31. januar 2016 – Hej, alle sammen, jeg er Kesha Rogers fra LaRouche Komite for Politisk Strategi (LPAC), og jeg er her i dag ved NASA’s Johnson Space Center, hvor jeg var for seks år siden, da jeg lancerede en kampagne for Den amerikanske Kongres og krævede en rigsretssag mod præsident Barack Obama for hans nedbrydning og afmontering af det bemandede rumprogram, privatisering af det bemandede rumprogram og ødelæggelsen af det, der var vores nations vision under præsident John F. Kennedy. Det var Kennedys plan at gennemføre et forpligtende engagement for videnskab som reel drivkraft for økonomisk fremgang.

Det, vi har set i de seneste seks år under præsident Obama, og tidligere også under præsident Bush, er en fortsat degeneration af vores kultur; en håbløshed, og fortvivlelse. Vi har set et rekordhøjt tal og en stigning i selvmord, stigning i narkomisbrug blandt folk, der normalt er mere velhavende og velstillet, især blandt de mennesker, der ser på minoritetssamfund som dem, der ville være berørt af narkoepidemien; nu er det folk blandt den hvide befolkningsgruppe i aldersgrupperne 25 og 35 til 45 år.

Hvorfor er dette sket? Der er sket, fordi vi har fjernet en vision, vi har fjernet følelsen af at have en mission. Vi har ikke længere en videnskabelig drivkraft i nationen, og det skyldes præsident Barack Obamas bevidste politik, og den bevidste politik for ødelæggelse af denne nation gennem at kapitulere til Wall Street. Nu har vi så en situation, hvor vore unge mennesker befinder sig i dyb fortvivlelse og håbløshed.

Og det er ikke bare unge mennesker! Det er den kendsgerning, at denne nations befolkning ikke har nogen muligheder. Den største ulighed og ødelæggelse har ramt vores nation; hele det transatlantiske finanssystem er bankerot.

Hvad er løsningen? Kina har foreslået en løsning. Kina fremstår med visionen om en »win-win«-strategi med en stor mission for samarbejde, til beskuelse og inspiration for ikke alene Kina, ikke alene USA, men for hele verden, nemlig, at vi kan samarbejde om store projekter, såsom at minere Månen [for helium-3],[1] og atter betragte Månen som en affyringsrampe for hele udforskningen af rummet og forståelsen af menneskets rolle, menneskehedens rolle i galaksen. Det er gennem dette, at vi må inspirere mennesket.

Hvis vi gør dette, kan vi lukke Wall Street ned, og vi kan faktisk skaffe den nødvendige kredit, som det var Alexander Hamiltons hensigt, så vi ikke behøver at gå til Elon Musk eller nogen af disse folk med deres kæmpemæssige pengebank, der allerede er bankerot. Vi kan faktisk gøre det, Kennedy gjorde, som Franklin Roosevelt gjorde, og vi kan anvende den nødvendige kredit til at opbygge et videnskabsdrevet program og atter opbygge en stor mission for denne nation.

Vi kan sørge for, at vore unge mennesker ikke tager deres eget liv, at de gives en vision med en ægte kultur. Dette videnskabsdrevne program ville sikre, at vi har energi til Jorden, med helium-3 fra Månen, i flere generationer fremover. Vi kan sørge for, at folk bliver inspireret ikke alene af et videnskabsdrevet program, men et, der er forbundet med en storslået kultur, en storslået musikkultur, som hr. LaRouche har lanceret i vores Manhattanprojekt i New York. Og vi kan forene disse to kræfter og atter give inspiration til forpligtelsen over for menneskehedens fremskridt, der engang var den håbets bavn, der inspirerede hele menneskeheden, og atter bringe USA tilbage i spidsen for denne form for vision.

Tak.

[1] Se: Tema-artikel: Udvinding af helium-3 på Månen for en menneskehed med fusionskraft, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=1894

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 31. januar 2016 – Lyndon LaRouche kom søndag aften med en skarp advarsel om, at »verden står på randen af generel atomkrig, og det kommer først og fremmest fra Storbritannien og Obama. Obama er, og har altid været, agent for det britiske imperiesystem, og de satser nu på at lancere generel atomkrig. De står nu på den yderste rand for at skubbe det ud over kanten, lige nu, især i Europa.«

LaRouche sagde, at han har fulgt udviklingen på den internationale scene tæt, og det er i løbet af de seneste uger blevet åbenbart, at det døende, britiske imperiesystem gør fremstød for krig, nu, udvirket af deres agent Obama som et opgør mellem USA og NATO, imod Rusland og Kina. Vi har nået et sammenbrudspunkt i historien, hvor der omgående må gribes ind med handling for at forhindre dette mareridt i at udspille sig.

»Det er det budskab, der bør præsenteres for alle, der ikke er dumme«, sagde LaRouche. »Og vi bør handle for at standse og forhindre, at en sådan krig lanceres. Med mindre de afskrækkes fra at gennemføre det, som de nu åbenlyst signalerer, at de vil gøre hurtigt, har vi kurs mod atomkrig og massedød over hele planeten. Pointen er: Kan vi forhindre dette her, der allerede er sat i værk? Kan vi forhindre, at det gennemføres? Det er det eneste spørgsmål af betydning i øjeblikket.«

I dag introducerede LaRouche-bevægelsen (i USA) et betydningsfuldt skift i den strategiske situation med Kesha Rogers, medlem af LaRouche Komite for Politisk Strategi (LPAC) og tidligere to gange demokratisk kandidat til Kongressen for delstaten Texas, der kaldte til politisk kamp med en genoplivning af NASA fra det helvede, som Obamas politik har dømt det til, for at få USA tilbage i rummet og gå ind i et win-win-samarbejde med Rusland og Kina, i særdeleshed om Kinas plan om at landsætte en mission på Månens bagside i 2020.

Se: LPAC-medlem og to gange demokratisk nomineret til Texas-22, Kesha Rogers, uden for Johnson Space Center i Houston, Texas. 

Denne kampagne kan også spille en afgørende rolle i at genindføre fornuften i institutionen Det amerikanske Præsidentskab, der i øjeblikket befinder sig i hænderne på en afsindig morder, der synes at mene, at han kan få Rusland og Kina til at bøje sig under trusler om en atomar konfrontation, eller med en decideret atomkrig.

Dette skifte kan ikke vente til november 2016. Obama må fjernes fra magten nu. Dette kan gøres, og en fungerende præsidentiel institution genoplives, ved at afsløre det, der nu er et manipuleret demokratisk væddeløb til præsidentvalget. Sænk Hillary Clintons og Bernie Sanders’ pro-Obama-kandidaturer, og lancer en levedygtig politisk diskussion omkring Martin O’Malleys kampagne – den eneste kandidat, der offentligt har udtalt sig seriøst om at vende tilbage til Glass-Steagall-standarden for bankopdeling for at stoppe Wall Streets dødbringende politik, og som på anden vis har demonstreret egenskaber, der kvalificerer ham til præsidentskabet.[1]

På samme tid er det nødvendigt omgående at lukke Wall Street og hele det spekulative, transatlantiske finanssystem ned, eftersom det er dette systems bankerot, der står bag fremstødet for krig. Hele det transatlantiske system var et hårs bredde fra at kollapse i sidste uge med bankkrisen i Italien, og det kunne eksplodere, hvad øjeblik, det skal være – og stort set hvor som helst. Dette system må begraves, så USA kan vende tilbage til den politik for økonomisk vækst, vi havde under Franklin Roosevelt, og som også reflekteredes af Kennedys rumprogram.

»Rumprogrammet er hemmeligheden bag den mekanisme, gennem hvilken vi kan bringe USA, og andre dele af verden, ind i et økonomisk genrejsningsforløb«, udtalte Lyndon LaRouche den 30. jan. Når denne politik først træder i kraft, »vi vil se begyndelsen til en virkelig revolution i rummet. Så lad os komme i gang!«  

[1] Se: Fredags-webcast fra LPAC, 29. jan., dansk oversættelse, uddrag, om LaRouche-bevægelsens støtte til O’Malley-kampagnen og Glass-Steagall, o.a.:

Med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen

Relevante links:

LaRouchePAC fredags-webcast om bl.a. USA's præsidentkandidat Martin O'Malleys støtte til Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling

Danmarks første astronaut Andreas Mogensen:
EIR interview

Fred gennem internationalt samarbejde om rumfart.
Interview med Andres Mogensen, første dansker i rummet.
Dansk version af en EIR artikel fra den 19. september 2015

31. januar 2016 – Selv om udviklingen af en vaccine til at bekæmpe Zika-virussen vil tage nogen tid, sker der gennembrud inden for diagnosticering, der gør det muligt hurtigt at identificere virussens tilstedeværelse.

I Brasilien meddelte Oswaldo Cruz Foundation (Fiocruz) og det brasilianske Sundhedsministerium den 18. januar, at de havde udviklet et diagnosticeringsredskab, der på samme tid kan identificere det genetiske materiale i Zika-, Chikunguna- og dengue-virusserne, alle sygdomme, der overføres via myggen Aedes aegypti. Diagnosticeringsredskabet er et resultat af den fælles indsats af Parana Molekylær-biologisk Institut (IBMP) og fire afdelinger af Fiocruz. Fremstillingen af det nye NAT-redskab vil begynde omgående, og Sundhedsministeriet sagde, at det ville stille 500.000 stk. af det til rådighed for Fiocruz inden årets udgang, men uden at angive en fast dato. Sundhedsminister Marcelo Castro understregede betydningen af dette gennembrud, rapporterede Jornal do Brasil den 16. jan. og understregede, at anvendelsen af brasiliansk snarere end importeret teknologi vil sænke omkostningerne for fremstillingen af diagnosticeringsredskabet betydeligt.

Med citater fra Deutsche Welle rapporterer RT i dag, at tyske forskere ved det bioteknologiske selskab Genekam ligeledes har udviklet en test til diagnosticering, der nøjagtigt kan detektere Zika-virus hos mennesker. Iflg. den tyske avis kan denne nye teknologi ikke alene afsløre tilstedeværelsen af sygdomsfremkaldende Zika i en blodprøve, men også vise, hvor meget, der findes i en patients blod. Det vil således være muligt med sikkerhed at determinere, om en person er bærer af Zika-virus. De første pakker med de nye tests er allerede afsendt til Brasilien.

Deutsche Welle rapporterede også, at et seks mand stort forskerteam fra Senegals Pasteur Institut i Dakar er landet i Brasilien, hvor de håber at adaptere deres mobile Ebola-diagnosticeringsredskab til Zika for at assistere brasilianske myndigheder med hurtigere at identificere Zika-tilfælde gennem dør-til-dør-undersøgelser. Teamleder dr. Amadou Alpha Sall sagde, at hans Ebola-redskab kan identificere tilstedeværelse af virus inden for 15 minutter.

Korte artikler fra hele verden. Indeholder bl.a.:

Rusland vil arbejde på en atomteknologi til forsvar af planeten –

Vil Europa stille midlerne til rådighed, eller forsinke sit program for udforskning af Mars? – 

Spredningen af farlig Zika-virus i de amerikanske lande markerer den seneste succes for miljøbevægelsens plan om at beskytte myg og dræbe mennesker – o.a. 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Titelbillede: NEOSkjold: En asteroide passerer meget tæt på Jorden.

Korte artikler fra hele verden. Indeholder bl.a.:

Den myggebårne Zika-virus spreder sig i de amerikanske lande, midt i mangel på infrastruktur i den offentlige sundhedssektor

– Nobelprismodtager Carlo Rubbia gør op med klimaforandringssvindelen

– Kinesiske firmaer fremskynder deres planer om at lande på Månens bagside

– o.a.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, USA, 23. januar 2016 – De af jer, der ikke er totalt demoraliseret, ved, at USA og meget af verden befinder sig i en eksistentiel krise. Dette er meget værre end i 2008, og langt værre end i 1929. I USA skal man tilbage til tiden før Borgerkrigen, eller til tiden før vores Revolutionskrig, for at finde en så stor trussel mod vort land. Nationer, inklusive vores egen, kunne i realiteten ophøre med at eksistere, før denne grusomme vinter er slut.

Dette er en årstid fuld af død. Afskåret fra håb, afskåret fra en nyttig eksistens, afskåret fra alt, går mange af vore borgere ganske enkelt hen og tager livet af sig selv, om det nu er med heroin eller skydevåben.

I det transatlantiske område har vi en katastrofe, der ikke byder på nogen fremtid for menneskeheden. Men med Rusland og Kina har vi noget, der kunne være svaret på problemet. Man må forstå, at menneskehedens nylige historie har været den, at Asien har været et område, forskelligt fra det transatlantiske område. Og det er det transatlantiske område, med Det britiske Imperium som centrum, der er den primære kilde til alt det onde, er nu rammer os.

Nøglen til at forstå dette er Det britiske Imperiums historie. Det britiske Imperium er ondskabens kilde, hvorimod andre muligheder står til rådighed med hensyn til Rusland og Kina.

Der findes altid en løsning på denne form for problemer. Hvor findes den?

Den findes i den menneskelige kreativitet, og jo – vi kan komme dertil. På visse betingelser. For at komme dertil, må man efterlade det meste af den baggage, man gerne ville tage med sig.

Hvilket grundlæggende set vil sige Det britiske Imperium, samt de dele af verden, der er knyttet til Det britiske Imperium.

Det samme gælder det nuværende finanssystem. Dette finanssystem er et falsum. Det er kilden til ødelæggelsen. Må ma skaffe sig af med dette finanssystem – og dét er nøglen til løsningen.

Så snart, vi gør dette, vil blødningen ophøre!

Det var Bertrand Russell, der skabte dette, og det var Bertrand Russells indflydelse på den amerikanske økonomi og relaterede ting, der forårsagede ødelæggelsen.

Dette problem går helt tilbage til det store geni Gottfried Leibniz’ død i slutningen af 1716. Leibniz var nøglen til hele denne historiske periode; hans død efterlod et gabende hul blandt vore kræfter. Leibniz var inspirationskilden til den Amerikanske Revolution, samt meget andet. Senere, årtier efter Leibniz’ død, var det geniet Alexander Hamilton, der trådte frem for at være efterfølger til Leibniz’ rolle, og i realiteten grundlægge USA. Hamiltons økonomiske principper er de eneste fornuftige: glem alt andet!

Vores aktuelle krise er langt værre end den, der konfronterede Franklin Roosevelt, men det er de samme Hamilton-principper, der må anvendes. Disse principper kan frembringe en dramatisk ændring og en sluttelig økonomisk genrejsning, nu som dengang. Problemet er, at så mange af vore borgere er blevet for dumme til, at de kan fatte det. Den dumhed, der manifesterer sig gennem at underkaste sig Wall Street, og i særdeleshed FBI-systemet, der i betydelig grad fik magt i USA i begyndelsen af 1944, selv før Franklin Roosevelt døde. Det var introduktionen af FBI-systemet, der har været årsag til ødelæggelsen af USA’s økonomi.

Vore borgeres intellekt er blevet ofre for den onde indflydelse, der kommer fra Lord Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), som Lyndon LaRouche har kaldt »den ondeste mand i det tyvende århundrede«. Russell helligede sit liv til at gøre folk dumme, så de var nemme at kontrollere – eller, som nu, dræbe. Hans metode var at insistere på matematisk tankegang, der længe har været den førende form for ynkelige dumhed i hele verden. Med start i år 1900 lykkedes det ham progressivt at ødelægge det 20. og 21. århundrede. For de flestes vedkommende er det, hvad man »lærte« i skolen. Hvis man har børn, så er det alt, hvad de såkaldt »lærer«, og i en endnu mere elendigt dum form. Det er denne dumhed, som Albert Einstein, ligesom Lyndon LaRouche, aldrig accepterede og har tilbragt det meste af deres liv med at bekæmpe.

Lad os omsider blive dette nonsens kvit. Dit liv, og en hel del mere, afhænger af det.

Titelfoto: Albert Einstein  

Korte artikler fra hele verden. Med bl.a. følg. artikler:

Krafft Ehrickes Rumstation fra 1958, »til gavn for videnskab og menneskehed« –

Tysklands Wendelstein 7-X Stellerator tager næste skridt hen imod fusion –

Forskere fra NASA og Peru vil dyrke kartofler i en kulstofrig, Marslignende atmosfære –

O.a.

Titelfoto: Flere end 4.500 sorter af kartofler opbevares i genbanken i det Internationale Kartoffelcenter i Lima, Peru.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Nr. 3, årang 1.

Korte rapporteringer fra hele verden.

Titelfoto: En kunstners fremstilling af en del af Radioteleskopprojektet Square Kilometer Array, SKA, i Sydafrika og Australien.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Nr. 2 Årgang 1

Omfatter rapporteringer fra hele verden for november måned, 2015.

Foto: Arsat 2 satelliten under en test i INVAP’s facilitet i Argentina.

Ben Deniston fra LPAC’s Videnskabsteam taler om den nye brochure, »USA tilslutter sig den Nye Silkevej«, og Kinas politik for den Nye Silkevej.

»Dette er en forståelse af, at udviklingen af fundamental videnskab, i samarbejde med forskellige nationer, skaber en nettoforøgelse af den mængde rigdom og ressourcer, der er til rådighed for alle. Og vi er nået til et punkt i menneskehedens udvikling, hvor, hvis vi ikke løfter os op på et niveau med internationale relationer og globalt samarbejde, der bygger på denne forståelse, vil vi ikke være i stand til at eksistere som art på denne planet. Hvis vi fortsætter denne fremgangsmåde, med geopolitiske konflikter, vil vi ødelægge os selv; sådan, som Obama netop nu truer med at gøre.«

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, USA, den 2. januar 2016:

Putin underskrev i går en ny strategisk doktrin for Rusland. Selv om den endnu ikke er blevet oversat til engelsk, har vi pålidelige oplysninger om mange af hovedpunkterne. I betragtning af, hvem Putin er, og hvad han står for, er hovedlinjen positiv, og de fleste af pointerne er sande – men desværre vil selv det sandeste generelt blive misforstået. Dokumentet kræver f.eks., at videnskabens rolle bliver genoplivet, hvilket er absolut nødvendigt – men de fleste mennesker i dag, selv de fleste russere, har ingen idé om, hvad videnskab er.

Men en del af tankegangen i det er af fremragende kvalitet, og minder om Ben Denistons intervention i de sidste ti minutter af LaRouchePAC-webcastet den 30. december, hvor han kraftfuldt polemiserede, at der i realiteten nu kræves fuldstændigt nye ideer, hvis menneskeheden skal overleve – og således gjorde fremstød for den polemik, som LaRouche har ført omkring Brunelleschi.

Under diskussioner om dette aspekt gentog LaRouche, at, LPAC’s Videnskabsteam og Komite for Politisk Strategi sandsynligvis typificerer de bedste aspekter af vores organisation.

For at vende tilbage til processen omkring Rusland: den Amerikanske Hær udgav Putins tale til De forende Nationer i november i den seneste udgave af sit magasin, Military Review, sammen med en artikel fra februar 2013 af den russiske generalstabschef Valerij Gerasimov og en forklarende artikel af en amerikansk Ruslands-specialist. Gerasimovs artikel gennemgik tankegangen bag den senere Moskva-konference i 2014 om »Farvede Revolutioner«, som vi dengang rapporterede om. Men Gerasimovs intellektuelle processer, og selvfølgelig nogle andres, gik langt videre end det, vi dengang vidste.

»Vi bør ikke kopiere udenlandske erfaringer og jage efter førende lande, men vi må overstige dem og selv indtage førende positioner. Det er her, militærvidenskab får en afgørende rolle«, skrev Gerasimov. Gerasimov bemærker, at den fremragende, sovjetiske, militære akademiker Aleksandr Svechin skrev: »Det er ekstraordinært vanskeligt at forudsige krigens vilkår. For hver krig må man udarbejde en særlig linje for den strategiske krigsførelse. Hver krig er et unikt tilfælde, der kræver fastlæggelsen af en særlig tankegang, og ikke anvendelsen af en eller anden model.«

»Tilstanden i dag for russisk militærvidenskab kan ikke sammenlignes med blomstringen af den militær-teoretiske tankegang i vort land på tærsklen til Anden Verdenskrig«, skrev Gerasimov. Og dog »var der dengang ingen folk med højere eksaminer, og der var ingen akademiske skoler eller ministerier. Der var fremragende personer med strålende ideer. Jeg ville kalde dem fanatikere, i ordets bedste betydning. Måske har vi ganske enkelt ikke tilstrækkeligt med sådanne folk i dag. Folk, som f.eks. Georgy Isserson«, der præcist forudsagde, hvordan den næste krig ville begynde, med længe, hemmeligt forberedte angreb, før nogen som helst krigserklæring. Isserson, en omfattende pionér inden for militærtænkning, blev arresteret i 1941 og blev ikke løsladt før i 1955.

»Skæbnen for denne ’fædrelandets profet’ fik et tragisk forløb. Vort land betalte for ikke at lytte til konklusionerne af denne professor fra Generalstabsakademiet, med enorme mængder af blod. Hvad kan vi udlede af dette? En hånlig holdning til nye ideer, til fremgangsmåder, der ikke er standard, til andre synsmåder, er uacceptabelt i militærvidenskab. Og det er endnu mere uacceptabelt for dem, der praktiserer hvervet, at have denne holdning til videnskab.«

»Som konklusion vil jeg gerne sige, at, uanset, hvilke styrker fjenden har, uanset, hvor veludviklet hans styrker og midler til væbnet konflikt måtte være, så kan former og metoder for at overvinde dem findes. Han vil altid have sårbare områder, og det betyder, at passende midler til at modgå ham findes.«

Efter nogen diskussion om den russiske baggrund responderede Lyndon LaRouche som følger: Han sagde, at de fleste af vore folk, i vores egen organisation, er temmelig dumme. Det skyldes, at de får en af disse ’løsener’, en afviger-dialekt – de kommer med forskellige ’løsener’ – og så siger de, at denne politik er politikken. Og det er altid noget i retning af en deduktiv model. Og de har ingen forståelse af dette, fordi de ikke er kreative; de er absolut ikke kreative. De kalder sig kreative, men i samme sekund, man løber ind i noget, hvor gruppen beslutter at træffe en beslutning om, hvad der endegyldigt er rigtigt – her er det, at hele organisationen bliver ødelagt. For de insisterer på at vedtage en slags gruppetænkning, og de antager, at dette må være politikken. Men de går ind i denne pragmatiske holdning, og de mister den kreative gnist, som er hemmeligheden bag alle gode ting, der vinder krige, og den slags.

Det, vi har på Manhattan – vi har virkelig en intelligent organisation. Inden for andre områder har vi nogle virkeligt fremragende folk, blandt den håndfuld, der er fremragende folk i vores organisation, men de fleste af folkene fatter det simpelt hen ikke, for de taler altid om en ’praktisk’ fremgangsmåde, en ’praktisk’ metode, en ’praktisk’ måde at gøre tingene på. Og de er ikke dumme mennesker. Men de bliver fordummede på det her – på dette princip. De siger, at man må komme frem til en aftale. Alle må komme på linje, mere eller mindre. Eller, hvis de ikke kommer på linje, ja, så bliver det spørgsmålet. I realiteten mener jeg, at en stor del af vores organisation – selv lederskabet, med få undtagelser – er temmelig dumme i denne henseende. De vil være dygtige til at udtænke en plan, men planen vil sjældent virke. Og de er modvillige, de er så modvillige, til at opgive denne ting.

Titelbillede: ‘Mediterende filosof’, oliemaleri, Rembrandt Van Rijn, 1632 

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)

Som Lyndon LaRouche beskrev sagen med sine medarbejdere for nylig, så er et uddannet samfund et, hvor, selv om det store flertal ikke selv er genier, så har samfundet visse kvalificerende intellektuelle og moralske evner, og de ved, at de må se op til historiens og nutidens genier og vandre i deres fodspor. De største muslimer i renæssancens periode så hen til de store genier i andre kulturer, som grækerne, og lærte af dem – men frembragte i processen deres egne genier. Vi bør alle se op til dem og vandre i deres fodspor.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Wall Street og hele det transatlantiske finanssystem er nu dødsdømt og kunne forsvinde ud i den blå luft, hvornår det skal være, i løbet af de kommende dage eller uger, lød advarslen igen i dag fra Lyndon LaRouche. Faren er, at dette vil føre til en tilstand af panik og medfølgende massedød, som kun kan undgås ved at lukke Wall Street på samme måde, som USA’s præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt gjorde, erklærede LaRouche. Vi har presserende behov for en »mobilisering af de villige« blandt det amerikanske folk for at få nationen – og verden – tilbage på ret kurs.

Dette drejer sig ikke om at forhandle en eller anden form for reform eller indrømmelser. »Wall Street må lukkes ned, uden at give nogen kompensation«, sagde LaRouche. »Vi må lukke det ned, ligesom Franklin Roosevelt gjorde. Og hvis man ikke lukker dem ned, har man alligevel mistet det hele. Med andre ord, så kan man ikke forhandle med banksystemet; man må lære lektien af FDR!«

LaRouche var eftertrykkelig: »I har intet spillerum. Hver eneste stump finansiel aktivitet, som er derude, og som er af spekulativ art, må udslettes uden nogen kompensation. Man gør hver eneste af disse svindlere bankerot, i alle kategorier, og ribber dem for alt.«

Omfanget af den globale spekulationsboble overstiger nu 2 billiarder dollar, et konservativt skøn, og er vokset med over en tredjedel under Obamas vagt. Dette er et direkte resultat af Wall Streets kriminelle politik med bail-out (finansiel kvantitativ lempelse – ’pengetrykning’) og nu bail-in (ekspropriering af bankkundernes indeståender/indskud) – med ’nøjsomhedspolitik’, der har folkemord til følge, og budgetnedskæringer, der er designet til skarpt at forøge dødsraten, i kombination med decideret tyveri af folks opsparinger, som det skete på Cypern og for nylig i Italien. Wall Streets gæld har nået et punkt, hvor den ikke længere kan betales i dollar; nu kræver de, at den betales i lig.

Se på tilfældet med Italien, hvor en tvungen bail-in af kunderne i fire banker tidligere på måneden udslettede mange menneskers livsopsparing. Mindst en person vides at have begået selvmord som følge heraf, som det er sket med hundreder af erhvervsfolk og arbejdere, der blev ødelagt af den samme politik.

Eller se over grænsen, til vores nabo Canada, hvor nedsmeltningen af Wall Streets oliefracking-boble har decimeret hele lokalsamfund og er i færd med at slå folk ihjel. Selvmordsraten er i de seneste måneder eksploderet blandt afskedigede arbejdere i canadiske oliefelter i provinserne Alberta og Saskatchewan, med en stigning i selvmord på 30 % i de første seks måneder af 2015, sammenlignet med de første seks måneder af 2014.

Ønsker du, at dette skal ske for dig? Det vil det – med mindre man lukker Wall Street ned.

Erstat britisk monetarisme med Franklin Roosevelts kreditsystem

Lyndon LaRouche understregede, at det haster med omgående at gribe til handling. »Det her er ikke ’hen ad vejen’; det er nu. Vi må, så hurtigt som muligt, lukke hele det monetaristiske system ned, i USA i særdeleshed – inden Nytår, hvor det her vil bryde ud i fuldt flor.«

»Det, der er brug for, er mere end bare noget regulering«, fortsatte LaRouche. »Pointen er, at man må eliminere ideen om penge, om det monetaristiske system, som er karakteristisk for det britiske system. Vores løsning er ikke mod anvendelsen af penge, men imod monetarisme; så man må annullere monetarisme. Man kan ikke antage, at penge har en iboende værdi i sig selv; det er problemet.«

Det, som præsident Franklin Roosevelt gjorde, var absolut korrekt og tjener som en god indikator for den kurs, vi i dag må tage. Efter at lukke Wall Street ned, må man etablere en kreditfacilitet af samme type, som FDR skabte. »Man udsteder kredit, og denne kredit – hvis den bruges korrekt – afføder produktivitet«, erklærede LaRouche. »Kreditten er baseret på den generøse indsats på vegne af selve regeringen, på vegne af det amerikanske, statslige kreditsystem. Det, der skete under FDR’s politik, er, at folk rent faktisk blev dækket ind af det præsidentielle systems generøsitet. Man måtte imødekomme den kendsgerning, at man havde en gæld til den nationale regering, som en magt; og man måtte optjene vejen til at opbygge sin egen økonomi. Det var, hvad vi gjorde under Franklin Roosevelt.«

LaRouche konkluderede: »Vi står nu ved et punkt, i løbet af de kommende uger frem til Nytår, hvor vores eksistens kunne være dømt til undergang, med mindre vi gør dette, med mindre vi får dette gennemført. Det er virkeligheden. Det er der, vi står.

Vilkårene i USA er nu af en sådan art, at det nuværende system ikke kan fungere; det vil bryde sammen. Og vi må forhindre et sammenbrud. Hvordan forhindrer vi et sammenbrud? Vi gør det, som Franklin Roosevelt gjorde ved Wall Street. Der er ingen anden mulighed; det eksisterer ikke. Og det haster. Fra og med begyndelsen af det nye år, kunne I være døde, med mindre dette gøres.

Hvad betyder så dette? Det betyder, at man skal se at få sparket præsident Obama ud af embedet; hurtigt, omgående.«

LaRouches Fire Hovedlove

Lyndon LaRouche opstillede den 9. juni 2014 de Fire Hovedlove for en reel genrejsning af den fysiske økonomi:

* Genindfør Glass-Steagall med et total adskillelse af kommercielle banker og investeringsbankernes hasardspilsaktiviteter, hedgefonde og andre spekulanter. Dette vil omgående udslette gælden til Wall Street, som er ubetalelig og har været illegitim fra første færd – og vil samtidig udslette Wall Street/London-bankkartellernes magt.

* Lancer en massiv indsprøjtning af statskredit igennem dette nu genoprettede banksystem, ind i realøkonomien. Denne fremgangsmåde, i traditionen efter Alexander Hamilton, med et statsligt banksystem og statskredit, er også omdrejningspunktet for FDR’s politik.

* Fokuser på de områder for investering, der mest forøger energi-gennemstrømningstætheden[1] i økonomien som helhed, inklusive infrastruktur og videnskabelig og teknologisk forskning og udvikling. Dette betyder billioner af dollars i anlægsinvesteringer for at opbygge det 21. århundredes infrastrukturnetværk langs med Verdenslandbroens ruter.

* Forfølg den videnskabelige udforsknings fremskudte grænser, med afsæt i det 20. århundredes store, russiske videnskabsmand, V.I. Vernadskijs arbejde inden for biokemi og noosfæren. Dette må inkludere et internationalt, forceret program for at opnå fusionskraft til kommercielt brug, et afgørende træk i den næste fase af rumforskning, så vel som også for løsningen af kravene om vand- og energiforsyning i en verden, der konfronteres med en sammenbrudskrise af proportioner som i den Mørke Tidsalder.

Kontakt dit lokale LaRouchePAC kontor/Schiller Institut nu. Slut dig til »mobiliseringen af de villige«, for at lukke Wall Street ned.

[1] Se: Video: Energi-gennemstrømnings-tæthed, et kort overblik, dansk udskrift

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)

Lyndon LaRouche: Men pointen her er altid, at menneskeslægten ikke er en (automatisk) selvudviklende personlighed. Menneskehedens skæbne er forbedring af menneskets evner, i den betydning, at mennesket kan forudse menneskehedens evner til at opnå virkninger, som menneskeheden ellers ikke ville være i stand til at præstere. Dette er noget, der går op til et højere niveau end det, vi tænker på som givne kendsgerninger, eller givne former for kendsgerninger.

Alt, hvad der et vigtigt omkring menneskeheden, kan reduceres til kravet om, at menneskeheden må udvikles til et højere niveau af selvudvikling. Menneskeheden skaber ikke selvudvikling, men menneskeheden kilder potentialet for selvudvikling. Og det er, hvad vi kalder opdagelsen af kreativitet. Og det bedste eksempel på dette, det enkle tilfælde på dette, er Einstein. Einstein gjorde præcist, hvad der måtte gøres: At opdage, hvad fremtiden er, at opdage, hvad menneskehedens muligheder er, for at virkeliggøre intet mindre end noget bedre, som kan forstås i denne sammenhæng. Det er, hvad Brunelleschi gjorde. Det er sådan, det fungerer, og det er den eneste måde, det faktisk virker på tilfredsstillende måde.

Med andre ord, så kommer menneskeheden ikke og siger, »Jeg er et stort geni«. Kommer frem og siger, »Jeg er et stort geni«. Hvad betyder det? Ved hvilken standard opdager man, hvad dette såkaldte geni er? Man ser på Einstein, og man ser på hans største række af udviklinger, og man ser det samme. Man ser det samme tidligere, i Brunelleschis arbejde. Det er alt sammen det samme. Det er begrebet om menneskehedens udødelighed, at altid gå op til et højere niveau af kreativitet, ikke inden for den eksisterende opfattelse af menneskeheden, men i en opfattelse ud over, for mennesket, ud over menneskehedens tilegnede kundskaber, på det tidspunkt.

Det er fremtiden, skabelsen af fremtiden på et højere niveau. Dette kommer ikke fra mennesket selv. Det kommer fra menneskehedens skæbne som en agent for opdagelse, der når op på et højere niveau end menneskeheden nogen sinde før har nået.

——————-

Redaktionens bemærkning: Dagens leder fra LaRouche-bevægelsen er hele Lyndon LaRouches Manhattan-diskussion fra lørdag, den 12. december. Vi har desværre ikke kapacitet til at oversætte det hele til dansk, men anbefaler kraftigt, at man læser/hører hele diskussionen, der omhandler LaRouches pointering af unikke, videnskabelige opdagelser, viljemæssigt udført af enkelte individer, som det bærende element i de periodevise revolutioner, der fører den menneskelige kultur fremad til et højere niveau, og altså ikke er noget, der ’sker af sig selv’ som følge af en forud fastlagt ’evolution’. God fornøjelse! (-red.)

——————

Lyndon LaRouche Dialogue with the Manhattan Project, Saturday, December 12, 2015

HUMAN CREATIVE COMPOSITION: ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S MANHATTAN,

BRUNELLESCHI’S DANCING ROPE BRIDGE, AND VERDI’S TUNING IN MUSIC

DENNIS SPEED:  My name is Dennis Speed and on behalf of the
LaRouche Political Action Committee I’d like to welcome you to
today’s meeting.  I believe this is the 27th meeting, but I want
to say this:
Lyn, everybody today, has or has access at least, on the
table in the back, to an {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine
simply entitled “Brunelleschi.”  Now, our Manhattan Project is
over the next week going to go into a new phase, and the music
will be leading that.  And that musical process, which will reach
a certain level, particularly over next Friday, next Saturday,
and Sunday, has already been started here today, by what Diane
just did, especially her last reference to the question of the
Solar System being inside one’s head.
So Lyn, I’d like you to do something today which I’m
requesting, which is an opening statement which takes us past the
noise of the Barack Obama apologizers of this week, such as
Donald Trump and others; and puts us on a different plane so we
can consider this concept you’ve put forward about the unity of
the nation, and the need for people, good people, be they
Republican, Democrat, Independent, or other, to come together and
accomplish what you’ve outlined can be done, which is the
immediate removal of Barack Obama from office, and the immediate
defeat of Wall Street, but by use of these methods that you had
uniquely pioneered. And the Brunelleschi {EIR} just brought this
to my mind.  So I know I don’t usually do that, but I’d like to
ask you for an opening statement, and then we go to Q&A.

LYNDON LAROUCHE:  Yes, I think the important thing that is
for us to consider, is what was actually accomplished with
Nicholas of Cusa, but prior to Nicholas of Cusa, and what
preceded that.  And therefore, once you place your ideas of
judgment in that category, suddenly you find yourself in sort of
a happy state of mind, that you are sure that you’re on the right
ground, you realize that there’s creativity.  And you go through
the Brunelleschi series entirely.  And Brunelleschi is a very
complex question for people to deal with, who are particularly
{ingénues}, because they don’t understand it.
But in the time of Brunelleschi’s leadership, he was {really
a master} in this area.  And that was something on which the
foundation, of modern civilization, has depended, on the great
achievements of Brunelleschi.  And everything else followed from
that.
But that’s a whole story in itself.  It’s something, we’ve
just gone through a choral practice, and the idea of a choral
practice, which you’ve just been doing again, on this afternoon,
and what we do in society in general, are one and the same thing.
There has to be a harmonic agreement which is not simply singing
notes one after the other, but going with the idea that
everything you’ve done up to a certain point, requires that you
make an innovation to the next note; and then to make another
one, again, an innovation to the next note.  And that’s exactly
what Brunelleschi did. And the best illustration, is he composed
or constructed, a harmonic chorus, which was {totally beautiful
music, itself},  absolutely beautiful, in his composition, in
this small area, that he occupied for this subject-matter.  And
this thing set a standard for all wise people, to look up and see
something beautiful.

SPEED:  Thank you, Lyn.  He’s referring to the Pazzi Chapel,
I believe.
And I’d like to have us go to the first question, which is
here.

Q:  My name is J–W–.  And I love that we’re doing notes,
and starting on notes, because my gosh, we’ve got some crazy
notes going on in politics — like Trump and Hillary Clinton.  So
who, as a bipartisan coalition, would you see helpful to bringing
some harmony in our country?

LAROUCHE:  I think, the point is, why not go from, beginning
with Brunelleschi; And Brunelleschi was actually the founder of
modern science, in many ways.  He did everything, everything
imaginable.  The list of his accomplishments is immense.  But his
building of the Florence Cathedral, that particular construction,
which anyone can see these days, still, this was a magical
development, and it reflects his mind.
And what the small occasion that he struck there, in that
little temple kind of place the Pazzi Chapel, musical temple, is
one of the most beautiful little things ever produced, and it
sets the standards for all kinds of beautiful things, in poetry,
music, and so forth, in general.  And so he is one of the great
geniuses who brought the future of mankind into possibility.

Q: [follow-up]  In our bipartisan coalition that we would
like to see happen in this country, do you see any particular
individual that we could anchor in on, and get some better music
notation?

LAROUCHE:  Well, in terms of my own experience, I search for
these kinds of opportunities.  And by that I mean, when I’m
dealing with something, I don’t like to do something I think is
shabby, or dull, either one.  And therefore I think my impulses
always are, to get some element of beauty, that is, but beauty in
the true sense, not beauty as some kind of construction.  But
when you just try to do the things that you think are the next
things which should happen, which is what Brunelleschi did, in
his practice, If you go back his history.  We’re doing this now,
it’s a big story.
But what he did, he set up whole systems.  Like this idea
that of a rope, if you take a rope and you pull a rope across the
stream, and the rope has a flexibility in it. So the people who
are walking across this rope, from one shore to the other; and
this one of the famous things of Brunelleschi, and his treatment
of “yes, no; yes, no; yes, no,” and so forth, was a typical part
of his whole mental life.  And he used this to induce people, how
to trust a rope system, as you walk as a human being across the
rope, from one shore to the next.  And people were doing that.
In Italy up to the recent time, this thing of the Rope Song, was
a very common feature of the culture.
In other words, you imagine you had two points across a
river.  You create a flexible structure, of the type Brunelleschi
himself made, developed, designed.  And you walk across the
thing, and you find that the rope dances.  And in order to cross
the river, you must dance, in a sense, across the rope.  When you
move on the rope, you change the direction of the rope, in terms
of the walking; and you can think that backwards and forwards,
and that’s what the Italian standard was.  And people up to the
present, or recent time, at least, remembered that song, about
the dancing rope.  Because there’s two points; you have one rope,
with a slack in it, and you’re going to use the slack as like a
piece of music.  So you step on the rope;  now when you make the
next step, you’re going to a different point in the crossing of
the rope.  The effect is that the rope effectively dances,
according to your steps of moving in one direction or the other.
And this is typical of the concept of construction, which
Brunelleschi represented.
And up to recent times, people used to sing that song, of
the Rope Song, created by Brunelleschi.  And this one of the
principal methods of demonstration, of what he was trying to
convey, to the minds of the people who were actually using that
rope to cross a stream.  And that’s still a valid thing today, as
even in my youth, or a little bit later, I was part, you know,
you would sit there and you were thinking, you were thinking the
dancing rope; but just imagining that you were walking from one
step to the next in either direction, in terms of passing over
that rope.  And this idea created an idea in the mind of the
people who were walking across this rope, from one point of
departure to point of arrival.  And this was an Italian theme,
which dominated everything since Brunelleschi, up to a recent
time, of the dancing rope.

Q: [follow-up]  How can we apply that to our bipartisan
issue here, politically, with Trump and Hillary Clinton, and how
can we…?

LAROUCHE:  Very easily, just do it.  The way to do it is,
you go backwards.  What you do is, you construct the experiment.
Now, Brunelleschi did a lot of that.  Everything that he did,
including the whole development of the chapel that he created, he
did everything that way.  And so therefore, everything worked.
He built the whole structure of the tower was based on
creating a shell which had a space, a shell within a shell.  And
I and my wife Helga walked up that system, inside the shell.  You
have also in the Italian music records, the same thing, you have
the choral presentation there.  It was all there.  It’s still all
there.
The problem is, you don’t have a population today which has
that sense of experience.  And the best thing we can do, is to
take Brunelleschi’s old work, including the tower that he built;
and that will give you an education, because you are forced to
follow a certain ropes, with values.  And you realize that your
music is the way the rope moves when you walk across it.  And by
designing that thing as what you can do in music, is the same
thing.  You can change the character of the rope, and that will
change the tune of the walking of the rope, across the stream.

Q: [follow-up] Sounds good to me.  Thank you very much!
[applause]

Q:  Okay Mr. LaRouche, it’s a pleasure to actually be here,
actually meet with you, and not to mention that singer-songwriter
Mariah Carey will perform here at the Beacon Theater tonight.
And so it’s a pretty wonderful experience, you know, to learn
more of the notes that take you back to high school, with the
music notes that we just pronounced here.
Basically, my name is C–J–, and I’m actually an owner of a
law firm.  And so basically my primary concern is, basically on
regards of Barack Obama, our President, who is supposedly in
violation of the 25th Amendment.  So I wanted to know, basically
in order to require more of my students, and to teach more of my
law students in more with regards to the 25th Amendment; and as
far as the Congress, who, as far as not producing any functioning
or producing any reins, on his behalf as far as not contributing
to him violating the 25th Amendment, and as far as them not per
se doing anything in regards of him moving in directions away
from Constitution, or violating the Constitution.  What do you
think on that?

LAROUCHE:  I looked, as to Obama’s function, was the
beginning of his career.  And I looked quickly at what he was up
to.  I had a large core group was gathered around me on this
business.  And I launched the identification of what Obama meant,
and before the end of the week, I had Obama’s number.  And my
justness on his number was never lessened; I was right from the
beginning.  {He only became worse.}
And if we want to have a civilization, you must remove any
leadership, which corresponds to that of Obama. He is identical
with the idea of a Satanic mentality. I think there are certain
Roman emperors, Nero, for example, who would fit exactly what
Obama represents today.

Q: [follow-up]  Definitely. So do you think that him and the
British Crown are affiliated with each other, as far as
coinciding with each other?

LAROUCHE: They’re identical. The Roman legacy, that is the
ancient Roman legacy, is still the foundation of the British
System.

Q: [follow-up]  Definitely.

LAROUCHE: It’s evil.

Q: [follow-up]  So, what do you think as far as Congress?
And what is their functional role because of him violating the
25th Amendment to the Constitution?

LAROUCHE: It’s obvious. Mankind has to create. Mankind is
not something that is going to be fixed. This is stupid, the way
it’s done. And the ignorance with which people approach the
subject, by habit, by induced habit, is really very destructive.
Because mankind is not a self-determining creature. Mankind
is a response to the potential of not only the Solar System, but
the Galactic System. Now, here mankind is actually, from our own
experience, mankind has progressed in understanding itself by
educating themselves to get these ideas of physical principles,
or what is the effect of physical principles, and to recognize,
that that is the natural tendency. And when you study the
Galactic System as such, and the Galactic System is a very large
and varied system.  It’s an immense thing. We have very limited
actual knowledge of the scope of that principle.
But what we find out, is we find out we can adduce the
destiny of mankind from the standpoint of things like the
Galactic System. But the Galactic System is only {one part} of a
larger system, which is the whole system of the Solar System and
beyond. And so, therefore, mankind, must come to an agreement
with that objective.  And you get that with Kepler, Kepler is a
big change in the system, his accomplishments. Then you go to
another layer, a higher layer of discovery. From Einstein, for
example. Einstein is one of the greatest models for introducing
the concept of what the human mind is properly directed to do.
And we have {not} explored this thing fully. We just know
that mankind is not the stupidity of a single human being. No
single human being, per se, is adequate to be a human being.
Mankind must always, be moving in a direction which goes to
mastering challenges, as Einstein did, in his time; is to find a
creative pathway, to a higher level than mankind has ever known
before.
So mankind is not {sui generis}. Mankind is not something
which creates a Solar System per se, but rather mankind adapts to
the opportunity of the Solar System and beyond; and mankind is
not a self-contained creature. Mankind is a guided creature,
which is guided by the heavenly powers, so to speak; those
heavenly powers which are way beyond anything mankind had known
before. {But}, the crucial thing, if you follow that pathway of
improvements, you are acting in {harmony} with mankind’s destiny.

Q: [follow-up]  I think it’s well said. I very much
appreciate it, Mr. LaRouche. Thank you.

Q: Hi, Mr. LaRouche, my name is C–. I’ve been looking into
Brunelleschi, ever since you mentioned the triad, with
Brunelleschi, Cusa, and Kepler.  And one of the things that stood
out to me when I was looking into the subject, —  you know, with
arches, an arch structure is not stable until you put that last
centerpiece, the keystone. And with domes that were built in that
time they needed the centering, and they were only stable when
the keystone was put in place.
With Brunelleschi’s dome, it never required any of that.  It
was self-standing throughout the entire process.  And there was a
contemporary during that time who described that, because he grew
up watching Brunelleschi do this incredible thing, and he
described it such that the catenary effect allowed for every
brick to be a keystone. I was wondering if you could maybe
elaborate on that?

LAROUCHE: Simply, this is something which I’m very familiar
with. I’ve spent a good deal of time particularly in Italy, when
I was working in that area with some of the people, the Italians
who were gifted Italians at that point; and with their whole
system. And this is something which is natural.
But the point here always is, that mankind is not a
self-developing personality. Mankind has a destiny of
improvement, of man’s powers in terms, that mankind is able to
foresee the powers of mankind, to achieve effects which mankind
would not otherwise be able to accomplish. This is something
which goes to a higher level than what we think of as given facts
or given kinds of facts.
Everything important about mankind can be reduced to the
requirement that mankind {must} develop to a higher level of
self-development. Mankind does not create self-development, but
mankind tickles the potential of self-development. And that’s
what we call the discovery of creativity. And the best example of
that, the simple case of that, is Einstein. Einstein did exactly
what has to be done: To discover what the future is, to discover
what mankind’s options are, to realize nothing less than
something better which you can understand in those terms.  That’s
what Brunelleschi did. That’s the way it works, and that’s the
{only} way it really works satisfactorily.
In other words, mankind does not come out and say, “I’m a
great genius.” And walk out and say, “I’m a great genius.”  What
does that mean? What’s the standard by which you discover what
this so-called alleged genius is? And you look at Einstein, and
you look at his major series of developments, and you see the
same thing. You’ll see the same thing {earlier}, in the work of
Brunelleschi. It’s all the same thing. It’s the immortal
conception of mankind, to always go to a higher level of
creativity, not within the opinion of the existing mankind, but
of a comprehension beyond, for man, beyond mankind’s accessed
knowledge, then.
It’s the future, the creation of the future to a higher
level. This does not come from man itself. It comes from the
destiny of mankind, as a discovering agency, which reaches a
higher level than mankind has ever reached before.

Q: Hi Mr. LaRouche, I’m R– from Bergen County, New Jersey.
I apologize if I am a little bit disorganized today.  But it was
last night that I came across Jeff Steinberg’s excellent
presentation last night [in the Friday Webcast], and an article
from LPAC brought my attention to a new development in the
Congress called H.Res.198, submitted by Mr. Yoho.  And to me, I
would like to get your thoughts on this, but to me this is an
extremely interesting development, where the purpose of the
resolution is to define impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors.
Without reading a lot of it, it says that:  “The absence of
impeachment standards creates an appearance that [as read]
impeachment is a partisan exercise, which undermines its
legitimacy and deters its use; and whereas the impeachment power
in the House of Representatives is a cornerstone safeguard
against Presidential tyranny…” etc. And then they go through
and define the Presidential impeachable offenses, and it’s pretty
amazing when you read down the list, because there’s nothing in
the list that hasn’t been violated numerous times, by the last
two Presidents.  For example, initiating war without
Congressional approval, killing American citizens, failing to
superintend subordinates guilty of chronic Constitutional abuses
— the list goes on and on and on.  You can read through it and
see, there are probably hundreds of instances, in which all of
these conditions have been violated by the last two Presidents.
But it raised to me, the question of why has Congress held
back?  I mean, it looks to me like there is some kind of emerging
consensus, in some sense coming into existence, which is
reflected by this H.Res.198.  But I went back and re-read the
Preamble to the Constitution, and I asked myself, has Congress
actually defended any of these conditions in the Preamble to the
Constitution? “In order to form a more perfect Union.” Has
Congress helped to form a more perfect union? I don’t think so.
“Establish justice?” Have they been defending justice?  Not with
regard to Wall Street, for example. “Ensure domestic tranquility”
—  we’re not seeing a heck of a lot of domestic tranquility
these days. “Provide for the common defense?” are they doing that
with the rise of ISIS? “Promoting the General Welfare?” Well,
they sure as heck have {not} done that. “Securing the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?”
Bottom line is, it looks like Congress over the last 15
years has done nothing to defend the Preamble to the
Constitution.
So my question to you is, according to the Constitution,
does the Congress have the obligation to meet the requirements of
the Preamble, or is that an option for them?
Beyond that, it looks like, if these diverse elements, come
into the existence in the Congress, as reflected by Yoho’s House
resolution, it seems that LPAC, in that case, plays an essential
and very important and historic role in being a catalyst to bring
those elements together, to force these issues to be confronted.

LAROUCHE: Let’s take the case of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas
Jefferson was the force of evil working against the foundation of
the United States. And since that time, there have been a great
number of Presidents of the United States, who have, like
Jefferson, maintained a commitment to this evil, or relative
evil, at least. And this has been the dominant feature among the
Presidencies of the United States; and by the local states in
particular. The Southern states in general are hopelessly
degenerate in these questions.
And the very best of our Presidential system of recent
vintage, is a number of Presidents, who typify the effort, to
bring about — .  But then you find out that the President of the
United States, while Franklin Roosevelt seemed to be a great
genius, but when the new election came, he was replaced by the
FBI, the development of the FBI. Once the FBI was set into
motion, the corruption of the United States was, consistently,
but irregularly, going in a direction: {downward, downward,
downward, downward.}
Now therefore, in this situation, we have to operate on the
basis, of understanding a universal principle which was already
grafted, in at least its raw essence, by the founding of the
United States.  And what you have from our great first leadership
of this thing, which led to bringing of the Washington
institution as a President, from that point on, was being savaged
in one degree or another, ever since.
Now, if we understand what the original principle was, and
understand the measures by which you can test the principle,
that’s the only solution that we have.  We have to go back to the
original Constitution of Alexander Hamilton, in particular.
Hamilton had the most precise insight into what these principles
meant.  Like the four first measures on economics.  And if you
look at his four cases, and apply that, that would be sufficient
to demonstrate what the inconsistency is of most practices since
that time from more or less evil, or just stupidity.
So the point is, if we understand that principle, we have a
guide to clean up this mess.  Now, of course, Obama we have to
get rid of entirely; the Bushes–you have to burn the Bushes.
God says burn the Bushes.  Get these Bushes burned out and {clean
it up}.  And we need to have a Presidency which finally says, no,
{we are not going to go one step further, in this kind of
monstrous behavior, which we have been doing as a nation up and
down in various ways, during the best of time.}
We’ve come to a point of crisis, and it’s a crisis which
deals with the question of the United States and other nations of
the planet as a whole.  We have to bring a new condition among
nations.  We’re working on a fight on this for China; we’re
trying to rebuild India’s prospects; we’re looking at efforts in
Japan;  we’re looking at new canal systems, which are major canal
systems, and all kinds of things.  We’re also working on
recognizing that mankind, is not a creature limited to the Earth
as such–that we also have to respond, to what are the
implications of the Earth existing within this system, including
the aquatic system, like the Galactic System.  And these are
factors which mankind must take into account.
The most efficient example is that of Einstein.  Now
Einstein was absolutely unique, among all the people of his time,
absolutely unique.  It was the time in the 20th century, when the
20th century was going through a process of early disintegration
and degeneration; and it’s been going more and more deep into
degeneration ever since.  So we have to stop the process of
degeneration, which has been given to us, by recent authority,
since Franklin Roosevelt’s birth.  And we have to {exactly} put
into a new conception of mankind, which is a knowledgeable accord
with what mankind should be.  It’s not a perfect one, but it’s a
knowledgeably sound one, which will lead hopefully, to more and
more improvements of man’s role inside the Solar System, inside
the Galactic System, and beyond.  We have to discover the mystery
of what the purpose of the existence of mankind is in the
universe, and follow that pathway.

Q:  Hi Mr. LaRouche.  [E–B–] I would like to ask you, if
Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont, becomes the
Democratic Party nominee for President, would you be able to
support him?  Would you be able to work together with him, if he
becomes President?
He is saying that we must bring back Glass-Steagall, and
that we must divide the wealth of the nation evenly.  He’s
against the rich corporations getting away with the tax loopholes
and not paying any taxes at all or very little taxes.  And
Senator Sanders is for the working class families and for the
middle class.  So I’m just wondering, do you think he would make
a good President?  Would you be able to work together with him
and advise him?

LAROUCHE:  Absolutely not! Absolutely not. He’s a fraud.
We’ve got another candidate up there, who is much capable,
and much more intelligent, who is also hesitating on the edge on
this thing.  But the problem is that we don’t have any prospect,
a functional prospect, to create a new Presidency.  Now we could
create that.  And I’m aware of means by which we could create
that, with the existing institutions of government, that is the
foundations of our Constitution.  And I think O’Malley would be a
more likely candidate than anyone else on the screen right now.
There are other people–you know, I’ve supported Ronald
Reagan; I was actually a part of his team, for a time. And then
they got me out of there, because they wanted to get me out; they
wanted the Bushes in there.  And since then we’ve been living in
the Bushes. Which means that everybody who’s been functioning
since Ronald Reagan was shot–he did survive–but he was shot by
a member of the Bush family.  And therefore everything has been
backed down.
I was assigned, I was in the last two terms of the
organization. And I was sent in to become, together with a great
Einstein tradition figure, with two of us–Teller.  Teller and I
were actually collaborators in this thing.  And we had been
collaborating ever since, for most of the decade.
And so we went with this, and we came up with a good
program. But what’s happened is that–what happened with Reagan,
when Reagan got shot, is that the Bush family interest took over,
heavily, and since that time we have not had a good Presidency in
any sense, since that time.  We had Bill Clinton, who was the
only approximation of that, and he had problems of getting his
own government into shape.  He never did get a full government,
because his Vice President was a foul ball.  And I worked with
him, closely on some of these projects.  And so I know what Bill
Clinton was capable of, and I understood what Reagan was capable
of. But that was a turning point.  And that was the turning point
that I experienced.
And since that time, {there has been no good President}, or
Presidential candidate of any function in the United States.  And
our issue now is, to define what the requirements are of a valid
President of the United States, which is not an offense against
the foundation of the United States, from, shall we say, the
great leader from New York.
And he {founded} this nation.  He actually pulled it
together, and got George Washington to pull it together, too.
And that’s how we got a United States.  And we have been
generally drifting up and down, ever since ever since the course
of time.
But we can do it.  {We can do it.}  We have better resources
than ever before.  But only a few of them have them.  Our job is
to spread, the knowledge, that we have, and to spread it to more
people, to create a unity of understanding, among the people of
the United States and elsewhere.

Q:  Hi, Lyn, how’s it going?  We’ve been doing a lot of work
in Brooklyn on this Italian question, back to the Italian
standard we were discussing before.  And quite generally we’ve
been working to push the Verdi tuning more prevalently amongst a
lot of thee older Italian opera singers.  In fact, one of these
Italian opera singers we met with earlier in the week, when
briefed on our mobilization around the Verdi tuning, she was very
moved; it wasn’t like–she didn’t just respond to the fact that
the Verdi tuning was just a better way of singing.  But she got
very moved because she knew that, “Ah, now you guys can do the
{Va Pensiero}.  And I can help teach you the {Va Pensiero}.”  So
she was moved on that level, that now we can actually communicate
the {idea} of the piece itself.
That same type of resonance around the music question,
around the Verdi tuning is similar to what we’re getting in the
response around even concert we’re doing with the {Messiah} in
Brooklyn.  From the business owners and the people generally in
the population, that when we present it from the standpoint that
we are going to use this, use the music question as a counter to
the homicides, the suicides, the police shootings, the mass
killings, people are responding in a similarly moving way.
And I just wanted to get your feedback, on what the effect
generally this is going to have on the population, generally?

LAROUCHE: Yes, I understand.  The point is the Italian
standard. Now I had exposed in Italy, and was a participant in a
celebration in honor of this work in Italy.  And I was a
participant in the centenary, in effect, of that period.
And what the Italian standard, as defined by that standard,
is probably the highest level of principled development of
musical development, known to me.  If anything matches that, it’s
not known to me.  And so Verdi is the standard for {all good
modern music}, as far as I know.  The perfections are great.
Now the next thing, you would have other things–the Spanish
thing is complicated, it’s a mess; the French language is a mess,
to deal with in music: it’s too much grunting and groaning
involved there.  And grunting and groaning is not good for the
musical mind.
And so what Verdi represented {is} the standard which should
set, {by Verdi’s strict standards}, as such, is the standard for
{all good music known to me}.  If it’s known to someone else,
we’ll have to talk about that.  But Verdi’s standard, as I
experienced it, at the celebration of his achievements–he was
then dead, of course; and so, we went to his headquarters where
he had lived; it was still his headquarters.  And we had a great
assembly among Italian musicians, and some Italian musicians who
were also functioning from the United States and so forth.  And
we had this great event, celebrating the work of Verdi. And that
standard is still the best.
After the Italian, you have some German work, in terms of
poetry and things like that which are better.  The French
language is a grunting language and it’s a very bad language the
way it’s used.  “Uhhnh, eehhnnn, hmm.”  Spanish similarly;
Portuguese similarly.  It does not produce good music.  And
there’s some German music which is good, but Verdi is better.
The Italian Verdi is much better.  That’s my knowledge.

Q: [follow-up] Just to follow up on that, what would you say
the overall impact is going to have is going to have on the
population when we do more of this?

LAROUCHE:  We’re going to do it.  And you know what we’re
going to do?  We’re going to take Manhattan — you may be
acquainted with that locality.  But that locality can be the
proper place within the United States as such, within Manhattan,
within the United States and bring in the Italian standard and
the things that portend to the edge, of the Italian Classical
standard. That’s the way to go.
And my conviction is that if we do that effectively, and we
do have some talent which can supply the training of some other
people, who have some skills of their own talent now, and can
acquire an improvement, copied on that talent, we can actually
change, not only the quality of music, in the United States, and
beyond, we can also create an improvement of the minds, of the
musicians, now.  Because by doing these things which are
themselves beautiful, and true, you make people stronger.  You
make them richer, in terms of what their lives mean to them and
to the people around them.
So the idea of the retuning, of music — shut down all this
crap!  Take the real standard required, for competent musical
composition, associate yourself with the best people in terms of
musicians, who could help to build the team, of a new musical
school, which is founded on the basis of, for example, exemplary,
the Italian school of Verdi, and  that itself, will make things
{much} better.  It’ll make it much better in Italy, too.

Q: [strong accent] When I left Russia, I hoped the end of my
life, I live in peace.  I found war outside and inside, every
time.  So I remember now two people, Hitler and Stalin.  I spent
50 years learning what happened to them.  I’ll just take three
minutes, not more.
Hitler’s performance was based on absolute stupidity, not
one reasonable step.  When Stalin routed him at Moscow in 1941,
then he understand that the war will be over.  After that four
years for Hitler, it was an effort to save his war, his Germany
and himself. In 1945, the war collapsed and he collapsed.  But
Germany remained.  It was the strongest nation in Europe, and
civilization, and what happened, that such a bastard, that he
did.
In 1944, I was small, and my train was travelling from
Moscow to the Crimea, across the battle of Kursk.  We stopped.  I
saw a German cemetery; it was about 2 miles wide and 10 miles
long.  The crosses, beautiful German crosses, I don’t know where
they got the wood [to make them]; these were prairies.  And on
each cross, a German cask with bullets.  That was what you call a
“weapons row” [s/l 50:28.4].  They got territory.
One stupidity after another; miserable country.  And the one
gigantic, giant, one-sixth of the Earth, and then what happened,
I find very similar now.  It’s striking similarity!
Again, somebody makes war, and has no idea how it will end.
To start you know; to finish, nobody knows.  The Crimea, I  lived
in Crimea, but I don’t want to continue about that, but I simply
want to tell you what’s going on, reminds me of the same damned
situation between Hitler and Stalin.  A striking similarity.  A
lot of talk, a lot of things, and then a catastrophe.  That war,
10 million people; in Russia, 18 million, Germany 12.  It was a
[inaudible] and one fool could do it!
What’s going on now, you know better than I do.  Thank you.

LAROUCHE:  Thank you.

SPEED:  Lyn, that speaker is someone who, a couple years ago
when you were very much emphasizing the danger of nuclear war,
after Qaddafi, helped to convey a message.  And I’d just like for
you and everybody to know, that the idea that we are in the
throes of the end of humanity if we don’t get Obama out, is very,
very well understood by many people in the world.  I just wanted
to make that quick comment, and ask that the next questioners
come up.

LAROUCHE:  It registers.  I understand this.

Q:  Hi Lyn, it’s A– here,  in New York again.  We have, as
everyone knows, a weekend of concerts of coming up, and the
timing of this is no accident.  The crucial importance of it, is
obvious to us.  I’ve been, this past week, doing flyer
distribution and talking to individuals about the {Messiah} and I
can’t help but draw that, as confused and as concerned as people
are, the personal response I’m getting is a very welcomed and
openness to attending.  And I think we’re going to have a very
big turnout, at least from the Manhattan standpoint, and we still
have another week of talking to people and making these
distributions.
And one of the things that’s kind of funny to me, in not so
much the distributions, but just in conversations with people,
we’re having a heat wave up here, and several people have said to
me — and Im not kidding — “Yes, it’s warm and that worries me.”
[laughs]  And so, I said, “well, you know, we’re singing Handel’s
{Messiah}” — I can’t even get into the global warming thing with
them!  — I tell them what we’re doing, and the response has been
very, very good.  This is not just from Boomers, these are
younger people;  I think the church that we’re using is unknown
to me, but very well known to people,  and so, there is something
different that is radiating from them.  And you oftentimes wonder
if it’s you yourself that’s kind of seeing this, but I don’t
think this was there before.  And where we are with the silliness
that people believe, and the insanity of the President, even
though they won’t talk about it, is something that’s affecting
them.  so they’re drawn to something like the {Messiah}.
My question to you is, now, once we complete this, I think
we’re going to be in a very strong position, to catalyze people.
And what is it that we should be looking to do, to make sure that
that happens, and we can make Manhattan really grow?

LAROUCHE:  Well, let’s go back, that, in October of last
year, I made a resolution, to free the United States from the
local states within it. And my conception was to look at what was
focussed on Alexander Hamilton, and to take the Hamiltonian
principle, which is a very useful one for all of these purposes,
and to say, let us create, again, something which is consistent
with the intention and the legacy of Classical musical
composition.  And what we did is, we found we were able to
influence musicians, some of them who are first-rate musicians,
performers, and others who are capable to be trained, to join the
company of musical performers.
The idea is that, and this would go largely to the area of
Manhattan and to certain areas around northern New Jersey, which
are that; and to some limited degree, to Boston and so forth,
there.  So, my view has been, we should go full speed for this
kind of program, on Classical music and related kinds of things.
And with a great emphasis on the Classical composition work.
That’s what we’ve been doing.
Now, we’ve got only in motion on this, because we are
bringing people together, who are resolved to carry this out.
The leading group of people around this group, are fully
qualified for that talent.  We have had experiments, in education
experiment, absolutely qualified.  We’ve had successes.  We
simply need to get more perfection and more breadth and more
depth in new areas of musical work; and people are coming to it.
So this is particularly in the Manhattan region.
Now, my view has been, is the idea of the United States as
being the ruling institution, I said, that’s crap!  I know the
Southern states of the United States, and most of them are crap.
I know it; and many of them who are intelligent, also know it.
but they go along with the yokel local stuff, and that local
yokel commitment destroys their ability to fulfill any mission
that they want to really get to.  So therefore, my view is, we
have Manhattan and the Manhattan area; and we have a spread into
certain areas in New England and certain other locations. We can
take what we have, as there and potential, serious potential,
work on that, and spread that from {that} region, into the rest
of the United States.
But the idea of the local yokel idea, in the state, is
stupid.  It doesn’t work!  It’s wrong!  You don’t develop
geniuses by training them to be fools.  And that’s the point. And
so, what we’ve got in the Manhattan area, with a certain group
around the northern parts of New Jersey, and you know what those
regions are; and Brooklyn, of course, is always included in
there; and we find that we have, in Manhattan and in the
adjoining area, there, we have, we have the potential of creating
a choral organization, or a nest of choral organizations, which
can bring a new spirit to the United States, through this
vicinity.  And we know you can’t do the job efficiently, if you
go at it in some other territories.  You have to go in and
{colonize}, these other states, and bring them to the reality of
the purpose of their life.

Q:  Hello, Lyn! [Bob Baker]  I wanted to attempt a question
regarding the impact of the Manhattan Project into the other
parts of the nation.  And from the standpoint, after a series of
meetings with farmers and ag producers in Iowa and Illinois, last
week, and the week before in Kansas and Missouri with cattlemen,
what I’ve come to understand, as many people know, is that the
state of the agriculture producers, is probably in a worse shape
now than it was in the 1970s:
Cattle prices have dropped 51%; in 1973, the price of corn
was $3.75 a bushel, and the price of good farmland was $700 [an
acre].  Today, the average price of good farmland is
$12,000-$15,000 an acre and the price of corn is — $3.75 a
bushel.
So what you can see is, there’s been a massive leveraging,
and it’s all coming from the Wall Street process, to where, now,
the majority of the livestock produced in the areas, is under
contracts with big packing plants which are all connected to the
Wall Street banks.  So in effect, what you’ve done is, you’ve
moved the independent, owner-operator farm, into a process where
the farmer’s building buildings, providing the land, supporting
the debt, and now he gets, a fee, to work on his farm for a big
packing plant of some kind; to raise crops for them or livestock.
What that’s done is that’s brought into the understanding of
almost everybody agriculture, is that this situation cannot
continue.  And what you see is, you see the most advanced
technology, things that you would just think about were  only
done by the rover on Mars, in terms of technology, is being used
by the average high-tech farmer today, in putting in his crops
with the GPS modern technology. So it’s very productive and very
efficient — except they’re becoming slaves to a financial
system.
Now, as a counter to that, the Manhattan Project has
influenced some people, farmers in certain areas; and in one
case, farmers who were facing a situation where their local
church was going to be knocked down, and they fought that.  Their
ancestors came from Germany, they fought to keep it, and a couple
farmers, after being connected with your type of thinking and the
Manhattan Project and Classical music, set in motion to have
Classical concerts in the church — which had never happened
before, since it was erected.
And what happened is, the one farmer commented, he said, “I
never saw so many grown men pull their hanky out” [pauses,
emotionally moved] “and wipe tears out of their eyes.”
I would like you to comment on that, in terms of the
Manhattan Project’s effect on the nation.

LAROUCHE:  This is obvious, absolutely obvious.  This is the
course that we must take, there’s no other course that’s going to
work. Agriculture, everything, the whole thing is one thing.  All
you have to do is say, “what did we lose? What was destroyed that
we had, in terms of earlier generations and earlier decades of
the population?”  And when you look at that, and you look at what
I saw while I was part of the Reagan administration, in that
period, there’s been a general trend of degeneration, of the
opportunities and resources, of the people of the United States.
We have to {eliminate} that discrepancy between the two
values, and go beyond that in terms of progress, directedly. We
can do that and we {must} do that, and we must not accept
anything {less}, than that direction of achievement.  It has to
happen fast, it has to happen now, it’s necessary to bring the
nations in general, like the nations of Asia, like China, like
India, like other nations in other parts of the world; in Africa,
in other parts of that world; in South America, to bring South
America and Central America and bring them back into a productive
role of mankind. {We must do that on a global scale.}  We must
bring those nations together for unification, of realizing, that
is, actually realizing, {physically realizing}, the
reconstruction of the productive powers of labor, and of the
human mind:  That has to be done! That is a mission which we must
never abandon.  And we must keep going, once we’ve gotten to that
point.

Q:  Mr. LaRouche, good afternoon.  R– from Brooklyn.  In
the past, you’ve talked about the Galactic coordinates; I’ve
found in talking to people, various persons, college graduates,
that global warming is not happening; that the education is so
bad, that I have to explain the Galactic coordinates.  What do
you think about this?

LAROUCHE:  Well, of course this is obvious.  The point is,
since the beginning of, well, shall we say, the Reagan
administration, the first part of the Reagan administration,
before the Bush family really got moved in there; and there’s
been a consistent degeneration.  See the last time we had an
achievement was when I won a victory, in Manhattan, at the
beginning in, in 1971, and we won then on that case, and we’ve
been losing ever since.  And when I came into the Presidency,
under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, was a part of a middle
area, when we still had the potential at that point, of getting
progress again.
But when Reagan was actually almost killed, by a member of
his own Bush family, the trend has been {downward}, ever since.
And the rate of downwardness has tended to be predominantly, an
increasing rate of stupidity, the destruction of ideas.
So therefore, once we take that into account, we have a
mission to perform.  It’s a mission in which mankind demands for
the sake of mankind as such.  We cannot accept anything less. And
it is {achievable}!  It is an achievable event!

Q: [follow-up]  I take it that that if the Manhattan project
is successful, we will have an effect on the educational system?

LAROUCHE:  Absolutely.  That’s the only answer.  That’s the
only possibility.

Q:  Mr. LaRouche, it’s W–  from the Bronx.  I just wanted
to know, what do you think about Trump and a lot of his influence
here in the New York City?

LAROUCHE:  I think a Trump is an insult against elephants.
He’s a kind of animal we don’t want, a Trump.  And a Trump is
also a piece of folly, even in the gambling business.
Now, I hope that makes your day sweeter.

Q: [follow-up]  Yes, thank you. Thank you.  A lot of my
friends seem to like him, and I don’t understand them.

SPEED:  Wow — well, we all have friends like that.  The
ones we need to “unfriend”!  [laughter]

Q:  Or uplift!

LAROUCHE:  How are you, young man?

SPEED: Well, I have a story for you.  There is a recent
movie made, and there is an earlier documentary, about the August
1974 walk, between the two towers of the World Trade Center.
There was a Frenchman, 24 years old, who one night, with a team,
put a wire up between the two Towers; and he walked for 45
minutes between the two Towers.  {Except}, when the police went
to apprehend him — and there is documentary footage of the
actual policeman speaking in 1974,  — he said, “well, he wasn’t
really walking.  The only thing that you can say is that he was
dancing.”
Now, when this was said at the time, when I saw it, I just
thought, well, there was somehow an athletic achievement.  No!
Because the wire-walker explained, in a brief discussion, he
said, “no, well, there’s a technical name for this, it’s called a
catenary, but let me just tell you want I did.” And so he goes on
and never says more.  But he had learned the technique — he was
not a member of a circus.  He had studied various circuses, and
he also was a bit of an artist himself; he did a lot of drawings
of a lot of different constructions.  But I only bring this up
because, what you were saying earlier about the rope dance and
the fact that there are people who {knew} this, and that this is
something that {is} known and is a physical knowledge that people
have.  I thought I would just tell you that.
We’re looking for the gentleman who did it; he happens to
live in New York City these days, and to see what he might have
to say about all this.
So I just wanted to tell you that story.
I guess, if there are no other questions, we have a choral
rehearsal and other things we have to do this evening.  So Lyn,
I’d like you to give us some final remarks and we’ll get to work.

LAROUCHE:  OK, that’s a good idea!  Well, I think I have
spoken my speaking on this question today.  And I think it’s
something which, by its nature, is something which demands a
continuity of realization.  And so, I hope what we’ve done so far
in terms of this particular session, that will be something which
will lead to a profitable benefit for the people who were
involved in this work.

SPEED:  OK!  Well, thank you. So on behalf of everybody
here:  Thank you very much, Lyn. Let’s let Lyn know we appreciate
what he just did for us. [applause]

—————

12. december 2015 – Den 31 sider lange »Pariseraftale« blev i dag vedtaget af repræsentanter fra henved 196 nationer, der deltog i det to uger lange COP21 Klimaforandrings-tamtam i det nordlige Paris, hvor tusinder af mennesker var forsamlet og millioner af dollars givet ud i den hensigt at blåstemple en politik, der er anti-videnskab og som, hvis gennemført, ville bevirke milliarder af menneskers død i en ikke så fjern fremtid. Dokumentet kræver handling for at begrænse temperaturstigning i verden med et pænt stykke under 2 grader Celsius ved slutningen af århundredet i forhold til den førindustrielle periode.

Efter at have gjort sig selv til grin ved åbningen af COP21, tog præsident Obama i dag triumferende æren for afstemningsresultatet. Få minutter efter vedtagelsen tweetede Obama, »Det her er stort. Næsten hvert eneste land i verden har netop underskrevet ’Pariseraftalen om Klimaforandring’ – takket være det amerikanske lederskab.« Ak, alt for sandt. I dag udgav Det Hvide Hus også et faktablad om pagten.

I mellemtiden siger formanden for Senatets Komite for Miljø og Offentlige Arbejder, Jim Inhofe (R-OK.), at klimaforandrings-overenskomsten i Paris i dag ikke vil forandre status quo ret meget. Han sagde, at overenskomsten ikke adskiller sig fra Kyotoprotokollen om klimaforandring, som blev vedtaget for 18 år siden. »Det er samme nyhed. Denne overenskomst er ikke mere bindende end nogen af de andre ’overenskomster’ fra nogen anden konference, som parterne har afholdt i løbet af de seneste 21 år«, sagde Inhofe i en erklæring i dag, som Washington, D.C.-avisen The Hill i dag rapporterer.

»Senatets lederskab har allerede udtalt sig ganske klart om sine holdninger, nemlig, at USA ikke er juridisk bundet til nogen som helst aftale, der sætter mål for udledninger, eller til nogen som helst finansiel forpligtelse til en sådan aftale, uden Kongressen godkendelse.« Inhofe, der er en skarp kritiker af denne absurde, anti-videnskabsholdning, som indtages af ’de grønne’ og deres med-globetrottere blandt anti-mennesker-økonomer og ditto politikere, nemlig, at menneskelig aktivitet er årsagen til klimaforandringerne, har i de seneste måneder arbejdet på at underminere overenskomsten og kræve, at denne forelægges Senatet til godkendelse, som den ikke ville få, skrev The Hill i dag.

Der findes ingen evolutionsproces, når det kommer til udviklingen af menneskets kultur. Der er visse virkninger, som indtræder på visse tidspunkter. Men så, pludseligt, kollapser hele kulturen og forsvinder, den bliver slagtet. Så kommer der senere en anden, som bevirker noget nyt og giver menneskeheden en ny chance for fremskridt. Og vores opgave er at forstå, hvordan fremskridt fungerer, og det er ikke en evolutionær proces. Det er altid en revolutionær proces, aldrig en evolutionær proces!

Download (PDF, Unknown)

9. december 2015 – Videnskab og naturlig lov, hvis vi må personificere dem i en god sags tjeneste, fik sig et godt grin i dag, da det Globale Kulstofprojekt udgav en undersøgelse på COP21-konferencen i Paris i Le Bourget, Frankrig, der erklærede, at de globale CO2-udledninger har været konstante eller endda er gået lidt ned siden 2013, med en afgørende nedgang i 2013-14. Denne undersøgelse blev også udgivet i magasinet Nature Climate Change.

Hvorfor mødes de så i Paris under afsindige krav fra den britiske kongefamilie, Paven og miljølobbyen om at standse væksten af CO2-udledninger?

En artikel i New York Times af Justin Gillis og Chris Buckley rapporterer, at en nedgang på 0,6 % er projekteret for i år og kommer med spekulationer, der siger, at de globale kulstofudledninger allerede er toppet. Forfatterne sætter denne projekterede nedgang med vækst i udledninger, der i gennemsnit lå på 2,4 % om året i det seneste årti, og undertiden toppede på 3 %.

På inkompetent vis erklærer de, at dette ville være »højst usædvanligt på et tidspunkt, hvor den globale økonomi vokser«; faktisk kan den lille smule økonomisk vækst, der kan stampes op, uden for Kina, Indien og nogle enkelte andre nationer, ikke optage meget plads i produktive afdelinger, der kræver kraftigt input af fossilt brændstof.

Både USA og Kina har faldende CO2-udledningsniveau, fandt forskerne. I USA synes faldet at ligge på 1,4 % for i år; efterspørgslen efter fossilt brændstof har været støt faldende pga. reduceret bilkørsel og reduceret forbrug af fossilt brændstof til varefremstilling, osv. I Kina, der stadig har et stort årligt, økonomisk vækstvolumen, synes CO2-udledninger at være faldende med 2 % i 2015; en overflødig kulkraftsektor er så hurtigt som muligt ved at blive erstattet med sol-, vind- og kerneenergi.

New York Times hævder, at nedgangen i kulstofudledninger viser, at Kina er i færd med at foretage en overgang til en serviceøkonomi. Tværtimod, så er Kina ved at gå over til en mere avanceret økonomi, der bruger atomkraft, og fusionskraft, der virkeliggøres gennem Kinas plan om at udvinde helium-3 på Månen; en økonomi, der forlader sig på højhastighedstog og maglev-teknologi (magnetisk levitation) til massetransport.

Anti-videnskabsflokken er nede og bide i gulvtæppet og kan ikke beslutte sig til, om de skal komme med anklager om, at Kinas statistikker over sin reduktion af kulstofudledninger er forkerte, eller om de skal narre sig selv med, at reduktionen af kulstofudledninger har fundet sted, fordi lande har ageret på deres mål for reduktion af kulstofudledning.

2. december 2015 – Repræsentanternes Hus nedstemte med overvældende flertal Obamas diktatoriske klimaforandringsregulativer for kraftværker, selv om Obama har til hensigt at nedlægge veto mod afstemningen. Obamas EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) gennemtvang regulativet under den falske forudsætning, at kulstof er en forurener og således falder ind under den udøvende grens (præsidentens) mandat for at standse forurening.

Afstemningen fulgte for det meste partilinjen, med 242-180. Tirsdagens afstemning sender et budskab til Obamas skrivebord, efter Senatets vedtagelse af lovgivningen i november, iflg. The Hill.

EPA’s regulativ fra august påbyder en 32 % ’s nedskæring af energisektorens udledninger af CO2 i 2030, de første grænser for drivhusgasser for kraftværker. De stemte også med 235-188 for at blokere et lignende EPA-regulativ, der satte grænser for udledninger fra nyligt opførte kraftværker, der bruger kul eller naturgas, og som iflg. industrien stort set ville forhindre nye kraftværker.

Budskabet til Paris – Obama har ikke det amerikanske folks støtte til sin grønne fascisme.

Syvogtyve stater har sluttet sig til dusinvis af erhvervsgrupper og energiinteresser, der har anmodet Appeldomstolen i Columbiakredsens Distrikt om at standse implementeringen af regulativerne. Dommerne vil så tidligt som i næste måned afgøre, om de midlertidigt skal blokeres, mens retssagen skrider frem, sagde The Hill.

3. december 2015 – Drevet frem af Putin personligt blev der i går, forud for tidsplanen, tændt for den første »energibro«, der via Kerch-strædet forbinder Krim med det integrerede russiske el-net, og som kan levere 200 MW elektricitet. Den anden 200-MW ledning skulle efter planen blive operationel den 20. dec., men Putin presser på for at dette skal ske tidligere, den 15. dec. eller deromkring, hvis det overhovedet er muligt.

Ukraine forsynede Krim med al Krims elektricitet (ud over individuelle generatorer), 800 MW, indtil det fascistiske regimes bøller sprængte disse forbindelser i luften den 20. november. På det tidspunkt optrappede Putin-regeringen arbejdet med at få noget strøm igennem før den oprindelige startdato, som var den 20. dec. Der kommer yderligere to undervands-el-ledninger i kraft i maj 2016, og der skal bygges to nye kraftværker i 2017-2018.

Ved indvielsesceremonien udtrykte Krims leder Sergei Aksyonov over for Putin Krim-folkets »enorme taknemlighed, respekt og kærlighed til Deres personlighed« i bevidstheden om, at De ikke ville »efterlade dem hjælpeløse«.

Foto: Mørklagte gader i Simferopol, Krim.

Tirsdag, den 1. december 2015 – Argentinas afgående præsident, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, der forlader embedet den 10. december, bruger sin tilbageværende tid frem til da på at indvie videnskabelige og infrastrukturelle projekter i hele landet, og på indtrængende at opfordre sine landsmænd til at forsvare den »videnskabelige arv«, der er blevet opbygget hen over de seneste 12 år, som et tegn på suverænitet.

Kernereaktorerne, uranberigelsesfabrikken Pilcaniyeu, der blev indviet den 30. nov., det statslige olieselskab YPF’s Videnskabs- og Teknologicenter, 14 nuklearmedicinske centre, der i øjeblikket er under opførelse, og endnu mange flere sådanne projekter er, sagde Fernández, Argentinas »hårdt tilkæmpede arv« – hårdt i betydningen, at »I vil komme til at skulle forsvare dem imod angreb fra udlandet«.

I en tale på YPF’s Forskningscenter den 26. nov. sagde præsidenten til sit publikum: »I må være hårde, for de vil komme fra udlandet og lægge pres på jer og sige, nej, I kan ikke udvikle dette, eller hint … så I må være stærke og aldrig mere tillade, at teknologisk udvikling rives væk fra os.«

Uden at nævne den valgte (men endnu ikke indsatte) præsident Mauricio Macri, den radikale monetarist, der står til ansvar over for London og Wall Street, ved navn, kom Fernández med en skarp advarsel om, at nogle af Argentinas største, videnskabelige præstationer – Atucha II-kernekraftværket, Condor-missilet, uranberigelsesfabrikken Pilcaniyeu – blev afmonteret, da nationen blev regeret af Macris ligesindede.

»Anvendt videnskab og teknologi for at øge produktiviteten, anvendt på vores økonomi, i vore selskaber« – dette er nøglen til Argentinas udvikling i det 21. århundrede, sagde Fernández og tilføjede, igen med henvisning til Macri, at »vi ser kun os selv som sælgere af korn eller oksekød«. Nationens autonomi og nationale suverænitet styrkes af videnskabelig og teknologisk udvikling, som reflekteres i Pilcaniyeu-fabrikken.

Argentinere kan ikke tillade, at de trækkes ned af banale og dumme diskussioner, advarede Fernández, men må snarere være forberedt på lidenskabeligt at forsvare de »store« spørgsmål og ideer.

»Uden en lidenskabelig indstilling til Fædrelandet; til ens arbejde; uden at føle lidenskab for den anden, den, der ikke har noget arbejde, der endnu ikke har klaret det, er det ikke muligt at ændre tingene. Med lidenskab, med patriotisme og mest fundamentalt, med stor tillid til vort folk, vil vi fortsætte med at få stadig mere og bedre vækst.«

København, 1. december 2015 – På tærsklen til Topmødet for befolkningsreduktion i Paris, COP21, udgav Jyllands-Posten den 29. nov. et interview, skrevet af Lars From, med Ole Humlum, professor i glaciologi og geomorfologi ved Oslo Universitet og på Svalbard, samt den danske videnskabsmand Henrik Svensmark. Humlum siger, at naturlige klimaforandringer afgør klimaet, og at CO2 spiller en underordnet rolle. I år er der en naturlig temperaturstigning pga. El Niño, men om to år vil temperaturen igen være det, den har været i de seneste 1520 år, sandsynligvis efterfulgt af en periode på 2030 år, hvor temperaturen vil falde – det modsatte af IPCC-teorierne. CO₂-videnskabsfolkene ignorerer den rolle, vanddampe spiller. Han angreb det symbiotiske forhold mellem politikere, der bevilger penge til CO₂-forskere, der så skriver det, de ønsker at høre.

Det er naturligt, at den arktiske is smelter, og den antarktiske is vokser, for vi kom ud af den lille istid for 150 år siden, da de norske gletsjere begyndte at smelte. Men det var ikke før i 1950-60, at CO₂ steg signifikant. Temperaturer på Jorden fluktuerer i perioder med 1100 års intervaller. Der er også en meget betydelig indflydelse fra Solen, Månen og skyerne, som IPCC nedtoner. Månen har indflydelse på tidevandet, som bringer varmt vand (fra Ækvator) nordpå til Norge og Grønland.

Professor Henrik Svensmark fra DTU Institut for Rumforskning og Rumteknologi mener, at Solens rolle er enormt undervurderet i de officielle prognoser. Han siger, at temperaturen grundlæggende set ikke er steget i løbet af de seneste 20 år, med undtagelse af i år, pga. El Niño. »Hidtil har vi set, at temperaturen er steget omkring 0,8 grader – med undtagelse af i år, pga. El Niño – af hvilke 0,4 grader er forårsaget af Solens skiftende aktivitet.« »Alt omkring klima er ekstremt polariseret, og hele klimadiskussionen er i dag mere politisk end videnskabelig. Man taler meget om konsensus, men hvordan kan man have konsensus, når der stadig er så mange ting, man ikke forstår ordenligt omkring f.eks. den naturlige variation af klimaet?« »Man forestiller sig, at der kommer flere skyer og mere vanddamp, når det bliver varmere, men effekten af CO₂ bygger på nogle usikre størrelser, ligesom effekten af skyerne er en meget usikker størrelse.«

»Vores forudsigelser om fremtidens klima viser, at temperaturen i år 2100 vil være steget ca. én grad i forhold til den førindustrielle tid – altså nogenlunde den samme temperatur som i dag,« siger Henrik Svensmark. »Hvis man lytter til IPCC, skulle temperaturen være steget langt mere i dag, hvis CO₂ havde den virkning, de siger. Derfor ser jeg ingen grund til ikke at holde fast ved mine synspunkter.«

Foto: Nordenskjoldbreen på Svalbard ligger så højt mod nord, at den ikke er i fare for at smelte væk lige med det samme.