bailed-in; that has turned into meaning the depositors and
bondholders were going to have their money taken in order to make new capital for failing banks.  That has turned out to be a complete non-starter; it isn't working.  It was rejected by Italy, and has basically been thrown up into the air and into the
trash basket.  So, but nonetheless, they are facing no bail-out; especially Deutsche Bank recently has been facing no bail-out.
Once that occurred, and the price of oil fell into the thirties and around $40 from nearly 3.5 times that and all the other commodity prices collapsed, that plus the threat of not being bailed out, has meant that not just Deutsche Bank, but dozens of major banks in the countries of Europe, in the United Kingdom, have been at the abyss looking down since then.  Simply waiting to see where the trigger for actual loss of all liquidity in that banking system was going to occur; whether it would be in the
German banking system, in the Italian banking system, in the nationalized banks of the UK — which are in very bad shape.
That's where this entire banking system has sat since January 1st; tremendously over-leveraged.  Eight years, 7.5 years of quantitative easing, which has given them the opportunity to be tremendously over-leveraged; Deutsche Bank is leverage 37:1,
according to a report that just came out from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.  That is worse than the leverage ratio of Lehman when it failed; not much worse, but worse.
        At the same time, they've been marinated for eight years in an environment of 0% interest rates; which means they are not profitable.  They cannot at the same time be prudent and sound commercial banks, and at the same time be profitable.  So, what have they done?  They have generally shoved aside their taking deposits and making loans — their commercial bank has gone wholly into the shark tank of various speculations; selling elaborate complex instruments which no one understands —
including the salesman.  Selling them to their retail depositors, selling them to cities, selling them to towns, selling them to agencies; and essentially trying to loot the deposits in their commercial banking units into their speculative operations, because they can't make money by commercial banking, having been marinated in 0 % interest rates for eight years with essentially an indefinite future of the same stretching ahead of them.  So, you reach the crash.
        What's being discussed around the IMF meeting, and I think we'll get to it because friends of ours are there; in addition to those of us who are getting out the Hamiltonian, there are other friends of ours around these meetings. What's being
discussed there is the potential and the fear of a real liquidity crash being triggered at any moment. What's not being discussed is the crimes that these banks are committing as a result of their speculative culture and as a result of the condition that
they are in after this 8-year marination. The crimes that they are committing now absolutely demand, as a matter of justice as well as sound banking, that they be immediately broken up.
        We don't have to look any further than Wells Fargo, which was supposedly the second-largest bank in the United States, which was supposedly the paragon of non-speculative commercial banking.  Look at what they have been doing.  Their investment banking and securities units have literally been stealing the money from their depositors by the hundreds of thousands in order to make fees and profits on elaborate instruments.  It's criminal.  We remember Detroit and all the other cities around the world — around Europe and the United States anyway – which were also sold very complex derivatives, interest rate swaps. Every time they wanted to issue a bond and borrow some money for the city or the town or the transit agency, whatever it was, they were sold these products.  It is as good as saying that they didn't know what they had; just like the depositors at Wells Fargo weren't aware of these things they had been sold.  So dim was the understanding of the city treasurers and the agency treasurers of these derivatives that the banks were making them buy in order to simply float a bond, that you might just as well say that they sold them those derivatives without the treasurers even knowing that they had them, until they found that they were losing millions and millions of dollars every year. And amazingly, in every single case in every city around the world, the same bet had gone wrong in exactly the same way; and they were running into — in some cases with large cities — into the hundreds of millions of dollars of fines, fees, and losses that they couldn't get out of.  This criminal activity can be ended in only one way. That is by enacting the Glass-Steagall Act. If anyone is telling you that by adding yet another specific little
regulation to the thousands of them that are in the Dodd-Frank Act and so forth, that this criminal activity will stop, they are blowing smoke. There is only one way to stop it. Without Glass-Steagall for the last nearly 20 years, you have had every major bank get much larger, and turn into a boat in the middle full of depositors with a large — in some cases hundreds and thousands of sharks, which are the speculative units of this
immense holding company — all those sharks swimming around the boat full of depositors, and trying in one way or another to get some blood, to get a limb, to get a whole body, to get blood out of there.
        The only way you can return even in an individual huge bank like that, to say give us back a bank which can do commercial banking, which can take in deposits and make loans and actually invest in industry and progress, give us that back. There's only one way to do it; and that is to get out your spear gun and kill
those sharks. The way to do that is enact the Glass-Steagall Act; put it back in effect. Essentially, you make such a fence around the deposits then that the sharks absolutely have no access, and you will find that those speculative units — many of them — will rapidly be bankrupt. We're very welcome to hear a proposal from a legislator in Hamburg in Germany yesterday, to do exactly that with Deutsche Bank. If it can be done with Deutsche Bank, as Lyndon and Helga LaRouche proposed a couple of months ago, then it can be done with any major bank in the world. If you can actually get back a real bank, a commercial bank, a lending bank out of that monstrosity, that mess which is Deutsche Bank today — in the process of failing; then the only way to do it was the proposal this legislator made. The same proposal, that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche had made two months ago known as the Herrhausen Proposal for Deutsche Bank. That legislator said, separate and in an orderly way, run down, eliminate all of these toxic, speculative units. Then the commercial bank may be
capitalized, even by the government, in such a way that it begins to invest seriously in the economy.
        So, that's what's not being discussed; is the crimes and how to stop them. That's a much more fundamental question than which of these banks is going to go first and be the trigger for the general liquidity explosion. We have to get the Congress to
return. What are they doing having left Washington for two months after saying they wanted to get tough with Wall Street in a series of hearings on Wells Fargo's crimes; then leave the city for two months.  Go into recess for a completely meaningless
no-choice election, when instead they should be getting tough with Wall Street; legislating. That's what we're here to discuss, is that mobilization which is now on to get them to go back and restore Glass-Steagall now, and then we'll go on.

OGDEN:  Well the smell of that 2008 crash is back in the air for sure; and I think people are beginning to recognize what time it is, as demonstrated in this. This is a headline from the New York Times yesterday: "Deutsche Bank as the Next Lehman Brothers". They say, "far-fetched, but not unthinkable"; but remember, that 2008 crash happened exactly during this campaign season, and the Congress came back into emergency session.  And at first, voted down the bail-out and then voted the bail-out up. It's that kind of environment; this is what we're seeing.  This is an October crisis; this is not something which is going to wait until after the elections.  This is not something that's going to wait until the lame duck; and that's the lead on the
LaRouche PAC website today.  "Send Congress Back To Enact Glass-Steagall Law; Lame Duck Is Too Late".
        I don't know Bill, if you want to say a little bit about what the status of that mobilization is, and what people have to be thinking about.

BILL ROBERTS:  Sure, Matt.  I can confirm that it was my experience when confronting two Congressmen yesterday here in Michigan, and I think some of our super activists have reported a very similar experience.  While these Congressmen are paying lip service and while their lips say "Yes, I'm for Glass-Steagall"; their actions say "No."  Because as Paul just pointed out, if they were in reality about the fact that Glass-Steagall is something that must be put in place preemptively, then they would
be rushing back to Washington to pass it.  The vote to override Obama's veto of the JASTA bill is quite fortuitous, because really if you think about all of the excuses that these members of Congress have: you can't get the two parties together; you can't take on these high-powered lobbyists.  In both of those cases, the defeat of JASTA — the justice for the families of the victims — the way that this happened, proves that in fact, it is possible.
        This mobilization has got to be accelerated and continued. What our activists are doing–and we are building up a full-scale mobilization on this–is to confront these Congressmen on the full reality of what Glass-Steagall actually is. As Mr. LaRouche
pointed out today, Glass-Steagall is just the first of four steps. I think that while many well-meaning people say they support Glass-Steagall, in fact their unwillingness to take leadership on this so far, reflects a lack of understanding of the reality of the situation, how dire it is, and, frankly, a lack of a sense of what Glass-Steagall is, in the sense that this was a real historical bill that was signed into law by Franklin
Roosevelt.
        When you hear some of these Congressmen, or Bernie Sanders talk about Glass-Steagall, it's just "break up the banks," and that's it. And then they start talking about the abuses of the pharmaceutical industry, as if it's just this sort of gimmick.
But, as Mr. LaRouche has pointed out, this is a strategy, frankly, for victory against genocide. With JASTA, Obama was confronted on his taking the side of an imperial authority to have arbitrary power over people's lives. This is the same exact question. It is even more deadly.
        I think it's on that sort of level that this mobilization has to upshift to, to get out of the domain of just a question of "Are you for, or are you against Glass-Steagall?," but "What is your commitment, now, Mr. Congressman to ensuring that the
government intervenes to save the American people, as Franklin Roosevelt did?"

OGDEN: Absolutely! Thank you very much. That, I think, brings us directly to the subject that we discussed with Mr. LaRouche earlier, and this is the subject of our "institutional question," which I'm just going to read. It says, "Mr. LaRouche,
you have said that it is absolutely urgent that Glass-Steagall is implemented immediately, and that this is the first step towards a whole series of actions that must be taken to save the economy. Can you please elaborate what the other steps are?" So, that's the question.
        Paul, I'm going to let you elaborate a little bit, and then we can also get to the Four Laws, as Mr. LaRouche specifically identifies them.

PAUL GALLAGHER: Well, maybe we'll get to them very quickly, because it brings us really to the question of these two extremely well-known, very fundamentally important figures in history, extremely controversial and very little understood,
namely, Alexander Hamilton and Lyndon LaRouche. Certainly the recent efforts to lampoon Hamilton on the stage in New York have not aided at all in people understanding what he really contributed to the human race, to this nation, how he built this nation, in an indispensable way.
        We were talking to Lyn LaRouche and Helga LaRouche earlier today about this subject. What Lyndon LaRouche said, repeatedly, actually, was that when he introduced what he called his "Four Cardinal Laws for the Economy" in 2014, he was modelling them directly on the Reports of Alexander Hamilton to the Congress of
the United States. Here is where those reports are found, in this book, The Reports of Alexander Hamilton, [edited by Jacob Ernest Cooke, II] which gives the four Reports that Hamilton made to the Congress, through which he established the legislative
actions– but they were really broad government actions, based on crucial legislation in each case â which made it possible for this country to survive the extreme bankruptcy which it came into during the course of the Revolution, and to rapidly, from that point on, expand and become the leading industrial and technological power in the world.
        What LaRouche was looking at, was four laws and obviously not meaning four traffic laws–four broad actions that must be taken in order to revive the economy from its present zero growth, zero productivity growth state, and nearly zero infrastructure investment, no infrastructure mission. To revive it from that state there are four broad actions which have to be taken, which can be represented and made possible, authorized by legislation, but are really very fundamental.
        Glass-Steagall is the first, and must be done right now, but it just opens the door. It's like taking out the garbage, as we say. It opens the door to the other actions, and it
corresponds very much to Hamilton's establishment on this continent–initially even before the Constitution was adopted, and before any of his Reports to the Congress were made and the institution of a commercial bank and something whose only purpose was to, as he put it, "gather the savings of the country, and place them in the hands of those who could make the most productive use of them."
        That idea of a "commercial bank," in the Bank of New York, which he founded; and, obviously, in the Bank of the United States, which he founded, was unique. Before that, you had merchant banks in Europe, which essentially took partnerships in trade ventures and financed trade; and then you had banks which were formed in order to lend to the government, and get control of government finances. The Hamiltonian bank had absolutely neither of those purposes, but rather the purpose which we'll get into, I think, in the course of this.

OGDEN: Let me just display on the screen, right now, the first slide. This [Slide #1] is the title screen: “The Four Laws, by Lyndon LaRouche.” On the next slide [Slide #2] you'll see the link to the actual document which was published by Mr. LaRouche
on June 8, 2014, which we encourage you to read in full. It's titled "The Four New Laws to Save the USA Now! Not an Option: an Immediate Necessity." [https://larouchepac.com/four-laws]  That's the website you can go to, to read the document in full, and that will also be included in the description to this video, so you'll have access to that as the broadcast continues.
        On the next slide [Slide #3] you'll see a very short quote which I've taken from the introduction to that document, in which Mr. LaRouche says the following: "The only location for the immediately necessary action which could prevent such an
immediate genocide throughout the trans-Atlantic sector of the planet, requires the U.S. Government's now immediate decision to institute four specific, cardinal measures: measures which must be fully consistent with the specific intent of the original U.S. Federal Constitution…."
        On the next slide [Slide #4] you'll see "No. 1: the immediate re-enactment of the Glass-Steagall law instituted by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, without modification, as to principle of action. No. 2: A return to a system of top-down, and
thoroughly defined as National Banking. The actually tested, successful model to be authorized is that which had been instituted, under the direction of the policies of national banking which had been actually, successfully installed under President Abraham Lincoln's superseding authority of a currency created by the Presidency of the United States (e.g., 'Greenbacks'), as conducted as a national banking-and-credit-system placed under the supervision of the Office of the Treasury Secretary of the United States". Mr. LaRouche elaborates after that, that this was the system that
Alexander Hamilton created. "No. 3: The purpose of the use of a Federal Credit-system, is to generate high-productivity trends in improvements of employment, with the accompanying intention, to increase the physical-economic productivity, and the standard of living of the persons and households of the United States. The creation of credit for the now urgently needed increase of the relative quality and quantity of productive employment, must be assured, this time, once more, as was done successfully under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, or by like standards of Federal
practice…" Next slide [Slide No. 5] "…used to create a general economic recovery of the nation, {per capita}, and for the rate of net effects in productivity, and by reliance on the essential human principle, which distinguishes the human personality from the systemic characteristics of the lower forms of life: the net rate of increase of the energy-flux density of effective practice. This means intrinsically, a thoroughly
scientific, rather than a merely mathematical one, and by the related increase of the effective energy-flus density per capita, and for the human population when considered as each and all as a whole." Following this, Mr. LaRouche said, "The
ceaseless increase of the physical-productivity of employment, accompanied by its benefits for the general welfare, are a principle of Federal law which must be a paramount standard achievement of the nation and the individual."
        And then "No. 4." Next Slide. [Slide No. 6] "'Adopt a Fusion-Driver 'Crash Program.' The essential distinction of man from all lower forms of life, hence, in practice, is that it presents the means for the perfection of the specifically
affirmative aims and needs of human individual and social life. Therefore: the subject of man in the process of creation, as an affirmative identification of an affirmative statement of an absolute state of nature, is a permitted form of expression.
Principles of nature are either only affirmations, or they could not be affirmatively stated among civilized human minds."
Following this, Mr. LaRouche elaborates the concept of Vladimir Vernadsky's idea of the noosphere, in which he places man as specifically distinct, and in a hierarchy, above other forms of life; and then elaborates the concept of "physical chemistry," as
the only yardstick in the science of economics.
        So, again, that document, in full, is available to you at https://larouchepac.com/four-laws. The link is available in the description to this video. We encourage to read that and study that, in full, along with these Four Reports that Paul mentioned–the Four Reports by Alexander Hamilton to the United
States Congress. With that said, I think we can open up, especially this fourth point, that I just named here, and I invite Kesha to say a little bit on this subject.

KESHA ROGERS:  Okay. Thank you Matt. I think we really have to start with the unstated-but-consuming principle that exists in all four of those Laws. Mr. LaRouche really captured this in recent discussions: that mankind has to re-discover the meaning of "mankind," and what is the purpose by which we, as the human
species, exist? What is our purpose, in terms of promoting the power of the creative potential that lies only in the human species, unlike any other species.
        When you think about the Fourth Law, people start to say, "Ah, Okay. Well, you know, LaRouche is promoting nuclear power and fusion power, and so forth." It's not just about that. It's a subsuming principle of all Four, that starts with, what I would
define as the principle of Agapé. How do you develop Glass-Steagall? How do you develop the credit system, in the way that Hamilton understood, in the way that LaRouche understands? It comes from the understanding of the benefit to all mankind, which exits in advancing the creative potential for all mankind.
        If you really look at how that has influenced our nation, under Presidents George Washington, and particularly in Roosevelt and John F Kennedy.  These Presidents didn't just look at Hamilton's conception of national credit, Hamilton's conception
of development of economics from the standpoint of just the law. It started with the understanding of a unique principle in the United States to advance the productive and creative powers of every living being in this nation and on this planet.  One thing
that we talk about is what you saw under President Franklin Roosevelt, who was a devout student of Alexander Hamilton, and really what expanded from the period of Franklin Roosevelt through the period of John F Kennedy, was what named as the
Golden Age of Productivity.  I think that what we need right now is a Golden Age of Productivity for the world.
        Where is the opposition coming to this?  Well, if you look at what has happened with the attacks on our US space program, which would be the defining principle, the defining process which would bring together new scientific discoveries for mankind;
revolutionizing science in the way that we should be doing, which is our human potential.  That's what Obama rejects.  When Obama said that we don't need any fancy fusion, and now you've seen not only the shutdown of our manned space program; but now the potential for advancements in new creative breakthroughs of
scientific and technological advancements that exist through programs such as the fusion research centers and development programs at MIT and Princeton.  That's being shut down because we didn't go with Glass-Steagall; we didn't go with the Hamiltonian credit system to actually put the necessary credit into these great scientific endeavors and large scale infrastructure projects.  This isn't just happening because somebody thinks the money should go elsewhere.  It's happening because of a rejection to this truly human identity that it is our human nature to advance to provide for the future; to bring about the creating of a future.  So, when you think about what we're up against here, when people say "Oh yeah, we need to break up the big banks and we need Glass-Steagall"; we need Glass-Steagall, we need to break
up the big banks, but we need it on Hamilton's terms.  We need it on LaRouche's terms from the standpoint of a higher conception.
We have to stop the death rate; we have to stop the mass killing in the United States and around the world.  The way we're going to do this, is that these programs have to be implemented from the standpoint of a higher definition and conception of what it
means to be human.
        I think that gets us to a fundamental point of why you look at what China is doing with the development of their space program — and LaRouche has really emphasized this very emphatically — that China has to be a model from the standpoint of the space program.  Not just because of a singularity of a program they're taking up, because China's now going to the far side of the Moon, unlike any other nation; doing something that no one else has yet to do.  What does this mean?  This is a breakthrough in a revolution in science; this is a breakthrough
in the benefit and the potential progress to all mankind.  I think that is where LaRouche's Four Laws have to start from; and what China is doing right now is what we in the United States, the foundation and the principle of this United States was
founded on.
        What our great visionaries and scientists understood was the unique principle of mankind that defies this oligarchy's rejection of that identity; and why we became a nation committed to this principle of the creative, productive powers of the human
species.  If you think about these visionaries from the standpoint of what China and nations around the world are doing to advance this creative potential, it can really be stated and defined in what the great space pioneer Krafft Ehricke again outlined as what our true extra-terrestrial imperative as a human species is.  One thing I wanted to point is — again, I've stated this on a number of occasions — we brought up Krafft Ehricke's three laws of astronautics and what this really represents to promoting that potential.  But I want to focus in very quickly on the third law, which is not always stated as clearly as it could be; but I think it really captures this idea that he says, "By
expanding through the universe, man fulfills his destiny as an element of life; endowed with the power of reason and the wisdom of the moral law within himself."  I guess the point is, where does this power of reason come from?  Where does this moral law and nature within the existence of mankind lie?  And it lies in
mankind's creative potential, the discovery that exists only in the human species to be able to introduce new scientific principles; to introduce new laws that no other animal species can do.  This is what we're losing sight of right now.
        But the thing is, if we allow for the human population to be killed off en masse, we take away that potential.  Look at what's happening right now:  the death rates; what's happening with the drug overdoses, the suicides.  What's happening with the fact that nations are dying because we don't have the scientific and technological advances to deal with threats that occur in terms of threats that come with natural disasters, that we could be saving lives.  Look at the numbers of people that are going to die in Haiti right now.  All of this could be stopped if we actually had a program in place immediately; a global Glass-Steagall.  So we can actually stop the death rate and organize people around saving human lives so that we can advance for the future; so that we can put forth a new meaning of what mankind and the future of mankind must be.  That's where the Four Laws lie; that's where we have to get Congress, as you said, back in Washington DC right now.  Because they have a responsibility
to this nation and a responsibility to mankind.  The fact that Obama rejected the offer by China for cooperation, rejected the offer by China to be a member of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank and to be a part of the New Silk Road Development
Plan, already tells you — once again — his commitment is not to the advancement of the people of this nation and the people of the world.  It is to this financial oligarchy, to this empire, and to the purpose of death that he has been promoting for far too long and cannot continue to get away with.

OGDEN:  Yeah, I'm actually glad you brought up the AIIB, the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, because one of the other elements that Mr. LaRouche raised in the discussion that we had with him this afternoon, was the necessity for international development bank banking types of activities.  That there has to be a commitment on the level of agreements among nations for these vast development projects, and a Hamiltonian banking system which will allow these to take place.  We see the emergence of this with what China is doing and some of the other collaborative
programs around the development of the New Silk Road.  This is the kind of vast surge in productivity and increased standards of living that we see in places of the world that have suffered almost no development.  The interior of Eurasia and elsewhere.
But it's something that the United States had originated over 200 years ago with what Hamilton conceived; and it's something which the United States is in no way participating in today.  In fact, it's rejecting and attempting to shut down — as you said Kesha. So, that's something that Mr. LaRouche also introduced into the
discussion.  Maybe it's something that we can also discuss a little bit more of.

GALLAGHER:  At this IMF meeting, the IMF introduced a report on the world economy, and they said the big problems are:  no growth, most especially including in the United States and of course in Europe; in Obama's recovery, no growth at all; and too much debt.  What did they propose as a solution?  To cut back credit all over the globe, and especially to insist that China and India — which are the only two engines of real economic and industrial growth in the world — should cut back their issuance of credit.  That tells you that there is functional insanity at the top of the IMF; they are completely unaware of the relationship between credit and debt.  It is in fact the case that what Alexander Hamilton did ⦠The United States now needs a
national investment bank; it needs a national infrastructure bank, whatever you want to call it, it needs a national bank with that purpose.  What Alexander Hamilton created, as LaRouche in the second of his Four Laws, was essentially a bank which he said was needed in order to be the liaison between the government and the private banks.  In the process, again remember that characterization of gathering the savings of the country and placing them in the hands of those who could make the most
productive use of them.  So that Hamilton was able to actually reorganize the debt of the United States and the states – which was largely unpayable at that time; provide a means of extinguishing it over a long period of time and redirect that reorganized debt through a bank into new credit, the purpose of which was to go into the key areas of the development of the productivity of the new American labor force.  It could have been coming to the third action LaRouche is talking about, Hamilton
was most controversial there, because the bank that he created to reorganize the unpayable debt of the United States and the states and make it into credit; that bank could have been a land bank, that was what was being done in Europe.  Alexander Hamilton had studied all those experiments of Turgot and all the other national land banks which had been set up, which had the effect of perpetuating agriculture as really the only economic activity in the country, and of enriching farmers.  But of course, it tended to enrich the monopolists who got control of the production of farmers.  It also potentially that effect.
Hamilton said, no, that is not what we want to be as a nation. We don't want a national bank to finance unchanged farming practices all the way to the Pacific Ocean; which is what Jefferson wanted, and other.  Rather, we want the farms to become the market for truly creative new manufacturing and industrial development — craftsmen, artisans, the founders of manufacturing businesses.  This is what our national bank, said Hamilton, has to bring about; not just the endless extension of farming, the basis of the government finances on a national land bank.
        What LaRouche specified — and again, as he was saying, he was thinking of Hamilton's Four Reports to the Congress in his Four Laws; what he specified is then the national bank's credit must be invested in truly productive infrastructure investment.
We're not going to get productive by investing in endless fields of solar mirrors out in the desert, or making a desert out of what was previously just a plain.  We're going to become more productive by investing in the most advanced infrastructure
investments and missions that the country could possibly have.

That brings us directly to Kesha's conceptual overview, particularly of the fourth critical action; what LaRouche called the Fourth Cardinal Law, that there are frontiers of science.  We know that the exploration of deep space, reviving that with everything that goes with in terms of the human experience and also in terms of developing new means of studying, measuring, and changing potentially, the laws of the universe; Einsteinian action in exploration of deep space.  That requires that we have a major effort such as that which collapsed in the late 1960s when NASA's budget essentially, virtually disappeared overnight just as we were landing on the Moon.  There was not a Hamiltonian credit institution backing that space exploration, that Apollo project, up; and its budget suddenly disappeared.
        We need, according to LaRouche's outline of these actions that have to be taken, to put that on the basis that we are going to go fully at the frontiers of science.  Go with China to the other side of the Moon, from which the universe can be studied
and observed in a way that it never has been before.  Take the Moon's long view of the universe and bring it back and share it with all the nations of the Earth; which is what the Chinese space administrator at the conference in Mexico last week was
committing China to.  So, we also have to make this international, as LaRouche specified.  It is a crime that whereas China has created the institutions of credit — the New Silk Road Fund, the AIIB that Kesha raised — the so-called policy banks which make trillions of dollars in infrastructure at home and abroad.  Where it has created, one hand reached out for an actually international credit and sound banking system, the United States has not responded.  It has no national banking institution; does not have, for the most part, sound and prudent banking going on in the private commercial banking system either.

Germany — the other critical economy in the trans-Atlantic region — same thing; no such national institution.  The Kreditanstalt fur Wiederaufbau which they built up after the war, has practically been eliminated; and therefore, no hands coming from the trans-Atlantic side, from the European economies join with that initiative of China, either in the exploration of space, or in the creation of the credit for it.  Therefore, this terrible predicament that our friends reported and are experiencing who are at the IMF meeting; that they are somehow trying to reduce the runaway indebtedness of the world by cutting off the new credit which could actually — if directed as Hamilton and LaRouche say — if directed into the frontiers of science and technology, could actually make that debt manageable; both by being written off and also by being made whole in the long term.
        This is where Glass-Steagall is intended to lead, is into these kinds of actions.  By first putting an end to the crime syndicate which has taken the place of major banks, and breaking it up and making the rest of these crucial actions possible.
But, as Bill said, we have a lot of members of Congress – why not name a few?  Maxine Waters, who in the hearing on Wells Fargo said, "I'm introducing legislation to break this bank up; and if it breaks the other banks up, so be it."  She's not a sponsor of the legislation which would break that bank up in the way that
would actually make for sound banking.  A whole bunch of Senators at the Democratic Convention, who were interviewed on the floor in a television video, and said they were absolutely for restoring Glass-Steagall; but haven't sponsored the legislation: Senator Stabenow; Senator Booker of New Jersey; Rep. Sherman of
California.  There are so many members of Congress, who are not putting their sponsorship and their action where their — they're like on Facebook.  They "like" Glass-Steagall, but that is the end of it; they haven't done what they have to do.
        So, get like-minded friends of yours and associates, people you know who, like you, support Glass-Steagall, and ambush these Congressmen with bunches of calls all at once to their offices demanding this.  Ambush them as Bill was talking about, at the many town meetings and public appearances that they'll make.
We've got to get them to go back to Washington and take the action against Wall Street before this crash wipes us out.

ROBERTS:  Let me make one more point, too, which is that Glass-Steagall has enjoyed popular support for years; it's in both party platforms.  Why hasn't there been a hearing on Glass-Steagall when you have 130 members of Congress that support
it?  Well, it's simple — because of Obama.  It's the same reason that Obama has sabotaged Glass-Steagall is the same reason that Obama sabotaged the space program.  Because the space program is the one area, as Kesha was developing, where it's completely transparent that the real nature of the human species and the
real nature of economics is the Hamiltonian conception of the increase of productive powers of labor and of real physical economic growth that's generated through the discovery of new principles.  You can't have a space program without that; you
can't send human beings out into space and conquer the Moon and other domains.  There's no pie to divide up; space is infinite. It just becomes utterly clear; it's like this experience that's been related by so many astronauts that go up to the Space Station.  They look down at the bright blue Earth, and they say, "Well, I don't see any borders.  I see these little land masses." And it becomes very clear to them that we are one unified humanity; and that is something that Obama had to kill.  So, just as in the case of the JASTA vote, Obama has to be confronted; there's no nice way about this.  He's the reason why this has not happened.  I just wanted to make that point clear.

OGDEN:  Absolutely!  He was rendered impotent over this historic defeat of his veto of the JASTA bill.  All of the so-called practical political arguments that people presented to you over years and years — "Oh, we're for Glass-Steagall, but it's just not — we can't politically make it happen."  All of those crumbled with this historic victory, secured by the activation of the American people to create the conditions in
which Congress had no choice but to override Obama's veto.  All of these arguments against the immediate re-enactment of Glass-Steagall have crumbled.  There's no better opportunity than in the wake of that victory with the restoration of the
confidence of the American people that in fact, you can force this kind of historic political change to happen through this kind of mass-based activation.  Coming off of that victory, it's the time to create the political climate in this country in which if Congress does not return to Washington to immediately re-enact Glass-Steagall; that that's a toxic environment.  And the American people know how to make that happen; we can do that, we can lead that.  It's the kind of climate in which if you were clear as to how close we are to a total disintegration of this trans-Atlantic system, you wouldn't think twice about doing that.
And any Congressman who's trying to escape from the reality of what it would mean for Deutsche Bank with all of the derivatives counterparties to go through the floor; that this would be far, far worse than the Hell that was experienced in 2008.  That would be a collapse from which you could not recover; you can't bail your way out of that kind of crisis.
        So, it's only through the immediate re-enactment of Glass-Steagall — but also, as you made the point, Bill, I think very clearly — knowing that Franklin Roosevelt created Glass-Steagall in the context of the entire program that he instituted with his Presidency.  The full weight of the FDR program has got to be present with the first step that's taken with re-enacting Glass-Steagall.

ROGERS:  It's important to bring out what we put out as a standard in the report we published — which people should go back to — "The United States Joins the New Silk Road; a Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance" — because I think that captures the essence of what we have to seek to bring about.  Not just an economic recovery, not just putting a few people back to work; but we need a whole, complete breakthrough. A revolutionizing of science in the way that LaRouche is calling
for; a revolutionizing in the conception of the nature of mankind; what it means to be human; what we are as a species. And then how we bring together the conception of mankind for the benefit of all from the standpoint that we are now going to
advance and share in the greatest potentials for mankind that ever existed.  That's found in, as Krafft Ehricke said, "leaving the confines of one small planet" and going out into conquering and development of space.  I thought that Bill just said it well;
that that exists not from the standpoint of borders, or from the standpoint of competing for resources.  This is not about competing for resources or existence of borders; but it's that we have a unique potential as a species to come together and to act to create this economic renaissance as it's never been defined before.
        I think that is really what we have to get the emotional quality around, as we saw an emotional drive around this JASTA fight.  It wasn't just about the families of 9/11; but this was the question of the fight for human beings.  The fight that existed really took place in people starting to sing together. When people sang together, the power that they found within themselves with the development of what took place with the
Living Memorial concerts as one; but the principle that people started to really sing together and to realize that they had more power against this enemy than they ever thought existed.  And they acted on that power.  We have to do the same right now to
realize that this evil can be and must be defeated.

OGDEN:  Wonderful.  So, I think that with the title of this week's Hamiltonian — "One Minute After Midnight" — we can proceed with the correct sense of urgency; and everything that has been said today defines exactly what the mission is. So, again, if you can read the full document — LaRouche's Four Laws — which is provided in the link in the description to this video, that's available.  And secondly, the Four Reports by Alexander Hamilton; this is available as a book.  Jacob Cook is
the editor of this version; it can be made available as well.
And please read these in conjunction, and maybe that can be the subject of your Congressman's next town hall meeting.

        So, thank you very much for joining us.  And I would like to thank both Kesha and Bill, as well as Paul.

Please stay tuned at larouchepac.com, and Good Night.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 5. oktober, 2016 – I en høring for USA’s Kongres for flere år siden advarede Thomas Hoenig, viceformand for USA’s Statslige Indskudsgarantifond (FDIC) og tidligere præsident for Kansas Citys Centralbank (Federal Reserve), om, at et nyt finanskrak, værre end i 2008, ville blive uundgåeligt, med mindre hele finanssystemet blev gennemgribende ændret – begyndende med en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. Han sagde skarpt til de forsamlede kongresmedlemmer, at, hvis de ventede med at handle til efter krakket, ville det være for sent – idet de kollektivt ville give efter for pres fra Finansministeriet og Federal Reserve (Centralbanken) for at vedtage endnu en selvmords-bankredning (bailout).

Ikke alene havde Hoenig ret. Sandhedens time er nu kommet, og det amerikanske folk må nu følge op på præsident Obamas knusende nederlag, med underkendelsen af hans veto mod JASTA-loven (Loven om Retsforfølgelse af Sponsorer af Terrorisme), og handle nu, for at tvinge Kongressen til omgående at træde sammen igen for at vedtage Glass/Steagall-loven, som allerede er fremsat i både Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet. En vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall er det første, uomgængelige skridt i en total omlægning af USA’s økonomi, som Lyndon LaRouche forklarer det i sine Fire Love (til USA’s (og verdens) omgående redning), der omfatter en lancering af udstrakte anlægsinvesteringer gennem statslig kredit til storstilede infrastrukturprojekter, der vil skabe millioner af produktive, vellønnede jobs, samt en forceret indsats for at genoplive USA’s nærdøds-rumprogram og hermed relaterede felter inden for videnskabens fremskudte grænser.

Deutsche Banks administrerende direktør har været i Washington for at fremføre en tiggertale for Justitsministeriet om at reducere bødestraffen for bankens udbredte svindel med værdipapirer med sikkerhed i realkreditlån (MBS), i håb om, at direktionen vil kunne udskyde bankens kollaps ved at betale $5 mia. i stedet for $14 mia. Den internationale Valutafond (IMF) erkendte i udgivelsen af sin årlige efterårsrapport om den »finansielle stabilitet«, at Deutsche Bank er epicentret for et overhængende, globalt, finansielt krak, og hvor de i rapporten foreslog en række psykotiske ’nøjsomhedsforholdsregler’ (nedskæringer), der mere har til hensigt at blokere for Kinas eurasiske infrastrukturinvesteringer end at adressere kendsgerningen om den umiddelbart forestående evaporation af hele det transatlantiske system.

Denne umiddelbart forestående nedsmeltning er også den nøglefaktor, der er drivkraften bag Obamas Hvide Hus og forsvarsministerens kontor for at gøre fremstød for en åben konfrontation med Rusland. Et møde i onsdags i det Nationale Sikkerhedsråds Lederkomité tog en række eskalerende militære optioner i Syrien op, som alle ville udmønte sig i en direkte fremprovokering af Tredje Verdenskrig. Og forsvarsminister Ashton »Strangelove« Carter har rendt rundt og truet med en førsteanvendelse af atomvåben imod Rusland i takt med, at han gør fremstød for en modernisering og udvidelse af USA’s atomtriade til $1 billion.

Alle medlemmer af Repræsentanternes Hus, samt en tredjedel af Senatsmedlemmerne, er på valg om nogle få uger. De befinder sig nu alle hjemme i deres valgdistrikter, hvor de fører kampagne. De skal, i vendinger, der ikke kan misforstås, have at vide, at de må vende tilbage til Washington – før Deutsche Bank, eller de italienske, britiske eller franske banker, eller Wall Street, udløser den største finansielle nedsmeltning i moderne historie. De institutioner, de har sponsoreret og støttet genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall, må mobiliseres til at handle beslutsomt nu. Både det Demokratiske Partis og det Republikanske Partis valgplatform kræver en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. AFL-CIO (USA’s største fagforening) promoverer Glass-Steagall. Tiden er inde til at levere varen.

Denne kamp kan og må vindes – og det betyder at vinde, før hele systemet eksploderer. Denne kamp har nu nået et punkt, hvor vi alle befinder os imellem liv eller død, og det er, desværre, ikke en overdrivelse.

Foto: Præsident Franklin Roosevelt holder sin 'Fireside Chat' nr. 6 til det amerikanske folk, september 1934. (Foto: Presidential Library & Museum).

JEG ER INTERESSERET I SCHILLER INSTITUTTETS

GLASS/STEAGALL-KAMPAGNE.

KONTAKT MIG

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 22. sept. 2016 – Prøv engang at tage et overblik fra oven over tilstanden i USA. Hvad ser du?

Befolkningen befinder sig i en tilstand af sammenbrud, på randen af borgerkrig. De seneste dages begivenheder i Charlotte demonstrerer endnu engang desperationen hos de fattige, der er sat uden for indflydelse, kombineret med raceskel og racefordomme, der, som et lyn fra en klar himmel, kan blive den gnist, der antænder et kaos. Ikke alene drives ungdommen ud i stofmisbrug; deres afhængighed promoveres af en afsindig præsident. Banksystemet er ved at disintegrere, Wall Streets og Londons kasinomentalitet har ødelagt realøkonomien og skabt en derivatboble, der er mere end dobbelt så stor som den, der i 2008 fremprovokerede finansiel fallit. De seneste 15 års evindelige krige for »regimeskifte«, under Bush og Obama, har forøget terroristernes rækker i enorm grad samtidig med, at det har kostet billioner af dollars og overgivet hele nationer i hænderne på barbariske forbryderbander, samt fremprovokeret en flygtningekrise, der er ved at flå Europa fra hinanden, og som skaber højrefløjsbevægelser, der ikke er set siden fascisternes og nazisternes æra. Politistatsstrukturens overvågning i USA fortsætter hæmningsløst, til trods for, at dette blev afsløret af en modig Edward Snowden for år tilbage.

Og dog ligger sandheden om disse grusomheder udbredt for os alle, i dagens klare lys. For-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-bankerne, med Deutsche Bank i spidsen, står afsløret som værende uigenkaldeligt bankerotte, alt imens befolkningen i stigende grad forarmes. Narkotikaepidemien har ramt alle lokalsamfund i Amerika, inklusive selv små, landlige områder. Hollywoods perverse, virkeligheds-simulerende vold er nu blevet til virkelighed på de sene nyheder. Den kendsgerning, at vores præsident står på terrorismens side, er blevet afsløret af frigivelsen af de 28 sider (af den Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport, fra 2002, om 11. september-begivenhederne 2001), og af Obamas åbenlyse forsvar for de saudiske sponsorer af terrorisme, gennem hans meddelelse om, at han vil nedlægge veto imod JASTA-loven, til trods for, at denne er blevet enstemmigt vedtaget af Kongressen, der ligeledes har lovet, at den vil gøre Obamas veto ugyldigt. Som begivenhederne i Syrien i denne uge har bevist, så vil Det Hvide Hus og Pentagon, med djævelens vold og magt, starte en krig mod Rusland og Kina selv på et tidspunkt, hvor resten af verden ser hen til Rusland og Kina som den eneste kilde til udvikling og win-win-samarbejde, som det sås på G20-topmødet i Kina tidligere på måneden. I denne uge bragte den kinesiske premierminister Li Keqiang dette »G20/win-win«-perspektiv ind i FN’s institutioner, hvor kineserne var vært for 16 organisationer (FN’s Udviklingsprogram (UNDP), Verdenshandelsorganisationen (WTO), Den internationale Valutafond (IMF), Verdensbanken osv.) på et forum med en dagsorden for den nødvendige udvikling i hele verden.

Vi kunne blive ved.

I dag bemærkede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, med en vurdering af dette svangre øjeblik i historien, at, hvis de $5 billion, der er blevet brugt på Bush/Obama-krige, samt de $1 billion, som Obama har til hensigt at spendere på at modernisere USA’s lager af atomvåben, i stedet blev brugt på at genopbygge USA, på at restaurere og udbedre manglen på infrastruktur, opføre nye byer langs med nye højhastigheds-jernbanelinjer (som Kina har gjort), genopbygge ’rustbælterne’, hvor den amerikanske industri engang nød fremgang, organisere CCC-korps (Civilian Conservation Corps; opr. statsligt FDR-hjælpeprogram for unge arbejdsløse mænd) med det formål under et genopbygningsprogram at skaffe jobs, uddannelse og rehabilitering for de millioner af glemte og stofafhængige unge; atter finansiere videnskab og klassisk kultur, især i vores degenererede skolesystemer – hvis alt dette, og mere endnu, blev gjort, som det blev gjort af Franklin D. Roosevelt under hans New Deal, så ville der ikke være nogen krig og intet økonomisk kollaps.

Det første skridt – efter i denne uge at gøre Obamas veto mod JASTA ugyldigt – må være det samme som Roosevelts første skridt: at lukke Wall Street ned, implementere Glass-Steagall og udløse en enorm skabelse af kredit, der kanaliseres ind i den fysiske og sociale genopbygningsproces. Dette Nye Paradigme, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har kaldt det, er allerede sat i værk af Kina og Rusland og breder sig på daglig basis i hele verden. Spydspidsen, der skal bringe denne proces tilbage til Amerika, er også sat i værk af LaRouche-bevægelsen, centreret omkring Manhattan, og inspirerer befolkningen gennem klassisk musik, videnskab og sandfærdige og optimistiske alternativer til modkulturens hæslighed og forfald, der i dag dominerer livet i Amerika.

Som Thomas Paine[1] engang sagde: »Dette er tider, der prøver menneskers sjæle.« Det var trods alt netop denne inspiration, med at hellige sit liv til skabelsen af en produktiv fremtid for hele menneskeheden i en krisetid, der gjorde Amerika til det, det engang var, og atter må blive. Disse kommende dage og uger vil blive historiske, enten for det gode eller det onde, afhængig af graden af mod og kreativitet hos verdens borgere.

Foto: Da den sorte operasangerinde Marian Anderson (1897-1993) i 1939 blev nægtet at optræde i Washingtons Constitution Hall af gruppen ’Den Amerikanske Revolutions Døtre’, trådte Eleanor Roosevelt i protest ud af gruppen og var med til at arrangere en anden koncert på trapperne foran Lincoln Memorial. Fremme af klassisk kultur i befolkningen var et af Eleanor Roosevelts utallige sociale engagementer. 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 19. september, 2016 – I de femten år, der er gået, siden tusinder af amerikanere mistede livet – eller frivilligt gav deres liv for andre – i terrorangrebet d. 11. september, er deres opofrelse blevet forrådt, igen og igen, med præsidenterne Bush og Obama, der lancerede den ene aggressionskrig efter den anden mod nationer, der var uskyldige i 11. september, alt imens de skjulte og forsvarede sponsorerne af islamisk terrorisme.
Denne Bush’ og Obamas så frygtelige parodi på en »krig mod terror« har bogstavelig talt kostet millioner af uskyldige mennesker livet.

Sidste uges afsløringer i det britiske Underhus om blot én af disse katastrofale krige – den mod Libyen – har tvunget den tidligere britiske premierminister David Cameron til at træde tilbage, og vil sandsynligvis ende den tidligere franske præsident Nicolas Sarkozys karriere. Kun Obama står ustraffet tilbage, og han var ellers den, der insisterede på at ødelægge Libyens regering fuldstændigt – hvilket udløste kaos og terrorisme.

Hvis denne »krig mod terror«-parodi fortsætter, vil alle disse ofre, samt de heroiske første-respondenter på 11. september 2001, være døde forgæves.

Hvis det ikke bliver afsluttet nu, kan det betyde verdenskrig.

Det kan afsluttes nu. Tirsdag vil familierne til ofrene for 11. september demonstrere foran Det Hvide Hus og kræve, at Obama underskriver JASTA (Loven om Retsforfølgelse af Sponsorer af Terrorisme), som enstemmigt blev vedtaget af både Senatet og Repræsentanternes Hus. Det saudiske monarki er afsløret som sponsor af islamisk ekstremisme og terrorisme i hele verden og kan efter denne lov sagsøges af sine ofre.
Obama erklærede sin hensigt om at nedlægge veto mod denne sidste chance for retfærdighed; men han er isoleret. Hvis Kongressen og borgerne handler i denne uge, kan han blive tvunget til at underskrive JASTA eller også se sit veto omgående blive gjort ugyldigt. Så kan der komme reelle ændringer i politikken.
Vi kan afslutte mareridtet med evindelige krige for »regimeskifte« og konfrontationer med Rusland og Kina, som Obama har overtaget fra Cheney-Bush.

Der findes nu et helt nyt paradigme i udlandet, siden G20-topmødet med Kina som vært. Dette topmøde besluttede sig for Kinas succesrige fremgangsmåde. Det betød, at man ville tackle problemerne med manglende økonomisk vækst og manglende vækst i produktivitet, ikke gennem endeløs pengetrykning og negative rentesatser, men gennem videnskab og økonomiske partnerskaber mellem nationerne om nye infrastrukturprojekter, der strækker sig over flere kontinenter. Og det betød, at man ville stoppe den dødbringende statsstøtte til terrorgrupper, som nogle lande bruger imod andre.

For at tilslutte sig dette paradigme, må den amerikanske Kongres omgående genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven og lukke Wall Streets spekulations-»kasinoer« ned. Og Kongressen må udstede statskredit til produktiv beskæftigelse og produktivitet.
Det hele begynder med at lade retfærdigheden ske fyldest for Obamas vedkommende, Obama, der er på anklagebænken for at beskytte sponsorerne af terrorisme, og for at udkæmpe terror-fremkaldende krige for dem.
Det er ikke for sent for den amerikanske Kongres, under pres fra det amerikanske folk, at handle med lige så megen rygrad som det britiske Underhus, da det bragte David Cameron til fald i sidste uge. Så verden vil holde øje med demonstrationen for retfærdighed i Washington.

Foto: Set her i 2015 med Kongen af Saudi-Arabien, arbejder Obama og hans hustru nu for dem på fuld tid alt imens han siger til amerikanere, at de ikke fortjener sandheden, eller retfærdighed.

In English, with vice-president Michelle Rasmussen
På engelsk med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen

See slides below.
Se dias herunder.

Videos after the slides:

* The gala concert after the G20 meeting in China, including Beethoven's and Schiller's Ode to Joy

  Galakoncerten efter g20-topmødet i Kina, inkl. Beethovens og Schillers Ode til Glæden

* A 20-minute video introduction to the World Land-Bridge, introduced by the president of the Schiller Institute, Helga Zepp-LaRouche

  Se også den 20-minutter-lang video om Verdenslandbroen, efter diabillederne.

Dias from the meeting: Click on the slide to make it full-sized. 

Klik på diabilledet for at gøre det større.

Video: 

The gala concert after the G20 meeting in China: The Beethoven/Schiller Ode to Joy section begins at 43:30

The 20-minute video introduction to the World Land-Bridge, introduced by the president of the Schiller Institute, Helga Zepp-LaRouche:

»Og vi må få USA til at opgive geopolitik; vi må få EU, der alligevel er ved at disintegrere efter Brexit, vi må få disse lande til at opgive geopolitik og mobilisere USA’s og Europas befolkning til at tilslutte sig et nyt paradigme, der begynder med den idé, at menneskeheden er forenet, og at folk kan og bør være patrioter, men de bør også samtidig være verdensborgere. Og, som den store digter Friedrich Schiller sagde, »Der ligger ingen modsætning i at være en patriot og en verdensborger«.

10. september 2016 – Dennis Speed: På vegne af Schiller Instituttet vil jeg gerne byde jer velkommen til dagens konference, »Vi kan sikre verdensfreden ved at omfavne menneskehedens fælles mål«.

Schiller Instituttet blev stiftet i 1984, og forud for dette, den 27. september 1976, talte en af Schiller Instituttets medstiftere og samarbejdspartnere, nu afdøde Fred Wills, der dengang var Guyanas udenrigsminister, til FN’s Generalforsamling som repræsentant for FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, for 40 år siden, hvor han fremlagde et af de tidligste udtryk for økonomen og statsmanden Lyndon LaRouches politik for udvikling. LaRouches hustru, Helga, grundlagde Schiller Instituttet i 1984, og vi er alle lykkelige og stolte over at have været tilknyttet disse årtier lange bestræbelser.

Vi vil indlede konferencen med et videoindlæg fra Helga LaRouche, stifter og forkvinde for Schiller instituttet:

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: God eftermiddag. Kære deltagere på konferencen: Hr. LaRouche og jeg ville selvfølgelig meget have foretrukket at være personligt til stede på jeres konference, men vi overbringer vore hilsener på denne måde, for vi er i øjeblikket i Europa, hvor vi har meget vigtige ting at gøre.

Lad mig ikke desto mindre overbringe jer et budskab med meget gode nyheder. For, hvad der stort set er gået upåagtet hen i massemedierne i USA og Europa, så har verden ændret sig i løbet af de seneste dage, og til det bedre. Der har været et par internationale konferencer i Asien. Den første var i Vladivostok med meget prominent deltagelse af præsident Putin, premierminister Abe fra Japan, præsident Park fra Sydkorea; og fokus for mødet var at indgå aftale om meget, meget store, økonomiske projekter og en økonomisk integration af den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union (EAEU) og initiativet for Silkevejen/Bæltet-og-Vejen. Det betyder en enorm udvikling af Fjernøsten og en økonomisk integration af alle disse asiatiske lande for et fredeligt samarbejde. Der var endda drøftelser om en mulig fredstraktat mellem Rusland og Japan, hvilket ikke er sket i 70 år, så dette er meget, meget vigtigt.

Men hvad der er endnu vigtigere, så var der G20-topmødet, der netop har fundet sted i Hangzhou, Kina. Se, Kina havde en meget, meget ambitiøs plan for G20-topmødet. De havde forberedt det intenst i over et år, gennem mange konferencer på ministerplan, og med tænketanke og diverse grupperinger, og planen var at transformere G20 fra at være en alliance af lande, der blot ville tale om kriser, som finanskrisen i 2008, og til at være en alliance af lande, der vil danne en organisation for den globale styrelse, for i fællesskab at tage sig af spørgsmålene omkring denne Jord. Og dette lykkedes de med.

I har måske ikke hørt om det i medierne, eller, hvis I har, så er det med en ondskabsfuld drejning, men det, der virkelig skete, er, at Xi Jinping allerede i et møde for erhvervsledere, det såkaldte B20, og også ved det egentlige G20-møde, fremlagde en plan for at sætte innovation i centrum for den globale økonomi; og allervigtigst, at invitere især udviklingslande og fremvoksende lande til fuldt ud at få del i frugterne af videnskab og teknologi, af innovation, med det formål, ikke at forhale disse landes udvikling.

Dette har fuldstændig ændret dynamikken i verden, for nu har man en situation, hvor en stor del af Asien – og dette fortsattes ved det efterfølgende ASEAN-topmøde – arbejder sammen for fredeligt samarbejde om et »win-win«-perspektiv, gennem grundlæggende set at vedtage den kinesiske model for økonomi.

Alle de af jer, der nogensinde har været i Kina, vil bekræfte, at Kina har undergået den mest utrolige, økonomiske transformation i noget land på denne planet. For 40 eller 45 år siden var Kina, under kulturrevolutionen, fuldstændigt tilbagestående og fattigt, og folk havde det elendigt, og så, med begyndelse i Deng Xiaopings reformer, begyndte Kina at lægge meget vægt på sin egen arbejdsstyrkes intellektuelle udvikling, på innovation, på at foretage syvmileskridt; og der var en lang periode, hvor Kina blot kopierede teknologier fra andre lande; den periode er nu ophørt, og Kina er nu spydspidsen inden for rumteknologi, højhastighedstog, elektronik og inden for diverse andre områder med avanceret videnskab og teknologi.

Kina har nu tilbudt resten af verden at blive en del af dette kinesiske, økonomiske mirakel, i et »win-win-samarbejde« gennem udviklingen af initiativet for den Nye Silkevej/Bæltet-og-Vejen, som et globalt udviklingsperspektiv til hele verden.

Denne idé har en sådan tiltrækningskraft, at, f.eks. alle ASEAN-landene, på ASEAN-konferencen i kølvandet på G20-mødet, grundlæggende set vedtog den kinesiske dagsorden om at gøre en ende på konflikten over det Sydkinesiske Hav og sagde, at, i fremtiden vil alle territoriale og andre konflikter blive løst gennem forhandling og dialog. Der vil blive samarbejde mht. at bekæmpe spørgsmål, der vedrører sikkerhed, såsom bekæmpelse af terrorisme, og mht. at udvikle andre midler til hinandens gensidige udvikling. Og derfor er hele denne truende konflikt over det Sydkinesiske Hav faktisk afsluttet.

Dette er vidunderligt nyt! Og det demonstrerer, at, hvis man sætter et udviklingsperspektiv »i den andens interesse« på dagsordenen, så er der intet problem på denne planet, der ikke kan løses. Dette betyder, at vi nu, for første gang, har mulighed for virkelig at gå over til et nyt paradigme. Udviklingssektorens, USA’s og Europas problemer er selvfølgelig stadig gigantiske, og der har hidtil ikke rigtig været en løsning på den kendsgerning, at banksystemet i øjeblikket er lige så truet, som det var i 2008 med Lehman Brothers’ kollaps. For eksempel har Deutsche Bank nu de samme omkostninger for CDS, credit default swaps, til sikkerhedsstillelse for derivater, som Lehman Brothers havde i 2008; hvilket betyder, at spekulanter spekulerer, vædder på muligheden for, at Deutsche Bank krakker. Rentepolitikken, nulrenten, negative renter i alle centralbankerne, som har anvendt det, har nu fået en ende. Mulighederne er opbrugt; hvad vil man mere gøre, end have negative renter? Hvor banker og kunder må betale penge for at indsætte deres penge i banken, i stedet for at få renter? Hele politikken med kvantitativ lempelse har i virkeligheden skabt en skjult hyperinflation, og »helikopterpenge« er virkelig vejs ende.

Den indsats for at gennemføre Glass-Steagall, der i øjeblikket gøres i USA og Europa, må blive gennemført, og vi må mobilisere Europa og USA til simpelt hen at tilslutte sig dette perspektiv med fælles udvikling. USA må vende tilbage til Franklin D. Roosevelts reformer; Europa må vende tilbage til den politik, der, f.eks., eksisterede med Adenauer og de Gaulle; og så kan alle problemerne blive løst, for den Nye Silkevej skaber ikke alene et perspektiv for økonomisk udvikling, men har også allerede skabt et alternativt banksystem: Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB), den Ny Udviklingsbank (’BRIKS-banken’), den Nye Silkevejsfond, den Maritime Silkevejsfond, Shanghai Samarbejdsbanken og mange flere sådanne institutioner, der virkelig applikerer økonomisk politik i traditionen efter [Alexander] Hamilton, ved at have en kreditpolitik i stedet for en pengepolitik.

Dette er særdeles gode nyheder. For dette er noget, som hr. LaRouche og hans bevægelse har kæmpet for i over 40 år. Dette er præcis, hvad hr. LaRouche foreslog i 1975 med den Internationale Udviklingsbank. Det var ideen om, at IMF skulle erstattes af en international udviklingsbank, der skulle organisere en overførsel af teknologi til omkring $400 mia. om året, for at overvinde udviklingslandenes underudvikling.

Dette blev fuldstændig vedtaget af den Alliancefri Bevægelse i 1976 på den berømte Colombo-konference i Sri Lanka. Dengang led indsatsen for at skabe en retfærdig, økonomisk verdensorden et enormt tilbageslag: Man fik en destabilisering af de ledere, der have påtaget sig denne sag som deres. For eksempel blev fr. Indira Gandhi destabiliseret; fr. Sirimavo Bandaranaike fra Sri Lanka blev fordrevet fra embedet; den pakistanske premierminister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto blev væltet og sluttelig myrdet.

LaRouche-bevægelsen fortsatte imidlertid sin kamp for dette, med ideen om at udvikle de underudviklede lande i verden; for, vi kan ikke bare leve med en sådan uretfærdighed, som vi i øjeblikket ser i Afrika. Hr. LaRouche foreslog således i 1982 det berømte Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ, der blev vedtaget af præsident Reagan i 1983, og som var officiel amerikansk politik i omkring otte måneder. Kernen i denne politik var præcis samme idé, der lidt senere blev formuleret af hr. LaRouche som supermagternes protokol, og som grundlæggende set var ideen om at nedlægge de militære blokke, opgive NATO, opgive Warszawa-pagten, og så dernæst, gennem et program med videnskab som drivkraft, udvikle den yderligere produktivitet, bestående i at gennemføre en gigantisk teknologioverførsel til udviklingslandene, med det formål for altid at overvinde deres underudvikling.

Hold op med at behandle den Tredje Verden som stedfortræderlande for krige, og få i stedet et fælles udviklingsperspektiv. Dette var naturligvis også ideen, da vi i 1991, med Sovjetunionens kollaps, foreslog den Eurasiske Landbro/Silkevejen, der var ideen om at forbinde industri- og befolkningscentrene i Europa med dem i Asien gennem udviklingskorridorer. Dette førte vi kampagne for i 25 år, hvor vi afholdt hundreder af konferencer.

Vi var derfor ekstremt glade, da Xi Jinping i 2013, i Kasakhstan, satte den Nye Silkevej tilbage på dagsordenen. Og det er nu, efter tre år, eksploderet mht. at skabe et helt nyt paradigme for udvikling, for en reel indsats for at overvinde fattigdommen i store dele af verden.

Tag for eksempel Afrika: Afrika er i øjeblikket i en forfærdelig forfatning, hvilket er grunden til, at folk i tusindvis drukner i Middelhavet i forsøg på at nå til Europa, eller de dør af tørst i Sahara, når de forsøger at krydse ørkenen.

Den tyske udviklingsminister Gerd Müller har netop holdt en lidenskabelig tale i den tyske Forbundsdag, hvor han sagde, at det, der foregår i Afrika og andre udviklingslande, er, at de er ved at blive flået i stykker at noget, som han sammenlignede med tidlige former for kapitalisme, hvor de rige bliver rigere; hvor 10 % ejer og forbruger 90 % af alle ressourcer, og hvor 80 % af alle afrikanere ikke har adgang til elektricitet; og dette har skabt en utålelig situation. Gerd Müller krævede dernæst en Ny Marshallplan for udvikling i Afrika og andre udviklingslande. Og den rette måde at forfølge dette på er selvfølgelig en forlængelse af den Nye Silkevej ind i Afrika, ind i Mellemøsten, for at genopbygge de krigshærgede lande Afghanistan, Irak, Syrien, Libyen og Yemen, og de tilstødende områder.

Dette kan gøres med det samme, og det forudsætter blot, at vi får USA til at opgive den idé, at de må insistere på en unipolær verden, for denne unipolære verden eksisterer ikke længere: Efter G20-topmødet kan alle i hele verden se, at »omdrejningspunkt« Asien (doktrinen Asia Pivot), som Obama forsøgte at gennemføre for at udøve amerikansk indflydelse i Sydøstasien og disse områder, ikke fungerede. ASEAN stillede sig på Kinas side. TPP-handelsaftalen, om hvilken Obama i Washington Post sagde, at USA »laver reglerne« for handlen, ikke Kina.

Det virkede ikke: Formændene for begge Kongressens huse, Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, sagde, at TPP ikke kommer på dagsordenen i år; og de to præsidentkandidater har allerede sagt, at de er imod TPP. Så den er død. Og TTIP, den tilsvarende frihandelsaftale for Europa, er ligeledes allerede erklæret død af den franske regering og den tyske økonomiminister.

Så der er i øjeblikket en ny mulighed for at bruge G20-topmødet til at fastsætte et nyt regelsæt for handel, for samarbejde, for et »win-win«-perspektiv mellem landene. Og jeg mener, at, hvis vi på kort sigt kan få USA til at gå med i dette kor af nationer for skønhed, for samarbejde, så kan verden virkelig i løbet af meget kort tid opleve et nyt paradigme. Grunden til, at jeg siger »skønhed«, er den, at gallaaftenen inden åbningen af G20-topmødet var en vidunderlig dialog mellem kulturer, meget lig det, vi forsøger at gøre med rækken af koncerter i denne weekend i anledning af 11. september; denne gallaaften begyndte med meget smukke, kinesiske folkesange; der var en smuk scene fra balletten Svanesøen af Tjajkovskij; og sluttelig kulminerede forestillingen med en meget smuk opførelse af dele af Ode til Glæden, baseret på Friedrich Schillers digt til Ludwig van Beethovens musik. Jeg mener, at det var klogt af den kinesiske regering at vælge Ode til Glæden, hvor teksten på et sted proklamerer, »Alle mennesker forbrødres« (»Alle Menschen werden Brüder«), som et kulturelt udtryk for denne idé om et »win-win-samarbejde« mellem alle civilisationer.

Så mit fundamentale budskab til jer er et budskab om absolut optimisme. Jeg siger ikke, at alle problemer er blevet løst. Vi har stadig eksistentielle problemer; vi har stadig faren for krig; vi har stadig faren for en finansiel nedsmeltning, muligvis i dette efterår. Men alternativet er allerede etableret af en magtfuld gruppe nationer, der tilsammen repræsenterer flertallet af menneskeheden, flere end 4 mia. mennesker.

Og vi må få USA til at opgive geopolitik; vi må få EU, der alligevel er ved at disintegrere efter Brexit, vi må få disse lande til at opgive geopolitik og mobilisere USA’s og Europas befolkning til at tilslutte sig et nyt paradigme, der begynder med den idé, at menneskeheden er forenet, og at folk kan og bør være patrioter, men de bør også samtidig være verdensborgere. Og, som den store digter Friedrich Schiller sagde, »Der ligger ingen modsætning i at være patriot og verdensborger«.

Tiden er virkelig inde til, at vi forstår, at løsningen for menneskeheden kun kan findes på det højeste fornuftsplan, og ikke i en eller anden sideorden eller en eller anden angivelig interesse hos én nation imod en anden nation, eller gruppe af nationer.

Jeg føler mig fuldstændig overbevist om, at vi kan foretage dette spring og skabe et nyt paradigme; og alt imens I senere på dagen vil lytte til Mozarts skønne musik (Rekviem), til minde om dem, der døde under angrebet 11. september, mener jeg, at vi kan gengive dem liv og gøre dem udødelige ved at sige, at vi højtideligt vil forpligte os til at bringe USA ind i dette nye paradigme, og så vil deres liv have bidraget til noget udødeligt, og de vil forblive i vort minde for altid.       

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video: Kan ses på: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpTh6MNYlas

Lyd:

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] 

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.

16. august 2016 (Leder) – Den Internationale Betalingsbank (BIS) har forberedt et dokument til det forestående G20-topmøde for statsoverhoveder i Kina, med en advarsel om, at en nedsmeltning af derivatmarkedet kunne ske når som helst, og at clearinghouse-systemet (CHIPS) er totalt uforberedt til at håndtere et sådant chok. Husk på, at Deutsche Bank har den største eksponering til derivater af alle banker i verden, og den har modparts-kontrakter med næsten alle TBTF-banker i USA, Europa og Japan – og Deutsche bank er korrekt blevet beskrevet som en »dead bank walking« (en ’bank på dødsgangen’). De bedste estimater lyder, at den globale derivathandel stadig ligger på et godt stykke over en billiard dollar, selv efter tab i år, der allerede har hobet sig op.

På dette sene tidspunkt er der kun én mulighed tilbage for det gennemført bankerotte transatlantiske system: Genindfør Glass-Steagall, afskriv alle derivatkontrakterne, gå tilbage til et fastkurssystem à la Bretton Woods, og lancer en massiv anlægsinvestering i projekter, der understøtter reel produktivitet gennem statslige bankmetoder i traditionen efter Hamilton, inklusive en forceret indsats for at opnå fusionskraft. Dette er hjertet i Lyndon LaRouches Fire Kardinallove.

Det betyder, med hensyn til den virkelige verden, at Vesten må opgive det afdøde, britiske system og endelig tilslutte sig det nye, eurasisk-centrerede system, der hastigt er ved at manifestere sig, under Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putins overordnede lederskab og gennem virkeliggørelsen af Kinas program for ’Ét bælte, én vej’ (OBOR). I mandags startede det første kølegodstog ud fra den kinesiske havn Dailan, med destination Moskva, en rejse på 8.600 kilometer, som vil blive klaret på henved ti dage. Dette er den seneste gren af OBOR og sætter fokus på samarbejdet mellem Rusland og Kina.

Under diskussioner med europæiske kolleger den 15. august erklærede Lyndon LaRouche, at vi befinder os på randen af en stor sejr for menneskeheden. De eurasiske nationer, forklarede han, er i færd med at etablere en gruppering, centreret omkring ledende nationer i det asiatiske Stillehavsområde, nationer, som er i voldsom vækst, i skarp kontrast til andre områder af verden, der er syge og døende rent økonomisk. Sydamerika er blevet overtaget af voldtægtsforbrydere, Frankrig er en fiasko, Spanien er en katastrofe. Fokus må være på de ledende nationer, som har taget initiativet i denne udviklingsproces. Putin, fortsatte LaRouche, er trådt frem som en drivkraft i denne eurasiske alliance. Der er kræfter, der er i bevægelse internt i USA, især i Manhattan, og som kan tilslutte sig indsatsen under anførsel af Eurasien for at knuse det britiske system, der har været menneskehedens fjende i de forgangne århundreder. Tyskland må, hvis det ønsker at overleve, tilslutte sig denne eurasiske udvikling, hvilket betyder at dumpe enhver politik associeret med Merkel og Schäuble.

Den russiske præsident Putin har, i løbet af de seneste år, spillet en afgørende rolle i organiseringen af en magt, hovedsageligt bestående af nationer centreret i Eurasien, og som er i færd med at få karakter af en militærmagt, der kan ændre alt og kan vinde krigen for fred.

I de kommende uger vil denne fremvoksende alliance være i centrum for en række historiske møder: Det Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok, Rusland; G20-mødet for statsoverhoveder i Kina; Kina-ASEAN-mødet for statsoverhoveder i Laos; FN’s Generalforsamling i New York City; og BRIKS-mødet for statsoverhoveder i Indien. Denne aktivitetstæthed fra nu og frem til midten af oktober byder på en enestående mulighed for, at dette nye, fremvoksende, globale lederskab kan fastlægge historiens kurs og gøre en ende på det bankerotte, britiske system.    

15. august 2016 (Leder) – Vil USA genoplive videnskabelig kreativitet og økonomisk produktivitet for på lang sigt at samarbejde fredeligt med Kinas fremskridt?

Vil Europa beslutte at opgive det, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche kalder »selvmordspagten« med Obama og en NATO-ledelse, der planlægger krige med både Rusland og Kina? Hvornår vil Europa i stedet gå med i Eurasiens Nye Silkevej med store infrastrukturprojekter – for ikke at tale om udforskning af rummet og udvikling af fusionskraft?

Dette er de virkelige spørgsmål, som borgere bør engagere sig i – og ikke de katastrofer, der i USA p.t. stiller op til præsidentvalget.

Meddelelsen i dag om, at tyske fusionsforskere går sammen med et statsligt, russisk laboratorium om udvikling af et nyt »polariseret deuterium«-brændstof til fusionskraft viser f. eks. den kreative retning for Europas bedste kapaciteter. Resultatet kan overhale det nylige gennembrud i Tysklands fusionsprogram – men disse resultater er allerede langt overgået af Kinas resultater. Kina gør teknologisk innovation og vækst til temaet for G20-mødet, som det vil være formand for 4. – 5. september i Hangzhou. Det samme gælder for Putins Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok 2. – 3. september.

De eurasiske nationer rykker sammen i en proces, der kan vinde freden så vel som udvikling; og det er lederskabsinitiativer, taget af Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putin, der i vid udstrækning har gjort denne proces mulig.

Det har placeret USA foran et valg – og det er ikke et valg til præsident mellem to Dick Cheney-imitatorer.

Den 12. august forudsagde IMF, at Kinas årlige økonomiske vækst ville falde til 6 % frem til 2020. Hvis dette skulle vise sig at være sandt, så kunne USA – dersom det blev ledet af et revolutionerende nyt præsidentskab, der udsteder statskredit til ny infrastruktur, rumforskning og fusionsteknologier – håbe på til den tid at nå op på siden af Kinas vækst!

Amerikanske regeringsfolk og folk fra Federal Reserve (centralbanken) har langt om længe for nylig indrømmet, at de er bekymret over den amerikanske økonomis meget lave produktivitet, såvel som over økonomiens meget lave vækst. Økonomien under Obama har vist en hidtil uhørt lav vækst i produktiviteten, uanset, hvordan man måler den.

En almindelig måde at måle »produktivitet« på er simpelt hen at dividere BNP med præsterede arbejdstimer. Målt således har væksten i arbejdskraftens produktivitet aldrig nået en årlig rate på blot 1 %, siden Obama i sit første år i embedet underskrev sin »stimuleringslov«. I de seneste 12 måneder har USA’s økonomiske vækst udgjort sølle 1,2 %.

Men reelle forøgelser af arbejdskraftens produktivitet kommer fra videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt, og fra uddannelse. Den rapport, som blev udgivet af Statskontoret for Forskning i Økonomi (NBER) over den meget store vækst i produktiviteten under Franklin Roosevelts præsidentskab, siger: »Dette skyldtes en meget stærk vækst i generering og distribuering af elektricitetskraft, transport, kommunikation, civilingeniørers og strukturingeniørers arbejde inden for broer, tunneller, dæmninger, hovedveje, jernbaner og systemer til transmission; samt privat forskning og udvikling.« Udfordringerne i al dette moderne infrastrukturbyggeri frembragte teknologiske fremskridt inden for et stort antal industrier, og forskning og udvikling blev stærkt forøget.

Økonomer rangerer 1930’erne, ’40’erne og ’60’ernes Apolloprojekt som toppunkterne for reel vækst i produktivitet i USA’s historie – med en forbedring i produktiviteten på næsten 3 % om året.

Ifølge San Francisco Federal Reserve og NBER var der under George W. Bush’ otte år en stigning i denne vækst på 1,0 % om året; og under Obamas snart otte år, 0,75 %.

Tiden er inde til et nyt præsidentskab, og til at indhente Kina.   

Foto: De kinesisk producerede højhastighedstog afventer afgang fra jernbanestationen i Hankow, 19. april 2016.

.

Det afgørende spørgsmål i dette præsidentvalg er, vil det amerikanske folk tolerere kandidater, der ønsker, at USA skal være på linje med et allerede dødt system? Eller, vil vi følge en anden kurs, hvor USA kommer på linje med dette nye, fremtidsorienterede alternativ? Rent historisk betragtet har Amerika altid befundet sig på denne fremtidsorienterings side; i det mindste, med udgangspunkt i USA’s grundlæggende principper – ideerne i Hamiltons tradition er i realiteten det, der ligger til grund for denne eurasiske udvikling. Vi må vinde kampen om at transformere USA tilbage til det, som det repræsenterede rent historisk, som byen, der ligger på et bjerg.

Uddrag af LPAC fredags-webcast, 12. august 2016. Se hele webcastet, med engelsk udskrift, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=14144

Matthew Ogden: En ting, jeg gerne vil sige i sammenhæng med den foreståede FN Generalforsamling; der foregår allerede en krig imod alt det, som BRIKS repræsenterer. Hvis man tænker ét eller to år tilbage i tiden, så blev aftalen i Fortaleza, Brasilien, indgået i sammenhæng med denne krig, som [dav. præsident] Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner førte i Argentina imod gribbefondene. Disse nationer kom sammen i solidaritet med Argentina og sagde, vi vil ikke tillade, at I dræber det argentinske folk for at få pengene til gribbefondene. Siden dette tidspunkt har vi set en samling omkring Putins, Xi Jinpings og Modis lederskab i BRIKS-strukturen; dette er det nye, fremvoksende paradigme. I den mellemliggende periode har der fundet en samlet indsats sted for at bryde BRIKS op; og lige nu befinder vi os midt i et sådant angreb. Vi så, hvad der skete med Cristina Kirchner i Argentina; nu sker det samme med Dilma Rousseff i Brasilien. Netop i denne uge har et flertal i det brasilianske parlament vedtaget at indlede afhøringer af Rousseff; hvilket vil sige, en rigsretssag mod Brasiliens præsident. Der har været en vis respons mod dette kup internt i USA; og dette er faktisk emnet for det spørgsmål fra institutionelt hold, vi har fået til i aften.

Jeg ved, at hr. LaRouche havde nogle detaljerede bemærkninger om dette. Jeg læser nu spørgsmålet op, og så kan Jeff måske træde ind og sige lidt om det. Spørgsmålet lyder:

»Hr. LaRouche: Kongresmedlem John Conyers, demokrat fra Michigan; Marcy Kaptur, demokrat fra Ohio; Keith Ellison, demokrat fra Minnesota, samt flere en 30 andre fra Repræsentanternes Hus sendte i denne uge et brev til udenrigsminister John Kerry, hvor de opfordrede ham til at afholde sig fra handlinger, der kunne fortolkes som støtte til Brasiliens midlertidige regering. Og til i stedet at »udtrykke sin stærke bekymring mht. rigsretssagen og angrebet på den brasilianske præsident Dilma Rousseff«; og til at »kræve beskyttelse af det forfatningsmæssige demokrati og regering ved lov i Brasilien«. Brevet er det første brev fra kongresmedlemmer, som udtrykker bekymring over Brasiliens demokrati, i mere end to årtier. Hvilke handlinger bør USA’s regering, efter Deres mening, gribe til, for at fremme retfærdighed og beskytte demokratiske institutioner i Brasilien på nuværende tidspunkt?«

Jeffrey Steinberg: Det første, han understregede, var, at vi ikke har med en »brasiliansk situation« at gøre, på samme måde, som vi heller ikke har med en »syrisk situation« at gøre.

Vi befinder os midt i en betydningsfuld, global, strategisk omorganisering. Som du sagde, så havde man, ved BRIKS-landenes møde i Fortaleza for to år siden, lanceringen af den Nye Udviklingsbank, efterfulgt af Kinas lancering af den Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB). Der er tydeligvis et politisk initiativ centreret omkring de store, eurasiske magter, men som også omfatter Brasilien og Sydamerika, Sydafrika og Afrika, med det formål at reorganisere verden omkring en radikalt anden fremgangsmåde; en fremgangsmåde, der er orienteret mod fremtiden, centreret omkring store projekter for økonomisk udvikling, der er ægte win-win-projekter. Der er intet geopolitisk nulsumsspil. Og så har vi et dødt system, som er det britiske imperiesystem, og som i de sidste 15 år er blevet repræsenteret gennem den kendsgerning, at briterne har haft kontrollen over det amerikanske præsidentskab; først under George W. Bush, og dernæst under Barack Obama.

Så det første, USA bør gøre, er at opgive sin egen, direkte rolle i promoveringen af dette kup. Dette er ikke noget, der finder sted, fordi en flok personer internt i Brasilien har besluttet at angribe Dilma Rousseff. Der er hedgefondenes internationale apparat; der er Adam Smith Institutes netværker i Storbritannien; der er Chicago Skolens apparat her i USA; de er alle virkemidler i dette fremstød – ikke for at skade Brasilien – men for at ødelægge Brasilien, fordi det er en del af denne nye BRIKS-organisering. Jeg forsikrer jer for, at, hvis USA offentligt gik ud – hvis Kerry offentligt fremkom med en erklæring, der sagde, at USA mener, at dette er et statskup, der ikke nødvendigvis anvender skydevåben, men som anvender handlinger fra købt-og betalte, korrupte regeringspersoner for at vælte en lovligt valgt regering, der forsøger at bringe Sydamerika på linje med dette nye paradigme for udvikling, centreret omkring Eurasien; så ville det her forsvinde. De brasilianske senatorer, der har stemt for det her, er absolut skamløse; de personer, der står bag dette kup, er alle sammen selv underkastet en lovlig undersøgelse for kriminelle handlinger, for massivt økonomiske bedrageri. Hvis man undersøger det brasilianske element af skandalen omkring Panama-papirerne[1], vil man finde disse topregeringsfolk – formanden for parlamentet, præsidenten for Senatet, den aktuelle præsident (idet Dilma Rousseff er suspenderet, -red.), den aktuelle udenrigsminister; alle de personer, der har allieret sig imod Dilma, er selv en del af det mest korrupte apparat. Men de er beskyttet, fordi de er en del af det Britiske Imperium og Obamaregeringens beskyttelsesapparat; og deres mål er at forsøge at ødelægge BRIKS.

Så dette er et globalt spil; dette er ikke en brasiliansk historie. Det er ikke noget, der er snævert forbundet med begivenheder i Sydamerika, eller med korruption, eller sådan noget. Dette er en langt større, værre og farligere ting; og det er en del af det overordnede billede. Vil verden gå i retning af at forsvare et system, der allerede er dødt? Fremtrædende økonomer beskrev i denne uge Deutsche Bank som »dead bank walking« (amr. udtryk, ’dead man walking’: når den dødsdømte går den sidste, korte strækning fra sin celle til henrettelsesstedet, –red.); og det er en passende beskrivelse. Så det er et spørgsmål, om et dødt, Britisk Imperium, der i det store og hele har kontrolleret det amerikanske præsidentskab i de sidste 15 – 16 år, grundlæggende set vil bringe resten af verden til fald med sig – for det vil aldrig kunne overleve. Eller, om det skal kastes bort, besejres og erstattes af et nyt system, der allerede er godt på vej.

Det afgørende spørgsmål i dette præsidentvalg er, vil det amerikanske folk tolerere kandidater, der ønsker, at USA skal være på linje med et allerede dødt system? Eller, vil vi følge en anden kurs, hvor USA kommer på linje med dette nye, fremtidsorienterede alternativ? Rent historisk betragtet har Amerika altid befundet sig på denne fremtidsorienterings side; i det mindste, med udgangspunkt i USA’s grundlæggende principper – ideerne i Hamiltons tradition er i realiteten det, der ligger til grund for denne eurasiske udvikling. Vi må vinde kampen om at transformere USA tilbage til det, som det repræsenterede rent historisk, som byen, der ligger på et bjerg.[2]

Matthew Ogden: Jeg mener, at det er signifikant, at de kongresmedlemmer, der underskrev dette brev, overlapper kernegruppen af ledere omkring Glass-Steagall.

Steinberg: Det er rigtigt.

Ogden: En anden ting, du netop nævnte: Hvad er ’ideerne efter Hamiltons tradition’? Det, der er kernen i det sammenhængende, forenende princip i disse, hr. LaRouches Fire Nye Love, er den idé, som han udtrykker mod slutningen af dokumentet: At der ikke findes nogen målestok for økonomi inden for pengenes domæne; penge er ikke repræsentant for værdi, når vi taler om økonomi. Det er beredvilligheden til at afvise monetarisme, der gør den Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB) og den Nye Udviklingsbank – til banker af en totalt anden art. Det er ikke blot en anden version af IMF/Verdensbanksystemet. Der er en helligelse til at forøge produktiviteten hos massive mængder af planetens befolkning; milliarder af mennesker vil blive berørt af den Nye Silkevej, af disse udviklingsprojekter, der har været vedtaget i 40, 50 og 60 år. Nu bliver de faktisk bygget, takket være de investeringer, der kommer fra BRIKS-banken (Ny Udviklingsbank) og fra Kina (AIIB), osv. Men det er udtryk for en opfattelse af økonomi, som jeg mener, har været det enestående bidrag, som hr. LaRouche har ydet til verdenshistorien i løbet af de seneste 40-50 år; og som er hans enestående opfattelse af, hvad den sande målestok for økonomi virkelig er. Det er en konstant forøgelse af akkumuleringen af menneskehedens evne til at indsætte nye, fysiske principper, som mennesket har opdaget, for at forøge vores magt i og over Universet.

Jeg mener, at Albert Einsteins eksempel på to specifikke måder er meget vigtigt med hensyn til dette.

For det første, blot i form af en analogi: Albert Einsteins opfattelse af, at man ikke kan have en målestok, der kommer internt fra et system; men at der må være en målestok, der er ekstern, og som er et princip. Lige som absolut tid og absolut rum ikke eksisterede for Einstein, så er dette den form for opfattelse, for forståelse, som man må anvende på fysisk økonomi.

Og for det andet: Måske mere end nogen anden person er Albert Einstein paradigmatisk for den form for menneskelig, kreative tænkning, der gør det muligt for menneskeheden at gøre fremskridt; der, som Helen Keller så smukt beskrev, bringer os op fra jorden, som dyr, der kryber på vores bug og reagerer på omstændighederne omkring os, og til at blive Universets medskaber.

Jeg syntes, at du forklarede dette på en meget smuk måde i slutningen af din artikel i denne uges udgave af The Hamiltonian[3] (pilotudgaven), Michael [Steger]; du måtte gerne sige lidt mere om dette spørgsmål.

Michael Steger: Jeg synes, du netop har sagt det meget fint. Hvad der måske kunne være af værdi at komme tilbage til, mht. den kreative personligheds rolle, som Keisha (Rogers) talte om under mandags-showet; Einstein indså også, at det er individets enestående rolle at udforme og skabe grundlæggende set de nye love, som samfundet dernæst vedtager. At opdagelsen af disse højere principper, eller naturlig lov, dernæst gør det muligt for det samme samfund at gøre fremskridt. Vi ser i dag, at mange mennesker er på ferie; alt for mange mennesker, mener jeg, ser Olympiade. Jeg mener, at den virkelige doping-skandale er at finde internt i Det Hvide Hus. Men det, som Putin har gjort med sin diplomatiske indsats, er, at vi nu ser på den mulige løsning af den syriske krise i Aleppo. Der finder en form for proces sted, der kan løse disse ting i de kommende måneder.

Og så har man i september måned præsidenterne for Sydkorea, Japan og Kina, der vil møde Putin i Vladivostok. Så drager de sammen til G20-topmødet i Kina – hvor Putin vil være æresgæst – med de 20 største nationer; med Brasilien, Argentina, Mexico, Tyrkiet, nationer fra Afrika, fra hele Asien og Europa, der deltager. Dernæst vil mange af disse statsoverhoveder komme til New York City på samme tid som vore koncerter; men de kommer til FN’s Generalforsamling. Og så vil mange af disse statschefer fra BRIKS mødes i Indien i begyndelsen af oktober.

På dette tidspunkt, som Jeff sagde tidligere på ugen, kunne hele dette finanssystem – Deutsche Bank og de øvrige storbanker – hurtigt gå i opløsning, bryde sammen. Bankerotten kan blive en opsprætning af banksystemet, som grundlæggende set kommer i den nære fremtid. Så har vi præsidentvalget. Selv om Donald Trump er nok så meget en nar, så har han vist sig at være i stand til at slå en masse af de andre, inkompetente politikere i debatter; og jeg mener, at det bør bekymre Hillary Clinton en hel del, at hendes historie sammen med Obama er en absolut og alvorlig svaghed. En Akilleshæl pga. det nuværende klima i den politiske situation, som vi konfronteres med i dette land. Så vi befinder os altså virkelig på et bemærkelsesværdigt tidspunkt. Og så kollapset af det transatlantiske system; en konsolideret indsats, der er ved at udspille sig, i Eurasien under Putins lederskab, og så denne egenskab med kreativt geni, som du henviser til mht. Einsteins eksempel. Det er i realiteten den indflydelse, som Lyndon LaRouche har haft på planeten; og det er virkelig, hvad nu må få indflydelse på det præsidentielle system i USA. Lyn må blive en del af udformningen af den præsidentielle politik, nu. Det er vi grundlæggende set; men det må blive det amerikanske folks forpligtelse, og ikke at blive indfanget af alt muligt andet, for vi har i dag en særdeles sjælden mulighed.

[1] Panamapapirerne er 11,5 millioner lækkede dokumenter, der afslører finansiel information og advokat-klientinformation for mere end 214.488 offshore-enheder. De lækkede dokumenter blev udfærdiget af en Panama-advokatfirma og udbyder af tjenester for selskaber, Mossack Fonseca; nogle af dem går tilbage til 1970’erne. De lækkede dokumenter fortæller, hvordan rige personer og offentlige (regerings-) personer er i stand til at holde personlig, finansiel information privat. Alt imens offshore forretningsenheder ofte ikke er ulovlige, så fandt reportere, at nogle af Mossack Fonseca facadeselskaber blev brugt til ulovlige formål, inklusive bedrageri, kleptokrati, skatteunddragelse og omgåelse af internationale sanktioner.    

Denne systemiske krise kræver ikke blot en række politiske beslutninger, men et Nyt Præsidentskab, der er baseret på et borgersamfund, som er helliget en højere bestemmelse … til skabelsen af en ny nation, af et nyt USA, og af en verden, der hidtil ikke har eksisteret – en verden, der nu som aldrig før er mulig, og en verden, der nu ligger i vore hænder. Vil det blive virkeliggjort, eller vil vi fejle? 

Af Michael Steger, medlem af LaRouche Politiske Aktions-komite (LPAC).

Denne artikel er den første i en række skrifter, som præsenteres af LaRouchePAC Nationale Politiske Komite, i direkte samarbejde med Lyndon LaRouche, som en del af hans kampagne for skabelse af et Nyt Præsidentskab i løbet af de kommende 100 dage.

2. august 2016 – Verden har ændret sig i løbet af de seneste fem uger. Begivenhederne, sammen med bevidste interventioner, især fra Vladimir Putins side, har skabt en ny, global dynamik og transformeret potentialet for reel og total sejr i den umiddelbart forestående periode. Sejren vil i første omgang afhænge af vedtagelsen af LaRouches »Fire Nye Love«, en politik, han fremsatte i juni 2014 med sit skrift, »Fire Nye Love til USA’s omgående redning!«[1]; men et succesfuldt udfald på længere sigt kræver mere end simpelt hen at vedtage den nødvendige politik, selv en politik så presserende nødvendig som Glass-Steagall og statslig kredit til videnskabelige fremskridt.

Som LaRouche siger i »Fire Nye Love«: 

»Uden et præsidentskab, der er tilpasset til at fjerne og dumpe de værste virkninger, vi i øjeblikket lider under, og som er de virkninger, der blev skabt af Bush-Cheney- og Obama-præsidentskaberne, ville De Forenede Stater snart være færdig, begyndende med den amerikanske befolknings massedød under Obamaregeringens nylige og nu optrappede, praktiserede politik.«

Og senere:

»Et kædereaktionslignende kollaps med denne virkning accelererer allerede med en indvirkning på pengesystemerne i dette områdes nationer. Den nuværende accelerering af en ’Bail-in’-politik i hele det transatlantiske område, sådan, som det nu er i gang, betyder, at massedød pludselig vil ramme befolkningerne i alle nationerne i det transatlantiske område: enten direkte, eller i kraft af ’overløbseffekt’.«

Denne systemiske krise kræver ikke blot en række politiske beslutninger, men et Nyt Præsidentskab, der er baseret på et borgersamfund, som er helliget en højere bestemmelse, der går ud over elementær valgpolitik; en bestemmelse lig den, som Benjamin Franklin, George Washington og Alexander Hamilton var besjælet af. Det kræver en forpligtelse til skabelsen af en ny nation, af et nyt USA, og af en verden, der hidtil ikke har eksisteret – en verden, der nu som aldrig før er mulig, og en verden, der nu ligger i vore hænder. Vil det blive virkeliggjort, eller vil vi fejle?

De fem uger

Tag nu de hurtige udviklinger i løbet af de seneste fem uger i betragtning: Den britiske afstemning til fordel for at forlade den Europæiske Union (Brexit) den 24. juni, som pludselig, for åbent tæppe, afslørede den rådne kerne i det transatlantiske system. Dette oprør blandt de britiske vælgere var en direkte optakt til Schiller Instituttets konference i Berlin, med Helga Zepp-LaRouche som vært, den selvsamme weekend, en begivenhed, der udelukkende havde fokus på fuldbyrdelsen af det nye verdenssystem, der nu er i færd med at blive virkeliggjort i hele Eurasien, og som er inspireret af Lyndon LaRouches ideer.

I løbet af de følgende dage væltede det frem med successive oprør. NATO-topmødet i Warszawa, der håbede at gøre Rusland til målskive for en storkrig, afslørede i stedet blot voksende uenighed blandt de europæiske nationer. Japan afviste enhver yderligere forpligtelse over for britisk finansielt vanvid og nærmede sig faktisk Rusland og Kina i stedet; det samme gjorde Filippinerne, idet de ignorerede Obamas kommando om konflikt i det Sydkinesiske Hav. Terroristangreb, hvis grobund og udklækningssted har været de igangværende, ulovlige krige, ført af USA og briterne, i Irak, Libyen, Syrien og Yemen, har ramt byer i Frankrig og Tyskland på ugentlig, hvis ikke daglig, basis, uden nogen udsigt til at stoppe under den nuværende politik. Underliggende hele dette politiske oprør finder vi den igangværende panik over bankkollapset i Italien, Tyskland og London, som truer med at virkeliggøre den pludselige udslettelse af den transatlantiske verdens nationer, som Lyndon LaRouche i 2014 advarede om.

I sammenhæng med dette politiske og kulturelle sammenbrud i det transatlantiske område har der været en sand fremstormende bølge af LaRouche-organisationens politik og initiativer. Chilcot-undersøgelsesrapporten blev omsider udgivet i London, efter syv lange års undersøgelse; den erklærede, at Dronningens krig i Irak – en krig, der blev gennemtrumfet af Tony Blair og George W. Bush – var ulovlig og et direkte anslag imod De Forende Nationer og international lov, hvilket udgør forbrydelser i lighed med nazisternes. I USA blev de »28 sider« af Den Fælles Kongres-undersøgelsesrapport om 11. september efter 14 år udgivet. De afslørede det bedrageri, som både Bush- og Obamaregeringen havde begået, med deres overlagte mørklægning af, at det var briterne og deres allierede saudierne, der dirigerede angrebene den 11. september, og de afslørede ligeledes disses efterfølgende fremstød for verdenskrig gennem en kriminel, geopolitisk plan.

Glass/Steagall-loven, indbegrebet af dødstødet mod Wall Streets og City of Londons kriminelle bedrageri, fandt dernæst vej ind i både det Republikanske og Demokratiske Partis valgplatforme, ikke som følge af narre-kandidaternes klovneoptræden, men som følge af den, i det brede flertal af den amerikanske befolkning, dybt rodfæstede erkendelse af, at de seneste femten års politik i USA, med massedød til følge, indiskutabelt er knyttet til Wall Streets politik. Og nu, blot fem uger senere, med en beslutningsproces, der ligesom vokser og har mere i vente, truer kupforsøget i Tyrkiet og de deraf følgende ændringer i politikken med at gøre en ende på de seneste to århundreders geopolitiske forsøg på at kontrollere Asien, med et Tyrkiet, der nu nærmer sig til både Putins Rusland og Kinas politik for den Nye Silkevej, og vender sig bort fra den transatlantiske verdens forpligtelse til verdenskrig.

Dernæst kommer nyheden om omringningen af Aleppo, igen udført af russiske styrker sammen med syriske styrker, og som indikerer en mulig snarlig afslutning på ikke alene den syriske konflikt, som fra det britisk-støttede Obamaregimes side var planlagt til at være optakten til atomkrig mod Rusland og Kina, men som nu, hvor krisen næsten er løst, er et forvarsel om afslutningen af selve den britiske, geopolitiske æra.

Vladimir Putin og Kinas Nye Silkevej står til at vinde; Obama og briterne står til at tabe.

Men der er mere endnu, og mere er måske i vente, at begynde med Helga Zepp-LaRouches deltagelse i det internationale T20-topmøde i Beijing i slutningen af juli måned; en indledende drøftelse blandt ledende personer til det kommende G20-topmøde for statsledere i september. FN’s Generalforsamling vil ligeledes mødes i september, blot et år efter Vladimir Putins opfordring til at skabe en ny alliance af magter mod terrorisme, og begge disse begivenheder vil blive internationale fora af afgørende betydning for opbygning af det nye paradigme, inspireret af LaRouche.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche for nylig sagde, »Erinyernes frygtelige dans er blevet udløst!«, og man kan næsten høre de panikslagne hyl og skrig i magtens korridorer på Wall Street og i London, endda fra selve den gale Dronning.

De Fire Love

Den 8. juni 2014 udstedte Lyndon LaRouche en erklæring med titlen »De Fire Nye Love til USA’s omgående redning! Ikke en valgmulighed, men en uopsættelig nødvendighed.« I denne erklæring definerer hr. LaRouche en løsning på den nuværende, globale og generelle sammenbrudskrise, men han definerer mere end det. Han fremlægger en økonomisk og videnskabelig politik, der er i overensstemmelse med den menneskelige arts faktiske, skabende natur, og en politik, der, hvis den bliver vedtaget, vil udløse en renæssance i menneskeligt fremskridt for det kommende århundrede, og længere endnu.

Der findes intet, der kan erstatte læsning, og gen-læsning, at hele hr. LaRouches erklæring, men vi vil her præsentere en kortfattet, forkortet synopsis af de umiddelbare skridt, der skal tages, for at tage den igangværende generelle sammenbrudskrise i det transatlantiske område under behandling. Dette er udgangspunktet for et succesfuldt, Nyt Præsidentskab:

1. Den omgående genindførelse af Glass/ Steagall-loven, uden ændringer, som blev sat i kraft af præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt, som princip for handling.
2. En tilbagevenden til et Nationalbanksystem, der styres fra oven (fra regeringen), og som er defineret som sådan. Præcedens herfor skal tages fra det bank- og kreditsystem, som Alexander Hamilton etablerede, såvel som også fra Abraham Lincolns udstedelse af en statslig valuta (»greenbacks«), under præsidentiel myndighed.
3. Udstedelsen af ny statskredit til skabelse af et højproduktivt, generelt forløb med forbedret beskæftigelse, med den ledsagende plan om at øge den fysisk-økonomiske produktivitet, samt forbedre levestandarden for personer og husstande i USA. En forøgelse af den produktive beskæftigelse, sådan, som man præsterede det under Franklin Roosevelt, må reflektere en forøgelse af den reelle produktivitet, der er i overensstemmelse med en forøgelse af energi-gennemstrømnings-tætheden[2] i nationens økonomiske praksis.
4. Vedtagelsen af et »’Forceret program’ for fusionsenergi som drivkraft«. Ægte økonomiske principper er funderet på den afgørende forskel mellem mennesket og alle andre lavere livsformer. Et forceret program for fusionsenergi, som i dag omfatter en tilbagevenden til Krafft Ehrickes vision for USA’s rumprogram, er en forpligtelse over for menneskehedens fremtid.

Det dybereliggende spørgsmål

Det er imidlertid kun en tænkning af samme høje kvalitet som tænkningen hos en skabende forsker, såsom Einstein eller dirigenten Wilhelm Furtwängler, der vil besidde de nødvendige evner til at fatte de seneste internationale udviklingers underliggende årsagsskabende magt, såvel som også den nødvendige kvalitet af respons, der findes i selve essensen af LaRouches Fire Nye Love. Denne videnskabelige evne kan bedst udtrykkes som ens egen forpligtelse over for den menneskelige arts grænseløse fremtid.

Ikke reduktionismens fremtid i rum og tid, eller endda rum-tid, men snarere en fremtid, der ledes af musikalsk geni, som i tilhørernes intellekt, eller sind, søger at skabe de nødvendige og netop tilstrækkelige intellektuelle evner, der tilnærmer sig menneskehedens ubegrænsede fremtid, og således udfolder en klarhed i resolut handling, som en handling tilbage til den nuværende krise fra den levende fremtid. Shakespeares Hamlet giver os et relevant, negativt bevis for sådanne evner i det menneskelige intellekt. Ethvert redeligt menneske må stille sig selv det spørgsmål, ikke, »Hvem skal jeg stemme på«, men snarere, »Vil min eksistens være af en sådan art, at jeg bliver en aktør, der udvirker noget, på historiens scene?« Som Lyndon LaRouche erklærede den 31. juli 2016: »Jeg stiller ikke op som præsident, men jeg har sandelig til hensigt at indvirke på dannelsen af USA’s regering i den kommende periode.«

Overvej nu det følgende aspekt af hans tankegang i det afsluttende afsnit af denne rapport fra juni 2014:

»For eksempel: ’tid’ og ’rum’ eksisterer i realiteten ikke som metriske principper i Solsystemet; deres eneste acceptable anvendelse til kommunikationsformål er grundlæggende set nominel antagelse. Eftersom kompetent videnskab i dag kun kan udtrykkes mht. den unikke, menneskelige karakteristiks rolle inden for de kendte aspekter af Universet, er det menneskelige princip det eneste, sande princip, som vi kender og kan udøve. Begreberne om rum og tid er blot nyttige forestillinger.«

Og senere:

»Mennesket er menneskehedens eneste, sande målestok for vort Solsystems historie og det, som det indbefatter. Det er det samme som, at den menneskelige arts mest ærefulde mening og uendelige præstation, nu i det nære rum i vort Solsystem, stiler opad for at kunne beherske Solen og dens Solsystem, som (faktisk unikt) blev opdaget af Johannes Kepler.«

Faren ligger således ikke i det, som synes at være de kaotiske begivenheder i verden, sådan, som den almene »manden på gaden« opfatter den krise, der udspiller sig, men derimod i den utilstrækkelige forpligtelse over for menneskehedens opadstigende natur, som det fremlægges i LaRouches Fire Nye Love. For, på et sådant tidspunkt, hvor LaRouches ideer nu er mere indflydelsesrige inden for den menneskelige arts mere udbredte kultur, og alt imens de modsatrettede usande forestillinger, med imperiale Zeus-diktater for befolkningsreduktion, krig og økonomisk bedrageri, står over for deres farefulde sammenbrud, så udgør selveste det menneskelige intellekts natur i sig selv den højere, kompositionsmæssige modalitet, gennem hvilken vi udøver handling over for universet som helhed, med revolutionerende virkning.

Det, som er presserende nødvendigt, er den uundværlige, skabende forhånds-handling for at skabe en hel dynamik, snarere end gentagelser af de fiaskoer, som stammer fra Newtons systemiske bedrageri med aktion-reaktion – et bedrageri, der er fremherskende i den nuværende, transatlantiske verdens politiske og finansielle klasses neurotiske tilskyndelser, og et bedrageri, som Einstein på så fremragende vis afslørede. En sådan forhånds-handling, som LaRouches Fire Love fordrer, udgør selve fundamentet for de indledende skridt, gennem hvilke vi eliminerer dette fejlslagne systems unødvendige byrder og gæld.

Men mon man kan høre det nye tema, måske, som om det kom fra den forventede indtrængen af en himmelstræbende sektion af træblæsere i det højeste toneleje, højt over orkestret? For en sådan forventningens tilstand er ligesom en gave, der overraskende overbringes af en for længst afdød, kær ven fra det, som endnu er den ikke-afgjorte fremtid, som dernæst gives på vegne af vores nutids passage, for blot at blive vores fremtids mest fundamentale nutid.

Dantes Guddommelige Komedie og Brunelleschis skabelse af den italienske renæssance stod ikke tilbage i denne henseende.

Og sådan må det Nye Præsidentskab, og dets borgersamfund, blive.

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)

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