»Donald Trump og det Nye,
Internationale Paradigme«
(DANSK) Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale
ved Schiller Instituttet/EIR’s seminar
i København, 12. dec., 2016.

Jeg mener, at vi bør være meget glade, for hvis dette alt sammen går den rigtige vej; og det er for en stor del vores personlige forpligtelse at hjælpe, og jeg beder jer alle sammen om ikke at være passive tilskuere, men gå med i Schiller Instituttet for at være med til at implementere disse visioner og disse ideer, for så vil vi blive meget heldige med, at vi i vores levetid kan leve det nye paradigme. Og det nye paradigme vil blive første gang, menneskets værdighed vil blive virkeliggjort, og jeg mener, at det er en meget, meget vigtig mission, som vi alle bør vedtage.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

(Efterfølgende spørgsmål og svar, engelsk udskrift: Klik her. )

København, 12. december, 2016 – I dag var Helga Zepp-LaRouche særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar i København, med titlen, »Donald Trump og det Nye, Internationale Paradigme«. Otte diplomater fra seks lande deltog, inklusive to ambassadører. Nationer fra Vesteuropa, Sydvestasien, Vest- og Østasien var repræsenteret, samt fra Afrika. Desuden deltog henved 30 af Schiller Instituttets medlemmer og kontakter, såvel som også et par repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.

Arrangementet indledtes af en forestilling, hvor Feride Istogu Gillesberg og Michelle Rasmussen fremførte en kinesisk kærlighedssang. Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ved at beskrive den historiske rolle, hun har spillet i skabelsen af politikken med Den Nye Silkevej.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche indledte sin meget inspirerende og dybtgående tale med den revolution imod globalisering, som Brexit, Trumps valgsejr og Nej-resultatet i den italienske folkeafstemning udgør. Hun kom med en vurdering af potentialet i nogle af Trumps hidtidige erklæringer og udnævnelser og gik dernæst videre med en detaljeret diskussion af de to, modstridende paradigmer, der eksisterer i verden i dag. Dernæst opløftede Helga tilhørerne med Krafft Ehrickes og Nicolaus Cusanus’ skønne ideer. Hun konkluderede med en appel til de tilstedeværende om ikke at handle som tilskuere på historiens scene, men derimod, sammen med os, at gå med i kampen for det nye paradigme.

Herefter fulgte en intens, timelang diskussion, hvor der kom spørgsmål fra alle de forskellige grupper, der var repræsenteret. Helga afsluttede mødet med at udfordre tilhørerne til at beslutte, hvad de ønsker at bruge deres liv til; hvilket mærke, som vil være til gavn for hele menneskeheden langt ud i fremtiden, ønsker de at sætte? Et udskrift af Helgas svar vil ligeledes snarest blive udlagt her på hjemmesiden.

Helgas tale og efterfølgende diskussion havde en dybtgående virkning på alle de tilstedeværende.

Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale på
Schiller Instituttets og EIR’s
seminar i København:
Donald Trump og det nye
internationale paradigme.
ENGELSK udskrift af tale
samt Spørgsmål og Svar

Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale, der varer omkring 1 time og 20 minutter, kan høres ovenover eller her:

https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/helga-zepp-larouche-in-copenhagen-donald-trump-and-the-new-international-paradigm-1

En dansk oversættelse af talen kommer på torsdag.

Helgas tale og efterfølgende diskussion havde en dybtgående virkning på alle de tilstedeværende.

Diskussionen findes kun som engelsk udskrift (se nedenfor).

—–

English: Introductory article

Helga Zepp-LaRouche Keynotes Copenhagen Seminar on `Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm'

COPENHAGEN, Dec. 12, 2016 (EIRNS) — Today, Helga Zepp-LaRouche was the special guest speaker at a Schiller Institute/{EIR} seminar in Copenhagen entitled, "Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm." Eight diplomats from six countries attended, including two ambassadors. There were nations from Western Europe, Southwest Asia, Western and Eastern Asia, and Africa. In addition, there were around 30 Schiller Institute members and contacts, as well as a few representatives of various Danish and international institutions.

The event was opened by the presentation of a Chinese love song performed by Feride Istogu Gillesberg and Michelle Rasmussen. Afterwards, Tom Gillesberg, the chairman of The Schiller Institute in Denmark, introduced Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, describing her historical role in bringing about the New Silk Road policy.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche's very inspiring, in-depth speech began with the revolution against globalization represented by the Brexit, the Trump election, and the Italian No vote. She gave an evaluation of the potential represented by some of the statements and appointments Trump has made so far, and then proceeded with a detailed discussion of the two conflicting paradigms in the world today. Zepp-LaRouche then uplifted the audience with the beautiful ideas of space scientist Krafft Ehricke and Renaissance philosopher Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. She concluded with an appeal to those present not to act as spectators on the stage of history, but engage in the battle for the new paradigm with us.

Her speech, about 80 minutes long, may be heard above, or at: https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/helga-zepp-larouche-in-copenhagen -donald-trump-and-the-new-international-paradigm-1

Afterwards, there was an intensive hour-long discussion, with questions from all of the different groups represented. Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche ended by challenging the audience to decide what they want to do with their lives, what mark they will make to benefit all humanity, far into the future.

Zepp-LaRouche's speech and discussion had a profound effect on all present.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Discussion:

(There is no video or audio of the discussion period, only this transcript.)

Helga Zepp-LaRouche in Copenhagen December 12, 2016
Discussion
(To facilitate free discussion, the questioners are not identified, and the questions are summarized. The answers are complete.)
Question: Can we be optimistic about Trump’s presidency, because he is skeptical about climate change, is for trade war with China and Mexico, opposes the free trade deals, and has called for tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I said earlier that the potentialities for change are there, but it depends, to a very large extent, upon us – what we do. When Trump got elected, my first response was, this is what I call the ‘dog pull-tail, let-go feeling.’ What I mean by that is that when you pull the tail of a dog, which you should never do, naturally, and you let go, the pain stops. When you pull, there is pain, and when you stop pulling, the pain goes away.
So, in a certain sense, the election of Trump was the tail let-go feeling, because we were on an immediate course toward WWIII, and that was really the primary point, because if Hillary Clinton would have been elected — unfortunately, Hillary Clinton, when she was in the Obama administration, transformed from being a relatively OK person, she was never great, but in 2008, she was relatively decent, compared to what she became, because she capitulated to Obama, and when she made this terrible statement, for example, in Libya, about the murder of Gadaffi, “We came, we saw, and he died.” This is barbarism.
Her behavior in the Ben Ghazi case. There were so many things where she became worse than Obama, almost. So the immediate thing was that that big danger, that she would have continued the policies of Bush and Obama, in the confrontation with Russia and China, that that was stopped is, already, for the survival of civilization, the most important step.
Now, on these other points. Naturally, there is climate change. There is no question about it. But the question is, what is the cause of it? And the Schiller Institute had several conferences where we invited extremely important scientists who presented, beyond a doubt, that if you look at the last 500 million years in the history of the Earth, you have a continuous cycle of ice ages, of warming periods, of small ice ages, and the man-made component of climate change is absolutely negligible. It’s a big fraud, for example, it’s a big business. To sell CO2 omission quotas, is like selling indulgences in the Middle Ages.
Obviously, there are climate changes, and some countries which have low coasts are very much affected, but then you have to adapt to these climate changes with modern technology, and you cannot solve the problem by going to electric cars, or going to decarbonization of the world economy. This is a big fraud, and I am not saying that Trump is saying this for all the right reasons, but the idea to impose measures implied with the “great transformation” Schellnhuber is talking about – I mean these people do not want development.
We have been on this case for the last — as a matter of fact, we, the LaRouche movement, had a conception about the development of the world really starting at the end of the sixties.
I joined Mr. LaRouche because I went to China, Africa, other Asian countries, and I saw the horrible, horrible underdevelopment. So I came back from this trip, and I said, ‘I have to become political, because I want to change this.’ I could give you a long, long story of the many observations, because I went with a cargo ship, and when you go to these countries with a cargo ship, you get a quite different idea than if you go on a 5-star cruise, and hotels. You see how the poverty affects people in their real lives. And I came back, and I looked at all the political movements, and I saw that LaRouche was the only one who said, ‘We have to have Third World development. We have to have technology transfer. We have to alleviate this poverty.’
And we had a positive conception already in the seventies, and therefore, when the Club of Rome appeared, we immediately said, ‘This is a fraud.’ Because the Club of Rome said, ‘There are limits to growth. We have reached equilibrium. Until the year 1972, you could develop, but now, we have reached equilibrium, and we have to have sustainable development. We have to have appropriate technology.’ These notions did not exist before, because before, you had the idea of a UN Development Decade, where each decade, you would overcome the underdevelopment by qualitative jumps. And when we recognized this propaganda by the Club of Rome, we immediately said, ‘This is a complete fraud,’ and the people who wrote the book “Limits to Growth,” Meadows and Forrester …
Q: A followup about the Paris climate summit.
A: I would like to give you written documentation afterwards of the studies that were made by these geologists, which are, without question, the explanation of climate change is not man-made. The anthropogenic aspect of it is so miniscule. Climate change has to do with the position of the solar system in the galaxy, which goes in cycles around a certain axis, and you can see that over 500 million years, the data confirms that you have these wide changes. Greenland is called Greenland, because it was green. There used to be vineyards. You had ice ages which completely covered the Earth, and the reason why I went into this longer history, is to show how the environmentalist movement was created with the attempt to keep development down, and climate change is just another expression of the same effort.
If you look at which firms which are investing in solar parks, in wind parks, who is controlling the CO2 emission trade, you have all the top hedge funds in London and Wall St. I can give you a lot of documentation about it, which does not mean that climate change is not real, because you have the rise of the oceans, and you have climate change, you have extreme weather, but that has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.
And, on the other points you raised, obviously, from our standpoint, the cancellation of NAFTA, is a good thing, because NAFTA did not allow development for Mexico. As a matter of fact, NAFTA is the incarnation of the cheap labor production model of free trade. What you need is – especially countries which are not developed, you need protective tariffs for their own good. They have to develop a domestic market first. The booklet which I emphasized, which you should please read, “Against the Stream,” is one of many, but it is very condensed, and a very good book.
The question is, ‘What is the source of wealth?’ Is the source of wealth cheap labor, to buy cheap raw materials, produce cheaply, and sell expensive? Is that the cause of wealth? No.
The only cause of wealth is the increase in the creativity of labor power. And a good government is, therefore, investing the maximum amount into education, into sponsoring the creativity of youth, of labor, and the more people in the labor force, by percentage, are engineers, scientists, the more productive the economy becomes.
And the free trade system, of which NAFTA is just one example, did exactly the opposite. China, which was part of this in the beginning — the reason why China today has so many environmental problems, like smog, like a large amount of groundwater being contaminated, is the result of the fact that China, in the beginning of its industrialization, accepted being a cheap labor production place for the U.S. and for Europe. When I was in China, even in 1971, I visited some factories which were horrible. They were absolutely horrible. The working conditions were terrible, the labor force, which produced electrical devices for radios, it was horrible. They worked for 18 hours. No health system. It was just terrible. And that is how China developed in the first phase.
But then China, with Deng Xiaoping, started to recognize that that is the wrong way. So China is now on a completely different track. They are putting the maximum emphasis on science and technology, the increase of excellence. Last year, they produced 1 million scientists. That’s double of what the U.S. produced. Obviously China is a larger country, but still. What will finally be decisive is the number of people who are creative. And that is why China, right now, has the best education system, because they have understood that the source of wealth is not raw materials. Is not trade conditions. It is the creativity of their own people. And that it a good thing. If we go to a system where we have a certain amount of protectionism, to protect the development of the domestic market, it is a good thing.
There is no danger of cutting [countries off from one another], because all of these infrastructure projects are connectivity. The world will be more connected than ever before. But this whole myth of free trade is really a very bad thing. It has been coined by the people who profit from it. That’s why the world is in the condition it is right now, where the rich become richer, and the poor become poorer. The middle class is being destroyed all over the world. And I would really like to communicate with you so that we can deepen this dialogue.
On the Iran thing, I don’t think he will break it, but that is my hope. I don’t know.
So, I’m not saying he’s a – as I said, Baron von Knigge would get a heart attack when he hears Trump’s speeches, but the world was in such a grip of evil, satanic evil, that it is a good thing that there is a break, and the unfortunate thing, is that Europe is still in this grip.
You can see it. Von der Leyen, the German Defense Secretary, had the funniest reaction. The day after the election of Trump, she said ‘I am deeply shocked,’ about this election result, because nobody thought this would happen. Now, this same lady is now parading in Saudi Arabia with Crown Prince Bin Salman Al Saud, and she isn’t shocked. So, I don’t know what’s wrong with her. I think that that would be a good place to be shocked, or not even go there.
So, I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the Europeans who react this way to the defeat of Hillary, are obeying another power in their head, and that power I call The British Empire, which is still in place, and it dominates Europe, and that is why they feel – I was asking myself, how come all of these politicians are so arrogant towards the new president of the U.S.? Because they were the boot-lickers of Washington until yesterday, and they would immediately do everything Washington would say and do, so I asked myself, ‘Where is this sudden self-assertedness coming from?’ And the only explanation I came up with, was to say, they must have an idea that there is another power which is more powerful than Trump, otherwise, they wouldn’t have this sudden arrogance.
And it is the British, because you will see tomorrow, because tomorrow, there will be a federal press conference in Berlin, where a number of people will present their contribution to the German chairmanship of the G-20, which will take place in July in Hamburg. This will be Joachim Schellnhuber, the head of the WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change), this is the scientific advisory organization advising the German government. He put out this paper about ‘the great transformation,’ which we wrote about. You can look in the archive. He is the head of the idea of a decarbonization of the world economy.
Now, if you decarbonize the world economy, without having fusion, that would be one thing, to have fusion power in place. Then you can talk about getting rid of fossil fuels, but without having fusion, and being against nuclear energy, fission, it means that you will reduce the world’s population to 1 billion or less, because there is a direct correlation between the energy-flux-density, and the number of people you can maintain. Schellnhuber said that the carrying capacity of the Earth is maximum 1 billion people. He didn’t say that he wants to do with the 6 billion who are already there. If he would be consequent, he should hop away from this planet.
And they will announce a sinister plan, to try to use the fact that many countries have environmental problems, to sneak in their anti-development programs. People should not be naïve, because not everybody thinks that population growth is a good thing. There are many people who think that each human being is a parasite, destroying nature. That is the image of man which many people have. The greenies, for example.
We look at it in a different way. We think that the more people you have, the greater longevity you can have, division of labor, and a modern scientific society needs many people with a long life span. Because if you are in the Third World, and you die, and you have an average life expectancy of 40 years, or less, you cannot have scientists, because the production of a scientist takes 30-35 years, and if people then die right away, then you can’t have a modern society.
So the more creative people you have, the better. Each human being is an incredible addition, because we are creative.
Tom Gillesberg: Schellnhuber, for his services, was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE), and for him, he personally has said, that the highpoint of his existence was that the British Queen, personally, gave him the Order of the British Empire, for his efforts to reduce the possibility for mankind’s survival, you could say, so it is connected with what you said.
Q: This is the best speech I have ever heard in my life.
Is this a second American Revolution, and will the Federal Reserve, which is privately owned, be closed down, and will money be created for the benefit of all people, and not just the private Fed?
A: I don’t know, because, as I said, there are so many unknowns about Trump, and what he will do, and how it will play out. All I can say is, if Trump does not fulfill his promises, the same people who caused his election, will topple him. Because I don’t think that this process, which is now underway, where ordinary people have just had it — If you think about the declaration of Independence, it has this formulation that you will not bring down a government system for light reasons, but, if for a long time, the common good is being violated, I don’t know the exact text, then, people have the right and duty to replace this government with a rightful one, and that idea I call natural law.
It’s the same idea that Friedrich Schiller had in Wilhelm Tell. This is a play he wrote, which takes place in Switzerland. There, the Hapsburg oligarch is also trampling on the rights of the Swiss people, then they unite with the Rütli Oath. There is this beautiful formulation which says, ‘When the rights of people are trampled upon, they have the right to reach out to the stars, and take from the stars those rights which are eternally embedded in these stars. (I am not saying it as beautifully as Schiller does.)
If you compare these two texts, the Declaration of Independence, and the Rütli Oath from Schiller’s play, they are almost identical, and it’s very clear that Schiller was inspired by the American Revolution when he wrote that play, because in his plays, there are many ideas which resonate with the American Revolution, and he actually wanted to immigrate, at one point, to America.
So I think that if Trump turns out to be another fraudster, which we don’t know yet, I think that this process of revolt will continue, because I only mentioned some elements.
I could mention that there are many countries now in realignment. for example, the Philippines, Duterte. This was supposed to be the playground for the conflict with China in the South China Sea. Now Duterte sent his Defense Secretary, Lorenzana, to Russia and China, to buy weapon systems from Russia and China, and to establish a friendship with China, and he said, ‘The Philippines is no longer the colony of the U.S.’
Then you have Japan, which was the junior partner of the U.S. in the Pacific. Abe went to Sochi, meeting with Putin. In three days from now, Putin will go to Japan to have a state visit. They are talking about a peace treaty between Russia and Japan.
All of these are new alignments. There is a shift in the strategic situation, and I don’t think that that shift can be reversed.
Q: About Russia hacking the U.S. election. Why doesn’t the U.S. have anti-hacking measures? Can you explain that?
A: I cannot explain that, for the same reason that I cannot explain why the NSA is surveilling everyone, all their phones, their communications, worldwide. They can observe all of these things, but they don’t know about terrorism. They don’t know about drug trafficking. They don’t know about money laundering. Either their system is not so good, or they are looking in the wrong direction. I can’t answer your question.
Q: Will the result of the Brexit be positive for Europe, to enable continental Europe to become stronger, and to improve cooperation with the eastern parts of Europe?
A: I think that the EU is not functioning, and I think it is not just the Brexit. The “No” in Italy is a reflection of the same dynamic. Now you have Gentiloni, the new prime minister, and they will probably go for new elections. Right now, in the polls, you have the 5 Star Party leading. If they win, and form the new government, they have already said that they would leave the EU, and leave the Euro, and, in a certain sense, it is not functioning.
The reason I was against the introduction of the Euro from the beginning, was because we said that it cannot function. You cannot have a European currency union in something which is not an optimal economic space. You cannot put advanced industry together with an agrarian country, with completely different tax laws, pension laws, and you don’t want a political union, because Europe is not a people. You don’t have a European people. I don’t know what the Danes are saying. I don’t know what is in the Danish newspapers. The people of Slovenia have no inkling of what is happening in Alsace-Lorraine, and so forth, and so on. You don’t have a European people. Esperanto doesn’t function. You have 28 nations, 28 histories, 28 cultures.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t work together. I think that the idea of Charles de Gaulle to work together as an alliance between perfectly sovereign fatherlands, that is a correct idea. And all these fatherlands can adopt a joint mission, like to develop Africa, or other things.
I just think that this European Union is not going to stay forever.
Q: (followup) Will it be easier for Germany and France to promote this development, as the leading countries?
A: Everybody says that Germany is the biggest beneficiary of globalization, the EU, and the Euro, but that’s not really true, because, if you look at it more closely, then you can say that since the introduction of the Euro, the domestic market of Germany has completely stagnated. And the number of people who became poorer has increased.
Q: (followup) What about regarding the dialogue with Russia.
A: Oh yes, that would be much easier.
I do not think that this EU bureaucracy is capable of reform, because by their self-understanding, they are the local pro-consuls of this empire, and I think that it would be much better if Germany, France, and other countries have individual relations. And I don’t think that – this whole idea that you need a European Empire to compete with Russia and China and other emerging countries – The EU, by definition, is an empire. They have said it themselves. Robert Cooper, who has some kind of advisory function [currently serving as EU Special Advisor with regard to Myanmar], he said that the EU is the fastest expanding empire in history. It’s a bad idea.
And the Russians for – I noticed this since the beginning of the year 2000, that the Russians did not make a difference anymore between the EU and NATO. They said that it’s the same thing. And it is the same thing.
Q: You said that the One Belt, One Road was stripped of commercial interests from the Chinese side, as opposed to the IMF, World Bank. On what basis do you say that it is less interest-driven than the Bretton Woods institutions?
A: Well, because, the question is not that I’m saying that China is perfect. I’m not saying that. But when you look at anything, you have to look at the vector of development, is it going upward, or is it going downward? And from that standpoint, I had the advantage that I was in China in 1971, which was in the middle of the Cultural Revolution. This was so different than China today.
The Cultural Revolution was horrible for the people. The Red Guards would take people out of their homes, put them in jail, send them to the countryside, and people were distraught.
And now, people in China are happy. If you talk to students, or to young people, they are optimistic. They say, ‘Oh. I will do this in the future. I have these plans.’ I talked to a group of students in Lanzhou two years ago, and they said, ‘We will go to Africa. We will develop Africa.’ I have never heard a German student say this. Yeah, when I was a student, but that’s a long time ago.
I think that it is very worthwhile to read the speeches of Xi Jinping. There is a book, “The Governance of China,” but that only has about 60 speeches, and there are many, many more. For example, you should read the speeches he gave when he went to France, to Germany, and to India.
For example, when he went to India, he made a speech which was really incredible, because he said that he loved Indian culture from his early youth, and then he gave so many examples of the high points of Indian culture, the Gupta period, the Upanishads, the Vedic writings, Rabindranath Tagore, many predicates which prove that he really knows what he is talking about. He is not just one of these politicians who have a PR advisor about how to make nice bubbles in your speeches, but you could really see that he means it. And the same for Germany. He came to Germany and he emphasized Schubert and Heine, things which I also appreciate about Germany, and he did the same thing in France.
And I don’t think that the Chinese leadership would agree with me when I say this, but I think that they are less communist than Confucians. They probably would not admit that, because they are officially the Communist Party, and that’s OK, but, I come from Trier, and Trier is the birthplace of Karl Marx, so I have studied Karl Marx, and I think that they are still socialist, or communist, or whatever, but they always said that they are communist with Chinese characteristics, and these Chinese characteristics are Confucianism.
And the Confucian idea of man is lifelong learning, lifelong perfection, that everyone should be a Jinzi, a wise man, a noble man, and Confucius said, if the government is bad, then the Jinzi, these wise people, should replace the government. Also the idea that you have to have an harmonious development, starting with the family, continuing in the nation, and then, larger, among the nations.
China is the only country that has not made wars of aggression, colonial wars, in its 5,000 years of history. It was invaded many times, the Opium War, and things like that, but China is not an aggressive nation, at all.
And if you look at what they are doing in practice, the IMF and the World Bank have prevented Third World development, and China is going from one country to the next, building science cities, helping with space cooperation, bringing in developing countries in the most advanced areas of science, in order to not prevent their development. I think this is a completely different approach.
I think that the Chinese have come up with a new model of government, which I have not seen in any place in Europe, the U.S. ever, and it’s a model which is overcoming geopolitics, which is, if you say, ‘I have a win-win for cooperation. Everybody can join.’ Then, if everyone joins, then you have overcome geopolitics.
And geopolitics is the one thing that caused two world wars, and in the age of thermonuclear weapons, we cannot have geopolitics anymore. So I think that these are very important differences.
Sure, China has its own interests. Win-win means that China also has an interest. China has advantages, but, for example, if you ask people from Africa, ‘Would you rather have deals where China gets raw materials for long periods of time, but they build infrastructure for Africans.’ They like that much better than Europeans who come and say, ‘Oh, you should obey democracy,’ and do nothing.
Q: Statement about Chinese infrastructure projects in Morocco. Both are winners, as opposed to projects 20 years ago run by other countries. The Chinese there have learned Arabic. The projects have greatly reduced the travel time. They have a different perspective than the French, and Europeans had.
Tom Gillesberg: Do you have final remarks?
A: I would just say that people should not just believe, or not believe, what I am saying, but take an active attitude to try to find out what the truth is, for themselves. Because the world is not helped by replacing one ideology by another. The only way you can be certain, is that you become a truth-seeking person yourself. Because the whole question about what went wrong, is that people forgot what it is to be an honest truth-seeking person, taking the truth not as something you reach finally, but something you always improve.
Schiller had this beautiful writing about universal history, where he said that the philosophical mind is the first one to take his own system apart, to put it together more perfectly again.
I think that that quality – and, also, we had two days ago in Berlin, a very important event, which was also about the dialogue of cultures, and every – we had a very important presentation, which you can soon see on our webpage, where we had a double bass player who spoke about the importance of Wilhelm Furtwängler as a conductor, and he gave some musical examples, and he compared the performances of Furtwängler with some modern conductors, and the difference is so unbelievable. The music of Furtwängler is transparent. It is beautiful. It is absolutely overwhelmingly uplifting, and many of the other conductors are just playing along, with no respect for what the composition is.
And he really described, with many quotes from Furtwängler, that what is needed is this inner quality of truthfulness. That you don’t fake it, because if you’re not truthful – for example, you cannot recite poetry, if you’re not truthful. You cannot sing beautifully, if you’re not truthful. Sure, you can sing brilliantly, you can do all kinds of tricks, and it impresses people, but to really produce art, you have to be truthful. You have to try to understand the poetical idea, the musical idea. You have to step back with your ego behind what the composer or the poet wrote. And that’s what is wrong with modern theater. In Regietheater, they just say, ‘I don’t care what Schiller wrote, or what Shakespeare wrote. I just make my modern interpretation. I put Harley Davidson’s into Shakespeare, and it doesn’t matter.’ And that is not art.
And I think the question is, ‘What do you do with your life?’ That is really the question. Are you becoming a creative person, devoted to that with your life, you contribute to enable mankind to move on a little step further, and become better.
Or, are you just eating three tons of caviar, and have 3,000 Porsches. And then, when you die, they write on your gravestone, ‘He/she ate three mons of caviar, and had 3,000 Porsches,’ and that was it.
No, you should try to be an honest person, trying to make human society better with what you do. And, once you do that, you become happy. Then you are free. This inner freedom, is what you should try to find. And that is the only way that we will win that battle. It’s not Trump. It is, can we get enough people to be innerly free.
And then we win.
End of discussion

Ingen tid til selvtilfredshed – Briternes,
saudiernes og Obamas terrorapparat vil
fortsætte hæmningsløst, indtil det destrueres

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 11. december, 2016 – ISIS er på flugt fra de syriske og russiske styrker; det ene valg efter det andet (Brexit, Filippinerne, USA, Frankrig, Italien, Sydkorea) viser, at befolkningerne føler afsky for det britisk/amerikanske bankimperiums økonomiske diktatur og forsøget på at indlede krige med Rusland og Kina; Kina og Rusland opbygger partnerskaber med over 100 nationer for at samarbejde om store udviklingsprojekter for at skabe moderne nationer og eliminere fattigdom, som Kina næsten har opnået.

Alt dette giver grund til optimisme. Men, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde i dag, så må vi ikke blive selvtilfredse. Det sårede dyr, som er Det britiske Imperium og dets marionet-neokonservative, der især omfatter Obama, i USA, vil ikke sky noget middel for at ødelægge fremvæksten af dette nye paradigme, især i USA. I takt med, at ISIS er i færd med at blive besejret i Syrien, går de saudiskskabte terrorister bersærk internationalt med morderiske selvmordsangreb, der blot i løbet af de seneste dage har dræbt over hundrede mennesker og såret mange andre, i Egypten, Tyrkiet, Yemen og Nigeria. Obama og fraktioner i CIA kommer med vilde påstande om, at de ikke tabte valget i USA, men at det var Putin, der stjal det! Det får på en måde 1940’ernes og ’50’ernes Harry Truman/Joe McCarthy-heksejagt på kommunister til at ligne en barneleg, og Obama har krævet, at James Clapper, direktør for den Nationale Efterretningstjeneste, leder et team, der skal undersøge det såkaldte russiske valg-tyveri til fordel for Trump.

Husk på, at det var Clapper, der for den amerikanske Kongres svor på, at der ikke fandt nogen masseovervågning af amerikanske borgere fra efterretningsvæsenets side sted – en løgn, der var en vigtig årsag til, at Edward Snowden besluttede at afsløre, at det var præcist, hvad de gjorde, og mere til, i hele verden. Set i dette lys var det rigtigt af Donald Trump at afvise denne fraktion af efterretningssamfundets »latterlige« påstand om russisk indgriben (andre fraktioner tilbageviser løgnen), og at minde os om, at dette var de samme mennesker, der lancerede ødelæggelsen af Mellemøsten ved hjælp af den overlagte løgn om Saddam Husseins angivelige masseødelæggelsesvåben, selv, da FN’s team i Irak rapporterede, at disse ikke eksisterede.

På den anden side, så må optimisme ikke blive til selvtilfredshed. Trump er en ukendt størrelse. Alt imens han har omgivet sig med ledende generaler, der har udtrykt stærk opposition mod Obamas risikable militæreventyr i Mellemøsten og ønsker at samarbejde med Rusland om at knuse terrorist-svøben, og ligeledes, at han har krævet en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, så er Trump samtidig omgivet af Goldman Sachs-folk, der har anført udplyndringen af ikke alene USA, men af en stor del af verden, på vegne af finansimperiet i London og New York. Hvilken politik, der vil lede USA og Vesten i de kommende måneder, vil blive afgjort af den grad af mod og beslutsomhed, som mønstres af den amerikanske og europæiske befolkning, der vil gå videre end til at »smide disse uduelige karle ud« og kræve et ægte, nyt paradigme – som vil erstatte City of Londons og Wall Streets herrevælde med Glass-Steagall og Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love samtidig med et krav om, at USA og Europa går med i den Nye Silkevej og samarbejder med Kina og Rusland, snarere end at true med krig mod dem.

(Se LaRouchePAC-video om LaRouches Fire Love, med fuldt dansk udskrift)

draft4 Spørgsmålet om et potentielt Nyt Paradigme, baseret på udvikling snarere end geopolitik, var på programmet i denne uge i Shanghai ved et forum, der var sponsoreret af Shanghai Institut for Internationale Studier og Forskningsinstituttet for Dialog mellem Civilisationer (DOC), hvor man forbereder samarbejde mellem den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union (EAEU), der er lanceret af Rusland, og Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, lanceret af Kina. Som stifter af DOC, dr. Vladimir Yakunin, formulerede det som et spørgsmål, der skal løses: »Hvordan sikrer vi os, at den samtidige udvikling af disse forskellige vækstcentre fører til synergi, og ikke konflikt? Det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte og den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union kunne blive det, der viser vejen.«

Foto: Syrisk militæroperation for at befri de sydlige distrikter af det østlige Aleppo. (30. nov.) (twitter.com/AlalamChannel)

Video: En ny æra for USA: LaRouches Fire Love

10. december, 2016 – Lyndon LaRouches kortfattede 2014-dokument for den politiske strategi, med titlen, »Fire Nye Love for USA’s omgående redning: Ikke en valgmulighed, men en uopsættelig nødvendighed!«, skitserer grundlaget for, at menneskeheden uophørligt kan gøre fremskridt. Ikke flere økonomiske recessioner! Denne video dækker LaRouches ’Fire Love’, der har rødder i Alexander Hamiltons originale, økonomiske principper, der skulle lede USA: Glass-Steagall, Stats-bankpraksis (gennem en Nationalbank), udstedelsen af statskredit til forbedring af produktiviteten samt et forceret program for fusionskraft. De betydningsfulde, politiske forandringer, der finder sted i hele verden, inklusive valget af Donald Trump i USA, reflekterer et internationalt skifte, bort fra det transatlantiske områdes nedbrudte og rådne system, og hen imod det spændende, nye paradigme, der kommer fra Kina og Rusland, med økonomisk og videnskabeligt fremskridt. Lyndon LaRouches politik med de »Fire Love« er midlet til at vende det økonomiske forfald omkring, som har fundet sted under Bush’ og Obamas præsidentskaber, og slutte os til Rusland og Kina for at udvikle et helt nyt paradigme med samarbejde mellem nationer. Jason Ross fra LaRouchePAC Videnskabsteam (også kaldet The Basement) diskuterer, hvordan vi kan gennemføre LaRouches ideer i USA i dag.

Se fuld dansk tekst her.

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast, December 9, 2016

A NEW ERA FOR THE UNITED STATES: LaROUCHE'S FOUR LAWS

– Preface –

The election of Donald Trump was a resounding defeat of the
legacy of the past four Presidential terms; and it was no
surprise to anyone watching the planet as a whole. It was part of
a broader, worldwide repudiation of the prevailing trans-Atlantic
paradigm of the US and NATO, in favor of the New Paradigm now
taking hold, a New Paradigm being led by China and Russia.
Consider the storm of election results worldwide that the US was
a part of: Think of the Brexit vote in the UK, think of the votes
for President in the Philippines and France, the referendum in
Italy, the elections in Bulgaria. The only reason to be shocked
by the Trump election, would be by ignoring the perspective of
Lyndon LaRouche that Russia — and in another respect — China,
have become the dominant force on the planet.
The truth of the matter is that in spite of Obama's
assertions that he has organized the "greatest economic recovery
in modern history," most people's personal experience tells them
otherwise. We see increases in suicides and drug overdoses,
stagnant or falling wages, exploding costs for medical care.
People also fail to see the advantage of picking a fight with
nuclear-armed Russia in order to support and arm alleged
"moderate" Syrian rebels in order to overthrow that nation's
President.
What Americans want, is a true economic recovery, a real
future, and an end to the state of perpetual war. Like all
people, we would like to see a world in which our children and
grandchildren are better educated, live longer, and are happier
than ourselves. We want to have a {mission}; a sense of
contributing to something thrillingly important and new for
mankind as a whole. In that sense, we need a huge leap in
productivity, and a renewed sense of the best meaning of that
term.
"There's a problem in the United States as such and the
world as such also; and the problem here is, we've got to
increase the productivity per capita of the human population.
It's not enough to get increased employment; you've got to
increase the productivity per capita of the citizen. Without
that, you cannot win."
This short video presentation is about how to accomplish
exactly that, and how to think about it. We will present Lyndon
LaRouche's economic policy for the nation, what he calls "Four
New Laws to Save the USA Now"; and we'll discuss how you can help
make it happen.

– Introduction –

What you think you know about economics is probably wrong,
and what US "experts" on economics think is {definitely} wrong.
Economy is not about money, about making money. That we humans
have an economy in the first place comes from the fact that our
minds are capable of discovering principles of nature by which we
increase our power to achieve new things in the world. The first
great invention of mankind — it wasn't money — it was fire. The
use of fire is what separates our species absolutely from all the
animals, and it is the basis of the Greek creation story of
Prometheus, who, in giving fire to human beings, {created} the
human species as being the intelligent, creative, changing
species.
Thinking in broad strokes, new types of fire have allowed us
to fundamentally change our relationship to the physical world.
In one way, this has been by changing the kinds of materials
available and useful to us. Charcoal fires allow us to make
metals from ores. In a second way, the power liberated from the
chemical bonds of hydrocarbon fuels created the steam engines of
the past, and the internal combustion engines of the present. The
potential of nuclear power, with fuel one million times more
efficient and energy dense than chemical power, beckons us into
the future; allowing for a re-configuration of our relationship
to our material surroundings and our access to space. With a
plasma torch, powered by nuclear fusion, we would achieve 100%
recycling, and we could mine our landfills for resources. At a
higher magnitude of power availability, manufacturing reaches a
new level. And with plentiful energy, new solutions to water
supply become possible. To learn more about these topics, see our
videos on the plasma torch and on the fusion economy.
Thinking on such a long-term scale, the factors that truly
transform human productivity come into sharper relief. What are
we doing today to achieve the next levels of knowledge and
physical power? Are we intensely working to achieve nuclear
fusion; or are we reverting to the Middle Ages and building
windmills? What course are we setting for ourselves? Where are we
going? Will we look back in a century, and point to this period
as setting the stage for the major breakthroughs that will have
defined that coming future world?
At present, there are two main systems in the world: (1) the
relatively dying, money-based, depressing trans-Atlantic world of
the Americas and Europe; and (2) the thrilling potential of a New
Paradigm launching off from China's Belt and Road Initiative. The
21st Century Maritime Silk Road links the sea routes throughout
Eurasia and Africa in a new integrated development. On land, the
Silk Road Economic Belt presently features six economic
corridors, bringing a new high-tech infrastructure platform
across the Eurasian continent. Together, the full Belt and Road
Initiative is bringing dozens and dozens of nations into the
largest development program the world has ever seen. And it's
being led by a nation — China — that has concrete plans to
{entirely} eliminate poverty within its borders by 2020. This is
already rapidly expanding — further agreements with the BRICS
nations and other nations throughout the world are bringing this
closer and closer to the World Land-Bridge proposal made by
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, and which has been promoted for
decades.
This concept reaches beyond this planet, up to space, and to
the Moon. Again, China leads the way, with the first ever landing
on the far side of the Moon planned for the near future, and
permanent lunar manned bases coming after.
{This} is the future of mankind that the US must join; and
here's the policy to make that happen:

-The Four Laws –

In June 2014, Lyndon LaRouche authored a document, "Four New
Laws to Save the USA Now: Not an Option, an Immediate Necessity!"
He wrote:
"The economy of the United States of America, and also that
of the trans-Atlantic political-economic regions of the planet,
are now under the immediate, mortal danger of a general,
physical-economic, chain-reaction breakdown-crisis of that region
of this planet as a whole."
To address this collapse of the financial system, as seen in
today's banking crises, as with Deutsche Bank, the moneyed
interests of Wall Street and London proposed a system of bail-in,
of looting and theft; to steal from the economy to support the
financial system, creating the effect of further destroying the
physical economy and causing an accelerating rate of death. Take
as example the situation in Greece, where during this decade, GDP
has fallen nearly in half, and unemployment has doubled. Every
EUROur100Euro the IMF succeeds in cutting from Greek expenses h
to a 150Euro decline in income. Such are the results of
following the economic advice of the trans-Atlantic economic
order.
So what do we do? LaRouche points to the needed remedies:
"The only location for the immediately necessary action
which could prevent such an immediate genocide throughout the
trans-Atlantic sector of the planet, requires the U.S.
Government's now-immediate decision to institute four specific,
cardinal measures. Measures which must be fully consistent with
the specific intent of the original U.S. Federal Constitution, as
had been specified by U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton
while he remained in office:
(1) Immediate re-enactment of the Glass-Steagall law
instituted by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, without
modification, as to principle of action.
(2) A return to a system of top-down, and thoroughly
defined, National Banking.
(3) The purpose of the use of a Federal credit-system, is to
generate high-productivity trends in improvements of employment;
with the accompanying intention, to increase the
physical-economic productivity, and the standard of living of the
persons and households of the United States.
(4) "Adopt a Fusion-Driver 'Crash Program'." The essential
distinction of man from all lower forms of life â¦ is that it
presents the means for the perfection of the specifically
affirmative aims and needs of human individual and social life."
We'll cover these Four Laws, these four aspects, and provide
you with the means to make it happen!

1. Glass-Steagall

Despite chronic lying by Rep. "Bailout Barney" Frank and
Barack Obama himself, the repeal of Franklin Roosevelt's
Glass-Steagall Act created the conditions for the crash of 2008,
then; and the imminent crash of the entire trans-Atlantic system
today.
For the 66 years it was in force, from 1933-1999 —
especially up until the 1990s weakening of it — Glass-Steagall
kept our financial system stable and laid the basis for physical
economic growth unseen by any other nation in the history of
mankind. Think of the economic accomplishments by the United
States over that period, particularly from 1933 through the 1969
Moon landing.
Glass-Steagall created the ability increase the physical
wealth of the nation by strictly separating commercial banking
from investment banking and insurance. Under Glass-Steagall,
commercial banks took deposits and made loans, thereby allowing
idle money to be used by others in the community to engage in
productive activity. Under Glass-Steagall, your bank didn't
gamble with your paycheck, invest it in securities, lose
everything, and then turn to the government demanding a bail-out;
leaving the people high and dry.
Since the repeal of Glass-Steagall, we haven't seen any
growth of the productive economy, but rather the growth of
swindles — of stealing — at the expense of the population. The
industrial capacity of our nation, our moral outlook, our
commitment to future, have all dwindled to a faint glimmer of
their former selves since Glass-Steagall's repeal.
Without the separation between commercial activity and
investment activity, banks have transformed into parasites;
rather than functioning as Alexander Hamilton intended, when he
wrote that "The introduction of Banks â¦ has a powerful tendency
to extend the active Capital of a Country. Experience of the
Utility of these Institutions is multiplying them in the United
States. It is probable that they will be established wherever
they can exist with advantage."
For example, despite Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Chairwoman Sheila Bair's testimony that approximately $15
trillion in bail-outs, loan guarantees, and other government and
Federal Reserve assistance was made available to major banks from
2007-2011, their lending into the real economy kept falling
through 2012. That government assistance was used for securities'
speculation, and never left the banking sector to benefit the
physical economy.
We must get Glass-Steagall restored immediately. The
so-called Too-Big-To-Fail banks are larger now than they were in
2008. They're destined to blow any week. If they blow out now in
an uncontrolled way, the destruction to the physical conditions
of life for Americans, in terms of jobs lost, houses lost,
retirement funds lost, the chaotic breakdown of the financial
system, will far exceed the crash of 2008, and the image of 1929.
The system {has} to be put under control. Restoring
Glass-Steagall today forces Wall Street to reconcile their huge
debts on their own (bankrupting most investment banks, in a
controlled and orderly way), and it will free up commercial banks
to act as banks again. {We don't need Wall Street gambling!}

2. National banking

Alexander Hamilton stated in his "Report to the Congress on
National Banking": "A National Bank is an institution of primary
importance to the prosperous administration of the finances [of
the United States], and would be of the greatest utility in the
operations connected with the support of the public credit."
Secretary of the Treasury Hamilton reorganized the
post-Revolutionary War debt of the United States; developing a
means of funding it through a series of new taxes. He then set up
the Bank of the United States, using the now-stable debt as its
primary asset. The bank was able to stabilize the money supply,
reduce speculation, and make the needed loans to finance the
build-up of the newly unified economy.
After that first national bank was allowed to lapse in 1811,
a successful fight was waged to charter the Second Bank of the
United States, which functioned from 1816-36, during the
presidency of John Quincy Adams; who oversaw extensive investment
in canals and transportation, made possible by the national
top-down approach. Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Franklin
Roosevelt also both applied the principles of national banking.
Lincoln, through the issuance of "United States Notes" or
"greenbacks" as they were called, and through a series of banking
acts, reasserted the authority of the federal Treasury over all
the numerous banks in the various states; requiring "all banks to
purchase United States [Treasury] stocks to hold as securities
for their circulating notes." In this way, Lincoln set up a
national banking system, even though he was unable to establish a
national bank.
Later, Franklin Roosevelt utilized his own approximation of
the National Bank principle, when he converted the Reconstruction
Finance Corporation, created under the preceding Herbert Hoover
Presidency as a means of intervening into financial markets.
Roosevelt converted it into an institution for physical economic
development. Roosevelt's RFC issued the equivalent of $500
billion (in today's dollars) of credit directed towards specific
employment programs and infrastructure and other development
projects. This credit was repaid both directly, and indirectly:
The increased tax revenue resulting from the tremendous
productivity increase brought about by the RFC, would itself have
paid for many of its programs. National banking — this approach
— allows investments whose returns are not made simply through
user fees, but through improvement in the nation's overall
productive powers.
By making the goal the improvement of national productivity,
rather than turning an immediate profit, the national banking
approach allows investments that would otherwise not be made; and
it is absolutely essential today. The need for infrastructure
financing today is an order of magnitude beyond what the RFC
financed in Roosevelt's time. In addition to our own national
resources, the involvements of the extensive credit facilities of
China, as well as its currency holdings (and those of Japan, for
example) will be essential for the needed US recovery.

3. Credit for higher EFD

What makes a loan worthwhile? We are {so} far behind, that,
for example, a national effort to build high-speed rail would
founder for lack of basic building supplies, such as steel.
Investments must be directed to where they would be most useful.
As a metric for this, consider energy-flux density, an economic
indicator used by LaRouche. It is a measure of the intensity of
energy flow through the economy, considered at the point of
application. For example, contrast the energy required to cut a
material with a dull blade versus a sharp one. It actually takes
more energy, more effort, to use the dull blade, while the energy
concentration in the sharp blade, delivered over a smaller area,
is more effective and requires less overall effort. In this way,
we should measure not simply energy used per se, but the density
of the applied energy in an economy. By increasing this, we are
able to achieve more with less effort, and, of course, achieve
new feats that were otherwise impossible.
A priority must be given to these economic activities; those
that tend to increase the energy-flux density of the economy as a
whole. By investing in higher platforms of infrastructure, such
as efficient nuclear power, high speed rail, and water management
systems, in this way we increase the potential of every local
area of the economy. Just as shipping and canals made more areas
able to trade, and as the railroads opened up the interior
regions for development and an opportunity to transport goods
efficiently, increasing the productive potential of the nation as
a whole, the next generations of infrastructure increase the
value and opportunity all along the development zones they
create. And by improving the means of production itself, as
through up-shifts in the design of machine tools, the apex of the
productive and manufacturing process, the increased powers of
labor shape the entire created world.
Alexander Hamilton writes in his "Report on Manufactures" of
the effect of increasing the power of labor: "The annual produce
of the land and labour of a country can only be increased, in two
ways — by some improvement in the productive powers of the
useful labor â¦ or by some increase in the quantity of such
labor. With regard to the first, the labor of Artificers
[manufacturers in today’s language] â¦ is susceptible, in a
proportionally greater degree, of improvement in its productive
powers, whether to be derived from an accession of Skill, or from
the application of ingenious machinery.
"The employment of Machinery forms an item of great
importance in the general mass of national industry. 'Tis an
artificial force brought in aid of the natural force of man; and,
to all the purposes of labor, is an increase of hands; an
accession of strength¦…"
Today, we must focus the increasing of energy flux density
in the infrastructure/public works platform, in machine-tooling,
and on science itself — the key to making all other developments
possible. Improving the economy of labor is accomplished through
technological progress in an energy-intensive, capital-intensive
mode of investment in basic economic infrastructure, agriculture,
and manufacturing. And even occupations that don't directly
change still have their effects improved. The produce of a
farmer, maybe produced in the same way, is now going to the
dinner table of a fusion scientist. The mechanic's work on a car
is now allowing a machine-tool operative to reliably drive to
work, creating parts for a nuclear power plant. The trash
collector brings this week's refuse to a regional plasma torch
facility, recovering as much rare earth metals as would be
gathered from a mine. Everything changes together; productivity
is about the whole.

4. Fusion

It is an outrageous crime that we don't yet have fusion
power, and that existing fission power — both uranium and
thorium — has seen relatively so little utilization. The next
stage in our journey of higher forms of fire and control over the
physical world, lies in the tiny world of the atomic nucleus. If
the nucleus were the size of a basketball, an atom itself would
be a kilometer in radius. Yet the forces in the tiny area of the
nucleus are of a power density 100,000 to 1 million times greater
than the chemical forces holding together atoms in molecules. A
molecule is about 100,000 times larger than a nucleus; and yet
the nucleus has 100,000 times more power. Put that together and
you're talking about a thousand million or a million million
times more power density in the nucleus. It's almost
incomprehensible how large that number is. It's like comparing
the mass of our solar system to the entire Milky Way galaxy!
That's the power of the nucleus. It's an absolutely phenomenal
aspect of nature. So, don't research solar panels; unlock this
almost {incomprehensibly} greater potential!
Through a greater mastery of the nucleus, we'll open the
potential for dramatically increasing our energy supply to
transform our relationship to physical materials through new
types of ore processing, our relationship to water as through
desalination, and the ability to rapidly reach any part of the
Solar System; such as to deflect a deadly asteroid headed our
way. You can't do that with a wind turbine! This is an essential
component of becoming a truly space-faring species.
So why hasn't it happened yet? Why don't we have nuclear
fusion power today? Check out this chart. It shows a 1976
estimate of when various funding levels would be expected to
achieve commercial fusion. At a maximal level of funding, fusion
was expected by 1990. You'll see at the bottom a line labelled
"Fusion Never." That was the level of funding expected to keep
programs alive, but without ever making the needed breakthrough.
The black line {below that} is actual funding for fusion research
in the United States. A decision was made and remade, and remade,
{not} to make this breakthrough; {not} to reach the next stage of
"fire" that would transform our civilization far more profoundly
than did the development of the steam engine. Our growing reach
into space — made possible by fusion engines — will enable the
next level of scientific breakthroughs; requiring the export from
space back to Earth of that great, man-made resource: knowledge.
But instead, we saved pennies while sacrificing the potential to
advance on the grandest of scales.
Imagine living in a society committed to achieving fusion,
and to implementing its benefits. How would being a part of that
society shape its citizens' self-conception? A human life has
consequences and meaning that last far beyond physical death —
at least in potential. Adopting a mission to achieve fusion is
putting into practice a goal of Hamilton, who wrote that "To
cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind, by
multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least
considerable of the expedients, by which the wealth of a nation
may be promoted. Even things in themselves not positively
advantageous, sometimes become so, by their tendency to provoke
exertion. Every new scene, which is opened to the busy nature of
man to rouse and exert itself, is the addition of a new energy to
the general stock of effort." – Make It Happen! –
We need to make this happen! You only get to vote for
President one day every 4 years. What about the other 1,460 days?
The LaRouche PAC is active {every day}. For decades, Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche and their collaborators have been relentless
organizing for the new economic paradigm coming into being now.
Decades of conferences, studies, reports, meetings, fundraising,
videos, election campaigns, and collaboration are now coming to
fruition. The outlook of the Belt and Road Initiative put forward
as official policy by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013, is
something the United States can adopt as well, rather than
opposing. We can join this effort, we can rebuild our economy; we
can have something fundamentally useful to offer the world.
Work with us! Join our Manhattan Project of political,
intellectual, and musical activity in our nation's center of New
York. Work with the leadership of LaRouche and his decades-long
record as the conscience of America. From our website, you can
sign up at our action center to get more involved. There is so
much you can do, from setting up meetings in Congress to
attending and organizing events in your area, from letters to the
editor, studying economics, and raising contributions for the
LaRouche PAC. Help to:

* Force Congress to immediately vote up the reinstatement of
Glass-Steagall as the first of LaRouche's "Four Economic Laws";

* Educate yourself on fusion and forms of "fire";

* Join or start up a reading group to master the ideas of
Alexander Hamilton, our nation's first Treasury Secretary;

* Study the World Land-Bridge proposal, and create events in your
area. Discuss how the US can join this outlook. Inspire others
with what is already happening, and with what could happen.

{You} can learn economics. {You} can be a political leader.
Do it, {be that leadership the US needs.} It's up to us; let's
work together.

Har Obama efterladt ’en ny, stor recession’ til Trump?

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 8. december, 2016 – Alt imens det aktuelle, afgørende spørgsmål er, om den tiltrædende Trump-administration virkelig vil begrave »krigsdoktrinen for regimeskifte« og forfølge produktivt, økonomisk samarbejde med Kina og Rusland, så blev vi i dag mindet om den anden, triste arv fra Barack Obama: økonomien. Det amerikanske Konkurrenceråd har udgivet en rapport om USA’s produktivitet med titlen, »Ingen økonomisk genrejsning«, og i USA Today lød overskriften meget passende, »Obamas økonomiske genrejsning var alligevel ingen genrejsning«. Og det Nationale Center for Sundhedsstatistik udgav en grummere undersøgelse, der fandt, at den forventede levealder for alle amerikanere faktisk er faldende, og at dødsfald som følge af alle de mest almindelige sygdomme er stigende, og det samme er spædbarnsdødeligheden. En af undersøgelsens forskere sagde: »Der er simpelt hen dette fænomen med, at tingene ikke står så godt til i USA, over hele linjen.«

På trods af »markedets« kortvarige eufori over valget af Trump, så forudsiger mange økonomer, at Obama har efterladt ham »en ny, stor recession«; og faktisk, et snarligt finanssammenbrud på grund af Dodd/Frank-lovens åbenbare manglende evne til at kontrollere og undertvinge Wall Street. Mange af de mest aktive og interesserede amerikanere er også meget bekymrede over dette.

Det ovenfor nævnte «største spørgsmål« vil fundamentalt afgøre det; amerikansk velstand vil vende tilbage gennem at samarbejde omkring »Den Nye Silkevej« om store infrastrukturprojekter, gennem fælles gennembrud inden for teknologier for fusionskraft; og inden for kernekraft og afsaltning af havvand ved hjælp af kernekraft.

Som Rachel Brinkley, fra LaRouchePAC National Policy Committee, udtrykte det i en udtalelse om den mislykkede Dodd/Frank-lov: »For det første, så er der … forøgelsen af reel velstand som resultat af forøgede rater af fysisk produktivitet. Kinas politik for den Nye Silkevej har en positiv effekt på 70 lande og 4,4 mia. mennesker, ved at fokusere på byggeriet af nye transportruter og udvikling af energi, inklusive byggeriet af højhastighedsjernbaner og mere effektive havne, at bringe elektricitet til landdistrikterne, og ved at indgå partnerskaber for avanceret, videnskabeligt samarbejde med andre lande. Dette er en aktuel, levende demonstration af, hvordan man påvirker nettorater af fysisk vækst i positiv retning. Monetære processer må altid være underordnet dette … «

LaRouches Fire Love

Men, vi må omgående have en reorganisering af bankerne gennem indførelse af Glass-Steagall – i modsat fald, med stigende rentesatser, der nu rammer kolossale gældsbobler, vil Wall Street og City of London atter kollapse og ødelægge udsigterne til fremskridt. Trump har sagt, at han vil have Glass-Steagall genindført; mange kendte økonomer siger, at Kongressen og hans Wall Street-rådgivere ikke vil tillade det.

De undervurderer det tilbageholdte krav fra millioner af informerede amerikanere, om at få retfærdighed gennem Glass-Steagall og få »lukket Wall Street-kasinoet ned«. Dernæst kan en politik for statslig kredit og produktivitet, i Franklin Roosevelts tradition, løfte nationen ud af det langvarige, økonomiske kollaps, i hvilket Bush og Obama har efterladt den.

Foto: Nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump har forpligtet sig til, at USA skal ophøre med at føre en politik for regimeskifte …

Syrien står umiddelbart foran befrielse
– Vil Det britiske Imperiums terrorist-
instrument blive ødelagt for altid?

Præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt holder Pearl Harbor-talen den 8. december, 1941, til en særlig indkaldt Kongressamling.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 7. december, 2016 – På 75-års dagen den 7. dec., 1941 – »en dag, som vil blive husket som en skændselsdag«, som FDR erklærede – breder et lignende chok sig i De forenede Stater, og i verden, med Det britiske Imperium, der står over for sin mulige, endelige død. Politisk, økonomisk og strategisk vakler Imperiet, med Olympens bjerg, der smuldrer under dets fødder.

På den politiske side har den italienske befolknings overvældende afvisning af den EU-dikterede folkeafstemning, der skulle overgive magten til Bruxelles-bureaukraterne, som handler på vegne af bankerne i City of London, føjet yderligere et slag til Brexit, Trumps valgsejr, Fillons valgsejr i Frankrig, Dutertes valgsejr i Filippinerne og den allesteds nærværende fornemmelse af, at den britiske »globalisering« af hele verden under bankierernes kontrol er ved at være forbi.

På den økonomiske side bliver det i stigende grad erkendt, at den hektiske bestræbelse for at holde de europæiske banker oven vande gennem mere kvantitativ lempelse (’pengetrykning’), mere bail-in (ekspropriering af bankindskud) og mere bail-out (statslig bankredning) – de samme, mislykkede bestræbelser, som Bush og Obama har brugt i USA – skal dække over ødelæggelsen af folks levebrød, hvor produktiv beskæftigelse og selve produktiviteten bliver lukket ned for at redde spekulanterne. Og så virker det ikke engang, for at redde bankerne!

På den strategiske side, så er krigene for »regimeskifte«, som Bush, Blair, Cameron og Obama har ført i hele Mellemøsten, og som har overgivet land efter land til bestialske terroristbander, ved at blive nedkæmpet på Syriens slagmarker. Aleppo er næsten blevet befriet fra al-Qaeda og ISIS, disse, de britiske og saudiske monarkiers skabelser. Som oberst Pat Lang (pens.) bemærkede på sin blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis:[1] »Det, der er sket i borgerkrigens heksekedel, er, at en ny magt er opstået i Levanten. En ny, syrisk, arabisk hær eksisterer nu, takket være russisk uddannelse, udstyr og rådgivning.«

Som en yderligere konsolidering af denne afvisning af britisk imperiepolitik, erklærede Donald Trump i går aftes i North Carolina med sin hidtil stærkeste formulering:

»Vi vil ophøre med at fare rundt for at vælte udenlandske regimer, som vi intet ved om; som vi ikke bør være indblandet i. Denne destruktive cyklus med intervention og kaos må omsider være slut … Vi søger harmoni og god vilje mellem verdens nationer.«

EIR's rapport 'Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen' på engelsk, kinesisk og arabisk

Grundlaget for denne harmoni er blevet fremlagt i detaljer i EIR’s Specialrapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«, som nu cirkulerer i hele verden på engelsk, kinesisk og arabisk. I løbet af den forgangne uge fortalte to politiske ledere fra Kina, Patrick Ho, tidligere Hong Kong-indenrigssekretær, og viceudenrigsminister Fu Ying fra Beijing, et amerikansk publikum i Washington og New York, at den nyvalgte præsident Trump har mulighed for at bringe Kina og USA sammen omkring global opbygning af nationer, ved at tilslutte sig Xi Jinpings Silkevejsprojekter, Bælt-og-Vej-programmet, og ved at tage imod det stående tilbud fra præsident Xi om samarbejde, som Obama havde afvist til fordel for militær konfrontation med både Kina og Rusland.

Trump har gjort det ekstremt klart, at han vil arbejde sammen med præsident Putin omkring bekæmpelse af terrorisme, samt inden for andre, endnu ikke afgjorte områder. I dag foretog han endnu en positiv gestus over for Beijing ved at udnævne guvernøren for Iowa, Terry Branstad, som den næste ambassadør til Kina. Branstad er en nær, personlig ven til præsident Xi Jinping, et venskab, der stammer fra Xis mange besøg til Iowa i årenes løb.

LaRouches Fire Love

For virkelig at bringe Amerika ind i en samarbejdsrelation med Rusland og Kina, må det transatlantiske banksystems bankerot løses, helst før der indtræffer en ukontrollabel sammenbrudskrise. Dette kræver den omgående genindførelse af Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov og afskrivning af boblen med værdiløse derivater, der er i færd med at drive realøkonomien ad Helvede til. I dag er aktivist-teams fra hele USA’s østkyst i Washington, hvor de giver de sædvanligvis totalt idéforladte kongresmedlemmer deres marchordrer om at tilslutte sig den nu på globalt plan gærende revolution, der er i færd med at bringe en afslutning på Det britiske Imperiums finansdiktatur gennem Glass-Steagall og statslig kredit, der, efter Hamiltons principper, dirigeres til opbygning af industri, landbrug, infrastruktur og satsning på fusionskraft og udforskning af rummet. Magten til og muligheden for at gøre dette ligger i dette øjeblik i vore hænder, et øjeblik, der ligeledes vil »huskes som en skændsel«, hvis vi mislykkes. Som i 1941, har alle patrioter i deres respektive nationer, og alle borgere i verden, muligheden for at ændre historiens gang til det bedre, ved at tilslutte sig denne historiske, internationale kamp for at skabe en civilisation, der er i overensstemmelse med alle menneskers værdighed.

Foto: SAA Tigerstyrker og civile i Aleppo, Syrien, 7. december, 2016.

[1] Sic semper tyrannis er latin og betyder ’således altid for tyranner’. Det blev foreslået af George Manson ved Virginia Konventionen i 1776 og henviste til Marcus Junius Brutus' udtalelse ved mordet på Julius Cæsar. Det bliver undertiden fejltolket som »Død over tyranner«. (wiki)

Ved et uafgjort øjeblik i historien er
den personlige faktor endnu vigtigere:
Gør det Nye Paradigme til virkelighed!

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 6. december, 2016 – Den formelle overgang til USA’s næste præsidentskab – der er 45 dage til Indvielsesdagen for Donald Trump – får uophørlig opmærksomhed i USA og i andre medier, men, den historisk vigtige overgang i verden som helhed er det følgende: hvor hurtigt og vist vil USA og Europa opgive det geopolitiske, kasino-økonomiske system og gå med i det nye, globale win-win-paradigme? Udfordringen består i at mobilisere folk til at være med til at få dette til at ske. Dette omfatter, at de foretager en personlig ændring og bliver aktive, og ikke længere blot ser passivt og afventende til. Der gives øjeblikke i historien, hvor den subjektive faktor er altafgørende. Vi befinder os ved et sådant øjeblik.

Omstændighederne er dramatiske. Yderligere initiativer for fred og udvikling kommer i denne uge fra Rusland og Kina.

I dag var premierminister Dmitri Medvedev vært for mange møder i Moskva med den tyrkiske premierminister Binali Yildirim, inkl. møder med præsident Vladimir Putin. Sammen med afgørende, økonomiske engagementer, såsom byggeri af kernekraftværker og gasledningen Turkish Stream, bekræftede lederne det, som Yildirim kaldte behovet for en ny, international sikkerhedsarkitektur for at besejre terrorisme, og en ny dialog med vestlige magter på dette grundlag.

I Tokyo fremlagde en kinesisk embedsmand fra den magtfulde Nationale Udviklings- og Reformkommission (NDRC) i går et tilbud om at opkoble Bælt-og-Vej-programmet til Japans og Sydkoreas økonomiske »arbejdsplaner«. Hr. Cao Wenlian, generaldirektør for NDRC’s Internationale Samarbejdscenter, talte om at styrke komplementariteten i de tre nationers økonomiske aktiviteter, der tilsammen allerede udgør 36 procent af verdens BNP. Cao talte i anledning af det Første Forum for Samarbejde om Industrikapacitet mellem de tre lande. Dette fremstød med det kinesiske tilbud tilsidesætter Japans mangeårige underdanighed under transatlantisk, økonomisk og militær, tvivlsom og aggressiv manipulation.

Selv Henry Kissinger – hvis personlige historie kan siges at indbefatte særdeles uønskede paradigmer – taler offentligt til fordel for samarbejde mellem USA og Kina. Kissinger mødtes den 2. dec. med præsident Xi Jinping i Beijing. I dag mødtes han med Donald Trump i New York City. I går aftes under et Manhattan-arrangement svarede Kissinger på et spørgsmål, der var stillet af LaRouchePAC’s Daniel Burke, som spurgte: »Hr. LaRouche deler stærkt Deres mening om, at USA og Kina må samarbejde. Og han understreger, at USA og Kina kan samarbejde omkring politikken med Ét bælte, én vej; at dette ville være en indlysende vej til at genopbygge USA’s kollapsende økonomi … « Kissinger svarede: »Jeg mener, at konceptet med Én vej, ét bælte [sic] er et vigtigt spørgsmål. Jeg mener, at Kina kan og bør finde en måde at tale om det. Det er et af de spørgsmål, hvor samarbejde sandsynligvis er muligt … «

I denne uge vil LaRouchePAC-aktivister fra flere østkyststater anføre angrebet på Capitol Hill i Washington, D.C., for at lægge pres på virkeligheden og politikken med det formål at få USA til at gå med i det nye paradigmes æra, med start i en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, der følges op af gennemførelse af de handlinger, der fremlægges i LaRouches Fire Love.

Ved et arrangement i går i Washington, D.C., talte både vicepræsident Joe Biden og Thomas Hoenig, vicepræsident for den amerikanske Statslige Indskudsgarantifond, FDIC, offentligt til fordel for Glass/Steagall-loven. Biden fordømte sin egen stemme til fordel for en ophævelse af Glass-Steagall i 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley-loven) som »den værste stemme, jeg nogensinde har afgivet i hele min tid i USA’s Senat«. Men så vendte han rundt og sagde, det er derfor, vi nu »ikke kan tillade en ophævelse af Dodd-Frank«, fordi vi har brug for »en opmand i marken«.

Hoenig udtalte imidlertid støtte til genindførelse af Glass-Steagall og forklarede, at ophævelsen af denne lov førte til de risikable omstændigheder, der skabte krisen i 2008.

»Man gav de kommercielle banker, der har et statsgaranteret sikkerhedsnet, lov til« at engagere sig i alle former for aktiviteter, og man »forsynede dem endda med udvidet statsstøtte til at handle … « Hoenig er en potentiel Trump-udnævnelse til viceformand for banktilsynet i Federal Reserve (USA’s centralbank).

Hvis man træder et skridt tilbage og betragter historien, ser man, at visse øjeblikke træder frem som tidspunkter, hvor en afgørende, personlig ændring finder sted. I denne uge tænker vi med alvor tilbage på den 7. december, 1941, Pearl Harbor Day, hvor amerikanske borgere, som nation, gennemgik en ændring over en nat.

Vi skal i dag forstå, at vi alle er kaldede til aktivt at intervenere for at være med til at afgøre det historiske udfald.

Italien: Har Putin gjort det igen?

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 5. december, 2016 – I modsætning til det hysteri, der stadig fortsætter i USA, så er der ingen, der påstår, at Rusland riggede stemmeboksene til Italiens overvældende sejr i en folkeafstemning, der ellers ville have overgivet deres love, domstole og lovgivende magt til den Europæiske Union. Men den, der promoverede en sådan folkeafstemning, den italienske premierminister Renzi, blev alligevel grundigt slået og træder nu tilbage.

Som den russiske præsident Putin samme dag bemærkede i et interview til Tv, »Vi lever nu i en anden tid … Den globale balance er gradvist i færd med at skifte.« Obama har igen tabt; endnu en leder, som han havde overøst med ros, har erkendt sit nederlag til det »nye paradigme«.

Dette nye paradigme afviser det gamle – der sluttelig drejede sig om britisk finansimperialisme – som var det paradigme, Obama har tjent: Det drejede sig om at ofre økonomier til globale finansmarkeder og globale finansinstitutioner; om at ofre industrier for traktater om »frihandel«; om at fjerne uønskede, »diktatoriske« regeringer gennem permanent krigsførelse. Ironisk nok var det de britiske vælgere, der startede den til alle lande nu spredende afvisning af dette »globaliseringsparadigme«.

Som eksempel for dette nye paradigme står de næsten 70 nye, store infrastrukturprojekter, hvor Kina er involveret i finansieringen og opførelsen, i Eurasiens, Afrikas og Sydamerikas nationer – og, potentielt set, også i Nordamerika, når Obama først er af vejen.

Dette nye paradigme kunne meget snart komme til udtryk gennem den måde, hvorpå Putin er i færd med at gennemtvinge en løsning på forsøget på at gennemtvinge regimeskift i Syrien; og gennem Kinas fremstød for udvikling med den Nye Silkevej, der også forlænges ind i Mellemøsten. Selve den Europæiske Union har bøjet sig for denne »skiftende balance« og fremlagde i dag en Plan B, hvor det vil være med til at finansiere genopbygningen af Syrien og opgive kravet om Bashar al-Assads tilbagetræden.

Valget af Donald Trump udgør en åbning i kampen for dette nye paradigme i USA – han blev valgt gennem en afvisning af den gamle globaliseringspolitik, og har visse mål til fælles med det nye paradigme.

Men håbet om dette nye paradigme, der besjæler hele Amerika og Europa, ligger i kampagnen for Lyndon LaRouches »Fire Økonomiske Love til USA’s redning«, som diskuteres i LaRouchePAC National Policy Committee fra 5. dec. Følg diskussionen her: https://larouchepac.com/20161205/larouchepac-policy-committee-show

Det nye paradigme er den dominerende dynamik i verden i øjeblikket;
Italien leverer et bragende nederlag til EU-oligarkiet

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 4. december, 2016 – Den 9. november, 2016, morgenen efter det dramatiske præsidentvalg i USA – hvor Trumps valgsejr efterlod de fleste analytikere hjemme og i udlandet enten vrøvlende nonsens af sig, eller også i målløs tavshed – udtalte Lyndon LaRouche klart, at Trumps valgsejr var en del af en global, og ikke en lokal eller national proces, hvor hele konstruktionen med globalisering og frihandel er i færd med at smuldre. LaRouche sagde, at intet endnu er afgjort, og at processen styres af præsidenterne Putin fra Rusland og Xi fra Kina, og gennem det globale alternativ, som de præsenterer – et alternativ, der er baseret på en politik, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche længe har været forkæmpere for.

I dag fortsætter denne globale proces med at udspille sig i en accelererende rate, i en grad, hvor det nye paradigme er den dominerende dynamik i verden i dag. I Italien leverede landet et slående, 60 % mod 40 %, nederlag til Storbritanniens EU-diktatur. Søndagens folkeafstemning – i kølvandet på Brexit og Trumps valgsejr – kunne meget vel vise sig at blive det endelige knockout-stød mod hele eurosystemet.

Samtidig med, at det transatlantiske systems gamle paradigme imploderer, tilbyder den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping aktivt hele verden at få adgang til den »udviklingsdrøm«, der på så slående vis fungerer i Kina. Som Xinhua skriver i en ledende artikel: »Den kinesiske drøm er en drøm for alle.« Og, ligesom sin partner Putin, fortsætter Xi med at udvide tilbuddet om produktivt samarbejde med USA til nyvalgte præsident Trump. Potentialet er enormt – men endnu ikke realiseret.

I mellemtiden fortsætter de afdankede repræsentanter for det gamle paradigme at handle, som om der ikke har fundet et skifte sted i USA’s præsidentskab, og som om det nye paradigme slet ikke eksisterer. De fortsætter med at puffe verden i retning af atomkrig, med deres outrerede og farlige provokationer imod Rusland og Kina.

Hvad vi foretager os i denne globale proces, understregede LaRouche tilbage den 9. nov., og igen denne weekend under diskussion med sine medarbejdere på begge sider af Atlanten, er absolut afgørende. Vi må blive ved med at presse på for at få LaRouches Fire Love vedtaget og bruge det faktum, at der nu er en større åbenhed over for diskussioner af dristige ideer, som man så det tidligere på ugen i forbindelse med LaRoucePAC’s organisering på Capitol Hill. Mange mennesker var for første gang villige til at diskutere fusionskraft, rumpolitik og endda Einsteins og Krafft Ehrickes ideer.

Vi må fremlægge for folk behovet få at vedtage Glass-Steagall og indføre et kreditsystem efter Hamiltons principper, der skal erstatte nutidens bankerotte system, og vi må vise dem, hvordan det vil virke. Og vi må frem for alt tilslibe menneskets centrale karakteristika, som muliggør en sådan uafbrudt udvikling: menneskets kreativitet.

Vi må absolut fokusere på skabelsen af en bedre kvalitet af det menneskelige intellekt, understregede LaRouche; vi kan ikke udelade behovet for at skabe og generere genier, som Einsteins eksempel udtrykkeligt demonstrerer. Dette er den standard, der må anvendes. Vi må opgradere den måde, hvorpå vi fungerer som organisatorer, sagde han, og udsøge mennesker, som i det mindste er i besiddelse af spiren til denne kvalitet af geni, og som er villige til at bygge et nyt samfund og skabe en fremtid for menneskeheden.

Vi kan ikke gå på kompromis med udviklingen af geni. Dette kræver, at vi stræber efter at udvikle den form for kvalitet, som i det mindste må have en forsmag af geni, for vi ønsker, at befolkningen skal følge denne kurs.

Denne idé om at appellere til folk, der i det mindste har en anelse om, hvad det vil sige at bringe menneskeheden fremad, udtalte Helga Zepp-LaRouche, er også af afgørende betydning for rekrutteringen. Vi må tænde gnisten i sådanne personer for at tilslutte sig denne nye revolution, der er i gang over hele verden.

Supplerende materiale:

Bragende nederlag for EU-Oligarkiet i italiensk folkeafstemning

4. dec., 2016 – Et jordskælv, denne gang af politisk art, kom søndag aften fra Italien, hvor vælgerne – iflg. de tidlige resultater – afviste den EU-dikterede forfatningsreform med et overvældende flertal på 60 % mod 40 %.

Efter Brexit og den anti-Obama/Hillary Clinton valgsejr i USA, er dette det tredje chok, der rammer, og det har implikationer for hele Europa og verden.

En turbulent fase er nu indledt. Premierminister Matteo Renzi forventes at træde tilbage, og mandag vil et spekulativt angreb, der var annonceret på forhånd, blive udløst mod italienske værdipapirer. Dette kan udløse en bankkrise, der hurtigt kan sprede sin smitte til hele finanssystemet.

Italien står nu umiddelbart over for at træffe et valg: enten at gennemtvinge finansiel fascisme, eller forlade euroen og vedtage nationale nødrets-love. Der vil muligvis blive afholdt nyvalg snarest på baggrund af denne krise.

Foto: Premierminister Matteo Renzi tabte stort i søndagens folkeafstemning i Italien.

RADIO SCHILLER den 5. december 2016:
Nu har Italien sagt “Nej”:
Den globale transformation fortsætter

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Movisol-bevægelsen i Italien på Radio Gamma 5:
Italiensk folkeafstemning og LaRouches Fire Love

Milano, 2. dec., 2016 – Liliana Gorini, forkvinde for Movisol, den italienske LaRouche-organisation, blev i dag interviewet af Radio Gamma 5 om den forestående folkeafstemning om Forfatningen, søndag, den 4. dec., og om konferencen om Glass-Steagall i Alba den 12. nov. Det første spørgsmål var om Financial Times, som truer med, at otte italienske banker vil kollapse, hvis det bliver et ’Nej’ til Renzis forfatningsreformer i folkeafstemningen. Gorini gjorde det klart, at banker kollapser pga. deres eksponering til derivater, og ikke pga. et ’Nej’-resultat, og hun understregede, at støtten til et ’ja’ kom fra spekulanter, såsom BlackRock og JPMorgan, som endda har skrevet Renzis Forfatningsreform, samt fra sådanne krigsforbrydere som Tony Blair; vælgerne bør spørge sig selv, hvorfor, og bør ikke alene stemme ’Nej’, men også tilslutte sig det nye paradigme, med LaRouches Fire Love og den Nye Silkevej. »Hvis ’nej’ vinder, så bliver dette det næste, nødvendige skridt«, sagde hun.

Hun citerede også general Fabio Mini om et særligt, katastrofalt aspekt af Renzis reform: at krige kan erklæres uden at spørge Parlamentet. Med hensyn til de mennesker, der stemmer ’ja’, ikke, fordi de kan lide Renzi, men fordi de frygter for, hvad der vil ske, hvis hans regering falder, mindede Gorini lytterne om, hvad LaRouche plejede at sige for år tilbage om Hamlet, der »foretrak det onde, han kendte, frem for det onde, han ikke kender«. Men, forsatte hun, »det ukendte kan snarere bringe noget godt: for eksempel Glass-Steagall, samarbejde med Rusland og Kina omkring infrastruktur og en Marshallplan for Afrika«, som modsætning til den Europæiske Unions bankerotte politik med nedskæringer og krigsprovokationer.

Der indkom spørgsmål fra lyttere om chancerne for at få Glass-Steagall vedtaget i USA. Gorini sagde, »Vi kan ikke forlade os på Trump, som nævnte Glass-Steagall i sin kampagnes sidste uger. LaRouchePAC er fuldt ud mobiliseret til at få Glass-Steagall og LaRouches Fire Love vedtaget, og der er ganske bestemt bedre chancer nu efter valget. Mange kongresmedlemmer, der er tilhænger af Glass-Steagall, blev genvalgt med op til 81 % af stemmerne, som tilfældet var med Tulsi Gabbard eller Walter Jones. Dette viser, at den amerikanske befolkning er for lovene.«

Værten Marisa Sottovia ønskede Movisol og LaRouchePAC tillykke med deres mobilisering, »som virkelig er nøglen; det er op til folket at forandre tingene«, og hun opfordrede lyttere til at gå ind på Movisols hjemmeside. http://movisol.org/

Foto: Liliana Gorini, forkvinde for Movisol, taler til en forsamling i Alba (Piemonte); se rapport her.

USA har brug for en massebevægelse for udvikling NU!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast,
2. december, 2016; Leder

hamissue16 Matthew Ogden: Både Diane Sare og Kesha Rogers har skrevet en artikel i denne uges The Hamiltonian; jeg mener, deres artikler meget fint tjener til at skabe en ramme omkring aftenens diskussion. Diane Sares artikel hedder "President Putin's Purloined Letter; the Poetic Principle in Political Affairs" (Præsident Putins stjålne brev; det poetiske princip i politiske affærer) – jeg kan godt lide bogstavrimet her. Kesha Rogers skrev en artikel, "Mankind Is Taking a Leap! You Should Ask 'How High?'" (Menneskeheden foretager et spring! Man bør spørge, ‘Hvor højt?’”)

Begge disse artikler tjener virkelig til at definere det, som hr. LaRouche pointerede mht. den nødvendige tankegang, når vi går frem i den nuværende situation i verden. Man må ikke blive fanget i lokal tankegang; man bør ikke tænke ud fra den laveste fællesnævner, eller tænke på alle de forskellige politiske taktikker, der plaskes ud over forsiden af New York Times eller Washington Post og de forskellige nyhedsmedier. Man må i stedet tænke som en leder; og man må tænke ud fra standpunktet om, hvad der er drivkraften bag den hastigt skiftende dynamik i globale anliggender.

Ganske kort: vi så dette meget direkte i denne uge fra et par forskellige standpunkter. For det første, så var der en aktionsdag fra LaRouchePAC-aktivister i Washington, D.C. i onsdags. Jeg havde den store glæde at deltage. Vi havde aktivister, der kom fra hele østkysten, inkl. fra ’Manhattan-projektet’ i New York City; og vi var dér for at sætte hr. LaRouches principper, i form af de Fire Økonomiske Love, på dagsordenen. At der ikke er noget alternativ til en omgående genindførelse af Glass-Steagall og en omgående renæssance af Alexander Hamiltons principper. Disse er: et nationalbanksystem; direkte kredit til forøget energi-gennemstrømningstæthed og produktivitet i arbejdsstyrken; og princippet om videnskab som [økonomisk] drivkraft, som Kesha Rogers diskuterer i sin artikel i The Hamiltonian. Et aggressivt program for udforskning og udvikling af rummet, og for at opnå fusionskraft og en højere energigennemstrømningstæthed i produktionsprocessen.

Og jeg mener, dette kan ses meget klart ud fra det, der finder sted internationalt, og som hovedsagligt kommer fra Rusland og Kina. Der var for det første et meget vigtigt dokument, som netop er blevet offentliggjort, fra Kina, som vi kan diskutere lidt mere omkring. Dette dokument hedder »Retten til udvikling: Kinas filosofi, praksis og bidrag«. Denne hvidbog erklærer, at udvikling er den fundamentale, umistelige rettighed. Og for det andet, så er der nu en ny, strategisk doktrin fra Rusland, som blev annonceret i summarisk form af den russiske præsident Putin i sin årlige ’Tale til nationen’, hvor han sagde, at verdensdynamikken nu er forandret. Vi er nu villige til at samarbejde med USA som ligeværdige partnere omkring fælles interesser – inklusive endelig at besejre de falske, konstruerede fjender, som vi har hørt om fra Obama-administrationen gennem de seneste otte år.

Så med denne form for geometrisk strategi har vi et meget rigt felt, vi kan intervenere i, og en meget rig mulighed.

Så der er mange detaljer, som jeg gerne vil have, vi kommer ind på under diskussionen af alle disse spørgsmål. Lad det være nok som introduktion, og lad os høre Kesha og Diane.

(Herefter følger udskrift af diskussionen på engelsk.)

DIANE SARE: OK, I'll just go ahead. I'm really glad with
what you said, Matt; because there really is a transformation,
and I think we tend to miss it. Or you catch a glimmer of it
like the real joy that I certainly felt watching all the vote
totals come in; and these poor silly reporters not having a clue
what had hit them. But then, you get bombarded with the real
fake news, which is what comes from the so-called mainstream news
media; which has absolutely zero about developments in the world
which are being created by billions of people. So, you have the
most extraordinary, most gigantic Earth-changing events occurring
under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, under the leadership of
Xi Jinping, and their collaboration with leaders in South
America, leaders in Africa. Not one word of it here, and then
we're treated to some miniscule detail of a misplaced wart that a
politician has somewhere or whatever. I think we would do well
to bear in mind a little bit of what I tried to capture in that
article. There is a poetic principle; there is a world
revolution underway. These things are not separate, discrete
events. The Brexit vote — contrary to the stupid media spin —
was not a bunch of white racists who hate immigrants. Maybe
there are some of those, but the real factor was that the whole
euro system is bankrupt. It didn't work and it wasn't designed
to work; and people were rejecting it. Similarly, you had these
recent votes: the winner in the French Republican Party
nominations, François Fillon, who does not want a war with
Russia. I think most people on the planet actually recognize
that a nuclear war between superpowers is not a desirable policy
or outcome; and it's not necessary because what President Putin
is doing is leading a fight to eradicate terrorism. He has been
very direct about this; especially after September of 2015, at
his speech at the United Nations. He's reiterating again the
call for a coalition to wipe out this terrorist scourge. So what
you see in this election process here in the United States, is we
have a potential now to join with the New Paradigm.
Therefore, the most significant aspect of what we know about
the incoming administration perhaps, are the two phone calls that
Trump had with Xi Jinping and with President Vladimir Putin; and
this is absolutely not missed by people of the world. I just
wanted to give a little bit of a report on an event last night at
New York University with this extraordinary woman, who is the
second only I think woman in history to be the chairwoman of the
Foreign Relations committee in the Chinese national assembly.
Her name is Madame Fu Ying; she is extraordinarily dignified,
calm and very confident. She began her remarks at this forum at
New York University by referring to the phone call between Xi
Jinping and Trump. She made a point of saying the Chinese are
always being accused of not contributing to good in the world, of
not working with the world. So, we figured when we started the
Belt and Road and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, that
the United States — which is always accusing us of not wanting
to work with anyone else — would have been the first in line to
join. Instead, our invitation to participate in these
extraordinary projects was rejected. Now, clearly there is a
potential for this opportunity to be taken.
This is really very big. Similarly, the decision that Trump
has made to have retired General Michael Flynn as one of his
advisors; who has called for collaboration with Russia in Syria.
And Trump's reiterations of the necessity of that kind of
collaboration — these things are very important. And the fact
that Flynn has come out calling for a Marshall Plan for the
region; which is similar to the Chinese; Xi Jinping made a tour
of several of those nations not so long ago. The only way you
are going to secure peace is through economic development — not
on a low level, not on repairing the decrepit, aging, out-of-date
infrastructure we have; but by leaping into a new domain. So, I
think I'll stop there for a minute; because I think Kesha
probably has a lot to add in that regard.

KESHA ROGERS: Yes. Just taking from that, we really have
to advance mankind; we really have to have a leap forward for
mankind. This is what Mr. LaRouche is committed to; this is what
you see Russia and China committed to. I was greatly inspired by
the discussion and some of the developments that came out of the
President of Russia; President Putin's State of the Union
address. The leap for mankind really requires putting the
commitment to the future. This was really expressed very
beautifully in his remarks, which captured in essence the
conception that the responsibility of the nation is to foster
creativity in science, and foster creativity in the youth of your
nation. The best expression to doing this, in terms of
scientific and technological development. In his speech he says,
"Our schools must promote creativity, but children must learn to
think independently, work both on their own and as part of a
team, address usual tasks and formulate and achieve goals; which
will help them have an interesting and prosperous life. You must
promote the culture of research and engineering work. The number
of cutting edge science parks for children will increase to 40
within two years; they will serve as the basis for development of
a network of technical project groups across the country.
Companies, universities, and research institutes would contribute
to this, so our children will see clearly that all of them have
equal opportunity and an equal start in life. That Russia needs
their ideas and knowledge and they can prove their mettle in
Russian companies and laboratories…." And he goes to say, "Our
education system must be based on the principle that all children
and teenagers are gifted and can succeed in science, in creative
areas, in sports, in career, and in life."
That should be the model for every single nation. That is
the model for our space program, and it really starts with the
question of what is human nature? If we're going to advance
mankind and have leaps forward? As a part of this paper that
Matt mentioned, from China they're expressing the same expression
for their nation; and for mankind as a whole. It's not just "our
nation is better than yours, and we're going to have our people
pulled out of poverty and your people can stay in poverty.
They're not thinking like imperialists or wanting to keep nations
backwards; they want nations to move forward. So, China has
pulled 700 million people out of poverty; you can't do that by
taking baby steps and going with a few infrastructure projects.
You have to have creative leaps. This has really been expressed
for their Silk Road development offer of win-win cooperation and
their commitment to space and space as the potential for opening
for mankind across the planet and across the galaxy.
I think if people look at the very exciting developments
that we're seeing coming from Russia and China, that has to be
the model. We have that potential right now, because I think
what Diane pointed out — that when President-elect Trump was
elected, this was a mandate. This was a repudiation of the
Bush/Obama destruction of this type of potential for a future; a
repudiation of Hillary Clinton's commitment to continuing war.
The American people said, we're not going to condone this any
longer.
The question is, what is the positive aspect that you're
going to fight for? We've put that on the table with LaRouche's
Four Laws and our commitment to a future perspective for mankind,
based on this very identity that has been clearly laid out by
what we could be doing if we decide to make the commitment and
collaborate on the basis that Russia and China have laid out.

OGDEN: Yeah, China really is an inspiration in that regard.
Let me just read a very quick quote from that paper that you
referenced, Kesha. The title of this white paper, again, is "The
Right to Development: China's Philosophy, Practice and
Contribution"; and they start by saying, "The right to
development must be enjoyed and shared by all peoples. Realizing
the right to development is the responsibility of all countries
and also the obligation of the international community." If you
just juxtapose that to the Malthusian philosophy of the British
Royal Family and others in the so-called "West" today, where they
say, "Well, no, you know, the right to development — it's not a
right. All peoples do not have an equal right to the same living
standard, and, plus, if we were to pursue that — as Obama said
when he went to Africa — 'the planet would boil over.'" I mean,
give me a break!
So, China's white paper is laying out the opposite
philosophy, view, of man. I think, in accordance with what Putin
said in that State of the Union, that, yes, every human being is
a creative human being. That is the fundamental right of every
human being — is to develop that creativity and to contribute it
to his or her nation and to the future of mankind.
In the China white paper, they go on to state some really
stunning statistics. You, Kesha, cited the lifting 700 million
people out of poverty; which is just an incredible achievement in
and of itself. Now only a little bit under 6%, 5.7% of the
population of China, are officially under the poverty line. And
in the white paper they were very proud to point out that China
was actually the first to achieve this UN Millennium goal —
which is a goal to lift such and such a percentage of people out
of poverty. But they refuse to stop there! They say, "That's not
enough. We have a goal, that we are going to eliminate poverty
altogether!"
The statistics are amazing. If you compare China in 1949 to
China in 2015, only a 70-year difference, the average longevity
in China in 1949 was 35 years. Today it's 76 years. The
enrollment of school-age children in school in 1949 was 20%.
Today it's almost 100%; 99.8% of all school-age children are
enrolled in schools in China. The difference between 1978 and
2015: the GDP was at RMB767 billion in 1978. Today their GDP is
RMB68,000 billion! So, that growth is unbelievable. And then
there's, obviously, much less tangible things that you can
measure, but which are clear to see, including the spread of art,
classical culture, classical musical training among the children
of China. So this is really a model for the rest of the world,
an inspiration. As Xi Jinping has said, "We invite the United
States, we invite the West to become a part of the New Silk Road,
and to become a part of the One Belt, One Road initiative."
One event that was happening in Washington, D.C.,
simultaneously with this Day of Action that the LaRouche PAC
activists had on Capitol Hill, was really an unprecedented event
that was sponsored by the Asia Society. It was an all-day event
that was hosted by a scholar named Dr. Patrick Ho, who's the
Secretary General of the China Energy Fund Committee. One of my
colleagues who was there, said about the event that "This was one
of those days in Washington, D.C. when all of the principles that
you've been talking about as a LaRouche PAC activist for years
and years and years, all of a sudden are being echoed by the
person standing at the podium." We've had those experiences
periodically, but this entire event was about the right to
development, the One Belt, One Road Initiative, the Eurasian
Land-Bridge, the World Land-Bridge, the New Paradigm, win-win
cooperation, the United States joining the Silk Road — quite
literally, in those terms.
Dr. Ho actually laid out five points of advice to the new
incoming [Trump] administration on how to integrate the United
States into the One Belt, One Road program. His five steps are as
follows:
1) Consider One Belt, One Road a platform to spearhead
initiatives and programs to bring closer cooperation between the
United States and China;
2) Realign trade agreements with Asia-Pacific nations to
accommodate the One Belt, One Road;
3) Adjust the U.S. posture towards the international
development banks — that's the AIIB, the New Silk Road Fund, the
New Development Bank of the BRICS, and so forth — and promote
their capacity to assist in support for infrastructure
development;
4) Help secure security along the One Belt, One Road;
5) Get the international institutions to work with the One
Belt, One Road.
So, I think that's actually a very clearly stated way to, as
we say in this pamphlet that we've published from LaRouche PAC,
have the United States join this new Silk Road.
These ideas, as Diane was saying, this is an active
principle, this is the dynamic {elsewhere}, and our
responsibility is to ensure that {this} is the dynamic shaping
policy in the United States.

SARE: Along these lines — because I know there's discussion
and there's an article about Sen. Schumer saying he will work
with Trump on a $1 trillion infrastructure package (something
like that) — I think the idea of Hamilton and the ideas of
people like Krafft Ehricke and what China is doing, really need
to be understood by our activists, so that people can reflect.
For example, there's discussion about one of the things that was
promoted in the New York Times for Trump to do with his
infrastructures, that there should be a tunnel under the Hudson
River, from New Jersey to New York. Right now I think the trains
go, I don't know, every 90 seconds, or every three minutes, or
something like that. There's an enormous amount of traffic. The
Port Authority Bus Terminal is very old and decrepit. It's going
to have to be rebuilt and relocated. The tunnels are very old.
So, this is something that has needed to be done for a long
time. As everyone might imagine, there's an absolutely enormous
amount of traffic between Manhattan and New Jersey across the
Hudson River. So, you say, "What's wrong with a new tunnel
between New Jersey and New York?" Well, in a sense, if you were
to do that, it would be a sin of omission. Obviously we need a
tunnel, but if the idea were to connect this tunnel to a tunnel
under the Bering Strait, so that you could travel from Manhattan
to Moscow, that would be a completely different idea. And I think
what…

OGDEN: [cross talk] …Manhattan to Jersey City; that's for
sure! [both laugh]

SARE: Yeah! Or even, you know, for people who don't want to
go to Moscow, for whatever reason. They could go to Paris, but
they could travel through Siberia. All kinds of exotic, really
wonderful places. It would be quite a ride. Although, I suppose,
if we get the magnetically-levitated vacuum trains, you wouldn't
really get to see much. On the other hand, you'd arrive at your
destination before you left, by the clock.
Anyway, all of these things would completely transform the
way we think of everything. If you could take a train from New
Jersey to San Francisco. Supposing even that it wasn't three
hours — it was a normal high-speed train — so you got there in
a day-and-a-half, that's a completely different phenomenon. It
changes the United States: what you can ship; whom you can work
with; the exchange of ideas; the exchange of goods. The ability
for people to find the very most brilliant individual, whether
they're in China or Somalia or India, who has expertise in a
particular area, and you want to bring them in to collaborate
with a team of scientists in your local laboratory. All these
things become thinkable.
So, when Mr. LaRouche a few years ago had made the point
that he doesn't like the term "infrastructure" anymore, because
it doesn't really get at what is actually necessary; which is the
question of how do you increase the productivity of every person.
And that requires thinking in terms of a platform. The
difference between not having electricity, for example, and
having electricity, is not simply night and day. You just can't
even compare it. It's incommensurate. Therefore, I think we
have to be both open-minded, but we also have to set {really
high} standards for what we think we should be doing. It would be
absolutely criminal, even if it did employ millions of people, to
fill in every pothole in every major city in the United States.
That would not lift the standard of living or the productivity of
the nation as a whole; whereas a high-speed rail link that went
from Manhattan to Moscow would actually have a completely
transformative effect.

OGDEN: Yeah, it's these {leaps} in progress that are
unquantifiable, because it's a completely different measuring
rod, from one leap to the next. Last week on the webcast here on
Friday night, Ben Deniston gave an excellent presentation on
what's necessary for a real space colonization and exploration
program. I thought one example that he used during that
presentation, was really interesting. Just think about what's the
difference between Lewis and Clark's Expedition to explore the
Louisiana Purchase Territory and to cross the continental United
States vs. what we were able to do with the trans-continental
railroad. That's a different universe vs. what we would able to
do with what you're talking about, Diane, with a
magnetically-levitated train that goes from New York, to Los
Angeles, all the way up to Anchorage, Alaska, and across the
Bering Strait, into the Eurasian landmass. Those are just
quantifiably and qualitatively different modes of action. And so,
yes, it's "setting the bar" incredibly high.
Kesha, in your article, you said, "You should ask: How high?
We should leap, we should jump. Mankind should take a leap. How
high?" It's these kinds of insights that Krafft Ehricke, that
others, were able to discuss from the terms that now Mr. LaRouche
has {scientifically} defined, in terms of energy-flux density,
how much more productivity are you able to achieve, with less
effort, with less energy applied, because of these qualitative
leaps in technology and in the principle that you're employing.
Before we get into a little bit more of that, I do want to
bring up, though, because you mentioned it, Diane, this article,
this interview with Sen. Chuck Schumer. Mr. LaRouche was told
about this earlier today when we had a discussion with him. He
placed some importance on it and said, "You know, Chuck Schumer
does play a significant role in the Democratic Party." He is now
Minority Leader in the U.S. Senate, and, very significantly, led
the fight against Obama's veto of the JASTA bill; very publicly
broke with the Obama administration, in favor of the 9/11
families, in overturning the Obama veto of the JASTA bill. I'd
like to say something about that later.
This article is an interview that's published on
syracuse.com. It starts by saying, "U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer
said Wednesday that he's optimistic Congress will strike a deal
with President-elect Donald Trump, to pass a $1 trillion
infrastructure bill within the first 100 days of the
administration." However, he warned, "the bill cannot rely on
what he called 'gimmicks' or tax breaks." He said "any
infrastructure bill must be paid for through substantial and
direct federal funding." He said, "The bill needs to be stronger
and bolder than ever before. Simple tax credits will not work."
He also said that the so-called public-private partnership that
Trump's infrastructure plan and other incentives to build
projects that would be privately owned, would not function. He
said that he had personally told Trump in a private meeting, that
such a plan would lead to investment only in the most profitable
projects — people who are just trying to make a buck; and could
lead to significantly higher tolls on privately owned roads and
bridges. Instead, Schumer said, "The $1 trillion could flow into
the U.S. Treasury to be used for rebuilding the nation's
infrastructure." So, this is a direct Federal financing, not a
scheme, not a gimmick, not tax breaks, not PPPs [public-private
partnerships]. That is a significant development.
I do not think it is a coincidence that that interview comes
directly in the wake of a two-week mobilization by LaRouche PAC
activists on Capitol Hill to force the issue of Hamiltonian
national banking, direct Federal credit. I know that there were
countless meetings from activists; there were several dozen
meetings that Paul Gallagher personally had with staffers and
Congress people on Capitol Hill to discuss the details of what
Hamiltonian economics and Hamiltonian national banking actually
means. If you haven't seen it yet, I would highly recommend
going back and listening to the recorded Fireside Chat that Paul
Gallagher did last night; that was on this question of what
Hamiltonian national banking really means.
So this is significant; but, indeed, we have to have the
view that {we} are setting the agenda. This nation and the
leadership of the country need a very intensive course in what
Hamiltonian economics really means.

ROGERS: Yes, and I think that the title of our publication
which we are continuing to get out en masse, The Hamiltonian
Vision for an Economic Renaissance is absolutely imperative to
be understood as just that. We're not just talking about
developing infrastructure or increasing manufacturing; because
that's not what Hamilton understood in the increasing of the
productivity of society. It was starting with advancing the
creative powers of mankind; and Lyndon LaRouche has taken that to
a very high level and conception, as you said. His work over the
past 40-50 years looking at this conception of leaps in
productivity of society based on this conception of the potential
for mankind to advance in ways that had not been thought of
before; to advance in ways where the creative leaps in mankind
take the development scientifically and technologically to higher
and higher states. Mr. LaRouche's understanding of this and
Krafft Ehricke's were very synonymous; they worked hand-in-hand
together. The German space pioneer Krafft Ehricke — the
rejection of his ideas by the "limits to growth" imperialist
budget-cutters, who didn't want to see mankind advance in this
way, was as direct as the opposition to Lyndon LaRouche. If Mr.
LaRouche's policies had been put through — along with Krafft
Ehricke's — on the development of LaRouche's perspective in the
'80s for a vibrant space program, setting the agenda of the space
program to heights that had not been thought of up until that
point, and continuing what John F Kennedy had laid out as a
national mission for advancing not just in the moment for space
development; but looking far into the future. It's interesting
to go back and look at what the vision was at that time, and how
far we have been set back because we've had people who decided
that it's not the place of human beings to develop.
Krafft Ehricke, as Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have continued to
say, represented a quality of genius. It wasn't just that he
understood aeronautics and was one of the best in terms of field
of technology. He was a real philosopher; his conception of
space development started from the standpoint of the development
of mankind as a whole. That we on this planet, have a
responsibility for the development of each and every human being
on the planet; but the way we're going to achieve is — as he
said on many occasions — that you have to leave the confines of
one small planet. The idea that there are only limited resources
here for a limited number of people is not true. There's a very
beautiful conception of that drawn out by Krafft Ehricke in a
very short writing that he wrote called "The Extra-Terrestrial
Imperative; Growth and Life"; that's the model that he worked on.
I just want to read something quickly from that, because I think
it's very indicative of what we're talking about here. People
have to get these ideas in a very advanced understanding of it
when we're going into Congress right now. It's not just about
getting them to pass a piece of legislation. It has to be, and
we're seeing, a total shift in the thinking of the population.
He says:
"There was a time when the human mind was slow to accept
growing evidence that Earth is not a flat center of the universe.
Now the concept of a closed, isolated world must be overcome.
Viewing our Earth from space should make it obvious that the
world into which we now can grow is no longer closed. By
ignoring this new reality, current predictive world dynamic
models fail. Adhering to an obsolete, closed worldview, they
despair of the future growth prospects. The extra-terrestrial
imperative enjoins us to grow and live through open world
development which contains all the futures the human mind can
hold."
So, that's what we're talking about. How far can the human
mind advance? How far can the human mind see into the future?
That's what we're talking about right now, and we have a
potential to really bring that perspective into focus if we have
a revolutionary change in the way we think about society, and we
think about the responsibility of the growth in society which we
have to now bring on, because it's long overdue. LaRouche's
solutions really put forth exactly how we bring that into being.

OGDEN: This the moment of opportunity. If you look at, as
Diane covered in the beginning of our discussion, this wave of
unexpected and completely dramatic electoral results and
otherwise; from Brexit to the Presidential election. We've got
the Italian referendum coming up this weekend; we could see some
very dramatic results out of there. Hollande has now declared
that he will not be running for President of France. This is a
very dramatic and uncharted period; and the potential is there,
the doors are wide open. I think we have repeatedly gone back to
this point, but I think we should return to it again. It should
have been seen that this was not business as usual at the point
that the entirety of the United States Senate and a vast majority
of the U.S. House — not along party lines — rejected Obama's
treasonous veto of the JASTA bill. That was in no small part the
result of the activation and the leadership of the LaRouche
Political Action Committee in the United States. I think we who
are on this discussion right now, can say that we know directly
that the role that LaRouche PAC played was central and primary in
leading that fight for years. Direct collaboration with the 9/11
Families; direct collaboration with the members of the U.S. House
and Senate in forcing this through. That was not something that
Obama — despite all of his bluster — and the Saudi government
— despite all of their millions of dollars; they just could not
handle that. That was something that overcame everything that
they tried to throw up against it.
Now you have a pathetic effort by McCain and by Lindsey
Graham to try and gut the JASTA bill in the last days of the lame
duck session; but this is not going anywhere. There was a very
good statement put out by Terry Strada and the 9/11 Families
United for Justice Against Terrorism, where they said in their
press release, "We wish to state our firm opposition to the
proposed legislative language offered by U.S. Senators Lindsey
Graham and John McCain that would effectively gut the JASTA bill;
which was overwhelmingly passed by Congress in September." Later
they say, "Notably, Graham's and McCain's efforts come in the
wake of a massive lobbying campaign by the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, which is now employing roughly a dozen lobbying firms at
a cost of more than $1.3 million per month." And then Terry
Strada herself is quoted saying "In April of this year, Senator
Graham met with 9/11 family members and told them that he
supported our cause 100%. Senator Graham is now stabbing the
9/11 Families in the back. He and Senator McCain are seeking to
torpedo JASTA by imposing changes demanded by Saudi Arabia's
lobbyists. We have reviewed the language, and it is an absolute
betrayal." She says, "We, the 9/11 Families, are fortunate to
have Senators John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer to block this action
in the Senate." I can tell you that Senator Schumer told me
personally on Wednesday night that this effort is going nowhere;
this thing is not going to fly. So, they are holding the line
very firmly. But really, they have no choice; because this
victory on the JASTA bill and then everything that has come since
then, including this Presidential election, was a statement that
this is not business as usual among the American people anymore.
There is a mood of revolt among the American people.
I just want to read one very short excerpt from an article
in The Hill which I think excellently gets to that very point
and I think is more generally applicable. The article was
titled, "Note to Allies: Don't Underestimate Overwhelming Popular
Support for JASTA." The author, Alexander Nicholson, says in
this article, "[O]n this particular issue…, no amount of money
or insider Washington connections will be able to overturn the
overwhelming will of the American people. Indeed," he says, "the
highly unexpected but highly populist-inspired election of Donald
Trump to the White House should serve as an indicator that no
amount of inside-the-beltway inside baseball can achieve results
when it comes to certain issues at certain times. And this, too,
is one of those issues and times." And then he concludes the
article, "The current arguments are as ineffective as the
synthetic inside-the-beltway strategy it has thus far employed.
But the new era of empowerment of the American electorate is not
to be underestimated." So, I think that is absolutely the case;
and people should take heart to that. This is, indeed, a new
political era for the United States; it's the "empowerment of the
American electorate."
Now's the time to take that empowerment and just keep the
momentum going; but it has to be from the standpoint of educating
ourselves, as Kesha said, on the principles of Alexander Hamilton
and the principles of the science of physical economy, and
saying, "We now are committing ourselves to what the Chinese have
called 'the inalienable right to development'; and we will not
let go of our demand for that inalienable right."

SARE: Just on that, I think on the one hand it's sort of
obvious; although I guess it shouldn't be, because we've
tolerated such criminality for the last 16 years since 9/11
occurred. Droning people, torture, and so on. The NSA spying on
every detail of everything of everyone. But there's a certain
limit where people just said, "No, we're not intimidated." We
saw that particularly strongly in Manhattan among first
responders and others who died, who are still dying as
after-effects, or who had loved ones who died, or colleagues who
died. There's a certain sort of sacred commitment that "We are
not going back on this," and they're not afraid. The challenge
now again is to raise the standard; in other words, can we fight
with the same fearless passion for those things that are
necessary for mankind to progress? Could we get a situation
where the population just says, "Absolutely not! We're not
shutting down our nuclear power plants. Are you crazy? This is
unacceptable. You're saying we're not going to go back to the
Moon and build the means to get onto Mars from the Moon? This is
crazy!" Where no one even gives it a second thought that it's so
obvious. I think that is where the two areas which Einstein
excelled in both: the music — his violin as a certain source of
inspiration and thought; and the science come together. When one
is conscious of what it means to be truly human and creative,
then anything on a lower standard than that, is the same kind of
affront as the Saudi Foreign Minister traipsing through the halls
of Congress in his robes lined with money. You just say, "Oh,
this is beneath us." We saw that effect here when the Schiller
Institute Community Chorus participated in this series of
performances of the Mozart Requiem; and there's more music
coming up — again sponsored by the Foundation for the Revival of
Classical Culture — on December 17th in Brooklyn. A unity
concert with the conception of, what does it mean: to be human?
Because human beings are not animals, no matter how many
environmentalist barbarians want to try and impose that on us.
When you've located your identity in a realm which is truly
beautiful, then a lot of these things that seem so difficult now
— like the difficulty of these politicians standing up to Wall
Street on Glass-Steagall. Why are they afraid? Why do they find
that difficult? Because their own identities are right now on
too low of a level; but if they began to look at the world from a
higher standpoint — which is I'm convinced where people like
this woman from China, the Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying — you
just get a sense among some of these people that where they're
coming from is a much higher level and that such a thing would be
beneath them. I imagine this was the effect of someone like
President Abraham Lincoln, who was described when he was seen
visiting the soldiers; because his identity was placed in a
different location in a higher realm. Therefore, it wasn't just
that he was fighting against fear; there wasn't fear because
there was such a firm commitment to what is right.
So, I think the next phase in this process is to have a
similar, almost ease; a soaring quality of mankind, even in the
United States, to get ourselves into the realm where we actually
should be living.

ROGERS: Diane, you keep getting them to sing; bringing more
inspiration and optimism. So, we can get more singing and get
more space development, then we can really succeed.

OGDEN: President Modi of India called it a mass movement
for development; and I know Helga LaRouche has echoed that call
repeatedly since he said that. And we really do see a mass
movement for development among some of these Eurasian countries
especially, but also with them reaching out to African and South
and Central American countries, you have a majority of the
world's population now getting in on this mass movement for
development. But that's what we need demanded from the American
people right now; and I think we can turn this new era of
empowerment of the American electorate into a mass movement for
development. But we have to do it from the standpoint of a
Hamiltonian renaissance in the United States. We have the
materials for that, as we've said before. The new book,
Hamilton's Vision is available on Amazon; and people can read
those four reports that he wrote to the United States Congress as
Treasury Security. We also have the Four Laws from Mr. LaRouche
which are available on the LaRouche PAC website, and the related
pamphlet, "The United States Joins the New Silk Road."
So, I implore people to become as active as you can. If you
haven't yet become an activist with the LaRouche PAC, now is the
time to take that step. Support us in every way you can, and
make yourself into a world historical individual by acting on
this current, very brief window of opportunity for mankind. You
can sign up on the LaRouche PAC website; you can subscribe to our
YouTube channel; you can become an activist through the LaRouche
PAC Action Center; and you can share this video as widely as you
possibly can. Let's make this a mass movement for development!
Thank you very much for joining us here today. Thank you to
both Kesha and to Diane. And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Skiftet til det nye paradigme er virkeligheden
– Propaganda for lokale interesser er farligt

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 30. november, 2016 – I denne uge kom delegationer fra Manhattan og flere stater i det østlige USA til Washington, D.C., for personligt at inddrage kongresmedlemmer i nødvendigheden af at tage skridt til at genindføre Glass-Steagall og gennemføre LaRouches »Fire Love«, for at håndtere den aktuelle, strategiske krise. Dette politiske initiativ – sammen med pres på kongressen over hele landet – kommer på et tidspunkt med nonstop mediefiksering på nyvalgte præsident Donald Trumps seneste og eventuelle udnævnelser til regeringsposter. ’Hvem er de?… Hvor dårlige er de?’, osv. Mediernes spærreild, og selv selve udnævnelserne, tjener til at forvirre og demobilisere enhver, der lytter.

Det er vigtigt at modstå alle sådanne, »bottom-up« karakteriseringer, der fremhæver lokale interesser, af det, der foregår. Der er intet lokalt her: »Trump«-valgoverraskelser finder sted i hele verden, og flere vil finde sted i de kommende uger. Vælgere over hele verden afviser nu hele »globaliseringsæraen« til fordel for et nyt paradigme, der fortsat er under udformning. EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, understregede dagen efter præsidentvalgene, at valget af Trump ikke var en »lokal« begivenhed. Afvisningen af Hillary Clinton gik længere end til et spørgsmål om selve personen; den var en del af et globalt, dynamisk skifte. LaRouche manede i dag til forsigtighed: »Det er farligt at gøre det muligt for dette [forvirringen som følge af lokalt fokus] at opstå. Man må frigøre sig fra det. Det ødelægger ens evne til at tænke og løse problemer.«

Undgå derfor vrede over enkeltpersoner; tænk på det mulige.

Dette er virkeligheden. Der er en dynamik i gang på internationalt plan, for et nyt paradigme for hele menneskeheden, og som er legemliggjort i den eurasiske Nye Silkevej. Præsident Vladimir Putin og præsident Xi Jinping leverer et stærkt lederskab for vejen frem, en vej, som i årtier er blevet fremlagt af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche.

I dag holdt Putin en tale i Moskva fra dette udsigtspunkt. Han talte om den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, »der sammenkobles med Kinas projekt for det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte, som vil gøre det muligt for os at bygge et eurasisk partnerskab«. Han talte i anledning af det andet, årlige »Primakov Readings International Forum« i Moskva, for at mindes eftermælet af Jevgenij Primakovs lederskab. Putin sagde: »Hr. Primakov var ligeledes af den mening, at det ville være meget vanskeligt at håndtere nutidens store udfordringer på tilfredsstillende vis uden et seriøst partnerskab mellem Rusland og USA. Ulykkeligvis er de russisk-amerikanske relationer blevet meget forværret i løbet af de seneste år, men dette er ikke vores skyld. Nu, hvor valgkampen er ovre i USA, og en ny præsident snart vil indtage Det Hvide Hus, håber vi, at dette vil skabe en mulighed for at forbedre disse relationer, der er så vigtige, ikke alene for vore to folkeslag, men også for at sikre international stabilitet og sikkerhed … «

Ideen om nye relationer runger over hele Latinamerika, efter Xis seks dages rundrejse i forbindelse med APEC-topmødet tidligere på måneden. Den mexicanske seniordiplomat Sergio Ley har krævet, at Mexico nu »diversificerer« sine relationer inden for udenrigshandel og ikke længere har 80 % af sin handel, der finder sted med USA. Han sagde, at der nu finder »en ekstraordinær dialog på højeste niveau« sted mellem Mexico og Kina.

I opposition til dette aktive, nye paradigme for internationale, gensidigt gavnlige relationer, kommer de sidste, fortvivlede bestræbelser fra geopolitikkens afdankede repræsentanter, på at forårsage mere skade og død. Især Frankrig, Storbritannien og Obama-administrationen mobiliserer imod Rusland over Syrien. I dag meddelte Frankrig, at det vil være vært for et møde den 10. december, som vil omfatte ledere fra UK, USA, Tyskland, Italien, Saudi-Arabien og andre, om, hvordan man skal modsætte sig »den totale krigs tankegang«, som de hævder, Rusland og Syrien forfølger.

Virkeligheden er den, at den syriske regering i Aleppo med held driver terroristerne tilbage; og Rusland er i færd med at mobilisere støtte og nødhjælpsforsyninger – inklusive felthospitaler – til de tusinder af mennesker, der nu er befriet og nødlidende.

Foto: Udsigt over Capitol fra toppen af Washington-monumentet.

Ingen tid at spilde: Vedtag Glass-Steagall, og tag til Månen
LaRouchePAC Internationale
Fredags-webcast,
25. november, 2016

Jason Ross: Diskussionen i aften finder sted to en halv uge efter præsidentvalget i USA den 8. nov. Siden da har vi set en hvirvelvind af spekulationer over udnævnelser til regeringsposter, inkl. nogle udnævnelser til poster i Trump-administrationen. Vi har også set betydningsfulde, internationale nyheder, såsom APEC-topmødet, der fandt sted i sidste weekend; topmødet i Asien-Stillehavsområdets Økonomiske Samarbejde (APEC), der meget betydningsfuldt inkluderede den filippinske præsident Duterte og den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping blandt de mange tilstedeværende ledere. På denne konference understregede Duterte igen, at Filippinerne ikke længere anser sig selv for at være en amerikansk koloni; og landet forfølger en uafhængig politik, rent økonomisk, med Kina, der således er et modtræk til at skabe konflikt i f.eks. det Sydkinesiske Hav. Præsident Xi var på rundrejse i Mellem- og Sydamerika samtidig med, at han rejste til APEC-topmødet. Så ved siden af Peru – som var værtsland for topmødet – besøgte han også Chile og Ecuador, hvor han blandt andet talte om den bi-oceaniske korridor, en plan for en jernbaneforbindelse mellem Sydamerikas to omkringliggende have, Stillehavet og Atlanterhavet, og om at etablere videnskabsbyer. Han blev hyldet af præsident Correa i Ecuador, der betragtede Xi Jinpings besøg som den mest betydningsfulde begivenhed, der nogen sinde havde fundet sted i Ecuadors historie, baseret på det potentiale, som dette tilbød denne nation.

Dette Nye Paradigme, der i øjeblikket ledes politisk og økonomisk af Rusland og Kina, kommer som et resultat af LaRouche-bevægelsens og Lyndon og Helga LaRouches årtier lange organisering; der er således nu et Nyt Paradigme, der fører en stadigt større del af verden i en meget positiv retning. Vores job i øjeblikket er ikke at få de hotteste nyheder om, hvad Trumps udnævnelser bliver, osv. Det er at forme amerikanske politik, som vi med held gjorde det med at gennemtvinge en underkendelse af Obamas veto af Loven om Juridisk Retfærdighed mod Sponsorer af Terrorisme (JASTA). Og som vi nu står klar til at gøre, med at få Kongressen – under denne overgangsperiode, ’lamme and’-perioden – til at gennemføre Glass-Steagall, det nødvendige første skridt for en økonomisk genrejsning. Glass-Steagall er den lov, som Franklin Roosevelt fik vedtaget, og som skabte 60+ år med stabil, kedelig, stabil, produktiv bankvirksomhed i USA; snarere end den form for spillevirksomhed, vi nu ser.

Lad med vise dette kort [Fig. 1] for blot at vise lidt at den succes, som vi har set med det kinesiske program.

2016-11-26-4 Programmet med nationerne i Ét bælte, én vej [OBOR], der inkluderer både – der er to komponenter i Kinas projekt i denne henseende; det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte, med nationerne vist i blå farve, og det 21. Århundredes Maritime Silkevej i orange farve. Tilsammen refererer Kina til dette på kinesisk som initiativet med »Ét bælte, én vej«; på engelsk ofte blot kaldt initiativet for Bæltet og Vejen. Med hensyn til det potentiale, som dette har, er her blot nogle af tallene: 20.000 km højhastigheds-jernbanelinjer i Kina, alle bygget inden for det seneste årti – mere end i resten af verden tilsammen; et titals billioner af dollars i direkte investering i nationerne i området; en forøgelse af kontrakter om tjenesteydelser på over 33 % i løbet af blot ét år langs Bæltet og Vejen; Kinas Eksport/Importbank har udestående engagementer i flere end 1000 projekter og har for ganske nylig underskrevet aftaler om omkring 500 nye projekter i nationerne langs Bæltet og Vejen. 2016-11-26-6 Kina er i færd med at udbygge 150.000 stipendier, som tilbyder uddannelse til 500.000 eksperter til uddannelse i Kina; har etableret 500 Konfucius-institutter i hele verden; har initieret flere end et dusin økonomiske samarbejdszoner; frihandelsaftaler, og er i øjeblikket engageret i flere end 40 energiprojekter – inklusive omkring 20, der lige er blevet etableret i år i Bæltet og Vejens nationer.

Hvordan kan vi så blive en del af dette? I magasinet Chronicles udgave fra 21. nov. er der et forslag fra Edward Lozansky og Jim Jatrus. Lozansky er præsident for det Amerikanske Universitet i Moskva. De skrev en artikel med titlen, »The Big Three: America, Russia, and China Must Join Hands for
Security, Prosperity, and Peace« (De tre store: Amerika, Rusland og Kina må gå sammen om sikkerhed, velstand og fred). To uddrag: De indleder deres artikel, »Med Donald Trumps sejr over Hillary Clinton får vi måske aldrig at vide, hvor tæt Amerika og hele menneskeheden kom på atomkrig«. Med en beskrivelse af verdenssituationen afslutter de med et forslag: »Præsident Donald Trump kan rette tidligere amerikanske præsidenters fejl. Snarere end modstandere kan Rusland og Kina blive Amerikas vigtigste partere, og som er, er vi overbevist om, rede til at respondere positivt. Tiden er inde for Trump og Amerika til at tage initiativet til samarbejde mellem USA, Rusland og Kina hen imod en tryg, fremgangsrig og fredelig fremtid. Et Trump-Putin-Xi ’Store Tre-topmøde’ bør være en prioritet for den nye, amerikanske præsidents første 100 dage.«

Jeg vil nu bede Jeff Steinberg om at fylde verdensbilledet ud og forklare vore seere, hvilke flanker, hvilke håndtag, hvilke vægtstænger vi har for at ændre USA’s politik på dette tidspunkt?

Jeffrey Steinberg (efterretningsredaktør, EIR): Det er indledningsvist meget vigtigt at indse, at vi befinder os i en periode med forandring. Vi ved visse ting om konsekvenserne af det amerikanske præsidentvalg og andre nationale valg den 8. nov. Jeg mener, at Lozansky og Jatrus gjorde en fundamental pointe meget klart: Der forelå en meget alvorlig fare, baseret på Hillary Clintons kampagneretorik, baseret på politikker, der blev stadigt mere aggressivt forfulgt af præsident Barack Obama mod slutningen af hans otte år i embedet; at vi havde kurs mod den værste krise mellem USA og Rusland, som vi nogen sinde har oplevet – måske endda værre end Cubakrisen i 1962. Så Hillary Clintons nederlag er virkelig afslutningen af præsidentskaberne Bush’ og Obamas 16 år lange tyranni. Hvor hurtigt, vi kan vende politikken omkring under det nye Trump-præsidentskab, og i hvilken retning, udnævnelserne til hans administration vil gå, er alt sammen ukendte faktorer; vi har ingen vished om dem.

Det, vi ved, er, at især i kølvandet på APEC-topmødet, der netop er afsluttet i sidste uge i Lima, Peru, og som dernæst efterfulgtes af den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings statsbesøg til Peru og dernæst til Chile, og forud for topmødet var han i Ecuador; og vi ved, at der er en enorm mulighed derude for USA, under et Trump-præsidentskab, for netop at gå med i det, der altid har ligget på bordet som en åben invitation til USA; nemlig, at USA kan tilslutte sig projektet om Verdenslandbroen. For, uden et USA er det meget vanskeligt at opfatte dette som en Verdenslandbro, hvilket er det, verden virkelig har brug for lige nu. Der har været meget indledende telefondiskussioner mellem nyvalgte præsident Trump og den russiske præsident Putin; de synes at være blevet enige om at have et personligt topmøde hurtigt efter tiltrædelsen – som finder sted den 20. januar. Det er ligeledes tanken, at præsident Trump, efter tiltrædelsen, også ret hurtigt skal mødes med den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping. Jeg mener, at Lozansky-Jatrus-ideen om et trilateralt møde ville være ekstraordinært værdifuldt. Det er vigtigt at huske på, at, i 1944, var det præsident Franklin Roosevelts kurs i sine handlinger for at etablere De forenede Nationer – hvilket skete i 1945 – at inkludere både Sovjetunionen og Kina i FN’s Sikkerhedsråds fem permanente nationer. Husk på, at Roosevelt forstod, at der var imperiepolitikker, der stadig var kernen i Det britiske Imperium med Churchill, og på lignende måde med Frankrig. Så ideen med at have Rusland – dengang Sovjetunionen – og Kina i dette permanente Sikkerhedsråds kernegruppe, reflekterede den kendsgerning, at Roosevelt dengang så udsigten til denne form for et alliancesystem hen over Eurasien. Jeg mener, at der er en historisk baggrund, for netop denne form for russisk-kinesiske samarbejde, at se hen til her. I de seneste 15 år har det været en hjørnesten i Lyndon LaRouches globale politik med et USA-Rusland-Kina-Indien-samarbejde, især omkring videnskabelige programmer; især udforskning af rummet, som basis for global fred og udvikling. Så disse ideer er fremlagt.

Den 20. november sagde general Michael Flynn, kort tid efter, at han var blevet udnævnt af nyvalgte præsident Trump som national sikkerhedsrådgiver, i et interview med Fareed Zakhari på CNN, at, efter hans mening, var den eneste måde at håndtere problemerne med den jihadistiske terrortrussel i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika på længere sigt at have et globalt samarbejde omkring en Marshallplan – han brugte udtrykkeligt dette udtryk. Han sagde, hvis man ser på, hvad Europa var i stand til at præstere i kølvandet på Anden Verdenskrigs ødelæggelser, og den rolle, som Marshallplanen spillede; det var ikke det hele, men det var et vigtigt element i den økonomiske genrejsning efter krigen. Et perspektiv af denne art er virkelig den vindende strategi for at håndtere befolkningstilvæksten og spredningen af den saudisksponsorerede jihadisme i hele Mellemøsten/Nordafrika-området. Det går også ind i Sydvestasien.

Der findes altså enorme potentialer; de er i vid udstrækning foreløbigt ikke realiseret med hensyn til den forandring, der kommer med den ny administration. Men, som du sagde, Jason [Ross], så er der ingen grund til at vente til januar. Den nyvalgte præsident Trump krævede udtrykkeligt, i en tale i Charlotte, North Carolina, en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. Det er i begge de to store politiske partiers valgplatform for dette års valg; både Demokraterne og Republikanerne har vedtaget det. Det var en Trump-delegeret til GOP [Grand Old Party – det Republikanske Parti] komiteen for politisk strategi, der introducerede Glass-Steagall. Der er senatorerne Elizabeth Warren, og vigtigere endnu, Bernie Sanders, som siger, at de er villige til at række over midtergangen og arbejde sammen med Donald Trump, hvis samarbejdsspørgsmålene inkluderer og virkelig begynder med Glass-Steagall. Så dette er noget, der ikke behøver at vente til januar og tiltrædelsen og den nye Kongres. Der er fremstillet lovforslag for Glass-Steagall i både Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet. Et af forslagene i Huset har en ordlyd, der er identisk med Senatsforslaget. Som vi så det med vedtagelsen af underkendelsen af JASTA-vetoet, hvis lederskabet i Kongressen giver grønt lys, kan Glass-Steagall bringes til debat i begge huse og vedtages inden for få timer. Underkendelsen af JASTA-vetoet tog to timer om morgenen i USA’s Senat, og to en halv time eller så om eftermiddagen i Huset. Det opnåede man på en enkelt dag i Kongressen. Så der er ingen som helst grund til, at vi ikke omgående kan gennemføre det – i bogstavelig forstand i næste uge, når Kongressen atter samles efter Thanksgiving-ferien; og den vil sidde i de næste fire uger. Der er intet til hinder for, at vi kan få Glass-Steagall tilbage som landets lov før juleferien, så vi har det på plads til den nye administration; og tiden er rent ud sagt af afgørende betydning. Vi ved ikke, i betragtning af situationen med Deutsche Bank, med Royal Bank of Scotland, med de største, amerikanske for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-banker, der sidder på derivater til $252 billion. Det er 30 % mere end det var på tidspunktet for krakket i 2008. Det sidder på toppen af et meget tvivlsomt kapitalgrundlag på $14 billion; i virkeligheden er det sandsynligvis meget mindre end det, for nogle af de værdipapirer, som bliver talt med som kapitalreserver, er grundlæggende set illikvide og kan ikke – selv i nødstilfælde – gøres likvide.

Så vi kunne altså vågne i morgen, eller mandag morgen, eller midt i næste uge, og finde, at hele det transatlantiske banksystem er nedsmeltet. Så Glass-Steagall er altså et presserende hastespørgsmål; og det forudsætter dernæst de andre hovedelementer i LaRouches Fire Love. Det er et kreditsystem; investering i store infrastrukturprojekter; og en genoplivning af de mest avancerede, videnskabelige programmer, inklusive en storstilet tilbagevenden til rummet og det internationale arbejde for endelig at opnå det fulde gennembrud inden for fusion. Alle disse ting er på bordet, men igen, så er der ingen garantier; intet er blot tilnærmelsesvis sikkert mht., hvad det næste, der vil ske, bliver. Vi kan ånde lidt op, fordi faren for krig med Rusland og Kina er blevet meget reduceret; og der er en masse potentiale. Der er en masse af den form for overgang som fra Jimmy Carter til Ronald Reagan i luften som et potentiale; men intet af det er endnu fuldt ud realiseret. Folk må indse, at dette er et tidspunkt med store muligheder. Det vil blive et krav fra befolkningen under det rette lederskab, der er orienteret mod de rette politikker, der virkelig kan gribe muligheden. Hvis vi venter til januar eller februar næste år, hvem ved så, hvilke slags sabotageoperationer, man vil køre?

Man kan gå ind på Craigs Liste og finde dækgrupper for George Soros, såsom MoveOn.org og blacklivesmatter.org, der tilbyder $1500 om ugen for, at folk render rundt som idioter og protesterer imod resultatet af valget. Der er en hel del usikkerhed med hensyn til, hvad der foregår, samtidig med, at der er store muligheder. Vi må sikre os, at vi tager lederskabet mht. at gribe øjeblikket.

Ovenstående er første del af det Internationale Webcast; det engelske udskrift af hele webcastet følger her:

MAKE THE MOST OF THE OPENNESS IN POLICY NOW,
TO INSURE A NEW PARADIGM FOR THE UNITED STATES
BEFORE THE INAUGURATION
LaRouche PAC International Webcast, Saturday, November 26, 2016

JASON ROSS: Hi there! Today is November 25, 2016; and
you're joining us for our regular webcast here from
larouchepac.com. My name is Jason Ross; I'll be the host today.
I'm joined in the studio by Ben Deniston, my colleague here at
LaRouche PAC; and via video by Jeff Steinberg of Executive
Intelligence Review.
This discussion is taking place 2.5 weeks after the November
8, 2016 Presidential election in the United States. Since then,
we've seen a whirlwind of speculation about Cabinet appointments,
including some Cabinet appointments for the Trump administration.
We've also seen some significant international news, such as the
APEC summit which occurred last weekend; the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation summit that included very significantly new
Philippines' President Duterte and Chinese Xi Jinping among the
many leaders who were there. At this conference, Duterte again
emphasized that the Philippines no longer considers itself to be
a US colony; and is pursuing an independent policy economically
with China, countering the attempts to create conflict, for
example, in the South China Sea. President Xi Jinping went on a
tour of Latin America while he was at the APEC summit. So in
addition to Peru — which hosted the event — he also visited
Chile and Ecuador; where he spoke, among other things, about the
bioceanic corridor, a plan for a rail link between the Pacific
and Atlantic sides of South America; about setting up science
cities. He was greeted by President Correa in Ecuador, who
considered Xi Jinping's trip the most significant event to occur
in Ecuador's history; based on the potential that it offered that
nation.
So, this New Paradigm, being led politically and
economically at present by Russia and by China, comes as a result
of decades of organizing by the LaRouche Movement, by Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche; such that there is now a New Paradigm taking an
increasingly larger portion of the world in a very positive
direction. Our job at present isn't to get the hottest news on
what Trump's appointments will be, etc. It is to shape US
policy; as we successfully did in forcing an override against
Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
And as we stand poised to do now with getting the Congress —
during this lame duck session — to implement Glass-Steagall, the
necessary first step for an economic recovery. Glass-Steagall is
the law that Franklin Roosevelt had put in place that created 60+
years of stable, boring, stable productive banking in the United
States; rather than the kind of gambling that we see now.
Let me pull up this chart [Fig. 1] just to show a bit of
this success that we've seen along the Chinese economic program.
Along the One Belt, One Road nations which includes both the —
there's two components to China's project on this; the Silk Road
economic belt, which you see the nations in blue, and the 21st
Century Maritime Silk Road in orange. Together, China refers to
this in Chinese as the "One Belt, One Road" initiative; in
English, often just the Belt and Road initiative. As far as the
potential that this holds, these are just some of the figures:
20,000 km of high-speed rail in China, all built within the last
decade — more than the rest of the world combined; tens of
billions of dollars of direct investment into nations of the
region; an increase in services contracts of over 33% in just one
year along the One Belt, One Road; the Export/Import Bank of
China has outstanding involvement in over 1000 projects, and just
recently has signed up about 500 new projects along the Belt and
Road nations. China is extending 150,000 scholarships offering
training for 500,000 for professionals for training in China; has
set up 500 Confucius institutes around the world, has initiated
over a dozen economic cooperation zones; free trade agreements,
and is engaged currently in over 40 energy projects — including
about 20 that were just set up this year among One Belt, One Road
nations.
So, how can we become a part of this? Well, a proposal was
made in the November 21st issue of {Chronicles} magazine by
Edward Lozansky and Jim Jatrus. Losansky is the President of the
American University in Moscow. They wrote an article called,
"The Big Three: America, Russia, and China Must Join Hands for
Security, Prosperity, and Peace". Two excerpts. They open their
article, "With the defeat of Hillary Clinton by Donald Trump, we
may never know how close America and all mankind came to nuclear
war." In describing the world situation, they end with a
proposal: "President Donald Trump can correct the mistakes of
past U.S. presidents. Rather than adversaries Russia and China
can become Americaâs essential partners and are, we are
convinced, ready to respond positively. Itâs time for Trump and
America to take the initiative for U.S-Russia-China cooperation
towards a secure, prosperous, and peaceful future. A
Trump-Putin-Xi 'Big Three Summit' should be a priority for the
new U.S. Presidentâs first 100 days."
So, I'd like to ask Jeff Steinberg to fill out the world
picture, and detail for our viewers what are the flanks, what are
the handles, the levers that we have for shifting US policy at
this time?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Jason. For starters, it's very
important to realize that we're in a period of significant flux.
There are certain things that we know about the consequences of
the US Presidential elections and other Federal elections on
November 8th. And I think Lozansky and Jatrus made one very
fundamental point quite clearly: That there was a very grave
danger based on the campaign rhetoric of Hillary Clinton, based
on the policies that were pursued even ever more aggressively
towards the end of his eight years in office by President Barack
Obama; that we were headed for the worst crisis between the
United States and Russia that we ever experienced — worse
perhaps even than the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. So, the
defeat of Hillary Clinton really is the end of the 16-year
tyranny of the Bush and Obama Presidencies. How rapidly we can
turn the policies around under the new Trump Presidency, where
the Cabinet appointments are going to go, these are all unknowns;
they're not certain to us.
So, we do know that particularly in the aftermath of the
APEC summit meeting that just concluded last week in Lima, Peru,
which was then followed by state visits by Chinese President Xi
Jinping to Peru and then to Chile afterwards; and prior to the
summit, he was in Ecuador. We know that there's a tremendous
opportunity out there for the United States, under a Trump
Presidency, to precisely join in what has always been on the
table as an open invitation to the United States; namely, for the
United States to join in the World Land-Bridge project. Because
without the United States, it's very difficult to conceive of
this as a World Land-Bridge; which is really what the world
requires right now. There have been very preliminary phone
discussions between President-elect Trump and Russian President
Putin; they seem to have reached an agreement that they will have
a face-to-face summit meeting soon after the inauguration —
which is January 20th. The idea, similarly, is for President
Trump, once he's inaugurated, to also meet quite soon with
Chinese President Xi Jinping. I think the Lozansky-Jatrus idea
of a trilateral meeting would be extraordinarily valuable. I
think it's important to remember that in 1944, the orientation of
President Franklin Roosevelt in the move to establish the United
Nations — which happened in 1945 — was to include both the
Soviet Union and China among the permanent five nations of the UN
Security Council. Remember, Roosevelt understood that there were
imperial policies that were still at the core of the British
Empire with Churchill, and similarly with France. So, the idea
of having Russia — the Soviet Union at the time — and China in
this permanent Security Council core grouping, reflected the fact
that Roosevelt at that time saw the prospect of that kind of an
alliance system across Eurasia. So, I think that's there's an
historical basis to look to here for exactly this kind of
Russia-China cooperation. For the last 15 years, a cornerstone
of Lyndon LaRouche's of global policy has been a
US-Russia-China-India cooperation, particularly on scientific
programs; especially space exploration, as the basis for global
peace and development. So, those ideas are out there.
On November 20th, soon after he was named by President-elect
Trump to be the National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn,
in an interview with Fareed Zakhari on CNN, said that in his
view, the only way to deal with the long-term problem of the
jihadist, terrorist threat in the Middle East and North Africa,
was for there to be a global cooperation on a Marshall Plan — he
used that term explicitly. He said, if you look at what Europe
was able to accomplish in the aftermath of the devastation of
World War II, and the role that the Marshall Plan played; it was
not the whole thing, but it was an important element of the
postwar recovery. That kind of perspective is really the winning
strategy for dealing with the population growth and this spread
of Saudi-sponsored jihadism throughout the Middle East-North
Africa region. It extends into Southeast Asia as well.
So, there are great potentialities; they are largely as yet
unrealized in terms of the change coming with the new
administration. But I think, Jason, as you correctly said, there
is no reason to wait for January. President-elect Trump, in a
major campaign speech in Charlotte, North Carolina, explicitly
called for reinstating Glass-Steagall. It's in the platforms of
both major political parties from this year's elections; the
Democrats and the Republicans both adopted it. It was a Trump
delegate to the policy committee of the GOP who introduced the
Glass-Steagall. You've got Senators Elizabeth Warren, and more
importantly, Senator Bernie Sanders, saying that they're prepared
to reach across the aisle and work with Donald Trump if the
issues for collaboration include and really start with
Glass-Steagall. So, this is something that does not have to wait
for January and the inauguration and the new Congress. There are
Glass-Steagall bills in both the House and the Senate. One of
the House bills has the identical language as the Senate bill.
As we saw with the JASTA veto override vote, if the Congressional
leadership gives the green lights, then Glass-Steagall can be
brought to the floor of both houses and can be debated and voted
within a matter of hours. The override of JASTA took two hours
in the morning for the US Senate, and two and a half or so hours
in the afternoon for the House. It was accomplished in one
legislative day. So, there's no reason whatsoever that we can't
move immediately — literally next week when Congress is back in
session after Thanksgiving; and they're there for three weeks.
There's no reason that we should not have Glass-Steagall back as
the law of the land before the Christmas recess. So that we hit
the ground running with the new administration; and frankly, time
is of the essence. We don't know, given the situation with
Deutsche Bank, with Royal Bank of Scotland, the largest US
too-big-to-fail banks are sitting on $252 trillion in
derivatives. That's 30% more than it was at the time of the 2008
crash. That's on top of a very questionable capital base of $14
trillion; the reality is that it's probably much less than that,
because some of the assets that are allowed to be counted as the
capital reserves, are basically illiquid and can't be — even on
an emergency basis — made liquid.
So, we could wake up tomorrow morning, or Monday morning, or
the middle of next week, and find that the entire trans-Atlantic
banking system has blown out. So, Glass-Steagall is an urgent,
immediate issue; and it then begs the other three key elements of
LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws. Which is a credit system;
investment in major infrastructure projects; and a revival of the
most advanced scientific programs, including a major return to
space and the work internationally to finally achieve the full
breakthrough on fusion. All of these things are on the table,
but again, there are no guarantees, there's nothing that's even
remotely certain about what's going to come next. We can breathe
a little easier because danger of war with Russia, with China is
greatly reduced; and there's a lot of potentiality. There's a
lot of the kind of transition from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan
in the air as a potential; but none of it is fully realized yet.
So, people are going to have to realize this is a moment of great
opportunity. It's going to be an outpouring of the population
under the right kind of leadership, directed at the right
policies, that can really seize the opportunity. If we wait
until January of February of next year, who knows what kind of
sabotage operations are going to be run?
You can go on Craig's List and find George Soros front
groups, like MoveOn.org and blacklivesmatter.org, offering $1500
a week for people to run around like idiots, protesting against
the outcome of the election. There's a great deal of uncertainty,
in terms of what's going on, at the same time that there's great
opportunity. We've got to make sure that we take the lead in
seizing the moment.

ROSS: Great! Thanks! In terms of the long-term outlook of where
we're going to go, what our policy should be, a major aspect of
this goes beyond legislation that affects us only here on Earth.
A major component, in fact the fourth component of the Four Laws
of Mr. LaRouche, the last one being the fusion driver crash
program, is connected with our existence beyond the planet, also
out in space. Ben wrote an article that's going to be in the
upcoming issue of the Hamiltonian about what a U.S. space
policy ought to be, and about the really long-term goals that we
have to have, and why this is important and essential. So, could
you tell us about that, Ben?

BENJAMIN DENISTON: Gladly! As viewers are aware, this has
been an ongoing subject of discussion. Mr. LaRouche, as Jason is
saying, has put a major, major focus on, as a critical part of
the needed recovery program and the future of mankind. In this
article we tried to elevate people's thinking about space,
especially in the context of so many years and administrations
and decades of just zero-growth policies.
One thing that's being discussed now, which is interesting
and useful, is how much NASA has been hijacked for this global
warming crap. A lot of NASA's budget has been redirected to
"Earth sciences." Not all Earth sciences are bad. There's a lot
of interesting science to learn about the Earth. But Earth
sciences is often a front to push this fraud of some man-made
global warming crisis. So, there's some discussion about NASA
being redirected away from wasting their time on this phony,
phony, fake crisis, which is not something we need to be
concerned about, and redirecting back to exploration. Surprise,
surprise. The Moon has come back now as a central subject of the
discussion. Anybody who had any sense would realize that once
Obama was out, this crazy asteroid mission [The Asteroid Impact
and Deflection Assessment (AIDA) mission] would likely be tossed
aside. Anybody who is serious would recognize that the Moon is
the next place to get back to.
As Jeff was referencing, there's a lot of discussion, a lot
of openness. From our work and discussions with Mr. LaRouche, I
think it's critical to really raise the level of discussion to
the right basis. We can have exciting missions, we can have
inspiring missions, but the question to ask is: are we going to
have a program where the investments are going to be the basis
for creating a whole new level of activity, that will allows us
to do orders of magnitude more than we were able to do prior to
that investment? Is this going to create what Mr. LaRouche had
once defined as a "physical-economic platform?" Is this going to
create an entirely new platform of activity, of potential — of
infrastructure, of energy-flux density of technologies — which
comes together to support a qualitatively new level of potential
activity for mankind?
That is the issue we want to put on the table right now.
This goes directly to the vision of Krafft Ehricke, the early
space pioneer who worked very closely with Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche in the '80s, who was one of the leading space
visionaries, who had outlined in great detail the initial basis
of mankind expanding to really becoming a Solar System species.
I'm going to get back to his work in a minute. Mr. LaRouche's
concept of the "platform" is really critical. He introduced this,
I think it was around the year 2010, 2009, something like that.
He was coming up against a real lack of understanding of the
significance of what "infrastructure" really means, in its true
scientific sense. Unfortunately, this has become somewhat of a
buzzword that a lot of people throw out there. "We need to
rebuild our infrastructure" has become a kind of a hot
campaign-trail word to use to get some support.
The real understanding of what qualitative revolutions in
infrastructure systems mean for mankind's continual creative
progress is not connected to the way most people use that term.
Mr. LaRouche defined the very profound and critical assessment of
looking at the development of human civilization in these stages
of platforms. He said, go back to thousands of years ago, when
the dominant cultures were trans-oceanic maritime cultures. What
you began to see, with the development of inland waterways,
inland river systems — he had put a big point on what
Charlemagne was doing during his reign in central Europe in
developing these canal systems and river systems — was a
qualitative revolution above what had existed prior, with these
trans-oceanic civilizations: the development of these inland
waterways. That defined a new platform of activity that supported
a qualitative leap in what civilization was able to accomplish.
The next leap came with the development of rail systems,
railroads, especially trans-continental railroads, typified by
what Lincoln had spearheaded with the trans-continental railroad
across America. With these rail systems, with the new
technologies of steam engines powering these rail systems, the
higher energy-flux density of coal-powered steam engines, this
enabled mankind to begin to develop the interior regions of the
continent, in completely new ways, and defined a totally new
relationship of mankind, of civilization, to the environment
around him. It defined a qualitative increase in mankind's
"potential relative population density," as LaRouche had
developed that metric for understanding the science of economic
growth. It made things that were at one point incredibly
expensive or challenging or risky, become just day-to-day regular
activities.
I think back to the early phases of these frontier
explorations of the American Continent. You go back to the Lewis
and Clark Expeditions, where to travel from the east coast across
the entire mainland of the continent to the west coast required
someone like the leading skilled frontiersmen, and a very
dangerous, very challenging mission, which was a very brave
undertaking for a handful of people to actually be able to
accomplish that. Some decades later, with the rail system, with
the infrastructure of this railroad platform, any family could do
this. With your young children, you could hop on the rail line
and get across the country. Any entrepreneur could come out and
take advantage of the development of new territories that were
completely inaccessible before. It was a complete transformation
in our most fundamental ability to exist on the planet in these
different territories.
Now what does this have to do with space? This is how we
should be thinking about space exploration, space
development–things that we view today as incredibly expensive,
difficult, dangerous missions. We should be thinking now what
kind of investments can we make to ensure that those then become
regular, day-to-day even, activities that we can support very
easily. What will it take to create a Solar System
physical-economic platform that will enable mankind to do much
more, much easier, than we can today? That's the metric we want
to set. That's the measuring rod we want to utilize, to determine
what kind of space program, what kind of policy we need today.
In breaking this down, this might not include everything,
but in some of our work in the Basement with our discussions on
this subject, I think we can really, very usefully look at three
categories of activity — three categories of infrastructure and
technologies — which define the basis, you could say the
pillars, of a Solar System platform, of an ability to
qualitatively expand mankind's ability to access the Solar System
in completely new ways, to make things we currently view as
singular flagship missions, [into] just regular, easy activities
that we can do, orders of magnitude more of than we can now.

What we want to look at are these three categories of activity:

(1) Access to space. What's our ability to get from Earth's
surface up into Earth orbit? Initial basic access to space.

(2) Travelling in space. Getting around the Solar System. Getting
from one planetary body to the next.

(3) Developing resources. Developing the capabilities to utilize
the resources available to us throughout the Solar System, not
having to take everything with us everywhere we go, but be able
to develop the wealth that's available out there; to utilize it
on site and transport it around, even bringing stuff back to
Earth that we can't necessarily get from Earth.

If you look at these three pillars, these three categories
together, and if you make qualitative breakthroughs in each of
these together, this really comes together to define a new
platform of activity, a new standard that will enable the kind of
leap that will transition us from viewing space as a Lewis and
Clark style expedition, to a trans-continental railroad style
relationship to the Solar System.
I just want to take a couple minutes and go through just
some sense of what areas we can see breakthroughs in each of
these categories. Go to the first slide we have displayed. [Fig.
1] It has been said that getting from Earth's surface to low
Earth orbit, is half-way to anywhere in the Solar System. In a
certain sense that's very true. If you have a sense of the
scales, that might sound very, very strange, because, just in
terms of distance, low Earth orbit [begins] about 160 km, about
100 miles, up above your head. If you want to travel to the Moon,
you're talking about hundreds of thousands of miles. If you want
to travel to another planet, you're talking about millions of
miles.
It's a little funny to think that the first 100 miles,
compared to hundreds of thousands or millions, is actually half
of the trip. But if you look at the energy requirements and what
it takes to actually start from just being on the Earth's surface
and getting into orbit, that is the case. It is a tremendous
amount of energy requirement to get from Earth's surface up into
Earth orbit.
The graphic here displays this, in terms of travel from
Earth's surface to different planetary bodies, measured in the
standard terms used for Solar System travel, which is your change
in speed. To get into Earth orbit requires not just going up 100
miles, but actually changing your speed, from your current
velocity sitting here on the Earth, to something that will allow
you to stay in orbit. If you want to change orbits, or travel
around, you can measure that, in terms of changes in velocity.
So that happens to be the metric here; but you can see the lowest
dark blue bar on each of these graphics shows that literally far
more than half of the requirement is just getting from Earth's
surface to Earth orbit.

ROSS: So, this is half of the speed that you're getting;
this doesn't mean half of the energy, or half of the fuel, or
anything like that.

DENISTON: Yeah. Once you start to include that, it would
be even more energy requirements; because you've got to lift your
fuel that you're going to use for the different travels into
orbit with you. It definitely gets a little more detailed if you
want to get into it, but this is literally the change in speed
requirements to get into Earth orbit and then to leave Earth
orbit is very significant.
So, there's improvements being made in rocket systems to get
up more efficiently, but there are new technologies that are just
sitting there on the horizon; they've been sitting there for
decades, frankly, that would dramatically lower the cost, lower
the requirements, and the point is, dramatically increase the
accessibility of space to mankind. One technology that has been
discussed for a long time is space planes. Here in the graphic
you can see a relatively recent article covering studies in China
on interest in China to develop what some people call
single-stage-to-orbit space planes. So, you can get on a plane
on a runway — it's probably going to be a little bit longer than
your standard runway for airplane travel — and you can ride a
single space plane from the runway all the way up into Earth
orbit. A lot of this depends upon much more advanced engine
designs that can utilize the oxygen in the atmosphere at higher
speeds and at higher altitudes to continue to provide thrust.
But these things could dramatically lower the cost, the energy
requirements of getting people and payloads up into Earth orbit;
far more than a lot of the discussion about these reusable
rockets and some of the developments going on in improving rocket
systems to get from Earth's surface into Earth orbit.

ROSS: This is a technology that was in LaRouche's "Woman on
Mars" video from the 1980s, right? It talked about beginning
with an airplane, and then turning into a rocket. The big
benefit being that you can use the oxygen in the atmosphere
instead of carrying it with you, is that right? Is that what
makes this more effective?

DENISTON: Yeah, absolutely. These rocket systems have to
carry the oxygen as part of the rocket to combust to provide the
thrust. These are more innovative engine designs —
air-breathing engines that can use the oxygen in the atmosphere.
As you said, this has been researched in the United States with
different scramjet designs. Yeah, Mr. LaRouche featured some of
this, which he had developed I think in some close discussion
with some Italian colleagues at the time in his collaboration
with the Fusion Energy Foundation; and had made it a major part
of his "Woman on Mars" mission.
But this is being developed; this is live. Again, you're
seeing clear interest in China; there's interest in the United
States; there's a company in the United Kingdom that's developing
very interesting engine designs that can utilize these
capabilities. If you want to take it a step further, another
thing that's been discussed is using vacuum tube maglev
technologies to launch from Earth orbit into space. This might
be a little more frontier and not quite as around the corner as
these space planes; but this is the kind of stuff that we should
be thinking about. Again, the point is, completely
revolutionizing mankind's access to low-Earth orbit and then to
the Solar System. So, this is the first major hurdle. If you
get some solid infrastructure developments that can enable
mankind to overcome this hurdle more easily, you're creating the
basis for a much broader expansion of mankind's activity.
The next pillar, the next category is travel in space. And
again, this is an issue that Mr. LaRouche has been campaigning on
for decades. Space travel requires nuclear reactions; chemical
fuel just doesn't have the energy density to provide quick and
efficient access to the Solar System. We can get to the Moon;
that's OK. It probably would be nice to get there a little bit
quicker, but that's our next door neighbor in terms of the Solar
System. If you want to get to Mars, you want to get around to
other places in the Solar System, you've got to get to nuclear
reactions. The heart of this is the fact that the energy
density, the energy per mass of nuclear reactions is, on average,
on the order of a million times greater than the energy per mass
in chemical reactions; even as broad categories, setting aside
the particular fuel you use in either case.
A million times is just a big number, but for one quick
comparison, you take the fuel used for the Space Shuttle launch
— those two solid rocket boosters on either side, the large tank
in the middle filled with liquid fuel. You take the weight of
all that fuel together, some of the most advanced chemical
reactions we have for fuel for space launch; how much weight of
nuclear fuel would it take to contain the same amount of energy?
You're talking about 10 pounds! One suitcase full of nuclear
fuel contains the same amount of energy as all three fuel tanks
of the Space Shuttle. To be fair, you couldn't necessarily use
that fuel the same way to launch the Space Shuttle; you have to
have systems that can actually combust it and get thrust out of
it. It's not just the energy content as the only issue, but that
is the defining characteristic that makes nuclear reactions key
to getting around the Solar System; enabling things like
travelling at constant acceleration. Instead of just initially
firing your thruster and basically floating on an orbit to get to
different planetary bodies — which is what's often proposed for
getting people to Mars; which would take on the order of six,
seven, eight months to do. If you had nuclear reactions —
especially fusion reactions — you can be accelerating for half
the trip, and decelerating the second half of the trip; you can
cut that time down to weeks or even days.
We were all excited that New Horizons got to Pluto.
Unfortunately, it didn't have the fuel in it and the engines to
slow down when it got there; which is too bad, because it spent
ten years getting there, and even just passing by in the course
of a couple of weeks, found amazing things. Imagine if it
actually got to stop and stay? If you had nuclear reactions,
that the type of stuff you could be doing. If you had
one-gravity acceleration, so you're constantly accelerating,
providing the thrust that creates the equivalent of one Earth
gravity for the crew on the space ship, it would literally take
16 days to get to Pluto. Compared to New Horizons taking ten
years to get there; that's when the orbits are closest, but maybe
a few more days in sub-optimal conditions.
You're talking about a complete revolution in our ability to
efficiently get around the Solar System; travel to different
planetary bodies; visit multiple locations. If you want to send
people to Mars, this is the way to do it. If you want to send
people out to other places, this is the way to do it. Even
robotic missions; you want to get around and do way more
exploration. There's so much we don't know about all these
planets, about their moons; there's just so much to figure out.
These are the kinds of systems that are going to create vast
improvements in our ability to do it.
And again, the third category is developing the resources in
space; developing the ability to utilize what's available to us
on the Moon, on Mars, on different asteroids. This is something
we don't really do at all, yet. So, you have to bring basically
everything with you through that very costly energy-intensive
first hurdle of getting from Earth's surface up into Earth orbit,
through travelling the vast distances of space. This is just
this very early pioneer style mode of activity. Whereas, if
we're going to be serious about this, we need to develop the
capabilities to utilize the resources that are there; and
eventually look to serious industrialization and development of
advanced systems out in space, on-site at different planetary
bodies. One critical driver to this whole thing that we've put a
major focus on is the development of helium-3 from the Moon.
Helium-3 being an absolutely unique, excellent fusion fuel; which
is basically absent on Earth, but relatively abundant all over
the lunar surface, and could be an excellent fuel for fusion
propulsion in space and also to provide electricity energy back
here on Earth. There's been years of serious study and designs
and investigations of how to go to the Moon, develop the systems
to process the regala[ph], extract the helium-3; and initiate
real industrial-style processes; developments on the lunar
surface. That's just one example. You want to get oxygen,
hydrogen, metals; asteroids are also potentially very useful
places to develop the resources. So, as a third category, the
general idea of developing advanced capabilities to utilize and
create what we need in different regions of the Solar System.
If you put this together and look at these things
synergistically as integrated technologies, infrastructure
systems, levels of energy flux density; as a whole they define
for mankind a completely different relationship to the Solar
System. The question is, are we making investments that are
bringing us to that level? Can we say that the investments we're
going to make in this next administration are going to be taking
mankind in that direction, to be able to support these
qualitatively higher levels of activity to the point where we can
honestly look back in a couple of generations and see the space
activity going on now as equivalent to Lewis and Clark style
explorations of the West; and have mankind have the capabilities
to regularly visit many planetary bodies and do all we want
around the Solar System? That's the vision that we need.
We were talking about this with Mr. LaRouche earlier today,
and he again said, "Your starting point is Krafft Ehricke." And
Krafft Ehricke's industrialization of the Moon really I think is
the critical driver program that can get a lot of this going. As
I said, we have helium-3 on the Moon; that puts fusion directly
right there on the table. You're talking about developing
industrial capabilities and mining capabilities on the Moon. If
you're serious about doing this, you want to increase our access
to space from the Earth's surface. So, it is excellent that
we're seeing a lot of discussion about the Moon coming on the
table again; but I think the issue is, are we going to pursue
this Krafft Ehricke vision for a real industrial development?
Although he might have used different terms in discussing it, he
had exactly the same conception that Mr. LaRouche has: That this
is the basis for mankind's much broader expanse. Really the
essential nature of the type of qualitative changes that mankind
goes through in his natural growth and development as a very
unique species on this Earth and hopefully tomorrow in the Solar
System.
As Jason mentioned, some of this is discussed in an article
that's going to be released in the next issue of the
Hamiltonian. This is an ongoing subject of discussion, but
with the openness now, I really think it's critical we set the
level of discussion on that basis.

ROSS: Mmhmm; that's aiming pretty high, that's good. I
think that's a really apt description that you got about
comparing Lewis and Clark. It used to be a really difficult
thing to cross the continent; now it isn't. Or think about the
Silk Road. The ancient Silk Road. If you're trying the develop
that region of the planet with camel caravans, and you contrast
that with what China is able to do now with building rail
networks and helping build them and road networks in these
neighboring countries; you totally transform the relationship to
that area. The old development of human settlements along
coasts, along oceans or along rivers; and then by the chemical
revolution, by the ability to have steam power — also canals
earlier, but still connected to water; but with steam power, it
made it possible to open up the interior of the continents. And
with the potential for nuclear power, then the Solar System
becomes something that's accessible to us in a meaningful or more
regular way than an exotic, years-long, life-threatening trip.
The other aspect, which you talked about is, if you look at
what's going on with the New Paradigm in the world; what China's
doing, with the way things are being reshaped politically also
around Russia. And then you look at the scientific advancements
that are being made, where China's got a very top-line in the
world super-conducting tokamak for fusion research. The major
breakthroughs in terms of lunar exploration — that's China right
now; China's going to be landing on the far side of the Moon;
China had the first soft landing on the Moon in decades. This is
really a potential. With their far side of the Moon landing,
China will be able to take the first photographs of our universe
in the very low radio range; it's never been done before. We'll
have access to a whole new sense of sight about the universe
around us.
So, I think it's very exciting. It's definitely much more
thrilling than most of the discussion that takes place about this
policy or that policy, when you think big like that.

DENISTON: Mr. LaRouche's platform concept is so key. People
just don't have the idea of this type of qualitative leaps that
are natural for mankind. People are so accustomed at this point
to just slow, incremental progress if there's any progress at
all. It's going to be a fight to get people to think on this
level again.

ROSS: Yes! So much of what is considered to be progressive
or useful is only nudging people toward being better savers or
something; compared to the kinds of huge changes that are going
to be needed. I think that's a very good image that we've given
people. Let's end it with that. I think the thing to take from
this also is that we have got a lot that we need to do; a lot of
policies to put into place; and a wide open opportunity to make
it happen right now. Including, as Jeff was emphasizing,
Glass-Steagall is absolutely doable during this session of
Congress; even before the inauguration of the next President and
the next Congress in January. This is something we can do right
now, next week, in this period.
The ability to understand this concept of the platforms, of
the history of economic development of the United States, a real
major aspect of economic science, comes through studying
Alexander Hamilton. So, if you have not been working through
Alexander Hamilton's reports, I urge you to get in touch with —
if you're near one of our offices, one of our locations, to join
us for these readings. Get a copy of these reports yourself.
The book, Alexander Hamilton's Vision contains all four of the
reports, along with Mr. LaRouche's Four New Laws to Save the USA
Now. And you don't have to get into a fistfight at a Walmart
parking lot to pick it up, either.
Let's end it with that. Please sign up through our website
if you haven't already, to find out how to get involved with us.
Get our daily email, join us via the action center; let's be in
touch, and let's make this happen right now. There is nothing to
wait for; the situation is open. So, thank you for joining us;
thank you to Ben and Jeff. Thank you for all the work that you
have done and that you will do in the period immediately ahead.

Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love for produktivitet

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 24. november, 2016 – LaRouches Fire Love udgør én samlet politik, der tilsigter en forøgelse af menneskelig produktivitet.

Tag for eksempel i betragtning den umiddelbare fremtids samlede, internationale rumprogram, hvor et genoplivet NASA vil integrere sine bestræbelser med Kinas ledende rolle; med et genoplivet russisk program, baseret på den nødvendige genoplivelse af russisk videnskab; med Europa; og med mange andre lande, der netop nu begynder at kaste deres blik ud i rummet. Og snart vil dette globale rumprogram udvides til at inkorporere industrialiseringen af Månen, som den store Krafft Ehricke har forudsagt. Snart vil videnskabelige, tekniske og industrielle aktiviteter på Månen tilsammen udgøre en uerstattelig del af hele rumprogrammet – ikke længere blot et globalt rumprogram, men ét, der allerede inkorporerer det umiddelbart omkringliggende rum.

Ikke alene det: det forcerede program for fusionskraft, som er LaRouches Fjerde Lov, vil i sig selv blive integreret i det globale rumprogram. Menneskets udforskning af Solsystemet kræver fusionskraft, hvilket igen betyder, at fusionskraft må indarbejdes i hele indsatsen lige fra begyndelsen – tænk f.eks. på, hvordan alle trækkene ved det nu forældede rumfartssystem, som vi hidtil har benyttet os af, alle er blevet formet af trækkene ved det kemiske system for fremdrift, vi har brugt.

En undersøgelse af det 20. århundredes tyske, russiske og amerikanske ballistiske missilprogrammer, der gik forud for og lagde fundamentet til de efterfølgende rumprogrammer, viser os historiens mest storstilede, vertikale og horisontale integration af mange tusinde menneskers bestræbelser inden for talrige videnskabelige, tekniske og industrielle discipliner og områder. Og dette glidende, integrerede design, den tekniske udarbejdelse, produktion og afprøvning, blev alle fundamentalt baseret på nye, fysiske principper. De kulminerede alle i et unikt system – aldrig før set – utroligt komplekst, bestående af tusinder af dele, og som alligevel ikke tolererer selv én eneste fiasko.

Da missilprogrammet gik over i rumprogrammet – da menneskeheden tog det første skridt ud i rummet, begyndende med Sovjetunionens opsendelse af Sputnik i 1957 – udvidedes den fornødne skala og kompleksitet, der kræves i den samlede rumindsats, uden sammenligning, selv, når man sammenligner med den forudgående revolution med de ballistiske missiler. For eksempel skrev Boris Chertok, i sin fire binds store, banebrydende førstehåndsberetning om det sovjetiske rumprogram: »Jeg vil påstå, at Koroljov [S.P. Koroljov, den største leder af det sovjetiske program] nok var den første, der forstod, at rumteknologi krævede en ny organisation … For Koroljov, hans stedfortrædere og nære medarbejdere blev dette gigantiske, nye system til pga. et bredt syn på rumteknologi, ved at kombinere grundforskning, anvendt videnskab, specifikt design, produktion, opsendelse, flyvning og flykontrol, snarere end ud fra et specifikt rumfartøj. Dette enkeltkredsløbsarrangement begyndte at operere i 1959 og 1960. Hundreder og senere mange tusinder videnskabsfolks og specialisters beherskelse af dette kredsløb gjorde det muligt for menneskeheden at indlede Rumalderen i det 20. århundrede.«

Man kunne se topingeniører og designere i intens diskussion med maskinarbejdere i mange af værkstederne; disse tekniske arbejdere rådslog igen jævnligt i komiteer, og i mere intime sammenhænge, med de mest berømmede ledere af teoretisk videnskab. Den horisontale integration gennem dusinvis af institutioner og fabrikker var lige så intens. Det er forbløffende, at dette overhovedet kunne finde sted under Sovjetunionens system med centralplanlægning – som Anden Verdenskrigs hårde skole havde nødvendiggjort – men det er en anden historie. Men det begyndte alt sammen at falde fra hinanden efter en stor, tragisk ulykke i 1960, og dernæst raserede Det britiske Imperiums agenter for Thatcher-politikken alt, hvad der var tilbage af sovjetisk videnskab i 1990’erne.

Det, der behøves for den umiddelbare fremtids rumprogram, er LaRouches kreditsystem i Hamiltons tradition, centreret omkring og dirigeret af en Nationalbank, som er et fleksibelt, almengældende system, der støtter alle dele af denne massivt komplekse produktionskæde, fra top til bund og fra den ene ende til den anden, og som i sig inkorporerer det, som afdøde Charles de Gaulle kaldte »indikativ planlægning«. Og vi taler naturligvis ikke kun om rumfart her, men om forøget, menneskelig produktivitet af enhver form og farve. Vores seneste oplevelse af dette er de midler, hvorved Franklin Roosevelts anvendelse af Hamiltons kreditsystem gjorde USA til et demokratiets arsenal for Anden Verdenskrig, og til langt den største, økonomiske magt, verden nogen sinde havde set. Med øjeblikkelige lån med lav rente til kontrakter om produktion til forsvaret, fra øverst til nederst i hierarkiet, gjorde Roosevelts system det muligt for denne massive struktur at ’vende på en tallerken’. At ’vende på en tallerken’ imod helt nye, netop introducerede højere niveauer af videnskab og teknologi. Det er præcis, hvad vi nu har brug for – og hvad vi må opnå gennem LaRouches Fire Love.

Foto: 14. maj, 2010 – Et af NASA’s sidste rumflyvninger, rumfærgen Atlantis besøger den Internationale Rumstation for vedligeholdelse og montage.

NYHEDSORIENTERING november 2016:
Donald Trump og det nye paradigme

Etablissementet i både USA og Europa er rystet over Donald Trumps valgsejr, men rystelserne ender ikke der. I lighed med Reagan efter valget i 1980 vil han indtage Det Hvide Hus med sit helt eget team og egne nye rådgivere. Derfor er en helt ny politik mulig, hvor USA finder sin naturlige plads i et samarbejde med Rusland og Kina – og forhåbentlig dropper Bush/Cheneys og Obamas krigs- og konfrontationspolitik. Danmark og Europa skal dermed også finde en helt ny udenrigspolitik frem. Samtidig kommer Trump så til at skulle slås med et finanskrak større end i 2008, men hvis han lytter til Lyndon LaRouche, som Reagan delvist gjorde det i 1981, så er der med LaRouches Fire Love en vej ud af moradset. Dette er en redigeret udgave af en tale, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets formand, holdt den 21. november 2016, og som kan høres på www.schillerinstitut.dk.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Helga Zepp-LaRouche kaster en politisk håndgranat i Peru

17. nov., 2016 – Stifter og præsident for Schiller Instituttet, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, kastede en håndgranat af en politisk erklæring i Peru i dag, mens verdens ledere gør sig klar til at ankomme til nationens hovedstad, Lima, for at deltage i APEC-topmødet i kommende weekend. I dag holdt Zepp-LaRouche hovedtalen på den XXIII Kongres for den Peruvianske Sammenslutning af Økonomer, der fandt sted i Amazonasbyen Pucallpa, i Ucayali-distriktet i det østlige Peru, med en generel gennemgang af det forbløffende potentiale for et Nyt Paradigme for hele menneskeheden (en oversættelse af hele hendes tale vil senere blive udgivet her på hjemmesiden, -red.). Den tre dage lange kongres er arrangeret omkring emnet, »Den peruviansk-brasilianske bi-oceaniske jernbane: Virkning på Amazon-områdets og landets økonomi.«

Zepp-LaRouches gennemgang med titlen, »Det Nye Silkevejskoncept, konfronteret med kollapset af verdens finanssystem«, blev præsenteret via en 50 min. lang video, optaget på forhånd, der efterfulgtes af 20 min. live Q&A med de omkring 200 mennesker, der var til stede i Pucallpa. Hendes åbningsvideo blev også sendt online af landets Sammenslutning af Økonomer, til økonomiske fakulteter på universiteter i hele landet.

Hendes tale vakte så stor interesse blandt deltagerne, med mange, der bad om en kopi, at Sammenslutningen af Økonomer vil lave en DVD til alle. Allerede som en forberedelse til kongressen havde Sammenslutningen trykt 2.000 kopier af en 60 sider lang pamflet til deltagere og andre, og som indeholdt uddrag af EIR’s Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen, Lyndon LaRouches erklæring om en politisk strategi fra 2014, »De Fire Love«, samt en introduktion af Helga om udviklingerne i den Nye Silkevej, siden EIR’s specialrapport blev udgivet i 2014, alt sammen med det formål at skabe materiale med dybdegående idéindhold for folk at studere. De tre spørgsmål, der blev stillet under Q&A-sessionen, var alle seriøse og lød i store træk som følger:

Hvilken form for kreditsystem ville blive skabt til den finansielle platform for opbygning af regional infrastruktur, såsom den bi-oceaniske jernbanekorridor?
Hvordan kan ændringer i Kinas økonomiske mentalitet transformere verden? Hvordan kan det være med til at løse problemer, der er opstået under den eksisterende økonomiske model?
Fr. Zepp-LaRouche, De er kendt som ’Silkevejs-ladyen’. Hvilke principper baserer De Dem på til udviklingen af dette koncept for en global model?

Betydelige sidste-øjebliks, logistiske udfordringer måtte overvindes for at gøre det muligt for Zepp-LaRouche at tale for Sammenslutningen af Økonomers nationale kongres. Aftenen før kongressen åbnede meddeltes det, at Ucayali Universitetet, hvor kongressen skulle holdes, var blevet lukket af en strejke, som en del af en lærerstrejke mod nedskæringer i uddannelsesbudgettet, der blev gennemført på flere statslige universiteter i hele nationen. Kongressens arrangører, der var urokkeligt engageret for at skabe de nødvendige betingelser for en politik, således, at denne sydamerikanske transkontinentale jernbanekorridor kan bringe udvikling til deres folk, måtte med kort varsel flytte hele konferencen, og det lykkedes dem at træffe særlige foranstaltninger for, at internetadgang skulle være tilgængelig således, at Zepp-LaRouche kunne tale til dem live.

Foto: Pucallpa Plaza med San Martin springvand.

Rumforskning og klassisk kultur
– vi må genoprette den degeneration
hos det amerikanske folk,
der har fundet sted under Bush og Obama

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 17. november, 2016 – I hele nationen, og i hele verden, træder ledende personer nu frem for at fastslå det potentiale, der nu præsenteres for USA og verden, for at gøre en ende på den død og ødelæggelse, der er blevet gennemtvunget under administrationerne Bush og Obama. General Harald Kujat, tidligere stabschef for det tyske Bundeswehr, har påpeget de drastisk forbedrede relationer mellem USA og Rusland, som Trump og Putin har sat i gang som grundlaget – og det eneste grundlag – for at løse de uhyrlige kriser i Ukraine og Syrien. Tidligere amerikanske ambassadør Chas Freeman, der også tidligere har været viceforsvarsminister, sagde i et interview med Ron Paul, at Trump »bør erindre sig, at han grundlæggende set har anført en revolution – han anførte en flok mennesker, som Hillary Clinton kaldte ynkelige, til at komme ud til stemmeurnerne og markere deres afvisning af ’politik som hidtil’ i Washington, og til den rent ud sagt degenererede atmosfære i vores politiske kultur«. Han roste Trumps stærke insisteren på, at USA må gå sammen med Rusland og fokusere på at knuse ISIS i Syrien snarere end at vælte Assad for regimeskift i Syrien og tilføjede, at det var »rent ud sagt vanvittigt, at USA prætenderer, at vi har absolut fortrinsret i havene ud for Kina på ubestemt tid«

Fremkaldt af valgchokket er en politisk følsomhed ved at overvinde den amerikanske befolknings og de europæiske befolkningers accept af ledere, der sanseløst dræber hundreder af tusinder af mennesker og ødelægger hele nationer samtidig med, at de fordriver millioner fra deres hjem som flygtninge.

Men, hvad er da årsagen til denne tidligere blinde accept af sådan ondskab? Den må fastslås som værende lokaliseret i befolkningernes degenererede intellekt, i ødelæggelsen af de menneskelige, skabende evner hos folk, der i to årtier har været underkastet et kulturelt forfald. Når troen på menneskets videnskabelige evne til at »underlægge sig hele naturen«, både på Jorden og i Universet, fordømmes af ’de grønne’ som en ødelæggelse af Moder Jord, og underholdning reduceres til narkotika, vold og perversioner; når skøn musik erstattes af pulserende støj – da er det muligt at overbevise folkeslagene om at lukke deres øjne for den rædsel, der begås i deres navn.

Nu er disse sind ved at blive vækket, både gennem den økonomiske ødelæggelse af deres liv, og gennem den revolutionerende ændring via valget, der giver et glimt af håb.

Som Lyndon LaRouche har sagt i mere end fyrre år, så er det i et sådant skæbnesvangert øjeblik i historien, at den optimistiske tro på menneskehedens potentiale for fremskridt kan og må genoprettes og sikre en fremtid for alle mænd og kvinder på vores planet, gennem videnskabelige fremskridt, der løfter vort blik mod stjernerne, og gennem skønheden i klassisk kunst og musik, »ved hvilken man kommer til frihed«, som Friedrich Schiller sagde.

Frihed, fra City of Londons og Wall Streets destruktive magt over de vestlige regeringer, er nu inden for rækkevidde i takt med, at parlamentarikere, slagne af forbløffelse, i Europa og USA konfronteres med det eneste alternativ til det bankerotte, vestlige finanssystems ukontrollable kollaps: en Glass/Steagall-reform for at lukke de for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-spillebuler på Wall Street ned, og med en kreditpolitik i Hamiltons tradition, med princippet om national, dvs. statslig, bankpraksis til genrejsning af økonomien, rumprogrammet, videnskabelig forskning og internationalt samarbejde omkring nationsopbygning i hele verden, hvor den Nye Silkevej bringes til hele menneskeheden. (LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love til USA’s – og verdens – omgående redning.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYvdB5j1Flk

Helga Zepp-LaRouche diskuterer strategi med aktivister fra LaRouchePAC, der er på vej til Washington, D.C., hvor hun understreger, at Trumps sejr og Clintons nederlag må ses som en del af et internationalt kursskifte. Det er nu op til os at sætte dagsordenen, begyndende med LaRouches Fire Love i traditionen efter Hamilton.

»Først og fremmest vil jeg gerne sige hej til jer. Dette er selvfølgelig en meget vigtig intervention, for valgresultatet i USA, som mange mennesker ikke så komme, er i realiteten en del af en global udvikling. Alle forklaringerne, som de amerikanske medier kommer med, er for det meste røgslør, eller en eller anden forloren forklaring, som f.eks., at det var FBI, der kostede Hillary valget, osv., osv.

Det, der i virkeligheden finder sted rent strategisk, er, at befolkningsmasserne i den transatlantiske sektor – i Europa, og i USA i særdeleshed – nu virkelig har fået nok af et Establishment, der vedvarende har handlet imod deres interesser. Det, de kalder »overløberstaterne« – menneskene i disse stater er ikke repræsenteret af det transatlantiske etablissement. Dette ved de, fordi, for dem, er livs- og arbejdsvilkårene i løbet af det seneste årti, kan man sige, men i realiteten i løbet af de seneste 50 år, kun blevet værre og værre. Folk er nødt til at have flere jobs samtidig for at få økonomien til at hænge sammen. Der har været mange tilfælde, hvor deres sønner, og undertiden endda deres døtre, er blevet udsendt til Irak fem gange i træk og er kommet hjem, totalt nedbrudte. Så folk har oplevet, at livet bare bliver værre for dem, og at de med Washington/New York-etablissementet intet håb har.

Man så det samme fænomen med Brexit-folkeafstemningen i Storbritannien i juni måned; som også her ikke bare handlede om flygtningene, og ikke bare handlede om de mere åbenlyse spørgsmål, selv om disse spiller en vis katalyserende rolle; men, det var den samme, fundamentale følelse af uretfærdighed, og at der simpelt hen ikke længere findes en regering, der tager sig af det almene vel. Og uanset, hvilke forklaringer, de hoster op med, så vil dette ikke forsvinde, før situationen er forbedret, og god regering er genetableret i USA og Europa, og i andre dele af verden.

Det umiddelbart næste punkt, hvor den samme vrede med al sandsynlighed vil vise sig, er ved den forestående folkeafstemning i Italien – hvor man den 4. december vil have en folkeafstemning om en forfatningsændring og, som stemningen i øjeblikket er, som også vil blive en afstemning imod Renzi-regeringen. Renzi lovede først at træde tilbage; nu siger han, at han ikke vil træde tilbage: Under alle omstændigheder, så vil denne udvikling fortsætte, indtil man indsætter en forbedring.

Trumps valgsejr er selvsagt et åbent spørgsmål, for det står endnu ikke klart, hvad hans præsidentskab vil blive for ét; men, som Lyndon LaRouche har understreget næsten hver dag siden valget, så er dette ikke et lokalt, amerikansk anliggende. Dette er et globalt anliggende; det er et internationalt spørgsmål.

En af de væsentligste grunde til, at Trump vandt valget, er, at han, især i den seneste fase, havde understreget, at Hillary Clinton ville betyde Tredje Verdenskrig pga. hendes politik for Syrien, fordi hun … foreslog en frontal konfrontation med Rusland. Det var præcist at ramme hovedet på sømmet, for vi befinder os på en meget, meget farlig kurs for konfrontation med Rusland og Kina.

Under valgkampagnen har Trump gentagne gange sagt, at han ville have en anden holdning over for Rusland. Og siden han blev valgt, har han talt i telefon med både Putin og Xi Jinping og i begge tilfælde sagt, at han vil arbejde for at forbedre relationerne mellem USA og så Rusland og Kina, hhv. Dette er selvsagt ekstremt vigtigt; og det andet, ekstremt vigtige spørgsmål er: Vil han følge op på sit løfte om Glass-Steagall, hvor han især i byen Charlotte atter sagde, at han ville gennemføre Glass-Steagall?

Dette er virkelig hovedspørgsmålet. For kun, hvis man gør en ende på kasinoøkonomien, som er den virkelige årsag til krig, kan situationen i realiteten bringes tilbage på ret køl. Alle de progressive – Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren og selv [Nancy] Pelosi – har allerede sagt, at de vil samarbejde med Trump, hvis han vil satse på dette økonomiske program med infrastruktur/jobskabelse/Glass-Steagall.

Vi bør lade tvivlen komme ham til gode; men, vi bør også være klar over, at hele Wall Street-slænget og de neokonservative i det Republikanske Parti vil gøre alt for ikke at få dette. Derfor må vi have denne intervention for virkelig at opdrage Kongressen og Senatet mht. det, der virkelig står på spil. Hele verden holder nu øje med – holder så at sige vejret – spørgsmålet, om der kommer en ændring til det bedre i amerikansk politik?

Det gør der forhåbentligt. Men det vil kræve alle forholdsreglerne. Glass-Steagall som den absolutte forudsætning, uden hvilken intet andet vil fungere; men det er ikke nok. For, vi taler ikke bare om en bankreform. Vi taler om et totalt nyt paradigme i det økonomiske system. Og dette nye paradigme må defineres af LaRouches Fire Love, som alle må sikre sig, at de forstår, når de skal udføre denne form for lobbyvirksomhed.

For, Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at nøglen er at øge arbejdskraftens produktivitet. Som følge af de seneste årtiers neoliberale, eller monetaristiske, politik, er denne produktivitet i den transatlantiske sektor faldet under punktet for break-even, hvor det går lige op. Dette er grunden til, at vi må have en nationalbank i traditionen efter Alexander Hamilton; vi må have en politik for statskredit; vi må have et internationalt kreditsystem, et nyt Bretton Woods-system; og vi må selvsagt have et ’win-win’-samarbejde mellem alle nationer omkring opbygningen af den Nye Silkevej – også internt i USA – så den bliver til en verdenslandbro.

Af ekstraordinær betydning er den fjerde af de Fire Love, der siger, at man ikke kan få en forøgelse af økonomiens produktivitet, med mindre man satser på et forceret program for at opnå fusionskraft; samt et internationalt program for udforskning af rummet. For kun, hvis man foretager denne form for avantgarde-spring i produktiviteten – fusionsteknologi vil bringe os en helt anden, økonomisk platform. Med fusionsfaklen vil vi blive i stand til at få sikkerhed i energiforsyningen til hele planeten; man vil få nye råmaterialer, fordi man vil blive i stand til at bruge ethvert affaldsprodukt, hvor man udskiller diverse isotoper og genskaber nye råmaterialer ved at sammensplejse isotoperne, som det skal gøres.

Så det repræsenterer et gigantisk, teknologisk spring. Det samme gælder for rumfartsteknologi, for det vil få samme virkning som under Apolloprogrammet, hvor hver investering i rumteknologi, i raketter, i andre nye materialer, gav 14 cents tilbage for hver cent, der blev investeret. Og alt fra computerchips til Teflon-køkkengrej, og alle mulige gavnlige resultater, opstod som biprodukter af rumforskning.

Og for at få verdensøkonomien ud af den nuværende tilstand, især i den transatlantiske sektor, må man have denne form for kursomlægning i retning af videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt og en forøgelse af energigennemstrømningstætheden. Og hele denne Grønne ideologi – som i virkeligheden er en ikke-udviklingsideologi – må erstattes; og verden må komme tilbage til den kurs, hvor det fysiske univers’ virkelige, fysiske love er kriteriet for sandheden, og ikke en eller anden ideologi.«

Foto: Besætningen fra ekspedition 49, Shane Kimbrough, NASA-astronaut, sammen med Roscosmos-kosmonauterne Sergej Ryzhikov og Andrej Borisenko, og som alle i øjeblikket befinder sig om bord på den Internationale Rumstation, hvor de har arbejdet sammen i over fire måneder i kredsløb. [foto: NASA]

Trump og Putin kan, og må, knuse terrorisme i Syrien – og globalt

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 16. november, 2016 – I kølvandet på Trumps produktive diskussioner over telefon med Vladimir Putin og Xi Jinping i denne uge, og den politiske bortgang af Obamas (og Hillarys) krigsplaner, er der intet til hinder for, at disse tre, store nationer kan samarbejde om at knuse den britisk/saudisk-sponsorerede terrormaskine internationalt, med begyndelse i ISIS og al-Nusra i Syrien. »Der er ingen anden måde at gøre det på«, sagde Lyndon LaRouche i dag. »Putin står i centrum for dette. Enhver hæmning af dette må forhindres.«

Den amerikanske befolkning er hastigt i færd med at indse, at det lange mareridt med økonomisk forfald, epidemien med narkotika og selvmord, evindelige krige og den ærefrygtindgydende trussel om atomkrig, endelig kunne være forbi. Otte år med Bush og Obama er ved at være slut. Det er stadig uklart, om Donald Trump vil lægge sin populisme til side til fordel for at gennemføre Glas-Steagall og knuse Wall Streets magt over USA’s regering og økonomi – som han har lovet, han ville gøre. Det vil afhænge af, om det amerikanske folk mobiliserer sig selv til støtte for en løsning – og ikke blot en afvisning af de seneste otte års ondskab. Denne løsning ligger nu foran dem, i form af LaRouches Fire Love: Glass-Steagall; en genindførelse af nationalbankvirksomhed; en afslutning af monetarisme til fordel for et kreditsystem i Hamiltons tradition, til finansiering af infrastruktur inden for landbrug og industri, uddannelse og sundhedssektoren; og en genindførelse af videnskabelig udvikling, begyndende med et genoplivet NASA-rumprogram og stærkt udvidet forskning inden for fusionskraft.

I dag ankom hold af aktivister fra New York, Baltimore og Virginia til Kongressen med krav om ikke at vente til Trumps indsættelse, men derimod handle i denne ’lame duck’-overgangsperiode for at gennemføre Glass-Steagall og de Fire Love. Det Demokratiske Parti er i oprør efter de tæsk, de fik i valgene til præsidentskabet og Kongressen, men meldinger fra LaRouche-aktivister i hele landet lyder på, at mange demokrater langt om længe ser den kendsgerning i øjnene, at Obama og Hillary Clinton havde tilsluttet sig de republikanske neokonservative, der ikke tjener den amerikanske befolkning, men Wall Street og krigsmaskinen. Trumps afvisning af både Obama og de republikanske neokonservative, med samt deres krigsplaner, under sin kampagne, skabte et tilflugtssted for demokrater, der så ondskaben med Obamas drabsmaskine.

De neokonservatives »unipolære« verden – med Obamas udtryk, »vi sætter reglerne« – har beviseligt skabt USA’s og dets EU-allieredes totale isolation internationalt. I Europa går valgene, efter Brexit, imod EU-diktaturet og for en genopretning af bånd til Rusland, som det ses i Bulgarien og Moldova. Tyrkiets udenrigsminister sagde i dag, at hans land føler en sådan lede over de europæiske ledere, der truer med at smide det ud af NATO eller afslår dets anmodning om optagelse i EU, at de planlægger en folkeafstemning om nationens forhold til EU – en »Tyrkxit«.

Et alternativ viser sig klart. Med sit »Nye Paradigme« centreret omkring politikken for den Nye Silkevej, rejste Xi Jinping i dag til Sydamerika, hvor Ecuador, Peru og Chile vil være vært for statsbesøg, og hvor han også vil deltage i APEC-topmødet i Peru. Ecuadors præsident Correa lovpriste Kinas rolle i at transformere hans lands fysiske økonomi i løbet af det seneste årti og beskrev det aktuelle besøg som »det vigtigste besøg af noget statsoverhoved i Ecuadors historie«.

u-s-capitol Den samme entusiasme for et nyt paradigme ses i hele Afrika og Asien, og i stigende grad også i Øst- og Vesteuropa. Overalt grunder folk på en fremtid, hvor USA ikke længere truer med krige og undergravning gennem »farvede revolutioner«, men som i stedet går med i BRIKS, AIIB og den Nye Silkevej om opbygning af en fremtid for hele menneskeheden. Dette potentiale må realiseres, især i selve USA. Et vindue mod muligheder åbner sig for os, men det kunne være kortvarigt, og med utænkelige konsekvenser, hvis vi mislykkes.

Foto: Gipsmodellen af Frihedsstatuen (Statue of Freedom), bronzestatuen på toppen af Capitols kuppel, står i Capitols Emancipation Hall.

Nej, det var ikke FBI’s værk:
Dette er et globalt paradigmeskift

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 15. november, 2016 – I kølvandet på diskussionerne om fundamentalt nye amerikansk-russiske og amerikansk-kinesiske relationer mellem valgte præsident Donald Trump og den russiske og kinesiske præsident, hhv., vil vi, på Asia-Pacific Economic Conference (APEC) i Peru i denne uge, muligvis få en erstatning for Obamas fejlslagne TPP »handelsaftale« at se, og i stedet få en ny handelsaftale, der er initieret af Kina, med 19 andre lande, inkl. Trumps USA. Den støtte opbygning af et nyt, økonomisk paradigme omkring den Nye Silkevejs store, »win-win« infrastrukturprojekter, vil tage endnu et stort skridt fremad. Dette er, hvad USA må tilslutte sig, med en ny, statslig kreditinstitution, og med en ny Glass/Steagall-lov, der vil nedkæmpe Wall Street.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, som vil tale for Sammenslutningen af Peruvianske Økonomers nationale konference aftenen før APEC-konferencen, sendte dette budskab til aktivister fra New York State, der har kurs mod Washington, D.C., for at kræve Glass-Steagall:

Det gør der forhåbentligt. Men det vil kræve alle forholdsreglerne. Glass-Steagall som den absolutte forudsætning, uden hvilken intet andet vil fungere; men det er ikke nok. For, vi taler ikke bare om en bankreform. Vi taler om et totalt nyt paradigme i det økonomiske system. Og dette nye paradigme må defineres af LaRouches Fire Love, som alle må sikre sig, at de forstår, når de skal udføre denne form for lobbyvirksomhed.

Foto: USA’s Capitol-bygning efter den første, omfattende restaurering i mere end et halvt århundrede. (Foto: USCapitol Flickr)

Efter Trumps valgsejr:
Tyskland må nu gribe initiativet
for Den nye Silkevej!
Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Den »Marshallplan« på en milliard euro, som udviklingsminister Gerd Müller har foreslået, er et skridt i den rigtige retning, men slår langtfra til. Tyskland kan nu yde et enestående bidrag til det nødvendige epokeskift ved officielt at erklære, at det samarbejder med Kinas Nye Silkevej, frem for alt i genopbygningen af Mellemøsten og Afrikas industrialisering.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

RADIO SCHILLER den 14. november 2016:
Efter Trumps valg: Skab en USA-Rusland alliance,
gennemfør Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Obama er blevet dumpet
– det er nu afgørende at genoprette
relationerne med Putins Rusland

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 13. november, 2016 – At åbne for forhandling og potentielt samarbejde mellem den russiske præsident Putin, den nu valgte, tiltrædende amerikanske præsident Trump og Kinas præsident Xi er nu sine qua non for at bringe verden væk fra randen af verdenskrig og således gøre en økonomisk genrejsning mulig, især i USA og Europa.

Ingen – hverken Trump eller nogen anden nation eller betydningsfulde part – bør forhandle med Barack Obama. Obama er færdig; hans TPP og TTIP »handelsaftaler« er færdige; hans »Assad skal væk«-promovering af jihadister for at overtage Syrien er færdig; hans bestræbelse med »omdrejningspunkt Asien« for at besejre Kina er færdig. Og det samme er hans lange forsvar af Wall Street imod det amerikanske folks vrede.

På paradoksal vis er, på trods af meget hysteri blandt fremtrædende liberale, håbet om, at Wall Street kan brydes op og dets magt over amerikansk politisk liv brydes, nu stærkere, end det har været i mange år. At genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven er dette håbs første instrument og mål, men potentialet er at genoprette hele den tabte, amerikanske produktivitet, tabte produktive beskæftigelse og levestandard, ødelagte økonomiske infrastruktur; det tabte håb om en fremtid.

Dette er den mobilisering, som er i gang i LaRouchePAC for november-december, for Lyndon LaRouches »Fire Love« for at redde USA’s økonomi og dets folk.

Men, konfrontations- og krigsprovokationerne under hele Barack Obamas præsidentskab, imod Rusland og Kina, må afvises på en meget synlig måde, for at dette håb kan fremmes. Ruslands Putin har allerede fremlagt specifikke forslag og tilbud om samarbejde. Mange europæiske kræfter, der har været i opposition mod sanktionerne og krigsoprustningen over for Rusland, efterlyser direkte »topmøde«-drøftelser mellem Putin og Donald Trump.

Og Kina udgør det eneste håb for Trump-administrationens evne til at virkeliggøre sine storstilede planer om at bygge ny, økonomisk infrastruktur. Uden samarbejde med Kina vil USA hverken have kreditten eller de fysisk-økonomiske midler til at bygge dette højhastigheds-jernbanenet, disse nye elektricitetsnetværk, havne, lufthavne osv.

Offentlige begivenheder demonstrerer nu, at ikke kun de amerikanske vælgere, men også betydningsfulde grupperinger og ledere i selve det Demokratiske Parti har dumpet Barack Obama og hans administrations politik for »Wall Street og krig«, og, sammen med Obama, også har dumpet Hillary Clinton, der i givet fald ville være blevet hans, og hans politiks, efterfølger. Senator Bernie Sanders’ erklæring i dag, »Hvis hr. Trump har modet til at gå op imod Wall Street, vil vi arbejde sammen med ham, spørgsmål for spørgsmål«, er et udfald fra progressive Demokraters plan om at overtage partiet efter liget af Obamas politik.

Vi ved ikke, hvad Trumps team vil gøre. Vi ved, hvad amerikanske borgere må gøre for at sætte Kongressen til at arbejde. Wall Street må betale for sin årtier lange økonomiske ødelæggelse. Wall Street må brydes op, og dets finanskasinoer lukkes ned – Glass-Steagall. Der må skabes ny kredit til produktiv beskæftigelse og produktivitet.

USA må tilslutte sig de eurasiske magters Nye Silkevej, hvis vi skal genrejse os økonomisk. Bestræbelserne på at fremprovokere krig med disse magter – Obamas »eftermæle« – må bringes til ophør.

Foto: Lyndon Larouche understregede søndag, at Putin vil respondere favorabelt til en fornuftig tilnærmelse fra USA. (foto: kremlin.ru)

Vi må sætte dagsordenen!
USA må gå med i den Nye Silkevej.
LaRouchePAC Internationale
Webcast, 11. nov., 2016; Leder

Det andet punkt, som står meget klart, er, at LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) har sat dagsordenen; … Glass-Steagall; den omgående nødvendighed af at nedlukke Wall Street; og det faktum, at det amerikanske folk ikke var villigt til at acceptere Obama-Clinton-dagsordenen om at bringe USA ind i Tredje Verdenskrig med en konfrontation med Rusland. Men vi må fortsætte med at sætte dagsordenen. Der er intet alternativ, ingen erstatning for en fortsat mobilisering og en fortsat klarhed i lederskab, som kommer fra LaRouche Politiske Aktions-komite og vore allierede.

specialudsendelsen efter valget, som vi udlagde på denne webside onsdag; med direkte udtalelser fra både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche. Vi har haft mulighed for at tale med hr. LaRouche flere gange siden, inkl. for blot en time siden; og hr. LaRouche fastslår fortsat den pointe, at dette er en højst uafgjort situation; meget udefineret. Vi har endnu ikke fået de fulde fakta om, hvad implikationerne af den tiltrædende administration vil blive, men to punkter står klart. Og jeg tror, at folk meget klart har set, at dette har været en total afvisning af hele Obama-Clinton-Wall Street-apparatet, der havde overtaget det Demokratiske Parti; men også, på samme tid, det Republikanske Partis Bush-Cheney-apparat. Begge partier er nu ophørt med at eksistere i deres tidligere form, og vi befinder os i en situation internt i USA, der ikke har fortilfælde.

»Trumps sejr betyder kun en udsættelse af krigsfaren – med mindre der vedtages en langt mere fundamental forandring «.Den indledes med følgende erklæring:

us-joins-the-silk-road-jan-2016-770x433-697144 »The United States joins the New Silk Road« (Se også dansk introduktion ved samme navn). Heri fremlægges det meget klart, hvordan USA kan tilslutte sig dette nye paradigme.

Fire Nye Økonomiske Love, med implikationerne af Alexander Hamiltons økonomiske rapporter, der oprindeligt definerede og skabte USA, og med anerkendelse af, hvad klokken er slået; og med skiftet til en totalt ny, international, økonomisk og strategisk orden, er det vores ansvar at mobilisere USA og bringe det ind i denne nye orden.

WE MUST SET THE AGENDA!
THE UNITED STATES MUST JOIN THE NEW SILK ROAD.

International Webcast, Nov. 11, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it's November 11, 2016. Happy
Veterans' Day! My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to
welcome you to our regular weekly Friday evening broadcast here
from larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio today by Ben
Deniston, my colleague, as well as Kesha Rogers, member of the
LaRouche PAC Policy Committee and former candidate for Federal
office — United States Congress and US Senate — joining us from
Houston, Texas; and Michael Steger, joining us from San
Francisco, California, also a leading member of the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee.
I hope everybody had a chance to see the post-election
broadcast special that we posted on this website on Wednesday;
which included some direct video statements from both Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche. We've had a chance to speak with Mr. LaRouche
several times since then, including just about an hour ago; and
Mr. LaRouche continues to make the point that this is a highly
inconclusive situation; very undefined. We have yet to get the
full facts on what the implications of the incoming
administration will be, but two points are very clear. And I
think as people have observed very clearly, this has been a total
repudiation of the entire Obama-Clinton-Wall Street apparatus
that had taken over the Democratic Party; but also, at the same
time, the Bush-Cheney Republican Party apparatus. Both parties
have now ceased to exist in their previous form, and we are in an
unprecedented situation inside the United States. The other
point which is very clear is that the LaRouche Political Action
Committee has set the agenda; and this point should have been
clear for years leading into this, including from Kesha Rogers'
successful, highly impactful campaigns for Federal office. But
we've put on the agenda: Glass-Steagall; the immediate necessity
to shut down Wall Street; and the fact that the American people
were not willing to accept the Obama-Clinton agenda to bring the
United States into World War III with a confrontation with
Russia. But we must continue to do so, and we must continue to
set this agenda. There can be no alternative, no replacement for
a continued mobilization and a continued clarity of leadership
coming from the LaRouche Political Action Committee and our
allies.
Now, I would like to read a short portion of the lead item
which was posted on the LaRouche PAC website today, because I
think it very clearly defines what Mr. LaRouche's current
analysis of this situation is. And then we can open up the
discussion from there. But the title is, "Trump Victory Is Only
a Reprieve from War Danger Unless a Much More Fundamental Change
Can Be Enacted". It begins by stating the following:
"The election of Donald Trump and the defeat of both Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama has provided a short reprieve in a drive
for World War III against Russia, so long as Obama is prevented
from taking some kind of insane action in his remaining lame duck
weeks in office. The fact that an immediate danger of nuclear war
is off the table for the time being is important; but it does not
address the other grave crises that the world is facing.
"The trans-Atlantic financial system is still on the edge of
total disintegration, and unless that problem is immediately
addressed, the conditions will soon re-emerge for global war. To
solve that imminent crisis, the US Congress must immediately pass
the pending legislation in both Houses, to reinstate the original
Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks
into totally separated commercial and investment banks. This must
be the first order of business when Congress returns to
Washington early next week."
This continues by saying: "Well beyond that urgently
required action, other measures must be taken to forge a new kind
of relations among the leading nations of the planet." This is
something we will elaborate much more during the course of this
broadcast, but this statement goes on to cite some statements
that were made by Sergei Glazyev, a leading advisor of President
Putin; Chas Freeman, a top and very distinguished diplomat in the
United States diplomatic community; and otherwise, that make the
very clear and correct point that now is the time to realize that
the world is moving into an entirely new paradigm. And beyond
just a dÃ©tente between the United States and Russia, which is a
potentially very positive development, the United States must
also reciprocate the offers from China to enter into this New
Silk Road, New Paradigm program; entering into the AIIB, joining
the New Silk Road in a very concrete and definitive way.
Now, what can be very clearly defined, is that Mr. LaRouche
is the leading statesman on the scene right now in the United
States. The Four New Laws that we have been repeatedly
emphasizing over the course of the recent several months leading
into this election, continue to be the number one agenda item.
Of course, that begins with Glass-Steagall, but the entirety of
the program is a Hamiltonian renaissance for the United States.
Now, during a discussion we had earlier today, Helga
Zepp-LaRouche emphasized this supplementary pamphlet which was
issued by the LaRouche Political Action Committee almost a year
ago — "The United States Must Join the New Silk Road; a
Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance". And this very
concretely lays out how the United States can join this New
Paradigm.
Now, I'd like to just begin with a few excerpts from these
statements that were made by Sergei Glazyev and Chas Freeman,
which I think clearly get to this point; but I think a lot more
can be said. This is an interview with Sergei Glazyev from {Itar
Tass} in the aftermath of the Presidential elections: "According
to Glazyev," this article says, "the result of the US elections
show that 'The American people don't want war. For the first time
in the world's history, there is a chance to a new global
economic order without waging a world war.'|"
And then Chas Freeman, in a speech called "One Belt, One
Road" which was delivered in Hawaii a few days before the
election, end with the point that "The United States must now
realize that the new paradigm defined by the AIIB and the New
Silk Road, and all of the other initiatives that have been taken
by China, is the new game in town." And Chas Freeman's point is
that Americans are not in the game. Now's the time for us to
enter into this and to realize that it's in our interest to join
the One Belt, One Road initiative. Chas Freeman says, "China's
growing influence is very good reason to seek a seat alongside
it, both in the new and old councils of the emerging multi-polar
world, rather than continuing to futilely try to exclude it. The
United States needs to be constructive and helpful, not negative
and critical — still less obstructive — as all this unfolds.
Americans have a big stake in how Eurasia integrates, and in what
its relationships with other continents and regions become. Time
to get in the game," he concludes; "time to participate in
crafting the post-Pax Americana order. Time to leverage China's
initiative to American advantage."
And I could go on, but I want to just make the point that
now is the time to recognize the full responsibility of the
intellectual leadership that LaRouche PAC has defined and
continues to deliver. And taking the Four New Economic Laws,
taking the implications of Alexander Hamilton's economic reports,
which defined and created the United States in the first place,
and recognizing what time it is; with the shift to an entirely
new international economic and strategic order, it's our
responsibility to mobilize and bring the United States into that
new order.
So, I'll just leave it at that; and I think we can explore
some of the implications of this in discussion with Kesha and
Michael.

KESHA ROGERS: OK, I will start in response by saying that what
has to be recognized is that the fight has never been a matter of
party politics, one party over the other; because as President
George Washington said, "Party politics is the bane of our
nation's existence." What we saw during my campaigns for US
Congress, was very instrumental in that; because the people I was
able to pull together were people from all different types of
backgrounds. It was a question not of just what party you
belonged to, or what your race was, or any of that; but this
question of what do we want to see for our nation and for the
future of our nation? Reviving the vision and the ideas of
President John F Kennedy, President Franklin Roosevelt; people of
all different types of backgrounds — as has been stated — came
together around Glass-Steagall to defy Wall Street, and they
continue to do so. The Republican Party, the Democratic Party,
and so forth. So, I think it's important to note that what we
have identified is a question of the direction that mankind has
to take; that the people of this nation have come together on a
few accounts that have been completely against what the
establishment had thought would happen. During my campaigns, the
victories around the two nominations despite the fact that the
party establishment did everything in their power to create a
divide against the truth that myself, Mr. LaRouche, and our slate
were saying; that Obama represented a threat to this nation. The
cancelling of the NASA Constellation program, the continued
policies for backing Wall Street against the interests of the
population. The second time that we saw the population come
together in a real way — as has been said on a number of
occasions here — is the JASTA vote. The JASTA vote was not a —
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act — was not a Republican
or a Democratic issue; so I think we are now eliminating the
party system. This has been a big part of what I have been
advocating, what Mr. LaRouche has been advocating is that we have
to have a new conception of mankind brought forward. I think
it's been very clearly stated in the discussions that we've had
with him, that are really continuing and hopefully we can get
that developed in this discussion today. The idea that this is
not just a US issue; now we're talking about how do we improve
and develop new conceptions of international relations. New
conceptions of relations among human beings.
Just a couple of things I want to start off with to develop
that. First of all, just in the discussion we had with Mr.
LaRouche yesterday, in response to the election and where we must
go from here, he said we will get a unity among human beings as
human beings. The US and Russia can work together as human
beings; and we are looking at mankind in a universal way. We are
going to learn how to apply our minds. People have to see the
meaning of their existence in a way that most people have not.
If we're really going to conceptualize that idea, I think what
we're going to discuss here today is: 1. The concrete policies
that are needed to bring together the type of collaboration as
we're seeing develop from the development of the BRICS nations —
Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa — and their
cooperation. The development of the AIIB, and the offer of
cooperation through the Silk Road, by President Xi Jinping to the
United States. People probably remember that Obama rejected it.
Now, the mission is, we have to reverse the rejection. We have
to work with Russia; we have to take up China's offer. But we
have to take it up in a bigger way than just around treaty
agreements or working together on international cooperation of
projects. Those things will be essential, but the essential is
going to be the development of a new, unified, international
mission of a new direction for mankind in space collaboration. I
want to develop that a little bit more, but I will stop right
there, because I think we need to pull a few more things together
to come back to that point.

MICHAEL STEGER: The underlying ability for the LaRouche
organization and LaRouche PAC to operate as a leading force on
the planet has been something that eludes most people. It's not
something that's in the predicates of the policies we've been
fighting for directly; there's something philosophically more
profound. It does stand out, the fact that this election, where
vote came from, what people voted for — whether it be in the
Democratic primary, where we saw Glass-Steagall both by Martin
O'Malley and Bernie Sanders, and again even by Trump at the end
of the general election campaign; where Glass-Steagall came up
again. {We} were the leading factor and force of a political
fight, won in the opposition of Bush and Cheney and the clear
tyranny that they represented, but even more distinctly, because
of the nature of Obama in this last years–which is important
just to take a few seconds, not long, but just to recognize: the
Republican Party for the last eight years worked with Obama.
There was no real opposition to it. That's why the Republican
Party is really in as much of a shambles as the Democratic Party
is.
The Party system, as Kesha said, is gone, because there was
no legitimate opposition to Obama, except for what we did. And it
started on the Obamacare question. We led the fight entirely. We
defined it as a Nazi program, while the Republican Party was
likely going to adopt it and support it, the same way Mitt Romney
had pushed in Massachusetts. It was generally a kind of Heritage
Foundation, right-wing, healthcare reform. We recognized it to
be, underlying, a fascist program of population reduction, and
we've been relentless with Obama, unrelenting, on the question
that this Presidency was a failure and a very danger to mankind.
But then you had Lyn's intervention following the invasion
of Libya, and the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, and Lyn's precise
insight that this represented a very accelerated drive for
nuclear war. There was immediate resonance, immediate response
from the leadership in Russia. Like Dmitry Medvedev, [then
President, now Prime Minister]. And we saw an increasing level of
recognition, somewhat slowly, but from key figures, who began to
identify the fact that Lyn was absolutely right. And that again
became a center of the discussion of the U.S. Presidential
election over the last few months.
So, you have the immediate collapse of the financial system
— which is there, we're on the precipice, this has been in the
financial media now practically for a year, going back to last
December, when the financial markets collapsed then. There's a
very, very imminent breakdown of the trans-Atlantic financial
system. It's an underlying bankruptcy, a deep bankruptcy. Then
you also have the immediate drive for war. Both of those issues
have now been on the table. That's what the American people voted
for. It was a mandate for the LaRouche policy. And for the very
reason that the political establishment in this country
compromised on Lyn, going back to the 1980s, shut down his
efforts for space exploration, for collaboration among nations,
and instead put an FBI attack on him and our organization, they
got this kind of revolt. Had they adopted Lyn's policies then,
you wouldn't see neither the breakdown of our economy and our
society, the threat of nuclear war, or the collapse of a
revolutionary type situation in the United States.
The only way to really address this problem is to address it
quickly. We are talking about a timeframe where if the new
Administration coming in does not fulfill what the LaRouche PAC
has defined as the "New Presidency," then it will fail, and fail
quickly. There is a quality of crisis in the country, and so
there is a level of urgency that Mr. LaRouche expressed today in
our discussions. We need to get a handle on this. The policy
orientation needs to be very clear. And it needs to be a
comprehensive program. You can't just implement Glass-Steagall,
though that's exactly where you have to start. You've got to go
with the full Hamilton perspective. You've got to look at a full
development of the country. And you can't go with this Wall
Street garbage. It's not going to function.
A point that Kesha really made an emphasis of, and that Lyn
emphasized on Wednesday following this election, stands out,
because there is clearly — as Matt, you read from the Chas
Freeman quote — at the highest institutional level of
recognition, that this New Silk Road orientation is in depth; it
is not weak; it is not superficial. As someone from the Chinese
Consulate in San Francisco recently said, "This is not on paper.
This is on the ground. This is a real project. This is not the
TPP." The question though, is how is this approached? The
approach of the political establishment may be best indicated by
Henry Kissinger and these types: is to approach it from the
Hobbesian view — an animalistic view of man, where you're
looking for advantages. How do we take advantage of this? How do
we work with this? China is looking to their advantage. How do we
look to our advantage?
It doesn't mean that one disregards one's own benefit. But
the emphasis that Lyn made, and I think what Kesha was
developing, is that you have to look at the universal nature of
mankind. You have to look at what policies, what approach towards
the relationship among nations is of benefit to mankind as a
whole, or as Helga said on Wednesday in a discussion, what used
to be referenced as the "common aims of mankind." That has to be
then the basis, the philosophical basis for a scientific
foundation, for a new relationship among nations. And that really
then defines how this can be very much a new paradigm or a new
era for mankind. Not only is an immediate action required, but
the potential of action is perhaps greater than it's ever been.

OGDEN: Just to continue to emphasize the point that you, Kesha,
brought up, the first indications, I think very clearly, of what
hit with full force with this election, was what you were able to
generate around your campaigns for federal office.

BEN DENISTON: Over and over again.

OGDEN: Three times in a row. Twice the Democratic nominee
for Congress, and then you forced the Senate campaign into a
run-off, in Texas, on precisely this LaRouche PAC program. Every
time that people say, "Oh, we are so surprised, we are so
shocked, none of the polls saw this coming," whether it was in
this general election campaign for President, whether it was in
the Brexit vote — every time somebody tells you that, you say,
"No, that's actually not true."

DENISTON: Most people probably know, but it's worth
emphasizing: Kesha led with "Impeach Obama." You had a Democrat
leading the Democratic ticket on impeaching Obama, and that was
what shocked. It was national news. It's kind of amazing that the
Democrats are so far behind, so much in this crazy bubble, that
they can't see where the ferment is in the population. Just to
add that in there.

OGDEN: Absolutely!

DENISTON: It shocked the country, it shocked the world.
There was international recognition when Kesha won [the
Democratic Party primaries for U.S. House in 2010 and again in
2012; and came in second in a field of five candidates for U.S.
Senate in 2013, but lost in the run-off]. These guys are now
years and years behind the ball on this thing.

OGDEN: The other element of your campaigns, Kesha, was a
clear vision for the country. This is an element of inspiration
that a population which was, yes, legitimately angry and enraged
against the policies of the last not 8 years, but the last 15, 16
years of both the Obama and Bush administrations, and had been
ground into the dust and left behind, and were literally
suffering from an increase in mortality, and so forth, as we've
spoken about.
It was not only a rage factor, in terms of that, but it was
also, and it continues to be — and this must be recognized — a
deep desire for purpose, for meaning, for inspiration, and for a
vision of what the future actually can be. And, Michael, as you
were saying, it's a philosophical question: What is the meaning
of mankind? What is this really all about? Why am I struggling,
day in and day out? What's the meaning behind "what it means to
be human?"
And so, the Number One point of emphasis in your campaigns,
Kesha, and the Number One point of emphasis continues to be, what
is the role that mankind is going to play over the next 100 years
in this solar system and in the universe? It was clear when John
F. Kennedy committed the United States to having a man on the
Moon before the end of the 1960s, that this was the defining
moment in the entire generation at that point. The United States
rose to the challenge because it was a truthful challenge.
We applied the Hamiltonian principles to make that happen.
You stood up and you said "We're going back to space. China is
doing it." In the years since your campaigns, Kesha, China has
achieved unbelievable feats. There will be a robotic lander on
the far side of the Moon. If we put this on the agenda, and we
say, "We are no longer going to succumb to the backwards agenda.
We're going to join hands, not only on the New Silk Road here on
Earth, but we're going to join hands with China to go back to the
Moon. We're going to go to Mars. We are going in a way which
affirms the true, creative nature of the human species. We're
going into space." That's the other element of this.

ROGERS: Yeah, that was already defined by Krafft Ehricke. It
was defined by Lyndon LaRouche. It was exemplified, as has
already been stated, in a conception of mankind and the
relationships among human beings, that most people, through the
degenerate culture that we have been immersed in, has yet to
actually, truly experience. It's not just a question of "Well, I
like this policy of going to the Moon," or "Yes, we should do
that," or "Kennedy's idea of going to the Moon was for economic
profits or to put feet on the Moon and then it was going to be
over." We were talking about policy for a 50-year-plus plan, or
should we say, a generational.
Right now, the problem is that we have lost the conception
of acting for the next generations. Most people say, especially
with space policy, "Well, we'll see what this next President's
going to do, but then after that we have to follow whatever the
next President wants to do, and it's just going to be an
up-and-down cycle. Maybe we'll have a good one who wants a good
policy, and maybe we'll have a bad one." But that's not how the
process works. As I said, this is a question of international
relations, but also, as Krafft Ehricke said, the question of
development of space, and what that represents for understanding
our relationships right here on Earth is a Universal, an
Extraterritorial Imperative.
I think these conceptions are not just things that are to be
thrown around, but they really have to be conceptualized,
understood, and mastered, just as Lyn's emphasis and very
important call, that the only thing that can save the United
States right now, and for that matter save the entire world
against this economic collapse, is the return to those
Hamiltonian principles — the recognition that we have to restore
an understanding of what Hamilton was developing in his four
reports: "Report on Public Credit;" "Report on a National Bank;"
"Report on the Subject of Manufactures;" and "On the
Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States."
We've done a number of very thorough presentations on those
points, because that's not just something of the past, or just
"policy issues," but it is the necessary direction that has to be
re-established right now: how are we going to build up our
capabilities on this planet to provide for the needs of every
single human being? We're talking about development around food,
most importantly around fusion resources–LaRouche's Fourth Law.
We have to have a science-driver fusion program. This is the key
aspect of China's policy for their Moon mission, and their space
program — the mining of Helium-3, the development of the far
side of the Moon.
This is the policy that the United States has gone far away
from. We just have to just put the United States back on course
again, and that the course of action has been clearly stated by
the direction that China's taking with their space program. It's
interesting to note: that was the direction we were going in, or
slated to go in, with the development of the Moon, under not just
President John F. Kennedy, but this was the policy that was being
put forth prior to President Obama cancelling it.

OGDEN: I want to pick up on what you said, Michael. What the
LaRouche Movement — both in the United States, but also
internationally — has clearly been at the forefront of for
decades, is the agenda. The intelligentsia of the planet has
concentrated itself, at key moments of history, around what the
conceptions for the future must be that have been laid forward by
the LaRouche Movement. I just want to bring up one point which
was contained in this report. This is the transcript of an
international conference that took place in June of this year.
Coincidentally, it was literally the day after the Brexit vote
occurred; which had the entire trans-Atlantic expert
establishment on their heels. Nobody supposedly saw this coming.
But the keynote speaker at this event was Helga Zepp-LaRouche;
one of the other keynote speakers was Ambassador Chas Freeman.
At that point, the point of the One Belt, One Road policy, the
New Silk Road policy was put clearly on the agenda. The other
major agenda item of this conference was the necessity to work
with Russia to resolve and rebuild the situation inside Syria.
This conference was called in order to discuss the contents of
this massive special report, which was published by {Executive
Intelligence Review}. This is "The New Silk Road Becomes the
World Land-Bridge"; and with the publication of this, the entire
nitty-gritty aspect of what this New Paradigm really means on the
ground — not on paper, as you said, Michael — was put into
writing.
At that point, Helga Zepp-LaRouche called for the
publication of a supplementary pamphlet which would concretely
elaborate exactly how the United States would join that New Silk
Road. And with all of the discussion now in the last few days of
infrastructure and big projects and how to create millions of new
jobs inside the United States, this is clearly the number one
item of relevance. Now, we're going to play a short excerpt from
a video which was put out by LaRouche PAC about two months ago.
The full video is called "The New Silk Road Becomes the World
Land-Bridge", but this short excerpt from the concluding portion
of that video elaborates exactly how the United States could work
with China and work with these Eurasian countries to build itself
into this New Silk Road. So, I'd like to play that excerpt for
you right now.

"As part of the trans-Atlantic, the United States is also
associated with a high standard of living. However, the Wall
Street-dominated, post-World War II paradigm has taken its toll
on the US economy and its people. Scrapping its agro-industrial
sector for financial and services industries, with the promise
that it would make for a more competitive economy, high-earning
skilled work was out-sourced to cheaper markets abroad which
provide a living wage for their workers. This flawed version of
globalization lowered the productivity of the Americas as a
whole, increased the rate of poverty throughout the hemisphere,
and invited billions of dollars of illicit money flows from the
global drug trade, which to this day represent a significant
portion of the cash on hand in the Western banking sector.
"However, even after the 2007-2008 crisis, when the
bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic financial system could no longer
be covered up and needed an emergency bail-out —
"|'This is not just about Lehman Brothers; these problems
are not limited to Wall Street or even Main Street. This is a
crisis for the global economy.'
"– no serious structural reforms have been made to the
Western financial establishment; putting the West and the rest of
the world at risk of an even greater crisis.
"No wonder that in recent years, China, Russia, and other
emerging economies have begun to create new international
financial institutions, based on a concept of 'win-win' relations
among nations and created to facilitate economic development and
trade for all participants instead of preserving the hegemony of
some. Instead of the exclusivity of US trade agreements like the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, China has extended an invitation to
the US and the rest of the Americas to join them in establishing
a new era of global economic development.
"'I state this very clearly to President Obama that China
will be firmly committed to the part of peaceful development; and
China will be firm in deepening reform and opening up the country
….¦'
"But can the US envision a world where it is no longer the
sole superpower; and instead shares that responsibility with
other nations?
"'|..¦.and will work hard to push forward the noble cause of
peace and development for all mankind.' [Chinese President Xi
Jinping]
"The potential for US participation in the New Silk Road
program is immense. One key project in EIR's New Silk Road
report is finally connecting the Eurasian continent with North
America at the Bering Strait. A Bering Strait provides the
needed symmetry to make the One Belt, One Road strategy a global
one; and would transform the two continents the same way the
ancient Silk Road opened up Europe to Asia.
"Imagine boarding a magnetically-levitated train in downtown
Paris or Berlin, travelling 250 miles per hour across the steppes
of Siberia, through a tunnel below the Bering Strait, emerging on
the other side in Alaska on your way to Manhattan. Layered with
a freight and passenger rail line running north-south from Alaska
to the lower 48 states from Eurasia, is the construction of the
long-awaited North American Water and Power Alliance [NAWAPA]; an
Apollo-era continental water management system that takes
freshwater run-off from Alaska and Canada, and diverts it
southward for use in the arid southwest United States.
"And while the average American will tell you these projects
are impossible, the average Chinese today is building them. In
the last decade, China — comparable in size to the United States
— constructed over 11,000 miles of high-speed rail; and seeks to
triple that number by 2020. Similarly, China's Three Gorges Dam
and South Water North projects are some of the greatest water
infrastructure projects ever undertaken. In the new 'win-win'
paradigm, big infrastructure investment is the new normal
everywhere."

That video is available on the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel
and the LaRouche PAC website. But I'd like to ask Ben to just
follow that up.

BEN DENISTON: Off of the discussions that Matt referenced with
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche in the last couple of days, we wanted
to redirect people's attention to this supplementary pamphlet.
Obviously the full report is a little bit hefty for your average
American, we did want to produce this shorter, condensed kind of
organizing report to really grip people and give people a sense
of what it means for the United States to join this New Silk Road
program, this New Paradigm. We want to make sure people know —
we can bring up on the screen share here — that this full report
is also available on our website. If you go under "our
policies", "US Joins the New Silk Road" it's available right
there; and the entirety of the report is available here. As
Matthew said, this was published almost one year ago, so maybe
some of the introduction might be a little bit dated to the
context of the time when we put this out; but the substance, the
content, is still very relevant, very crucial, and integrates
together with the more recent focus Mr. LaRouche has put on his
Four Laws program.
But just to give people a very quick overview of the report,
we can see here in the table of contents, it's broken into a
series of chapters following the introduction. The first chapter
really provides somewhat of a sketch, but a real presentation of
what can be done in the United States in the context of joining
this New Paradigm. So, passing Glass-Steagall; engaging in an
international credit/finance system to facilitate growth,
development. What does that mean? Well, as was referenced in
the video, one of the mega-projects that's been on the table for
a century now quite frankly, if not longer, is this Bering Strait
connection; literally connecting, via high-speed rail, North
America into this entire World Land-Bridge perspective. So,
that's been long recognized as a keystone project. That can come
together with — as was also discussed in the video — high-speed
rail across the United States. As Mr. LaRouche, in his work on
the Eurasian Land-Bridge and World Land-Bridge, had developed,
these are more than just rail corridors; this mankind developing
the interior regions of continents. Moving from a coastal
dominated civilization to one that actually master the interior
landmass of regions. A lot can be said, but this really goes to
the heart of his science of economics, his insight, his metric of
potential relative population density; how mankind can transform
the so-called "carrying capacity" of a piece of land of society
with this kind of development. So, bringing in high-speed rail
and all the associated infrastructure to make vastly larger
regions of the territory of the United States inhabitable and
developable. We have huge amounts of unused land waiting to be
developed.
In the development of this report, Helga LaRouche also
placed a large emphasis on the development of new cities; new
renaissance cities as she called for as part of the whole
development program. Bringing rail, water, power to these new
regions of the country to develop new, highly-organized cities;
not just urban sprawl, not just endless unorganized development.
But actual cultural city centers organized around a central
region, focussed on an educational, artistic focus of society;
and you center your activity around that. That's also discussed
in some detail in this report.
This is obviously going to create major spin-off effects in
terms of job requirements; rebuilding US industry. All kinds of
connected jobs required to support that kind of activity. So,
this talk about creating millions of jobs, this can be done very
easily in the context of this New Paradigm system. One thing we
fought with in producing this report was actually gripping people
with what this means. It's easy to go through the figures —
this many miles of rail, this many cities, etc. — but the
American people have suffered so long under a lack of this kind
of development, that it's important to really grip people and
give them a sense that these are not just projects; this is your
future. This is a return to the idea that every generation is
going to be fundamentally better off than the generation before
them. That you live your life with the recognition that your
children are going to have a fundamentally better life than you
were able to live; and it was because you and your generation
contributed to creating that.
It's been recognized — LaRouche PAC may have been the first
to point this out — but it's now generally recognized, the
current youth generation does not have that. You have the first
situation potentially in American history where the younger
generation is worse off than their parents' generation. If you
want to talk about the death rates, the drug epidemic, all these
things, that's the substance of what's driving that process. Not
just poverty per se, but poverty in the context of no future;
complete degeneracy of society.
So, returning to this idea that there is
to your job, to your employment, to your activity, to your
family's activity, to your neighborhood, your city, your town.
There's a purpose in investing and creating a new, higher state
of living for the nation as a whole; and that's what this really
means. That's driving inspiration in China, in nations working
with China; in this whole One Belt, One Road program. That's
what we can revive and return to in the United States; that's
what these infrastructure projects really mean. It's about
mankind participating in the truly immortal nature of mankind's
creative development.
And what we also address in this report, just to point this
out to people directly, is an added integral element of that is a
real science driver program. So, we have on the one hand — it's
not separated, but together with the idea of joining the New Silk
Road, rebuilding the United States on a higher level with new
infrastructure, a new standard of living; also engaging in the
science driver programs and technology driver programs that push
to new frontiers. Fusion power. With fusion power, you can
completely transform mankind's capabilities; you can blast
mankind up to a higher level of potential existence. Both in
making power available, but also completely revolutionizing all
kinds of production, industry, technologies; it's a totally new
stage for mankind.
This goes directly together with space; the development of
the Moon, the development of helium-3 resources on the Moon as a
key fusion fuel. So, bringing mankind really into a level of a
Solar System species, a Solar System existence; and learning —
we had some discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier today —
learning what the Solar System is really all about. There are
some of the most basic things we still don't understand about how
the Solar System works; even how the Moon works. Our knowledge
is still extremely limited in terms of what mankind is existing
in here in this Solar System; let alone what the Solar System is
doing in the galaxy, and how to understand these kinds of things.
Recognizing that that is kind of the first of the substance of
these kinds of revolutions of mankind's ability to exist. If we
discover these higher levels of the principles organizing the
fundamental nature of the universe, we can uniquely utilize that
understanding to transform how we act.
So, it's this intimate connection that Mr. LaRouche, I
believe, is the first to really define scientifically between
fundamental scientific discovery and the crucial rile of real
scientific method in that context, and what people call economic
progress and economic growth. That's the integrated central
picture that we have to present and break through on; and we have
presented it in a somewhat short but moving and condensed and
illustrated way in this report. So, Helga had specifically
requested that we draw people's attention again to this important
piece of organizing ammunition that we have; to move people in
this time of ferment, in this time of potential, to not sit back
and wait for something to happen, but to take action. Realize
this is the future we can create. We've just had an opening
created that gives us the potential to act; it's not here yet,
but now we have a potential that we have not had for four terms
of the Presidency. So, I think this is critical that we get all
this on the table and move immediately with the recognition that
this is the true mission of mankind.

STEGER: I would just like to say, on the Four Laws, which
captured this policy direction, the subtitle is that this is not
an option, but an immediate necessity. And I think it's worth
making it clear that these are not policy options from the
standpoint of government. These Four Laws and this orientation
that Ben just laid out, is actually a necessary and integral
functioning of any competent form of government. Hamilton
uniquely understood that at his time; there was resistance from
the slave-based oligarchy at that time which opposed the
recognition that the economic power to unleash mankind's
advancement, to orient mankind towards this level through
manufacturing, through industry, and especially through the
scientific process. But that was an integral part of what
government required to fulfill its obligation to the well-being
of its population and its posterity. So, these Four Laws are a
necessity not simply because of the economic crisis; they must be
adopted by government as laws. Our government today, to secure
for the first time as Glazyev said, for the first time, world war
is no longer a danger; and for the first time the United States
will set the leading example of a form of self-government based
on the highest scientific conception of mankind based on these
Four Laws; and have the economic power and potential to unleash
that unique characteristic of mankind. These Four Laws are of
that quality of significance.

OGDEN: This is the immediate action agenda. And as Lyndon
and Helga LaRouche said earlier, there's a lot that's undefined;
there's very inconclusive facts available right now. But the one
thing that is clear, is that we need a full-scale mobilization
from the people who are involved in the activities of LaRouche
PAC, to immediately force the Glass-Steagall agenda. Congress is
coming back into session at the very beginning of next week —
Monday and Tuesday. They need to be confronted with an absolute
torrent, a flood of calls and activity from around the country to
say "There is nothing else; this is agenda point one." And to
pull out all the stops on this entire program. We've emphasized
we have the ability to pull together the entire country on the
Four Laws action page; this is action.larouchepac.com/fourlaws.
If you haven't signed up there yet, that's available. There's
also a place where you can submit your reports. All of the
material that you need is on that website, including the
Alexander Hamilton four reports and Mr. LaRouche's original
document, "LaRouche's Four Laws". Then as Ben just showed you,
we also have this supplementary page, a digital pamphlet that we
produced; "The United States Joins the New Silk Road". This is
also available on the LaRouche PAC website.
So, we are in undefined and uncharted territory right now; I
think people are recognizing that at the point that the United
States, for example in the 1930s, faced similar situations, it
was only because of the immediate leadership that Franklin
Roosevelt provided with the entire program — this was the
initial Glass-Steagall, this was a reorganization of the entire
bankrupt financial system, this was immediately getting people
back to work — that is the agenda. At that point, it was
undefined what was going to happen; it was because Franklin
Roosevelt provided the kind of leadership that he did, that
prevented what could have been a very dangerous situation from
degenerating into that. It's our responsibility to place that
onto the agenda now. Nobody else is going to do that. We have a
short reprieve, a short window of reprieve from the danger of
World War III. You have qualified leadership from around the
world tentatively reaching out and saying we are ready for an
entirely new paradigm of relations with the United States.
Russia, China, other countries around the world. But the United
States that they want, is LaRouche's United States.
So, thank you very much for joining us. I'd like to
especially thank Michael and Kesha. Kesha, thank you; and I'm
sure we will be looking to you for some more in the near future.
And I'd like to thank Ben for joining me here in the studio.
Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. If you haven't subscribed
to our YouTube channel yet, do so immediately. And subscribe to
our weekly and daily emails as well. Thank you and good night.

POLITISK ORIENTERING 10. nov., 2016:
Donald Trump! Hvad det betyder,
og hvad LaRouche-bevægelsen nu må gøre.
Se også 2. del.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video 2. del:

Lyd:

»Donald Trump og det Nye, Internationale Paradigme« (DANSK) Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale ved Schiller Instituttet/EIR’s seminar i København, 12. dec., 2016.

Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale på Schiller Instituttets og EIR’s seminar i København: Donald Trump og det nye internationale paradigme. ENGELSK udskrift af tale samt Spørgsmål og Svar

Ingen tid til selvtilfredshed – Briternes, saudiernes og Obamas terrorapparat vil fortsætte hæmningsløst, indtil det destrueres

Video: En ny æra for USA: LaRouches Fire Love

Har Obama efterladt ’en ny, stor recession’ til Trump?

Syrien står umiddelbart foran befrielse – Vil Det britiske Imperiums terrorist-instrument blive ødelagt for altid?

Ved et uafgjort øjeblik i historien er den personlige faktor endnu vigtigere: Gør det Nye Paradigme til virkelighed!

Italien: Har Putin gjort det igen?

Det nye paradigme er den dominerende dynamik i verden i øjeblikket; Italien leverer et bragende nederlag til EU-oligarkiet

Supplerende materiale:

Bragende nederlag for EU-Oligarkiet i italiensk folkeafstemning

RADIO SCHILLER den 5. december 2016: Nu har Italien sagt “Nej”: Den globale transformation fortsætter

Movisol-bevægelsen i Italien på Radio Gamma 5: Italiensk folkeafstemning og LaRouches Fire Love

USA har brug for en massebevægelse for udvikling NU! LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 2. december, 2016; Leder

Skiftet til det nye paradigme er virkeligheden – Propaganda for lokale interesser er farligt

Ingen tid at spilde: Vedtag Glass-Steagall, og tag til Månen LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast, 25. november, 2016

Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love for produktivitet

NYHEDSORIENTERING november 2016: Donald Trump og det nye paradigme

Helga Zepp-LaRouche kaster en politisk håndgranat i Peru

Rumforskning og klassisk kultur – vi må genoprette den degeneration hos det amerikanske folk, der har fundet sted under Bush og Obama

Trump og Putin kan, og må, knuse terrorisme i Syrien – og globalt

Nej, det var ikke FBI’s værk: Dette er et globalt paradigmeskift

Efter Trumps valgsejr: Tyskland må nu gribe initiativet for Den nye Silkevej! Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

RADIO SCHILLER den 14. november 2016: Efter Trumps valg: Skab en USA-Rusland alliance, gennemfør Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling

Obama er blevet dumpet – det er nu afgørende at genoprette relationerne med Putins Rusland

Vi må sætte dagsordenen! USA må gå med i den Nye Silkevej. LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 11. nov., 2016; Leder

POLITISK ORIENTERING 10. nov., 2016: Donald Trump! Hvad det betyder, og hvad LaRouche-bevægelsen nu må gøre. Se også 2. del.

»Donald Trump og det Nye,
Internationale Paradigme«
(DANSK) Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale
ved Schiller Instituttet/EIR’s seminar
i København, 12. dec., 2016.

Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale på
Schiller Instituttets og EIR’s
seminar i København:
Donald Trump og det nye
internationale paradigme.
ENGELSK udskrift af tale
samt Spørgsmål og Svar

Ingen tid til selvtilfredshed – Briternes,
saudiernes og Obamas terrorapparat vil
fortsætte hæmningsløst, indtil det destrueres

Syrien står umiddelbart foran befrielse
– Vil Det britiske Imperiums terrorist-
instrument blive ødelagt for altid?

Ved et uafgjort øjeblik i historien er
den personlige faktor endnu vigtigere:
Gør det Nye Paradigme til virkelighed!

Det nye paradigme er den dominerende dynamik i verden i øjeblikket;
Italien leverer et bragende nederlag til EU-oligarkiet

RADIO SCHILLER den 5. december 2016:
Nu har Italien sagt “Nej”:
Den globale transformation fortsætter

Movisol-bevægelsen i Italien på Radio Gamma 5:
Italiensk folkeafstemning og LaRouches Fire Love

USA har brug for en massebevægelse for udvikling NU!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast,
2. december, 2016; Leder

Skiftet til det nye paradigme er virkeligheden
– Propaganda for lokale interesser er farligt

Ingen tid at spilde: Vedtag Glass-Steagall, og tag til Månen
LaRouchePAC Internationale
Fredags-webcast,
25. november, 2016

NYHEDSORIENTERING november 2016:
Donald Trump og det nye paradigme

Rumforskning og klassisk kultur
– vi må genoprette den degeneration
hos det amerikanske folk,
der har fundet sted under Bush og Obama

Nej, det var ikke FBI’s værk:
Dette er et globalt paradigmeskift

Efter Trumps valgsejr:
Tyskland må nu gribe initiativet
for Den nye Silkevej!
Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

RADIO SCHILLER den 14. november 2016:
Efter Trumps valg: Skab en USA-Rusland alliance,
gennemfør Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling

Obama er blevet dumpet
– det er nu afgørende at genoprette
relationerne med Putins Rusland

Vi må sætte dagsordenen!
USA må gå med i den Nye Silkevej.
LaRouchePAC Internationale
Webcast, 11. nov., 2016; Leder

POLITISK ORIENTERING 10. nov., 2016:
Donald Trump! Hvad det betyder,
og hvad LaRouche-bevægelsen nu må gøre.
Se også 2. del.