Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 9. juli, 2017 – G20-mødet, der blev holdt i Hamborg, Tyskland, den 7.-8. juli, frembragte intet, der ligner den form for politiske initiativer, der kræves for at overvinde den dødbringende krise, som konfronterer menneskeheden, og den transatlantiske sektor i særdeleshed. Det adresserede ikke den globale finanskrise, med dens $1,5 billiard store, bankerotte derivatspekulation. Det diskuterede ikke gennemførelsen af en politik for global Glass/Steagall, eller for et kreditsystem i Hamiltons tradition, der alene kan vende de vestlige, fysiske økonomiers dødbringende kollaps, som Lyndon LaRouche endegyldigt har vist i sine Fire Love. Mødet stillede heller ikke spørgsmålet om at erstatte geopolitik og krig med en ny fremgangsmåde inden for globale relationer. Så i denne betydning levede G20-topmødet slet ikke op til det, den burde have opnået.

Alligevel kom der et meget positivt resultat ud af topmødet – ja, faktisk et gennembrud for strategisk fremskridt – for det meste som et resultat af en række bilaterale møder, der skaber historie, på sidelinjerne af topmødet, især det produktive møde mellem den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump og den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin – på trods af alle bestræbelser fra Det britiske Imperiums og dets amerikanske allieredes side på at forsøge at forhindre det i at ske.

Det er sædeles signifikant, at det russiske nyhedsbureau, TASS, valgte at udgive Schiller Instituttets præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouches vurdering mht. mødet mellem de to præsidenter, i en artikel med titlen, »Ekspertvurdering: Det lykkedes ikke antirussisk kampagne i USA at blokere for et succesfuldt møde mellem Putin og Trump«, og som understregede Zepp-LaRouches vurdering, der lød, at de to præsidenter »har overensstemmende synspunkter mht. deres ikke-accept af krige og interventioner og indblanding i andre landes anliggender«.

Enig i Zepp-LaRouches synspunkt, sagde ruslandsekspert og fremtrædende historiker, Stephen Cohen, til Fox Tv, at den overskrift, han ville give Trump-Putin-mødet, er: »En potentielt ny, historisk detente og et anti-koldkrigspartnerskab indledtes af Trump og Putin; imidlertid optrappes bestræbelser på at sabotere det«. Cohen sagde, Trump havde været »politisk modig«, og at »i dag blev vi muligvis vidne til, at præsident Trump voksede frem som en amerikansk statsmand«.

Under en diskussion med medarbejdere i dag mindede Helga Zepp-LaRouche om, at Trump og Kinas Xi Jinping havde holdt et meget succesfuldt møde på Mar-a-Lago tilbage i april måned; og at der umiddelbart forud for G20-topmødet havde været et strategisk møde mellem Xi Jinping og Putin i Moskva, som af begge sider blev karakteriseret som årets vigtigste, diplomatiske begivenhed og beskrev relationen mellem deres to lande som den bedste nogensinde. Nu har der, sagde Zepp-LaRouche, været et meget lovende, første møde mellem Trump og Putin. Så hvis disse tre præsidenter virkelig kan arbejde sammen, vil verden bevæge sig et gigantskridt fremad, og bort fra afgrunden og i stedet i retning af et nyt paradigme.

Der er selvfølgelig meget mere arbejde, der skal gøres. Det britiske Imperium må stadig overvindes. Man kan trygt stole på, at flokken på Wall Street og i City of London – samt deres bydrenge i det Demokratiske Partis Obama-lejr, og også de Republikanske neokonservative – vil gå bersærk over deres mislykkede forsøg på at standse Trump-Putin-topmødet, og vil optrappe deres kampagne for at vælte Trump-administrationen. Der er faren for fremprovokerede krige på utallige scener over hele planeten. Men sejr er i sigte.

Zepp-LaRouche opfordrede den internationale LaRouche-bevægelse til at optrappe kampagnen for at sætte disse spørgsmål på dagsordenen, som G20-topmødet officielt undlod: nemlig LaRouches Fire Love, og at USA og Europa officielt fuldt og helt tilslutter sig Bælte & Vej Initiativet. Få folk til at støtte op omkring os, som kilden til de afgørende ideer, der driver denne udvikling fremad.

Foto: Præsidenterne Trump og Xi på G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland, 8. juli, 2017. (photo realdonaldtrump/instagram)

Det er bestemt sandt, at tiden for den unipolære verden er forbi, men multi-polaritet er stadig ikke løsningen, for det indbefatter stadig geopolitik, der var årsag til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, og denne geopolitik er stadig i operation, i Nordkorea, i Syrien og i Ukraine.

Vi må derfor finde et højere niveau. Vi må få verden frem til at blive det, præsident Xi Jinping altid kalder »et samfund for menneskehedens fælles fremtid«. Et stort skridt i denne retning kunne være mødet mellem præsident Trump og præsident Putin, der mødes i dag for første gang som præsidenter. Dette er selvfølgelig et meget vigtigt skridt, for mellem præsident Trump og præsident Xi Jinping er der allerede etableret en meget positiv relation, så det er meget, meget afgørende, hvad der kommer ud af Trump-Putin-mødet. For de spørgsmål, vi må løse, er presserende og dramatiske.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Videoklippet med Helgas tale kan ses her, start 15:45 min.: 

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 3. juli, 2017 – Koncerten i Carnegie Hall, New York, i slutningen af sidste uge og det efterfølgende symposium for at hædre Sylvia Olden Lees arbejde, samt den forestående konference, »Mad for Fred«, i slutningen af denne uge, udgør de to »bogstøtter«, der leverer det idémæssige lederskab og den programmatiske direktion for det, der er i færd med at blive én af de mest dramatiske uger for internationalt diplomati i nyere historie.

For det første er der topmødet den 4. juli i Moskva mellem den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin og den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping, med forventede resultater, der har fået begge sider til at karakterisere mødet som »årets begivenhed«. De planlægger at konsolidere koordineringen af Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ med den russiskledede Eurasisk Økonomisk Union; de vil åbne nye områder for videnskabeligt samarbejde, inklusive det Arktiske Område; og de har til hensigt at arbejde tæt sammen for at bekæmpe terrorisme, narkotikahandelen og andre trusler mod global sikkerhed.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche bemærkede i dag, så tager Xi-Putin-topmødet form af det afgørende spørgsmål i denne strategiske kombination af begivenheder. Derimod truer G20-mødet den 7. – 8. juli i Hamborg med at blive mere et gadekarneval end et seriøst topmøde: USA’s finansminister Steven Mnuchin og Tysklands finansminister Wolfgang Schäuble har gjort fælles sag i et forsøg på at bandlyse enhver diskussion af en seriøs finansreform, såsom Glass-Steagall og LaRouches Fire Love, som alene ville kunne give G20-topmødet mening og gøre den transatlantiske sektor i stand til at tilslutte sig Bælte & Vej Initiativet.

Men de såkaldte »sidelinjer« af G20-topmødet ser ud til at blive langt mere produktive end den formelle dagsorden, som Merkel-regeringen har sat for selve topmødet. Statsoverhovederne for Kina, Japan, Sydkorea og selvfølgelig USA har planlagt mange møder på sidelinjerne af topmødet. Ruslands Putin har planlagt ikke færre end 11 bilaterale møder på topmødets sidelinjer – og dette omfatter ikke hans forventede møde med den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump, det møde, der »er afgørende, og som alle har ventet på«, med Kreml-assistent Yuri Ushakovs ord.

Hvis USA, Rusland og Kina kan arbejde sammen, kommenterede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, så findes der en vej ud af den nuværende sammenbrudskrise. Dette vil kræve en desarmering af de multiple provokationer, som det bankerotte Britiske Imperium lægger i vejen for dem – fra Syrien til det Sydkinesiske Hav og til Koreahalvøen – og de må nødvendigvis adressere krisen med finanssammenbruddet, som er det Damoklessværd, der hænger over Vesten, og det må ske gennem de eneste programmatiske og idémæssige redskaber, der vil virke: nemlig dem, som Lyndon LaRouche har foreskrevet i sine »Fire Love«.

Foto: Et billede fra Hongkongs spektakulære fyrværkeriforestilling, i anledning af markeringen af 20-året for briternes overrækkelse af Hongkong til kinesisk myndighed, juni, 2017. (Telegraph/Youtube screen grab)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 2. juli, 2017 – Netop, som ugen for Amerikas Uafhængighedsdag begyndte, fejrede kineserne i Hongkong velsignelserne ved 20 års reel uafhængighed fra Det britiske Imperium.

I løbet af disse 20 år, siden briterne modstræbende opgav Hongkong, er det blevet en blot åbenlys konstatering at sige, at Kina har gjort det mest forbløffende fremskridt blandt alle nationer ved at vedtage de politikker for kredit, infrastruktur og produktivitet, der plejede at blive benævnt »det Amerikanske Økonomiske System«.

Spørgsmålet i denne uge handler om, hvorvidt USA under præsident Trump vil gå med i denne udvikling. Vil vi atter vedtage Alexander Hamiltons, George Washingtons, Abraham Lincolns og Franklin D. Roosevelts Amerikanske System, imod det, der stadig er det britiske imperiesystem – globalisering af frihandel, miljøbevægelse, post-industrialisme og krige med det formål at fjerne, hhv. installere, statsoverhoveder?

Trump bekæmper fortsat forsøget på at tvinge ham ud af embedet, som for femten måneder siden blev indledt af visse britiske efterretnings-’dossierer’ mod Rusland. Mere generelt, så er spørgsmålet i denne uge op til G20-nationernes topmøde den 7. – 8. juli den samme politik for frihandel / miljøbevægelse (læs: »Grøn kult«), der stadig kan spores tilbage til britiske, royale personer, og som den Europæiske Union vil arbejde for på G20-mødet. Alternativet hertil er USA’s, Kinas, Ruslands og Indiens samarbejde om videnskabelig og økonomisk fremskridt, og fred.

Søndag aften talte præsident Trump over telefon med premierminister Abe fra Japan og med præsident Xi fra Kina, med sidstnævnte, der mandag skal mødes med Ruslands præsident Putin i Moskva. De næste skridt i den progressive reduktion af krig i Syrien, hvis flygtninge er begyndt at vende hjem, vil blive taget ved møder den 4. og 5. juli, med repræsentanter for Rusland, USA og FN. Og præsident Trump bør have bilaterale »topmøder« med Xi, Abe og Putin ved G20-møderne, der finder sted i dagene 7. og 8. juli.

En ny æra for økonomisk fremskridt begyndte med topmødet, omfattende 130 nationer, for Bælte & Vej Initiativet i Beijing i midten af maj måned, et fremskridt, for hvilket Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har arbejdet og organiseret i fire årtier. Denne nye, økonomiske orden øger i enorm grad muligheden for Trumps USA at vende tilbage til det Amerikanske System og »gøre Amerika stort igen«.

Dette politiske skifte, og det Amerikanske System, er indlejret i LaRouches »Fire Love«, omfattende bankopdeling (Glass-Steagall), statslig bankkredit, samt udvidelse af udforskning af rummet og den fremskudte, videnskabelige grænse, som repræsenteres af fusionskraft.

Schiller Instituttet, Kinas Energifondskomite og Fonden for Genoplivelse af Klassisk Kultur vil holde en afgørende konference, »Mad for Fred: Det nye navn for fred er økonomisk udvikling«, i New York den 7. juli og i de to dage, hvor G20-mødet samtidig finder sted i Hamborg, Tyskland.

Der er store muligheder i denne uge, men også en betydelig fare, der kommer fra strategiske konfrontationer og endda nye krigshandlinger. Enhver indsats og støtte må kastes ind på vægtskålen for reel uafhængighed, og for det Amerikanske Økonomiske System.

Foto: En ceremoni, hvor Hongkongs og Kinas flag hejses, markerer 20-året for byens tilbagelevering til Kina fra Storbritannien. 20. juli, 2017. (Youtube Screen Grab/AFP)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 28. juni, 2017 – Torsdag 29. juni vil en historisk koncert blive afholdt i Carnegie Hall i New York City for at fejre Sylvia Olden Lees liv og værk. Sylvia Olden Lee var en banebrydende sanglærer ved Metropolitan Operaen og mangeårig ven og kollega i Schiller Instituttet. Sponsoreret af Fonden for Genoplivelse af Klassisk Kultur vil et 220 mand stort kor, af hvilket Schiller Instituttets 110 mand store NYC-kor udgør halvdelen, optræde. Desuden vil Convent Ave. Baptistkirkens kor, ledet af Lees (og Schiller Instituttets) mangeårige ven Gregory Hopkins, stifter og leder af Harlem Opera Theater, ligeledes optræde.

Koncerten/hyldesten til ære for Lee vil dagen efter blive fulgt op af et arbejdssymposium over Verdistemningen C=256, der vil omfatte sammenligninger mellem udvælgelser sunget i A=432 og A=440 eller højere. Den to dage lange proces vil udgøre et betydningsfuldt skridt fremad for Lyndon LaRouches »Manhattan-projekt« om opbygningen af et 1000 til 1500 mand stort kor, som LaRouche foreslog for mere end et år siden.

En sådan genoplivelse af klassisk kultur er afgørende for at bringe videnskabelig tankegang tilbage til USA, og for helt at kunne skifte landet ind i det Nye paradigme med Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ.

Men, der findes et andet New York, som vi dagligt bliver mindet om. I går fandt der en katastrofal afsporing sted på én af Manhattans store undergrundsbanelinjer, der medførte dusinvis af sårede (heldigvis ingen døde – denne gang) og alvorlig beskadigelse af spor og tunnel. Ingen har et skøn over, hvor længe, det vil tage at udføre reparationerne. Men dette er kun en forsmag på den »Helvedessommer«, der venter New Yorks indbyggere, med start 10. juli, hvor man har bebudet en række nedskæringer af driften på 20 % for at give plads til, at nødvendige udbedringer kan udføres.

Sagens kendsgerning er, at hele infrastrukturnettet i det større New York-område er ved at bryde sammen som følge af årtiers manglende vedligeholdelse og investering i ny kapacitet. Schiller Instituttet er i øjeblikket ved at udarbejde et totalomfattende programforslag for, hvad der må gøres og omgående sættes i værk, for at adressere denne krise – hvilket indbefatter et tæt samarbejde med Kina og dets kapacitet inden for infrastruktur, der er i verdensklasse.

Faktisk er hele det transatlantiske system i færd med at kollapse – både dets fysiske økonomi og dets finanssystem – og vil ikke kunne genrejses uden en afskrivning af den bankerotte derivatboble til $1,5 billiard, på basis af Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven og den bredere politik i LaRouches Fire Love. 

Dette er fuldstændig åbenbart i det aktuelle dødvande i debatten i Kongressen om Obamacare vs. Republikanernes sygesikringslov, som begge simpelt hen slår folk ihjel for at holde Wall Streets forsikrings-molokker glade og tilfredse. Og det er åbenbart i implikationerne af brandhelvedet i Grenfell Tower i London, der bedst kan betegnes som Grenfell-krematoriet, hvor disse implikationer er, at der findes dusinvis, hvis ikke hundredevis af sådanne farlige sociale boligbyggerier til fattige immigranter og andre, som følge af privatiseringen af socialt boligbyggeri og spekulation i den britiske ejendomsboble – for begge deles vedkommende takket være det bankerotte City of London og Wall Street.

Heldigvis er alternativet til disse mord og dermed forbundet kulturelt vanvid i færd med at blive til virkelighed omkring Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ. Kinas præsident Xi Jinping har netop meddelt, at han afholder topmøder med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin (3. juli), og med Tysklands præsident Frank-Walter Steinmeier og kansler Angela Merkel (kort tid efter), for begges vedkommende forud for G20-topmødet i Hamborg, den 7.-8. juli. I særdeleshed kan Xi-Putin-topmødet forventes at producere vigtige, nye udviklinger, som begge sider gentagent har erklæret i de seneste måneder, især omkring forstærket koordinering mellem Kinas Bælte & Vej og Ruslands initiativer med den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, EAEU. Det er ligeledes signifikant, at Xi og Putin vil mødes umiddelbart forud for det forventede møde mellem Putin og Trump under G20-topmødet i Hamborg.

Dette møde kunne »ændre spillet«, som man siger, ikke alene mht. de bilaterale relationer mellem USA og Rusland, men også mht. den strategiske situation, der konfronterer hele planeten.

Det britiske Imperium og de personer i Washington, der udfører underordnede tjenester for Dronningen af England, er ganske udmærket bevidst om denne situation og er indstillet på at gøre hvad som helst, og hvor som helst (og ikke kun i Syrien), for at forhindre, at dette finder sted.

Men vi er lige så forberedt til at sikre, at det finder sted.

Som Lyndon LaRouche så hjerteligt sagde i sidste uge, så vil vi gøre New York til et historisk vendepunkt.

Foto: Plakat for hyldestkoncerten for Sylvia Olden Lee i Carnegie Hall, New York.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 27. juni, 2017 – I juli 2016 sagde kandidat Donald Trump i en pressekonference, at »jeg kan ikke komme i tanker om noget, jeg hellere vil, end at Rusland er venlig, i modsætning til, hvordan de nu er, så vi kan gå ud og slå ISIS ud sammen med andre folk«. Næste dag spurgte han sine støtter ved et kampagnemøde: »Ville det ikke være storartet, hvis vi kom godt ud af det med Rusland?« Han fik entusiastisk støtte. I hele landet væmmedes især arbejdere, der led under de hjemlige, økonomiske vanskeligheder, ligeledes ved Nobels Fredsprisvinder Barack Obamas evindelige krige, der ødelagde nationer og dræbte hundreder af tusinder i processen, i nationer, der ikke udgjorde nogen trussel mod USA, og som i realiteten voldsomt konfronterede terroristiske oprørere i deres egne nationer. Deres forbrydelse: At de var venner med Rusland og nægtede at være Imperiets undersåtter; Imperiet, der er centreret omkring City of London og Wall Street.

Den 7. juni er der en forsøgsvis plan om, at præsident Trump skal mødes med den russiske præsident Putin for første gang. Der er en mulighed for, at han vil etablere en stærk arbejdsrelation med lederen af den anden atomsupermagt. Blot én uge tidligere havde han til den ledende, kinesiske statsmand for udenrigspolitik, Yang Jiechi, sagt, at han var rede til at bringe USA ind i den Nye Silkevej, gennem en stærk arbejdsrelation med præsident Xi Jinping. Mandag i denne uge etablerede han en stærk arbejdsrelation med den indiske premierminister, Narendra Modi.

Det er dette, der slår de håbefulde guder af det døende, vestlige imperium med rædsel.

Den 10. oktober, 2009, sagde Lyndon LaRouche i en tale til det Offentlige Verdensforum for Dialog mellem Civilisationer, på den græske ø Rhodos:

»Hvis Rusland, USA, Kina og Indien, som en gruppe af lande, aftaler at indlede og gennemføre en reorganisering af det globale finans- og kreditsystem, under disse betingelser, med langfristede aftaler, af samme type, som Franklin Roosevelt havde udtalt før sin død i 1944, under hovednationer, kunne Roosevelts plan alle disse år senere have været virkeliggjort; og vi kunne gøre dette i dag.«

Tiden er nu kommet til at gøre dette. De »Fire Magter« er næsten på linje på en måde, der endelig, én gang for alle, kunne skaffe menneskeracen af med den Imperiets forbandelse, krigens svøbe og fattigdommens elendighed.

Krigsherrerne vil ikke sky noget middel for at forhindre ødelæggelsen af deres Helvedesimperium. Krav om Trumps impeachment eller mord optræder nu i medierne, i en perverteret version af Shakespeares »Julius Cæsar« i New Yorks Central Park, og ved rockkoncerter i Storbritannien. Forrædere internt i USA, og endda internt i Trumps egen kreds, skaber falske nyheder for at trække Trump ind i krig i Syrien, der hastigt ville føre til krig med Rusland – atomkrig.

Men det bliver i stigende grad klart, at den amerikanske befolkning, og endda mange, der ikke støttede valget af Trump, væmmes ved og er dødtrætte af den hysteriske russofobi og dæmoniseringen af Trump og Putin og giver udtryk for denne væmmelse i de nylige valg, i de sociale medier og, hvad der er meget vigtigt, i voksende støtte til LaRouche-bevægelsen i hele landet.

Den 7. juli vil landbrugseksperter fra Kina, USA og andre samles på en konference, der er ko-sponsoreret af LaRouches Schiller Institut. De kinesiske eksperter har i flere tilfælde været centrum for den udvikling, der løftede 600 millioner kinesere ud af fattigdom, og som er forpligtende engageret til at arbejde sammen med USA og andre for at lindre global fattigdom. Dette er virkelig muligt under forudsætning af, at USA og Europa vender det sammenbrud af de vestlige økonomier under det brutale monetaristiske system, der har ødelagt ideen om fremskridt i vore nationer. En genindførelse af vore forfædres politikker i Hamiltons tradition sådan, som det forklares i LaRouches Fire Love, kan og må blive fundamentet for globalt samarbejde inden for det nye paradigme.

Alt andet end dette er, i dette historiske mulighedernes øjeblik, sindssygt og utåleligt. I Percys Shellys digt fra 1821, »Forsvar for poesien«, beskrives historiske perioder med intens kamp, som den nuværende, således:

»I sådanne perioder er der en akkumulering af evnen til at kommunikere og modtage dybtgående og passionerede begreber om menneske og natur. De personer, i hvem denne evne bor, kan meget ofte, med hensyn til mange dele af deres natur, synes at have liden overensstemmelse med denne godhedens ånd, for hvilken de er tjenere. Men selv, mens de fornægter og afsværger, er de dog tvunget til at tjene denne evne, der sidder på deres egen sjæls trone.«

Menneskeheden oplever et øjeblik med historisk faseskifte, på godt og ondt. Tiden er inde til poetisk handling.

Foto: Præsident Donald J. Trump og Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putin. [Trump photo flickr/Michael Vadon] [Putin photo en.kremlin.ru]           

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 26. juni, 2017 – Ud fra rapporter fra det Demokratiske Parti at dømme, er »charmen« ved det britiske spil med at fjerne amerikanske præsidenter, der promoverer det Amerikanske Økonomiske System snarere end imperiets verdensorden, ved at falme. At spille »Russia-gate« mod præsident Donald Trump – McCarthy-isme for æsler – finder ingen støtte hos Demokraternes arbejdervælgere. Og, det udgør en dødbringende trussel, inklusive truslen om verdenskrig, mod USA.

Kina har, i fuldt samarbejde med Rusland, sat Bælte & Vej Initiativet for store infrastrukturprojekter i højeste gear og i realiteten lanceret en ny, økonomisk orden for »win-win«-vækst og udvikling. Skulle USA tilslutte sig Bælte & Vej, ville det ikke kunne standses, og ville også »Gøre Amerika stort igen«.

Præsidenten er blevet udsat for forsøg på afsættelse og endda potentielt mord, fordi han er for netop dette samarbejde og gentagent har udtalt dette.

For at standse dette farlige kupforsøg, bør fokus for indsats ligge på to rækker af møder, der finder sted 10 dage fra i dag, og som vil være med til at afgøre denne nye orden for samarbejde mellem nationer inden for økonomi, videnskab og rumfart.

Alle rapporter går ud på, at præsident Trump ser frem til at holde et fuldt, bilateralt møde – og ikke blot et ’møde på sidelinjen’, men et reelt topmøde – med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin i forbindelse med G20-topmødet i Hamborg, den 7.-8. juli – og ligeledes holde et tilsvarende møde dér med Kinas præsident Xi Jinping. Medier som Independent og Daily Telegraph er ganske oprørte over disse rapporter (der oprindeligt kommer fra Associated Press) og frygter, at Trump og Putin kunne træffe beslutninger angående samarbejde, som Trump og Xi gjorde på Mar-a-Lago.

Schiller Instituttet og China Energy Fund Committee og Fonden for Genoplivelse af Klassisk Kultur afholder samme dag en stor, »Mad for Fred«-konference i New York, med en fremadrettet tanke på Bælte & Vej Initiativet; denne konference vil have fokus på fremskridt inden for fødevareproduktion. Det bliver et betydningsfuldt samarbejde for at bringe Amerika ind i den Nye Silkevej, genoplive Amerikas egen økonomi, teknologi og eget landbrug; landbrugseksperter fra begge lande vil optræde på denne konference.

Disse begivenheders afgørende betydning er, at præsident Trump ikke kan besejre det britiskansporede fremstød for at tvinge ham ud af embedet alene. Det er op til det amerikanske folk at tilbagevise og besejre »Russia-gate«, standse kupforsøget og støtte præsidenten i hans samarbejde med Rusland og Kina for fred og økonomisk udvikling i USA, og i verden.

En succesrig Schiller Institut-konference er lige så afgørende, som præsident Trumps forventede topmøder. Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, og EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, var, for mere end 30 år siden, ophavsmændene til konceptet med den »Eurasiske Landbro«, der nu, gennem Kinas Bælte & ej Initiativ, er i færd med at blive til »Verdenslandbroen«. Dette omfatter en genopbygning af en ny, økonomisk infrastruktur for USA; men for at gøre dette, er Lyndon LaRouches »Fire Love til at redde nationen« afgørende. Disse love omfatter en genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-loven, en ny nationalbank og statslig kreditinstitution i Hamiltons tradition og en genoplivelse af at lægge vægt på rumforskning og den fremskudte grænse for fusionskraft.

Dette er det Amerikanske Økonomiske System, og det er vejen til menneskehedens fælles mål.

Foto: Præsident Donald J. Trump, 21. juni, 2017. (Whitehouse photo)

De nylige trusler mod præsident Trumps liv, der kommer fra mange kendte personer, New York City Public Theatre Company, samt nedskydningen af kongresmedlem Scalise, bør ikke ses som isolerede tilfælde; som forbrydelser, begået af enkeltindivider, der handler af egen vilje. Vi bør snarere af USA’s egen historie lære, at der ikke findes nogen ’enlig skytte’. Det er briterne, der myrder vore præsidenter, af en særlig grund.

Lad os se på de af vore præsidenter, der blev myrdet; hvad er mønstret? Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, JFK og, endskønt han ikke var præsident, men er relevant for os i dag, Alexander Hamilton. Hvad fortæller mordet på disse præsidenter os om vor nations unikke rolle i historien? Hvis man ser på deres handlinger, så anvendte de, eller havde tydeligvis til hensigt at anvende, det Amerikanske Økonomiske System, for at fremme vor nation, og de kæmpede udtrykkeligt mod Det britiske Imperiums gennemførelse af ’frihandel’ i USA. Disse præsidenter vidste, til forskel fra de fleste amerikanere i dag, at Det britiske Imperium er vores fjende, og de vidste, at det var deres job at beskytte vore borgere mod den elendighed, vi ville stå overfor, hvis britisk imperie-frihandel blev praktiseret. Og, hvad der var allervigtigst, så indså de, at britisk frihandel ville kvæle vores mest dyrebare resurse; det amerikanske folks kreative gnist i en naturlig hældning mod at bidrage med vore evner hen imod en positiv og varig virkning på vore efterlevende. Det Amerikanske System opmuntrer udtrykkeligt denne gnist og bruger den til udvikling af gennembrud inden for varefremstilling, landbrug, videnskab og kultur.

I dag henviser præsident Trump udtrykkeligt til Det Amerikanske Økonomiske System som sin politiske programerklæring. Bortset fra Lyndon LaRouche og hans bevægelse, så er der ingen i det 20. århundrede, der har identificeret det Amerikanske Økonomiske System som værende dét princip i vores historie, der fuldstændig adskiller os fra Det britiske Imperium. Trumps plan om at genoplive den produktivitet, vi har mistet i de seneste 50 år, siden mordet på JFK, og hans beredvillighed til at samarbejde med Kina og Rusland om skabelsen af en ny, økonomisk orden, vækker rædsel i briterne. Trumps præsidentskab udgør en trussel mod selve Det britiske Imperiums eksistens. De ved, der ikke er plads til deres Imperium i en ny, international, økonomisk orden på denne planet, og de vil ikke dø uden kamp.

Lær om Lyndon LaRouches fremsættelse af det Amerikanske System, kendt som de Fire Love til USA’s omgående redning, gennem viste videolink, (dansk tekst her) og gå med i LaRouche PAC (Schiller Instituttet, DK!) for at skabe en ny æra for menneskeheden, uden Det britiske Imperium.

Offentliggjort den 24. jun. 2017.     

… Ifølge det Kinesiske Udenrigsministeriums rapport om mødet, responderede præsident Trump til denne udtalelse fra rådgiver Yang ved at sige, at han – præsident Trump – ville være åben over for at samarbejde med Kina om Bælte & Vej Initiativet og hermed relaterede projekter. Han sagde, han er tilfreds med de positive fremskridt, der er sket i de kinesisk-amerikanske relationer, siden sit møde med præsident Xi i Mar-a-Lago. Og han meddelte, at han planlægger at besøge Kina inden for det næste (nuværende) år.

Matthew Ogden: Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Paul Gallagher, redaktør for EIR’s økonomiske stof, og som har været meget aktiv i Washington, D.C., i den eskalerede kamp for genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall og resten af hr. LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love i Hamiltons tradition. Han har mange opdateringer til os på denne front. Og via video har vi Diane Sare, LaRouche PAC Policy koordinator for New York, med os fra Manhattan. Hun har netop skrevet en artikel med titlen, »Gullivers rejse til Manhattan! Kun LaRouches Fire Love og Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ kan løse Manhattans infrastrukturkrise.« (EIR, 23. juni). Som vi alle ved, venter »Helvedessommeren« forude i New York City, mht. transportinfrastruktur.

Jeg vil straks begynde med nogle meget signifikante udviklinger i kampen for at bringe USA ind i den Nye Silkevej, ind i Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ. For det første vil jeg rapportere direkte, at Xinhua, et kinesisk nyhedsmedie, rapporterer, at præsident Donald Trump i går mødtes med Kinas statsrådgiver Yang Jiechi i Det Hvide Hus, og til statsrådgiveren Yang sagde, at USA er villig til at samarbejde om projekter relateret til det kinesiske Bælte & Vej Initiativ. De to havde dette møde i Det Hvide Hus som en del af statsrådgiver Yangs besøg til Washington; dette var et møde på højt niveau. Og, iflg. nyhedsrapporter, sagde Yang til præsident Trump, at Kina var meget tilfreds med, meget glad over og satte meget stor pris på det faktum, at Trump-administrationen havde besluttet at sende en repræsentant på højt plan – Matthew Pottinger – til at deltage i Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing i sidste måned. Vi har rapporteret, at denne repræsentant for USA var en beslutning i sidste sekund fra Trumps side, og at det var en meget god beslutning. Rådgiver Yang sagde også til Donald Trump, at Kina ville være villig til at arbejde sammen med USA om Bælte & Vej Initiativet. Ifølge det Kinesiske Udenrigsministeriums rapport om mødet, responderede præsident Trump til denne udtalelse fra rådgiver Yang ved at sige, at han – præsident Trump – ville være åben over for at samarbejde med Kina om Bælte & Vej Initiativet og hermed relaterede projekter. Han sagde, han er tilfreds med de positive fremskridt, der er sket i de kinesisk-amerikanske relationer, siden sit møde med præsident Xi i Mar-a-Lago. Og han meddelte, at han planlægger at besøge Kina inden for det næste (nuværende) år. Dette blev bekræftet af udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson i en pressekonference, han holdt onsdag. Præsident Trump rapporterede ligeledes, at han ser frem til igen at mødes med præsident Xi Jinping ved G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland, i juli måned. Det var første punkt, og det er naturligvis en meget signifikant udvikling.

Det andet punkt er, at der samtidig, dagen før dette møde mellem præsident Trump og statsrådgiver Yang, var en møde på højt niveau mellem tidligere kinesiske regeringsfolk og amerikanske erhvervsledere på højt niveau, i regi af et bilateralt eller fælles møde, der fandt sted mellem USA’s Handelskammer – der repræsenterer førende, amerikanske erhvervsinteresser – og Kinas Center for Internationale Økonomiske Udvekslinger, der er en regeringstilknyttet tænketank med base i Beijing. Under dette møde udstedte disse to grupper et fælleskommunike, der promoverede fælles samarbejde mellem USA og Kina.

Her følger resten af webcastet på engelsk:

So, I’m going to put on the screen here a picture of this
meeting that occurred [Fig. 1].  As you can see, it’s the 9th
U.S.-China CEO and Former Senior Officials Dialogue; jointly
sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the China Center
for International Economic Exchanges.  What the joint communiqué
reports is that not only would the U.S. businessmen be interested
in joint cooperation on the Belt and Road, but they would also be
interested in cooperation on building U.S. infrastructure here
domestically.  So you can see here a direct quote from their
communiqué.  This is under the subtitle “Strengthening Investment
Cooperation Under the Framework of Belt and Road Initiative and
Through Other Means.”  So, here’s what it says:
“Investment is an important driver of China-U.S. trade
relations and the growth of the two economies.  There is great
potential for the two sides to further expand mutual investment.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which has spurred investment in
infrastructure building, will considerably broaden the space for
Chinese and U.S. investment and open many opportunities for
Chinese and U.S. companies to cooperate in third countries.
Significant participation by U.S. companies, including in
partnership with Chinese companies, can make new contributions to
the furtherance of China-U.S. economic and trade relations.  In
certain areas, U.S. companies can offer the world’s best
technology and management capability, thereby helping to insure
smooth and efficient completion of Belt and Road projects.
Infrastructure building in the U.S. will generate an enormous
need for investment, and the new U.S. administration has
indicated that this is a major priority.  China has strong
capabilities and cost advantages in infrastructure building,
including the building of urban roads, expressways, fly-overs,
high-speed rail, and ports.”
It goes on to say: “Chinese companies and financial
institutions are ready to contribute to this effort through
financing and through the provision of goods and services.
Chinese investment in certain areas of U.S. infrastructure
development has the potential to help strengthen business
relations between the two sides, and in some cases, speed up
completion of the needed projects at lower cost and with greater
efficiency.  Both sides agreed that the two countries can engage
in full cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative and
through a number of other means, including the Asia
Infrastructure Investment Bank, the World Bank, and other
multilateral investment and financing institutions.”
Then it has a subtitle:  “Agreed Action”
“Within the next twelve months, the CCIEE and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce will organize a conference on the Belt and
Road in China or in the United States; which will allow the
Chinese side to brief the U.S. side on the Belt and Road plans,
including initiative content, current progress and projects that
might be appropriate for U.S. company participation, including in
partnership with the Chinese companies.  The U.S. side will brief
the Chinese side on the latest infrastructure developments in the
United States and share reflections on pathways for Chinese
companies to participate in U.S. infrastructure revitalization
initiatives.”
So, this is a very important development.  And now, third,
here’s an article from {China Daily} which reports on a rather
extraordinary forum that happened in San Francisco yesterday,
which was titled “2017: U.S.-China Transportation Cooperation
Forum.”  Before I get to the next slide, just see here, the
beginning of the article.  It’s titled “Chinese Builders Wanted
in the U.S..”  The beginning of the article says, “Chinese
infrastructure techniques are urgently needed to rehabilitate
America’s poorly maintained and in some cases dilapidated bridges
and road system, industry experts from both countries agree.  The
fact that the U.S., the world’s most economically and
technologically powerful country, should import fast-train
know-how from a developing China, reflects a new normal for
China-U.S. cooperation and communication.”  Then, the article
quotes Chinese Consul-General to San Francisco Luo Linquan, who
gave the keynote.  He said, “China and the U.S. cooperation on
the infrastructure front is posed to become the new highlight in
the trade engagement between the two countries.  California along
with its neighboring states has especially close trade relations
with China,” he added. “The import and export volume between this
region and China has mounted to more than $201 billion in 2016.
The One Belt, One Road Initiative was conceived in China,” he
added, “but it provides a global platform for economic
development for all the countries participating.”
So clearly, all three of these are extraordinary
developments, highlighted by this meeting in the White House,
where Donald Trump said — according to Chinese reports — that
the United States would be happy to participate in the Belt and
Road Initiative.  This is clearly coming along very rapidly; and
as Helga LaRouche said when she was briefed on these developments
earlier today, she said “Remember, it was only three years ago,
in 2014, that the LaRouche movement put out the call for the
United States to join the Silk Road.”  I think you can remember
the pamphlet that was printed by the LaRouche Political Action
Committee that was called “A Hamiltonian Vision for the Future of
the United States:  The United States Joins the New Silk Road.”
But Helga LaRouche said, at that point — 2014 — this idea was
almost unheard of.  But now, as you can see from these
developments and otherwise, this initiative has really gained
prominence and is becoming a dominant reality.  It is very
urgently needed.  “We’ve seen a very significant victory,” she
said, “on this front; and we should recognize it as such.”  She
said, “I think an appropriate for this is ‘Ideas Matter; Ideas
Shape History’.”
I think you can really expect the consolidation of this with
the meeting between Trump and Xi at the G20 summit in July.  And
I think we can also see some dramatic developments between the
potential for a bilateral meeting — and this is becoming more
solid as the days go on — between Trump and Putin.  But, as the
lead article on the LaRouche PAC website states very clearly
today, although it’s widely expected that President Trump and
President Putin will meet for the first time on the sidelines of
this G20 summit, it’s very clear that the opponents of this
world-changing event of the United States-Russia-China
cooperation, are doing everything they can in an hysterical
fashion, to try to undermine this before it ever happens, to
force the cancellation, to cause it to become totally hostile, or
to cause there to be no positive progress that can be made out of
such a summit.  You see this crazy Russian sanctions bill that
was rammed through the Senate 98-2; you can see the efforts by
the U.S. forces shooting down this Syrian jet over Syrian
territory, which has the potential to develop very rapidly.  This
forced the Russians to again terminate the non-confliction
hotline between the United States and Russia.  You can see Steve
Mnuchin’s efforts to levy new sanctions against 38 Russian and
Ukrainian firms and individuals.  Then you can see this F-16 that
buzzed the military aircraft that was carrying Russian Defense
Minister Shoigu.  All of these are very dangerous, and are
obviously planned to try to derail any potential for a positive
relationship between the United States and Russia.
One only has to read this hysterical article in the
{Washington Post} today, “Obama’s Secret Struggle to Punish
Russia for Putin’s Election Assault,” which only continues this
false narrative.

PAUL GALLAGHER:  Not so secret.

OGDEN:  Not so secret.  So, that gives you a picture of
where we stand, but a very optimistic picture, as Helga LaRouche
underlined; if we see in terms of the potential for this United
States New Silk Road, New Paradigm consolidation.  But it’s very
urgent that this happen as well.  That was why I asked both Paul
and Diane to join me on the show today.
First, I’d like to ask Diane to go through a little bit of
what you have in this article.  As I said, it’s titled “Gulliver
Travels to Manhattan! Only LaRouche’s Four Laws and the Belt and
Road Can Save Manhattan Infrastructure Crisis.”  So Diane.

DIANE SARE:  Sure.  I was inspired, if one can call it that,
by my attendance at a Cranes, New York real estate conference,
where they had three panels.  The way it was billed was that —
and they had the CEO of the Port Authority, and the building
trades union, and Staten Island and Brooklyn.  And given what’s
about to happen here, which people may or may not be aware of,
basically we are at a total breakdown point in the greater
Manhattan area.  During the day in Manhattan, you have about 3.1
million people; at night, it’s about 1.8 million.  There’s
something between 1.5 million and 1.8 million who commute into
the city to the island of Manhattan on a daily basis.  That’s a
very large traffic flow.  Penn Station handles about 650,000
people a day; I think that’s triple what it was built for.
Similarly, every other major transit point, whether it’s coming
in from Long Island and Brooklyn across the East River, or coming
in from New Jersey on the western side, everything is completely
overloaded; at or well above capacity.  So now, the system itself
is anywhere from 70 to 100 years old, and very little maintenance
or repair or upgrading has been done.  We’re using switching
systems which were built before World War II largely; I think
they’ve modernized one line so far, and another one will be done
in a few years.  It really is insane.
So, I went to this conference, because starting on July 10,
since there were two train derailments in early April in Penn
Station on the tracks there, they’ve decided they cannot put off
repairing those tracks.  But of course, to repair tracks, then
you cannot use them while you’re repairing them.  They’re saying
they’re going to have to reduce the traffic coming in from Long
Island by 20%; I don’t know what the percentage is from New
Jersey, but it’s probably something similar or greater.  I know
the commuter routes from Essex and Morris Counties, which include
commuters coming in from Pennsylvania who go to various places
and then take a train into Penn Station, that’s all going to be
rerouted into Hoboken; the PATH system which is also overloaded.
At any rate, these repairs start on the 10th of July, and they’re
going to be going on for at least six weeks or longer.  Who
really knows, frankly?
There’s no redundancy.  This is a system that any section of
it that you shut down, if you’re talking about transit points
that are already functioning or not functioning I should say, at
over capacity.  And you’re going to add 20% more traffic, or 30%
more traffic, or 50% more traffic to it; you could have a total
breakdown of everything.  None of the plans I’ve seen so far
really are adequate.  I don’t know what they’re going to do as
they get closer; maybe they’re going to have to have people come
into work on rotating shifts, people’s hours are going to change,
I don’t know.  But at any rate, I was hoping that this conference
might address it.  What I heard there — and it’s not as though
these speakers were completely incompetent or were not aware of
the crisis in some way — but what you saw was that people’s
thinking has been so warped.  One, as I said in the article, by
this Bertrand Russell legacy that there’s no such thing as a
creative idea, or a new idea; but that everything is an algebraic
system of linear deduction.  Of course, from that standpoint, you
could never conceptualize where this region should be in 50 or
100 years.
So, the things that they were proposing be done, like
turning Rikers Island into a part of LaGuardia Airport —
LaGuardia Airport, as people may know who have travelled into New
York, is very much overloaded.  They don’t have the space for the
number of flights that are coming in, and they’re projecting that
by 2030 there will be another 30 million people per year trying
to fly into the city.  So, how do you handle this?  They said,
well we need 75 more flight operations per hour.  Taking over all
of Rikers Island for this and a new wastewater treatment plant,
only gives you an increase of 30 more flight operations per hour.
So, why would you do that?  What is the point of investing in
something that doesn’t even meet either the current needs or what
you are projecting?  It’s really insane.  So, you have that
factor; and the other factor is the funding, which I think Paul
may deal with more; but the idea that everything can only be done
through public-private partnerships.  As people know, my
colleague Bill Roberts has an article in the same issue of {EIR}
about the Soo Locks, where of course they figured out in 1986
that this is a key transshipment point for coal and other things
in the United States; and they really needed to be repaired and
modernized.  So, this was approved in 1986, but they concluded
that you’d only make back 75 cents on the dollar of what was
invested.  Clearly by Bertrand Russell-type methods, where it’s
all linear, because if you cause 11 million people to be
unemployed, which is what would happen if this thing wasn’t done,
that’s not taken into account.
Similarly, the speaker at this conference from Brooklyn,
showed pictures of the damage from Hurricane Sandy, which were
horrific; I was here in New Jersey when that occurred.  We didn’t
have electricity for about two weeks; it was very damaging, very
devastating.  There were several proposals made in 2009 at a
conference in Manhattan for storm surge barriers.  My favorite
was a five-mile one that went from Sandy Hook in New Jersey to
the Rockaways.  So you go across the whole area before you even
get to Staten Island, and it would have an underground tunnel and
it would have gates that came up; but normally the ocean would be
flowing through.  I think that would cost something like $6
billion.  I can see these silly accountants with their
mathematical methods saying $6 billion, what’s the profit?  Well,
how about saving $80 billion?  $6 billion versus $80 billion in
damage when you get one of these storms.  But nonetheless, they
decided not to build it, and we got what we got with Hurricane
Sandy.  So, because of the way people think in terms of
worshipping money, as opposed to seeing money as a means of
credit generation, or as a means of figuring out how to measure
the cost of an improvement that you need; which will lead
ultimately to the increase in the productivity of your
population.
What does it mean when you say we want our standard of
living to be higher?  Well, that doesn’t mean having seven
television sets in every room as opposed to one, or something
like that.  When you say the standard of living, we mean things
like life expectancy, being free from disease, being better
educated.  How many Americans speak only one language, and maybe
that’s an exaggeration to say that Americans even speak a
language.  Many people now do not have a very good command of the
English language, which is our language in this country.  In
other words, how many Americans know how to read music?  How many
Americans have conducted basic scientific experiments in school;
have ever tried to make a painting or a work of art or write a
poem?  In other words, by standard of living you mean that
there’s a life expectancy which allows for a young person to be
educated to the age of 22, 25, 28; and then that person has an
adult lifespan in which they’re still developing and learning.
You can get human beings developing a quality of genius which
contributes to the future for all mankind.
The only reason for money, is to create a situation where
you can think in those terms.  That the people living 100 and 200
years from now will live longer, be healthier, be better
educated, and be better; which is what you would want.  Who
really wants to be the best of all time?  That means, in effect,
that your life is meaningless, if everything coming after you is
going to be worse than you.  So, that’s the point of economy; but
none of these people was thinking that way at all.  It really
struck me that here we are sitting on potential complete chaos;
you already had two weeks ago, there was a subway that got stuck,
and it didn’t have air conditioning because the power was out.
So you had people packed in this car, and the temperatures were
getting to 100 degrees, it was like a sauna in there.  No one
could move for 45 minutes and they were on the brink — as you
might imagine — of getting completely panicked.  Happily, no one
had a heart attack or other medical disaster, but it does make
people nervous.  A few days ago, another subway car was stalled
out, so people went out the back exit and got down on the track
and started walking to the station.  That’s extremely dangerous.
What happens if you lose all order because people just panic
because they don’t know if they’re going to reach their
destination?  They don’t want to be stuck in a subway for hours
on end.  We’re really on the brink of a situation like that.
People would be prepared to tolerate hardship if they knew that
there was a plan to actually address it.
For example, if President Trump, as a result of his
dialogues with Xi Jinping and President Putin, were to say “Look,
we actually think the Bering Strait tunnel should be built within
the next decade; and we’re going to launch a crash program with
China and Russia to develop high-speed rail corridors across the
United States.  So that Manhattan really should be connected with
Paris; and that’s something that will happen.  I’m going to
initiate that in my Presidency, and it’s something that will be
completed during a future administration.”  Now knowing Trump,
he’d probably say “Well, it has to be done within my first term.”
But at any rate, what would that mean for Manhattan?  What kind
of infrastructure would you want to have in place?  If you had
high-speed rail connecting Washington D.C., Philadelphia,
Manhattan, New York City, and Boston, then you would know that
you might have a free flow of people in the entire northeastern
coastline — this huge metropolitan area — because you’re
talking about taking an hour to travel from D.C. to New York.
So, what does that mean?  What do you want New York City to look
like under those circumstances?  Maybe we have to consider taking
advantage of this massive 22% of New Jersey’s land areas in the
Pine Barrens, and convert part of that into a large city where
part of the population of New York City could be relocated, while
you build something which is actually appropriate.  But no one is
thinking in this way.
Apparently, plans have been made, as we know with the Soo
Locks, plans have been made.  There are engineers who are highly
competent who are aware of these things, who know that there are
limits on the life expectancy of cast iron and things like that.
They may have long life expectancies, but there is a point at
which things begin to corrode and things like that.  So, plans
have been made, plans exist.  But where do you get the funding to
implement it?  What is the magnitude of these plans?  If the
population were aware that such a thing existed, that is was
going to be set into motion, then people would be prepared to put
up with a certain amount of hardship; probably very happily,
knowing that their children were going to live in a much more
beautiful and functioning location than we currently do now.
So, this is the battle.  And I think Matt, what you reported
just at the beginning of this show, in terms of the commitment of
President Trump to work with the Chinese, the commitment of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce explicitly to collaborate with the Belt
and Road Initiative; this is extremely promising, and should
absolutely be promoted.

OGDEN:  Well, I think those scare stories you have from New
York City should probably encourage people that this is a rather
urgent initiative.  I know from talking to Paul, that you have a
few more scare stories that you might want to share with us.  I’m
going to just let you go through a few of those also.

GALLAGHER:  Well, I’m going to come back to this.  I wanted
to just briefly sketch the fight around Glass-Steagall; but I’m
going to come back to this in particular on the character of the
PPPs — public-private partnerships — as actually “poison pill
policy,” which is really threatening this entire potential for
collaboration, China-U.S. collaboration both on the Belt and
Road, and also starting with the Bering Strait Tunnel.  Also in
regard to infrastructure in North America and infrastructure in
the United States.
But on Glass-Steagall, let me just indicate, you have a very
stark comparison in terms of infrastructure investment between
the United States and China.  In the United States, about $300
billion is invested in infrastructure every year, and that is,
every school, every hospital, every road job, every subdivision’s
new sewer and water and optical fiber, and so forth — that is
absolutely everything, public, private, local, Federal, amounts
to about that much investment.  In China, the four major state
banks which provide the credit for the infrastructure
breakthroughs that have been made in China, those four banks
issue about $140 billion worth of credit annually for high-speed
rail in China alone.  And just that form of advanced
infrastructure and just that public investment by those four
national banks:  the Exim Bank, the China Development Bank, the
other China policy banks, as they’re called.  That investment in
just high-speed rail is half of the total investment made by the
United States — public, private, in every form, on every kind of
infrastructure and every public band-aide that’s put on, and
claimed as infrastructure, every year.
In addition, those banks in China have invested and
committed $300 billion just in the three years since the Belt and
Road Initiative of President Xi began to take off, and that $300
billion invested and committed by those banks is outside China.
So that’s going on simultaneously with the large-scale
investments in completely frontier, including things like maglev
subways, in the major cities of China, and there are many, many,
many major cities in China as people know.
So this is widely in the financial press in the United
States and Europe, the old imperial liberal order defends itself
by saying, “This credit issuance of China can’t possibly be
sustained.  There will be a tremendous, earthshattering collapse
of all of this infrastructure credit, because the banks — it has
dwarfed even what the Federal Reserve has done for the banks
here, and for a good purpose, and it can be sustained; it’ll all
blow up.”  There is a very fundamental difference here, though,
in that China, for the last 20 years has had bank separation; it
has many shadow banks, it has a lot of investment companies
involved in broker-dealers, but they are completely separated
from the both private commercial banking system, which they want
to build up further, and also from this kind of public banking.
So that these banks are not involved in the $550 trillion
derivatives exposure of the banks in London and New York.  These
banks are not involved in securities speculation.  They are able
to handle bankruptcies; they’re able to handle non-performing
loans when they appear in various sectors as the economy
develops.  So, Glass-Steagall, although they don’t call that law
“Glass-Steagall” in China, that bank separation is important to
what they are able to do and the fact that they’ve been doing it
now for 20 years on a level of spending nearly 9% of their GDP on
new infrastructure every year, for more than 20 years.  Compare
that to the United States, which spends about 1.3% of its GDP now
on infrastructure annually. They’ve been able to do that, and
keep it up.
Now, we’ve been fighting for Glass-Steagall in Washington.
It’s really taken on much more of the characteristics of a good
brawl, in the recent weeks.  It’s become a big public fight, for
one thing, where you have on the one hand, especially for the
last two months, three months,  — on the one hand, you have all
the financial press and the major national {Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post, New York Times}, running all kinds of editorials
and op-eds on why Glass-Steagall is not necessary, why it’s
terrible, why it’s completely outdated;  it was only repealed 20
years ago, but it’s completely outdated, practically a relic of
the Middle Ages, why it didn’t have anything to do with the crash
in 2008, and so on and so forth.  You have that going on, you
have think tanks in Washington, like Heritage Foundation and
American Enterprise Institute running whole events which consist
of nothing but examining Glass-Steagall.  I went to one recently,
at the American Enterprise Institute, where six different
speakers were attacking Glass-Steagall.  The only person in the
room who was fighting for Glass-Steagall was me, and I was not
one of the speakers.
So you have these kinds of attacks on it, but also the
sponsors.  The main sponsors of the House bill, Marcy Kaptur (D)
of Ohio, Walter Jones (R) of North Carolina, the Republican main
sponsor, have started to really fight publicly.  They had a
public press conference when they introduced the bill three and a
half months ago with 25 sponsors.  They now have about 55
sponsors as a result of fighting for it publicly since then.
This is a much faster rate of getting sponsors onto the bill than
was the case in the last session, where eventually there were
about 85 sponsors after two years of work.  But in this case, the
week before last they had a congressional briefing for the staffs
of Congressmen throughout the House, about somewhere between 35
and 40 other Congressmen sent their staffs to this briefing, so
it was really quite a packed event in one of the office
buildings, to take notes and report back to their Members of
Congress.  And not only Kaptur and Jones, but also experts from
the AFL-CIO, from the Americans for Financial Reform, from Public
Citizen; Nomi Prins, an independent, former investment banker and
author on banking, independent expert — they all testified.  And
this is causing a tremendous amount of discussion throughout the
House in particular.
On the Senate side, the leading sponsors have all made it a
point to draw out the Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, and make
it clear that what he was advising Donald Trump to do during the
campaign essentially, was not the real Glass-Steagall or anything
like it; but rather Mnuchin’s advice to Trump during his
campaign, was to talk about Glass-Steagall while Mnuchin
privately was designing something which was really Wall Street
deregulation like the bill that recently passed the House.
So the fact that they have really broken Mnuchin down on
this and made him say “No, no, no, I don’t believe in anything
like separating commercial and investment banking.”  This has
also dramatically clarified issues for people in both the Senate
and the House.  And secondly, we have begun to get close to the
mobilization of large organizations, large trade unions,
coalition organizations like Public Citizen, and in this I don’t
mean them endorsing Glass-Steagall, I mean them mobilizing their
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of members to demand this from
Congress.  We’ve come very close to getting to that stage, and in
particular you saw last week a broadcast that Public Citizen ran
on their Facebook page with Rep. Marcy Kaptur, in which they were
motivating and calling on their reportedly 400,000 members to go
after Congress to get this.
So the objective is to get from the 55 sponsors now to 100
— fast.  Because it’s not so important in the Senate, to pile up
a lot of sponsors — there are only a 100 Senators. It’s very
important in the House, when the leadership of both parties is
against Glass-Steagall, which they are: Both the Republican and
the Democratic leadership do not want to see it; the Democratic
leadership wants to cling onto this failed Dodd-Frank Bill, and
pretend that Obama came up with something nice there.  And the
Republican leadership wants to give Wall Street every kind of
deregulation that they’ve ever asked for.
So in that situation, it is crucial to get to 100 sponsors.
This is the stated objective of the major sponsors in the House
and when they do that, then they really want to go public and
start to hold the kind of press conferences and press bugging of
other Members which will get widely covered in the media and
really  make this into a bigger brawl.
So that’s just an indication of some of the things we have
been getting going.  And one of the arguments that Jones and
Kaptur have started to use, for example when they — I didn’t
mention this, but they also went to the Rules Committee when it
was marking up this crazy Republican deregulation bill called the
“Financial CHOICE Act.”  They went to the Rules Committee with an
amendment that said, strike CHOICE Act, take it away, and put
Glass-Steagall reinstatement in its place, and that’s our
amendment.” So they got to make a fight in front of the Rules
Committee on that.
But they’ve begun to make the very coherent argument that
not only did Glass-Steagall’s elimination lead directly to the
crash in 2008; there’s no need to go over this now, it’s the most
obvious thing in the world to most thinking Americans.  It’s like
the guy who ate nothing but McDonalds food for four months and
after four or five months his organs were failing, he was
catastrophically obese, he was near death!  And this is like
saying “there was no connection, there were other factors that
brought this guy into this condition.  It wasn’t the McDonald’s
Big Macs that he was eating.”  That’s what it amounts to to tell
Americans that less than 10 years after getting rid of
Glass-Steagall, the whole banking system blew up simultaneously,
which has never, for all of the major banks to be bankrupt at the
same time, as Ben Bernanke admitted they were, has never happened
in the entire history of the United States.  It took less than 10
years without Glass-Steagall to bring that about.
So they also are now arguing that the period in which
Glass-Steagall was in effect, which is also the period in which
the biggest infrastructure investments in new infrastructure in
the United States were being made, from the ’20s, up through the
end of the ’60s and into the ’70s, that that was a golden era of
productivity in the United States.  We had a banking system then,
which concentrated not only on loaning to  — but you see it in
many examples of the history of that period — concentrating on
making commercial and industrial loans to businesses for
expansion and for participation in major projects.  You don’t
have that kind of a banking system without Glass-Steagall;
instead, you have a banking system which wants to underwrite bond
issues for only the biggest corporations, with which they can
play around with their stock prices and so on.  And it brings the
entire economy down.
It gets us right back — and they’re making now the right
argument and very powerful argument, that if we want to rebuild
the United States, and particularly build new, frontier new
infrastructure in the United States, we have to have a commercial
banking system which is separated from securities broker-dealing
and speculation in the derivatives markets; and which is
concentrating on household lending and commercial and industrial
lending to the companies participating in these great projects.
Now, public-private partnership is, again, back to Treasury
Secretary Mnuchin, the conference that was held in Washington
last week, SelectUSA, which was a conference trying to get
foreign investment in the United States.  So this is the Treasury
Department; you’ve already given the context for this, along with
what Diane reported, in terms of the imminent potential,
absolutely imminent potential for large-scale investment,
particularly from China in an infrastructure build in the United
States.  instead, what the Treasury Secretary went there and
offered was, he said:  We want this kind of investment and
public-private partnerships are critical.
Suffice it to say, never in the United States has a major
infrastructure project or major new element of the infrastructure
of the United States, {never} has such a thing been constructed
with a public-private partnership, let alone by private
investment alone.  The Transcontinental Railroad was by no means
a public-private partnership.  And these things simply don’t
work.  The investors in them want their capital back in 10 years,
and they want 10-12% rates of interest in their invested capital
during that 10 years.  Well, that means they want it back, if
it’s anything major, while the thing is still not finished, and
still not being used to a full extent; and they want to
absolutely rob the public taxpayers whose money is going into
such a project.  It simply cannot work, and it will sabotage
foreign investment in new infrastructure building in the United
States if this method is used.
We have a threadbare public investment in infrastructure
now.  What President Trump has spoken about, the time has run out
for him and for the Congress to implement it.  They have to now
create, immediately, a National Bank on the order of $1-2
trillion in capital, in the way that Alexander Hamilton and his
successors in the American System built such National Banks
starting in 1790, through the 19th century.  They have to create
such a bank {now}, so that there is a credit institution here, to
cooperate with the credit institutions like those in China that I
was discussing earlier.
Otherwise, we are really facing disaster.  I’ll give you an
example:  I went to  a Congressional hearing yesterday and talked
to some of the witnesses who were involved in exactly trying to
organize some of the infrastructure developments that Diane
indicated are so needed in the New York area.  One of them is a
bridge over the Hackensack River near Secaucus, New Jersey,
called the Portal Bridge, which is 108 years old.  It was
designed in the 19th century, completed in 1910.  It has ships go
under it by splitting the bridge, but opening as a drawbridge.
All of the rail traffic, freight and passenger, between Florida
and Massachusetts goes over that bridge — all of it!  And that
bridge, when they open it to get a ship go through, when they try
to close it now, 9 times out 10, according to the fellow who
spoke to me there, 9 times out of 10 it doesn’t close properly,
so that rails don’t align.  And they then send workers out on the
concrete abutment of the bridge with sledgehammers, and they
hammer at the iron trusses of the bridge to get the rails to
align.
All that it would take is for them to be able to unable to
get them to align, once, and as he estimated, that would be a
single-point loss of potentially 10% of U.S. gross domestic
product.  Right there.
And then you have, in the Poe Lock, the potential failure of
the Poe Lock between Lake Superior into Lake Huron, and the whole
Mesabi Iron Range, and all of the ships which are carrying all of
the strategic metals, the iron, the coal coming out of Northern
Minnesota, Ontario, the Mesabi Range, all of that would be
stopped:  another 10% of the gross domestic product of the United
States would be frozen and they estimated up to 11 million jobs
would be lost.
So you say, “well of course, they’re replacing this bridge
at Hackensack,” but actually, they’re not!  They don’t have the
funds!  They have a plan, it’s all worked out, it’s engineered,
but the replacement is not under way.
So you have here, the makings of a movie you could call it,
a suspense thriller: “The Bridge over the Hackensack River.”  But
with 10% of the U.S. economy hanging on the guys banging those
rails back into place, but there is not any funding arranged to
replace that bridge.  And you can multiply that for all the other
things that have to be done.
We’re very far from the frontier, national high-speed rail
network, nuclear desalination plants, the Western water
management systems,  — we’re very far from the frontiers in
space infrastructure that we have to be building. We’re actually
threadbare in terms of just continuing to use, and have an
economy, what we already have.
So there’s no time at all left, for these wonderful
prospects by the discussions with the Chinese now at the highest
level, between President Trump and one of the tope people in the
Chinese government, State Councilor Yang Jiechi, for these
wonderful prospects to be backed up by the institution which
issues credit for the United States, a Hamiltonian bank for
investment.  It must be formed.  It must come out of the Congress
with the drive from the White House in order to get it done.

OGDEN:  As you said, time is running out: We’re five months
now into the Trump administration, and you highlighted the role
of Steve Mnuchin:  I think this continues to be a very bad
element in the Trump administration.  And the kind of support
that Trump gained from his support for Glass-Steagall during the
Presidential election campaign, is something that has now — that
has to become visible.  That has to become a visible, vocal, sort
of element from the population, from the constituency.  And I
just want to put on the screen the URL that we have for the
mobilization that we have for H.R.790: That’s the bill that’s in
the House, the “Return to Prudent Banking Act” —

GALLAGHER:  The Glass-Steagall bill.

OGDEN:  Which was introduced by Marcy Kaptur and Walter
Jones.  This is the return to Glass-Steagall.  As you can see,
this is the website:  http://lpac.co/hr790  And I think that this
goal of reaching 100 cosponsors in a very short amount of time,
is a very tangible goal that we can mobilize for, along with this
vision of, the United States joining the New Silk Road.  But
Paul, as I think you just laid out very clearly, that is
impossible without Glass-Steagall.  You cannot set up the kind of
national credit institutions, the national banking credit
institutions that would channel that kind of joint investment
into this infrastructure in the United States, without this
critical first step of the return to Glass-Steagall.
One thing I wanted to ask you about, Paul, is just the
prognosis on how close we could be to another disastrous blowout
of the trans-Atlantic banking system.  I know Nomi Prins did an
interview a few months ago with you, where she highlighted a few
of these things with the corporate debt bubble.  But that’s
something that Marcy Kaptur cited in her testimony to the Rules
Committee, and I think that element of urgency is also necessary
to put in here.
[https://larouchepac.com/20170319/interview-nomi-prins]

GALLAGHER:  We don’t know how much time, because it’s
impossible to put a finger on a date when a really huge and
increasing unproductive debt bubble, in this case, as
Representative Kaptur identified, the corporate debt bubble in
the United States, when it’s going to blow up.  But, the size of
corporate debt in the United States has doubled in seven years,
from about $7 to about $14 trillion, with really the great
majority of that tremendous debt expansion being used for what
they call “financial engineering” by large companies: Meaning
buying back their own stock, mergers and acquisitions, finding
ways to increase the dividends they give to their stockholders,
increasing their own executive compensation — all of this kind
of financial engineering has used in various years up to 80-85%
of this new corporate debt.
What has really suffered in the process has been business
capital investment and the commercial and industrial lending,
which it depends on. So that that tremendously expanding bubble
has stopped expanding.  And this has been noted  rather suddenly,
by everybody from the IMF to individual bank research teams,
since April of this year, that suddenly that tremendous expansion
has stopped; as happens with an immense bubble that’s about to
explode, and it started to shrink.  And there was a report put
out by UBS bank in Switzerland about two weeks ago which caused a
certain amount of alarm, because they found that what they call
the “credit impulse,” had gone negative in the last six months —
they’re talking globally now — meaning that the second
derivative, the rate of the rate of growth of business lending
around the world had suddenly in the last six months become
negative.  And that is something which virtually always points to
a bubble about to collapse.
This is a very huge one, indeed.  The IMF estimated that if
interest rates were to go up sharply in the United States, 20% of
all the companies in the United States would default.  That’s way
above the rate of defaults on mortgages even at the worst 10
years ago; and the whole thing would come crashing down.
So we need the reorganization of the banking system,
urgently, for that reason, also in order to make the commercial
banking side of it proof against this kind of a blowout.  And so
you don’t have, again, a situation in which the bankruptcy of any
investment bank, let’s say, becomes, almost overnight, the
bankruptcy of every major U.S. based bank as happened in late
September 2008.

OGDEN:  I would say, this is real policy.  This is what
anybody who’s serious is discussing right now.  And the failed
decision by the Democratic Party, for example, to just be the
party of resistance, is increasingly proven to be an increasingly
proven to be very ill-advised policy.  And I think even Sen.
Chris Murphy made some headlines this week where he said:  Look,
none of my constituents are talking about “Russia,” when I go
home.  They’re talking about jobs, drugs, poverty.  They’re
talking about exactly what we’re discussing here!  Hmm, gee,
maybe we shouldn’t be pumping anti-Putin propaganda all day every
day.
So, I wanted to ask Diane, you know, we’ve had some
surprising reports — or surprising for some — from the streets
of Manhattan, where you would assume because of the 24-hour-a-day
anti-Putin propaganda that people are being inundated with, that
this would be the only thing that’s on people’s minds.  But as we
saw, the reality on the ground in New York is the collapsing
infrastructure.  This is what people are actually interested in
talking about.  And we’ve had some rather surprising readings
from the population there in New York and northern New Jersey, in
the recent weeks.

SARE:  Sure.  We’ve had numbers of teams set up by the
roadside in New Jersey or right in the middle of the large
sidewalks in Manhattan, with giant signs saying “Defend Trump.
Stop Here.  Donald can’t do it alone, join LaRouche PAC.  The
U.S. must join the Belt and Road.  Russia-Gate Is a Comey Plot!”
And many people are coming up to our tables and we’re actually
getting a very hot response, much more intense than at any period
since the election, with people coming over saying, “You know, I
thought I was the only one.  The propaganda is so intense, I
don’t dare to say that I supported Trump at my workplace.”
We had a very strong response also in Connecticut, Long
Island, Jersey and Manhattan per se, where we are getting this
type of response.
And I also just wanted to add, in light of this crazy
continuing of the story about the alleged Russian hacking which
somehow caused people to change their mind on how they were
voting.  Remember we did just did have the special election for
Congress, in South Carolina and Georgia, where the Democratic
candidates, one of whom I think spent $33 million or some
absolutely obscene amount of money, and still lost the election.
And it’s not because the Republican candidates were so brilliant;
it’s because the population has really had it and this is where,
if President Trump moves in a very big way, very public way to
embrace the Chinese offer, to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act so
we can have a sane banking system, and to launch some of these
infrastructure projects on a Federal basis, you would just see an
incredible upsurge of support.  And most of this vicious,
including assassination threats and so forth, these attacks on
the President, would simply evaporate and the people that persist
would be shown for the paid agents of the British Empire and
George Soros that they are.

OGDEN:  I think it was clearly said by Helga LaRouche:  We
have a very significant victory to claim, I think both in terms
of the further consolidation of this idea that the United States
should join the New Silk Road, and the fact that these
discussions are now going on at the very highest level between
the United States and China.  But also in terms of this fight for
Glass-Steagall and as Paul said, this is something that LaRouche
PAC has been directly involved in, on the forefront of leading
for year — 2008, 2009?  Lyndon LaRouche’s call at that time was
for a complete bankruptcy reorganization of the economy.  It was
initially the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act and that became
this idea of the Four Laws.

GALLAGHER: August 2007 was the Homeowners and Bank
Protection Act.

OGDEN:  That’s right. So now we’re coming up on 10 years!  I
think that’s widely recognized, the leadership that the LaRouche
movement has played, including on Capitol Hill from the sponsors
of this legislation.  So this decision now to mobilize and to
really enter into a brawl, the fight is on on that front and we
have a responsibility to pour as much as we can, from around the
country, in mobilizing on that front, too.
I think that’s a good conclusion for our webcast here,
today.  Thank you Diane, for joining us from New York, and thank
you very much Paul for joining me here.

GALLAGHER: A pleasure.

OGDEN:  Stay tuned to larouchepac.com and we’ll talk to you
soon.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, stifter og formand for Schiller Instituttet, indspillede denne videotale den 16. juni til en Schiller Institut-konference i Detroit, USA, den 17. juni, 2017.

Vi befinder os stadigvæk i den menneskelige races udviklings barndom. Jeg mener, vi er meget heldige at leve og kunne forme fremtiden på dette tidspunkt; men jeg mener, at det mest afgørende aspekt for, at hele dette perspektiv skal lykkes, er: Få det amerikansk-kinesiske samarbejde om de Nye Silkevej til at fungere i den umiddelbart forestående periode.  

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 22. juni, 2017 – Der er en udbredt forventning om, at præsidenterne Trump og Putin vil mødes personligt for første gang, blot to uger og én dag fra i dag, på sidelinjen af G20-topmødet i Hamborg, 7.-8. juli. Dette møde har potentiale til at blive en begivenhed, der forandrer verden. Den russiske senator Alexander Pushkov sagde den 20. juni, at dette møde, hvis det finder sted, vil blive højdepunktet af G20. »Meget vil afhænge af dette møde«, sagde han, og »det er grunden til, at det allevegne imødeses med så store forventninger – fra Tallin til Lissabon, fra Beijing til Kairo«. Jo, det er afgørende vigtigt – og alligevel taler ingen om det! Det »skjuler sig for alle at se«, et begreb, som Lyndon LaRouche ofte har nævnt, fra Edgar Allan Poes historie ’The Purloined Letter’ (Det stjålne brev).

Vore modstandere i den britiske imperiefraktion siger absolut ingenting om dette snarlige Trump-Putin-topmøde, fordi de er forfærdelig bange for, hvad der kunne ske dér. For hvorfor skulle de neokonservative og neoliberale ellers i så mange måneder have løjet, så det driver, om, at præsident Trump og hans medarbejdere på en eller anden måde skulle være russiske agenter? Nu er dette forventede topmøde, der hastigt nærmer sig, så vigtigt, at de nægter så meget som bare at nævne det!

I stedet har de åbenlyst gjort ting, i forsøg på at få Trump-Putin-mødet aflyst – eller, hvis de ikke kan få det aflyst, da at forsøge at sikre, at det bliver ødelagt, og at det blive fuldstændig fjendtligt, så der ikke kan udvikle sig nogen positiv, personlig relation.

Det er baggrunden for, at et sindssygt lovforslag om russiske sanktioner blev banket igennem Senatet gennem et skævt 98-2 flertal for blot en uge siden i dag – og dernæst fejlagtigt benævnt som »Trump-sanktioner« af de løgagtige, britiskkørte medier – til trods for, at Trump-administrationen er modstander af loven og forsøger at standse den, før den vedtages som lov. Det er også grunden til, at amerikanske styrker nedskød et syrisk jetfly den 18. juni, hvilket tvang russerne til atter at afslutte den hotline, gennem hvilken amerikanske og russiske styrker havde ’dekonfliktet’ – altså reduceret risikoen for sammenstød mellem fly og luftskyts i et område ved at koordinere deres bevægelser – deres operationer i Syrien. Det var af denne grund, at Steve Mnuchins Finansministerium den 20. juni gennemtvang sanktioner mod 38 russiske og ukrainske firmaer og individer og herved tvang Rusland til at aflyse et planlagt møde mellem viceudenrigsminister Ryabkov og USA’s understatssekretær i Udenrigsministeriet, Shannon. Og hvis F-16 fly var det, der cirkulerede rundt om den russiske forsvarsminister Shoigus fly, blot i går?[1] Og hvilke, endnu værre forræderiske handlinger vil disse folk begå i morgen, i deres hysteri over udsigten til bedre relationer mellem USA og Rusland?

Disse dystre kræfter har nægtet at anerkende det amerikanske folks forfatningsmæssige valgbeslutning fra dag ét, og de nægter stadigvæk. De af os, der støtter præsidenten og Forfatningen, må træde frem for at knuse de forræderiske kræfter, og for at støtte præsidenten i at opnå sine mål gennem at slutte USA til Rusland og Kina i den Nye Silkevej og genskabe amerikansk infrastruktur gennem massiv statskredit, og i partnerskab med Kina, gennem Lyndon LaRouches »Fire Nye Love« fra juni 2014. Og, i morgen kunne være for sent.

En yderligere indikation på de britisk-elskende lags hysteri ved udsigten til et samarbejde mellem Putin og Trump kan findes i den tyske finansminister Schäubles bemærkninger den 20. juni (da han modtog Henry Kissinger-prisen):

»Jeg tvivler på, at USA virkelig tror på, at verden ville være lige så god, hvis Kina eller Rusland udfyldte svælgene, efterladt af USA, og hvis Kina og Rusland simpelt hen fik frie hænder til at dominere de indflydelsessfærer, de har defineret for sig selv. Det ville være afslutningen af vores liberale verdensorden.«

Han lyver, og han ved, at han lyver – men kan I ikke føle hysteriet bag hans løgne?

Foto: Vladimir Putin holdt et møde med regeringsmedlemmer om forholdsregler til beskyttelse af rettigheder hos folk, der er involveret i byggeprojekter med delt egenkapital, og om at definere den juridiske status for folk, der er selvstændige erhvervsdrivende. 22. juni, 2017. (foto en.kremlin.ru)

[1] Et NATO F-16-fly forsøgte at komme tæt på den russiske forsvarsminister Sergei Shoigus fly over neutrale, baltiske vande nær Kaliningrad i dag, men blev jaget væk af et russisk Su-27-kampfly, rapporterer Sputnik Internationale i dag (21. juni).

Shoigu var en route til den vestligste, russiske by, Kaliningrad, da F-16-flyet forsøgte at nærme sig. Ruslands Sukhoi Su-27 kampfly, et af de fly, der eskorterede Shoigus fly, viste dernæst sine våben, hvilket fik F-16-flyet til at trække sig.

Leder fra Larouche PAC, 21. juni, 2017 – Med det rette lederskab afviser amerikanere det britisk-ansporede forsøg på at »kuppe« præsident Trump, tvinge ham ud af embedet gennem impeachment, tilbagetrækning eller endda mord, fordi han ønsker samarbejde med Rusland og Kina. Dette kup, der implicerer Obamas efterretningstjenester og FBI-direktør, har drevet det Demokratiske Parti vanvittigt med antirussisk McCarthy-isme imod Trump – og det taber fortsat valg på grund af det.

Med hensyn til anti-Trump-intrigemagernes motivering, lyt blot til den fanatisk nærige, tyske finansminister, Wolfgang Schäuble, der i går angreb Trump i en tale i Berlin:

»Jeg tvivler på, at USA virkelig mener, at verdensordenen ville være lige så god, hvis Kina eller Rusland … simpelt hen fik frie hænder til at dominere de indflydelsessfærer, de har defineret for sig selv. Det ville være enden på vores liberale verdensorden.«

Fuldstændig rigtigt – den »liberale« verdensorden, som afindustrialiserede USA’s økonomi og gjorde den til en rustbunke, og som amerikanerne stemte for at blive af med. De betroede Trump atter at gøre Amerika til en industrimagt, en teknologisk magt, en magt i den nuværende og fremtidige udforskning af rummet. Kongressen – begge partier – skal omgående gå i gang med at genopbygge og erstatte nationens forældede, økonomiske infrastruktur. Samarbejde med Kina, med dets »Bælte & Vej Initiativ«, der er mange gange større end Marshallplanen, kan på dramatisk vis hjælpe, lige fra højhastigheds-jernbanenet og til Månelandinger.

I en tale for USA’s Handelskammers »topmøde« for udenlandsk investering i mandags, sagde finansminister Steven Mnuchin:

»At arbejde med udenlandske investorer vil blive en afgørende del af enhver infrastrukturplan, vi fremlægger.«

Fint. Mange kinesiske ledere af foretagender blandt de 1.200 deltagere ønsker at se Kina investere i byggeri af ny, amerikansk infrastruktur, gennem amerikanske, statslige kreditinstitutioner som de fire, store nationalbanker, der har finansieret Kinas utrolige infrastrukturgennembrud i de seneste tyve år.

Men dernæst sagde Mnuchin:

»Partnerskaber mellem det offentlige og det private er afgørende …«

for byggeri af ny infrastruktur – den mislykkede »liberale verdensorden«. Såkaldte PPP’er (Public Private Partnerships), hvor investeringsselskaber vil have deres kapital tilbage inden for 10 år, og 10-12 % årligt afkast, bygger IKKE nye infrastrukturplatforme.

Et netværk af højhastigheds-jernbanelinjer over hele nationen?

Systemer af sluseporte, der ville have beskyttet New Orleans fra orkanen Katrina, og New Yorks transportsystem fra superstormen Sandy?

Afsaltningsanlæg og vidtrækkende vandføringssystemer til kunstvanding af det vestlige USA?

Baser til menneskelig beboelse på Månen?

PPP’er skaber ikke sådanne ting!

Men det gør statskredit. EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, sagde for et par år siden:

»Vi taler om en investering over mere end én generation. Alle de store projekter, som vi nu behøver, ligesom i fortiden, er projekter, der kræver flergenerationsinvestering. Det er at påtage sig gæld, en gæld, der løber over flere generationer. Og én af de ting, vi må mestre i denne henseende, er, hvad er menneskets natur …

For det første, så er ideen om kredit menneskelig. Det eksisterer ikke for noget som helst, undtagen for mennesket, så vidt vi ved. Vi udarbejder derfor et monetært system, eller et finanssystem, baseret på et system med kredit, hvilket vil sige udviklingen af en person, der videregiver noget, der er til fordel for den næste generation. Og dette er ikke en proces, hvor noget fortsætter; det er en proces, hvor noget udvikles. Og udviklingsenheden er det, vi bør kalde ’kredit’.«

Store projekter ved hjælp af statslig kredit, en gæld, som den næste generation vil kunne »tilbagebetale« ved at bruge infrastrukturen på et højere, teknologisk niveau til at producere og til at leve på et højere, og mere produktivt, menneskeligt niveau. Kun nationer kan skabe den form for kredit, individuelt og gennem internationale udviklingsbanker, som LaRouche har foreslået det i femogfyrre år.

Der er ikke mere tid til at »tale om at bygge en ny infrastruktur«. En nationalbank i Hamiltons tradition til sådan kredit, må skabes nu.

Foto: Finansminister Steven Mnuchin aflægger ed i det Ovale Kontor. (Photo V.P. Mike Pence’s Twitter)

Matthew Ogden: … Jeg vil gerne begynde i dag med direkte at referere tilbage til lederartiklen, der blev udgivet på larouchepac.com sidste lørdag, og som fortsat er meget relevant og har vist sig at haste mere og mere, som ugen er skredet frem. Jeg viser den på skærmen. Som I kan se, var artiklens overskrift, »Lyndon LaRouche: Stop FBI’s bedrageri; Stop kuppet mod præsidenten – Hvad de løgnagtige medier ikke fortæller«

Hr. LaRouche kom med en meget klar advarsel.

Lyndon LaRouche lancerede en appel til det amerikanske folk om at stoppe det igangværende kup imod præsident Trump, som torsdag fik yderligere næring gennem den fyrede FBI-direktør, James Comeys løgnagtige vidneforklaring for Senatets Efterretnings-Udvalgskomite. LaRouche sagde, at kuppet er en FBI-operation, der forsøger at ødelægge USA, og hvis det ikke standses, vil verden stå over for generel krig.

Som I husker, så forklarede artiklen yderligere:

»Den 7. juni afslørede tidligere direktør for Nationalt Efterretningsvæsen, James Clapper, den faktiske motivation for kuppet imod Trump, med bemærkninger i Australien. Han sagde, at Trumps åbenhed over for fred med Rusland – det valprogram, som Trump blev valgt på af det amerikanske folk – i sig selv var totalt imod USA’s sikkerhedsinteresser og i realiteten at sidestille med forræderi. Det var allerede før valget almindeligt kendt i det officielle Washington, at præsident Obama, i aftalt spil med briterne, kandidat Clinton, DNI-chef Clapper, CIA-chef Brennan og FBI-chef Comey, havde styret USA på en kurs for krig med Rusland og Kina, som efter planen skulle aktiveres fuldt ud med valget af Hillary Clinton. I stedet blev Trump valgt, hvilket udløste kuppet, der fulgte.« 

Hr. LaRouche kom med en meget afgørende pointe:

»Præsident Trump har holdt sit løfte og etableret bedre relationer med både Rusland og Kina, der begge søger samarbejde med USA omkring udvikling af verden, baseret på store infrastrukturprojekter. Det er det virkelige, og eneste, spørgsmål her.«

Jeg har gentaget vores reference til denne artikel, for det er en meget afgørende advarsel fra hr. LaRouche, Og som jeg sagde, er den kun blev mere relevant og mere presserende, som ugen er skredet frem. Som I måske har set, udlagde vi også en video på LaRouche PAC’s webside, med titlen, »Stop kuppet mod præsidenten«, som allerede cirkleres temmelig vidt omkring og bør fortsætte med det.

[https://larouchepac.com/20170614/stop-coup-against-President]

Men, præcis som hr. LaRouche advarede om i denne erklæring, jeg netop oplæste, så, hvis denne kampagne mod præsidenten ikke stoppes, kan det føre til meget alvorlige konsekvenser for USA, og for verden.

(her følger resten af udskriftet på engelsk):

Although the very disgusting
propaganda and even direct threats against the life of President
Trump began very early on in his administration — practically
immediately after his inauguration, as we saw with the article in
the German news magazine {Der Spiegel} — over the last week and
a half, we saw a very alarming escalation of such threats in
increasingly explicit form.  Such as comedienne Kathy Griffin
holding an image of President Trump’s severed head, or the
ongoing production of {Julius Caesar} in Central Park which
depicts a caricature of President Trump and his wife, First Lady
Melania Trump.  These threats are serious; they should be stopped
immediately.  They’re very dangerous.  They create the
environment, as is characterized correctly, “a climate of
violence” in which very deranged and disturbed individuals such
as the shooter in Alexandria act out this kind of propaganda and
act on those threats.  Thanks to the Capitol Police detail of
Rep. Steve Scalise, a massacre was thankfully averted at that
Republican baseball practice on Thursday. But responsible parties
in this country must recognize Lyndon LaRouche’s warning that
this coup attempt and this climate of violence must be stopped
immediately, or it will lead to chaos and even general war.
As Mr. LaRouche said later in that same statement, “[I]t is
time for the people to speak and end this disruptive and highly
dangerous attempted coup.”  We are seeing a shifting attitude
among certain sectors of the population around the United States,
due to the very vocal and direct intervention by LaRouche PAC and
the LaRouche movement; including in New York City and elsewhere.
A push-back against this propaganda campaign, including an
increasing recognition that the never-ending, round-the clock
Russia-gate hearings happening practically every day in the U.S.
House and Senate are, in fact, nothing more than a McCarthy-ite
witch-hunt —  President Trump correctly used that term; and have
been ongoing now for several months with unlimited resources
invested in them, and have turned up zero evidence so far.
What the American people {do} want to hear about is not this
fabricated media narrative, but rather how their duly elected
government — be it Republicans or Democrats — but the people
who they voted to represent them plan to solve the truly urgent
life or death issues that are facing the American people every
single day.  Collapsing infrastructure.  As we know, we have the
so-called “Summer of Hell” coming upon us in New York City;
collapsing living standards; collapsing wages; a failing health
care system; epidemic proportions of drug addiction and drug
overdose deaths.  A Wall Street bubble which is about to explode,
which would have consequences worse than 2008.  It’s exactly
those issues which the Trump administration was elected to
address; but the Trump administration must now begin to deliver.
It’s not a question of piecemeal form, a little fix here, a
little bit there, but it’s a national mission which we require
from the U.S. Presidency which will mobilize the American people
in the way that Franklin Roosevelt did; in the way that John F.
Kennedy did that.  Getting this infrastructure project moving in
a very big way and really delivering on this front is crucial for
the President, as we’ve made the point over recent days; not to
mention making good on his campaign promise to restore
Glass-Steagall.  Frankly, if there’s anybody who this President
should be firing right now, it should be this clown, Treasury
Secretary Steve Mnuchin; who is repeatedly going in front of
Senate committee hearings and lying through his teeth that the
Glass-Steagall that Trump was talking about, was not the
Glass-Steagall that was in the Republican platform, is not the
Glass-Steagall that is called the 21st-Century Glass-Steagall.
This has been called out correctly by a number of sitting U.S.
Senators; Senator Warren, Senator Sanders.  But these are
concrete steps which must be taken immediately, if President
Trump is to mobilize the American people and to effectively
counter this mass propaganda assault and recruit the citizens to
mobilize behind the duly elected Presidency of the United States.
One thing that I know we’re going to address in the course
of the discussion in this show today, is Mr. LaRouche’s
{emphatic} point that what we need now is directed, Federal
credit on a massive scale in a Hamiltonian form.  Helga
Zepp-LaRouche has reiterated that point several times in
discussions this week.  What keeps coming up in discussions
around so-called infrastructure, including a major event that
Diane Sare attended up in New York City a few days ago, is this
question of privatization of major infrastructure and funding new
infrastructure through so-called private investment.
As Helga LaRouche said, this is not only grossly inadequate
and will never work, but it is also criminal in fact. As we saw
in the very real criminal privatization after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the mass privatization of state-owned utilities
there in Russia and the former Soviet countries and privatization
of infrastructure; which plunged the population there into a
demographic collapse and a real dark age while a few criminal
oligarchs looted the entire region. What we need is not that, but
what we need is the American System; as President Trump himself
referred directly earlier during his administration.  That is,
Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln; that is the American System
which built the United States.
What I want to shift to right now, before we get into a
deeper discussion on that, is what Mr. LaRouche also made a very
strong point about in that warning that I referred in the
beginning of the broadcast.  He said the fact that Trump was
elected, triggered this kind of coup from these factions which
had been trying to keep him out of office and escalate the war
confrontation between the United States and Russia and China.
Instead, you’ve seen President Trump reach out to China, continue
to reach out to Russia despite massive pressure not to.  And you
see these countries seeking cooperation with the United States on
developing a new paradigm, a new international system based on
great projects and development.  That is what the underlying
issue here is; and nothing else.  Do not get distracted.
What I want to do right now, before I get into the
discussion with Michael, is to share with you a little bit of
footage; some excerpts from a dialogue that President Putin of
Russia had with the people of his country and also with people
internationally on his annual direct webcast call-in show. This
lasted over four hours.  I’m going to put up on the screen for
you a couple of pictures from these and I’m going to read some
questions and then the answers that he had, because these
statements from President Putin are directly addressing this
question that Mr. LaRouche just raised.  What is the perspective
for a peaceful relationship between the United States and Russia?
So, as you’ll see, this is a picture of President Putin
[Fig. 2]; this was a call-in show where he received questions
live.  This was the first question from an American.  It said,
“Greetings, Mr. Putin!  My name is Jeremy Bowling.  I live in
Mesa, Arizona in America.  I’m a big supporter of you.  I am very
pro-Russian, and I wish you much health and success in your life.
My question to you is this.  As an American who sits here in
America and sees the racist Russian phobia running crazy in my
country, what advice would you give me to help set the record
straight, to help my fellow Americans understand that Russia is
not the enemy?”
President Putin replies: “To begin with, I am very grateful
to you for this call.  I can tell you as the current head of the
Russian state, that I know the attitudes of our people.  We do
not consider America our enemy.  Moreover, twice in history when
we were going through very rough times, we pooled our efforts; we
were allies in two world wars.  In the past, the Russian Empire
played a substantial role in helping America gain independence
and supported the United States.  We see that Russo-phobia is
running high in America, and think this is primarily a result of
the escalating political infighting.  I do not think I have the
right to give you any advice.  I simply want to thank you for
this stance.  We know that we have very many friends in the
United States.  My American colleagues tell me so, and public
opinion polls show the same results.  At any rate, those polls
taken a month ago, show that we have many friends there.  True,
regrettably, such hysteria is bound to affect the frame of mind,
but let me assure you that there are also very many people in
Russia who have deep respect for the achievements of the American
people and are hoping that eventually our relations will get back
on track, in which both we and the United States are extremely
interested.”
So, that was his answer to the first question, and then
coming up next, he had a question from an editor of a
Moscow-based Russian-language newspaper, who also asked about the
same question.  He said “One of the current trends is that
bilateral relations are deteriorating and there is Russo-phobia,
along with daily reports about new anti-Russian initiatives
including sanctions.  At the same time, there is a growing demand
not only for stabilizing, but also for improving Russian-American
relations.  At a Senate hearing the day before yesterday, U.S.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said something to the effect
that every time he meets with his foreign colleagues since his
appointment, they have asked him to stabilize relations with the
Russians.”  He went on to say, “In three weeks’ time, the G20
will convene in Hamburg, where you are to meet with U.S.
President Trump.  Is it possible that these talks will help prod
this negative trend towards a more positive one, and possibly
even towards a radical improvement in our relationships with the
United States?  In what areas and on what issues can Russian-U.S.
cooperation be productive and mutually beneficial?  I believe
these questions are of concern not only to people in Russia and
in the United States, but many other countries as well.”
President Putin answered as follows: “You know as well as I
do the areas in which we can work together with the United
States.  This includes above all control over non-proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction.  We are the biggest nuclear
powers and so our cooperation in this area is absolutely
natural…. Cursing and trading barbs and insults with the U.S.
administration would be the worst road to take…. We must work
together to fight poverty in the world…. There is a disastrous
situation in many parts of the world, and this is one of the
sources of radicalism and terrorism, this poverty around the
world; and we must decide together how to address this problem.”
Then President Putin continued by saying: “By the way, we worked
together with the United States to resolve the Iranian nuclear
issue, and we did reach an agreement, we did find a solution.
There are positive examples of cooperation, then.  The previous
U.S. administration directly recognized the substantial role that
we played in resolving this issue.  We can reach agreements and
work together then.  Of course we can.  On the Syrian problem and
Middle East in general, it is clear to all that no progress will
be made without joint constructive work.  We hope greatly too,
for the United States’ constructive role in settling the crisis
in southeast Ukraine.”  Then he said, “A constructive role as I
said.  You see then that there are many areas in which we must
work together.  But this depends not only on us.  We see what is
happening in the United States today.  I have said before and say
again now, that this is clearly a sign of an increasingly intense
domestic political struggle, and there is nothing that we can do
here.  We cannot influence this process, but we are ready for
constructive dialogue.”
So again, this was from a four-hour dialogue that President
Putin engaged in with the Russian people and people
internationally.  But it’s a very important point that he makes
there, that the Russians are ready for a constructive dialogue.
Obviously, President Trump has a very good opportunity now in
three weeks’ time with the G20 summit which is coming up, to sit
down directly with President Putin and engage in that dialogue
directly.
I also just want to point out that during the course of this
week, there was a real blockbuster feature presentation on
Showtime, of a four-part series of interviews that were produced
by the film director Oliver Stone.  This was based on interviews
with President Putin which occurred over the last two and a half
years before the election, and then a final one that occurred
after the election.  There’s far too much to go through, to
summarize these interviews in any detail.  But it really is a
chance that Americans rarely get, to hear President Putin in his
own words talk about how we reached this point; his view of
perspective points of collaboration with the United States; the
Russian view of what has been done to encircle and threaten
Russia over the recent 10-15 years; and his understanding of what
the strategic necessities and the strategic realities are, not
only of the present moment, but as he repeatedly said, there are
very few people who have the ability to think 25 or even 50 years
in the future.  And to see the present from what the challenges
are that the future generations will have to resolve together.
At one point, he even calls for a “new paradigm of international
relations”; very similar to what the LaRouche movement has been
calling for, for several years.

II        With that said by way of introduction, let me just invite
Michael to come in, add a few points here, and then I think we
can get a little bit more going in terms of the discussion.

MICHAEL STEGER:  OK, sure.  It’s probably worth to start
from where you left off, Matt; which is this interview between
Oliver Stone and Putin.  There are a number of layers to the
interview.  It’s 20 hours of recording, only 4 hours are
presented, edited down.  But what you see from the discussion —
and it’s useful because it’s not simply an interview with
Vladimir Putin; but what Putin does provide — as you referenced
— is a 25-50-year perspective.  He captures a sense of
leadership in a way that’s unseen in American culture for some
time, except for probably Lyn.  It recognizes that what governs
an individual’s value and life is a sense of immortality.  He
references the 25-50 years; he discounts the questions of money
and power and says the reason he continues to be President is not
that he’s gotten so accustomed to power that he couldn’t do
without it, but that he’s committed to a single objective of the
economic development of his country.  That really does capture on
that 25-50-100-year perspective, a sense of immortality of an
individual.  What are we contributing our lives to?  That’s
actually the basis of political leadership.  That’s why Putin has
become so successful on the world stage; why he’s been able to
handle the failures of leadership from Clinton — especially from
the end of his term — but more so obviously Bush and of course,
Obama.  And why he’s able to deal with the insanity inside the
United States today.  But the other layer which is important to
point out, is that Oliver Stone has clearly made a shift in terms
of his intervention.  He recognized at some point, that we were
converging again on another potential nuclear annihilation and
nuclear war.  There’s a courage and a vulnerability in Oliver
Stone himself in the intervention; because he’s there to have a
very open and vulnerable dialogue with Putin. And he’s intending
to make a political intervention into the United States.  I think
people have to realize this:  He’s taking on what’s become this
kind of perverse political culture in the United States; this
so-called Obama left wing, which is now calling for a coup by the
CIA and FBI, war with Russia, police state-like measures,
complete control of the media, assassination of the President.
This is the Obama left now; it’s just fascism, as Lyn had said in
the last couple of days.  But he’s intervening on that, but on
the entire culture; a certain kind of courage is expressed by
this interview and by what he’s presenting.  Clearly, people
should engage it, watch it, find ways to access it.  Hopefully,
it becomes more public.  There is footage on YouTube that people
can capture.
But there is an intervention, and I think it makes it clear
what kind of intervention is now necessary.  Lyn has set the
standard on this kind of political intervention in the United
States.
Let’s put it in context.  As you mentioned, there is an
ongoing coup against the United States Presidency.  This is
something that was stated clearly after President Trump was
elected.  That either he is going to have to resign, be
impeached, or assassinated.  And you have the {Weekly Standard},
a number of publications throughout Europe — especially Great
Britain — who are very focussed on Trump’s removal by any means
necessary.  I think what we’ve seen over the last seven months is
a very sad attempt at trying to link Trump’s campaign to Russian
collusion.  The enemies targetting Trump knew the entire time
there was no collusion with Russia; this entire thing is a
made-up fraud.  But what they did hope for was that, one, they
could either prevent him from taking the oath of office.
Remember, soon after he won, there was attempt to prevent him
from even taking the oath because of allegations and concerns
that maybe he was a Russian agent.  That didn’t prevent him from
taking the oath.  Since then, we’ve seen an escalation towards
this so-called Russian collusion question.  They attempted to
capture the Presidency with an attempted coup run through the
National Security Council, as we saw with the Syria attack; but
that also then failed.  So, you’re now beginning to see a
regurgitation of the same stories.  Jeff Sessions was called in
to testify in the Senate; it went nowhere.  He called out; you’re
calling me, who served this country for 35 years?  Regardless of
where Jeff Sessions stands on policies, he served the country for
35 years; he’s not a Russian agent, he’s not a traitor to the
country on behalf of Russia.  These allegations are just wild;
they’re almost inconceivable, if you didn’t understand the
broader context. And so, this Russia-gate story is dying.  The
independent counsel that was appointed when Trump fired Comey is
now not event investigating Russian collusion per se, it’s now
just investigating obstruction of justice.  And President Trump
has been sharp on this with his Twitter account, and pointed out
that since there’s no Russia story, so now it’s just obstruction
of justice on the Russia story. It doesn’t add up.
In that context, what do we see happen?  As they continue to
push this — and they will continue to push it; they’re now going
to bring in other former Obama people, Jay Johnson, Homeland
Security Secretary; they’ll continue to regurgitate or hold
hearings, to keep the media story going.  But clearly what we’ve
seen over the last couple of weeks, you see it in the New York
play of {Julius Caesar}, where a Donald Trump character, or
Julius Caesar dressed as Donald Trump, is ritually stabbed, night
after night after night on the stage in New York City.  This is
backed by CNN, this is backed by the {New York Times}; it’s
backed by other media companies [“Shakespeare in the Park”]; it’s
backed by the City of New York. You see the Kathy Griffin ISIS
pose with the beheaded Trump mask.
So you see there is an intention to escalate the violence.
And then you see a mass murder attempt against up to 15 people,
members of Congress, Senate and House, House leadership; all of
the Republican Party, targetting them because they {are}
Republican.  And this [the shooter] is a guy who apparently left
his wife and his home, to live in a van for two months in
Alexandria, Virginia, well-known for targetting the LaRouche
organization and falsely targetting us for prison sentences in
the so-called “rocket docket.”  So, of course, swarming with FBI,
CIA, swamp-like creatures. This guy sets up camp for two months,
targets Republicans for mass murder, and simply perhaps because
of just circumstances, that there were a couple of Capitol Police
members there because the gates were locked on one side of the
ball field, it didn’t end up in a full massacre.  And hopefully,
everyone recovers; two people are still in critical condition.
But that’s a clear message:  You are associated with Trump,
you’re associated with Trump’s Republican Party; a Republican
Party, by the way, that Trump took over, away from much of the
Republican establishment.  But yet, now you’re Republicans
associated with Trump, you’re now targetted for mass murder.
This is an assassination attempt directly targetting the
Presidency of the United States.  Not surprising, because they
stated this is where they were going to go.  I think the fact
that’s shown by all of this is the desperation and panic and
hysteria by our enemies, by a British Empire, is increasing.  The
panic is increasing, the desperation is increasing, for the very
reasons we’ve covered on this website and in these discussions.
Because the Belt and Road paradigm, a growth paradigm between
Russia and China, is now becoming consolidated throughout
Eurasia, in Africa.  There were attempts by the U.S. Senate, just
the last couple of days to increase sanctions on Russia,
targetting even their oil and natural gas exports.  Germany, the
foreign minister and the Austrian Chancellor Kern, who have been
opposed to Trump on everything, have now just come out and backed
Trump and Secretary of State Tillerson in opposition to these
sanctions, because, one, it hurts Germany; it also hurts the
United States and it hurts the world.
So there is a constantly changing situation, and yet the
people in the U.S. Congress are rabidly off.  They’ve gone rabid
on this Russia question.  They’re being pulled by the nose by the
media on this question.
The question is, what do the American people do?  What do
you do in the face of an attempted coup by the FBI, CIA, Wall
Street, British Empire factions, and now, an outright call for
murder and violence on anyone associated with Trump, including
the President himself, or the direct overthrow of our government.
This is why it’s so important to understand what Putin
presents in these interviews, and what he and China and Belt and
Road Forum present.  There is an option.  And the main reason
this coup is taking place is because there is a threat from the
Trump Presidency to go with the full LaRouche option: not just to
work with Russia and China, not just to take away the threat of
war — that was a critical factor, in the entire Obama
Presidency, especially in the second term.  But not just to end
the danger of war, but to create an all-out collaboration of
these nations around a paradigm of growth and development,
something Putin himself is committed to growing and developing
the Russian people, the Russian economy; the same thing China is
committed to, growing more people.  You see this in Africa:
Africa is burgeoning with new levels of growth because of Chinese
investments.  We could do a whole show, and maybe we should, on
just the developments in Africa alone: The Congo Basin is facing
huge potential developments to provide electricity to all of
Sub-Saharan Africa.  So there’s real growth potential.  There’s
an option in the United States to do the same thing.  That’s the
LaRouche program.
Now Donald Trump has raised much of these issues for the
U.S. economy, the space program, infrastructure, there’s been a
whole week on infrastructure; job training programs,
apprenticeship programs, an entire week this week, on
apprenticeships in jobs training programs.  He’s called for the
Glass-Steagall fight.  But what we don’t see, with all of this
talk of infrastructure, even from Democrats who have commended
Donald Trump for his commitment to infrastructure, but nobody’s
presenting the question of how do you finance these projects?
How do you develop the country?
We are, personally, as an organization; Elliot Greenspan
gave a very thorough briefing last night on the Thursday night
Activists’ Call on this website
[http://action.larouchepac.com/fireside_chat_june_15], on the
event that we attended in New York City:  There is a lot of
discussion and we can go through more of that, Matt, if you want
to in a second.  But the point is this:  There is a chance to go
with the full LaRouche program, to create the public credit, to
create the national banking system, to shut down this Wall Street
fraud, to shut down the bail-in orientation; and to go with the
program of unleashing trillions of dollars of U.S. credit,
immediately.  Staged over time, but trillions of dollars to begin
to rebuild and develop the country.
What this will accomplish, if Trump moves on this, the
LaRouche program, Glass-Steagall, the National Bank, it will
eliminate the artificial political divide of the country.  It
focusses the nation on the nation’s potential for development,
pulling people out of poverty, giving young people a sense of a
future, and it puts us directly in coherence with Russia and
China on a growth perspective.  That’s how Trump can outflank
this attempted coup, that’s how the American people can
participate in this kind of historical fight.
And it takes courage, but there’s a pathway by which we win
this fight, with an enemy that is increasingly panicked and
desperate by any means possible to shut down what is a very
viable LaRouche option.  And I think that really captures where
we are today, and why we have to be so aggressive, joyfully
aggressive, about the potential mankind has if we can win this
fight in the United States, because it’s certainly winnable
today.
So I’ll add that, and see what else we have to discuss.

OGDEN:  Great.  You mentioned this event up in New York
City, I think that also actually goes to the point, of, number
one, the LaRouche movement — Lyndon LaRouche, Helga LaRouche —
when it comes down to it are the leading authorities in the room,
and the representatives of the LaRouche movement are the leading
authorities in the room, on exactly this question: How would
Alexander Hamilton apply the American System in this present
situation?  But number two, it makes the point that the world is
a completely different place, following this Belt and Road Forum
that happened in Beijing.  One of the organizers of that event in
New York obviously had been at the Belt and Road Forum, changed
his attitude.  Helga LaRouche’s presence at the Belt and Road
Forum is a very key reference point; I think that this really
allows us to put two bookends on maybe the last 20 years of
history at least, from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
proposal of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, this New Silk Road idea,
when it originally came out of the LaRouche movement in
1990-1991.  And then the adoption of that in 2013 by Xi Jinping,
and then this world-historic forum with Helga Zepp-LaRouche
herself, personally in attendance.
And so, she continues to make the point, the world has
completely changed.  The world is a different place, now that
this dynamic has begun to consolidate itself.  And this is the
reality which Americans continue to fail to recognize, and must
be presented with.  The opportunities are {so} strong for a
direct participation, by the United States in this initiative,
coming from China but also with strong support from Putin in
Russia, and it’s already changing the reality on the ground, as
you said, in places like Africa, has a strong potential to be the
key to peace in the Middle East and so forth.
But you made the point, there is nobody, even despite all
the best intentions to say “we need to build infrastructure, we
need to create jobs, we need to increase manufacturing,” there’s
nobody who understands the science of economics behind how you do
that, other than the leadership of the LaRouche movement right
now.  People should remember in the context, obviously, of what
we’ve been talking about with these threats against President
Trump — I mean, he did make these two speeches referencing the
American System, several months ago now, but they were a leading
feature of his economic initiative.  But who was the founder of
the American System?  It was Alexander Hamilton.  What fate did
Alexander Hamilton meet?  It was Aaron Burr, it was the duel
which killed Alexander Hamilton:  {This has been the fight in the
United States} since the founding of the United States, and
before.  Will the United States adopt a scientific approach to
economics as it was elaborated by Alexander Hamilton, which is
based on the recognition that the creative powers of the human
mind {are} what creates wealth?  This is what changes the
platform over time, as new technologies are introduced, step by
step; or, will the United States continue to be a satrapy of the
British Imperial system, as we’ve seen, increasingly over the
last 50 years.  This is the role that the United States has
played.
And now we have the opportunity from outside of the United
States, from elsewhere, from China and other countries who are
adopting exactly this kind of development perspective for the
United States to reclaim its birthright, and to become, again,
that Hamiltonian type of nation that we were founded to become.
So, as people continue to become disillusioned with the kind
of propaganda that they’re being fed, day in and day out, about
what this Russia-gate thing is all about, the proper perspective
is needed, and you need to be able to step back and say, “what’s
the real issue here? What is the conjunctural point in world
history that we find ourselves at? And what’s the decision-making
point, which we’re being confronted with?”
So that’s the kind of leadership I think, but it’s not just
a question of where does the United States go?  It’s a question
of do we recognize that the world has completely changed, and are
we at the point of saying, “Yes, that’s the change, that’s the
next 25 years, that’s the next 50 years, and we have to put
behind us the failed system which is now collapsing.”
I don’t know if you want to say a little bit more about the
change in the attitude of the American people, Michael. I mean, I
would like to see what the effect is if this Oliver Stone
interview receives more widespread circulation, what people’s
reaction to that will be, but even up to this point.

STEGER:  Yeah, we can say, we know for certain an increasing
number of the American people are getting fed up and frustrated
by the outright obstruction of the Trump Presidency.  I mean,
Trump does have a real base in the American people, and most
Americans don’t want to see their government overthrown by a
CIA/FBI/{New York Times}/Wall Street operation — they just
don’t.  They might be intimidated; there might be a {vox populi}
kind of French mob out there.  But most Americans are not of that
nature.
And they’re fighting back.  We see this in field squads in
New Jersey and throughout other parts of the country, that many
people are wanting to come over to the table and discuss it.  You
know, we have signs “Defend Trump, Stop the Coup, Support Trump.
Stop here.”  “End the British Empire, Arrest Obama.” So it’s very
clear that people are willing to fight if there’s a quality of
leadership.  But we have to make it very clear to the people
around President Trump and to him directly, you will not be able
to accomplish anything, if you don’t change the system.
Perhaps we put it in the form of an analogy:  You know,
Trump can change the building all he wants to — he can put in
new walls, he can expand it, he can build it taller, he can build
it bigger, he can change the electrical system, he can change the
plumbing system, he can do all those things if he wants to, to
the building.  The problem is, he’s not going to actually give
the building long-term survival if he doesn’t change the
foundation.
The foundation of a nation’s economy is the system which
allows it to grow and develop, it’s its credit system, and right
now our credit system is locked into Wall Street.  Just a couple
of numbers stand out:  $6 trillion was spent on the wars over the
alst 15 years, since we launched the war in Afghanistan.  There’s
$4 trillion apparently on the Federal Reserve books, largely from
buying junk speculative assets from Wall Street banks.  That’s
$10 trillion.  So the credit of our country has been locked up
for 15 years in these wars, in these bailouts,  — like you said,
20, 25 years, the American people have been living under a reign
of psychological and political terror for 20, 25 years.
Now, at the same time, China’s been creating this
development perspective.  So if Trump’s going to create a change
in the orientation, he’s really going to fulfill what he intends
to — and you see it, he references the Hoover Dam, the Erie
Canal, he talks about the big infrastructure projects that have
transformed the nation’s industry and its political direction,
like Roosevelt did, like Hamilton did.  But if he’s going to do
it, he’s going to have to change the fundamental foundations of
how that system is functioning.  He’s going to have to move the
nation’s credit back into the hands, of a focus of industry,
science, and agriculture of the country.  He’s going to have to
not just repair some infrastructure projects but set an entirely
new platform and let that platform, which will last for another
hundred years, it’ll be a century-long platform — much like our
infrastructure today is nearly a century old.  But upon that
platform will allow an understanding of how to make the immediate
repairs we need to.
This is what he’s got to do.  This is the LaRouche program,
the Four Laws. And I know from what Diane Sare and Elliot
Greenspan have described, we are clearly increasingly
collaborating with members and leadership from China; there were
leadership from China at this event in New York City just the
other day. We’ll be having further conferences with leading
figures from China on infrastructure.  We’re in discussion with
people throughout New York City.  There is a potential and Elliot
described it last night [on the Activitists’ Call]:  If we work
with the Chinese today, if we started today, within  just two
years we can resolve immediately the infrastructure and transit
crisis in New York City, as a first step move, setting a new
platform for every nation’s cities and the connection between
those cities on a regional and national basis.
There is an outlook we can take, but you have to change the
foundations of the system the way Hamilton established, the way
Lincoln and Roosevelt applied it.  And that’s critical.  The
American people see the coup.  They don’t like it.  They’re ready
if there’s leadership, but they also have to be given a direction
and they also have to be given a chance, to begin to build the
country.  And Trump’s really got to take on these big challenges.
And again, I think the question for Trump, as Putin himself
expressed, and as any real President — you maybe can say more on
this about John Kennedy, Matt, since his 100th birthday just
passed — but the question any true President faces is a question
of immortality.  Because what are you really there to do?  And
the tough questions challenge that sense, and I think the recent
political attack we saw in Virginia, the murder attempt, are
going to confront this Presidency, and the leadership around him,
to have to make a decision: Are they really going to fight for
the future of the American people?  Putin had to make the same
decision when he came into office in 1999-2000; every true
President, as Lincoln did, FDR did — he faced near assassination
before his inauguration; Kennedy certainly faced it, and knew it.
And that’s the question that Trump has to face, but the LaRouche
program provides the alternative link, not only to end this coup,
but to really launch a Renaissance for the United States.

OGDEN:  About John Kennedy, he made numerous speeches which
addressed that question of the immortality of the leadership of
the country, in directly the terms of infrastructure.  He went
down to the Tennessee Valley Authority, and he said,  — this was
1961 or 1962 — and he said, it was because of the decisions that
Franklin Roosevelt took 30 years before, that we are able to even
stand here today and look at these wonderful projects and it
transformed this entire region of the country.  But it makes us
ask the question:  Thirty years from now, once we are out of
office and once we are dead and gone, what will future
generations say about us?  What great projects will we have
built, just as FDR did for us at that time; and in 1991 or 1992,
what will people living at that time say that we did for the
future of the United States and for the human race?
Obviously, Kennedy’s greatest legacy was the space program.
But it’s that same kind of question, which now must be asked, and
always must be asked by any great leader of any country.  So I
concur: That’s the kind of question which President Putin very
eloquently put on the table and repeatedly.  And he said,
unfortunately, there are very few people within the United States
who think in these terms — although there are some.  And I think
those are the people who are responsible for taking the
leadership of the United States and consolidating this, making it
work.
Michael, I think you make the point very clearly:  If
President Trump is going to outflank this coup attempt, not only
must it be exposed in no uncertain terms, head on; but also, he
must deliver on the vision and the campaign promises which the
American people elected him around. And it cannot be in a
piecemeal way, it has to be from the standpoint of a Hamiltonian
national vision, funded by, as you say, trillions of dollars of
direct Federal credit.  It can’t be done in any other way.  But
if he begins to deliver on that, the American people will be on
his side and will give him the backup which he’s going to need.
So:  Thanks a lot Michael.  We’re going to be circulating
even more — there was an email that went out to all of the
subscribers to the LaRouche PAC email list, on some of the
background material that you need to understand the timeline
behind this attempted coup against the Trump Administration going
all the way back to the inauguration, if not before.  And I think
we covered a little bit of that in detail.
And I continue to emphasize the importance of this statement
that Lyndon LaRouche put out now a week ago, last Saturday,
titled:  “Stop the FBI Fraud: Stop the Coup against the President
— What the Lying Media Are Not Telling You!”  We already know
that this has received pretty wide circulation, but it’s
something which can continue to be circulated.
Thank you very much Michael.  I think we can probably have a
countdown to this G20 summit which is coming up in less than
three weeks; and look forward to some real changes in the same we
had the relationship between the United States and China; now
some changes in terms of the potential for cooperation between
the United States and Russia.
I’d like to thank people for tuning in tonight.  Please
subscribe to our YouTube channel if you haven’t yet; subscribe to
our daily email list.  You can get active at the Action Center at
larouchepac.com, and join in what we’re doing here with the
LaRouche movement across the United States.  So thanks a lot, and
good night.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 15. juni, 2017 – Briterne har gentagne gange myrdet amerikanske præsidenter, efter at de først myrdede vort forfatningssystems fader, Alexander Hamilton. Men man skal helt tilbage til Abraham Lincoln for at finde den slags gentagne trusler mod en præsident, i særdeleshed trusler om mord, som nu fremsættes mod præsident Trump, mens dette læses – under britisk direktiv. En »komiker« cirkulerer et fotografi af sig selv på Internet, hvor hun fremviser en kopi af præsidentens afskårne hoved. Samtidig opføres jævnligt det langtrukne knivmord på præsident Trump foran stort publikum i New Yorks Central Park, stolt sponsoreret af, og med gentagen energisk støtte fra, forræderne i det britisk-elskende New York Times – under absurd forklædning af Shakespeares »Julius Cæsar«. »Skuespilleren«, der angiveligt portrætterer Julius Cæsar i denne blodige farce, er udklædt og udstyret til fuldstændigt at ligne præsident Trump – alt imens hans hustru taler med slavisk accent og ser ud som og klæder sig præcis som præsidentens kone, Melania. Der er selvfølgelig ingen, der tror på New York Times, at dette skulle repræsentere »ytringsfrihed«. Det repræsenterer overlagt ansporing til politisk mord, eller endda ’ret til at dræbe’ (license to kill) – og det endda samtidig med, at et uskyldigt amerikansk kongresmedlem, og endnu en uskyldig mand, befinder sig i kritisk tilstand på et hospital i Washington efter at være blevet skudt i går morges af en gal skytte, der leder efter »Republikanere« at dræbe.

Der kunne fremføres meget mere som dette, som I alle ved.

Det Britiske Imperium, hvis blodtørst står bag alt dette, har netop her til morgen opfordret til Trumps afsættelse ved en rigsretssag i deres flagskib, Londons Financial Times.

Årsagen til parallellen til det samme, morderiske hysteri, der blev pisket op mod Abraham Lincoln, er, at nutidens spørgsmål i realiteten ikke er mindre vigtige nu, end de var dengang. Dengang drejede det sig om spørgsmålet om denne Republiks overlevelse i lyset af dette samme, Britiske Imperium – et spørgsmål, der involverede fremtiden for hele menneskeslægten. Lyndon LaRouche har nu gjort det klart, at en sejr for Jim Comey og Bob Muellers FBI, med deres kupforsøg mod præsident Trump, ville kaste verden ud i atomkrig, der ville ødelægge vor civilisation, og muligvis vor art.

På den anden side, så bevæger fortsættelsen af den forfatningsmæssige institution, som er præsidentskabet under den legitime præsident Donald Trump – og retsforfølgelsen af og domsafsigelsen over de udenlandsk sponsorerede forrædere, der ønsker at ødelægge denne institution – USA ind i det »Nye Paradigme«, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har kæmpet for i næsten et halvt århundrede, gennem præsident Trumps åbne og oprigtige forpligtelse til fred og partnerskab med Rusland og Kina. Vi må genindføre Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov, som præsident Trump har lovet, som en del af Lyndon LaRouches »Fire Love« fra juni 2014, og som indbefatter statslig bankpraksis, massiv udstedelse af statskredit, udvikling af fusionskraft og et komplet rumprogram i en international samarbejdsindsats.

Valget ligger nu foran denne generation, foran hver enkelt af os, og foran dig, personligt.

Foto: Lincoln Memorial.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 14. juni, 2017 – I de seneste par uger har en teater/nyhedskommentator holdt et billede frem af præsident Trumps blodige, afskårne hoved; »Shakespeare in the Park«-teaterkompagniets opsætning af Julius Cæsar i New Yorks Central Park portrætterede Cæsar som Donald Trump, som dernæst blev udsat for en langvarig, brutal og blodig mordscene; og i dag åbnede en 66-årig mand fra Illinois ild mod et baseball-træningshold fra det Republikanske Parti i Alexandria, Virginia, efter en bekræftelse af, at de var Republikanere, og skød fire personer (inklusive det tredjehøjest rangerende medlem af det Republikanske Part i Repræsentanternes Hus), før han blev dræbt af politiet. Skyttens Facebook-side inkluderede: »Trump er en forræder. Trump har ødelagt vores demokrati. Tiden er inde til at ødelægge Trump & Co.«

Sindssyg handling, begået af en galning? Måske, men politiske mord bliver altid fremstillet som »enlige mordere«, og efterforskningerne bliver altid omhyggeligt kontrolleret for at opretholde sådanne dækhistorier – med JFK-mordet som blot det mest berømte, og mest åbenlyse, eksempel. I 2008 udgav EIR en brochure med titlen, »Hvorfor briterne myrder amerikanske præsidenter«,[1] og som rapporterede om briternes rolle og motivering bag mordene på præsidenterne Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley[2] og John F. Kennedy.

Husk, at det aktuelle McCarthy-hysteri, der forsøger at male præsident Trump som en naiv tåbe eller agent for russerne, medskyldig i angivelig underminering af amerikansk demokrati, osv., blev indledt af den britiske MI6-agent Christopher Steeles kompendium af vilde fabrikationer om Trump og russerne. Dette »uærlige og upålidelige dossier« blev dernæst brugt af den nu miskrediterede, tidligere FBI-chef, James Comey, i et selvudnævnt »J. Edgar Hoover-moment«, hvor han viste Trump Steele-dossieret og angiveligt antydede, at det ville blive offentliggjort, hvis Trump ikke bøjede sig mht. at stoppe oprettelsen af venligtsindede relationer mellem USA og Rusland. Dernæst lækkede han næsten sikkert dossieret, eller sørgede for, at det blev lækket, dagen efter.

De korrupte efterretningsfolk fra Obama-administrationens tid – James Clapper, John Brennan og James Comey – havde, selv før, de blev afskediget fra embedet, ført et korstog for at portrættere Rusland (og Kina) som fjender af Amerika; som militære aggressorer, og som en alvorligere trussel mod den vestlige verden, end ISIS! Disse løgne tjente som dækhistorie for, at præsident Obama og hans klon, Hillary Clinton, kunne bringe verden på randen af atomkrig og forsikre de bankerotte, vestlige finansoligarker, at USA aldrig ville gå sammen med Rusland og Kina i byggeriet af den Nye Silkevej og opbygning af en ny, global finansarkitektur. Sådanne revolutionerende skridt ville, til [City of] Londons og Wall Streets rædsel, give infrastruktur og industri til den Tredje Verden, og endda til de vestlige nationer, snarere end gæld og nedskæringer, påtvunget dem af Londons og Wall Streets spekulanter.

Men, oligarkerne havde ikke forudset, at det amerikanske folk havde fået nok af permanent krigsførelse, økonomisk disintegration, narkotika- eller opiatepidemien, der rammer stort set hver eneste familie i nationen, og massemedier, der vedholdende løj om stort set alt. Valget af Trump blev resultatet.

Foreløbig har Trump lovet at gøre mange af de ting, som Lyndon H. LaRouche længe har foreslået, som det fremlægges i LaRouches Fire Love , men han har ikke taget de fundamentale skridt, der er nødvendige for at gennemføre disse løfter. Han har aflagt løfte om at genopbygge den forfaldne, amerikanske infrastruktur, men har ikke handlet på sit løfte om at genindføre Glass-Steagall – det absolut nødvendige, første skridt til at skabe den nødvendige kredit til opfyldelse af sit løfte om infrastruktur og gen-industrialisering. Han har etableret samarbejdsrelationer med Kina, men har ikke fuldt ud tilsluttet sig Bælte & Vej Initiativet for atter at få gang i amerikansk industri omkring opbygning af verdens nationer, inklusive vores egen. Han har krævet en genopretning af amerikansk førerskab inden for rumforskning og -fart, og inden for videnskabelige opdagelser, men, igen, finansieringen af disse projekter kræver, at han omgående lukker den spekulative boble ned og genindfører statskredit i Hamiltons tradition.

Det er, fordi præsident Trump offentligt har forpligtet sig til disse ting, og til at gøre en ende på britisk imperieopsplitning af verden i »Øst vs. Vest«, at skydevåbnene nu trækkes for at fjerne ham fra embedet – eller, som det antydes gennem dagens skudepisode, fjerne ham fra Jordens overflade. Han må handle meget hurtigt for at sætte gang i den økonomiske genrejsning gennem statslig kredit; for at tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevej og for fuldt ud at samarbejde med Rusland og Putin om at knuse terrorist-svøben.

Jo flere amerikanere, der følger med i serien af Oliver Stones fire timelange interviews med præsident Vladimir Putin desto hurtigere vil dæmoniseringen af Putin blive grinet ind i historiebøgerne og gøre den sorte historie med J. Edgar Hoovers beskidte tricks med den »røde skræk« og politiske mord, selskab.

Foto: Justitsministeren og FBI’s direktør på visit. Præsident John F. Kennedy, J. Edgar Hoover og Robert F. Kennedy. Det Hvide Hus, det ovale kontor, 23. februar, 1961.

[1] Se (engelsk): »Why the British Kill American Presidents«

[2] Se (dansk): »Londons mord på McKinley lancerede et århundrede med politiske mord«

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 13. juni, 2017 – Mandag skar Lyndon LaRouche igennem al snak frem og tilbage om infrastruktur – og hysteriet omkring ’Russia-gate’ – og understregede: Statskredit! Se at få udbetalingerne i gang! Om nødsituationen i New York sagde han: »Der skal omgående udstedes statslig finansiering til byggeri af ny infrastruktur i New York City. Staten (i USA, ’federal government’, -red.) må gå ind og overtage krisen; det er den eneste kilde til en lovmæssig form for kredit til dette problem … Vi har hørt nok tale uden konkrete specifikationer, uden, at der kommer reelle betalinger på bordet. Det skal vedtages – både midlerne, og deres anvendelse – nu.«

Uden for New York City – som udgør en vigtig national krise, og hvis løsning hele nationaløkonomien afhænger af – indløber der dagligt anmodninger om indgriben pga. de forfaldne tilstande inden for transport, vand, elektricitet og alle andre nødvendige, offentlige tjenesteydelser.

I går var senator Bob Casey (Dem.-Pennsylvania) ved Monongahela-floden (nær Pittsburgh) for at opfordre Kongressen og præsident Trump til at finansiere restaureringen af tre gamle sluser, før der sker en fatal fejlfunktion. Disse strukturer daterer sig tilbage til 1917, på en vandvej, der endnu i dag, f.eks., fører 6 million tons kul om året til U.S. Steel koksovnene i Clairton til det, der er tilbage af områdets stålindustri. Restaureringen af sluserne begyndte for 25 år siden og er endnu i dag ikke færdig efter gentagne udskydelser. Senator Casey fremlægger imidlertid ingen overordnet plan for, hvordan de nødvendige arbejder skal finansieres.

Der er ikke muligt, at nogle af de punkter, der ofte tales om – det være sig partnerskaber mellem det offentlige og privatsektoren (PPP’er), lokal- eller delstatsfinansiering, og heller ikke ’frimarkeds-wing-dings’, kan, eller vil, finansiere en genrejsning af nationaløkonomien. Wall Streets krav om 10 + % i afkast, der skal komme fra bompenge, told, afgifter, billetter osv., er fuldstændig umuligt. »Få kendsgerningerne i orden« omkring dette, som LaRouche atter i dag understregede.

Vi må løfte folk op til den rette fremgangsmåde. Dette begynder med at genindføre Glass-Steagall til beskyttelse af gavnlig, kommerciel bankvirksomhed, og fryse spekulativ finansvirksomhed ud; etablér dernæst en statslig, national kreditinstitution og udsted statslig og privat kredit til storstilede, prioriterede projekter og aktiviteter, og lancér en videnskabsmotor til fremme af rumforskning og forskning i fusionskraft.

I New York City responderer ’folk på gaden’ med stor forbløffelse og lettelse til ideen, ’Vi kan gøre dette her!’ Til gengæld stikker fjenderne af denne fremgangsmåde så meget desto mere grelt ud.

I Senatet i dag var finansminister Steven Mnuchin ’en rotte i hjørnet’ mht. Glass-Steagall. Under en høring om statsbudgettet responderede han til spørgsmål fra senator Bernie Sanders (Uafh.-Vermont) ved at sige, at der er tre forskellige »Lovforslag til det 21. Århundredes Glass-Steagall«, og han er modstander af sen. Elizabeths Warrens lovforslag om genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, og også forslaget fra Republikanernes partiprogram. Mnuchin sagde, at der ikke bør være nogen tvungen adskillelse mellem kommerciel bankvirksomhed og investeringsbankvirksomhed: »Vi mener, det ville skade økonomien, at det ville ødelægge likviditeten på markedet.« Med andre ord, Mnuchin er en dræber. Han støtter med fuldt overlæg finansielle betingelser, der fører til tab af liv og tab af fremtid for nationen.

I direkte opposition så vi lidt af »ånden fra Silkevejen« i Iowa i går. Under et Iowa-Kina-symposium i Des Moines blev et forståelsesmemo underskrevet mellem repræsentanter for kinesiske og amerikanske tænketanke om at fortsætte med at udveksle ideer for sammen at fremme deres respektive økonomier. Den kinesiske generalkonsul fra Chicago rapporterede om kinesisk involvering i varefremstilling, handel og landbrugsanliggender i de ni midtvestlige delstater, som han relaterer til. Trump-administrationen annoncerede færdiggørelsen af Kina-USA-handelstraktaten, under hvilken amerikanske eksport af oksekød til Kina nu kan begynde. Xinhua, CGTN og andre kinesiske medier spørger, ’Er Iowa-Kina modellen for den nye amerikansk-kinesiske relation?’

Den 21. juni vil Trump tale i Cedar Rapids, Iowa, ved et møde i anledning af Terry Branstads, den tidligere guvernør for Iowa, udsendelse til Kina som den nye amerikanske ambassadør til Kina. Branstad er mangeårig ven til præsident Xi Jinping.

Vi opfordrer folk til at hæve sig op over, og besejre, Trumpgate/Russiagate-operationen og den onde, britiske imperieflok, der står bag den. Som Vladimir Putin sagde herom, i første afsnit af hans interview til Oliver Stone i går aftes: Den anti-russiske hype i USA er tåbelig. Det kan måske give dem en fordel på kort sigt, men problemet med dem er, at de nægter at se 25, 50 år ud i fremtiden og konsekvenserne af deres handlinger. Vi må have samarbejde.

Foto: Lyndon LaRouche, her i diskussion med Diane Sare og Michael Steger fra LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. 

https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/kinas-nye-silkevej-larouches-nye-okonomiske-verdensorden-vil-vi-fa-larouchenomics

v/ formand Tom Gillesberg.

Video og lydfil.

Velkommen til dette fortsatte drama, som vi forhåbentlig vil se tilbage på om et par år og sige:

»Det var dengang, verden var på kanten af at udrydde og udradere sig selv; men lige pludselig, så lyttede menneskeheden til de fantastiske mennesker, de ikke ville lytte til før; så lyttede man til de vise ord fra Lyndon LaRouche og Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttet og Tom Gillesberg og Jacques Cheminade. Det her er folk, som igennem årtier havde kæmpet for at få vendt udviklingen og få verden sat på ret kurs. Og vi troede aldrig, det ville ske. Og lige pludselig, så begyndte man at lytte; og ikke nok med, at man lyttede til det her, man begyndte faktisk at gøre det.

Det var først kineserne, der for alvor så lyset og begyndte at gøre noget ved det. Men da først Kina satte sig i spidsen for dette udviklingstog, for den Nye Silkevej, så gik der ikke lang tid, så kom resten af menneskeheden med om bord, og så skete der noget. Og selv i de tidligere håbløse områder, som f.eks. New York City, hvor det var et mareridt, hvor man knap nok kunne bevæge sig fra A til B, fordi der var så mange folk, der skulle transporteres, og hele infrastrukturen var 100 år gammel; jamen, så i løbet af bare ganske få år med kinesisk hjælp, så lykkedes det faktisk at bygge en helt ny, fantastisk infrastruktur.

Og Donald Trump, som man forsøgte at gøre grin med, som man forsøgte at få afsat, som man forsøgte at få fjernet med alle midler; jamen, det viste sig, at han faktisk indgik et strategisk partnerskab med Kina, med Rusland og blev til en af USA’s rigtig store præsidenter.«

Og det er det, vi må håbe er fortællingen om ganske kort, for det er det potentiale, der er i tiden. Igen, man forsøger ved hjælp af ’fake news’, dvs., de veletablerede mediekanaler i den vestlige verden, hele tiden at have en pseudodagsorden; hele tiden at få folk fikseret på det ting, der ikke er de store spørgsmål, mens de virkelige, revolutionerende, afgørende begivenheder, der sker i verden rundt omkring, jamen, dem forsøger man ikke at snakke om.

Altså, hvor mange har læst i danske medier, en udførlig rapport fra Bælte & Vej Forummet, 14.-15. maj, (i Beijing); denne verdenshistoriske begivenhed, hvor 130 nationer var til stede, og hvor Bælte & Vej Initiativet så at sige gik ind i næste fase, og hvor sågar USA, som under Obama havde gjort alt for at sabotere dette udviklingsmomentum, faktisk gik med om bord; at man havde Pottinger som Trumps repræsentant; at man nu har etableret en samarbejdsgruppe, USA’s Bælte & Vej Samarbejdsgruppe, som skal få integreret USA i Bælte & Vej politikken.

Tilmed i Danmark; Karen Ellemann blev sendt som Lars Løkkes personlige repræsentant: Hvor mange danskere tror I ved det? At Danmark var med på Bælte & Vej Forummet? 1 procent; 1 promille? 5 Mennesker ud af fem millioner? Det er meget få, for der har ikke været en lyd om det. Intet. Og det er ligesom måden, man forsøger at behandle det her på; man forsøger ligesom fanatisk at sige, i den gamle optik, i den gamle verden, at der ikke er sket noget; verden er, som den altid har været. …

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 12. juni, 2017 – I seks måneder har amerikanske vælgere ventet på, at præsident Donald Trump og Demokraterne skulle handle: Nu skal statskredit udstedes til fornyelse af nationens infrastruktur på et højere niveau. Der har været løfter, men ingen kredit, og ingen plan for, hvordan den skal anvendes.

Meget af Amerikas økonomiske infrastruktur fra begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede er ikke blot i færd med stille og roligt at »smuldre«; den er livstruende. Det farligste tilfælde er sammenbrudskrisen i transport, der rammer flere end 20 million mennesker i New Yorks storbyområde. »Helvedessommeren«, der er indledt i New Yorks transportårer, truer i realiteten hele den amerikanske nationaløkonomi.

EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, har bebudet pause i al »snakken« om infrastruktur:

»Staten må nu omgående udstede finansiering til bygning af ny infrastruktur i New York City«, sagde LaRouche. »Regeringen må gå ind og overtage denne krise; staten er den eneste kilde til en lovmæssig form for kredit for dette problem. Dette er en betydelig national krise, og USA’s nationaløkonomi er afhængig af, at den løses. Vi har haft nok snak uden konkrete detaljer, uden opfølgning af direkte handling.

Det skal på bordet – både finansieringen og en plan for dens anvendelse – nu.«

I mellemtiden har Demokraterne taget regeringens tid med »Russia-gate«, sammensværgelsen om at drive præsidenten ud af embedet for at ville have samarbejdsrelationer med Rusland. Den fyrede FBI-mand James Comeys vidneforklaring har gjort det meget klart, hvad dette gik ud på: et indstuderet forsøg fra efterretningssamfundets side på at opstille en fælde for præsidenten, og afsætte ham; med en politisk veterans ord, en »ynkelig, død sild« for en vildt distraheret Kongres.

Drop »Russia-gate«. Det Hvide Hus og Kongressen må komme i omdrejninger for at forhindre økonomien i at kollapse, og forhindre, at amerikanerne yderligere forarmes og dør. Genindfør Glass/Steagall-loven, så bankerne udlåner penge. Opret en statslig kreditinstitution til byggeri af det, der skal bygges; det være sig en nationalbank i Hamiltons tradition, til infrastruktur og vareproduktion; et nyt ’Reconstruction Finance Corporation, RFC’ – Finansieringsselskab til Genopbygning – baseret på Franklin Roosevelts oprindelige RFC; eller et bevillingskontor for statslig finansiering af projekter. Inviter til samarbejde med verdensmestrene i nye infrastrukturplatforme, Kinas »Bælte & Vej Initiativ«.

Uden at gennemføre disse skridt, sagde LaRouche, »er alle drømme om at genopbygge nationen døde«.

Foto: NTSB (National Styrelse for Transportsikkerhed) undersøger en bil, der var involveret i dødelig Metro North togulykke ved Valhalla, New York, 4. februar, 2015.

Matthew Ogden: Jeg vil kort gennemgå, hvad der sker i verden og de udviklinger, der har været i ugens løb. Der foregår virkelig meget i verden; se bare på det tempo, udviklinger finder sted i: fra Kinas Bælte & Vej Forum i midten af maj til Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum, der fandt sted i sidste uge i Skt. Petersborg, Rusland. Vi er nu midt Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationens (SCO) møde, der finder sted i Astana, Kasakhstan. Både Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin og Narendra Modi er til stede ved dette SCO-møde, der finder sted netop nu. Der finder bilaterale møder sted på sidelinjen af dette meget vigtige topmøde, mellem præsident Xi og Modi, Xi og præsident Putin, og Xi og præsident Nazarbajev fra Kasakhstan.

Det, vi er vidne til i hele denne række af verdenshistoriske topmøder, er i realiteten en konsolidering af det, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche, under sin deltagelse i Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing, kaldte »dannelsen af en Ny Økonomisk Verdensorden«. Hun sagde:

»Med Bælte & Vej Forum etablerede vi dannelsen af en Ny Økonomisk Verdensorden. Det var et i sandhed historisk øjeblik; en ny æra for civilisationen. Dette er et faseskifte for menneskeheden.«

Det, vi ser, er en reel konsolidering af dette faseskifte for menneskeheden.

Præsident Xi Jinpings artikel, som han offentliggjorde aftenen før SCO-forummet i Astana, gav genlyd af denne karakteristik. Han erklærede, at den Nye Silkevej var blevet en succes i løbet af de fire år, der var gået, siden han oprindeligt annoncerede dette initiativ på præcis samme sted – Astana, Kasakhstan – i 2013. Han sagde, initiativet i løbet af disse fire år med held var gået fra idé til handling; og at dette initiativ nu fungerer som et »globalt offentligt gode«. Jeg mener, at denne karakteristik understreger det faktum, at denne nye, internationale orden ikke alene omfatter de økonomiske, diplomatiske og sikkerhedsmæssige relationer, der nu bliver konsolideret; men også, grundlæggende set, et fælles forpligtende engagement til fundamentalt fremskridt for den menneskelige art. Det, som Xi Jinping kalder for »menneskehedens fælles skæbne«.

Hvis vi ser på de spændende budskaber, der netop er kommet fra det kinesiske rumprogram, mener jeg, dette er en absolut korrekt karakteristik. Det bekræftes nu, at Kina, med deres Chang’e-mission, følger planen for at sende en mission til Månen for at returnere med prøver, få prøver af månejord og vende hjem til Jorden med dem; dette vil ske i november i år. Chang’e IV-missionen til Månens bagside, som man har store forventninger til, vil finde sted til næste år.

Lad os se på, hvad der finder sted her i USA. I denne uge så vi, at der virkelig blev lagt ved på bålet i kampen for Glass-Steagall. Marcy Kaptur og Walter Jones er begge i offensiven i denne uge i forbindelse med den såkaldte »Financial Choice Act«. De fremlagde begge en fremragende begrundelse for Rules Committee tidligere på ugen, for deres lovtillæg til Financial Choice Act, nemlig Prudent Banking Law (loven om ’klog of forsigtig’ bankpraksis), som ville genindføre Glass-Steagall. Selv om dette desværre blev nedstemt i Rules Committee (dvs. komiteen vil ikke lade dette alternative lovforslag komme til afstemning i salen, -red.), så har begge fået mulighed for at tale i Repræsentanternes Hus’ sal imod Henserling-lovforslaget. Walter Jones var den eneste Republikaner, der stemte imod Financial Choice Act og til støtte for Glass-Steagall, sammen med Tulsi Gabbard, der også er medsponsor af Glass/Steagall-loven.

Jeg vil afspille først Marcy Kapturs tale, efterfulgt af Tulsi Gabbards tale:

Her følger videoklippene og resten af webcastet på engelsk:     

MARCY KAPTUR:  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the
Financial Choice Act, which abandons the American people, as well
as safety and soundness in favor of Wall Street. Six mega-banks
now control two-thirds of the financial sector in our country,
and reap record profits of over $170 billion in 2016.  That’s too
much power in too few hands.  Current law has made progress in
protecting consumers from predatory practices.  Repeal of these
consumer protections is not what the American want.  This week,
Congressman Jones and I proposed to table the current legislation
and replace it with our bipartisan bill, the Prudent Banking Act;
which reinstates Glass-Steagall protections by separating prudent
banking from risky Wall Street speculation that tanked our
economy in 2008.  The Rules Committee refused to allow our bill a
vote; nevertheless, we remain resolute.  Glass-Steagall is
something President Trump ran on, as did Bernie Sanders.  In
2016, both the Republican and Democratic platforms enshrined
policies to restore Glass-Steagall protections.  Americans should
know there is a growing bipartisan consensus fighting to protect
the progress we have made, rein in Wall Street, and keep the
wolves at bay and out of your pocketbook.  I will be voting “no”
on this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.  I yield back
my remaining time.

TULSI GABBARD:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Rolling back
financial regulations that are in place to protect the American
people will put them and our country’s economic security at risk.
However, the Financial Choice Act that is being considered by
Congress today does just that.  It erodes protections against
dishonest, big bank practices that rob people of their
hard-earned salaries.  The bill repeals the Volcker Rule, it
dismantles the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, strips
regulations in place to protect the American people’s savings,
and actually lets the big banks maintain even less capital that
they need to absorb catastrophic losses; making it so that
they’re relying once again on the American taxpayer to bail them
out.  We don’t need to remind the families who have suffered so
much about the pain caused by the Great Recession.  In my own
home state of Hawaii, from 2008 to 2010, our unemployment rate
more than doubled; and 11 million people in America lost their
homes.  The big banks of 2008 are even bigger and more powerful
today.  I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous bill and
instead pass HR790, the Return to Prudent Banking Act, which
would reinstate a 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act.  I yield back.

OGDEN:  So, along with Glass-Steagall, the rest of the
debate around what constitutes the core of Mr. Lyndon LaRouche’s
Four Economic Laws, is also beginning to open up.  While you have
President Trump touring the country as part of his so-called
“National Infrastructure Week”, this has really been put on the
table in a very real way.  The credit for this infrastructure.
How do you increase the productivity of the American workforce?
How do you increase the productivity of the American territory,
and how do you apply the American System — the Hamiltonian
system — to make this happen?
Just to give you flavor of what Mr. Trump has been saying on
the subject over the past week — and we will get into this a lot
more — I’m going to play for you a clip of his speech that he
gave in Cincinnati.  I think you’ll find the setting very
appropriate; right against the backdrop of the Ohio River, with
barge traffic going back and forth behind him as he speaks.  So,
here’s President Trump:

DONALD TRUMP:  [as heard] Thank you all very much.  It is
great to be back in Ohio.  We love Ohio.  You remember Ohio, oh
boy.  It was supposed to be close; it wasn’t close.  So wonderful
to speak on the shores of the very magnificent Ohio River.  We’re
here today to talk about rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure.
Isn’t it about time?  Spending money all over the world, except
here.  We don’t spend our money here, we spend it all over.  And
we’ll do it using American labor, American energy, American iron,
aluminum, and steel.
The American people deserve the best infrastructure anywhere
in the world.  We are a nation that created the Panama Canal, the
Transcontinental Railroad, and if you think about this, the great
highway system — the Interstate highway system.  We don’t do
that anymore, we really don’t.  We don’t even fix the old
highways anymore.  We’ll take even fixing them, but we’re going
to get them going again like they’ve never been before.  These
projects not only open new lanes of commerce, but inspired the
immigration and the dreams of millions and millions of people.
We crafted monuments to the American spirit; it’s time to
recapture our legacy as a nation of builders and to create new
lanes of travel, commerce, and discovery.  We’re going to see all
the way into the future; and the future’s going to be beautiful.
And the future is going to be bright.
In my campaign for President, I travelled all across the
nation.  I saw the crumbling infrastructure.  I met with
communities that were desperate for new roads and new bridges.
The bridges were so dangerous, they couldn’t use them; they were
worried they would fall down.  You’ve seen that happen.  I heard
the pleas from the voters who wanted to know why we could rebuild
foreign countries?  My big thing.  We build in foreign countries,
we spend trillions and trillions of dollars outside of our
nation; but we can’t build a road, a highway, a tunnel, a bridge
in our own nation.  We watch everything falling into disrepair.
It’s time to rebuild {our} country, to bring back {our} jobs, to
restore {our} dreams.  And yes, it’s time — finally — to put
American first; and that’s what I’ve been doing, if you haven’t
noticed.
We’re going to restore America’s industrial might; creating
the jobs and tax base to put new infrastructure all over our
country.  That’s what’s happening.  I’m calling on all Democrats
and Republicans to join together — if that’s possible — in the
great rebuilding of America.  Countless American industries,
businesses, and jobs depend on rivers, runways, roads, and rails
that are in dire and even desperate condition.  Millions of
American families rely on their water and pipes and pumps that
are on the verge of total failure and collapse.
We are pleased to be joined today by representatives from
many, many industries that depend on a truly critical component
of our nation’s infrastructure.  These citizens know firsthand
that the rivers, like the beautiful Ohio River, carry the
lifeblood of our heartland.  Roughly 60% of United States grain
exports travel down these waterways to the Gulf.  More than half
of all the American steel is produced within 250 miles of where
we’re standing right now, and its production depends on the
inland waterway system.  Up to 25% of the nation’s energy cargo
relies on these channels, and the refineries along their shores.
But these critical guarders of commerce depend on a dilapidated
system of locks and dams that is more than half a century old.
And their condition, as you know better than anybody, is in very
bad shape.  It continues to decay.
Capital improvements of this system which is so important,
have been massively underfunded.  There is an $8.7 billion
maintenance backlog that is only getting bigger and getting
worse.  Last December, up the Ohio River near Pittsburgh, one
lock built more than 50 years ago had to be shut down for five
days due to hydraulic failure.  You know what that means.  Five
days means everything comes to a halt.  We simply cannot tolerate
a five-day shutdown on a major thoroughfare for American coal,
American oil, and American steel which is going to get more and
bigger.  America must have the best, fastest, and most reliable
infrastructure anywhere in the world.  We cannot accept these
conditions any longer.
A few years ago, a gate broke from its hinges at the
Markland Locks on the Ohio River in Kentucky.  It took nearly
five months to repair.  Any of you know about that?  Wasn’t a
pretty picture, was it?  I don’t think so.  In 2011, a massive
section of canal wall collapsed near Chicago, delaying
everything; and it seemed like forever.
America built the Golden Gate Bridge in just four years, and
the Hoover Dam in five years.  Think of that.  It shouldn’t take
ten years to get approvals for a very small little piece of
infrastructure; and it won’t.  Because under my administration,
it’s not going to happen like that anymore.
So, I want to thank all of the great workers for being here
today.  I want to thank all of the great business leaders; you
have some business leaders who are legendary people in the
audience.  Running massive, massive companies.  And being slowed
down, but now they’ll be able to speed it up.
Not only are we going to repair much of the depleted
infrastructure, but we’re going to create brand new projects that
excite and inspire.  Because that is what a great country does;
that is what a great country has to do.  America wants to build.
Across the nation, our amazing construction workers, steel
workers, iron workers, fitters, electricians, and so many others
are just waiting to get back to work.  With the talent and skill
they represent — which believe me, I grew up in the building
business.  I know the talent and the skill and the courage and
everything else that they have.  There is no limit to what we can
achieve.  All it takes is a bold and daring vision and the will
to make it happen.
Nearly two centuries ago, one American governor had just
such a vision and a will.  His name was Governor DeWitt Clinton.
As the governor of New York State, he dreamed of a canal
stretching nearly 400 miles to connect the Atlantic Ocean in the
east with the Great Lakes in the west.  He predicted that its
construction would place New York City at the very center of
worldwide commerce.  He took the idea to Washington, but
President Thomas Jefferson — great President — didn’t agree
with him; and he dismissed that concept as total madness.  I’d
like to thank all of the people that helped so much in that
incredible event, and I think that Jefferson simply understood
who he was and who he was dealing with.  If you want a New Yorker
to do something, just tell them — like our great past governor
— that it’s impossible to do.  The governor didn’t give up, and
New York State achieved what they thought was the impossible.
When the Erie Canal opened in 1825, he was on the first boat.  He
personally deposited a bucket of water from the Great Lakes into
the New York Harbor.  The new canal exceeded even the governor’s
bold vision.  It dramatically reduced the time and cost to
transport goods from the heartland.  As a result, new settlers
rushed into the Midwest, including to right smack here.  Probably
some of you indirectly, right?  Definitely some of you.
Just as the daring dreams of our ancestors opened new paths
across our land, today we will build the dreams that open new
paths to a better tomorrow.  We, too, will see jobs and wealth
flood into the heartland, and see new products and new produce
made and grown right here in the U.S.A.  You don’t hear that much
anymore.  We will buy American, and we will hire American.  We
will not — so importantly — be content to let our nation become
a museum of former glories.  We will construct incredible new
monuments to American grit that inspire wonder for generations
and generations to come.  We will build because our people want
to build, and because we need them to build.  We will build
because our prosperity demands it.  And above all, we will build
because that is how we make America great again.
Thank you.  God bless you.  Go out there and work.  You’re
going to see some amazing things happen over the next long period
of time.  Thank you, everyone.  It’s a great honor to be with
you.  Thank you.

OGDEN:  So, to address some of what President Trump covered
in that frankly inspiring speech, I want to hand it over to
Jason.  I know we have some other things to cover, but we’ll get
to those later in the show.  I think this is a good point to let
Jason tell us how we’re going to get to work.

JASON ROSS:  OK, this article that Matt referred to earlier,
that I wrote about New York City’s infrastructure — New York’s a
case-study, but it really says something about the nation as a
whole, namely, that if the biggest, greatest city in the United
States is an infrastructure disaster, what does that say about
our economic thinking, about the way we think about
infrastructure?  How did we let ourselves get into a situation
that’s this bad?
First, from a national perspective, just some of the
numbers, briefly.  The American Society of Civil Engineers every
few years does a report card on American infrastructure.  We got
a D+.  Now, they say that there’s $4.5 trillion of infrastructure
that’s needed and of that, only about half of it actually is
funded.  That over the next decade, there is a little over $2
trillion in infrastructure needs that currently are not provided
for, that won’t happen, that aren’t scheduled to take place:
Things like the locks and dams on our inland waterway system that
President Trump mentioned, which are in terrible shape!  Where
the failure — take one example — the failure of the Soo locks
on the Great Lakes, if that were to go, for the shipping season
during the warmer months, the estimates from the Department of
Homeland Security are that {11 million jobs} would be lost by the
failure of that one piece of infrastructure because it’s so
critical to so much of manufacturing:  Of bringing ore from one
place to another, bringing products from one place to another.
Without it, there’s no alternative way of moving these goods.
You’re not going to ship it by truck.  It won’t happen.  It’s
just going to dramatically collapse our productive abilities.
Now, these estimates are a little low.  The head of China
Investment Corp.  Ding Xuedong estimated U.S. infrastructure
needs at $8 trillion!  What  this really all comes down to,
though is what we consider our needs to be.  Do we think of what
we need to do in the future, in terms of repairing what we’ve
already got, which we certainly should repair locks and dams that
are threatening failure.  But is that what our needs are?
It isn’t.  You’ve got to say what is going to make us proud
a century from now.  What is going to be the groundwork that 100
years from now, we will say, “Oh, this was the basis for the
prosperity that we had over this century; this is what made it
possible.”  And if you look at the past, at things like the canal
that President Trump mentioned, if you look at what Eisenhower
did 51 years ago in setting up the Highway Trust Fund and the
ability to go out and build the Interstate Highway System, which
was a pretty phenomenal thing in its time: 40,000 miles of
expressway were built in a decade and a half.  That’s pretty
fast.  It was a large project.  Every year, 15,000 families were
relocated, 40,000 miles built altogether, at a cost in today’s
terms of about $500 billion —  a big project.  A big project.
Now, for what we need to do today, to make the groundwork
for what we’re going to need over the next century, we’ve got to
think about leapfrogging.  What’s the next level of technology?
Improving Amtrak trains?–ugh.  Instead, think about how are we
going to have a high-speed rail network?  Where will these
high-speed rail stations be?  There’s just no way, for example,
on the route that goes from New York to Boston, it can’t be
upgraded — forget it!  It won’t happen; we’re not going to build
a maglev line that runs along the current Northeast Corridor from
New York to Boston.  Not going to happen.  Too crooked, too
curved, goes through too many downtowns and narrow types of
passageways — not going to happen.  We’re going to build an
entirely new rail network in the United States, new high-speed
rail network.
We should build maglev rail, magnetic levitation is the
leapfrog.  That’s the next level of technology.  It’s more
efficient, it’s safer, it’s quieter, less vibration, less
disruption to people nearby.  Fast, safe, efficient — this is
what would be the next generation of technology, that would be a
basis for a higher potential of our country as a whole.
Think about the history of the United States; think about
the history of any country.  What makes it possible to achieve a
certain level of wealth of economic activity, of development?
Well, there’s a lot of aspects to it, but the primary one that
makes everything else possible, is your infrastructure platform.
Do you have a network of roads?  Do you have availability of
power?  How about water?  Think about where cities are located in
the country, or in other countries — where do cities locate
themselves?  They don’t wind up in the middle of the desert or on
the top of a mountain peak or someplace like that.  It’s based on
the, you might say “natural,” infrastructure.  Is it near a
river?  Why is New York where it is?  The Hudson River isn’t just
an inconvenience to traffic because you have to build bridges and
tunnels above it or below it.  It’s the Hudson River!  This is a
major aspect of shipping that goes into the country.  That’s why
New York is where it is.
Other cities, they are where they are due in large part to
rivers for our older cities; and then when you think about what
the potential is in building rail networks and building road
networks, you create a synthetic environment of infrastructure,
that says, OK, this is a place where we should build a new city;
this is a place where it makes sense to have production.  We can
get materials easily, we can work on them, we can ship them out;
we’ve got water, we’ve got power, we’ve got transportation, that
increases the potential of every bit of land that is developed in
that way.
So when you string electric lines out, as Roosevelt did with
the Rural Electrification Act, with the help from the Federal
government for rural residents to get electricity to their towns,
to their farms, this dramatically increased their productivity.
The building of the Transcontinental Railroad; it didn’t just
mean it as cheaper to ship some thing you ordered from a
manufacturer in New York to San Francisco.  Yes, it was cheaper
and quicker than going by boat, all the way around; but what did
it make possible in the entire rest of the country?  You build a
rail line, all the places along it are now increased in their
potential, increased in their value.
So what we need to do, is take advantage of the incredible
renaissance in infrastructure that’s occurring all around the
world — it’s led by China.  And I’ve got to say, the incredible
success that China’s having with its own domestic infrastructure,
with the building of 22,000 km of high-speed rail over the past
decade.  And let’s think about this:  China is a country, where a
decade ago there was zero high-speed rail in China.  What you see
here [{{Figure 1}}] is a map of a future 8 by 8 grid of
high-speed rail planned by China.  It’s double the length of
current high-speed rail, 45,000 km.  They’re going to have that
in place in 2035.
Where do these lines go?  Does it go to currently existing
cities?  Yes.  It would be silly not to link up currently
existing cities.  Where are the stations? Are they in the
downtowns?  Not necessarily.  Maybe it’s difficult to get there;
there’s already a lot of buildings there.  So new areas are
opening up for development in China, as a result of these
high-speed rail lines.  They’re tremendously successful.  Most of
the trips made along this network, are new trips, ones that would
not have been made if the network did not exist.  So it’s not
just people getting somewhere they were already going more
quickly, it’s actually increasing the transportation throughput
in the country.
That’s what it would be like in the United States as well,
as we develop a national network of high-speed rail [{{Figure
2}}]; this will change the productivity throughout the country.
And another aspect of this, I want to show one more thing we
can learn from China, which is the increase in energy, to take
another metric.  I had mentioned transportation.  Here’s a chart
[{{Figure 3}}]: In blue, you see total per-capita energy use in
China, from 1972-2012, so, 40 years.  Look at that difference:
Total energy use per capita in China is more than four times as
big, almost five times as big.  Now, look especially at the red
line:  That’s the amount of {electricity} used per person in
China.  Now, I know, in this chart the red line goes above the
blue line, because they’re different units, so don’t worry about
that.  The relative change is what’s important:  {Per-capital}
electricity use in China, has gone up {by 25 times}, in past four
decades — 25 times. Think about what that means.  Look at the
percentage of energy use in China, that comes from electricity,
that’s in the form of electricity:  It’s gone from 3% to
15%–that’s a {wonderful} accomplishment!  Because electricity is
a higher form of power than energy in general.  There’s things
that you can do with energy, such as burning fuels for cooking,
let’s say, or heat to power a diesel train engine, or steam
engine or something like this.  Electricity is the next level of
technology.  You can do much more with it:  You can power motors
that are controlled by computer equipment; you can have laser
manufacturing technologies, electric-discharge machining,
electron beam welding.  The next level of productivity is made
possible through the use of electricity as a higher platform.
I think we can definitely learn some lessons from China.
And the speed at which they have been doing this, I think
absolutely — I wouldn’t want to say “vindicates” but it’s a
successful experiment that shows that the method of Lyndon
LaRouche is right!
This proposal that China has made of the Belt and Road
Initiative, whereby China is engaged with multilateral financing
institutions and with its own domestic financial institutions,
like its state banks, its Export-Import Bank, etc., it’s been
involved in {major} infrastructure deals with its neighbors along
the Belt and Road, and even in more distant locations, such as
Africa, where the incredibly new rail opening in Kenya that
reduces travel time from Mombasa to Nairobi from 10 hours down to
4 hours, with the building of the Standard Gauge Railway there,
this is the type of project that is just going to dramatically
improve the productivity of Kenya.  A Chinese-financed project,
by the Chinese Export-Import Bank.
These kinds of deals are wonderful.  It’s a “win-win”
approach where China is able to export its technology, export its
know-how, the train sets that it builds, and the nations in which
the infrastructure is being built, of course, benefit from having
a great new set of infrastructure.  So everybody benefits from
this.  And the speed that this is being done with, the way that
it’s being financed, I think it says, “Hey, we could be doing
this here.”
This isn’t some sort of distant plan.  We should take the
outlook that President Trump expressed in that speech that we
just heard him make and say, we’re going to do this right now.
We can start building these things right now.  The whole
Interstate system was built in 15 years, that’s pretty fast, when
you think about the size of the thing.  What does it look like to
build a high-speed rail network in the United States?  Who’s
going to build the train sets?  Where’s the rail going to come
from? We can gear up to build the rail, but as far as high-speed
trains go, we don’t produce those!  We actually don’t have the
know-how among American domestic manufacturers.  We’re going to
be looking to China, as contractors, to build these kinds of
train sets, and also to assist with the financing.  China has
huge foreign reserves right now, and the head of China Investment
Corp. Ding Xuedong, the guy I had mentioned earlier, he said that
he’d be interested in investing some of the tens of billions of
dollars in U.S. Treasuries that China Investment Corp. holds,
happy to invest that in U.S. infrastructure.
I think from that standpoint, when we look at New York, for
example, and New York is a disaster — it’s on such a thin
thread, the ability for the over 1 million who come into
Manhattan every day for work, the ability for them to get to
work, it is incredibly precarious!  This summer, for two months,
two of the four tunnels heading east from Manhattan are going to
be closed for maintenance.  That’s going to really upset the Long
Island Railroad.  The two tunnels coming into Manhattan from the
west, the rail tunnels going into Penn Station, — which is
operating at over 100% capacity; as many trains as could possibly
fit through that tunnel are already making the trip.  New Jersey
transit commuters going into New York has tripled over the past
couple of decades.  It’s just  — you can’t fit any more people
through that tunnel!  It’s not possible.
These tunnels, the ones that I’d mentioned, these are 100
years old, or older!  {1910}, the Hudson tunnels were opened up!
These are in {desperate} need of repair — but it’s impossible to
close them to do any maintenance, because so many people are
riding on them all the time.
The only way that this can be fixed is to build an entirely
new set of tunnels, to build a new train station — here we go,
[{{Figure 4}}] this is the Gateway Project from Amtrak, where
additional lines would be built so you could have four tracks
going all the way from Penn Station, Newark; there’d be a new
loop built at Secaucus — my apologies if you’re not familiar
with the area, I know this is going fast. You’re going to have
more than double the flow of people and trains that could be
brought into New York.
This is a major and essential project.  Some work was
actually begun on it in 2009, before New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie killed it in 2010.  But, it’s not enough.  Yes, this
should happen, but this isn’t the real outlook we ought to have.
We need to think, how is New York going to fit in a broader,
regional scheme of things?  What’s the high-speed rail going to
look like in the area?  How can we totally transform the region’s
rail stations so that instead of New Jersey Transit trains coming
into Penn Station and then turning around, they keep going to the
east? [{{Figure 5}}] To Sunnyside, Queens, to a new terminal at
Port Morris, the Bronx; this is a proposal by ReThink New York
City, a public advocacy group up there.  We need entirely new
subway lines, and a national high-speed rail network.
I just want to say one more thing about the Interstate
system here [{{Figure 6}}] which you see on the screen.  This is
the original 1955 plan.  And I’d like to talk a little bit about
how Eisenhower made this reality.  First off, in terms of where
the demand for roads came from: The real push for an improvement
in public roads came in 1880 and it was promoted by bicycle
riders, who  thought rail was great for trains, but people wanted
a smooth way to ride a bike without being quite so bumpy. By the
1930s, trucks only hauled about 10% of freight in the United
States; 75% of freight moved by rail in ’20s, with trucking doing
a small amount at that time, and then inland waterways, the
infrastructure that President Trump mentioned in that clip.
By 1958, when the highway system was starting to get built,
rail was 50% of freight, highways 20%, inland waterways 16%,
pipelines 16%; and the ability to build up a broader expressway
system was hampered by the fact of how are you going to pay for
it? So the Bureau of Public Roads had been getting
appropriations: Congress would vote up some appropriations to the
Bureau of Public Roads to give grants to help build up the U.S.
highway system. It was unreliable, you didn’t know how Congress
was going to vote every year; it made it very difficult to do
long-term planning.
What Eisenhower did was he set up the — and this is lessons
for today for national banking for how to finance these projects
— Eisenhower set up the Highway Trust Fund in 1956.  It was a
separate fund, it wasn’t part of the annual budget.  Congress
wasn’t going to vote on it every year, to say, “gee should we
build the highway system or not?” and re-debate it every single
year.  Forget it!  Eisenhower set up this special fund that had a
dedicated tax system where the money would go straight into it,
as a separate capital budget, not part of the annual operating
budget.  A tax on gasoline — by the way the current gas tax
right now, it’s too low.  It hasn’t been increased in a couple of
decades.  It should be higher.  That’s why the Highway Trust Fund
doesn’t have enough money; the gas tax hasn’t been increased to
keep pace.  What else? Tire taxes, for trucks.  Trucks have big
wear on the roads; a tax for the sale of large trucks, and also a
tax for the yearly registration of large trucks.  So these kind
of indirect taxes ended up sending the money into the Highway
Trust Fund, so that it was able to build out this whole road
system and not be repaid directly.  The emphasis was {not} toll
roads! That was actually a condition for some of the turnpikes to
get Interstate Highway System funding, was they had to get rid of
their tolls. So, along Interstate-95, I-95, a lot of these roads
used to be tollways; in Connecticut that used to be a tollway.
In ’80s, after paying off bonds for repair and upgrade of a
bridge, the tolls had to be taken down, that was in keeping with
the interstate system.
That’s the way we’ve got to think about it.  Not a
public-private partnership, where you say, “I’m going to directly
pay for this project and I’ll make the money back through tolls,”
forget it.  That’ll work for an airport upgrade or something like
that.  But for a national high-speed rail network, for these
other things, what we need is national banking, so that we can
have long-term, low-interest loans, and we can get it away from
the annual squabbles about appropriations; have the ability to
have separate capital budgeting to finance this long-term
outlook.  And of course, none of that is going to happen without
Glass-Steagall.

OGDEN:  I think that’s the vision that people are looking
for, and you even heard President Trump say, “this is the kind of
bold vision.” People are ready to work!  People are ready to
build and it is true, that if you look at the history of the
American System, what is it that conquered the West?  It was the
spirit of building; this is a nation of builders.  This is the
kind of spirit that Gov. DeWitt Clinton, a strong advocate of the
American System was a believer in.
This article that you wrote, Jason, it’s available in the
current issue of {Executive Intelligence Review}
[http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/private/2017/2017_20-29/2017-23/
pdf/12-28_4423.pdf]
and we’ll make a link available.  But I want to ask our viewers
at this point, what have you been reading in the press this week?
What have you been seeing on television?  Have you been seeing
coverage of National Infrastructure Week?  Did you see coverage
of this inspiring speech by President Trump in Cincinnati?  Did
you see coverage, unless you’re a C-Span wonk, [laughter] did you
see the speeches that Marcy Kaptur [D-OH] and Tulsi Gabbard
[D-HI] made on the floor of the House for Glass-Steagall?  This
is one of the most historic fights in present history:  Did you
see the coverage of this fight in the Rules Committee, which was
very dramatic, over their proposal to repeal the “Financial
CHOICE Act,” a Dodd-Frank, and replace it immediately with
Glass-Steagall?  That’s a {real} repeal and replace!
Did you hear coverage of this new international order that’s
being consolidated in Eurasia?  These three back-to-back summits
with world leaders: The Belt and Road Forum, the St. Petersburg
International Economic Forum, and the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization summit that’s happening now?  Have you see coverage
of these unprecedented missions that China is sending to the
Moon? The same return mission, lunar sample return? The mission
to the far side of the Moon?
Or even, did you see coverage of this absolutely historic
election, general election that happened just last night in Great
Britain, when Theresa May got completely trounced and Jeremy
Corbyn shocked everybody, and gained unprecedented seats for
Labour Party and consolidated his control over Labour, despite
all of the opposition from within his own party.  Did you see
coverage of that?  No!
What have you been seeing?  Twenty-four hours a day, around
the clock, you’ve been seeing Comey, Comey, Comey, Comey.  This
is the sideshow, — it really reminded me of an episode from the
“People’s Court” or something. [laughter]

ROSS:  Or, “Twilight Zone.”

OGDEN:  Right.  I actually want to point your attention to
an article which is available as the lead of the LaRouche PAC
website today, called “LaRouche: Stop the FBI Fraud, Stop the
Coup against the President — What the Lying Media Is Not Telling
You”
[https://larouchepac.com/20170609/larouche-stop-fbi-fraud-stop-
coup-against-president-what-lying-media-not-telling-you].
And that’s a screenshot there from the LaRouche PAC website; this
is the lead for today. And it begins as follows:  “Lyndon
LaRouche called upon the American people to shut down the coup
underway against President Trump which was fed Thursday by the
lying testimony of fired FBI Director James Comey before the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. LaRouche said that the
coup is an FBI-type operation attempting to destroy the United
States, and if it is not stopped, the world will face general
warfare.”
And then it goes on to say the following: “On June 7, former
Director of National Intelligence Clapper revealed the actual
motivation for the coup against Trump in remarks in Australia. He
said that Trump’s openness to peace with Russia–the platform
upon which Trump was elected by the American people–was itself
wholly against U.S. national security interests, in effect,
equivalent to treason.”  And then the article goes on to say: “It
was already known in official Washington well before the
election, that President Obama, in collusion with the British,
candidate Clinton, DNI head Clapper, CIA head Brennan, and FBI
head Comey, had steered the U.S. on a war course with Russia and
China, which was meant to be fully activated with Clinton’s
election. Trump was elected instead, triggering the coup which
has followed.”  And then it makes the very clear point:
“President Trump has kept his promise and established better
relations with both Russia and China, who are seeking cooperation
with the United States in developing the world based on great
infrastructure projects. That is the only issue here.”
Again, that’s the beginning of the article, “LaRouche: Stop
the FBI Fraud, Stop the Coup against the President — What the
Lying Media Is Not Telling You” which is available on the
LaRouche PAC website.  And then it goes on from there, and goes
through a very detailed examination of what this process really
has been ever since Inauguration Day; so we encourage you to read
that article. And let me put on the screen again, the link to the
petition: http://action.larouchepac.com/lets_rebuild_the_country.
It’s called “Congress, Suck It Up and Move On — It’s Time To
Rebuild the Country.”  And the url is http://lpac.co/rebuild ,
that’s where you can sign this petition online.  And we also have
a mobile phone app that you can text the word REBUILD to
2025248709.
And that petition continues to accumulate signatures, and
it’s your opportunity to get involved.
I just want to let Jason say a little more in terms of the
process that’s ongoing.  The opportunity that we have ahead of
us, — Helga LaRouche’s attendance at the Belt and Road Forum
that occurred in Beijing, the campaign which we’ve been running
for the United States to join this Silk Road — what better
opportunity do we have than now, when you actually have your
President, whatever you want to say about him, is strongly
advocating a modernization of U.S.  infrastructure and an
exciting program to give Americans the opportunity to build a new
era of U.S. infrastructure.

ROSS:  Well, Trump’s initiative is right.  His direction on
this is right.  He likes to build things;  you’ve heard that
speech, this is a good direction for this country.  What is
really not very present is how to finance it.  And that’s the big
weakness and that’s what we are responsible for correcting.
That’s what Lyndon LaRouche has been working on for decades, is a
real science of economics and doing that in opposition to what
has taken over United States policy: monetarism.
The Trump idea is that $200 billion in Federal financing is
going to be leveraged to create a total of $1 trillion over a
decade for U.S. infrastructure. That’s the Trump outlook. That’s
grossly insufficient.  The idea that you’re going to leverage
$200 billion into a total of $1 trillion is a difficult thing if
you don’t have the ability to capture the indirect value of
infrastructure.  Because, look, think about the value of building
up a platform.  The value of building up an infrastructure
platform, isn’t to make money by charging people to use it.  Now
you open up some business where you’re making cookies, well sure,
you sell your cookies; people pay to eat your cookies or
whatever, that’s fine, that’s how a business works.
That’s now how an infrastructure platform works:  The return
is indirect, the return isn’t local to the place where the
infrastructure is built.  It changes the nation as a whole.  And
when we think about linking in to the full World Land-Bridge
proposal, crossing the Bering Straits, not only will we be able
to ship things from the Americas over to Asia more quickly than
you can by ship, but you’re opening up the Arctic.  There’s tons
of resources in the Arctic!  There’s petroleum, we know about
that; but mineral resources, all sorts of potential up there.
It’s not worth anything if you can’t get to it.  So building up
that whole network, as Dr. Hal Cooper has put forward in his
engineering proposals on this, tremendous change.  To the south,
bridging the Darién Gap, connecting North, Central and South
America as one: These are tremendous potentials.
The value of infrastructure, it’s indirect, it’s not local;
{and}, it’s not commensurable.  A dollar into infrastructure,
maybe has, you might calculate $2.5  of benefit or something like
this.  It’s not the same dollars.  That chart I had showed
earlier about China’s use of electricity as a percentage of its
total power, this represents a transformation of the economy.
The fact that total power went up five times, but electrical
power went up 25 times, China’s not doing five times more of what
it used to do, or leaving the lights on longer, or something like
this.  This represents {a change in the structure of the economy
as a whole.}  And it’s made possible by building out a network of
power. China needs {much} more power into the future; China is
building nuclear power plants into the future, and this is really
the next level of platform of energy, just as high-speed and
maglev rail is the future of transportation, nuclear power,
developing fusion power, that’s the next level of electricity.
So we’ve got to think of those leapfrogging type steps.  And
our message to Trump is:  Good direction, we’ve got some very
serious proposals for you about how to make it all possible;
Glass-Steagall is absolutely essential, as you, Mr. President,
promised in your campaign.  And then, we need national banking,
as a way of indirectly financing these projects that just won’t
give money back to a private investor, it’s not how they work.
{And} finance fusion, so we get that next level, the next
platform will be possible

OGDEN:  Yeah, absolutely.  OK.  I think that’s an exciting
and very direct message.  We’ve got a lot going on, clearly.
This has been a very, very eventful week! And I think we can just
expect the pace of the things to continue to increase.
So thank you very much for watching today, and please
encourage other people to watch this broadcast; there is a lot of
material, and it’s a lot to absorb and a lot to teach others
about.
Thank you very much, Jason.  I know you’re going to be up in
New York City next week, and presenting some of this, for our
friends who are up there, I encourage you to directly participate
in that discussion with Jason. And please read Jason’s article,
“Case Study New York City: A Future Platform of U.S.
Infrastructure.”  We’re making that available in the description
for today’s broadcast.
Thank you Jason, and thank you for watching.  Please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 7. juni, 2017 – I dag mødtes den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping med Kasakhstans præsident Nursultan Nazarbajev, i Astana, hvor Xi, i september 2013, havde annonceret sit forslag for initiativet for det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte. I en artikel, Xi skrev til sit aktuelle besøg, sagde han, at forslaget med succes var gået »fra idé til handling«, og at det nu virker som et »globalt offentligt gode«.

I dag i USA blev det samme iboende princip om offentligt gode – et gode, der er for alle – fremlagt, som konceptet for at genopbygge USA, i en præsentation af præsident Donald Trump, i en tale på bredden af Ohiofloden i Cincinnati.

Trump krævede en opgradering af amerikansk infrastruktur og jobskabelse. Der lå et fokus på renovering af sluserne og dæmningerne i Ohio-systemet og af alle USA’s indlands- og kystvandvejes 12.000 miles. Han berettede om fortidige amerikanske infrastrukturpræstationer, inklusive byggeriet af Hoover Dam på fem år, og Golden Gate-broen på fire år. Se på Erie-kanalen – som var New York-guvernøren DeWitt Clintons drøm. Thomas Jefferson, sagde Trump, mente ikke, det kunne gøres. Men sig det til en New Yorker, og han finder en måde at gøre det på! Trump sagde, »Vi var engang en nation af byggere … [Men] vi gør det ikke længere … Reparerer ikke engang ting …« Det må ændres, sagde han.

Vores udfordring i USA er at lykkes med at frembringe »handlings«-delen i »fra idé til handling«. Vi må fremtvinge en amerikansk frigørelse af Wall Street/City of Londons kollapsende, monetariske rod og skabe betingelser for bankvirksomhed, kredit og fremgang inden for produktivitet og videnskab, der har til formål at tjene nationen. I denne uge har vi to initiativer inden for dette program.

For det første vil en ny plan for USA blive udgivet af LaRouchePAC’s Videnskabsteams medlem, Jason Ross, med titlen, »En fremtidig platform for USA’s infrastruktur – case study: New York« (se EIR, 9. juni, 2017). Ross har samarbejdet med dr. Hal B.H. Cooper, transportingeniør, og andre, om specifikke projekter for New York City, der er én stor infrastrukturkatastrofe. I sin introduktion erklærer Ross, »Vi indleder med at fremlægge løsninger på ignorerede spørgsmål om infrastrukturens rolle i økonomien. Og således udstyret med disse koncepter, går vi frem mod USA’s nationale infrastrukturbehov i lyset af internationale infrastrukturudviklinger i Kina. Og sluttelig vender vi tilbage til New York City, i sammenhæng med byens nationale og internationale placering, og diskuterer de nødvendige, næste stadier af dens infrastrukturudvikling, idet vi ser frem, ikke 10 eller 20 år ind i fremtiden, men derimod flere generationer.«

Det andet initiativ i denne uge er handlingen for den nødvendige forudsætning for, at denne økonomiske søsætning kan finde sted – nemlig, genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall-loven fra 1933 for at adskille og beskytte kommerciel bankpraksis fra spekulationsvirksomhed, og som fungerede i 66 år frem til 1999, hvor loven uretmæssigt blev ophævet. To hovedsponsorer af lovforslaget til genindførelse af Glass-Steagall (H.R. 790, Loven om tilbagevenden til klog og forsigtig bankpraksis af 2017) i Repræsentanternes Hus – Marcy Kaptur (Dem.) og Walter Jones (Rep.) – briefede i går aftes Husets ’Rules Committee’[1] om nødvendigheden af Glass-Steagall og behovet for at få en fair debat i Huset om lovens genindførelse. Kapturs 8 minutter lange tale cirkulerer nu nationalt på de sociale medier.[2] Det forventes, at Kaptur vil forsvare den i debatten den 8. juni i Husets sal om H.R. 10, Loven om det finansielle VALG – en dum lov til Wall Streets fortsatte lancering.

Der er ingen tid at spilde; farerne er mange. Med hensyn til vores nationale infrastruktur, så er vi gået ind i en forfaldsfase à la »Minneapolis-broen«, som refererer til katastrofen for 10 år siden (1. august, 2007), da en bro over Mississippifloden pludselig kollapsede midt i myldretiden og dræbte 13 mennesker og sårede yderligere 145 i kollapset. Det kunne ske, ikke alene i USA, men hvor som helst, og hvornår, det skal være, i hele landet.

På den internationale scene er situationen i Sydvestasien kaotisk, kompliceret og farlig. I dag angreb terrorister det iranske parlament, med 12 døde til følge. Som den russiske præsident Putin gentog i sit kondolencebrev til det iranske folk, så »bekræfter angrebene endnu engang nødvendigheden af at intensivere internationalt samarbejde om bekæmpelse af terror«.

Video: Marcy Kaptur briefer Husets ’Rules Committee’ om lovforslag til genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, H.R. 790, der ønskes bragt til afstemning i salen.

Foto (Kasakhstans regering): Kasahkstans præsident Nursultan Nazarbajev mødes med formand for Folkerepublikken Kina, Xi Jinping, 6. april, 2013.

[1] I Repræsentanternes Hus har komiteen ansvaret for reglerne for, at andre lovforslag kommer til afstemning i salen. (-red.)

[2] Se: Reinstate Glass-Steagall To Restore ‘Golden Age’ of American Growth

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 29. maj, 2017 – Verden ser meget anderledes ud, når den anskues fra Kina, end den gør fra USA eller Europa, lød Helga Zepp-LaRouches kommentar, da hun vendte hjem fra sin deltagelse i Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, der fandt sted 14.-15. maj. Kina befinder sig i en udvikling, der foregår i et forbløffende tempo, og deler nu denne succesfulde model med hele planeten, gennem Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Som en opstigende kraft i hele planetens økonomiske og kulturelle udvikling har Kina et optimistisk og forhåbningsfuldt syn – og ikke den pessimisme og fortvivlelse, der har hersket i det meste af Europa og USA, siden mordet på John F. Kennedy.

Der foregår nu en global omgruppering, bemærkede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, med fornuftige regeringer, der bringer deres nationer om bord i Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Kun de dumdristige vil blive stående udenfor og ’kigge ind’ sådan, som Angela Merkel nu gør med Tyskland.

Præsident Donald Trump må nu handle hurtigt for at sikre, at USA bliver en del af denne omgrupperede orientering. Han valgte klogt at sende en personlig toprådgiver, Matt Pottinger, som sin repræsentant til Bælt & Vej Forum. Nu må han forhandle Amerikas fulde deltagelse i alle aspekter af dette Nye Paradigme, inklusive investering af billioner af dollars i genopbygningen af Amerikas totalt ødelagte infrastruktur. Trump må handle hurtigt for at skabe reel, fysisk-økonomisk forandring – det er, hvad de millioner, der stemte på ham, venter på. Han må handle hurtigt, for at genindsætte FDR’s Glass/Steagall-lov fra 1933 for at skabe den nødvendige bank- og kreditramme for en sådan massiv indsats for genopbygning – dét er mandatet, han fik ved præsidentvalget i 2016. Den idémæssige køreplan for, hvordan disse politikker skal implementeres i USA, har Lyndon LaRouche gentagent leveret – senest i sine Fire Love (til USA’s – og verdens – omgående redning).

Præsident Trump bør ikke tillade, at han presses eller distraheres bort fra denne hastedagsorden, af disse tendentiøse og grundløse anklager, der slynges ud mod hans regering, den ene efter den anden. Det er netop formålet med disse, af briterne påbudte operationer, at de skal forhindre præsident Trump i at vedtage de nationale, og internationale, politikker, som Det britiske Imperium i den grad frygter. At fordømme og afsløre disse løgne er selvfølgelig nyttigt, og endda nødvendigt. Men, denne eneste måde, hvorpå disse beskidte operationer på afgørende vis kan begraves, er at gøre præcis dét, som briterne er mest bange for; og begynde at bygge infrastrukturen og andre store projekter, nu.

En mere passende hyldest til John F. Kennedy i hundredeåret for hans fødsel, end netop atter at hellige vor nation disse politikker, eksisterer ikke.

Foto: Helga Zepp-LaRouche på Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, den 14.-15. maj, 2017.

Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing den 14.-15. maj, hvor 130 lande havde takket ja til præsident Xi Jinpings invitation, Ruslands Putin var æresgæst, men hvor også USA sendte en vigtig delegation, kan meget vel være starten på en sådan ny, retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden, hvor alle nationer får adgang til udvikling. Trump taler stadig godt med Xi Jinping og forbereder at løse krisen med Nordkorea. USA og Rusland samarbejder i Syrien. Krigsfraktionen i Vesten fortsætter heksejagten på Trump, og medierne skriger »Watergate« uden, at der er substans. Kan medierne sammen med efterretningstjenesterne få afsat Trump? Eller vil Trump rense op i overvågningssamfundet? Trump skal have gang i infrastrukturprojekter, men pengene vil ikke komme fra Wall Street. Vil vi se Glass/Steagall og LaRouches tre andre love blive gennemført, så USA kan overleve det bankerotte finanssystem og blive stort igen? Vil USA og Europa gå med i dette nye, globale paradigme? Præsident Trumps afvisning, ved NATO-topmødet i Bruxelles den 25. maj, og ved det efterfølgende G7-topmøde i Italien, af at lade USA under hans ledelse fortsætte den gamle, vestlige politik, kan være startskuddet til en helt ny verdensorden, hvor USA samarbejder tæt med de tidligere fjendebilleder Kina og Rusland.

Dette er en redigeret udgave af en tale, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets formand i Danmark, holdt den 17. maj 2017. Se og hør talen inklusive den efterfølgende diskussion på www.schillerinstitut.dk.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 8. maj, 2017 – Med den kommende weekends todages topmøde i Beijing omkring det globale udviklingsinitiativ, der allerede investerer i 65 nationer og er 20 gange større end Marshallplanen, vil spørgsmålet om, hvad man skal gøre ved de stagnerende amerikanske og europæiske nationaløkonomier, aldrig komme til at stå i så klart et lys igen. Helga Zepp-LaRouche har sagt, at, hvis Donald Trump tager til Beijing og allierer USA økonomisk med Bælt & Vej-initiativet, kunne han af historien blive set som en af Amerikas største præsidenter. På denne kurs ligger ikke alene en stor genoplivelse af produktivitet og produktiv beskæftigelse for amerikanere, men også den mulige løsning af den alvorlige trussel om krig i Asien, og endda – gennem samarbejde med Rusland – i Mellemøsten.

Og, med USA som deltager, vil selve Bælt & Vej-initiativet blive en langt stærkere økonomisk og teknologisk drivkraft for de mere end 100 nationer, der er repræsenteret i Beijing i denne weekend.

En betydningsfuld, asiatisk avis havde i dag en lederartikel, »Det er ikke for sent for præsident Trump at beslutte at tage til Beijing«. Det er for den sags skyld heller ikke for sent for den nyvalgte, franske præsident Emmanuel Macron at tage af sted. EU’s og Londons finanselite kan forsøge at forhindre og endda ødelægge Kinas Bælt & Vej, før det udvikler en ny, økonomisk infrastruktur i Europa, men alle de europæiske nationers udsigt til vækst afhænger af Bælt & Vej.

Med mindre den rigtige beslutning træffes nu, vil det meget snart være for sent for de transatlantiske økonomier. De kan ikke overleve endnu et finanskrak, værre end i 2008, og det er netop, hvad der truer dem nu. Tysklands førende finansavis, Handelsblatt, har udløst »høje advarselssignaler … En flodbølge af selskabslån, især i USA, kunne udløse en ny, global finanskrise. Konturerne af en gigantisk boble kommer mere og mere til syne i markedet for selskabsobligationer. Den kunne briste … på grund af hastigt stigende rentesatser og en faldende økonomi.«

En omgående ændring må ske, med vedtagelse af de »Fire Love til Nationens Redning«, som Lyndon LaRouche siden 2014 har foreslået. Genindfør Glass/Steagall-loven for at opdele Wall Street-bankerne, før de udløser en ødelæggende syndflod; skab dernæst statskredit-institutioner til opbygning af moderne infrastruktur, finansiering af rumforskning og fissions- og fusionsteknologier.

Hele indsatsen for at modgå dette transatlantiske, økonomiske kollaps kan kun lykkes med en sådan kurs for samarbejde med Kina, Indien og frem for alt Rusland.

City of London og Storbritannien forsøger at ødelægge muligheden, gennem Londons og Bruxelles’ angreb på Bælt & Vej, og gennem krig. Fra London kommer der nu rapporter om, at premierminister May vil bede sit nye parlament om at lade hende bombe Syriens regeringsstyrker, som hendes ministre bliver ved med offentligt at kræve. Dette omfatter endnu en fabrikeret hændelse med »kemisk bombeangreb« og ville kun blive udført af UK med det formål at trække præsident Trump ind i krigen igen. Og minsandten, om ikke BBC-udsendelser allerede begynder at hævde, at Syriens præsident vil udføre flere »kemiske bombeangreb«.

Det britiske incitament til konfrontation kommer netop på et tidspunkt, hvor den russiske og den amerikanske udenrigsminister skal afholde drøftelser i Washington i denne uge, med udsigten til at afslutte borgerkrigen og terrorismen i Syrien. Londons intervention må nedkæmpes – og præsident Trump må tage til Beijing.

Foto: Den forbudte By, Beijing. (Photo: flickr.com/romanboed (CC BY2.0))

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

»Det er 4. maj; ti dage, inden det går løs i Beijing med det store Bælt & Vej Forum, som bliver et afgørende punkt i den fortsatte udvikling her på planeten Jorden; det tror jeg allerede nu ligger klart. Det er jo så spændende, at den danske statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen ikke kunne vente. Han havde så travlt, at han sagde, ’jamen, jeg vil ikke vente til 14. maj; jeg tager derover allerede 2. maj til Kina og besøger pandaer, men også den kinesiske præsident og statsminister, og det er selvfølgelig en god impuls, at det er det første – ikke statsbesøg – men det første besøg fra dansk side med statsministeren, officielt besøg, siden 2008, da Danmark og Kina indgik et strategisk partnerskab, hvor Danmark ligesom blev det første land i Norden til at indgå et sådant særligt strategisk partnerskab med Kina. Så det er en god impuls at tage derover. Det, der så bare er vigtigt, er, at der er andet på dagsordenen end de pandaer …

Fordi, dét, Danmark SKAL med på, det er det nye paradigme, som Kina er drivkraften i, men hvor det ikke bare drejer sig om Kina, næh, det drejer sig om størstedelen af verden; det er det nye paradigme, som Kina samarbejder tæt om sammen med Rusland, sammen med stadig større dele af Asien, efterhånden det meste af Asien, men hvor Sydamerika, Afrika og andre lande også står i kø for at være med. Til dette Bælt & Vej Forum er der 30 stats- eller regeringschefer, der indtil nu har annonceret deres deltagelse, men der vil være delegationer fra over 100 lande, mange på meget højt niveau, fordi det her er stort; fordi Kina er blevet drivkraften i global udvikling. Den tankegang, man har haft i Kina, er simpelthen, at man har sagt, ’Vi har været i stand til at løfte 6 til 700.000 millioner mennesker, fattige kinesere, ud af fattigdom til et langt bedre liv; man har så en ambition om, at, i 2020 skal der ikke længere findes fattige i Kina; der skal ikke findes folk, der har problemer med, at de ikke får mad, osv. Fattigdommen skal afskaffes; men hvorfor skal det kun gælde Kina? Man har fundet ud af, at, hvis man investerer i infrastruktur, hvis man bruger penge på at investere i infrastruktur, i moderne teknologi, i modernisering af forskellige ting, jamen, så kan man løfte hele samfundet op; og det er ikke en speciel ting, der gælder for kinesere; det gælder for alle mennesker …«     

Lyd:

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 27. april, 2017 – USA og det transatlantiske finanssystem befinder sig nu ved et punkt, hvor det er på vej til en snarlig eksplosion, der overgår 2007-08. Foretagendernes gældsboble i dag, som er på $14 billion, er større end ejendomsmarkedsboblens $11 billion i 2007-08, og raten med 20 % betalingsstandsninger, som forudses for denne gæld i dag, er langt større end det, vi faktisk oplevede med ejendomslånene for et årti siden. Vi befinder os allerede i »The Big Short«, hvor Wall Street udlåner flere penge til naive tåber for at hjælpe dem til at opkøbe Wall Streets værdiløse værdipapirer – for derefter at spille imod sine egne kunder.

Hysteriet, der udstilles i Wall Streets daglige, offentlige udgydelser imod Glass-Steagall, reflekterer bankernes bevidsthed om den forestående nedsmeltning.

Intet som den nuværende situation er nogensinde blevet oplevet før, nogetsteds – det, der f.eks. skete i 2007-08, tåler ikke sammenligning med noget som helst i den nuværende verdenssituation.

Gene Kranz, mission controller i NASA, der senere blev chef mission controller for Apollo 13, beskrev i sin bog fra 2009, Failure is Not an Option (Fiasko er ikke en mulighed), hvordan hans chef, den legendariske mission controller Chris Kraft, kom hen til hans skrivebord blot to uger efter, at Kranz først startede i NASA i Langley i 1960. Kraft sagde:

»Alle andre er optaget. Jeg har kun dig tilbage. Vi har vores første Redstone-opsendelse foran os. Jeg vil gerne have, at du tager til Cape, går sammen med dem, der udfører testene og skriver en nedtælling. Skriv dernæst nogle regler for missionen. Når du er færdig, så ring til mig, og vi kommer ned og begynder træningen.«

Kranz fortsatte med at sige, at

»han må have bemærket chokket i mit ansigt, da Kraft fortsatte med at sige, ’jeg giver Paul Johnson besked om at tage imod dig i Mercury Control og give dig en hånd med’.

Min tid som iagttager var forbi, min mulighed for at nå at komme i omdrejninger afsluttet … Fra mit arbejde, senest ved Holloman Air Force Base i New Mexico, kendte jeg til flyvning, systemer, procedurer og checklister. Jeg kunne godt regne ud, hvad en nedtælling skulle indeholde. Men regler for en mission var noget andet. Der havde aldrig tidligere været en sådan mission i USA’s historie – jeg måtte simpelthen kaste mig ud i det. Eftersom der ikke var skrevet nogen bøger om den faktiske metodologi inden for rumfart, måtte vi skrive dem hen ad vejen.«

I dag er situationen den samme. Der findes ingen instruktionshåndbog. Det, vi ved, er, at vi må komme krakket i forkøbet, gennem en dybtgående mobilisering af befolkningen – ligesom en krigsmobilisering, men en dybtgående nationaløkonomisk mobilisering. Tænk på Franklin Roosevelts »100 dages program«. Stiftende redaktør for EIR, Lyndon LaRouche, forklarede, hvad dette vil sige i sine »Fire Nye Love« fra juni 2014. Revolutionen, der vælder frem fra hans »Basement« forskningsteam, giver genlyd af dette, sammen med hans »Manhattan Projekt«. Det sås i lederen af Basement-teamet Benjamin Denistons 15 minutter lange præsentation ved Schiller Instituttets konference på Manhattan den 13. april, og ligeledes af Basement-teamleder Megan Beets’ kursus den 15. april, om »Fusion; At hæve den menneskelige art.«

Det findes i hele Manhattanprojektets musikalske arbejde, ledet af Schiller Instituttets musikdirektør, John Sigerson.

»Det, man kan efterprøve, er det, I laver i Basement team, og det virker«, sagde LaRouche i dag.

»Det er funktionelt. Det, vi har gjort i Manhattan-området, har været en præstationsmæssig revolution. Så hvis I vil synke, kan I synke ved at være tåbelige. Hvis I ikke vil synke, så er det, I må gøre, at opføre jer ordentligt.«

LaRouche bemærkede, at USA og andre nationer har en iboende økonomisk kraft, der demonstreres i superhøje vækstrater, som impulser i visse perioder. Men

»så kom tyveknægtene og lukkede det ned og udbredte den myte, at det er sådan her, systemet fungerer. Men det er en myte! Det fungerer ikke sådan.«

Det, vi gør med Manhattan Projektet, hvor vi skaber en kraft for økonomisk kreativitet, må fortsættes. Der må være skabelsen af en udviklingsproces. Vi må indføre økonomisk virkelighed. Hvis det gøres, vil der ikke være noget problem, for døre vil åbne sig – før eller siden.

»Problemet i nationaløkonomier opstår, når nationaløkonomier ødelægges. Hvis man ser på det, som jeg ser på det«, sagde LaRouche,

»så har vi portene til fremgang lige frem for os. Men, vi må fastholde dem – det er forskellen.«