1

Nationer må samarbejde om at fremme menneskeheden!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast, 25. marts 2016

Engelsk udskrift. Vi begynder vores udsendelse i aften med at oplæse en kort erklæring fra LaRouche-bevægelsen i Belgien, Agora Erasmus, om bombesprængningerne i Bruxelles. Erklæringen fordømmer gerningsmændene til disse angreb og sørger over ofrene for angrebene. Men erklæringen opfordrer os også til, konfronteret med denne fornyede nødvendighed, at arbejde sammen med vore mulige samarbejdspartnere i Rusland og andre lande for at besejre ISIS én gang for alle; men også til at fjerne roden til denne terrors årsager én gang for alle.

NATIONS MUST WORK TOGETHER TO FURTHER MANKIND! –

International LaRouche PAC Webcast
Friday, March 25, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it's March 25, 2016. My name is
Matthew Ogden, and you're watching our weekly broadcast with the
LaRouche PAC Friday evening webcast. I am here tonight in the
studio with Jason Ross and Megan Beets from the LaRouche PAC
Science Team. We had a chance to have a discussion earlier today
with Mr. LaRouche.
We are going to begin our broadcast tonight by reading a
short statement that was issued by the LaRouche movement in
Belgium, Agora Erasmus, which is a statement on the Brussels
bombings. It's a statement condemning the perpetrators of these
attacks and also mourning the victims of these attacks. But it's
also a statement which is asking us to renew our sense of urgency
in the face of the urgent necessity to work with our possible
collaborators in Russia and other countries, to defeat ISIS once
and for all; but also, to root out the causes of this terrorism
finally once and for all. The statement reads as follows: It is
titled, "Brussels Bombings: Let Us Be Firm and Coherent Against
Terrorism and Its Sponsors".
"Today Brussels is in tears. At this tragic juncture, our
thoughts and heart goes to the victims, their families and
friends. Our affection and support goes to the first aid workers,
the police forces, the security services, the authorities of the
government and to all those simple citizens who kept calm and
showed solidarity in this horrible hardship.
"However, we cannot but call on the Belgian government to
draw the lessons of these attacks, and to act immediately to
uproot immediately both the known networks, as well as the
godfathers of this barbarism:
"First of all, the decades-long, evil role of Saudi Arabia
and Qatar, in spreading the Wahhabite and Salafist ideologies and
the financing of terrorist organizations, towards which the
Belgian, as well as the US, the British, and the French
governments, have all turned a blind eye.
"Second of all, the complicity with Daesh of Turkey, a
member state of NATO whose headquarters are 8 km from the
attacks. While Erdogan and his family buy Daeschs oil and provide
them with weapons and equipments, the EU submits itself to
Turkeys wishes by exchanging refugees, and offering it billions
of Euros.
"Finally, there is the financing of terrorism, which would
be impossible without the banking facilities of the fiscal safe
heavens offered by the City of London and Wall Street; as
documented in a US Senate report in the case of British bank
HSBC. In Belgium, an investigative parliamentary commission on
the financing sources of terrorism, if allowed to do their job,
would quickly arrive at the conclusion that an orderly banking
reorganization, through a banking separation law based on the
Glass-Steagall Act, would be an excellent weapon in the war on
terrorism.
"In addition to those three concrete measures, we need a
shift in our overall political orientation. Instead of seeking
endlessly for confrontation and geopolitical domination, Belgium,
as well as other member states of NATO and the EU, have
everything to win from detente, entente, and cooperation with
Vladimir Putins government in Russia, who happen to be the only
heads of state sticking to principles of really being committed
to defeating Daesh.
"Let us also deepen our cooperation with China, with which
Belgium is celebrating 45 years of very good relations, and is
working for mutual development with its New Silk Road vision.
Only economic development shall create better living conditions
and cultural exchanges between peoples that will allow us, for
real, to eliminate the threat that hit Brussels today."
Now, the context of these attacks obviously is something
which we here at LaRouche PAC have been continually coming back
to after the January 7th attacks in Paris against Charlie Hebdo,
then the November attacks later in Paris, and then the attacks on
March 22ns in Brussels. As former Senator Bob Graham, who is the
co-chair of the 9/11 investigation into the Joint Inquiry Report,
has continually emphasized, only be declassifying the 28 pages of
that report and bringing the spotlight to who actually funded the
logistical and created the support network apparatus to make 9/11
possible — the Saudi government and others connected to the
Saudi Royal Family — will we be able to shut down these
logistical networks and these financing networks. The fact that
the George Bush administration and now the Obama administration
has continued to fail to release those 28 pages, has allowed the
Saudi government to continue to act with impunity financing first
al-Qaeda, now ISIS, and any other organization that pops up based
on the same ideological orientation. So, that is absolutely
clear.
However, there is a broader context as well; and this is
what I'm going to ask Jason Ross to discuss a little bit with us
here tonight. As the statement out of the Agora Erasmus
organization in Belgium stated, what is absolutely necessary is a
political paradigm shift; a shift in our political orientation.
We must continue what is now begun, preliminarily, with the
association between Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov;
and the agreements that have been drawn up between the United
States and Russia to defeat ISIS on the ground in Syria. This is
a good direction, but it must go much, much further. And also, a
collaboration with China; and the working together of the United
States, the EU, and China is something that Mrs. Helga
Zepp-LaRouche has been emphasizing very broadly. Both with a trip
that she recently made to India, where she was one of the
featured speakers in a prominent international forum that
occurred there; and then at an event that occurred this past
Wednesday, March 23rd in Frankfurt. An EIR seminar where the
continuing discussion of the extension of the Silk Road — the
development perspective that China has initiated — what is being
discussed in Europe now as a new Marshall Plan for the Middle
East and North Africa — is the context for economic development
and a culture of hope and a culture of commitment to the future.
And optimism as opposed to perpetual war, which is required to
change the conditions on the ground in Syria, Iraq, in Libya, and
in the rest of the Middle East and North Africa. This was the
subject of a very prominent forum that occurred the previous week
in Cairo, Egypt; where Hussein Askary, a representative of EIR,
presented with the representatives of the Egyptian government,
the first Arabic-language version of the EIR Special Report, "The
New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge". This is something
that we covered in our broadcast here last week.
So, to discuss that very important conference that occurred
in Frankfurt, involving Helga LaRouche and many other prominent
individuals, I would like to ask Jason to come to the podium now.

JASON ROSS: Thanks, Matt. Well, this was really a tremendous
intervention that took place in Germany; and as Matt said,
follows on the other recent successes of Helga Zepp-LaRouche in
India and Hussein Askary in Egypt. This event, which took place
this Wednesday in Frankfurt, had 75 attendees and a very high
level discussion of the paradigm that is necessary to build a
future and eliminate the war and economic collapse, which is
otherwise the direction that the trans-Atlantic is heading in,
potentially to drag the world with it.
Among the speakers were Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who we'll get
into some more detail on that in particular; Hussein Askary gave
a report on what he had done in Egypt, as well as announcing that
at the same time that the seminar was taking place in Frankfurt,
a seminar was also taking place in Yemen. Which had been
organized there to work through the Arabic version of the World
Land-Bridge report; despite being under Saudi bombardment
literally in a very real way, this future orientation was taking
place in that nation. Other speakers included the Ethiopian
Consul General, who spoke about development in his nation and
about the 800,000 refugees and displaced persons currently living
in Ethiopia; and the government's plans for developing a future
through such projects as the Millennium Dam. Two speakers from
Italy — Marcello Vichi and Andrea Mongano — spoke about the
Transaqua Project; a decades-old proposal which would be able to
replenish Lake Chad, which is far below half of its previous
capacity. And in drying up, it is eliminating a source of
livelihood for people in the adjoining nations, and making it
much more difficult or impossible to root out terrorism by
replacing it with a positive economic policy. Ulf Sandmark was
also a speaker. His trips to Syria in the last couple of years
led to the formation of a Phoenix proposal, as he called it, for
the redevelopment of Syria. That gives you a sense of what the
overall tenor of the meeting was.
In her presentation, Helga Zepp-LaRouche asked whether we
are morally fit to survive. Given the crisis that we're facing
and given the response to it, are we morally fit to survive?
Referencing the recent events in Belgium, she pointed out that
terror can affect anybody; she also pointed out that in that same
time period, there was a Saudi Arabian bombing of a marketplace
in Yemen leaving 120 people dead, including 20 children, and 80
people wounded. These are people, too. People in Yemen also do
not deserve to be killed and blown up. To root this out, an
opening up of those 28 pages, the classified section of the 9/11
Report that covered over the role of Saudi Arabia in that crime;
these 28 pages have to be released, and the real source of
terrorism — namely involving nations that the United States and
Britain are working with, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, this has
to be cleaned up.
You contrast that with what is happening. Cooperating with
Turkey; where the dictatorial president has recently shut down
one newspaper, and there is talk of another one being closed
down. And an extortion operation to get money from the EU to
prevent the motion of asylum seekers; to deport those seeking
asylum — that is not a solution. What is a solution? She says,
where is our humanity; where is humanity going? What's the
potential for dealing with this? [Mrs. LaRouche] says, look at
China. China is a nation which, over the recent generations, has
pulled 900 million people out of poverty; and in their current
five-year program, calls for eliminating poverty entirely in
China by 2020; and playing a role in eliminating poverty in the
world by 2025. Now that is an objective for a nation to have.
The One Belt – One Road policy that is official Chinese
government policy at this point, represents a real victory for
the New Silk Road — the World Land-Bridge proposal that the
Schiller Institute and the LaRouche movement have been
championing for over 20 years now. This is Chinese policy. China
is moving away from simple labor towards more complex forms of
exports; high-speed rail, a replacement of "Made in China" with
the motto of "Created in China". And of course, their efforts in
space. The tremendous efforts of the Chinese space program, which
go beyond replicating feats performed by other nations — some
many decades ago — to doing the entirely new; going to the far
side of the Moon, as planned in an upcoming mission. Something
that has never been done — a landing on the far side of the
Moon; representing a unique environment for various types of
astronomical researches.
So, how can terrorism be stopped? Clearly, you have to not
hide the sources of it; not hide the funding of it. Tell the
truth about Saudi Arabia. But that's not enough; the long-term
solution, of course, requires development. The only plan for
peace is not a negation of war and conflict; it's an affirmation
of what a peace looks like among nations and among peoples.
So, this theme was also the subject of Hussein Askary's
presentation; and he recounted for himself and the beginning of
his involvement with the LaRouche movement, taking place in 1994.
When, with the Oslo Accords and the potential for peace between
the Israelis and Palestinians, LaRouche had said at the time, if
there is not an economic development program, this peace will not
succeed; which was true. And there was not an economic
development program, and that peace did not succeed as it could
have. Hussein remarked on his recent trip to Cairo; where, as
viewers of the website are familiar, he was a primary participant
in a conference sponsored by the Egyptian Transport Ministry
itself, to launch the Arabic edition of the New Silk Road Special
Report. In doing this, not only was this a top-level endorsement
from the Transport Minister himself — who headed the meeting;
but it represents a potential for cooperation within the region
as a whole.
Among the World Land-Bridge concepts is included an
up-shifting of the quality of development. For example, Hussein
brought up Mr. LaRouche's 2002 trip to the region, when he
attended a conference held in Abu Dhabi, among oil ministers and
others. And LaRouche said at that time that the future for that
region could not be one of a raw materials exporter, an oil
exporter; but rather processing and industry would have to take
place as an idea of a future orientation for the economy there.
So, there are many old cultures within this region; ancient
civilizations with an historical grounding. The potential for
cooperation there is tremendous; and it's not about local
interests being played against each other. Some people in Egypt,
for example, might have thought that building the connectivity of
the New Silk Road would lessen the payback on their investment in
the new Suez Canal. If land routes are possible, won't that
reduce shipping? But, that's not the way to look at it. As a
general sense of connectivity and improvement in conditions of
economy, these things aren't mutually exclusive. So, just as
Egypt raised $8 billion from within the nation to complete the
construction of the new Suez Canal within the astounding period
of one year, the Transport Minister announced at this meeting
that Egypt was prepared to invest $100 billion — a trillion
Egyptian pounds — over the next 14 years into roads, rail,
logistics centers, into connectivity in the Southwest Asian
region, as well as with Africa. He spoke about the plans for
cooperation between Egypt and South Africa and other nations, for
rail and road connectivity crossing the entire continent from the
north to the south. Something which does not currently exist;
there is not strong connectivity among these nations of East
Africa in this way.
Hussein spoke about the fact that 95% of Egypt's territory
is currently empty; and the potential with water resources to
totally transform the nation. So that, among these projects —
many of which China is eager to cooperate with — there lies a
sense for stability. Does terrorism have to be stopped? Do people
willing to kill others have to prevented by military means at
times? Yes. But the only way you're going to have a stable future
and progress and happiness for that, is through a legitimate
program for development.
So, what can we do here? Well, we've heard a lot of good
news recently. Helga Zepp-LaRouche's trip to India was excellent
news. Hussein Askary's trip to Cairo and the various seminars and
meetings that he held there — about which you can read more on
our website. The conference just this week in Frankfurt; these
represent positive developments increasing the potential for this
new paradigm taking over as directing the course of human
affairs.
Here in the United States, we have a number of
opportunities. Let's take a look at Manhattan, for example. Every
Saturday, there's an opportunity for direct discussion with these
Manhattan dialogues with Lyndon LaRouche himself. Coming up very
soon, on April 7th, there will be a very important conference
held in Manhattan, sponsored by the Schiller Institute, about
which you can read more and find registration information here on
our website. A conference in the US, dedicated to the principle
of how we can join this orientation; what kinds of concepts have
to guide relations among nations, and about the scientific
mission for mankind, and about the culture that's commensurate
and assists in bringing about these kinds of developments.
So, there's no amount of good news from around the world,
although it's good to have good news; but there's no amount of
good news that can replace the obligation of us in the United
States to oust Obama to prevent conflict, war, the direction
we're going right now. Without ousting Obama and repudiating that
policy orientation, the good news around the rest of the world
isn't going to be enough to prevent a commitment towards
conflict, to prevent its coming into being.

MEGAN BEETS: Earlier this week, Secretary of State John
Kerry travelled to Moscow for a series of meetings, including
with President Putin of Russia; and also for extensive dialogue
and discussion with his Russian counterpart, Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov. These discussions obviously centered around the
ongoing US-Russian cooperation in resolving the conflict in
Syria. Going into the meetings and press conferences, both Kerry
and Lavrov stressed strongly that the successes in Syria are due
to the close collaboration between the United States and Russia;
and also expressed the hope that this cooperation can continue
and extend beyond Syria to address other urgent challenges and
conflicts in the Middle East, such as the ongoing atrocities in
Yemen and also beyond.
Now, after the conclusion of what were many, many hours of
meetings, Kerry began the joint press conference with Lavrov with
a statement which goes to something which is much more important
than cooperation among nations to resolve existing conflicts and
dangers, as urgent as the solutions of those conflicts may be.
And his statement points to the essence of the real meaning and
purpose of cooperation among nations. So, he said, "Let me just
say that earlier today, I had the privilege of meeting with Scott
Kelly, the American astronaut who spent 340 days in space with
his counterpart, Mikhail Koryenko. I had a chance to talk to both
of them about their time in space together; where they spent that
remarkable period of historic time cooperating and working
together. Two astronauts, one American one Russian, who were
working to study the effects of long-term space flight on the
human body. And as I listened to both of them talking about their
time, it emphasized to me the fact of close collaboration being a
demonstration of what not just two astronauts can do; but what
nations can do when they work together, whether it's on the
International Space Station, or international diplomacy."
Now in that context, we look to China and the leadership
that they have taken in their lunar program, as Jason mentioned a
moment ago. We look at the accomplishments of the recent past,
such as their 2013 landing on the surface of the Moon with a
lander and a rover; which is the first time in nearly 40 years
any nation has done that. And we also look forward to the
achievements that are planned for the next two years; their 2017
sample return from the Moon, and their 2018 landing on the lunar
far side — the first time ever, for any nation. These kinds of
things represent real value for mankind; both economically and
elsewhere.
So, what I'd like to do now is invite Jason to the podium to
elaborate on that point.

JASON ROSS: At least in the United States, growth really
stopped in the 1960s and '70s. Now, this is point that Lyndon
LaRouche had made at the time, that he makes in his economics
courses; that he has in his economics textbook. And one that many
people may not agree with, saying there's been a tremendous
amount of development since then. However, a comparison of the
rate of growth from the 1930s until after the assassination of
Kennedy — the close of the 1960s — reveals a rate of growth of
productivity, of power consumption, of water consumption, of
markers of physical economy that have taken a tremendous turn
downwards since that time, over the last 45 years. So, why is
that? Partly it has been a lack of a commitment or even an
antagonism to economic development; a deliberate reduction of
economic output. Something that was sped [up] with the collapse
of the Soviet Union — growth; or limited or bounded by certain
conditions. And if we don't change those bounding conditions,
there is simply a limit to what economic growth will be possible.
Let me give an example. China; we've seen the tremendous
success of China in lifting people out of poverty. This is a real
achievement; especially over the last generation or so. This
achievement, this incredible success, utilized — in the main —
technologies which existed; much of it was not based on new
technologies. That doesn't take away its being a tremendous
accomplishment; and one that shouldn't be taken for granted.
India, for example, is another large nation similar in size to
China, which has not seen the same success in eliminating poverty
and in getting economic development within that nation. So, China
has definite claims to a sense of pride in the success that
they've had in that sense.
But let's think about what it is that really drives economy
forward. And if we look on the large scale, developments such as
a couple of centuries ago, the liberation of power created by the
steam engine; the ability to use combustion and heat to turn that
into motion, completely transformed mankind's relationship to
nature. Totally transformed the economy. It took some time to be
implemented; but the economy that resulted from the
implementation of that new technology was, frankly, in many ways
incomparable to what came before. This wasn't just about
improving production by having machinery so there'd be less
workers required to do the actual physical muscle labor of moving
things, or using animals for a similar purpose. It also
transformed what we were able to do. The transportation afforded
by the steam engine — trains, for example; this is something
totally new.
Think about the materials advancements that were made since
that time with the incredible developments of chemistry in the
late 1800s; the new understanding we had of the world around us.
There were further materials science breakthroughs made in the
middle of this past century; and which continue to some degree
today. But let's consider the real progress in science and in
power that is required to set a new level for what could be
accomplished; that moves forward what those limits to economic
growth are. We're not currently even near the limits of what we
could do, even with current technology. Poverty can be completely
eliminated on this planet with current technology. But to move
the level of what's possible, that requires something
fundamentally new.
Something of that level would be represented, for example,
in breakthroughs on fusion. Fusion, which as we've discussed many
times over the course of decades in the LaRouche movement, is a
complete transformation in our relationship to the natural world.
If we had accomplished the useful implementation of fusion power,
both for the types of electrical power that we use today as well
as for transforming our relationship to materials by allowing the
refining and processing of ores on a totally different scale than
currently exists. The introduction of fusion as a scientific
breakthrough, will represent a really new era in the power of
mankind.
Space; this is another place to look, in terms of what is
going to move the frontiers of science itself forward. We have to
develop a greater understanding of the Universe as a whole; of
these large, large-scale systems to develop new insights and to
make new scientific discoveries. Not every discovery that we'll
ever make in the future depends upon being in space; but if you
don't have that orientation, you're definitely limited.
And what do we see, for example, with China? With the
super-conducting tokamak that they have, the East Tokamak; as
we've discussed a couple of times on this show today already —
the plan to go to the Moon. The plan to go to the far side of the
Moon; to do something new. This goes beyond playing catch-up;
this is playing leap-frog. This is, as a nation, having a
commitment to a universal role as the society of organized
people, towards achieving things that will have a
world-historical importance. Like the development of the steam
engine; like other breakthroughs that transformed humanity as a
whole. A nation has to have that mission — barring incredibly
dire poverty conditions — a nation has to have that as its
mission; otherwise it simply has no legitimacy to exist. It has
no mission; it has no purpose. And then, people are not connected
to a sense of achievement that lies far outside of their own
lifetimes.
What we need to do, among nations, is have that social
commitment to developing a new future for everybody; and of
allowing our citizens, our society, to actively and knowledgeably
play a role in bringing that about. So, this goes far beyond
removing a few bad things, getting bad people out of office. We
need to have an affirmative idea of what we want to achieve and
what we want to be as a society, as a nation, among societies and
nations of the world.
And again, this upcoming April 7th conference will represent
the highest level discussion of these types of issues in the
United States — from economics, science, culture; this will all
be covered. I highly encourage people to find out more about it
on our site; the registration information is there. And the
conference will also be available on our website.

OGDEN: Wonderful; thank you, Jason. So, I would encourage
you to please register and encourage other people to register for
this event. Also, coming up this weekend in New York City, if you
are in the area, on Easter Sunday at 6pm, there will be another
concert of portions of Handel's {Messiah}; which will be offered
by the Schiller Institute at a church in Brooklyn. And many
people may have seen the recording of the December 12th and
December 13th concerts. This, I'm sure, will be even better than
those. So, if you are in the area, or if you can make it to New
York this weekend; I would encourage you to come. And you can get
more information about that concert also, through the Schiller
Institute. So, thank you very much; thanks to both Megan and
Jason for joining me here today. And please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.




Putin kalder terrorangreb i Bruxelles for en »barbarisk forbrydelse«;
Zakharova angriber vestlig støtte til terrorister

22. marts 2016 – Idet han udtrykte sin dybtfølte kondolence over for det belgiske folk, har den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin »kraftigt fordømt disse barbariske handlinger« samtidig med, at han forsikrede »det belgiske folk om Ruslands absolutte solidaritet med det belgiske folk i disse svære timer«, sagde talsmand for Kreml, Dmitry Peskov, i dag, iflg. en rapport fra Sputnik. »Præsident Putin har allerede sendt kondolencetelegram til Kong Philippe af Belgien i forbindelse med civile dødsfald i en række bombesprængninger i Bruxelles«, sagde Peskov til reportere.

»I takt med, at flere og flere mister livet, og vi mister kostbar tid, begynder folk at forstå, at denne politik med dobbelte standarder mht. bedømmelsen af terroraktiviteter, er en politisk blindgyde«, sagde talsperson for det russiske Udenrigsministerium Maria Zakharova kort tid efter, at der begyndte at indløbe rapporter om angrebene i Bruxelles, rapporterer BRICS Post. »De kan ikke støtte terrorister i én del af verden uden at forvente, at de også vil dukke op i en anden del.«

Med en anklagende finger rettet mod NATO for at forsømme forsvaret af sin egen baghave, og med et udfald mod NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg, tweetede chefen for Ruslands parlamentskomite for udenrigsanliggender, Alexey Pushkov, at NATO-chefen har tilladt »folk at sprænge sig selv i luften lige under hans næse«, mens »NATO var optaget af at bekæmpe den imaginære, russiske trussel«, rapporterer Newsweek.

 

Se også: Putin: Rusland er forpligtet over for fredsproces i Syrien; fortsat militær årvågenhed over for terrorisme 

 




Terrorister angriber Bruxelles, ISIS påtager sig ansvaret

22. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Byen Bruxelles, der er hjemsted for NATO og Den europæiske Kommission, kom under terrorangreb i dag. Angrebene fandt sted på Bruxelles Maalbeek metrostation, og kort tid efter rev to eksplosioner igennem Zaventem-lufthavnens afgangshal. I skrivende stund er dødstallet kommet op på 34, med 230 sårede, heraf nogle alvorligt. Sprængningerne blev udløst af selvmordsbomber.

ISIS påtog sig efterfølgende ansvaret via sin propaganda-website med følgende udlæg: »Kæmpere fra Islamisk Stat åbnede ild i Zaventem-lufthavnen, før flere af dem detonerede deres bombebælter, ligesom en martyr-bombemand også detonerede sit bombebælte i Maalbeek metrostation. Angrebene resulterede i flere end 230 døde og sårede.«

De belgiske myndigheder forhøjede beredskabet mod terrortrussel, lukkede al offentlig transport i den belgiske hovedstad ned og rådede lokalbefolkningen til at holde sig indendørs efter eksplosionerne. Det belgiske VTM-medie rapporterede også, at ikke-essentielt personale på Tihange atomkraftværket, der ligger 85 km øst for Bruxelles, blev evakueret. VTM sagde også, at der ikke foreligger beviser for, at atomkraftværket skulle være udsat for trusler. Denne forsigtighedsforanstaltning blev indført, angiveligt, fordi de belgiske myndigheder havde fundet materiale, der tilsyneladende viste, at en belgisk topembedsmand inden for atomkraft var blevet overvåget, i lejligheden tilhørende Mohamed Bakkali, som var blevet arresteret for påstået involvering i terrorangrebene i Paris i november sidste år.

Der blev indført forhøjet alarmberedskab i mange byer i hele Europa, og også i USA.

Foto: La Grand-Place, Bruxelles.

 

Supplerende materiale:

Putin kalder terrorangreb i Bruxelles for en »barbarisk forbrydelse«; Zakharova angriber vestlig støtte til terrorister

22. marts 2016 – Idet han udtrykte sin dybtfølte kondolence over for det belgiske folk, har den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin »kraftigt fordømt disse barbariske handlinger« samtidig med, at han forsikrede »det belgiske folk om Ruslands absolutte solidaritet med det belgiske folk i disse svære timer«, sagde talsmand for Kreml, Dmitry Peskov, i dag, iflg. en rapport fra Sputnik. »Præsident Putin har allerede sendt kondolencetelegram til Kong Philippe af Belgien i forbindelse med civile dødsfald i en række bombesprængninger i Bruxelles«, sagde Peskov til reportere.

»I takt med, at flere og flere mister livet, og vi mister kostbar tid, begynder folk at forstå, at denne politik med dobbelte standarder mht. bedømmelsen af terroraktiviteter, er en politisk blindgyde«, sagde talsperson for det russiske Udenrigsministerium Maria Zakharova kort tid efter, at der begyndte at indløbe rapporter om angrebene i Bruxelles, rapporterer BRICS Post. »De kan ikke støtte terrorister i én del af verden uden at forvente, at de også vil dukke op i en anden del.«

Med en anklagende finger rettet mod NATO for at forsømme forsvaret af sin egen baghave, og med et udfald mod NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg, tweetede chefen for Ruslands parlamentskomite for udenrigsanliggender, Alexey Pushkov, at NATO-chefen har tilladt »folk at sprænge sig selv i luften lige under hans næse«, mens »NATO var optaget af at bekæmpe den imaginære, russiske trussel«, rapporterer Newsweek.

 

Se også: Putin: Rusland er forpligtet over for fredsproces i Syrien; fortsat militær årvågenhed over for terrorisme 

 




Nødudsendelse fra LaRouchePAC
23. december 2015:
Til en nation (USA) på randen af en finanskatastrofe.
Dansk udskrift.

Vi er nu ved et punkt, hvor konsekvenserne af at tolerere disse handlinger og denne politik og disse politiske personer udgør USA’s undergang, såvel som også hele det transatlantiske områdes undergang og muligvis også verdens undergang, hvis vi degenererer til omstændigheder med atomkrig. Så dette er et ekstraordinært øjeblik; og det er noget, der kræver handling fra ledende borgere i denne republik. Jeres folkevalgte repræsentanter, og først og fremmest USA’s præsident, har opført sig som britiske forrædere, og ikke som de patriotiske personer, der skal forestille at gøre tjeneste i landets højeste embeder.

Blot få timer før denne udsendelse blev der udsendt en nøderklæring, der blev udlagt på LaRouchePAC’s website, og som cirkuleres via de sociale medier og som et flyveblad på Manhattans gader og andre steder i hele USA. Teksten (findes som selvstændigt Flyveblad her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=10843) lyder som følger (oplæst af Matthew Ogden):

Julebudskab: Den 1. januar 2016 er dommedag! Kun et initiativ som Franklin Roosevelts kan redde os

(23. december 2015): Præsident Barack Obama og hele den Amerikanske Kongres har forrådt jer, det amerikanske folk, ved af fejhed at nægte at tage skridt til de nødvendige nødbetingede initiativer for at forhindre det største finansielle og økonomiske krak – langt værre end dem i 1929 og 2008 – i at ske i de umiddelbart forestående dage og uger. Med mindre I, det amerikanske folk, rejser jer og kræver omgåede handling, vil nationen og en stor del af menneskeheden blive konfronteret med en katastrofe i begyndelsen af det nye år.

Hele det transatlantiske finanssystem står for at nedsmelte. Blot i løbet af de seneste uger er junk investment grade-obligationer til 15 mia. dollar blevet udslettet. Dette er blot et forvarsel om et umiddelbart forestående, totalt sammenbrud af den transatlantiske boble. Fra og med 1. januar 2016 er en gældsboble på 72 mia. dollar indstillet til at eksplodere i Puerto Rico. Kongressen havde muligheden for at tage initiativ til at forhindre dette, før de forlod byen, men tog ingen skridt til handling.

En gæld på skønsmæssigt 5 billion dollar, der er knyttet til USA’s nationale, kollapsende sektor for skiferolie og -gas, er i færd med at nedsmelte. I det vestlige Canada er denne boble allerede bristet og har udløst tabet af 100.000 arbejdspladser i 2015 – svarende til 750.000 arbejdspladser i USA – samt et kollaps i ejendomsmarkedet og et samfundsmæssigt sammenbrud. Denne samme krise er på vej i USA i accelererende tempo, men på en langt større skala.

I Europa træder der nye love i kraft fra den 1. januar 2016, som fjerner enhver beskyttelse af bankindskydere, der vil få deres sparepenge stjålet under »bail-in«-regler (ekspropriering), sådan, som det allerede er sket på Cypern. I Italien fik flere end 10.000 indskydere – bankkunder – deres opsparing eksproprieret under en delvis bail-in under fire bankers kollaps i denne måned. De samme forholdsregler findes inkluderet i Dodd/Frank-loven her i USA. Hvis ens bank kollapser, kan man få sin livsopsparing stjålet for at redde banken. Det kan og vil ske her, takket være fejhed og korruption hos jeres valgte regeringsfolk, der har holdt jer hen i uvidenhed og overtrådt den ed, de har aflagt i deres embede.

Kongressen havde, før den tog på ferie, mulighed for at forhindre denne nu fremstormende krise. De blev advaret. De kunne have vedtaget love, der allerede var blevet fremstillet i begge Kongressens huse, til genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, den af Franklin Roosevelt indførte lov, der opdelte Depressionens for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-banker, ved at adskille kommerciel bankvirksomhed fra alle hasardspilsaktiviteterne. Men Kongressen var købt af Wall Street og svigtede jer. Præsident Obama er totalt ejet af Wall Street og [City of] London, som har skabt ham. Wall Street er håbløst bankerot, og de har til hensigt at klamre sig til magten ved at stjæle jeres penge og fjerne jeres sundhedssystem samt lukke ned, hvad der måtte være tilbage af realøkonomien, den fysiske økonomi. Inden for et tidsrum af blot få dage eller uger kunne I blive konfronteret med fødevaremangel, hyperinflation og et totalt sammenbrud af alt, hvad I ellers anser for at være normale tilstande.

Præsident Obama fremprovokerer også, på vegne af Wall Street og London, en konfrontation med Rusland, der driver verden frem mod global krig, en krig, som nogle amerikanske og russiske militære topkommandører advarer om kunne blive en termonuklear udslettelseskrig.

Den 1. januar 2016 vil Ukraine, med USA’s og IMF’s godkendelse, gå i betalingsstandsning mht. sin gæld på 3 mia. dollar til Rusland, en åbenlyst provokerende handling fra Vestens side mod Moskva, der kommer oveni de allerede eksisterende sanktioner, NATO’s udvidelse mod øst og andre, direkte provokerende militære handlinger.

Alt dette er dødsens alvorligt. Verden befinder sig på spidsen af et krak værre end under den Store Depression, og en ny verdenskrig. I må nu tage skridt til handling, for jeres valgte regeringsfolk, kongresmedlemmer osv., har overgivet jer, på grund af deres egen fejhed og fordærv. De har, sammen med præsident Obama, gjort sig fortjent til jeres foragt og vrede pga. deres feje opførsel.

Der er løsninger forhånden. Wall Street må omgående lukkes. Der skal ikke betales en øre mere for at redde disse forbrydere! Kongressen må fjerne Wall Street-marionetten Barack Obama fra embedet, gennem en rigsretssag eller ved at påkalde det 25. forfatningstillæg, der fastsætter bestemmelser for fjernelsen af en præsident fra embedet, når denne præsident er mentalt uskikket til at fortsætte sit hverv. Glass-Steagall må omgående genindføres og en række initiativer må tages, der alle er modelleret efter det, som den store, amerikanske præsident Franklin Roosevelt gjorde i løbet af de allerførste måneder af sin embedsperiode, for at skabe millioner af produktive jobs, genopbygge nationens kollapsede infrastruktur og genrejse nationens værdighed.

Kongressen kan i løbet af få timer tage skridt til disse handlinger, men de vil kun handle i tide, hvis I vågner op og kræver det.

Alternativet er Helvede på Jord, fra og med det nye år. Er I, jeres venner, jeres naboer, i besiddelse af det moralske beredskab, der skal til for at overleve? Det er det spørgsmål, der er på bordet her, denne Juleaften, 2015.

Matthew Ogden: Lad mig nu introducere Jeff Steinberg fra Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), der i større detaljer vil gennemgå diskussionen med hr. LaRouche her til morgen.

Jeffrey Steinberg: Tak, Matt. Der er et par andre [kan ikke høres; 09:33] for jeg tror, at billedet af det finansielle [kan ikke høres; 09.39] er tydeligt. Mange mennesker derude har allerede fået færten af det; men det vigtigste er, at det er en umiddelbart forestående situation. Det er en situation, der vil eksplodere på ethvert givent tidspunkt, når vi først kommer over den 1. januar; en dato, hvor vi netop har meddelt nogle af de særlige begivenheder, der vil finde sted i de første dage af det nye år. Når alt er medregnet er der en spillegæld på mere en 1,5 billiard dollar, der er akkumuleret siden vi havde krisen i 2008; og det hele er en tidsindstillet bombe. Eksplosionens epicenter er USA og Vesteuropa.

Der er yderligere et par elementer, der må med i billedet, for at I, det amerikanske folk, kan få en komplet vurdering af, hvor kritisk det øjeblik er, som vi er nået til. For det første må man stille det spørgsmål, om Islamisk Stats angreb i Paris den 13. november, og senere i San Bernardino, Californien, repræsenterer en Rigsdagsbrand-begivenhed i det tidlige 21. århundrede. Vi ved, at disse jihadistiske netværk er blevet skabt og promoveret af førende nationer i denne vestlige kombination; startende med briterne og med Saudi Arabien. Der er fraktioner her i USA, der har været udtrykkeligt indblandet – al-Qaeda, Nusra Front, Islamisk Stat – alle på vegne af et engagement for, blandt andet, at vælte Assad-regeringen i Syrien. Så det, vi i realiteten ser på, er en kapacitet, der er blevet udløst i Europa og USA under visse vestlige kredses kontrol; og hvis hensigt det er at skabe de omstændigheder, under hvilke den form for politistat kan etableres, som vil være nødvendig for at takle det sociale kaos og for at gøre fremstød for en global konfrontation, der er umiddelbart forestående.

For det andet, så afslørede de andre begivenheder omkring COP21-konferencen om global opvarmning, at Pavestolen, selve Paven, var blevet kapret af en person, som kun kan beskrives som en satanisk person – John Schellnhüber; en ridder af Det britiske Imperium, hvis politik, der nu er blevet vedtaget af Paven, ønsker at se det store flertal af menneskeheden elimineret gennem en række [kan ikke høres: 12:37] i kombination med faren for krig og i kombination med de økonomiske katastrofer, som allerede er i gang med indgangen til denne nedsmeltnings-periode, lige efter den 1. januar.

Pointen er, at man har løjet for jer, det amerikanske folk; jeres folkevalgte regeringsfolk har svigtet jer ynkeligt. Og nettoresultatet er, at der, ét minut i midnat, ikke foreligger nogen forpligtelse over for jer til at tage skridt til den form for afgørende handlinger, der nu kræves som en bydende nødvendighed. Kongressen kan vende tilbage til Washington [fra juleferie, -red.], men vil kun gøre det, hvis I skræmmer livet af dem; hvis I rejser jer i denne juleferie og kræver, at de tager skridt til at foretage den form for nødhandlinger, som er det eneste handlingsforløb i dette øjeblik, der kan afværge denne absolut katastrofale situation, der potentielt blot ligger timer eller dage ud i fremtiden. Kongressen kan vende tilbage til Washington og nægte at betale Wall Streets gæld. Der er intet at være bange for på Wall Street, for de er håbløst og uafvendeligt bankerot. Det er frygten for det ukendte, der får medlemmer af Kongressen til at kapitulere og tillade Obamas præsidentskab, som er en hån mod nationen, at fortsætte; og til at tillade Wall Street fortsat at diktere betingelserne i Washington.

Vi er nu ved et punkt, hvor konsekvenserne af at tolerere disse handlinger og denne politik og disse politiske personer udgør USA’s undergang, såvel som også hele det transatlantiske områdes undergang og muligvis også verdens undergang, hvis vi degenererer til omstændigheder med atomkrig. Så dette er et ekstraordinært øjeblik; og det er noget, der kræver handling fra ledende borgere i denne republik. Jeres folkevalgte repræsentanter, og først og fremmest USA’s præsident, har opført sig som britiske forrædere, og ikke som de patriotiske personer, der skal forestille at gøre tjeneste i landets højeste embeder.

Det påhviler således os at tage skridt til de handlinger, der i dette øjeblik kan synes at være højst upraktiske; men som i virkeligheden er de eneste praktiske forholdsregler, hvis vi ønsker at overleve og få fremgang i dette nye år, vi har for os. Løsninger ligger parat; erklær Wall Street bankerot – det er allerede gået nedenom og hjem. Lancer den form for lovgivningsmæssige initiativer; vi så, hvor effektivt det var fra Franklin Roosevelt-præsidentskabets allerførste øjeblikke. Politikken dengang tilbyder os retningslinjer for handlinger, der bør udføres i dag! Af sig selv vil Kongressen ikke gøre det; det har de vist ved at flygte ud af Washington i sidste uge. Jeg vil blot afslutte med at sige, at den dag, Washington (regeringen, Kongressen) forlod byen, var jeg i D.C. på Capitol Hill; jeg talte personligt med mindst 40 individuelle medlemmer af Kongressen. I hvert eneste tilfælde var de fuldt ud klar over nedsmeltningen af junk-obligationerne; af de andre økonomiske katastrofer; af den umiddelbart forestående nedsmeltning af sektren for skiferolie og -gas; og dog tog de benene på nakken. De ignorerede og undveg det ansvar, der påhvilede dem. Det påhviler derfor nu os, og jer, at konfrontere virkeligheden direkte; og tage skridt til den form for nødhandlinger, der kan redde dagen, selv på dette fremskredne tidspunkt.

Matthew Ogden: Mange tak, Jeff. Hvis man tager fortilfældet fra 1933 og ser på den kendsgerning, at med det, som var det hidtil største finanskrak i den transatlantiske verdens historie, og fascisme fejede hen over Europa. Og i det vakuum, der ville have eksisteret, hvis ikke Franklin Roosevelt havde været præsident og havde gennemført de nødforanstaltninger på dette tidspunkt for at lukke Wall Street og mobilisere det amerikanske folks produktive evne, kunne fascisme meget vel også være kommet til Amerika. Så med studiet af dette fortilfælde bør vi tage meget alvorligt det, som hr. LaRouche har gjort i løbet af det seneste års tid for at mobilisere det, der udgør en lederskabskerne det sted, han kalder et gearingspunkt eller et omdrejningspunkt for den mobilisering, der er nødvendig for at ændre politikken, og det sted er på Manhattan i New York City.

De af jer, der havde lejlighed til at lytte til LaRouche Policy Committee sidste mandag, vil vide, at hr. LaRouche lagde meget stor vægt på en række musikalske opførelser, der fandt sted i New York City i sidste weekend. Det var to opførelser af Händels Messias, der blev sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet og medsponsoreret af Fonden til Genoplivelse af Klassisk Kultur. Dette vi Diane [Sare] sige mere om. Dette var programmet. Den første opførelse blev afholdt om lørdagen i Sacred Heart Kirken i Brooklyn; og den anden blev afholdt om søndagen i Manhattans Upper West Side i All Souls Unitarian Kirken. Jeg vil derfor gerne introducere Diane Sare, som vil sige noget mere om betydningen af disse begivenheder, og hvad implikationerne af det, der i øjeblikket sker på Manhattan, er for fremtiden.

Diane Sare: Hej. Jeg kan sige, at disse to musikbegivenheder var fuldstændigt ekstraordinære med hensyn til kvalitet og effekt. Denne effekt er, at hr. Larouche for lidt over et år siden, i oktober 2014, besluttede at genoplive vores organisation i New York City. Dette er meget vigtigt i USA’s historie, for det var med New York City som udgangspunkt, at Alexander Hamilton førte en afgørende kamp for at forene De forende Stater imod forkæmpere, som Thomas Jefferson og andre, for delstaternes rettigheder; sidstnævnte, som i dag er blevet nedarvet i form af Wall Street og Det britiske Imperium. Der er derfor en afgørende rolle, der skal besættes; og dette kan man se i befolkningen i New York City – Jeg kom til at tænke på det, som Jeff netop henviste til, med ISIS osv. – og man har disse 11. september-terrorangreb. Det var meningen, at det amerikanske folk skulle jages ind i regimeskift og krig med Irak, Libyen, krig overalt; og befolkningen i New York City afholdt en af de største demonstrationer i landet imod en invasion af Irak, i 2003, under Bushregeringen.

Vi befinder os nu i et lignende, farefuldt øjeblik, hvor befolkningen over hele landet er tilbøjelig til at være dybt pessimistisk. Vi har haft 15 år med Bush og Obama; levestandarden er kollapset; en halv million midaldrende amerikanere er døde, unødvendigt. Man får meget ofte en pessimistisk respons; jeg er sikker på, at alle her har oplevet at tale med deres nabo, deres venner. »Vi må smide Obama ud af embedet; vi må få Glass-Steagall; vi må organisere et transkontinentalt jernbanenet i USA; fusion.« Folk siger, »Åh, det kommer aldrig til at ske. Åh, det kan man ikke gennemføre; åh, de er alt for korrupte.« Jeg ville sige, at dette meget ligner den kamp, som George Washington i 1776 stod overfor, han, der havde tabt samtlige slag fra Uafhængighedserklæringen og frem til jul. Og den daværende befolkning i USA var ikke i overvældende grad for at bryde fri af Det britiske Imperium; de fandt, at det ikke var umagen værd. New Jersey, som var det sidste sted, hvorfra han havde trukket sig tilbage for at krydse Delaware-floden, var fuldstændig under de hessenske lejesoldaters og Toriernes kontrol; hans beslutning om at krydse Delaware-floden Juledags nat (den 25.-26. december 1776, -red.) var derfor ikke alene anti-pragmatisk, men gik også imod den daværende offentlige mening. Men han vidste, at dette måtte gøres; og det lykkedes ham at fremkalde en bestemt, inspireret respons fra de lasede, forfrosne, forarmede soldater, som han anførte.

Manhattans befolkning er måske ikke så faldefærdig som George Washingtons hær dengang var; men vi har alle været underkastet en utrolig kulturel og moralsk fordærvelse, der, som hr. LaRouche har omtalt, kan ses i ungdommen osv. Så, måden, vi arrangerede disse koncerter – den i Brooklyn fandt sted i en historisk, gammel kirke, der var tæt knyttet til kredsen omkring Moder Cabrini, hvis folk er bekendt med hende; hun organiserede de italienske immigranters ankomst til USA; hun etablerede børnehaver, skoler og hospitaler og alt sådan noget. Koncerten på Manhattan fandt sted i All Souls Unitarian Kirken, der har en bestemt arv med støtte til Unionshæren, hospitaler og genopbygning; og senere, med borgerrettighedsbevægelsen. Vi gik ind i lokalsamfundet og organiserede for en opførelse af Händels Messias i den rette, videnskabelige Verdi-tone; den blev holdt sammen af et kor, der bestod af folk fra New York City og vore Schiller Institut-aktivister fra New York, New Jersey, Virginia. Matt, du spillede basun i orkesteret; men det var en del af, at befolkningen kom sammen. Mange af folkene blandt publikum var folk, der havde været rundt om koret og besluttet, at det måske ikke var noget for dem, men at de ønskede at engagere sig i dette. Så vi havde over 1.000 mennesker, der kom til koncerterne. Og responsen – for det første skabte den sænkede tone (Verdis oprindelige tonehøjde) og det arbejde, som John Sigerson har udført mht. spørgsmålet om placering, en meget tydelig forskel. Og publikums kommentarer – vi bad folk om at give os deres kontaktinformation, fortælle os, hvordan de fandt ud af, at denne begivenhed fandt sted, og tilføje deres eventuelle kommentarer. Folk sagde ting, som »Vi hørte koret på en måde, vi aldrig før har hørt; lydens egenskaber var meget varmere, end vi havde forventet. Det var professionelt.« John [Sigerson] påpegede, at vi på en måde står over det professionelle niveau, fordi vi ikke er interesseret – det er sådan lidt en antiseptisk idé – men dette er menneskelig indgriben, der samler befolkningen. Meget lig dengang Händel skrev og opførte Messias; den første opførelse fandt sted i Dublin, Irland. Og det skete for at adressere spørgsmålet om fattigdom og for at rejse penge til et børnehjem for forældreløse og lette gældsætning.

Amerikaneren Alexander Hamilton var en del af kredsen omkring Jonathan Swift og andre; og Benjamin Franklin skulle angiveligt have deltaget i en opførelse af Messias, der blev dirigeret af Händel selv. Så selve dette musikstykke, dets idé, forbindelsen mellem mennesket som Skaber, mellem menneskeslægten og universets skabelse; og en fejring af dette, er, hvad vi har presserende behov for, for at samle befolkningen. Og [vi har behov for] at skabe en kvalitet af lederskab, der på en moralsk måde kan respondere til denne krise; i modsætning til den afskyelige opførsel hos denne stinkende flok feje personer uden mod i Kongressen, der, som Jeff netop har beskrevet, vel vidende, at kollapset stormede frem, ville storme hjem for at holde juleferie snarere end at blive og tage initiativ til de nødvendige handlinger for at beskytte den amerikanske befolkning.

Så en proces en nu blevet sat i gang, som må optrappes i tempo; vi kan ikke give den lov til at udvikle sig i det nuværende tempo, som er fint, bortset fra, at hele systemet er klar til at bryde sammen den 1. eller 2. januar. Så spørgsmålet handler om at tage denne styrke og dette princip og bruge det til at samle vore styrker i hele USA, og i hele verden, for at adressere den situation, som menneskeheden i dag står overfor.

Matthew Ogden: Mange tak. Videoen og lydbåndet fra den ene eller begge disse koncerter, der fandt sted i New York i sidste weekend, skulle være tilgængelige meget snart; og vi vil opfordre alle til, at dette må være en del af det, de foretager sig i løbet af de allernærmeste dage. En lille rettelse: Det faktum, at Benjamin Franklin skulle have været til stede under en opførelse af Messias dirigeret af Händel selv, er tilsyneladende ikke helt bekræftet; vi ved imidlertid, at han faktisk var til stede under en opførelse af Messias. Jeg mener, at Händels revolutionerende opråb til handling, »Lad os sønderbryde båndene, og kaste deres åg af os« (eng.: »Let us break the bonds asunder, and cast their yokes from upon us«), er noget, der blev aktuelt under Benjamin Franklins og George Washingtons Amerikanske Revolution. Så det er et meget passende kampråb for i dag.

Jeg vil gerne appellere til alle om at tage teksten til det flyveblad, som jeg oplæste i begyndelsen af denne udsendelse, »Nytårsbudskab: 1. januar 2016 er dommedag! Kun et initiativ som Franklin Roosevelts kan redde os« og uddele det så vidt omkring, som I kan i de kommende dage. Dette bør være samtaleemnet ved familiemiddage og andre begivenheder, der finder sted i løbet af de næste 24-48 timer. Og være en del af diskussionen, der finder sted i de næste minutter. Lige efter denne udsendelse kommer der kl. 9pm Eastern Time en live nødudsendelse af ’Fireside Chat’ med hr. LaRouche, som diskuterer med det amerikanske folk. Dette finder normalt sted torsdage, men man kan deltage, hvis man har adgangsnummeret.

Jeg mener, at vi meget klart har fremlagt billedet. Den 1. januar er i realiteten en deadline; der er betalingsstandsningen på det puertoricanske lån, der er Ukraines betalingsstandsning på deres russiske lån på 3 mia. dollar, der er blevet promoveret af IMF og USA som en direkte provokation. Og der er en deadline den 1. januar, hvor de nye bail-in-love træder i kraft i Europa; bail-in-love, der allerede har dræbt mennesker i Italien og har eksproprieret 10.000 italienske indskyderes penge i dette område. Der er sammenbruddet i sektoren for skiferolie og junk-obligationsboblerne. Der er allerede tab for hundredetusinder i Canada; dette kommer til USA. Alt dette bryder sammen nu; og de nødvendige forholdsregler og løsninger er forhånden. En omgående lukning af Wall Street, en omgående reorganisering af hele dette bankerotte finanssystem gennem Glass-Steagall; en omgående mobilisering af hele den amerikanske arbejdsstyrke, meget ligesom Franklin Roosevelt gjorde det; fjernelsen af denne krigsmager Barack Obama fra embedet, og at håndtere den kendsgerning, at hele det transatlantiske område bliver domineret af et britisk monarki, der er besat af den folkemorderiske idé, at vi må reducere verdens befolkning og kaste mennesker tilbage til en dyrisk tilstand.

Så dette er virkeligheden ved slutningen af 2015 og i de første timer af 2016. Og det påhviler jer at tage det, der er blevet fremlagt her i aften og handle på det omgående; alle redskaberne er tilgængelige for jer. Vi beder jer indtrængende om at gå direkte fra dette webcast for at deltage i live-diskussion med hr. LaRouche under ’Fireside Chat’-udsendelsen, der starter om få minutter.

Jeg vil gerne takke alle for at være med os her i aften; og jeg vil gerne takke både Jeffrey Steinberg og Diane Sare for at være vore gæster ved denne udsendelse. Bliv på kanalen og lyt til larouchepac.com i den kommende tid.

 

 




Ekstraordinær hastekonference ‘Fireside Chat’, 23. december 2015 –
Lyndon Larouche diskuterer med aktivister i hele USA

God aften. Vi har i aften en ekstraordinær konference over telefon, som vi har indkaldt til, konfronteret med den kendsgerning, at vi står på randen af et finanskollaps, den 1. eller 2. januar.

Spørgsmål 1: Hej, jeg er J. fra Columbia, Maryland. Mit spørgsmål lyder: Med alt, hvad der er sket, med krigen mod terror og de nylige angreb i Paris og nedskydningen af det russiske kampfly, hvordan er finanssammenbruddet forbundet med alt dette? Og hvad gør vi ved immigrationen af mennesker fra Syrien?

LaRouche: Det sidste spørgsmål ville jeg ikke bekymre mig om. Det er ikke et virkelig alvorligt problem. Det har eftervirkninger, men de er ikke alvorlige, og bør ikke tage vores opmærksomhed.

Det, vi må gøre, er, at vi må erkende, selvfølgelig, det transatlantiske samfund, og dets rolle med hensyn til os. Vi må grundlæggende set koncentrere os om USA som sådan, og USA er vores eget problem. For vi har kræfter i USA, der er enten feje, især blandt medlemmerne af Kongressen, der har vist deres fejhed, deres rådne fejhed i dette spørgsmål, eller de forsøger at etablere noget, der vil ødelægger retten til livet, for USA’s borgere. Hvis denne handling bliver tilladt, så vil der blive en masse døde mennesker i USA, og USA vil ikke have nogen fremtid.

Vi må derfor indtage dette standpunkt. Der er visse principper, der må indføres. Hvis vi ikke indfører disse principper i praksis, så er I udslettet; I betyder ikke længere noget.

Så pointen er, at I kæmper for jeres egen identitet, og det er jeres forpligtelse at forsøge at understøtte jeres egen identitet, gennem intelligent respons til de problemer, der umiddelbart konfronterer os, lige nu.

Engelsk udskrift.

Tune in this week for a very important live Q&A discussion with Lyndon LaRouche. Mr. LaRouche has forecast the nation is on the verge of a financial collapse come January 1 or 2. Note: This week’s call will be on Wednesday the 23rd, not Thursday.

Transcript

JOHN ASCHER:  Good evening everyone, this is John Ascher here in Virginia, and we are here for an extraordinary conference call this evening, called by LaRouche PAC, in the face of the looming financial collapse of the trans-Atlantic system.  I’d like to welcome everyone back this evening for our discussion with Lyndon LaRouche, who I hope I have on the line.

LYNDON LAROUCHE:  You do. Can you hear me?

ASCHER:  I can hear you loud and clear, Lyn.  I think many people who were on the call just watched the webcast which concluded , just a half-hour ago. Would you like me to read a little part of the emergency message that you authorized written by Jeff Steinberg, that was put up on our website?  (“Make Sure That There Is a New Year:  Dump Obama and Wall Street!”)

LAROUCHE:  I think we have it already from Jeff, which was already broadcast.  So, let’s get into this thing and if it becomes meritorious to bring more consideration on that, then you and I can do that.

ASCHER:  OK, excellent.  So, I’m turning on the Q&A queue.

Q1:  Hi, my name is A—J— from Columbia, Maryland, and I have a question:  With everything that’s been going on with the war on terror, and the recent attacks in Paris and the downing of the Russian jet, how does the financial collapse tie into all of this?  And what should we do about the immigration of people coming from Syria?

LAROUCHE:  I wouldn’t worry about that, the latter problem. That is not really a serious one.  It has effects, but it’s not one that’s a serious one and one that should occupy our attention.

What we have to do, is we have to recognize, of course, the trans-Atlantic community, and its role in dealing with us.  We have to concentrate essentially on the United States as such, and the United States is our one worry.  Because we’ve got forces in the United States who are either cowardly, especially among the members of Congress who have shown their cowardice, their stinking cowardice in this matter, or trying to set something up, which will destroy the rights of life, of the citizens of the United States.  If that action is permitted, then the United States will have a lot of dead people inside it, and there will be no future of the United States.

So therefore we have to take that view. There are certain principles which must be applied.  If we don’t apply those principles in practice, then you are wiped out; you don’t mean anything any more.

So the point is, you’re fighting for your own identity, and your obligation is to try to support your own identity, by intelligent responses, to the problems which are facing us immediately, right now.

Q2: [internet]  Lyn, I have a question from M— from Dearborn, Michigan.  He says, “Lyn, since the battle lines are being more and more openly, publicly declared with Russia, China, India, Iran on one side, and the British and Obama, and the other allies of the British Empire on the other, do you think that what some might think is a miracle, can occur soon: that is the total elimination and end of the British Empire? Do you see that could happen soon?”

LAROUCHE:  One question has to be asked:  Are the people prepared to take their own authority and use it?  The suckers will not win.

The problem we have, I think there are a lot of members of the Congress who would like, would prefer, to do what I’ve been indicating has to be done.  But there’s some forces, including Obama most particularly, and some of the other people there.

Hillary Clinton, for example, is one of the problems.  She’s one of the big sources of destruction, and I hope she’s soon thrown out of the candidacy for the Presidency.  I don’t think we want her around any more; she is actually an agent of Obama, she’s a supporter of his.  I don’t think she was originally, but he terrified her, she became a victim of his influence and since that time she has tended to be increasingly, more and more dishonest.  And actually a bit evil.

So I think we want to get her out.  We want to get Trump out of the picture, things like that.   And we want to also take the members of Congress who are gutless wonders, and get some of the people who shouldn’t be gutless wonders among the members of Congress and say, “No!  We were wrong!  We accepted you, we accepted your proposal on this campaign, and you committed a fraud.  And we’re wrong, because we didn’t turn that down.”  And what we require now, is that honest members of the United States organization, must say, “We were wrong.  Our leaders were wrong. They were a bunch of cowards and they were selling us down the river.  They were selling the United States down the river.” And that has to be stated.

Q3:  Hi John, hi Lyn:  What’s the possibility of you know, taking our rights into our own hands?  There’s a lot of like-minded individuals where I live in California that  — well, they don’t like the way that this government is, well, you know….?

LAROUCHE:   We had a meeting in California which I attended, for a number of leading representatives, historically leading members of the California popular leadership.  And that works. We have a core in California, around certain circles, who have all the credentials you need, to speak up and say, we should be in charge, of shaping the policy of California.

After all you’ve got a governor there who’s no damned good! He’s stupid, and he’s corrupt, and he’s a Satanic figure.  That is, he belongs to a cult of a Satanic belief, together with a certain member of the Pope, an agent of the Pope, who’s also a Satanic creature.  And so these are problems we have to deal with.

But the point is, we do have a crisis.  And I would say that those of us who are actually leading some of these things, particularly the two things that happened on Saturday and Sunday, were among the most successful presentation of musical performance that we’ve had in a very long time.  And what this involved, is from people of Italian background and so forth, who are highly professional; and creating an institution which builds up a base for the kind of popular organization, organization of the United States.  And we have it.

And our job is to defend that fight.  We have our rights, this is our right:  We have the right to pull the members of the Congress, who turn cowardly or stupid.  And we have a right to kick their little asses — you know, in a certain manner of speaking.  And I think that little privilege has to be applied more vigorously, right now.

Q4: Good evening Lyn and John, this is J— calling from Michigan.  In talking with people, besides the cynicism, everybody does agree, that we are in a collapse phase now, especially like in southeast Michigan.  Everybody’s tied to the Detroit water system and water bills are skyrocketing and people are getting shut off like crazy.  The policy forces are being reduced drastically.

And my point is, when the credit system is introduced, do you agree that there should also be price controls on utilities, as well as food stocks, food pricing?

LAROUCHE:  I wouldn’t approach it exactly that way.  The effect that you’re talking about might have validity.  But I think the way to approach this is quite different.  What you have to do, is you have to get the citizens of the United States, who is by and large a coward; they’ve given in on everything. They’re afraid, they’re afraid, they’re afraid.  Everything’s been taken away from there: their careers have been taken away; their children are worthless.

For example, in California, but not only in California, the young human beings, in California, are by and large, are not really human.  That is, they don’t have any of the patriotic characteristics; and therefore we have a real problem.  We have to mobilize a force, because most of the young people in our generation now, are not fit to make judgment.  And they’re brainwashed, really, literally brainwashed.

And you have people who are members of Congress, who are not really brainwashed as such, but they lack the guts to stand up and denounce what they know is wrong.   And that’s what the last session of Congress did, is exactly that.

So you have to say, the leadership of the Congress is a bunch of cheating cowards.  But the people who know better say, “well, we can’t fight it, we can’t fight it.  We don’t have the power to fight it.”  And that’s where the problem comes.  And what is needed, is to get people to understand, that they have a responsibility, with an element of risk which is involved in that, and they have to take a position against those members of the Congress who have sold their asses down the street.

ASCHER:  I know we’re going to get some reports also Lyn on our activities from New York this past weekend;  and later on, I’m going to announce some the activities coming up here over Christmastime for the Manhattan Project.

Q5:  Hi this is Alvin, here in New York.  Hi Lyn, and everyone listening.  Well, we had a pretty big weekend that actually, as I’ve been reflecting upon it, really began about two weeks before, with a relatively small number of people; but for myself, the quality of the organizing was much different, much improved from that of a year ago, and it was something that I’ve felt existed within the population on the need for Handel’s Messiah.  But also emanating from those of us that were out there doing this work to help build this audience.

And so, the process of engaging in the chorus has been helping me and helping us all along, to produce that type of result.  And then the effect that it had.  People are knowing and will be reading more about the reports and the responses and the effect of what was demonstrated, in a very powerful way in the two concerts that we presented to the public.  And that’s a very, very encouraging thing for us all.

What I wanted to reference is the personal effect that I’m sure others share is, in going through this process and finishing with this weekend, as imperfect as many things were going through it, we did it.  And now that we’re confronted with the immediate crisis of how to act, I can’t express how much clearer I find myself able to both think and act, and not be confused or allow myself to be confused, where this was not the case before.

So the breakthrough was for the Manhattan Project, but I think each one of us, and I would even imagine those that have been doing this for a while, that or members for a long time,  — I won’t speak for them, but I think the effects of this are far-reaching; certainly for those of us that were for the first time onstage and really working at this process.

So, on the one hand, I would say “Oh, the timing of this crisis is terrible!”  My thinking now is that, the crisis is here and I feel ready for it, which means now, I have to organize a number of people, and activate them, so that when we go into our Congressmen’s office, we are of one force that can hopefully move these wretched folks into the action we need.

LAROUCHE:  Well, to bring to bear the issues, the real issues, in this process, you have to go back to a certain point, where there was a debate between Obama and Putin; and, Obama lost, clearly.

Now, from that point on, you’ve had an increasing receptivity on this matter.  But what’s happened is, Putin has been gaining weight, against the British and against other forces, and against other forces in Europe.  Obama was defeated, but in terms of the population, it was a symbol of that debate: Obama was defeated and discredited fully.   So he’s been operating on a lame issue ever since that time.

He’s operating on the basis of rage.  Now, Obama of course is a killer.  Obama kills people every Tuesday; he kills citizens of the United States every Tuesday. That’s his favorite sport. And people are afraid, they’re afraid to take him on.  But Putin is not afraid to take him on.

Now the fact, however, that Putin did intervene, in that show, and did defeat Obama, Obama has been weak in conviction ever since.   He had rage, he has all kinds of things, but he’s a loser.  Now, Obama is not a human being; he has a jockstrap he has in a certain area that I don’t know if he ever washes it; it’s in this little niche inside the White House.  But I think, whether he stinks or not, I think that his attitude about life stinks.  And that’s enough to take care of it.

But the point is now, what’s happened, is because of the defeat of Obama, by Putin, in that session, you’ve had a rising tendency, to revolve against Obama.  And that’s what’s happened. Now, we’ve encouraged it, and that’s what we should do.  But the problem is, the members of Congress have a problem with Obama.

But what’s the problem with Obama?  Obama kills people every Tuesday!  Obama kills innocent citizens of the United States and kills them every Tuesday.  So therefore, you have members of Congress and so forth, who by themselves, if they weren’t terrified, would not tolerate Obama; but they’re afraid that Obama, with his Tuesday kills will kill them!  Members of major press organizations in Manhattan or in the capital of this, yet some people are scared!  Just plain scared!  That they’re not going to cross Obama, because they think Obama will kill them, and they’re probably right.  Obama will kill them, sooner or later.

So, we’ve come to a point now, where we have actually had progress, in trying to deal with this thing, since that United Nations matter.   We’re succeeding.

Now, naturally, we have locations which are very significant.  Manhattan is the most important area, politically, for us in the United States.  We have some people in California, a respectively small group, and they demonstrated their commitment.  We have other people who have a commitment; mostly they’re in the minority.  But! underneath that, they wish they had the guts, to speak out.   And so, everything is on that basis.

Now, what we did, in the Saturday and Sunday events, in Manhattan and around there, what we did, is we got 1,000 people in two successive performances, on Saturday and Sunday, and this changed the course of history, in terms of that operation.  And this is going to reverberate.  The problem is, is you’ve still got  people who are terrified.  And just plain terrified.  And when the Congress comes in, and certain hound dogs in the Congress come in, and say “we’re going to bail everything out,” hmm?  And then the bail-out comes.

Now, what we’re at, now, that no citizen of the United States, legally, on the basis of the most recent seating in the Congress, would defend the United States.  None of these people in the majority, would defend the existence of the United States. They would kiss the rear end of Obama.  Even though he’s despised, and he’s in a wretched condition, and therefore, what happens, the British forces, which are generally the British Empire;  remember, the whole thing is the British Empire.  It goes all the way back to the British Empire, and the fighting, by the United States against the British Empire.

So the British Empire is still, directly or indirectly, the controlling force over the United States, except for where the citizens got their guts working up; and lately, they still don’t have much in the way of guts.  That’s the problem.

Now, what we’ve done, is, we’ve presented the evidence, that the Congress has to stop selling out.  They cannot go through this season, this year, this New Year, we cannot let that happen!We must throw this thing out of this thing, right now — before the New Year!   And this is what the issue is.

In other words, if we don’t do that, you’re going to a general war, a global general war, and the general war will come fast.  Quick and fast!  The mass killing of people, which has been going on in Canada, for example, and going on in other areas, it’s going on.

So we’re at a point, where we have to do things which are not in any way on most people’s agenda.  On the other hand, we have people who do have a conscience, but their conscience does not allow them to speak on the subject.  Our job is to give them the power to speak their conscience.  And that’s where we are.

So I think the idea of the practical exposition, on what the problems are, anybody who wants to be practical in interpreting what the problems are, is making a big mistake.  Our job is to stimulate the citizens, who are citizens, who wish to be citizens, who don’t like this, to get up on their hind legs, and kick the asses where they belong to be kicked.

And our job is to find  the people who will, — you know, this thing about the 1000 people in two successive events, service events, on Saturday and Sunday following, this has changed everything, potentially.  And our concern has to be now, to make sure that that potential victory, becomes an actualized victory.

Q6:  Hello Lyn, this is R—A—, I live in Mansfield, Massachusetts; I grew up in New Hampshire and I was born in New York, so I have a lot of touch points with a lot of folks.

Anyway, clearly there’s a lot of things that need to be improved in the country.  Since the advent of 1871, when the United States became a corporation, that was run by essentially the bank, and then in 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was passed along with the Internal Revenue Service, which was nothing more than a collection agency for the Federal Reserve, you know, America has been at constant war.   Constant war in a central bankster cabal, they go together like Popeye and Olive Oil.

Now, if Americans want to be a constant war, it leaves the system in place.  But if they want peace, prosperity, tranquillity, they need to nationalize the bank, and have the government issue the currency, and the government issue the low-interest rate loans to stimulate the economy.

In addition, the United States has to raise tariffs and eliminate NAFTA in order to protect American industry, which during the ’80s and ’90s got outsourced to China and the Pacific Rim, and what I’m talking about is the steel, auto, computer, electronic, industries, which were primarily the circulatory system of the great American economy.

ASCHER:  Excuse me, is this getting to a question here?

Q7:  Well, here’s the question, the thing is, if you can centralize bank and have it a National Bank, you can save $1.2 trillion in interest a year, essentially, $19 trillion in debt times 6%.  That money of $1.2 trillion a year can then be cuddled into the re-industrialization of America.

ASCHER:  OK, so Lyn would you like to respond?

LAROUCHE:  Yes!  I would say it sounds loud and convincing, I suppose, to some people, but it’s not convincing to me. Because, yes, you’re just talking around certain things; but my reading of these things is different from yours.  I mean, for example, this idea, this pragmatic approach to the interpretation of the function of economy in the United States, and under popular opinion, is wrong.  It’s just plain wrong.   Because most people don’t have any understanding of what makes mankind work. That is, what the intention of mankind’s mind is.  And therefore, they come up with the solutions which he just did.  And it has the real taint of something is intended to be convincing, but from my standpoint, scientifically, it’s bunk, frankly.

Because, mankind is not an animal.  And that’s what the assumption is.  His argument is implicitly states that mankind is essentially an animal.  Now, mankind is not essentially an animal.   But unfortunately, people who are made ignorant, behave like animals, mentally and otherwise.  And the fact that they are induced to adopt that kind of view of life, puts them in the wrong direction.

What he’s laid out there will not work!  It flat [will not work!  The problem is, that we’ve stooped — Bertrand Russell is probably the key to this whole problem.  Bertrand Russell destroyed the mind of the people of the United States.  He did that through his whole career, until he died.  And when he was dying, he was still rotting.  Same thing.

And what you have to do, you have to look at what mankind is, and it’s the creative powers of mankind, the ability of a senior person to understand more  than all of the practical people, and that’s the key to the thing.  Look, we’ve got a case in California:  the young people in California are, by and large are degenerated.  Why are they degenerated?  They were degenerated, by for example the California school system!  They did it.

Same thing in Texas; you got Texas all over the place; it’s got real corruption.  All Southern states are, in the main, degenerate.  Now that doesn’t mean every citizen of these states is degenerate, but it means that those who are not degenerate, are having to defend themselves against those who are voluntarily degenerate.  And therefore, if we’re going to solve  the problem, we have to lay the case on, on what is the intelligent viewpoint as against the so-called practical viewpoint.  Practical people are stupid people!  They may not know it, but if you look at the children today, the young people throughout the United States: They’re stupid!  And worse.  They don’t have minds of their own. And therefore, what our problem is, we have to pull together, a group of people, who will provide leadership to people who are prepared to think!  Not to imitate somebody’s babbling.

And we have to pay close attention, to what are the actual, physical principles, or the effect of the principles, as laid out by people like Nicholas of Cusa, and the people like that.  And they’ve laid these things out, and they were intelligent.  The alternate views were not intelligent!  And that’s what the problem is.

The popular opinion in its more popular form, popular opinion is the degeneration of the mind of the human being.   And we’ve got to cure that, we’ve got to get rid of that stuff, otherwise we’ll not survive.   Mankind will not survive under these conditions.

What we’re on the verge of, we’re on a general, which his orchestrated by the whole British Empire system, which has always been the enemy here, and people are trying to kowtow, to gratify people who are thinking like British agents or British mentalities.  And what we have to do, is we have to go deeply, more profoundly, and not be superficial in terms of discussing these kinds of matters.

We’ve got to get to the root of the thing, and Einstein of course is the typical person, who was actually a genius, and most of the other leading scientists were not geniuses; some of them were competent, but they were not geniuses.  And so, this kind of characteristic, you have to be more precise on this thing.  You may have good intentions, but you’ve got to get good results, too.

Q8:  Hi, this is S— from Manhattan.  And I was so happy to be part of the concert Saturday and Sunday.  It was so uplifting, that it gave a new purpose to my life, a new direction.  I’m 72 and I can still sort of sing!

My question is financial:  I’m afraid of the bail-ins.  I can’t take a certain amount of money and carry it home, but I can convert to silver coin or gold coin, and that’s all I have to live on.  I sold the family home, which broke my heart, but  — how fast do I have, to make a move, to convert the little bit of money that I did get from the sale of my home, into a form that will retain its value even if the whole system falls down? That I’ll be able to buy my food and pay my rent and all the activities of daily living.

I have a list of names to call, you know, to kick the behinds of Congress and the Senate.  But you know, they hang up the phone and they forget about you.

I’m worried about the little bit of money I have on which to survive.  And what would you do?  What would you do, sir?  How do you protect the money?  Now if I open a safety deposit box, can they still steal that money in a safety deposit box? What would you do?

LAROUCHE:  OK, fine.  You’ve got two areas.  First of all, you’ve got the economic system that runs the United States right now.  Now that’s a problem that you’ve to deal with.  It’s not easy to deal with, but it has to be done.  Now, that’s the only way you’re going to get justice.  And what you’re talking about is what I would understand as justice.  And you’re talking about being deprived or in anxiety with respect to the prospects of justice.

Now, what we’ve had, with these things that happened on Saturday and Sunday, which were musical assemblies which added up to attended of 1,000 people, both in  Manhattan and earlier in Brooklyn.   So, this gives you an idea of exactly what is possible.  Now the fact that this thing happened, it means that this has not happened in the United States for a long time.  It has not happened.  But suddenly we have, we’ve organized assemblies of musicians and audiences in the order of magnitude of 1,000 persons total.  Now that is something new.  That is something which has not happened beforehand.

So therefore, if we change that tune, shall we say, if we do that, then you have the people who feel that they’re cast aside, from the prospect of survival, they have a reason to be confident, because their interest and what they understand, will inspire other people in the population to spread this kind of approach, and that’s the only way you win.

When you’re in that kind of situation, like Manhattan is now, among popular masses, they don’t have a chance!  They live on the edge of disaster, one way or the other. If you create a social process, a mass social process which increases its authority, then that problem begins to disappear, and therefore, that’s what we have to do.  We have to take all those kinds of factors which correspond to what I just described, and that’s the only solution; that’s the only thing.  You cannot be an isolated person, or a person isolated in the community; that doesn’t work, you don’t have enough fight.  When you get a 1,000 people in two successive assemblies, of audience and performers, and it’s a beautiful job like that, now!now, you represent something.   And what she’s saying, really requires that; it requires the participation, in the body of people, who feel that they’re part of that same process.  And that process will give them power.

Q9:  I live in the country in  Rhode Island, and I have a connection to my little local town representative that connects my  and everybody; and I just want to know that that’s my best connection.  Because if I go up to see my representatives — the state of Rhode Island is very corrupt —  and if I go up to see them in their offices, or at their houses or whatever, like that, I’m likely to end up in jail.  And then released, of course, with no charges.

But my point is, how can I get my message across, in full, outside of what I hear from you guys?  I mean, I meet the elitist people in my work, and I sort of scare them, or they go “Wow,” with what I say, all coming from the larouche.com group.  And just this week, a couple that retired from teaching high school and now work with the University of Rhode Island, hit my with a question, and just looked at ’em and said, flatly, “shut down Wall Street, reinstall Glass-Steagall, and let’s go with it from there, and we’re going to have to make adjustments, and to make things work from that day forward.”  And I said, “that’s what, I believe it was Teddy Roosevelt that did that.”  And I astounded them,  and now they’re doing research and working on it.

OK, so I’m reaching some of my intelligent customers.  But, how can I be more effective?

LAROUCHE:  Just what we’re doing.  What we did in New York, the New York City areas on Saturday, and in Manhattan afterward. And this process, if continued, will change the tempo.  Just sitting around and waiting and for something to harvest, like you’re waiting for a chicken to lay an egg, that does not really work.  You have to get more chickens to do more egg laying, and this is my progressive thing.

No, we’re in a position, if we can bring people more closer together, on these kinds of issues, you find out you can change things.  And I think the Manhattan  — I spent a lot of effort since October of last year, on building up an organization based on Manhattan.  Other things don’t work.  New Jersey?  That’s sort of, off and on.  Leesburg?  Ohhh!!  Almost hopeless.  And Texas, doubtful.

But so therefore, you actually have to bring into play, forces which are moving ahead in the right direction.  And you find that the authority that they carry by the increase of their authority… for example right now, right now, you had a bunch of people in the Congress, and they sold out.  Hmm?  They sold out because they were intimidated.  And the muscle came down on them and said, “No, you’re shut down.  We’re going to wipe out everything. At the beginning of next year, you’re not going to have anything.  Everything is going to be cancelled.”  And that’s fact right now!  Right now, on the first day and second day of the next year, you’re going to find, under the present conditions, a general collapse of the people of the United States.  and it’s going to get excessively worse.  Hmm?

So therefore, our role is to understand what the forces are that we have to bring into play, tocreate an increase of the forces, which are qualified to change the thing.  And that’s  the problem.  What we’re doing now, yeah, we have the members of Congress; well, most of the members of Congress are gutless wonders.  And a lot of the other members of the Congress, are intimidated by the gutless wonders.  And if you can’t get something in motion, and I would say, what happened in these two things on Saturday and Sunday, in the most recent events, and that probably is worth more than anything else.

I mean, that’s the principle which will work.  Because people find themselves with this, their voices are now beautiful, at least the singers are beautiful; and others are there.  So you’ve changed the environment.  And you have to change the environment; it’s not building up on one person after another person after another person, it’s changing the environment. Because most people are operating on an understanding of mankind, which is not right.  It’s incompetent.  You have to give them the courage, to recognize that there is another way, which is necessary, whereas the old one that they thought was practical, is not.  And that’s where the problem lies.

If you can’t inspire people, to find in themselves or in their circles of friends, they can’t find something in themselves, which gives them a sense of potency, you can’t win. So therefore, the primary thing is, can you supply a real meaning of potency to people around you?

ASCHER:  Let me just announce for those on the phone, in terms of the ongoing Manhattan Project, I’ve been supplied the follow schedule, which is that it will be continuing tomorrow … on Saturday, our regular Town Meeting with Lyndon LaRouche will occur between 2 and 5, and after that there will be a candlelight vigil and singing at the Lincoln Center in Manhattan.

Q10:  Hello Lyn, this is W—B— in Denver.  And what I was wondering about was, in this oncoming financial crisis, leading to the destruction of economies, do the BRICS nations have any sort of cushion perhaps to soften the blow, so to speak, from this spreading disaster?

LAROUCHE:  Well, what we’re doing, if we don’t, as of this weekend,  — and it’s this weekend, after what we’ve done in terms of Manhattan both on the Saturday and Sunday events where we had 1,000 people total, in these events, you don’t have much of a chance.  And if you’re going to talk about technologies and things, and how this is going to work, and how this will or will not work, it’s nonsense; it doesn’t work.

What you have to do, above all, you have to change attitude of a growing part of the population!  And why are they being cheated?  Well, in the main, it’s the fact that they are not being very practical;  what they call “being practical” is not being practical!  They’re trying to muscle in on something and exploit an opportunity which they think is an opportunity;  but mankind is not a collection of animals.  It’s not a zoo!  Mankind is a species, which as a whole, that is the overall process, moves the population.  It is not this individual or a few individuals, it’s this process.  And when people are convinced, to adopt a process which is a viable one, or an improvement of things, it works.

When they say, you’re trying to muscle in on some deal and make a handful of your friends are going to make a deal and you’re going to get a successful operation, that is bunk! Society doesn’t work that way.

Q11: [internet]  Lyn, I just got a question from B— in Fair Oaks, California.  Here is his question:  “Mr. LaRouche, I just returned from visiting the Federal Building in Sacramento, California, where I met with the office of Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, urging her to move the Glass-Steagall bill through right away.  My question may be a difficult one to answer, but, how much time is there left, before we must absolutely pass Glass-Steagall?”

LAROUCHE:  We don’t have any lapse of time available to us. We have to do it immediately, and can do it effectively, immediately.  And the problem is, if you do that in the proper way, then you will actually overrun the conventional attitudes now.

People don’t have the guts to stand up and look at the other guy in the eye, and say, “Hey, hey, Joe.  You’re bullshitting aren’t you?  Why don’t you come around and be honest?”  And that’s the only way to do it.

What do you think’s wrong with these members of Congress? Well, some of these members of Congress are Plump or Dunk or whatever he is — or, Bump, I guess is the better term — and this thing is not really of any importance.  It’s garbage; we know him, well.  He was an associate of the FBI; he wasn’t a member of the FBI, he was an associate of it, and he was an opportunist and he got payoffs and he got little generosities, and he got all kinds of things; and he would go around, and start a deal.  Look at all these “Bump” people, that fill all these skyscrapers.  What they doing?  They’re just dirtying up the sky, scratching up the sky!   But he doesn’t mean anything.  But he’s around and he’s used as an agent, and he’s not worth anything.

And Hillary herself has lost any asset that she’s ever had and she quit that because she capitulated to Obama.  And she’s an Obama agent.  And Obama is an agent of British Empire.  So, that’s where it goes.

So therefore, people have to stand up for themselves on the basis of principle, not on “my gimmicks” but on what the principle is that they want to defend.  And that’s the only solution.  And I think we were doing it successfully in Manhattan during Saturday and Sunday.  I think that’s the right thing.  And the question, we have to sustain it.  That’s the approach you want to take.

Q12:  Hi Lyn, this is T—W— from Lake Arrowhead, California.  I’m calling in with a sort of a report, because I’m closely located next to where the San Bernardino shooting incident took place.  I’ll try to make a long story short:  when it was happening, I happened to be in an auto shop, where I live in Lake Arrowhead, and the billing lady there, told me that she had just heard on the police radio that the husband of her friend was one of the ones killed.  And so, I said, “What’s her name?” and she said it’s Renée Wetzel.  So I then looked up in the paper, and the man that was killed was named Mike Wetzel and he’s a resident of Lake Arrowhead where I live.

So, I decided I had to go to his memorial service, which was last Saturday, and it was a very beautiful event.  It was in a large gymnasium, there were 1,000 people there and many people gave moving memorial addresses; he was very well known and very much loved in the Lake Arrowhead community. He had six children who were all there, a wife and an ex-wife, his father was there, three of co-workers were there, two ministers that have known him from childhood; they all gave beautiful memorial addresses.  It was just a very moving ceremony.

And I’m sitting and I didn’t actually know Mike, but I’m thinking to myself, “Gosh if only these people could possibly understand what was really the cause of Michael’s death,” but it wasn’t really these FBI-concocted terrorists, the two people that supposedly were the shooters; one of them was a normal guy with a job at the Inland center, with no history of anything strange; they were a couple, they had a baby.  The baby was dropped off at her mother’s house so she could grab a couple of Kalashnikovs and go shoot up the place, supposedly, you know?

Well, the story doesn’t add up, it doesn’t make sense in any way; I’ve come to the conclusion that that couple couldn’t have had anything to do with it.  They were just patsies, who are cultivated for the purpose by the FBI.  And the actual killings, I believe were done by some hired killers.  I don’t believe it was actually them that did it.

But you know, and one thing I did, afterward I wanted to confirm some of this, so yesterday I called a local newspaper, the San Bernardino Sun, and I said: “Look, there were supposedly 100 people in that room, 14 of them were killed.  That leaves 86 eyewitnesses.  Now, I would like to know why we have not seen a single interview, with any of those eyewitnesses, since the day that the killings took place?  There were two interviews on that day, and those two interviews, both witnesses indicated there were three, white male shooters.”

So I called the reporter and said, “why haven’t there been any interviews with eyewitnesses?  Wouldn’t that be a huge scoop? Why are you guy out there interviewing people, and why don’t I see anything?”  So then he starts giving me excuses.  Like he said, “we don’t want to traumatize the victims, we have to give them some time and so on, before we disturb them.”  That was the first thing.  And I kind of scoffed at that, I said, “those 86 witnesses, most of them were unharmed and I’m sure lots of them would like to tell their stories, so there ought to be investigative journalists all over the place trying to interview them, on TV, newspapers, everywhere.  And there hasn’t been a single interview?  Why? Why haven’t you been out there?”

And so the reporter basically told me, “we can’t interview those witnesses because they might say something that would contradict the FBI’s story.  And we can’t do that, we can’t question the FBI.  That is not allowed.”  And I sort of had an insight into how this whole thing works, like there is this total atmosphere of intimidation, and one thing you don’t do is question the authority of the FBI or suggest for one second that what they’re saying might not be true!  That is not allowed.  And everybody knows that, it’s like this undercover of fear. There’s things that you can’t say; while in some sense, it’s unconscious fear, you know, it’s like they don’t even know it, but they just don’t go there.  It’s like an unconscious inhibition, let’s say, has been put into them.  And so, that’s I think how this whole atmosphere of terror and intimidation is being created.

So that’s why I could…

LAROUCHE:  It’s being created, yes.  But it’s being created not by the FBI, it’s being created by Obama personally.  You follow the press coverage on that thing:  Obama was the one who put the lid suppressing that, suppressing the story.

Now, the truth was, there were a lot of other untruths around this whole thing.  Now, these people were recruited, they were Saudi connections, Saudi influence.  It was the same factor, and the same ratios, of events were the same thing that happened in France, in the assassinations there in France.  And this is run by the Saudis; it’s run by things like the Saudis which Obama works for.  Obama is part of that, but Obama actually works for the British, the British Monarchy.  The British Monarchy created this whole thing.  And if you ever looked into 9/11, and who did what in 9/11 — and I was an expert in this area, with a friend of mine and some others — and that’s what the whole story is.

Why did the Congress not deal with the 9/11 case?  Why’d they put the lid on it?  That’s where the problem lies.  Obama? Obama’s on the wrong side; he’s not an American, he’s something else.  He’s like his stepfather, has the same kind of disease that his stepfather had, he was a man who kills people.  Obama kills people, every Tuesday, he kills innocent people!  And you have even important people who have important positions, they have been threatened.  They will not speak up; they will not tell the truth.

So you’ve got a nation of gutless wonders!  Now it’s not all the fact that they’re gutless wonders, it’s the point is, they don’t see any way that they can survive under these conditions. And there’s nobody up there, there’s no FBI up there, who’s doing very much in terms of defending the citizens of the United States; or defending any other part of the planet.

The whole thing comes down, from the British Empire, the British system!  That’s what’s been going on all along.  And you get different versions of it, you get different flavors of it, so forth, but it’s all the same thing:  Without the British Empire and what it represents, and you take 9/11:  Why was 9/11 never exposed, publicly?  Never!  Why?  Because they had a payoff, with the British and the Saudis; and the Saudis did it.

The Saudis are the ones who actually, personally, sank the towers in Manhattan.  It was two guys who captured each plane, they went up around that area, around the Towers up there; they brought them down.  A similar thing was done in Washington, itself, and other things like that.

And what happened?  The damned Congress, as a whole, as a body, has refused to tell the facts, about how the citizens of Manhattan were killed!  And it was done by the Saudis, it was done by a mass of Saudis. Remember:  Everything was shut down, under the Bush family, everything was shut down.  And the Saudi families who were guilty in this process, part of the team, woke, safely walked out of the United States, and were sent back to Saudi Arabia.  And many of these people were the active agents who did the killing!

And the leading interests in Saudi Arabia, actually orchestrated the killing.  Who did it?  It was the British Empire that did, and it was done under the rate of oil speculation.  And that’s how Saudi Arabia got powerful, because the British protected them, as the United States, under Bush and Obama, defended them.

So if you want to find a complaint there, look at Bush, the Bush family, and look at Obama, and then trace it all back from there.  That gets to the core of why you get this kind of a sense of experience of what’s going on.  Yes, the FBI is involved in this kind of thing, but they’re only subordinate agents when they do that.

The point was, it’s done by the British Queen and the British interests.  And the British interests and the Saudis and Obama are all the same thing.  So get the facts right and you’ll find out the solutions can become transparent.

By the way, I did a personal investigation on this thing; Jeff Steinberg came in on the same operation, but in parallel. Jeff and I had worked together; I was working for Ronald Reagan at that point, and Jeff had followed in on what I was doing at that point.  So Jeff and I had this relationship with that thing, we both knew the story about Saudis, how the Saudi thing was done.  We were expert in it; I independently I worked with these British agents who were political agents who were actually investigating this problem; and most of them got killed, or something similar happened to them.

But I’m a known factor in this thing, I’m an expert in this thing.  And there’s no doubt about it; and any justice means that anybody who is supporting Obama, now, is an agent of the enemy of the United States.  And that’s the thing.  Because you make the comment that everything you say is plausible to me, as the fact, but the secret body of evidence is what you didn’t get into.  But what you were doing, what your investigation, your appreciation is an accurate one except it doesn’t go far enough because you didn’t have any rules to follow it adequately.

Q13:  Good evening, Mr. LaRouche, this is P— from Connecticut.  I agree with Alvin:  After enjoying the wonderful concert of Handel’s Messiah I felt so inspired by this. I guess it was the same way that Thomas Paine’s letter to George Washington, and that George Washington read it to his men, Dec. 23rd of 1776:  Well, I have no doubts or fear to take this fight with the people to the Capitol and bring in Glass-Steagall.  And this is my declaration.

LAROUCHE:  It’s a good one.  [laughter]

Q14:  Yes, this time I’m in Long Island.  Steinmetz and I started having the argument, [inaudible 1:07:22.6] couldn’t come here.  But yes, he could come here.  But we have to go out and be like Roosevelt, when there is no Roosevelt.  We have an anti-Roosevelt in the White House.  How are we going to move so fast?

LAROUCHE:  Well, it’s a question of how many people have got guts?  And who’s got the guts to understand things and look at things honestly.  Because you know the typical American is generally a liar.  Now it’s not that they like to tell lies, though some of them do.  In fact, many of them do.  But as a generality, no; the fact is, they’re ignorant.

Now, the ignorance is not necessarily honest ignorance; like the member of the Congress who supported a piece of legislation, which swindles every citizen in the United States of their life savings. And it’s because these members of the Congress were gutless, or worse, that that legislation was shoved through.  And if we don’t change that now, you’re all dead, sooner or later. And it’s all because of your gutlessness, by a few of you who wouldn’t take action, through the Presidency and the Congress, and wouldn’t present the truth in law.

So therefore, it’s the liars, the cheats and liars who didn’t tell the truth, about that matter of legislation:  They are the guilty parties.  And they are shameful, and what they need their little rumps kicked, by a big shoe, from the rear. That’s the best way:  It’s uplifting.  The most uplifting:  Kick ’em in the rear end and that’s the most uplifting way you can deal with problems.

But no, that’s the problem.  These kinds of cowards, they’re implicitly treasonous, because they knew what they did.  And the other people who gave in, gave in because they were intimidated. Now you’ve got to have a citizenry with guts, and I don’t know if we can say we have one.

ASCHER:  Lyn, are you referring there to the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act and the bail-in provisions?

LAROUCHE:  Absolutely, that is a genocidal policy.  It’s mass murder, and anybody who supported that legislation, is guilty of mass murder, criminal activity.  And the only way they can do that is cancel their vote on that issue.  And it was wrong, it was a crime, it shouldn’t have happened.

ASCHER:  And of course this is the same provision that’s going into effect already in Europe and officially on Jan. 1st in Europe as well.

LAROUCHE: This is the same thing which came out of the Pope, the official Pope.  The Pope was a guy who was used as a stooge, to bring this about.  He’s the one that did that.  Now the Pope himself probably is not the author of this thing, but the Pope was the guilty party.  He was the criminal in the case.  Now he may be mentally — I would grant him the possibility he may be just insane, and doesn’t know any better.  And the effect is, that  the Pope is a criminal in his behavior, a mass criminal.

And everything that this crew does, because it was a British operation, entirely a British operation, nothing else.  So if you want to do something, you have to go in and take the Royal Family and give them a Royal outcome.

ASCHER:  This is the Pope and the Green agenda and his relationship to Schellnhuber.

LAROUCHE:  Absolutely.  But the point is, the Pope is not insane.  He’s just a corrupt coward, and he doesn’t deserve to be called the Pope.  We’ll call him the Pump.

Oh, he’s evil, the guy who would do this, the only excuse that he could have for the crimes that he’s committed, is to say he was terrified.  This Pope has got to be removed from office. But we’ve got to get the whole British Royal Family up there at the same time.

Q15:  Hi, this is Jessica from Brooklyn, New York.

LAROUCHE:  Oh good!  How do you do?

Q15:  OK!  I was part of the fantastic, wonderful presentation of Handel’s Messiah on Saturday and Sunday.  I was particularly enthralled with the Saturday performance because it was Brooklyn.  [LaRouche laughs] But the Sunday performance was a little different, but it was good, too.  And it was interesting that the Saturday performance had a lot of families; the community was really rallied to come out to that church and support their church, and our singing.  And the children’s faces — I just remember looking at the children and seeing them watching the orchestra play, and how it was just so enlightening to them; and of course, that passed on to their parents, not the other way around.

So that’s one thing I wanted to say; it was just very uplifting and like you said, there’s nothing like that type of thing to make us understand that we are human beings and we have this creative power, in us, and that we can spread that idea of creativity in human beings and the worth of your life, what you’re living for, to other people.

And with that said, I was also thinking about something else:  There have been decisive points in history, and these decisive points have made people decide that it’s all or nothing, that, I get fearful, too; I’m listening to people on the call, and people are trying to figure out, “Should I store water? Should I take my money out of the bank, and have something on hand?  Should I quickly go and buy up a bunch of gold coins, because I’ll have to barter with that, when the banks crash?  I have to have some gold coins on hand or some silver or something, in case the money is worthless, even if you do manage to get it out of the bank before the doors close?”  That kind of thing.

And then, I thought, since this concert happened, I thought about the decisive points in history and it gets to me, where I have to I have to decide, what kind of thing can I do, to implement my best efforts?  Now there’s calling Congress people; there’s talking to the news stations, the TV stations, social media; there’s radio, unions, there a union meeting coming for me, where I intend to bash them about Glass-Steagall and rally the members to the point of calling their congressmen — again — calling the offices; somebody’s going to be there, and forcing them to come back into session and pass Glass-Steagall.

So I think we all have to think about what we can do to implement our best efforts to not fail at this.  Because like these different times, there’s Joan of Arc; there’s the crossing of the Delaware; there’s the Gettysburg battle;  there’s landing at Normandy in World War II; there’s Iwo Jima; there’s these decisive points where you cannot lose.  It’s not even a matter of what should I do if this happens?  It’s that, we can’t lose. This is something that has to be done.

I think when Washington crossed the Delaware, he knew that this was something that they had to succeed at.  And that’s what I’m starting to come to, especially since this concert.  So we have to implement our best effort, whatever that effort is. I’m not good at social media, and I tend to shy away from that.  But I’m good at Congress, I’m good at calling them; I’m good at union meetings; I’m good at interventions, where I call these people on the carpet. Those kinds of things I’m good at.  I’m good at leafletting, I’m good at talking to people on the street.  So those kinds of things are what we have to really think about.

And my question to you, Mr. LaRouche is, which one of these things do you think — or maybe two or three things — do you think we should all put our best efforts into?  Is it trying to get the Congress back into session?  Or are all these things, like I’m saying, something that we should do according to what we do can best as an individual?

LAROUCHE:  You have to go to President Gen. George Washington.  George Washington a decision, a very tough decision. He had the British agents and their accompaniment were celebrating in New Jersey.  And so he moved all of his forces, and under most difficult conditions; under wet conditions and very dangerous conditions, and what he did is he wiped out the British and their complement, and that was what made the United States’ existence a possibility.  It was George Washington’s decision, under absolutely adverse conditions, with the British and their minions, assumed that they were celebrating, and Washington moved in and took them all over: and that’s how the United States was created.

Q16:  This is C— from Santa Rosa, California.  Lyn, in converting each Congressman or people that I try to organize, I have come out front and said, “What’s really at the root is that you’re afraid.  Your cynicism or your pessimism is you’re afraid. You’re maybe directly afraid of Obama, or afraid of Big Brother or whatever.”  And I got some very interesting reactions off that, and I want to go into that, because what I found is, my way out, which is not a technique or anything, is that I found that referencing back to what I asked you last week is I have to develop myself, culturally, intellectually, and that’s the thing that gives one strength. You have to do your reading, you have to try to understand music, which I’m still trying to struggle with understand the role of music.  I listen to it, but there’s things about it I don’t understand.

So I want you to talk about this thing that the fears that these Congress people, and the fears that the common people out here that we’re organizing are essentially the same. So, could you take it from there?

LAROUCHE:  OK, let’s take the George Washington case, for example, because that’s very pertinent.  Washington made a move, which all his opponents at that time, said would never happen. And the fact that he did that, that he crossed the Delaware, he landed on the other shore, and took the enemy in hand before the enemy could really mobilize its own forces; if he hadn’t done that, we would never have had the United States!  And the same thing is what  you’re talking about now.

There is a point in history, a point in the current of history, at which something can happen, and a solution will come only because some people have undertaken to follow through on something that other people said “oh, that would never happen”; and that’s what it is.  It’s just like that.

See because mankind is not just a simple human being, the idea of mankind and the individual human being is rubbish, actually, it doesn’t function.  Because mankind doesn’t function that way.  Only very rare people will function in that direction, very, very rare, and they’re almost named in history against all the others of the same time.  And therefore, the problem that we have to face is the fact that, do we have the ability, to recognize the opportunity which is in correspondence to what Franklin would have done, what George Washington did.

And very few people do that.  Because they don’t do it on the basis of being practical.  They do it on the basis of knowing that mankind requires this to be accomplished, and very few people have that view.  They say “well, that’s not practical.”  I don’t give a damn about what who thinks is practical!  I never did.  I’d have been a fool if I ever did.

And therefore I often do things like that, you know, not just George Washington’s things, but I will do that; I have don’t it often, I’ve led the charge, often, on these kinds of things. Because  ithas to be done!  People say “No, no, that won’t work, that won’t work.  You can’t do that, you can’t do that.” I say, “You’re wrong.  I’m going to do it.”  [laughs]  And that’s the way I operate, and that’s the right way to operate: George Washington’s way.

ASCHER:  Well, just to reiterate, there’s available on the larouchepac website, a statement“Emergency Christmas Eve Message: January 1st Is Doomsday! Only an FDR Action Can Save You.”  I’ve already announced there will be distributions of this in Manhattan tomorrow; a town meeting [with LaRouche] on Saturday.  Others around the country will be getting this out widely.

Secondly, the recording of the Messiah performance is going to be available on the Schiller Institute website, probably tomorrow.  They’ve been working on the audio file, but for those of you want to hear the impact this had, it will be up on the website some time soon, so stay tuned to the www.schillerinstitute.org website, particularly under the Manhattan Project link and you should be able to find that performance available

Lyn, did you have any final remarks that you wanted to conclude this evening with?

LAROUCHE:  I think I want to put the whole thing into a package.  Let’s hope that would cumulatively make a package which would be useful for people.  Let them decide themselves on that one.

ASCHER:  All right, and thank you very much.  And we will be next Wednesday, Dec. 30, the day before New Year’s Eve.  Thank you very much Lyn.




Leder, 25. december 2015:
SØRG FOR, AT DER BLIVER ET NYTÅR:
DUMP OBAMA OG WALL STREET!

I den sammenbrudsproces, der allerede er i gang, af hele det døde, transatlantiske finanssystem, ser vi nu time for time nye tilfælde af insolvens og stormløb for udtræk, alt imens en vifte af »officielle« regler træder i kraft den 1. januar, som vil bære atombrændsel til bålet. Om denne proces sagde Lyndon LaRouche i sidste uge, »Det, der vil ske, er, at der bliver en acceleration af krisen.« Han sagde: »Accelerationsraten – processens selv-acceleration – er sådan, at, inden for en uge, kunne det hele være udslettet. Det er en sådan situation, vi er i.«

Vi står ved et punkt, hvor det er ’do-or-die’ – knald eller fald – denne Jul: enten fremtvinger vi en handling for genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall og de relaterede nødforanstaltninger, eller også får vi massehelvede og forbandelse.

Wall Street Journal præsenterede i går en oversigt af de seneste opdateringer om den finansielle disintegration ved at opremse navnene på de hedgefonde, der er bukket under, og ved også at dække status for flere mere fremtrædende selskaber, der nominelt set stadig er aktive, men kun ved at gennemtvinge »betaling i afdrag« til de spekulantkunder, der ønsker at få deres penge. For eksempel forventes en enhed under det berygtede Carlyle Group LP, Claren Road Asset Management, pr. den 1. januar at have en sum af 1,25 mia. dollar under deres forvaltning, hvilket er langt under de 8,5 mia. dollar, de havde for kun 15 måneder siden, før deres kunde-investorer begynde at forlange masseudbetalinger i løbet af 2015. Men eftersom Claren Road-operationen har gennemtvunget en politik med »betaling i afdrag« over seks måneder, så dækker disse 1,25 mia. dollar ved årsafslutningen ikke engang de udestående krav om afdrag for tredje og fjerde kvartal 2015. Den samme situation gør sig gældende for mange andre af Wall Streets spekulationshuse, store så vel som små fisk.

Sjoverne er bankerot! Nogle af udtrækkene og udsalgene, der finder sted, skyldes, udover et stormløb mod udgangen, forsøg på at honorere kontrakter og de sædvanlige krav om kontantreserver, men det markerer, at systemet er færdigt. Så kommer vi til 1. januar og mange nye punkter for en detonering.

I Den europæiske Union træder nye regler for bail-in i kraft på denne dato (1. jan.) efter at politikken allerede er blevet gennemført i Cypern, Italien, Portugal, Spanien og andre steder, med dræbende konsekvenser. Denne EU-forholdsregels officielle navn er Artikel 55, med titlen BRRD (Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive)(’direktivet for bank-genrejsning og bankopløsning’).

I Eurasien træder Ukraines frie handelsaftale med EU i kraft den 1. jan. Samtidig var der et sammenbrud i drøftelserne den 21. dec. mellem Rusland, Ukraine og EU om, hvordan man skulle gå videre. »Ukraine er på vej ned«, bemærkede LaRouche. De kan ikke komme nogen vegne.

I Amerika er Puerto Rico på vej mod betalingsstandsning den 1. januar, med Washington, D.C., der ikke har taget skridt til nogen handling i den forbindelse.

Generelt set vil tredje del af Baselaftalerne træde i kraft den 1. januar. Det, som 2016 Basel III-reglerne gør, er, at de beordrer banker til at sælge massive mængder af dødelige bail-in-obligationer; med andre ord, så skal banker udstede »rottegift« til bankkunder og investorer. Det går under betegnelserne »med lang løbetid« eller »absorbering af tab«, eller mere elegant, obligationer »i overensstemmelse med Basel III«.

Læg hertil Obama/Londons fremstød for krig, og konsekvenserne af at tillade dette vanvid at fortsætte en dag mere er dødbringende. LaRouche indkalder til en »mobilisering af de villige« – af dem, der er villige til at se problemet, af dem, der er villige til at handle.

 

 

 




I en ny dokumentar på russisk Tv angriber
præsident Putin Vestens brug af koldkrigstaktik
og tilskynder til samarbejde om fred og udvikling

21. december 2015 – Den russiske Rossiya-1 Tv-station sendte den 20. december dokumentarudsendelsen ”Verdensordenen”, som indeholder flere interviews med præsident Vladimir Putin, hvor han diskuterer Ruslands syn på den globale strategiske krise og truslen om terror og skarpt kritiserer den amerikanske forkærlighed for at påtvinge andre nationer (som f.eks. Ukraine) Vestens forestillinger om ”demokrati” – idet man herved overtræder international lov, fremfor at samarbejde med alle parter for at opnå fred og økonomisk udvikling og besejre terrorismen.

RT, Sputnik, nyhedswebsiten Vestnik Kavkaza (vestnikkavkaza.net) og amerikanske medier rapporterede om Putins vidtrækkende bemærkninger til den prominente russiske journalist Vladimir Soloviev, der har produceret dokumentaren.

“Det bipolære system kollapsede, og vore partnere burde have tænkt over, hvordan de skulle blive til de moralske ledere af de nyligt opståede, globale relationer”, sagde Putin. ”I stedet fortsatte de med at tænke og agere på de gamle måder, med koldkrigsklichéer.”  USA og dets vestlige alliererede klynger sig til den absurde idé, at Rusland ønsker at genrejse Sovjetunionen, anklagede Putin. Hvad der er endnu værre: Europa har opgivet sin suverænitet og underkastet sig USA. ”Europa har overhovedet ingen selvstændig udenrigspolitik.”

Han sagde desuden, at Vesten tror, det kan pålægge andre områder sin egen standard for demokrati. ”Da de forskellige operationer begyndte … i Afghanistan, Irak eller Libyen, var det altid min holdning, at vi må handle forsigtigt. Man kan ikke have sine egne begreber om godt og ondt og tro, at demokrati automatisk kan overføres til andre lande og folk, andre kulturer, andre religioner og traditioner.” Se, sagde han, på katastrofen i dag i Ukraine, som køres af oligarker, der kontrolleres af Vesten, som er i færd med at afindustrialisere landet.

Den russiske præsident understregede, at han uden vanskeligheder kan arbejde sammen med Syrien, USA, Saudi Arabien og andre arabiske nationer, fordi han opretholder en konsekvent holdning, der ikke ændrer sig. Med hensyn til atomvåben, så understregede Putin, at, alt imens ”atom-triaden er den klippefaste grund, hvorpå vores atomare sikkerhedspolitik hviler, så har vi aldrig truet, og vil heller aldrig true nogen med denne atomare kølle, selv om det er et vigtigt element i vores militærdoktrin … Jeg håber ikke, at der er nogen mennesker på planeten Jorden, der er vanvittige nok til at vove at bruge atomvåben.” Men, advarede han, det virker, som om nogle lande – Obama? – ”har mistet deres virkelighedsfornemmelse” og tror, man kan diktere Rusland, hvordan det skal føre sin politik. ”Det kommer ikke til at ske”, sagde han.




Leder, 23. december 2015:
Dump Wall Street til jul

Den hastighed, hvormed finanskrakket nu accelererer, kræver handling nu – før jul. Med mindre Wall Street dumpes i de nærmest forestående dage, er der ingen garanti for, at USA stadig står til Nytår. Junk-obligationer og kommercielle investeringsobligationer til 15 billioner dollars er blevet indløst blot i løbet af den seneste uge. For det meste dækker selskaber deres tab ind i forventning om en endnu større nedsmeltning på et tidspunkt i den allernærmeste fremtid.

Dette er dødsens alvorligt. En ukontrolleret nedsmeltning af det transatlantiske finanssystem, som kunne ske om timer eller dage, ville skabe den form for massekaos, der er den klassiske, britiske opskrift for den værste form for fascistiske diktatur, som altid, uundgåeligt, fører til generel krig. Fra og med den 1. januar træder i Europa de regler for bail-in i kraft, som blev presset igennem af EU-kommissionen. Banker i Italien og Portugal har allerede plyndret indehavere af aktier og obligationer i fallerede banker, og næste skridt er den fulde Cypern-model for plyndring af kontohavernes penge. Pariser-avisen Le Parisien gav i dag sine læsere en forsmag på bail-in under overskriften, »Hvad hvis din bank gik nedenom og hjem?«

Nærmere ved USA står Puerto Rico til at gå i betalingsstandsning den 1. januar over et forfaldent afdrag på 1,4 mia. dollar på en total gæld på 72 mia. dollar, og den amerikanske Kongres valgte bevidst at ignorere denne krise ved at nægte at vedtage en lov, der godkendte en beskyttelse mod bankerot, som tilbydes alle amerikanske stater og kommuner. Formand for Repræsentanternes Hus Paul Ryan og Nancy Pelosi har meddelt, at de »lover« at komme frem til denne lov pr. 31. marts, men det er en syg vittighed, for krisen for Puerto Rico og hele det transatlantiske område venter ikke til marts måned. Den kommer nu.

Lyndon LaRouche advarede i dag om, at, med mindre der før jul foreligger en komplet plan for den totale fjernelse af Wall Street og en lancering af et program for økonomisk genrejsning, med Franklin Roosevelts politik som model, så står det amerikanske folk over for den umiddelbare udsigt til et totalt, samfundsmæssigt sammenbrud. En strategisk plan fra øverst til nederst, der følger de retningslinjer, som Lyndon LaRouche har fastlagt i løbet af de seneste dage, må omgående være på plads.

Kongressen har demonstreret sin fejhed, senest ved at vedtage en katastrofal lov om bevillinger, der trodser virkeligheden omkring det umiddelbart forestående krak. Kongressen må trodses og latterliggøres for sin inkompetence. Enten lukker man Obama og Wall Street ned nu, eller også er der ingen chance. Politikken må være den at sænke Wall Street og sænke dem, som Obama og flertallet af Kongressen, der har fulgt Wall Streets linje.

LaRouche understregede også, at den saudiske sygdom med promovering af wahhabi-terrorisme må udslettes. Obamaregeringen har systematisk mørklagt de bjerge af beviser for, at saudierne står bag væksten af al-Qaeda, Islamisk Stat, Taliban og Boko Haram. Saudierne har, sammen med deres britiske sponsorer, udløst et narko-terrorist-jihadistisk angreb imod hver eneste større nation på planeten, og topembedsfolk i Obamaregeringen, fra Susan Rice til CIA-direktør John Brennan og dir. for den nationale Efterretningstjeneste, general James Clapper, har præsideret over en ondsindet mørklægning af disse forbrydelser og har udsøgt og forfulgt enhver ærlig efterretningsembedsmand, der sagde sandheden og trodsede Obamas ondsindede fantasier. De er fuldt ud medskyldige i opkomsten af ISIS og angrebene i Paris og San Bernardino og bør retsforfølges efter USA’s kriminal-lovgivning og international lov.

Beviserne for disse forbrydelser er ved at gennembryde den mur, der skulle inddæmme dem. Tiden er nu inde til, at de 28 (hemmeligstemplede) sider fra den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september 2001, fra 2002, frigives fuldt ud til offentligheden. Disse sider vil, ifølge amerikanske regeringsfolk (eks. kongresmedlemmer i særlige komiteer), som har læst dem, bevise, at al-Qaeda var de britiske og saudiske monarkiers skabelse, og at dette var kendt af top-regeringsfolk i den amerikanske regering, inklusive præsidenterne George W. Bush og Barack Obama, som er fuldt ud medskyldige.

Politikken må være den, fuldstændigt at ødelægge fjenden. Slå til på deres mest sårbare, dødelige flanker, med begyndelse i den kendsgerning, at Wall Street er død, er allerede død. Vi befinder os på randen af en stor dårskab, og vores nations og menneskehedens overlevelse står på spil i de umiddelbart forestående timer og dage.




Nyhedsorientering december 2015:
GLASS/STEAGALL – ELLER KAOS!

I denne nyhedsorientering har vi valgt at bringe en række uvurdelige, strategiske vurderinger vedrørende kampen imod Islamisk Stat, flygtningekrisen i Europa og det igangværende finanskollaps, som er fremkommet i løbet af december måned på de ugentlige webcast, der finder sted hver fredag aften amerikansk tid på www.larouchepac.com. LaRouchePAC er en amerikansk politisk aktionskomité, grundlagt og vedvarende inspireret af den amerikanske økonom og statsmand, Lyndon LaRouche. Jeffrey Steinberg (t.v.) er en ledende medarbejder til Lyndon LaRouche og er også efterretningsredaktør for tidsskriftet Executive Intelligence Review. Ben Deniston er leder af LaRouchePAC’s Videnskabsteam.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Leder, 21. december 2015:
Fjern City of London, eller sammenbruddet vil være uden for kontrol

Under diskussioner med sine kolleger søndag aften opsummerede Lyndon LaRouche den globale, strategiske krise i præcise vendinger: Londons og Det britiske Imperiums magt må omgående elimineres, eller også vil hele det transatlantiske område, med start i USA, hastigt styrtdykke ud i et ukontrollerbart kaos. Forholdsregler til kontrol må indføres, og dette betyder, at Det britiske Imperiums magt, der kontrollerer Obama, må fjernes.

Problemet er, at ledende personer i regeringsinstitutionerne i Washington, med start i den amerikanske Kongres, der allerede burde være trådt i aktion imod Obama, ikke har handlet. Obama leder stadig sine tirsdagsmøder for (drone-)drab, på trods af den kendsgerning, at hans tilstand er under hastig degeneration, i accelererende tempo. Det britiske monarki er fortsat den institution, der regerer over det transatlantiske område.

LaRouche bemærkede, at Rusland er anderledes, og Kina er også anderledes. Det er nationer, der samarbejder, og ser hen til en udvidelse af deres samarbejde. Men der er alvorlige problemer, med at skaffe tilstrækkeligt med vand og mad til en begyndelse. Rusland og Kina er i dag de eneste, virkelige magter, der potentielt set handler imod Det britiske Imperiums stadigt eksisterende magt, og imod deres redskab, præsident Obama.

I realiteten, erklærede LaRouche, så har kræfterne bag 11. september (2001) magten over USA. Der har været et utilstrækkeligt angreb imod det anglo-saudiske apparat, der stod bag 11. september. Som følge heraf har de kræfter, der repræsenteres af Bush og Obama, fået fribillet til at handle. Hvis arven efter det britiske monarki og dets Bush- og Obama-operationer kan knuses, kan USA og store dele af den øvrige verden reddes.

LaRouche understregede, at centrum for kampen imod det britiske tyranni, der repræsenteres af Bush og Obama, skal findes på Manhattan og nærmeste omgivelser. Denne pointe blev tydelig i denne weekend gennem to koncerter, der blev afholdt af Schiller Instituttet, der præsenterede Händels Messias i Brooklyn og Manhattan. Alt i alt blev de to forestillinger besøgt af flere end 1.000 mennesker, med kun ståpladser til begge forestillinger. Den strøm af støtte til forestillingerne og til ideen om forbindelsen mellem klassisk kultur, videnskab og den politiske kamp for en genoplivning af Det amerikanske System, illustrerer den kendsgerning, at der i den amerikanske befolkning er en kerne, centreret omkring Manhattan og dele af det nordlige Californien især, der kan redde nationen. Disse områders førende borgeres særlige egenskaber kan spredes i hele landet, men kun med fokus på ånden og aktiveringen fra Manhattan.

Nedsmeltningen af hele systemet er i fuld gang. Det globale blodbad kan udelukkende standses af et gennembrud i USA, med start i fjernelsen af Wall Street og genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall. Dette må ske inden krakket finder sted, og det kunne ske, hvornår det skal være, fra nu af og fremefter. Dette er ikke et ’hype’ eller et slogan. Den 1. januar 2016 træder reglerne for bail-out i kraft i Europa. Samme dag vil Puerto Rico gå i betalingsstandsning med de første 1,4 mia. dollar i gæld til gribbefondene.

Enten får man Glass-Steagall vedtaget nu, eller også vil følgen blive kaos i hele det transatlantiske område, og under disse omstændigheder er det næsten sikkert, at kræfterne i Det britiske Imperium vil satse på krig med Rusland og Kina.

Concert Händels Messiah




Leder, 16. december 2015:
Wall Streets kollaps er uafvendeligt –
Kun Franklin Roosevelts politik, med
Glass-Steagall og statslig kredit til
realøkonomisk investering, kan forhindre
et kollaps ned i Helvede

En fjerde New York-hedgefond lukkede i dag for udtræk, som følge af, at hele junk- og højrente-obligationsmarkedet er i færd med at nedsmelte. I takt med, at de raketstore spekulative lån i olie, gas og mineraler løber ind i kollapsende priser under en sløv økonomi, er flere »markedseksperter« (gribbeinvestorer) såsom Wilbur Ross og Carl Icahn kommet med erklæringer, hvor de siger, at de ser en trussel om, at kollapset i junkkredit kan sprede sig til det langt større kreditmarked for kreditvurderings-selskaber – hvilket muligvis kunne få hele det vestlige finanssystem til at krakke.

Under alle omstændigheder står systemet ikke til at redde. Lyndon LaRouche sagde i dag, at alle pengene på Wall Street er nominelle, spekulative værdipapirer, der ikke er en rød øre værd og må afskrives på samme måde, som Franklin Roosevelt gjorde det, da han tiltrådte sit embede i 1933.  FDR kunne dernæst sætte folk i arbejde og atter give en befolkning, der nær var blevet drevet ud i døden, sin værdighed tilbage. Men situationen i dag er langt værre. LaRouche påpegede de tusinder, måske millioner, af midaldrende, aktive mennesker, der er drevet ud af arbejdsstyrken, og som kommer ud i stofmisbrug, hvilket er, hvad der ligger bag den seneste tids voldsomme stigning i selvmord. Han påpegede den italienske borger, hvis livsopsparing blev stjålet under en bank »bail-in« (dvs. ekspropriering af kundernes indeståender) i sidste uge – »et signal om, at gribbene er gået for vidt».

Obama står i vejen for den eneste løsning på katastrofen, som er en gennemførelse af Glass-Steagall og en lukning af »for store til at lade gå ned«-bankerne og den efterfølgende opbygning af et nyt system. Det, der mangler, er lederskab – der kan fjerne Obama, gennemføre Glass-Steagall og skabe en genrejsning af USA’s og verdens økonomi gennem store infrastrukturprojekter sammen med BRIKS og Kinas programmer under den Nye Silkevej. »Det kræver ikke et stort antal mennesker«, sagde LaRouche i dag, »men et antal store mennesker«.

Hvis den rablende fascist Donald Trump og Obama-marionetten Hillary Clinton blev fjernet som kandidater, så kunne de anstændige kandidater og andre fra både det demokratiske og republikanske parti komme sammen for at udføre jobbet, nu, før finanssystemet imploderer, og før Obama kan begynde sin krig med Rusland og Kina.

I dag meddelte (udenrigsminister) John Kerry, efter et møde med Sergei Lavrov og Vladimir Putin i Moskva, at USA ikke længere stillede krav om, at Assad skulle afsættes, før en koalition imod terroristerne kan lanceres og en overgangsproces til en ny regering initieres i Syrien. Som Putin gentagne gange har sagt, så er det kun det syriske folk, der kan beslutte, hvem, der skal regere Syrien, på trods af Obamas kriminelle regimeskift-galskab. John Kerry har nu brudt med denne Obama-politik – men, så længe, Obama forbliver ved magten, så længe eskalerer faren for krig ganske enkelt, alt imens finanssystemets krak kommer stadig nærmere – måske i de næste par dage.




General Flynn kalder San Bernardino for et angreb fra ISIS;
siger, at Obama tager fejl med hensyn til inddæmning af ISIS

12. december 2015 – Under konferencen i sidste uge i forbindelse med RT’s 10-års jubilæum i Moskva, foretog RT-korrespondent Sophie Shevernadze et live-interview med gen. Michael Flynn, forhenværende chef for det amerikanske forsvars efterretningstjeneste (Defense Intelligence Agency, DIA), og en skarp kritiker af præsident Obamas overlagte, hemmelige aftaler med islamistiske terrorister, gennem ulovlige overførsler af våben fra Benghazi i Libyen til jihadist-oprørere i Syrien. På grund af sine præcise efterretnings-briefinger og sin villighed til at modsætte sig nogle af de mest katastrofale udslag af præsident Obamas politik blev gen. Flynn i 2014 fyret fra sin post.

Shevernadzes interview med gen. Flynn er slået op på hendes webside, både som video og som udskrift.

Her følger nogle af de vigtigste uddrag af den vidtrækkende dialog, der er centreret omkring gen. Flynns karakteristik af ISIS som fjende nummer et, både for Rusland og USA, og hans skarpe kritik af præsident Obamas påståede successer i krigen mod Islamisk Stat.

Sophie Sheverdnadze: Efter hvad jeg forstår, ønsker vi alle ISIS besejret, ikke sandt, det er vores største interesse, dette er en fælles trussel, som vi er oppe imod, vi befinder os i en lang kamp hen over flere generationer imod fundamentalistisk islam, så – tyrkiske forbindelse til ISIS og til oliehandlen med terrorgruppen har været kendt, og har været et problem længe før alt dette her med Rusland skete. Så mit spørgsmål er, kan vi overhovedet forvente, at Tyrkiet, der i nogen grad er en allieret, vil kæmpe mod ISIS, når landet profiterer af dem?

Michael Flynn: Ja, jeg tror, der er mange mennesker, der profiterer på ISIS. Jeg mener, at vi for det første kollektivt må – i fællesskab klart må definere, hvem fjenden, vi er oppe imod, er. Vi må klart definere vores fjende. Dette er en kræftform inden for den islamiske religion, folk har tendens til at bruge udtrykket radikale islamister, og jeg mener, at det er en god definition. Jeg har hørt et ord på arabisk, ’fa’hish’, hvilket betyder ’mere end foragtelig’, og jeg mener, at det er et endnu bedre ord end det andet, vi ser, dette andet ord, der bruges – Daesh. Dette er en fjende, der er udsprunget fra denne region, fra Mellemøsten, og den er nu spredt geografisk, spredt geografisk her i Rusland og spredt geografisk i Europa, og helt bestemt i USA. Vi har set alle disse forskellige angreb for nylig. Rusland havde sine egne problemer i 2001, i teatret i Moskva, i Nordossetien i 2004, hvor den samme ideologi dræbte børn. Jeg mener, dette nylige angreb i Californien, det var imod en social serviceorganisation; jeg mener, det er bare utroligt.

SS: Præsident Obama synes at mene, at han har inddæmmet ISIS.

MF: Ja, jeg ved, at han har sagt det, og jeg er uenig i det. Jeg er absolut uenig i det. Jeg er uenig i forbindelse med, hvordan vi har sagt, at vores strategi virker eller ikke virker. Jeg mener, at USA må indtage en større lederrolle. Et at de store spørgsmål, Sophie, – og jeg mener, dette er vigtigt for denne lytterskare – er, at for et år siden, før Rusland besluttede, før præsident Putin besluttede at tage de skridt, han tog i Syren, var situationen fundamentalt en anden. Der var muligheder, med nogle af os, der virkeligt pressede vores regering til at gøre mere, ikke blot militært, men med at ændre hele det økonomiske system, der eksisterer i Mellemøsten, og det kan jeg sige noget om, hvis du ønsker det. Men da Rusland pludselig dukker op på det mellemøstlige fodboldstadion, om du vil, så bringer Rusland sig selv i spil, og det ændrer fundamentalt dynamikken i dette særdeles geostrategiske spil, som vi befinder os i lige nu. Det er ikke et spil, det er meget virkeligt. Rent taktisk skal man huske på, at dette en fjende, der ikke har jetfly og droner, missiler og alle disse skibe, dette er en fjende, der bliver angrebet med bomber fra himlen – med droner eller jetfly, artilleri – og hvordan går de så til modangreb? De dukker op midt i Paris, midt i Moskva, de dukker op på steder som San Bernardino – det er sådan, de går til modangreb. Så når vi tænker på krigsførelse, og vi tænker på slagmarken, så er det ikke bare en direkte mand-til-mand konfrontation et sted som Raqqa eller Mosul, eller i Fallujah i Irak og Syrien. Dette er en global strid, og denne fjende har besluttet at slå tilbage på den måde, at de indgyder frygt – dette er en terror-bevægelse, det er ikke en bølle-bevægelse, det er ikke en kult, det er ikke en kriminel organisation. Det er en terrorist-organisation, der bygger på en meget radikal form for islamisme.

https://www.rt.com/shows/sophieco/325569-strategy-isis-terrorism-attacks/

 




General Gerasimov: Det russiske militær udvikler sig fortsat
som reaktion på truslerne, som Rusland står overfor

14. december, 2015 – Den russiske generalstabschef, general Valeriy Gerasimov, afgav en længere rapport om det russiske militær til forsvars-attachéer i Moskva i morges. ”Tilspidsning af globale og regionale sikkerhedsproblemer karakteriserer situationen i verden nu til dags. Det hænger først og fremmest sammen med udvidelsen af den internationale terrorisme og radikale ekstremisme”, lagde han ud med at sige. ”For det første giver NATO’s uvenskabelige militærpolitik over for Rusland anledning til bekymring. Alliancen udvider sin militære tilstedeværelse og forstærker sine væbnede styrkers aktivitet langs den Russiske Føderations grænser.” Med deployering af et ballistisk missilforsvar og udvikling af nye krigsvåben”, sagde han, ”forværres problemet med ubalancen i de strategiske styrker.”

Andre trusler inkluderer farvede revolutioner (han brugte ikke dette udtryk, men det fremgik klart af hans beskrivelse, at det var det, han talte om) til at omvælte regeringer, spredning af masseødelæggelsesvåben; forbrydelser og narkotikahandel hen over grænser; separatisme; og ukontrolleret folkevandring samt fremmedhad. ”Kombinationen af disse årsager og tilstedeværelsen af en dybt rodfæstet, mellemstatslig spænding skaber en trussel om optrapning af nye og aktuelle konflikter. Desværre bare stiger og stiger antallet af sådanne konflikter”, sagde han. ”En forening af hele verdenssamfundets bestræbelser imod de fælles udfordringer og trusler, først og fremmest international terrorisme, er en tiltagende oplagt nødvendighed.”

Med hensyn til Syrien er Rusland i færd med at smede relationer til mange lande over denne konflikt. ”Så meget desto mere, som den moderne historie udviser eksempler på succesfuldt samarbejde mellem de vestlige lande og den Russiske Føderation. Heriblandt fælles aktiviteter under den Internationale Styrkes Sikkerhedsassistances operation i Afghanistan, løsning af problemet med kemiske våben i Syrien, styrkelse af drøftelser om ”Irans atomprogram”, undertegning og implementering af ”Minskaftalerne” og kampen mod pirater i området ud for Afrikas Horn”, sagde Gerasimov. ”Under disse omstændigheder udgør de russiske væbnede styrker statens hovedinstrument i tilvejebringelse af sikkerhed i enhver situation, såvel som i løsningen af opgaver under militærkonflikter af forskellig intensitet.”

Meget af den resterende del af rapporten var helliget det russiske militærs moderniseringsbestræbelser, som er ganske store inden for områderne bemanding samt uddannelse og udstyr. Af største betydning var Gerasimovs understregning af moderniseringen af Ruslands atom-afskrækkelsesvåben, der, sagde han, vil blive udviklet ”til at opretholde de offensive og strategisk defensive styrker på et niveau, der vil levere den garanterede afskrækkelse af aggression rettet mod den Russiske Føderation og dens allierede.” Andre områder, som Gerasimov rapporterede om, var fremskridt mht. fornyelse af udstyret i de militære tjenester hen imod målsætningen om 70 % ’s moderne udrustning ved år 2020, og professionaliseringen af tjenesternes mandskab.

 




Russisk forsvarsminister: NATO kommer stadig tættere på Rusland

14. december 2015 – Den russiske forsvarsminister Sergei Shoigu satte, i bemærkninger i Forsvarsministeriet den 11. dec., kød på NATO’s militære opbygning rundt om Ruslands periferi. »Alene i løbet af det seneste år har NATO deployeret tretten gange så mange tropper, otte gange så mange militære fly og op til 300 tanks og infanteri-kampkøretøjer til de Baltiske Stater, Polen og Rumænien«, sagde han. Han bemærkede, at NATO aktivt er i færd med at muliggøre de tidligere jugoslaviske republikkers, Georgiens og Ukraines indtræden i ’forsvars’-alliancen og trække Finland, Sverige og Moldova ind i sin sfære. NATO har ligeledes etableret et cybersikkerhedscenter i Estland og et strategisk propagandacenter i Letland. NATO har 200 atombomber i Europa, og disse bomber er i færd med at blive moderniseret, og NATO har 310 fly, der befinder sig i forskellige stadier af beredskab til at kaste disse bomber, bemærkede Shoigu.

Moskvas bekymringer blev leveret direkte til Washingtons nationale sikkerhedsetablissement i løbet af weekenden i form af en kronik i Defense News, forfattet af Ruslan Pukhov, direktør for Centret forAnalyse af Strategier og Teknologier i Moskva. Pukhov skriver om de fremskridt, som det russiske militær har gjort inden for modernisering af sig selv, konfronteret med sanktioner og andre handlinger fra NATO’s side, og de udfordringer, det stadig står overfor, såsom mht. mandskab. »Samtidig har NATO’s anti-russiske, aggressive militære aktivitet i Østeuropa, som NATO-landene ikke engang gør sig den ulejlighed at lægge skjul på, hidtil ikke ført til nogen håndgribelige ændringer i Ruslands militære planlægning«, skriver han. »Dette får os til at mene, at Moskva ikke anser en militær storkonfrontation med Vesten for at være en reel mulighed.« I stedet forlader Rusland sig på sine strategiske atomstyrker for at modgå Vestens militære trussel, en strategi, som han sammenligner med Eisenhowers »New Look« i 1950-erne.

I Syrien, fortsætter Pukhov, er det fortsat uklart, om den russiske militære intervention vil frembringe det ønskede resultat, alt imens den komplicerer Ruslands relationer med USA, Tyrkiet og andre magter. Ud over alt dette søger regimet i Kijev at sabotere Minsk-aftalerne med det formål at tiltrække mere international opmærksomhed og sympati. »I 2016 vil Moskva blive konfronteret med udsigterne til voksende krise på to fronter samtidigt. I begge tilfælde vil opgaven for præsident Putin være at gennemføre en hårfin balancegang mellem at beskytte russiske interesser og forhindre en endnu større konfrontation med Vesten, konkluderer Pukhov.

Foto: 11. december 2015: Præsident Vladimir Putin taler ved Forsvarsministeriets styrelses udvidede møde i Nationalforsvarets Styrelsescenter i Moskva. 




Flyveblad, 15. december 2015:
Finanskrakket er i gang –
Kun en revolution i den transatlantiske
politik kan afvende katastrofen

Hele det transatlantiske, London/Wall Street finanssystem befinder sig på randen af det totale kollaps. Det kunne ske hver time, hver dag, det skal være. De kritiske tegn er allerede synlige for enhver, der ikke med overlæg gør sig blind. Fire italienske banker er gået fallit i den forgangne uge, med den Europæiske Unions påtvungne bail-in plyndring af indskydernes midler til følge. Puerto Rico har allerede meddelt, at landet sandsynligvis vil gå i betalingsstandsning den 1. januar over en forfalden gæld på 1 milliard dollar, toppen af en gældsboble til i alt 72 mia. dollar; og gribbefondene er helt eksponeret. Flere hedgefonde, der er eksponeret over for Puerto Ricos gæld og den bankerot, der har fundet sted i sektoren for skiferolie og -gas, er allerede bukket under. Dette er blot et forvarsel om det transatlantiske systems umiddelbart forestående, totale sammenbrud.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 




Irak angriber voldsomt tyrkisk invasion
og amerikansk respons i brev til FN’s ambassadør
Samantha Power – kræver handling fra FN

12. december 2015 – På trods af, at det Amerikanske Udenrigsministeriums talsmand, John Kirby, verbalt langede ud efter RT-reporteren i denne uge og hævede, at Irak vil håndtere Tyrkiets invasion af Irak som et bilateralt anliggende, så er kendsgerningen, at Irak går til FN’s Sikkerhedsråd. Kirby fik et hysterisk anfald over RT-reporteren og kaldte hende »latterlig« og »gal« for at rejse spørgsmålet om Iraks vrede mod NATO-medlemmet Tyrkiet.

RT’s reporter have ret, og i går indgav den irakiske regering en officiel klage over Tyrkiet til FN og sendte et brev fra den irakiske regering til Samantha Power, Obamas ’ansvar-for-at-beskytte (R2P), regimeskift’-galning i FN.

Reuters rapporterer, at den irakiske ambassadør til FN, Mohamed Ali Alhakim, i brevet til Power skrev: »Vi anmoder Sikkerhedsrådet om at kræve, at Tyrkiet omgående trækker sine styrker tilbage … og ikke igen at krænke irakisk suverænitet. … Dette anses for at være en åbenlys overtrædelse af principperne i FN’s Charter, og en krænkelse af Iraks territoriale integritet og staten Iraks suverænitet.«

I sproglige vendinger, der er en kindhest mod Tyrkiet og en advarsel til USA og andre NATO-medlemmer, sagde Alhakim, at den tyrkiske invasion er en »aggressiv handling« og tilføjede, »Assistance med militær uddannelse og avanceret teknologi og avancerede våben for at bekæmpe terrorenheden Islamisk Stat må være baseret på bilaterale og multilaterale aftaler og ske i fuld respekt for national suverænitet og den irakiske forfatning, og må være koordineret med de irakiske bevæbnede styrker.«

Irak har også klaget over Obamas meddelelse om, at dræberteams fra Specialstyrkerne vil ankomme til Irak.

Foto: Tanks fra den tyrkiske hær på den tyrkisk-irakiske grænse.




USA: Kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard udtaler sig
imod Bush/Obama-politik for regimeskift

12. december 2015 – I løbet af det seneste døgn har kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard optrådt på TV og i radio og talt imod Bush/Obama-politikken for regimeskift, der netop nu er i gang imod Syriens præsident Assad. På National Public Radio (NPR) her til morgen konkluderede Gabbard: »Hvis Assads syriske regering bliver væltet, vil ISIS og al-Qaeda og disse andre grupper tage magten i hele Syrien og skabe en endnu større humanitær krise, så de mennesker, der er flygtet fra Syrien, fortsat ikke vil have noget hjem der. De vil forsat ikke se nogen fred og stabilitet, og truslen mod resten af verden vil være endnu større.«

Gabbard tilbageviste værten Steve Simons linje om, at syrere skulle være flygtet ud af deres land for at undfly Assad, hvilket er den linje, som forfølges af London/Team Obama. Hun sagde: »Hvis vi ser på tidslinjen, så begyndte folk at forlade – folk begyndte at forlade landet, da borgerkrigen gik i gang. Og meget af dette er blevet drevet af den finansiering, udstyring og bevæbning, som er udført af lande som USA, Saudi Arabien, Qatar og Tyrkiet. Og det har været, og er fortsat, en meget grim borgerkrig, hvilket er en af grundene til, at jeg er fortaler for at standse og afslutte denne borgerkrig, så vi kan fokusere vore ressourcer omkring overvindelsen af ISIS.«

I går aftes, på Fox TV News’ program med Greta van Susteren, afviste Gabbard spørgsmålet om, at Assad-regeringen skulle købe ISIS-olie på det sorte marked, som en afledningsmanøvre. »Det er vigtigt at huske på, hvem, der er vores fjende.« Hun sagde, man skulle se tilbage på San Bernadino, på hvem det var, der fløj flyene ind i tvillingetårnene, samt andre terrorhandlinger. Disse mennesker var ikke kæmpere på mission fra den syriske præsident Assad! Gabbard, der er veteran fra Irakkrigen og har rank af major i Hawaiis Nationalgarde, gentog, at vi præcist ved, hvem disse mennesker er – al-Qaeda, al-Nusra og ISIS. Med hensyn til påstandene om, at Syrien skulle købe olie fra ISIS, sagde hun, at »de rapporter, der kommer frem, er et gennemskueligt forsøg på at aflede kritik bort fra Tyrkiet«, som er et hovedtransitsted for salg af ISIS-olien. Erdogans søn og svigersøn profiterer af det. Faktum er, at, hvad enten Syrien køber noget olie eller ej, så har det minimal virkning i sammenligning med Tyrkiets åbne grænse med Syrien, som giver mulighed for, at udenlandske kæmpere, våben, ammunition, penge og olie kommer ind i terroristgrupper.




USA og Rusland må samarbejde –
Kun et nyt paradigme kan forhindre fascisme!
Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Men hverken menneskehedens udslettelse i et termonukleart Armageddon eller ofringen af menneskeliv til fordel for finansoligarkiet er uundgåelig. At forhindre dette kræver først og fremmest, at man overvinder partianskuelser eller geopolitiske anskuelser og i stedet erstatter dem med et upartisk samarbejde på alle niveauer, for menneskehedens fælles interesser. Ikke overraskende viser EU, der siden Maastrichttraktaten har udviklet sig til et monstrum, i lyset af flygtningekrisen og det forestående finanskrak, sig ikke alene at være en mislykket model, men EU er yderligere nu ved at gennemføre en åbenlyst fascistisk politik. Det seneste fremstød i denne retning er Bruxelles meddelelse om, at den under alle omstændigheder allerede afskyelige EU-grænsekontrol-organisation Frontex skal erstattes af en ny organisation, der kontrolleres fra Bruxelles, og som deporterer flygtninge med egne grænsevagter, opererer i ikke-EU-medlemsstater og kan sætte sig ud over indvendinger fra medlemsstater. Dermed ville det i flygtningespørgsmålet komme til den største overførsel af suverænitet til Bruxelles, siden euroens indførelse.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Medvedev: Tyrkiets nedskydning af
det russiske fly var en casus belli,
men vi valgte ikke at respondere symmetrisk

10. december 2015 – Den russiske premierminister Dmitry Medvedev sagde i et Tv-interview i går, at Tyrkiets nedskydning af det russiske Su-24 bombefly i Syrien den 24. nov. var tilstrækkelig »casus belli« til at begynde en krig, men Rusland valgte ikke at gøre det.

»Det var et direkte angreb på en fremmed stat. I den nuværende situation er en krig det værste, der kunne ske. Derfor blev der taget en beslutning om ikke at levere et symmetrisk svar til det, tyrkerne havde gjort«, forklarede han. »Vi var dog nødt til at gøre dem begribeligt, at de vil stå til ansvar for deres handlinger. Af præcis denne årsag, og for at beskytte vore borgeres sikkerhed, blev de relevante beslutninger truffet.«

Man bør indse, at Ruslands handlinger faktisk ikke er sanktioner, men snarere den russiske stats »beskyttende reaktion«, sagde Medvedev.




Leder, 11. december 2015:
USA: Tro ikke på de offentlige løgne!

Den fordærvede offentlige mening og de ditto offentlige medier påstår, at Obamas fjernelse er umulig. Ja, de går endda så vidt som til at påstå, at det ikke engang bliver diskuteret. Men takket være først og fremmest, og mest af alt, den hovedrolle som katalysator, der spilles af Lyndon LaRouches »Manhattan-projekt« – er ingen af disse påstande sande. Ja, faktisk finder der en aktiv diskussion sted om behovet for at fjerne Obama på højeste regeringsplan. Ikke flere løgne; det kan gøres, og det må gøres, og vi må sørge for, at det bliver gjort, og gjort hurtigt.

Undertiden har en aktion, der angiveligt synes at være lokaliseret til et enkelt sted, såsom »Manhattan-projektet«, en universel virkning; tænk f.eks. på Brunelleschis kuppel i Firenze (katedralen Santa Maria della Fiore).

En del af det, som disse fordærvede medier og den offentlige mening forholder dig, er, at der nu foreligger et aktuelt lovforslag i Kongressen, der opregner 11 overtrædelser, der kunne udløse en rigsretssagsprocedure imod enhver præsident, der begik en hvilken som helst af disse overtrædelser. Den mest prominente af disse overtrædelser er lige netop disse »store forbrydelser og forseelser«, for hvilke Lyndon LaRouche har rejst tiltale mod Barack Obama i sine ugentlige dialoger med Manhattan-projektet.

Kongresmedlem Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) introducerede »H. Res. 198« den 13. april i år. Den er behagligt kortfattet. Efter nogle indledende »alt imens’er«, siger dens operative afsnit ganske enkelt det følgende:

»Repræsentanternes Hus erklærer, at de følgende præsidentielle handlinger skal udgøre ’store forbrydelser og forseelser’ inden for rammerne af artikel II, sektion 4, der skal udløse Husets vedtagelse af en artikel eller artikler for en rigsretssag (’impeachment’), der skal sendes til Senatet til efterprøvelse –

»(1) at indlede krig uden udtrykkelig bemyndigelse fra Kongressen

»(2) at, i USA eller i udlandet, dræbe amerikanske borgere, der ikke er engageret i aktive fjendtligheder imod USA, uden korrekt retssag (med mindre drabet var nødvendigt for at forhindre umiddelbar, alvorlig fysisk skade mod tredjeparter);

»(3) at forsømme udøvelsen af tilsyn med underordnede, der har gjort sig skyldig i kroniske forfatningsmæssige overgreb;

»(4) at bruge anviste midler i modstrid med betingelser fastsat for deres anvendelse;

»(5) med overlæg at lyve for Kongressen for at opnå bemyndigelse til krig;

»(6) at forsømme omsorgen for, at love samvittighedsfuldt udøves, derigennem, at erklæringer eller en systematisk politik for ikke-håndhævelse underskrives;

»(7) at indsætte eksekutive aftaler i stedet for traktater

»(8) med overlæg at lyve under ed for en føderal dommer eller undersøgelsesjury (grand jury)

»(9) at misbruge føderale (statslige) organisationer til fremme af en partisk politisk dagsorden;

»(10) at nægte at overholde en Kongresstævning om (udlevering af) dokumenter eller vidneaflæggelser, der er udstedt til et legitimt juridisk formål; og

«(11) at udstede eksekutive ordrer eller præsidentielle memoranda, der krænker eller omgår Kongressens forfatningsmæssige magtbeføjelser.«

Bemærk, at kongresmedlem Yohos lovforslag vil træde i kraft, så snart det er vedtaget af et flertal i Repræsentanternes Hus. Der behøves ingen handling fra Senatets side. Kongresmedlem Yoho har to medsponsorer: republikanerne Jeff Duncan fra South Carolina og Tom McClintock fra Californien. Republikaneren Justin Amash fra Michigan var en medsponsor, men trak sig tilbage den 9. juni. Vi kender endnu ikke hans begrundelser for tilbagetrækningen, men de involverer sandsynligvis intensiteten i kampen – i en kamp, som nogle ønsker, vi skal tro, slet ikke finder sted.

Hele den aktuelle fokusering på det umiddelbare behov for at fjerne Obama har ført til, at nogle personer igen undersøger bestemmelserne i Sektion 4 i det 25. tillæg til Den amerikanske Forfatning, der foreskriver, hvordan man fjerner en præsident, »der ikke er i stand til at udøve sit embedes magtbeføjelser og pligter«, men som forsømmer at gå af på eget initiativ – og således har brug for et lille skub, kunne man sige.

Den sædvanlige fremlæggelse af Sektion 4 – det, der rent faktisk har været vores sædvanlig fremlæggelse af Sektion 4 – siger, at vicepræsidenten og et flertal af regeringsmedlemmer skal vedtage at erklære præsidentens mentale defekt (i det aktuelle tilfælde). Men det er rent faktisk ikke, hvad den siger. Dette er blot et af alternativerne. Det andet alternativ er, at Kongreshusene (dvs. Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet) ved lov etablerer en anden »institution«, der ville få virkning af en særlig kommission til at undersøge og vedtage præsidentens evne til at fortsætte i embedet.

Det er potentielt set en temmelig stor forskel.

Lyndon LaRouche tilføjede her til aften, at der må være et tværpartisk initiativ for at dumpe (Donald) Trump. Netop nu har demokrater og republikanere mulighed for at sænke Trump på en regulær, upartisk basis. Hvis de kommer frem og siger det sammen, så omdefinerer det arten af præsidentkampagnen for 2016. Selv januar måned vil være for sent. Det bør ske nu, en upartisk organisering imod Trump, og denne samme kombination må også tage initiativ til handling for at dumpe Obama.

 




POLITISK ORIENTERING
den 10. december 2015:
Er NATO allerede i krig med Rusland?

Med formand Tom Gillesberg




Frankrigs politik i Mellemøsten efter angrebene 13. november

Paris, 9. december 2015 (Nouvelle Solidarité) – Det tyrkiske luftvåbens nedskydning af Ruslands Su-24 bombefly over Syrien har blot fortsat udviklingen af den franske situation, siden Hollandes møde med Putin i kølvandet på angrebene i Paris 13. november. En indikation for tendensen er de erklæringer, som den franske ambassadør til Rusland, Jean Maurice Ripert, kom med den 7. dec. på en videnskabskonference i Moskva. Ambassadør Ripert talte om samarbejde mellem Rusland og Frankrig, især omkring spørgsmål om terrorisme, rapporterer Sputnik. »Inden for terrorisme har samarbejde mellem de russiske og franske tjenester aldrig været afbrudt … Vi har samme interesser.« »Inden for disse områder«, understregede han, »sparer Putin og Hollande ingen midler for at få håndgribelige resultater. Præsident Hollande og præsident Putin har talt med hinanden 22 gange siden årets begyndelse. Tror I, der er nogen anden statschef, der har talt så tit med præsident Putin?«, spurgte han.

»Det er i nøden, at man kender sine venner. Angrebene den 13. november ramte Frankrig og hensatte landet i sorg … Og jeg behøver ikke understrege, hvor meget, de russiske myndigheders, og også befolkningen i Moskvas, tilkendegivelser af solidaritet har rørt os.« Han nævnte de lange køer af moskovitter, der kom for at lægge blomster og tænde lys foran den franske ambassade i kølvandet på angrebene i Paris.

Ord er en ting, men kendsgerningerne er undertiden noget barskere. Den franske deployering i Mellemøsten har, alt imens den er en del af den amerikanske koalition, en vis grad af autonomi. Franskmændene deployerer fra deres egne baser – hangarskibet Charles de Gaulle og militærbasen i Abu Dhabi, De forenede arabiske Emirater – og ikke fra Incirlik i Tyrkiet. Siden begyndelsen af deres engagement der, har franskmændene sagt, at, alt imens de er en del af koalitionen, så ville de forlade sig på deres egne efterretninger og selv afgøre, hvad deres mål skal være. Militære kilder her siger, at, på trods af, at de aktuelle efterretninger på jorden i Syrien lider under, at franskmændene totalt har brudt med præsident Assad og Syrien, så har de deres egne efterretninger via satellitter og andre midler.

For at gå yderligere frem med alliancen med Rusland, må Frankrig imidlertid bryde med den amerikanske koalition. Problemet er, at, pga. Frankrigs tab af industri og landets genintegrering i NATO, så er det afhængigt af amerikansk udstyr til hovedoperationer derovre. Og alt imens udenrigsminister Laurent Fabius sagde til Le Progrès de Lyon den 5. dec., at han ikke stillede krav om, at Assad skulle gå, før en politisk overgang finder sted – et skridt fremad vis-à-vis hans tidligere holdninger – så har Frankrig endnu ikke besluttet at genoprette samarbejde med Assad, hvilket er, hvad landet burde gøre.

Alt imens det er vigtigt for Frankrig at begynde at bevæge sig væk fra den angloamerikansk dominerede koalition og hen imod Rusland, så kan løsningen tydeligvis kun komme fra afsættelsen af Obama i USA.

 

Foto: Moskovitter udtrykker deres solidaritet med Frankrig foran den franske ambassade.




Rusland siger, USA og Rusland snart vil præsentere
FN-Resolution for at forkrøble ISIS’ indkomster

Rusland siger, USA og Rusland snart vil præsentere FN-Resolution for at forkrøble ISIS’ indkomster, sagde Ruslands ambassadør til FN Vitaly Churkin til reportere den 9. dec. »Vi arbejder sammen med USA’s delegation om et fællesprojekt. Dette er en storstilet resolution til bekæmpelse af terrorisme. Vi har tiltro til, at vi vil opnå dette, at denne resolution vil være klar til 18. december.« RT rapporterer, at denne »nye resolution vil indeholde en klausul, der vil håndhæve en strengere implementering af Resolution 2199 [en russisksponsoreret resolution fra februar 2015], der forbyder illegal oliehandel med terroristgrupper.«

Foto: Vitaly Churkin i FN.




USA bekræfter officielt:
Amerikanske F-15-fly er i Tyrkiet som Ruslands modstandere

9. december 2015 – De amerikanske F-15C luft-til-luft-kampfly, der blev deployeret til Syrien i begyndelsen af november, blev sendt dertil for at være modstandere mod Ruslands tilstedeværelse i Syrien. En unavngiven højtplaceret embedsmand i det amerikanske Luftvåben kom med kommentarer, der faktisk sagde dette, i går, som det rapporteres af The National Interest. Embedsmanden sagde, at kampflyene blev sendt til Tyrkiet, fordi »vi mente, at Rusland var i færd med at optrappe deres krænkelser af grænsen.«

Embedsmanden bekræftede således den erklæring, som kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hi.) kom med den 1. dec. i Husets Komite for de Væbnede Styrker, da hun udspurgte forsvarsminister Ash Carter om truslen om atomkrig mod Rusland: »Så, den kendsgerning, at vi nu har vores F-15-fly, der afpatruljerer den tyrkisk-syriske grænse, med en primær luft-til-luft-operation – der er ingen luftkamp imod ISIS; de har ingen aktiver i form af luftvåben; så jeg kan kun gå ud fra, at disse flys mål er russiske fly«, sagde hun. Carter svarede aldrig på hendes erklæring om F-15C-flyene, men det er nu demonstreret, at hun har ret.

Den unavngivne embedsmand klagede i øvrigt over, at tyrkerne ødelagde deployeringen af det amerikanske luftvåben med deres nedskydning af det russiske Su-24 fly den 24. november, som det amerikanske luftvåben ikke havde forventet, og det forventede heller ikke den russiske reaktion, dvs. russernes deployering af S-400 luftforsvarssystemet, tættere på den syriske kyst.

Foto: Det russiske krigsskib Moskva krydser nu ud for den syriske havneby Latakia.




Leder, 10. december 2015:
USA: Et spørgsmål om overlevelse – for hele verden. Fjern Obama!

Spørgsmålet om Frankrigs overlevelse efter det andet terrormassemord i Paris på et år blev udtrykt, da den franske præsident Hollande omgående og tvingende nødvendigt gik i aktion for at fremtvinge en alliance mellem Rusland, Frankrig og USA for at knuse ISIS og al-Qaeda.

Spørgsmålet om Ruslands overlevelse efter Tyrkiets bombning af det russiske fly over Syrien blev udtrykt, da præsident Putin holdt sin magtfulde tale til parlamentet i militærets hal, og påkaldte Ruslands 15 år lange kamp for at bekæmpe terror i Rusland, og nu, international terror, og indkaldte hver eneste russiske borger til at se sig selv som en »soldat« i denne krig.

Spørgsmålet om Amerikas overlevelse nu har intet at gøre med valggøglet efter terrorangrebet i San Bernardino. Spørgsmålet handler om den præsident Obama, der insisterer på at angribe og konfrontere Rusland og Kina som fjender, og som skjuler og benægter beviser for, at Saudi Arabien, Tyrkiet, Qatar og London støtter radikal jihadisme. Den præsident, der beordrede den amerikanske »åbning« til det Muslimske Broderskab siden 2011; som, siden afsættelsen og mordet på Gaddafi, har ført en bevidst kurs mod et endeligt opgør med Rusland og Kina, og i hvilket selvmorderisk opgør han tror, at de vil kapitulere til regimeskift, hvor som helst, han måtte ønske det.

Stiftende redaktør for Executive Intelligence Review Lyndon LaRouche har krævet, at Obama fjernes fra embedet, siden 2009, hvor han, med det samme, Obama indtog Det Hvide Hus, identificerede hans fatale »Nero-kompleks«.

LaRouche fremlagde det i dag: »Putin udøver en kvalitet af lederskab, der er de fleste amerikanske præsidenter i vores historie overlegent – men Obama! Obama begik et bevidst bedrageri, to gange på nationalt TV, hvor han dækkede over terroroperationen i Californien. Han støttede denne operation ved at forsøge at skjule dens karakter, og dernæst skjule dens sponsorer. Obama er en faktor for terrorisme og krig, en potentiel atomkrig.«

Obama driver nu nationen og planeten hen mod en atomar konfrontation, som den menneskelige civilisation ikke kan overleve. Atomvåbeneksperter kan se det og kommer med offentlige advarsler. Mindst ét kongresmedlem kan se det; kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard fra Hawaii udfordrede forsvarsminister Carter med denne Obamas trussel om atomkrig i Husets Komite for de Bevæbnede Styrker. Præsident Putin og det kinesiske lederskab ser det helt bestemt og træffer enhver foranstaltning til at forberede sig, så vel som til at undgå krig.

Onsdag ringede en af LaRouchePAC’s samarbejdspartnere i Midtvesten til sit kongresmedlem, briefede ham og sagde til ham, at Obama måtte fjernes ved hjælp af det 25. forfatningstillæg, omgående. Kongresmedlemmet sagde, at han ikke havde hørt nogen diskussion om dette. Vælgeren svarede magtfuldt, »Så kan du begynde diskussionen!« Det gjorde kongresmedlemmet, usandsynligt nok, og ringede tilbage til sin vælger to gange til for at rapportere, hvordan de andre i Kongressen havde reageret.

Det er blot én borger. Gang det op. Ændr hvad du tænker mht. din mulighed for at være med til at gøre, hvad der i virkeligheden er ret og nødvendigt.