Med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen

11. juli 2016 (Leder) – Det transatlantiske finansielle system befinder sig på et punkt, hvor der er umiddelbar fare for et sammenbrud, og det, der er sket blot det seneste døgn, er, at den italienske premierminister Renzi på en fælles pressekonference med den svenske statsminister har erklæret, at, alt imens de italienske banker har store problemer og behøver en bail-out, så er dette af mindre betydning i forhold til de europæiske storbanker, der står over for et massivt sammenbrud af derivater. Han refererede meget specifikt til Deutsche Bank, der har en eksponering til derivater til en værdi af $75 billioner, og som af alle betegnes som den største enkeltkilde til et nyt systemisk sammenbrud.

Renzi lagde pres på Merkel og især den tyske finansminister Schäuble for at overgive sig og tillade Italien at opgive kravene til bail-in, der har været gældende i Europa siden 1. januar, for at kunne udføre en bailout af Monte dei Paschi og andre italienske banker.

Hvad der siden da faktisk er sket er, at Deutsche Bank offentligt har opfordret til en massiv europæisk bank-bailout, hvor man selvfølgelig begynder med sig selv, og de kræver grundlæggende set en i det mindste midlertidig annullering af reglerne for bail-in. Dette er en erklæring fra Deutsche Banks cheføkonom David Folkerts-Landau i Welt am Sonntag i søndags. Han siger, at banken har brug for en bail-out på EU150 milliarder for at genkapitalisere, og at det må gøres uden at ekspropriere obligationsindehaverne og indskyderne.

Som respons på disse dramatiske udviklinger udsendte den amerikanske, politiske økonom Lyndon LaRouche et dramatisk krav om handling:

»Det, som vi præcist må gøre, er at støtte en midlertidig reorganisering af disse bankers økonomi, og dette må vi sikre for at standse blødningen. Med andre ord, så er pointen den at stoppe blødningen, og integrere og introducere vilkår, der vil gøre det muligt for os at opretholde en sådan operation.«

»Man må med andre ord skabe, for hele den tyske økonomi er en afgørende faktor. Det er noget rod. Vi ved alle, at det er noget rod. Det har været noget rod; det blev til noget rod … Schäuble og så videre har gjort det til noget rod! Det ved vi. Men vi vil ikke lukke den tyske økonomi ned på baggrund af det faktum, at vi har en flok skurke, eller mistænkte skurke, der sidder i visse stillinger. Det, vi vil gøre, er, at vi vil løse det her; vi fixer det, og vi bakker det op, for en enkelt gangs skyld.«

»Ryd op i det hele, og etabler et program, der vil sikre, at Tysklands banksystem fungerer. Når det først er gjort, kan man arbejde videre derfra!«

En sådan engangs-manøvre vil nødvendigvis involvere en annullering af disse $75 billioner i derivater og så at gå over til en bankopdeling og den slags ting, der ville gøre kredit til realøkonomien mulig.

LaRouche uddybede: »Man er nødt til at kvalificere det yderligere og sige, at vi gør det som en engangs-operation, for at redde økonomien. Og det er det.«

»Dette er en redning af økonomien, og til trods for alle de fejl, der er begået, vil vi gøre det for en enkelt gangs skyld, fordi vi vil prøve at redde Tysklands økonomi. Og det er, hvad der står på spil. Og Schäuble er ikke nogen nyttig person, heller ikke Merkel.«

»Vi må hjælpe Tyskland, for uden opretholdelse af et stabilt tysk system, kan vi ikke forhindre krig!«

»Det, vi behøver, er et program, der udsteder kredit til den tyske økonomi, en éngangskredit til tysk økonomi. Og man må præsentere det på den måde, og fremstille det for folk på den måde, for at give dem tiltro til det, de gør, og sige til dem, at de ikke skal gentage, hvad de gjorde tidligere. Det er pointen.«

»Man må sige til den tyske økonomi, ’Hør, I har begået fejl, alvorlige fejl. Nu vil vi redde jer, men I må selv adlyde; I må gå i gang med jobbet og gøre, hvad I må gøre, og forsøg ikke at snyde mere’.«

»Jeg siger, at Tyskland er et nødstilfælde. Vi må organisere det her sådan, så Tyskland kan komme ud af dette problem. Og antage, at organisationerne i tysk økonomi vil operere på en sådan måde, at slaget vindes.«

»Og Schäuble er jo egentlig ikke på højde med mit niveau på det område … Men fokusér essentielt på de betingelser, der må tilvejebringes, og som gør dette her muligt. I må have et system, der vil sikre den tyske økonomi, den finansielle økonomi, og det må I gøre; og I må få det til at fungere. Hvis ikke, vil I få kaos.«

LaRouche refererede til 1989-perioden, da Berlinmuren faldt og Tyskland gik i retning af en genforening, og regeringen Helmut Kohl søgte at genoplive de økonomiske og politiske bånd til Østeuropa og det, der snart skulle blive til Rusland efter Sovjetunionen.

»På den tid havde vi tilfældet med en stor leder i den tyske økonomi, der blev myrdet af franskmændene – præsidenten for Deutsche Bank, Alfred Herrhausen. Vi ønsker ikke et nyt Herrhausen-overgreb. Lad tyskerne være frie, og send de andre ud på græs. For det var, hvad der skete. For man havde et tidspunkt her, hvor man havde en ledende person i det ledende embede i tysk politik, og man lukkede det ned, og man fik tingene til at gå i en anden retning, og man ødelagde den indledende fase til den tyske økonomi!«

»Så vi må sige til nogle af folkene i dette område, at de begik en stor fejltagelse, og at de bør være en smule mere generøse i deres håndtering af denne ting.«

9. juli 2016 – Briternes (og især Tonys Blairs) ansvar for krigene i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika og spredningen af terrorisme står afsløret, efter udstedelsen i London af Chilcot-rapporten om Irakkrigen.

I fredags angreb den nye filippinske præsident, Rodrigo Duterte, i sine bemærkninger til en muslimsk organisation, UK og USA for at sprede terrorisme, bemærkninger, der var slående i deres virkning og originalitet.

Associated Press havde hovedtitlen, »Filippinsk præsident beskylder USA og UK for volden i Mellemøsten«. Nyhedstjenesten rapporterede,

»Den nye, filippinske præsident har givet amerikansk intervention skylden for de blodige konflikter i Irak og andre lande i Mellemøsten … Præsident Rodrigo Duterte fremførte i en tale i fredags, at USA’s politik var skyld i terrorangreb på egen jord og sagde, ’Det er ikke Mellemøsten, der eksporterer terrorisme til Amerika; Amerika importerede terrorisme.’«

GAM Nyhedstjeneste i Filippinerne rapporterede, at Duterte sagde,

»De tiltvang sig adgang til Irak og dræbte Saddam. Se på Irak nu. Se, hvad der skete med Libyen. Se, hvad der skete med Syrien.«  

Men en klar reference til Chilcot-rapporten sagde han, at

»Efter en gennemgribende, næsten 10 år lang undersøgelse, viser det sig, at der ikke var noget juridisk grundlag for at erklære krig mod Irak … det er sådan en unødvendig krig.«

Duterte satte også krisen i Mellemøsten i forbindelse med volden i Mindanao. Duterte og hans forsvarsminister har i øvrigt lovet, at de filippinske bevæbnede styrker aggressivt er gået efter Abu Sayyaf-terrorstyrker, der er »knyttet til ISIS«, i Filippinernes sydlige øer. Det filippinske militær bekræftede torsdag, at mindst ni medlemmer af den Daesh-tilknyttede terroristgruppe blev dræbt og tretten såret af hæren på Solu, mens en soldat blev dræbt.

Foto: Rodrigo Duterte, foto fra juni 2016.  

9. juli 2016 (Leder) – Angrebet på dem, der, med Tony Blair i spidsen, brugte angrebene 11. september (2001) til at føre illegale aggressionskrige og slippe international terrorisme løs, optrappes.

På en dag, hvor den nye filippinske præsident udfordrede Blair og USA som værende kilderne til terrorismen, og hvor medlemmer af den amerikanske Kongres opfordrede til en mobilisering for at fremtvinge offentliggørelsen af beviserne mod saudierne og briterne, står Blair ligeledes over for voksende sagsanlæg fra britiske militærfamilier og udsigten til retsforfølgelse.

Avisen London Telegraph rapporterede, at den af juridiske kilder havde fået at vide, at Chilcot-kommissionens rapport gav grundlag for juridiske søgsmål om skadeserstatninger mod Blair, anlagt af sårede veteraner fra Irak og af familier til soldater, der døde dér. Den sagde, at foreløbig 29 familier til døde soldater har bedt advokatfirmaet McCue & Partners om at lægge sag an mod Blair »for hver en penny«, og mange andre forventes at følge trop. Firmaet forventer at føre en civil retssag for »myndighedsmisbrug i offentligt hverv«, der viser, at Blair havde

»handlet ud over sine magtbeføjelser, og at skade herved er blevet forårsaget, og at denne skade kunne have været forudsagt.«

Myndighedsmisbrug under udførelse af offentligt hverv giver potentielt mulighed for ubegrænsede skadeserstatninger.

Telegraph fremfører, at Sir John Chilcots undersøgelse fandt, at

»Hr. Blair burde have set de problemer, der resulterede af invasionen i 2003, og kom til at indikere, således også for ham, at denne militæraktion var illegal.«

Den bemærker også, at Blair

»har skabt sig en formue, anslået til 60 millioner pund … Reg Keys, hvis søn Tom var én af seks soldater i det Kongelige Militærpoliti, der blev dræbt ved Majar al-Kabir i 2003, sagde: »Tony Blair har tjent en masse penge på et offentligt hverv, som jeg mener, han misbrugte.«

»Roger Bacon, hvis søn Matt Bacon, en major i Efterretningskorpset, blev dræbt af en vejsidebombe i 2005, sagde: ’Sagsanlægget for myndighedsmisbrug i offentligt hverv giver os mulighed for at sagsøge ham for ubegrænsede skadeserstatninger. Jeg ønsker, at disse midler indsættes på en fond for genopbygning af Irak. Det ville hjælpe med at kompensere for det, det skete dér.«

BBC offentliggjorde uafhængigt en juridisk ekspertanalyse af spørgsmålet, »Kunne Blair stå over for juridisk sagsanlæg over Irakkrigen?« BBC’s juridiske korrespondent Clive Coleman rapporterer, at »aggressionskrig«, den alvorligste krigsforbrydelse, ville være den mest indlysende kriminelle anklage mod Blair. Men, siger Coleman, 1998-Romtraktatens skabelse af den Internationale Forbryderdomstol fjernede retsforfølgelse af aggressionskrige fra nationer, men udskød en aftale om, at den Internationale Forbryderdomstol skulle gøre det, til i hvert fald 2017!

Det er derfor mere sandsynligt, mener Coleman, at Blair i fremtiden kommer til at stå over for retsforfølgelse for »forseelser i offentligt hverv«, for hvilken Chilcot-kommissionen leverer grundlaget. Anklagen om kriminelle handlinger er alvorlig og har en indlysende lighed med »myndighedsmisbrug i offentligt hverv«, for hvilken anklage familierne har til hensigt at sagsøge ham »for hver en penny«.

9. juli 2016 – Diane Sare, medlem af LaRouchePAC’s Komite for Politisk Strategi, indledte lørdag mødet ’Dialog med Manhattan-projektet’ med følgende indlæg (uddrag):

Diane Sare: Jeg gentager lige: Folk, der har fulgt os på websiden, har set dette i morgenens rapport og hørt det med LaRouches egne ord i går aftes på webcastet (Fredags-webcast).

Men i en diskussion torsdag med medlemmer af Policy Committee og nogle af vore folk i efterretningsteamet, som forberedelse til webcastet, sagde han: »Manhattan-systemet er parat til at blive anvendt. Det må bruges og må igangsætte en bølgebevægelse i hele USA. Det kan vi sandsynligvis gøre.« Han sagde, at det spørgsmål, der lå på bordet, er, »Vil Obama bombe verden, eller vil han opgive, eller noget andet midt imellem?«

Dette skal delvis ses i sammenhæng med Chilcot-kommissionens rapport om Tony Blair, som folk måske er bekendt med, hvor det grundlæggende set nu er kommet frem, at Blair var skyldig i at have lanceret og organiseret en aggressionskrig; en aggressionsskrig er en forbrydelse under Nürnberg-charteret. Det er i strid med FN’s resolutioner; det er en overtrædelse af international lov. Krig må kun bruges som den absolut sidste udvej, og Chilcot-kommissionen fandt, at det ikke var tilfældet; med andre ord, at krigen var unødvendig. Tony Blair er de facto destrueret, og avisen The London Guardian havde en artikel torsdag med hovedoverskriften, »Krigen i Irak var ikke en bommert eller en fejltagelse, den var en forbrydelse«. Første linje lyder, »Tony Blair er fordømt. Vi har set hvidvaskning af etablissementet i fortiden. Fra Blodige Søndag til Hillsborough har autoriteterne konspireret for at kvæle sandheden i de magtfuldes interesse, men ikke denne gang. Chilcot-undersøgelsen var ved at få en satirisk bibetydning for en farce, hvor det tog lang tid at udføre en opgave, men Sir John vil med sikkerhed gå over i historien som den mand, der leverede den mest omfattende ødelæggende dom over nogen moderne premierminister.« Og artiklen fortsætter med at diskutere alle de ulykker, menneskeheden har været udsat for som resultat af denne unødvendige, illegale aggressionskrig, inklusive de 60 millioner flygtninge.

Så Blair er færdig. Og spørgsmålet er så, er Obama færdig? Det er i denne sammenhæng, at LaRouche stillede spørgsmålet, »Vil Obama lancere en atomkrig, vil han opgive, eller vil han gøre noget midt imellem?« Og han sagde, »vi må lukke dette ned, vi må lukke dette politiske fremstød for krig ned, vi må lukke det ned nu, og vi må sætte hårdt ind«. Han sagde, »vi har en forpligtelse til at skabe et nyt økonomisk system, der bidrager til de behov, som findes i den amerikanske befolkning og andetsteds.« Og så spurgte han, »er det amerikanske folk parat til at komme sammen igen for at genoverveje sin skæbne?«

Jeg mener, dette virkelig er det spørgsmål, vi bør stille os selv, for, hvad er vores skæbne, vores bestemmelse? Hvad mener I, at jeres skæbne er? Hvorfor skulle I tage det op til genovervejelse? Jeg sagde i går aftes på webcastet, at det slog mig, at Alexander Hamilton (USA’s første finansminister, –red.) voksede op i en koloni, britisk, hollandsk sukkerplantage, en slavekoloni i Caribien; han kommer til USA, og USA er en koloni, ikke, at der ikke er folk her, ekstremt betydningsfulde personer som Benjamin Franklin og Mathers og andre med grundlæggende ideer, men en nation er ikke blevet skabt. Og Alexander Hamilton har allerede i sit hoved en idé om, hvad fremtiden bør være, og hvad tanken om en republik bør være, og som er baseret på et grundlæggende begreb om, hvad det vil sige at være et menneskeligt væsen. Spørgsmålet om menneskets værdighed.

Se hele webcastet, ’The Manhattan Project’ fra 9. juli.    

Se feature-video: ’The Two Massachussetts’ med en historisk gennemgang af udviklingen fra Amerika som en koloni og til en republik, 18. min. Forord af Lyndon LaRouche.

Følg med i den løbende oversættelse af Phil Rubinsteins foredrag på vores kontor i København, om Chilcot-rapporten og kreativitetens nødvendighed, God søndag!

6. juli, 2016 – En pressekonference i Washington, der afholdtes onsdag af Chongyang Instituttet for Finansielle Studier og det Nationale Institut for Studier af det Sydkinesiske Hav, blev overværet af godt 70 kinesiske og amerikanske journalister. Der optrådte bl.a. tre ledende kinesiske akademikere og to amerikanske intellektuelle, inklusiv leder af EIR’s Washingtonkontor, Bill Jones. Interessen for emnet var højaktuel, med den Faste Voldgiftsret i Haags forestående beslutning om den filippinske anmodning om en afgørelse på stridsspørgsmålet om det Sydkinesiske Hav. Afgørelsen i Voldgiftsretten, som Kina afviste at deltage i, og hvis beslutning Kina derfor ikke vil følge, ses som et middel for USA til at hæve indsatsen i sit gambit om ”sejladsfriheden” i det Sydkinesiske Hav. Et spil, der skubber regionen tættere på krig.
De kinesiske akademikere inkluderede dr. Wu Shicun, præsident for det Nationale Institut for Studier af det Sydkinesiske Hav, utvivlsomt den mest kyndige person i Kina indenfor spørgsmålet om det Sydkinesiske Hav; og professor Huang Renwei, vicepræsident for Shanghai Instituttet for Internationale Studier, en af de fremmeste tænketanke i Kina.
Pressekonferencen nød også godt at et vigtigt spørgsmål fra tilhørerrækkerne, stillet af præsident for Schiller Instituttet, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
Den kinesiske side præsenterede sit standpunkt i spørgsmålet om det Sydkinesiske Hav og præciserede sin argumentation for ikke at acceptere voldgift i en sag, hvor ingen forhandlinger mellem Filippinerne og Kina har fundet sted, på grund af Filippinernes afvisning af at engagere sig i en diskussion. At sende sagen til retten i Haag var også en krænkelse af Deklarationen om Parternes Adfærd i det Sydkinesiske Hav (Declaration of Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, DOC), der er underskrevet af alle ASEAN nationerne (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), inklusiv Filippinerne, og som forpligter landene til at løse territoriale tvister gennem forhandling. Voldgiftsafgørelsen ses derfor som et tilfælde af aftalt spil mellem én af parterne i tvisten og voldgiftsretten, med opbakning, selvfølgelig, fra USA, der insisterer på ikke at være en part i striden.
Professor ved det Amerikanske Flådeakademi Brian Mulveny præsenterede det traditionelle – dvs. Obamaadministrationens – synspunkt, nemlig at USA kan sende sine militærfartøjer hvorhen, det ønsker, i operationer, der falder ind under ”fri sejlads”, og at Kina har at holde sig til, hvad voldgiftsretten beslutter.
I sine kommentarer understregede EIR’s Jones vigtigheden af besøget af den kinesiske delegation, på grund af faren for krig forbundet med USA og dets allieredes koncentration af militære styrker i regionen, og på grund af den systematiske fordrejning af det kinesiske standpunkt i amerikanske medier.
“USA’s politik har været totalt hovedløs,” sagde Jones. ”I stedet for at prøve at opbygge en relation til Kina omfattende sociale, økonomiske, politiske og militære forhold, behandler det Kina som et udenforstående rovdyr, selv i Kinas eget område. I stedet for at prøve at fremme Kinas relationer med dets naboer, har USA styrket sine koldkrigsalliancer og opmuntret dem til at være hårde ved Kina,” sagde Jones. ”Og når voldgiftkendelsen kommer i næste uge, vil USA begynde at kværulere om, at Kina principielt må acceptere denne som international lov, et standpunkt, som mange juridiske eksperter, selv i USA, anser for absurd.”
“Jeg spørger mig selv,” sagde Jones, “hvordan USA ville reagere, hvis det havde en flåde af udenlandske fartøjer tilhørende en fremmed alliance til at patruljere 12 mil fra Californiens kyst? Tjah, jeg tror godt vi ved, hvordan USA ville reagere, men Kina vil tendere til at udvise større tilbageholdenhed”, sagde han.
“Kina har fremsat en vigtig ‘godt naboskabs-politik’ med sit Bælte og Vej -initiativ, sagde Jones, “og har tilbudt håb og udvikling til et område, der stadig er plaget af fattigdom og destruktion. Og USA har set dette som en fjendtlig hensigt fra Kinas side, til trods for det faktum, at USA er blevet inviteret til at tage del i dette storslåede program for udvikling af infrastruktur.”
“Om ikke andet, så har konflikten om det Sydkinesiske Hav klarere vist os, at vi behøver en ny type forhold mellem vore to lande, måske på linje med, hvad præsident Xi forestiller sig med sin idé om et forhold mellem større magter. For, hvis vi fortsætter geopolitikkens nul-sumsspil, vil det kun føre til krig.”
Reaktionen fra tilhørerne var entusiastisk, med adskillige spørgsmål rettet til Jones.
I en intervention fra tilhørerrækkerne under spørgsmål & svar-sessionen, bragte Helga Zepp-LaRouche, med et spørgsmål rettet til Mulvaney, atter krigsfaren på bane.
“Der er mange internationale militæreksperter, der advarer om, at situationen i dag er mere farlig end på højden af den kolde krig. Endvidere er vi på vej til at opleve endnu et finansielt sammenbrud, værre end i 2008. Jeg mener, at de terrorhandlinger, der især har fundet sted i de seneste to uger i Bangladesh, Tyrkiet, Indonesien og europæiske lande, klart viser, at terrorismen er ude af kontrol. Og rent faktisk befinder den Europæiske Union sig med Brexit i en disintegrations-proces, der er meget dramatisk.
Så mit spørgsmål er: Kan menneskeheden ikke hæve sig til et højere niveau af samarbejde og satse på et nyt paradigme, hvor geopolitik er en saga blot og erstattet af menneskehedens fælles mål? Jeg mener, at verden har hårdt brug for, at USA og Kina arbejder sammen, for jeg mener, at, uden at de to lande tager hinanden i hånden, så står verden i problemer til halsen. Så spørgsmålet er: Kan verden bevæge sit mod et nyt paradigme med fredeligt samarbejde om hele menneskehedens fremtidige opgaver?”  
Som svar på fr. LaRouches spørgsmål nedtonede Mulvaney faren for nogen alvorlig militærkonflikt i det Sydkinesiske Hav og sagde tåbeligt, at skulle en hændelse opstå i området, ville den ikke føre til krig, men blive inddæmmet. (Måske ud fra teorien om, at en enkelt kugle ikke gør en krig. Men fortæl det til ærkehertug Franz Ferdinand.) (reference til attentatet i Sarajevo, 28. juni 1914, der ledte direkte til 1. Verdenskrig, -red.) Mulvaney forsøgte også at latterliggøre behovet for et nyt paradigme, idet han sagde, at han ville elske en verden, i hvilken mennesker levede sammen i harmoni, men, som han sagde – fuldendt pragmatisk, som han er – dette er ikke den verden, som vi lever i.
Ved begivenheden var der mange journalister, der kom op og stillede Jones mange flere spørgsmål om krisen i det Sydkinesiske Hav og om, hvordan Kina bør reagere på voldgiftsafgørelsen.
Pressekonferencen fkom efter to dages diskussioner med den kinesiske delegation, én med Carnegie Instituttet for Fred i Verden (noget af en fejlbetegnelse), og den anden med Schiller Instituttets Venner, inklusiv Schiller Instituttets præsident og grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Lyndon LaRouche (lydklip): »Vil Obama bombe verden, eller vil Obama opgive? Eller vil han gøre noget andet, midt imellem? Pointen er, når man ser på kendsgerningerne, på de samme personer, så ville jeg sige, at spørgsmålet her er: Luk det her ned! Luk denne krig ned! Luk krigen, og alt, hvad den repræsenterer, ned, nu! Vi har denne ting fra Storbritannien, vi har andre ting i Europa, og ting i andre dele af verden. Jeg tror, at tiden er kommet til at sætte hårdt ind, og effektivt, for at lukke denne krig ned! Luk denne form for krigsførelse, luk det ned!

Hvilket betyder, at vi må skabe et økonomisk system, der vil bidrage til befolkningens behov, både i USA og andetsteds. Spørgsmålet er derfor ikke krig; spørgsmålet er: Er befolkningen i USA parate til at samle sig og genoverveje deres skæbne? Er de villige til at skabe et system, hvor mennesker skaber rigdom, og sørge for, at dette bliver svaret, alternativet til det, der f.eks. finder sted i USA – alle de mennesker, der er ved at uddø eller lider, osv., som de gør nu?

Derfor, vil vi finde alternativet til denne og lignende former for nonsens? Det er spørgsmålet. Jeg mener, at vi virkelig må være meget hårde med dette og få en virkelig solid fremgangsmåde og sige, at, nu gør vi det her for at redde civilisationen, på basis af, hvad Manhattan (projektet) kan tilbyde.

Vi har USA. USA kan vendes omkring, noget langsomt nu, men vi har evnen til at vende tingene rundt, med vores teknologi, der også er i en forfærdelig forfatning. Men vi har nok til at stille uret tilbage, til at gøre en ende på denne evindelige frygt og ondskab. Vi må forsvare USA, dvs. befolkningen i USA, ved at genoprette den form for system i USA, som behøves omgående, for folk i hele USA, og vi må tilskynde andre nationer til at acceptere det samme valg. Jeg mener, det kan gøres.«     

WE MUST REALIZE WHAT IS TRUE AND THEN ACT ON THAT BASIS

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast, July 8, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening! It's July 8th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly Friday
evening webcast with larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio
today by Megan Beets, from the LaRouche PAC Science Team; and I'm
joined via video by two members of our Policy Committee, Diane
Sare, from the New York City Manhattan Project; and Kesha Rogers,
from Houston, TX.
        We're going to begin our webcast tonight with a very
hard-hitting and important clip from a discussion that we had
with Mr. LaRouche yesterday. This is an audio recording of some
remarks that Mr. LaRouche had, and I think this is going to
inform the discussion that we'll be having here tonight.

        LYNDON LAROUCHE (audio clip): Is Obama going to bomb the
world, or is Obama going to give up? Or is going to do something
else, in the middle? The point is, I would say that the issue
here, when you look at the facts, the same people, the question
would be: shut this thing down! Shut this war down! Shut down the
war and what it represents, now! You've got the thing from
Britain, you've got things in Europe otherwise, you've got the
things in other parts of the world. I think the time has come to
{push hard}, and effectively, to shut this war down! Shut this
kind of warfare, shut it down!
        Which means there's an obligation to create an economic
system which will contribute to the needs of the population, both
in the United States and elsewhere. Therefore the question is not
war; the question is: Are the people of the United States
prepared to reassemble themselves, and reconsider their destiny?
Are they willing to create a system of creation of wealth by
people, and have that thing become the answer, the alternative,
to what's happening, for instance, in the United States–all the
people who are dying out or suffering, and so forth, as now?
        Therefore, are we going to find the alternative to that kind
of nonsense, and similar kinds of nonsense? That's the question.
I think we've really got to go hard on this thing, and get a real
solid approach to say we are now going to do the thing to save
civilization, on the basis of what Manhattan has to offer.
        We've got the United States. The United States can be turned
around, somewhat slowly now, but we've got the ability to turn,
with our technology, which is also in terrible shape. But we've
got enough to {turn the clock around}, to end this perpetual fear
and evil. We've got to defend the United States, in the sense of
the people of the United States, by restoring the kind of system,
{in the United States}, which is needed for the people
{immediately} throughout the United States, and to encourage
other nations to accept the same option. {I think it can be
done}.

        OGDEN:  Wonderful! Thank you very much for playing that
clip. We also have a few other very significant things that
happened this week. Obviously, Mr. LaRouche just responded, in
the remarks that you heard, to the developments that are
occurring in Britain. There's a rejection of the entire status
quo, which can be seen very clearly from the Brexit, and then the
{unpredictable} fallout that's happening around that. But also
you have the release of the Chilcot Inquiry Report, which really
just confirms that [former British Prime Minister] Tony Blair is,
in fact, a war criminal, and everybody else who went to war in
Iraq based on false premises, deserves to be prosecuted along
those lines.
        Elsewhere in that discussion, Mr. LaRouche laid out a very
clear continuity of the process, beginning with the Al-Yamamah
deal, the decision by [Saudi] Prince Bandar and [then British
Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher and George Bush, Sr., at that
time, to initiate this irregular warfare operation. In that case,
it was against Russia, proceeding through to the September 11th
attacks, the cover-up of those attacks, (which is what the 28
pages is concerning), and then the entire process of
"regime-change warfare" that was premised on that lie: Tony
Blair's Iraq War operation; Obama's overthrow of the government
of Libya; and then the attempted overthrow of the government in
Syria. That is the next phase in that process. The Bush/Cheney
phase, the Tony Blair phase, the Obama phase; and now you have
the escalation to the point of the danger of World War III — the
doubling down by Obama this week on his aggressive warfare
operation against Russia, in terms of the build-up of the NATO
troop presence in Europe, and also the confrontations in the
South China Sea, which risk the outbreak of World War III in that
region of the world as well.
        There was another very significant event that occurred in
Washington, DC this week. Very unique, in the "belly of the
beast," which was sponsored by a Chinese organization, the
Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies and the National
Institute of the South China Sea Studies. It also included very
significant, prominent participation, by Bill Jones, the
Washington Bureau Chief for {Executive Intelligence Review}, who
was on the speaking panel. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of
the Schiller Institute, was also present, and made a very crucial
intervention.
        We would also like to play a very short video clip from that
event, to give you a little bit more of a sense of the context
for our upcoming discussion.

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE (video clip):  My name is Helga
Zepp-LaRouche. I'm the President of the Schiller Institute. I
have two questions. One I would like to ask [U.S. Naval Academy]
Professor [Brian] Mulvaney. The United States itself has
recognized the historical rights of China in the past. For
example, there's several State Department memorandums, from 1943
and 1944, which clearly say that the United States and the
Philippines have no claims to the islands, and, basically, that
they were China's historical territory — a position that was
then reversed at the [1951] San Francisco Peace Conference. But
that is clearly the source of all this trouble. Why is the United
States not recognizing the historical rights of China? That's my
first question.
        My second question is more general. There are many military
experts internationally who are warning that the situation today
is more dangerous than during the height of the Cold War.
Furthermore, we are about to experience another financial crash
worse than 2008. I think the terrorist activities, especially of
the last two weeks, in Bangladesh, Turkey, Indonesia, European
countries, clearly shows terrorism is out of control. Actually
with the Brexit, the European Union is in a process of
disintegration, very rapidly.
        My question is: Can mankind not rise to a higher level of
cooperation and go for a new paradigm, where geopolitics is
overcome, and replaced by the common aims of mankind? The world
is in dire need for the United States and China to work together,
because I think without the two countries joining hands, the
world is in trouble. So, the question is: Can the world move to a
new paradigm of peaceful cooperation for the future tasks of all
humanity?

PROF. BRIAN MULVANEY:  I totally disagree. I don't think we are
anywhere near large-scale conflict. This is not the Cold War.
This is not the Cuban Missile Crisis. China and the United States
are not about to go to war. At the absolute very worst, there may
be some sort of crisis that erupts, and it's contained, in the
South China Sea. It will be small, if at all. I think it will be
completely, it is completely, avoidable, and I personally
believe it will be avoided, and that, hopefully, cooler heads
will prevail. So, I disagree with the premise of the fact that
this is a more dangerous time than we've seen in a long time.
        As far as humanity goes, I am hopeful. Hopefully, Truth,
Liberty, and Democracy can brave throughout the world, and
everyone can come together in great harmony. Unfortunately, the
history of mankind doesn't seem to bear that out, but we do keep
getting better, and, probably not in my lifetime, but perhaps
down the road.

        BILL JONES:  When they talk about the "rule of law," you
have to ask, "Whose law, and who sets it?" The United States
sends the thing, as President Obama said it, with regard to the
TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty], "We've got to make the
rules!" But the world is much different now. There are many
different countries. Other countries also have a say in making
the rules. As long as, I think, the idea is, what is for the good
of the people, this is what should determine the rule of law. I
think China is completely consistent with that in their
attitude, if they reject this arbitration.
        Let me also say something on that. It's very important that
these dialogues occur, because it's the only way that each side
can really understand what the other is talking about. It doesn't
necessarily change people, but over the long term, I think it has
a positive effect. Here in the United States, the mainstream, I
would agree; that is, I would consider it somewhat "hard line."
The mainstream is influenced by the mass-media, by the press. You
read the {New York Times}. Look, I read the {New York Times}
every day. I have not yet found, over the last ten years, an
article in the {New York Times} which was positive towards China.
[laughter] Of course, almost every day, there are articles on
China. [Responding to the audience laughter] I read it pretty
closely. I don't think I have missed any article.
        So, that a lot of what goes on between the discussion of
experts, is not effective, because of what I said, that the media
really distorts China's actual view. But, I'll also say, in the
United States, there has generally, throughout the years, been
positive attitudes towards China, among the general population.
The United States was not a colonial power. We had the
Philippines, and Franklin Roosevelt gave them their independence.
We were an anti-colonial power. This is why we were, over 200
years, very good friends with China. And it's only recently, I
would say in the post-Cold War period in particular, where the
United States remained the major military power; that a new
attitude was adopted, away from Franklin Roosevelt's Dialogue of
Nations, which he tried to create in the last days of his life
and didn't quite succeed because he died so early; and that it
had become more and more like what I call a British Imperial
attitude: we are the Lords of the Seas, and therefore we control
it, because we've got the guns and the boats and everything else.
        That has affected I would say the "think-tank class," or the
"intellectual class," [which] is permeated with this; whereas the
general population is not. So, I think what has to be done is
there has to be more of this "meeting of dialogues," not at an
experts' level so much, but at the people-to-people level, so
that people here in the U.S. who are reading the {New York Times}
can go to China and say, "Boy, the {New York Times} really has a
wrong foot, entirely! They don't get it!" And they would see it.
I think also what China's doing with the Belt and Road, if it
were done here, if we would agree, if they would build high-speed
rail here, people would have a different attitude toward China.

        OGDEN:  I think that provides a very good foundation for a
productive discussion. The very first point that Mr. LaRouche
made in the beginning was, "Are the citizens of the United States
willing to re-assess themselves, re-assemble themselves, and
re-consider their destiny? Are we going to allow this war to
happen, or are we going to shut it down? Are we going to save
civilization?" I think that's the question on the table.

        DIANE SARE:  Well, he did put a particular — as we heard —
very strong emphasis on Manhattan; and I think there are a number
of aspects to that.  One, perhaps the biggest, is the question of
Alexander Hamilton. And I was just reflecting as we heard these
comments from these people, this character from the US Naval War
College, who was somewhat hostile in the way he pounced on Mrs.
LaRouche's question; and then you hear his view of mankind.  It
indicates a lack of ability to think of the future or to be
creative, because if you think about Einstein or you think about
Kepler, or you think about Hamilton, for example.  What does
Hamilton come from?  He was on a British-colonized,
Dutch-colonized plantation place in the Caribbean, where he saw
the real evils of slavery and usury firsthand.  He comes to the
United States, which is a colony of the British Empire, and
nonetheless, has a very clear vision of how mankind {should} live
without ever having actually experienced it himself.  And that is
really unique.
        And if we think about Einstein and the question of
gravitational waves, similarly he was able to think through,
without the measuring instruments that we've had only recently,
but in his mind he said, no, this must be the principle of
ordering of the universe; and similarly Kepler's thinking.  And
it's not different from the question of human economics and the
development of mankind as a species that it is the natural state
that we become better, more intelligent, live longer, healthier,
and you have more of us with a higher standard of living; that is
actually the natural state of human affairs.  Many people today
have trouble thinking of this because the entire system has been
geared against creativity, and has been set up to crush the
ability to actually think of unthought-of thoughts; to think of
something new.  Instead, people go with a Bertrand Russell
algebraic approach that everything has to follow in a sequence of
what it's been doing.  And I would say it's that outlook that has
led us to have a record number of suicides, a record number of
heroin overdoses, and a collapse; and people seemingly lacking
the vision to actually solve it.  And I think it's just so
crucial that people take note of what just occurred at this
conference organized by Mrs. LaRouche, that she and her husband
were at in Berlin.  They actually don't operate in the way that
you may have been thinking that they do for most of your life.

MEGAN BEETS:  Well, I had a similar thought, Diane, listening to
the counterpoint between Helga's question and the answer by the
gentleman on the podium there.  The question raised — maybe not
in these words — but the question before us all now is, is
mankind capable of rising to the level of reason?  Is society
capable of assuming a state of existence as we're seeing and
calling for in this New Paradigm which has never happened before.
If you look back in history, people like Friedrich Schiller was
facing the same question with the failure of the potential and
the opportunity of the French Revolution which failed.  And he's
looking at the question of can mankind actually educate itself to
be rid of the characteristic of barbarism within society for
good.  Can there actually be a perpetual renaissance?  And two
other people who obviously contemplated this and had a certain
optimistic vision of this, are Helga Zepp-LaRouche herself, and
also Krafft Ehricke, who had a completely optimistic view of the
future of mankind in space; and knew that it would only come
about through an aesthetical education of society.  I think it is
a very challenging view for people today to contemplate the
notion that it is possible to move beyond this childishness of
mankind into a state where warfare and geopolitics are things of
the past, and are no longer part of human society.  I think that
does require exactly what you said: the tapping into the
creativity of the population, as Hamilton recognized was the
basis of economics, and what LaRouche has based his economic
discoveries on — the human mind's ability to create that which
never existed before.

        KESHA ROGERS:  I think it's important to look at what Mr.
LaRouche laid out a few  years ago in June of 2014, as the
alternative and the only option for saving the United States and
the survival of mankind.  Which now really has to be looked at in
an even greater context in terms of the role of the United States
in cooperation with nations such as Russia and China, around
meeting the common aims of mankind as Mrs. LaRouche indicated.
Mr. LaRouche has laid out four fundamental principles — really
scientific principles and  Constitutional principles as he named
them — which are governed by our US Constitution and were
reflected in the policies of people such as President Franklin
Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, and President Lincoln before; and
really were centered around the foundation of our Constitution as
Diane said, with the Hamiltonian conception of a credit system.
        More importantly, it gets to the question of what is your
conception of the nature of human beings.  Do you think that
human beings are just animals or beasts; or do you see human
beings as superior and having mental capacity over lower forms of
life?  When he put these four laws out, which state — I'll just
go through them; and I think we should have a further discussion
about it. The first law was that we must re-enact Glass Steagall
in the precise form that Franklin Roosevelt put into effect.  2.
Return to a system of national banking, as Alexander Hamilton had
intended, and was described under Abraham Lincoln's greenback
system.  3. Institute a Federal credit system to generate
high-productivity improvements in employment. 4. Adopt a fusion
driver crash program.
        Now, on this fourth point, it was encompassing of the entire
program that Mr. LaRouche put forward; because it wasn't just
about nuclear power or building nuclear power plants and so
forth.  It really got to this conception of what is our human
destiny; how do we view the nature of mankind as acting to remove
any limitations that are put on human progress?  It reminded me
that these four laws were very in tune to the laws of Krafft
Ehricke in his three laws of astronautics, that he put out in
1957; because when you think about this, the fourth law of Mr.
LaRouche's fusion crash driver program was very much in line with
what Kennedy had intended when he made his address on May 25,
1961, calling for landing a man on the Moon and returning him
safely to Earth.  This program was actually exemplified by this
very question of what is mankind's mission in participating in
the creative process.
        What Krafft Ehricke brings up is just that; it is the
question of the moral law of human beings that they are actually
doing away with this conception that mankind is nothing more than
beasts.  It was interesting listening to this comment — as Diane
said it was pretty hostile.  It was hostile because this
gentleman has a very low conception of what the nature is of
human beings.  He has already made the determination that you can
only allow something to happen that has already been determined
and decided for you.  As he was making the point, "Well, I would
like to have a nation where we live in peace and harmony; but
unfortunately that's not the world we live in."  Well, the
question is, how are we going to make the determination that we
must create that world and bring that world about.  That was the
basis, and continues to be the basis of Mr. LaRouche's economics
and what he means by the conception of these four laws.  And what
was defined also by Krafft Ehricke's laws of astronautics; that
are not just the basis of how you go about into space travel, but
more so the principle of what mankind must overcome to be able to
create these breakthroughs which are necessary to define a future
progress and a future human destiny.  The idea, as we've stated
on many occasions, that nobody and nothing under the natural laws
of the Universe impose any limitations on man except man himself;
that's something that really had to be defined in this discussion
that was had at the Chinese press conference there.
        But the key thing right now, as Mr. LaRouche said, is are
people going to prepare themselves to reconsider their destiny?
And reconsidering their destiny means we have to get rid of these
limitations; we have to now move immediately to shut down this
war drive of Obama, and everything that he represents in terms of
this culture of death.  Right now, we are seeing the escalation
towards all-out war, and we'll speak more on this in just a few
moments.  But the fact that, as we speak right now, the NATO
summit in Warsaw, Poland is happening; Obama is there, pushing
more provocations against Russia.  It is very clear that
Americans do have to make the decision that we want to
collaborate as human beings with other nations for the betterment
of mankind.  We have to stop this killing and this war threat and
actually move toward a new conception of human nature.
        So, I wanted to start with that, and then I'll come back
with more.

OGDEN:  I think that is very significant, because the whole
threat that Obama is making — and this is what Mr. LaRouche said
last week — this is a very empty threat.  This entire system
which Obama represents is completely bankrupt.  Look at what's
happening in Europe; the entire European system is splintering
apart.  Nobody has any idea how the consequences of the Brexit
vote are going to pan out; the leadership of all the parties is
collapsing, it's crumbling, it's imploding.  Then you have Obama
making these boastful threats.
        The point is, Europe is bankrupt; you have an emerging New
Paradigm; you have China and Russia; the Eurasian system could
encompass all of Europe.  You could have, finally, an integration
of this entire continent around a New Paradigm; a new system of
relations among nations, as Helga said at her intervention at
that event in DC.  This is a completely new concept of the
relationship between nations.  And yes, people within the think
tank class — as I think Bill Jones rightly called it, the pundit
class — are extremely pessimistic people; they don't have
vision, they don't have imagination.  That's why you have
leadership like Helga at that event.  Then, what happened?  You
had this Berlin conference which was incredibly good timing; two
days after the Brexit vote.  So, one thing on that subject,
because I think it ties together the question of the bankruptcy
of this trans-Atlantic system.  What both Diane and you, Kesha,
brought up about what's the new system?  This is Hamilton;
Hamilton is back.  We have the solution; the Four Laws are
self-explanatory, they're on the table.  They could be enacted
overnight; and this really is, in effect, the United States
joining the New Paradigm.  So, this is I think an important
comment by Mr. LaRouche; it came out of a discussion he had with
Jeffrey Steinberg earlier today.  Jeff presented him with the
institutional question that we got this week from contacts within
DC.  The question was:  "In your view, Mr. LaRouche, can the
European member countries post-Brexit chart a constructive and
viable economic course?  And how can they reverse their economic
decline?"  And I think Mr. LaRouche's remarks are very apropos.
He said, "The European Union must consent to end the system of
trash nations."  And by trash nations, he said [he meant]
"nations in the EU like Italy, that are treated like trash.
Other nations — Greece; that's obviously treated like trash.
This is resulting in the destruction of the nations of Europe."
Mr. LaRouche said, "You are going to have to depend on
cooperation between Putin and the right people in Germany; who
are in a minority, but are tied to the real, productive economy.
You're going to have to rely on that cooperation between Russia
and Germany to make the needed shift.  You have to return to
principles of physical economy, or all of Europe will collapse
very soon.  The anchor is the Russia-Germany collaboration."
        So, in reality, this is the path forward.  And for all of
Obama's threats in Warsaw, and all of the bluster from NATO; yes,
this is a very dangerous situation.  As Helga said, it is far
more dangerous than at any moment during the Cold War.  But, this
is the face of a collapsing system; and the only solution here is
the return to Hamilton.  And I think the leverage is very clear,
Diane; we've got the leverage to do this in Manhattan, in New
York City.  With the necessary escalation that could be enacted
now, we have the leverage to lead the United States from our
center in Manhattan, around the principles of Hamilton.  And I
think the other thing that we're going to get into, is in the
months leading up the 15th anniversary of the attack on September
11th; we're going to get to the truth of who lied, who was behind
these attacks, and who is covering up the truth about these
attacks and for what reason.

        ROGERS:  When you brought up this question of the principles
of physical economy, I think it's very important that we
understand that this is the principle of the human mind.  Mr.
LaRouche's {Science of Physical Economy} gets at this question of
how do you actually more creative and productive citizens in your
society.  When you think about these Four Laws, this is what we
have to actually bring about; the adoption of these Four Laws is
going to be done under the context that you are moving the
population toward building a more productive society that's going
to be able to create something better for their future and for
the future of those not yet born.  I think that we've lost sight
of that in our society.  Most people right now are — it's a
dying culture, a dying — as you said, Matt — financial system
that people are trying to hang onto.  We cannot do that; we have
to have a total reversal of the direction that this nation has
been going in.  And that reversal is really being led by China
and Russia taking up this principle of what the embodiment of
Hamilton represents; or the embodiment of what our American
System has truly represented.  I know Diane will say more on how
the mission of the United States is going to come from — as
we've stated — Manhattan to carry out that mission here in the
United States.

SARE:  Well, I'll just say that when Mrs. LaRouche spoke at the
conference in Berlin, she made this point of the question of
justice.  That when Tony Blair launched his fake campaign about
the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and he launched
what has now been admitted to have been a war of aggression —
which is a crime under the Nuremburg Statutes.  She said that
justice will be done in this case; sometimes it's not immediate.
The Universe will ensure justice is done; however it is better if
mankind can act on behalf of justice.  Because if we let things
go too far, justice of the Universe may end up being the
annihilation of ourselves.  If we don't stop thermonuclear war,
if we don't stop our society from going down that path.
Similarly what we've had in the United States in the wake of
these attacks on September 11th, is we've had two murderous
regimes.  We've had the Bush/Cheney administration, who were
fully happy to collaborate with Tony Blair and his lies to enter
the war with Iraq.  We've had Obama, who has been probably the
most murderous President we've ever had in history.  And I think
it's important to say this here, because I know many people are
very upset about the recent killings in Minnesota, New Orleans,
and then Dallas.  I find it tragic.  We've heard of lone
assassins before from Dallas.  We've also heard of what happened
in Orlando by supposedly one person.  I think Americans are
growing increasingly skeptical of these stories.  What we see in
the case of 9/11, which I think gives us the ability to break the
whole thing open and end this train of abuses, is, for example,
the role of the FBI in covering up and hiding evidence; the role
of the Bush and Obama administrations in refusing to release the
28 pages.  I haven't read them, of course, but from what I
understand, they deal with how the hijackers were supported when
they came into the  United States.  Obama said he would do
various things, and did not; and there has now recently been an
escalation coming from the US Congress.  We have a clip which
people should watch of a press conference given this week by
Congressman Walter Jones, Stephen Lynch, and Massey, who are the
co-sponsors of a new bill on the 28 pages; which addresses the
fact that these 28 pages are actually the property of the
Congress.  I won't say more, I'll let them speak for this; but
this is a very important flank.  It's very important in Manhattan
in particular, because thousands, millions of people in this area
were very directly impacted by this; and they're not in a mood on
the 15th anniversary of this to just let it go another year
without the truth coming out.  People had a very feisty response
when the Saudis were threatening financial warfare in response to
any legislation in the Congress against Saudi Arabia.  I think
this is something which could break this open and fundamentally
change the United States, and emphatically destroy Obama's
ability to wage the kind of war and destruction that he wants to
now.  So, if you have that there, I think it would be useful to
show that clip of this press conference.

        CONG. LYNCH:  There is precedent; and the thing is, that if
the President — and I hope he will keep his word to the people.
But if not, we wanted this.  And that's the reason we introduced
this, so it would go to the Intel Committee; because again, Kevin
Nunez says yes, he thinks it ought to be declassified, and so did
Adam Schiff, the ranking member.  So we want to give them an
opportunity, if the President does not keep his word.  And I hope
that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump, when they make their acceptance
speech, that they will call on the President to keep his word.
But if not, then we're going to be pushing this when we come back
in September; and hopefully get a hearing and get the families
back down here to listen to the justification for declassifying
this information.  There is precedent.
        And on a finer point, if you look back during the Pentagon
Papers, the Church Commission generated a report.  While the
White House refused to allow that report to be publicized,
Congressman Gravel went to the well of the House and read the
Pentagon Papers; and was protected — the Supreme Court ruled —
was protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of the United
States Constitution.  So, even though they tried to prosecute him
for reading that, the Supreme Court said that the Separation of
Powers gives Congress the right to speak and debate on issues
that affect the American people.  That Separation of Powers and
the Speech and Debate Clause protected that member of Congress,
who went to the Floor and actually read those papers.  So, we
believe we're protected.  It may come to that; it may come to a
point that myself and Walter and Mr. Massey go to the well of the
House and read the text of the 28 pages, if we can get it
released to us.  That's the key; because when we go down to the
Intel Committee room and read the 28 pages, they have people sit
there in front of you.  They take your phone away; no
electronics; you're not allowed to take notes.  You're allowed to
read it and read it under the observation of either Intel
Committee staff or other folks that are there for security
purposes.  So, we don't have the 28 pages.  We can sit there as
long as we want and try to memorize it and read it, and go over
and over it.  We have done that, each of us; but in order to
release it, you have to have custody of it.

        OGDEN:  This is available on the LaRouche PAC website.  It's
very significant to watch that press conference in full.  There
were remarks from both Congressmen Walter Jones and Walter Massey
in addition to what Congressman Lynch said.  Also, Terry Strada
and her daughter, Kaitlyn Strada, had extremely powerful
statements making the point that the White House had promised to
get back to them with the declassification review on June 17th;
and that date has come and gone, and they have still to hear one
peep out of the White House.  They are not returning the calls of
the 9/11 families, they are not returning the calls of the
members of Congress. They are not returning the calls of Senator
Bob Graham; who is the one who wrote, or who oversaw the writing,
of the 28 pages.  So, there is a stonewalling by the White House.
The press corps should be asking these questions during the press
briefings.  Terry Strada said you've got Josh Earnest and Jim
Clapper basically reading right out of the Saudi Arabian talking
points; the talking points of the government of Saudi Arabia.
Whereas, the people who wrote the 28 pages are contradicting
every single thing that the Administration says.  So, it's hugely
significant that House Resolution 779 has been introduced;
because it says,  we are bypassing President Obama.  We are going
to go right to the floor; this is the property of the United
States Congress.  And it's doubly significant what you just heard
from Congressman Stephen Lynch.  He said, it may well come to the
three of us going to the floor of the House and having a Senator
Gravel moment.  We may very well read these papers into the
public record; which would be absolutely historic and
groundbreaking.  So, I really encourage everybody to watch the
press conference in full.  There's been some coverage, but not
enough.  And to circulate this very widely.
        Obviously, this is also feeding into some of the work that
we're going to be doing in Manhattan in the coming months;
especially around the commemoration of the 15th anniversary of
these attacks.  So Diane, maybe you want to say more about that.

SARE:  Well, I can say on that point, because it gets at what I
was thinking about, which is LaRouche's question of whether
Americans will re-assemble themselves.  I think the most
important thing for Americans right now, is to not allow
ourselves to be divided; which is clearly the intent of these
operations and the news media coverage of them in such a way over
these last days, and the intent of our President, who perhaps
wants us all to start shooting each other while he launches a
nuclear war against Russia and we don't notice.  What is planned
around New York City is a series of performances of the Mozart
{Requiem}; and we have a number of choruses of the Schiller
Institute in now Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and New Jersey.
We'll be doing a series of performances of the Mozart {Requiem}
on and around September 11th.  The response to this is very deep;
people — as I said earlier — were profoundly affected.  And
what people in New York want is not revenge; people don't want to
go blow up some country like Saudi Arabia.  What people want is
justice; and they should be able to rest assured that such crimes
will never be allowed to occur again.  That, in turn, would give
profound meaning and immortality to the lives of all of those
people who have died in 9/11 and in the wake of 9/11.
        So, I think this question before us about whether the
American will re-assemble ourselves and reconsider our destiny is
the pressing question of the moment.  Not simply from the
standpoint of abolishing evil; but from the standpoint of
actually creating the good.

        ROGERS:  That brings to mind the very question and the
important point that was made by President Franklin Roosevelt,
because I think to accomplish this destiny, the question is also
whether or not people will allow themselves, or continue to allow
themselves to live in fear.  When Franklin Roosevelt made his
first inaugural address, and people recite these famous words all
the time, of his call that "We have nothing to fear but fear
itself.  Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which
paralyzes needed efforts to turn retreat into advance."  The
problem right now is that we have a culture that has numbed
people to the point where the advance which is necessary, and the
fear which must be overcome to actually demand justice now, is
very dominant.  And I think this what we have to overcome.  The
destiny that we have to create for ourselves requires that we're
not just talking about implementing the 28 pages; but we're
talking about doing away with this evil which creates this type
of fear and this type of injustice that actually paralyzes
people.  To actually do away with that fear, and to be able to
bring that destiny about.  So, when you're thinking about —
Diane, you had your discussion yesterday — you have to deal with
this a lot, just in terms of the fear that people were
expressing.  And I think that right now, we've been given a very
unique and important opportunity that we don't have to live in
fear.  That — as was already stated — this Empire, their stooge
Obama, this whole financial system has no power; it's
disintegrating, it's collapsing right before their ugly faces.
So now we have the power to finish that off and create something
better for mankind.

        OGDEN:  I think one of the sources of the fear is that our
fellow citizens are victim of a concerted propaganda war.  The
number of lies that Americans are told on a daily basis, the
continuing lie of what was actually the truth of who financed and
organized 9/11, which has been the overshadowing lie for the last
15 years.  Then the lies in succession:  Tony Blair's lies;
George Bush's lies.  The lies justifying these so-called
regime-change wars, these regime-change operations.  And now the
lies that are being told to people about Russia, about China.
Look at what China is doing:  uplifting hundreds of millions of
people out of poverty; developing technologies that have not been
developed before; bringing access to the modern world to the
entire interior of the continent of Eurasia; exploring the dark
side of the Moon.  Is this what you're told about in the pages of
the {New York Times}?  No!  People are victims of a propaganda
war.  One other item we've provided for our viewers this week on
the LaRouche PAC website, is an extraordinary interview with a
state senator from Virginia, Richard Black, and another citizen
of the US, who travelled to Syria and actually saw what the
situation was on the ground in Syria.  Met with President Assad,
incredibly.  The title of the video, I think is apropos — it's
called "Breaking the Propaganda War Vis-à-vis Syria".  This is a
huge responsibility.  People have to realize they have a
responsibility to figure out what is true; and to then act on
that basis.
        And I think the re-assembling of American citizens, as Mr.
LaRouche said, and the decision that we are going to change our
destiny; and we are not going to allow Obama to carry us, in our
name, into a Third World War, is a decision that has to be made
by the American people.  Again, the leverage to lead the rest of
the nation comes from what is happening in Manhattan.
        OK; well, I might give myself the final word.  On that note,
we've referenced and shown you little bits and pieces of several
items that you can now immediately go and watch on the LaRouche
PAC YouTube channel.  You will subscribe to the YouTube channel
and receive notifications every time we post a new item, such as
that.  So, I would ask you to subscribe to the YouTube channel
and to circulate all of that material as widely as you can.  If
you haven't yet, please subscribe to the LaRouche PAC daily email
update; you will get the news as it really is happening, to your
inbox every single day.
        Thank you for tuning in, and please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.  Good night.

Video 2. del:

Lyd:

Følgende er et dansk uddrag, let redigeret, af den første del af indlægget: 

Phil Rubinstein, (en leder af LaRouchePAC i USA): Det, jeg vil forsøge at gøre, er, at jeg vil begynde med lidt politisk baggrund; men i dag drejer det sig ikke om at give en briefing, og så fortsætte med et emne. Der er et par ting, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har talt om i de seneste år, og faktisk i løbet af de seneste par uger; og der er to ting, som jeg vil komme ind på. Det første er, at Helga, under denne nylige konference i Berlin, har udsendt en appel om en dialog mellem civilisationer; men hvad der er vigtigere, så har Helga understreget den pointe, at vi må have et skifte i kulturen, den globale kultur. En del af at få ændret den globale kultur er at få en relation imellem de eksisterende nationer, der bedst kan bygges på hver enkelet civilisations højdepunkter – den renæssance, der har fundet sted i de forskellige civilisationer¸ f.eks. den storslåede renæssance i Kina, Tong-dynastiet og andre perioder; Konfucius. I Indien var der Gupta-perioden med store udviklinger inden for klassisk kunst og videnskab, og naturligvis også den græske renæssance, den italienske renæssance, og mange tilfælde, som vi ikke ved ret meget om. Men, at bringe disse sammen, og det var især det, der fandt sted ved koncerten lørdag aften – jeg kan kun opfordre folk til at gå til websiden og se det, hvis man ikke selv var til stede. Og dette er, hvad Helga har stillet krav om som en politisk nødvendighed i dag, nu. Intet mindre kan gøre det. Politik har ændret sig over de seneste 10, 20, 30 eller 40 år, for man kan sige, at, for fyrre år siden var behovet for en sådan total forandring i det kulturelle syn ikke så påkrævet, og vi ville måske have kunnet gennemføre et par reformer, der kunne have fået os igennem krisen. Det er ikke længere tilfældet. I dag står vi, 25 år efter Sovjetunionens fald. Og på det tidspunkt sagde LaRouchebevægelsen og Schiller Instituttet, at dette ikke betød Vestens sejr over Østen, men at det vestlige system sådan, som det var i færd med at udvikle sig på det tidspunkt, også gik sit sammenbrud i møde. Og dét, som Helga og Lyn sagde på det tidspunkt, var, at den eneste måde at undgå dette på, var at åbne op for den fulde udvikling af den eurasiske landmasse. Så langt tilbage går vores fremgangsmåde, med den Eurasiske Landbro, mindst tilbage til 1989-90. I modsat fald ville der komme et sammenbrud i den globale kultur. Hvis vi forsøgte at udbrede den eksisterende London/Wall Street-akse, det såkaldte Washington-konsensus efter ordre fra Storbritannien; fra selve Monarkiet, og det vil jeg gerne understrege, for folk mener, at det er absurd, selv i Europa, selv i USA, mener folk, at det er absurd. Men det er i realiteten dér, vi står. Lyndon LaRouche er kommet med et specifikt udtryk for dette, som går ud på, at spørgsmålet her først og fremmest drejer sig om kreativitet. Spørgsmålet for de fleste af os er: Hvad betyder dette? Hvad er kreativitet? Og Lyn(don) siger, at det er kreativitet i sig selv. Det er simpelt hen kreativitet, og hvis vi forstår det som et faktisk princip om menneskelig udvikling og vores forhold til universet som helhed. Her på det seneste har Lyndon sagt, tænk som Einstein. Og det morsomme er, at for år tilbage – jeg hader at lyde gammel, men det er jeg, ikke så gammel endda, men det skrider frem; måske er jeg den ældste person i lokalet? – Nå, men for mange år siden havde vi et blad, der hed The Campaigner, som var vores teoretiske magasin, tilbage i slutningen af ’70’erne, og vi havde et nummer, der hed: Tænk som Beethoven! Jeg vil gerne fastslå den pointe, at der ikke er den store forskel. For, et af de afgørende punkter i at tænke som Einstein er klassisk musik. Det kommer jeg tilbage til, når jeg kommer til Einstein, men blot for nu at giver jer en smagsprøve på, hvad det er, Lyn talte om. For det drejer sig ikke bare om, at Einstein var et videnskabeligt geni, og det var han – vi kommer ikke på den særlige relativitetsteori, men jeg vil komme ind på nogle af de kontroversielle elementer af det – men han var, i hele sin personlighed, som person, et geni. Han havde den rigtige opfattelse af stort set alle spørgsmål, som han blev involveret i, inkl. nogle kontroversielle videnskabelige spørgsmål, hvor mange mennesker mente, at han havde uret. Og jeg taler ikke om de specifikke resultater, men om hans tilgang, fremgangsmåde, selv nu her 100 år efter, eller omkring 60 år efter hans død, er man nødsaget til at komme tilbage til at diskutere nogle af hans ideer. Videnskaben udvikler sig selvfølgeligt. Som folk måske ved, og det er blot en del af det, f.eks. men videnskabsfolk er nu, efter at have rakket ned på ideen, gået tilbage til begrebet om en helhedsanskuelse af videnskab. Dette må gå langt videre end det, de tænkte, og selv det, Einstein vidste, og Lyn har været en ledende person. For, en del af problemet er denne adskillelse af forskellige discipliner ikke alene er en adskillelse fra videnskab, men også en adskillelse inden for de forskellige videnskaber: fysik, biologi osv. Og de er i virkeligheden slet ikke adskilte. Det er ikke blot det, at de ikke udgør adskilte områder, men at det er en fejl at tænke på dem adskilt fra hinanden. De kan ikke eksistere adskilte. En af de ting, jeg gerne vil understrege, er, at, for virkelig at kunne opnå det, som Lyn og Einstein taler om, må vi anskue fysik fra et helt andet synspunkt; ud fra et synspunkt om, ikke alene biologi, men om livet; ting, der ikke er entropiske, men, hvad der er endnu vigtigere, selve det menneskelige intellekt. Det er altså ikke hjerne, som de fleste mennesker … jeg så en af disse videnskabsvideoer, og de havde et afsnit om Einstein; Einstein og hans videnskab, Einstein og hans et eller andet; og så Einstein og hans hjerne. Der var en journalist, der stillede spørgsmål til topvidenskabsfolk, hvilket ikke gør det bedre, og hun var fikseret på hjernen! Det var en fyr, der studerede Einsteins (fysiske) hjerne fra noget skørt materiale, og hun blev ved med at komme tilbage til, hvor stor var hans hjerne, og hvor mange hjernevindinger var der, det var sindssygt! Så vi taler altså ikke om hjerne, men om det menneskelige intellekt. (Se også LPAC-videoen: The Extraordinary genius of Albert Einstein, med indledning af Phil Rubinstein, -red.) 

Til dels, for at komme derhen, hvorfor taler Lyn og Helga om det på denne måde, at man må have en tilgang ud fra synspunktet om intellektet. På én måde siger man, at intellektet er adskilt fra det fysiske univers, på en anden måde siger man, at intellektet blot er en sen opdagelse, i det mindste her på planeten Jord; vi ved ikke, om der intellekt andetsteds i universet. Så hvorfor begynde dér? Faktisk er det sådan, at det menneskelige intellekt er det, som universet har frembragt. Vi kan bevise en vis relation til dette univers, hvilket er, hvad Einstein arbejdede ud fra. Men hvorfor må vi tage dette udgangspunkt? Vil de fleste mennesker sige. Er det ikke lidt meget; I har måske ret, det kunne muligvis være interessant at tale om dette. Men lad os nu … som Lyn ynder at sige: Lad os nu være lidt praktiske. Hvad kan vi (rent praktisk) gøre? Kan vi ikke applikere en anden tilgang? Lige nu; lad os få et bedre system i Europa; lad os håndtere euro-spørgsmålet. Lad os forbedre vores relation med Rusland, lad os få en dialog med Rusland. Det er en god ting. Briterne forlod (EU); lad os se, hvad vi kan gøre med det, der er tilbage; vi må på en eller anden måde holde sammen på Europa. Lad os være praktiske! OK, vi må tage os af spørgsmålet om kineserne. Vi må konkurrere med dem, for det handler altid om konkurrence. En nation imod den anden, det er altid geopolitik, det er altid et nulsums-spil; lad os være praktiske.

Det problem, vi står overfor, er, at tingene nu er kommet til det punkt, hvor der ikke er nogen praktiske skridt, der kan tages, undtagen en form for revolution. Jeg taler ikke om at kaste med brosten og mursten. Hvis vi ikke gør det rigtige, vil jeg gerne understrege, at det kan komme så vidt nogle steder. Hvis vi ser på Mellemøsten, dér har vi en forfærdelig situation. Men en revolution i kulturen. Den slags ting, der må udtænkes, f.eks. har vi med musikken, vi har opført koncerten i Berlin, men mere generelt, så bruger vi udviklingen af musikalske kor til at mobilisere folk. Jeg er sikker på, man har noget lignende i Europa; i USA er der mange unge mennesker, der mener, at Rapp-musik er kreativt. De siger ikke bare, at de kan lide det – det siger nogen måske – men det virkelige argument er, at det er kreativt. Det er poesi. Det er virkeligt. Det er gaden. Det er mit liv. De er måden, hvorpå jeg udtrykker mig. Og kendsgerningen er, at, på dette tidspunkt, så, hvis man ikke erkender, at det ødelægger deres intellekt, så kan man ikke organisere det. Men mindre, man i det mindste engagerer sig i denne debat, engagerer sig i … min hustru er dansk, og Danmark er et vidunderligt land, folk er lykkelige, men jeg har set ungdommen. Og de ligner alt for meget det, vi amerikanere kalder ’Goths’, gotere, skinheads osv., med tatoveringer, med alternativ påklædning med kranier og skeletter og 14 nåle igennem næsen, osv. Hvis man har en ungdom, for hvem hæslighed er et højdepunkt af deres kultur, noget, man forsøger at opnå, så har man en ungdom, der har mistet enhver fornemmelse af formål i verden. Mistet enhver fornemmelse af, hvad det vil sige at være menneske. For, at være menneske er ikke hæslighed. Og dette er et virkeligt problem, hvor man ser forskellighederne i kulturer. Især Kina har ungdommen tendens til at være optimistiske. De overtager sikkert nok noget af den vesterlandske kultur, det gør de, og det er et problem. Men bortset fra det, så har de en fornemmelse af, at det at være menneske har en egenskab af skønhed, af udvikling, en egenskab af fremskridt og opdagelse og spænding. Det ser man ikke hos ret mange unge i Vesten i dag, generelt, selv om der nok skal være nogen.

Se på, hvad der foregår lige nu. Vi har et sammenbrud af det vestlige finansielle system. Deutsche Bank – 50, 70 billioner i derivater – de siger selvfølgelig, at det vil udligne sig, men det er ikke sandt, sådan sker et krak ikke. De sidder ikke der og udligner det hele, og så bliver det til nul, og sluttelig med 50 billioner i derivater, udveksler man en dollar frem og tilbage, og så er det hele løst. Siden hvornår har det fungeret sådan? Det er deres argument. Men det fungerer ikke sådan. 50 billioner i Deutsche Bank – der i virkeligheden ikke er en tysk bank, den har grundlæggende set base i New York osv., men altså, hvad er Tysklands totale BNP? Der er på omkring 3 billioner, sådan noget. Det totale BNP i EU er 18 billioner dollars. Så vi taler altså om mellem 3 til 4 gange det totale BNP. Deutsche Bank er bankerot. I USA har vi ikke råd til noget, undtagen bankerne. Jeg har netop set en rapport fra New Jersey, med 8 millioner indbyggere, den tættest eller næst-tættest befolkede delstat, lidt mere som i Europa mht. befolkningstæthed, der ikke ligner noget andet sted i USA. Der har de en idiot som guvernør, der stillede på som præsidentkandidat, og de har netop erklæret, at de vil standse al reparation og vedligeholdelse af veje og motorveje, for budgettet blev ikke vedtaget. Så han prøver at presse folk. I USA har vi, for første gang i vores historie, en stigning i antal dødsfald i aldersgruppen 25 – 54. Med andre ord, så er antallet af dødsfald pr. 1000 mennesker, eller pr. 100.000 mennesker, er i denne aldersgruppe steget under Bush- og Obamapræsidentskaberne. Undersøgelsen spændte over perioden 1999 til 2012/14. Selvmordsraterne er steget. Men den virkelige historie om sundhedsvæsenet i USA, det er forvirrende, jo, vi har da en 5 – 10 hospitaler i USA, der er hospitaler i verdensklasse. Det er ikke sådan, at vi ikke har disse ting. Men, de bliver ikke brugt, med mindre man tilhører de højere samfundslag, eller udvælges til at deltage i et eksperiment; men bortset fra det, så er bundlinjen lige nu, at, hvis du er over 65, må vi lige overveje, om det kan betale sig at tage os af dig. Så de sætter altså indbetalingen for lægebehandling op, osv.

Hvad ser vi? EU falder fra hinanden. Hvad er signalerne? Vi ved ikke helt, hvad det er, der foregår i Storbritannien. Vi forsøger at finde ud af det. Men vi ved, at Europa var chokeret over den idé, at briterne stemte for at forlade EU. Det her har en særlig drejning. Den idé, som briterne har spillet, og som giver én en idé om deres rolle, er, at de godt kan lide altid at sætte visse ting op på en sådan måde, der giver kontrol; men de bliver aldrig rigtigt selv en del af det, de sætter op. De holder sig altid lidt udenfor. Churchill er et godt eksempel. Churchill gjorde det meget klart, at de ikke ville opgive Imperiet. Det er grunden til, at de kæmpede mod nazisterne; det gjorde de ikke, fordi de ønskede at redde jøderne, glem det. De kæmpede mod nazisterne – efter at de først havde installeret nazisterne – fordi de ikke ville miste en del af deres imperium, og de indså, at det var den vej, det gik. Men ikke desto mindre var deres exit af EU en faktor, der var noget af en overraskelse, især uden for Storbritannien … igen, hvad det britiske etablissement tænkte, og jeg vil tro, at der var splittelser selv i det britiske etablissement, og det er sandsynligvis grunden til, at det var så tæt løb. Men en overraskelse, de er ude, og den Europæiske Union er død. Der vil fremover ikke findes noget EU. Disse fyre, Juncker og Schultz, der siger, at vi får et nyt Europa, et stærkere Europa, et kerne-Europa, det grundlæggende Europa – glem det. Europa (EU) er fuldstændigt røget. Til dels, fordi hele banksystemet er røget.

Nu har man Chilcot-rapporten. Jeg mener, at dette også vil vise sig at være betydningsfuldt. Tony Blair udgjorde modellen for det seneste amerikanske præsidentskab. Som det fremgår af selve Chilcot-rapporten, så var han bonkammerat med George W. Bush, og den idé, at det skulle have været George Bush, der kommanderede rundt med Tony Blair, er mere end absurd. Som vi plejede at sige, så var George W. Bush ikke i stand til at holde fast i en idé på vej fra den ene ende af lokalet til den anden. Dette var Tony Blairs krig. Dette var briternes imperie-krig. Det var USA under Bush. Obama har ambitioner; han vil gerne være mere ligesom Blair. Han vil ikke indrømme, at han ikke ved, hvad han foretager sig, han er alt for narcissistisk, han modellerer sig efter Blair i mange henseender. Dette er det nye Labourparti, husker man måske. Hvad det havde med arbejde (labour) at gøre, aner jeg ikke. Det var så nyt, at de slet ikke behøvede at arbejde!

Chilcot-rapporten gør dette klart. Vi vidste dette; vi sagde dette. Der var andre, der også sagde det. Men den kendsgerning, at dette nu kommer ud få dage efter Brexit, som en rapport – og jeg så faktisk Blair, der forsøgte at undskylde, og han var noget rystet. Så vi har altså enden på EU; vi har de kollapsende banker, og dette har naturligvis udløst en virkning, hvor Carney, som er chef for Bank of England … og nu har vi bare penge, som de pumper ud, så meget, som de kan. I USA kalder vi det ’helikopter-penge’. Der findes ikke engang en mekanisme længere, hvor f.eks. centralbankerne opkøber obligationer … det gider vi ikke længere, det virker ikke mere, for det giver centralbankerne for meget gæld. Nu siger man bare, kom, vi giver dig penge, hvis du bliver hjemme, kaster vi penge ned over dit hus!

Systemet er totalt færdigt. Og dette finder selvfølgelig sted på et tidspunkt, hvor der er en ny bølge af terrorisme, med Bagdad, Bangladesh og netop i dag har der været en bombe i Taiwan på metroen, hvor 21 mennesker kom til skade. De har ikke erklæret det for en terrorhandling, så jeg ved ikke, hvad det drejede sig om. Men Bagdad, 250 døde, premierministeren har indrømmet, og er under ekstremt pres, og hvad er det, Chilcot-rapporten bekræfter? At alt dette er en konsekvens af især Irakkrigen i 2003. En afgørende faktor for at forstå Blair, mener jeg, og nogle af jer husker måske dette; denne britiske skuespillerinde, Helen Mirren, spillede Dronning Elizabeth II og vandt en Oscar; og selv i filmen – og dette er sandt – så er den person, der redder den britiske kongefamilie fra vanære efter Dianas død, hendes mord, Tony Blair. Han var deres mand; det var ham, der fortalte dem, hvad de skulle gøre, hvad de skulle sige, hvordan de skulle håndtere pressen. De vil måske ofre Tony Blair, og uanset, hvad historien er, så er det ikke let blot at feje ham til side som endnu blot en politiker, vi bare skaffer os af med. Dette er fyren der var gesandt for kvartetten til Mellemøsten.

Jeg vil også gerne sige, og dette er meget vigtigt, at, siden mordet på Gaddafi, og i stigende grad siden Ukraine, har der været en konfrontation med Rusland, og med Kina til en vis grad. NATO er rykket frem mod øst, det er rykket nærmere og nærmere til Ruslands grænse. Lad mig sige én ting: så snart, jeg personligt, i november 2013 hørte, at der var et initiativ for at tage Ukraine ud af den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union og ind i den Europæiske Union, og der var nogle demonstrationer – så vidste jeg, at det var dårligt. For Ukraine repræsenterer noget, som er hjertet af Rusland på dette tidspunkt, ikke, fordi det er Rusland, men man må indse, at Anden Verdenskrig for to tredjedeles vedkommende blev udkæmpet i det, der nu er Ukraine og dele af Polen; det var her, russerne konfronterede nazisterne. Jo, det kom også til Moskva; men en enorm del af denne kamp blev udkæmpet i Donbass, i Ukraine, i de områder af Ukraine, der efter krigen blev en del af Polen osv.

Man har en situation ligesom den, man har i Polen netop nu, hvor man har et sindssyg hørefløjspræsidentskab og -regering, og de vil begynde at tænke på at tage territorium tilbage og konfrontere Rusland. Det er udelukket, at Rusland ikke vil respondere på dette. Man måtte være sindssyg og totalt ude af kontrol. Russerne mistede 27 millioner mennesker i Anden Verdenskrig. Der er en grund til, at de kalder det den store, patriotiske krig. I USA kalder man det Anden Verdenskrig, hvis man kan tælle. Der er ting i USA, der går bedre end det; men blandt de yngre generationer? Man vil få vanskeligheder med at finde en person under tyve, der kan fortælle dig, hvilket år, USA gik ind i Anden Verdenskrig. Jeg tør ikke vædde på, hvilken procentdel, der ville svare rigtigt. Og en af de meget vigtige ting, der har udviklet sig – der er to ting, der gør dette anderledes end blot at være et dystert billede, og det er kineserne. Kineserne repræsenterer nu en økonomisk og politisk fremtid. Og det er ikke blot – de har gjort bemærkelsesværdige ting. 600.000 – 1 million mennesker er blevet løftet ud af fattigdom. Ti tusinder af mil med højhastigheds-jernbaner og andre former for jernbaner, hvor de nu er ved at bevæge sig ind i det indre af landet. De startede Ét bælte, én vej-politikken, den Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank. Deres anskuelse er det, som Xi Jinping kalder win-win-politik; ikke nulsumsspil, ikke geopolitik, men et samarbejde om udvikling af især udviklingslandene. Og det er meget inspirerende for folk, der ser, at, min Gud, de mener det. De spiller ikke bare et spil. Afrikanerne, for det meste. Og jeg siger ikke, at der ikke er problemer, men man har jo en eller anden journalist fra Washington Post eller The Economist, der rejser ud og siger, føler I ikke, at kineserne kommer og voldtager jer? Og afrikanerne siger ’nej’. De bygger noget. Lad mig give et eksempel. Etiopien. Vi havde en etiopier, der talte ved konferencen (i Berlin), og Etiopien er et meget interessant sted, det er det næststørste land i Afrika, der er omkring 90-95 millioner mennesker. Der var tilsyneladende et tilfælde, hvor en journalist rejste derned og talte med en højtplaceret person i regeringen, og sagde, ’indser I ikke, at I bliver plyndret? Er det ikke det, Kina vil’, typisk koloniherre’. Og fyren svarede, ’nej, det mener jeg ikke; vi har ingen råmaterialer’. Jo, de har kaffe, men kaffe er ikke noget særligt i Kina. De bliver ikke udplyndret. Dette er ikke et kolonialistisk foretagende. Så man har altså rent faktisk en modstand, og udvikling, begge dele. Ikke kun det negative. Vi så i Syrien, at der er modstand. Folk vil kæmpe. I Etiopien falder de ikke bare til patten. Man ser dette i Afrika i stigende grad. Man ser det i hele Asien. Der er en modstand, og en løsning.

Og kendsgerningen er den, at Putin har spillet en meget, meget betydningsfuld rolle. En af de ting, jeg mener, har ændret dynamikken således, at man i Vesten får en Brexit fra befolkningen. Man får endda det kaos, vi har i USA – jeg siger ikke, at kaos er godt; kaos kan føre til helvede. Men hvis man ikke har et reelt lederskab, så vil folk respondere. Man kan ikke sige til folk, ’vær ikke kaotiske’. De vil på et vist tidspunkt sige, ad helvede til med det. Tag USA, med levestandarden, der er ved at bryde sammen, kollapsende infrastruktur; vi er ikke længere den førende nation. Vi kunne stadig væk være en førende nation.

Kina har ført an i udforskning af rummet. Månens bagside, osv. USA plejede at være en førende nation i udforskning af rummet – det er vi ikke mere. Vi har stadig noget, der er blevet tilbage – vi har netop opsendt en satellit for at udforske Jupiter, hvilket er godt – men hvorfor tog det fem år at komme dertil? Fordi vi ikke havde udviklet visse brændstoftyper. Og hvordan bliver satellitten forsynet med energi? Gennem solpaneler. Dette kunne være en endnu mere effektiv mission, hvis vi f.eks. brugte plutonium som brændstof. Men vi gør i det mindste dette. Obama, der så berømt sagde, da han blev spurgt om at tage til Månen, ’Åh, der har vi været!’ Det ville jeg ikke engang sige om Grand Canyon, eller om Weis-museet, ’Åh, der har jeg været. Har gjort det.’ Under en anden valgbegivenhed var der en, der spurgte ham om fusionsenergi, og han svarede, ’Åh, vi behøver ikke noget af alt det der smarte’. Dette er forskningens fremskudte grænse! Hvis man ikke gør det, hvad gør man så!

Så forskellen i situationen, er, at den måde, som Putin handlede rent strategisk – han har f.eks. været meget åben omkring spørgsmålet om en dialog med Europa, inkl. om Ukraine-situationen. Han tog initiativ i Syrien-situationen, det sandsynligvis mest åbenlyse tilfælde, for ingen forventede, at han ville gå ind i Syrien og rent faktisk åbne for muligheden af at ødelægge ISIS. Hvordan ser USA så lige pludselig ud? Vi er der, og vi støttede ISIS, forstået på den måde, at vi beskyttede dem mod luftangreb ved at blande dem sammen med disse ’moderate’ terrorister. Moderate terrorister? ’Det var en mindre smertefuld død’. Det kunne man formodentlig sige. De hugger ikke hovedet af én; måske bruger de mindre smertefulde metoder, jeg ved det ikke. De er moderate terrorister! Vi støtter dem, og derfor vil man ikke skyde på en fra ISIS, for de står ved siden af – ikke en civil person – men en moderat terrorist! Civile kan vi dræbe. Droneangreb på et par hospitaler, der er i orden. Men lad os ikke gøre en moderat terrorist fortræd. Hvis man ikke gør nar af den slags – man er jo vred, man er indfanget af debatten, hvad skal man sige til en ’moderat terrorist’?

(Mere oversættelse følger. Bliv på kanalen!)

Phil, 36 min., fortsat:

Som vi ved … en af de ting, der skete i går, som jeg ikke har en fuld rapport over, er, at kongresmedlem Walter Jones sammen med et par andre kongresmedlemmer holdt en pressekonference om disse 28 sider, der ikke er blevet offentliggjort, og som peger på saudiernes rolle, sammen med briterne, men her i særdeleshed de 28 sider omhandlende saudiernes rolle i [terrorangrebet på World Trade Center] 11. september [2001], og som er nært forestående, og som vil blive et punkt, der intensiverer sagen. Men de krævede den omgående offentliggørelse af de 28 sider; og ét af kongresmedlemmerne, Lynch, sagde faktisk, at, hvis dette ikke sker snart, og senest til 11. september, så vil vi oplæse de 28 sider i kongressalen, der således optages i protokollen. Det er et andet univers. Hvorfor sker det? Jeg tror, det er pga. det, kineserne og russerne laver, for det er sådan, verden fungerer. Alle leder efter en årsag nær ved hjemmet, og forsøg for resten ikke at forudsige det amerikanske præsidentvalg. For vi har Trump, der er et ’wild card’, en sindssyg mand … men hvorfor kom han så langt, som han er – fordi folk er vrede. Folk er oprørte over det, de gennemlever. Vi har Sanders, som folk troede, havde et bedre omdømme, men faktisk – han havde stemt for Irakkrigen osv., og han var et falsum et langt stykke hen ad vejen. Så er der Hillary, der virkelig er dårlig, og hun undersøges nu med denne FBI-ting. Verden befinder sig i en utrolig urolig tilstand, især i det, vi kalder det transatlantiske område (vesten). Men der er fremskridt i Asien, i Kina, og der er en nyligt valgt filippinsk præsident, der måske er i færd med at trække sig tilbage fra en konfrontation med Kina. Og USA presser på for en konfrontation med Kina over det Sydkinesiske Hav.

Det, som Lyn og Helga siger, i det mindste, som jeg forstår det, er, at, i betragtning af en verden, der befinder sig i denne form for uro, så kan man ikke tage det væk. Noget af det, det foregår i USA – jeg kan ikke vurdere det alt sammen – men blot inden for de seneste par dage, med hvad der svarer til disse opstande, er, at vi har haft en ny runde med politi-skudepisoder mod sorte mænd i USA, så protesterne er begyndt igen. Men der er en ustabilitet i situationen, der er global og universel. Vi har netop set åbningen af den sekundære Suezkanal, Panamakanalen åbner, kineserne investerer i det – faktisk er et stort flertal i verden i en position nu, hvor, hvis vi gjorde det, de kan sige, ’London er forbi. Vi gennemfører Glass-Steagall, New York [Wall Street] er forbi. Vi går tilbage til FDR med denne sag, og vi gennemfører win-win-politikken’. Men det, vi må gøre for at få dette til at ske, er, at vi må ændre vores syn på mennesket. Vi har i det tyvende århundrede været igennem – og det er Lyns pointe, og hvor jeg kommer lidt frem til Einstein – i det tyvende århundrede er det, der i stigende grad er kommet frem, et syn på mennesket, der grundlæggende set kan reduceres til at være et dyr eller en maskine. Vi har måske – altså, folk går i kirke, i moskeen, folk har andre måder at udtrykke det, de har forskellige former for overbevisninger, som de taler om, spirituelle o. lign., men det siger faktisk ikke noget om, hvad arten af den menneskelige natur beviseligt er. I de fleste tilfælde vil det dreje sig om at opgive mennesket i denne verden, og om, hvad man så kan gøre for at redde sig selv. Hvad enten det nu drejer sig om at være en af ’de udvalgte’, eller at komme i himlen; hvad historien nu måtte være. Og så har vi det system, som vi rent faktisk lever under, og dette står for mig mere end noget andet som det, som Det britiske Imperium vi sige, og hvorfor Obama er så dårlig. Og vi mener stadig, at Obama bør fjernes fra embedet; det ville være et pragtfuldt spark i – buksebagen – uanset, hvor længe han endnu kan sidde ved magten, fem eller syv måneder. Det vigtigste element i Det britiske Imperium, mener jeg, og det er noget, jeg i hvert fald til en vis grad har lært af Lyn, er britisk epistemologi (erkendelsesteori; den menneskelige erkendelses natur, betingelser og grænser). Briternes syn på menneskeheden. Det er darwinisme, i den betydning, at, eftersom der er en evolutionær udvikling, så kan vi reducere mennesker til deres biologi, til at være aber, eller til noget, der stammer fra dyreliv. Eller gå længere endnu: at man kan reproducere menneskelig intelligens med en maskine. Der er nu opstået en hel ny runde af denne tænkning i øjeblikket. Denne idé kommer i bølger, at vi kan producere kunstig intelligens, at vi kan skabe maskiner, der tænker som mennesker. Det er rent ud sagt beviseligt, at man ikke kan. Kurt Gödel beviste det. Vi kan måske på en måde kontrollere biologiske former og skabe visse former for levende organismer, men det ville kræve en total ændring inden for videnskab. Det ville kræve, at man forstod princippet om livet; hvad det er, der gør livet levende. Jeg så et af disse causeriprogrammer med videnskabsfolk, hvor de angiveligt, eller faktisk talte om det, de kaldte kvantebiologi, som har nogle interessant punkter, men den store pointe hen imod slutningen var, at en af disse fyre sagde, ’jamen, det virkelige problem her er, at vi ikke ved, hvad livet er’. Men det her handler alt sammen om kvantebiologi. Og vi ved selvfølgelig virkelig ikke, hvad livet er. Hvad er det for et princip, der reflekteres i en levende organisme, og som giver det retning, formål? Som giver det en egenskab af hensigt? Af en drivkraft fremad (’go-orientation’), det, vi kalder teleologi[1]; endelige formål. Det er, hvad vi har med at gøre med livet; livet er under forandring, det er levende; det gør ting, der ikke er tilfældige. Hvad med menneskeligt liv? Og man hører disse diskussioner, og én af disse fyre vil indrømme, ’jamen, hvad er bevidsthed?’ Og det er ikke blot bevidsthed, men det, som Lyn kalder kreativitet (evnen til at skabe).

Lad mig træde et skridt tilbage og give jer en idé om, hvad denne form for begreb om kreativitet er. For det, Lyndon LaRouche siger, er, at kreativitet er nødvendig. Man kan sige en ting om kreativitet: På en vis måde er kreativitet det, som Leibniz ville kalde ’nødvendigt og tilstrækkeligt’. Den definerer, hvad menneskelige væsner er. Det er en bestemmende egenskab, der viser, at vi ikke er som dyrene. Vi tilhører et andet domæne. Vi plejede at referere til dette som ’transfinit’, altså med andre ord, at vi lever i et domæne, der er således, at man ikke kan måle noget som helst af, hvad vi gør, ud fra et standpunkt om et forudgående domæne. Man kan ikke måle noget som helst, der er af menneskelig art, ud fra standpunktet om abe-liv. Der er så mange mærkelige ting om alt det her med dyrene; det er simpelt hen vanvittigt. For det første er chimpanser nogle af de mest afskyelige væsner, du nogen sinde har mødt. De er simpelt hen ondsindede. De slår hinanden ihjel, de æder deres afkom, i modsætning til dette billede, som folk engang yndede at udbrede. Jeg synes, det er mærkeligt, at modsætningen til chimpanser er det, de kalder bonobo-aber, en slags chimpanse af en anden art, den er yndefuld, slank, og hvad er så deres store ting? De har konstant forskelligartede former for sex. De er konstant engageret i seksuel aktivitet, og det gør dem så til en bedre version af chimpansen. Så det er altså det valg, man har. Man kan være en chimpanse og gå rundt og dræbe og føre krig og æde egne unger, eller også kan man være en bonobo, der hænger ned fra et træ og er engageret i sex i flæng hele dagen lang. Det er altså ikke det, der skete.

(Der kommer mere oversættelse. Bliv på kanalen!)

Det interessante; indgangsvinklen til at forstå det, som Lyn siger, er hans fysiske økonomi, fremsat i dens enkleste principper. Og man indser, hvor forskelligt dette er fra den måde, folk tænker på, til trods for, at det faktisk ikke er særlig kompliceret – jeg skriver ingen formler op. Jeg er alligevel ikke skrap nok til matematikken, og matematik er under alle omstændigheder ikke kreativitet. Hvad var det, Lyn gjorde med den fysiske økonomi? Han gik ud fra det standpunkt, hvad er menneskets forhold, i samfundet, til naturen; hvordan overlever vi? Hvordan reproducerer vi menneskeslægten? Jamen, vi gør noget, der er meget enestående: vi applikerer viden, i form af teknologi, til en evne til, fra naturen, at udtrække ting, der tilsyneladende ikke er der. Selv jæger-samlere – som jægere udgør vi ikke den store mulighed: vi er ikke hurtige, vi har dog en hel del udholdenhed i forhold til andre dyr, så hvis man vil tilbringe sit liv med at jage giraffer i Kalahariørkenen, så er vi nogenlunde udrustet til at gøre det. Men den tankegang, at vi kan overleve som et kødædende dyr, er temmelig langt ude.

Så udviklede vi landbrug. Hvad gjorde vi? Vi tog videnskabelige kundskaber, ikke blot redskaber, men vi lærte visse ting om astronomi – hvem ved, hvor langt tilbage i tiden, der har været astronomi – sandsynligvis mindst et sted mellem 5.000 og 10.000 år. Der er endda fundet hulemalerier, der er 30-40.000, eller endda 50.000 år gamle, hvor der er tegn på kalendere. Men mindst 5 – 10.000 år. Vi anvendte denne videnskab til at ændre vores forhold til naturen. Vi blev i stand til at få ting ud af naturen, der tilsyneladende ikke eksisterede, som f.eks. vores evne til at anvende kobber og tin til at fremstille bronze, til fremstilling af metalredskaber. Og derfra rykkede vi opefter i vores viden om udvikling af metallerne. Det var alt sammen videnskabelige kundskaber, der blev anvendt til teknologi, der forbedrede vores evne – disse ting var der jo ikke bare, man kan ikke finde bronze i et flodleje, og der vokser ikke stål på en bjergside. Hvordan gjorde vi det – var det ved forsøg-og-fejl-metoden? Nej, det, der sker, er, at visse mennesker får en idé, de har en forestilling, men det er en ubøjelig forestilling; de vil finde ud af, hvordan de skal bruge deres tanker om det, der findes, til at udtrække ting, der tilsyneladende ikke er der for sanserne at se, og som i realiteten, i den form, i hvilken vi bruger det, ikke findes. Vi skaber eksistensen af i det mindste tætheden af visse materialer, osv., gennem skabende videnskabelig nyskabelse.

Hvis vi ikke gjorde det, ville vi ikke overleve. Vi ville ikke klare det, for vi ville løbe tør for ressourcer, ikke, fordi ressourcen ikke er der – det berømte eksempel er, at der i én kubikmeter jord findes praktisk taget ethvert mineral, man kunne ønske sig, men man kan ikke udvinde det, fordi det kræver en enorm mængde energi at udvinde det. Så, i takt med, at ens energi støder mod visse barrierer, må man udvikle ny videnskab, mere videnskabelig viden for at udvikle nye teknologier, der giver os nye ressourcer. Som vi altid har sagt, olie var ikke en ressource i 1400-tallet. Hvis man fandt olie i sin baghave, var det dårligt nyt. Det blev man ikke rig af, det blev man meget fattig af. Og så blev det til rigdom. Hvorfor? Det var ikke land-rigdom. Rigdom ligger ikke i jordbesiddelse.

Hvis man tænker over dette, hvad betyder det så; hvad er det, man i realiteten ønsker at skabe i en økonomi? Flere genstande – det har man til en vis grad brug for. Det, man virkelig har brug for, er flere mennesker. For, i takt med, at disse udviklinger finder sted, så øges uddannelsesniveauet, den forventede levetid, adgang til levestandard, og jeg mener ikke bare en levestandard, hvor man lever godt. Hvis man f.eks. ønsker at skabe børn, der kan, skal vi sige, arbejde i en moderne økonomi, kan man ikke berøve dem adgang til visse af et sådant samfunds produkter. Hvordan begynder et barn at lære om elektricitet, om at kontrollere lys og andre ting? Det lærer, at det har en vis magt over disse genstande. Og magten kommer visse steder fra. Det lærer også at relatere socialt til andre mennesker, fordi det har brug for disse mennesker for at kunne håndtere disse objekter og denne magt. Hvis han eller hun ikke har det, er han berøvet evnen til at forstå den videnskab, teknologi og det samfund, han eller hun lever i. Hvis man producerer fattigdom, er det ikke kun fattigdom, man producerer, men man underminerer udviklingen af selve samfundet og de kreative evner.

For det andet, så er kreativitet det træk, der definerer den menneskelige art. For nu at bruge et filosofisk-teknisk udtryk: Rent ontologisk er det menneskets natur at være kreativt, at vi har evnen til at være kreative. Vi kan udtrykke ideer, der frembringer kreativitet. Ideer, der udvikler andre mennesker. Hvis vi ikke har det, så agerer vi ikke i overensstemmelse med den menneskelige arts natur. Jeg tenderer – jeg er ikke en person, der har en vis baggrund – mod at fastslå den pointe, at dette er nødvendigt. Det er skønhed, hvis man tænker over det, at mennesker – ethvert menneske – har dette, og at det er en moralsk forpligtelse at give børn adgang til dette. Og jo mere videnskabelig udvikling, desto flere børn har man brug for, desto mere kreativitet har man brug for, og desto mere har man brug for at tænke på fremtiden.

De fleste af os – hvis vi ønsker at besvare nogle af de teologiske spørgsmål: Hvad er mit bidrag, hvad er min sjæl, hvad er det, jeg efterlader mig? Man efterlader en fremtid til de fremtidige generationer. Man bidrager til denne fremtid. Ideer, undervisning, udvikling, at redde mennesker. Og ikke alene det, for man må gøre noget, mener jeg, man må ikke alene skabe en fremtid; men man må skabe en fremtid på en sådan måde, at disse mennesker vil have evnen til at skabe en fremtid. Man må på en vis måde se ud over horisonten, længere end til horisonten til ting, som man ikke kan se; men at man har en følelse af, at man må agere på det, man må give de mennesker, der befinder sig på denne horisont, en garanti for, at de vil blive i stand til at se ud over den næste horisont. Og så begynder det i det mindste at nærme sig formålet med samfundet.

Dét er Lyns fysiske økonomi; det er i det mindste ét udtryk for det. Vi er af nødvendighed kreative, og med mindre vi får denne idé ud til andre nationer, andre folkeslag, til os selv, vil det ikke lykkes os at gennemføre det, vi må gøre lige nu for at garantere en fremtid. Vi vil stå over for krig. Lyn har sagt, briterne bluffer, Obama bluffer; vi kan ikke gå op imod russerne på de østlige grænser med 4.000 tropper, eller hvor meget, det er. Men vi leger med ilden. Hvis vi tror, vi kan tyrannisere russerne, kineserne, presse dem, tvinge dem til at indvilge, efter det, vi gjorde mod dem i 1990’erne, er det højst usandsynligt.

Hvad vil det så ske? Jamen, enten provokerer vi russerne til et angreb, hvilket ikke er udelukket, hvis de tror, de selv vil blive angrebet – et atomangreb – eller også, hvis vi bluffer og bluffer, og vores bluff afsløres, ja, så affyrer vi, af ren desperation. Det er ikke bare ’krig ved et uheld’, som man skal være bange for, selv om det er en mulighed.

Det er ét aspekt. Det andet aspekt er det, jeg fortalte om USA. Vi befinder os på en nedadgående kurs – jeg vil ikke gå i detaljer. Vi har høje rater af afhængighed af smertemedicin, osv. Vi har en voksende fattigdomsandel i befolkningen. Vi har ikke en infrastruktur, der er under udvikling. Vi har meget lidt videnskab tilbage, og det, der er tilbage – jeg vil fortælle noget, bare for at fortælle en vittighed. Vi plejede at sige, vi skaber raketforskere, og de arbejder på Wall Street! De hyrer nogle af topmatematikerne, videnskabsfolk, raketingeniører osv., de hyrede dem i ’80’erne og ’90’erne til at udføre disse fantastiske algoritmer for finansverdenen, for en derivat; man skal være et geni for at regne det ud … jeg bruger ordet bredt. Nu er Wall Street på spanden, så hvor bliver disse fyre hyret? De veluddannede fysikere? De bliver hyret til sportshold! Og hvad bliver de hyret til at gøre? De bliver hyret til at udføre endnu mere sofistikerede dataanalyser og fysiologi af atleten for at få dem til at præstere bedre og bedre og bedre og blive i stand til at vælge dem, der virkelig er de bedste spillere. Dette gælder for sport i USA, jeg kan nævne de sportshold, der har hyret nogle af disse fyre. Sikke et utroligt spild! Det er sandt; det er ikke noget, jeg står og finder på. Vi producerer knap nok tilstrækkeligt med videnskabsfolk, og så udregner de data for det lokale fodboldhold.

Det, som Lyn taler om, er ægte kreativitet, og det er derfor, han refererer til Einstein. For at komme til pointen – men før jeg kommer til det, vil jeg fastslå en anden pointe, for det er vigtigt for at forstå Einstein. For spørgsmålet er: Hvordan skaber man kreativitet? Det, vi virkeligt har behov for at reproducere, er kreative mennesker. Den virkelig værdi i en økonomi er raten af produktion af kreative mennesker, af videnskabelige og kunstneriske genier. Det er det mål, hvormed man måler sig selv. Hvordan gør man det? Man vil sige, at man uddanner folk videnskabeligt – ikke matematisk. De store videnskabsfolk var ikke matematikere, i modsætning til, hvad folk tror. Matematik er destruktiv, medmindre den anvendes som et tillæg til ægte videnskab. For hvad er matematik andet end et sæt af regler, som man må blive indenfor, hvilket betyder, at man ikke kan frembringe noget nyt? Man kan ikke skabe noget.

Hvordan frembringer man så kreativitet? Det er her, klassisk kunst kommer ind … man kan ikke bare sige til et barn, gå ud og opdag noget! Man må have en idé om, hvordan intellektet må fungere for at gøre en opdagelse. Af hvilken art, den menneskelige natur er. Noget får man fra historien, ved at se på, hvordan opdagelser blev gjort, ved at gentage videnskabelig aktivitet. Men kernen i det får man fra klassisk kunst. For, hvad er det, man gør, især inden for musik, men også med poesi og drama; de har hver deres aspekt. Men hvad er det, man gør? Man skaber et vist tilsyneladende paradoks, en tilsyneladende problemstilling, hvor, hvis folk fortsætter med at agere, eller musikeren fortsætter ud ad det spor, han følger, i kompositionen, eller i opførelsen af kompositionen, så vil den bryde sammen, den vil ende med at lyde som støj. Eller også bliver den bare kedelig, for noget af det, der sker, er, at man bare bliver ved med at gentage sig selv. Måske med en let ændring, men hvis man lytter til visse former for musik, som rapp-musik, men selv folkemusik. Et af problemerne, hvis man kun har folkemusik, den kan være smuk, har måske dejlige melodier, men den har tendens til at være repeterende. Så, hvis man ikke har en fornemmelse for at skabe noget nyt af den kanoniserede musik, så sidder man fast. Og hvad gør klassisk musik? Bortset fra korformen, den sociale form osv., så gør den det, at den af dig kræver, at du skaber noget, der aldrig hidtil er blevet hørt. Eller at man i det mindste opfører den, og i processen med at opføre den, så repeterer man på en vis måde i sit intellekt den oprindelige opdagelse. Hvad havde komponisten i tankerne, og hvad gjorde han eller hun, der ændrede musikkens natur og udtrykte den fundamentale idé om skabelsen af ideer? Musik er på en vis måde en meta-disciplin. Man skaber ideer om, hvordan ideer skabes. Man ser dette i kor, det er derfor, polyfoni er så vigtigt. Det er derfor, det veltempererede klaver var så vigtigt. For det gav grader af frihed i udviklingen af og udtrykket for nye ideer.

(Der kommer mere oversættelse. Bliv på kanalen!)

Dette er én ting, som Einstein, og især hans generation, men som Einstein vidste. Han var en rimeligt habil violinist. Nogle mennesker siger, at han ikke var særlig god, nogle siger, at han var virkelig god; jeg har ingen anelse. Men iflg. alle overleveringer var han en rimeligt habil violinist. Det, der var vigtigt for ham, var, at musikken var afgørende for hans evne til at tænke. Ikke sådan, at han gav sig til at spille violin, og så følte han sig afslappet, og så fik han en idé. Men det var sådan, at musikken var den måde, han tænkte bedst på. [Max] Planck var lige ved at blive koncertpianist, og det var først ved et givent tidspunkt, han besluttede, det var bedre for ham at blive fysiker. Og i den generation spillede de fleste af dem, Nurdst, de spillede alle, Aronfels, de var ikke alle store videnskabsmænd; men denne kultur med at udvikle ideer, gennemarbejde nye ideer, gøre nye ideer gældende var rodfæstet i klassisk kultur, i Schiller. Einsteins moder var f.eks. en stor læser af Schiller, Heine, og hans fader var vist også en stor tilhænger af Heine. Det var i heldigste fald den kultur, der blev udviklet. Og det var dette, der gjorde det muligt for sådan en som Einstein at blive en stor tænker. Han var f.eks. ikke nogen stor matematiker; han var ikke en dårlig matematiker, men han var ikke en stor matematiker; han var fysiker. Han havde sine berømte ’gedanken’-eksperimenter: Han skabte i sine tanker visse betragtninger, og han spurgte dem, hvad er løsningen på problemet i disse betragtninger, eller hvad var det, der reflekteredes? Hvad, om jeg kan rejse lige så hurtigt som en lysbølge? Ville universet stoppe? Er det muligt at rejse hurtigere … Det var ikke løsningen, men det gjorde det muligt for ham at tænke over ting, som han ellers ikke ville have tænkt over. Og sluttelig fik han nogle afgørende ideer, om lysets hastighed var konstant, men mere endnu, det, at love, fysiske love, var universelt gældende. Det er det, relativitetsprincippet … relativitetsprincippet er det modsatte af det, man tror, det er, og som det ofte fremstilles, var blot ens perspektiv. Nej, hele pointen med Einstein, i betragtning af nogle af tidens problemer, der er af mere teknisk art, om elektromagnetisme, teorien om æteren osv., dukkede der visse problemer op. Og Einstein sagde, vi må have et system, hvor dette systems love gælder for hele universet, for alt! Uanset, hvad den uniforme bevægelse er, uanset, hvad accelerationen var, og uanset raten af forandring, det var generel relativitet. Så det var ikke relativitet, men i virkeligheden, hvad er de universelle principper, som jeg kan sige er sande uanset hvilken bevægelse, der foregår? Og dette var, hvad han anvendte på grundlæggende set alting. Og hans indsats inden for enhedsfeltet var ikke én enkelt ligning, men det var et forsøg på at finde de underliggende, universelle principper, der styrede alle de tilsyneladende spørgsmål i universet. Elektromagnetisme, tyngdekraft, den stærke og svage kraft, og atomkerneniveauet. Og tænk over, hvad der foregår i det 20. århundrede. I det 20. århundrede er der et angreb på denne form for tænkning. Fra Bertrand Russel, til en vis grad fra Hilbert; og det, der udgjorde en del af angrebet, var, at vi må holde os til matematikken. Lad os aksiomatisere matematikken.

(Der kommer mere oversættelse. Bliv på kanalen.)  

6. juli 2016  – På tærsklen til det ildevarslende NATO-topmøde i Polen d. 8. – 9. juli, der meget vel kunne vise sig at blive snubletråden for global atomkrig, er også hele det transatlantiske finansielle system ved at gå op i sømmene. Sterling-pundet er efter Brexit styrtdykket til det laveste niveau i 30 år; et halvt dusin ejendoms-hedgefonde i London, angiveligt med en samlet ’værdi’ på $20 milliarder, har indstillet handlen for at standse panik-udtræk; og banker i hele Europa – ikke kun i Italien – står umiddelbart over for konkurs og kræver desperat ubegrænset supplerende likviditet for blot at holde sig oven vande.
Bank of England har, sammen med alle de transatlantiske centralbanker, trykket på panikknappen og annoncerer nye måder, hvorpå de vil pumpe en uendelig strøm af værdiløse midler ind i systemet, alt imens de løsner vilkårene for, hvornår banker kan påtage sig en stadigt større eksponering til derivater – det præcist modsatte af den Glass-Steagall løsning, der er påkrævet.

Lyndon LaRouche langede i dag kraftigt ud efter dette vanvid, som en total »politisk katastrofe, der ikke vil føre til noget, bortset fra den totale bankerot af hele det britiske system.«

Rent politisk er hele den Europæiske Union og dens institutioner ved at smuldre. Etablissementet aner i bund og grund ikket, hvad de skal stille op og har ingen forbindelse til den virkelighed, som deres egne politikker har udløst, med trussel om atomkrig, uhæmmet satanisk terrorisme og økonomisk nedsmeltning – samt den plagede befolknings voksende had og raseri mod etablissementet. Den samme proces karakteriserer USA under Obama. 

Det turde være åbenbart, at videreførelsen af disse politikker i kortere eller længere tid vil føre til en katastrofe for menneskeheden. Enten skaber vi et nyt paradigme for menneskehedens fælles mål, eller også er menneskeheden fortabt, understregede  Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag. Det var det centrale budskab ved vores Schiller Institut- konference i Berlin d. 25. – 26. juni, og det er det udsyn, der må gennemtrænge ethvert aspekt af vores aktivitet, og hver diskussion, som vi har på alle dele af planeten. Der er ingen løsning for nogen enkeltdel, uden en løsning for helheden – enhed går forud for diversitet, hvad enten det passer det Britiske Imperium at acceptere dette universalprincip, eller ej.

Hvis folk som modsætning hertil tænker, at mennesket grundlæggende set er et dyr, der først og fremmest hytter sit eget skind; og hvis de handler – eller undlader at handle – på basis heraf, så står vi over for slutningen på civilisationen. En ny tænkemåde, et nyt billede af det kreative menneske, et nyt paradigme er den eneste mulighed.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche fremstillede spørgsmålet ved en pressekonference i Washington D.C., der blev holdt i dag ved Chongyang Instituttet for Finansielle Studier og det Nationale Institut for Studier af det Sydkinesiske Hav:

»Der er mange internationale militæreksperter, der advarer om, at situationen i dag er mere farlig end på højden af den kolde krig. Endvidere er vi på vej til at opleve endnu et finansielt sammenbrud, værre end i 2008. Jeg mener, at de terrorhandlinger, der især har fundet sted i de seneste to uger i Bangladesh, Tyrkiet, Indonesien og europæiske lande, klart viser, at terrorismen er ude af kontrol. Og rent faktisk befinder den Europæiske Union sig med Brexit i en disintegrations-proces, der er meget dramatisk.

Så mit spørgsmål er: Kan menneskeheden ikke hæve sig til et højere niveau af samarbejde og satse på et nyt paradigme, hvor geopolitik er en saga blot og erstattet af menneskehedens fælles mål? Jeg mener, at verden har hårdt brug for, at USA og Kina arbejder sammen, for jeg mener, at, uden at de to lande tager hinanden i hånden, så står verden i problemer til halsen. Så spørgsmålet er: Kan verden bevæge sit mod et nyt paradigme med fredeligt samarbejde om hele menneskehedens fremtidige opgaver?«

Foto: Brexit- afstemningen demonstrerer etablissementets manglende forbindelse med befolkningen. Vil vi hæve os til et nyt paradigme for hele menneskehedens fremtid, eller forpasse chancen for at gribe dette store øjeblik?

5. juni 2016 (Leder) – NATO’s chef Jens Stoltenberg gentog, i en tale i Bruxelles på den amerikanske uafhængighedsdag, sit vanvittige krigsråb mod Rusland og pralede med, at NATO har gennemført den største mobilisering af militære styrker siden den Kolde Krig, men fremførte, at dette ikke er nok. »Vi må nu tage de næste skridt«, sagde han og udtalte, at NATO-topmødet i Warszawa i denne uge »yderligere vil forstærke vores militære tilstedeværelse i alliancens østlige del« – dvs. på Ruslands grænse.

Polens forsvarsminister Antoni Macierewicz gik videre og fantaserede over for Associated Press om, at NATO’s nye militære indsættelser vil udgøre »afslutningen af frygten« i Østeuropa. »Kun en demonstration af, at vi reelt er parat til at forsvare vore grænser, kan effektivt standse Ruslands aggressive planer«, sagde han og tilføjede: »Rusland kan glemme alt om at true Polen, de europæiske lande og andre lande i verden.« Selv, mens NATO deployerer tropper, kampvogne, militærfly, krigsskibe og missilsystemer hele vejen langs Ruslands grænse, beskyldte den forrykte Macierewicz Rusland for at »forøge intensiteten af Ruslands aggression i de seneste dage« og pegede på, at Rusland flytter tropper rundt inden for sine egne grænser!

Der er imidlertid voksende tegn på fornuft i Europa, med modstand mod krigspolitikken mod Rusland og Kina, såvel som også mht. den økonomiske ødelæggelse af de europæiske økonomier. General Harold Kujat, den tidligere chef for de tyske væbnede styrker, sagde i et interview i dag, at han fuldt ud støtter den tyske udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeiers fordømmelse af »NATO’s sabelraslen« over for Rusland.

Den græske premierminister Alexis Tsipras er på rejse i Kina, hvor han yderligere bestyrker »Silkevejs«-transportforbindelserne mellem Europa og Kina.

Selv Italiens premierminister Matteo Renzi viser modstand og er uvillig til at give efter for EU’s krav om, at Italien tvinger en »bail-in« ned over sine truede banker. Det rapporteres, at Renzi kræver ret til at re-kapitalisere bankerne med statslig kapital, snarere end at lukke dem ned, eller stjæle indskydernes og obligationsholdernes penge gennem en bail-in, for at betale dem, der har dyrket hasardspil med derivat-værdipapirer.

Lyndon LaRouche svarede i dag, at disse og andre lignende skridt er korrekte og nødvendige, men ikke tilstrækkelige. Ingen af dem vil fungere, sagde han, medmindre et »skifte på et højere niveau« bliver gennemført fra oven af. Enhver enkeltstående indsats for at standse den finansielle panik, der nu fejer hen over Europa, og snart også USA, eller for at standse den gale dræber Obamas virke for krig, vil være utilstrækkelig uden et sådant »skifte på et højere niveau« til et nyt paradigme. Dette skifte må være baseret på en Glass/Steagall-bankreorganisering for at lukke de banker, der er ’for store til at lade gå ned’, og for at genetablere produktiv kredit, samarbejde med Kinas Nye Silkevejsproces og Vladimir Putins »Projekt Storeurasien«, og, hvad der er særdeles vigtigt, en mobilisering af vore borgere – i særdeleshed ungdommen – til skønhed, gennem en genoplivning af klassisk musik og kultur.

LaRouche har advaret om, at NATO’s krigsmobilisering er bluff – om end en meget farlig bluff. I dag gentog den russiske analytiker Dmitry Yevstafiev LaRouches advarsel i en artikel i Izvestia. Yevstafiev anfører, at de massive NATO-øvelser på Ruslands grænser faktisk er en »dækoperation« for et førsteangreb med strategiske styrker. At tro, at Rusland vil tillade den form for systematisk oprustning på sine grænser, i lighed med, hvad Hitler gjorde før sin Operation Barbarossa-invasion af Sovjetunionen, ville være det samme som at anse Ruslands ledere for at være imbecile. Kendsgerningen er den, tilføjede han, at NATO ikke længere har evnen til at understøtte sådan en konventionel krig og dækker over gabet med propaganda. Men dette »fremprovokerer en tiltagende efterspørgsel« af krig. Lige som Japan ved Pearl Harbor kan en sådan svag stat tænkes at ville angribe først og »håbe på at opnå en fordel«, afsluttede han. 

En vækkelse af menneskehedens kreative gnist, der i de vestlige lande er blevet slået ned af de evindelige krige, økonomiske kriser og den kulturelle degenerering, er den nødvendige forudsætning for at standse denne fare og få menneskeheden til at gå videre til det nye paradigme, der nu er i færd med at blive skabt fra Kina, Rusland og Indien, som repræsenterer flertallet af den menneskelige race og det moralske lederskab i verden.

Foto: Den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry, viceudenrigsminister for europæiske og eurasiske anliggender Victoria Nuland sidder sammen med NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg og deres modparter i NATO’s hovedkvarter, 27. juni 2016 [flickr/statephotos]

3. juli 2016 (Leder) – Den årlige borgmesterkonference i Indianapolis, USA, fra 24. – 27. juni, udstedte en sønderlemmende kritik af Obamaregeringen, som direkte angreb de massive NATO-øvelser, der nu finder sted på Ruslands grænser, Obamas 1 billion dollar store modernisering af atomvåben, det faktum, at han ikke har taget initiativ til at reducere atomvåbnene, hans krigsgale politik over for Rusland og Kina, og hans negligering af det drastiske kollaps, der kendetegner USA’s basale infrastruktur og befolkningens almene vel. Det er værd at bemærke, at end ikke én eneste af de større amerikanske aviser så meget som har rapporteret om denne aktion.

Borgmesterkonferencen fandt sted samtidig med den historiske Schiller Institut-konference i Berlin, hvor Helga Zepp-Larouche indledte sin tale med at sige, at

vi oplever en systemisk og eksistentiel civilisationskrise, der er absolut uden fortilfælde. Vi har sammenfaldet af en fare for krig, hvor NATO konfronterer Rusland på en meget, meget aggressiv facon – hvilket kan føre til en tredje verdenskrig. Vi har en amerikansk konfrontation mod Kina i det Sydkinesiske Hav. Der er risikoen for en ny finanskrise af samme type som i 2008, og som kan sprænge det finansielle system.

Borgmestrenes resolution erklærer dernæst, alt imens den kommer med en svag ros for Obamas besøg i Hiroshima og hans indgåelse af en aftale med Iran:

Samtidig har Obamaregeringen reduceret USA’s lager af atomvåben mindre, end noget præsidentskab efter den Kolde Krig, og den har lagt fundamentet til, at USA skal bruge en billion dollars hen over de næste tre årtier for at vedligeholde og modernisere sine atombomber og sprænghoveder, produktionsfabrikker, affyringssystemer og kommando og kontrol, og de øvrige atombevæbnede stater følger trop … De atombevæbnede lande kommer stadigt nærmere til randen af en direkte militær konfrontation i konfliktzoner i hele verden, og det største NATO-krigsspil i årtier, der involverer 14.000 amerikanske tropper samt aktivering af amerikanske missilforsvarssystemer i Østeuropa, bærer ved til bålet af voksende spændinger mellem atombevæbnede giganter, og iflg. tidligere forsvarsminister William Perry: ’Sandsynligheden for en atomar katastrofe er større i dag, mener jeg, end den var under den Kolde Krig.’

Denne fare og dette enorme spild af ressourcer står i direkte kontrast til den kollapsende, amerikanske økonomi:

»Den stadigt mere forværrede infrastruktur udgør en fare for befolkningens sikkerhed og livskvalitet, og den voksende ulige fordeling af rigdom tvinger folk til at forlade Amerikas byer, og vore lokalsamfund har et desperat behov for statslig investering til opførelse af billige boliger, jobskabelse til lønninger, man kan leve af, forbedring af offentlig transport og udvikling af bæredygtige energikilder«. Resolutionen kræver en omfordeling af de midler, der bruges på atomoprustningen, for at »løse vore byers presserende behov og genopbygge vor nations smuldrende infrastruktur.«

Resolution fremkommer ikke med det krav (der turde være åbenlyst), at denne præsident omgående må fjernes for den beskrevne forbrydelse – dvs., for at skabe en umiddelbar eksistentiel trussel mod menneskeheden gennem atomkrig. I stedet kræver den, at »den næste præsident« må gribe til handling. Ikke desto mindre kræver den, at »der tages nye, diplomatiske initiativer, som en hastesag, for at nedbringe spændingerne med Rusland og Kina.«

Det, som mangler, er selvfølgelig løsningen, og heri ligger den afgørende forskel mellem Borgmesterkonferencen og Schiller Instituttets konference i Berlin. Zepp-LaRouche sagde til tilhørerne i Berlin:

Denne konference har ét emne, eller ét underliggende emne, og det er at definere løsninger på disse kriser: at diskutere, hvad det nye paradigme skal være, og hvorvidt menneskeslægten er i stand til at løse en sådan eksistentiel krise. Vi har fremtrædende talere fra fire kontinenter og fra mange lande, og dette er selvsagt mennesker, eller repræsentanter for mennesker, der er fast besluttet på, at en løsning skal findes.

Og næsten hver eneste af talerne talte vitterligt om, at det hastede med at gennemføre de løsninger, der længe har været knyttet til Lyndon og Helga LaRouche – nemlig reorganiseringen af det bankerotte, vestlige finansielle system gennem vedtagelse af en Glass/Steagall-lov i USA og Europa, samt udvidelsen af Kinas projekt for Den Nye Silkevej til at omfatte hele verden, et projekt, der vil gøre en ende på geopolitik til fordel for udviklingsprojekter, der imødekommer menneskehedens fælles mål.

Det mod, der udvistes på USA’s Borgmesterkonference, en upartisk institution, der repræsenterer alle byer i USA med flere end 30.000 indbyggere, og hvor den igangværende trussel om en global atomkrig blev identificeret, pålægger alle amerikanere et endnu større ansvar – for at mobilisere disse borgmestre og deres vælgere til at gennemføre LaRouches program, før Obama kan trykke på knappen.

Foto: Præsident Barack Obama holder sin første, større tale, hvori han erklærer sit forpligtende engagement over for at søge at opnå fred og sikkerhed i en verden uden atomvåben, foran tusinder af tilhørere i Prag i den Tjekkiske Republik, 5. april 2009. [flickr/whitehouse]  

Med formand Tom Gillesberg
Lyd:

Før jeg kommer ind på disse forskellige dødbringende farer, så ligger løsningen ligefor. Så vær fattede og bevar roen, og lad mig tale til jer. Hvis menneskeheden forenes omkring en god plan og handler solidarisk og modigt, kan enhver krise i den menneskelige civilisation overvindes, for det er menneskets natur – at, når vi bliver udfordret af et stort onde, vækkes en endog endnu større kraft for det gode i vores sjæl.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

2. juli 2016 – NATO-Ruslands-Rådet skal mødes den 13. juli, få dage efter afslutningen af NATO-topmødet [i Warszawa, Polen], for her at diskutere spørgsmål om flysikkerhed i luftrummet over Det baltiske Hav (Østersøen), samt andre eventuelle emner.

”I øjeblikket er spørgsmålet om flysikkerhed over Det baltiske Hav på dagsordenen for Rusland-NATO-Rådet, på niveau for permanente repræsentanter, og som er planlagt til den 13. juli 2016”, sagde det Russiske Forsvarsministerium i en erklæring.

Reuters rapporterer, at forsvarsminister Sergei Shoigu også sagde, at Rusland vil begynde at arbejde på en række forholdsregler, der skal forbedre flysikkerheden over Det baltiske Hav, inkl. en forholdsregel, der ville kræve, at russiske militære fly flyver med tændte transponders. Dette kommer efter Putins møde med den finske præsident Sauli Niinisto i dennes sommerresidens i det sydlige Finland, i går. Niinisto kom med forslaget om transponders over Det baltiske Hav, og Putin svarede, at han ville beordre, at arbejdet på dette spørgsmål skulle begynde, idet han bemærkede, at NATO har dobbelt så mange flyvninger i dette område, som Rusland. Shoigus udtalelse reflekterer gennemførelsen af Putins direktiv.

Foto: Den finske præsident Sauli Niinisto hilser den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin velkommen på førstnævntes sommerresidens i Kultaranta i den sydvestlige, finske skærgård.

Aftenens webcast omfatter en eksklusiv video-premiere fra Schiller Instituttets internationale konference i Berlin, 25.-26. juni – en global intervention, der ikke kunne være kommet på et vigtigere tidspunkt. I kølvandet på Brexit-valget ser vi det finansielle systems sammenbrud dukke op igen og en accelerering af fremstødet for krig – udviklinger, der ikke blev forårsaget af Brexit-valget, men som er udtryk for det samlede transatlantiske systems sammenbrudsproces som helhed. Lyndon LaRouches vurdering er klar: diverse manøvrer og spil internt i systemet kan ikke fungere; systemet er gået ned, og der er ingen måde, hvorpå det kan overleve i sin nuværende form. Dette betyder ikke, at vi absolut skal i krig, men man spiller et meget farligt bluff. Som det blev demonstreret på denne historiske konference, så er den eneste løsning den at indføre en ny tankegang, et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden, et skifte i lighed med det, der fandt sted med den berømte, 14-hundredetals Gyldne Renæssance, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche uophørligt har understreget.

Lyndon LaRouche på Schiller Institut-konference i Berlin (uddrag; se video min. 14:05):

»For det første undersøger vi dette spørgsmål med, hvad er mennesket pr. definition? Menneskets evne til at skabe højere niveauer af udvikling af menneskehedens menneskelige evner?

Det andet er: Hvordan finder vi ting, der vil gøre menneskeden mere succesfuldt eksisterende? Det er endnu et spørgsmål. Alle disse ting er enkle, videnskabelige spørgsmål, og det, vi er afhængige af, er det, vi kalder at fremme fysisk videnskab, og at fremme det til et højere niveau, pr. person, uophørligt. I denne proces må man definere, ved hvilke midler, dette skal gøres. Det har altid været min interesse at komme frem til en ny, mere avanceret teknologi; en teknologi, der vælter og fjerner behovet for en eksisterende teknologi. Mit speciale er at koncentrere mig om revolutionen i anvendelige teknologier. Og dette er det eneste redskab, jeg kender til, ved hvilket mennesket kan forbedre det, mennesket nu har behov for [for fortsat at eksistere].«

Engelsk udskrift.      

 – THE TIME FOR A NEW RENAISSANCE FOR MANKIND IS NOW! –

LaRouche PAC Friday webcast for July 1, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It's July 1st, 2016. My name is
Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly webcast here
on Friday evening from LaRouchePAC.com. As you'll see, I'm joined
in the studio by my colleague Benjamin Deniston; and we're joined
via video by two members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee:
Bill Roberts, joining us from Detroit, Michigan; and Michael
Steger, joining us from San Francisco, California.
        We have a very special broadcast tonight in which we will be
featuring a short video "teaser," which will provide you a
substantial overview of the conference, the very important and
historic conference, which just recently concluded over last
weekend in Berlin, Germany, sponsored by the Schiller Institute.
        As a preface to that video, which will provide us the
material for a further discussion here tonight, let me just say
that it couldn't have come at a better time — this conference.
It's clear to see that there's an absolute disintegration of the
trans-Atlantic system, which we are experiencing right now. This
is not {only} an economic or financial disintegration, but this
is in fact a disintegration of the entire {system} as a whole.
This is a political breakdown, this is a social breakdown; this
is an intellectual breakdown of the axioms which have provided
the foundation of that failed system. The axioms underlying this
trans-Atlantic system have failed. It's bankrupt in every sense
of the word, not only financially, but also politically,
culturally, intellectually, and the only solution to that would
be replacing this failed system with an entirely new paradigm.
        This is exactly what Mr. LaRouche had to say when we had an
extensive discussion with him yesterday. The people who are on
this broadcast tonight all participated in that discussion. What
Mr. LaRouche said is that there is no way that this
trans-Atlantic system can survive. It's not to say that it is not
very dangerous and that it could have very terrible consequences
if the war were to be launched or if other things were to get out
of hand. But what's being done under these circumstances by the
so-called "leadership" of this failed trans-Atlantic system "is a
complete bluff. It will not work," Mr. LaRouche said. He said,
"We're facing a very serious kind of collapse, one which mankind
is not well-prepared to deal with."
        This is very clear. At the same time that you have a
plummeting of the entire financial markets in the trans-Atlantic
system, you've got an inverse escalation in the bellicosity and
the aggressive stance that is coming out of Obama and his
colleagues, against Russia and China, both. Obama was in Ottawa
just yesterday at [the “Three Amigos”] summit of the North
Americas, in which he was {twisting} the arm of the Canadians,
telling them that they need to participate in a much more
prominent way in combatting so-called "Russian" aggression, by
lending their troops to this NATO deployment.
        The Atlantic Council is calling for this NATO deployment to
become a {permanent} deployment on the borders of Russia. Russia
is very clear: Shoigu, the Defense Minister, responded, saying
that NATO has already doubled its deployment along the border of
Russia and this is already before the NATO Summit has happened,
which is scheduled to occur in Warsaw, where you can expect that
that deployment will "significantly increase."
        Mr. LaRouche went on to say, when we were discussing this
with him yesterday, that you can see that all the so-called
"leadership" of this system is bankrupt. "The leadership itself
is bankrupt as an institution. Not that they {have} a problem,
but that they {are the} problem." "They are fraudsters," he said,
"and we are, in fact, the only leadership available on the
scene."
        What Mrs. LaRouche had to say — and this is, again, in the
aftermath of her experience as the primary organizer and keynote
speaker of this very important conference which you are about to
see some excerpts from — she said, "Look, this could not have
come at a better time. This was literally two days after the
Brexit vote. And the Brexit is merely paradigmatic of the entire
breakdown crisis. You have an ongoing disarray, ongoing chaos and
disintegration coming out of this. You have the breaking apart of
the entire leadership of the United Kingdom. All of the major
political parties are like gangs of wolves at their own throats,
and it's very possible that Scotland, Ireland could both leave
the United Kingdom, turning 'Great' Britain into 'Lesser'
Britain, or 'Very Small' Britain."
        She said we have no idea where this is going, but it makes
it very clear that this conference couldn't have occurred at a
better time, because what was presented and what you will see in
this brief overview that we're about to play for you, is that
{there can be no piecemeal solutions.} Too little, too late. You
can't solve this problem here and this problem there, and try to
piece it all together. The only thing that will work is an
entirely new paradigm that supplants the failed way of thinking
with an entirely new of principles, she said, "A new era of
civilization. And, if you don't make the jump," she said, "you're
just not going to make it."
        With that said, I would like to present to you a brief
overview of the conference which occurred in Berlin. This is to
entice you to watch the full proceedings, which will be available
in video form in due time.

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think we all have all come to this
conference because everybody who is in this room knows that we
are experiencing an absolutely unprecedented, systemic, and
existential crisis of civilization. You have the coincidence of a
war danger, where NATO is confronting Russia in a very, very
aggressive fashion which could lead to a third world war. You
have a U.S. confrontation against China in the South China Sea.
You have the danger of a new 2008-type of financial crisis which
could blow up the financial system. And, two days ago, you had
the Brexit — Great Britain voting to leave the European Union.
As we all know, this was not a vote against Europe as such, but
it was a vote against a completely unjust system and a corrupt
elite.
        The conference has one subsuming topic, and that is to
define solutions to these crises, to discuss what would be the
new paradigm, and is mankind capable of solving such an
existential crisis?
        We have distinguished speakers from four continents, from
many countries. They are representative of the kinds of people
who are determined that a solution is being found. Before I go
into touching upon these various mortal dangers, the solution is
easy. So, be addressed and be calm. If men unite for a good plan
and act in solidarity with courage, {any} crisis in human
civilization can be overcome, because that is the nature of human
beings: that when we are challenged with a great evil, an even
greater force of good is being awoken in our soul.

AMB. (ret) CHAS W. FREEMAN, JR: Helga, I'd like to thank you for
that very inspiring set of opening remarks. We have entered a
world in which, as William Butler Yeats put it in 1919: "Things
fall apart; the center cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon
the world." In Europe, in America, and in parts of Asia there is
a sense of foreboding — an elemental unease about what is to
come. There is vexing drift amidst political paralysis.
Demagoguery is ascendant and the stench of fascism is in the air.
        This is the global context in which China has proposed to
integrate the entire Eurasian landmass with a network of roads,
railroads, pipelines, telecommunications links, ports, airports,
and industrial development zones. If China's "One Belt, One Road"
concept is realized, it will open a vast area to economic and
intercultural exchange, reducing barriers to international
cooperation in a 65-country zone with 70% of the world's
population, with over 40% of its GDP, generating well over half
of its current economic growth.
        In concept, the Belt and Road program, which is one of the
major topics of this conference, is the largest set of
engineering projects ever undertaken by humankind. Its potential
to transform global geo-economics and politics is proportional to
its scale.

        COL. (ret) ALAIN CORVEZ: I want to congratulate the Schiller
Institute for organizing this conference at a critical moment
when the threat of a nuclear war which would lead to the
extinction of humanity becomes clearer every day, because of the
concentration in the heart of Europe of weapons capable of
destroying the planet within seconds.
        To respond to the reinforcements of U.S. strategic forces
inside NATO on European territory, Russia was forced to deploy an
equivalent arsenal of deterrence on its western borders. It's
therefore high time that the strategists of various countries,
even those far from the European Theater, demand restraint and
more wisdom from the heads of state of the entire world.
        This is the purpose of this beneficial institute founded by
Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, whom I wish to compliment personally.

        JACQUES CHEMINADE; French Presidential candidate: So,
LaRouche thinking proceeds from the becoming, as a science which
is the active principle of the economy. The trans-Atlantic
financial system in which we are living, based on accumulation of
money, is leading to the opposite, not to increasing the size of
the physical economy, but to chaos and war, or, more precisely
and more tragically, to a combination of both.
        The preceding speakers have shown that the current world is
more dangerous, yes, more dangerous, than it ever was during the
height of the Cold War. Those proclaiming themselves "realists"
and "reasonable," while following the rules of the system, in
reality contribute to its collapse by the mere fact that they
operate inside the system without fighting it.
        Now we have arrived at the point in history where systemic
change, a just concept of economy and man, are necessary for the
survival of all. Money has no intrinsic value. It is nothing but
an instrument, acquiring value through what it promotes. From
there on, what is the goal to reach?

        LYNDON LAROUCHE: First of all, we're looking at this issue
of man, as such — man's ability to create higher levels of
development of the human powers of mankind. The next thing is:
how do we understand, how do we find things that are going to
make mankind more successfully existent? That's another question.
All these things are simple, scientific questions. What we depend
upon, is driving what we call "physical science," and driving it,
{per capita}, to a higher level, always.
        In that process, you have to define what the means is by
which you're going to do this. My concern is always to come up
with a new technology, a more advanced technology, one which
overturns and obviates the need for an existing technology.  My
specialty is concentrating on the revolution in the applicable
technologies; and that is the only device by which I know that
mankind can improve the requirements for mankind now.

        MARCO ZANNI; head of M5S delegation in the Eco. and Monetary
Affairs Cttee. of the European Parliament: The European financial
system is collapsing; it's collapsing because of wrong policies
brought about by European governments and by the European Union.
Clearly, a first step — and we proposed one bill in the Italian
Parliament and one in the European Parliament in the framework of
the banking structure reform is restoring banking separation.  We
think that we have to set up a sort of modern European
Glass-Steagall that will simplify the regulation on the banking
system, and will make the separation between the core part of a
bank and a speculative bank in order to create a banking system
that is no longer focussed on speculation, on the financial
system; but on the needs of the real economy, on the needs of
people.  This is the first step.

        AMB. (ret) LEONIDAS CHRYSANTOPOULOS:  Another threat facing
humanity is the US animosity towards Russia, as if we were still
in the Cold War period.  This was discussed in the previous
panel, but very roughly I would just say about it.  A missile
system is being set up to encircle Russia; and of course, Moscow
is preparing a defense field to counter it.  The EU embargo on
Russia after the Ukrainian crisis is not at all helping the
situation.  Also, threats have been recently made by Obama
against China and the need to restrict her economic power.  With
a collapsing EU and a USA looking for confrontation with Russia
and China, a solution for humanity can be the BRICS initiative;
which is the initiative of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and
South Africa to pursue a policy of economic development for the
benefit of humanity.  They have created their own development
bank to invest in the necessary development projects.  China has
established the Asia Infrastructure [Investment] Bank; joined by
over 20 Asian nations as founding members, and has set up a Silk
Road Development Fund.

        AMB. HAMID SIDIG; current Ambassador of Afghanistan to
Germany:  I would like to express my gratitude and honor to be
part of this important event.  Over the past 30 years, the
Schiller Institute has played a significant role in promoting
international discussion on major topics, and has shaped the
future of our work.  Since ancient times, the Silk Road has been
a symbol of the commercial artery to connect Asia and Europe;
creating wealth and cultural exchange to benefit all countries
involved in this area.  Our conference today — and I hope to
build on this ancient tradition, by bringing together scientists
and politicians to develop a New Silk Road; and begin the process
of healing, integrating, and regenerating this very important
region — Central Asia.  Our vision is to create a secure and
peaceful life for our region, which will allow thousands of
refugees to return back to their homes and rebuild their
communities again.

        BEREKET SIMON; chairman of Commercial Bank of Ethiopia,
advisor to PM:  I would like to express my heartfelt sympathy and
support to the people of Syria, Iraq, Libya, and the larger
Middle Eastern and North African countries who are subjected to a
wanton destruction as a result of a mistaken policy of regime
change by some global powers.  Allow me also to thank the
Schiller Institute for inviting me to speak on a broad topical
issue — the importance of the economic development of Ethiopia
in the context of the New Silk Road and the greater African
region.
        Dear Friends, Ethiopia considers China's Silk Road economic
projects and maritime Silk Road projects jointly known as One
Belt, One Road as another milestone opportunity that could
contribute to sustain its economic development together with all
the countries in our region.  We believe that the last decade or
two have witnessed the resurgence of trade between Africa and the
East.  The New Silk Road would also further strengthen the mutual
benefits of expanded trade between nations.  This will apply to
the relationship between Ethiopia and its traditional partners
[inaud; 20:49].  Together with our neighbors in the region, we
are determined to an Ethiopian, and indeed African, renaissance
which can harness the new possibilities opened by developments
like the New Silk Road.  I thank you.

        AMB. (ret) MICHEL RAIMBAUD:  Good morning.  I want to talk
to you about Syria and the title of my intervention is "In Syria
and Elsewhere, Against the War Party and the Law of the Jungle,
We Have to Rebuild Peace and International Law"; these are my
themes.  First of all, the world today is in great danger of war;
more than ever before.  It's going through a global crisis —
that has been said already.  One hears much about a new Cold War,
which would lead us back to the old confrontation between the
free world, so-called, the Axis of Good, and the totalitarian
bloc, dubbed the Axis of Evil by George Bush.
        We have lift immediately the sanctions; if there's a message
I want to give you, these sanctions have to be lifted.  It's a
crime of war; it's a major crime of war.  This has to be lifted
right away; we have to fight for this.

        Message from FOUAD AL-GHAFFARI; Chairman of Advisory Office
for Coordination with BRICS, Yemen:  Dear Mrs. Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, the noble chairwoman of the Schiller Institute and
the New Silk Road Lady; dear Mr. Hussein Askary, the Middle East
coordinator of the Schiller Institute, Ladies and Gentlemen who
are gathered in this conference here in Berlin today; I carry a
great deal of joy and gratitude for you and for your team for the
outstanding awareness achieved in my country about the New Silk
Road and the World Land-Bridge, and the new economic system of
the BRICS.  All that awareness delivered special marks that is
occurring through our advisory office, the rights to publish and
distribute the Arabic of the EIR Special Report, "The New Silk
Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge"; and printing 1000 copies for
the Yemeni market.

        DR. BOUTHAINA SHAABAN; from the Presidency of Syria: If we
need to create a world for all, if we need to create a peaceful
world, if we need to create a prosperous world for all, we need
to create a conceptual, intellectual concept of one world; we
need to create a conceptual concept of the Silk Road.  Not only
an actual Silk Road, but an intellectual Silk Road.  All of you
know that Aleppo and Syria were extremely crucial in the ancient
Silk Road that connected Asia to Europe.  Syria and the Syrian
people will be more than happy to be also very active in a New
Silk Road, in a political, social, intellectual Silk Road that
connects Asia to the West; that connects Eurasia to the West.

PROJECT PHOENIX video:  Not only Aleppo, but all of Syria with
its people, culture and artifacts, represents a unique and living
testimony to the coexistence and continuity of different human
civilizations.  It is imperative that the world defend and
preserve it; and when peace is established, make it the world
capital for the dialogue of civilizations.

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  So, I think we should be fully
conscious that in this present crisis lies a tremendous chance to
reach a new Renaissance as significant, and maybe even more
significant, than the change from the Middle Ages to the modern
times.  That if we break with the axioms of the globalization, of
the deductive thinking, of all the things which have led to this
crisis; and focus on the creativity of mankind as that which
distinguishes us from other species, that many of us can probably
live to see a world where each child is educated universally and
that the normal condition of mankind will be genius.  That that
which is human will be fully developed, to have all the
potentials developed of the human species as creative composers,
scientists, engineers, extraordinary people discovering things
which we doesn't even know the question here of; like China going
to the far side of the Moon.  We will understand secrets of the
Universe which we don't even know yet to ask.  And people will
become better people.  I believe that the true nature of human
beings is good; that every human being has a capacity of
limitless perfection and goodness of the soul.  And to accomplish
that, is within reach; and let's work for it.

        OGDEN:  So, as you can see, this was an absolutely
extraordinary conference.  And on the final screen, you saw
briefly the website displayed where you can find the full
proceedings of the conference.  It's
newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com.  And although that was a tour
de force of incredible speakers of a really incredible caliber,
that was not even all of the speakers who were present.  So, we
encourage you to go to the website and watch all of the
presentations in full.  Mrs. LaRouche was emphatic in saying
after the fact, that this was an absolute breakthrough in terms
of the activity of the LaRouche Movement, the types of people,
the caliber of people who were there.  This was not just an
analysis, or talking about issues, or the problems of the planet.
But it could be seen very clearly that we are the center of
organizing the solution, organizing the change in paradigm.
        One of the other things that was a major feature of this
conference, which we just couldn't include in that overview, was
an outstanding Classical musical concert that was organized on
the evening of the conference.  This included a Russian
children's choir singing Russian songs; it included a string
orchestra based out of London that plays professionally at the
lower Verdi tuning of A-432; it included a performance of Chinese
folk songs and other Classical music; and then a grand finale
performance of the Mozart Coronation Mass by the greater European
Schiller Institute Chorus, joined by other choruses from around
Berlin.
        So, this is an absolute breakthrough; and as Mrs. LaRouche
said, the conceptions which lie at the heart of the solutions to
the crisis were there.  And this was representative of the
leadership of the world.  And I think that's what we have to
offer in this moment of danger and uncertainty.
        So, I think we can open up the discussion from there; it's a
hard act to follow, I'm sure, but …

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Well I think that the point that Helga made
that you just referenced, Matt, on this question of shaping
policy; what you see increasingly now not only in Eurasia, but
what we saw with the participation at the conference with
significant participation from Europe, high-level participation
from the United States.  You see an increasing desire to look at
the fact that this current system, even the {New York Times} had
the intellectual ability to recognize that this post-World War II
system, the system set up by Churchill, by the FBI — this Wall
Street system — since Franklin Roosevelt's death, is essentially
now coming to an end.  That's what the Brexit references.  The
conference as a whole was in the context of the Brexit vote; but
it's not simply a vote to leave the European Union.  This is a
reaction by an increasing majority in the trans-Atlantic within
the population; which recognizes that the system is dying.  It's
dead.  There's no longer a future, a life in the current system
they're living in.  Whether that's Great Britain, whether it's
the United States, where you see the major populist revolts here;
this was discussed by many of the speakers.  And many of them
didn't expect it to occur; and yet, when you're on the ground and
you're organizing the population, when you have increasing
suicide rates, increasing drug overdoses, increasing levels of
unemployment, it's not hard to figure out when talking to the
population.
        It's a new system, a system of value, a financial system;
but it's a policy.  It's a policy for the long-term development
of mankind that has to be conjured and redeveloped in the minds
of the population.  And I think that's what's so essential about
the conference is that Helga's entire intent with this
conference, and why Lyn's participation was so important, was
because it provokes a quality of discussion.  A new conception of
where mankind must go and what mankind must become; and that
really is the essential nature.  Because at this point, this
trans-Atlantic system has no longer any life; it almost like it's
breaking, it's fracturing.  Each break leads to more breaks.  The
question is, what's the new whole; what's the new conception of
mankind in the trans-Atlantic and for the world?
        And I think we have a lot of work to do, but clearly it's
the most open situation politically that we've ever seen.

        WILLIAM ROBERTS:  I would just add that I think for an
American audience, the thing really to take away from this whole
process is that clearly what we're seeing in terms of the process
of development of the New Silk Road, and in terms of the beauty
of the idea which I think people, as they have a chance to
experience the cultural panel, the musical process from this
conference, will geopolitics is irrepressible at
this point.  What that means is that there's no turning back;
there are no half measures or piecemeal measures to do anything
of a halfway nature at this point.  I would say that this
includes that it really should be very obvious to the American
population that this current election process is a complete and
utter sham.  A so-called "democratic" election process, where you
have a couple of candidates, but there's absolutely no discussion
of the ridiculous war crimes of the last 15 years of
administrations in the United States.  Even in Britain now, you
have Jeremy Corbyn who is threatening to bring a war crimes
tribunal, should he come into government, against Tony Blair. The
Blair crowd is shaking in their boots, and you can see that there
is a complete and total situation of weakness of this entire
British Empire at this moment.  And because this is really
unclear in the minds of the American people, and because it's
very unclear how close we are to thermonuclear war, how
aggressively the threat of thermonuclear warheads is being used
against China and Russia.  Because the ignorance to that is the
most dangerous thing that's contributing to the danger that's
facing this planet right now.
        I think the one pathway or one tool in the United States
that expresses that level of an abrupt shift against geopolitics
in particular, is what is now the motion around the 28 pages to
expose the role of the British and the Saudis and the cover-up of
that process.  Sen. Bob Graham has made the point in a recent
interview in the {Daily Beast} that it's very clear now that the
two-month period that the Obama administration gave him
assurances of that they would review the pending release of the
28 pages.  That's come and past now; and it's clear the intent is
to keep this thing in the dark and continue the desperate war
push.
        I'll just mention one more thing.  There are also now, the
Obama administration is completely pushing a lie and vastly under
counting the number of innocent civilians that have been killed
by drone strikes throughout the countries that we're not at war
with.  It should really just hit people, the contrast between the
beauty of this process of a world beyond geopolitics and the
unconscious war crimes and the acceptance of the legitimacy of a
process which completely covers over and overlooks the tremendous
war crimes of these recent two administrations.  So, I think that
should be a real immediate wake-up call that we do have to, as
Americans, break out of this current paradigm.

        OGDEN:  What Helga began the discussion with, which I think
shaped the entire quality of all of the panels, was the statement
— which was a very profound statement — that in the face of
great evil, mankind is capable of finding within himself great
good.  And I think that you were witnessing that in all of the
speakers.  The spirit that was moving all of these speakers, is
one that this system can no longer be allowed to continue; it has
reached the point where it is too horrible to contemplate the
logical outcome of following through with a continuation of the
values that underlie this system as a whole.  And we see it
breaking itself down all around us.  None of these events that
have occurred are somehow causal of the breakdown of the system;
they are merely systematic, they are paradigmatic.  The Brexit is
paradigmatic; everything that you see in terms of what Michael
was sighting about the depression, the demoralization, the
despair in the populations in both the United States and Europe.
This is symptomatic of a system that is in dire need of dramatic
change.
        The good news is that that change, the wind is blowing in
from the East.  You have a new system, which has come to life
based on proposals that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche laid out in
their seed form 30 or 40 years ago.  It's now taken the form of
the official policy of the most populous country in the world.
You have the official, public integration between the New Silk
Road and the Eurasian Economic Union; this is explicitly based on
a return to the values that Franklin Roosevelt envisioned would
dominate the world following World War II.  However, [they] were
supplanted by some very evil and destructive forces.  Now you
have the New Silk Road, you have the opportunity for an entirely
new paradigm, which Helga says repeatedly; and which she said at
that conference.  It would be so easy; this is not some daunting,
never-ending distant dream of a new system which is a fantasy.
It's very real; it's very present; and it's something that, on
the turn of a dime, by a handful of leaders comprised of many of
the people you saw speaking at that conference and the circles
that they represent.  A decision overnight to enter this new
paradigm and to drop some of the failed values that have led us
down this path to danger and destruction, would be sufficient to
bring Europe, to bring the United States, to bring the Western
world into harmony with a New Paradigm which is already emerging.
Not that anything is perfect, but there is a directionality,
there is an impulse towards the perfection of man, towards the
increase of the productive powers of the human race, towards the
greater good of the human species; which is guiding us or pulling
us into the future.  And if we're willing to listen to that
voice, the voice from the future; we can save man at this
critical juncture in our history.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think it really goes to the issue to the
power of ideas in this whole process.  Because I think Helga made
the very emphatic point that this was a major breakthrough
conference.  If people are familiar with the Schiller Institute,
much of its activity is centered on these international
conferences.  And if you go back to the mid-'90s, the conferences
we were involved in, Helga was involved in then, and the
launching of the whole Eurasian Land-Bridge perspective when it
was just an idea.  It was just a conception; it was a right idea,
it was true, it was on principle.  And Lyn and Helga fought for
that conception; and now you see it coming to fruition.  So I
think this whole process is useful, especially for people who
watch too much TV in the United States and are immersed in the
insanity of the United States, to get a sense of what's actually
real; what's actually powerful.  What matters in history.  It's
not the crap you see thrown around that this culture is inundated
with; that is a passing breeze in history that's going to come
and go.  What matters is your truthful commitment to principles,
to true ideas.
        And I think Helga's concluding remark about looking at where
we are from this much longer historical perspective and saying
"We need a new shift in our very recognition of what mankind is.
We need to look to things like the Golden Renaissance; and look
at mankind in the Middle Ages, in the Dark Ages.  And compare
that to what mankind became after the Renaissance.  It's a
complete transformation of the human species that I think Lyn was
intervening with in some of the discussions; that we have to
recognize that that character of continual complete revolution in
the very nature of our existence, is human.  So you're looking at
a moment like this, and Lyn really emphasized the self-breakdown
of this trans-Atlantic system.  This self-feeding breakdown
process.  People talk about the Brexit like what maneuvering are
they doing; why did they decide to do that.  They're panicking;
they're responding to crises that are being created by the
breakdown process itself.  This is not something that's in
control.  In that complete disintegration, it's these
conceptions, these ideas, this gathering of people of this
caliber for international discussion around what does mankind
really need to be doing as mankind on this planet.  Can we
finally reach the point where we actually unite nations around a
real conception of what is a universal, unifying, truthful
principle about humanity?  About what makes our species unique
and different from anything else we see on this planet.  That's
us; that's mankind.  We can have that as a common goal, as a
common unifying factor; and that's emerging now.
        So, I think for people inundated with the degeneracy of the
political process, the cultural process, this stands out as a
reference point that people can use to lift their minds out of
the gutter of popular opinion and into history and see what's
actually happening right now.

        OGDEN:  Absolutely.  One thing that people will have noticed
from that overview video that you had the opportunity to watch,
is that there was a very significant involvement from leadership
within Syria.  Right in the war zone, including a government
advisor, Her Excellency, the advisor who you saw speaking; which
was a live video hook-up directly from Damascus.  And she engaged
in a dialogue process with the attendees of that conference,
which was very significant.  Helga LaRouche said that that panel,
which was an entire panel on the reconstruction of Syria.  What
happens after we bring peace?  How can we bring peace to this
region?  A region which is a crossroads of civilization; was a
crossroads of the old Silk Road, is a crossroads between three
continents.  She raised the fact that President Assad, prior to
the outbreak of the fighting, had proposed an idea called the
Five-Sea Strategy.  And if you look at the five oceans — the Red
Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and the
Persian Gulf — you have Syria situated right in the middle of
those.  So, it's not only a crossroads of the Silk Road as a land
route from Asia to Europe to Africa; but it's also a crossroads
of the Maritime Silk Road, and the connections between these five
seas.
        There was a video presented which was prepared prior to the
conference called "Project Phoenix"; which is a vision for the
reconstruction of Syria.  And there was other dialogue at the
conference from very high-level persons from within cultural
circles and also government circles within Syria.  So, Helga was
emphatic to say that this panel on the reconstruction of Syria
was certainly a highlight of the conference; and I think it was
just exemplary of the fact that the Schiller Institute really is
the go-to body in terms of these people who are desperate for a
solution, desperate for a future for their countries.  They know
who has the ideas, they know where to go to get those ideas.  So,
the combination between the expansion of the New Silk Road, the
reconstruction of Syria, there were three resolutions that were
passed at the conference.  One for the immediate end to the
sanctions against Russia; another for an immediate end to the
sanctions against Syria; and also one against the Saudi
bombardment of Yemen, which is ongoing to this day.  And you saw
a gentleman who sent in a video from Yemen; right from the war
zone there.
        I can't emphasize enough, and I think you got a little bit
of a flavor during that overview, of the caliber of this
conference.  But I really can't emphasize enough:  You need to
watch this conference in full.  You need to share this; you need
to get this around to everybody who you know.  As you were
saying, Ben, this is a completely different perspective on the
world than what you would normally get from your average
mainstream media.  So, I just wanted to encourage you, again, to
— as the videos become available — to go the
newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com website.

        STEGER:  Just to add to that, Matthew, I think you might
have mentioned this at the beginning; but in the discussion with
Helga and Lyn yesterday, the reality is that the kind of collapse
and crisis we are now incurring is something beyond anything
mankind has experienced up to this point.  This is not a collapse
of the stock market; it's not a Lehman Brothers financial
collapse.  You're now seeing the political dissolution.  The
Presidential spokesman for Russia, Peskov, made some comparison
to the breakdown of the Soviet Union; but you see that this is
even of a greater scale than that kind of collapse.  You might
say that the world is better prepared for this crisis than the
one in 1989, but I would say that it's not prepared sufficiently.
And the leadership in the United States and the trans-Atlantic is
not prepared sufficiently at all at this point.  And the
population has to bear some responsibility on this.  There's so
much emphasis on democracy in the West; democracy in and of
itself is not a principle.  As Ben referenced, we need an actual
return to a sense of universal principles; knowable scientific,
physical characteristics of the Universe to shape our policies.
But those principles cannot exist within a small set of people;
you can't expect an elite to somehow solve and address the
problems we now face.  The population as a whole — and this is
why our outreach in the United States to uplift people beyond
this Presidential fiasco; and to recognize that there is not a
preparation, there is not yet a capability to address this
problem sufficiently.  But what this conference addresses is the
level of discussion, the level of participation that begins to
move it in that direction.  And that is of an urgent nature;
because these events, as we saw last week, are only going to
increase in the weeks ahead.
        Just in the last couple of weeks, you've seen fundamental
changes in orientation from Japan towards Russia and China.  The
new Philippine President Duterte made major motions toward the
FDR and Lincoln tradition and a collaborative effort towards
China.  You've seen major changes even in the last week by Turkey
and their rapprochement towards Russia.  There are major
developments constantly happening which are reshaping the world.
But the crisis of a collapse of this trans-Atlantic system is far
beyond anything most people have ever imagined; and I think the
seriousness and urgency to develop these ideas and participate in
this dialogue has never been greater.

        DENISTON:  The collapse goes to the heart of this British
system.  A lot can be said, but go to Adam Smith, go to the
original fundamental cultural assumptions, ideas about the nature
of man.  Man is governed by pleasure and pain; that mankind is
just a species that can respond only to pleasure stimulus, avoid
pain stimulus.  The whole ideological framework of the British
system, which has increasingly infected and taken over the United
States and run the trans-Atlantic system, goes to those deep
issues about what is your understanding of the nature of mankind
in the Universe.  And we're seeing the breakdown of this entire
British ideological imperial cultural system that has dominated
really for centuries.  I think that is the scale that we're
looking at.  This is the breakdown of a century-spanning imperial
outlook that's had ebbs and flows and increases and decreases of
its dominance; but it's not reaching the point of self-inflicted
collapse.  So in a certain sense, Americans have a certain
tradition in direct opposition to that clearly; and people should
be celebrating that in the next couple of days, not just hot dogs
and fireworks.  But actually use this as an opportunity to get a
real rooted sense of what is our mission as Americans in
opposition to this imperial ideology.  In direct resonance and
collaboration with what you're seeing out of Asia right now; this
is the time to bring that back.

        OGDEN:  Right.  It's exactly what you said — to constantly
come back and say what is the ideological failure which is
underlying all of the events that you're seeing.  The breakdown,
the refugees, the disintegration politically, financially,
culturally of the European system; and as Helga emphasized at
this conference, it's only a paradigm shift on the level of
change from the Dark Age to the Renaissance which will something
that will function at this moment.  That didn't just happen; that
was not some sort of organic process of historical materialism
transforming itself.  That was a willful change; that was a
willful change in the fundamental ideas underlying society and
the way that society worked.  It's people who have to ability to
self-consciously reflect on the fact that we are facing the
failure of a system of thinking; and then to say to examine what
those failed ideas are.  And then to say, how do we replace them;
how do we discover a new principle and create a fundamental
intellectual revolution which will allow mankind to carry itself
forward into the future?  I think that's what we witnessed in the
proceedings of that conference; but as Michael said, it's
something which cannot stay within the confines of that
conference and the people who attended it.  It is something which
must become an integral part of our national dialogue as a
people; and it's our responsibility to bring that about.  That's
not something that we can sit back and wait for somebody else to
do.
        So, I think that's a good Independence Day message.

DENISTON:  People think they are what they experience; they think
that's what they are.  That's not what you are; people are what
they create, or what they fail to create.  People are not just
your experiences in life; people are what is your new fundamental
contribution you're making to human society, or you're failing to
make to human society.  Until people completely transform their
understanding of what they think their lives mean, we're not
going to reach the level needed to make the transition that was
presented very clearly this past weekend.

        OGDEN:  All right.  I'm going to bring a conclusion to our
show at this point, but what you should immediately do is visit
the newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com website.  Some of the
videos are available; I know that Helga Zepp-LaRouche's keynote
video is available in full.  That's a 30-35-minute length video;
so at least please watch that.  And then, as the other videos
become available, it'll be posted on that website; so bookmark
it, make sure that you follow the YouTube channel, and you'll be
notified as soon as those videos are made available.
        So, I'd like to thank all of you for joining us today.  And
I'd like to thank Bill and Michael for joining us via video.  And
again, to emphasize:  newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com.  And we
will have continuing coverage on larouchepac.com as well.  So,
thank you very much.  Happy Independence Day, and good night.
 

30. juni 2016 (Leder) – Under en diskussion torsdag med sin Policy Committee og andre kolleger understregede Lyndon LaRouche, at det nuværende, finansielle system er ved at bryde sammen, og at systemet, som system, ikke kan overleve. De store, finansielle institutioner, inklusive centralbankerne, er håbløst og uigenkaldeligt bankerot. LaRouche bemærkede, at, alt imens der eksisterer en forfærdelig risiko for krig, der drives frem af de kredse, hvis magt udspringer af det aktuelle finansielle system, så er en stor del af de trusler, der kommer ud af munden på Barack Obama og nogle NATO-folk, faktisk ikke andet end bluff. Truslerne, som de udslynger imod Rusland og Kina, virker ikke.

Ikke desto mindre kan denne sammenblanding, med både den finansielle front og krigsfronten, føre til et alvorligt sammenbrud, som menneskeheden ikke er parat til at håndtere.

I denne uge udstedte både Den Internationale Valutafond (IMF) og Den Internationale Betalingsbank (BIS) rapporter, der klart indikerede hele det transatlantiske finansielle systems disintegration. Bankernes udlån i hele den avancerede sektor er totalt kollapset. Der er ingen som helst kapitalindstrømning til realøkonomien, den produktive økonomi, i henhold til de data, som BIS har frembragt. IMF har udstedt en dyster advarsel om, at Deutsche Bank står foran nedsmeltning, og alene dette kunne udløse en systemisk krise.

I takt med, at NATO-folk færdiggør planerne for statsledernes topmøde i Warszawa, Polen, den 8.-9. juli, opbygges vanviddet mod Rusland yderligere. Onsdag var præsident Obama i Ottawa til sit endelige topmøde med sine canadiske og mexicanske modparter. Han benyttede anledningen til at kaste sig ud i en tirade imod Rusland og nærmest tiggede Canada om at udsende en kampbataljon til De Baltiske Stater.

Sæt denne galskab op i kontrast til Schiller Instituttets ekstraordinære konference, der fandt sted sidste weekend i Berlin, hvor ledere fra fire kontinenter kom sammen for at diskutere spørgsmålet om et nyt paradigme for en tankegang, der skal få verden ud af den nuværende, eksistentielle katastrofe.

Som både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche understregede under weekendens begivenheder i Berlin, så er det presserende nødvendigt, at vi skaber et revolutionært skifte i tankegang, der fokusere på en opbygning af en fremtid med samarbejde mellem suveræne nationer og integrerede regioner i verden. Kinas program med ’Ét bælte, én vej’ er paradigmatisk for denne nye form for tankegang, der må vedtages af ledende borgere i verden.

Det nuværende system er dødt, og det kan ikke overleve ret meget længere.

Video: Hør Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale fra konferencen i Berlin, 25.-26. juni, 2016. En dansk oversættelse af talen er på vej. Bliv på kanalen!

Titelfoto: Mineudlæggeren FNS Uusimaa fra den finske flåde sejler i Det baltiske Hav (Østersøen) under BALTOPS den 7. juni, 2016, som en del af øvelser, der skal demonstrere beslutsomhed hos styrkerne fra NATO og dens partnere.

28. juni 2016 – Schiller Instituttets internationale todages konference samlede flere end 300 gæster fra 24 nationer og fire kontinenter til en intens og dybtgående dialog om, hvorledes den umiddelbare fare for en verdenskrig kan standses ved i stedet at skabe et nyt paradigme for globalt samarbejde og udvikling, baseret på en dialog mellem civilisationer og den menneskelige arts enestående kreativitet. Konferencedeltagerne var ekstremt opmærksomme på optrapningen af den vestlige, geopolitiske konfrontation mod Rusland og Kina og faren for atomkrig, og en resolution vedtoges, der krævede den omgående afslutning af sanktioner mod Rusland og Syrien. At gøre en ende på krigen og genopbygge det krigshærgede Syrien og hele det sydvestasiatiske område var et hovedfokus på konferencen, hvor dr. Bouthaina Shaaban, medlem af Syriens præsidentskab, talte til konferencens tilhørere og deltog i en bevægende, Spørgsmål & Svar-live stream.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

28. juni 2016 (Leder) – Ved afslutningen af todages-konferencen i Berlin, sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet, hvor ledende talere fra fire kontinenter fremlagde det rædselsvækkende billede af både den ’evindelige krig’, der finder sted i dag, og truslen om en atomkrig i morgen, samt de nødvendige løsninger med den Nye Silkevejs-proces, kom Lyndon LaRouche med følgende bemærkninger (parafrase):

Vi kan som et folk indgå aftale om ideer om en fredelig løsning på den krise, vi står overfor, hvilket er afgørende. Send et stærkt og klart opråb; spred ordet. Vi søger ikke krig. Der er en anden løsning end atter at blive krigens offer.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche afsluttede dernæst konferencen, som stifter af og præsident for Schiller Instituttet, med ordene: »Jeg opfordrer jer til at tilslutte jer Schiller Instituttet og, hvad der ligeledes er vigtigt, at følge Lyndon LaRouches vise ord.«

Aldrig har den overhængende krise stået mere skarpt. Den britiske Brexit-afstemning sidste torsdag afslørede den kendsgerning, at Imperiets finansielle system går rundt i den bare natskjorte. Brexit forårsagede ingenting – den afslørede simpelt hen den kendsgerning, der i mange år har været åbenlys for alle, for nær de blinde, at det enorme spillekasino, kendt som det transatlantiske finansielle system, ikke kan »reddes« – og ganske bestemt ikke ved, at man trykker flere penge for kunstigt at stive de bankerotte banker af i endnu nogle uger eller måneder. Londons førende bankaktier er kollapset med over 30 % siden Brexit-afstemningen torsdag, og med halvdelen i løbet af det seneste år. Alle de vestlige »To Big to Fail«-banker – ’for store til at lade gå ned-banker’ – står over for en lignende skæbne, der allerede er i gang.

Vi må gøre en ende på systemets elendighed med en total Glass/Steagall-afskrivning af de værdiløse værdipapirer, der dominerer de såkaldte aktiver i storbankerne. Først da kan et kreditsystem efter Hamiltons principper blive genindført, som det kræves, for at Vesten kan tilslutte sig Rusland og Kina i den globale udviklingsproces, der nu er i gang, sammen med verdens nationer og folk, gennem programmet med Ét bælte, én vej, Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen, den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, den Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank, BRIKS’ Nye Udviklingsbank – som alle er helliget til, og nu aktivt investerer i, regionale infrastrukturprojekter i stor skala i hele verden. Som LaRouche har understreget hele sit liv – udelukkende kun en sådan kreativ transformation af verdens borgeres produktivitet, gennem videnskabelige opdagelser, kan gøre en ende på det mareridt, menneskeheden nu står overfor.

Det vestlige finansoligarkis frygt er, at Storbritanniens afgang fra EU vil indgyde mod i det voksende antal ledere i Europa, der ønsker at afkaste City of Londons og det sjælløse EU-diktatur i Bruxelles’ lænker. Den tyske udenrigsminister Steinmeiers fordømmelse af, at NATO rasler med atomsablen og udøver militære provokationer mod Rusland, har mange støtter, der blot mangler modet til at tale offentligt. Dette er vores opgave – LaRouches »stærke og klare opråb« om, at der er en løsning, hvis folk finder det sublime i sig selv og handler på vegne af menneskeheden som et hele.

Foto: Lyndon og Helga LaRouche på Schiller Instituttets Konference i Berlin,  25. – 26. juni, 2016.

»Jeg tror, vi alle er kommet til stede på denne konference, fordi alle, der befinder sig i denne sal, ved, at vi nu oplever en systemisk og eksistentiel civilisationskrise uden fortilfælde … Denne konference har ét emne, eller et overordnet emne, og det er at definere løsninger på denne krise: at diskutere, hvad det nye paradigme skal være, og om menneskeheden er i stand til at løse en sådan eksistentiel krise?

27. juni 2016 (Leder) – Schiller Instituttets todages internationale konference 25. – 26. juni begyndte om morgenen den 25. juni i den tyske hovedstad under temaet: »En fælles fremtid for menneskeheden og en renæssance for klassiske kulturer«.

Flere end 320 mennesker fra henved 22 lande på fire kontinenter deltog i arrangementet, der havde et udvalg af fremtrædende talere fra hele globen. (Yderligere detaljer kommer snarest.)

Det første panel adresserede den »Strategiske krise er farligere end på højden af den Kolde Krig«. Inden præsentationerne introducerede ceremonimester Elke Fimmen talerne, og hun hilste i særdeleshed Lyndon LaRouches tilstedeværelse på konferencen velkommen.

Hovedtalen blev dernæst holdt af Schiller Instituttets internationale præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der lige fra begyndelsen anslog konferencens fokus:

»Jeg tror, vi alle er kommet til stede på denne konference, fordi alle, der befinder sig i denne sal, ved, at vi er i færd med at opleve en systemisk og eksistentiel civilisationskrise uden fortilfælde. Vi har sammenfaldet mellem faren for krig, hvor NATO konfronterer Rusland på en meget, meget aggressiv måde – hvilket kunne føre til en Tredje Verdenskrig. Vi har en amerikansk konfrontation mod Kina i det Sydkinesiske Hav. Vi har faren for en ny, 2008-type finansiel krise, der kunne få det finansielle system til at nedsmelte, og så var der for to dage siden selvfølgelig Brexit – Storbritannien, der stemte for at forlade den Europæiske Union. Og som vi alle ved, så var dette ikke en stemme imod Europa som sådan, men imod et komplet uretfærdigt system og en korrupt elite.

Denne konference har ét emne, eller et overordnet emne, og det er at definere løsninger på denne krise: at diskutere, hvad det nye paradigme skal være, og om menneskeheden er i stand til at løse en sådan eksistentiel krise?

Vi har fremtrædende talere fra fire kontinenter, fra mange lande, og dette er selvsagt folk, eller er repræsentanter for den slags folk, der er fast besluttet på at finde en løsning. Og før jeg kommer nærmere ind på disse forskellige dødsfarer, så er løsningen nem. Så vær opmærksom og fattet. Hvis menneskeheden forener sig om en god plan og handler i solidaritet og modigt, så kan enhver krise i den menneskelige civilisation overvindes, for dette er den menneskelige natur – at, når vi udfordres af et stort onde, vækkes en endnu større kraft for det gode i vores sjæl.«

Den verdenskendte amerikanske statsmand Lyndon LaRouche vendte tilbage til dette tema i sine bemærkninger under spørgsmål-og-svar-sessionen, hvor han udtalte:

»Dette betyder, at vi, grundlæggende set, har ansvaret for, hvad der vil ske med menneskeheden.«

»Hvordan løser vi rent faktisk dette problem? Man gør det, at man går ud og bedriver noget videnskab. Man anvender videnskab til at skabe en metode for kreativitet. Man baserer derfor det hele, ikke på menneskeheden som sådan, men på den kreative kraft. Det er, hvad jeg generelt har gjort i det meste af mit liv. Man må øge det menneskelige intellekts arbejdes produktive evne. Man må give det individuelle menneske en større evne til kreativitet for menneskeligt liv.«

Foto: Schiller Instituttets stifter og præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche holder hovedtalen lørdag, den 25. juni, 2016, i Berlin. (Foto: Julien Lemaitre)

26. juni 2016 (Leder) – Præsidenterne for Rusland og Kina, Vladimir Putin og Xi Jinping, mødtes i Beijing lørdag, hvor de udstedte tre, betydningsfulde erklæringer af stor vigtighed mht. deres relation og den strategiske situation i verden. Dette er Putins 15. besøg i Beijing, og hans indledende bemærkninger til Xi forud for mødet understregede dybden af alliancen mellem de to lande.

»Vi mødes ofte og på tilbagevendende basis, men … hvert af vore møder har altid en væsentlig karakter … Livet selv kræver, at vore folk arbejder for at styrke og udvikle vore relationer.«

Hvad angår præsident Xi, så bemærkede han efter mødet:

»Jo vanskeligere, den internationale situation bliver, desto mere afgørende må vi lade os lede af det strategiske samarbejdes og venskabets ånd; vi bør fremme bilateral støtte, styrke politisk og strategisk samarbejde og intensivere vore relationer.«

Den første, noget lange erklæring, de udstedte, understreger betydningen af deres relation som en model for en »stormagtsrelation«, som de anser for at være den model, der skal følges i det, der nu er blevet til en multipolær verden. Dokumentet fortsætter også med at understrege betydningen af deres model for relationer, inklusive disses respekt for den enkelte nations særlige udviklingsvej og for doktrinen om ikke-indblanding i den anden nations interne anliggender, som en ny model for interaktioner i en verden, der karakteriseres af konflikt. Dokumentet understreger også det øgede samarbejde inden for atomkraft, så vel som også inden for rumfart, inklusive samarbejde om udforskning af Månen. Det understreger også komplementariteten af de to nationers udviklingsprojekter, i særdeleshed mellem udviklingen af Ruslands fjerne østlige område og Kinas nordøstlige provinser, der grænser op til Rusland, lige så vel som også komplementariteten mellem udviklingen af Ruslands Volgaområde og Yangtze-flodens udviklingszone. Det understreger desuden den betydning, deres relation har for stabiliteten på verdensarenaen.

Hoveddokumentet sætter fokus på finansmarkedernes nye flygtighed, der er blevet forværret af de af nogle lande »ensidigt påtvungne sanktioner«. Det kaster også handsken over for »visse landes« og »visse militære alliancers« forhåbninger om et overherredømme, der truer stabiliteten i verden gennem deres ambition om at opretholde ensidig, militær overlegenhed på bekostning af andre landes evne til at forsvare sig. Det lytter tilbage til den oprindelige hensigt med De Forenede Nationer, nemlig at forhindre krig og etablere et system med international lov, som alle lande nøje bør følge.

Kina og Rusland bekræftede også deres hensigt om at arbejde sammen i FN for at forhindre ulovlige og uautoriserede militære interventioner, der ikke er under FN-mandat. Dokumentet peger på BRIKS-gruppens vigtighed, så vel som også på ASEAN- og ASEAN-plus-grupperingernes funktion for den globale økonomi.

De to udstedte en anden, specifik erklæring, der drejede sig om de globale trusler, som »visse lande« skaber med deres fremstød for at øge verdens militære spændinger. Dokumentet fordømmer den destabiliserende karakter, som planerne om missilforsvar i Europa udgør, så vel som også den planlagte deployering af THAAD-missilsystemet i det asiatiske Stillehavsområde.

En tredje aftale om samarbejde om cyber-sikkerhed blev indgået.

Desuden blev flere end 30 økonomiske aftaler indgået under Putins besøg, især inden for områderne energi, landbrug, transport, rumfart og samarbejde om militærtekniske spørgsmål.    

Foto: Den russiske præsident Putin og den kinesiske præsident Xi i Beijing denne weekend. (Foto: Kremlin.ru)

25. juni 2016 – Hvis NATO har ”genopdaget” sin kernemission pga. den angivelige trussel fra Rusland, så udfordrer Sverige og Finland denne idé, selv om deres ordlyd er relativt mild. Det endelige resultat af et todages topmøde mellem den svenske statsminister Stefan Löfven og den finske præsident Sauli Niinistö i Finland, som sluttede den 20. juni, er, at de to lande aftalte et tættere militært samarbejde, men ikke i en formel alliance med hinanden eller i et NATO-medlemskab, rapporterer Defense News i går. »Vi vil fortsætte med at forbedre militært samarbejde med Finland. Vi har ingen ambitioner om, at dette skal udvikle sig til en forsvarsalliance, og det søger vi heller ikke«, sagde Löfven. Generelt var de to ledere enige om, at, alt imens sikkerhedsbilledet i det større baltiske område er destabiliseret, så udgør Rusland ikke en direkte sikkerhedstrussel for hverken Finland eller Sverige. ”Rusland udviser ingen konkret, klart mærkbar trussel mod vores sikkerhed”, sagde Niinistö. Denne situationsvurdering fra både Sverige og Finland, sagde Löfven, bidrager til Sveriges anskuelse, at medlemskab af NATO ikke er en mulighed for det alliancefri nordiske land på nuværende tidspunkt.   

Foto: Den svenske statsminister Stefan Löfven og den firnske præsident Sauli Niinistö under den udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitiske konference Gullrandasamtalen.

24. juni 2016 – Den russiske Statsduma, det russiske parlaments underhus, vedtog i går et forslag, der advarede NATO om, at dens forstærkninger i Østeuropa risikerer at levere gnisten til en ny Kold Krig, og at den vil tilskynde Moskva og hendes allierede til at anskue området som et mål for gengældelse, rapporterer Newsweek i går med reference til TASS. Parlamentsmedlemmer kaldte planer for yderligere NATO-udvidelse for ”en farlig tendens, hvis hensigt synes at være, ikke forsvar, men at føre en ny Kold Krig.”

”I et scenarie, hvor NATO’s lederskab forsøger at retfærdiggøre alliancens eksistens ved at brygge en konfrontation med Rusland sammen, finder medlemmer af Statsdumaen det nødvendigt at forene kræfterne med kolleger i udlandet for at overvinde farlige tendenser, der er i stand til at forårsage en politisk og væbnet konfrontation”, lyder erklæringen.    

Så vi ser nu, mht. efter denne afstemning, indikationer på det fortsatte sammenbrud i Europa og det transatlantiske system, der allerede var i gang; men på den anden side har vi noget fuldstændigt bemærkelsesværdigt, der introduceres. Vi ser Putin og Modi – Indiens premierminister, præsident Xi i Kina, SCO-topmødet i denne weekend og indgåelsen af massive aftaler for økonomisk samarbejde og udvikling, inklusive samarbejde om rummet. Spørgsmålet lyder, hvor er USA i alt dette? Ideen om, at renæssance-begrebet om menneskeheden, baseret på denne identitet med at skabe fremtiden og genoprette en moralsk værdi i samfundet, ses direkte i det, som Rusland og Kina gør netop nu; og hvorfor dette er et krav til USA’s moral, der er af afgørende betydning, om, at USA skal ændre dette og tilslutte sig denne kurs.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Det er i dag den 24. juni, 2016 – en særdeles lovende dato. Det er en meget, meget farlig periode, og vi står med ekstraordinære udviklinger på hånden. Det kunne vel næppe være tydeligere netop nu, forskellen mellem sammenstillingen med det døde-og-døende transatlantiske system, centreret omkring den Europæiske Union; og så fremtiden med det Eurasiske System. På den ene side, med det totale sammenbrud og den bogstavelige disintegration af det europæiske system – briternes exit af den Europæiske Union, samt det transatlantiske finansielle systems totale bankerot, der nu afsløres. Og, på den anden side, Vladimir Putins og Xi Jinpings igangværende indsats for en konsolidering og sammensmeltning af den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, den Nye Silkevej, og hele verden centreret omkring Stillehavet, som Lyndon LaRouche i mange årtier har arbejdet hen imod, i form af samarbejde mellem de store nationer Rusland, Kina, Indien og andre. Valget er meget, meget klart.

Engelsk udskrift.

(En oversættelse af første del af webcastet følger snarest. Bliv på kanalen! -red.)

BREXIT VOTE IS MUCH MORE SERIOUS AND DEADLY THAN MERELY A REACTION.  WE MUST PROVIDE THE LEADERSHIP TO AVOID WAR.

LaRouche PAC Webcast, June 24, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon!  It's June 24th, 2016. My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly
LaRouchePAC Friday evening webcast. I'm joined in the studio by
Ben Deniston from the LaRouchePAC Science Team; and via video, by
three members of our Policy Committee: Diane Sare, from New York
City; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, TX; and Rachel Brinkley, from
Boston, MA.
        Today is June 24th, 2016 — a very auspicious date. It's a
very, very dangerous period, and we have extraordinary
developments on our hands. I think it could not be more clear
right now the distinction between the juxtaposition of the
dead-and-dying trans-Atlantic system, centered in the European
Union; and the future, of the Eurasian system. On one hand, with
the complete breakdown and {literal} disintegration of the
European system — the exit by the British from the European
Union, and the complete bankruptcy which is now being exposed of
the trans-Atlantic financial system. And on the other hand, the
ongoing efforts by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping to consolidate
and coalesce the Eurasian Economic Union, the New Silk Road, and
the entire Pacific-centered world that Lyndon LaRouche has been
working towards for many decades in the form of the collaboration
between the great nations of Russia, China, India, and others.
The choice is very, very clear.
        Earlier today we had a discussion with Mr. LaRouche. He was
very emphatic to emphasize that the crash that we're now seeing
in the trans-Atlantic financial system must be blamed on Obama.
This is not something which can be construed as a reaction to an
event, but in fact the bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic financial
system was already a reality before this [Brexit] vote even
occurred. This is not a reaction, he said. This is something
that's much more dangerous, and much more serious, and much more
deadly, especially when you consider the fact that Obama is
continuing to push the world towards the brink of thermonuclear
war with the emerging Eurasian system of Russia and China.
        Mr. LaRouche said we're experiencing a complete change in
the whole fundamental situation. Everything is now going towards
a crash. And it's not because of a reaction to an event, but it
was already pre-determined. Mr. LaRouche said, "We're on the edge
of thermonuclear war, which under the current circumstances Putin
would probably win; but Obama is insane enough to continue to
push the world in that direction." He said, "Putin is currently
in charge, in terms of his role being hegemonic. That was very
clear by the recently concluded events in the St. Petersburg
International Economic Forum, and then the bilateral meetings
that are going to happen this weekend between Putin and Xi
Jinping."
        Mr. LaRouche said, "We're on the edge of something very big.
You must get Obama out! It's very dangerous to have him in office
under these circumstances. Our job is to calmly bring a solution
to this crisis from inside of our role here in the United States,
with Putin playing a key leadership role internationally. We are
in a position," Mr. LaRouche said, "to enter into a phase in
which a solution is possible."
        Now, I want to open up the discussion; I want to invite
Diane to elaborate a little bit more on the role that Obama,
together with David Cameron, played in creating the circumstances
that we are now observing in terms of the aftermath of the
Brexit.

        DIANE SARE:  Well, everyone has heard of the famous
expression "the kiss of death"; and Obama delivered this in
London on April 22nd when he went there for two purposes.  One
was to express his firm support for Great Britain remaining in
the EU; and I'm going to read his exact comments, so that there's
no question on that.  And then also, to celebrate the birthday of
Her Majesty the Queen, whom he says is one of his favorite people
— I'm reading from his remarks; and he said, "And we should be
fortunate enough to reach 90, may we be as vibrant as she is. She
is an astonishing person and a real jewel to the world; not just
to the United Kingdom."  And in fact, that has been Mr.
LaRouche's point — that the Queen of England does not see her
realm as the United Kingdom; she's been trying to run a global
dictatorship, and Barack Obama is one of her tools.  And like a
typical malignant narcissist, Obama either intended to crash the
entire system; or is blithely unaware of how despised he is.  So,
at a joint press conference at 10 Downing Street with a British
Prime Minister who is now resigning, David Cameron, Obama admits
he said, "Yes, the Prime Minister and I discussed the upcoming
referendum here on whether or not the UK should remain part of
the European Union.  Let me be clear:  Ultimately, this is
something that the British voters have to decide for themselves;
but as part of our special relationship, part of being friends is
to be honest and to let you know what I think.  And speaking
honestly, the outcome of that decision is a matter of deep
interest to the United States; because it affects our prospects
as well.  The United States wants a strong United Kingdom as a
partner, and the United Kingdom is at its best when it's helping
to lead a strong Europe.  It leverages UK power to be part of the
European Union."  And then he adds:  "Let me be clear.  As I
wrote in the op-ed here today, I don't believe the EU moderates
British influence in the world, it magnifies it.  The EU has
helped to spread British values and practices across the
continent.  The single market brings extraordinary benefits to
the United Kingdom; and that ends up being good for America,
because we're more prosperous when one of our best friends and
closest allies has a strong, stable, and growing economy."
        So presumably, the time between April and this referendum
was enough for people to stop vomiting and make it to the polls,
and vote to get out of the European Union as quickly as possible;
which is what many of them did.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think also, according to what Mr. LaRouche
said — and this is absolutely the case — the crash was already
happening.  It's a faulty view of history to say, "Well, an event
happened, and therefore there was a reaction."  And Mr. LaRouche
is saying, the problem is that people think in terms of
reactions; one thing happens and then another thing happens.  In
fact, Europe was already bankrupt.  Think about what was already
happening.  You had major European banks refusing to put their
money into the ECB; you had negative interest rates at the ECB,
which is an unprecedented, never-before-happened event in the
history of that system.  And you had a complete breakdown of the
ability of both the European and the American workforce to be
able to have productive jobs or anything of that means.  So, we
already were in a complete bankruptcy of this entire
trans-Atlantic financial system; and now today, it is more clear
than ever that the New Paradigm — which is represented by
Vladimir Putin's and Xi Jinping's collaboration; the combination
between the Eurasian Economic Union and the New Silk Road policy
of China, which is based not on an idea of rival blocs or
economic competition or something like that.  It's based on the
idea of a win-win collaboration.  Now's the time for the European
countries and for the United States to finally reject this Obama
paradigm; and say we are going to join this New Paradigm.  And
many other nations in Europe could follow very closely behind
Britain and leave the European Union, since it's now clear that
it's a completely bankrupt institution.

KESHA ROGERS:  And Obama can follow behind Cameron and leave the
United States immediately.  What you're seeing right now, as Mr.
LaRouche once said, is the end of a delusion; an end of a dead
system.  And the end of an era of a zero-growth paradigm; which
has dominated the culture and society for far too long.  And it
actually goes against the true essence of our nature and being as
human beings.  And this is exactly the strategic conception of
man and the fundamental understanding of human beings that Putin
actually understands; and those who are taking this direction of
the New Paradigm forward.  Because it's based in the identity for
the future, of actually creating the future.
        I just wanted to say that tomorrow, there will be several
meetings, including one I'm going to be hosting here around the
space program and the identity of the great mind of Krafft
Ehricke.  The title of the event is going to be "Free Mankind
from Terrorism and War; Embrace Krafft Ehricke's Age of Reason".
I think that's where we are right now; the question is, can we
bring about an age of reason by getting the population to
understand that what they have accepted in terms of the policy of
dictatorship and backward, degenerate culture that we have been
under for the last 15 years.  Namely, with the destructive and
murderous policies of 9/11, that have not to this day been
brought to justice; and 9/11 never ended.  That's why Obama is
continuing to get away with the murderous policies that are
influencing the entire world right now.  That we haven't brought
these crimes to the forefront; that we haven't brought the
perpetrators of these crimes — Obama, the Saudis, the British —
to justice and actually declared that we are going to join with
this New Paradigm.  That's what really has to come across right
now.
        The conception of Krafft Ehricke is very crucial in
understanding what has to be the turning point for the thinking
and identity of our nation, based on its foundation around being
the example of a true Renaissance culture.  When you think about
the Apollo mission, and you think about what we did with the
space program; and why Obama has targetted the space program.  It
wasn't a matter of opinion or a budgetary question; it was a
direct targetting on this potential for human progress and to
continue to promote this zero-growth paradigm.  What we're seeing
right now is that Russia and China are saying that this is not
the direction that we will allow and have mankind to go in; we're
going to actually develop and promote the true conception of what
human destiny actually is.
        So, what you see right now in terms of after this vote
indicating the further breakdown of Europe and the trans-Atlantic
system, which was already in the process on the opposite side,
you have something that is completely remarkable being brought
in.  Putin and Modi — the Prime Minister of India, President Xi
Jinping in China, the SCO summit this weekend, and the signing of
massive agreements for economic cooperation and development,
including space collaboration.  The question is, where is the
United States in this?  The idea that the Renaissance conception
of mankind based on this identity of creating the future and
restoring a moral value to society, is seen directly in what
Russia and China are doing right now; and why this is a critical
call to the moral of the United States to change that and to join
with that direction.

        RACHEL BRINKLEY:  Another important aspect is what is the
solution; what are the new systems.  And the question of the
space collaboration between Russia and China is not just over a
few projects; this is what they emphasized over the last few
days.  They're looking at two things — space travel for one, and
space station collaboration for two; and also with an emphasis on
health and the implications [of space] on human bodies.  So,
these are big questions; these are not just, let's put a rover
and test geology or something.  This is looking at how the
Universe works, how the Solar System works, how the human body
works; and saying that this is going to have implications on
Earth in medicine, to give people a sense that this is how
mankind makes advances.
        This has to be in the context of the question of Alexander
Hamilton, which LaRouche has emphasized, and he recently made the
point that what was it that was important about Hamilton?  He
said, what he did in Philadelphia, what he did in creating the
Constitutional system of the United States.  He knew that it
wasn't just the military victory that would enable the United
States to survive; the intention of the United States was to be a
system that created a better future for every single individual,
not a slave system.  So, he created the inherent economics of
political economy to create that better future; and that is what
the discussion is right now.  This is not just Russia and China
making some oil deals, or a new pipeline or something like that;
it's actually above nations as such.  That's what LaRouche said
about this Brexit vote; it's not just business as usual, this is
not a vote on pragmatic politics.  There's something bigger
acting.  People did not want war; they're tired of Obama's kill
policies which have terrorized the planet through his support for
ISIS, the refugee crisis out of Syria; this is clear.  So, this
is something that's being called for, there's something acting
which is coming from the future.
        The problem with Americans is that they've lost the sense of
how to think about that, about the future.  So, that's our job
right now, to create that discussion and that optimism about how
to do that.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think that's the question now.  What can we
create?  I was just reflecting on the discussion with Mr.
LaRouche earlier and some of his remarks throughout the week, and
I think his emphasis that you can't respond to or interpret
events is really critical at a time like this.  When you're
seeing these types of developments — because the Brexit vote is
one example; these are not events causing the process.  These are
events caused by the process; you have a breakdown process.  This
is an explosive development in that context, but there's already
an ongoing breakdown of the trans-Atlantic system; the cultural
system as much as the monetary system, the whole political
system.  Look at the British imperial ideology.
        But the point is, if you're responding to the events of that
process, you are still contained by that process.  How do you
break free from that process?  It's a question of creativity.
What are you doing to actually bring something fundamentally new
to the world situation?  I think that's why what you're seeing
out of Russia and China now is that; it's something new.  It's
not just a response, crisis management or trying to handle it, or
trying to respond to the events per se.  We're beyond that; the
events per se are death, that's where this thing is going.  Be it
a complete breakdown of the system, or whether it's that drive to
thermonuclear war.  So the question on the table now is, what can
you create?  What can you do that's fundamentally new to create a
new system; to actually generate a new orientation for mankind,
for leading nations, that doesn't come from a response to current
events?  That comes from a new orientation to create in the
future.
        The coverage of this in the media — the markets responding
this way or that way — it's just ridiculous.  The whole thing
has been going down for years; and we've  known it.  The question
now is, not who has the best spin on what mechanism caused what;
that doesn't matter.  The question now is, who's actually got an
insight into what the necessary future has to be?

        SARE:  I just wanted to say along those lines, to really
caution our viewers and anyone who's thinking that the way to
think about this is not to say how do we put together this broken
system; like Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall.  It's over;
and only recognizing that almost every fundamental axiom that
people had about economics in the trans-Atlantic was faulty.  And
I do have to point out that in 1988, Mr. LaRouche called for the
reunification of Germany based on his knowledge of the collapse
of the Soviet Union's economy.  And he made a proposal that the
West would provide food to Poland in return for early steps
toward an early reunification of Germany; and exactly one year
later, the Berlin Wall came down, and one year after that, Berlin
was the capital again and Germany was re-unified.  And he and his
wife both said at that time, the Soviet communist system has
failed; but that does not mean that the free trade trans-Atlantic
system is a success.  This, too, is finished; and it's end will
be much larger and more catastrophic than the disintegration of
the Soviet Union as we saw in '89.  So now we are truly there;
and the point is for the United States to recognize what Rachel
just said about Alexander Hamilton, what's embedded in our own
Constitution.  That that understanding of the intent of our
republic, combined with what Kesha represents in terms of the
space program and a true scientific orientation, is the platform
from which the United States can move to the future.
        And I just want to add — because Ben had sent something out
and I think Kesha, too — there's something circulating on the
web of 30 gigantic projects that China is engaged in building
which are changing the whole planet; these are huge
infrastructure projects.  One of them is a 16-mile long
suspension bridge across the Yangtze River; another is a group of
nuclear power plants; and so on.  I think the most expensive any
of these projects was, was something like $3.4 billion.  The
bridges might have been $1 billion or $750 million or something.
Think about that and think about the bail-out.  The first
bail-out of AIG — and there was more than one; but the first
bail-out of AIG was $80 billion.  Now, $80 billion is probably
more than the sum of what was spent on all of these 30 giant
projects combined.  You will also argue that this is not the same
kind of dollars; just like that's the problem with the metric of
what the space program generated, but I'm just using it as an
example.  Because particularly in the United States and Western
Europe, people have a totally insane view of what constitutes
value and what is money.  And if you just look at something like
this, you can see that the destruction, the degradation and
collapse of the United States has absolutely nothing to with
money per se; because we could have taken that $80 billion from
the AIG bail-out and invested it into high speed rail, nuclear
power, getting back to the Moon, any of these things.  And I
think we've done a number of $80 billion [bail-outs] just for
AIG, but the policy decision was not to do that.  And that's the
point of the insanity; and that's what we have to change, because
money itself has no intrinsic value.  Once you understand that,
you can stop panicking about all the money that's going to be
wiped out if everyone crashes and has their silly irrational
responses, or maybe it's finally rationality setting in.  Money
doesn't matter per se; the question is, what is the direction of
human progress, what is the direction of humankind?  From that
standpoint, we can turn on a dime; not that everything is going
to be repaired instantaneously.  It'll take probably two
generations for the United States to achieve a standard of living
that would be appropriate for this nation.  But nonetheless, the
direction could occur tomorrow; provided we do what Kesha said
first at the beginning, which is that Obama is no longer in
control of running the direction of this country — nor anybody
who thinks like Obama.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think it's very important that you brought
up this question of the fictitious values at the root of this
entire trans-Atlantic system; because what we're seeing in the
distinction between the bankrupt collapsing system in the
trans-Atlantic Europe-centered area, and then the growth in
China, in Russia, in India, and in that new Eurasian system.
These are not comparable types of systems; this is not one
person's loss is another person's gain or something like that.
These are completely two distinct species of outlook on the
world; and I think that's what we're getting at here.  What we're
experiencing with these crashes within the span of just a few
hours, HSBC lost 10% of its stock value; Standard Charter lost
10% of its stock value; the pound was down to a 31-year low —
lower than it's been since 1985.  But what is all of this?  This
is just the evaporation of fictitious value.
        On the other hand, you have substantial, real growth in the
form of the reconstruction of the New Silk Road, the development
of the vast interior Eurasian continent, the development of new
transport routes, these new development corridors.  Diane, I
think it's appropriate that you brought up the turning point in
1989 with the crash of the Soviet Union, because what we're
experiencing now is something at least of that caliber, if not
far, far greater than the caliber of 1989.  And you're right, Mr.
LaRouche was clear at that point that the Soviet system was
merely the first show to drop; now we're experiencing the second
shoe has dropped.  This system is bankrupt.  And at that time in
1989, is when Lyndon and Helga LaRouche planted the seeds for
what has now emerged as the New Paradigm, as the new Eurasian
economic system.  At that time it was first — in its nascent
form — the Productive Triangle; then it became what was the
Eurasian Land-Bridge.  This was adopted in the form of the New
Silk Road; and now this is being expanded to the World
Land-Bridge.  This is a vision for a global and extraterrestrial
development policy.  But Mr. LaRouche made several trips to
Russia during the 1990s; several trips to India as well.  Mrs.
LaRouche has travelled now multiple times to China in the last
several years.  This is the center; this is Mr. LaRouche's
emphasis on the impetus of leadership, the hegemonic influence at
this time of the creative leadership of the leaders of these
nations.  President Putin, President Xi Jinping, Prime Minister
Modi, and others.

DENISTON:  I think it's worth underscoring that it's still
playing out, too.  We have this SCO summit going on right now, in
which the heads of these nations are going to meet.  After that,
Putin is going to be travelling to China for a heads-of-state
meeting with Xi Jinping.  In this whole process, you're having
these dialogues to solidify — and I think this is really big —
solidify the Eurasian Economic Union cooperation with the New
Silk Road; which I think is a huge step in these very large but
regional projects moving closer to this Eurasian Land-Bridge,
World Land-Bridge perspective that Lyn and Helga have defined.
        So another point of emphasis that Mr. LaRouche has had over
the past weeks, I think is very sobering and represents a very
high level of thinking, is don't assume we know how any of this
is going to play out.  This is a developing, creative process;
there's a lot more things going on right now.  And we should be
orienting towards not trying to assume we know how all these
things are going to be finished, or what the results are going to
be.  This is an ongoing, creative process right now, and this is
how you have to think about it.  In the next days, as was
mentioned, out of the activity we're going to be engaged in over
this weekend which is very significant — both here in the United
States and in Europe — that's going to be a critical escalation.
But then over the next weeks also, we're just going to see a lot
of important developments coming.

        ROGERS:  I think it's important what Diane brought up on the
point of the system of monetarism that has dominated the culture
and society, that has actually set mankind backwards from what
the intention of the foundation of our republic actually
represented under the conception of Alexander Hamilton.  That's
really what you have to look at, too, when you think about the
cultural pessimism and the zero-growth paradigm that has
continued to dominate for the past several decades now.  It's
interesting, because people try to say that the targetting of the
space program has to do with not having enough money; we just
have to take these budget cuts.  And that's the same point.  How
much bail-outs have we put on these various financial speculators
and derivatives and so forth that we could not put into the space
program?  The idea was that it was never about the fact there
were not enough financial resources to put into the space
program.  It was in the intention not to invest into the future.
And there were many people who promoted this zero-growth paradigm
that Krafft Ehricke took on directly, who stated that the space
program represented too much of a "false optimism" for the
population; that it actually gave the population a sense of
optimism and a sense of their identity as human beings and a
commitment to the future.  The empire and those promoters of
zero-growth were adamant that they had to put a stop to that.  I
was reading an article from back in 1963 in the {New Atlantic};
it was referenced in a book by Marsha Freeman — "The Conquest of
Space and Stature of Man" by Hannah Arendt.  Hannah Arendt was
one of these major promoters of zero-growth and backwardness; and
she made the point that the fight against the space program is
not that of money, but a question of man being inherently corrupt
and that nothing good could come out of scientific progress.
        And that's the thing right now, is that what Russia and
China and this New Paradigm are promoting that only good can come
out of the nature of mankind's creative mental process in terms
of shaping and defining the future and creating that which has
never been created before.  As we're seeing with the outcome of
what China is doing with their space program.  That used to be
our mission; why we went to the Moon in the first place, and why
President Kennedy made the announcement that we would send a man
to the Moon and bring them back before the decade was out.  It
was our obligation to take on something that was fundamentally
new; that's our creative nature.
        That just puts the question that this monetary system has to
be thrown out the window; a new system of economic value based on
the real conceptions of the creative powers of the human mind has
to be brought in.  And the best conception to bring that about is
the space program.

        BRINKLEY:  Absolutely.  And Mr. LaRouche made the point that
also what do we replace this system with?  The idea has to be a
Eurasian policy; and that's what you see in space, that's what
you see in real economy is what are the mutual interests.
Europe's only chance is to join with this policy; so Obama has
explicitly prevented that.  He's called for everybody on the
planet not to join with Russia and China; he tried to prevent it,
whether it was Japan, Mexico, all the coups going on in South
America right now — Argentina.  Puerto Rico is being destroyed
and murdered by Obama and Wall Street.  LaRouche said this is
also why the [Brexit] vote occurred; Obama's economic policies,
his defense for this doomed system is clear.  Also the question
of Obama said our great ally is Great Britain, and it will be now
and forever.  Well, what are we showing with the 28 pages?  Saudi
Arabia did not act alone; actually this part might not be in the
28 pages, but it's in many other pages that are there to be
released.  Through the BAE deal, Prince Bandar, to be found out
that Great Britain might not be our greatest ally.  And Obama's
defense of Britain, of Wall Street, his continual murder policy,
the fact that somewhere 111-114 Americans commit suicide every
day; that this is Obama's policy. He is a murderer; and he has
got to be removed.  That's the fact; it's an absolutely evil
intention, and he's got to be thrown out.

        SARE:  I'd just like to add along those lines:  One is we
are having our regular Saturday meeting here in Manhattan,
although it's slightly expanded.  I will be keynoting it; and we
have Jason Ross from the Science Team is here and others, to
present these two views.  We also are holding a concert on Sunday
afternoon, dedicated to Sylvia Olden Lee, called "In Praise of
Sylvia Olden Lee", who was one of our very important
collaborators in the Schiller Institute in this fight for the
question of Classical beauty.  And Classical music is something
which can strengthen people, which strengthens our better angels,
as Abraham Lincoln might have said, to actually insure that
justice is done.  And I bring these things up, because here in
the US, you have this really diversionary, silly spectacle of
debates about gun control and Congressmen rolling around on the
floor and things like that; pretending that they're in some kind
of civil rights sit-in, when here you have the murderer-in-chief
— President Obama — presiding over a weekly kill session on
Tuesdays, deciding who he's going to kill.  Then you had
September 11th, which Rachel was alluding to, where close to 3000
Americans were killed; and justice has not been done.  And Obama
— as Bush before him — is covering up for the perpetrators of
othe crime and colluding with them as best we know.
  And I think this is a very important flank for those people
who say, "Well, it's impossible; we only have a couple more
months.  In January, we have a new President anyway."  Well, just
look at what's been happening in the last few weeks, to see how
quickly things can change.  NATO has deployed 50,000 troops in
exercises on the border of Russia.  Do you really think we should
just presume that we're going to safely avoid thermonuclear war
while we have a killer lunatic who is now more desperate than
ever as President of the United States?  I think it's very
important that people stop pretending or picking other so-called
"issues" which are really non-issues; when we have a great crime
which was committed 15 years ago on September 11, 2001, which has
not been addressed.  By addressing this and getting to the truth
of what was involved in this — the Saudi role, the British role,
the Wall Street role, the FBI role, the Bush role, Obama's role;
by addressing that, we have a lever by which to expel the current
President from the White House and hopefully land him safely in
jail where he belongs.  And to change therefore, the direction of
the United States.

        OGDEN:  If Obama was so interested in Britain's staying in
the EU, perhaps as Kesha suggested, he could follow suit after
David Cameron and announce his resignation as well.  To his
credit, David Cameron has announced that he is leaving his post
as Prime Minister before his term is over.

        DENISTON:  Obama might be too big of a narcissist; it'll
take more aggressive action for that one.

OGDEN:  But I do think that absolutely, Diane, what you just said
about the events that are coming up this weekend — both in New
York and then, Kesha, what you're hosting down in Texas — the
emphasis has got to continue to be, what is the creative
intervention that can be made to uplift the American people and
to lead the American people.  That was one thing that really did
stick out when we were speaking with Mr. LaRouche earlier today;
that it's never enough just to have the correct analysis of
events.  Our emphasis has got to be, how do we calmly bring a
solution to the table that will be the solution to this crisis?
And that's what you were saying, Ben, that we're in completely
uncharted territory; this is an unprecedented situation in the
history of mankind.  You have no idea what's going to happen
tomorrow, what's going to happen the next day.  It was almost a
comedy to watch how surprised all the pundits and the investors
and the big masters of universe and everybody were, when they
thought that they were going to sleep last night with the remain
vote having come out on top.  And then they wake up this morning
and lo and behold, it's the completely opposite result.  That
proves to you that these guys have no idea what they're doing.
        Diane, you brought this up in the webcast last week.  Why
would you give anybody any credit, when they had no idea that the
Crash of 2008 was right around the corner?  Why would you put
your trust in these people?  So, you have a completely
unprecedented situation.  The rise of the Eurasian system is not
something which is a fait accompli; this is what's driving the
directionality of the possibility of a thermonuclear war breaking
out.  Granted, the support for the sanctions and for the NATO
maneuvers in Europe is now becoming increasingly less strong; but
that doesn't mean that you're by any means guaranteed that we can
avoid a fate such as that.  So, it's decisive action and it's
creative leadership in the case of what we are able to provide;
and Mr. LaRouche was clear that it's the unique capability of the
members of this Policy Committee to provide that kind of
leadership within the United States.
        So again, I just want to emphasize the importance of these
two events that we have coming up this weekend.  So, I think with
that said, you can watch for coverage of those events as they are
broadcast.  The regular Saturday meeting will be live, available
on the LaRouche PAC website tomorrow for Manhattan; and we
encourage you to participate in that in person if you are in the
area, as well as the events in Texas.  And please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com as things rapidly change.
        If you haven't yet, make sure you subscribe to our YouTube
channel; make sure you don't miss any of these critical
discussions.  And also become a regular subscriber to our Daily
Updates which are delivered directly to your inbox via email.
So, thank you for tuning in, and please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.

21. juni 2016 (Leder) – Samtidig med, at Obamaregeringen og NATO er kommet tættere på at fremprovokere militære opgør, der ikke efterlader overlevende, med Rusland og Kina, så er et skarpt brud med dette opgør opstået i Europa i særdeleshed, og i Japan, og det er på vej i USA.

EIR og LaRouche-bevægelsen har stået i centrum for dette skift, bort fra randen af en ukontrollerbar krig, siden vi for en måned siden lancerede den internationale appel, »Warszawa-topmødet forbereder krig; Tiden er inde til at forlade NATO nu!«, som tusinder af tænkende mennesker og ledende personer i mange lande har underskrevet; dette har skabt »den fremskudte front«, bag hvilken det politiske skift er i færd med at bryde ud imod det militære opgør med Rusland, som Obama og briterne tydeligvis ønsker skal blive resultatet af dette NATO-topmøde i begyndelsen af juli. Den stadig voksende splittelse, der nu er i Tysklands regeringskoalition, med krav om at stop NATO’s 50.000 mand stærke øvelser på Ruslands grænser; Den japanske beslutning om at trodse Obama med to Abe-Putin topmøder; de stærke skift over mod økonomisk udvikling og samarbejde i Italien og Frankrig – alt dette udgør et oprør mod Obamas og briternes krigspolitik, der var i færd med at åbne døren på vid gab for en endegyldig katastrofe for menneskeheden.

Dette oprør kan blive til en virkelig revolution for en sand, menneskelig fremtid. For dem, der ønsker at undfly en atomar konfrontation med Rusland og Kina, samt de transatlantiske økonomiers stadigt forværrende kollaps, findes alternativet allerede. Og USA – med Obama ude – må bringes til sin egen interesse, hvor det tilslutter sig dette nye paradigme snarere end at detonere en krig, der ikke har nogen overlevende.

Dersom den menneskelige art skal have en lysende fremtid – på den anden side af selve randen af fremprovokeret krig mellem atomare supermagter, hvor vi i øjeblikket befinder os – så vil det blive bestemt af nationer, der har et langsigtet perspektiv med gensidig økonomisk udvikling og udforskning af rummet. Og det vil nu sige Kina og Rusland (samt Indien). Disse to nationer vil i den kommende weekend afholde et økonomisk topmøde, hvor det centrale fokus vil ligge på et samarbejde om udforskning af rummet: »samarbejde omkring skabelsen af en tung raket og etableringen af interaktion inden for området med rumstationer og langdistance-rumrejser, som vil være til gavn for menneskeheden i sin helhed snarere end blot for de deltagende stater.«

Et amerikanske rumprograms hele ånd udgjorde Amerikas »en håbets bavn« for hele menneskeheden. Det er blevet skåret tilbage i årtier, og menneskers rejser ud i rummet er nu grundlæggende set blevet annulleret under Obama. Men indbydelsen til en storslået genoplivelse af NASA’s opdagelsesrejser for hele menneskeheden ligger på bordet. Det er vores opgave at gribe den og virkeliggøre den; og at gøre en ende på det nuværende, globale krigsopgør, før det er for sent.

(se også: »Ingen overlevende«, video fra LaRouchePAC med danske undertekster.)