Jason Ross: Ingen forstår briterne bedre end Lyndon LaRouche. Alt imens Storbritannien ikke længere hersker over havene eller verden med skibe, fly og imperiehære, så inficerer deres måde at tænke på kulturer i hele verden og former den måde, hvorpå folk analyserer og opfatter virkeligheden. Storbritannien udøver også magtfuld kontrol over verdens finanssystem gennem City of London og deres indflydelse over Wall Street. De har haft utrolig succes med at bondefange vore eliter til at være overbevist om, at amerikansk råstyrke med britisk hjerne bør kontrollere verden.

Men, hvor mange flere amerikanske liv skal ofres, og hvor mange flere ofre for unødvendige, geopolitiske krige skal dø og lide i hele verden på vegne af britiske, geopolitiske strategier, før vi udrydder dette barbariske system?

Lad os lytte til LaRouche:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Vært Matthew Ogden: God eftermiddag. Det er den 30. marts, 2018; Langfredag.

Hvis man ser på begivenhederne i verden i løbet af de seneste to uger, kunne man sige, at, på den ene hånd, er vi meget tæt på krig; at truslen om krig er alvorligt forøget. Men på den anden side kan man også sige, at muligheden for en reel, permanent, holdbar fred er meget tæt på. I realiteten er begge disse udsagn sande. Jeg mener, at denne kendsgerning viser os sandheden omkring, hvor, vi står i historiens forløb. Vi er usikkert anbragt på en knivspids og balancerer mellem to, modsatrettede paradigmer, som ikke kan sameksistere. Der er paradigmet for geopolitik og krig, og som desperat forsøger atter at gøre sig gældende på den transatlantiske scene netop nu; men så har vi også det modsatte paradigme for win-win-samarbejde og fred gennem økonomisk udvikling. Det er det Nye Paradigme, der vokser frem og fejer hen over planeten. Det er præcis dette Nye Paradigmes succes, der har sat den geopolitiske gruppering her i det transatlantiske område i alarmtilstand. Det viser os også, at det er absolut nødvendigt, at folk af god vilje, inkl. LaRouche-bevægelsen her i USA og internationalt, intervenerer for fred, og for det Nye Paradigme.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

On the one hand, you have this incredible provocation from
Mad Theresa May, or as she’s being called “Theresa Mayhem”; a
very appropriate nickname.  She’s trying to rally an
international war coalition.  She’s going from a very weak
government that was on the verge of collapse three weeks ago, to
now; she’s probably casting herself in the image of Margaret
Thatcher, or even her image of Winston Churchill.  However, while
an unprecedented number of countries have fallen into lockstep
behind the UK in expelling these Russian agents, the more
interesting thing is how many countries did not do so.  Including
nearly a dozen European countries, which include Austria, which
sees itself as a bridge between Europe and Russia; Belgium, the
seat of the EU government interesting; Bulgaria; Cypress; Greece;
Luxembourg; Malta; Portugal; Slovakia; Slovenia.  Then on top of
that, you have Japan — a major US-UK ally; but also under the
recent years under Abe’s government, an ever-increasingly close
relationship with Russia. Then, even New Zealand, which is the
most fascinating of them all.  New Zealand is a member of the
so-called Five Eyes, which is the intelligence sharing group
comprised of the United States, the UK, Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand.  There was an article in the {Guardian} saying this
was a huge surprise that New Zealand, which they characterize as
Lilliputian, would go against the diktat that came from Theresa
May in London.
So, you can see that this is a very precarious and dangerous
situation, and that continues to play out.  But on the other
hand, take a look at the extremely promising developments towards
actual peace and towards averting nuclear war which are now
occurring on the Korean peninsula.  While the geo-politicians
would have you believe that second only to Russia, China is the
biggest global threat that we have to face right now; or perhaps
even more so.  The reality is that China has played a key role
in bringing Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table.  This is closer
to a real peaceful settlement of this crisis than we’ve seen in
many years.  The crucial factor in this has been the close
personal relationship that was forged between President Xi
Jinping of China and President Donald Trump here in the United
States.  So, in an absolutely surprising development which caught
the entire intelligence community here in the United States —
for one — by surprise, Chairman Kim Jong-un made a personal trip
to China; travelling by special train to Beijing on March 25th.
He stayed in the official government guest house, and had a
series of meetings stretching over the course of three and a half
days from March 25th to March 28th, meeting with Chinese
President Xi Jinping in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People.  They
engaged in very serious talks.  According to reports, this is the
first time in his seven years as President of North Korea that
Kim travelled outside of the country.  Now, what President Xi
Jinping said, as was reported in Chinese media about this meeting
during the summit that he had with Kim Jong-un, he said, “The
basics of the traditional friendship between China and North
Korea were founded and nurtured by the elder generations of
leaders of both countries.  This is our invaluable heritage.”
Then, Kim Jong-un, who is slated to meet face-to-face with
President Trump of the United States within the coming weeks in
the next month or so, said that he is ready to conduct this
high-level dialogue with the United States.  He said, “The issue
of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula can be resolved, if
South Korea and the United States respond to our efforts with
goodwill.  It will create an atmosphere of peace and stability,
while taking progressive and synchronous measures for the
realization of peace.  It is our consistent stand to be committed
to denuclearization on the peninsula, in accordance of the will
of late President Kim Il-Sung and late General Secretary Kim
Jong-Il.
According to reports, Kim also told Xi Jinping that North
Korea is ready to make some pretty reforms to its domestic
economic policy.  He’s ready to further open up to a market
economy, along the lines of what China has done over the past
couple of decades, going back to Deng Xiao-ping; what is called
“socialism with Chinese characteristics”.  Also, the reports are
that China, coming out of this meeting, agreed to invest in and
expand North Korea’s two major ocean ports; one on the west coast
of North Korea in Nan Pao, and one on the east coast in Wonsan.
What President Trump had to say following this summit
between Kim Jong-un and President Xi Jinping, he posted on
twitter.  He said, “Received a message last night from Xi Jinping
of China that his meeting with Kim Jong-un went very well and
that Kim looks forward to his meeting with me.  In the meantime
and unfortunately, maximum sanctions and pressure must be
maintained at all costs.”  But I think this shows you very
clearly that this is a joint project between President Trump and
President Xi Jinping personally.  This is an example of the kinds
of benefits that the world can gain if major nations such as the
United States and China work together towards these common ends.
Now, let me play you a clip from Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s
international webcast from yesterday, where she addressed the
very positive outcome that is developing there on the Korean
peninsula.
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Oh, I think this is the
absolute overwhelming event, happening this past week.  Because
the Western mainstream media are again so ridiculous.  They were
saying, “oh, these two dictators meeting…” and so forth, but
this is very, very good, because obviously, both Xi Jinping and
Kim Jong-un recalled the long friendship between the two
countries, North Korea and China, and Kim Jong-un, in particular,
promised to carry on policy in the tradition of his father and
other relatives in the past.  He basically promised that he wants
to work towards the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,
provided that this offer is being met in an atmosphere of peace
and constructive attitude.  Obviously, North Korea will need
security guarantees; without that, he probably will not give up
the nuclear weapons.  But the fact that he first went to China,
and then is going to meet with President Moon Jae-in from South
Korea, at the end of April, and then, in all likelihood, with
President Trump in May, that means that one of the most dangerous
possible points for a World War III scenario could be peacefully
resolved.
And, you know, the fact that, as contacts were telling us in
South Korea, this whole thing had an economic dimension to it.
China  — according to these sources — is going to build ports
in North Korea on the east coast and the west coast, and also
obviously, the whole question of the extension of the Belt and
Road Initiative, involving South Korea, North Korea, Russia, and
China, — that is the framework within which one can get a really
stable development.
So Trump immediately made a tweet, where he said he got a
phone call from President Xi Jinping, who told him that the
meeting went very well, and that he is extremely optimistic,
looking forward; that unfortunately the sanctions [against North
Korea] have to be maintained until the problem is resolved, but
that he is absolutely looking forward towards this coming summit.
So I think this is {really} good, and it shows you that if
you have back-channels and in this case, you had everybody
involved, — Trump, Xi Jinping, Putin, but also Abe from Japan —
so this really shows that if you have this kind of diplomacy and
negotiation, there is no problem on this planet which cannot
solved by people who have a good will. And I think everybody
should be very happy about this development.
OGDEN:  So, exactly as I said, that is a testament that
there are major crises on the planet which cannot be resolved
unilaterally, but if we have this kind of great powers
relationship, these kinds of crises can be confronted, and can be
resolved.  Crises that have hung over our heads for decades.
This relationship between China and the United States through
this close personal relationship between Xi Jinping and President
Trump is already paying dividends, as you can see in the case of
this Korean peninsula here, and the possibility of not just
positive effects abroad, but very positive effects here at home
is also very real if we continue to cultivate this special great
powers relationship between China and the United States.
Now, despite all the talk of trade war, etc., there are very
interesting openings for joint Chinese-US investments and
cooperation in development projects right here in the United
States.  This, of course, is right along the lines of exactly
what LaRouche PAC has been campaigning for in terms of the United
States joining this New Paradigm, joining the New Silk Road, and
also exactly what Lyndon LaRouche has addressed in his Four
Economic Laws for drastically upgrading the productive powers of
the US labor force and lifting the United States to a much higher
platform of high-technology development.  This can be done with
this kind of US-Chinese relationship.  So, some of the very
interesting US to China, China to US relationships, some news on
that front over just the last few days.  Some US Republican
Senators — Senator Danes from Montana, Senator Grassley from
Iowa, Senator Johnson from Wisconsin, Purdue from Georgia, and
Senator Sass from Nebraska — all were in Beijing just a few days
ago this week on March 27th, where they had a meeting with
Premier Li Keqiang.  The Senators called the United States-China
relationship “one of the most important bilateral relationships
in the world.”  So, this is very interesting, especially coming
from Republicans in the US Senate who have been taking a very
anti-China line up to this point.  Of course we see contrary
voices, such as Marco Rubio, who is accusing every Chinese
student in the United States of being a secret Chinese spy.  But
this trip is interesting, and it comes from Senators who are
mainly from the so-called Farm Belt.  I think the involvement of
Senator Grassley is interesting, because of Terry Branstad’s
roots in Iowa.  Terry Branstad, former Governor of Iowa; now the
ambassador to China.
Also, we had news of the mayor of Miami-Dade County in
Florida, Mayor Carlos Jimenez, who just returned from a visit to
China, where he led a delegation of 50 elected officials and
business leaders from Florida.  He met with the mayor of
Shanghai, who stated to Mayor Jimenez, “The bilateral
relationship between China and the United States is the most
important.  It will affect the well-being of the people from both
countries and the world’s peace and prosperity as well.”  So,
interestingly, exactly the same wordings that came out of that
communiqué from the five US Senators, that the China-US
bilateral relationship is one of the most important bilateral
relationships in the world.  The mayor of Shanghai also made the
point very correctly that this is a win-win; the well-being of
the people of both countries — the United States and China —
can benefit out of this kind of bilateral relationship; but also,
the world’s peace and prosperity as well.  So, this is exactly
along the lines that Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been making and has
continued to make this week, as we will see.
Also — this is very interesting — the Governor of Alaska,
Governor Bill Walker, has announced that he will lead a trade
delegation to China in May; which interestingly, he first
proposed during his January 2018 State of the State address.
This is has been subsequently worked out, so this is another
state along the lines of what Governor Jim Justice in West
Virginia has been discussing.  Jim Justice, in his State of the
State, obviously discussed the importance of these $80 billion
Chinese investments into the state of West Virginia.  Now, you
have Governor Bill Walker from Alaska.  This does come in the
wake of Governor Walker personally hosting President Xi Jinping
last April in Anchorage when President Xi was flying back from
Florida, where he had his meeting with President Trump at
Mar-a-Lago on his way back to China; where he took a brief
opportunity to visit Governor Walker in Anchorage, Alaska.  Then
on November 8, 2017, Governor Walker was the only governor to
accompany President Trump on his delegation for the so-called
“state visit plus” to Beijing, where one of the deals that was
signed out of the $300 billion of deals and memoranda of
understanding, one of the deals that was signed was a $43 billion
China investment and purchase deal for an 800-mile Alaska gas
pipeline.  Also, there were important commitments made for
liquefied natural gas sales.  But this pipeline project which is
now being very much emphasized by Governor Walker, is being
characterized by the CEO of the Alaska Gas Line Development
Corporation — one of the parties in this memorandum of
understanding — is being characterized as having the potential
of “turbo-charging” the Alaskan economy.
So, these are states that have been on the margins and are
some of the poorer states.  West Virginia for sure, Alaska very
isolated, who are now developing these relationships with China
and are becoming gateways for the Silk Road spirit to enter into
the United States.  This is exactly what we’ve been discussing in
terms of the crucial importance of the role that China can play;
these mutual investments and joint projects that China is willing
to assist in building here in the United States.  And just the
idea of the United States joining this wave of mega-projects
which is sweeping the globe and upgrading our infrastructure from
the point that it’s now reached, which is a very sorry state of
disrepair and deterioration that has come from decades and
decades of disinvestment.
President Trump was in Ohio just yesterday, where he was
speaking to a room full of union members and building trades
workers.  The point of his trip was to address his so-called
infrastructure plan.  We know that there are many deficits when
it comes to the actual content of what Trump has proposed, but
Trump in this speech made it clear that he is still very clear in
terms of what the urgency of the problem here in the United
States is when it comes to infrastructure.  And also the image of
the United States as a nation of builders, and reclaiming the
legacy that we had over centuries that we were the premier
building nation in the world.  Our infrastructure was second to
none, and other nations were coming to the United States to try
to emulate what we had accomplished.  So, I’d like to just play a
couple of excerpts from President Trump’s address in Ohio
yesterday, and you’ll see that this infrastructure debate is
still very much on the front burner.  It desperately needs the
kind of input that the LaRouche movement is uniquely positioned
to make.
PRESIDENT TRUMP

:  We will breathe new life into your
very run-down highways, railways, and waterways.  We’ll transform
our roads and bridges from a source of endless frustration into a
source of absolutely incredible pride.  And we’re going to do it
all under budget and ahead of schedule.  You ever hear those
words in the public world?  Under budget and ahead of schedule.
We have other things.  Nearly 40% of our bridges were built
before — think of this — before the first Moon landing.  You go
to some countries, they’re building bridges all over the place;
all over you have bridges going up.  One particular country, I
won’t use it because they’re friendly to me, they weren’t
friendly to us as a nation, but now they’re friendly; they’re
building 29 bridges.  We don’t build bridges like that very much
anymore.  A little bit, every once in a while.  But our roads are
clogged, we have average drivers spend 42 hours every year stuck
in traffic, costing us at least $160 billion annually.  Our mass
transit systems are a mess; they’re dilapidated and they’re
decayed.  Nationwide, we average 300 power outages per year;
compared to just five per year in the 1980s.  A total mess.
In recent years, Americans have watched as Washington spent
trillions and trillions of dollars building up foreign countries
while allowing our own country’s infrastructure to fall into a
state of total disrepair.  We spent — and I was against it from
the beginning — they try and say “Well, maybe not ⦔  I was
against it from the beginning.  And by the way, we’re knocking
the hell out of ISIS; we’ll be coming out of Syria like very
soon.  Let the other people take care of it now.  Very soon, very
soon we’re coming out.  We’re going to have 100% of the Caliphate
as they call it, sometimes referred to as land; we’re taking it
all back, quickly, quickly.  But we’re going to be coming out of
there real soon; we’re going to get back to our country where we
belong, where we want to be.
But think of it.  We spent, as of three months ago, $7
trillion — not billion, not million — $7 trillion with a “t”;
nobody every heard of the word trillion until ten years ago.  We
spent $7 trillion in the Middle East.  We build a school, they
blow it up; we build it again, they blow it up.  We build it
again, it hasn’t been blown up yet, but it will be.  But if we
want a school in Ohio to fix the windows, you can’t get the
money.  If you want a school in Pennsylvania or Iowa to get
Federal money, you can’t get the money.  We spent $7 trillion in
the Middle East.  And you know what we have for it?  Nothing.
Stupid!  Stupid!  But we spent $7 trillion, but we barely have
money for the infrastructure.  For most of our history, American
infrastructure was the envy of the world — true.  Go back 30,
40, 50 years.  They would look at us like — now, we are like in
many places a Third World country.  It’s an embarrassment!  And
we’re the ones that had the imagination and the drive to get it
done, but we’ve got that again.  Other nations marveled as we
connected our shores with transcontinental railroads and brought
power to our cities that lit up the sky like no other place on
Earth, and build mile after mile of internet capabilities and
interstate highways to carry American products all across the
country and around the globe.  Nobody did it like us!  We dug out
the Panama Canal; think of that!  Thousands of lives were lost to
the mosquito, to the mosquito — malaria.  We dug out the Panama
Canal.  We transformed our skylines with towering works of
concrete and steel, and laid the foundation for the modern
economy.  To rebuild this nation, we must reclaim that proud
heritage — have to reclaim it.  And we’re on our way.
We must recapture the excitement of creation, the spirit of
innovation, and the spark of invention.  We’re starting!  You saw
the rocket the other day, you see what’s going on with cars.  You
see what’s going on with so much.  NASA, space agency, all of
sudden it’s back, you notice?  It was dormant for many, many
years.  Now it’s back, and they’re doing a great job.  America is
a nation like you, of builders.  It’s a nation of pioneers, a
nation that accepts no limits, no hardship, and never ever gives
up.  We don’t give up!  We don’t give up.  Anything we can dream,
you can build.  You will create the new highways, the new dams
and skyscrapers that will become lasting monuments to American
strength and continued greatness.  You will forge new American
steel into the spine of our country.  You will cement the
foundation of a glorious American future, and you will do it all
with those beautiful American hands.  Powerful hands, powerful
heart, and powerful American pride, right?  Powerful American
pride.
But you’re the ones who are truly making America great
again.  We’re going to work together.  We’re going to work with
the state of Ohio, we’re going to work with everybody.  And we’re
going to bring our country to a level of success and prominence
and pride like it has never ever seen before.  Thank you, and God
bless America.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.
OGDEN:  So you can see, the commitment truly is there.  This
is obviously what got President Trump elected in the first place.
He’s back in Ohio, back in the industrial heartland.  That
commitment to the reindustrialization of the United States, the
reclaiming of the legacy of the great manufacturing power and
returning to that image of the United States as the envy of the
world in terms of builders.  He cited the transcontinental
railroad connecting the sea to the sea, ocean to ocean,
stretching across the United States.  The Moon landing, so many
other things that the United States accomplished.  Now, in his
words, there are parts of the United States that literally have
come to resemble a Third World country.  So, the commitment is
there.
The program is exactly what LaRouche PAC has issued.  This
is the Four Laws economic program, and that’s why it’s so
indispensable that this pamphlet is circulated across the
country, and that this is studied by people in the United States
everywhere.  This should be the material which is being used by
these trade delegations that are travelling to China.  Alaska,
Miami-Dade County, West Virginia; all of these states, all of
these local government officials, all of these governors, all of
these Senators and Congressmen.  If they really want to figure
out what is the policy that the United States should be
discussing, this is the source material.  This is what they
should be studying.  You are the ones who play the critical role
in getting it into their hands and communicating the ideas that
are contained in this pamphlet.
The way that this is going to happen, and this is exactly
what Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have been addressing from the
standpoint of the New Silk Road becoming the World Land-Bridge
and the United States becoming part of this New Paradigm of
development and mega-projects.  One very interesting development,
which is really just a continuation of what has been discussed by
numerous officials coming out of China, and really was originated
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the LaRouche movement when she went to
the Belt and Road Initiative forum last Spring, along the lines
of China actually converting their US Treasury bonds that they
hold into equity in a national infrastructure bank here in the
United States and putting that money in terms of credit into
allowing the United States to capitalize such an infrastructure
fund; and to build these great projects that you heard President
Trump discussing.
So, let me just say, this week, as publicized by CGTN, which
is the China Daily global television network, an organization
called the Center for China and Globalization has reiterated the
idea that the only pathway towards stability in terms of US-China
trade relations, and evening out this so-called trade deficit,
the only pathway should be based on joint economic initiatives
and joint investments.  Instead of tit-for-tat tariff retaliation
this way and that way, the Center for China and Globalization —
according to CGTN — said that China should continue ten measures
that it should take to foster US-China trade ties.  They
recommend, in addition to adjustments that should be made in
areas such as lifting excessive limits on high technology exports
to China, and various other aspects.  The two most important
steps that they propose here are the following:  1. “Consider the
establishment of an investment fund to help the United States
upgrade its infrastructure, capitalizing on China’s advanced
technology and expertise in the field.”  2.  “Enlist the
participation of American companies in Belt and Road projects as
third party partners.”  So again, the establishment of an
investment fund where China can invest in the upgrading of US
infrastructure, and also contribute its significant expertise
that it has developed in terms of the projects that China has
built over the last 10-15 years.  Then, two, enlist American
companies in Belt and Road projects as third party partners.
So, in other words, the United States and US companies
actually join China as third party partners in some of these
development projects in other countries.  Why could the United
States not be participating as joint investors and joint partners
in some of these fantastic rail projects that China has been
building in Africa, for example?  Or some of the water projects,
or some of the power projects?  And this kind of win-win
relationship between the United States and China could then
benefit both China and the United States, but also benefit the
world.  So, in this way, China can continue to adhere to their
professed goal of long-term stable economic and trade relations
between the two nations, but also third party partners can also
benefit.
So, that’s what was proposed by this organization — the
Center for China and Globalization.  And emphatically, this is
not a new idea.  In fact, this idea comes directly from what the
LaRouche movement has been discussing in terms of America’s
future on the New Silk Road.  So, this is a very significant
opportunity, and despite the fact that everything you’re hearing
right now is trade war, tariffs, tit-for-tat, and so forth,
President Trump even in that speech in Ohio that you just heard,
praised what China has been able to accomplish in terms of these
marvels of infrastructure.  Bridge building, so forth and so on,
over the recent years.  It’s exactly that spirit, the spirit of
the New Silk Road that the United States must emulate right now.
We see some very interesting potentials around that sort of
development.  Again, as I said, these are the dividends of the
close personal relationship that President Trump and President Xi
Jinping have forged.  And it’s our job to continue to develop
things along that path.
So, let me conclude here by playing another clip from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s webcast from yesterday, where she addresses this
proposal for the United States joining the Belt and Road
Initiative as a third party partner in development projects
abroad, and also this idea of Chinese investment through an
infrastructure bank or similar investment fund in infrastructure
projects here in the United States.  So, here’s this clip from
Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Well, there is actually a very
interesting response from China, where the Prime Minister Li
Keqiang made a proposal:  He said, rather than reducing the trade
deficit by imposing tariffs, which would end up in a trade war,
and nobody would be the winner in the end, he said, the other way
to  resolve the trade deficit would be to increase the volume of
trade, and that way you could have also joint ventures between
the United States and China and third countries. And that is
obviously the approach which we have been proposing for a very
long time.
There was also an extremely productive approach being
discussed on CGTN, the China Global Television Network, where
they said that the United States and China should start a
dialogue about infrastructure, and that Chinese investors could
invest in the development of infrastructure in the United States,
through a fund.  Now, this is a proposal which we have been
pushing from way back, saying that China has these very large US
Treasury reserves, which if they just sit there, don’t do
anything good.  But if they would be invested in the
infrastructure inside the United States, through an
infrastructure bank or some other mechanism, it could help to
solve the financing problem which President Trump clearly has;
given the fact that presently what is available in terms of
funding, is very far from the $1 trillion he had mentioned during
the election campaign.  And the American Society of Civil
Engineers had said what is needed is not $1 trillion but actually
$4.5 trillion; and some experts have even said, in order to get
modern infrastructure in the United States, you need $8 trillion
in investment.
So, I think there is a situation where you could get rid of
the trade imbalance by really using the Chinese expertise in
high-speed train systems and other infrastructure. And what we
have shaping up from the Schiller Institute was this idea to do
exactly in the United States what China has been doing and will
complete by 2025, or even 2020, to connect all its major cities
through fast train systems.  Now, obviously the infrastructure in
the United States is in terrible shape and needs urgent repair,
most of it is almost 100 years old or even older.  So this would
be an approach to really resolve this on a higher level.
I think many people should discuss this, and there are
already many forces in the United States who have opened channels
with their Chinese counterparts.  The governor of West Virginia,
the mayor of Houston, Texas, the governor of Alaska. Naturally
people in Iowa are very tuned in, because the former Iowa Gov.
Terry Branstad is U.S. Ambassador in Beijing.  So there are
actually other alternatives than going into a trade war, which
nobody would really benefit from.
[T]he world has reached a point where we {have} to
overcome geopolitics.  Because if, at this point, the United
States, or the West in general, would go into the Thucydides
Trap, take the rise of China as a reason to go into war and
confrontation,  this could very easily be the end of all of
humanity, so we have to find a different way.  And China has said
many times, they do not want to surpass the United States and
replace with a unipolar world order, but they want to be in a new
alliance of sovereign countries, and have the idea of the one
humanity first.
And I think this is a new concept of foreign policy, and
people should study it and relate to it, rather than going for
the rather uninformed opinions of such people as Marco Rubio, who
is on a rampage against anything Chinese. But it really is not
going to work, because the rest of the world is very happy with
what China is doing, and I think it would be for the absolute
benefit of humanity if the United States and China could find a
way to cooperate in their mutual interest.
OGDEN:  So there, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, it would be
of the absolute benefit of the people of the United States and of
China and the benefit of all humanity, if these two countries can
find a pathway towards cooperation in their mutual interest.  In
fact, that’s the reality with all countries.  This is the point
of the idea of a great powers relationship.  Russia, China,
India, the United States; and that really is the foundation of
exactly what this idea of a new win-win paradigm of relations
between nations is.  There are problems to be overcome; there are
disagreements that will invariably occur; there are conflicts
that different nations must resolve.  But all of these can be
resolved by elevating the dialogue to a higher level, and to look
at what the common challenges are and what are the avenues of the
common benefit that all nations can work together towards this
idea of a common destiny for mankind.
So, we’re out of time right now.  As I said in the
beginning, if you looked at in one way, you would say the
possibility of war is very near at hand.  But if you look at it
in another way, you say the possibility of a New Paradigm of
peace and mutual development is also very close at hand, and is
right there for the taking.  It is all that much more necessary
that those of us who have this perspective and understand that
the big picture — events on the ground are being dictated and
are being driven by this fight; by this struggle between two
mutually opposing paradigms.  The geopolitical paradigm, that has
brought us to the threshold of this kind of war situation; but
also, this New Paradigm of economic development and
mega-projects.  And the offer, that we will assist you, not
expecting something in return, not trying to impose our will on
you; but just from the standpoint that this kind of cooperation
is in our mutual benefit.  It’s up to us and it’s up to the
elected leadership here in the United States on all levels, to
gain that perspective and to look for those avenues of mutually
beneficial cooperation and win-win relationships that can build
the bridge from now into this future in which the New Paradigm is
dominant.
So, as I said, we have the material which you need, which is
in the contents of this Four Laws pamphlet.  This is “Lyndon
LaRouche’s Four Laws; The Physical Economic Principles for the
Recovery of the United States:  America’s Future on the New Silk
Road.”  This was originally printed many months ago, but it
remains highly relevant and a very timely intervention that we
can use to educate our fellow Americans according to this
potential for the dividends of the New Paradigm of win-win
cooperation and economic development.  With that perspective in
mind, we wish you a Happy Easter, and we thank you for tuning to
larouchepac.com.  Please stay tuned, and we’ll see you on Monday.

Xi Jinping har, i alle sine skrifter, i alle sine taler, understreget, at dette »fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid« er baseret på total respekt for det andets lands suverænitet, total respekt for den andens samfundssystem, og der kommer ingen bestræbelse på at påtvinge noget andet land den kinesiske model. Det er ganske enkelt, at Kina har tilbudt især udviklingslandene at hjælpe dem til at overvinde deres underudvikling. Det er et win-win-samarbejde, hvilket er grunden til, at 140 lande i mellemtiden samarbejder med dette, for det er naturligvis i Kinas interesse – for det er en stor befolkning, et stort land, en meget rig kultur, 5.000 års meget rig kulturtradition, så det er et af verdens store lande, og måske endda det vigtigste, i betragtning af dets befolknings størrelse.

Men de påtvinger ikke nogen det, de anser for at være »kinesiske karaktertræk« – helt forskelligt fra de neokonservative og de neoliberale, der havde regimeskifte, ’farvede revolutioner’, eksport af ’demokrati’ og det, de kalder »menneskerettigheder«. Folk bør virkelig ikke være fordomsfulde, men bør se på det med friske øjne, selv læse Xi Jinpings taler. …

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 28. marts, 2018 – Farcen med premierminister Theresa Mays krav om, at verden skal bøje sig for den britiske krone og acceptere den åbenlyse løgn, at Rusland gennemførte en »ulovlig magthandling« mod UK samtidig med, at Kongeriget nægter at fremlægge så meget som antydningen af bevis, overbeviser ikke mange borgere i USA eller Europa og stort set ingen uden for NATO. Organisatorer fra LaRouche-bevægelsen i USA, Tyskland (Borgerrettighedsbevægelsen Solidaritet; BüSo) og andre steder finder, at der er et dramatisk skift i befolkningens respons, siden PM May lancerede sin kampagne for krig med Rusland. De svigagtige britiske anklager mod Rusland – som minder stort set alle om Tony Blairs løgne om Iraks masseødelæggelsesvåben, og om denne løgns forfærdelige konsekvenser – er begyndt at vække et spirende had til denne imperieholdning, som udstråler fra briterne og fra de spytslikkere for briterne, som i 16 år sad på det amerikanske præsidentskab, før valget af Trump.

Lad os se på timingen i dette fupnummer:

• MI6-kampagnen for at bringe USA’s præsident til fald gennem »Russiagate« er ikke alene kollapset, men dens gerningsmænd i FBI, CIA og blandt de neokonservative i både det Republikanske og Demokratiske parti, står nu selv over for mulige anklager for kriminelle handlinger for deres løgne, læk, ulovlige brug af føderale myndigheder og mere endnu.
• Theresa Mays regering hang i en tynd tråd, alt imens Labour-partiets leder Jeremy Corbyn blev set som en sandsynlig vinder, hvis der blev udskrevet valg.
• De kombinerede britisk/Obama-bestræbelser på at vælte regeringen i Syrien og overgive landet til kaos under krigsførende terrorgrupper, ligesom i Irak og Libyen, er blevet alvorligt undermineret af præsident Trumps åbne samarbejde med Rusland omkring udslettelse af terroristerne.
• Flere europæiske nationer har afvist dæmoniseringen af Rusland, og Italien befinder sig i processen med at danne en ny regering, som sandsynligvis vil afvise europæiske sanktioner mod Rusland i det hele taget.

Så briterne forsøger at gøre det, de plejer at gøre qua deres imperienatur – opfinde en krise, der kan retfærdiggøre krig, få USA til at stå i spidsen og tyrannisere deres fordums »allierede« til underkastelse.

Men, planen virker ikke så godt. Alt imens det er sandt, at Trump-administrationen gik med i masseudvisningen af russiske diplomater, så er det imidlertid klart for briterne, at Trump ikke vil opgive sine planer om at arbejde sammen med præsident Putin. Hans telefonopringning til Putin 20. marts, hvor de diskuterede løsninger på globale problemer uden at nævne den britiske Skripal-sag med ét eneste ord, slog Dronningen og hendes britiske Lords med rædsel, såvel som også den ynkelige Theresa ’M’ May, og som alle ser skriften på væggen: Enden på selve Imperiet.

Næsten et dusin europæiske lande har nægtet at udvise nogen russiske diplomater og har krævet først at se beviser. Briterne har omdelt seks power point-slides som »bevis«, som ikke var andet end en liste over deres svigagtige anklager om russisk »aggression«. Ligesom Christopher Steele-dossieret, vil anklagerne måske narre nogle, for en tid; men briternes troværdighed er slidt ned.

Men, hvad der er meget vigtigt, så har millioner af mennesker i løbet af de seneste halvtreds år hørt Lyndon LaRouche advare om, at USA er blevet holdt for nar af briterne, med at udkæmpe deres kolonikrige siden Vietnam og med at gennemføre deres finanspolitikker med det »frie marked«, på bekostning af det Amerikanske System for dirigeret kredit til industriudvikling. Alt imens mange har fundet dette vanskeligt at tro på, så ser de pludselig de afskyelige løgne og Londons lige så afskyelige politik for anstiftelse af krige, og de reflekterer over, hvem, det var, der i alle disse år fortalte sandheden.

For en gangs skyld er briterne blevet tvunget til at stå i spidsen af deres fupnummer i deres eget navn – og det er deres sårbare punkt. Trumps plan om at arbejde sammen med Putin og med Xi Jinping og afslutte imperie-æraen for krige for regimeskifte og truslen om en atomar udslettelse, må støttes og fuldt og helt gennemføres, og det omgående.

Foto: Dronningen og Prinsen af Wales forlader parlamentet efter dronningens tale, 2017.  Copyright House of Lords 2017 / Photography by Roger Harris. This image is subject to parliamentary copyright. www.parliament.uk

28. marts, 2018 – Det Russiske Forsvarsministerium rejste i dag officielt spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Storbritanniens efterretningstjenester var involveret i drabsforsøget på Skripal og hans datter »som en del af en massiv, politisk provokation« og nævnte den britiske regerings åbenlyse afvisning af at fremlægge nogen som helst beviser for at retfærdiggøre dens globale krav om krig mod Rusland, med baggrund i denne forgiftningsaffære.

Ruslands »Erklæring fra Udenrigsministeriet«, som i dag blev publiceret på ministeriets webside, afslører Det britiske Imperiums latterlige bluffnummer omkring Skripal-affæren på samme måde, som præsident Vladimir Putin afslørede Imperiets strategiske bluff i sin tale 1. marts, hvor han annoncerede Ruslands nye missiler, der kan undvige Vestens ABM-systemer. Læserne kan selv dømme ud fra de følgende uddrag:

»De britiske myndigheder har mere en én gang demonstreret deres manglende evne til at sikre russiske borgeres sikkerhed …

I det seneste tilfælde [med Sergei Skripal og hans datter, Yulia, idet sidstnævnte stadig er russisk borger], handlede London i modstrid med alle normer for international lov, etik og endda sund fornuft. London har anklaget Rusland for at forgifte russiske borgere uden at levere nogen beviser eller noget komplet billede af forbrydelsen. Samtidig har det leveret det angivelige navn på den giftige substans, som aldrig er blevet brugt i Rusland, og de har lanceret en storstilet politisk kampagne og mediekampagne mod Rusland. Det har indledt kampagnen for udvisning af russiske diplomater fra en række lande og repræsentative kontorer og internationale organisationer og har annonceret en pakke af andre sanktioner …

De britiske myndigheders handlinger rejser mange spørgsmål. Den britiske offentlighed holdes hen i mørke med hensyn til hovedelementer i denne hændelse, som er blevet beskrevet som ekstremt farlig, og antallet af personer, der er blevet ramt, holdes hemmeligt. Ingen information er blevet givet om aktiviteterne i Storbritanniens hemmelige forskningsfacilitet i Porton Down i nærheden af Salisbury, hvor man udfører forskning i kemiske substanser. Der er ikke frigivet information om ’Operation Toxic Dagger’, en årlig øvelse i kemisk krigsførelse, der gennemføres på Porton Downs faciliteter sammen med UK’s militær, og som afsluttedes umiddelbart forud for forgiftningen af Skripal og hans datter.

I mellemtiden har London indledt en global kampagne for at sprede antagelsen om Ruslands skyld. Vi ser en overlagt og målbevidst eskalering af konfrontation og demonstration af militærmagt på Ruslands grænser. Det er en åbenlys bestræbelse på at underminere den politiske og diplomatiske interaktion, som kunne føre til en objektiv og omfattende efterforskning af Salisbury-hændelsen.

Analysen af alle disse omstændigheder viser, at UK’s myndigheder ikke er interesseret i at identificere de virkelige årsager og de virkelige gerningsmænd til forbrydelsen i Salisbury, hvilket indikerer en mulig involvering af UK’s efterretningstjenester. Med mindre vi modtager overbevisende bevis for det modsatte, vil vi anse denne hændelse som værende et drabsforsøg på russiske borgere som en del af en massiv, politisk provokation. Vi understreger, at bevisbyrden udelukkende hviler på Storbritannien.«

Foto: Fra venstre: Ruslands forsvarsminister Sergei Shoigu, udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov og præsident Vladimir Putin. Foto fra 2015.

28. marts, 2018 – Briterne udgav i dag en ny Strategic Security Capability Review, der reviderer deres nationale sikkerhedsstrategi fra 2015, med en isnende opfordring fra selveste premierminister Theresa May til mobilisering for krig med Rusland, såvel som også udvidelse af »tankepoliti-kontrol« over sociale medier, forklædt som modspil mod russisk »fake news«.

I introduktionen, skrevet af May, erklærer hun, at, siden 2015, »er truslerne fortsat blevet intensiveret og udviklet, og vi står over for en række komplicerede udfordringer hjemme og i udlandet: en genopblussen af statsbaserede trusler og voksende konkurrence mellem stater; underminering af den internationale orden, baseret på regler; fremvæksten af cyber-angreb fra både statslige og ikkestatslige aktører og den generelle indvirkning af teknologiske udviklinger; og den voksende trussel, som udgøres af terrorisme, ekstremisme og ustabilitet.« Uden at efterlade nogen tvivl om, hvem målet er, fortsætter hun: »I løbet af det seneste år har vi i UK været vidne til oprørende terrorangreb i London og Manchester. Men også til fræk og uansvarlig aggressionshandling i Salisburys gader: mordforsøg ved at bruge et ulovligt, kemisk våben, som er en ulovlig magthandling mod UK.«

I dokumentets hovedtekst lyder det: »En opblussen af statsbaserede trusler, en intensivering af mere udbredt statslig konkurrence og udhuling af den på regler baserede, internationale orden, som gør det vanskeligere at bygge konsensus og takle globale trusler … Den vilkårlige og ansvarsløse brug af nervegift til militærbrug på britisk jord var en ulovlig magtanvendelse fra den russiske stats side. Det skete på baggrund af et veletableret mønster af russisk statsaggression. Ruslands ulovlige annektering af Krim var første gang, siden Anden Verdenskrig, at én suveræn nation med magt har taget territorium fra en anden nation i Europa. Rusland har anstiftet konflikt i Donbass-området og støttet Assads regime, inklusive, da dette regime med overlæg ignorerede dets forpligtelse til at standse al brug af kemiske våben. Rusland har ligeledes krænket europæiske landes nationale luftrum og etableret en vedvarende kampagne for cyber-spionage og opbrud, inklusive indblanding i valg.«

Med hensyn til »tankepoliti«, erklærer dokumentet: »Kommunikationer bliver i stigende grad, både af vore partnere og vore modstandere, brugt til at opnå strategiske fordele i den virkelige verden. Traditionelle kanaler er i vid udstrækning blevet tilsidesat til fordel for digitale og sociale medieplatforme. Dette kombineres med en nedgang i tiltroen til traditionelle informationskilder og den såkaldte »fake news«-æra. Parallelt hermed er spillereglerne ændret. Demokratiseringen af information, og midlerne til at udnytte det, har gjort det muligt for aktører at udøve uforholdsmæssig indflydelse, som er i konkurrence med offentlighedens interesse.«

Foto: Storbritanniens premierminister Theresa May har skrevet introduktionen til UK’s nye  Strategic Security Capability Review.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 27. marts, 2018 – For enhver, der ikke er en sinke, er den modbydelige natur af premierminister Theresa Mays og kohorters Skripal-forgiftnings- og anti-Ruslandsmobilisering en åbenlys »Great Game«-manøvre for at forhindre den potentielle realisering af en amerikansk-russisk hældning over mod »Nye Silkevejsrelationer«, for fred og for udvikling. Hele Mays anti-russiske, internationale mobilisering er blot en ny fase af det igangværende Trump-gate kupforsøg, med det formål at bringe det amerikanske præsidentskab til fald. Briterne er ligeledes i centrum for gennemførelsen af denne fase: MI6, Christopher Steele, Richard Dearlove, Sir Andrew Wood, Robert Mueller og andre håndlangere.

Der er ingen legale belæg for Theresa Mays kampagne for at anklage Rusland for forgiftningen i Salisbury den 4. marts – ingen beviser, ingen analyse, ingen juridiske standarder. May selv var politisk på vej ned og ud, inden for ganske få dage, indtil denne beskidte operation blev lanceret; og nu forventes verden at hylde hende som en »anti-Ruslands-heltinde«.

»Det er modbydeligt; det er usikkert«, sagde Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag og bemærkede, at dette tydeligvis er briterne, der anstifter konfrontation. »Vi kan få det til at give bagslag«, sagde hun. Hold fast i sandheden og brug ethvert middel til at afsløre den onde hensigt og dens gerningsmænd.

Det er rent strategisk meget vigtigt, at den russiske viceudenrigsminister Sergei Ryabkov i dag gentog, at den forpligtelse stadig er aktiv, som fornylig blev indgået af den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin og præsident Donald Trump, til en dialog om stabilitet og sikkerhed. Det forholder sig således, på trods af gårsdagens amerikanske, pro-britiske ordre til udvisning af 60 russiske diplomater og lukning af det russiske konsulat i Seattle. Ryabkov sagde i dag, rapportret i Sputnik, »Vi har brug for denne dialog, præsidenterne for vore lande talte om det i en telefonsamtale for et par dage siden. Vi opgiver ikke denne dialog, vi vil bevare den.« Herudover fordømte Ryabkov USA’s udvisninger.

I løbet af de seneste 24 timer har ledere i andre lande udtalt sig imod denne briternes ’udsmidning af bumser’. Den østrigske kansler Sebastian Kurz sagde i dag, at hans nation ikke ville udvise russiske diplomater. Han sagde, at Østrig traditionelt er et neutralt land; det er en bro mellem Øst og Vest. Diplomater er velkomne og nødvendige i Østrig.

Der høres også udtalelser imod det britiske/EU-fremstød for konfrontation med Rusland internt i selv Tyskland, og ligeledes i Italien. Det rapporteres, at på EU-topmødet for statsoverhoveder i Bruxelles den 22.-23. marts, fremlagde May og den tyske kansler Angela Merkel krav om nye, skrappe sanktioner mod Rusland, men at dette blev blokeret som værende forkert af den italienske premierminister Paolo Gentiloni. Dernæst rejste han hjem, og på trods af, at han er afgående leder, udviste han to russiske diplomater og demonstrerede således det intense pres, der lægges på de europæiske ledere af briterne og deres kohorter internt i USA. Denne handling blev prompte fordømt af andre i Italien som værende forkert og som en »præmatur« dom.

Torsdag vil Trump besøge det nordøstlige Ohio for at tale om infrastruktur. Dette er i hjertet af Rustbæltet, som ville blive transformeret til et kraftcenter under betingelser, der afgøres af USA’s samarbejde med USA og Rusland og Kina under Bælte & Vej Initiativet, og med LaRouches Fire Love.

Foto: Premierminister Theresa May mødtes med præsident Trump på Davos Økonomiske Verdensforum, 25. jan., 2018.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 26. marts, 2018 – Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har hen over de seneste 35 år spillet en hovedrolle i udformningen af relationer mellem nationer til det bedre: gennem LaRouches idé til præsident Reagans Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (SDI) fra 1983, og gennem »LaRouche-doktrinen« for stormagtsrelationer, som ledsagede denne idé; og gennem deres kampagne fra 1989 for den »Eurasiske Landbro«, som sluttelig bidrog til Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ, der nu udvikler mange nationer i hele verden. Hele vejen igennem var fjenderne af disse tiltag hen mod et nyt paradigme for udvikling, City of Londons finansimperium og britisk geopolitik.[1]

Denne tidligere, hyppigt skjulte virkelighed er pludselig, på dramatisk vis, blevet åbenlys. Den britiske premierminister Theresa May og udenrigsminister Boris »bondske« Johnson har tyranniseret USA og 14 europæiske nationer ind i en eskalerende konfrontation med Rusland, der tilsigter at ødelægge stormagtssamarbejde for fremskridt gennem projekterne i Bælte & Vej, og som meget hurtigt kan føre til verdenskrig.

I går understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at London har gjort dette som en reaktion på miskrediteringen af det af britisk efterretning styrede Russiagate-kupforsøg mod præsident Donald Trump. Hun sprængte den udokumenterede sag om »russisk nervegift« som værende intet andet end Russiagate fortsat, genopfundet og genoplivet. Denne sags foreløbige succes, efter at Russiagate mod Trump var slået fejl, er ekstremt farlig, sagde hun. Både Kina og Rusland vil reagere på denne ændrede, transatlantiske dagsorden.

Kina har, gennem sin præsident Xi Jinping og sine partiorganer som Global Times, indset, at Kinas fredelige opkomst, konfronteret med et sandt stormløb af britisk geopolitisk og økonomisk krigsførelse, måske ikke vil få lov at blive let eller fredelig.

Men Kina har udløst en udviklingsdynamik og hæver produktivitet og levestandarder i mange nationer, såvel som i sin egen, og bruger et nyt koncept, som Lyndon LaRouche for 30 år siden kaldte »Verdenslandbro-udviklingen«. Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ tiltrækker nu også nationer fra selv Vesteuropa. Dets lederskab vil ikke lade sig standse af toldkrig eller investeringsembargo; i stedet anvender det dette nye paradigme for at stoppe dem.

Som Helga LaRouche udtrykte det, så er Kina omsider i færd med at feje Londons århundredelange Malthus-politik og nulsums-geopolitik til side; og Kina erstatter det med et Nyt Paradigme for gensidig fordel for nationer, for udryddelse af fattigdom, videnskabeligt fremskridt og for »et fællesskab for en fælles skæbne«. Lyndon LaRouche har i 50 år insisteret på nødvendigheden af denne udskiftning. Hans LaRouche-bevægelse har fremlagt ammunitionen til overvindelse af angrebene mod præsident Trump, som kommer fra britisk efterretning, og for de tiltag for en økonomisk politik, der kan virkeliggøre Amerikas fremtid på den »Nye Silkevej«.

[1] Se Harley Schlangers præsentation af geopolitikken historie, fra serien, ’Hvad er det Nye Paradigme’ (video; dansk pdf.)

Foto: Præsident Donald Trump i samtale med britiske PM Theresa May under et bilateralt møde i det ovale kontor, 27. januar, 2017. Premierminister May var det første statsoverhoved, der aflagde statsbesøg i Det Hvide Hus. (Official White House Photo)

Vært Matthew Ogden: Det er i dag den 23. marts, 2018, en meget gunstig dato: Det er nemlig 35 års dagen for en meget vigtig dato, som var 23. marts, 1983, hvor præsident Ronald Reagan annoncerede vedtagelsen af det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ  (SDI; Strategic Defense Initiative). I dag er det et meget passende tidspunkt for at bedømme den stadigt mere presserene nødvendige vedtagelse af en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur for planeten, og den samtidige nye økonomiske arkitektur, som må ledsage den.

Vi befinder os i et meget dramatisk øjeblik i verdenshistorien, og jeg mener, at, hvis vi træder et skridt tilbage og ser på det store billede, så står det klart, at verdensordenen, som vi har kendt den i de seneste 70 år, er i færd med at undergå en total transformation. Og udfaldet af de strategiske kampe, der raser netop nu, både på den nationale scene her i USA, men især på den globale scene; udfaldet af disse strategiske kampe vil afgøre menneskehedes historie i mange generationer fremover.

Med de begivenheder, der har fundet sted i løbet af de seneste tre uger, siden den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin den 1. marts annoncerede, at Rusland havde udviklet en helt ny generation af strategiske våben, baseret på avancerede fysiske [principper], og som er i stand til at gennemtrænge alle kendte forsvarssystemer, har vi set, hvor dramatisk nødvendigt det er, med det presserende i en sådan ny sikkerhedsarkitektur. Ikke én, der bygger på Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD; garanteret gensidig ødelæggelse), men derimod én, der bygger på win-win-overlevelse og økonomisk fremskridt for alle nationer på denne planet; nødvendigheden heraf bliver i stigende grad mere presserende. Jeg vil gerne fremhæve, hvad præsident Putin selv sagde i denne tale 1. marts til den føderale forsamling:

Han sagde:

» … lad os sætte os ved forhandlingsbordet og sammen udtænke et nyt og relevant system for international sikkerhed og bæredygtig udvikling for menneskelig civilisation. … Dette er et vendepunkt for hele verden og for dem, der er villige til, og i stand til, at forandre sig; de, der handler og går fremad, vil tage føringen.«

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56957

Men, snarere end klart og nøgternt at vurdere denne ændrede, strategiske virkelighed, med denne game-changing tale af Ruslands præsident, og besvare dette tilbud for at forhandle, med hans ord, »et nyt og relevant system for international sikkerhed og bæredygtig udvikling for menneskelig civilisation«, for endelig at bringe denne nihilistiske dødsspiral med stadigt mere dødbringende masseudslettelsesvåben til en afslutning; snarere end at gøre dette, har briterne og deres såkaldte »partnere« i Europa forsøgt at oppiske en generel støtte til en krigskonfrontation mod Rusland ved anvendelse af det, Labour-partiets leder, Jeremy Corbyn, meget korrekt karakteriserede som det, han kaldte »fejlbehæftet efterretning« og »uvederhæftige dossiers« af den type, som blev brugt til at retfærdiggøre invasionen af Irak. Og som Jeremy Corbyn advarede om, så bør vi ikke »affinde os med en ny Kold Krig … og en intolerance over for dissens som under McCarthy-perioden«.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche i går understregede i sin internationale webcast, så har briterne og Theresa May, i deres forsøg på at gennemtvinge en sådan krigsprovokation, overspillet deres hånd. Deres metoder og deres mål står nu afsløret for hele verden at se. På trods af Theresa Mays bestræbelser på at presse præsident Trump over i et hjørne, hvor han ikke ville vove at forsøge at tage skridt, der ville gøre det muligt for ham at honorere sin forpligtelse til at forbedre relationerne med Rusland; snarere end at lade sig blive bakket ind i et hjørne, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, så udmanøvrerede præsident Trump imidlertid hele operationen ved at tage telefonen og ringe til præsident Putin og lykønske ham med genvalget og hans næste periode som Ruslands præsident, og fortsatte med en meget sober diskussion mellem de to statsoverhoveder om nogle af de meget vigtige, fælles bestræbelser og fælles udfordringer, som disse to nationer, USA og Rusland, sammen konfronteres med; og som, hvis vi fik lov at gøre det, vi kunne arbejde sammen om at løse, såsom krisen i Syrien; såsom muligheden for et totalt gennembrud for fred på Koreahalvøen; såsom den igangværende situation i Ukraine; og meget signifikant, såsom at forhindre et nyt våbenkapløb.

Umiddelbart efter denne telefonsamtale, blev pressen, som I kan tænke jer, hysterisk, og Det Hvide Hus’ pressesekretær Sarah Sanders holdt en pressekonference i briefing-værelset i Det Hvide Hus, hvor hun ikke mindre end et halvt dusin gange understregede den absolutte betydning af at opretholde en dialog mellem USA og Rusland på lederskabsniveau, omkring fælles interesser og fælles udfordringer.

Jeg vil afspille nogle eksempler på nogle at disse gentagne udtalelser fra Sarah Sanders på denne pressebriefing i Det Hvide Hus.

Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet:

SARAH SANDERS:  We want to continue to have a dialogue with
Russia, and continue to talk about some of the shared interests
we have, whether it’s North Korea, Iran, and particularly as the
President noted today, slowing the tensions when it comes to an
arms race, something that is clearly important to both
leaders….
We want to continue to have dialogue so that we can work on
some of the issues that concern both countries, and we’re going
to continue to do that, while also continuing to be tough on a
number of things….
The President once again has maintained that it’s important
for us to have a dialogue with Russia so that we can focus on
some areas of shared interests…
These are conversations that sometimes take place, and
certainly the President finds there to be an importance in having
that dialogue with Russia so that we can talk about some of the
big problems that face the world….
We disagree with the fact that we shouldn’t have
conversations with Russia.  There are important topics that we
should be able to discuss, and that is why the President’s going
to continue to have that dialogue.
Again the focus was to talk about areas of shared interests.
We know that we need to continue a dialogue.  It’s important for
a lot of the safety and security of people across the globe.  We
would like to be able to work with them on things like North
Korea, on Iran, and also both countries shared interest in
lowering the tensions when it comes to an arms race, recognizing
that that’s not the best thing for either country, and so we want
to be able to have those conversations and that was the point of
today’s call…. [end video]

OGDEN:  So, that’s a very clear message, obviously.  Now, on
the same day, President Trump himself reiterated exactly the same
points in a couple of tweets that he posted, and I would like to
just read you those tweets.  He said:
“I called President Putin of Russia to congratulate him on
his election victory (in past, Obama called him also).  The Fake
News Media is crazed because they wanted me to excoriate him.
They are wrong!  Getting along with Russia (and others) is a good
thing, not a bad thing.”
“They can help solve problems with North Korea, Syria,
Ukraine, ISIS, Iran, and even the coming Arms Race.  Bush tried
to get along, but didn’t have the ‘smarts.’  Obama and Clinton
tried, but didn’t have the energy or chemistry (remember RESET).
PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH!” he concludes.
Now of course that final phrase is a quotation directly from
President Ronald Reagan.   And this direct reference is a very
timely one, and perhaps is not merely a coincidental one:  As I
said, today, March 23rd, is the 35th anniversary of one of the
groundbreaking moments in modern history, and it’s one which
completely reshaped the global, strategic geometry at that time,
and which remains immediately relevant all the way up to the
present day.
That moment, March 23rd, 1983 was representative of a
complete shock, a shock wave which was felt around the world.
This was the surprise announcement by President Ronald Reagan at
the conclusion of a live, national television broadcast which was
an address to the nation, nominally on national security.  But
what President Reagan did at the conclusion of that broadcast, to
the surprise of almost all of his leading advisors in the White
House even, was to announce what came to be known as the
Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI, what President Reagan
called a “vision of the future, which offers hope.”
In the speech, what President Reagan did was that he
committed the United States to a crash program, a crash
scientific program for the development of advanced technologies
which would be based on new physical principles to
(quote/unquote) “free the world from the threat of nuclear war.”
And so, in so doing, President Reagan completely overthrew the
ideology of retaliatory nuclear deterrence through the threat of
instantaneous, total nuclear response in the event of the
detection of a nuclear attack against the territory of the United
States.  This was what was so-called Mutually Assured Destruction
(MAD).
President Reagan completely rejected the very premise of
Mutually Assured Destruction and in so doing, Reagan shocked the
world, and truly did change the course of world history.  So,
right now, why don’t we wind the clock back 35 years, and listen
to what the world heard on that night, March 23rd, 1983:

My fellow Americans, thank you for sharing your time with me
tonight.
The subject I want to discuss with you, peace and national
security, is both timely and important. Timely, because I’ve
reached a decision which offers a new hope for our children in
the 21st century…
The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple
premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never
be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and
defend against aggression — to preserve freedom and peace.
Since the dawn of the atomic age, we’ve sought to reduce the
risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking
genuine arms control. “Deterrence” means simply this: making
sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States,
or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks
to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he
won’t attack. We maintain the peace through our strength;
weakness only invites aggression.
This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works.
But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one
kind of military force to deter an attack when we had far more
nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now
that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful
nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the
ground. Now, this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning
to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable — quite
the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is
based on being prepared to meet all threats.
There was a time when we depended on coastal forts and
artillery batteries, because, with the weaponry of that day, any
attack would have had to come by sea. Well, this is a different
world, and our defenses must be based on recognition and
awareness of the weaponry possessed by other nations in the
nuclear age….
Now, thus far tonight I’ve shared with you my thoughts on
the problems of national security we must face together. My
predecessors in the Oval Office have appeared before you on other
occasions to describe the threat posed by Soviet power and have
proposed steps to address that threat. But since the advent of
nuclear weapons, those steps have been increasingly directed
toward deterrence of aggression through the promise of
retaliation.
This approach to stability through offensive threat has
worked. We and our allies have succeeded in preventing nuclear
war for more than three decades. In recent months, however, my
advisors, including in particular the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have
underscored the necessity to break out of a future that relies
solely on offensive retaliation for our security.
Over the course of these discussions, I’ve become more and
more deeply convinced that the human spirit must be capable of
rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by
threatening their existence. Feeling this way, I believe we must
thoroughly examine every opportunity for reducing tensions and
for introducing greater stability into the strategic calculus on
both sides….
Wouldn’t it be better to save lives than to avenge them? Are
we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by
applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly
lasting stability? I think we are. Indeed, we must.
After careful consultation with my advisors, including the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, I believe there is a way. Let me share
with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we
embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat
with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very
strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base
and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today.
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that
their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S.
retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and
destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own
soil or that of our allies?
I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may
not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current
technology has attained a level of sophistication where it’s
reasonable for us to begin this effort….
I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations
and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with
offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive
policy, and no one wants that. But with these considerations
firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific community in our
country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great
talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us
the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and
obsolete.
Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ABM treaty
and recognizing the need for closer consultation with our allies,
I’m taking an important first step. I am directing a
comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research
and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of
eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles. This
could pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the
weapons themselves. We seek neither military superiority nor
political advantage. Our only purpose — one all people share —
is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war.
My fellow Americans, tonight we’re launching an effort which
holds the promise of changing the course of human history. There
will be risks, and results take time. But I believe we can do it.
As we cross this threshold, I ask for your prayers and your
support.
Thank you, good night, and God bless you. [end video]

OGDEN:  That was 35 years ago today.
Now, just as a side note, incidentally, President Trump is
not ignorant of this history.  In 1999, far before he ever was a
candidate for President, in a an interview with none other than
Wolf Blitzer on CNN, President Trump actually addressed what he
thought of as the necessity for the Strategic Defense Initiative,
but also the necessity for sitting down and having talks to work
out the tensions between the United States and Russia.  Here’s
just a quick quote from President Trump.  He said:
“As far as nuclear is concerned, this country, us, we need a
shield….”
Wolf Blitzer said, “A Strategic Defense Initiative?”
And Trump affirmed that, saying, “Because Russia is
unstable. We need a missile defense shield.  People used to
criticize Reagan, but now it’s very developable.  We need a
shield…. We need a change.  The ABM Treaty was 1972.  Who knew
what technology would develop?  We have to sit down with the
Russians and many others.”
So, that was just a side note.  That was Nov. 28, 1999.  But
as I think you can see, now-President Trump remains committed to
that inclination to sit down with the Russians and many others —
North Korea, for example; and to resolve these nuclear threats.
If you just go back again to that date in 1983, this was 35
years ago.  In President Reagan’s own words, he said that what he
announced that night would, indeed, change the course of world
history; and it did.  And, it took most of the world completely
by surprise.  But, it didn’t come out of nowhere, and this
history is very important for viewers to understand.
Let me just read you a portion of what Lyndon LaRouche had
to say at that time.  This is a statement that he issued the
morning following that historic speech, so this is from March 24,
1983.  What Mr. LaRouche had to say was the following:
“Only high-level officials of government, or a private
citizen as intimately knowledgeable of details of the
international political and strategic situation as I am
privileged to be, can even begin to foresee the Earth-shaking
impact the President’s television address last night will have
throughout the world…. [T]he words the President spoke last
night can never be put back into the bottle. Most of the world
will soon know, and will never forget that policy announcement.
With those words, the President has changed the course of modern
history.
“Today I am prouder to be an American than I have been since
the first manned landing on the Moon. For the first time in 20
years, a President of the United States has contributed a public
action of great leadership, to give a new basis for hope for
humanity’s future to an agonized and demoralized world. True
greatness in an American President touched President Ronald
Reagan last night; it is a moment of greatness never to be
forgotten.”
So that was Lyndon LaRouche, March 24, 1983.  Now, as
LaRouche alluded to in that statement, he was no bystander or
casual observer of the events of that night President Reagan
announced the SDI.  In fact, the grand idea behind what Reagan
announced that night, came directly from none other than Lyndon
LaRouche himself.  I would like to play for you a brief excerpt
of Mr. LaRouche, in his own words, speaking about the background
to what had shocked the world that night — March 23, 1983.  This
is taken from a video that LaRouche PAC published about ten years
ago, back in 2008, on the 25th anniversary of the SDI speech.
The video was titled “A Brief History of Lyndon LaRouche’s SDI.”
So, let’s listen to what Mr. LaRouche had to say in that video.

LYNDON LAROUCHE

:  I had been organizing the SDI
operation, including initially from 1977, long before it was
called an SDI.  I was the one who said, “We’re going to make a
project of this thing.”  So, I adopted this and stated this as my
program in 1979, when I was running as a Presidential candidate.
Then, I had this conservation with Reagan, and then as a
follow-up after he was President, we had a follow-up with various
people in the Reagan circle; including his National Security
Council.  I was working with the head of the National Security
Council on this operation, and with people from the CIA and this
and that.  I was sworn to this and sworn to that, so I was doing
the whole thing.  The SDI was my work, which they liked.  And
there was a faction, including the President, who liked it.  He
liked it because he was against, he always hated Henry Kissinger;
and he hated Henry Kissinger particularly because of the
so-called “revenge weapons.”  The idea that you build super
weapons, and if somebody throws a bomb at you, you obliterate the
planet.  That is not considered a good defense, and he was
against that.  When he saw from experts that what I was saying
was accepted experts — military and others — and this was
French intelligence, the leadership of the Gaullist faction in
France; this was the leadership of the German military; this was
the leadership of the Italian military, and all over the world.
So, I was the creator of the SDI.  Reagan liked it, he adopted
it.  I was creating the thing in direct cooperation during the
entire period, with the cooperation of the National Security
Council and the heads of the CIA.  People recognized that I was
right; I had the scientific capability and knowledge to do it,
and we were doing it.

OGDEN:  So, that’s the story in Lyndon LaRouche’s own words.
That is merely the tip of a very fascinating iceberg.  We
encourage you to watch that full video that I cited that that
excerpt was taken from.  But also, to visit the page on the
LaRouche PAC website which gives you the full background of this
story.  As you can see there, the link is larouchepac.com/sdi.
That gives you this full, historic background.  But as you heard
Mr. LaRouche say there in that video clip, this effort on his
part to craft the idea of what then became adopted by the
President of the United States in the form of the SDI, this
effort went all the way back to the mid-1970s.  Here’s an image
of a campaign pamphlet which was commissioned by Lyndon LaRouche,
titled “Sputnik of the ’70s: The Science behind the Soviets’ Beam
Weapon.”  In this pamphlet, Lyndon LaRouche called for an
international crash program to develop a space-based missile
defense system based on new physical principles.  A Manhattan
project-style mission which would provide the economic driver to
fuel global development.  The pamphlet proposed .”.. Long-range
economic and scientific collaboration with the Soviet Union,
among other nations, which would eliminate the danger of world
obliteration,” and it emphasized .”.. Tremendous revolutionary
industrial implications available to this nation and the world if
the political will of the United States forces a recommitment to
technological progress in the form of an International
Development Bank and its national concomitant Third National
Bank.”
So, as you can see, Lyndon LaRouche’s idea of this missile
defense system, was always framed around the idea of not
unilateral defense systems, but rather, a joint missile defense
and joint scientific and economic collaboration between the
United States and the Soviet Union.  To do so, would be to
unleash the revolutionary industrial and economic implications of
such technological breakthroughs as the basis for a new
international, economic order; something which he had been
involved in all the way back to at least 1971 when he first
issued the proposal for a new International Development Bank —
the so-called IDB.  So you can see in LaRouche’s idea, the kernel
of what became the SDI, always had with it a new international
security architecture, overthrowing this entire reign of terror
of Mutually Assured Destruction and revenge weapons.  But
concomitantly, a new international economic order, which would be
driven by the revolutionary, unprecedented economic boom that
would come out of the progress associated with such technological
breakthroughs around these new physical principles in the
collaboration of US and Soviet scientists to develop this joint
missile defense to make International Ballistic Missile and
nuclear war impotent and obsolete.
The history is as fascinating as it is extensive.  Here is
not the time or the place to go through every single aspect of
this history; but the full background, again as I said is
available on that webpage — larouchepac.com/sdi.  But if you
fast forward from that pamphlet “Sputnik of the ’70s” all the way
to the lead-up into the 1980 Presidential campaign in which
Lyndon LaRouche himself was a candidate for President of the
United States.  Let’s take a look at a picture here of Lyndon
LaRouche meeting face-to-face with then-candidate Ronald Reagan
at a candidates’ forum that took place in Concord, New Hampshire.
During this face-to-face meeting and in several other
opportunities to interface with the Reagan campaign team, Lyndon
LaRouche presented this idea, in principle and in detail.
Following Reagan’s victory and his election, Lyndon LaRouche and
representatives of his organization, were brought in for meetings
with first the Reagan Presidential transition team, and then with
leading members of the National Security Council and Reagan’s
intelligence community.  They discussed LaRouche’s idea for this
new strategic doctrine, and the related scientific and energy
policies that would go along with it.  So, Lyndon LaRouche
commissioned numerous reports and campaign pamphlets promoting
this idea.  As you can see here, this is from {Fusion}; this is a
special report titled “Directed Energy Beams; A Weapon for
Peace.”  Here’s the next one; this is an edition of the
{Executive Intelligence Review} magazine from November 30, 1982.
Again, before the March 23, 1983 announcement of the SDI.  This
was titled “Beam Weapons: The Science to Prevent Nuclear War.”
Here’s another one; this is a pamphlet.  “How Beam Weapon
Technologies Can Reverse the Depression.”  So, all along, this
was always an economic idea from Lyndon LaRouche’s standpoint.
As you can see, being an American at this point, in the years
preceding the 1980 Presidential election and then coming out of
Reagan’s victory, 1980, ’81, ’82, the idea of this Beam Defense
system which would be based on new physical principles, was
associated — including in the popular mind — it was associated
with Lyndon LaRouche.  And it had been associated with Lyndon
LaRouche for at least half a decade prior to Reagan’s historic,
groundbreaking speech.
The morning after Reagan’s March 23rd address, the media was
scrambling to try to find experts to interview to explain what it
was that Reagan had presented the night before.  Naturally, they
had to turn to representatives of the LaRouche organization.
Here’s a photograph of Paul Gallagher, who was at that time
Executive Director of the Fusion Energy Foundation, appearing on
CBS’ Evening News program on March 24, 1983 — the day following
Reagan’s address — to explain the science behind Reagan’s policy
that had been announced the evening before.
Immediately following Reagan’s address to the nation, Lyndon
LaRouche launched a mass educational campaign to educate the
American people as to what their President had just presented.
He published and commissioned the publication of numerous mass
circulation reports to inform the American people and also
policymakers on the details of how such a program would work.
This image here is an array of different publications that were
issued by the LaRouche movement, supporting Reagan’s announcement
of the Strategic Defense Initiative and detailing the scientific,
the economic, and the military-strategic implications of the
policy.  There you can see one pamphlet — “Support the
President’s Strategic Defense Initiative; Kill Missiles, Not
People.”
As should be very clear, Lyndon LaRouche was in a leading
position of authority following this groundbreaking announcement,
and the influence that his ideas had come to wield put him in a
position of real power inside the political structure of the
Presidency of the United States.  He used that influence to
launch and to escalate on his campaign to completely reorganize
the entire international economic and strategic architecture of
the planet.  Let’s take a look at a document that Lyndon LaRouche
released exactly one year following Reagan’s March 23, 1983
announcement of the SDI program.  This was called “The LaRouche
Doctrine:  Draft Memorandum of Agreement between the United
States and the USSR.”  This was published March 30, 1984.  Let me
read you some excerpts from what Lyndon LaRouche published under
this title “The LaRouche Doctrine.”  He begins by saying:
“The political foundation for durable peace must be: a) The
unconditional sovereignty of each and all nation-states, and b)
Cooperation among sovereign nation-states to the effect of
promoting unlimited opportunities to participate in the benefits
of technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all.
“The most crucial feature of present implementation of such
a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary,
economic, and political relations between the dominant powers and
those relatively subordinated nations often classed as
‘developing nations.’ Unless the inequities lingering in the
aftermath of modern colonialism are progressively remedied, there
can be no durable peace on this planet.
“Insofar as the United States and Soviet Union acknowledge
the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the
planet to be in the vital strategic interests of each and both,
the two powers are bound to that degree and in that way by a
common interest. This is the kernel of the political and economic
policies of practice indispensable to the fostering of durable
peace between those two powers.
.”.. [T]he general advancement of the productive powers of
labor in all sovereign states, most emphatically so-called
developing nations, requires global emphasis on: a) increasing
globally the percentiles of the labor force employed in
scientific research and related functions of research and
development … b) increasing the absolute and relative scales of
capital-goods production and also
the rate of turnover in capital-goods production; and c)
combining these two factors to accelerate technological progress
in capital-goods outputs.
“Therefore, high rates of export of such capital-goods
output to meet the needs of developing nations are indispensable
for the general development of so-called developing nations: Our
common goal, and our common interest, is promoting both the
general welfare and promoting preconditions of durable peace
between our two powers….
“By supplying increased amounts of high-technology capital
goods to developing nations, the exporting economies foster
increased rates of turnover in their own most advanced
capital-goods sectors of production….
“The importer of such advanced capital goods increases the
productive powers of labor in the economy of the importing
nation. This enables the importing nation to produce its goods at
a lower average social cost, and enables it to provide
better-quality and cheaper goods as goods of payment to the
nations exporting capital goods.
“Not only are the causes of simple humanity and general
peace served by such policies of practice; the arrangement is
equally beneficial to exporting and importing nations….
.”.. [T]he general rate of advancement of the productive
powers of labor is most efficiently promoted by no other policy
of practice.”
Then a little later in the report, he reviews the situation
of strategic tensions between the USSR and the United States.  He
says:
“Since the rupture of the wartime alliance between the two
powers, U.S. military policy toward the Soviet Union has passed
through two phases. The first, from the close of the war until a
point beyond the death of Joseph Stalin, was preparation for the
contingency of what was sometimes named ‘preventive nuclear war.’
The second, emerging over the period from the death of Stalin
into the early period of the administration of President John F.
Kennedy, was based on the doctrines of Nuclear Deterrence and
Flexible Response …
“From approximately 1963 until approximately 1977, it might
have appeared, as it appeared to many, that the doctrines of
Nuclear Deterrence and Flexible Response had succeeded in
preserving a state of restive peace, something called ‘détente,’
between the two powers. This appearance was deceptive; during the
period 1977-83, there was an accelerating deterioration in the
military relationships between the two powers….
“Beginning shortly after the inauguration of President Jimmy
Carter, the deterioration of the military situation
accelerated….
“In response to this direction of developments, the U.S.
public figure Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. proposed that both powers
develop, deploy, and agree to develop and deploy ‘strategic’
defensive, anti-ballistic-missile defense based on ‘new physical
principles.’ This proposal was issued publicly by LaRouche
beginning February 1982; he proposed to U.S.A., Western European,
and Soviet representatives that the development and deployment of
such strategic defensive systems be adopted policy, as a means
for escaping from the ‘logic’ of Nuclear Deterrence….
.”.. The true solution must be found in the domain of
politics and economics, and the further shaping of military
relations between the powers must produce military policies by
each coherent with the direction of development of the needed
political and economic solutions….
“On the part of the United States of America, the government
is committed to avoiding all colonial, imperial, or kindred
endeavors in foreign policy, and to establish, instead, a growing
community of principle among fully sovereign nation-states of
this planet. This shall become a community of principle coherent
with the policies of the articles of this draft memorandum. If
any force should endeavor to destroy that community of principle,
or any member of that community of sovereign nations, the United
States will be prepared to defend that community and its members
by means of warfare, should other means prove insufficient. With
respect to the Soviet Union, the government of the United States
offers the Soviet Union cooperation with itself in service of
these principles, and desires that the Soviet Union might enter
fully into participation within that community of principle….
“Under these conditions, provided that all nations share in
development of the frontiers of scientific research, in
laboratories, and in educational institutions, all nations will
be made capable of assimilating efficiently the technological
by-product benefits of the military expenditures on systems
derived from application of ‘new physical principles.’
“To lend force to this policy, the powers agree to establish
new institutions of cooperation between themselves and other
nations in development of these new areas of scientific
breakthrough for application to exploration of space.
“To this purpose, the powers agree to establish at the
earliest possible time institutions for cooperation in scientific
exploration of space, and to also co-sponsor treaty-agreements
protecting national and multinational programs for colonization
of the Moon and Mars.
“At some early time, the powers shall enter into
deliberations, selecting dates for initial manned colonization of
the Moon and Mars, and the establishment of international space
stations on the Moon and in the orbits of Moon and Mars, stations
to be maintained by and in the common interest and use of space
parties of all nations.
“The powers jointly agree upon the adoption of two tasks as
the common interest of mankind, as well as the specific interest
of each of the two powers: 1) The establishment of full economic
equity respecting the conditions of individual life in all
nations of this planet during a period of not more than 50 years;
2) Man’s exploration and colonization of nearby space as the
continuing common objective and interest of mankind during and
beyond the completion of the first task. The adoption of these
two working-goals as the common task and respective interest in
common of the two powers and other cooperating nations,
constitutes the central point of reference for erosion of the
potential political and economic causes of warfare between the
powers.”
That was known as the “LaRouche Doctrine,” published March
30, 1984.  As you can see, what Lyndon LaRouche outlined in that
document was the basis for exactly what we’re calling now a new
international economic and strategic architecture.  In fact, the
one requires the other.  You cannot have a new strategic
architecture without resolving what Lyndon LaRouche characterized
as the root causes behind the conflict between these nations; the
persisting inequalities between nations.  And you cannot have the
kind of cooperation needed for the common, mutual economic
development and the application of these groundbreaking new
physical principles and the technologies that are derived from
those, without the establishment of a new international economic
order.  Elsewhere in that document, Mr. LaRouche described
exactly how such an economic order must take place; with fixed
exchange rates between currencies, massive credits — both
domestically within countries for the upgrading of the
technological and infrastructure platforms within those nations
— but also, international credit treaty agreements in the form
of what he originally described in 1971 as the International
Development Bank, or the IDB.
As you can see, and I think any astute reader of that
document now, almost 35 years later, that document laid the basis
for what we now see as the so-called “win-win” new economic
paradigm.  This idea of the common benefit of all; mutual
cooperation for joint development; the upgrading of the so-called
“developing” nations, which were still suffering under the
effects of colonialism and post-colonial policy.  So, when
President Xi Jinping of China speaks about “win-win” economic
development and a new community of nations with a shared destiny,
I think that the echoes couldn’t be more clear of what Lyndon
LaRouche himself was describing at that time in the middle of the
1980s, almost 35 years ago today.  When Xi Jinping offers the
United States to join this new “win-win” system, the Belt and
Road Initiative, which is already resolving these persisting
inequalities that the world has been suffering, such as in Africa
or Central and South America.  Or, when President Putin offers to
“sit down at the negotiating table and devise together a new and
relevant system of international security and sustainable
development for human civilization,” we should reflect on what
was laid in that document.  That LaRouche Doctrine now almost 35
years ago today, in the wake of that history-changing
announcement by President Ronald Reagan, at which he called a
spade a spade.  The world could no longer survive under the
dictatorship of Mutually Assured Destruction; that reign of
terror that President Kennedy characterized as the Sword of
Damocles hanging by the slenderest of threads over every man,
woman, and child on this planet, threatening nuclear
annihilation.  What Lyndon LaRouche characterized at that moment
as the “LaRouche Doctrine” is the principle behind the new
economic and new security architecture which must be adopted on
this planet today.  Not as a recipe, not taking everything
exactly as it was said, because clearly of course, the world has
changed; and we must apply the principles that lay at the root of
exactly what Lyndon LaRouche had in mind when he proposed the
Strategic Defense Initiative and when he proposed the subsequent
LaRouche Doctrine, and apply those to evolve necessarily to fit
the specific conditions of today.
One thing that Lyndon LaRouche alluded to explicitly in that
document, was the need for joint cooperation in the colonization
and exploration of space.  In fact, that is the form that the
idea of a revived SDI has actually been taken.  The proposal for
not an SDI, but what’s now called an SDE — the Strategic Defense
of Earth — to literally re-tool the strategic nuclear weapons
with these massive payloads that have been accumulated by the
United States, Russia, also other nations — China and India and
other nations.  To re-tool those nuclear weapons and also the
delivery systems, these high-power intercontinental ballistic
missiles, and also the new technologies that Russia has just
announced.  To re-tool these technologies and have what were
offensive weapons become defensive tools against asteroids and
other threats to planet Earth which we may encounter from outer
space.  While this was proposed under that name, the SDE, by
certain individuals inside Russia about five years ago,
coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the original SDI speech.
What this originally actually came out of, had its origins in the
late 1980s and the early 1990s with the scientist Dr. Edward
Teller.  Teller was actually one of the leading scientific
advisors of President Reagan in the 1980s around the SDI
initiative, but following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Dr.
Edward Teller travelled to Russia and visited some of the leading
science cities that had been involved in developing nuclear
weapons and their delivery systems.  He met with some of the
leading former Soviet scientists, the Russian scientists, and
proposed exactly this.  He proposed the idea of the United States
and Russia saying the Cold War is over; let’s now cease this
policy of aiming our nuclear missiles one against the other, and
let’s now aim them against the common threats that mankind as a
whole faces.  Especially with the latest news of an asteroid
which poses a credible threat — what’s called a “non-zero
threat” — to the Earth in the foreseeable future, which was
just discussed in the  media over the past week, this proposal is
all the more timely and all the more relevant today.
So, what I’d like is to just play an excerpt from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s international webcast that she delivered
yesterday.  She takes up exactly this idea, so here’s an excerpt
from Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  I think that the SDI proposal,
which was absolutely not what the media made out of it, calling
it “Star Wars,” and things like that, the SDI proposal of my
husband, Lyndon LaRouche was an absolutely farsighted vision of a
New Paradigm!  And if you read the relevant papers about it,
especially the proposed draft for a dialogue among the
superpowers, which was published one year later, which you can
find in the archives or in the newer {EIR}s. This was a vision
where both superpowers would develop together, new physical
principles which would make nuclear weapons obsolete.  And I
think what Putin announced on March 1st in terms of new physical
principles applied for new weapons systems, is absolutely is in
this tradition. And Putin also asked, now they have to sit down
and we have to negotiate and put together a new security
architecture, including Russia, the United States, China, and the
Europeans.
This was all envisioned by my husband in this famous SDI
proposal, and it was a very far-reaching to dissolve the blocs,
NATO and the Warsaw Pact,  to cooperate instead among sovereign
republics, which is exactly what the New Silk Road dynamic today
represents. And it was also the idea to use a science-driver in
the economy to use the increased productivity of the real economy
for a gigantic technology transfer to the developing sector, in
order to overcome their underdevelopment and poverty.
And this is what we’re seeing today, also, in the
collaboration between China, Russia, and the countries that are
participating in the Belt and Road Initiative.
So I think, in a certain sense, part of this danger of peace
breaking out, that there is right now the very vivid tradition
and actualization of that tradition of the SDI, and I think we
should circulate this proposal by my husband again.  I think we
should enlarge it to become the SDE, the Strategic Defense of the
Earth, because it was just discovered that very soon, another big
asteroid is already taking course on the planet Earth. So we need
to move quickly to the common aims of mankind, and all countries
should cooperate and be a shared community for the one future of
humanity.
This is the New Paradigm which I think is so obvious.  I
mean, if you look at the long arc of history, we {have} to
overcome geopolitics and we have to move to a kind of cooperation
where we put all our forces together to solve those questions
which are a challenge to all of humanity — nuclear weapons,
poverty, asteroids — there are so many areas where we could
fruitfully cooperate — space exploration is one of them.  And I
think we are in a very fascinating moment in history, but we need
more active citizens.  So please contact us, work with us, and
let’s together make a better world.

OGDEN:  So, that was Helga LaRouche’s call to action, and I
think that’s a perfect concluding point for our webcast today, as
we observe this very auspicious date — March 23rd — the 35th
anniversary of President Reagan’s groundbreaking speech
announcing the Strategic Defense Initiative.  Let’s take that
kind of sense of victory and the optimism that indeed, ideas can
change the course of history, and consolidate this New Paradigm;
this new security architecture and new economic architecture for
the planet.  The opportunity is greater than it ever has been
before; but the need is ever more dire.
Thank you for joining me, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

23. marts, 2018 – USA vil fortsat støtte saudiernes folkemordskrig i Yemen, er resultatet af den saudiske kronprins Mohammed bin Salmans besøg i Washington i denne uge. I går sagde forsvarsminister Mattis i Pentagon under sine åbningsbemærkninger, at USA og Saudi-Arabien »fortsat vil arbejde sammen for at bringe enhed, stabilitet og sikkerhed til området, for at bekæmpe terrororganisationer og afskrække Irans ondskabsfulde aktiviteter«. En del af dette »samarbejde« består i en pakke militært udstyr til mellem $670 mio. og $1 mia., der sælges til Kongedømmet.

Mattis sagde, at han så udnævnelsen af en ny FN-udsending til Yemen, den britiske diplomat Martin Griffiths, som en mulighed for at fremskynde en politisk løsning på denne konflikt, »fordi det kan yde den regionale stabilitet, der er nødvendig for at beskytte jeres nation og nægte terrorister det sikre opholdssted, de søger, gennem stabile betingelser for alle yemenitiske borgeres menneskerettigheder«.

»Vi mener, at Saudi-Arabien er en del af denne løsning«, sagde Mattis. »De har været loyale mod den af FN anerkendte regering, og vi vil afslutte denne krig. Det er bundlinjen, og vi vil afslutte det på en positiv måde for Yemens befolkning, men som også yder sikkerhed for nationerne på halvøen.«

Saudierne har endnu en amerikansk handelsvare, de er interesseret i at købe – kernekraftværker. Selv om dette fremstilles som et køb til strengt civil anvendelse, har de insisteret på, at de får lov til – imod amerikansk lov – at udvikle uranberigelse og oparbejdning af brugt brændsel, som en garanti mod et muligt fremtidigt, iransk program for en bombe. Deres trussel er, at, hvis USA ikke giver adgang til dette krav, vil saudierne købe kraftværkerne fra Rusland eller Kina. USA’s Kongres hælder imidlertid ikke mod at ændre loven under en sådan trussel.

Foto: De nådesløse luftangreb mod Yemen, udført af den saudiskledede koalition, fortsætter, her, februar, 2018.

Denne artikel vil udforske den strategiske betydning af betydningsfulde begivenheder i verden, med begyndelse i februar, 2018. Vores formål er præcist at placere Theresa Mays sindssyge bestræbelse den 12.-14. marts på at fabrikere et nyt svindelnummer med »masseødelæggelsesvåben« med anvendelse af de samme folk (MI6-efterretningsgrupperingen omkring Sir Richard Dearlove) og det samme manuskript (en efterretningssvindel med hensyn til masseødelæggelsesvåben), som blev brugt til at trække USA ind i den katastrofale Irakkrig. Svindelnummeret med forgiftningen af Skripal involverer ligeledes direkte den britiske agent, Christopher Steele, den centrale person i det igangværende kup mod Donald Trump. Denne gang er den britiske operation for informationskrig direkte rettet mod at provokere Rusland samtidig med, at de fastholder den amerikanske befolkning og præsident Trump som mål for deres angreb.

Som den ophedede, krigstidslignende mediedækning og hysteriet omkring sagen gør det klart, så synes en vist lag i den britiske elite at være parat til at risikere alt på vegne af det døende imperiesystem. På trods af alt ståhejet, så synes økonomisk krigsførelse og sanktioner at være briternes foretrukne våben. Som vi vil få at se, så afslørede Putin for nylig Vestens atomare bluff.[1] Med Russiagate-kuppet mod Donald Trump, der er ved at ebbe ud og eksponerer den britiske agent Christopher Steele og et slæng af hans amerikanske venner til retsforfølgelse for kriminelle handlinger, var der et desperat behov for et nyt værktøj til at drive USA’s præsident ind i det britiske, geopolitiske hjørne, som de har til fælles med det meste af det amerikanske establishment. Dette værktøj er et efterretnings-svindelnummer, et gennemprøvet og pålideligt britisk produkt.

Foto: Den britiske premierminister, Theresa May.  (Photo: EU2017EE Estonian Presidency

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Schlanger: Lad os begynde med betydningen af samtalen mellem Trump og Putin, Helga.

Zepp-LaRouche: Dette var en fremragende udmanøvrering af denne britiske operation, for netop, som Russiagate var forsvundet i USA eller næsten kollapset og faktisk vendte sig mod britisk efterretnings rolle i hele denne affære, lancerede den britiske Theresa May denne absolut utrolige provokation mod Rusland. Det var et klart forsøg på at tvinge præsident Trump hen i et hjørne, hvor han ikke ville vove at forsøge at opfylde sit løfte om at forbedre relationerne med Rusland. Så, ved at lykønske Putin med genvalget til endnu seks år, og så have meget vigtige diskussioner om de virkelige udfordringer i verden, nemlig strategisk stabilitet, at forhindre et våbenkapløb; Syrien, Ukraine, Koreakrisen, etablerede de to præsidenter absolut en direkte forbindelse og fik den britiske bestræbelse til at se ud som det, den er, nemlig en absolut sindssyg provokation.    

Engelsk udskift:

Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, March 22 2018
With Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Desperation of British Imperial Elites Forces Them To Make a Big
Blunder

HARLEY SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger: Welcome to
this week’s Schiller Institute international webcast, featuring
our founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
In the last days the British have been in an open assault
against Russia and Russian President Putin, using the Skripal
case as the basis for that, with Theresa May going completely
wild in trying to build a unified front against Russia, and
implicitly, against President Trump’s efforts to establish
cooperative relationships between the United States and Russia.
In the last days, this was completely outflanked by a call made
between President Trump and Vladimir Putin.  So we have lots to
cover today, but I’d like to start there, with the significance
of the Trump-Putin discussion, Helga.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think this was a brilliant
outflanking of this British operation, because, just as
Russiagate had vanished in the United States, or almost
collapsed, and actually turned against the role of the British
intelligence in this whole thing, this is the moment when Theresa
May launched this absolutely incredible provocation against
Russia.  And this was a clear effort to basically push President
Trump into a corner, where he would not dare to try to make good
on his promise to improve relations with Russia.
So by congratulating Putin for his reelection for another
six years, and then having very, very important discussions about
the issues which are the real challenges in the world, namely,
strategic stability, prevention of the arms race, Syria, Ukraine,
the Korea crisis, I think the two Presidents established
absolutely a direct connection and it makes the British effort
really look rather what it is, namely, an absolutely insane
provocation.
Now, I think it’s very important that in that same phone
call, President Trump not only congratulated Putin for his
reelection, but he also was very positive on the fact that
President Xi Jinping, that the limit to his terms was eliminated,
so he can stay on in these crucial years ahead.  And he said this
is a very good thing, because President Xi Jinping has provided
very, very good leadership.
I think the geopolitical faction is absolutely going
bananas, and that is reflected in really hysterical media
coverage about this, but I think it’s a good thing.  And the fact
that there is a relationship and a dialogue among the Presidents
of the three most important countries on the planet — the United
States, Russia, and China — everybody who loves peace and who is
not a moron should be happy about it.  But if you contrast that
with rather unbelievable warmongering of Stoltenberg, the head of
NATO, for example — I mean, this guy, can you imagine he said,
because there was this poison attack on Skripal, a former double
agent, that means the likelihood that Russia is dropping nuclear
bombs — this is {really} crazy.
The war faction, they have gone beyond all reason, and
Merkel, the German Chancellor, when she went to Poland, even went
so far as to say that Russia has to prove that they didn’t do it!
Can you imagine this?  I mean, there is such a thing in
international law as {in dubio pro reo}, which means “in doubt
for the accused,” and that the accuser has to provide the
evidence and not the accused, and that’s exactly what the Russian
Foreign Minister Lavrov said.  And he used that occasion to say
that Merkel’s behavior, unfortunately, points in the direction
that the European leaders are not coming back to reason.
So I think, nothing can be expected from the Europeans at
this point.  The British are on a rampage; Merkel and Macron, for
their own reasons, backed this up completely, and therefore I
think it’s very, very good that President Trump cut through all
of this and established direct contact with Putin. {And} they
announced that they will have a summit fairly soon between the
two of them, Putin and Trump. And Serbia already offered Belgrade
as a neutral place for the two to meet.  So I think this is a
very, very good sign.

SCHLANGER:  And while this discussion has been going on,
there have been a number of other discussions that I think are
quite significant between the U.S. and Russian military,
political leaders, a briefing at the Russian Foreign Ministry; it
does appear as though the Trump administration and the Putin
administration see this as an opportunity for outflanking it.  Is
that your assessment?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.  Because, as you said, there were all
kinds of other diplomatic initiatives.  The two military chiefs
of staff communicated, then there was a meeting between the
Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov and Senator Rand Paul, which
is very important, because in the midst of all of this
demonization, almost nobody dared to speak with the Russian
Ambassador, like what happened to Sessions.  So, the two of them,
Antonov and Rand Paul also agreed to reestablish U.S.-Russian
inter-parliamentarian dialogue.
So every effort to reestablish dialogue and trust building,
confidence building, is extremely welcome, because, as it has
been developing — in the ’60s and ’70s you had the idea of an
East policy, of rapprochement through cooperation, détente,
trying to have a good-neighbor relationship in Europe, and all of
that with, really, starting with PNAC, the Project for a New
American Century, with the neo-cons when the Soviet Union
collapsed, that basically led to a complete build-up of a Cold
War mentality, NATO expansion, regime change, interventionist
wars, and this has poisoned the atmosphere so much that you can
really ask yourself, what was the purpose —  or what {is} the
purpose of that?  What is the purpose, when the British are
trying to build such a war-like enemy image of Russia?  I mean,
there are some few, very lonely voices who share our view, that
once you build up such an enemy image, and you poison the
atmosphere, you completely make wild accusations, I mean, this is
the kind of atmosphere in which things can go very quickly very
wrong.  And that would be devastating.
Now, in this context, it’s also noteworthy that there was a
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, where the commander of
the Strategic Command of the United States, General Hyten, was
asked:  Does the United States at this point have any defense
against the kind of weapons systems which were announced by
President Putin on March 1? And he said, no.  Then his answer was
to say, therefore, the use of low-yield nuclear weapons should be
considered more strongly, which is in the new nuclear doctrine of
the United States.  And he was immediately refuted by a
Democratic Senator who said, nobody should think that such
so-called “low-yield nuclear weapons” use cannot immediately lead
to an all-out nuclear war.
So people should not be blind in repeating this Cold War
demonization against Russia, and in a certain sense against
[China], because this is {really} dangerous.  It’s very
dangerous.  And you have the distinct feeling that with the
exception as such people as President Trump and a few others,
that the present crop of politicians in leading positions have
been so self-brainwashed and so incapable of strategic thinking,
or even thinking of the consequences of what they’re saying and
doing, that they are not capable to see the cause and effect of
their warmongering.  And I think we need a real discussion that
what is needed is cooperation, confidence-building, dialogue,
cooperation on economic projects, cooperation in space, which was
also mentioned in this context, as a positive step.  But we have
to have a debate that this kind of confrontation should stop, and
we should support President Trump when he is trying to mend
fences with Russia and China, and not attack him.

SCHLANGER:  And there is a counterattack against May from
within the United Kingdom, from Jeremy Corbyn, even from some of
the people in the chemical weapons section of British
intelligence.  Will this backfire, this whole effort to turn this
against Russia?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I think it shows like never before,
the role of the British, and I think that’s a useful thing.
Because those among our audience who know the LaRouche movement
for a longer time, will remember that we were, and especially my
husband, was always attacked for his having pointed to the role
of the British.  And it was the British Empire — which still
exists, not in the old form, but it exists in the from of the
leading financial institutions, and their whole system of private
security firms, and the whole central bank/insurance company
system.  The trans-Atlantic financial structure, is the present
form of the British Empire, and my husband always pointed to the
fact that it is that which is corrupting the United States, and
running much of the dope traffic.  And he always was accused that
said, the British monarchy is behind all of this.  Now, anybody
who looks at the present manipulation of the situation, can see
very clearly the role of the British, the role of Boris Johnson,
the role of Theresa May who are just the instruments of this.
But I think this is very useful, because the real United
States after all made an American Revolution and War of
Independence against this British Empire, and if you look at the
history, that same British Empire never gave up the idea of
reconquering the United States, and finally they succeeded to
establish the “special relationship” between the United States
and Great Britain to run the world as a unipolar world.  And if
President Trump breaks out of that, — and that was the real
reason for the attacks on him — and establishes a direct
communication with Russia and China, then that’s the end of this
kind of geopolitical manipulation, of divide and conquer of the
world. And that is a very good thing. And I think that should
happen, right now.

SCHLANGER: Well, when we talk about backfiring, this calls
to mind something you often bring up, Schiller’s idea of the
“Ibykus principle.”  We see it also with Russiagate, in the
firing of [FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe in the last days;
the focus now on [former CIA Director] John Brennan,  — there
are a whole series of articles attacking John Brennan, who’s
coming out openly saying, Trump is crazy, he has to be removed.
And then, there’s a whole story that the attempt to ensnare Trump
in this Cambridge Analytica, and there’s a whole different story
that’s now coming out on this.  This is the Ibykus principle,
isn’t it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes.  And it’s also very useful, because we
always warned against the addiction of young people to the
so-called “social media,” where real life, real friendships, real
studying, real studying, were replaced by this almost autistic
dependency on the so-called social media, which is a virtual
reality.  So-called “friends” are not friends — and now it turns
out that this whole thing was just a commercial operation to
collect private data, sell them for commercial and other
interests.  And I think it’s a very useful think.
Interesting in this context is also a comment by Edward
Snowden, who said:  A firm which collects and sells private data
should be rightly called a surveillance institution. And to call
that social media is the most successful fraud since the story
that the Department of War is really a Department of Defense was
sold officially to the public.
So I think this whole affair should lead to a re-thinking,
what do you do with this surveillance apparatus, and how do you
trust this, and how do you demand, especially, the
reestablishment of privacy control, control of private data, and
forcing government and legislators to go back to a protection of
the privacy of its citizens.  I think the idea that everything is
transparent and everything is allowed for everybody to be
manipulated, it’s really part of giving up your individual
freedom, and being completely controlled, profiled, shaped,
nudged,  — nudged into any direction — I think people should
reflect on all of this, and not be so absolutely naïve.
And I think this Cambridge Analytics story and the role of
Facebook is a very useful reminder to think about these matters
in a different way.

SCHLANGER:  Well, then you have the whole other irony, of
the efforts to pin Press Secretary Sanders down on why didn’t
Trump talk about the fraud in the Russian elections? And she made
the comment that “we’re not in the business of telling other
countries how to run their elections,”  but it does seem as
though we completely — by “we” I mean the United States
government — constantly talk about Russian interference in
private lives, when, what Snowden showed, and Clapper tried to
lie to cover it up, is that the biggest violator of that is the
National Security Agency!
Now, on the Ibykus principle, Helga, I don’t know if we have
enough on this, yet for you to say much, but it should be noted
that former French President Nicolas Sarkozy was arrested
yesterday, one day after the seventh anniversary of his role in
working together with then British Prime Minister David Cameron,
and also with Obama and Hillary Clinton, to destroy Libya and
kill Qaddafi.  Do you have anything on that story?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I have to see what our French colleagues are
actually saying about that.  But I can tell you that much, that
the story is breaking big time in Italy, where many former
politicians are now commenting on it, saying it was a big mistake
for Italy to be drawn into this war, basically by the British, by
Hillary Clinton; who then convinced NATO, and then drew in Italy
to join in this attack.  And that they should have talked more to
Germany at the time.
Germany at the time, the foreign minister was Guido
Westerwelle, who fortunately refused to be part of this.
But what these Italian politicians are pointing to, is — if
the story is what the accusations are right now, which obviously
needs to be determined — that Sarkozy did receive large money
from Qaddafi.  Qaddafi’s son and former advisor have now
testified that Sarkozy would have demanded $50 million for his
election campaign; Qaddafi only gave him $20 million, but then
that Sarkozy later — that’s what the Italian media and some
politicians are saying right now — carried out person warfare
against Qaddafi, to eliminate a witness.  If that is true, it
would be a really incredible story!  And these Italian
politicians, former deputy secretary of defense, for example, say
that this war has led to a complete destruction of Libya,
terrible economic, social and humanitarian catastrophes erupting
out of that.  The whole Libyan state is still completely torn
apart, and part of the refugee crisis, and naturally, the impact
of that on Italy, in terms of the refugees, in terms of energy
supplies and so forth, was quite devastating.
But this is just one more symptom among many.  Because if
you look at what has come out in terms of the political class,
the managers, academia, — there has never been such an open
disgrace of so many representatives of this so-called “elite” and
establishment, that I think it is a very serious problem we have
in the West!  And the reason why, in Europe, for example, some of
these right-wing populist parties are coming up, is because of
that.  And you have right now, a completely collapse and
disappearance of the so-called people’s parties, and they’re
being replaced by populist movements or extreme right-wing
movements, and I think it’s a reflection of a real moral crisis
of the West.
And that’s why we need a change, we need a New Paradigm, and
we need to call on you, you the audience, you our viewers, to
help us and enter with us into a discourse:  Where should our
future be and why we need a New Paradigm.

SCHLANGER:  And let’s move now from this discussion of the
corruption of the establishment in the West, and we should just
remind listeners that Hillary Clinton played a big role in the
Libya operation, and this was one of the points that President
Trump focussed on, when he said that this administration would
stop regime-change policies.
But let’s move to something much more positive.  You brought
up the New Paradigm:  President Xi Jinping just gave a closing
speech at the “two sessions” conferences in China, in which he
reiterated the long-term goals for China in his Presidency, and
I’d like your thoughts on what he had to say.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, first of all, he emphasized both
humility and pride.  He said the purpose of leadership is to
serve the people, and he repeated that many times, and thanked
the Chinese population for having the confidence in him to
continue his leadership. And naturally, the Western media were
completely freaked out about Xi Jinping being now in the
leadership position in the next period indefinitely.  But from a
Chinese standpoint, Xi Jinping has proven to be an exceptional
leader.  And he said, this is going to be a very difficult period
for China, because it takes place in a very complex world
situation; and he, indeed, called for a new “Long March.”  And
this is quite an amazing historic reference to this history of
China.
So I think he is clearly somebody who is devoted to the
common good of the Chinese people, and the contrast to what China
is actually doing, and how the Chinese people are happy to have
such a leader — as the Russian people are happy to have Putin;
after all, 76% vote for Putin is more than the West for sure
expected.  And there is a very funny little joke:  Saying that,
oh, Putin won the election — and the Russians did it! (Anyway, I
find this amusing with all of this Russia-bashing, that the
Russians are behind everything.)
So I think we have a situation where Russia is clearly
responding to Putin’s leadership.  China is clearly devoted to
continuing on the course of the New Silk Road, the Belt and Road
initiative; many more countries are joining, and even Morgan
Stanley, one of the Wall Street banks, put out a report saying
this is the largest infrastructure project in history and it will
continue, it will make China a very strong, modern economy, with
wealthy inhabitants and all the countries that join will have the
same; and they say that the AIIB is estimating that  there is an
infrastructure financing gap of something like $21 trillion.  And
this is obviously a gigantic task to accomplish, because the
previous leading financial institutions of the West, the IMF and
World Bank, they did not give that kind of development credit,
and therefore China is doing something for the uplifting of the
developing countries, which is actually priceless, because, for
the first time, these countries have the chance to overcome their
situation which has been really terrible.
And I think it’s very good, because the New Silk Road Spirit
is something which, once people understand it, that it’s based on
the idea of a harmonious development of all, working together for
the mutual benefit; naturally, China is pursuing its interests,
but all the other countries are happy, that for the first time,
somebody is taking care of their interests as well.
So I think the whole propaganda about China is really —
that’s what it is:  It’s propaganda, coming from geopolitical
warmongering people in the West, and we should build a mass
movement of people who say “no”:  We should take up the offer of
Xi Jinping and have a win-win cooperation, join the New Silk Road
projects, and there are plenty of tasks where we can have a
common destiny of mankind.  And Xi Jinping, in this speech, he
used the very beautiful idea, “let the Sun shine on the shared
community for the one future of humanity,” and basically, make it
innumerous.

SCHLANGER:  In contrast to the positive report from Morgan
Stanley on China, we saw one of the chief market economists for
Goldman Sachs, a man named Himmelberg, warning of the financial
fragility in the West, especially if liquidity flows are cut, and
of course, yesterday the Federal Reserve Board met, and said
they’re going to cut liquidity flows by raising interest rates
another three to five times over the next 12 months!  So I think
we can see the contrast very clearly.
Now one of the other areas where a contrast comes in, that
in spite of the threats from the anti-China lobby in the United
States about the “danger” of China becoming a hegemonic power, we
see developments that continue to be positive on the Korean
Peninsula, which include collaboration between President Trump
and Xi Jinping.  There’s a couple of summits that were announced,
and Helga, it looks as though this is just going to  continue to
build toward the possibility of an outbreak of peace:  how
horrible, huh?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah. The possibility that it comes to a
trilateral summit in May, between Trump, Kim Jong-un, and
President Moon Jae-in from South Korea, is right now very likely.
Also, there will be other summits, involving Japan, Russia; so I
think there is a strategic realignment.
And I really think that the countries that are stubbornly
insisting on the geopolitical confrontation, they will be
sidelined.  I’m not underestimating the danger as we can see by
the British behavior, but I think the overwhelming tendency is
really development and cooperation, and this is a very good
thing.
Let me just mention one last point on this contrast:  While
China is cooperating with many African nations, building
railways, we talked about the beautiful Transaqua project which
is now on the table, and this is bringing the Silk Road Spirit
into Africa.  Now, what is the EU doing?  They just had an
African Union/EU summit in Kigali, in Rwanda, where only 25
Africa countries participated, and notably absent was President
Muhammadu Buhari of Nigeria, who refused to go, and does not want
to have Nigeria sign the proposed free trade agreement between
the AU and the EU.  Why?  Because naturally, many of the
industries of African nations are still in their infancy, very
backward and not developed, and fragile; and if you have a free
trade agreement, then all the European products would just flood
the African markets even more than they do already, and that way,
absolutely prevent and strangle the young, emerging industries in
the African nations.  And therefore, some of the Africans are
just refusing to go along with it.
But the reason why I’m mentioning it, is because it just
shows you that the neoliberal/neo-con geopolitical system is
really not out for win-win.  They want to exploit their
advantages, and that the EU is doing that is really one more
reason to say that they represent a system which is not in the
interest of anybody they cooperate with, nor their own members.
And if you want to know the proof of that, just look at the
southern European countries, which have been completely smashed
by the austerity policies of the Troika, and I think that what we
need instead is exactly what Italy is now doing: working with
China and the African nations in building up real economic
development like the Transaqua project.
So I think we have a real, very crystal clear picture, where
you see the intention of the two paradigms.  The old paradigm of
neoliberal control of the world, and the New Paradigm of
harmonious development of all nations.  And I think people should
really help to make sure that the second one becomes the
victorious one, and join with us!

SCHLANGER:  And Helga, when you talk about being stuck in
the old paradigm, do you have anything to say about the new
appointments to the new German government?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah.  That is a very sad story. As for Mrs.
Merkel who had nothing better to do than to be the puppy dog of
the British, really, this is a disgrace, and it should be noted
and understood by everybody.
But also the SPD, which is in a deep crisis, they have been
falling in the polls to less than 15%; the new Finance Minister
Olaf Scholz, what did he do?  He appointed a banker from Goldman
Sachs, Jörg Kukies, to be the deputy finance minister, and that
has caused a revolt in the German population.  There was a poll
whereby 64.9% of the people thought this was disgusting.  And
then he also appointed another guy, called Gatzer, who is known
to be the architect of the “black zero” policy of Schäuble.  And
then Scholz said oh, he’s so happy that he was able to put
together a good team.
Now, that forebodes not good things for Germany, because as
everybody knows, we are on the verge of a new financial crash,
and this was again mentioned by Sheila Bair, the former head of
the FDIC in the United States, who warned that the absolute
continuation of the derivatives trade, the speculative excesses,
the non-correction of the reasons that led to the 2008 crisis,
means we are in absolute danger of a new, even bigger crash.  And
she contrasted that, by the way, with what China has been doing,
by trying to completely forbit speculative investments, by
stabilizing the banking sector by increasing the reserves of the
banks to 15%.
But if you have such a pro-bubble government in Germany this
is not good.  And also despite the fact that there are many
Italian politicians from the Lega and Five Star Party who are
calling for Glass-Steagall, the EU is trying to get a Five
Star/Democratic Party coalition government, which would be from
their standpoint, the optimal option to preserve this speculative
system.
So I’m saying this because the Damocles Sword of a new
financial crash is absolutely still hanging over the world.  All
I can say is, given the fact that China has tried to move it’s
financial into safe waters, they are probably better protected
against the effects of such a crisis, coming than anybody else.
And I would ask our viewership, join with us, join with the
Schiller Institute to try to help mobilize for the Four Laws
proposed by my husband:  Glass-Steagall, a return to Hamiltonian
banking; a credit system and National Bank; a crash program for
thermonuclear fusion research and power, cooperation in space
exploration.  And join with the New Silk Road countries, and we
could have a New Paradigm in the world very, very quickly.  But
it requires you.  And it requires people to become active and no
leave events and history of mankind in the hands of an obviously
corrupt establishment.

SCHLANGER:  Helga, I think we can conclude by coming to the
commemoration of an event which proved that cynics are not right,
that people who say you can’t change the world with big ideas —
35 years ago from tomorrow, March 23rd, 1983, there was a shock
effect around the world, when Ronald Reagan gave a primetime
speech, and at the end of that speech, he endorsed the policy
that your husband first introduced with his pamphlet “Sputnik of
the ’80s” in the late 1970s — that is, the Strategic Defense
Initiative.  And it’s especially relevant today, given what we’re
seeing from Russia and President Putin.  So I’d like your
reflections on the importance of the anniversary of this event
from 35 years ago.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I think that the SDI proposal, which
was absolutely not what the media made out of it, calling it
“Star Wars,” and things like that, the SDI proposal of my
husband, Lyndon LaRouche was an absolutely farsighted vision of a
New Paradigm!  And if you read the relevant papers about it,
especially the proposed draft for a dialogue among the
superpowers, which was published one year later, which you can
find in the archives or in the newer {EIR}s. [“The LaRouche
Doctrine: A Draft Memorandum for an Agreement between the United
States of America and the U.S.S.R.,” {EIR}, April 17,1984] This
was a vision where both superpowers would develop together, new
physical principles which would make nuclear weapons obsolete.
And I think what Putin announced on March 1st in terms of new
physical principles applied for new weapons systems, is
absolutely is in this tradition. And Putin also asked, now they
have to sit down and we have to negotiate and put together a new
security architecture, including Russia, the United States,
China, and the Europeans.
This was all envisioned by my husband in this famous SDI
proposal, and it was a very far-reaching to dissolve the blocs,
NATO and the Warsaw Pact,  to cooperate instead among sovereign
republics, which is exactly what the New Silk Road dynamic today
represents. And it was also the idea to use a science-driver in
the economy to use the increased productivity of the real economy
for a gigantic technology transfer to the developing sector, in
order to overcome their underdevelopment and poverty.
And this is what we’re seeing today, also, in the
collaboration between China, Russia and the countries that are
participating in the Belt and Road Initiative.
So I think, in a certain sense, part of this danger of peace
breaking out, that there is right now the very vivid tradition
and actualization of that tradition of the SDI, and I think we
should circulate this proposal by my husband again.  I think we
should enlarge it to become the SDE, the Strategic Defense of the
Earth, because it was just discovered that very soon, another big
asteroid is already taking course on the planet Earth: So we need
to move quickly to the common aims of mankind, and all countries
should cooperate and be a shared community for the one future of
humanity.
This is the New Paradigm which I think is so obvious.  I
mean, if you look at the long arc of history, we {have} to
overcome geopolitics and we have to move to a kind of cooperation
where we put all our forces together to solve those questions
which are a challenge to all of humanity — nuclear weapons,
poverty, asteroids — there are so many areas where we could
fruitfully cooperate — space exploration is one of them.  And I
think we are in a very fascinating moment in history, but we need
more active citizens:  So please contact us, work with us, and
let’s together make a better world.

SCHLANGER:  I think that’s a very good place to end.  People
should now realize that giving up your pessimism is one of the
keys to bringing online this new paradigm.
So, Helga thank you very much for joining us today, and
we’ll see you next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes, see you next week.

Forgiftningen af den russiske/britiske eks-spion: Britisk informationskrig forsøger at provokere Rusland og genoplive deres amerikanske kup.

Vores formål er præcist at placere Theresa Mays sindssyge bestræbelse den 12.-14. marts på at fabrikere et nyt svindelnummer med »masseødelæggelsesvåben« med anvendelse af de samme folk (MI6-efterretningsgrupperingen omkring Sir Richard Dearlove) og det samme manuskript (en efterretningssvindel med hensyn til masseødelæggelsesvåben), som blev brugt til at trække USA ind i den katastrofale Irakkrig. Svindelnummeret med forgiftningen af Skripal involverer ligeledes direkte den britiskeagent, Christopher Steele, den centrale person i det igangværende kup mod Donald Trump.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 20. marts, 2018 – Præsident Trump har netop trukket tæppet væk under den skøre lady, Theresa May, og den endnu mere skøre udenrigsminister Boris Johnson. Alt imens disse afdankede forsvarere af det døende, britiske imperium beskylder Rusland for krigshandlinger, beskyldninger, der typisk ikke er baseret på nogen beviser, ringede Trump i dag og talte med den netop genvalgte præsident Vladimir Putin. Trump ikke alene lykønskede Putin for hans valgsejr, men annoncerede til den amerikanske presse, at han og Putin »sandsynligvis vil mødes i en ikke så fjern fremtid« for at diskutere forholdsregler for at forhindre et våbenkapløb og finde fredelige løsninger på kriserne i Ukraine, Syrien og Nordkorea. Kremls udskrift af samtalen lød, at de to ledere »talte for at udvikle praktisk samarbejde inden for forskellige felter, inkl. bestræbelser for at sikre strategisk stabilitet og bekæmpe internatonal terrorisme, med særlig vægt på betydningen af koordinerede bestræbelser på at begrænse et våbenkapløb.« Kreml tilføjede: »Samtalen om økonomisk samarbejde afslørede en interesse i at styrke det. Energi blev diskuteret særskilt.«

Her til aften vil briterne bide i gulvtæppet. Ikke alene har Trump ødelagt deres kneb med at beskylde Rusland for et kemisk krigsangreb på britisk jord; men også svindelnummeret med »Russiagate« i USA, som køres direkte af MI6-agenten Christopher Steele og hans agenter internt i USA, er kollapset. Nu står aktørerne i dette kupforsøg mod den amerikanske regering – inkl. John Brennan, James Clapper, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton og flere nyligt fyrede FBI-operatører – over for mulige anklager om kriminelle handlinger for det mest åbenlyse forræderi i moderne amerikansk historie, alt sammen på vegne af Det britiske Imperium.

For at gøre det hele værre for den ynkelige, håbefulde »M« og hendes kohorte, har »BoJo«-Labour-leder Jeremy Corbyn, der efter al sandsynlighed ville vinde et valg mod May, hvis det blev afholdt nu, krævet, at May fremlægger beviser (hvis der eksisterer nogen) for den nervegift, der blev brugt i Skripal-angrebet, over for russerne og (ligesom præsident Trump) insisteret på, at forhandlinger med russerne er absolut nødvendigt. I et BBC-interview her til morgen mindede han også landet om de katastrofale resultater af Tony Blairs tidligere forfalskede efterretninger om Iraks masseødelæggelsesvåben.

Og, for lige at banke sømmet dybere ind, så bekræftede talsperson for Det Hvide Hus Sarah Sanders, at nervegiftangrebet i UK slet ikke blev nævnt i telefonsamtalen mellem Trump og Putin!

Det nye paradigme er ved at komme i fokus på globalt plan: ikke alene lykønskede Trump Putin med at vinde seks år mere på posten, men sagde også, at det var godt, at Kina har ophævet begrænsninger af embedsperioder – for, sagde han, Xi Jinping er en storslået leder.

I dag talte Xi Jinping for den afsluttende forsamling i den 13. Nationale Folkekongres og udtrykte tillid til, at den kinesiske foryngelse vil fortsætte og ekspandere, med Kina, der bidrager endnu mere til global regeringsførelse og global udvikling gennem den Nye Silkevej. »Lad solskinnet fra et fællesskab for en fælles fremtid for menneskeheden oplyse verden«, sluttede han.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde i dag, at præsidenterne Trump, Putin og Xi viser sandt lederskab for verden, alt imens Det britiske Imperiums desperate handlinger er begyndt at give bagslag. Tidligere har britiske imperieintriger været støttet af svage, amerikanske ledere, der endda stillede sig i spidsen for håndhævelse af britisk politik, som i krigen i Indokina, Irakkrigen og krigen i Libyen, samt i de radikale politikker for det ’frie marked’, som holdt de tidligere koloninationer økonomisk tilbagestående samtidig med at ødelægge de industrialiserede nationer i Europa og Nordamerika.

Men Trump har nægtet at lade sig udnytte af den »særlige relation« og har i stedet fremført, at imperieopdelingen i Øst og Vest skal være forbi. I sin besejring af kupmagerne kan han også gennemføre sit løfte om at vende USA tilbage til det Amerikanske System for fysisk økonomi og opgive den fejlslagne, britiske »frie markedsmodel« til fordel for en dirigeret kreditpolitik i Hamiltons tradition til genopbygning af Amerikas industrielle infrastruktur. Situationen er stadig ekstremt farlig, men aldrig har vi været så tæt på at afslutte selve eksistensen af Imperium, én gang for alle.

Foto: Trump og Putin hilser på hinanden på APEC-topmødets første dag. 10. nov., 2017, De Nang, Vietnam. 

20. marts, 2018 – I samtale med reportere under sit møde i dag i det ovale kontor med den saudiske prins Mohammad bin Salman, annoncerede præsident Donald Trump rask, at han havde ringet til den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin tidligere på dagen for at lykønske ham med hans valgsejr og foreslå, at de to skulle mødes »i en ikke for fjern fremtid« for at diskutere, hvordan de i fællesskab kunne forhindre et våbenkapløb, blandt andre afgørende spørgsmål.

Som præsidenten forklarede: »telefonsamtalen havde også at gøre med det faktum, at vi sandsynligvis vil mødes i en ikke for fjern fremtid, så vi kan diskutere våben, diskutere våbenkapløbet. Som I ved, så har han erklæret, at det, at være i et våbenkapløb, ikke er så godt. Det var lige efter valget – en af de første udtalelser, han kom med.

Vi vil bruge $700 mia. i år på vores militær, og meget af det er, at vi fortsat vil være langt stærkere end nogen anden nation i verden.

Vi havde en meget god samtale, og jeg regner med, at vi sandsynligvis vil mødes i en ikke så fjern fremtid for at diskutere våbenkapløbet, der er ved at komme ud af kontrol, men vi vil aldrig tillade nogen at have noget, der blot nærmer sig det, vi har. Og ligeledes for at diskutere Ukraine og Syrien og Nordkorea og forskellige andre ting«, sluttede han.

De amerikanske medier, både i »anti-Trump« CNN og »pro-Trump« Fox News versionen, viste deres britiske stamtavle ved at gå bersærk mod Trump, for at tale med Putin.

Kremls udskrift af samtalen var i overensstemmelse med ånden i præsident Trumps rapport om de to lederes diskussioner, inkl. at omtale interessen i at øge det økonomiske samarbejde.

»Donald Trump lykønskede Vladimir Putin med hans valgsejr i præsidentvalget. Lederne talte til fordel for at udvikle praktisk samarbejde inden for forskellige områder, inkl. bestræbelser på at sikre strategisk stabilitet og bekæmpe international terrorisme, med særlig vægt på betydningen af koordinerede bestræbelser for at forhindre et våbenkapløb«, rapporterede Kreml.

»Ordvekslingen om økonomisk samarbejde afslørede en interesse i at styrke det. Energi blev særskilt diskuteret.

Problemet med Syrien blev diskuteret, såvel som også den interne krise i Ukraine. Der var en erkendelse fra begge sider af nødvendigheden af at gøre hurtige fremskridt mod opnåelse af afgørelser.

Der blev udtrykt tilfredshed med den begrænsede reduktion af spændinger omkring Koreahalvøen. Det hensigtsmæssige i at fortsætte med konstante bestræbelser for at løse situationen ved fredelige, diplomatiske midler blev understreget.

Det aftaltes at udvikle yderligere bilaterale kontakter i lyset af ændringerne i det Amerikanske Udenrigsministeriums lederskab. Muligheden for at arrangere et møde på topniveau fik særlig opmærksomhed.

Generelt var samtalen konstruktiv og forretningsmæssig, med fokus på at overvinde de akkumulerede problemer i de russisk-amerikanske relationer«, sluttede det.

Foto: USA’s præsident Donald Trump ringede i dag til præsident Vladimir Putin for at lykønske ham med valgsejren i søndags. Her ses de to ledere under G20-topmødet i Hamborg, 7. juli, 2017.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 19. marts, 2018 – Den britiske regerings nu dagligt eskalerende konfrontation med Rusland er drevet af de mest korrupte motiver og tilsigter frem for alt at trække USA ind i – det, der kunne blive krig, endda en »krig uden overlevende«.

I løbet af de seneste 48 timer er tre nye »narrativer« om angivelige russiske angreb mod Storbritannien blevet sendt ud af London, som konstant optrapper og forandrer den oprindelige, udokumenterede anklage om, at Rusland – og dernæst, russere efter præsident Putins personlige ordre – forsøgte at myrde en MI6-dobbeltagent i England. Og de britiske medier har gjort en dristig »militær udfordring af Rusland« ud af en øvelse med britiske ubåde, læsset med amerikanske atommissiler, sammen med amerikanske atomubåde under polarisen.

Hvilke motiver har den britiske udenrigsminister Boris Johnson, der ser ud, og agerer, som »Col. Blimp« fra tegneserien fra Første Verdenskrig, og Theresa May, der blev premierminister ved et tilfælde, og som har den stilling, Johnson troede, ville blive hans? De er imperialister af en finansiel og geopolitisk London-orden, som, forventer de, vil blive håndhævet militært af USA.

De ser denne geopolitiske orden blive erstattet af Kinas nye paradigme for samarbejde mellem stormagter for alle nationers fremskridt og deres befolkningers produktivitet: Bælte & Vej Initiativet med nye infrastrukturprojekter og udryddelse af fattigdom. De ønsker Kina holdt tilbage, Bælte & Vej sat under City of Londons regler; men de kan ikke få det til at ske. De ønsker Kinas allierede Rusland konfronteret og endda udfordret til kamp.

De konfronteres selv med utilfredse britiske befolkninger og en determineret og bredt støttet leder i Labours Jeremy Corbyn, som bekæmper deres geopolitiske politikker og City of Londons finansielle, imperiale bankcentrums finansielle forbrydelser. De ønsker Corbyn tjæret som en »håndlanger for Kreml« af tabloidpressen, og drevet ud.

De ser fortsat stærk modstand mod Londons geopolitik fra præsident Donald Trump. Efter 18 måneders nonstop angreb på Trump, der har deres udspring i britiske efterretningstjenester, som sigter på at knække ham eller fjerne ham, går han stadig ind for samarbejde mellem stormagterne og vinder støtte i den amerikanske befolkning.

De står meget snart over for endnu et krak i London-Wall Street-kabalen, værre end i 2007-08. Det britiske Imperiums svar på denne trussel har altid været krig.

På trods af hysterisk støtte i de store medier, så har de »nye Churchills« fra London ikke det momentum, de forestiller sig, for krigskonfrontation. Ikke engang i UK – men, for dem er det, at køre USA, altid det, der tæller mest.

Det, der nu er afgørende, er, at præsident Trump og USA vælger tilbuddet fra Kina, Bælte & Vej Initiativet, og lader dets paradigme for produktiv, økonomisk fremskridt dryppe lidt på os.

Skattelettelser og afregulering af Wall Street har ikke genoplivet, og vil ikke genoplive, amerikansk vækst fra dens lange stagnation, og heller ikke udfylde USA’s enorme infrastrukturunderskud. Det vil derimod de tiltag, som stifter af EIR, Lyndon LaRouche, har foreslået, med begyndelse i Glass/Steagall-loven til at bryde Wall Street op. Disse tiltag, som omfatter den første, statslige kreditinstitution, USA har haft siden Franklin Roosevelts Reconstruction Finance Corp., har til formål at slutte USA til et globalt samarbejde mellem suveræne nationer for »menneskehedens fælles mål«.

Det betyder at vælge Kinas fremskridt til, og Storbritanniens krig fra.

Foto: Vladimir Putin og Theresa May diskuterede spørgsmål af fælles interesse for Rusland og Storbritannien. Hangzhou, Kina, 4. september, 2016 (Kreml).  

17. marts, 2018 – I dagene efter, at den britiske premierminister Theresa May udløste hysteri over den angivelige forgiftning af den britiske dobbeltagent Sergei Skripal, sættes der fornyet fokus på Det britiske Imperiums egen historie for arbejde med kemiske og biologiske krigsvåben. Dette omfatter at trække artikler frem fra arkiverne om disse emner.

Den første af disse artikler fra arkiverne, som vi er blevet opmærksomme på, blev udgivet i avisen Guardian den 6. maj, 2004, og som rapporterer om daværende ny research af eksperimenter, udført på britiske soldater, med reel nervegift i 1950’erne og 1960’erne. »Ud fra et rent videnskabeligt synspunkt, producerede de en enorm mængde data om virkningerne af nervegas på den menneskelige krop«, skrev Rob Evans, forfatter af Gassed: British Chemical Warfare Experiments on Humans at Porton Down. (Porton Down er Storbritanniens hemmelighedsfulde videnskabelige og teknologiske forsvarslaboratorie, som angiveligt identificerede Novichok-nervegiften i Skripal-sagen.) »Disse data har igen gjort det muligt for Porton at udvikle nogle af de mest sofistikerede forsvar i verden for at beskytte Storbritanniens bevæbnede styrker mod kemiske angreb«. Evans rapporterede yderligere, at disse nazistisk-lignende eksperimenter (vores betegnelse, ikke hans) på mennesker har været en integreret del af arbejdet på Porton Down, siden det blev oprettet i 1916.

Endnu en sådan rapport fremkom i Independent den 8. juli, 2015, og som afslørede ny research af britiske regeringseksperimenter med både kemiske og biologiske gifte på den almindelige befolkning, uden dennes vidende. »I flere end 70 hemmelige operationer, blev hundrede tusinder af almindelige briter udsat for ’fingerede’ biologiske og kemiske krigsangreb, lanceret fra fly, skibe og automobiler«, rapporterede Independent. Research udført at Ulf Schmidt, professor i moderne historie ved Universitetet i Kent, afslørede, at britiske militærfly kastede tusindvis af kilo af et kemikalie af ’stort set ukendt giftigt potentiale’ på britiske, civile befolkninger i og omkring Salisbury i Wiltshire, Cardington i Bedfordshire og Norwich i Norfolk. Det anvendte kemikalie, zink cadmiumsulfid, mentes at være harmløst, men er siden blevet anset for at være kræftfremkaldende.

I maj 1964 gennemførte forskere fra Porton Down også et eksperiment i Londons undergrundsbanesystem, hvor de spredte en bakterie ved navn Bacillus globigii. På det tidspunkt, rapporterede Independent, »mente regeringen, at Bacillus globigii var harmløse – men i dag anses de for at være en årsag til fødevareforgiftning, øjeninfektioner og endda blodforgiftning«.

I 1950’erne tilbragte britiske forskere 15 måneder i Nigeria – som dengang stadig var en britisk koloni – med at udføre nervegaseksperimenter, selv om omfanget af virkningen på den lokale befolkning tilsyneladende ikke kendes.

Billede: Studie af kunstneren John Singer Sargent til hans oliemaleri, ’Gassed’, fra 1918-1919. Maleriet, der måler 231 cm x 611 cm, hænger på Imperial War Museum og blev kommissioneret af British War Memorials Committee for at dokumentere krigen. Maleriet blev i 1919 vedtaget som ’årets billede’ af Royal Academy of Arts.

17. marts, 2018 – Det Russiske Forsvarsministerium fremførte i dag den anklage, at det amerikanske militær, som opererer ud fra sin illegale base i Al Tanf, Syrien, i nærheden af det sted, hvor den irakiske og jordanske grænse møder den syriske grænse, er i færd med at forberede en provokation med kemiske våben i det sydlige Syrien, og som skal bruges som påskud for amerikanske luftangreb mod syriske regeringsstyrker. Chefen for den russiske generalstabs Operationelle Hoveddirektorat, oberst general Sergei Rudskoy, sagde i Forsvarsministeriet i dag, at »det russiske parti har beviser for, at amerikanske instruktører har uddannet flere oprørsgrupper nær al-Tanf med det formål at udføre provokationer med kemiske våben i det sydlige Syrien«. Disse oprørs-sabotagegrupper blev dernæst deployeret til deeskaleringszonen i Daraa, i det sydlige Syrien. »De er i færd med at forberede provokationer med anvendelse af eksplosive mekanismer, der har monteret giftstoffer«, sagde Rudskoy. »Dette faktum vil i fremtiden blive brugt til at anklage regeringstropperne for at bruge kemiske våben.«

En lignende provokation er ligeledes i færd med at blive forberedt for Idlib, fremførte den russiske militærmand. »De bevæbnede grupperinger Jabhat al-Nusra, med støtte fra de såkaldte ’Hvide Hjelme’, er i færd med at forberede iscenesatte kemiske angreb nær bebyggelserne al-Habid og Qalb Luza, der ligger 25 km nordvest for Idlib. Derfor er 20 containere med kloringas blevet leveret dér«, sagde Rudskoy. »Sådanne provokationer vil give USA og dets koalition belæg for et angreb imod militære faciliteter og regeringsfaciliteter i Syrien.«

»Det Russiske Forsvarsministerium understregede, at der er klare beviser for forberedelser til de mulige angreb«, sagde Rudskoy. »Der er grupper af skibe med missiler, som er deployeret i den østlige del af Middelhavet, den Persiske Golf og det Røde Hav. Det stiller spørgsmålet – hvem er det, USA vil støtte med disse angreb? Vil det være Jabhat al-Nusra og dets søsterafdelinger, som begår uhyrligheder i landet? Den russiske generalstab overvåger fortsat situationen i den Syriske Arabiske Republik.«

Hangarskibet USS Theodore Roosevelt og dets angrebsgruppe, bestående af tre destroyere med styrede missiler og en krydser, opererer aktuelt i den Persiske Golf. U.S. Naval Institute News’ seneste Naval Tracker, opdateret 27. feb., rapporterer, at USA’s Femte Flåde har 20 krigsskibe, som aktuelt opererer under flåden, og hvor den Sjette Flåde, der har hovedkvarter i Napoli, Italien, har 16. En stor del af disse fartøjer vil være i stand til at medføre Tomahawk-krydsermissiler.

Foto: Talsmand for den russiske generalstab, Sergey Rudskoy. (Photo Sputnik News)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 18. marts, 2018 – I sin artikel den 17. marts, skrevet til den tyske avis Neue Solidarität, der udkommer ugentligt, advarede Schiller Instituttets stifter og præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche om, at vestlige lederes kapitulation til Det britiske Imperiums sindssyge provokationer mod Rusland har forværret den strategiske krise og forhøjet faren for krig. Vi citerer uddrag af hendes artikel her:

»Blot en enkelt dag efter, at kansler Merkel i sit embedsløfte svor at ’beskytte det tyske folk mod ondt’, støttede hun fuldt og helt den britiske regerings uansvarlige provokation mod Rusland i en fælles erklæring fra den franske, amerikanske, britiske og tyske regering. Macron, Trump, May og Merkel enedes om, at der ’ikke var nogen troværdig, alternativ forklaring’ på giftangrebet mod den tidligere dobbeltagent Sergei Skripal og hans datter Yulia ud over, at Rusland var ansvarligt for det. Men denne operation er så åbenlys, at der kun er én troværdig forklaring på den: Det britiske Imperium ønsker at trække hele Vesten ind i en optrapning af en ny Kold Krig, og muligvis mere. Og fr. Merkel er med til at støtte det, uden tøven.

I mellemtiden har en række kendte eksperter påpeget, at ultimatummet på blot én dag, som Theresa May gav den russiske regering til at forklare, hvordan nervegiften ’Novichok’ kom fra Rusland til Storbritannien, er et klart brud på reglerne i OPCW [Organisationen for forbud mod kemiske våben], som også UK er medlem af. Det ville have været nødvendigt, bemærker de, at udlevere en prøve på giften til OPCW for en uafhængig efterforskning, og den anklagede part, i dette tilfælde Rusland, skulle have fået ti dage til at svare på anklagerne. Den tidligere britiske ambassadør til Usbekistan, Craig Murray, karakteriserede ’Novichok’-historien, for hvilken den britiske regering ikke har præsenteret den mindste smule bevis, som et svindelnummer i samme tradition som anklagerne om Iraks angivelige masseødelæggelsesvåben. 

(Man vil huske, at et memo fra den britiske efterretningstjeneste MI6 fremlagde dette forslag).

Murray udtalte, at chefen for UK’s eneste facilitet for kemiske våben, dr. Robin Black, i et prestigiøst videnskabeligt magasin i 2016 havde understreget, at beviserne for eksistensen af denne gift var sparsomme, og at dets kemiske sammensætning var ukendt. Ikke desto mindre påstod Theresa May, selv om Storbritannien selvsagt ikke havde nogen prøver, dvs., at de ikke havde noget, med hvilket de kunne have sammenlignet den giftige substans, som blev brugt i angrebet på Skripal, at Rusland alene bar ansvaret for det. Storbritanniens facilitet for kemiske våben ligger tilfældigvis i Porton Down, som interessant nok blot er 12 km fra Salisbury, hvor angrebet fandt sted. I betragtning af den tvivlsomme karakter af Novichoks eksistens, besluttede OPCW ikke at føje det til listen over kemiske våben.

Tingene bliver endnu mere interessante, når det kommer til Christopher Steeles rolle i denne affære. Sergei Skripal, der dengang arbejdede for den russiske militære efterretningstjeneste, blev angiveligt ’vendt’ i 1995 af en MI6-agent ved navn Pablo Miller i en operation, som blev koordineret af Steele, der dengang arbejdede i Moskva under diplomatisk dække. Da Steele ’forlod’ MI6 i 2009, stiftede han det private sikkerhedsfirma Orbis Business International, hvis varemærke er at markedsføre anklager imod Rusland i PR-stil. Et af firmaets operationer var ’Operation Charlemagne’, om den såkaldte russiske indblanding i valgene i Frankrig, Italien, Storbritannien og Tyskland, såvel som også den angivelige finansiering af Marine Le Pen, Silvio Berlusconi og partiet Alternativ for Tyskland (AfD) og en russisk kampagne for at ødelæge EU.

Men hans absolutte mesterværk som spion er kupforsøget mod Donald Trump via det aftalte spil mellem Obama-administrationens efterretningschefer, DNC [Democratic National Committee], Hillary Clintons kampagne og de britiske efterretningstjenester, og som udelukkende var baseret på det ’slibrige dossier’ om Trump, som Steele et Orbis havde fremstillet. USA’s Repræsentanternes Hus’ efterretningskomite har netop udgivet resultaterne af sin ét år lange efterforskning, som fandt, at der ikke fandt noget ’aftalt spil’ sted mellem den russiske regering og Trump-teamet.«

Senere i sin artikel nævner Zepp-LaRouche, at en anden aktør i Orbis-operationen var Andrew Wood, den tidligere britiske ambassadør til Moskva på netop det tidspunkt, hvor Skripal blev rekrutteret af Miller i en operation, der blev koordineret af Steele. Desuden var Steele selv den ansvarlige MI6-officer for anklagerne mod Rusland i sagen om den tidligere KGB-, FSB-agent Alexander Litvinenko, der døde i London i 2006.

Med andre ord, den samme kreds af ’tidligere’ MI6-agenter, der står for propagandaoperationen om angiveligt ’aftalt spil’ mellem Trump og Rusland, som nu er blevet miskrediteret som ’fake news’, var og er i centrum for Skripal-angrebet. Hvis det går som en and, rapper som en and og ser ud som en and, så er det efter al sandsynlighed at dømme, en and; dvs., en operation på vegne af britisk efterretning.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche opfordrer indtrængende Tyskland til at nægte at gå med på den hysteriske kampagne mod Rusland, og ligeledes mod Kina, og til i stedet at slutte sig til det Nye Paradigme. Hun konkluderer, at, hvis premierminister Theresa nu forestiller sig, at hun må imitere den britiske skuespillerinde Judi Dench, der spillede rollen som ’M’ i James Bond-film – den chef, som Bond rapporterede til – så er det et tilfælde af ekstremt dårlig smag. »At tillade sig selv at blive trukket ind i en konfrontation med Rusland af en sådan rollemodel, er uansvarligt.«

Foto: Genvalgte kansler Angela Merkel (højre) og britiske PM Theresa May (midten) enedes tirsdag 13. marts om, at allierede burde handle samstemmigt for at imødegå »Ruslands aggressive adfærdsmønster« efter giftangrebet på UK’s territorium af en tidligere russisk dobbeltagent, Sergei Skripal. Frankrigs præsident Emmanuel Macron (venstre), såvel som også USA’s præsident Donald Trump, har ligeledes givet deres støtte til briternes udlægning af sagen; at Rusland er den ansvarlige. (Arkivfoto).

Vi befinder os nu i en situation, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche tidligere i dag beskrev som »ildevarslende«; det var det ord, hun brugte. Hun sagde, »Dette kan kun forstås som et miljø med førkrigs-propaganda«. Hun sagde, at den respons, vi har set fra Vesten, fra flere lande i Europa og inkl. her i USA, til den bizarre sag med forgiftningen i Salisbury, Storbritannien, af en russisk eksspion, der blev britisk spion, ved anvendelse af en angivelig nervegift; hun sagde, at dette nu har skabt det, der kun kan betegnes som en ekstremt farlig situation, som meget let kunne eskalere hurtigt og føre til krig. Hun sagde, »Man må stille sig selv det indlysende spørgsmål: Hvor fører alt dette hen?«

Nøglefaktoren her, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche har understreget, er timing. Denne begivenhed, og alt det, der efterfølgende har udviklet sig med den, kom direkte i hælene på: 1) præsident Putins annoncering i sin tale for den føderale forsamling den 1. marts af denne nye generation strategiske våben, der totalt har ændret den internationale, geopolitiske struktur; og 2) annonceringen fra Husets Efterretningskomite, der præsideres af kongresmedlem Devin Nunes, nogle få dage senere af, at de havde afsluttet deres efterforskning og konkluderet, at der absolut ikke fandt noget ’aftalt spil’ sted mellem Trump-kampagnen og russerne. Dette var absolut hele grundlaget for Christopher Steeles Russiagate-narrativ.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Der er mange spørgsmål, vi bør diskutere, og mange ting, vi bør gøre, for det image, folk har af Vesten, er virkelig noget, folk bør tænke over. Hvordan kan det være, at det kommunistiske Kina, som er et socialistisk land, baseret på socialisme med kinesiske karaktertræk, som de siger – hvorfor klarer dette land sig så meget bedre end Vesten? Det bør give stof til eftertanke. Hvad er der i vejen med den neoliberale metode, et system, der forårsager svælget mellem rig og fattig at blive større hele tiden? I alle europæiske lande, og dette reflekteredes også i valget af Trump, væmmes mange mennesker fuldstændig ved den politiske klasse, med klassen af direktører, med bankfolk, med akademikere, og føler sig ikke længere repræsenteret af disse institutioner, hvilket er meget farligt, for i Europas tilfælde giver det grund til, at der vokser nogle virkelig meget farlige, eller i det mindste problematiske, partier og organisationer frem.

Så, manglen på fornuft afføder monstre, som Goya så klart påpegede i sine tegninger.

Folk bør begynde at blive aktive, for man kan ikke sidde passivt i et paradigmeskifte som det, vi oplever på dette tidspunkt.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

16. marts, 2018 – Storbritanniens udenrigsminister Boris Johnson har den 16. marts givet en »eksklusiv« kronik til den store Pariseravis, Le Parisien, om mordforsøget på Skripal. Han skriver: »Jeg fortolker denne hændelse som en yderligere demonstration af præsident Vladimir Putins farlige opførsel. Den røde tråd, der forbinder [Skripal] forgiftningen i Salisbury med annekteringen af Krim, cyber-angrebene mod Ukraine, udspioneringen af Bundestag, russernes indblanding i flere europæiske valg; det er Kremls foragt for grundlæggende, internationale regler.« Han fortsætter, at Ruslands opbakning af Syriens præsident Bashar Assads angivelige brug af kemiske våben viser, at Rusland er ansvarligt for Skripal-angrebet.

Til BBC himlede Johnson op om, at det var »overvældende sandsynligt«, at Putin personligt havde beordret Skripal-angrebet; så gik han over gevind, selv for ham: »Vi har intet imod selve russerne. Der er ingen russofobi som resultat af det, der finder sted. (!) Vi har et skænderi med Putins Kreml og med hans beslutning – og vi mener, det er overvældende sandsynligt, at det var hans beslutning – at beordre brugen af en nervegift i Det forenede Kongeriges gader.«

Og hvorfor så efterlade et »fingeraftryk« som Novichok, blev han spurgt? »Der er en grund til at vælge Novichok«, sagde han. »I sin åbenlyse væren russisk sender denne nervegift et signal til alle, der overvejer dissidens i den intensiverende undertrykkelse i Putins Rusland«, svarede han BBC. »Budskabet er klart: Vi vil finde jer, vi vil fange jer, vi vil dræbe jer – og selv om vi vil benægte det med et hånligt smil på læberne, så vil verden uden for enhver tvivl vide, at Rusland gjorde det.«

Foto: Storbritanniens udenrigsminister Boris Johnson (venstre): »Overvejende sandsynligt«, at Putin personligt beordrede Skripal-angrebet.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 15. marts, 2018 – I sin ugentlige webcast i dag advarede Schiller Instituttets præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche rammende om, at den britiske operation imod Rusland, der i denne uge eskalerede med Londons anklager om, at Moskva er ansvarlig for forgiftningen med nervegas af den russiske MI6-dobbeltagent Sergei Skripal og hans datter, »lugter langt væk«. Dette er en »utrolig provokation« mod Rusland, sagde hun, men det er direkte relateret til det faktum, at Det britiske Imperium og dets efterretningstjenester er blevet totalt afsløret og svækket. »Tidligere« MI6-agent Christopher Steele er ikke alene blevet afsløret som den centrale person i forsøget på at bringe Trumps præsidentskab til fald i USA, men hans poteaftryk er også over det hele i Skripal-affæren – han var med til at gøre ham til en britisk dobbeltagent – såvel som også i tidligere, lignende sager, der involverede den russiske agent Alexander Litvinenkos død. Gennem sit Orbis Business efterretningsfirma har han tilbragt årtiet, siden han »forlod« MI6, på at fabrikere »beviser« for, at Rusland blandede sig i valgene i flere europæiske lande med det formål at ødelægge den Europæiske Union, og alle mulige andre angivelige »forbrydelser«.

Storbritanniens tidligere ambassadør til Usbekistan, Craig Murray, har påpeget svagheden i premierminister Theresa Mays anklager om, at Rusland havde forgiftet Skripal med den såkaldte nervegas Novichok. Som det rapporteres nedenfor, så påpeger Murray, at Novichok er et stof, ingen nogensinde har set, og hvis eksistens endda betvivles. Den britiske regerings laboratorie for kemiske våben i Porton Down har i publikationer erkendt, at det aldrig har set noget russisk Novichok. Hverken Organisationen for forbud mod kemiske våben (OPCW) eller laboratoriet i Porton Down er overbevist om, at Novichok overhovedet eksisterer. Er det grunden til, at den britiske regering nægter at give OPCW en prøve af Novichok eller at følge den strenge protokol, som OPCW har etableret for efterforskning af sådanne sager?

Zepp-LaRouche forklarede, at dette seneste angreb mod Rusland, som meget hurtigt er eskaleret netop i løbet af denne uge, såvel som også truslerne fra USA’s ambassadør til FN, Nikki Haleys side om, at USA måske vil bombe Syrien, alt sammen har med det faktum at gøre, at »det Nye Paradigme er ved at vinde, og det gamle paradigme er splintret. Jeg mener, der nu kommer en ny, strategisk virkelighed, som kommer fra den Nye Silkevej, der konstant ekspanderer og går progressivt fremefter, og som omfatter flere end 140 lande, som [den kinesiske udenrigsminister] Wang Yi sagde for nylig på en pressekonference i Beijing«. Det ville være en alvorlig fejltagelse at undervurdere virkningen af præsident Vladimir Putins tale den 1. marts og hans annoncering af nye, avancerede våbensystemer, som gør Vestens ABM-systemer forældede, understregede Zepp-LaRouche. »Dette har skabt en ny, strategisk virkelighed, og jeg mener, at denne britiske operation og eskaleringen i Syrien virkelig er de sidste, på forhånd tabte kampe fra et systems side, der tydeligvis er ved at gå ned.« Det gør dem imidlertid ikke mindre farlige.

I det samme spor kommenterede den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov indsigtsfuldt, at det, der nu finder sted, er, at USA og dets vestlige allierede ser, at »den 500 år lange periode med vestlig dominans i globale anliggender er ved at nå vejs ende«. Overgangen til en ny, multipolær, demokratisk og retfærdig verdensorden vil tage nogen tid, sagde han til en forsamling i Moskva, »men allerede nu er denne overgang smertelig for dem, der i århundreder har vænnet sig til at regere verden «. Og de er »nervøse« over, at Rusland nu fremstår som en »ligeværdig partner, der ikke påtvinger andre noget, men som ikke tolererer diktater eller ultimatummer«. Han påpegede også, at Theresa May er »desperat« og svag og ude af stand til at holde løfter, hun har afgivet til befolkningen med Storbritannien, der gør klar til at forlade den Europæiske Union.

Fr. LaRouche påpegede, at Theresa May måske har set en James Bond-film for meget og tror, hun er den berygtede »M«, der var Bonds boss. Men, tilføjede hun, »dette er ikke nogen leg«. Dette antikverede persongalleri er farligt, men jeg tror virkelig, det er sådan noget James Bond-halløj. Hvis I nogensinde igen ser en James Bond-film, jeg mener, hvad er det, de gør? De er terrorister! De bryder loven! … og det er selvfølgelig hele britisk efterretnings fantasiverden. Folk bør virkelig kaste et ekstra blik på det og indlede en efterforskning af britisk ’aftalt spil’, både i tilfældet Trump og nu, i tilfældet Skripal«.

Zepp-LaRouche bemærkede, at hun ved årets begyndelse sagde, »vi må overvinde geopolitik«, for i en æra med atomvåben kan intet løses ved militære midler. »Det, der nu kommer fra briterne, kan kun bruges til én ting: det gør det absolut klart, hvilken rolle, de spiller. Det har de hele tiden gjort, men nu er det mere ude i det åbne end nogensinde før.« Det er derfor afgørende, »at vi virkelig sætter ind for at afslutte Det britiske Imperium og erstatter det med det Nye Paradigme, med et nyt sæt internationale relationer, baseret på suverænitet, baseret på respekt for den andens samfundssystem og for menneskehedens fælles mål, og jeg mener, at denne debat er absolut presserende påkrævet«.

Se hele Zepp-LaRouches webcast fra fredag, 15. marts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecoYSyypvB4

Dokumentation:

Tidligere britiske diplomat Craig Murray afviser beskyldninger om russisk nervegift

15. marts, 2018 – Den tidligere britiske ambassadør til Usbekistan Craig Murray har på sin webside afvist beskyldningerne om en russisk nervegift med hjælp fra kilder, som han siger, han ikke kan afsløre på nuværende tidspunkt. Han fremfører imidlertid, at »Novichok-historien er endnu et irakisk masseødelæggelsesvåben-fupnummer«, som titlen på hans blog lyder.

Storbritanniens regering hæver grundlæggende set, at den tidligere russiske agent i GRU (øverste efterretningsafdeling) Sergei Skripal, der blev en MI6-dobbeltagent, blev dræbt [sic] af »Novichok«, et stof, ingen nogensinde har set, og hvis eksistens endda betvivles, så hvis det virkelig blev brugt, ville det være første gang, og britiske eksperter ville ikke være i stand til at identificere det. Desuden burde de have afleveret en prøve til Organisationen for forbud mod kemiske våben (OPCW), som UK er medlem af.

Han opsummerer sine konklusioner som følger:

»1) Porton Down [den britiske regerings laboratorie, der arbejder med kemiske våben] har i publikationer erkendt, at det aldrig har set noget russisk ’Novichok’. Den britiske regering har absolut ingen ’fingeraftryks-information’, såsom urenheder, hvorved en prøve på stoffet med sikkerhed kunne tilskrives Rusland.

2) Frem til i dag har hverken Porton Down eller de globale eksperter i OPCW været overbevist om, at ’Novichok’ overhovedet eksisterer.

3) UK nægter at afgive en prøve til OPCW.

4) ’Novichoks’ blev specifikt designet til at kunne blive fremstillet fra almindeligt forekommende ingredienser på alle forskningssteder. Amerikanerne afmonterede og undersøgte den facilitet, der angiveligt skulle have udviklet dem. Det er fuldstændig usandt, at kun russere kunne fremstille dem, hvis nogen overhovedet kan.

5) Novichok-programmet lå i Usbekistan, ikke Rusland. Arven efter det blev arvet af amerikanerne under deres alliance med [usbekiske præsident Islam] Karimov, ikke af russerne.«

Foto: Storbritanniens PM, Theresa May.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 14. marts, 2018 – Først var det Tony Blairs »uvederhæftige dossier« om Saddam Husseins masseødelæggelsesvåben, som udløste, at den ynkelige George W. Bush forvandlede hele Mellemøsten (med Obamas hjælp) til et helvedeshul af terrorister. Dernæst kom påstande om Bashar Assads brug af kemiske våben, som narrede Trump til at gennemføre et missilangreb mod en syrisk flyvebase. Så kom britisk efterretningsagent Christopher Steeles eget »uvederhæftige dossier«, der lancerede et forsøg på regimeskifte mod USA’s regering, baseret på eventyrfortællinger om Trump og Rusland. Nu erklærer Theresa May, typisk uden beviser, at der »ikke er nogen alternativ konklusion«, men at den »russiske stat« er ansvarlig for angrebet med nervegift i London-området Salisbury, »en ulovlig magtanvendelse mod Det forenede Kongerige«. Vi må alle forenes mod de onde russere, hyler May og hendes kontrollers.

Det er alt sammen selvindlysende nonsens, men der er desperation i Det britiske Imperium. I 50 år har Lyndon LaRouche dokumenteret Det britiske Imperiums historiske had mod De forenede Stater og den systemiske overtagelse af den amerikanske regerings politik gennem Wall Street og andre aktiver, i kølvandet på FDR’s død og mordet på JFK. Få lyttede. »Det britiske Imperium er dødt«, lod man os ofte vide, efterfulgt af en påstand om, at det eneste imperium i dag er Det russiske Imperium, eller Det amerikanske Imperium, afhængigt af, hvilket af Det britiske Imperiums kontrollerede miljøer, man valgte at bo i.

Men det fungerer ikke så nemt denne gang. Londonavisen Guardian viste i dag graden af panik i Imperiet. Lederartiklen lyder: »UK arbejdede hårdt hele dagen i Washington for at overtale Trump til at skubbe sit ønske om et forhold til Putin til side og indse, at Rusland var det eneste land, der havde midlerne og motivet til at søge at dræbe Skripal«, den russiske dobbeltagent for MI6, som sammen med sin datter i sidste uge blev ramt af et angreb med nervegift. Men, klynker de, »Trump tilbød kun en modstræbende accept af det britiske tilfælde, men tilskrev ikke direkte Rusland ansvaret … Det ville være et slag mod de angloamerikanske relationer, hvis Trump nægtede at acceptere den britiske efterretningsvurdering, men siden sit valg har han følt sig under belejring pga. beskyldninger om, at han havde indgået et aftalt spil med Rusland for at vinde præsidentskabet, og han mener, at tidligere, britiske efterretningsofficerer har næret disse beskyldninger.«

Det gør han så sandelig, og denne bestræbelse på at bruge løgne, brygget sammen af MI6, for at bringe hans præsidentskab til fald, er nu blevet godt og grundigt miskrediteret. De tidligere efterretningsfolk fra Obamas tid, som bragte disse britiske løgne til torvs, er blevet taget på fersk gerning i at køre et forræderisk angreb mod den amerikanske regering, og de kunne (og burde) snart havne i fængsel.

Premierminister May har heller ikke bare frit løb internt i UK. Det bliver i stigende grad sandsynligt, at leder af Labour-partiet Jeremy Corbyn ville vinde et valg, hvis det kommer dertil, som det kunne, og Torierne sakker bagud i meningsmålingerne over de forestående lokalvalg. I dag udfordrede Corbyn direkte Mays handlinger mod Rusland i parlamentet og spurgte, om hun ville følge reglerne i Organisationen for forbud mod kemiske våben, OPCW, og give Rusland prøver på den nervegift og vente de krævede ti dage. May råbte op om, at hun havde givet russerne tid nok, og at der var konsensus fra alle menige i parlamentet om, at Corbyn trådte ved siden af, og at hun ville udvise 23 russiske diplomater. Med en manøvre, der nok skal jage russerne en skræk i livet, annoncerede hun ligeledes, at kongefamilien ikke ville deltage i World Cup i Rusland.

Men de britiske oligarkers frygt er legitim. Imperiet vil ikke overleve, at USA, Rusland, Kina, Afrika, Latinamerika – og endda befolkningerne i Europa og UK – kommer sammen i det nye paradigme, repræsenteret af den Nye Silkevejsånd. Disse oligarker er villige til at løbe risikoen for en atomkrig for at forhindre dette nye paradigme, men deres tid er ved at være forbi. Dette er et øjeblik med et stort potentiale, hvis den menneskelige race lever op til lejligheden.

Foto: George W. Bush og Tony Blair udveksler håndtryk efter at have modtaget besked om, at Coalition Provisional Authority havde genetableret fuld suverænitet i Irak og overført kontrol over nationen til den midlertidige irakiske regering, 28. juni, 2004. 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 13. marts, 2018 – Den britiske premierminister Theresa May har opført et show à la Churchill over det, der fremstår som en forgiftning af en russisk dobbeltagent i London. Hun og udenrigsminister Boris »Col. Blimp«[1] Johnson har givet Rusland et 24-timers ultimatum og krævet NATO’s støtte til, at UK konfronterer Rusland og et muligt angreb mod Syrien. Tirsdag eftermiddag kontaktede May præsident Donald Trump pr. telefon for at forsøge at overtale ham til at angribe Rusland.

Uheldigvis for hende var Churchill selv en ivrig bruger af giftvåben på slagmarken, »udslettelsesbombning« – som han udtrykte det – og af giftgasangreb mod civile fra »laverestående racer«. Mange i verden husker Det britiske Imperiums historie og er bevidst om dets aktuelle bevæbning og styring af den saudiske folkemordskrig mod Yemen.

Og UK er selv i besiddelse af den sjældne, kemiske nervegift, som May hævder, blev brugt af russere i London.

Men Mays desperation kommer i realiteten af den kendsgerning, at den geopolitiske doktrin, briterne i århundreder har fremmanet, kører på pumperne. Den er i færd med at blive besejret af en ny politik, kendt som den Nye Silkevej og af Kinas præsident betegnet som »menneskehedens fælles fremtid«.

Kina har bragt et nyt, produktivt, globalt boom med infrastrukturbyggeri ind i verden og sammen med det, en idé om stormagtsrelationer, baseret på respekt og gensidig udviklingshjælp til andre nationer. Præsident Trump har gentagne gange valgt at understrege sin fremragende, gensidigt respektfulde relation med Kinas præsident Xi Jinping, og deres samarbejde kunne endda stabilisere Koreahalvøen.

De af britisk efterretning skabte »Russiagate«-skandaler i USA, der har til formål at enten tvinge Trump ind i en konfrontation med Rusland, eller også tvinge ham ud af embedet, fortsætter med at kollapse – nu med Husets Efterretningskomite, der har afsluttet sine efterforskninger og erklæret, »intet at finde«.

Præsident Vladimir Putins tale 1. marts har erklæret NATO-politikken med omringning af Rusland med NATO’s strategiske førsteangrebskapacitet for forældet og død. Det kan ikke ignoreres. Selveste USA’s Forsvarsministerium har nu erkendt, at USA’s ABM-systemer ikke vil virke mod Ruslands strategiske våben. Som præsident Putin sagde, så er forhandlinger, baseret på gensidig respekt, den bedste politik for begge lande.

May kunne være på nippet til at blive udskiftet som premierminister af leder af Labour-partiet, Jeremy Corbyn, der faktisk har massiv støtte i den britiske befolkning, til dels for at have afvist krigskonfrontation med Rusland.

Hvad enten den britisk PM kan få præsident Trump til at sige »Rusland gjorde det« i dag eller ej, så er hendes problem af en dybere karakter. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag kommenterede, så er det establishment, som May repræsenterer, allerede besejret i en kamp, de har tabt på forhånd – og hvor de kæmper for britisk imperiepolitik til den bitre ende. Det nye paradigme for stormagtsrelationer, som Kina står i spidsen for, er i færd med at skubbe den længe dominerende, britiske, geopolitiske doktrin ud af den historiske scene.

USA under Trump kan undgå »Thukydid-fælden« og samarbejde, til gensidig fordel for alle nationer.

Men kan det genoplive sin industri, produktivitet, sin storhed som rumfartsnation, sin videnskabelige dygtighed – eller endda sine borgeres forventede levetid? Kan det skabe kredit for at udskifte sin nedbrudte, økonomiske infrastruktur?

Det er her, både Trump og Kongressen er ved at forlise. Og det er, hvad en tilslutning til den Nye Silkevej vil betyde.

Foto: Præsident Donald Trump køber tydeligvis ikke PM Theresa Mays B—S—, under konferencen i Davos, 2. jan., 2018. (Public Domain)

[1] Britisk tegneseriefigur fra trediverne. Blimp er pompøs, opfarende, chauvinistisk og en britisk stereotype. Figuren er opkaldt efter en spærreballon, kendt som en ’blimp’. (-red.)