Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med korte artikler fra hele verden. I dette nummer, bl.a.:

– Kina har planer om et stort projekt til skabelse af regn for at bekæmpe tørke 

– Angolas første dybvandshavn er ved at blive bygget, med kinesisk finansiering 

– Vigtig landvinding for en potentiel Kra-kanal

– o.m.a.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Det, vi i dag må gøre, er; der ligger et forslag til en ny nationalbank (statslig bank). Dette er noget, som hr. LaRouche har krævet – en fremgangsmåde med en statslig bank, der styres oppefra (dvs. fra regeringsniveau). Detaljerne i dette forslag er ikke nødvendigvis lige nøjagtigt, som det vil blive, men generelt; f.eks. Kina. Kina har for over $1 billiard i amerikanske statsobligationer; de får ikke nogen særlig høj rente. Selveste chefen for Chinese Investment Corporation har sagt, »Ih, hvor kunne jeg godt tænke mig at få et bedre udbytte af disse penge; at investere dem i USA på en eller anden måde.« Så måden, denne bank kunne fungere på, var, at indehavere af statsobligationer og måske langfristede kommunale obligationer og delstatsobligationer, kunne bruge dem til at blive aktieindehavere i banken; sæt dem ind i banken. Disse aktieindehavere ville så blive garanteret en dividende som aktionærer; og denne dividende ville blive garanteret gennem nye eller tilpassede skatter. Dernæst ville banken, der nu har for $1 billiard via denne type midler, være i stand til at tilbyde lån til en lav rente, til specifikke projekter. Banken ville blive styret af folk, der rent faktisk er bekendt med industri. Fordelen ved dette er, at, i stedet for at udstede for $1 billiard i ny gæld til den rente, det måtte kræve, så kan for $1 billiard i allerede eksisterende statsobligationer danne grundlag for udstedelse af ny gangbar valuta til væsentligt lavere rente.

Ved Jason Ross.

Uddrag af International LPAC-webcast 27. jan., 2017. (Videoen kan ses her, fra 20min. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4DwRYjHIa0)

Matthew Ogden: … Hvordan skal vi overvinde dette imperiesystem? Hvordan skal vi besejre dette britiske imperiesystem én gang for alle og indlede denne nye æra for samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater for økonomisk udvikling? Det er i virkeligheden det, Den amerikanske Revolution drejede sig om. Glem, hvad Theresa May sagde ved det Republikanske møde (under hendes besøg i Washington) om Magna Carta og Uafhængighedserklæringen i Philadelphia. Den virkelig historie om Den amerikanske Revolution, er Alexander Hamilton. Uden Alexander Hamilton og hans principper kan ingen af disse projekter lykkes. Jeg giver nu ordet til Jason Ross, som vil fremlægge nogle ting om dette spørgsmål.

Jason Ross: Sammenhængen er den, at, da Trump aflagde sin ed den 20. ds., havde en Demokrat fra Connecticut, Rosa DeLauro, allerede en uge før fremstillet et lovforslag – jeg vil blot forklare, at der er flere forslag på bordet lige nu, med hensyn til, hvordan man skal finansiere en opbygning af infrastruktur, af vareproduktion; en genoplivning af den amerikanske økonomi. Der er mange projekter, som det er umagen værd at forfølge; det store spørgsmål er, hvordan skal man betale for det? En billiard dollar er mange penge; hvor skal de komme fra? Vil det komme fra Finansministeriet, der direkte påtager sig ny gæld til dette beløb ved at sælge statsobligationer? Hvor meget vil de skulle betale i renter på dem? Er det noget, der er bæredygtigt? For at sige det ligeud, så – som det forklares på LaRouchePAC-siden: ’Spørgsmål, der ofte stilles om Glass-Steagall og Økonomi’ (se: https://larouchepac.com/econ-faqs)  – hvis man begynder at udstede så meget via Finansministeriet, vil renterne stige op over, hvad de i dag er; og det vil ikke rigtig være muligt at finansiere projekter til så høje renter.

Der er også et par andre forslag, men Rosa DeLauro, sammen med 73 medsponsorer, fremstillede den 13. jan. et lovforslag. Det er HR547 og drejer sig om en national infrastruktur-udviklingsbank. Hendes håb er, at, gennem $50 mia. i statsobligationer, og $600 mia. fra pensionsfonde og andre former for investorer, vil hun kunne skaffe kapital til en bank, der så kunne udstede lån til infrastruktur og lignende formål.

Tirsdag kom et andet forslag. Senator Schumer – Demokrat fra New York – sammen med nogle andre, Demokratiske senatorer, fremstillede et forslag om $1 bia.; det er et forslag om at skabe 15 millioner jobs. Han sagde, at han ønskede at bruge: $75 mia. på skoler; $200 mia. på veje; $100 mia. på vandrensningsanlæg og vandforsyningsanlæg; $20 mia. til offentlig transport – tog og bus; $70 mia. til havne og lufthavne; $100 mia. til elektricitet; $10 mia. til VA-hospitaler (Veteran Affairs; statslige hospitaler og sundhedsklinikker til folk, der har tjent i hæren); $20 mia. til bredbånd; og de resterende $200 mia. som en hovedfond til afgørende projekter som måske Gateway Projektet – en bro over Hudsonfloden mellem New Jersey og New York.

Hvordan foreslog han at betale for dette? De sagde, at de satsede på total statslig finansiering. Det vil sige, ikke partnerskaber mellem det offentlige og den private sektor, men gennem budgetbevillinger. Hvor skal de penge komme fra? Én idé – ikke, at de rent faktisk sagde, hvordan de ville skaffe dem – de sagde, ved at fjerne smuthuller, måske, for at skaffe flere skatteindtægter; det er rigtig mange penge, der skal skaffes dér. Én idé, der er blevet promoveret, er ideen om at sænke selskabsskatten for at hjemtage det meget store beløb i profitter, som amerikanske selskaber har skabt udenlands; som selskaberne har undgået at indføre i USA for at undgå at betale selskabsskatten på profitterne. Så én idé er altså at sænke denne selskabsskat og tilbyde et særligt incitament for selskaber til at bringe deres profitter hjem til USA, og så bruge det til finansiering.

Disse programmer vil ikke virke; og der er en betydningsfuld fejl ved dem, som Hamiltons økonomiske fremgangsmåder løser. For at gå tilbage til det, Hamilton gjorde som finansminister, to aspekter: Det ene, han indfriede statsgælden. Han udviklede en måde til at sikre, at statsgæld blev finansieret; og ved at gøre det dengang, forvandlede han det faktisk til ligeså meget cirkulerende kapital. At skyldnerbeviser fra regeringen, som blev handlet under deres pålydende værdi, fordi folk var usikre på, om de nogensinde blev indfriet, ved at udvikle skatter for at sikre, at disse rentebetalinger kunne finde sted, alle disse skyldnerbeviser, hele denne statsgæld blev i realiteten til valuta; og de kunne så bruges i økonomien til lån og den slags ting. Hamilton etablerede også en statsbank, der fik sin kapital via denne statsgæld, og dernæst skabte en gangbar valuta; han skabte statslige, amerikanske banksedler, der gjorde det muligt for lånene at gå ud og forbedre nationens produktivitet. Det endte med at blive brugt i hans bank og i den Anden Nationalbank til at finansiere infrastrukturprojekter, udvide varefremstilling, yde lån til foretagender og foretage anlægsinvesteringer, og den slags ting.

Det, vi i dag må gøre, er; der ligger et forslag til en ny nationalbank (statslig bank). Dette er noget, som hr. LaRouche har krævet – en fremgangsmåde med en statslig bank, der styres oppefra (dvs. fra regeringsniveau). Detaljerne i dette forslag er ikke nødvendigvis lige nøjagtigt, som det vil blive, men generelt; f.eks. Kina. Kina har for over $1 billiard i amerikanske statsobligationer; de får ikke nogen særlig høj rente. Selveste chefen for Chinese Investment Corporation har sagt, »Ih, hvor kunne jeg godt tænke mig at få et bedre udbytte af disse penge; at investere dem i USA på en eller anden måde.« Så måden, denne bank kunne fungere på, var, at indehavere af statsobligationer og måske langfristede kommunale obligationer og delstatsobligationer, kunne bruge dem til at blive aktieindehavere i banken; sæt dem ind i banken. Disse aktieindehavere ville så blive garanteret en dividende som aktionærer; og denne dividende ville blive garanteret gennem nye eller tilpassede skatter. Dernæst ville banken, der nu har for $1 billiard via denne type midler, være i stand til at tilbyde lån til en lav rente, til specifikke projekter. Banken ville blive styret af folk, der rent faktisk er bekendt med industri. Fordelen ved dette er, at, i stedet for at udstede for $1 billiard i ny gæld til den rente, det måtte kræve, så kan for $1 billiard i allerede eksisterende statsobligationer danne grundlag for udstedelse af ny gangbar valuta til væsentligt lavere rente.

Disse projekter – f.eks., et nationalt højhastigheds-jernbanenet – det er den type projekter, der vil tage år at virkeliggøre og få i fuld drift; de vil ikke give en omgående indtægt. De vil ikke omgående skabe midler; nogle vil dog, via brugerbetalinger. Hvordan finansierer man dem så? Det vigtige aspekt i dette er, at via denne nye skat, der vil blive foreslået, i betragtning af, at skatten ikke ville være direkte relateret til midler, der kommer ind fra projekterne; det er en måde, hvor man finansierer eller betaler for projekter, baseret på økonomiens generelle vækst. For at bruge eksemplet med Tennessee Valley Authority (Elektrificeringen af Tennessee-dalen, et FDR-projekt), så solgte dette projekt obligationer, og de blev tilbagebetalt; projektet opfyldte sine betalinger. Men selv indirekte, blot via de forøgede skatteindtægter, der kom ind fra denne region af landet, der fik gavn af TVA; indirekte blev omkostningerne til TVA tilbagebetalt via nationens forøgede produktivitet.           

Så når vi taler om den form for projekter, der vil transformere økonomien som helhed, så kommer tilbagebetalingen på en indirekte måde. Det kan blive på en indirekte måde.

Lad os tænke over, hvad nogle af disse projekter kunne være. Når man overvejer den måde, hvorpå den menneskelige art har udviklet sig i tidens løb, så er det ikke glidende; der er sket i spring. Antallet af mennesker, der har levet på planeten, har ændret sig dramatisk på grund af meget specifikke forandringer i de teknologier, der var til rådighed for os. Udviklingen af landbrug; nye opdagelser inden for sundhed og industri; Renæssancen; skabelsen af selve videnskaben. Dette er ting, der er drivkraften bag menneskeslægtens fremgang.

Som et aspekt heraf transformerer vi fundamentalt vores forhold til den fysiske verden. Et eksempel er ved vores anvendelse af energi. Dette er en grafisk fremstilling, som I måske har set fere gange. Den viser, hvor meget energi, USA brugte i vort lands historie. Man kan se to ting: Det er, at, frem til mordet på Kennedy, steg den energi, der brugtes pr. person, fra under 4 kilowatt per person ved nationens begyndelse og op til 12 eller så på højdepunktet. Så altså større forbrug af energi; større intensitet i energien. Det andet aspekt er, at energitypen har ændret sig; træ blev erstattet af kul, som ikke alene kunne gøre alt det, træ kunne – som at blive varm og, ved at blive forvandlet til koks, blive brugt i metallurgi på samme måde, som trækul kunne bruges. Men derudover havde kul den enorme fordel, at der dels var enorme mængder af det, og dels, at man ikke behøvede at fjerne træer, der kunne bruges til andre formål, som at bygge møbler og huse. Olie og naturgas; olie gjorde forbrændingsmotorer mulige – en ny type energi.

Fission (sprængning af atomkernen) – kernekraft – blev aldrig virkelig udnyttet i sit fulde potentiale. Men atomkernens energi gør det muligt for os fuldstændigt at transformere det, vi gør; og at rejse ud til stjernerne med raketter med kernekraft. Teknologier, vi bare ikke har udviklet; vi bare ikke har implementeret. Opdagelsen af kontrolleret kernefusion – dette er ting, vi må arbejde på.

Så ét aspekt er, at vi har ændret vore energikilder. Vi har også ændret vores forhold til den fysiske verden.

Dette er en grafisk fremstilling af de seneste 50-60 års produktion af sjældne grundelementer. Dette er meget specielle elementer i det periodiske system; som deres navne antyder, så er de ret sjældne. Deres anvendelse i økonomien har først fundet sted relativt sent. De anvendes i elektroniske komponenter, i magneter, fosfor til skærme – computerskærme, telefonskærme; i metallurgi til meget enestående anvendelser. Dette udgør noget, hvor vi simpelt hen har transformeret vores forhold til naturen; til dette spektrum af materialer, som vi anvender i naturen.

Det største skridt fremad, som vi må opnå, er at kunne beherske fusion. Dette bilede viser det indvendige af en tokamak, en slags kerneforsøgsmaskine; og det er én af de potentielle måder, gennem hvilke vi vil blive i stand til at udvikle den enorme energi ved at sætte små atomer sammen for at få langt mere energi end selv gennem vore nuværende kernekraftværker, og som tilbyder en langt bedre måde at gå frem ved rejser ud i rummet, for fremdrift af raketter, for evnen til virkelig at komme omkring i det indre Solsystem.

Denne form for spring i det, vi er i stand til, det er rygraden i det, økonomi vil sige som en menneskelig videnskab. Tænker vi på nogle af de måder at implementere dette i USA, så er nogle af projekterne forholdsvis enkle. Nogle vil måske sige, at det, at krydse Beringstrædet, ikke er det mest simple projekt; men det er forholdsvis lige ud ad landevejen. Dette er et ingeniørprojekt, som vi ved, hvordan man bygger; det kunne fremvise et par unikke udfordringer i betragtning af dets længde og det ikke særligt fremkommelige klima i området. Men det er den form for projekt, der fortjener investering; at forbinde verden på denne måde.

Et nationalt højhastigheds-jernbanenet. Hvis vi bygger det i faser, 20.000, 40.000 mil højhastigheds-jernbanenet, vil vi transformere den måde, hvorpå vi bevæger os rundt i landet; vi vil transformere produktiviteten og værdien af hele regioner i nationen, og produktiviteten og den potentielle værdi af nationen som helhed, som Kina har set det ved at bygge sit højhastighedsnet, omkring halvdelen af rejserne er skabte rejser; det er folk, der rejser steder hen, hvor de ellers ikke ville have rejst til, hvis dette højhastighedsnet ikke var blevet bygget. Møde andre mennesker; faktisk komme rundt i deres land. Det samme, som vi kan få her. Transportere varer mere effektivt; transportere folk mere effektivt; og simpelt hen have forbindelser, der ikke eksisterer [i øjeblikket].

En fremgangsmåde til at styre ferskvandsforsyningen på kontinentet; at løse problemet med tørken, der har udfordret og skabt en hel del vanskeligheder i den sydlige og sydvestlige del af USA; det vestlige USA. Evnen til at kunne bruge afsaltet vand direkte fra havet, om nødvendigt; at skaffe vand fra Stillehavet og gøre det tilgængeligt. At transportere vand langs kontinentet som et langsigtet projekt; at fortsætte undersøgelserne af at transformere vand i atmosfæren; af at fremkalde regn; af at ændre vejrmønstret. Dette er den form for projekter i stor skala, og som ikke blot fornyer vejbelægningen og fjerner huller i vejene. Dette er den form for projekter, der betyder, at vi virkelig vil udvikle et helt nyt potentiale som en økonomi.

Med hensyn til, hvad det vil sige at finansiere disse ting, så ligger det vigtige i at forstå, hvad værdi er; og jeg mener, at dette virkelig er det centrale hovedproblem i økonomier. Lyndon LaRouche har i sine økonomiske lærebøger og sine skrifter i årtiernes løb fastslået, at en reel definition af økonomisk værdi, af skabelsen af rigdom, kommer i de aktiviteter, der fremmer forøgelsen af den menneskelige arts potentielle befolkningstæthed [relativ til arealet]. En fysisk målestok for værdi; ikke, hvad markedet mener, noget er værd, men en reel måleenhed, der ligger uden for det, folk synes at interessere sig for lige nu. Dette gør det til en ægte videnskab.

Det betydningsfulde aspekt heri er, at værdien af alting i en økonomi ligger i relation til, hvordan det virker med hensyn til at virkeliggøre en sådan fremtid. Og jeg mener, at, via den fremgangsmåde for at skaffe kapital, der gøres mulig gennem en nationalbank af den type, som vi foreslår, til dels via den indirekte art af dens finansiering, via en skatteindtægt, der ikke specifikt kommer fra projekter, som banken finansierer; men som mere generelt gør denne finansiering mulig. Og også, at drage økonomisk fordel af, drage nytte af den generelle forøgelse af nationens produktivitet. Det giver god mening at tale om investeringer, der betaler sig selv. Nogle af dem betaler sig direkte – et forretningsforetagende ekspanderer og giver større profitter. Men, når det drejer sig om den økonomiske platform, infrastrukturen, som landet som helhed er afhængig af, disse fordele – fordelen ved videnskab, ved rumprogrammet, ved at tage til Månen. Det skabte utrolige profitter for nationen, at vi tog til Månen; en utrolig udvikling for nationen ved at åbne op for nye typer af varefremstilling og nye teknologier. Men det var ikke NASA, der skabte pengene; hele økonomien havde fordel af det, og ikke kun rent monetært.

Hvis vi kommer væk fra partnerskaber mellem det offentlige og privatsektoren, hvis vi kommer væk fra ideen om, at vi skal lave en form for handel for at hjemtage profitter fra udlandet – som til dels kan være en god idé; men den virkelige idé bag kredit, i modsætning til penge, er forskellen mellem at tænke på værdi som noget, der ligger i, hvad det skaber for fremtiden, versus det, som markedet mener, noget er værd i dag.

Mathew Ogden: Dette er en gennemgang af den fremgangsmåde, der bygger på principper, og som hr. LaRouche i årevis har diskuteret som præcis den måde, hvorpå man kan vende USA tilbage til dette Hamilton-system. Det er ikke noget, der på nogen måde er uklart eller uforståeligt. Hvis man ser på USA’s historie, så har det, hver gang, vi har haft fremgang som nation, skyldtes, at vi anvendte denne Hamilton-fremgangsmåde. Det er en enestående fremgangsmåde; det er det, der hedder Det amerikanske, økonomiske System. Det er gentagne gange blevet anvendt, med held. Abraham Lincoln havde en dyb forståelse for dette; det samme havde Franklin Roosevelt. Franklin Roosevelt forstod, at, uden at reorganisere et banksystem, der var løbet fuldstændig løbsk, ville man ikke være i stand til at bruge den nationale regerings beføjelser til at skabe denne form for produktive investeringer; det ville alt sammen være forsvundet i spekulation. Det var det grundlæggende princip for, at Glass-Steagall var det første skridt, som Franklin Roosevelt tog. Roosevelt indså, at – meget lig nutidens situation – det var en situation, hvor monetær regulering alene ikke ville vække den amerikanske økonomi til live igen. Man havde dengang en generation, som man i bogstavelig forstand kaldte »den tabte generation«; de havde ingen erhvervsmæssige færdigheder; de var demoraliseret. Mange af dem havde været vidne til Første Verdenskrigs rædsler; pessimismen hærgede. Franklin Roosevelt indså, at den mest nødvendige mobilisering var en mobilisering i fredstid for at opgradere det faglærte niveau og evnerne hos en befolkning, for at kunne vende en demoraliseret, nedtrykt befolkning til en befolkning, hvor arbejdskraftens produktive evne var tilstrækkelig til at genopbygge USA. 

(Se: Udkast (dansk) til Lov om Genetablering af USA's Oprindelige Nationalbank).  

Titelbillede: Alexander Hamilton, USA's første finansminister (1789-96), skabte USA's Første Nationalbank. I baggrunden Indledningen til Fortalen til USA's Forfatning. 

Nyt tysk-russisk samarbejde om forskning i fusionsenergi – 

Det Filippinske handelskammer kræver åbning af det skrinlagte Bataan kernekraftværk –

Kinas månemissioner skal være internationale, erklærer en regeringsperson inden for rumfart

– og meget mere.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 18. december, 2016 – Alt imens et ekstraordinært drama udspiller sig i USA, hvor man bruger efterretningstjenester til at forsøge at vælte et præsidentvalg, der er afgjort, har den nyvalgte præsident talt ved en række enorme stævner i hele nationen.

Trumps vælgere har i titusindvis ventet i kulden for atter at lade deres vrede høre, imod de forhadte anslag imod deres liv, som er »globaliseringen« og dens tilhængere. Men, de har presserende brug for noget mere og bedre end vrede.

I verden uden for USA findes der et nyt, økonomisk paradigme, der især kommer fra de asiatiske magter, og som kunne vende amerikanernes held. Men som borgere må de forstå, hvordan de skal koble deres land til dette nye paradigme. Der er nye, fremskudte grænser inden for videnskab, inklusive inden for rumfart og fusionskraft, der kan betyde en højere, menneskelig tilværelse for deres børn. De må forstå, at disse fremskudte grænser i det forgangne blev glemt i Amerika, og de må forstå, hvem de skal samarbejde med for at genoprette dem.

De må se den politiske kamp, der nu forestår, ikke som de ser en Super Bowl, hvor man hylder »dræberslag« og sårede modspillere, men derimod som man ser et Shakespeare-skuespil, der afføder ideer. Ikke som en heavy metal-rockkoncert, men som en opførelse af Beethovens Ode til glæde som Europa holdt, da det kastede Sovjetunionens kommunisme af sig.

Støtterne bag Obama og Hillary kan ikke omstøde valget. Deres mål er at bringe en anden præsident, Ruslands Putin, til fald. De er ubøjelige i deres forfølgelse af evindelig krigsførelse, krige for »regimeskifte«, hvis målskive sluttelig er Rusland og Kina. De har til hensigt at bekæmpe disse nationer, om nødvendigt gennem krig, før de rent økonomisk overgår Obamas økonomisk forfaldne USA.

De amerikanske vælgere, nu borgere, er selv med i dramaet. De må agere for at sikre, at den nye præsident ikke forsøger at fortsætte denne krigspolitik; og at han ikke forsætter Obamas – eller det Republikanske lederskabs – økonomiske og videnskabelige politik.

De kan i stedet igangsætte en mobilisering for at redde økonomien og nationen: for en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall; skabelse af en nationalbank i Hamiltons tradition, til produktiv kredit; byggeri af ny infrastruktur på teknologiens fremskudte grænser – såsom højhastighedsjernbaner og magnetiske svæve-jernbaner – i hele landet; genindførelse af NASA’s missioner til Månen og Mars og det dybe rum, og forfølgelse af gennembrud i fusionsteknologier.

Denne form for kreativitet, hos tusinder eller endda millioner af mennesker, er det, LaRouchePAC og EIR eksisterer for. Amerikanere bruger ikke denne kreativitet, før de indser, at det amerikanske valgchok var en del af et globalt fænomen, der kan føre til et nyt paradigme for menneskets rettigheder og evner.   

Foto: Et nyt vindue, der for nylig blev installeret i målkammeret i National Ignition Facility (NIF), gør det muligt for NIF-teamet og besøgende gæster at kigge ind i kammeret, mens dette er vakuumforseglet til eksperimenter. Marts 2011. (Foto kredit: LLNL)

Medierne svirrer med historier om, at den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin hackede de amerikanske valg. Vi får kommentarer fra Lyndon LaRouche om hele denne larm, og vi hører fra et medlem af Efterretnings-veteraner for Sund Fornuft (VIPS), tidligere senator fra Alaska, Mike Gravel, om disse beskyldninger, samt om, hvad vore relationer med Rusland og Kina bør være. Dernæst bevæger vi os ud i rummet, med overvejelser over behovet for fælles, internationalt samarbejde om forsvar af Jorden mod sådanne kosmiske trusler som vildfarne asteroider og kometer, samt diskuterer den moralske forpligtelse over for fremskridt og videnskabelig opdagelse, der i sig har potentialet til at forene nationer på basis af et nyt grundlag for internationale relationer mod fælles, menneskelige mål!     

Engelsk udskrift:

We Need To Develop a Platform of Economic Activity that Makes Mankind an Active Force in the Solar System!

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast, December 16, 2016

        JASON ROSS:  Hi there!  It's December 16, 2016, and you're
joining us for our Friday LaRouche PAC webcast.  We're recording
today at 3:30 in the afternoon.  My name is Jason Ross; I'll be
the host today.  I'm joined in the studio by Ben Deniston and via
Google Hang-outs by Kesha Rogers, member of the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee.
        So, the world has presently undergone a tumultuous
sea-change in its orientation; away from the trans-Atlantic world
of wars, of economic stagnation.  We've seen this recently in
such votes as the Brexit vote in England, which was a repudiation
of that orientation; we've seen it in the election of Donald
Trump in the United States, which certainly a repudiation of what
Obama had represented and what Hillary was seen as being sure to
continue.  Instead, we're seeing something much better come about
in potential, which is the war avoidance strategy from Russia and
the economic cooperation being put forward by China through the
Belt and Road initiative; which is the Chinese policy initiative
which has come as a result of decades of organizing by Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche and their associates for a policy which they had
called the Eurasian Land-Bridge and which has now become the New
Silk Road, and as China calls it, the Belt and Road initiative
for cooperation on economic projects internationally.
        This isn't something that the trans-Atlantic financial and
military power is taking lying down.  Instead, the use of war, of
murder, of destabilization to prevent such cooperation has been
put into place; as we've seen with the disastrous military policy
of Obama, for example, and of George Bush before him.  Over the
past few weeks, this has taken a turn with an increasing drumbeat
of stories about Russia hacking the US election; of stories
coming out, not backed by hard evidence, but by hearsay and by
appealing to the words of authorities that we can presumably
trust, that Vladimir Putin threw the election to Donald Trump by
hacking the DNC and the emails of John Podesta, and I suppose
controlling the thoughts of everybody who voted for Donald Trump.
This has been going on since the summer; this is when the DNC
first announced that its email system had been compromised.  At
that time, in discussions around this, the Secretary General of
NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, said "A severe cyber-attack may be
classified as a case for the alliance — NATO.  Then NATO can and
must react.  How?  That will depend on the severity of the
attack."  So, putting it on the table that cyber-attacks can be
met with military responses by NATO.  In October, the famous
James Clapper, who said that the US was not wittingly collecting
material on millions of Americans when asked by Senator Wyden,
Clapper — along with the head of Homeland Security — said in
October that "we believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of
these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could
have authorized these activities."
        Over the past weeks, we've seen front-page articles in the
{New York Times}, the {Washington Post}; for example, last Friday
the {Washington Post} without naming any sources or pointing to
any specific facts, wrote that "The CIA has concluded, in a
secret assessment, that Russia intervened in the 2016 election to
help Donald Trump win the Presidency, according to officials
briefed on the matter."  So, no named sources.  On Monday, plans
were announced to have the Electors of the Electoral College
briefed by the intelligence agencies on foreign interference in
our elections; basically trying to call into question the
election itself and the laws governing Electors.  Just yesterday,
on NPR's "Morning Edition", President Obama said, "I think there
is no doubt that when any foreign government tries to impact the
integrity of our elections, that we need to take some action.
And we will; at a time and place of our choosing.  Some of it may
be explicit and publicized; some of it may not be.  But Mr. Putin
is well aware of my feelings on this, because I spoke to him
directly about it."  That's what Obama had to say yesterday; he
spoke about it more at his final press conference at the White
House today.
        So, we reached Lyndon LaRouche for comment about this, this
morning; and I'd like to play for you his response:

        LYNDON LAROUCHE [recording]:  Those words in his mouth are,
as far as they're there, that's a threat to murder people; to
murder people of importance.  Because this is the way Obama's
stepfather taught him, and the way that Obama operated in killing
people on Tuesdays during that episode period.  So, the point is,
the threat is murder; and the best thing to do is say, publicly,
that the nations of the planet are now threatened by Obama's plan
for mass killing of people.  And that has to be said; because
that's what that guy has always done, since his stepfather
trained him.  Obama is a killer; and therefore, he's not going to
let things get by peacefully.  Obama will kill, unless somebody
stops him.  That's the reality here.  All the details and so
forth, and things of your back and forth, really don't amount to
much right now.  Many of the people who are leading the effort
of developing the world program don't need to be stirred up.
It's only Obama's crowd that are dangerous; and they will kill.
Therefore, it's important for those who are waiting for their
opportunity but are not going to ask for it; that's where the
problem comes in.  Once Obama, with his crowd, starts killing
people, that's going to be a bloody mess; and that's going to be
the kind of thing that threatens the people of the United States
and others right now.  He's made it clear; the signals are all
there.  Obama is still going for a kill against the people of the
United States and others.

        ROSS:  So, there you have LaRouche's views on the expected
response for Obama to take his usual course of killing to get his
way on things.
        Now, on Monday, the VIPS group — the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity — released a memo called "Allegations
of Hacking the Election Are Baseless", in which they gave their
reasons for coming to that assessment.  We interviewed a leading
member of the VIPS group, former Senator Mike Gravel — former
Senator from Alaska — to get his take on this; and we can play
that for you now.
        Mike Gravel is one of the signers of a letter that was
released by the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity a
couple of days ago in response to the {New York Times} and the
general media tumult around Russia hacking the elections, Russia
denying Hillary Clinton the Presidency; that she deserved as a
gift from God.  So, I'd like to ask Senator Gravel, who is a
former adjutant top-secret control officer for the Communications
Intelligence Service, and a special agent of the
Counterintelligence Corps; and in addition being a former Senator
from Alaska.  Senator Gravel, could you tell our viewers what you
think of this notion that Russia hacked the election and
determined the outcome of our Presidential election here in the
US?

        SEN. MIKE GRAVEL: First off, it's ridiculous! It's
far-fetched ridiculous! We know — and here we can be grateful to
Edward Snowden — that the United States' capability, along with
their partners in Britain, have the capability of vacuuming up
{every single communication in the world}. That means that the
NSA has {all} of Hillary's emails; has {all} of the
communications between the US and Russia. And so for the
government to come out and say via the intelligence community,
that this is all instigated by Russia, is just part of the
demonization that we've seen taking place about Putin and Russia,
as part of a plan in the United States to have regime change in
Russia.  Believe it. We're seeing what's happened in Syria with
regime change, which is hundreds of thousands of people displaced
and killed. And now we know that it was the US that financed the
coup in Kiev, that unseated Ukraine's duly-elected President, who
was favorable to Russia; which, of course, is normal, since they
are neighbors and were essentially one country at one point. And
so we destabilized that, and that was admitted to by the Under
Secretary, Victoria Nuland, who's still there; was there under
Clinton. She admitted that the United States had spent $5 billion
over a 10-year period, to destabilize the government of Ukraine.
We succeeded.
        Then, of course, as a reaction to that, when Russia had to
continue its fresh-water port, which is Sevastopol, which became
under threat, they protected it by annexing — {re}-annexing,
let's put it that way — because it was part of Russia before. It
was given away by Nikita Khruschev several years ago.
        So, in point of fact, we have all the knowledge in the NSA.
Maybe the NSA doesn't talk to the FBI, or doesn't talk to the
CIA. I don't know. We've had this problem in 9/11, with nobody
connecting the dots; and may have that same problem right now.
But there's no question that the United States government does
more activity in the cyber world than {anybody else}. Russia is
probably a distant second. China is a distant second. But there's
nobody that holds a candle to what we're capable of doing.
        So, for our government to turn around — or {elements}
within our government let's put it that way — to turn around and
say that the Democratic Party was hacked and these hacks were
given to WikiLeaks who then released them; well, it seems odd
that the American government would have to be partners of
WikiLeaks to let this stuff out. What seems more likely, is that
somebody within the government, whether rogue or intent, saw this
as an ability to try and embarrass Russia; embarrass Putin, and
to save face for Hillary, who was promptly losing the election
with her skullduggery.
        As a result of this, we now see the {New York Times} — and
this should not surprise us — the {New York Times} and the
{Washington Post}, the two major national newspapers of note,
have done a lot of disinformation over the years, and I think
this is just one more instance of that disinformation coming out
of the {New York Times}. Keep in mind it's the {New York Times}
that ginned up the war to invade Iraq. You can take your credits
from there, as to what they're capable of doing when they put
their mind to it.
        So, that's essentially what I think is the case. Here too,
we have enough people with skills and knowledge, particularly
with our group, the former intelligence officers in the
government, very senior intelligence officers — because none of
us are spring chickens — to be able to question what has been
put out, and say that this doesn't seem accurate, and doesn't
make sense.

        ROSS:  So, that interview took place on Wednesday; the same
day the {New York Times} ran a front-page story — "Hacking the
Democrats: How Russia Honed Its Cyber-power and Trained It on an
American Election".  So, it's half the front page; four full
pages inside.  That same day, Sam Biddle at the {Intercept} put
out what had been amassed as all the public evidence that the
Russian government was behind the hack; pointing out that it's
not enough evidence.  Comparing it to earlier invasions, such as
when people working with the Chinese PLA hacked American
industrial firms, the Department of Justice put out a 56-page
report detailing all the specifics of how it happened; or when
North Korea hacked Sony, the evidence was put forward.  This
time, though, it's just the say-so of intelligence officials.
        All of this might look like it's a bunch of flailing around
to explain the electoral defeat by blaming anybody except for the
terrible candidate that the Democrats had, but it's much more
than this.  You have to remember, this isn't just domestic
theatrics; the case is being made for — as Obama put it — a
revenge attack or some kind of answer being made to Russia in
some way or another.  That is, threatening a nuclear-armed nation
over allegations that have not been backed up with any specific
evidence and frankly, of accusing Russia of things that the US
admits to doing all the time.  So, we asked Senator Gravel, what
was the intent; why the anti-Russian hysteria?  Is this just
about the election?  What's the push for this?  This is what he
had to say:

        SEN. GRAVEL: The intent is to sabotage the potential new
relationship [with Russia]. That's what the intent is. But here
too, I think Trump has his own areas of expertise in this regard.
And the new Secretary of State designate, Rex Tillison, he also
has a great deal of experience with the Russian leadership. And
so, as a result of that, they're going to dictate their own
policy.
        What we see right now, is the last regurgitation of a failed
policy, one that was very dangerous. In demonizing Putin the way
we've done in American media, Western media, and then turning
around and levelling the charge at them that they are trying to
destabilize Western and Eastern Europe, is ridiculous. I know of
no instance — and I would question anybody to quote an instance
— where Russia has threatened anybody in the last decade in
Eastern Europe and Europe proper. He sells them oil and gas; why
would he want to destabilize his customers? It makes no sense at
all. But to the neo-cons, who are intent on trying to protect the
hegemonic position of the United States in the world, {this makes
a lot of good sense for them}. They need to demonize Russia and
Putin, they need to demonize Xi and China, and assert our
military prowess in the world. We have a significant economic
position in the world, and these militarists feel they've got to
shore that position up, with militaristic policies that make no
sense at all.
        What they should be doing, is joining with China in the Silk
Road (One Belt, One Road) to raise the economic level of the
world to a higher level, and that would be the biggest
contribution we could make to the well-being of people around the
world, and to the issue of having world peace. That's what we
should be doing. But that's not what's happening. What's
happening is what we learned from the study of the Thucydides
Trap, where the power which is the global power — which is the
United States — is now facing the problem of an ascending power
like China moving in and surpassing us. Well, our egos may not be
able to take that, but certainly the people of the world could
take it; because it would mean greater economic activity, on the
part of China.
        So, it's all mixed up with this insanity that exists within
the American government, by a group of people called neo-cons.
They start with Cheney. They go from Cheney/Rumsfeld, that crowd,
into the present group of neo-cons. Here you have a person like
John Bolton, who's being considered for the Number Two man at the
State Department. I can't think of a person who's more idiotic,
as a neo-con, than John Bolton. I think Bush is just wantonly
picking people, hither and yon, to satisfy the conservatives.
        I think what they're going to find is when these
conservatives attempt to assert policy positions that are at
variance from Donald Trump, they're going to find they're
short-lived. He'll fire them. He's done that on TV and he's used
to that. "Give me the wrong advice, you're fired." That's what
you're going to see from a President who's going to be tweeting.
He's going to be tweeting his policies to the American people and
the world, all by himself, in his room, with his little computer.

        ROSS:  You know, if you have time for one more question, I'd
like to ask you about China, which you brought up.  One of
Trump's recent appointments was the former governor of Iowa,
which is a state that President Xi Jinping of China has close
ties to, having lived there for years, studying agriculture when
he was a lower-level figure in the government.  You brought up
the One Belt, One Road as a potential for the US to be involved
in.  It's currently something that, under the Obama
administration, the US has been opposing.  The US did not join
the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank; the US urged other
nations not to join it as well.  What would you see as the proper
or the best — what should the US role in the world be?  What
should US relations with China in particular be with regard to
this program?

        SEN. GRAVEL: Well, the U.S. role should, first and
foremost, rests upon economic activity — raising the quality of
life for the people in the United States and for the people in
the world. That's the goal that China has set with respect to its
One Belt, One Road.
        We oppose that because we are refusing to accept the fact
that China is the ascendant power, and that within a couple
decades, will be the Number One economic power in the world; but
not the military power. If you just look at the amount of money
they're spending, they spend about 10% of what we do on our
defense posture. As a result of that, it demonstrates they have
no interest in becoming the military predominant power in the
world. They're ceding that to the United States.
        But that, of course, is not all that attractive, as you saw
in the Pivot to Asia. Thank God that we have a new President,
Duterte, in the Philippines, who is now creating a rapprochement
to China, which is the most enlightened thing they could do.
Their future is not with the United States; their future is as a
player in the economy of South Asia. That's what a rapprochement
with China portends — that both the Philippines will be the
recipient of extensive One Belt, One Road financing to raise the
standard of living in the Philippines, which used to be superior
to many of the other countries in Asia, and is now in the lower
brackets.
        My recommendation is the United States and the new
administration would be
Trump negotiating his "deal." And the deal he can negotiate is
that, yes, the United States will join with China, and will raise
the economic threshold of the world.

        ROSS:  That sounds like an excellent direction for the US.
I was wondering, do you have any other final thoughts you'd like
to leave for our viewers?

        SEN. GRAVEL: No, not at all, except to thank the LaRouche
organization for doing good work in advancing the cause of peace,
and in advancing the cause of economic growth. The only way we
going to bring about world peace is when we raise the standard of
living of the people throughout the world. Again, thank you for
the good work in that regard.

        ROSS:  Senator Mike Gravel, thank you very much.

        SEN. GRAVEL:  You're welcome.

        ROSS:  While keeping up front that assessment from LaRouche
that Obama the murderer is not going to take this transition,
take this shift lying down, and the use of the Russian hacking
business as an opportunity from their perspective to create
conflict, let's switch gears and discuss more about what that
better future ought to be; what our positive policy is.  I'd like
to turn it over now to Ben Deniston.

        BEN DENISTON:  Thanks, Jason.  This should serve as a useful
counterpoint, I think, to everything we were just discussing
here.  In the recent weeks, we've had some discussions with
Lyndon LaRouche about the prospect of bringing the principle of
the SDI — Strategic Defense Initiative, or in its modern form,
the Strategic Defense of Earth; bringing that principle back onto
the table in this potential new strategic environment where,
assuming Obama doesn't get his way and doesn't start
thermonuclear war before the next President even has a chance to
take power, we could see a new alliance emerging between the
United States, Russia, and China.  And setting aside this insane
geopolitical framework of viewing these nations as our
adversaries and doing everything we can to undermine their growth
and development and rise to world prominence.  Mr. LaRouche was
very supportive of this being a time in which the Strategic
Defense of Earth policy can come back as a real pillar of a new
security architecture for the planet; which was also a focus that
Helga Zepp-LaRouche had when we were discussing it with her
earlier in the week as well.  This can be a critical pillar for
how the security, the defense, the military institutions of
nations in this new era, coming together and cooperating on the
new challenges, the common threats and issues that face all
nations.  The reason why I say this is a principle, is because
we're in a new — I would really say for the past couple of
generations — a new historical phase for mankind in this
thermonuclear age.  We've reached the point where if we continue
a geopolitical, imperial policy where a leading power tries to
maintain control at all costs, you're at the point where if that
goes to full-scale war as it has in past periods, past centuries,
you're talking about the annihilation of mankind.  You're talking
about a new phase of mankind, where full-blown warfare now has
the ability to wipe out civilization as we know it.  That's been
an historically new environment that mankind has been dealing
with in the past generations.  Now, we're seeing the potential
for a build-up around that kind of war to be put off the table;
put on the back burner around a new administration.  But what
we're talking about with this Strategic Defense of Earth and in
the context of the broader exploration of space, the joint
development of space which Kesha will have some comments on in a
little bit.  This needs to become a central positive issue that
we rally nations around; it can't just become "Let's not have war
or conflict because it's bad"; but "Let's have a positive,
truthful conception — a real principle — of what are the issues
that face all nations together, that we should be rallying around
in cooperation."
        That was LaRouche's SDI originally; {LaRouche's SDI}, not
necessarily the program that got implemented to some degree.  But
LaRouche's idea of the SDI, which was a joint open cooperative
program with the Soviet Union; sharing technologies and
capabilities, and jointly developing new capabilities to — as
Reagan said — "render the threat of thermonuclear weapons
impotent and obsolete."  We'd actually be working with the
Soviets to do this; and Mr. LaRouche recruited Dr. Edward Teller,
President Reagan around this idea.  These were not hippie,
flower-wielding peaceniks; these are not people that just ran
around saying "No war.  War is bad."  These are pretty serious,
staunch conservative Cold Warriors to a certain degree; but they
recognized the truthful validity of what LaRouche was developing
around his idea of the SDI.  Mankind had reached a point where we
needed positive, collaborative, joint development of these kinds
of capabilities for the common aims of nations.  Mr. LaRouche
came incredibly close, in collaboration with Reagan, Teller, and
others, to really overturning the strategic framework back in the
'80s with that program.
        But that hasn't really gone away.  We've discussed this on
shows in the past, but it's worth just reminding people that in
the '90s, right in the aftermath of the attempt to get the full
SDI program, there was kind of a re-emergence of the same idea
around the defense of Earth.  The recognition at that time — in
the early '90s — that the Earth is actually incredibly
vulnerable to asteroid strikes, comet strikes; and we should
actually be looking at what the heck we can do on this planet to
defend the planet from these kinds of potential disasters.  That
was something that Dr. Edward Teller, in direct collaboration
with other veterans of the SDI and their direct counterparts in
Russia, took up as a major focus in the '90s.  You had a whole
series of conferences and investigations, and proposals really,
for the same type of joint open cooperation between the defense
institutions and related institutions in the United States and
Russia for cooperation around this common threat of the defense
of Earth from not only missiles, but missiles coming from the
Solar System; these asteroids.  Unfortunately, it didn't fully go
through at the time.  We had the continuation of this
geopolitical framework, which has obviously continued through
Bush and now Obama.  But this issue has come back up again.  It
was in 2012 that the Russians refloated the offer, and it was
named the Strategic Defense of Earth in some of the news
coverage.  Direct, explicit opposition to the US and NATO
advancing their missile defense systems towards Russia's borders
into Eastern Europe.  They said, why don't we have a joint
cooperative program for a Strategic Defense of Earth against the
threats of asteroids and related issues?  Now, today, again with
the prospect of a real shift in the United States, assuming we
can contain Obama and he doesn't return to his murderous streak
and orientation as Mr. LaRouche has warned, we could actually see
this principle emerge and become a central pillar of a new
historical era today.
        So, we thought it would be appropriate today, kind of as a
counterpoint, to start to put some of this issue back on the
table.  I wanted to start just by illustrating some of what these
threats are; what we're facing in terms of the threats to the
Earth from these objects in our Solar System.  If we go to the
slideshow, we have a first graphic [Fig. 1] illustrating just the
reality that these impacts happen; and they happen quite frankly
a lot more frequently than people probably tend to realize.  In
the animation, you can see the famous, very well-documented,
surprise Chelyabinsk impact over Russia.  Which we had no warning
about; we did not know was coming.  This frankly very small
asteroid came in and impacted with such a high speed — which is
characteristic of all of these collisions in the Solar System.  A
lot of the energy release is due to the fact that these speeds
are incredibly fast.  When you get an impact of two orbiting
bodies in the Solar System, you tend to get massive energy
releases, explosions.  Here you had a very small object
intersecting the Earth; slamming into the atmosphere and
releasing the energy of a small nuclear explosion as it hit.
This, I think, awakened a lot of the world to the reality that
these kinds of things do happen, and we have no defense.  One, we
didn't even see this one coming; and two, if we had seen it
coming, we have no demonstrated, developed capability to defend
the Earth from these kinds of challenges.  I'd like to point
people to on this graphic additionally, from some data that's
been released in the relatively recent period, we can see in this
map of the world, an illustration of many smaller meteor impacts
into the atmosphere that have occurred just between 1994 and
2013.  The Chelyabinsk impact was the largest in this time range;
these all were smaller than the Chelyabinsk impact, but these
were still large explosions in the upper atmosphere.  You can see
that they've painted the entire Earth over the course of this
time period; just to illustrate the fact that these impacts are
constantly occurring.
        Just to give another sense of defending the Earth from these
asteroids, here is a schematic of the inner Solar System [Fig.
2].  You can see Jupiter's orbit as the farthest orbit out there;
obviously then comes Mars, and Earth's orbit is a little bit
darker than the other orbits.  All of these blue lines —
assuming you have high resolution to see the details of this
visual — this blue haze you might see is actually composed of
over 1400 orbits of asteroids that are specifically classified as
particularly hazardous asteroids.  That is, asteroids whose
orbits cross the Earth's orbit at some point and create the
potential for there to be an intersection where the asteroid is
at the intersection at the same time as the Earth, and you have
an impact, a collision.  You can see here how crowded the inner
Solar System is.
        Fortunately, among these that we know of, none of these are
expected to hit in the next century or any foreseeable timeframe
as far as we know.  This alone looks pretty dense, pretty packed
in the inner Solar System here.  What people should really get
their mind around is, this is a tiny fraction of what we expect
to be out there.
        We can see here, if we take a little bit more complicated
graphic [Fig. 3] and break it down, there are literally hundreds
of thousands to millions of asteroids of the size of the
Chelyabinsk meteor or bigger that we have not discovered.  Based
on our understanding of the distribution of asteroids of
different sizes, we know that they're out there; we just don't
where they are.  We don't know which ones might impact, which
ones might not.  We don't know when the impacts would be.
        Here is a depiction [Fig. 4], you can see the relationship
between, on the horizontal axis in a logarithmic scale, different
sizes of near-Earth asteroids.  On the far right, you can see the
very large ones in the range of kilometers across in diameter,
all the way down to sizes of meters.  On the vertical axis, you
can see the expected estimates of the distribution, the number,
of near-Earth asteroids of those sizes.  You can see for the very
large ones, we believe there are not very many; but as you start
to get to smaller sizes, you get a geometric growth in the number
of near-Earth asteroids of these different sizes.  You can also
see depicted the scale of the damage that would be inflicted on
the Earth if it were to hit over an unlucky location.  The
Chelyabinsk impact being pretty much the smallest size that would
not — kind of representing a lower limit on what doesn't do huge
amounts of damage.  But if it were just a little bigger, that
could have caused really catastrophic effects for Chelyabinsk,
Russia — that region.  In this range, what people sometimes call
a "city-killer" range; the size of object that would release the
energy of a large thermonuclear explosion, we've discovered maybe
1% of the near-Earth asteroids in this size range.
        While NASA has done a good job of finding and discovering a
number of the larger objects which can do damage over a large
fraction of the Earth if not effect the entirety of the Earth;
we've found a good number of those for the asteroids in
particular.  But as you start to go to these smaller sizes, we've
barely scratched the surface.  As dense as you think this
previous graphic is in terms of the number of bodies out there,
there are orders of magnitude more that could do serious damage
that we just don't know about.  Again, the first step is knowing
where they are and when they might hit; the second step is
actually having a defense capability.  We've not really done
anything besides general studies and theoretical investigations
on that front.  So, this is still an open, unanswered challenge.
But this is kind of just the first step in a real defense of the
planet Earth from these types of cosmic challenges.  As people
are probably aware, you also have the issue of comets.  This
really grabbed people's attention in the mid '90s when mankind
sat on the planet Earth, looked to Jupiter, and watched a massive
comet that had broken apart into a series of fragments as you can
see in the upper graphic [Fig. 5] there, collide with Jupiter.
In the moving animation, you see the explosion of one of these
fragments as it impacted Jupiter's surface.  The other bright
object is one of Jupiter's moons; but this is an image in the
infrared where you can see the effects of these energetic types
of activities more clearly.  In the purple image, you can clearly
see the effects of the impact on the surface of Jupiter after the
impact had occurred.  These impacts let marks the size of the
planet Earth on Jupiter's surface.
        So, this was a big wake-up call in the mid '90s.  This was
comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 was one of the designations for it.
Before this period, it wasn't widely accepting that we had to
think about these types of impacts.  When this occurred and they
found this stream of comet fragments about a year before it
actually hit; they looked at its orbit and said, "Wow!  This is
going hit Jupiter."  So, everyone was sitting there watching, as
this thing went up.  We had the Hubble telescope, all these
telescopes pointing; we saw this thing as well as we could from
all over the world.  This really was a major wake-up call to the
fact that these impacts really do occur.  They can come from
asteroids, which you saw in the illustration of the inner Solar
System, but they can also come from comets; which represents a
qualitatively different challenge, as we'll see in the next
animation. [Fig. 6]
        This should give you a sense of this greater, more difficult
challenge posed by comets.  This is a particular case of a comet
name C1996B2; and this was discovered in January 31, 1996.
That's when we first knew this comet even existed.  As you can
see in the animation which is based directly off of the orbital
data from NASA, we discovered this comet at the beginning of this
animation when it was just out past the orbit of Mars.  Within
two months, it made a close pass by the Earth.  We had no idea it
was out there until two months before it makes of close pass by
the Earth.  Whereas the object that hit over Russia — the
Chelyabinsk impact — was measured at about 20 meters in
diameter; this object is estimated to be about 5 kilometers in
diameter.  That's about half the diameter of the comet that's
believed to have taken out the dinosaurs.  As we let the
animation play out, we see something very interesting that's
characteristic of this distinct nature of the challenge of
comets.  Look at its orbit.  The circular orbits you see here are
the outer planets; that's Neptune's orbit.  So, this has an
extremely elliptical orbit that takes it far out into the depths
of the Solar System.  When these comets are out there in the far
reaches of the Solar System, they're incredibly difficult to see.
So, we only see them when they're starting to come into the inner
Solar System.  Again, as this case demonstrated, we saw this one
two months before it made a close pass.  If that had been on an
impact trajectory, there would have been nothing we could have
done.  When we're talking about that size of an object with these
comets, we're talking about something that can wipe out
civilization.  That is a global catastrophic impact, an object of
that size.  We're not talking about the local scale damage of the
asteroids we were talking about a second ago; we're talking about
catastrophic effects across the whole planet.
        So, this is another depiction [Fig. 7] of where we think
these bodies are.  Based on the orbits of these comets —
sometimes technically referred to as long period comets; it's
believed that many of these comets reside in the farthest
outreaches of the Solar System.  Far, far beyond the outer
planets.  This is a logarithmic scale, so you can see that this
distribution of comets — sometimes referred to as the Oort Cloud
— begins over tens of times past where Voyager has currently
reached, and extends tens times farther than that.  We're talking
about the very outskirts of the gravitational hold of the Sun.
It's believed, again, we haven't seen this region — but based on
the orbits of comets we see coming in just in the short time
period mankind has been able to make these observations — it's
believed that this is a very large population of bodies out in
this outer region of the Solar System.  Because the gravitational
effect of the Sun is so weak out there, it doesn't take much to
perturb their orbits and potentially send some into the inner
Solar System.  Again, with our current capabilities, we're
creating scenarios when we only see them months, maybe if we're
lucky a few years, before an impact.  Certainly not enough time
to do anything about it with our current capabilities.
        Now, I just want to end on kind of an interesting note, that
there are some studies — although the data is limited —
indicating there might be certain cyclical natures to these large
comet impacts.  Some people even believe it could relate to how
the Solar System moves through the galaxy; which raises some very
interesting questions about how this outer region of comets could
get perturbed on a periodic basis and send in what they call
"showers" — cometary showers of many comets coming into the
inner Solar System, creating a scenario where it's much more
likely that Earth or the other planets might get hit with an
impact as Jupiter got hit in the '90s.
        I think it's just worth noting that one of the leading
astronomers in this whole field, Eugene Shoemaker, who
unfortunately passed away in the late '90s, had pioneered much of
the work in this field.  And for whom this comet that impact
Jupiter is named; him and his wife, who discovered it together.
He himself believed that it is likely that we are currently in
the period of a comet shower; that was something that he
published in the late '90s.  Based upon the types of crater
records and other evidence, he said it's not certain, but it
could be the case that we're currently in the middle of what on a
human time scale is a long period in which there's an increased
frequency of cometary entries into the inner Solar System and an
increased likelihood of impacts occurring.  Whether this directly
accounts for his hypothesis or not, it was only last year that we
found out that a relatively dim star had actually passed through
the Oort Cloud about 70,000 years ago; which is one of the kinds
of scenarios that can perturb many of these bodies.  Again, since
these things are so far away, it can take 70,000 years for these
things to reach the inner Solar System.  The point is, this is
still incredibly preliminary knowledge of this region — of the
Oort Cloud; of the region between the Oort Cloud and the inner
Solar System.  There could be a long period comet that's only ten
years out, that's been travelling for 50,000 years from the Oort
Cloud, or even longer; and it's now only ten years away and it's
on a direct impact course with the Earth, and we wouldn't even
know.  It could be just in the outskirts of the outer planets
region of the Solar System; not even in this far, far depths
region.  Again, we're talking about things that can devastate
civilization completely, globally as we know it.
        This discovery of this dim star passing through the Oort
Cloud, we just found that out a year ago.  How many other bodies
are out there that might have had close passes in the
geologically recent past that could be doing similar effects?
The point is, our knowledge is incredibly miniscule for something
that threatens the entire planet; and our defense capability
doesn't exist.  This typifies just one of the issues; and I think
there's a lot more we're going to get into in coming shows.  But
this typifies one of the issues that is front and center for this
principle of the SDI, the SDE to re-emerge and center around.
These are threats that don't recognize national borders; they
don't recognize cultural boundaries.  They challenge the entire
planet and they're outside of our current capabilities.  If we're
going to have a sane and principled relationship for leading
nations in the planet, then it has to return to these kinds of
challenges.  Addressing these common aims and threats as Dr.
Edward Teller had spoken of, as Mr. LaRouche put on the table
with this whole SDI proposal.
        The point that I think we should really end on, and maybe
discuss a little bit in conclusion, is that — and this is
something that we've been discussing with Mr. LaRouche over the
recent weeks — this isn't a separate, isolated issue.  This is
part of mankind becoming a Solar System species.  This is part of
mankind expanding to a new level, developing a platform of
economic activity that makes mankind a presence, an active force
in the Solar System.  We can come up with specific scenarios
where you can deflect one asteroid or maybe a particular
telescope that can help us see some of these things; and we
should be discussing and looking at those things.  But the
fundamental issue is, how do we expand mankind into the Solar
System as a much more active and capable presence where we can
handle these kinds of challenges?  How do we engage other nations
in cooperation and collaboration, instead of hiding our
technology and hiding our capabilities because we want to have a
leg up over China or Russia?  How do we jointly develop the
fundamental science and technologies mankind needs to defend the
planet Earth in an open, cooperative way?
        If we're going to seriously, actually get into that, Mr.
LaRouche has been emphatic; that takes us right to the work of
Krafft Ehricke, his collaboration with Krafft Ehricke, and these
early space pioneers who really worked out the fundamental
principles of mankind's development of the Solar System.  I think
that is fully integrated with this Strategic Defense of Earth
perspective.  I think Kesha might have more to say, but that's
going to be a critical part of this new space paradigm that we've
been discussing in recent weeks.

        KESHA ROGERS:  Very good.  I wanted to go back and really
take up this conception of what it really means to advance the
cause for peace.  Because first of all, we have to end the
perpetuation and acceptance of a big lie, a murderous lie that
human beings cannot have access to that which is truthful.  This
is what the fight really is.  When you're talking about the
murderous policy of Obama, it's not a matter of opinion or
whether or not you have a belief or non-belief, or like or
dislike this President.  This President is acting on behalf of
the same factions which are indicative of what Bertrand Russell
actually represented.  He set back the cause of human progress in
society.  To say that if you make enough people believe that snow
is black, or you perpetuate a lie enough; then enough people will
believe it.  But now, we're seeing that that's not working
anymore.  That the cause that Bertrand Russell and those who were
against the genius of Albert Einstein that mankind can have
access to that which is truthful, that system is being destroyed;
it's losing out, and there is a new era, a new system of mankind
emerging that is being represented by what the United States has
the potential to become if we break with the lies that have been
perpetuated and say, "No more!  Obama must be thrown in jail
now."  Anybody who's pushing this policy that we have to be at
odds with nations such as Russia and China, are continuing to set
back the progress of mankind.  This is not just about waiting for
the next election and saying OK, well we dealt with Obama and
hopefully we can survive this next few weeks or so.  The question
is, that people who continue to allow for this murderous policy
to dominate the thinking and the direction of our nation, cannot
be tolerated.
        I think it's important to really look at what it is that
this President has done in setting back the course of human
progress by his dismantling and attacks on the manned space
program.  What you're really dealing with right now is that we
have to look at the advancement of the space program as a new
evolutionary leap in the progress of mankind.  To look at the
advancement of the space program not just as a discretionary
budgetary matter for internal US relations, but as Mr. LaRouche
said at the onset of this election when Mr. Trump was elected,
you now have a new system of international relations emerging.
The United States has to join with that.
        But when you're talking about advancing the cause of peace,
it's expressive of the fight that Mr. LaRouche, his wife Helga,
and this organization have been advancing and leading for a very
long time.  Then you talk about Mr. LaRouche's policy of the
Strategic Defense Initiative; a lot of people tried to lower that
to a scale of just missile defense and defense of nations acting
against the appearance of nuclear weapons from other nations, or
just on a small scale.  But what you're talking about, is the
advancement of an evolutionary leap in the progress of mankind
throughout the Solar System, throughout the Universe.  And
mankind understanding how to come together for a common aim of
mankind; to submit to the development of the whole of the Solar
System, which is going to increase our understanding of how to
advance mankind both here on Earth and off the planet.  This is
what has been missing.  The way people think about human economy,
the way people think about relationships to the advancement of
mankind in the Universe, is based on these small scale relations;
but it has to be completely changed at this point in time.  What
Krafft Ehricke discussed in terms of an extraterrestrial
imperative in his third law, was really taking the lid off on
human progress; that mankind was an expression of unlimited
potential.  He says in that third law that by expanding through
the Universe, man fulfills his destiny as an element of life
endowed with the power of Reason and the wisdom of moral law
within himself.
        The problem is that we have lost that sense of moral law
within mankind to act for the betterment of human beings and
human progress.  And have lost that power of Reason because we
refuse to fight for that which is truthful.  That has to end;
that has to be stopped now.  I think the fight going forward, has
to be centered around this basis; that we are going to uplift
human society out of the depths of despair, and actually organize
around a new commitment to human progress that has been missing
for far too long.
        I just wanted to say that because I think that we are on the
verge of a new era for mankind right now, but people have to get
a sense of it.  It's not going to happen unless you fight for it;
unless you fight to bring it into existence.  The starting point
of that is that we have to develop a new system of international
relations, working with Russia, with China; not as enemies, but
working together to end this threat to human progress that has
been going on for far too long.

        ROSS:   Absolutely!  I think that ties it also with that
other major leap that's needed in humanity of Lyndon LaRouche's
fourth law of his "Four Laws to Save the USA Now"; which is the
breakthrough to get fusion power.  Like this need for adopting a
platform that allows us to have a control over space, that let's
us really have this region of the Solar System; something that's
within our power, within our reach, within our ability to
interact with and intervene on if something is about to kill us
all.  The essential to make that happen is fusion power.  No
matter how efficient a windmill you design, or no matter what
breakthroughs they make in building solar panels, those aren't
ever going to be at all useful for moving into space.  You're not
going to go to Mars with a windmill.  What we are going to do
that's going to transform our relationship to nature — I think
this idea that we must grow; it's the characteristic of the human
species, this moral law that you spoke of, Kesha.  This law that
we have to answer to is that it's been the nature of the Universe
to develop; we've seen it with the creation of the Solar System.
We've seen it with the development of life on this planet into
increasingly higher forms; not in a purely qualitative way, but
also through some specific quantitative measures adopted by
Vladimir Vernadsky, for example.  Where he looked at the increase
of concentration of energy in forms of life; where he looked at
the increasing range of chemical elements that were used by life;
an increasing power and density of energy flow through the
biosphere.  That's really up to us at this point.  The Universe,
in a real way, depends upon us for those next levels of
development that are the fruits of our minds.  To create things
in nature that have never happened before.  Just like
multi-cellular life, that was a new thing that hadn't happened
before; chlorophyll — life going extraterrestrial to get the
power of the Sun to feed on.  That was something that hadn't been
seen before.  Now, it's the kinds of things that we do:
electromagnetism; the breakthroughs that we have available to us
with nuclear science, with fusion power.  This is the calling
that we have to respond to; this is something that we can come to
in resonance with other nations around the planet and really
cooperate on as a real basis for international relations.  Not
maintaining supremacy, or maintaining the power of a bloc; but
having a serious mission that is common to all people to
collaborate on and to move forward.

        DENISTON:  It's maybe a minor point relative to everything,
but I couldn't help noticing when Mr. Gravel mentioned that we
spent $5 billion over 10 years to destabilize Ukraine; that's
more per year than our fusion budget by a fair amount.  That's
$500 million a year; our fusion budget for magnetic confinement
has been significantly less than that.  Just in terms of a
particular reflection of the totality; we're spending more to
overthrow Ukraine, to mess with Russia, than we're spending on
what could be infinite power for mankind for centuries to come.

        ROSS:  Priorities, huh?

        DENISTON:  Yeah.

        ROSS:  All right.  I think that was a good discussion; we
hit on a lot of topics today.  I think if we keep ourselves
focussed on getting these Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche
implemented and preventing the hullaballoo now around this
Russian hacking, etc.  In these last periods of the current
administration, they're attempting to create some sort of
possibly irreversible conflict with Russia; that has to be
stopped, and the foundation for a new system of cooperation among
nations and people has to be put into place.  That's something
that we're very uniquely situated to do.  So, I look forward to
your help in making that a possibility and seeing you next time
on larouchepac.com.  Good bye.

Jeg mener, at vi bør være meget glade, for hvis dette alt sammen går den rigtige vej; og det er for en stor del vores personlige forpligtelse at hjælpe, og jeg beder jer alle sammen om ikke at være passive tilskuere, men gå med i Schiller Instituttet for at være med til at implementere disse visioner og disse ideer, for så vil vi blive meget heldige med, at vi i vores levetid kan leve det nye paradigme. Og det nye paradigme vil blive første gang, menneskets værdighed vil blive virkeliggjort, og jeg mener, at det er en meget, meget vigtig mission, som vi alle bør vedtage.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

(Efterfølgende spørgsmål og svar, engelsk udskrift: Klik her. )

København, 12. december, 2016 – I dag var Helga Zepp-LaRouche særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar i København, med titlen, »Donald Trump og det Nye, Internationale Paradigme«. Otte diplomater fra seks lande deltog, inklusive to ambassadører. Nationer fra Vesteuropa, Sydvestasien, Vest- og Østasien var repræsenteret, samt fra Afrika. Desuden deltog henved 30 af Schiller Instituttets medlemmer og kontakter, såvel som også et par repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.

Arrangementet indledtes af en forestilling, hvor Feride Istogu Gillesberg og Michelle Rasmussen fremførte en kinesisk kærlighedssang. Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ved at beskrive den historiske rolle, hun har spillet i skabelsen af politikken med Den Nye Silkevej.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche indledte sin meget inspirerende og dybtgående tale med den revolution imod globalisering, som Brexit, Trumps valgsejr og Nej-resultatet i den italienske folkeafstemning udgør. Hun kom med en vurdering af potentialet i nogle af Trumps hidtidige erklæringer og udnævnelser og gik dernæst videre med en detaljeret diskussion af de to, modstridende paradigmer, der eksisterer i verden i dag. Dernæst opløftede Helga tilhørerne med Krafft Ehrickes og Nicolaus Cusanus’ skønne ideer. Hun konkluderede med en appel til de tilstedeværende om ikke at handle som tilskuere på historiens scene, men derimod, sammen med os, at gå med i kampen for det nye paradigme.

Herefter fulgte en intens, timelang diskussion, hvor der kom spørgsmål fra alle de forskellige grupper, der var repræsenteret. Helga afsluttede mødet med at udfordre tilhørerne til at beslutte, hvad de ønsker at bruge deres liv til; hvilket mærke, som vil være til gavn for hele menneskeheden langt ud i fremtiden, ønsker de at sætte? Et udskrift af Helgas svar vil ligeledes snarest blive udlagt her på hjemmesiden.

Helgas tale og efterfølgende diskussion havde en dybtgående virkning på alle de tilstedeværende. 

København, 12. december, 2016 – I dag var Helga Zepp-LaRouche særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar i København, med titlen, »Donald Trump og det Nye, Internationale Paradigme«. Otte diplomater fra seks lande deltog, inklusive to ambassadører. Nationer fra Vesteuropa, Sydvestasien, Vest- og Østasien var repræsenteret, samt fra Afrika. Desuden deltog henved 30 af Schiller Instituttets medlemmer og kontakter, såvel som også et par repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.

Arrangementet indledtes af en forestilling, hvor Feride Istogu Gillesberg og Michelle Rasmussen fremførte en kinesisk kærlighedssang. Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ved at beskrive den historiske rolle, hun har spillet i skabelsen af politikken med Den Nye Silkevej.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche indledte sin meget inspirerende og dybtgående tale med den revolution imod globalisering, som Brexit, Trumps valgsejr og Nej-resultatet i den italienske folkeafstemning udgør. Hun kom med en vurdering af potentialet i nogle af Trumps hidtidige erklæringer og udnævnelser og gik dernæst videre med en detaljeret diskussion af de to, modstridende paradigmer, der eksisterer i verden i dag. Dernæst opløftede Helga tilhørerne med Krafft Ehrickes og Nicolaus Cusanus’ skønne ideer. Hun konkluderede med en appel til de tilstedeværende om ikke at handle som tilskuere på historiens scene, men derimod, sammen med os, at gå med i kampen for det nye paradigme.

Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale, der varer omkring 1 time og 20 minutter, kan høres ovenover eller her:

https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/helga-zepp-larouche-in-copenhagen-donald-trump-and-the-new-international-paradigm-1

En dansk oversættelse af talen kommer på torsdag. 

Herefter fulgte en intens, timelang diskussion, hvor der kom spørgsmål fra alle de forskellige grupper, der var repræsenteret. Helga afsluttede mødet med at udfordre tilhørerne til at beslutte, hvad de ønsker at bruge deres liv til; hvilket mærke, som vil være til gavn for hele menneskeheden langt ud i fremtiden, ønsker de at sætte? Et udskrift af Helgas svar vil ligeledes snarest blive udlagt her på hjemmesiden.

Helgas tale og efterfølgende diskussion havde en dybtgående virkning på alle de tilstedeværende. 

Diskussionen findes kun som engelsk udskrift (se nedenfor).

—–

English: Introductory article

Helga Zepp-LaRouche Keynotes Copenhagen Seminar on `Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm'

COPENHAGEN, Dec. 12, 2016 (EIRNS) — Today, Helga Zepp-LaRouche was the special guest speaker at a Schiller Institute/{EIR} seminar in Copenhagen entitled, "Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm." Eight diplomats from six countries attended, including two ambassadors. There were nations from Western Europe, Southwest Asia, Western and Eastern Asia, and Africa. In addition, there were around 30 Schiller Institute members and contacts, as well as a few representatives of various Danish and international institutions.

The event was opened by the presentation of a Chinese love song performed by Feride Istogu Gillesberg and Michelle Rasmussen. Afterwards, Tom Gillesberg, the chairman of The Schiller Institute in Denmark, introduced Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, describing her historical role in bringing about the New Silk Road policy.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche's very inspiring, in-depth speech began with the revolution against globalization represented by the Brexit, the Trump election, and the Italian No vote. She gave an evaluation of the potential represented by some of the statements and appointments Trump has made so far, and then proceeded with a detailed discussion of the two conflicting paradigms in the world today. Zepp-LaRouche then uplifted the audience with the beautiful ideas of space scientist Krafft Ehricke and Renaissance philosopher Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. She concluded with an appeal to those present not to act as spectators on the stage of history, but engage in the battle for the new paradigm with us.

Her speech, about 80 minutes long, may be heard above, or at: https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/helga-zepp-larouche-in-copenhagen -donald-trump-and-the-new-international-paradigm-1

Afterwards, there was an intensive hour-long discussion, with questions from all of the different groups represented. Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche ended by challenging the audience to decide what they want to do with their lives, what mark they will make to benefit all humanity, far into the future.  

Zepp-LaRouche's speech and discussion had a profound effect on all present. 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Discussion:

(There is no video or audio of the discussion period, only this transcript.)

Helga Zepp-LaRouche in Copenhagen December 12, 2016
Discussion
(To facilitate free discussion, the questioners are not identified, and the questions are summarized. The answers are complete.)
Question: Can we be optimistic about Trump’s presidency, because he is skeptical about climate change, is for trade war with China and Mexico, opposes the free trade deals, and has called for tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I said earlier that the potentialities for change are there, but it depends, to a very large extent, upon us – what we do. When Trump got elected, my first response was, this is what I call the ‘dog pull-tail, let-go feeling.’ What I mean by that is that when you pull the tail of a dog, which you should never do, naturally, and you let go, the pain stops. When you pull, there is pain, and when you stop pulling, the pain goes away.
So, in a certain sense, the election of Trump was the tail let-go feeling, because we were on an immediate course toward WWIII, and that was really the primary point, because if Hillary Clinton would have been elected — unfortunately, Hillary Clinton, when she was in the Obama administration, transformed from being a relatively OK person, she was never great, but in 2008, she was relatively decent, compared to what she became, because she capitulated to Obama, and when she made this terrible statement, for example, in Libya, about the murder of Gadaffi, “We came, we saw, and he died.” This is barbarism.
Her behavior in the Ben Ghazi case. There were so many things where she became worse than Obama, almost. So the immediate thing was that that big danger, that she would have continued the policies of Bush and Obama, in the confrontation with Russia and China, that that was stopped is, already, for the survival of civilization, the most important step.
Now, on these other points. Naturally, there is climate change. There is no question about it. But the question is, what is the cause of it? And the Schiller Institute had several conferences where we invited extremely important scientists who presented, beyond a doubt, that if you look at the last 500 million years in the history of the Earth, you have a continuous cycle of ice ages, of warming periods, of small ice ages, and the man-made component of climate change is absolutely negligible. It’s a big fraud, for example, it’s a big business. To sell CO2 omission quotas, is like selling indulgences in the Middle Ages.
Obviously, there are climate changes, and some countries which have low coasts are very much affected, but then you have to adapt to these climate changes with modern technology, and you cannot solve the problem by going to electric cars, or going to decarbonization of the world economy. This is a big fraud, and I am not saying that Trump is saying this for all the right reasons, but the idea to impose measures implied with the “great transformation” Schellnhuber is talking about – I mean these people do not want development.
We have been on this case for the last — as a matter of fact, we, the LaRouche movement, had a conception about the development of the world really starting at the end of the sixties.
I joined Mr. LaRouche because I went to China, Africa, other Asian countries, and I saw the horrible, horrible underdevelopment. So I came back from this trip, and I said, ‘I have to become political, because I want to change this.’ I could give you a long, long story of the many observations, because I went with a cargo ship, and when you go to these countries with a cargo ship, you get a quite different idea than if you go on a 5-star cruise, and hotels. You see how the poverty affects people in their real lives. And I came back, and I looked at all the political movements, and I saw that LaRouche was the only one who said, ‘We have to have Third World development. We have to have technology transfer. We have to alleviate this poverty.’
And we had a positive conception already in the seventies, and therefore, when the Club of Rome appeared, we immediately said, ‘This is a fraud.’ Because the Club of Rome said, ‘There are limits to growth. We have reached equilibrium. Until the year 1972, you could develop, but now, we have reached equilibrium, and we have to have sustainable development. We have to have appropriate technology.’ These notions did not exist before, because before, you had the idea of a UN Development Decade, where each decade, you would overcome the underdevelopment by qualitative jumps. And when we recognized this propaganda by the Club of Rome, we immediately said, ‘This is a complete fraud,’ and the people who wrote the book “Limits to Growth,” Meadows and Forrester …
Q: A followup about the Paris climate summit.
A: I would like to give you written documentation afterwards of the studies that were made by these geologists, which are, without question, the explanation of climate change is not man-made. The anthropogenic aspect of it is so miniscule. Climate change has to do with the position of the solar system in the galaxy, which goes in cycles around a certain axis, and you can see that over 500 million years, the data confirms that you have these wide changes. Greenland is called Greenland, because it was green. There used to be vineyards. You had ice ages which completely covered the Earth, and the reason why I went into this longer history, is to show how the environmentalist movement was created with the attempt to keep development down, and climate change is just another expression of the same effort.
If you look at which firms which are investing in solar parks, in wind parks, who is controlling the CO2 emission trade, you have all the top hedge funds in London and Wall St. I can give you a lot of documentation about it, which does not mean that climate change is not real, because you have the rise of the oceans, and you have climate change, you have extreme weather, but that has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.
And, on the other points you raised, obviously, from our standpoint, the cancellation of NAFTA, is a good thing, because NAFTA did not allow development for Mexico. As a matter of fact, NAFTA is the incarnation of the cheap labor production model of free trade. What you need is – especially countries which are not developed, you need protective tariffs for their own good. They have to develop a domestic market first. The booklet which I emphasized, which you should please read, “Against the Stream,” is one of many, but it is very condensed, and a very good book.
The question is, ‘What is the source of wealth?’ Is the source of wealth cheap labor, to buy cheap raw materials, produce cheaply, and sell expensive? Is that the cause of wealth? No.
The only cause of wealth is the increase in the creativity of labor power. And a good government is, therefore, investing the maximum amount into education, into sponsoring the creativity of youth, of labor, and the more people in the labor force, by percentage, are engineers, scientists, the more productive the economy becomes.
And the free trade system, of which NAFTA is just one example, did exactly the opposite. China, which was part of this in the beginning — the reason why China today has so many environmental problems, like smog, like a large amount of groundwater being contaminated, is the result of the fact that China, in the beginning of its industrialization, accepted being a cheap labor production place for the U.S. and for Europe. When I was in China, even in 1971, I visited some factories which were horrible. They were absolutely horrible. The working conditions were terrible, the labor force, which produced electrical devices for radios, it was horrible. They worked for 18 hours. No health system. It was just terrible. And that is how China developed in the first phase.
But then China, with Deng Xiaoping, started to recognize that that is the wrong way. So China is now on a completely different track. They are putting the maximum emphasis on science and technology, the increase of excellence. Last year, they produced 1 million scientists. That’s double of what the U.S. produced. Obviously China is a larger country, but still. What will finally be decisive is the number of people who are creative. And that is why China, right now, has the best education system, because they have understood that the source of wealth is not raw materials. Is not trade conditions. It is the creativity of their own people. And that it a good thing. If we go to a system where we have a certain amount of protectionism, to protect the development of the domestic market, it is a good thing.
There is no danger of cutting [countries off from one another], because all of these infrastructure projects are connectivity. The world will be more connected than ever before. But this whole myth of free trade is really a very bad thing. It has been coined by the people who profit from it. That’s why the world is in the condition it is right now, where the rich become richer, and the poor become poorer. The middle class is being destroyed all over the world. And I would really like to communicate with you so that we can deepen this dialogue.
On the Iran thing, I don’t think he will break it, but that is my hope. I don’t know.
So, I’m not saying he’s a – as I said, Baron von Knigge would get a heart attack when he hears Trump’s speeches, but the world was in such a grip of evil, satanic evil, that it is a good thing that there is a break, and the unfortunate thing, is that Europe is still in this grip.
You can see it. Von der Leyen, the German Defense Secretary, had the funniest reaction. The day after the election of Trump, she said ‘I am deeply shocked,’ about this election result, because nobody thought this would happen. Now, this same lady is now parading in Saudi Arabia with Crown Prince Bin Salman Al Saud, and she isn’t shocked. So, I don’t know what’s wrong with her. I think that that would be a good place to be shocked, or not even go there.
So, I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the Europeans who react this way to the defeat of Hillary, are obeying another power in their head, and that power I call The British Empire, which is still in place, and it dominates Europe, and that is why they feel – I was asking myself, how come all of these politicians are so arrogant towards the new president of the U.S.? Because they were the boot-lickers of Washington until yesterday, and they would immediately do everything Washington would say and do, so I asked myself, ‘Where is this sudden self-assertedness coming from?’ And the only explanation I came up with, was to say, they must have an idea that there is another power which is more powerful than Trump, otherwise, they wouldn’t have this sudden arrogance.
And it is the British, because you will see tomorrow, because tomorrow, there will be a federal press conference in Berlin, where a number of people will present their contribution to the German chairmanship of the G-20, which will take place in July in Hamburg. This will be Joachim Schellnhuber, the head of the WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change), this is the scientific advisory organization advising the German government. He put out this paper about ‘the great transformation,’ which we wrote about. You can look in the archive. He is the head of the idea of a decarbonization of the world economy.
Now, if you decarbonize the world economy, without having fusion, that would be one thing, to have fusion power in place. Then you can talk about getting rid of fossil fuels, but without having fusion, and being against nuclear energy, fission, it means that you will reduce the world’s population to 1 billion or less, because there is a direct correlation between the energy-flux-density, and the number of people you can maintain. Schellnhuber said that the carrying capacity of the Earth is maximum 1 billion people. He didn’t say that he wants to do with the 6 billion who are already there. If he would be consequent, he should hop away from this planet.
And they will announce a sinister plan, to try to use the fact that many countries have environmental problems, to sneak in their anti-development programs. People should not be naïve, because not everybody thinks that population growth is a good thing. There are many people who think that each human being is a parasite, destroying nature. That is the image of man which many people have. The greenies, for example.
We look at it in a different way. We think that the more people you have, the greater longevity you can have, division of labor, and a modern scientific society needs many people with a long life span. Because if you are in the Third World, and you die, and you have an average life expectancy of 40 years, or less, you cannot have scientists, because the production of a scientist takes 30-35 years, and if people then die right away, then you can’t have a modern society.
So the more creative people you have, the better. Each human being is an incredible addition, because we are creative.
Tom Gillesberg: Schellnhuber, for his services, was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE), and for him, he personally has said, that the highpoint of his existence was that the British Queen, personally, gave him the Order of the British Empire, for his efforts to reduce the possibility for mankind’s survival, you could say, so it is connected with what you said.
Q: This is the best speech I have ever heard in my life.
Is this a second American Revolution, and will the Federal Reserve, which is privately owned, be closed down, and will money be created for the benefit of all people, and not just the private Fed?
A: I don’t know, because, as I said, there are so many unknowns about Trump, and what he will do, and how it will play out. All I can say is, if Trump does not fulfill his promises, the same people who caused his election, will topple him. Because I don’t think that this process, which is now underway, where ordinary people have just had it — If you think about the declaration of Independence, it has this formulation that you will not bring down a government system for light reasons, but, if for a long time, the common good is being violated, I don’t know the exact text, then, people have the right and duty to replace this government with a rightful one, and that idea I call natural law.
It’s the same idea that Friedrich Schiller had in Wilhelm Tell. This is a play he wrote, which takes place in Switzerland. There, the Hapsburg oligarch is also trampling on the rights of the Swiss people, then they unite with the Rütli Oath. There is this beautiful formulation which says, ‘When the rights of people are trampled upon, they have the right to reach out to the stars, and take from the stars those rights which are eternally embedded in these stars. (I am not saying it as beautifully as Schiller does.)
If you compare these two texts, the Declaration of Independence, and the Rütli Oath from Schiller’s play, they are almost identical, and it’s very clear that Schiller was inspired by the American Revolution when he wrote that play, because in his plays, there are many ideas which resonate with the American Revolution, and he actually wanted to immigrate, at one point, to America.
So I think that if Trump turns out to be another fraudster, which we don’t know yet, I think that this process of revolt will continue, because I only mentioned some elements.
I could mention that there are many countries now in realignment. for example, the Philippines, Duterte. This was supposed to be the playground for the conflict with China in the South China Sea. Now Duterte sent his Defense Secretary, Lorenzana, to Russia and China, to buy weapon systems from Russia and China, and to establish a friendship with China, and he said, ‘The Philippines is no longer the colony of the U.S.’
Then you have Japan, which was the junior partner of the U.S. in the Pacific. Abe went to Sochi, meeting with Putin. In three days from now, Putin will go to Japan to have a state visit. They are talking about a peace treaty between Russia and Japan.
All of these are new alignments. There is a shift in the strategic situation, and I don’t think that that shift can be reversed.
Q: About Russia hacking the U.S. election. Why doesn’t the U.S. have anti-hacking measures? Can you explain that?
A: I cannot explain that, for the same reason that I cannot explain why the NSA is surveilling everyone, all their phones, their communications, worldwide. They can observe all of these things, but they don’t know about terrorism. They don’t know about drug trafficking. They don’t know about money laundering. Either their system is not so good, or they are looking in the wrong direction. I can’t answer your question.
Q: Will the result of the Brexit be positive for Europe, to enable continental Europe to become stronger, and to improve cooperation with the eastern parts of Europe?
A: I think that the EU is not functioning, and I think it is not just the Brexit. The “No” in Italy is a reflection of the same dynamic. Now you have Gentiloni, the new prime minister, and they will probably go for new elections. Right now, in the polls, you have the 5 Star Party leading. If they win, and form the new government, they have already said that they would leave the EU, and leave the Euro, and, in a certain sense, it is not functioning.
The reason I was against the introduction of the Euro from the beginning, was because we said that it cannot function. You cannot have a European currency union in something which is not an optimal economic space. You cannot put advanced industry together with an agrarian country, with completely different tax laws, pension laws, and you don’t want a political union, because Europe is not a people. You don’t have a European people. I don’t know what the Danes are saying. I don’t know what is in the Danish newspapers. The people of Slovenia have no inkling of what is happening in Alsace-Lorraine, and so forth, and so on. You don’t have a European people. Esperanto doesn’t function. You have 28 nations, 28 histories, 28 cultures.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t work together. I think that the idea of Charles de Gaulle to work together as an alliance between perfectly sovereign fatherlands, that is a correct idea. And all these fatherlands can adopt a joint mission, like to develop Africa, or other things.
I just think that this European Union is not going to stay forever.
Q: (followup) Will it be easier for Germany and France to promote this development, as the leading countries?
A: Everybody says that Germany is the biggest beneficiary of globalization, the EU, and the Euro, but that’s not really true, because, if you look at it more closely, then you can say that since the introduction of the Euro, the domestic market of Germany has completely stagnated. And the number of people who became poorer has increased.
Q: (followup) What about regarding the dialogue with Russia.
A: Oh yes, that would be much easier.
I do not think that this EU bureaucracy is capable of reform, because by their self-understanding, they are the local pro-consuls of this empire, and I think that it would be much better if Germany, France, and other countries have individual relations. And I don’t think that – this whole idea that you need a European Empire to compete with Russia and China and other emerging countries – The EU, by definition, is an empire. They have said it themselves. Robert Cooper, who has some kind of advisory function [currently serving as EU Special Advisor with regard to Myanmar], he said that the EU is the fastest expanding empire in history. It’s a bad idea.
And the Russians for – I noticed this since the beginning of the year 2000, that the Russians did not make a difference anymore between the EU and NATO. They said that it’s the same thing. And it is the same thing.
Q: You said that the One Belt, One Road was stripped of commercial interests from the Chinese side, as opposed to the IMF, World Bank. On what basis do you say that it is less interest-driven than the Bretton Woods institutions?
A: Well, because, the question is not that I’m saying that China is perfect. I’m not saying that. But when you look at anything, you have to look at the vector of development, is it going upward, or is it going downward? And from that standpoint, I had the advantage that I was in China in 1971, which was in the middle of the Cultural Revolution. This was so different than China today.
The Cultural Revolution was horrible for the people. The Red Guards would take people out of their homes, put them in jail, send them to the countryside, and people were distraught.
And now, people in China are happy. If you talk to students, or to young people, they are optimistic. They say, ‘Oh. I will do this in the future. I have these plans.’ I talked to a group of students in Lanzhou two years ago, and they said, ‘We will go to Africa. We will develop Africa.’ I have never heard a German student say this. Yeah, when I was a student, but that’s a long time ago.
I think that it is very worthwhile to read the speeches of Xi Jinping. There is a book, “The Governance of China,” but that only has about 60 speeches, and there are many, many more. For example, you should read the speeches he gave when he went to France, to Germany, and to India.
For example, when he went to India, he made a speech which was really incredible, because he said that he loved Indian culture from his early youth, and then he gave so many examples of the high points of Indian culture, the Gupta period, the Upanishads, the Vedic writings, Rabindranath Tagore, many predicates which prove that he really knows what he is talking about. He is not just one of these politicians who have a PR advisor about how to make nice bubbles in your speeches, but you could really see that he means it. And the same for Germany. He came to Germany and he emphasized Schubert and Heine, things which I also appreciate about Germany, and he did the same thing in France.
And I don’t think that the Chinese leadership would agree with me when I say this, but I think that they are less communist than Confucians. They probably would not admit that, because they are officially the Communist Party, and that’s OK, but, I come from Trier, and Trier is the birthplace of Karl Marx, so I have studied Karl Marx, and I think that they are still socialist, or communist, or whatever, but they always said that they are communist with Chinese characteristics, and these Chinese characteristics are Confucianism.
And the Confucian idea of man is lifelong learning, lifelong perfection, that everyone should be a Jinzi, a wise man, a noble man, and Confucius said, if the government is bad, then the Jinzi, these wise people, should replace the government. Also the idea that you have to have an harmonious development, starting with the family, continuing in the nation, and then, larger, among the nations.
China is the only country that has not made wars of aggression, colonial wars, in its 5,000 years of history. It was invaded many times, the Opium War, and things like that, but China is not an aggressive nation, at all.
And if you look at what they are doing in practice, the IMF and the World Bank have prevented Third World development, and China is going from one country to the next, building science cities, helping with space cooperation, bringing in developing countries in the most advanced areas of science, in order to not prevent their development. I think this is a completely different approach.
I think that the Chinese have come up with a new model of government, which I have not seen in any place in Europe, the U.S. ever, and it’s a model which is overcoming geopolitics, which is, if you say, ‘I have a win-win for cooperation. Everybody can join.’ Then, if everyone joins, then you have overcome geopolitics.
And geopolitics is the one thing that caused two world wars, and in the age of thermonuclear weapons, we cannot have geopolitics anymore. So I think that these are very important differences.
Sure, China has its own interests. Win-win means that China also has an interest. China has advantages, but, for example, if you ask people from Africa, ‘Would you rather have deals where China gets raw materials for long periods of time, but they build infrastructure for Africans.’ They like that much better than Europeans who come and say, ‘Oh, you should obey democracy,’ and do nothing.
Q: Statement about Chinese infrastructure projects in Morocco. Both are winners, as opposed to projects 20 years ago run by other countries. The Chinese there have learned Arabic. The projects have greatly reduced the travel time. They have a different perspective than the French, and Europeans had.    
Tom Gillesberg: Do you have final remarks?
A: I would just say that people should not just believe, or not believe, what I am saying, but take an active attitude to try to find out what the truth is, for themselves. Because the world is not helped by replacing one ideology by another. The only way you can be certain, is that you become a truth-seeking person yourself. Because the whole question about what went wrong, is that people forgot what it is to be an honest truth-seeking person, taking the truth not as something you reach finally, but something you always improve.
Schiller had this beautiful writing about universal history, where he said that the philosophical mind is the first one to take his own system apart, to put it together more perfectly again.
I think that that quality – and, also, we had two days ago in Berlin, a very important event, which was also about the dialogue of cultures, and every – we had a very important presentation, which you can soon see on our webpage, where we had a double bass player who spoke about the importance of Wilhelm Furtwängler as a conductor, and he gave some musical examples, and he compared the performances of Furtwängler with some modern conductors, and the difference is so unbelievable. The music of Furtwängler is transparent. It is beautiful. It is absolutely overwhelmingly uplifting, and many of the other conductors are just playing along, with no respect for what the composition is.
And he really described, with many quotes from Furtwängler, that what is needed is this inner quality of truthfulness. That you don’t fake it, because if you’re not truthful – for example, you cannot recite poetry, if you’re not truthful. You cannot sing beautifully, if you’re not truthful. Sure, you can sing brilliantly, you can do all kinds of tricks, and it impresses people, but to really produce art, you have to be truthful. You have to try to understand the poetical idea, the musical idea. You have to step back with your ego behind what the composer or the poet wrote. And that’s what is wrong with modern theater. In Regietheater, they just say, ‘I don’t care what Schiller wrote, or what Shakespeare wrote. I just make my modern interpretation. I put Harley Davidson’s into Shakespeare, and it doesn’t matter.’ And that is not art.
And I think the question is, ‘What do you do with your life?’ That is really the question. Are you becoming a creative person, devoted to that with your life, you contribute to enable mankind to move on a little step further, and become better.
Or, are you just eating three tons of caviar, and have 3,000 Porsches. And then, when you die, they write on your gravestone, ‘He/she ate three mons of caviar, and had 3,000 Porsches,’ and that was it.
No, you should try to be an honest person, trying to make human society better with what you do. And, once you do that, you become happy. Then you are free. This inner freedom, is what you should try to find. And that is the only way that we will win that battle. It’s not Trump. It is, can we get enough people to be innerly free.
And then we win.
End of discussion

EIR, 28. nov., 2016. Af Benjamin Deniston – Hvad vil NASA’s fokus blive under præsident Trump? Snarere end at kommentere de igangværende spekulationer og rygter, så lad os i stedet fokusere på det, der må ske for at sikre menneskehedens fremgangsrige fremtid i Solsystemet.

Hvad bør målet være for nutidens rumprogram? Vi ønsker helt bestemt at fuldføre inspirerende og spændende mål – at sende mennesker tilbage til Månen, få folk til Mars og forfølge en udvidet udforskning af andre planetsystemer via robotter, er alle værdige mål, der nu diskuteres.

Der er imidlertid en anden betragtning af en højere natur, som må vejlede vore handlinger nu: vil de præstationer, vi opnår, give os en platform, der kan støtte kvalitative spring til endnu større kapaciteter i fremtiden?

Nutidens rumfartspolitik bør indeholde en vision hen over flere generationer for udvikling af sådanne evner, som dernæst vil gøre det muligt for menneskeheden på regelmæssig basis at foretage titals eller hundredetals missioner af den type, som vi i øjeblikket ser som enkelte flagskibsmissioner i dag. Af årsager, som jeg i det følgende vil diskutere, er en international mission for udviklingen af Månen det klare, første skridt.

Naturligt menneskeligt fremskridt forekommer i spring

I går jublede vi af begejstring, da vi fulgte med i NASA’s Curiosity-robot, som foretog sin første udforskning af Mars; i morgen bør vi have mere avancerede robotter, der udforsker mange flere planeter og disses måner (Venus, Mars, Titan, Europa, Enceladus, Io, Triton, Ganymedes, Pluto m.fl.) For et par årtier siden blev verden grebet, da den så mennesket sætte fod på Månen; et par årtier frem i tiden bør vi være vidne til, at mennesket med relativ lethed udforsker andre planeter. Vi må se frem til interplanetariske rumrejser, udforskning og udvikling, ligesom menneskeheden for århundreder tilbage i tiden så frem til trans-oceaniske rejser – foretagender, der starter som risikable og kostbare missioner for udforskning, anført af en håndfuld modige personer, må blive mere og mere almindelige foreteelser for en større og større del af befolkningen. Dette vil tage et par generationer at opnå, men det er sluttelig det rigtige perspektiv, som er nødvendigt som vejledning vore handlinger i dag.

I begyndelsen af det 19. århundrede risikerede Lewis og Clark liv og lemmer for at rejse hen over det amerikanske kontinents vildmark, hvor de opnåede noget, som en gennemsnitlig, pensioneret fritidsentusiast med campingvogn kan opnå inden for en uges tid, eller som den gennemsnitlige flyrejsende kan opnå på en dag. I midten af det 20. århundrede var en håndfuld astronauter de første til at trodse rummets kolde vakuum under menneskehedens første rejser til Månen, hvor de opnåede noget, som vil blive almindeligt om et århundrede frem i tiden.

Er rumrejser vanskeligere end de tidlige, transkontinentale ekspeditioner? Ja, absolut – men enhver ny udfordring er altid vanskeligere end den foregående; dette er det menneskelige fremskridts natur.

Det spørgsmål, man bør stille sig, er: hvordan forvandler menneskeheden ekstraordinære, enkeltstående præstationer til ordinære, almindelige aktiviteter? Det enestående og utrolige til noget regelmæssigt og uundværligt? Hvad er det, der gør det muligt for menneskeheden på denne enestående vis at foretage sådanne dramatiske forvandlinger? Svaret gives i Lyndon LaRouches videnskab om fysisk økonomi.

LaRouches fysisk-økonomiske platform

Under denne overgangsperiode til Trump-præsidentskabet er det afgørende at hæve diskussionsniveauet til det rette grundlag. Vi kan få spændende missioner, og vi kan have inspirerende missioner, men det spørgsmål, vi bør stille, er: Vil vi få et program, hvor investeringerne vil blive grundlaget for at skabe et helt nyt niveau af aktiviteter, som vil gøre det muligt for os at gøre ting i en helt anden størrelsesorden, end det var muligt forud for denne investering? Vil dette skabe det, som hr. LaRouche engang definerede som en »fysisk-økonomisk platform«?[1] Vil dette skabe en helt ny platform for aktiviteter, for potentiale – for infrastruktur, for energigennemstrømningstæthed i teknologier – som tilsammen understøtter et kvalitativt nyt niveau af potentiel aktivitet for menneskeheden?

Det er det spørgsmål, som vi ønsker at lægge frem på bordet nu. Dette fører direkte til Krafft Ehrickes vision, den Krafft Ehricke[2], som var en tidlig rumfartspioner, der arbejdede meget tæt sammen med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche i 1980’erne. Han var en af de førende rumfarts-visionære, som meget detaljeret skitserede det indledende grundlag for, at menneskeheden kan avancere til at blive en art, der lever i hele Solsystemet.  

Den virkelige forståelse af, hvad kvalitative revolutioner i infrastruktursystemer betyder for menneskehedens forsatte kreative fremskridt, har ingen forbindelse med

den måde, hvorpå de fleste mennesker bruger denne betegnelse. En bedre repræsentation ville være at tænke på det som at fremme »platforme« for menneskelig udvikling. Gå to tusinde år tilbage i tiden, hvor de dominerende kulturer var trans-oceaniske, maritime kulturer. Det, man begyndte at se med udviklingen af vandveje i indlandsområder, flodsystemer i indlandsområder – såsom det, Karl den Store bedrev under sin regeringstid i Centraleuropa, med at udvikle disse kanalsystemer og flodsystemer – var en kvalitativ revolution ud over det, der tidligere havde været, med disse trans-oceaniske civilisationer. Udviklingen af disse indlands-vandveje definerede et ny platform for aktiviteter, der understøttede et kvalitativt spring i det, civilisationen var i stand til at opnå.

Det næste spring kom med udviklingen af jernbanesystemer, især transkontinentale jernbaner, der typificeres af det, som Lincoln havde været spydspids for med den transkontinentale jernbane tværs over Amerika. Transkontinentale jernbanesystemer, og de nye energi-gennemstrømningstætheder, som frembragtes gennem den kulfyrede dampmaskine, skabte en ny platform, der for første gang understøttede udviklingen af kontinenternes indre områder (som således åbnede op for, at enorme nye territorier kunne udvikles), og som tilvejebragte en ny, rum-tid-sammenhængskraft i økonomien (som muliggjorde nye strømme af varer, produktionsprocesser og højere niveauer af generel produktivitet for arbejdsstyrken).

Disse transkontinentale jernbanesystemer definerede en kvalitativ forøgelse af menneskehedens »potentielle, relative befolkningstæthed«, den måleenhed, som LaRouche har udviklet for at forstå videnskaben om økonomisk vækst. Det gjorde ting, der på et tidspunkt var utroligt kostbare eller krævende eller risikable, til faste hverdagsaktiviteter.

Hvordan kan vi skabe et lignende skift med hensyn til menneskehedens forhold til Solsystemet? Hvad er nøgleteknologierne, energi-gennemstrømningstætheder og infrastrukturer i en fysisk-økonomisk Solsystemsplatform?

Fysisk-økonomisk Solsystemsplatform

Selv om det ikke diskuteres med hensyn til samme grad af reference, så har de fundamentale elementer i en Solsystemsplatform være velkendt siden Krafft Ehrickes og hans kollegers arbejde. For bekvemmelighedens skyld kan vi her fastslå tre afgørende kategorier at fokusere på:

* Adgang til rummet – På grund af de massive energikrav for at overvinde Jordens tyngdekraft, har man sagt, »når man først kommer i kredsløb om Jorden, er man halvejs til et hvilket som helst sted i Solsystemet«. Hvis man kun taler om energikravene, så er dette absolut sandt (for eksempel brugte Apollo-programmets Saturn V-raket langt mere brændstof på turen fra Jordens overflade og til kredsløbet om Jorden, end den brugte til at flyve den kvart million mil fra Jordens kredsløbsbane og til Månen). I dag koster det $10.000 at bringe et pund last til Jordens kredsløbsbane med raketaffyringssystemer. Med de aktuelle bestræbelser på at sænke omkostningerne, kunne traditionelle raketflyvninger til Jordens kredsløbsbane måske skæres ned til en tiendedel af de aktuelle omkostninger (i heldigste fald). Nye teknologier byder imidlertid på langt større forbedringer. Det, som NASA definerer som »tredje generations affyringsfartøjer« og ’air-breathing’ raketter, kan reducere omkostningerne til mellem en tiendel og en hundrededel af det nuværende omkostningsniveau.[3] Med avancerede versioner af disse systemer kunne astronauter ride et rumfartøj ved at lette fra en lufthavns-startbane og flyve hele vejen til Jordens kredsløbsbane. [4] Endnu videre kunne magnetisk levitations- vakuumrørs-raketaffyringssystemer reducere omkostningerne til blot 0,2 % af det aktuelle niveau og gøre lavt jordkredsløb lige så tilgængeligt som internationale rejser.[5]  

* Fusionsfremdrift i rummet – Den energi, der udløses af kernereaktioner, er forbløffende en million gange større end kemiske reaktioner (per masse). For eksempel kunne den samme mængde energi, som indeholdes i Rumfærgens 3,8 mio. pund kemisk brændstof (i dens to solide boostere og dens flydende brændstoftank) opnås gennem blot ti pund nukleart brændstof. Når man fatter de enorme afstande, der er involveret i rejser ud i Solsystemet, bliver det klart, at rejser ud i det dybe rum uden kernekraft er lige så fjollet som rejser over et kontinent uden fossilt (kemisk) brændstof – det kan i begrænset grad gøres, men det understøtter ikke den nødvendige aktivitetsplatform. Fremdrift ved hjælp af fission, og vigtigere endnu, fusion, er afgørende for hurtig og regelmæssig adgang til andre planetlegemer. Hvor nutidens rejser til Mars kræver måneders rejsetid, kan fremdrift gennem fusion gøre Mars til et spørgsmål om ugers, eller endda kun nogle dages, rejsetid.

* Udvikling af rum-resurser – Udviklingen og anvendelsen af de resurser, der er tilgængelige uden for Jorden, vil hæve menneskeheden op over selvforsynende ekskursioner ud i rummet og til niveauet for en aktiv, organiserende kraft i Solsystemet. Evnen til at udvikle resurserne, der er tilgængelige på Månen, asteroider, Mars eller enhver anden, potentiel destination i Solsystemet, reducerer den ekstremt kostbare nødvendighed af at bringe alt fra Jorden, og indleder den storslåede proces med at skabe selvforsynende systemer for økonomisk aktivitet i rummet, der skaffer nødvendige varer til rumaktiviteter og endda tilbage til Jorden. Udover de mere indlysende resurser som vand, ilt og brint, så er der stor fokus på et fusionsbrændstof, som næsten er totalt fraværende på Jorden, men som dækker Månens overflade, nemlig helium-3. Avanceret (aneutronisk) fusionsreaktion, med helium-3 som brændstof, kunne drive rumfartøjer rundt i hele Solsystemet, samt levere energi til Jorden i mange århundreder.[6]

Taget samlet skaber teknologiske og infrastrukturmæssige gennembrud i hver af disse tre kategorier en kombination, der skaber en ny, fysisk, økonomisk platform, der fuldstændigt redefinerer menneskehedens forhold til Solsystemet – ligesom jernbaner og dampmaskiner havde transformeret menneskehedens forhold til kontinenterne for to århundreder siden.

Destination Månen

Hvis det gøres korrekt, kan en mission for udviklingen af en permanent base og fremstillingsoperationer på Månen være den bedste program for drivkraften bag skabelsen af en fysisk-økonomisk platform i Solsystemet. Månens nære beliggenhed gør den tilgængelig for udvikling, og dens enestående resurser af helium-3 kan give brændstof for fusionsfremdrift i rummet (og fusionskraft på Jorden), så vel som også definere et program, der kan være drivkraft for udviklingen af udvinding af mineraler, deres forarbejdning og fremstillingskapaciteter, i rummet. Nye raketaffyringssystemer vil sænke omkostningerne ved transport mellem Jorden og Månen, og på dramatisk vis øge adgangen til hele Solsystemet.

Verden har allerede kastet sit blik i denne retning. Både Kina og Rusland satser på Månen med henblik på mange af disse mål, og chefen for det Europæiske Rumagentur har givet Europas støtte til international udvikling af Månen.

Under en diskussion for nylig med Lyndon LaRouche, udtalte han: »Udgangspunktet er Krafft Ehricke.« Og Krafft Ehrickes industrialisering af Månen udgør den afgørende drivkraft bag at få alt dette i gang. Vi har helium-3 på Månen; det bringer spørgsmålet om fusionskraft direkte på bordet. Vi taler om at udvikle industrikapaciteter og kapaciteter til udvinding af mineraler på Månen. Hvis vi er seriøse omkring dette, vil vi øge vores adgang til rummet fra Jordens overflade. Så det er fremragende, at vi nu ser en masse diskussion om Månen, som nu igen kommer frem på bordet; men jeg mener, at spørgsmålet her er, vil vi forfølge denne Krafft Ehrickes vision om en reel, industriel udvikling?

For præsident Trump synes det klart, at Månen er det indlysende valg. Spørgsmålet er, om dette vil blive begyndelsen til en ny, transformerende platform, som kvalitativt vil hæve menneskehedens kapaciteter til et helt nyt niveau. Vil dette være indledningen til den næste revolution i menneskehedens fortsatte, kreative fremrykning i Universet? Det er den fulde forståelse af dette spørgsmål, som kræves på nuværende tidspunkt. 

Denne artikel forekommer første gang i Executive Intelligence Review, 2. dec., 2016. Artiklen har ikke tidligere været udgivet på dansk.

Titelfoto: Maleri af et nukleart godstransportfartøj, til industrialiseringen af Månen, af Krafft Ehricke.

Indsat foto: Foto fra letsgoseit.com, af Krafft Ehricke fra portrætsamlingen i Rumfartens Internationale Hall of Fame.

3. december, 2016 – At der i dag findes to helt forskellige paradigmer i verden, der bestemmer nationers adfærd, bliver klarere dag for dag. Medens modstanden i den transatlantiske verden mod det mislykkede globaliseringsparadigme bliver stadig stærkere, og etablissementet så meget desto mere sammenbidt søger at fastholde det, så satser de stater, der samarbejder med Den nye Silkevej, stadig tydeligere på deres befolknings kreativitet og samarbejdet om menneskehedens fælles mål.
De vestlige politikere og medier, der er vant til kun at betragte Putin gennem dæmoniseringsbrillerne, ville stå sig vel ved for én gangs skyld at gennemlæse Putins årlige ’Tale til nationen’, som han holdt for den russiske Duma, uden fordomme. Efter fravalget af Obama – for det var også, hvad Hillary Clintons nederlag var – og efter Donald Trumps første telefonsamtaler med Vladimir Putin og Xi Jinping, har der åbnet sig en reel chance for at normalisere forholdet mellem de tre vigtigste nationer her på Jorden. Og kun en selvmorderisk nar ville ønske at vrage en sådan mulighed.
Når man tager den samlede kronologi for alle Putins tilbud til Vesten i betragtning, indbefattet hans forhåbningsfulde tale til den tyske forbundsdag i 2001 og talen til München-sikkerhedskonferencen i 2007, hvor han gav udtryk for stærk skuffelse, så burde man tage hans ord for pålydende, når han siger: »Vi ønsker ikke konfrontation med nogen. Det har vi lige så lidt, som vore partnere i det globale fællesskab, brug for. I modsætning til vore kolleger i udlandet, der betragter Rusland som en fjende, søger vi ikke, og har heller ikke søgt, modstandere. Vi har brug for venner. Men vi vil ikke tillade, at vore interesser skades eller ignorereres.«
Længere fremme i sin tale understregede Putin, at kravet om viden og moral i undervisningssystemet, som forudsætning for samfundets levedygtighed, var en prioritet. De unge menneskers interesse for den nationale klassiske litteratur, kultur og historie må vækkes, og skolerne må fremme kreativitet, samtidig med, at børnene lærer at tænke selvstændigt, såvel som også lærer at arbejde både selvstændigt og som en del af et team, løse stillede opgaver og formulere og realisere målsætninger. Godt nok er kravet om begavelse vigtigt, men grundlæggende set må opdragelsen hvile på det princip, at alle børn og teenagere er begavede og i stand til at opnå resultater inden for videnskab, de kreative områder samt i livet. Det er statens opgave at fremme disse talenter.
Putin understregede også den fundamentale betydning af grundforskning, som basis for økonomisk vækst og sociale fremskridt. Over 200 laboratorier er allerede etableret, som, takket være de store statstilskud, de modtager, må blive i stand til at operere på globalt niveau, og som vil blive ledet af videnskabsfolk, der er med til at bestemme retningen af den globale, videnskabelige udvikling. Det er i denne sammenhæng også vigtigt at overvinde de i Rusland siden zartiden eksisterende flaskehalse for, at disse forskningsresultater også kan komme produktionen af forbrugsvarer til gode.
De mennesker, der aktivt dæmoniserer Putin, burde også studere den tale, som Putin holdt den foregående dag ved Det internationale Forum for Primakov-forelæsninger til ære for den tidligere statsminister og ’store tænker’, Jevgenij Primakov, der døde for 18 måneder siden.
Også her stod de amerikansk-russiske relationer højt på dagsordenen. Putin henviste til Primakovs overbevisning om, at, »uden et oprigtigt partnerskab mellem Rusland og USA«, ville det blive vanskeligt at klare de »store udfordringer« i verden – især i kampen mod terrorismen i Mellemøsten.
Primakov havde, ifølge den russiske præsident, haft en »virkeligt strategisk vision«, der havde gjort det muligt for ham »at kigge ud i fremtiden og se, hvor uholdbar og ensidig« modellen om en unipolær verden var. Det var Primakov, der som den første gik ind for et trilateralt samarbejde mellem Rusland, Kina og Indien, og ud fra hvilket BRIKS, »der nu vinder indflydelse og betydning i verden«, har udviklet sig. Primakovs holden fast ved de tætte relationer med partnerne i Fællesskabet af Uafhængige Stater (CIS) »er rygraden i vores integrationspolitik i Eurasien … Vi håber, at dialog med vore partnere, indbefattet en dialog om sammenkoblingen med Kinas projekt om det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte, vil sætte os i stand til at opbygge et stort, eurasisk partnerskab«.

Den umistelige ret til udvikling
Et andet dokument, som de vestlige politikere og medier, med deres geopolitiske tankegang, burde studere, er en ny hvidbog fra den kinesiske regering om »Retten til udvikling: Kinas filosofi, praksis og bidrag«, hvor det bekræftes, at der findes en »umistelig rettighed« for alle lande og folkeslag til at udvikle sig. »Retten til udvikling må tilhøre og være fælles for alle folk. Det er alle landes ansvar at virkeliggøre retten til udvikling, og det er ligeledes det internationale fællesskabs pligt«, står der i dokumentet. »Det forpligter regeringerne i alle lande til at formulere udviklingsstrategier og forholdsregler, der passer til deres egen virkelighed, og det fordrer det internationale samfunds koncentrerede anstrengelser som helhed. Kina opfordrer alle lande til at stræbe efter en ligeværdig, åben, omfattende og innovativ, fælles udvikling, og hvidbogen kræver en fælles udvikling og at der skabes betingelser for, at alle folkeslag kan tage del i retten til udvikling.«
Hvidbogen beskriver imidlertid meget mere – nemlig, at Kinas udviklingsmodel og Kinas politiske og sociale struktur har været en udelt succes. Og, alt imens denne model fortsat udvikler sig, så foregår det i et tempo og på en måde, der bestemmes af det kinesiske folk selv. Det påpeges, at Kina allerede har løftet 700 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom, og at i dag kun 5,7 % af befolkningen lever under fattigdomsgrænsen – hvilket gør Kina til den første nation, som det er lykkedes at nå FN's Millennium-mål for fattigdomsbekæmpelse. Kina er endda fast besluttet på helt at overvinde fattigdom. I marts 2016 offentliggjordes »udkast til den 13. femårsplan for Folkerepublikken Kinas nationale, økonomiske og sociale udvikling«, hvor regeringen fremlægger en strategi for helt at udrydde fattigdom blandt landbefolkningen allerede i år 2020.

»En ny bølge af velstand«
Hvis man ikke ønsker at lytte til Putin eller Kina, kan man også studere en ny hvidbog fra bygge- og anlægsmaskine-producenten Caterpillar om betydningen af »Bælt-og-Vej«-initiativet. Det vil udløse »en ny bølge af velstand« for Kina og den øvrige verden, står der i den. Opbygningen af et infrastrukturnet, som er en prioritet i initiativet, vil muliggøre en fri strøm og en mere effektiv udnyttelse af resurserne, integration af markederne og koordinering af nationernes økonomiske politik.
Opbygningen af infrastruktur vil være med til at sænke transportomkostningerne, øge udviklingslandenes konkurrenceevne og reducere ubalancen landene imellem. Caterpillar betragter »Bælt-og-Vej«- initiativet som en »åben og medinddragende« ramme, der gør det muligt for alle landene langs ruten at tage del i opbygningen af projektet. »Dette bør og kan ikke være en bestræbelse alene fra Kinas side«, står der i dokumentet.
Virksomheden påskønner de forretningsmuligheder, som dette initiativ åbner op for, og håber at kunne deltage endnu mere i projekter langs ruten, forklarede Chen Qihua, vicepræsident for Caterpillar og direktør for Caterpillar Kina.
Og endelig burde de vestlige politikere og medier gøre sig klart, at der i befolkningen er bred opbakning til det internationale samarbejde, netop på områderne for videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt. Den europæiske rumfartsorganisation ESA’s borgerdialog i organisationens 22 lande fastslog, at 88 % af de adspurgte understøttede ledelsens rumprogram, og 96 % følte sig overbeviste om, at verdensrummet frembyder muligheder, der ikke forefindes på Jorden, men som bør udforskes.
I sin rapport om meningsmålingen ved flyvestationen Upjever i Friesland sagde den tidligere ESA-astronaut Thomas Reiter, der nu er ESA’s hovedkoordinator for den internationale rumstations anliggender, at der er grund til optimisme – på trods af den endeløse strid om budgettet på europæisk niveau. De €8 mia., der er blevet brugt i de sidste 5 år, har skabt økonomiske værdier for €14,5 mia. for Europa og dets borgere.
»Det drejer sig også om det politiske aspekt af samarbejdet: Dette fungerer ganske godt, trods konflikterne på Jorden«, sagde Reiter. 95 stater deltager i ISS’ forskningsarbejde, »hvor man deroppe forfølger mål til gavn for alle mennesker«.
Reiter udtalte sig også optimistisk om udsigterne for udforskningen af Månen, især Månens bagside. Herfra vil man senere også kunne udsende missioner til den videre udforskning af verdensaltet.
Bernhard von Weyhe, leder af kommunikationsafdelingen i kontrolcentret (ESOC) i ESA-centeret i Darmstadt, talte i et interview med avisen Allgemeine Zeitung om den »brofunktion«, som rumforskningen har for menneskeheden. »Den fælles bemandede rumfart kræver samarbejde, og gjorde det også under koldkrigstiden. Rumfart har altid været et område, hvor man har haft et intensivt internationalt samarbejde, og brofunktionen består stadig. Rumfart er pr. definition et samarbejdsprojekt.«
Fællesnævneren for alle disse udtalelser er: Menneskehedens fremtid ligger i samarbejdet mellem nationerne om økonomisk udvikling af alle verdens lande og om samarbejdet om menneskehedens fælles mål, især om udviklingen af teknologi og videnskab og menneskenes skabende evner. Det lønner sig stærkt at investere i dette samarbejde. Den, der ikke fatter dette og i stedet blot stræber mod et »sort nul«, kommer i sidste ende til at stå tilbage med tomme hænder.

Foto: I september 2015 blev astronaut Andreas Mogensen den første dansker i rummet, hvor han deltog i forskningsopgaver om bord på den Internationale Rumstation, ISS.

Matthew Ogden: Både Diane Sare og Kesha Rogers har skrevet en artikel i denne uges The Hamiltonian; jeg mener, deres artikler meget fint tjener til at skabe en ramme omkring aftenens diskussion. Diane Sares artikel hedder "President Putin's Purloined Letter; the Poetic Principle in Political Affairs" (Præsident Putins stjålne brev; det poetiske princip i politiske affærer) – jeg kan godt lide bogstavrimet her. Kesha Rogers skrev en artikel, "Mankind Is Taking a Leap! You Should Ask 'How High?'" (Menneskeheden foretager et spring! Man bør spørge, ‘Hvor højt?’”)

Begge disse artikler tjener virkelig til at definere det, som hr. LaRouche pointerede mht. den nødvendige tankegang, når vi går frem i den nuværende situation i verden. Man må ikke blive fanget i lokal tankegang; man bør ikke tænke ud fra den laveste fællesnævner, eller tænke på alle de forskellige politiske taktikker, der plaskes ud over forsiden af New York Times eller Washington Post og de forskellige nyhedsmedier. Man må i stedet tænke som en leder; og man må tænke ud fra standpunktet om, hvad der er drivkraften bag den hastigt skiftende dynamik i globale anliggender.

Ganske kort: vi så dette meget direkte i denne uge fra et par forskellige standpunkter. For det første, så var der en aktionsdag fra LaRouchePAC-aktivister i Washington, D.C. i onsdags. Jeg havde den store glæde at deltage. Vi havde aktivister, der kom fra hele østkysten, inkl. fra ’Manhattan-projektet’ i New York City; og vi var dér for at sætte hr. LaRouches principper, i form af de Fire Økonomiske Love, på dagsordenen. At der ikke er noget alternativ til en omgående genindførelse af Glass-Steagall og en omgående renæssance af Alexander Hamiltons principper. Disse er: et nationalbanksystem; direkte kredit til forøget energi-gennemstrømningstæthed og produktivitet i arbejdsstyrken; og princippet om videnskab som [økonomisk] drivkraft, som Kesha Rogers diskuterer i sin artikel i The Hamiltonian. Et aggressivt program for udforskning og udvikling af rummet, og for at opnå fusionskraft og en højere energigennemstrømningstæthed i produktionsprocessen.

Og jeg mener, dette kan ses meget klart ud fra det, der finder sted internationalt, og som hovedsagligt kommer fra Rusland og Kina. Der var for det første et meget vigtigt dokument, som netop er blevet offentliggjort, fra Kina, som vi kan diskutere lidt mere omkring. Dette dokument hedder »Retten til udvikling: Kinas filosofi, praksis og bidrag«. Denne hvidbog erklærer, at udvikling er den fundamentale, umistelige rettighed. Og for det andet, så er der nu en ny, strategisk doktrin fra Rusland, som blev annonceret i summarisk form af den russiske præsident Putin i sin årlige ’Tale til nationen’, hvor han sagde, at verdensdynamikken nu er forandret. Vi er nu villige til at samarbejde med USA som ligeværdige partnere omkring fælles interesser – inklusive endelig at besejre de falske, konstruerede fjender, som vi har hørt om fra Obama-administrationen gennem de seneste otte år.

Så med denne form for geometrisk strategi har vi et meget rigt felt, vi kan intervenere i, og en meget rig mulighed.

Så der er mange detaljer, som jeg gerne vil have, vi kommer ind på under diskussionen af alle disse spørgsmål. Lad det være nok som introduktion, og lad os høre Kesha og Diane.

(Herefter følger udskrift af diskussionen på engelsk.)

DIANE SARE:  OK, I'll just go ahead.  I'm really glad with
what you said, Matt; because there really is a transformation,
and I think we tend to miss it.  Or you catch a glimmer of it
like the real joy that I certainly felt watching all the vote
totals come in; and these poor silly reporters not having a clue
what had hit them.  But then, you get bombarded with the real
fake news, which is what comes from the so-called mainstream news
media; which has absolutely zero about developments in the world
which are being created by billions of people.  So, you have the
most extraordinary, most gigantic Earth-changing events occurring
under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, under the leadership of
Xi Jinping, and their collaboration with leaders in South
America, leaders in Africa.  Not one word of it here, and then
we're treated to some miniscule detail of a misplaced wart that a
politician has somewhere or whatever.  I think we would do well
to bear in mind a little bit of what I tried to capture in that
article.  There is a poetic principle; there is a world
revolution underway.  These things are not separate, discrete
events.  The Brexit vote — contrary to the stupid media spin —
was not a bunch of white racists who hate immigrants.  Maybe
there are some of those, but the real factor was that the whole
euro system is bankrupt.  It didn't work and it wasn't designed
to work; and people were rejecting it.  Similarly, you had these
recent votes:  the winner in the French Republican Party
nominations, François Fillon, who does not want a war with
Russia.  I think most people on the planet actually recognize
that a nuclear war between superpowers is not a desirable policy
or outcome; and it's not necessary because what President Putin
is doing is leading a fight to eradicate terrorism.  He has been
very direct about this; especially after September of 2015, at
his speech at the United Nations.  He's reiterating again the
call for a coalition to wipe out this terrorist scourge.  So what
you see in this election process here in the United States, is we
have a potential now to join with the New Paradigm.
        Therefore, the most significant aspect of what we know about
the incoming administration perhaps, are the two phone calls that
Trump had with Xi Jinping and with President Vladimir Putin; and
this is absolutely not missed by people of the world.  I just
wanted to give a little bit of a report on an event last night at
New York University with this extraordinary woman, who is the
second only I think woman in history to be the chairwoman of the
Foreign Relations committee in the Chinese national assembly.
Her name is Madame Fu Ying; she is extraordinarily dignified,
calm and very confident.  She began her remarks at this forum at
New York University by referring to the phone call between Xi
Jinping and Trump.  She made a point of saying the Chinese are
always being accused of not contributing to good in the world, of
not working with the world.  So, we figured when we started the
Belt and Road and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, that
the United States — which is always accusing us of not wanting
to work with anyone else — would have been the first in line to
join.  Instead, our invitation to participate in these
extraordinary projects was rejected.  Now, clearly there is a
potential for this opportunity to be taken.
        This is really very big.  Similarly, the decision that Trump
has made to have retired General Michael Flynn as one of his
advisors; who has called for collaboration with Russia in Syria.
And Trump's reiterations of the necessity of that kind of
collaboration — these things are very important.  And the fact
that Flynn has come out calling for a Marshall Plan for the
region; which is similar to the Chinese; Xi Jinping made a tour
of several of those nations not so long ago.  The only way you
are going to secure peace is through economic development — not
on a low level, not on repairing the decrepit, aging, out-of-date
infrastructure we have; but by leaping into a new domain.  So, I
think I'll stop there for a minute; because I think Kesha
probably has a lot to add in that regard.

        KESHA ROGERS:  Yes.  Just taking from that, we really have
to advance mankind; we really have to have a leap forward for
mankind.  This is what Mr. LaRouche is committed to; this is what
you see Russia and China committed to.  I was greatly inspired by
the discussion and some of the developments that came out of the
President of Russia; President Putin's State of the Union
address.  The leap for mankind really requires putting the
commitment to the future.  This was really expressed very
beautifully in his remarks, which captured in essence the
conception that the responsibility of the nation is to foster
creativity in science, and foster creativity in the youth of your
nation.  The best expression to doing this, in terms of
scientific and technological development.  In his speech he says,
"Our schools must promote creativity, but children must learn to
think independently, work both on their own and as part of a
team, address usual tasks and formulate and achieve goals; which
will help them have an interesting and prosperous life.  You must
promote the culture of research and engineering work.  The number
of cutting edge science parks for children will increase to 40
within two years; they will serve as the basis for development of
a network of technical project groups across the country.
Companies, universities, and research institutes would contribute
to this, so our children will see clearly that all of them have
equal opportunity and an equal start in life.  That Russia needs
their ideas and knowledge and they can prove their mettle in
Russian companies and laboratories…."  And he goes to say, "Our
education system must be based on the principle that all children
and teenagers are gifted and can succeed in science, in creative
areas, in sports, in career, and in life."
        That should be the model for every single nation.  That is
the model for our space program, and it really starts with the
question of what is human nature?  If we're going to advance
mankind and have leaps forward?  As a part of this paper that
Matt mentioned, from China they're expressing the same expression
for their nation; and for mankind as a whole.  It's not just "our
nation is better than yours, and we're going to have our people
pulled out of poverty and your people can stay in poverty.
They're not thinking like imperialists or wanting to keep nations
backwards; they want nations to move forward.  So, China has
pulled 700 million people out of poverty; you can't do that by
taking baby steps and going with a few infrastructure projects.
You have to have creative leaps.  This has really been expressed
for their Silk Road development offer of win-win cooperation and
their commitment to space and space as the potential for opening
for mankind across the planet and across the galaxy.
        I think if people look at the very exciting developments
that we're seeing coming from Russia and China, that has to be
the model.  We have that potential right now, because I think
what Diane pointed out — that when President-elect Trump was
elected, this was a mandate.  This was a repudiation of the
Bush/Obama destruction of this type of potential for a future; a
repudiation of Hillary Clinton's commitment to continuing war.
The American people said, we're not going to condone this any
longer.
        The question is, what is the positive aspect that you're
going to fight for?  We've put that on the table with LaRouche's
Four Laws and our commitment to a future perspective for mankind,
based on this very identity that has been clearly laid out by
what we could be doing if we decide to make the commitment and
collaborate on the basis that Russia and China have laid out.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, China really is an inspiration in that regard.
Let me just read a very quick quote from that paper that you
referenced, Kesha. The title of this white paper, again, is "The
Right to Development: China's Philosophy, Practice and
Contribution"; and they start by saying, "The right to
development must be enjoyed and shared by all peoples. Realizing
the right to development is the responsibility of all countries
and also the obligation of the international community." If you
just juxtapose that to the Malthusian philosophy of the British
Royal Family and others in the so-called "West" today, where they
say, "Well, no, you know, the right to development — it's not a
right. All peoples do not have an equal right to the same living
standard, and, plus, if we were to pursue that — as Obama said
when he went to Africa — 'the planet would boil over.'" I mean,
give me a break!
        So, China's white paper is laying out the opposite
philosophy, view, of man. I think, in accordance with what Putin
said in that State of the Union, that, yes, every human being is
a creative human being. That is the fundamental right of every
human being — is to develop that creativity and to contribute it
to his or her nation and to the future of mankind.
        In the China white paper, they go on to state some really
stunning statistics. You, Kesha, cited the lifting 700 million
people out of poverty; which is just an incredible achievement in
and of itself. Now only a little bit under 6%, 5.7% of the
population of China, are officially under the poverty line. And
in the white paper they were very proud to point out that China
was actually the first to achieve this UN Millennium goal —
which is a goal to lift such and such a percentage of people out
of poverty. But they refuse to stop there! They say, "That's not
enough. We have a goal, that we are going to eliminate poverty
altogether!"
        The statistics are amazing. If you compare China in 1949 to
China in 2015, only a 70-year difference, the average longevity
in China in 1949 was 35 years. Today it's 76 years. The
enrollment of school-age children in school in 1949 was 20%.
Today it's almost 100%; 99.8% of all school-age children are
enrolled in schools in China. The difference between 1978 and
2015: the GDP was at RMB767 billion in 1978. Today their GDP is
RMB68,000 billion! So, that growth is unbelievable. And then
there's, obviously, much less tangible things that you can
measure, but which are clear to see, including the spread of art,
classical culture, classical musical training among the children
of China.  So this is really a model for the rest of the world,
an inspiration. As Xi Jinping has said, "We invite the United
States, we invite the West to become a part of the New Silk Road,
and to become a part of the One Belt, One Road initiative."
        One event that was happening in Washington, D.C.,
simultaneously with this Day of Action that the LaRouche PAC
activists had on Capitol Hill, was really an unprecedented event
that was sponsored by the Asia Society. It was an all-day event
that was hosted by a scholar named Dr. Patrick Ho, who's the
Secretary General of the China Energy Fund Committee. One of my
colleagues who was there, said about the event that "This was one
of those days in Washington, D.C. when all of the principles that
you've been talking about as a LaRouche PAC activist for years
and years and years, all of a sudden are being echoed by the
person standing at the podium." We've had those experiences
periodically, but this entire event was about the right to
development, the One Belt, One Road Initiative, the Eurasian
Land-Bridge, the World Land-Bridge, the New Paradigm, win-win
cooperation, the United States joining the Silk Road — quite
literally, in those terms.
        Dr. Ho actually laid out five points of advice to the new
incoming [Trump] administration on how to integrate the United
States into the One Belt, One Road program. His five steps are as
follows:
        1) Consider One Belt, One Road a platform to spearhead
initiatives and programs to bring closer cooperation between the
United States and China;
        2) Realign trade agreements with Asia-Pacific nations to
accommodate the One Belt, One Road;
        3) Adjust the U.S. posture towards the international
development banks — that's the AIIB, the New Silk Road Fund, the
New Development Bank of the BRICS, and so forth — and promote
their capacity to assist in support for infrastructure
development;
        4) Help secure security along the One Belt, One Road;
        5) Get the international institutions to work with the One
Belt, One Road.
        So, I think that's actually a very clearly stated way to, as
we say in this pamphlet that we've published from LaRouche PAC,
have the United States join this new Silk Road.
        These ideas, as Diane was saying, this is an active
principle, this is the dynamic {elsewhere}, and our
responsibility is to ensure that {this} is the dynamic shaping
policy in the United States.

        SARE: Along these lines — because I know there's discussion
and there's an article about Sen. Schumer saying he will work
with Trump on a $1 trillion infrastructure package (something
like that) — I think the idea of Hamilton and the ideas of
people like Krafft Ehricke and what China is doing, really need
to be understood by our activists, so that people can reflect.
For example, there's discussion about one of the things that was
promoted in the New York Times for Trump to do with his
infrastructures, that there should be a tunnel under the Hudson
River, from New Jersey to New York. Right now I think the trains
go, I don't know, every 90 seconds, or every three minutes, or
something like that. There's an enormous amount of traffic. The
Port Authority Bus Terminal is very old and decrepit. It's going
to have to be rebuilt and relocated. The tunnels are very old.
        So, this is something that has needed to be done for a long
time. As everyone might imagine, there's an absolutely enormous
amount of traffic between Manhattan and New Jersey across the
Hudson River. So, you say, "What's wrong with a new tunnel
between New Jersey and New York?" Well, in a sense, if you were
to do that, it would be a sin of omission. Obviously we need a
tunnel, but if the idea were to connect this tunnel to a tunnel
under the Bering Strait, so that you could travel from Manhattan
to Moscow, that would be a completely different idea. And I think
what…

        OGDEN: [cross talk] …Manhattan to Jersey City; that's for
sure! [both laugh]

        SARE: Yeah! Or even, you know, for people who don't want to
go to Moscow, for whatever reason. They could go to Paris, but
they could travel through Siberia. All kinds of exotic, really
wonderful places. It would be quite a ride. Although, I suppose,
if we get the magnetically-levitated vacuum trains, you wouldn't
really get to see much. On the other hand, you'd arrive at your
destination before you left, by the clock.
        Anyway, all of these things would completely transform the
way we think of everything. If you could take a train from New
Jersey to San Francisco. Supposing even that it wasn't three
hours — it was a normal high-speed train — so you got there in
a day-and-a-half, that's a completely different phenomenon. It
changes the United States: what you can ship; whom you can work
with; the exchange of ideas; the exchange of goods.  The ability
for people to find the very most brilliant individual, whether
they're in China or Somalia or India, who has expertise in a
particular area, and you want to bring them in to collaborate
with a team of scientists in your local laboratory. All these
things become thinkable.
        So, when Mr. LaRouche a few years ago had made the point
that he doesn't like the term "infrastructure" anymore, because
it doesn't really get at what is actually necessary; which is the
question of how do you increase the productivity of every person.
And that requires thinking in terms of a platform. The
difference between not having electricity, for example, and
having electricity, is not simply night and day. You just can't
even compare it. It's incommensurate. Therefore, I think we
have to be both open-minded, but we also have to set {really
high} standards for what we think we should be doing. It would be
absolutely criminal, even if it did employ millions of people, to
fill in every pothole in every major city in the United States.
That would not lift the standard of living or the productivity of
the nation as a whole; whereas a high-speed rail link that went
from Manhattan to Moscow would actually have a completely
transformative effect.

        OGDEN: Yeah, it's these {leaps} in progress that are
unquantifiable, because it's a completely different measuring
rod, from one leap to the next. Last week on the webcast here on
Friday night, Ben Deniston gave an excellent presentation on
what's necessary for a real space colonization and exploration
program. I thought one example that he used during that
presentation, was really interesting. Just think about what's the
difference between Lewis and Clark's Expedition to explore the
Louisiana Purchase Territory and to cross the continental United
States vs. what we were able to do with the trans-continental
railroad. That's a different universe vs. what we would able to
do with what you're talking about, Diane, with a
magnetically-levitated train that goes from New York, to Los
Angeles, all the way up to Anchorage, Alaska, and across the
Bering Strait, into the Eurasian landmass. Those are just
quantifiably and qualitatively different modes of action. And so,
yes, it's "setting the bar" incredibly high.
        Kesha, in your article, you said, "You should ask: How high?
We should leap, we should jump. Mankind should take a leap. How
high?" It's these kinds of insights that Krafft Ehricke, that
others, were able to discuss from the terms that now Mr. LaRouche
has {scientifically} defined, in terms of energy-flux density,
how much more productivity are you able to achieve, with less
effort, with less energy applied, because of these qualitative
leaps in technology and in the principle that you're employing.
        Before we get into a little bit more of that, I do want to
bring up, though, because you mentioned it, Diane, this article,
this interview with Sen. Chuck Schumer. Mr. LaRouche was told
about this earlier today when we had a discussion with him. He
placed some importance on it and said, "You know, Chuck Schumer
does play a significant role in the Democratic Party." He is now
Minority Leader in the U.S. Senate, and, very significantly, led
the fight against Obama's veto of the JASTA bill; very publicly
broke with the Obama administration, in favor of the 9/11
families, in overturning the Obama veto of the JASTA bill. I'd
like to say something about that later.
        This article is an interview that's published on
syracuse.com. It starts by saying, "U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer
said Wednesday that he's optimistic Congress will strike a deal
with President-elect Donald Trump, to pass a $1 trillion
infrastructure bill within the first 100 days of the
administration." However, he warned, "the bill cannot rely on
what he called 'gimmicks' or tax breaks." He said "any
infrastructure bill must be paid for through substantial and
direct federal funding." He said, "The bill needs to be stronger
and bolder than ever before. Simple tax credits will not work."
He also said that the so-called public-private partnership that
Trump's infrastructure plan and other incentives to build
projects that would be privately owned, would not function. He
said that he had personally told Trump in a private meeting, that
such a plan would lead to investment only in the most profitable
projects — people who are just trying to make a buck; and could
lead to significantly higher tolls on privately owned roads and
bridges.  Instead, Schumer said, "The $1 trillion could flow into
the U.S. Treasury to be used for rebuilding the nation's
infrastructure."  So, this is a direct Federal financing, not a
scheme, not a gimmick, not tax breaks, not PPPs [public-private
partnerships].  That is a significant development.
        I do not think it is a coincidence that that interview comes
directly in the wake of a two-week mobilization by LaRouche PAC
activists on Capitol Hill to force the issue of Hamiltonian
national banking, direct Federal credit.  I know that there were
countless meetings from activists; there were several dozen
meetings that Paul Gallagher personally had with staffers and
Congress people on Capitol Hill to discuss the details of what
Hamiltonian economics and Hamiltonian national banking actually
means.  If you haven't seen it yet, I would highly recommend
going back and listening to the recorded Fireside Chat that Paul
Gallagher did last night; that was on this question of what
Hamiltonian national banking really means.
        So this is significant; but, indeed, we have to have the
view that {we} are setting the agenda.  This nation and the
leadership of the country need a very intensive course in what
Hamiltonian economics really means.

        ROGERS:  Yes, and I think that the title of our publication
which we are continuing to get out en masse, The Hamiltonian
Vision for an Economic Renaissance is absolutely imperative to
be understood as just that.  We're not just talking about
developing infrastructure or increasing manufacturing; because
that's not what Hamilton understood in the increasing of the
productivity of society.  It was starting with advancing the
creative powers of mankind; and Lyndon LaRouche has taken that to
a very high level and conception, as you said.  His work over the
past 40-50 years looking at this conception of leaps in
productivity of society based on this conception of the potential
for mankind to advance in ways that had not been thought of
before; to advance in ways where the creative leaps in mankind
take the development scientifically and technologically to higher
and higher states.  Mr. LaRouche's understanding of this and
Krafft Ehricke's were very synonymous; they worked hand-in-hand
together.  The German space pioneer Krafft Ehricke — the
rejection of his ideas by the "limits to growth" imperialist
budget-cutters, who didn't want to see mankind advance in this
way, was as direct as the opposition to Lyndon LaRouche.  If Mr.
LaRouche's policies had been put through — along with Krafft
Ehricke's — on the development of LaRouche's perspective in the
'80s for a vibrant space program, setting the agenda of the space
program to heights that had not been thought of up until that
point, and continuing what John F Kennedy had laid out as a
national mission for advancing not just in the moment for space
development; but looking far into the future.  It's interesting
to go back and look at what the vision was at that time, and how
far we have been set back because we've had people who decided
that it's not the place of human beings to develop.
        Krafft Ehricke, as Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have continued to
say, represented a quality of genius.  It wasn't just that he
understood aeronautics and was one of the best in terms of field
of technology.  He was a real philosopher; his conception of
space development started from the standpoint of the development
of mankind as a whole.  That we on this planet, have a
responsibility for the development of each and every human being
on the planet; but the way we're going to achieve is — as he
said on many occasions — that you have to leave the confines of
one small planet. The idea that there are only limited resources
here for a limited number of people is not true.  There's a very
beautiful conception of that drawn out by Krafft Ehricke in a
very short writing that he wrote called "The Extra-Terrestrial
Imperative; Growth and Life"; that's the model that he worked on.
I just want to read something quickly from that, because I think
it's very indicative of what we're talking about here.  People
have to get these ideas in a very advanced understanding of it
when we're going into Congress right now.  It's not just about
getting them to pass a piece of legislation.  It has to be, and
we're seeing, a total shift in the thinking of the population.
He says:
        "There was a time when the human mind was slow to accept
growing evidence that Earth is not a flat center of the universe.
Now the concept of a closed, isolated world must be overcome.
Viewing our Earth from space should make it obvious that the
world into which we now can grow is no longer closed.  By
ignoring this new reality, current predictive world dynamic
models fail.  Adhering to an obsolete, closed worldview, they
despair of the future growth prospects.  The extra-terrestrial
imperative enjoins us to grow and live through open world
development which contains all the futures the human mind can
hold."
        So, that's what we're talking about.  How far can the human
mind advance?  How far can the human mind see into the future?
That's what we're talking about right now, and we have a
potential to really bring that perspective into focus if we have
a revolutionary change in the way we think about society, and we
think about the responsibility of the growth in society which we
have to now bring on, because it's long overdue.  LaRouche's
solutions really put forth exactly how we bring that into being.

        OGDEN:  This the moment of opportunity.  If you look at, as
Diane covered in the beginning of our discussion, this wave of
unexpected and completely dramatic electoral results and
otherwise; from Brexit to the Presidential election.  We've got
the Italian referendum coming up this weekend; we could see some
very dramatic results out of there.  Hollande has now declared
that he will not be running for President of France.  This is a
very dramatic and uncharted period; and the potential is there,
the doors are wide open.  I think we have repeatedly gone back to
this point, but I think we should return to it again.  It should
have been seen that this was not business as usual at the point
that the entirety of the United States Senate and a vast majority
of the U.S. House — not along party lines — rejected Obama's
treasonous veto of the JASTA bill.  That was in no small part the
result of the activation and the leadership of the LaRouche
Political Action Committee in the United States.  I think we who
are on this discussion right now, can say that we know directly
that the role that LaRouche PAC played was central and primary in
leading that fight for years.  Direct collaboration with the 9/11
Families; direct collaboration with the members of the U.S. House
and Senate in forcing this through.  That was not something that
Obama — despite all of his bluster — and the Saudi government
— despite all of their millions of dollars; they just could not
handle that.  That was something that overcame everything that
they tried to throw up against it.
        Now you have a pathetic effort by McCain and by Lindsey
Graham to try and gut the JASTA bill in the last days of the lame
duck session; but this is not going anywhere.  There was a very
good statement put out by Terry Strada and the 9/11 Families
United for Justice Against Terrorism, where they said in their
press release, "We wish to state our firm opposition to the
proposed legislative language offered by U.S. Senators Lindsey
Graham and John McCain that would effectively gut the JASTA bill;
which was overwhelmingly passed by Congress in September."  Later
they say, "Notably, Graham's and McCain's efforts come in the
wake of a massive lobbying campaign by the Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia, which is now employing roughly a dozen lobbying firms at
a cost of more than $1.3 million per month."  And then Terry
Strada herself is quoted saying "In April of this year, Senator
Graham met with 9/11 family members and told them that he
supported our cause 100%.  Senator Graham is now stabbing the
9/11 Families in the back.  He and Senator McCain are seeking to
torpedo JASTA by imposing changes demanded by Saudi Arabia's
lobbyists.  We have reviewed the language, and it is an absolute
betrayal."  She says, "We, the 9/11 Families, are fortunate to
have Senators John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer to block this action
in the Senate."  I can tell you that Senator Schumer told me
personally on Wednesday night that this effort is going nowhere;
this thing is not going to fly.  So, they are holding the line
very firmly.  But really, they have no choice; because this
victory on the JASTA bill and then everything that has come since
then, including this Presidential election, was a statement that
this is not business as usual among the American people anymore.
There is a mood of revolt among the American people.
        I just want to read one very short excerpt from an article
in The Hill which I think excellently gets to that very point
and I think is more generally applicable.  The article was
titled, "Note to Allies: Don't Underestimate Overwhelming Popular
Support for JASTA."  The author, Alexander Nicholson, says in
this article, "[O]n this particular issue…, no amount of money
or insider Washington connections will be able to overturn the
overwhelming will of the American people. Indeed," he says, "the
highly unexpected but highly populist-inspired election of Donald
Trump to the White House should serve as an indicator that no
amount of inside-the-beltway inside baseball can achieve results
when it comes to certain issues at certain times. And this, too,
is one of those issues and times."  And then he concludes the
article, "The current arguments are as ineffective as the
synthetic inside-the-beltway strategy it has thus far employed.
But the new era of empowerment of the American electorate is not
to be underestimated."  So, I think that is absolutely the case;
and people should take heart to that.  This is, indeed, a new
political era for the United States; it's the "empowerment of the
American electorate."
        Now's the time to take that empowerment and just keep the
momentum going; but it has to be from the standpoint of educating
ourselves, as Kesha said, on the principles of Alexander Hamilton
and the principles of the science of physical economy, and
saying, "We now are committing ourselves to what the Chinese have
called 'the inalienable right to development'; and we will not
let go of our demand for that inalienable right."

        SARE:  Just on that, I think on the one hand it's sort of
obvious; although I guess it shouldn't be, because we've
tolerated such criminality for the last 16 years since 9/11
occurred.  Droning people, torture, and so on.  The NSA spying on
every detail of everything of everyone.  But there's a certain
limit where people just said, "No, we're not intimidated."  We
saw that particularly strongly in Manhattan among first
responders and others who died, who are still dying as
after-effects, or who had loved ones who died, or colleagues who
died.  There's a certain sort of sacred commitment that "We are
not going back on this," and they're not afraid.  The challenge
now again is to raise the standard; in other words, can we fight
with the same fearless passion for those things that are
necessary for mankind to progress?  Could we get a situation
where the population just says, "Absolutely not!  We're not
shutting down our nuclear power plants.  Are you crazy?  This is
unacceptable.  You're saying we're not going to go back to the
Moon and build the means to get onto Mars from the Moon?  This is
crazy!"  Where no one even gives it a second thought that it's so
obvious.  I think that is where the two areas which Einstein
excelled in both: the music — his violin as a certain source of
inspiration and thought; and the science come together.  When one
is conscious of what it means to be truly human and creative,
then anything on a lower standard than that, is the same kind of
affront as the Saudi Foreign Minister traipsing through the halls
of Congress in his robes lined with money.  You just say, "Oh,
this is beneath us."  We saw that effect here when the Schiller
Institute Community Chorus participated in this series of
performances of the Mozart Requiem; and there's more music
coming up — again sponsored by the Foundation for the Revival of
Classical Culture — on December 17th in Brooklyn.  A unity
concert with the conception of, what does it mean: to be human?
Because human beings are not animals, no matter how many
environmentalist barbarians want to try and impose that on us.
When you've located your identity in a realm which is truly
beautiful, then a lot of these things that seem so difficult now
— like the difficulty of these politicians standing up to Wall
Street on Glass-Steagall.  Why are they afraid?  Why do they find
that difficult?  Because their own identities are right now on
too low of a level; but if they began to look at the world from a
higher standpoint — which is I'm convinced where people like
this woman from China, the Vice Foreign Minister Fu Ying — you
just get a sense among some of these people that where they're
coming from is a much higher level and that such a thing would be
beneath them.  I imagine this was the effect of someone like
President Abraham Lincoln, who was described when he was seen
visiting the soldiers; because his identity was placed in a
different location in a higher realm.  Therefore, it wasn't just
that he was fighting against fear; there wasn't fear because
there was such a firm commitment to what is right.
        So, I think the next phase in this process is to have a
similar, almost ease; a soaring quality of mankind, even in the
United States, to get ourselves into the realm where we actually
should be living.

        ROGERS:  Diane, you keep getting them to sing; bringing more
inspiration and optimism.  So, we can get more singing and get
more space development, then we can really succeed.

        OGDEN:  President Modi of India called it a mass movement
for development; and I know Helga LaRouche has echoed that call
repeatedly since he said that.  And we really do see a mass
movement for development among some of these Eurasian countries
especially, but also with them reaching out to African and South
and Central American countries, you have a majority of the
world's population now getting in on this mass movement for
development.  But that's what we need demanded from the American
people right now; and I think we can turn this new era of
empowerment of the American electorate into a mass movement for
development.  But we have to do it from the standpoint of a
Hamiltonian renaissance in the United States.  We have the
materials for that, as we've said before.  The new book,
Hamilton's Vision is available on Amazon; and people can read
those four reports that he wrote to the United States Congress as
Treasury Security.  We also have the Four Laws from Mr. LaRouche
which are available on the LaRouche PAC website, and the related
pamphlet, "The United States Joins the New Silk Road."
        So, I implore people to become as active as you can. If you
haven't yet become an activist with the LaRouche PAC, now is the
time to take that step. Support us in every way you can, and
make yourself into a world historical individual by acting on
this current, very brief window of opportunity for mankind.  You
can sign up on the LaRouche PAC website; you can subscribe to our
YouTube channel; you can become an activist through the LaRouche
PAC Action Center; and you can share this video as widely as you
possibly can. Let's make this a mass movement for development!
        Thank you very much for joining us here today. Thank you to
both Kesha and to Diane. And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Hovedtale ved 23. nationalkongres for Sammenslutningen af Økonomer i Peru, 17. november, 2016. 

Friedrich Schiller, der er en vidunderlig digter, som Schiller Instituttet er navngivet efter, havde den opfattelse, at der ikke kan være nogen modsigelse mellem at være en patriot, og så at være en verdensborger. Jeg mener, at det er muligt at opnå denne idé i vores tid, for, hvis vi giver hvert barn, hver nyfødt på denne planet, en generel uddannelse, der ikke alene formidler generel historie, geologi, musik, videnskab og de skønne kunster, men også en viden om og kærlighed til de andre kulturers højeste udtryk, den tyske klassik, konfucianisme, Gupta-perioden, Cervantes, Goya, hver eneste kulturs guldalder; så ville disse børn være i stand til at udvikle hele det potentiale, som de hver især kan udfolde, og som kun nogle ganske få undtagelser tidligere kunne udfolde.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Jason Ross: Diskussionen i aften finder sted to en halv uge efter præsidentvalget i USA den 8. nov. Siden da har vi set en hvirvelvind af spekulationer over udnævnelser til regeringsposter, inkl. nogle udnævnelser til poster i Trump-administrationen. Vi har også set betydningsfulde, internationale nyheder, såsom APEC-topmødet, der fandt sted i sidste weekend; topmødet i Asien-Stillehavsområdets Økonomiske Samarbejde (APEC), der meget betydningsfuldt inkluderede den filippinske præsident Duterte og den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping blandt de mange tilstedeværende ledere. På denne konference understregede Duterte igen, at Filippinerne ikke længere anser sig selv for at være en amerikansk koloni; og landet forfølger en uafhængig politik, rent økonomisk, med Kina, der således er et modtræk til at skabe konflikt i f.eks. det Sydkinesiske Hav. Præsident Xi var på rundrejse i Mellem- og Sydamerika samtidig med, at han rejste til APEC-topmødet. Så ved siden af Peru – som var værtsland for topmødet – besøgte han også Chile og Ecuador, hvor han blandt andet talte om den bi-oceaniske korridor, en plan for en jernbaneforbindelse mellem Sydamerikas to omkringliggende have, Stillehavet og Atlanterhavet, og om at etablere videnskabsbyer. Han blev hyldet af præsident Correa i Ecuador, der betragtede Xi Jinpings besøg som den mest betydningsfulde begivenhed, der nogen sinde havde fundet sted i Ecuadors historie, baseret på det potentiale, som dette tilbød denne nation.

Dette Nye Paradigme, der i øjeblikket ledes politisk og økonomisk af Rusland og Kina, kommer som et resultat af LaRouche-bevægelsens og Lyndon og Helga LaRouches årtier lange organisering; der er således nu et Nyt Paradigme, der fører en stadigt større del af verden i en meget positiv retning. Vores job i øjeblikket er ikke at få de hotteste nyheder om, hvad Trumps udnævnelser bliver, osv. Det er at forme amerikanske politik, som vi med held gjorde det med at gennemtvinge en underkendelse af Obamas veto af Loven om Juridisk Retfærdighed mod Sponsorer af Terrorisme (JASTA). Og som vi nu står klar til at gøre, med at få Kongressen – under denne overgangsperiode, ’lamme and’-perioden – til at gennemføre Glass-Steagall, det nødvendige første skridt for en økonomisk genrejsning. Glass-Steagall er den lov, som Franklin Roosevelt fik vedtaget, og som skabte 60+ år med stabil, kedelig, stabil, produktiv bankvirksomhed i USA; snarere end den form for spillevirksomhed, vi nu ser.

Lad med vise dette kort [Fig. 1] for blot at vise lidt at den succes, som vi har set med det kinesiske program.

Programmet med nationerne i Ét bælte, én vej [OBOR], der inkluderer både – der er to komponenter i Kinas projekt i denne henseende; det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte, med nationerne vist i blå farve, og det 21. Århundredes Maritime Silkevej i orange farve. Tilsammen refererer Kina til dette på kinesisk som initiativet med »Ét bælte, én vej«; på engelsk ofte blot kaldt initiativet for Bæltet og Vejen. Med hensyn til det potentiale, som dette har, er her blot nogle af tallene: 20.000 km højhastigheds-jernbanelinjer i Kina, alle bygget inden for det seneste årti – mere end i resten af verden tilsammen; et titals billioner af dollars i direkte investering i nationerne i området; en forøgelse af kontrakter om tjenesteydelser på over 33 % i løbet af blot ét år langs Bæltet og Vejen; Kinas Eksport/Importbank har udestående engagementer i flere end 1000 projekter og har for ganske nylig underskrevet aftaler om omkring 500 nye projekter i nationerne langs Bæltet og Vejen. Kina er i færd med at udbygge 150.000 stipendier, som tilbyder uddannelse til 500.000 eksperter til uddannelse i Kina; har etableret 500 Konfucius-institutter i hele verden; har initieret flere end et dusin økonomiske samarbejdszoner; frihandelsaftaler, og er i øjeblikket engageret i flere end 40 energiprojekter – inklusive omkring 20, der lige er blevet etableret i år i Bæltet og Vejens nationer.

Hvordan kan vi så blive en del af dette? I magasinet Chronicles udgave fra 21. nov. er der et forslag fra Edward Lozansky og Jim Jatrus. Lozansky er præsident for det Amerikanske Universitet i Moskva. De skrev en artikel med titlen, »The Big Three: America, Russia, and China Must Join Hands for
Security, Prosperity, and Peace« (De tre store: Amerika, Rusland og Kina må gå sammen om sikkerhed, velstand og fred). To uddrag: De indleder deres artikel, »Med Donald Trumps sejr over Hillary Clinton får vi måske aldrig at vide, hvor tæt Amerika og hele menneskeheden kom på atomkrig«. Med en beskrivelse af verdenssituationen afslutter de med et forslag: »Præsident Donald Trump kan rette tidligere amerikanske præsidenters fejl. Snarere end modstandere kan Rusland og Kina blive Amerikas vigtigste partere, og som er, er vi overbevist om, rede til at respondere positivt. Tiden er inde for Trump og Amerika til at tage initiativet til samarbejde mellem USA, Rusland og Kina hen imod en tryg, fremgangsrig og fredelig fremtid. Et Trump-Putin-Xi ’Store Tre-topmøde’ bør være en prioritet for den nye, amerikanske præsidents første 100 dage.«

Jeg vil nu bede Jeff Steinberg om at fylde verdensbilledet ud og forklare vore seere, hvilke flanker, hvilke håndtag, hvilke vægtstænger vi har for at ændre USA’s politik på dette tidspunkt?

Jeffrey Steinberg (efterretningsredaktør, EIR): Det er indledningsvist meget vigtigt at indse, at vi befinder os i en periode med forandring. Vi ved visse ting om konsekvenserne af det amerikanske præsidentvalg og andre nationale valg den 8. nov. Jeg mener, at Lozansky og Jatrus gjorde en fundamental pointe meget klart: Der forelå en meget alvorlig fare, baseret på Hillary Clintons kampagneretorik, baseret på politikker, der blev stadigt mere aggressivt forfulgt af præsident Barack Obama mod slutningen af hans otte år i embedet; at vi havde kurs mod den værste krise mellem USA og Rusland, som vi nogen sinde har oplevet – måske endda værre end Cubakrisen i 1962. Så Hillary Clintons nederlag er virkelig afslutningen af præsidentskaberne Bush’ og Obamas 16 år lange tyranni. Hvor hurtigt, vi kan vende politikken omkring under det nye Trump-præsidentskab, og i hvilken retning, udnævnelserne til hans administration vil gå, er alt sammen ukendte faktorer; vi har ingen vished om dem.

Det, vi ved, er, at især i kølvandet på APEC-topmødet, der netop er afsluttet i sidste uge i Lima, Peru, og som dernæst efterfulgtes af den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings statsbesøg til Peru og dernæst til Chile, og forud for topmødet var han i Ecuador; og vi ved, at der er en enorm mulighed derude for USA, under et Trump-præsidentskab, for netop at gå med i det, der altid har ligget på bordet som en åben invitation til USA; nemlig, at USA kan tilslutte sig projektet om Verdenslandbroen. For, uden et USA er det meget vanskeligt at opfatte dette som en Verdenslandbro, hvilket er det, verden virkelig har brug for lige nu. Der har været meget indledende telefondiskussioner mellem nyvalgte præsident Trump og den russiske præsident Putin; de synes at være blevet enige om at have et personligt topmøde hurtigt efter tiltrædelsen – som finder sted den 20. januar. Det er ligeledes tanken, at præsident Trump, efter tiltrædelsen, også ret hurtigt skal mødes med den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping. Jeg mener, at Lozansky-Jatrus-ideen om et trilateralt møde ville være ekstraordinært værdifuldt. Det er vigtigt at huske på, at, i 1944, var det præsident Franklin Roosevelts kurs i sine handlinger for at etablere De forenede Nationer – hvilket skete i 1945 – at inkludere både Sovjetunionen og Kina i FN’s Sikkerhedsråds fem permanente nationer. Husk på, at Roosevelt forstod, at der var imperiepolitikker, der stadig var kernen i Det britiske Imperium med Churchill, og på lignende måde med Frankrig. Så ideen med at have Rusland – dengang Sovjetunionen – og Kina i dette permanente Sikkerhedsråds kernegruppe, reflekterede den kendsgerning, at Roosevelt dengang så udsigten til denne form for et alliancesystem hen over Eurasien. Jeg mener, at der er en historisk baggrund, for netop denne form for russisk-kinesiske samarbejde, at se hen til her. I de seneste 15 år har det været en hjørnesten i Lyndon LaRouches globale politik med et USA-Rusland-Kina-Indien-samarbejde, især omkring videnskabelige programmer; især udforskning af rummet, som basis for global fred og udvikling. Så disse ideer er fremlagt.

Den 20. november sagde general Michael Flynn, kort tid efter, at han var blevet udnævnt af nyvalgte præsident Trump som national sikkerhedsrådgiver, i et interview med Fareed Zakhari på CNN, at, efter hans mening, var den eneste måde at håndtere problemerne med den jihadistiske terrortrussel i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika på længere sigt at have et globalt samarbejde omkring en Marshallplan – han brugte udtrykkeligt dette udtryk. Han sagde, hvis man ser på, hvad Europa var i stand til at præstere i kølvandet på Anden Verdenskrigs ødelæggelser, og den rolle, som Marshallplanen spillede; det var ikke det hele, men det var et vigtigt element i den økonomiske genrejsning efter krigen. Et perspektiv af denne art er virkelig den vindende strategi for at håndtere befolkningstilvæksten og spredningen af den saudisksponsorerede jihadisme i hele Mellemøsten/Nordafrika-området. Det går også ind i Sydvestasien.

Der findes altså enorme potentialer; de er i vid udstrækning foreløbigt ikke realiseret med hensyn til den forandring, der kommer med den ny administration. Men, som du sagde, Jason [Ross], så er der ingen grund til at vente til januar. Den nyvalgte præsident Trump krævede udtrykkeligt, i en tale i Charlotte, North Carolina, en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. Det er i begge de to store politiske partiers valgplatform for dette års valg; både Demokraterne og Republikanerne har vedtaget det. Det var en Trump-delegeret til GOP [Grand Old Party – det Republikanske Parti] komiteen for politisk strategi, der introducerede Glass-Steagall. Der er senatorerne Elizabeth Warren, og vigtigere endnu, Bernie Sanders, som siger, at de er villige til at række over midtergangen og arbejde sammen med Donald Trump, hvis samarbejdsspørgsmålene inkluderer og virkelig begynder med Glass-Steagall. Så dette er noget, der ikke behøver at vente til januar og tiltrædelsen og den nye Kongres. Der er fremstillet lovforslag for Glass-Steagall i både Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet. Et af forslagene i Huset har en ordlyd, der er identisk med Senatsforslaget. Som vi så det med vedtagelsen af underkendelsen af JASTA-vetoet, hvis lederskabet i Kongressen giver grønt lys, kan Glass-Steagall bringes til debat i begge huse og vedtages inden for få timer. Underkendelsen af JASTA-vetoet tog to timer om morgenen i USA’s Senat, og to en halv time eller så om eftermiddagen i Huset. Det opnåede man på en enkelt dag i Kongressen. Så der er ingen som helst grund til, at vi ikke omgående kan gennemføre det – i bogstavelig forstand i næste uge, når Kongressen atter samles efter Thanksgiving-ferien; og den vil sidde i de næste fire uger. Der er intet til hinder for, at vi kan få Glass-Steagall tilbage som landets lov før juleferien, så vi har det på plads til den nye administration; og tiden er rent ud sagt af afgørende betydning. Vi ved ikke, i betragtning af situationen med Deutsche Bank, med Royal Bank of Scotland, med de største, amerikanske for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-banker, der sidder på derivater til $252 billion. Det er 30 % mere end det var på tidspunktet for krakket i 2008. Det sidder på toppen af et meget tvivlsomt kapitalgrundlag på $14 billion; i virkeligheden er det sandsynligvis meget mindre end det, for nogle af de værdipapirer, som bliver talt med som kapitalreserver, er grundlæggende set illikvide og kan ikke – selv i nødstilfælde – gøres likvide.

Så vi kunne altså vågne i morgen, eller mandag morgen, eller midt i næste uge, og finde, at hele det transatlantiske banksystem er nedsmeltet. Så Glass-Steagall er altså et presserende hastespørgsmål; og det forudsætter dernæst de andre hovedelementer i LaRouches Fire Love. Det er et kreditsystem; investering i store infrastrukturprojekter; og en genoplivning af de mest avancerede, videnskabelige programmer, inklusive en storstilet tilbagevenden til rummet og det internationale arbejde for endelig at opnå det fulde gennembrud inden for fusion. Alle disse ting er på bordet, men igen, så er der ingen garantier; intet er blot tilnærmelsesvis sikkert mht., hvad det næste, der vil ske, bliver. Vi kan ånde lidt op, fordi faren for krig med Rusland og Kina er blevet meget reduceret; og der er en masse potentiale. Der er en masse af den form for overgang som fra Jimmy Carter til Ronald Reagan i luften som et potentiale; men intet af det er endnu fuldt ud realiseret. Folk må indse, at dette er et tidspunkt med store muligheder. Det vil blive et krav fra befolkningen under det rette lederskab, der er orienteret mod de rette politikker, der virkelig kan gribe muligheden. Hvis vi venter til januar eller februar næste år, hvem ved så, hvilke slags sabotageoperationer, man vil køre?

Man kan gå ind på Craigs Liste og finde dækgrupper for George Soros, såsom MoveOn.org og blacklivesmatter.org, der tilbyder $1500 om ugen for, at folk render rundt som idioter og protesterer imod resultatet af valget. Der er en hel del usikkerhed med hensyn til, hvad der foregår, samtidig med, at der er store muligheder. Vi må sikre os, at vi tager lederskabet mht. at gribe øjeblikket.

Ovenstående er første del af det Internationale Webcast; det engelske udskrift af hele webcastet følger her:

MAKE THE MOST OF THE OPENNESS IN POLICY NOW,
TO INSURE A NEW PARADIGM FOR THE UNITED STATES
BEFORE THE INAUGURATION
LaRouche PAC International Webcast, Saturday, November 26, 2016

        JASON ROSS:  Hi there!  Today is November 25, 2016; and
you're joining us for our regular webcast here from
larouchepac.com.  My name is Jason Ross; I'll be the host today.
I'm joined in the studio by Ben Deniston, my colleague here at
LaRouche PAC; and via video by Jeff Steinberg of Executive
Intelligence Review.
        This discussion is taking place 2.5 weeks after the November
8, 2016 Presidential election in the United States.  Since then,
we've seen a whirlwind of speculation about Cabinet appointments,
including some Cabinet appointments for the Trump administration.
We've also seen some significant international news, such as the
APEC summit which occurred last weekend; the Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation summit that included very significantly new
Philippines' President Duterte and Chinese Xi Jinping among the
many leaders who were there.  At this conference, Duterte again
emphasized that the Philippines no longer considers itself to be
a US colony; and is pursuing an independent policy economically
with China, countering the attempts to create conflict, for
example, in the South China Sea.  President Xi Jinping went on a
tour of Latin America while he was at the APEC summit. So in
addition to Peru — which hosted the event — he also visited
Chile and Ecuador; where he spoke, among other things, about the
bioceanic corridor, a plan for a rail link between the Pacific
and Atlantic sides of South America; about setting up science
cities.  He was greeted by President Correa in Ecuador, who
considered Xi Jinping's trip the most significant event to occur
in Ecuador's history; based on the potential that it offered that
nation.
        So, this New Paradigm, being led politically and
economically at present by Russia and by China, comes as a result
of decades of organizing by the LaRouche Movement, by Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche; such that there is now a New Paradigm taking an
increasingly larger portion of the world in a very positive
direction.  Our job at present isn't to get the hottest news on
what Trump's appointments will be, etc.  It is to shape US
policy; as we successfully did in forcing an override against
Obama's veto of the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
And as we stand poised to do now with getting the Congress —
during this lame duck session — to implement Glass-Steagall, the
necessary first step for an economic recovery.  Glass-Steagall is
the law that Franklin Roosevelt had put in place that created 60+
years of stable, boring, stable productive banking in the United
States; rather than the kind of gambling that we see now.
        Let me pull up this chart [Fig. 1] just to show a bit of
this success that we've seen along the Chinese economic program.
Along the One Belt, One Road nations which includes both the —
there's two components to China's project on this; the Silk Road
economic belt, which you see the nations in blue, and the 21st
Century Maritime Silk Road in orange.  Together, China refers to
this in Chinese as the "One Belt, One Road" initiative; in
English, often just the Belt and Road initiative.  As far as the
potential that this holds, these are just some of the figures:
20,000 km of high-speed rail in China, all built within the last
decade — more than the rest of the world combined; tens of
billions of dollars of direct investment into nations of the
region; an increase in services contracts of over 33% in just one
year along the One Belt, One Road; the Export/Import Bank of
China has outstanding involvement in over 1000 projects, and just
recently has signed up about 500 new projects along the Belt and
Road nations.  China is extending 150,000 scholarships offering
training for 500,000 for professionals for training in China; has
set up 500 Confucius institutes around the world, has initiated
over a dozen economic cooperation zones; free trade agreements,
and is engaged currently in over 40 energy projects — including
about 20 that were just set up this year among One Belt, One Road
nations.
        So, how can we become a part of this?  Well, a proposal was
made in the November 21st issue of {Chronicles} magazine by
Edward Lozansky and Jim Jatrus.  Losansky is the President of the
American University in Moscow.  They wrote an article called,
"The Big Three: America, Russia, and China Must Join Hands for
Security, Prosperity, and Peace".  Two excerpts.  They open their
article, "With the defeat of Hillary Clinton by Donald Trump, we
may never know how close America and all mankind came to nuclear
war."  In describing the world situation, they end with a
proposal: "President Donald Trump can correct the mistakes of
past U.S. presidents. Rather than adversaries Russia and China
can become Americaâs essential partners and are, we are
convinced, ready to respond positively. Itâs time for Trump and
America to take the initiative for U.S-Russia-China cooperation
towards a secure, prosperous, and peaceful future.  A
Trump-Putin-Xi 'Big Three Summit' should be a priority for the
new U.S. Presidentâs first 100 days."
        So, I'd like to ask Jeff Steinberg to fill out the world
picture, and detail for our viewers what are the flanks, what are
the handles, the levers that we have for shifting US policy at
this time?

JEFFREY STEINBERG:  Thanks, Jason.  For starters, it's very
important to realize that we're in a period of significant flux.
There are certain things that we know about the consequences of
the US Presidential elections and other Federal elections on
November 8th.  And I think Lozansky and Jatrus made one very
fundamental point quite clearly:  That there was a very grave
danger based on the campaign rhetoric of Hillary Clinton, based
on the policies that were pursued even ever more aggressively
towards the end of his eight years in office by President Barack
Obama; that we were headed for the worst crisis between the
United States and Russia that we ever experienced — worse
perhaps even than the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.  So, the
defeat of Hillary Clinton really is the end of the 16-year
tyranny of the Bush and Obama Presidencies.  How rapidly we can
turn the policies around under the new Trump Presidency, where
the Cabinet appointments are going to go, these are all unknowns;
they're not certain to us.
        So, we do know that particularly in the aftermath of the
APEC summit meeting that just concluded last week in Lima, Peru,
which was then followed by state visits by Chinese President Xi
Jinping to Peru and then to Chile afterwards; and prior to the
summit, he was in Ecuador.  We know that there's a tremendous
opportunity out there for the United States, under a Trump
Presidency, to precisely join in what has always been on the
table as an open invitation to the United States; namely, for the
United States to join in the World Land-Bridge project.  Because
without the United States, it's very difficult to conceive of
this as a World Land-Bridge; which is really what the world
requires right now.  There have been very preliminary phone
discussions between President-elect Trump and Russian President
Putin; they seem to have reached an agreement that they will have
a face-to-face summit meeting soon after the inauguration —
which is January 20th.  The idea, similarly, is for President
Trump, once he's inaugurated, to also meet quite soon with
Chinese President Xi Jinping.  I think the Lozansky-Jatrus idea
of a trilateral meeting would be extraordinarily valuable.  I
think it's important to remember that in 1944, the orientation of
President Franklin Roosevelt in the move to establish the United
Nations — which happened in 1945 — was to include both the
Soviet Union and China among the permanent five nations of the UN
Security Council.  Remember, Roosevelt understood that there were
imperial policies that were still at the core of the British
Empire with Churchill, and similarly with France.  So, the idea
of having Russia — the Soviet Union at the time — and China in
this permanent Security Council core grouping, reflected the fact
that Roosevelt at that time saw the prospect of that kind of an
alliance system across Eurasia.  So, I think that's there's an
historical basis to look to here for exactly this kind of
Russia-China cooperation.  For the last 15 years, a cornerstone
of Lyndon LaRouche's of global policy has been a
US-Russia-China-India cooperation, particularly on scientific
programs; especially space exploration, as the basis for global
peace and development.  So, those ideas are out there.
        On November 20th, soon after he was named by President-elect
Trump to be the National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn,
in an interview with Fareed Zakhari on CNN, said that in his
view, the only way to deal with the long-term problem of the
jihadist, terrorist threat in the Middle East and North Africa,
was for there to be a global cooperation on a Marshall Plan — he
used that term explicitly.  He said, if you look at what Europe
was able to accomplish in the aftermath of the devastation of
World War II, and the role that the Marshall Plan played; it was
not the whole thing, but it was an important element of the
postwar recovery.  That kind of perspective is really the winning
strategy for dealing with the population growth and this spread
of Saudi-sponsored jihadism throughout the Middle East-North
Africa region.  It extends into Southeast Asia as well.
        So, there are great potentialities; they are largely as yet
unrealized in terms of the change coming with the new
administration.  But I think, Jason, as you correctly said, there
is no reason to wait for January.  President-elect Trump, in a
major campaign speech in Charlotte, North Carolina, explicitly
called for reinstating Glass-Steagall.  It's in the platforms of
both major political parties from this year's elections; the
Democrats and the Republicans both adopted it.  It was a Trump
delegate to the policy committee of the GOP who introduced the
Glass-Steagall.  You've got Senators Elizabeth Warren, and more
importantly, Senator Bernie Sanders, saying that they're prepared
to reach across the aisle and work with Donald Trump if the
issues for collaboration include and really start with
Glass-Steagall.  So, this is something that does not have to wait
for January and the inauguration and the new Congress.  There are
Glass-Steagall bills in both the House and the Senate.  One of
the House bills has the identical language as the Senate bill.
As we saw with the JASTA veto override vote, if the Congressional
leadership gives the green lights, then Glass-Steagall can be
brought to the floor of both houses and can be debated and voted
within a matter of hours.  The override of JASTA took two hours
in the morning for the US Senate, and two and a half or so hours
in the afternoon for the House.  It was accomplished in one
legislative day.  So, there's no reason whatsoever that we can't
move immediately — literally next week when Congress is back in
session after Thanksgiving; and they're there for three weeks.
There's no reason that we should not have Glass-Steagall back as
the law of the land before the Christmas recess.  So that we hit
the ground running with the new administration; and frankly, time
is of the essence.  We don't know, given the situation with
Deutsche Bank, with Royal Bank of Scotland, the largest US
too-big-to-fail banks are sitting on $252 trillion in
derivatives.  That's 30% more than it was at the time of the 2008
crash.  That's on top of a very questionable capital base of $14
trillion; the reality is that it's probably much less than that,
because some of the assets that are allowed to be counted as the
capital reserves, are basically illiquid and can't be — even on
an emergency basis — made liquid.
        So, we could wake up tomorrow morning, or Monday morning, or
the middle of next week, and find that the entire trans-Atlantic
banking system has blown out.  So, Glass-Steagall is an urgent,
immediate issue; and it then begs the other three key elements of
LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws.  Which is a credit system;
investment in major infrastructure projects; and a revival of the
most advanced scientific programs, including a major return to
space and the work internationally to finally achieve the full
breakthrough on fusion.  All of these things are on the table,
but again, there are no guarantees, there's nothing that's even
remotely certain about what's going to come next.  We can breathe
a little easier because danger of war with Russia, with China is
greatly reduced; and there's a lot of potentiality.  There's a
lot of the kind of transition from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan
in the air as a potential; but none of it is fully realized yet.
So, people are going to have to realize this is a moment of great
opportunity.  It's going to be an outpouring of the population
under the right kind of leadership, directed at the right
policies, that can really seize the opportunity.  If we wait
until January of February of next year, who knows what kind of
sabotage operations are going to be run?
        You can go on Craig's List and find George Soros front
groups, like MoveOn.org and blacklivesmatter.org, offering $1500
a week for people to run around like idiots, protesting against
the outcome of the election. There's a great deal of uncertainty,
in terms of what's going on, at the same time that there's great
opportunity. We've got to make sure that we take the lead in
seizing the moment.

ROSS: Great! Thanks! In terms of the long-term outlook of where
we're going to go, what our policy should be, a major aspect of
this goes beyond legislation that affects us only here on Earth.
A major component, in fact the fourth component of the Four Laws
of Mr. LaRouche, the last one being the fusion driver crash
program, is connected with our existence beyond the planet, also
out in space. Ben wrote an article that's going to be in the
upcoming issue of the Hamiltonian about what a U.S. space
policy ought to be, and about the really long-term goals that we
have to have, and why this is important and essential. So, could
you tell us about that, Ben?

        BENJAMIN DENISTON: Gladly! As viewers are aware, this has
been an ongoing subject of discussion. Mr. LaRouche, as Jason is
saying, has put a major, major focus on, as a critical part of
the needed recovery program and the future of mankind. In this
article we tried to elevate people's thinking about space,
especially in the context of so many years and administrations
and decades of just zero-growth policies.
        One thing that's being discussed now, which is interesting
and useful, is how much NASA has been hijacked for this global
warming crap. A lot of NASA's budget has been redirected to
"Earth sciences." Not all Earth sciences are bad. There's a lot
of interesting science to learn about the Earth. But Earth
sciences is often a front to push this fraud of some man-made
global warming crisis. So, there's some discussion about NASA
being redirected away from wasting their time on this phony,
phony, fake crisis, which is not something we need to be
concerned about, and redirecting back to exploration. Surprise,
surprise. The Moon has come back now as a central subject of the
discussion. Anybody who had any sense would realize that once
Obama was out, this crazy asteroid mission [The Asteroid Impact
and Deflection Assessment (AIDA) mission] would likely be tossed
aside. Anybody who is serious would recognize that the Moon is
the next place to get back to.
        As Jeff was referencing, there's a lot of discussion, a lot
of openness. From our work and discussions with Mr. LaRouche, I
think it's critical to really raise the level of discussion to
the right basis. We can have exciting missions, we can have
inspiring missions, but the question to ask is: are we going to
have a program where the investments are going to be the basis
for creating a whole new level of activity, that will allows us
to do orders of magnitude more than we were able to do prior to
that investment? Is this going to create what Mr. LaRouche had
once defined as a "physical-economic platform?" Is this going to
create an entirely new platform of activity, of potential — of
infrastructure, of energy-flux density of technologies — which
comes together to support a qualitatively new level of potential
activity for mankind?
        That is the issue we want to put on the table right now.
This goes directly to the vision of Krafft Ehricke, the early
space pioneer who worked very closely with Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche in the '80s, who was one of the leading space
visionaries, who had outlined in great detail the initial basis
of mankind expanding to really becoming a Solar System species.
I'm going to get back to his work in a minute. Mr. LaRouche's
concept of the "platform" is really critical. He introduced this,
I think it was around the year 2010, 2009, something like that.
He was coming up against a real lack of understanding of the
significance of what "infrastructure" really means, in its true
scientific sense. Unfortunately, this has become somewhat of a
buzzword that a lot of people throw out there. "We need to
rebuild our infrastructure" has become a kind of a hot
campaign-trail word to use to get some support.
        The real understanding of what qualitative revolutions in
infrastructure systems mean for mankind's continual creative
progress is not connected to the way most people use that term.
Mr. LaRouche defined the very profound and critical assessment of
looking at the development of human civilization in these stages
of platforms. He said, go back to thousands of years ago, when
the dominant cultures were trans-oceanic maritime cultures. What
you began to see, with the development of inland waterways,
inland river systems — he had put a big point on what
Charlemagne was doing during his reign in central Europe in
developing these canal systems and river systems — was a
qualitative revolution above what had existed prior, with these
trans-oceanic civilizations: the development of these inland
waterways. That defined a new platform of activity that supported
a qualitative leap in what civilization was able to accomplish.
        The next leap came with the development of rail systems,
railroads, especially trans-continental railroads, typified by
what Lincoln had spearheaded with the trans-continental railroad
across America. With these rail systems, with the new
technologies of steam engines powering these rail systems, the
higher energy-flux density of coal-powered steam engines, this
enabled mankind to begin to develop the interior regions of the
continent, in completely new ways, and defined a totally new
relationship of mankind, of civilization, to the environment
around him. It defined a qualitative increase in mankind's
"potential relative population density," as LaRouche had
developed that metric for understanding the science of economic
growth. It made things that were at one point incredibly
expensive or challenging or risky, become just day-to-day regular
activities.
        I think back to the early phases of these frontier
explorations of the American Continent. You go back to the Lewis
and Clark Expeditions, where to travel from the east coast across
the entire mainland of the continent to the west coast required
someone like the leading skilled frontiersmen, and a very
dangerous, very challenging mission, which was a very brave
undertaking for a handful of people to actually be able to
accomplish that. Some decades later, with the rail system, with
the infrastructure of this railroad platform, any family could do
this. With your young children, you could hop on the rail line
and get across the country. Any entrepreneur could come out and
take advantage of the development of new territories that were
completely inaccessible before. It was a complete transformation
in our most fundamental ability to exist on the planet in these
different territories.
        Now what does this have to do with space? This is how we
should be thinking about space exploration, space
development–things that we view today as incredibly expensive,
difficult, dangerous missions. We should be thinking now what
kind of investments can we make to ensure that those then become
regular, day-to-day even, activities that we can support very
easily. What will it take to create a Solar System
physical-economic platform that will enable mankind to do much
more, much easier, than we can today? That's the metric we want
to set. That's the measuring rod we want to utilize, to determine
what kind of space program, what kind of policy we need today.
        In breaking this down, this might not include everything,
but in some of our work in the Basement with our discussions on
this subject, I think we can really, very usefully look at three
categories of activity — three categories of infrastructure and
technologies — which define the basis, you could say the
pillars, of a Solar System platform, of an ability to
qualitatively expand mankind's ability to access the Solar System
in completely new ways, to make things we currently view as
singular flagship missions, [into] just regular, easy activities
that we can do, orders of magnitude more of than we can now.

What we want to look at are these three categories of activity:

(1) Access to space. What's our ability to get from Earth's
surface up into Earth orbit? Initial basic access to space.

(2) Travelling in space. Getting around the Solar System. Getting
from one planetary body to the next.

(3) Developing resources. Developing the capabilities to utilize
the resources available to us throughout the Solar System, not
having to take everything with us everywhere we go, but be able
to develop the wealth that's available out there; to utilize it
on site and transport it around, even bringing stuff back to
Earth that we can't necessarily get from Earth.

        If you look at these three pillars, these three categories
together, and if you make qualitative breakthroughs in each of
these together, this really comes together to define a new
platform of activity, a new standard that will enable the kind of
leap that will transition us from viewing space as a Lewis and
Clark style expedition, to a trans-continental railroad style
relationship to the Solar System.
        I just want to take a couple minutes and go through just
some sense of what areas we can see breakthroughs in each of
these categories. Go to the first slide we have displayed. [Fig.
1] It has been said that getting from Earth's surface to low
Earth orbit, is half-way to anywhere in the Solar System. In a
certain sense that's very true. If you have a sense of the
scales, that might sound very, very strange, because, just in
terms of distance, low Earth orbit [begins] about 160 km, about
100 miles, up above your head. If you want to travel to the Moon,
you're talking about hundreds of thousands of miles. If you want
to travel to another planet, you're talking about millions of
miles.
        It's a little funny to think that the first 100 miles,
compared to hundreds of thousands or millions, is actually half
of the trip. But if you look at the energy requirements and what
it takes to actually start from just being on the Earth's surface
and getting into orbit, that is the case. It is a tremendous
amount of energy requirement to get from Earth's surface up into
Earth orbit.
        The graphic here displays this, in terms of travel from
Earth's surface to different planetary bodies, measured in the
standard terms used for Solar System travel, which is your change
in speed. To get into Earth orbit requires not just going up 100
miles, but actually changing your speed, from your current
velocity sitting here on the Earth, to something that will allow
you to stay in orbit. If you want to change orbits, or travel
around, you can measure that, in terms of changes in velocity.
So that happens to be the metric here; but you can see the lowest
dark blue bar on each of these graphics shows that literally far
more than half of the requirement is just getting from Earth's
surface to Earth orbit.

        ROSS:  So, this is half of the speed that you're getting;
this doesn't mean half of the energy, or half of the fuel, or
anything like that.

        DENISTON:  Yeah.  Once you start to include that, it would
be even more energy requirements; because you've got to lift your
fuel that you're going to use for the different travels into
orbit with you.  It definitely gets a little more detailed if you
want to get into it, but this is literally the change in speed
requirements to get into Earth orbit and then to leave Earth
orbit is very significant.
        So, there's improvements being made in rocket systems to get
up more efficiently, but there are new technologies that are just
sitting there on the horizon; they've been sitting there for
decades, frankly, that would dramatically lower the cost, lower
the requirements, and the point is, dramatically increase the
accessibility of space to mankind.  One technology that has been
discussed for a long time is space planes.  Here in the graphic
you can see a relatively recent article covering studies in China
on interest in China to develop what some people call
single-stage-to-orbit space planes.  So, you can get on a plane
on a runway — it's probably going to be a little bit longer than
your standard runway for airplane travel — and you can ride a
single space plane from the runway all the way up into Earth
orbit.  A lot of this depends upon much more advanced engine
designs that can utilize the oxygen in the atmosphere at higher
speeds and at higher altitudes to continue to provide thrust.
But these things could dramatically lower the cost, the energy
requirements of getting people and payloads up into Earth orbit;
far more than a lot of the discussion about these reusable
rockets and some of the developments going on in improving rocket
systems to get from Earth's surface into Earth orbit.

        ROSS:  This is a technology that was in LaRouche's "Woman on
Mars" video from the 1980s, right?  It talked about beginning
with an airplane, and then turning into a rocket.  The big
benefit being that you can use the oxygen in the atmosphere
instead of carrying it with you, is that right?  Is that what
makes this more effective?

        DENISTON:  Yeah, absolutely.  These rocket systems have to
carry the oxygen as part of the rocket to combust to provide the
thrust.  These are more innovative engine designs —
air-breathing engines that can use the oxygen in the atmosphere.
As you said, this has been researched in the United States with
different scramjet designs.  Yeah, Mr. LaRouche featured some of
this, which he had developed I think in some close discussion
with some Italian colleagues at the time in his collaboration
with the Fusion Energy Foundation; and had made it a major part
of his "Woman on Mars" mission.
        But this is being developed; this is live.  Again, you're
seeing clear interest in China; there's interest in the United
States; there's a company in the United Kingdom that's developing
very interesting engine designs that can utilize these
capabilities.  If you want to take it a step further, another
thing that's been discussed is using vacuum tube maglev
technologies to launch from Earth orbit into space.  This might
be a little more frontier and not quite as around the corner as
these space planes; but this is the kind of stuff that we should
be thinking about.  Again, the point is, completely
revolutionizing mankind's access to low-Earth orbit and then to
the Solar System.  So, this is the first major hurdle.  If you
get some solid infrastructure developments that can enable
mankind to overcome this hurdle more easily, you're creating the
basis for a much broader expansion of mankind's activity.
        The next pillar, the next category is travel in space.  And
again, this is an issue that Mr. LaRouche has been campaigning on
for decades.  Space travel requires nuclear reactions; chemical
fuel just doesn't have the energy density to provide quick and
efficient access to the Solar System.  We can get to the Moon;
that's OK.  It probably would be nice to get there a little bit
quicker, but that's our next door neighbor in terms of the Solar
System.  If you want to get to Mars, you want to get around to
other places in the Solar System, you've got to get to nuclear
reactions.  The heart of this is the fact that the energy
density, the energy per mass of nuclear reactions is, on average,
on the order of a million times greater than the energy per mass
in chemical reactions; even as broad categories, setting aside
the particular fuel you use in either case.
        A million times is just a big number, but for one quick
comparison, you take the fuel used for the Space Shuttle launch
— those two solid rocket boosters on either side, the large tank
in the middle filled with liquid fuel.  You take the weight of
all that fuel together, some of the most advanced chemical
reactions we have for fuel for space launch; how much weight of
nuclear fuel would it take to contain the same amount of energy?
You're talking about 10 pounds!  One suitcase full of nuclear
fuel contains the same amount of energy as all three fuel tanks
of the Space Shuttle.  To be fair, you couldn't necessarily use
that fuel the same way to launch the Space Shuttle; you have to
have systems that can actually combust it and get thrust out of
it.  It's not just the energy content as the only issue, but that
is the defining characteristic that makes nuclear reactions key
to getting around the Solar System; enabling things like
travelling at constant acceleration.  Instead of just initially
firing your thruster and basically floating on an orbit to get to
different planetary bodies — which is what's often proposed for
getting people to Mars; which would take on the order of six,
seven, eight months to do.  If you had nuclear reactions —
especially fusion reactions — you can be accelerating for half
the trip, and decelerating the second half of the trip; you can
cut that time down to weeks or even days.
        We were all excited that New Horizons got to Pluto.
Unfortunately, it didn't have the fuel in it and the engines to
slow down when it got there; which is too bad, because it spent
ten years getting there, and even just passing by in the course
of a couple of weeks, found amazing things.  Imagine if it
actually got to stop and stay?  If you had nuclear reactions,
that the type of stuff you could be doing.  If you had
one-gravity acceleration, so you're constantly accelerating,
providing the thrust that creates the equivalent of one Earth
gravity for the crew on the space ship, it would literally take
16 days to get to Pluto.  Compared to New Horizons taking ten
years to get there; that's when the orbits are closest, but maybe
a few more days in sub-optimal conditions.
        You're talking about a complete revolution in our ability to
efficiently get around the Solar System; travel to different
planetary bodies; visit multiple locations.  If you want to send
people to Mars, this is the way to do it.  If you want to send
people out to other places, this is the way to do it.  Even
robotic missions; you want to get around and do way more
exploration.  There's so much we don't know about all these
planets, about their moons; there's just so much to figure out.
These are the kinds of systems that are going to create vast
improvements in our ability to do it.
        And again, the third category is developing the resources in
space; developing the ability to utilize what's available to us
on the Moon, on Mars, on different asteroids.  This is something
we don't really do at all, yet.  So, you have to bring basically
everything with you through that very costly energy-intensive
first hurdle of getting from Earth's surface up into Earth orbit,
through travelling the vast distances of space.  This is just
this very early pioneer style mode of activity.  Whereas, if
we're going to be serious about this, we need to develop the
capabilities to utilize the resources that are there; and
eventually look to serious industrialization and development of
advanced systems out in space, on-site at different planetary
bodies.  One critical driver to this whole thing that we've put a
major focus on is the development of helium-3 from the Moon.
Helium-3 being an absolutely unique, excellent fusion fuel; which
is basically absent on Earth, but relatively abundant all over
the lunar surface, and could be an excellent fuel for fusion
propulsion in space and also to provide electricity energy back
here on Earth.  There's been years of serious study and designs
and investigations of how to go to the Moon, develop the systems
to process the regala[ph], extract the helium-3; and initiate
real industrial-style processes; developments on the lunar
surface.  That's just one example.  You want to get oxygen,
hydrogen, metals; asteroids are also potentially very useful
places to develop the resources.  So, as a third category, the
general idea of developing advanced capabilities to utilize and
create what we need in different regions of the Solar System.
        If you put this together and look at these things
synergistically as integrated technologies, infrastructure
systems, levels of energy flux density; as a whole they define
for mankind a completely different relationship to the Solar
System.  The question is, are we making investments that are
bringing us to that level?  Can we say that the investments we're
going to make in this next administration are going to be taking
mankind in that direction, to be able to support these
qualitatively higher levels of activity to the point where we can
honestly look back in a couple of generations and see the space
activity going on now as equivalent to Lewis and Clark style
explorations of the West; and have mankind have the capabilities
to regularly visit many planetary bodies and do all we want
around the Solar System?  That's the vision that we need.
        We were talking about this with Mr. LaRouche earlier today,
and he again said, "Your starting point is Krafft Ehricke."  And
Krafft Ehricke's industrialization of the Moon really I think is
the critical driver program that can get a lot of this going.  As
I said, we have helium-3 on the Moon; that puts fusion directly
right there on the table.  You're talking about developing
industrial capabilities and mining capabilities on the Moon.  If
you're serious about doing this, you want to increase our access
to space from the Earth's surface.  So, it is excellent that
we're seeing a lot of discussion about the Moon coming on the
table again; but I think the issue is, are we going to pursue
this Krafft Ehricke vision for a real industrial development?
Although he might have used different terms in discussing it, he
had exactly the same conception that Mr. LaRouche has:  That this
is the basis for mankind's much broader expanse.  Really the
essential nature of the type of qualitative changes that mankind
goes through in his natural growth and development as a very
unique species on this Earth and hopefully tomorrow in the Solar
System.
        As Jason mentioned, some of this is discussed in an article
that's going to be released in the next issue of the
Hamiltonian.  This is an ongoing subject of discussion, but
with the openness now, I really think it's critical we set the
level of discussion on that basis.

        ROSS:  Mmhmm; that's aiming pretty high, that's good.  I
think that's a really apt description that you got about
comparing Lewis and Clark.  It used to be a really difficult
thing to cross the continent; now it isn't.  Or think about the
Silk Road.  The ancient Silk Road.  If you're trying the develop
that region of the planet with camel caravans, and you contrast
that with what China is able to do now with building rail
networks and helping build them and road networks in these
neighboring countries; you totally transform the relationship to
that area.  The old development of human settlements along
coasts, along oceans or along rivers; and then by the chemical
revolution, by the ability to have steam power — also canals
earlier, but still connected to water; but with steam power, it
made it possible to open up the interior of the continents.  And
with the potential for nuclear power, then the Solar System
becomes something that's accessible to us in a meaningful or more
regular way than an exotic, years-long, life-threatening trip.
        The other aspect, which you talked about is, if you look at
what's going on with the New Paradigm in the world; what China's
doing, with the way things are being reshaped politically also
around Russia.  And then you look at the scientific advancements
that are being made, where China's got a very top-line in the
world super-conducting tokamak for fusion research.  The major
breakthroughs in terms of lunar exploration — that's China right
now; China's going to be landing on the far side of the Moon;
China had the first soft landing on the Moon in decades.  This is
really a potential.  With their far side of the Moon landing,
China will be able to take the first photographs of our universe
in the very low radio range; it's never been done before.  We'll
have access to a whole new sense of sight about the universe
around us.
        So, I think it's very exciting.  It's definitely much more
thrilling than most of the discussion that takes place about this
policy or that policy, when you think big like that.

DENISTON:  Mr. LaRouche's platform concept is so key.  People
just don't have the idea of this type of qualitative leaps that
are natural for mankind.  People are so accustomed at this point
to just slow, incremental progress if there's any progress at
all.  It's going to be a fight to get people to think on this
level again.

        ROSS:  Yes!  So much of what is considered to be progressive
or useful is only nudging people toward being better savers or
something; compared to the kinds of huge changes that are going
to be needed.  I think that's a very good image that we've given
people.  Let's end it with that.  I think the thing to take from
this also is that we have got a lot that we need to do; a lot of
policies to put into place; and a wide open opportunity to make
it happen right now.  Including, as Jeff was emphasizing,
Glass-Steagall is absolutely doable during this session of
Congress; even before the inauguration of the next President and
the next Congress in January.  This is something we can do right
now, next week, in this period.
        The ability to understand this concept of the platforms, of
the history of economic development of the United States, a real
major aspect of economic science, comes through studying
Alexander Hamilton.  So, if you have not been working through
Alexander Hamilton's reports, I urge you to get in touch with —
if you're near one of our offices, one of our locations, to join
us for these readings.  Get a copy of these reports yourself.
The book, Alexander Hamilton's Vision contains all four of the
reports, along with Mr. LaRouche's Four New Laws to Save the USA
Now.  And you don't have to get into a fistfight at a Walmart
parking lot to pick it up, either.
        Let's end it with that.  Please sign up through our website
if you haven't already, to find out how to get involved with us.
Get our daily email, join us via the action center; let's be in
touch, and let's make this happen right now.  There is nothing to
wait for; the situation is open.  So, thank you for joining us;
thank you to Ben and Jeff.  Thank you for all the work that you
have done and that you will do in the period immediately ahead.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 24. november, 2016 – LaRouches Fire Love udgør én samlet politik, der tilsigter en forøgelse af menneskelig produktivitet.

Tag for eksempel i betragtning den umiddelbare fremtids samlede, internationale rumprogram, hvor et genoplivet NASA vil integrere sine bestræbelser med Kinas ledende rolle; med et genoplivet russisk program, baseret på den nødvendige genoplivelse af russisk videnskab; med Europa; og med mange andre lande, der netop nu begynder at kaste deres blik ud i rummet. Og snart vil dette globale rumprogram udvides til at inkorporere industrialiseringen af Månen, som den store Krafft Ehricke har forudsagt. Snart vil videnskabelige, tekniske og industrielle aktiviteter på Månen tilsammen udgøre en uerstattelig del af hele rumprogrammet – ikke længere blot et globalt rumprogram, men ét, der allerede inkorporerer det umiddelbart omkringliggende rum.

Ikke alene det: det forcerede program for fusionskraft, som er LaRouches Fjerde Lov, vil i sig selv blive integreret i det globale rumprogram. Menneskets udforskning af Solsystemet kræver fusionskraft, hvilket igen betyder, at fusionskraft må indarbejdes i hele indsatsen lige fra begyndelsen – tænk f.eks. på, hvordan alle trækkene ved det nu forældede rumfartssystem, som vi hidtil har benyttet os af, alle er blevet formet af trækkene ved det kemiske system for fremdrift, vi har brugt.

En undersøgelse af det 20. århundredes tyske, russiske og amerikanske ballistiske missilprogrammer, der gik forud for og lagde fundamentet til de efterfølgende rumprogrammer, viser os historiens mest storstilede, vertikale og horisontale integration af mange tusinde menneskers bestræbelser inden for talrige videnskabelige, tekniske og industrielle discipliner og områder. Og dette glidende, integrerede design, den tekniske udarbejdelse, produktion og afprøvning, blev alle fundamentalt baseret på nye, fysiske principper. De kulminerede alle i et unikt system – aldrig før set – utroligt komplekst, bestående af tusinder af dele, og som alligevel ikke tolererer selv én eneste fiasko.

Da missilprogrammet gik over i rumprogrammet – da menneskeheden tog det første skridt ud i rummet, begyndende med Sovjetunionens opsendelse af Sputnik i 1957 – udvidedes den fornødne skala og kompleksitet, der kræves i den samlede rumindsats, uden sammenligning, selv, når man sammenligner med den forudgående revolution med de ballistiske missiler. For eksempel skrev Boris Chertok, i sin fire binds store, banebrydende førstehåndsberetning om det sovjetiske rumprogram: »Jeg vil påstå, at Koroljov [S.P. Koroljov, den største leder af det sovjetiske program] nok var den første, der forstod, at rumteknologi krævede en ny organisation … For Koroljov, hans stedfortrædere og nære medarbejdere blev dette gigantiske, nye system til pga. et bredt syn på rumteknologi, ved at kombinere grundforskning, anvendt videnskab, specifikt design, produktion, opsendelse, flyvning og flykontrol, snarere end ud fra et specifikt rumfartøj. Dette enkeltkredsløbsarrangement begyndte at operere i 1959 og 1960. Hundreder og senere mange tusinder videnskabsfolks og specialisters beherskelse af dette kredsløb gjorde det muligt for menneskeheden at indlede Rumalderen i det 20. århundrede.«

Man kunne se topingeniører og designere i intens diskussion med maskinarbejdere i mange af værkstederne; disse tekniske arbejdere rådslog igen jævnligt i komiteer, og i mere intime sammenhænge, med de mest berømmede ledere af teoretisk videnskab. Den horisontale integration gennem dusinvis af institutioner og fabrikker var lige så intens. Det er forbløffende, at dette overhovedet kunne finde sted under Sovjetunionens system med centralplanlægning – som Anden Verdenskrigs hårde skole havde nødvendiggjort – men det er en anden historie. Men det begyndte alt sammen at falde fra hinanden efter en stor, tragisk ulykke i 1960, og dernæst raserede Det britiske Imperiums agenter for Thatcher-politikken alt, hvad der var tilbage af sovjetisk videnskab i 1990’erne.

Det, der behøves for den umiddelbare fremtids rumprogram, er LaRouches kreditsystem i Hamiltons tradition, centreret omkring og dirigeret af en Nationalbank, som er et fleksibelt, almengældende system, der støtter alle dele af denne massivt komplekse produktionskæde, fra top til bund og fra den ene ende til den anden, og som i sig inkorporerer det, som afdøde Charles de Gaulle kaldte »indikativ planlægning«. Og vi taler naturligvis ikke kun om rumfart her, men om forøget, menneskelig produktivitet af enhver form og farve. Vores seneste oplevelse af dette er de midler, hvorved Franklin Roosevelts anvendelse af Hamiltons kreditsystem gjorde USA til et demokratiets arsenal for Anden Verdenskrig, og til langt den største, økonomiske magt, verden nogen sinde havde set. Med øjeblikkelige lån med lav rente til kontrakter om produktion til forsvaret, fra øverst til nederst i hierarkiet, gjorde Roosevelts system det muligt for denne massive struktur at ’vende på en tallerken’. At ’vende på en tallerken’ imod helt nye, netop introducerede højere niveauer af videnskab og teknologi. Det er præcis, hvad vi nu har brug for – og hvad vi må opnå gennem LaRouches Fire Love.

Foto: 14. maj, 2010 – Et af NASA’s sidste rumflyvninger, rumfærgen Atlantis besøger den Internationale Rumstation for vedligeholdelse og montage.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 17. november, 2016 – I hele nationen, og i hele verden, træder ledende personer nu frem for at fastslå det potentiale, der nu præsenteres for USA og verden, for at gøre en ende på den død og ødelæggelse, der er blevet gennemtvunget under administrationerne Bush og Obama. General Harald Kujat, tidligere stabschef for det tyske Bundeswehr, har påpeget de drastisk forbedrede relationer mellem USA og Rusland, som Trump og Putin har sat i gang som grundlaget – og det eneste grundlag – for at løse de uhyrlige kriser i Ukraine og Syrien. Tidligere amerikanske ambassadør Chas Freeman, der også tidligere har været viceforsvarsminister, sagde i et interview med Ron Paul, at Trump »bør erindre sig, at han grundlæggende set har anført en revolution – han anførte en flok mennesker, som Hillary Clinton kaldte ynkelige, til at komme ud til stemmeurnerne og markere deres afvisning af ’politik som hidtil’ i Washington, og til den rent ud sagt degenererede atmosfære i vores politiske kultur«.  Han roste Trumps stærke insisteren på, at USA må gå sammen med Rusland og fokusere på at knuse ISIS i Syrien snarere end at vælte Assad for regimeskift i Syrien og tilføjede, at det var »rent ud sagt vanvittigt, at USA prætenderer, at vi har absolut fortrinsret i havene ud for Kina på ubestemt tid«

Fremkaldt af valgchokket er en politisk følsomhed ved at overvinde den amerikanske befolknings og de europæiske befolkningers accept af ledere, der sanseløst dræber hundreder af tusinder af mennesker og ødelægger hele nationer samtidig med, at de fordriver millioner fra deres hjem som flygtninge.

Men, hvad er da årsagen til denne tidligere blinde accept af sådan ondskab? Den må fastslås som værende lokaliseret i befolkningernes degenererede intellekt, i ødelæggelsen af de menneskelige, skabende evner hos folk, der i to årtier har været underkastet et kulturelt forfald. Når troen på menneskets videnskabelige evne til at »underlægge sig hele naturen«, både på Jorden og i Universet, fordømmes af ’de grønne’ som en ødelæggelse af Moder Jord, og underholdning reduceres til narkotika, vold og perversioner; når skøn musik erstattes af pulserende støj – da er det muligt at overbevise folkeslagene om at lukke deres øjne for den rædsel, der begås i deres navn.

Nu er disse sind ved at blive vækket, både gennem den økonomiske ødelæggelse af deres liv, og gennem den revolutionerende ændring via valget, der giver et glimt af håb.

Som Lyndon LaRouche har sagt i mere end fyrre år, så er det i et sådant skæbnesvangert øjeblik i historien, at den optimistiske tro på menneskehedens potentiale for fremskridt kan og må genoprettes og sikre en fremtid for alle mænd og kvinder på vores planet, gennem videnskabelige fremskridt, der løfter vort blik mod stjernerne, og gennem skønheden i klassisk kunst og musik, »ved hvilken man kommer til frihed«, som Friedrich Schiller sagde.

Frihed, fra City of Londons og Wall Streets destruktive magt over de vestlige regeringer, er nu inden for rækkevidde i takt med, at parlamentarikere, slagne af forbløffelse, i Europa og USA konfronteres med det eneste alternativ til det bankerotte, vestlige finanssystems ukontrollable kollaps: en Glass/Steagall-reform for at lukke de for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-spillebuler på Wall Street ned, og med en kreditpolitik i Hamiltons tradition, med princippet om national, dvs. statslig, bankpraksis til genrejsning af økonomien, rumprogrammet, videnskabelig forskning og internationalt samarbejde omkring nationsopbygning i hele verden, hvor den Nye Silkevej bringes til hele menneskeheden. (LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love til USA’s – og verdens – omgående redning.) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYvdB5j1Flk

Helga Zepp-LaRouche diskuterer strategi med aktivister fra LaRouchePAC, der er på vej til Washington, D.C., hvor hun understreger, at Trumps sejr og Clintons nederlag må ses som en del af et internationalt kursskifte. Det er nu op til os at sætte dagsordenen, begyndende med LaRouches Fire Love i traditionen efter Hamilton.

»Først og fremmest vil jeg gerne sige hej til jer. Dette er selvfølgelig en meget vigtig intervention, for valgresultatet i USA, som mange mennesker ikke så komme, er i realiteten en del af en global udvikling. Alle forklaringerne, som de amerikanske medier kommer med, er for det meste røgslør, eller en eller anden forloren forklaring, som f.eks., at det var FBI, der kostede Hillary valget, osv., osv.

Det, der i virkeligheden finder sted rent strategisk, er, at befolkningsmasserne i den transatlantiske sektor – i Europa, og i USA i særdeleshed – nu virkelig har fået nok af et Establishment, der vedvarende har handlet imod deres interesser. Det, de kalder »overløberstaterne« – menneskene i disse stater er ikke repræsenteret af det transatlantiske etablissement. Dette ved de, fordi, for dem, er livs- og arbejdsvilkårene i løbet af det seneste årti, kan man sige, men i realiteten i løbet af de seneste 50 år, kun blevet værre og værre. Folk er nødt til at have flere jobs samtidig for at få økonomien til at hænge sammen. Der har været mange tilfælde, hvor deres sønner, og undertiden endda deres døtre, er blevet udsendt til Irak fem gange i træk og er kommet hjem, totalt nedbrudte. Så folk har oplevet, at livet bare bliver værre for dem, og at de med Washington/New York-etablissementet intet håb har.

Man så det samme fænomen med Brexit-folkeafstemningen i Storbritannien i juni måned; som også her ikke bare handlede om flygtningene, og ikke bare handlede om de mere åbenlyse spørgsmål, selv om disse spiller en vis katalyserende rolle; men, det var den samme, fundamentale følelse af uretfærdighed, og at der simpelt hen ikke længere findes en regering, der tager sig af det almene vel. Og uanset, hvilke forklaringer, de hoster op med, så vil dette ikke forsvinde, før situationen er forbedret, og god regering er genetableret i USA og Europa, og i andre dele af verden.

Det umiddelbart næste punkt, hvor den samme vrede med al sandsynlighed vil vise sig, er ved den forestående folkeafstemning i Italien – hvor man den 4. december vil have en folkeafstemning om en forfatningsændring og, som stemningen i øjeblikket er, som også vil blive en afstemning imod Renzi-regeringen. Renzi lovede først at træde tilbage; nu siger han, at han ikke vil træde tilbage: Under alle omstændigheder, så vil denne udvikling fortsætte, indtil man indsætter en forbedring.

Trumps valgsejr er selvsagt et åbent spørgsmål, for det står endnu ikke klart, hvad hans præsidentskab vil blive for ét; men, som Lyndon LaRouche har understreget næsten hver dag siden valget, så er dette ikke et lokalt, amerikansk anliggende. Dette er et globalt anliggende; det er et internationalt spørgsmål.

En af de væsentligste grunde til, at Trump vandt valget, er, at han, især i den seneste fase, havde understreget, at Hillary Clinton ville betyde Tredje Verdenskrig pga. hendes politik for Syrien, fordi hun … foreslog en frontal konfrontation med Rusland. Det var præcist at ramme hovedet på sømmet, for vi befinder os på en meget, meget farlig kurs for konfrontation med Rusland og Kina.

Under valgkampagnen har Trump gentagne gange sagt, at han ville have en anden holdning over for Rusland. Og siden han blev valgt, har han talt i telefon med både Putin og Xi Jinping og i begge tilfælde sagt, at han vil arbejde for at forbedre relationerne mellem USA og så Rusland og Kina, hhv. Dette er selvsagt ekstremt vigtigt; og det andet, ekstremt vigtige spørgsmål er: Vil han følge op på sit løfte om Glass-Steagall, hvor han især i byen Charlotte atter sagde, at han ville gennemføre Glass-Steagall?

Dette er virkelig hovedspørgsmålet. For kun, hvis man gør en ende på kasinoøkonomien, som er den virkelige årsag til krig, kan situationen i realiteten bringes tilbage på ret køl. Alle de progressive – Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren og selv [Nancy] Pelosi – har allerede sagt, at de vil samarbejde med Trump, hvis han vil satse på dette økonomiske program med infrastruktur/jobskabelse/Glass-Steagall.

Vi bør lade tvivlen komme ham til gode; men, vi bør også være klar over, at hele Wall Street-slænget og de neokonservative i det Republikanske Parti vil gøre alt for ikke at få dette. Derfor må vi have denne intervention for virkelig at opdrage Kongressen og Senatet mht. det, der virkelig står på spil. Hele verden holder nu øje med – holder så at sige vejret – spørgsmålet, om der kommer en ændring til det bedre i amerikansk politik?

Det gør der forhåbentligt. Men det vil kræve alle forholdsreglerne. Glass-Steagall som den absolutte forudsætning, uden hvilken intet andet vil fungere; men det er ikke nok. For, vi taler ikke bare om en bankreform. Vi taler om et totalt nyt paradigme i det økonomiske system. Og dette nye paradigme må defineres af LaRouches Fire Love, som alle må sikre sig, at de forstår, når de skal udføre denne form for lobbyvirksomhed.

For, Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at nøglen er at øge arbejdskraftens produktivitet. Som følge af de seneste årtiers neoliberale, eller monetaristiske, politik, er denne produktivitet i den transatlantiske sektor faldet under punktet for break-even, hvor det går lige op. Dette er grunden til, at vi må have en nationalbank i traditionen efter Alexander Hamilton; vi må have en politik for statskredit; vi må have et internationalt kreditsystem, et nyt Bretton Woods-system; og vi må selvsagt have et ’win-win’-samarbejde mellem alle nationer omkring opbygningen af den Nye Silkevej – også internt i USA – så den bliver til en verdenslandbro.

Af ekstraordinær betydning er den fjerde af de Fire Love, der siger, at man ikke kan få en forøgelse af økonomiens produktivitet, med mindre man satser på et forceret program for at opnå fusionskraft; samt et internationalt program for udforskning af rummet. For kun, hvis man foretager denne form for avantgarde-spring i produktiviteten – fusionsteknologi vil bringe os en helt anden, økonomisk platform. Med fusionsfaklen vil vi blive i stand til at få sikkerhed i energiforsyningen til hele planeten; man vil få nye råmaterialer, fordi man vil blive i stand til at bruge ethvert affaldsprodukt, hvor man udskiller diverse isotoper og genskaber nye råmaterialer ved at sammensplejse isotoperne, som det skal gøres.

Så det repræsenterer et gigantisk, teknologisk spring. Det samme gælder for rumfartsteknologi, for det vil få samme virkning som under Apolloprogrammet, hvor hver investering i rumteknologi, i raketter, i andre nye materialer, gav 14 cents tilbage for hver cent, der blev investeret. Og alt fra computerchips til Teflon-køkkengrej, og alle mulige gavnlige resultater, opstod som biprodukter af rumforskning.

Og for at få verdensøkonomien ud af den nuværende tilstand, især i den transatlantiske sektor, må man have denne form for kursomlægning i retning af videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt og en forøgelse af energigennemstrømningstætheden. Og hele denne Grønne ideologi – som i virkeligheden er en ikke-udviklingsideologi – må erstattes; og verden må komme tilbage til den kurs, hvor det fysiske univers’ virkelige, fysiske love er kriteriet for sandheden, og ikke en eller anden ideologi.«

Foto: Besætningen fra ekspedition 49, Shane Kimbrough, NASA-astronaut, sammen med Roscosmos-kosmonauterne Sergej Ryzhikov og Andrej Borisenko, og som alle i øjeblikket befinder sig om bord på den Internationale Rumstation, hvor de har arbejdet sammen i over fire måneder i kredsløb. [foto: NASA]

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 12. november, 2016: Lyndon LaRouche udtalte følgende under diskussioner med sine medarbejdere den 10. november:

»Hele det økonomiske system er ikke klar til at fungere. Vi må få dette system til at fungere, ikke blot et par ting her og der. Vi må skabe en særlig form for organisation, der fremmer evnen til at få flere dele af verden i hænderne på den anden del af verden. Ellers vil det ikke fungere. Man må samle tingene. Hvis man ikke har en forbindelse, har man ikke en kontrakt … Det, vi vil få at se mht. dette spørgsmål, er en mere kompliceret ting. Det, vi vil få at se, er en forståelse af en ny opfattelse af, hvad internationale relationer er. Det er, hvad der vil ske, og det er sådan, det vil fungere. I modsat fald vil det ikke fungere af indlysende grunde, for dem, der kender detaljerne mht. de tyske osv. økonomier.

Et af problemerne er, at det på nuværende tidspunkt ikke er noget kvalificeret indhold mht. at udvikle relationerne mellem disse nationer. Vi må have et faktisk indhold, der må være funktionelt. Det er en af de ting, vi må arbejde på, men det er ikke på plads i øjeblikket.

Problemet er, at vi ikke har et defineret, internationalt system, der kan sikre fred. Det findes ikke endnu, og vi må skabe det … Det vil kræve en masse arbejde af folk, for at skabe det, for det er ikke kun af navn, at det skal gøres; problemet er at forstå, hvordan det kan fungere. Dette kan gøres. Det kan gøres med samarbejde mellem nogle dele af verden som helhed. Det generelle billede bliver ikke let, men der er nogle forbindelser, der kan skabes til en begyndelse. Men der skal gøres meget for at det skal lykkes.

Jeg ville ikke sætte min lid til Trump. Han vil gøre, hvad han vil gøre, men sæt ikke jeres lid til ham. Man må sætte sin lid til skabelsen af et nyt system, ikke Trumps system, men et nyt system, et globalt system, der lever op til kravene til udviklingen af et ægte, internationalt system. Og man må mobilisere folk på denne basis. Man kan ikke bare sige, ’Vi vil forsøge at få dette til at fungere.’ Det vil ikke fungere. Det vil ikke fungere. Men vi kan gå i gang. Jeg ville sige Tyskland – Tyskland har et potentiale; hvis det ønsker det, kunne det sandsynligvis yde et godt bidrag … Det, Putin gør, er fremragende, og det er vel integreret; Kina er ved at blive meget velintegreret på mange områder. Der er udvikling i dele af Asien. Alle disse ting er på plads, men vi må have mekanismen, der får det hele til at komme sammen på en synkretisk måde.

Rumforskning er den måde, folk må operere på, fordi rumforskning inkorporerer de afgørende elementer, der mangler i andre kilder.

Man må nå ind i den nuværende befolknings tanker, internationalt og nationalt; man må nå ind til tankerne hos den person, der slet ikke har nogen opfattelse af, hvad disse tanker kræver. Man kan gøre ting, der fremmer udvikling, men det er hovedsageligt lokal og regional udvikling. Vi må have mekanismer for international handel, og aftaler om dette, og dette er presserende, lige nu!

Stumper og stykker vil ikke gøre det. Forsøg ikke med stumper og stykker. Man må faktisk komme ind under huden på tankerne hos folk i de forskellige nationer. Jeg har stor erfaring med dette. Det kommer ikke frem pga. mennesker, der ikke rigtig forstår, hvad det her handler om, men når man ser på historiens forløb, ville man sige, at jeg har en meget skarp indsigt i menneskeheden. Men ikke alle mennesker i denne menneskehed deltager i det. Det er problemet.«

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 10. november, 2016 – Donald Trumps valgsejr, og både Hillary Clintons og Baracks Obamas valgnederlag, betyder en kortvarig udsættelse af fremstødet for Tredje Verdenskrig imod Rusland, under forudsætning af, at Obama forhindres i at foretage en eller anden vanvittig handling i sine tilbageværende ’lame duck’-uger – overgangsperioden – i embedet. Det faktum, at en umiddelbar fare for atomkrig midlertidigt er taget af bordet, er vigtigt, men det løser ikke den anden, alvorlige krise, som verden konfronteres med.

Det transatlantiske finanssystem er stadig på randen af total disintegration, og med mindre man omgående håndterer dette problem, vil betingelserne for global krig snart vise sig igen. For at løse denne umiddelbare krise, må den amerikanske Kongres omgående vedtage de love, der er fremstillet i begge Huse, for en genindførelse af den oprindelige Glass/Steagall-lov fra 1933, og som bryder for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-bankerne op, i totalt adskilte kommercielle banker og investeringsbanker. Dette må være det første punkt på Kongressens dagsorden, når den vender tilbage til Washington i begyndelsen af næste uge.

Når denne presserende handling er vel overstået, må der træffes yderligere forholdsregler til en ny form for relationer mellem de ledende nationer på planeten. Der er udsigt til en snarlig genoprettelse af de amerikansk-russiske relationer, en mulighed, der blev hilst velkommen af den førende, russiske økonom og rådgiver til Putin, Sergej Glazjev, i et interview torsdag med Itar-Tass. Han advarede ligeledes om, at Obama-administrationens politikker har ødelagt relationen mellem USA og Kina, og at en afspænding mellem Washington og Moskva kan spille en vigtig rolle i at udbedre de skadede amerikansk-kinesiske bånd. Det, der behøves, er en række positivt bekræftende handlinger, der vil være med til at sikre et globalt system for fred og stabilitet. Kinas præsident Xi Jinping tilbød gentagne gange præsident Obama at samarbejde omkring netop disse mål, men Obama afviste alle disse tilbud. Som både ambassadør Chas Freeman (USA’s ambassadør til Saudi-Arabien, 1989-1992) og tidligere CIA-direktør (og Donald Trumps nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver) James Woolsey understregede i udtalelser i denne uge, så må USA rette den tragiske bommert, hvor de har afvist tilbuddet om at deltage i Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB) og det overordnede initiativ for Bæltet-og-Vejen (OBOR). Verden må tage en række skridt hen imod et nyt, globalt samarbejdssystem. Lyndon LaRouche understregede torsdag, under drøftelser med medarbejdere, at dette kan gøres, især, hvis nøglenationer kan udvikle samarbejde. Et sådant globalt hovedeftersyn er ikke let, men, med de korrekte rettesnore for at gå fremefter, kan det gøres. Både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche understregede behovet for at skabe et Nyt Bretton Woods-system, der trækker på succeserne fra den oprindelige aftale fra 1944, som Franklin Roosevelt stod for.

Resultaterne af de amerikanske valg har dæmmet op for den umiddelbare fare for atomkrig, men det ville være en alvorlig fejl at sætte sin lid til, at den nu valgte præsident Donald Trump tager de nødvendige skridt. Der er nøglespillere, der kan bidrage til dette nye, presserende nødvendige arrangement, når man kaster et blik rundt på planeten. Tyskland kan spille en sund rolle. Rusland, under præsident Vladimir Putin, spiller allerede en fremragende rolle, og Kina, under præsident Xi Jinping, udgør en betydelig, positiv kraft.

Et område, der er af vital betydning for ethvert fremvoksende, nyt samarbejdsarrangement, er samarbejde om udforskning af rummet, der inkorporerer alle de afgørende elementer, der mangler i andre bestræbelser, der i øvrigt måtte være betydningsfulde.

Mange af de fremskridt, der er så presserende, vil finde sted på lokalt og regionalt niveau; men alle disse indsatser må være i overensstemmelse med en større, global vision. Hvis det mislykkes at gennemføre disse udfordrende, men afgørende handlinger, vil det føre til en endnu større katastrofe, inklusive, at en fare for atomkrig atter vil vise sig. Dette kræver seriøs tænkning fra et bredt udvalg af ledere fra hele verden.

Foto: Den russiske præsident Putin udtrykker Ruslands hensigt om at genoprette relationer i fuldt omfang med USA, under bemærkninger i sin tale i Kremls Store Palads den 9. november, 2016, efter Trumps valgsejr (Foto: kremlin.ru)         

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 9. november, 2016 – Donald Trumps slående valgsejr tirsdag kan kun korrekt forstås i sammenhæng med globale udviklinger, der alle reflekterer en stærk, folkelig afvisning af systemet med krig og åger, der har domineret det transatlantiske område i de seneste seksten år med Bush’ og Obamas præsidentskaber. Denne revolte har en international karakter og reflekteredes i juni måned i år, da britiske vælgere afviste den Europæiske Union i Brexit-afstemningen. Vi ser refleksioner af denne revolte i Tyskland, hvor Merkel-regeringens anti-russiske politikker møder en mur af modstand, inklusive fra ledende tyske industrikredse, der ser handel og samarbejde med Rusland som et eksistentielt krav.

Dette mønster går længere end til betydningen af begivenhederne i USA alene, hvilket på ingen måde skal forsmå betydningen af de amerikanske vælgeres revolte imod Wall Street/Washington-etablissementet. Et betydeligt antal amerikanske vælgere så Hillary Clinton som en fortsættelse af de seneste 16 års gamle, dårlige politikker, og de så hende desuden som en person, der ville få os ind i en krig med Rusland, som kunne betyde afslutningen af liv, som vi kender det, på denne planet.

Valget af Trump var et valg imod faren for krig, der i stigende grad kom til at være associeret med Hillary Clintons anti-Putin tirader under hele kampagnen. Det var et valg for en overhaling af USA’s økonomiske politik, der begynder med genindførelsen af en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, som Trump åbent tilsluttede sig under en vigtig kampagnetale i Charlotte, North Carolina, hvor han også advarede om, at Hillary Clinton ville starte Tredje Verdenskrig, hvis hun blev valgt.

Mandatet fra 8. november er givet til en fornyelse af traditionelle, amerikanske politikker og værdier, der begynder med en genoplivning af realøkonomien gennem anlægsinvesteringer i infrastruktur og genopbygning af industrien.

Lyndon og Helga LaRouche leverede et stærkt budskab i en dialog med medarbejdere den 9. nov., der i uddrag blev udsendt på LPAC-TV som et specielt webcast efter valget. 

Hr. LaRouche krævede en »New Deal for Universet«, der omfatter en genoplivelse af USA’s rumprogram, i partnerskab med nationer som Kina, der har fortsat menneskehedens udenjordiske forpligtelse, mens USA, under præsident Barack Obama, rent faktisk har lukket det engang storslåede amerikanske rumprogram ned. Både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche understregede, at tiden er inde til, at menneskeheden må se længere end til kun nationale interesser, og til menneskehedens interesser som helhed.

»Vi må række ud og se menneskeheden i et større lys ved at udvide menneskehedens magt ud i universet«,

erklærede hr. LaRouche.

Der er en global bevægelse, der går i retning af sådanne dybtgående ideer og udfordringer. Denne bevægelse reflekteres i Kinas lederskab inden for udforskning af rummet og i det voksende kinesisk-russisk-indiske samarbejde omkring udviklingen af det eurasiske område, gennem storslåede infrastrukturprojekter. Det er kun i sammenhæng med disse globale, dybtgående forandringer, at den fulde betydning af tirsdagens valg kan blive korrekt forstået. Afvisningen af det gamle, døende system, der er vældet ud af de amerikanske vælgere, er et begyndelsespunkt, men ingen garanti. Det vil kræve arbejde, men vejen er afstukket.

Foto: Den valgte præsident Donald Trump under sin første optræden til et offentligt borgermøde, 19. august, 2015, i Pinkerton Academy i Derry, NH. (Photo: Michael Vadon CC-SA).                 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 3. november, 2016 – En revolution finder sted i verden i dag. Den startede i Asien, hvor den allerede er langt fremme, med Kina, Rusland, Indien og i stigende grad også Japan, der samarbejder for at skabe en udviklingsproces for verden som helhed, baseret på videnskab, innovative teknologier, udstrakte, regionale infrastrukturprojekter, store spring fremad i udforskning af rummet og reel udvikling af de forarmede nationer i Afrika, Latinamerika og Asien. Som man vil se af nedenstående rapport, så har denne dag, ligesom stort set hver eneste dag af dette nye paradigme, set et utroligt niveau af nye samarbejdsprojekter, lanceret af disse eurasiske nationer, mellem hinanden indbyrdes, og som rækker ud til udviklingssektoren gennem fælles udviklingsprojekter.

Virkningen af denne revolution er nu endelig i færd med at nå ind i USA, efter betydningsfulde gennembrud i Europa gennem de Nye Silkevejsprojekter, der kommer fra Kina og når ind i både Øst- og Vesteuropa. Dette skifte, der nu finder sted i USA, kan spores direkte tilbage til Lyndon LaRouches arbejde.

I takt med, at præsidentvalgkampagnen udviklede sig i løbet af det forgangne år, begyndte alt, Obama rørte ved, at smuldre. Obamacare afsløredes som den katastrofe, LaRouche havde forudsagt, den ville være. Modtageren af Nobels Fredspris er blevet afsløret som en massedræber, der har allieret sig med terroriststyrker i hele Sydvestasien for at vælte suveræne regeringer. Det er nu blevet afsløret, at præsidenten, der skulle rydde op i det Wall Street-rod, som George Bush efterlod, har nægtet at sagsøge så meget som én eneste bankier, selv med det faktum, at de forbrydelser, som er begået af Wells Fargo, med HSBC’s narkopengehvidvask og med en tilbagevenden af en spekulativ derivatboble i JP Morgan Chase og alle de andre, for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-banker, står klart og tydeligt i offentlighedens lys. Den præsident, der aflagde løfte om at bringe Håb og Forandring, har skabt den største epidemi af opiater og narkotika i nationens historie, i en ungdomsgeneration, der har mistet ethvert håb om en fremtid og vælger narkotika eller selvmord, eller begge dele.

Og Hillary Clinton valgte en kampagne på dette fundament og tilføjede den kendsgerning, at hun er ivrig efter at starte en militær konfrontation med Rusland, som, åbenlyst for alle undtagen de blinde, vil være det samme som at haste hen imod global, atomar udslettelse.

Men, tingene har ændret sig i løbet af de seneste uger. Mange mennesker har stillet spørgsmålstegn ved LaRouches afvisning af at vælge side i dette valg, men i stedet har insisteret på, at hans tilhængere arbejder på at introducere en seriøs politik i en kampagne, der næsten udelukkende har været et afskyeligt, pornografisk slagsmål om at forsøge at rive tøjet af hinanden! Denne seriøse politik måtte begynde med Glass-Steagall, insisterede han, for at lukke Wall Streets kasinoøkonomi ned og genindføre en kreditpolitik i nationen, efter Hamiltons principper. Dette betyder at kanalisere statslig kredit gennem en genindført Nationalbank for USA, der skal erstatte det bankerotte Federal Reserve-system (centralbanksystem), med det formål at finansiere en transformation af nationen med videnskab som drivkraft, og som er centreret omkring en genoplivning af NASA’s rumprogram, udvikling af fusionskraft og et vidtstrakt program for hård og blød infrastruktur – det, LaRouche kalder sine Fire Love.

Donald Trump har krævet en vedtagelse af det 21. århundredes Glass/Steagall-lov og fordømt Hillarys (og Obamas) sleskhed over for Wall Street. Han er gået længere end til at foreslå samarbejde med Rusland for at knuse ISIS, hvilket er bemærkelsesværdigt, men utilstrækkeligt, og til at advare om, at, et valg af Hillary vil betyde en atomkrig.

Begge disse spørgsmål identificeres internationalt med Lyndon LaRouche. Hans indsats for at introducere virkelighed i kampagnen har haft en virkning, der kan og må forhindre krig og påbegynde reformen af de kollapsende, transatlantiske økonomier.

I dag talte LaRouche om dette nye potentiale, men advarede om, at tiden ikke er til at »lade vore stemmer trækkes nedad« og falde for at følge en kandidat, men til at optrappe kampen for et revolutionært, politisk skifte i USA, og til at være klar til at handle den 9. november, uanset hvem, der vinder valget, for at gennemføre Glass-Steagall og de Fire Love.

På et tidspunkt som det nu foreliggende, hvor verden, i den umiddelbart forestående periode, vil ændre sig dramatisk, til det bedre eller til det værre, er der ingen plads til pessimisme eller pragmatisme, og ingen grund til at give frygten lov til at afskrække os. Det nye paradigme breder sig i hele verden. Ved at genindføre vore grundlæggende principper, kan Amerika også gøre en ende på den britiske, »unipolære imperieverden«, hvis mentalitet har grebet vores nation, og gå med i at opbygge en verden af suveræne nationer, der arbejder sammen for menneskehedens fælles mål.

Foto: USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) i det Filippinske Hav, oktober 2016. (Foto: U.S. Pacific Fleet Flickr)

Se også f.eks.:

»Tysklands potentielle rolle i udviklingen af Verdenslandbroen« af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

»Potentialet for Frankrig og hele Europa i opbygningen af Verdenslandbroen«, af Helga Zepp-LaRouche 

 A Renaissance in World Infrastructure: A Presentation to Engineers on the World Land-Bridge, video og engelsk udskrift.​            

Kan menneskeheden, konfronteret med alle de kriser, vi ser for vore øjne, etablere et verdenssystem, i hvilket folkene kan leve sammen i fred? Er menneskeheden i stand til at definere et højere fornuftsniveau, eller er vi tvunget til – ved at holde os til de vante, og veltrampede, stier – at ramle ind i en stenmur og muligvis miste civilisationen for altid?

Jeg er overbevist om, at det er muligt at finde dette højere fornuftsniveau, og at gøre det til virkelighed. Ligesom den gamle Silkevej, under Han-dynastiet for hen ved 2.000 år siden, ikke blot var et middel til vareudveksling, men også til udveksling af teknologi, kultur og filosofi – og således førte til en enorm forbedring af levestandarden i alle de nationer og regioner, der deltog – således er jeg også overbevist om, at det er muligt at sætte en Ny Silkevej, en ny politik for at knytte nationer sammen, på dagsordenen i dag.

Download (PDF, Unknown)