Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 2. januar, 2017 – Da præsident Herbert Hoover havde tabt valget til Franklin D. Roosevelt i 1932, brugte han hele overgangsperioden til at forsøge at tvinge FDR til offentligt at støtte hans, Hoovers, mislykkede politik; og da FDR ikke ville det, tog en rasende Hoover til indsættelsesceremonien, hvor han nægtede at tale, eller bare se på den nyvalgte præsident. Hoover bar på et bittert nag imod FDR’s nye paradigme – New Deal – frem til 1950’erne, hvor han spillede en rolle i fremvæksten af »McCarthy-giften«.

Alle Barack Obamas handlinger udgør nu et forsøg på at tvinge nyvalgte præsident Trump til at følge hans, Obamas, mislykkede politik; og til at angribe og bagvaske Rusland og dets præsident Putin.

Obama har i enhver forstand svigtet nationen – dens arbejdsstyrke, beskæftigelse, produktivitet, husstandsindkomst, narkoafhængighed, hjemløshed, stigende dødsrate og faldende gennemsnitslevealder, katastrofale krige. Han tyer nu til angivelige »uigenkaldelige eksekutive ordrer« og til deciderede misinformationskampagner fra regeringen, for at forsøge at tvinge Trump ind i – mindst – en ny kold krig. Dette kommer fra en præsident, der ikke kunne klare præsident Putin, og heller ikke Kinas præsident Xi Jinping.

Trump vil stadig ikke gå med, som hans bemærkninger i Florida nytårsaften indikerer. Men, hvilken politik, han vil føre, er stadig ikke klart.

Det, som er klart, er det nye paradigme med økonomisk og videnskabeligt fremskridt, og med potentialet for fred, der er blevet skabt i løbet af 2016 af Xis Kina, Putins Rusland og deres allierede blandt eurasiske og afrikanske nationer, og med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche, der fortsat spiller en katalyserende rolle. Og lige så klar er »sangens kraft« i dette nye paradigme, der må have det bedste af alle nationers kulturhistorie, deres »klassik«, som kan gives til de andre. Dette demonstreredes af den over Internettet, især af russiske speakere, med lynets hast spredte kondolencehilsen fra Helga LaRouche i anledning af tabet af Alexandrov Ensemblet i et flystyrt. (Det er overflødigt at nævne, at Barack Obama ikke kommenterede den tragiske død af hvert eneste medlem af Ruslands nationale kor.)

Det nye paradigme dikterer også ganske klart, hvad Trump og den tiltrædende Kongres omgående må gøre: Genindfør Glass/Steagall-loven og skab en statslig kreditinstitution til at hælde investeringer ind i rumforskning, gennembrud i kernefusion og ny infrastruktur med høj produktivitet.

Vi hører, at Obama har til hensigt at »sige farvel og takke nationen« den 10. januar i en tale i Chicago. Han bør holde den tale en uge før, og gå.

Kina vil i det nye år afholde to topmøder, hvor konsolideringen af Silkevejsinitiativet bliver temaet, og hvor det bliver klart, at en økonomisk model med win-win-samarbejde er langt den mest attraktive og for længst er blevet magneten i den globale udvikling. Dette globale udviklingsperspektiv er allerede nu det største infrastrukturprogram i menneskehedens historie, som over 100 nationer og internationale organisationer deltager i, allerede berører 4,4 mia. mennesker og for første gang i mindst 50 år repræsenterer et realistisk håb om, at problemer som sult, fattigdom, sygdomme, vi for længst har kunnet behandle og manglende uddannelse, én gang for alle kan overvindes.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Vi befinder os i nedtællingen til afslutningen af Obama-administrationen og begyndelsen af den tiltrædende Trump-administration. Om præcis tre uger finder indsættelsesceremonien for den tiltrædende administration sted. Der er stadig meget, der er uafklaret og usikkert; men verdenssituationen ændrer sig meget hurtigt. Som hr. LaRouche advarede om for mindre end 48 timer siden, så må vi stadig holde øje med Obama; så længe, han beklæder embedet, kan han lave en forfærdelig masse ulykker. Blot i dag forsøgte han, fra sin ferie på Hawaii, at optrappe og fremprovokere en konflikt med Rusland. Han meddelte, at 35 russere vil blive erklæret persona non grata og ville blive udvist af USA under anklage om angivelig spionage; og at der ikke alene ville blive pålagt Rusland flere sanktioner som gengældelse for den såkaldte »russiske hacking«, men at to russiske ejendomsområder, der angiveligt bliver brugt til spionage – et område på Marylands østkyst og et på Long Island, steder, hvor russiske diplomater til USA og Washington D.C. kan bringe deres familier til en hårdt tiltrængt ferie og afslapning – han meddelte, at føderale styrker ville rykke ind og lukke disse områder ned. Jeg er sikker på, at Obama regnede med, at dette ville provokere hans ærke-Nemesis Vladimir Putin til at gøre gengældelse, men Obama blev sørgeligt skuffet. Til trods for, at Sergei Lavrov, Ruslands udenrigsminister, sagde, at de var i deres gode ret til at gøre gengæld, øje for øje, og udvise 35 såkaldte amerikanske diplomater af Rusland som persona non grata og lukke amerikanske feriesteder i Moskva og omegn ned; men i stedet foretog Putin, på klassisk Putin-vis, et judo-træk og gjorde ingenting. Et træk fra Putin side, som generelt erkendes som at udmanøvrere Obama – f.eks. i overskriften i Daily Beast, »Putin udmanøvrerer Obama i spionkrig; Moskva griner ad Obama-administrationens sanktioner og udvisninger som de sidste handlinger af svaghed«. Putin afslørede Obama for det, han er, en ’lam and’; og han nægtede at respondere. I en erklæring offentliggjort på Kremls webside i dag sagde Putin følgende: »Alt imens vi forbeholder os ret til at tage forholdsregler til gengældelse, så vil vi ikke degradere os selv til et niveau af ’køkkendiplomati’. I vore fremtidige skridt på vej imod en genoprettelse af de russisk-amerikanske relationer, vil vi gå frem fra den politik, som Donald Trumps administration forfølger.«

Så dette er en perfekt afslutning og diplomatisk sejr for Putin; og det er på linje med et tweet, der blev udsendt af det Russiske Udenrigsministerium, og som var et billede af en gul and med ordet »lam« skrevet over billedet. Obama og hans hold, selv om de kan skabe en masse ulykker i de resterende tre uger, anses ikke for at være særlig magtfulde mere, af Putin og andre i verden.

Samtidig kan russerne hævde en sand diplomatisk sejr i Syrien. Oven i befrielsen af Aleppo og genoprettelsen af regeringskontrol over en stor del af landet imod ISIS og andre oprørsstyrker, så forhandlede russerne en våbenhvile igennem sammen med Tyrkiet; men uden USA. Foreløbig holder denne våbenhvile. Dette er en meget håbefuld situation og demonstrerer endnu engang, at Obama definitivt har mistet lederskabsrollen i verden¸ og Rusland er en formidabel strategisk leder på verdensscenen, mens denne administration træder tilbage og den nye administration går om bord.

Samtidig har vi en nedsmeltning af det finansielle system; Monte dei Paschi banksituationen kører fortsat videre. Vi har en eksponering til derivater fra hver eneste bank på hele planeten. Enhver af disse – Deutsche Bank, Monte dei Paschi – hvad som helst kunne udløse en nedsmeltning af hele finanssystemet. Hr. LaRouches Fire Love er fortsat de afgørende og særdeles presserende forholdsregler, der må tages i USA. Som jeg sagde, så er intet afgjort, men der er meget, der er muligt. Som I har set i vore diverse udsendelser de seneste dage – Fireside Chat i går, en LPAC e-mail, der blev udsendt i dag, hovedoverskrifter på larouchepac.com hjemmesiden – så er vi engageret i en absolut presserende og afgørende mobilisering for at tvinge Glass-Steagall på dagsordenen, endnu før den tiltrædende administration indsættes. Dette må være det absolutte top-lovforslag, der lægges på den nye præsidents skrivebord til underskrift. Kongressen kan handle på det, når de træder sammen i næste uge; i modsætning til [senator] McCains meddelelse om, at han vil have høringer om russisk hacking, eller sådan noget. Dette er den afgørende forholdsregel; og vi vil have aktivister, der kommer til Washington, D.C. Vi har allerede afleveret marchordrerne; og vi vil diskutere dette yderligere i aftenens udsendelse.

Men dette er fortsat blot det første skridt i Lyndon LaRouches Fire Hastelove til at redde USA, nu. Det bedste eksempel, vi stadig har, den bedste præcedens, er Franklin Roosevelts første 100 dage; hvad FDR var i stand til at opnå i sine første 100 dage i embedet. Kongressen trådte sammen; han vedtog omgående Bankloven af 1933, erklærede banklukkedag, reorganiserede hele det bankerotte finanssystem og satte Amerika i arbejde igen. Kongressen holdt ikke pause før nøjagtig 100 dage senere; og 100 milepæle i lovgivning blev debatteret, vedtaget og sendt over til Det Hvide Hus til Franklin Roosevelts underskrift, hvilket ændrede historien. Dette er fortsat præcedensen; det er fortsat modellen, og indholdet af disse første 100 dage bør være Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love til USA’s redning.

Jeg giver nu ordet til Jason [Ross], for der er nogle specifikke måder, hvorpå vi kan gå i gang med disse presserende forholdsregler.  

WE NEED GLASS STEAGALL SITTING ON TRUMPS DESK
AWAITING HIS SIGNATURE WHEN HE TAKES OFFICE!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast, Dec. 30, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon!  It's December 30, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden and you're watching our final Friday
evening broadcast for 2016 for this year on larouchepac.com.  I'm
joined in the studio today by Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC
Science Team; and via video by two members of our Policy
Committee — Bill Roberts from Detroit, Michigan (Hi, Bill); and
Michael Steger from San Francisco, California.
Now, obviously we are in a countdown to the end of the Obama
administration and the beginning of the incoming Trump
administration.  Exactly three weeks from today is the
inauguration of the incoming administration.  There are still
many things that are undetermined and up in the air; but the
world situation is moving very fast.  As Mr. LaRouche warned less
than 48 hours ago, you still have to keep your eye on Obama; as
long as he remains in office, he can cause an awful of mischief.
And we saw that just yesterday, in an announcement that came from
Obama while he was vacationing in Hawaii; he attempted to
escalate and provoke a conflict with Russia.   He announced that
35 Russian nationals would be declared {persona non grata} and
would be expelled from the United States under supposed spying
charges; and he announced that not only would there be more
sanctions imposed against Russia in retaliation for the so-called
"Russian hacking", but also two Russian estates that are
supposedly being used for espionage purposes — one on the
Eastern Shore of Maryland and one on Long Island, places where
Russian diplomats to the United Nations and to Washington DC can
bring their families for much-needed vacation and rest and
relaxation — he announced that Federal forces would be moving in
to close down those estates.  Now, I'm sure that Obama expected
that this was going to provoke his arch-nemesis Vladimir Putin
into retaliatory measures, but Obama was severely disappointed.
Despite the fact that Sergey Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of
Russia, said that they would be fully justified in retaliating
tit-for-tat and expelling 35 so-called US diplomats from Russia
as {persona non grata} and closing down US vacation homes in
Moscow and the Moscow suburbs; Putin instead, in classic Putin
fashion, judoed Barack Obama and did nothing.  Vladimir Putin, in
a move which is being universally recognized as outfoxing Obama
— for example, in a headline in the {Daily Beast} "Putin
Outfoxes Obama in Spy War ⦠Moscow Laughs Off the Obama
Administration's Sanctions and Expulsions as Feeble Last
Gestures".  Putin called out Obama for what he is, a lame duck;
and he refused to respond.  In a statement that was put out on
the Kremlin website today, Putin said the following:
"While we reserve the right to take reciprocal measures, we
are not going to downgrade ourselves to the level of
irresponsible 'kitchen' diplomacy.  In our future steps on our
way towards the restoration of Russian-United States relations,
we will proceed from the policy pursued by the administration of
Donald Trump."
So, this is a perfect ending and diplomatic victory for
Putin; and I think this goes along with a tweet that was sent out
by the Russian Foreign Ministry, which is a big picture of a
yellow duck with the word "lame" written over top of it.  Obama
and his crew, although they are in the position to cause an awful
amount of mischief in the remaining three weeks, are not being
recognized as all that powerful anymore by Putin and others
around the world.
Now, at the same time, there is a true diplomatic victory
that the Russians can claim in Syria.  On top of the liberation
of Aleppo and really restoring government control over a vast
part of the country against the ISIS and other rebel forces,
yesterday the Russians brokered a ceasefire with Turkey; but
without the United States.  This ceasefire has, up to this point,
been holding.  This is a very hopeful situation, and yet again,
demonstrates that Obama has definitely lost the leadership role
in the world; and Russia is a very formidable strategic leader on
the world stage as this administration exits and as the new
administration comes on board.
At the same time, you've got a meltdown of the financial
system; the Monte dei Paschi banking situation continues to
unravel.  We have the exposure of derivatives from every single
bank in the entire planet.  Any one of these — Deutsche Bank,
Monte dei Paschi Bank — anything could be the trigger to blow
out the entire financial system.  Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws remain
the essential and most urgent measures that need to be taken in
the United States.  As I said, nothing is determined, but there
is a lot that is possible.  As you've seen on various channels of
our communications over the last few days — the Fireside Chat
yesterday, an LPAC email that went out today, headlines on the
larouchepac.com website — we are engaged in an absolutely urgent
and critical mobilization to force Glass-Steagall onto the agenda
even before the inauguration of the incoming administration.
This should be the number one bill that is delivered to the new
President's desk for his signature.  It could be acted on by
Congress as they come into session next week; as opposed to
McCain's announcement that he's going to have hearings on Russian
hacking, or something like that.  This is the critical measure;
and we will have activists that will be coming into Washington,
DC.  We've already delivered the marching orders; and we can
discuss that more on the broadcast today.
But of course, that remains just the first step in Lyndon
LaRouche's Four Urgent Laws to Save the United States Now.  The
best example that we still have, the best precedent, is the first
100 days of Franklin Roosevelt; what FDR was able to accomplish
in his first 100 days in office.  The Congress came into session;
he immediately passed the Emergency Banking Act, declared a bank
holiday, reorganized the entire bankrupt financial system, put
Americans back to work.  Congress did not leave session until
exactly 100 days later; and 10 landmark pieces of legislation
were debated, passed, and sent over to the White House for
Franklin Roosevelt's signature, which changed the course of
history.  So of course, that remains the precedent; that remains
the model, and the contents of that first 100 days should be
Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws to Save the United States.
So, with that said, I'd like to hand it over to Jason,
because there are some very specific examples of means by which
we can undertake those urgent measures.

JASON ROSS:  Let's also put it in the context of the world.  The
US desperately needs an economic recovery, a change in direction.
Think about the world as a whole; there's so much to be done.
Two and a half billion people on the planet don't have access to
continuous electricity; 800 million don't have access to fresh
water; 1.5 billion people don't have access to basic sanitation;
and over 1 billion people don't have access to telephone
capabilities.  There's much work to be done, and the United
States is definitely for a large shift.
President-elect Donald Trump has said that he's got big
plans to make America great again; that he wants to spend $1
trillion on infrastructure in the United States over the coming
period.  There's a lot that we could learn from China on this.
China, over just the past decade, has built the largest
high-speed rail network in the world.  In one decade, it went
from basically nothing, to now being the world's leader.  That
network is slated to double its size in the next 1.5 decades to a
level of 40-50,000 kms; about 30,000 miles of high-speed rail.
They're working, through their Belt and Road initiative, with 65
other nations in the region and beyond on cooperative projects;
on rail, energy, transportation, logistics, water, information,
training, expertise, education, a whole slew of projects for
economic cooperation and development that itself will entail
beyond China's borders tens of thousands more kilometers of
high-speed rail.  So, how are they financing this?  How are they
doing it?  China's been spending $1 trillion a year for the past
decade; so the idea of spending $1 trillion in the US to get
everything up to some great standard is far too low.
The other aspect is, how is this going to be financed and
how is it going to be built?  How is a $1 trillion going to be
brought to bear for the US economy?  Let me read the concluding
paragraph of an op-ed that was published in the {People's Daily}
online of China; an op-ed by Curtis Stone.  He wrote:
"Trump wants to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure upgrades
in America to rebuild the nation and put people back to work. The
problem is how to pay for it and how to do it. China knows how to
fund and carry out serious infrastructure building, and
deep-pocketed Chinese investors want to invest billions more in
America. One way for Trump to realize his plan would be to use
Chinese funds and technology. This would help return some of
Americaâs investment in China back to America for the benefit of
America, and strengthen the bilateral relationship. Trumpâs plan
to rebuild America is bold, but it remains to be seen if he will
be bold enough to do what is best for America."
So, on that, let's think about how China can be involved
here.  The need for financing in the US is very great; there is
not a lot of credit available in the way that people think.  The
very low interest rates that currently exist, as Paul Gallagher
has explained well in the "Economics Frequently Asked Questions"
section on our website, we can't just sell a bunch of bonds at
low interest rates; the rates will go up.  Where is that money
going to come from?  Private investors?  What's the return?  What
this really requires is a totally different way of thinking about
economics.  So, let's look at the LaRouche approach — very
briefly — to economics.  In his policy document for the US,
called "Four New Laws to Save the USA Now", LaRouche gave four
very primary steps.  First, Glass-Steagall, to end the connection
to the outrageously decrepit and collapsing financial system that
we have; it's almost totally divorced from the physical aspect of
economy.
Second, that we need a national banking approach.  Now, what
does that mean?  Let's think of some examples in US history as to
how a national approach to economy has occurred.  If you look at
what Alexander Hamilton did in the early days of the new United
States, he turned the huge liabilities, the huge debts of that
new US and the state governments into something very valuable by
turning that debt into what became the basis for the First
National Bank of the United States; using that debt to become the
basis for a huge amount in loans that were necessary to build the
roads and then later the canals in the United States.  To take a
more recent example, Matt had mentioned Franklin Roosevelt as the
best precedent that we have in the United States of late.  Look
at what Roosevelt did with the Tennessee Valley Authority, for
example.  This is a project that dramatically improved the
economy in the southeast part of the US; in the Tennessee Valley
area that it serviced.  The increased productivity in that region
itself more than paid for the cost of the investment of the
project.  This was the type of project where it doesn't really
matter whether the money that's spent on building it is paid back
directly; and that's something that private investors would
demand.  "Can we build a toll road that we'll be able to get
money back from?  Can we upgrade an airport terminal which
charges passenger fees for passing through it, and then we'll pay
back the investment in that terminal at the airport?"
Well, what about the large projects that shape the economy
as a whole; that provide a platform for economic activity?
That's the sort of thing where you look at the nation as a unique
economic actor that's able to finance investments whose payback
isn't direct in the way that a private investment would be; but
comes back in the sense of "Did we improve the productivity of
the nation as a whole in a way that makes the project
worthwhile?"  That's what we saw with the creation of the
railroads in the United States, for example.  This was something
that wouldn't have happened without the government support that
it got to build the Transcontinental Railroad.  The payback was
that we had a connected economy; we had a whole country.  We had
definitely the improvements that made it worthwhile have done
that.
So, if you think about that today, to get away from
project-by-project — does it pay for itself? Is it worth it? —
and to think about how do we institute in the U.S. a higher
platform of technology in our infrastructure: are we building a
high-speed rail network? Are we building power generation of the
highest energy-flux density? Or are we building solar panels? Are
we investing in fusion technology, to make that breakthrough in
our knowledge of the atom and nuclear processes that will
transform our relationship to materials, to energy, in a way that
will be far more profound than the development of the steam
engine?  These are the kinds of things: the space program — what
are the {drivers} of our human identity as a species that goes
beyond and that develops? And I think maybe to start a discussion
on it, here on the program — I don't have everything to say
about it — but this also raises the issue of the culture in the
population. In other words, what expressions, culturally, do we
have of what it is to be a person; of what it is to live in a
society; of our relations among each other? What is the kind of
culture that's commensurate with going to space, with developing
fusion, with developing our economy, with becoming better human
beings, and how do we bring that culture into being? I think that
that's a very major question. It's not one that addressed quite
as directly as, say, national banking or financing of a national
high-speed rail network, but is just as important. I think that's
something to take up here.

BILL ROBERTS: Yeah, I would say this, what you've just touched
on, Jason, is the real question of sovereignty of nations to
participate in the development of mankind, to free themselves
from the diktats of this dying trans-Atlantic financial system.
That really is sort of the crux of the entire shift that we're
experiencing right now.
Just to mention a few things on this: Yesterday, in an
interview that Bashar al-Assad did with the Italian newspaper,
{Il Giornale}, he identified that the issue in the Syrian war,
was that Syria wanted to make a sovereign decision on the
development of both oil pipelines, but also railroad lines
running east-to-west through Syria; rather than Syria simply
being sort of a passing-through point of oil pipelines from
Qatar, north-to-south. Of course the east-to-west route — for
those of you who are familiar with our plan, the Phoenix Project
for Aleppo and the Integration of Syria, the proposals that the
Schiller Institute has made for the integration of Syria into the
New Silk Road; this is designed to make Syria an energy hub, an
industrial hub, and sort of restore Syria's ancient tradition as
an important step along the New Silk Road.
This is the implication of Vladimir Putin's intervention
into Syria to crush the terrorists in that area. This was the
same question with respect to Japan's recent decision to resume
its historical role as a country that is not going to be part of
an offshore, trans-Atlantic financial system, but it going to be
a "machine" for the development of the interior of Asia. Japan
had made this decision against the interests of what's
historically been the attempt by the United States to try to
prevent Japan from negotiating a peace treaty with Russia over
the remaining islands in dispute from World War II. So, Japan
made this decision as a sovereign nation, and was really prompted
to do so by Vladimir Putin, who made the issue directly that
Japan had to make a sovereign, independent decision.
I would say in the United States, the question of the Trump
Presidency and the United States Government being able to address
the horrid conditions of the American population, and uplift,
both culturally and in terms of the physical standards of life,
depends upon the immediate reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.
Number one, because if Glass-Steagall is not reinstated before
the crash that is looking very likely to happen soon in the
European banking system, hits, there will be more bail-outs; and
this will further increase the death-rates of Americans. But also
number two, as both Matt and Jason were just discussing, the
United States has to make a serious commitment to providing
massive financing, and mobilizing our workforce, to build
entirely new platforms of infrastructure. That's not going to be
possible without a credit system; and that will not be possible
without the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. That may require, as
this recent {People's Daily} article points out, in certain cases
that may mean that China will come in and build certain aspects.
They may be better suited to build high-speed rail systems, for
example. We've seen the problems [inaud; 22:09]. We've seen the
problems with [California Governor] Jerry Brown's program on the
West Coast with high-speed rail. Perhaps we should just set up a
Chinese initiative for doing this.
Our sovereignty today, ironically, does not mean
isolationism. I don't know that Donald Trump thinks that it does;
I don't think he does. But in many cases, what the New Paradigm
has meant is that certain countries have made breakthroughs in
certain areas. Certainly we have in the United States. We should
look at {all} the potentials that exist for cooperation: the
space program, medicine, certain aspects within the machine-tool
sector that we still have — in the same way that this was
considered by Kennedy when he placed the science centers, the
space program centers, in the more-backwards, southern part of
the United States. Or when FDR placed the Oak Ridge facilities,
the "secret city" that developed the Manhattan Project outside of
Knoxville, Tennessee. Or like the Russians are doing, currently,
in their plans to have Rosatom invest in building a new science
city for the development of nuclear science, in one of the
poorest cities in South America, La Paz, [Bolivia] which has
basically been the center of a drug-production economy. These are
some of the things that we're going to continue to be filling
out; but these are the issues behind the immediate necessity of
Glass-Steagall, that every American has to know the ABCs of.

MICHAEL STEGER: Yeah, that's great! There are just a couple
of things I'd like to touch on. One is the Putin situation,
because as Bill just indicated, the whole situation
internationally seems to have been greatly shaped by Vladimir
Putin. If anyone were to watch some of the news alerts, the {New
York Times} and the entire political establishment of the United
States was taken off guard, significantly. As Matt indicated,
Obama had clearly expected his nemesis, Putin, to have the
strong-man response. The {New York Times}, at 6:00 Eastern Time,
sent out a message indicating they [the Russians] are going to go
for a "massive retaliation. Thirty-five people evicted." This was
blasted out on the internet airwaves. Within just two hours, the
{New York Times} had to report a "head-spinning turn of events,"
in terms of the fact that not only did Putin not retaliate, as
Matt indicated, but I believe he invited all of the U.S.
diplomatic corps to the Kremlin to celebrate the New Year and
Christmas!
The way Putin has shaped this process — and we were
reflecting on this here this morning — that it was just a little
over a year ago, the end of September 2015, that Russia formally
entered into the Syrian conflict on the side of Assad against the
terrorists. It was just November of last year, just a little over
a year ago, when a Turkish fighter jet shot down a Russian
fighter jet. It was then last Christmas — in that entire holiday
period — when we on the verge of what could have been a
break-out of nuclear war. The tensions were incredibly high. The
rhetoric was incredibly high. And what we had in the White House,
Obama, is now on full display in its psychotic kind of pettiness.
So the way that Putin has shaped this process — and it's
worth situating the recent events — that not only did we have
this display of psychosis by Obama. There was also the
assassination of Russia's Ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov.
This came just a few days after Obama had made an illicit threat
against Russia, which Mr. LaRouche had captured very
specifically. This meant that Obama was looking to kill, and kill
people of significance. And then you had the assassination of
Ambassador Karlov by someone tied to what looks to be some kind
of Western intelligence-coordinated network. And then, it's not
yet clear what happened, there's much speculation, but
regardless, there's the unfortunate loss of the Alexandrov
Ensemble (the Red Army Chorus).
As we speak, we're in Manhattan at the Russian Consulate,
singing Russian patriotic songs, as well as American songs. I'd
like to read a section of a leaflet that Helga Zepp LaRouche
wrote on this occasion for our chorus outside the Russian
Consulate. This is just a small taste of it, which will be
released in its entirety today, following that event. She says:
"Let me therefore share with you the idea that in addition
to rebuilding the Alexandrov Ensemble, which they intend to do,
thousands of Alexandrov choruses be established, in schools all
over Russia, to honor the heroic contribution of Russia in the
liberation of Syria, and at the same time, broaden the uplifting
effect of choral singing to the young generation."
I think that proposal stands out as the quality of idea and
initiatives that can now be taken; that there is unfolding a new
paradigm. There's a paradigm of win-win, or almost as Putin
displayed today, of turn the other cheek. We're not going to go
tit-for-tat. We're not going to descend into kitchen-level
politics. We're going to rise to a higher level, of a discussion
of mankind and the collaboration towards world peace and global
development. Nothing better expresses that than what's developed
in Syria, and the collaboration of Russia, Turkey, and Iran to
consolidate that. This really has been the work of Putin, and
this last year has really been shaped by Vladimir Putin more so
than anyone else.
Now, the question is: how do we respond to this in the
United States? That's the onus upon us today. As Matt indicated,
the financial crisis around Monte dei Paschi and the other major
trans-Atlantic banks, are clearly at a point of breakdown. I
would ask people just to reflect upon, look at the electoral
maps. Some of this has been done by various studies after the
election, where they saw the kind of vote turnout for Trump
happened the greatest in areas that had been hit the hardest by
the drug epidemic, the suicides, the unemployment levels.
If you look at the demographic condition of the country
today, it is defined by the insanity of our financial and
economic system. The financial bubble that has been run,
perpetually, really going back even since the early '90s, and we
saw it then regained after the dot.com blow-out with the housing
bubble. Then the blow-out of the housing bubble only accelerated
even further towards what is an entirely just fictitious
financial derivative scheme, with almost {no} benefits, even
monetarily or financially, to the population of the United
States.
What you see is limited pockets, small specific areas.  The
New York City area; the Washington, DC area, major Dulles airport
area; San Francisco and the Bay area; certain key pockets where
the financial bubble that Obama has pumped up and has called his
"Obama recovery".  This was the dominant area where you saw the
votes come in against Trump and for this Obama program.  But more
importantly, you saw the reaction, the rebellion against Obama
and this Bush-Obama legacy, came from a majority — 80% to 90% of
the land area of the country, and a good majority of the
population; whether they voted for Bernie Sanders or they voted
for Donald Trump, they voted against this Obama-Bush tyranny.  A
majority of the American people have been left out and forgotten;
they have become the forgotten men and women of the country, as
Franklin Roosevelt characterized them in the Great Depression.
It is the question of, how do you bring together the entire
country?  Because we're looking for an economic development that
is based on physical reality, not on some fictitious financial
numbers; you can't forecast an economy based on the financial
numbers that are presented today — they're all lies.  Let alone
Obama's recovery, but even notions of financial success; it's all
lies.  The physical reality is, the United States is crumbling;
it's in horrible disrepair.  It's not just our infrastructure, or
our manufacturing capabilities; it's our cultural level of our
society, it's the educational orientation.  It's the sense of
optimism; it's the productive skill set and sense of integrity
and confidence in the ability to produce something of
significance that has been crushed and taken away from our
population.
So, Mr. LaRouche — as Jason indicated — presented Four
Laws; and those four laws really start with the fourth law, which
is an immediate commitment towards the restoration of a space
program which has been laid out in detail by Kesha Rogers, and
the fusion program.  The initial first step on these four laws to
initiate this kind of science-driver program is Glass-Steagall;
because Glass-Steagall ends this financial cult, this financial
bubble.  And it integrates that part of the country which has
been forgotten into the conception of our economy and of our
society.  And we're going to take the entire nation and take it
upwards.  There's no longer going to be fly-over areas of the
country; there's no longer going to be these provinces on the
outskirts of our economy.  We're going to look at the entire
productivity of our nation; and most importantly, the
productivity of our people.  The greatest sham of Obama's
recovery is the fact that you have 100 million people not in the
workforce; not involved or engaged in any kind of economic
activity.  Many of them are on painkillers, and out of work or on
disabled lists.  We've got to bring this entire part of the
country into the economy immediately; in the areas which increase
the productivity per capita of the nation as a whole.
So, we've got to move on Glass-Steagall.  As Matt said, it
should be on Trump's desk the day he comes into office on January
20th.  Congress comes back into session next Tuesday; they're
sworn in.  That's mostly a reception day.  There will be some
activities Wednesday and Thursday, and then they'll be in session
again the following week.  We have reports from this morning that
Obama has the gall to go to Capitol Hill next Wednesday to meet
with Senate and House Democrats.  This, of course, is the party
he's crushed and destroyed.  I'm sure he will browbeat or worse,
the Democratic members of Congress.  So, we will definitely have
a presence in Washington, DC; we will have {Hamiltonian} issues
distributed throughout New York City and throughout Washington.
We are definitely asking people to participate in a full-scale
mobilization.  That doesn't mean just Congress; Congress will be
available for meetings not this coming week, but likely the next
week.  The bigger question is to get to Democratic clubs, state
legislators, union leaders, other activists, other writers, other
people who have advocated and promoted Glass-Steagall.  We should
set the country on fire around this notion that Glass-Steagall is
not something to support; it's not something showing that you are
on the right side of things.  Glass-Steagall must be passed; it
must be passed quickly, because we have a lot more work to do in
2017 than to simply deal with the insanity of this financial
crisis.
We're asking people to mobilize as much as possible; and
have in mind how much work we have to do to rebuild the country's
infrastructure, its manufacturing, and most importantly, rebuild
the minds of the coming generations — which is really the most
important work any of us can participate in doing.  So, that's
the mobilization LaRouche PAC has set forth.  The email went out
today, and we're asking everyone to participate.

OGDEN:  Well Michael, what you're describing is the kind of
policy revolution that Franklin Roosevelt ushered in, in his
first few days as President in 1933.  Of course, he was
inaugurated in March; the inaugurations back then used to happen
in March, not January.  But it's that first 100 days, as we've
said, that remains the kind of model; and unfortunately, there
are very few people in the United States for whom that historical
accomplishment of Franklin Roosevelt remains something from their
living memory.  It's our job to educate and remind people of what
Franklin Roosevelt was able to accomplish.  Now, I don't think
any of us are assuming that this is something that's going to
happen by itself; this is why we are mobilizing.  This is why we
are saying, in the countdown to this inauguration, it's our job
to set the agenda.  And at the same time that we're doing that
domestically, you really do have the winds of history are blowing
in from around the world.  There's a shifting global dynamic
which is forcing a change in the United States, as Jason
referenced with that article in {People's Daily}; the role that
China can play with the One Belt, One Road policy in transforming
the economic potential of the entire planet and the strategic
changes that are coming out of Russia.  But with that said, it is
always very useful to go back and review what Franklin Roosevelt
did in his entire administration; it's almost something you could
not discuss in abbreviated form — from the beginning of his
first term into his fourth term, with the victory in World War
II.  But if you just take those first 100 days and quickly review
what he was able to accomplish, that's the kind of urgent
revolution in policy that is needed right now in the United
States around these four LaRouche economic laws.
So, let me just very quickly list what Roosevelt was able to
accomplish.  Of course, this was not unilateral actions from the
White House by any means.  This was done by a willing and
cooperative Congress, who recognized the urgency and the
emergency of reversing the economic despair and disintegration
that the entire nation was experiencing.  But, as I said, from
the very first day of his administration, he passed the Emergency
Banking Act; which reorganized all of the banks across the entire
country, declared a banking holiday, audited these banks, and
allowed them to open under completely new standards.  He passed
the Government Economy Act — slightly less important — but it
eliminated certain waste that was in government; he also passed
the Volstead Act, which temporarily suspended the rules of
Prohibition — that was popular.  He passed the Farm Credit Act,
which was very important; this refinanced farm mortgages across
the country.  Farmers who were unable to keep their farms open
because they couldn't pay their mortgages and their farms were
being foreclosed; this was a very big story in Iowa and the
heartland states.  In fact, there were vigilantes who were
standing up to sheriffs, saying "We will not let you foreclose on
our farms."  This resolved that situation, and also provided
operating funds for farms across the country at very low interest
rates; to keep the food on the plates of the American people.  He
established the Homeowners' Loan Corporation; this provided
relief for struggling homeowners across the country, and in fact,
actually directly assumed one-sixth of all the mortgages in the
country from homeowners who were struggling to pay their
mortgages.
He provided within the first 100 days a half-billion dollars
in 1933 dollars in unemployment relief; which was administered by
Harry Hopkins.  That was greatly expanded in the following months
after the first 100 days.  Here's a very important one which
we've been discussing a lot lately:  He established the CCC, the
Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided training and
employment for unskilled youth from across the entire country to
build public works projects and conservation projects.  Over six
years, this ultimately employed {3 million} young people in the
United States.  As Jason mentioned earlier, within the first 100
days, he established the Tennessee Valley Authority — the TVA;
this was passed through law and shovels were hitting the dirt
within five weeks.  This transformed one of the most backward
parts of the entire United States in Tennessee and Kentucky and
the neighboring states.
To address what had caused the Great Depression in the first
place, FDR passed the Truth in Securities Act — an important
element; and then, of course, as we've been discussing, passed
the Glass-Steagall Act.  This required banks to immediately
divest within a certain amount of time, all of their securities
operations; and established the FDIC, which created the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation protections for the average
American depositing their savings in commercial banks.  Then he
created the National Industrial Recovery Act, which — among many
other things — guaranteed collective bargaining for unions,
greatly increased the union membership across the United States,
and made available $3.3 billion in 1933 dollars; that's $50
billion dollars in today's dollars in public works financing.
That's the first 100 days; and Congress did not leave
session.  Congress did not go home from the day that Franklin
Roosevelt was inaugurated until the day they left, exactly 100
days later.  That's the kind of policy revolution that has to
happen in the United States; and it will only function if it's
carried out according to the principles underlying LaRouche's
Four Economic Laws.

STEGER:  That's great, Matt.  I think it's important to
indicate and let people know that LaRouche PAC also has two other
initiatives.  One is a new pamphlet coming out, which will
highlight this kind of economic program based on Lyn's Four Laws.
It looks at how is it possible in the most effective way to
increase the productivity of the American people and that we as a
nation build our own recovery.  We build ourselves out of this
economic rot that we have been plunged into.
The other initiative, which maybe Jason can say more on, is
going to be an educational initiative to the American people a
sense — especially members within the Trump administration — of
how real economics is.  Because Lyndon LaRouche has been the
leading economic thinker for the last 50 years on the planet, let
alone the United States.  He has forecast some of the most
significant events in the course of that 50 years; and he is the
leading figure from the standpoint of real physical economics and
scientific advancement.  I know Jason is part of that, so maybe
he can say more on that as well.

ROSS:  Sure.  Economics is a pretty funny subject because
it's one that so many people get so wrong.  One that specifically
so many experts get so wrong.  If you look at the Society of
Professional Economic Forecasters and you look at how good their
forecasts have been over the last 50 years, they're not getting
any better.  You'd say that's a science that really isn't
improving, is it — economic forecasting.  It's because it's not
treated as a science.  There is so much ideology and there's so
much just plain old stupidity about looking at measures that are
based on money, rather than a physical understanding of what
makes economy possible.  So, we're going to be preparing and
presenting a series, a number of pedagogical discussions; some
tools to help think about how an economy really functions,
drawing on Lyndon LaRouche's decades of experience as an economic
writer and forecaster — as a remarkably accurate one.  We will
have these things available, like some of the concepts that he
brings up frequently; like what is energy flux density in an
economy.  I know that I made a video on that recently, and
there's much more to say than could fit in a short summary video
that touched on it only briefly.  Or, other concepts, like
capital intensity, and the concept of an economic platform, which
is not something to get into detail right now on.  But a
reconceptualization of what many people think of as just
infrastructure and public works, and how to think about that as a
mediating a relationship of a society and the physical world
around them and within that society itself; in the way that
Vladimir Vernadsky, for example, looks at the human species in
terms of what is the power of cognition?  How does that transform
the relationship of the human species to the planet and to the
biosphere in a way that is unlike any purely biological species?
What is the physical power of cognition?  How can we measure that
as geologists, as biologists, as economists?  So, definitely more
coming on that.

OGDEN:  The central theme in Mr. LaRouche's Four Economic
Laws document is the necessity to increase productivity — per
capita and in terms of the productivity of the labor force.  As
we've discussed, going back to Alexander Hamilton, this is really
the root of economic science.  In the "Report on Manufactures",
Hamilton's theme is how do manufactures and technology and
industry increase what would otherwise just be the raw labor
force of the population.  It has a multiplier effect.
One thing going back to Mr. LaRouche's Four New Economic
Laws document, one point that he makes is that this is not just
an option — as we've said before; but this is an absolute
necessity.  Not just because of the urgency of the collapse, but
also because of the nature of our nation.  Alexander Hamilton was
the founding economic genius of the country, founding father of
our system of economics; but he was also one of the central
authors of the United States Constitution.  He made a very
explicit point of putting the clause in there which is the
General Welfare Clause; which not only gives permission to the
United States Federal Government to act in the general welfare of
the United States — this was used as the reason behind the
constitutionality of the National Bank — but it also mandates
that this is part of the responsibility of the Federal
government.  This is what gives it legitimacy; that it {must} act
in the interest of the general welfare of the American people.
And {all} of the American people, not just sections; not just the
coasts or the big cities, but all of the American people.  This
is a point that Mr. LaRouche makes in one very short sentence in
that Four Economic Laws.  He says: "The ceaseless increase of the
physical productivity of employment, accompanied by its benefits
for the General Welfare, are a principle of Federal law which
must be a paramount standard of achievement of the nation and of
the individual."  So, the word "law" is in the title of this
document; and Mr. LaRouche is asserting that this increase in
productivity is included under the idea of the General Welfare,
and is a central principle of what we should understand as
Federal law under our Constitutional republic.
It was recently stated in a similar way in the white paper
that was put out by the Chinese government; where they declared
that development is an inalienable human right.  The same way
that we talk about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as
being inalienable rights, the Chinese, who have lifted 750
million people out of poverty in their country, were declaring
that development itself is an inalienable human right.  I think
this is an important understanding of what the responsibility of
government itself needs to be; and this central principle of
economic science — understanding what it means to, and how one
proceeds to increase the physical productivity of one's labor
force for the benefit of the General Welfare as a whole.

STEGER:  I think that captures the New Paradigm.

OGDEN:  OK, wonderful.  I do want to say that I really
appreciate Bill being on, and I think increasingly we need to
return to some of the questions that Mr. LaRouche was directly
involved in, in Detroit and Michigan and Ohio and some of these
Midwest areas.  What you brought up, Michael, about there are no
fly-over states; we should no longer have the word "Rust Belt" in
our vocabulary.  The question is, how are we going to take the
skills that are inherent in these machinists and former
machinists and skilled workers in that region — who are now in a
state of real despair and increasing mortality — and put them to
work again for the development of the country.  So, you can say
something about that now, but Bill, I think we should also
revisit that maybe in some of our future shows; and have that be
part of our countdown to the new Presidency.

ROBERTS:  Yeah, sure.  It's a real challenge.  This is the
subject of what Marcy Kaptur took up in a recent op-ed, when she
said the Democratic Party has to do some "soul-searching" is the
way that she put it.  But really, it's not soul-searching; we've
got to define what the commitment is going to be to the American
population and all of the American population.  It's a real
challenge; I think much more so than what Franklin Roosevelt had
to face.  Part of it is what we didn't get into so much today —
the deep cultural degeneration process that has left young people
without very much of a sense of character or identity.  You
mentioned the CCC program of the past; [that] had to be tailored
to address — and Franklin Roosevelt himself was very personally
involved in crafting that program, which he saw as being
absolutely critical if the nation was going to have a future.
So, I agree; this is going to have to be something we put a lot
of thought and effort into how to make that shift upward in
productivity that is so required today immediately, but also for
the future, for the long-term.

OGDEN:  Great.  Well, thank you very much.  Thanks, Bill;
thank you, Michael; thank you, Jason.  I would recommend reading
the op-ed that Jason referenced at the beginning of the program;
this was in {People's Daily}.  I know when we spoke with Lyndon
and Helga LaRouche earlier today, Helga put a major premium on
that op-ed.  We, of course, encourage you to participate as fully
as you can in this mobilization to immediately not build support
for Glass-Steagall, but immediately make Glass-Steagall law.  So,
as Michael said, the marching orders are available; we sent out
an email to the entire LaRouche PAC email list today.  If you're
not yet a subscriber to that email list, you need to sign up
immediately.  We're going to have marching orders such as that as
we count down the next 21 days, the three weeks until the new
administration; and we're not going to stop there.  So, please
subscribe to the email list and please subscribe to our YouTube
channel as well.
Thank you all for watching today, and Happy New Year to you!
I think we all can look forward to a 2017 full of a lot of
potential; and it's our job to realize that potential.  Thank you
and good night.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 29. december, 2016 – Diskussionen mellem Lyndon og Helga LaRouche og Videnskabsteamet og Komiteen for Strategi tirsdag, 27. december, eksemplificerede processen, der karakteriserer en renæssance – og en nutidig, økonomisk genrejsning for USA. I denne dramatiske dialog kom den ene taler efter den anden frem med nye og varierende ideer – alle forskellige, men alle sammen fremprovokeret af en fælles, uudtalt hensigt, og alle tenderende imod et implicit, fælles mål samtidig med at nære hinanden, som gnister af samme bål. Man bliver mindet om Platons beskrivelse af sin dialogmetode i skriftet »Syv breve«.

De var ligesom små strømme, der samledes i åer og sluttelig i store floder, altid ført frem af en usynlig, uhåndgribelig kraft. Hvilken kraft? Den største af alle kræfter: det selvopretholdende bekræftende, menneskehedens fælles mål. Hvordan går det til, at noget, som man på ét tidspunkt ikke engang troede eksisterede, senere kan blive formålet med ens liv? Kan blive den mission, hvis betydning langt opvejer ens eget liv?

En generel modsætning i hele diskussionen, og som er særlig skarp i nutidens USA, var modsætningen mellem »kultur« versus »produktivitet«, som fejlagtigt opfattes som indbyrdes afvigende fra hinanden. Denne falske todeling går tilbage til Hegels løgnagtige skelnen mellem »Geisteswissenschaft« (humaniora) i modsætning til »Naturwissenschaft« (naturvidenskab) i det 19. århundrede. Det blev forværret af Bertrand Russels afskalning af videnskab, imod Einstein, med begyndelse i 1900. Franklin Roosevelt arbejdede med held på at overvinde det, indtil han i realiteten blev fjernet fra embedet af FBI, mens han endnu levede. Dernæst, efter Anden Verdenskrig, blev det yderligere opflammet af giften, der blev pumpet ud af Det britiske Imperiums Kongressen for kulturel frihed.

Kongressen for kulturel frihed i sit fulde omfang slog aldrig an i Sovjetunionen, selv om der var mange andre, alvorlige problemer; det er grunden til, at Friedrich Schiller synes mere respekteret i den sovjetiske satellitstat Østtyskland end i Vesttyskland. I sovjetisk tankegang var der altid overensstemmelse mellem produktivitet og det kulturelle niveau. Se den sovjetiske film fra 1972, »At tæmme ilden«, et stærkt fiktionaliseret portræt af rumfartshelten S.P. Koroljov. Instruktøren Daniil Khrabrovitskij blev af censuren tvunget til at ændre næsten alle fakta og navne, men han lagde så meget desto mere vægt på visse grundlæggende sandheder. Allerede næsten i begyndelsen af filmen forsøger den russiske, videnskabelige rumfartspioner Konstantin Tsiolkovskij lidenskabeligt at forklare den unge Koroljov, hvordan og hvorfor hele landets »kulturelle niveau« må bevæges langt, langt fremad, hvis landets fabrikker skal kunne producere kosmiske raketter, kunstige satellitter (»sputniks«) og rumfartøjer.

Det meste af det, præsident Putin gør, reflekterer hans højere standpunkt om denne kamp for at opgradere russisk kultur, som det for eksempel reflekteres i hans konference ved årets afslutning.

Inden for rammerne af det nye, internationale paradigme, skabt af Vladimir Putin og det kinesiske lederskab, og efter dumpningen af Bush-Obama-diktaturet, er en renæssance og en økonomisk genrejsning i USA – én og samme sag, set fra to forskellige synsvinkler – nu umiddelbart på dagsordenen, hvis vi handler for at frembringe dem.

Foto: Prima ballerina ved Bolsjoj-balletten i Moskva Maria Alexandrova varmer op i det historiske teater før en forestilling. Foto fra 2013.

27. dec., 2016 – En rapport fra Den europæiske Centralbank (ECB) afslører, at europæere i gennemsnit bliver fattigere, mens de rige bliver rigere, baseret på en rundspørge af 84.000 husstande. De rige bliver rigere, med 5 % af husstandene i toppen, der tegner sig for 37,8 % af nettorigdommen i 2014, sammenlignet med 37,2 % i 2010. Samtidig havde 5 % af de fattige husstande kun gæld.

Gennemsnitsrigdommen for husstande faldt med omkring 10 % til 104.100 euro i de fire år frem til 2014, hovedsagligt pga. faldet i huspriserne. Som man kunne forvente, havde Grækenland og Cypern de største tab og mistede i gennemsnit 40 % rigdom. Græske husstande gik fra 108.700 euro i 2009 til 65.100 euro i 2014. Grækenland fremviste ligeledes et lignende kollaps i sine årlige indkomster, som faldt fra 23.500 euro før krisen i 2009 og til 17.600 euro i 2014.

»I Italien, Portugal og Spanien faldt den gennemsnitlige husstandsindkomst med mere end 15 %, siger ECB-rapporten, iflg. Greek Reporter. I kontrast hertil øgedes rigdommen i Tyskland med 10 % i den samme periode. En forøgelse af rigdom blev også registreret i Østrig, Finland og Luxembourg.

»Faldet i nettorigdom var hovedsagligt et resultat af faldet i værdien af aktiver, især ejendomme«, sagde ECB-undersøgelsen. »Reduktionen i nettorigdom er større for husstande med lån, især for husejere, der har belånt deres hjem, sammenlignet med ejere uden huslån og folk med lejeboliger.«

Uoverensstemmelsen mellem de forskellige lande er enorm. For eksempel er den gennemsnitlige rigdom pr. husstand i Luxembourg 437.500 euro, mens det i Letland kun er 14.200 euro.

(Se også artiklen: »Et græsk forslag: Sammenkald til en europæisk konference om statsgæld«, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=4759)

Foto: De sidste seks års økonomiske tilbagegang i Grækenland, der ikke mindst skyldes Trojkaens brutale nedskæringspolitik over for befolkningen, har sat sig dybe spor. Lukning af foretagender og arbejdsløshed har kostet mange husstande et massivt fald i indkomst, og mange mennesker er henvist til maduddeling, som her, mens endnu andre har mistet deres hjem og er henvist til at overleve gennem suppekøkkener og tiggeri.

28. december, 2016 – Mens Obama fortsat demonstrerer, at han er »politisk afdød«, som Lyndon LaRouche udtrykker det, og kaster tordenkiler fra sin politiske kiste, som om han stadig var »dræberkongen« fra før, udstedte nyvalgte Trump i dag et tweet, hvor han fordømte de »mange inflammatoriske udtalelser og vejspærringer«, som kommer fra Obama. Obama har meddelt, at han snart vil annoncere »forholdsregler til gengældelse« imod Rusland for fantasifostret med Putins angivelige tyveri af valget, i håb om, at han kan underminere Trump-teamets plan om at gøre en ende på galskaben.

Men, Putin har ikke spildt tiden med at fumle rundt med det amerikanske valg. Hele Mellemøsten er blevet transformeret af hans succesfulde intervention i Syrien, der har vendt stormløbet fra de saudisk-britisk sponsorerede terroristnetværk. Ødelæggelsesprocessen imod Irak, Libyen og Syrien – de tre stærkeste, sekulære, antiterrorist-nationer i området, er nu slut. Undervejs er der dukket beviser op allevegne for, at Obama har bevæbnet terroristerne – russiske sappører, der rydder miner fra det befriede Aleppo, annoncerede i dag fundet af et terrorist-våbenlager, proppet med amerikanske, tyske og bulgarske våben, mens den tyrkiske præsident Erdogan annoncerede, at han havde sikre beviser for USA’s bevæbning af selve ISIS.

Men, hvad der er vigtigere, så har kombinationen af den russiske rolle i Syrien og Putins nylige besøg i Japan transformeret begge områder og forenet dem bag kendsgerningen om et nyt paradigme, baseret på udvikling. Den østrigske mellemøstekspert Karin Kneissl kom i dag med den indsigtsfulde pointe, at Ruslands evne til at hjælpe den syriske regering med at knuse terroristtruslen på dramatisk vis blev fremhjulpet af Kinas »den bløde magts strategi« og bringer den Nye Silkevej ind i regionen og således skaber jobs for de millioner af unge mennesker, hvis fremtid var blevet tyvstjålet af Bush’ og Obamas krige, og som skaber potentialet for, at de millioner af flygtninge kan vende tilbage til produktive beskæftigelser i deres hjemlande.

I dag pegede Lyndon LaRouche på Putins højst succesrige besøg til den japanske premierminister Shinzo Abe i denne måned, hvor han igangsatte enorme, fælles udviklingsprojekter i det russiske Fjernøsten, og endda på de omstridte Kurilliske Øer, og som således forbereder vejen for en fredstraktat mellem Rusland og Japan.

»Dette er ikke blot en lokal aftale«, sagde LaRouche. »Det vil stimulere væksten ikke alene i hele Asien, men det vil stimulere hele verden.« Abe besøgte Pearl Harbor tirsdag sammen med præsident Obama, hvor førstnævntes udtalelser kun kunne forstås som en advarsel til USA om ikke at følge Obamas vanvittige konfrontation med Rusland, men derimod gå sammen med Japan og med Kinas Nye Silkevejsproces for at skabe et nyt paradigme for fredelig udvikling for menneskeheden.

LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) er i færd med at forberede en opdateret rapport om »USA tilslutter sig Den Nye Silkevej – en Hamilton-vision for en økonomisk renæssance«. Rapporten vil gennemgå det utrolige tempo, i hvilket udviklingsprojekter er blevet igangsat i hele verden i 2016, under Kinas Bælt-og-Vej-initiativ og dermed relaterede bestræbelser fra Ruslands og Indiens side, og fremlægge for det amerikanske folk, og Trump-teamet, at USA kan og må deltage i denne revolutionære proces. Ikke alene kan en genoplivet amerikansk industri i stor stil bidrage til disse globale projekter, men den smuldrende, amerikanske infrastruktur kan også selv blive genopbygget, med nye, storstilede projekter inden for vand, transport, et genoplivet rumprogram og videnskabelig udforskning på den menneskelige videns fremskudte grænser.

Magten hos det finansielle oligarki, der har påtvunget verden sin vilje, har nu mistet kontrollen over det meste af verden uden for de transatlantiske nationer, og dets magt dér står nu på højkant. Deres finansielle kartellers bankerot kan ikke længere udskydes, og deres befolkninger er i en tilstand af oprør, som de miskrediterede oligarker afviser som »populisme«. Raseriet imod deres onde nedskæringspolitikker, og imod deres fremstød for krig imod Rusland og Kina, er åbenbart overalt i Vesten. Dette raseri må finde sit fokus i positiv hævdelse af sund fornuft, baseret på fremgangsmåden med LaRouches Fire Love: underkast kartellerne konkursbehandling iflg. Glass-Steagall; skab nye kreditinstitutioner efter Hamiltons model; målret kreditudstedelse til genopbygning af industri, landbrug og infrastruktur; og stimuler vore borgeres kreative evner, for at virkeliggøre fusionskraft og rumforskning, og for skabelse af en fremtid i overensstemmelse med menneskeværdet.

Foto: Kesha Rogers fra LaRouche Komite for Politisk Strategi (LPAC) ved NASA’s Johnson Space Center, (Houston), i januar 2016. Se hendes artikel: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=11543          

Et nytårsbudskab til nyvalgte præsident Trump og det amerikanske folk.

Af R.P. Tsokolibane, LaRouche-bevægelsen, Sydafrika.

23. dec., 2016 – Mit navn er Phillip Tsokolibane, talsmand for LaRouche-bevægelsen her i Sydafrika. Med min hilsen til Dem, nyvalgte præsident Donald J. Trump, og til det amerikanske folk, mener jeg at give udtryk for mine sydafrikanske medborgeres, og alle afrikaneres, håb for Deres succes.

Hr. Trump: De indtager embedet på en international bølge af folkelig modstand mod, og afvisning af, den magtfulde elite, der har kontrolleret det kollapsende, transatlantiske finansimperium og dets mislykkede politik, som har efterladt det meste af verden, inklusive store dele af Deres egen nation, i økonomisk ruin. Præsident Barack Obamas to embedsperioders vildledelse har bragt Amerika ud på randen af militær konfrontation og mulig atomkrig med Rusland og Kina, hvilket ingen mentalt rask person ønsker. Obama har lanceret krige for regimeskift og støttet og bevæbnet terrorister og således myrdet befolkninger i en grad, der svarer til folkemord, over hele planeten. Jeg kan fortælle Dem ligeud, at USA under Barack Obama, hans klon (og Deres besejrede modstander) Hillary Clinton, samt Bush-klanen, hvis politik Obama kopierer, spottes i hele verden og her i Afrika for denne politik, og han støttes kun af det døende, angloamerikanske imperiums lakajer.

Men, med udgangspunkt i Øst, og under direktion af præsidenterne Putin i Rusland og Xi i Kina, kommer der betydningsfulde initiativer, der, hvis de bliver forstået korrekt, og De selv og det amerikanske folk tilslutter sig dem, kan omstøde forbandelsen med en Obama, som i realiteten ikke er andet end en marionet for det onde britiske monarki og dets oligarkiske følge. Vi har nu, i bogstavelig forstand, mulighed for at opbygge en ny fremtid for menneskeheden – en fremtid, der hurtigt kan føre til en ny æra med samarbejde mellem nationer – og som således gør en ende på geopolitik og en konkurrence, der sætter folk og nationer op imod hinanden, til fordel for de degenererede monetarister og deres pengeimperium. Vi må gøre hele menneskeheden rig i en fremtid med kreative opdagelser, med gennembrud inden for videnskab, der vil være drivkraft for civilisationen som helhed hen imod kæmpe spring for fremskridt.  

En sådan verden kunne indtil for nylig kun store mænd drømme om, såsom jeres egen Martin Luther King, Jr., og vores fader, Nelson Mandela, men som Wall Street og City of London konspirerede om at knuse.

Skabelsen af BRIKS-alliancen, af hvilken mit land er det stolte medlem, med dets forpligtende engagement til at udstede massive mængder kredit til det, der kaldes storstilet ’infrastruktur-udvikling’, som i Kinas ’Bæltet-og-Vejen’, er podekrystallen til et nyt, globalt system, et system, der gør en ende på den påtvungne underudvikling i Afrika og andetsteds. Denne politik er helt igennem amerikansk i sin oprindelse og er baseret på Det Amerikanske System for Fysisk Økonomi, som blev udarbejdet af jeres første finansminister, den store Alexander Hamilton (se hans Fire Rapporter til Kongressen)[1]; han forstod, at al værdi skabes gennem den uophørlige forbedring af den produktive, menneskelige arbejdskraft. Det er den førende, moderne fortaler for Hamiltons system, verdens førende fortaler for fysisk økonomi, statsmanden Lyndon LaRouches udtrykkelige politik.

Lyndon LaRouches moderne ’opdatering’ af Hamilton, som fremlægges i hans ’Fire Love’, afviser det monetaristiske systems behandling af mennesker som dyr, som en hjord, der skal udtyndes af en selvudnævnt elite, og gør i stedet den uophørlige realisering af menneskets skabende potentiale til universets fremmeste kraft for forandring til det gode. Regering – alle regeringer – må handle ud fra det princip, som er omdrejningspunktet i jeres egen Forfatning: at al politik må tjene det almene vel, nu, ved at handle nu for at forbedre de fremtidige vilkår for alle mennesker, og ikke blot for en dekadent, oligarkisk elite.

Det, som kineserne og russerne i realiteten foreslår, er en politik for gensidig fordel og forbedring, der tjener princippet om det almene vel, hvis moderne forsvar kan spores direkte til det arbejde, som hr. LaRouche og hans hustru, ’Silkevejsladyen’, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, har udrettet i løbet af de sidste 50 år. Som jeg sagde, så er dette i realiteten en ’amerikansk’ politik i traditionen efter Hamilton, Henry Carey, Abraham Lincoln og, i sidste århundrede, Franklin Roosevelt og John Kennedy.

Det er i sandhed ikke blot i Amerikas virkelige interesse, men også dets historiske mission, som er testamenteret os af Hamilton og jeres grundlæggende fædre, for at lede den globale revolution imod britisk monetarisme og dets kvægrøgter-politik, hvilken sidstnævnte politik uvægerligt fører til befolkningsmæssig kollaps, fordi en sådan anti-human økonomi aldrig vil kunne støtte og opretholde selv det nuværende befolkningsniveau, især under et finanskollaps' betingelser. I dag konfronteres Afrika, med mindre en sådan politik omstødes, med et overlagt og forudsigeligt folkemord på en skala, der ville gøre den britisk-skabte, unaturlige skabning, Adolf Hitler, grøn af misundelse. Vi i Afrika anser de nye initiativer, der kommer fra BRIKS-medlemmerne Rusland og Afrika, for anvendelse af kernekraft og anden infrastruktur, som værende ikke blot ønskværdige, men afgørende for vores overlevelse.

Men hvis vi skal finde vej til en fremtid med fred og fremgang, må vi henvende os til Dem, hr. Trump, og til Deres store, amerikanske republik, og kræve, at I også er med til at løfte os bort fra afgrunden, der vinker forude. Vi afrikanere trygler ikke. Vi beder ganske enkelt om, at I atter påtager jer den storhedens kappe, som jeres nation skabtes til at bære, i en revolution mod trældom for britisk imperialisme. Lad Amerika, sammen med verdens andre store, kontinentale magter, Rusland og Kina, slutte sig til at sætte menneskets kreative udvikling i centrum for en ny æra med fred og udvikling, og vi vil få begge dele.

I 1980’erne, da Lyndon LaRouche stillede op til præsident for jeres nation, fremlagde han et budskab over tv, der beskrev en fremtidig koloni for jordboere på Mars, anført af en kvindelig, amerikansk forsker. Dette udtryk for en mission for menneskeheden blev knust af de successive Bush-regeringer og deres klon, Obama-regeringen, som har ødelagt jeres bemandede rumprogram. Men tiden er inde til atter at drømme store drømme og til at anbringe mennesket uden for og væk fra denne lille planet og ind i universet, i søgen efter nye opdagelser og ny viden. Det er mit håb, at, med hjælp fra det amerikanske folk, kan denne ’kvinde på Mars’ blive afrikaner!

Idet vi rækker hånden frem til venskab, forstår vi afrikanere – især på denne tid af året, hvor vi reflekterer over vores menneskelighed og menneskets grundlæggende godhed – at jeres hjælp til os, og til andre i verden, der har hjælp behov, også vil hjælpe jeres egen nation, ikke alene i et partnerskab for økonomisk udvikling, men på et spirituelt plan, idet vi alle bliver bedre mennesker. Det er således i ånden af denne universelle tid, at vi søger ’fred på Jord, og i menneskene velbehag’, i hele verden.

Jeg sender således mine hilsner til det amerikanske folk og minder dem om, at verden har brug for, at I bliver det store folk, som Hamilton, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt og Kennedy opfordrede jer til at være. Og jeg rækker hånden frem til Dem, nyvalgte præsident Trump, i venskab fra Afrika, og ønsker Dem succes med deres ofte erklærede mål, atter at gøre Amerika til den store nation, som var meningen med den, og som den må blive igen.

Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane, 23. december, 2016.

Foto: Fra BRIKS-topmødet i Brasilien, 2014: Statslederne Vladimir Putin, Rusland; Narendra Modi, Indien; Dilma Rousseff, Brasilien; Xi Jinping, Kina; Jacob Zuma, Sydafrika. Dilma Rousseff blev afsat ved et politisk kup i 2016; alle de øvrige er fortsat deres nationers ledere.

27. dec., 2016 – Den italienske finansavis Il Sole 24 Ore rapporterede i går, at Den europæiske Centralbank, ECB, har sendt et brev til bestyrelsen for Monte dei Paschi, MPS, med krav om en kapitalforøgelse, der er næsten dobbelt så stor som tidligere fastlagt. Brevet blev afsendt få timer efter at MPS havde anmodet om bemyndigelse til at gå med i den italienske regerings »forebyggende« bailout, eller nationalisering. ECB kræver nu en kapitalforøgelse på 8,8 mia. euro, i stedet for det tidligere fastlagte beløb på 5 mia.

Skiftet bygger på ECB’s nye klassificering af MPS, til samme vurdering som de græske banker under den græske finanskrise.

ECB kræver, at 4,5 mia. skal tegnes af regeringen, mens 4,3 mia. skal indhentes gennem »fælles ansvar«, dvs., en bail-in af obligationsindehavere af første og anden prioritet. Regeringen insisterer imidlertid på sin plan med at refundere 100 % til detail-obligationsindehavere og på en 30 % ’s nedskæring af institutionelle obligationsindehavere.

ECB’s krav er det samme som en krigserklæring mod en national afgørelse, der trodser EU-lov. Dette kommer fra samme Mario Draghi, der sluttelig er ansvarlig for MPS’ bankerot ved i 2008 at have bemyndiget en overtagelse, der kostede MPS 19 mia., og som en undersøgelseskomite har peget på som den ene, enkeltstående årsag til MPS’ finansielle problemer. Draghi løj og sagde, at omkostningerne ved overtagelsen ville blive 9 mia. euro, vel vidende, at en rapport fra Banca d’Italia – Italiens centralbank – et år tidligere havde fremlagt det virkelige beløb.

Draghi bemyndigede også en kapitalforøgelse og udstedelse af underordnede obligationer for at finansiere overtagelsen, så vel som også derivatinstrumenter, der tilføjede yderligere tab. Hvis MPS ikke var gået med på denne vanvittige operation, ville banken have været bedre i stand til at takle sit problem med kommercielle lån.

Med dette seneste træk har ECB gjort det italienske 20 mia. store sikkerhedsnet endnu mere utilstrækkeligt for hele banksystemet, men frem for alt, så har ECB erklæret sin plan om at påtvinge Italien den samme, brutale behandling, som den påtvang Grækenland.     

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 27. december, 2016 – I denne uge udgav Kina sin rapport, »Kinas aktiviteter i rummet i 2016«, med en gennemgang af rumprogrammets præstationer igennem de seneste år, og med en fremlæggelse af planer for den kommende periode, med det formål, lyder rapporten, at tjene »menneskehedens utrættelige forfølgelse af en fredelig udforskning og anvendelse af det ydre rum. Kina står ved en ny, historisk startlinje og er fast besluttet på at fremskynde udviklingen af sin industri og aktivt udøve international udveksling og internationalt samarbejde omkring rummet således, at resultater fra aktiviteter i rummet vil tjene og forbedre menneskehedens trivsel i bredere omfang … «

I skarp modsætning hertil befinder USA og det transatlantiske område sig i et økonomisk sammenbrud, der udgør en stor fare for hele menneskeheden, og de fortsætter desuden med at forfølge den selv samme politik, der var årsag til dette sammenbrud.

Nærmere bestemt, så finder der i øjeblikket et opgør sted mellem Den europæiske Centralbank (ECB) og Italien over Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS), som truer med at bryde ud i kaos. I denne uge kom det frem, at ECB har beordret MPS til at fremskaffe – genkapitalisere – 8,8 mia. euro, og ikke de tidligere 5 mia., som den italienske regering har arbejdet på at fremskaffe. Befolkningen er rasende.

Den eneste fornuftige respons til alt dette er at dumpe det døde system ved at indlede en Glass-Steagall reorganisering og etablere et ordentligt banksystem. Udsted kreditter til prioriterede, produktive aktiviteter og promover den økonomiske virkning, med videnskab som drivkraft, af at fremme arbejde omkring rummet og omkring gennembrud inden for fusion. Dette fremlægges i Lyndon LaRouches forslag fra 2014 med de »Fire Love«, som vi vil præsentere i den kommende, nye brochure fra LaRouchePAC til masseomdeling – en opdateret version af brochuren »USA går med i den Nye Silkevej; en Hamilton-vision for en økonomisk renæssance« (2015).

Dette program må sættes øverst på dagsordenen i USA, og ligeledes i Europa og andre steder, og det må ske omgående. Det er desuden ligeledes presserende nødvendigt at formidle videnskaben bag de ’Fire Love’. Se tilbage og studer LaRouches gennembrud inden for metodologi i årtiernes løb. For eksempel, hans koncept med potentiel relativ befolkningstæthed; hans koncept med energigennemstrømningstæthed; hans koncept med den ’produktive platform’ – og ikke blot infrastruktur.

I dag bemærkede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at det, man ser i den netop publicerede kinesiske rapport om rum-infrastruktur, faktisk er, at man har taget halvdelen af Lyndon LaRouches forslag for en økonomisk platform og projiceret det ud i rummet. Det er meget rigt og håbefuldt.

Den 3. januar vil den nye, 115. Kongres træde sammen i Washington, D.C. De skal mærke presset for at handle. Den 6. januar vil alle kongresmedlemmer være til stede for at gennemføre protokollen med at optælle valgmandskollegiets stemmer og officielt erklære valget af Donald Trump, hvis kampagne red ind på en bølge af befolkningens afsky for den nuværende politik med økonomisk destruktion og krig. Vi må nu sætte dagsordenen for, hvad der må gøres for at gøre en ende på denne befolknings trængsler, fortvivlelse og vrede.

Lyndon LaRouche talte om denne bydende og presserende nødvendighed: »Læg pres på kongresmedlemmerne for at få tingene til at ske.« Han sagde, »Vi må opbygge mennesker, der blev ødelagt af det, som Bush-familien og Obama gjorde. Det er spørgsmålet.« Han talte om Franklin D. Roosevelt og sagde, »Se på, hvordan FDR var foregangsmand for nye fordele for USA’s befolkning« og bemærkede, at FDR og hans politik dernæst blev knust. Men, »vi har en latent mulighed. Vi kan få det tilbage«. Ideen er, at »vi må genopdrage. Brug redskaber til at gøre folk kreative … Se, hvad FDR opnåede. Det må gøres klart.«      

26. dec. 2016 – I dag i Skt. Petersborg sagde den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin til mødet i det Eurasiske Økonomiske Råd (der inkluderede statshoveder fra Armenien, Kasakhstan og Kirgisistan), at de havde »opnået nogle vigtige resultater med vores indsats for at opbygge den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union (EAEU)«. Han sagde, at »en af EAEU’s hovedprioriteter er at etablere et favorabelt forretningsklima med det formål fuldt ud at udvikle vore landes produktion og teknologiske potentiale«. Han sagde, at et fælles marked for medicin og medicinske varer trådte i kraft i år, og nu har man en aftale om konceptet for et fælles marked for gas, olie og olieprodukter i år 2025. De vil også arbejde for »at etablere et fælles finansmarked i år 2025«. Putin afsluttede med at bemærke: »Vi har underskrevet en frihandelsaftale med Vietnam, som I ved. Israel, Indien, Iran, Singapore og Egypten har alle udtrykt interesse for lignende relationer. Vi arbejder sammen med Folkerepublikken Kina.«

I efterfølgende kommentarer til pressen tilføjede chef for den Eurasiske Økonomiske Kommission, Serzh Sargsyan: »Præsidenterne for fire lande har godkendt et forslag om, at det er nødvendigt at lancere forhandlingsprocessen [om skabelse af en frihandelszone] med Iran, Egypten, Indien og Singapore. Vi vil påbegynde en intensiv forberedelsesproces for underskrivelse af aftaler med disse lande.« Kirgisistan underskrev ikke denne del af aftalen, udtalte han, men tilsluttede sig de andre med underskrivelse af en aftale om en ny toldkodeks.

Under mødet i CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) sagde Putin: »Vi ved, hvor urolig situationen er i mange dele af verden. Antallet af arnesteder for spændte situationer falder ikke, og årtier gamle konflikter er ikke løst til vores tilfredsstillelse. Problemet med Afghanistan, Mellemøsten, Syrien, f.eks. og andre steder … Antallet at problemer er ikke for nedadgående.«

Foto: Kasakhstans præsident Nursultan Nazerbajev mødtes med Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putin på sidelinjen af møderne i det Eurasiske Økonomiske Råd den 26. dec., 2016, i Skt. Petersborg, for bl.a. at drøfte Bajkonur kosmodromen, som Rusland lejer af Kasakhstan.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 25. december, 2016 – Imellem Rusland, Tyrkiet og Iran er der dybe uoverensstemmelser; de støtter endda modstridende styrker i Syrien. Og alligevel er de tre kommet sammen for at afslutte kampene i Aleppo – et afgørende vendepunkt. Som det næste er det deres plan at mægle i forhandlinger mellem den syriske regering og oppositionens repræsentanter; forhandlinger, som en fjerde partner – Kasakhstan – skal være vært for.

Dette kom som en overraskelse for alle, med undtagelse af Vladimir Putin selv og Lyndon og Helga LaRouche – men denne form for overraskelser har i realiteten i mange år været markant for Vladimir Putins karriere. Vi har allerede set det i »Traktaten for godt venskab og samarbejde mellem naboer, mellem Folkerepublikken Kina og den Russiske Føderation«, fra 16. juli, 2001. Traktatens 25 punkter opstiller krav om »en fair og fornuftig, ny, international orden«, og om at »løfte relationerne mellem de to lande op til et helt nyt niveau« og afgør, »at venskabet mellem vore to folk vil fortsætte i alle fremtidige generationer«. Hver af parterne har forpligtet sig til aldrig at gå med i en alliance, der truer den anden part; aldrig at rette deres missiler imod hinanden; og omgående at rådføre sig med hinanden, hvis en af parterne trues af aggression.

Dette var to lande, der havde kæmpet mod hinanden, med våben i hånd, i 1969.

Traktaten påtænker også en opgradering og udvidelse af systemet med kinesisk-russiske, interguvernementale kommissioner, som præsident Putin ivrigt har fremmet. Der er p.t. flere end et dusin sådanne kommissioner således, at en stor del af hver af de to regeringer uafbrudt rådslår med den anden regering for at glatte uoverensstemmelser, hvoraf mange er alvorlige. »Men vi finder altid en løsning«, sagde Putin.

Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen, SCO, var en udløber af denne traktat fra 2001 og de forhandlinger, der førte til traktaten. I løbet af de 40 år, hvor der har fundet forhandlinger sted om den russisk-kinesiske grænse og dennes demilitarisering, er der opstået tre nye, uafhængige, centralasiatiske stater på grænsen til Kina, og som afløser det forhenværende Sovjetunionen. Dette var med til at skabe betingelserne for dannelsen af SCO som, oprindeligt, en organisation bestående af Kina, Rusland og centralasiatiske stater, og som havde til formål at opretholde sikkerhed i og omkring Centralasien.

På lignende måde har Putins geni vist sig i skabelsen af BRIKS, endnu en grundpille i det nye, fremvoksende, globale arrangement sammen med de ovenfor anførte organisationer. Her ser man klarest påvirkningen fra Putins forgænger, nu afdøde Jevgenij Primakov. Men selve Putins rolle ville have været utænkelig uden Lyndon og Helga LaRouches årtier lange lederskab, udøvet gennem det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ i 1977 og de efterfølgende år, og gennem initiativet med den Eurasiske Landbro, som de udarbejdede i kølvandet på Berlinmurens fald, og som nu har udviklet sig til det verdensomspændende initiativ fra den kinesiske regerings side under præsident Xi Jinping, kaldet »Bælt-og-Vej«.

Foreningen af disse organisationer og initiativer, der er forbundet med Vladimir Putin og med Xi Jinpings »Bælt-og-Vej«, definerer det aktuelle, historiske øjeblik som værende fuldstændigt enestående og uden fortilfælde. Det fremgår klart, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche siger, at det nu er muligt at gøre det forbi med geopolitik. Vi har en klar opgave, og den er uerstattelig. Fuldstændig uerstattelig.  

Foto: Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putin og Kinas præsident Xi Jinping stiller op til fotografering i forbindelse med et af de seneste års mange møder for styrkelse af partnerskab og økonomisk udvikling i begge lande. Her fra 2015.

22. dec., 2016 – Den italienske finansminister Carlo Padoan forsikrede den 21. dec. offentligheden om, at »det italienske banksystem er solidt, selv om der er nogle krisesituationer«; men nu er dette ikke sikkert. Den umiddelbare »krisesituation« er, at man den 23. dec. sandsynligvis vil beslutte at nationalisere Monte dei Paschi di Sienna (MPS) Bank, den tredjestørste i Italien. Bankens meddelelse den 21. dec. om, at den kun havde likviditet tilbage til et par måneder, førte til styrtdyk og suspendering af handel med både bankens aktier og obligationer; og bankens desperate forsøg på at rejse €5,5 mia. i ny kapital synes næsten sikkert at være slået fejl. Både MPS’ bestyrelse og den italienske regering havde planlagt møder til torsdag aften om nationalisering.

Nye elementer forværrer i dag situationen. For det første vil obligationsindehaverne efter al sandsynlighed blive brændt af generelt. De større, institutionelle investorer, der frivilligt har accepteret en »swap« for at rejse kapital, har iflg. rapporter taget en ’hårklipning’ på 20 % i værdien af deres obligationer. Detail-obligationsindehavere, der er almindelige bankindskydere, vil også blive brændt af; en nationaliserings-bailout vil omfatte en bail-in.

For det andet rapporterer både Bloomberg News og Financial Times i dag, at to eller flere andre banker kunne blive nationaliseret umiddelbart efter MPS; og at den italienske regerings nye €20 mia. store bailout-fond igen kan blive forøget. Banco Popolare di Vicenza er en af de banker, rapporten nævner.   

Sluttelig, så handles nogle MPS-obligationer nu til så lidt som 40 cents/dollaren; hvis en nationalisering »afbrænder« obligationsindehaverne med kun 20 % af deres indeståender, kunne den Europæiske Centralbank og/eller den Europæiske Kommission afgøre, at dette er en bailout, hvilket overtræder EU’s regler om bail-in, og kræve, at obligationsindehavernes tab sættes op.

Smittespredning har ramt andre italienske bankaktier og bankobligationer, selv om det hidtil har været i langt mindre målestok end MPS; og den har ramt Spaniens statsobligationer, med en stigning i rentesatsen (1 % på 10-årige obligationer) til følge.     

17. december, 2016 – Under sin embedsperiodes sidste pressekonference beskyldte præsident Obama Rusland og præsident Putin personligt for at have manipuleret den amerikanske valgkamp med cyber-angreb, og bebudede repressalier – hvoraf nogle ville blive eksplicitte og offentlige, mens andre ville blive af en sådan art, at Rusland ville erkende ophavsmanden. Disse bebudede, hemmelige operationer må give anledning til et globalt alarmberedskab – hvilken form for operationer menes der, droneangreb eller »indirekte skader« af enhver art? Obama vil tydeligvis bruge sin resterende tid i Det Hvide Hus til fordel for en konfrontation med Rusland, en konfrontation, som Trump gennem sine udnævnelser til regeringsposter har signaleret, at han vil stoppe. De neokonservative, til hvilke Obama, gennem sin fortsættelse af Bush’ og Cheneys politik, absolut hører, vil tydeligvis ikke acceptere deres tab af magten.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Foto: Bruno Kahl og kansler Angela Merkel har advaret om virkningen af cyber-angreb i opløbet til næste års valg i Tyskland. 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 21. december, 2016 – Konfronteret med direkte anklager om at have gjort alvor af sin offentlige trussel om at gøre gengæld over for Rusland, for dets angivelige omstyrtning af det amerikanske valg, »på et tidspunkt og et sted efter vores valg«, har Obama ikke forholdt sig fuldstændig tavs omkring mordet på den russiske ambassadør Andrej Karlov i Tyrkiet, men gjorde sig rent faktisk den ulejlighed yderligere at bagvaske Rusland, ligesom han også praler af sine udenretslige seriedrab gennem droner og andre midler i hele verden.

»Noget af [gengældelsen] kan være udtrykkelig og offentlig; og noget vil måske ikke være det«, sagde Obama til NPR sidste torsdag, hvor han hævdede sin ret til at respondere militært til den blotte anklage om, at Rusland skulle have ført cyber-krigsførelse. Obama har nægtet at lade sine efterretningsfolk aflægge forklaring for Kongressen, selv bag lukkede døre, om hans angivelige beviser for russiske cyberangreb. Forestiller han sig, at verden har glemt, hvad Edward Snowden afslørende om den globale cyber-krigsførelse, som NSA, USA’s sikkerhedstjeneste, udfører?

I dag, mens civiliserede nationer sendte kondolencer til Rusland og Tyrkiet og svor at samarbejde om bekæmpelse af terrorisme, tog Obama sig tid fra sit golfspil til at tilføje nye sanktioner imod russiske foretagender og forretningsfolk. Nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump sendte kondolencebrev og svor, at USA under hans præsidentskab ville arbejde sammen med Rusland og alle nationer, der er dedikeret mht. at rense verden for terrorsvøben.

Måske opfordrede Obama New York Daily News til at give udtryk for hans følelser gennem deres overskrift: »Mordet på den russiske ambassadør Andrej Karlov var ikke terrorisme, men gengældelse for Vladimir Putins krigsforbrydelser«. Som det længe er blevet dokumenteret, inklusive gennem Trumps valg af national sikkerhedsrådgiver, general Michael Flynn, så ville dette være helt i overensstemmelse med Obamas vedvarende støtte til al-Qaeda og hermed relaterede terrororganisationer, for at forfølge hans kriminelle mani for »regimeskifte« imod sekulære regeringer, der bekæmper terrorisme, og som ikke har forbrudt sig imod USA.

Hensigten med mordet på Karlov er klar – Rusland, Tyrkiet og Iran har fortrængt den morderiske Obama-administration i Sydvestasien og demonstreret, at terrorbevægelserne, som støttes af saudierne, briterne og USA, faktisk kan nedkæmpes gennem samarbejde med de suveræne regeringer i området. Hvad der er endnu værre, set fra Obamas controllers, i London og på Wall Street, side, er det faktum, at disse nationer udgør et betydningsfuldt element i det »nye paradigme«, centreret omkring Kinas proces med global udvikling gennem den Nye Silkevej, og som underminerer det bankerotte, vestlige finanssystems evne til at udplyndre nationerne i Asien, Afrika og Latinamerika.

Verdens ældste bank, Monte dei Paschi di Siena, er ved at kollapse, selv, mens dette læses, og truer med at fremskynde det uundgåelige kollapse af de europæiske og amerikanske for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-banker. En statslig bailout fra den italienske regering er under udarbejdelse, iflg. Financial Times, på trods af EU-regler om, at insolvente banker fremover skal gennemføre en »bail-in« – dvs., en ekspropriering af obligationsindehaveres, og endda bankindskyderes, midler, for at betale spekulanternes derivater. Der er tilsyneladende en erkendelse af, at en bail-in af den tredjestørste, italienske bank sandsynligvis ville forårsage en smitte, der kunne vælte hele det vaklende, vestlige finanssystem. Men endnu en bail-out vil blot være det samme som at udskyde krisen endnu en liden stund.

Det intense pres for at få krig, på vegne af Obama og hans britiske herrer, demonstrerer sindssygen hos denne døende race af oligarker. Amerika befinder sig i et kulturelt og økonomisk morads – hvor dødsraten for første gang i dets historie stiger; hvor en ud af 15 indbyggere er afhængige af opiater eller lignende stoffer; hvor man har det hidtil største antal mennesker i den arbejdsdygtige alder, der er sat uden for arbejdsstyrken. I dag kom det frem, at nyvalgte præsident Trump havde inviteret tenoren Andrea Bocelli til at synge ved indsættelsesceremonien, men at denne »havde fået for meget pres« fra de sociale medier og havde måttet opgive. Den offentlige mening foretrækker åbenbart hæsligheden med en rocksanger, der mimer, frem for ethvert udtryk for skønhed.

Amerika udtrykte sin afsky for denne dekadence ved at afvise Obamas og Hillarys dagsorden for krig og nedskæringspolitik, ligesom briterne og italienerne afviste EU; som filippinerne afviste USA’s imperiediktater, og som lignede gærende revolutionære udtryk, der nu fejer ind over den vestlige verden.

Løsningen på dette mareridt er for hånden. En tilslutning til Kina og Rusland omkring den Nye Silkevejsproces ville ikke alene få USA tilbage til at opbygge nationer, i stedet for at ødelægge dem, men ville også gøre det muligt at genopbygge Amerikas decimerede og forfaldne infrastruktur. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, sagde i dag, at intet mindre end en global renæssance kan takle spørgsmålet om kvaliteten af tankegangen hos en befolkning, der er degraderet gennem en sådan »populærkultur« og økonomisk fordærvelse. At gå med i Schiller Instituttet bør være det første skridt for alle, der ønsker at være en del af denne kamp for menneskelig værdighed og klassisk kultur.

Se: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/kontakt/#aktion       

Foto: Vladimir Putin viser Ruslands ambassadør til Tyrkiet, Andrej Karlov, der på tragisk vist døde i Ankara under et terrorangreb den 19. dec., den sidste respekt. [en.kremlin.ru]

Den 12. december 2016 var Helga Zepp-LaRouche – Lyndon LaRouches hustru, Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og en international nøgleperson i kampen for et nyt globalt udviklingsparadigme – særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar på Frederiksberg med titlen: »Donald Trump og det Nye Internationale Paradigme«. Blandt deltagerne var diplomater, aktivister og repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.

Arrangementet blev indledt med fremførelsen af en kendt traditionel kinesisk sang, Kāngdìng Qínggē (Kangding Kærlighedssang), af Feride Istogu Gillesberg (sopran) og Michelle Rasmussen (klaver). Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, som på smukkeste og mest optimistiske vis førte publikken igennem en tour-de-force af den nuværende politiske situation med såvel befolkningens afvisning af det nuværende paradigme gennem Brexit, Hillary Clintons valgnederlag til Donald Trump og det italienske ”Nej”, som et forsøg på at skabe kaos (og krig) inden Donald Trumps indsættelse den 20. januar. Dertil kom en fremstilling af det nye globale paradigme, som allerede er ved at overtage verden, illustreret ved Kinas politik for Den Nye Silkevej – som den kommende amerikanske administration skal finde sin plads i – og den videre udvikling, der er nødvendig, hvis menneskeheden skal finde sin sande identitet. Hele talen og den efterfølgende diskussion kan ses, høres og læses på: www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=16773.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

17. december, 2016 – Den tyske statskvinde Helga Zepp-LaRouche giver i en artikel i den tyske avis Neue Solidarität, skrevet den 17. dec., et strategisk overblik, hvor hun latterliggør den tyske regering og efterretningsfolk for at gå med på den absurde anti-russiske og anti-Putin kampagne, som præsident Obama endnu engang har optrappet, fordi det ligeledes går med på geopolitikken.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche bemærker om Syrien, at den syriske regering, med støtte fra Rusland og Iran, var nødt til at benytte udvejen med en militær løsning »for at befri Aleppo og andre dele af Syrien fra ISIS, al-Nusra og andre terroristgrupper«, fordi præsident Obamas fortsatte bevæbning af sådanne grupper udelukkede enhver anden mulighed. Hun anklager desuden alle dem, der refererer til Aleppos »fald« i stedet for til Aleppos »befrielse«, for åbenbart at »stille sig på ISIS’ side, dvs., den gruppe, der ikke alene er ansvarlig for utallige dødsfald i Mellemøsten, men også for terrorangrebene i Frankrig og Tyskland«.

Ulykkeligvis »er krigens ulykke den, at der i krigsforløbet finder rædsler sted, især, når krigen raser i mange år og i realiteten er en stedfortræderkrig, der er anstiftet udefra, og disse rædsler frembringer en kæde af rædsler uden ende. Det er derfor så meget desto mere presserende, at alle naboerne i området, Rusland, Kina, Indien, Iran og Egypten, men også Tyskland, Frankrig og Italien, sætter en storstilet genopbygning af hele Mellemøsten på dagsordenen«. Det faktum, at Donald Trumps udpegede nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver, general Michael Flynn (pens.), har krævet en Marshallplan for Mellemøsten, er forstået, men med en advarsel om, at det »kun kan lykkes, hvis alle de betydningsfulde magter samarbejder og viser folk i dette ødelagte område, at der er et reelt perspektiv for fremtiden. Schiller Instituttet har for længst fremlagt et konkret forslag til fremgangsmåden for denne genopbygning, i sit »Projekt Fønix: En genopbygningsplan for Syrien« og for genopbygningen af Aleppo og forlængelsen af den Nye Silkevej ind i Sydvestasien.« 

I dag er det lige så presserende og nødvendigt at implementere »et omfattende industrialiserings- og udviklingsprogram for Afrika. Det første lille skridt i den rigtige retning er netop taget af den tyske udviklingsminister, Gerd Müller, der har planer om at motivere tyske entreprenører til at investere mere i Afrika. Det er fremskridt, i det mindste i sammenligning med finansieringen fra NGO’er, hvis søndagsprædikener om demokrati og menneskerettigheder stort set intet har frembragt.« Zepp-LaRouche bemærker, at Kina, Indien og Japan allerede er aktive i Afrika med »betydelige investeringer i infrastruktur og industrizoner, alt imens afrikanere indbyrdes helt åbenlyst taler om, at europæerne snart vil være helt irrelevante på kontinentet, med mindre deres ligegyldighed over for Afrika meget hurtigt ændrer sig«.

Med hensyn til kansler Merkel, så meddelte hun i et videobudskab, at Tyskland ønsker at gøre Afrikas udvikling til et hovedtema på G20-topmødet i Hamborg i juli næste år, som Tyskland vil præsidere. »Forberedelser til dette topmøde og dernæst selve topmødet kunne blive et vendepunkt for genopbygningen af Mellemøsten og industrialiseringen af Afrika, men kun, hvis den tyske regering tilslutter sig den høje standard, som Kina satte under sidste års G20-topmøde i Hangzhou, hvor præsident Xi Jinping lovede, at Kina ville være forpligtet over for industrialiseringen af Afrika.«

Hvis derimod, fortsætter Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Merkels program for Afrika fremmer politikken med »dekarbonisering af verdensøkonomien«, som blev fremlagt på en pressekonference i Berlin den 13. dec. i forventning om, at Tyskland overtager G20-formandsskabet i 2017 med Joachim »John« Schellnhuber, Kommandør af Det britiske Imperium, og Dirk Messner, så »vil Tyskland komme i miskredit, de asiatiske lande vil udvide deres indflydelse i Afrika, og Europa vil marginalisere sig selv. Den verdensomspændende revolution, der er i gang, retter sig netop imod denne tyndt forklædte, neokolonialistiske politik, som Schellnhuber eksemplificerer«.

Tyskland kunne møde udfordringerne i 2017 på helt andre måder, konkluderer Helga Zepp-LaRouche, nemlig ved at tage imod Kinas tilbud om win-win-samarbejde omkring opbygningen af den Nye Silkevej, som EIR og Schiller Instituttet har promoveret. Tyskland kunne på denne måde blive »en kraft for det gode« i 2017.                   

14. dec., 2016 – Den Europæiske Union har gjort befolkningen i et af sine kernelande mere dyster og pessimistisk end i de postkommunistiske lande, der har været udsat for frihandels-chokterapi som en del af, at de skulle blive »demokratiske«. Dette var det resultat, som en årlig undersøgelse med titlen, »Livet under overgangen«, kom frem til, og som blev udført af den Europæiske Bank for Genopbygning og Udvikling (EBRD) og Verdensbanken, der har udspurgt husstande i postkommunistiske lande i Europa (inklusive tidligere Sovjetrepublikker) siden 1991. I år besluttede de at inddrage Grækenland i undersøgelsen pga. nedskæringspolitikken, som landets kreditorer kræver.

Undersøgelsen viste, at flere end 92 % af grækere sagde, at gældskrisen havde berørt dem, mens 76 % af husstandene havde lavere indkomst pga. nedskæringer i lønninger eller pensioner, tab af jobs, forsinket eller suspenderet aflønning, eller færre arbejdstimer. Kun en ud af 10 grækere var tilfredse med deres finansielle situation, og kun 24 % med livet generelt; dette sammenlignet med 72 % i Tyskland og 42 % i Italien, de to vestlige lande, der blev brugt til sammenligning. Det er interessant, at også Italien faldt under de 48 % i gennemsnit i de postkommunistiske lande.

Kun 16 % af respondenterne i Grækenland forudså, at deres situation ville forbedres hen over de næste fire år, sammenlignet med 48 % i postkommunistiske lande, og med 35 % og 23 % i Tyskland og Italien, hhv., hvilket ses i faldet under de 48 % i gennemsnit i postkommunistiske lande, som rapporten også bemærker.

»Dette signalerer, at, på trods af de nylige politiske forandringer og bestræbelser på at gennemføre økonomiske reformer, der har fundet sted i landet, så ser grækere ikke en forbedring af deres situation i den umiddelbare fremtid«, siger rapporten.          

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 15. december, 2016 – Mangeårig medarbejder Harley Schlanger sendte her til morgen følgende rapport:

»Jeg briefede Lyn [Lyndon LaRouche] her til morgen og gennemgik optrapningen af hele anti-Putin-hysteriet. Efter fem minutter eller så, hvor jeg rapporterede om de utroligt absurde historier på NBC (’høj grad af overbevisning om Putins direkte involvering’ i hacking); New York Times’ (’Hvordan Moskva sigtede et perfekt våben mod de amerikanske valg’, og lederartikel, ’Aleppos ødelæggere: Assad, Putin, Iran’), og andre, samt kravet om enten, at Valgforsamlingen (Electoral College) afviser Trump, eller et nyt valg, sagde Lyndon LaRouche,

’Dette er tåbeligt sludder, det er et bedrag’.

»Jeg sagde, jeg ved, det er bedrag, men, mener du ikke, at dette tilsigter enten at fjerne Trump, eller begrænse ham? (LaRouche):

’Nej, det vil aldrig virke. Dette er alt sammen fantasi, det er vrøvl. Det kommer fra den politisk døde Obama. Han er færdig, han burde anklages for sine forbrydelser. Dette er et forsøg på at holde ham fri af fængsel.’

Jeg (Schlanger) sagde til ham, at Roger Stone har kaldt dette for et ’blødt kup’ og mindede om Watergate. LaRouche sagde,

’Nej, det her er helt anderledes, der foregår noget andet’,

hvor han igen henviste til det nye paradigme. Han understregede, efter en briefing om [Janet] Yellens (direktør for Federal Reserve) kommentarer efter gårsdagens møde i Federal Reserve,

’Det er uden betydning; det er alt sammen fantasi. De kan intet gøre.’

Det, der karakteriserer det her, er, at Putin er en

’selvstændig person, der ved, hvad han gør. Det kan ikke stoppes.’

Systemet er færdigt, og det, vi hører, er

’folk, der er skyldige og har et reb om halsen og håber på, at rebet ikke trækker dem ned’.

Han sagde, at vi blot behøver at gennemgå Obamas forbrydelser: han slår amerikanere ihjel med Obamacare (Obamas ’sundhedsreform’: Loven om Beskyttelse af Patienter og en Økonomisk Overkommelig Sygesikring) og sin økonomiske politik, og med sine tirsdags-dræbermøder, burde han sættes i fængsel; han har gentagent begået forbrydelser. Fortæl blot dette til folk – der er ingen substans i det, som efterretningssamfundet, medier osv., siger,

’det er alt sammen sludder’. ’Vi må holde fast ved det, vi laver. Dette er alt sammen hysteri, men intet vil komme ud af det; det vil ikke få nogen effekt’«.

Her sluttede Schlangers rapport.

Hvad dette betyder, er ganske enkelt: Hvem vil yde det amerikanske folk et lederskab for gennemførelse af LaRouches Fire Love, og for at bringe USA med ind i Verdenslandbroen? Bortset fra os, er der ingen. Ingen!

14. dec., 2016 – Den seneste udgave af den årlige »Fattigdomsrapport«, udgivet af den tyske regering, viser, at stigningen forsætter med hensyn til, at folk er forgældede og hjemløse, samt andre aspekter af fattigdom – et direkte resultat af Finansministeriets nedskæringspolitik med det »sorte nul« på budget-balancen. Flere end et ud af fem børn lever under »risiko for fattigdom«, fordi deres familier har under 60 % af den gennemsnitlige minimumsindkomst; et ud af 20 børn lever allerede i fattigdom uden håb om at komme ud af det.

Flere end 2 mio. husstande – dvs., omkring 4 mio. borgere – er håbløst overforgældede; og antallet af registrerede hjemløse er steget fra 80.000 for fem år siden og til nu, 330.000.

Den nye rapport, der kun fastslår situationen i 2015, vil imidlertid ikke blive publiceret i sin helhed før starten af 2017.

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. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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

9. dec., 2016 – Dr. Patrick Ho, en fremtrædende politisk og sundhedsvidenskabelig personlighed fra Hong Kong, der var hovedarrangør af »Bælt-og-Vej Forummet«, som afholdtes i Washington onsdag (7. dec.), afsluttede konferencen med et magtfuldt overblik over Kinas historiske forbindelser med verden i de sidste 1000 år, og konkluderede med fem forslag til nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump til, hvordan USA kan blive integreret i Bælt-og-Vej-projektet:

1. Betragt Bæltet-og-Vejen som en platform, som kan være spydspids for initiativer og programmer, der vil frembringe et tættere samarbejde mellem USA og Kina;

2. Juster handelsaftaler med de asiatiske stillehavsnationer, så de imødekommer Bæltet-og-Vejen;

3. Juster USA’s holdning til at imødekomme de internationale udviklingsbanker og promover deres evne til at være med til at støtte infrastrukturudvikling;

4. Vær med til at sikre sikkerheden langs med Bæltet-og-Vejen;

5. Få de internationale institutioner til at arbejde sammen med Bæltet-og-Vejen.

Dr. Ho sagde, at Bæltet-og-Vejen ikke blot er forbindelser fra ét sted til et andet, men forbindelser mellem hjerter og hjerner, der forbinder sjæle, som et middel til at virkeligøre fredeligt samarbejde, der forbinder den kinesiske drøm med den amerikanske drøm, og andre nationers drømme: frihed for afsavn, frihed for frygt,[1] harmoni med naturen og fred.

Hans gennemgang af Kinas historie beskrev tre »Bank på Kinas dør« fra Vestens side og tre »Bank på Vestens dør« fra Kinas side:

1. Matteo Ricci og jesuitermissionærerne, der fandt en åben dør i slutningen af det 16. århundrede og med sig bragte vestlig religion, filosofi og videnskab. Dette blev undergravet og kollapsede i det 18. århundrede;
2. Det britiske Imperium, der slog døren ind med Opiumskrigene og lancerede et århundrede med underkastelse og fattigdom;
3. Nixons besøg i Kina i 1972, der indledte det økonomiske samarbejde og Kinas fremvækst.

Med hensyn til Kinas bank på Vestens dør:

1. Den første Silkevej, med Zhang Qians rejse til Centralasien i 139 f. Kr.
2. Zheng Hes skatteskibe i det 15. århundrede, der sejlede gennem det Indiske Ocean og den Persiske Golf og til den afrikanske kyst. Dr. Ho viste et billede af Cæsar, der siger, »Jeg kom, jeg så, jeg sejrede« og et af Zheng He, der siger, »Jeg kom, jeg så, jeg fik venner, jeg tog hjem«.
3. Den Nye Silkevej, som Xi Jinping annoncerede i 2013, og som Obama nægtede at åbne døren for. Nu banker vi på Trumps dør, sagde han. »Et stort opråb« om, at Bæltet-og-Vejen er den institution, der kan fremme en ny alliance mellem vore nationer; en impuls til at gentænke politikkerne.

Foto: Dr. Patrick Ho, fra okt., 2014.

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)

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)

10. dec., 2016 – Grækenlands internationale kreditorer har fordømt den græske premierminister Alexis Tsipras for at have vedtaget en engangs-godtgørelse til 1,6 mio. pensionister, der lever for 800 euro (kr. 5.950) eller mindre om måneden. »Programmet indeholder en klar forpligtelse til på forhånd at diskutere alle forholdsregler, der relaterer til programmets mål, med institutionerne«, sagde en talskvinde for EU. »Kommissionen fik ikke besked om alle detaljerne i erklæringerne, før de blev offentliggjort. Nu må vi undersøge dem.«

Det er almindelig kendt, at et stort antal pensionister i realiteten forsørger udvidede familier med deres pensioner pga. den høje arbejdsløshed. Tsipras sagde, at godtgørelserne i alt vil beløbe sig til 617 mio. euro.

Ifølge den britiske avis Guardian, sagde statsminister Alekos Flambouraris, at kreditorer ikke var blevet varskoet på forhånd, eftersom pengene kom fra overskuddet.

Sammenlignet med kreditorernes seneste krav om flere nedskæringer, som man efter planen skal stemme om i denne uge, er julegodtgørelsen småpenge. Det nye budget kræver en yderligere skattestigning på 1,1 mia. euro og nedskæringer i pensioner og udgifter for 1,5 mia. euro. Dette på trods af den kendsgerning, at, pga. økonomiens kollaps og skattestigninger, især ejendomsskatter, har det til dato stadig ikke været muligt for ikke færre end 6,36 millioner skatteborgere at betale det femte, månedlige afdrag på deres ejendomsskat for 2016. En kvart million selskaber mangler stadig at betale den 6. eller 7. månedlige indkomstskat for 2015, der vurderes til 1mia. euro.

Disse nedskæringer indgår alle i EU’s krav om, at Grækenland skal opretholde et overskud på 3,5 % (som skal bruges til afbetaling af gælden), det højeste i Europa, som selv IMF protesterer over, selv om Fonden kræver et overskud på 1,5 %.

Foto: Græske pensionister rokker en politibus, der blokerede deres demonstration mod nedskæringer i pensionerne, den 3. okt. 2016 i Athen. Politiet brugte dernæst peberspray mod demonstranterne.  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/03/greek-police-pepper-spray-protesting-pensioners/