Ikke korrekturlæst

Onsdag den 4. december 2024

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Velkommen til vores ugentlige dialog med Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Hun er grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet. Dette er onsdag den 4. december 2024. Jeg hedder Harley Schlanger, og jeg er jeres vært i dag. Du kan sende dine spørgsmål og kommentarer til Helga via e-mail på questions@schillerinstitute.org eller sende dem til chat-siden.

Helga, din afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, sagde engang, at virkeligheden er en hård læremester. Men der kan ikke findes nogen løsninger, medmindre folk ser virkeligheden i øjnene, hvilket ikke er let i den transatlantiske verden, hvor vi bombarderes med fortællinger, som præsenteres af de selvsamme mennesker, der skaber krige og depression. Så den » livets mobilisering«, som du opfordrede til i denne uge, indledes med at se virkeligheden i øjnene. Så derfor synes jeg, at vi skal begynde i dag med din opsummering af, hvor tingene står i en verden, der undergår dramatiske forandringer: Hvad er den virkelighed, vi skal se i øjnene?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Verden har aldrig været tættere på faren for atomar udslettelse. Det siger mange mennesker nu, senest Tucker Carlson, som er ankommet til Moskva til et interview, han skal have med udenrigsminister Sergey Lavrov. Og hans pointe er, at det amerikanske folk i allerhøjeste grad er nødt til at høre Ruslands perspektiv, for alt, hvad de får fra USA, er et meget ensidigt syn, og han sagde, at vi befinder os i en situation, der er farligere end under Cubakrisen. Og jeg kan ikke tilføje noget, for det er, hvad det er!

Det, vi er vidne til lige nu, i opløbet til den 20. januar 2025, hvor præsident Trump angiveligt vil træde ind i Det Hvide Hus og i det mindste ændre nogle politikker, som skaber en del hysteri i den atlantiske fraktions lejr, som er allieret med Biden, så det, vi ser lige nu, er en utrolig destabilisering af hele verdensarkitekturen. Hvis man læser nyhederne og prøver at få et overblik over, hvor vi er, har man en fornemmelse af, at hele verdens fundament, verdenssystemet, som vi har kendt det i endog i den seneste periode, ryster, det smuldrer. Og det seneste udtryk for det er forsøget på at indføre undtagelsestilstand i Sydkorea, som blev annulleret af parlamentet ved en hurtig afstemning. Nu mobiliserer den sydkoreanske fagforening en generalstrejke for at tvinge præsident Yoon Yuk Seol til at træde tilbage. Det er én situation, og præsident Yoon beskylder oppositionen for at være knyttet til Nordkorea. Det er en uklar situation, men parlamentet stemte enstemmigt for at ophæve undtagelsestilstanden. Det er en dramatisk situation lige dér.

Så er der forsøget på at lave et nyt »Maidan«-kup i Georgien, hvor pro-EU-demonstranter demonstrerede på vegne af præsident Salome Zourabichvili, som er en kvinde, der er født i Paris, og som har tilbragt flere årtier i Frankrigs diplomatiske tjeneste. Hun blev personligt uddannet af Zbigniew Brzezinski på Columbia University i New York og arbejdede derefter for NATO. Og i 2004 blev hun udenrigsminister i Georgien, så det er ikke ligefrem et udtryk for georgisk patriotisme, men snarere en af disse typisk installerede østeuropæiske personer, som er blevet oplært i Vesten i situationen efter den kolde krig, for derefter at blive installeret for at give troværdighed til ideen om, at de østeuropæiske lande ville have ønsket, at NATO skulle udvides, hvilket i mange tilfælde bare er en komplet iscenesættelse. Fordi disse mennesker blev promoveret af folk som Victoria Nuland, og Biden spillede også en stor rolle i alt dette. Så nu er der demonstrationer, og forfatningsdomstolen har lige afgjort, at præsidentens forsøg på at erklære parlamentsvalget ugyldigt – det blev afvist af forfatningsdomstolen med stemmerne 7-2 – og bekræftede premierminister Irakli Kobakhidze i hans nuværende kurs. Men det er en meget ustabil situation, og NGO’erne støttes naturligvis af Vesten.

Og så er der den absolut dramatiske situation i Syrien, hvor der ud af det blå – naturligvis ikke på stedet, men set fra en vestlig observatørs synspunkt ud af det blå – kom et massivt angreb fra nye terrororganisationer, de såkaldte Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s, eller HTS, som er en forkortelse for et arabisk navn, der er en omdannelse af al-Qaeda/al-Nusra-organisationerne, og som ifølge senator Richard H. Black støttes af USA og endda af CIA. De er i gang med en massiv offensiv mod præsident Bashar al-Assads regeringsstyrker, som er blevet svækket af mange års Cæsar-sanktioner, der har forhindret den syriske økonomi i at komme på fode igen. Nu får han støtte fra både Rusland og Iran, men det er en forfærdelig situation, for det er klart, at et af målene er at afskære forsyningslinjen fra Syrien til Libanon i forbindelse med våbenhvilen mellem Israel og Hizbollah, som Israel har brudt flere gange. Og det er klart, at Iran lader til at være tilbageholdende over for hele situationen, fordi de er meget opmærksomme på, at når Iran officielt kommer mere ind i billedet, kan det udnyttes som et påskud til at bombe Irans atomanlæg.

Så hele regionen er en komplet krudttønde. Jeg kan ikke rigtig vurdere, hvor magtbalancen er, og hvordan det vil udspille sig, men det er endnu et område, hvor vi er på randen af tredje verdenskrig – som vi selvfølgelig er i Ukraine, hvor vi lige nu har den utrolige situation, at den tyske kansler Olaf Scholz, som har kapituleret over for alle aspekter af NATO’s politik, bortset fra at han nu modsætter sig at levere det tyske Taurus-langdistancemissil til Kiev, efter at det amerikanske ATAMCS, det britiske Storm Shadow og det franske SCALP-missil er blevet sendt af sted. Og Taurus, som har en lidt længere rækkevidde, siger Scholz ville være den snubletråd, som ville gøre Tyskland til en direkte krigspartner mod Rusland, så han er imod det. Men der er en stor kabale af dumme mennesker, som forsøger at slippe af med Scholz og erstatte ham med den kristendemokratiske leder Friedrich Merz, som går ind for øjeblikkelig levering af Taurus, og som også vil have de amerikanske mellemdistancemissiler placeret i Tyskland i 2026, hvilket virkelig vil gøre Tyskland til en krigspartner.

Så Tyskland er under et voldsomt angreb fra alle sider; den tyske økonomi er ved at kollapse. I dag, som måske allerede er sket, blev der stemt om at få den franske premierminister Michel Barnier ud, fordi de ikke kunne finde et kompromis om budgettet, så uanset hvad der sker, vil der være ustabilitet i flere måneder i det mindste i Frankrig, med den eksplosive situation i Tyskland, og situationen i USA er absolut anspændt i perioden op til den 20. januar.

Så jeg tror, vi må være forberedt på, at tingene kommer til at gå endog endnu mere skævt, og det er derfor, vi har indkaldt til det internationale Schiller Instituts konference i den kommende weekend, lørdag og søndag, som er et forsøg på at samle den slags kræfter af kvalificerede talere, der repræsenterer forskellige nationer og forskellig ekspertise, for at lægge løsningen på bordet for, hvordan vi kan komme ud af dette, og det er et nyt paradigme, hvor landene i det kollektive Vesten vil samarbejde med den Globale Majoritet i stedet for at gøre Rusland og Kina til fjenden og så optrappe og ende i Tredje Verdenskrig. Så det vigtigste, I seere kan gøre, når I har set alt dette, er at tilmelde jer konferencen i denne weekend. Det vil give adgang til simultantolkning til forskellige sprog, spansk, tysk og fransk, og man kan deltage i diskussionen. Så selvom du er engelsktalende, bør du registrere dig, selv om live-streamingen er tilgængelig andetsteds.

Det vil være stedet, hvor vi vil diskutere, hvilke muligheder der findes, for de eksisterer. Vi kan komme ud af denne krise, men det kræver en meget stor mobilisering af befolkningen, for vi har aldrig været i så stor livsfare som lige nu.

SCHLANGER: Konferencen finder sted lørdag og søndag og starter kl. 9.00 østlig tid i USA hver dag. Du kan tilmelde dig, det er en online-konference. Du kan finde tilmeldingssiden på Schiller Instituttets hjemmeside.

Det var bestemt et hårdtslående billede af virkeligheden. Vi har en række spørgsmål til dele af det, du lige har præsenteret. Lad mig starte med Mellemøsten. To personer skrev ind, den ene er en pensioneret skolelærer fra Skotland. Han siger: »Det, der sker i Syrien, er skræmmende. Det lyder, som om de samme terrorister, som dræbte kristne, drusere og shiamuslimer under borgerkrigen, der startede i 2011, er tilbage. Der går rygter om, at de bliver støttet af CIA, briterne, israelerne og endda Ukraine. Er der nogen sandhed i de rygter?«

Vi har en anden kommentar, som jeg synes er meget vigtig. Den er fra en blogger, som skriver om national sikkerhed. Han skrev om, hvad Bidens nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver Jake Sullivan sagde, da han blev spurgt om situationen der, og han sagde: »Vi græder ikke over, at Assad-regeringen, der støttes af Rusland, Iran og Hizbollah, er udsat for en vis form for pres.« Og denne blogger mindede os om, at Sullivan den 12. februar 2012 sendte en e-mail til daværende udenrigsminister Hillary Clinton, hvori han sagde, at »al-Qaeda er på vores side i Syrien.« Og han spørger: »Hvordan kan sådan en person få lov til at sidde i regeringen?«

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: [griner] Det er et godt spørgsmål! For det første var der ingen borgerkrig i 2011. Den var fuldstændig orkestreret og igangsat fra begyndelsen af de samme kræfter, som er i aktion nu, og det var et forsøg på at vælte Assads legitime regering, som så reagerede, og det blev udlagt som »Assad the monster« osv. Men i virkeligheden var det lige fra begyndelsen sådan, at al-Qaeda og al-Nusra og alle disse grupper blev støttet af USA. Det var det spørgsmål, som general Flynn forsøgte at gøre Obama opmærksom på i 2012, men han ville ikke høre på det. Jeg tror, at hvis man ser på kronologien i disse ting, så er det et meget grimt billede. Og det er sandt, at sandsynligheden for, at ukrainerne er i Aleppo og hjælper terroristerne, også blev nævnt af det russiske udenrigsministeriums talskvinde Maria Zakharova og forskellige andre kommentatorer, der sagde, at disse syriske terrorister ikke ved, hvordan de skal håndtere de avancerede teknologiske enheder i forbindelse med data og information, og at ukrainerne faktisk er der på stedet for at hjælpe dem med den nødvendige assistance.

Så det er utroligt, hvis man tænker over det, at Vesten støtter terrorister, de støtter folk, der af vestlige kilder og naturligvis også af russere karakteriseres som værende i traditionen fra Stepan Bandera [den ukrainske pro-nazistiske kollaboratør under Anden Verdenskrig]. Og uanset hvad der kommer ud af denne situation, hvis det er Tredje Verdenskrig, så er det et ligegyldigt spørgsmål. Men hvis støvet lægger sig, og historikerne ser tilbage på denne periode i historien, så mister Vesten lige nu absolut sin troværdighed ved at gøre dette! Hvad handler »demokrati« om? Hvad handler »menneskerettigheder« om? Hvad med den såkaldte »retsstat«? Alt det ryger ud af vinduet: Den vestlige politiks dobbeltmoral er et diskussionsemne i alle hjørner af kloden, og det ved jeg, fordi jeg har haft nok diskussioner i den seneste tid fra alle mulige lande, og de siger alle: »Hvad sker der med Vesten? Hvad sker der med de tidligere stolte lande i Europa, som havde en følelse af at være anstændige republikker eller demokratier? Og se nu, hvad de gør!« Og det er tegnet på det døende imperium: Jeg kan ikke give det en anden betegnelse. Og vi har én måde at redde os selv på, og det er ved at ændre denne politik og vende tilbage til vores bedste traditioner, som vi har. Vi har den italienske renæssance, vi har den tyske klassiske periode, vi har andre store traditioner i Europa, som vi opgiver lige nu ved at være kolonier i Anglosfæren, som føler, at de er i en sidste kamp mod den Globale Majoritet.

Vejen ud ville være meget let: Hvis du stopper konfrontationen og erklærer, at du vil samarbejde med den Globale Majoritet, kunne alle disse problemer forsvinde på en dag – og jeg mener det virkelig. Jeg mener det ikke på den måde, at Trump siger, at han kan redde situationen i Ukraine på en dag. Jeg mener virkelig, at hvis Vesten ville sende et stærkt signal om, at de reflekterer over, at de er kommet til den konklusion, at vi er på randen af tredje verdenskrig, og at det ikke er det værd at ofre hele menneskehedens eksistens for denne kamp, så ved jeg, at Kina og Rusland og alle de andre lande straks ville byde det velkommen og sætte sig til forhandlingsbordet. Og det hele kunne reddes.

SCHLANGER: Du lytter til Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlæggeren af Schiller Instituttet, som vil være vært for en international online-konference den 7.-8. december. Du kan tilmelde dig på Schiller Instituttets hjemmeside, hvor du også kan finde konferenceprogrammet og talerne.

Helga, du har lige nævnt Rusland, Kina og BRIKS. Der kom et spørgsmål ind fra en amerikansk podcaster, som sagde: »Jeg lyttede til, hvad du sagde i sidste uge om dit nylige besøg i Kina. Det lød spændende. Jeg kan se, at du støtter det, de gør, men jeg bliver ved med at høre, at Kina gør nogle dårlige ting. De står bag fentanyltrafikken, som kommer ind i USA, og de er stadig involveret i industrispionage for at stjæle amerikanske videnskabelige fremskridt. Hvad mener du om disse anklager, og er de legitime, eller er de en del af krigspolitikken?«

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Det er en ubegrundet beskyldning. For det første rådede Alexander Hamilton alle sine diplomater til at spionere så meget som muligt i udlandet for at hjælpe med at opbygge den unge amerikanske republik. Alle lande i hele verden har udført spionage. Vesten er ikke så hellig, at de ikke ville forsøge at gøre det selv.

Når det er sagt, hvem spionerer så på hvem? Hvis man ser på Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s (ASPI) Critical Technology Tracker, og de har for nylig offentliggjort, at Kina er førende i 37 kategorier ud af 48: Det betyder, at de er langt foran Vesten på de fleste af disse områder, og derfor er det at skære i eget kød, når USA nu øger toldsatserne, og Trump sagde, at han endda ville kræve 100 % told. ASPI’s Critical Technology Tracker, så du kan selv tjekke den ud. Det er en anti-Kina australsk tænketank, og det har de sagt.

Under alle omstændigheder har Kina ændret sin økonomiske politik under Xi Jinpings ledelse ved at optrappe det, som Deng Xiaoping havde startet med reformen og åbningen, der begyndte i 1978. Og efter at Kina blev medlem af WTO, skete der et gigantisk spring fremad, igen ved ikke at vende sig mod den vestlige liberale model, som Vesten havde håbet, men ved at vende sig mod den 5.000 år gamle kinesiske tradition, den konfucianske lære. Og når alt kommer til alt, var Kina den førende nation indtil det 15. århundrede – det har folk glemt. Så det er ikke ukarakteristisk, at Kina har sådan en førende position, og især med Xi Jinpings vægt på videnskab og teknologi, på innovation som kilden til produktivitet i økonomien, har Kina lagt en enorm indsats i uddannelse, i videnskabelige gennembrud; De uddanner hvert år ti gange flere videnskabsfolk og ingeniører end USA, hvilket til dels skyldes befolkningens størrelse, men især deres politik, som går ud på at fremme banebrydende teknologier og sikre, at de anvendes i økonomien uden forsinkelse, og derfor bliver de hele tiden mere produktive. Og de gør det, som USA og Europa plejede at gøre, da vi stadig var fornuftige! Men Vesten vendte sig væk fra den model, som Friedrich List havde kaldt det amerikanske system for økonomisk udvikling, eller kameralisme, eller hvad traditionen nu var, og Vesten vendte sig mod spekulation i, at penge skaber penge. Det var den tåbelige beslutning, som min afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, identificerede, da Nixon den 15. august 1971 erklærede, at man ville skifte fra faste valutakurser til flydende valutakurser, og Lyndon LaRouche sagde straks: Hvis du fortsætter ad den vej, vil det føre til en ny depression, en ny fascisme, en ny fare for krig, medmindre man laver et helt andet økonomisk system. Og det har vist sig, at han havde fuldstændig ret, for nu, mere end 50 år senere, er vi nået til det punkt, hvor det vestlige finanssystem er gået totalt i opløsning, og det er uløseligt. Det kan ikke afhjælpes, for i 2008, da vi allerede havde en systemisk krise, ville der have været en chance for virkelig at reformere det og reorganisere det. Men det gjorde de ikke, og i stedet gik de over til kvantitative lempelser, og nu vakler de mellem kvantitative stramninger og kvantitative lempelser.

Men de er nået til vejs ende, for det vestlige finanssystem sidder på 2 billioner dollars i udestående derivatkontrakter, jeg tror, det er 300 billioner dollars i udestående gæld i alt. Det kan ikke betales! Og da Vesten også har hengivet sig til den grønne fantasi, er de nødvendige avancerede teknologier ikke længere til stede, undtagen på meget selektive områder, men ikke i den fysiske produktion. Det er en af grundene til, at Vesten ikke kan følge med Rusland i den militære produktion.

Så derfor tror jeg, at vi er nået til et punkt, hvor vi er nødt til at stoppe Kina-bashingen, for den er ikke sandfærdig! Kina gør, hvad der er godt for Kina, og de har rakt hånden ud og hjulpet udviklingslandene med at overvinde underudviklingen, men de er langt, langt forbi det punkt, hvor de er nødt til at stjæle fra Vesten, fordi de er førende! Så Vesten kan stjæle fra Kina – hvis de kan. Det er virkelig vigtigt, at vi får styr på disse fakta.

SCHLANGER: En af de ting, vi gør i den retning, er, at Schiller Instituttet netop har udgivet en ny rapport, »Development Drive Means Billions of New Jobs, No Refugees, No War«. Og den gennemgår LaRouches plan for at bryde ud af denne depression, det globale kollaps, som er forårsaget af det vestlige etablissement.

Der er mange spørgsmål, og jeg vil prøve at opsummere nogle få. Bethany fra Spanien spørger: »Mener du, at stedfortræderkrige bør gøres ulovlige?«

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Ja! Svaret på det er helt klart ja. Det eneste spørgsmål er, hvordan man håndhæver det? Problemet er, at vi har bevæget os væk fra international lov, som den blev formuleret i FN-pagten, fordi nogle lande erstatter den med »magt giver ret«, og det kan man se på adfærden i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd. Og så kommer man til spørgsmålet, om FN’s Sikkerhedsråd i det hele taget kan træffe en beslutning under forhold, hvor en af de fem permanente medlemmer konstant nedlægger veto og derfor ikke kommer frem til nogen juridisk gyldig konklusion. Men man ser også spørgsmålet om håndhævelse i forbindelse med ICC.

Så jeg tror, at spørgsmålet om påtrængende behov for at reformere FN og FN’s Sikkerhedsråd er et af de spørgsmål, som helt klart kommer på dagsordenen. Jeg er helt enig i, at stedfortræderkrige ikke bør tillades og bør forbydes, men spørgsmålet er, hvordan man håndhæver det?

SCHLANGER: Vi havde også et spørgsmål om håndhævelsen af Den Internationale Straffedomstols anklager mod Netanyahu og Gallant og spurgte, hvorfor USA’s regering vedvarende modsætter sig, at disse anklager bliver afleveret, og om der er nogen chance for, at de vil blive håndhævet?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Under de nuværende omstændigheder ser jeg det ikke ske, fordi – jeg håber, at jeg tager fejl, men det ser ud til, at Trumps udnævnelser i forhold til Mellemøsten-politikken også meget tydeligt hælder i retning af at være ret ensidigt pro-israelske. Så medmindre der sker en fuldstændig ændring af den internationale orden i retning af en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som virkelig skal sætte det hele på et brugbart grundlag, kan jeg ikke se det.

SCHLANGER: Og igen, med hensyn til spørgsmålet om dialog, som du har talt om, har vi et spørgsmål fra professor Larafy [ph]: »Tror du, det er muligt, at det internationale samfund kan indgå i en fornuftig dialog mellem nord og syd, når de store konflikter, som f.eks. i Ukraine, er løst?«

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Det tror jeg, for vi er trods alt mennesker. Hvis jeg ikke troede på, at vores bestræbelser på at få en sådan dialog i gang på kort sigt, ville jeg give op og sandsynligvis fortvivle. Men jeg er ikke fortvivlet. Jeg tror, at den Globale Majoritet – præsident Putin sagde i Valdai Discussion Club – ikke tror, at det vil forblive, som det er. Stemmerne fra det Globale Syd lyder nogle gange som en kakofoni i stedet for en symfoni, fordi de endnu ikke har fastlagt deres retning, men han udtrykte tillid til, at det snart ville ændre sig, og at samarbejdet mellem disse nationer ville være som en polyfonisk symfoni. Og jeg tror absolut, at det er tilfældet: For nogen nævnte min nylige rejse til Guangzhou i Guangdong, og det bekræftede bare for 117. gang, hvad jeg altid har oplevet, når jeg var i Kina: De nationer, der sender deres repræsentanter til disse konferencer, de kommer fra en helt anden ånd; de er virkelig problemløsende, de er løsningsorienterede, de er konstruktive, de forsøger at etablere venskab – det er en helt anden atmosfære.

Når man kun er vant til tankegangen i Vesten, skulle man tro, at det ikke kunne lade sig gøre. Men jeg har set det mange, mange gange: Der er et flertal af verdens nationer, som forsøger at få en mere retfærdig orden, og jeg er overbevist om, at hvis vi kan overbevise nok mennesker i USA og de europæiske lande, så kan vi løse det. Vi er nødt til at løse det! Alternativet er ikke acceptabelt, for det er udryddelse af den menneskelige art.

SCHLANGER: Nu vi taler om store udviklingsprojekter, så er der et meget interessant spørgsmål fra Richard, som beskriver sig selv som en mangeårig iagttager af LaRouche-bevægelsens aktiviteter. Og titlen på hans e-mail var »Gør Amerika vådt igen«. Og han sagde: »Hvad synes du om en kampagne for at få præsident Trump til at gøre NAWAPA, North American Water and Power Alliance, til et centralt element i opgraderingen af USA’s infrastruktur?« Og han afslutter sine kommentarer med at sige: »Hvis tilhængere af Donald Trump virkelig ønsker at gøre Amerika stort igen, kan de vel ikke ignorere, at store dele af det vestlige USA allerede mangler vand, og at det bare vil blive værre.« Hvad synes du, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg synes, det er en fremragende idé! Du ved, det ville være den slags politik, der ville blive ført, hvis USA besluttede at opgive ideen om told mod Kina og sanktioner mod det ene og det andet land og indtage en holdning, som vi har forsøgt at sige i lang tid, nemlig at USA bør samarbejde med BRIKS, med den Globale Majoritet, om udviklingsprojekter i Latinamerika, i Afrika og i Asien; men så skal USA også genopbygges! Omlæg det militærindustrielle kompleks. Brug den industrielle kapacitet, som i dag bruges til destruktiv våbenproduktion, omstil den, og byg maglev-tog eller andre hurtige togsystemer; USA har ikke noget hurtigt togsystem overhovedet, ikke en kilometer! Det ville være så let at forbinde større byer med sådanne hurtige togsystemer og derefter gå i gang med grundlæggende infrastruktursystemer som NAWAPA, der bringer vandet fra Alaska hele vejen til Mexico til kunstvanding og vandkraft. Og samtidig få flere mennesker ind i midten af USA, som er tyndt befolket: Man kunne bygge nye byer der. Man kunne bygge videnskabelige byer, man kunne udrette mirakler! Hvorfor forsøge at kæmpe om noget fjollet olie i Syrien, når USA kunne vende tilbage til sin egen store videnskabelige tradition og opbygge sit eget land og være et af de lande i verden, der respekterer og samarbejder med de andre. Og jeg tror, det er den vej, vi skal gå.

Så du bør virkelig ikke sidde på hegnet, men hjælpe os med denne kampagne, og hvis du har nogle ideer til, hvordan du kan gøre det i det miljø, du befinder dig i, skal du bare kontakte os, og jeg er sikker på, at vores forskellige repræsentanter i de forskellige lokalområder med glæde vil inddrage dig i denne kampagne.

SCHLANGER: Den person, der skrev spørgsmålet, spurgte desuden, om han, hvis han synes, det er en god idé, er parat til at hellige sig arbejdet med at få Trump-administrationen til at vedtage politikken, da han nu er pensioneret.

Helga, vi har vores Schiller Institute-konference i denne weekend den 7.-8. december. Kan du fortælle lidt om, hvad du forventer at få ud af den? For det er noget, som alle, der holder øje med os, bør organisere på fuld tid mellem nu og lørdag morgen.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg er meget sikker på, at denne konference vil munde ud i nogle vigtige nye politiske ideer og initiativer, for hvis man ser på listen over talere, er den meget, meget imponerende: Vi har flere tidligere statsoverhoveder; tidligere ministre fra vigtige lande; vi har topfolk fra tænketanke fra flere lande og eksperter, økonomer og så videre; men kombinationen af mennesker, der er enige om, at man er nødt til at flytte verden ind i et nyt paradigme, er uden fortilfælde. Og jeg er meget stolt over den liste af talere, vi har samlet.

Så jeg kan kun sige: Hvis du vil høre en fornuftig stemme – virkelig mange fornuftige stemmer – som vil vise dig en anden retning for verden, som Harley lige sagde, så brug al den tid, du har, til at få dine venner, dine kolleger, din familie og de sociale medier til at fortælle om denne konference, og gør det til en stor succes, så folk kan få et håb om, at vi kan komme ud af denne utrolige krise. Det er, hvad du bør gøre.

SCHLANGER: Helga, jeg ser frem til konferencen, og jeg kender en masse mennesker. Så tak, fordi du har arrangeret den, og tak, fordi du kom i dag, og vi ses i løbet af de næste par dage.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Ja, indtil lørdag!

Ikke korrekturlæst

[HZL] [AMB] [DHS] [SSU]

ANASTASIA BATTLE: Hallo, alle sammen; velkommen. Dette er Den Internationale Fredskoalition. Dette er vores 78. møde i træk. Velkommen, alle sammen. Mit navn er Anastasia Battle; jeg vil være jeres ordstyrer sammen med Dennis Speed og Dennis Small, som er mine medordstyrere.

Vi har tydeligvis en meget vigtig grund til at skabe denne Internationale Fredskoalition, nemlig at forene den internationale fredsbevægelse; som rent ud sagt har været dysfunktionel og har brug for at finde sammen. Vi ønskede at bringe folk sammen på tværs af deres ideologier og gennem mange forskellige nationer for at opnå ægte fred i verden.

Til at starte os i dag har vi grundlæggeren af Schiller Instituttet og initiativtageren til Den Internationale Fredskoalition, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Værsgo at gå i gang, Helga.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Lad mig byde jer alle velkommen, uanset hvor I befinder jer. Desværre er den strategiske situation præget af en meget mærkelig uoverensstemmelse i opfattelsen af virkeligheden, som næsten virker, som om folk befinder sig i to forskellige universer, der næsten ikke har nogen forbindelse med hinanden. På russernes side havde vi efter indsættelsen af ATACMS- og Storm Shadow-missilerne fra USA og Storbritannien indsættelsen af det nye taktiske missil – som Putin beskrev det – Oreshnik i en ukrainsk våbenfabrik i Dnipropetrovsk. Og ifølge Gilbert Doctorow også reparationsværkstedet for den tyske Leopard-kampvogn, et produkt fra militærfirmaet Rheinmetall. Det havde dog ikke nogen reel betydning, for på trods af at Oreshnik-missilet, som Putin beskrev udførligt, blev opstillet. Det er et såkaldt taktisk missil med en hastighed på Mach 10, og det kan nå alle steder i Europa. Det burde have sendt et budskab om, at folk vågner op til faren for det atomare Damoklessværd, der hænger over vores hoveder. Men det var absolut ikke tilfældet, for umiddelbart efter skete der yderligere to angreb på Kursk og Brjansk, hvor der igen blev brugt ATACMS- og Storm Shadow-missiler.

Alt, hvad man kan konkludere ud fra dette, er, at magthaverne forsøger at optrappe situationen på en sådan måde, at man i januar har en situation, hvor krigen, tilmed hvis Trump kommer ind i Det Hvide Hus, er optrappet i en sådan grad, at det vil være umuligt for Trump at nedtone den og træde tilbage. Så vi er i den farligste situation i verdenshistorien nogensinde. Hvis Vesten vedvarende ignorerer, at vi er på randen af en atomar udveksling, så kan det ske meget let.

I går i Astana, Kasakhstan, på mødet i Collective Security Treaty Organization, CSTO, uddybede Putin igen i detaljer, hvad dette Oreshnik-missil er. Det er dybest set et våben, der er hypersonisk; det kan ikke opfanges. Han beskrev, at Rusland i alt har ti gange så mange missiler som alle NATO-landene tilsammen. Han gennemgik i detaljer hver enkelt kategori af missiler og beskrev dem som overlegne i forhold til, hvad Vesten har. Det bliver naturligvis affejet i Vesten; medierne siger stadig, at Oreshnik ikke vil få nogen større indflydelse, ingen stor effekt. Men ud fra alt, hvad vi kan forstå, er det slet ikke tilfældet. Hvad det betyder, vil jeg beskrive om lidt.

Hvad er forskellen mellem Sarmat-missilet, som Putin annoncerede i 2018, og som var den store forandring; den nye type våbensystemer, som på det tidspunkt var første gang, der var hypersoniske missiler, som kunne flyve med Mach 20. Og hvert missil havde 12 selvstændigt målrettede Avangard-missiler, så de var MIRV’ede. Forskellen er følgende: Sarmat-missilet bruger flydende brændstof og skal derfor være silobaseret, hvilket betyder, at placeringen naturligvis er kendt af enhver fjende. Naturligvis kræver det stadig en stor sprængkraft, fordi det er dybt under jorden i siloer. Men Sarmat-missilet, som normalt kaldes Satan, er så kraftigt, at et enkelt missil af denne type kan ødelægge næsten hele Storbritannien.

Oreshnik-missilet kan kun nå Mach 10, og i modsætning til Sarmat-missilet har det fast brændstof og kan derfor være på mobile affyringsramper. Så det kan skjules bag træer, det kan camoufleres på alle mulige måder. Så det er stort set umuligt at ramme alle disse missiler i et angreb. Det betyder i praksis, at selve ideen om, at Vesten kunne iværksætte et halshugningsangreb mod den russiske ledelse, er helt udelukket.

Det betyder, at vi er i en situation, hvor Vesten vedvarende leger med ilden og lader, som om dette ikke eksisterer. Der vil efter al sandsynlighed komme et modangreb fra Rusland; det er forventeligt mod denne vedvarende udstationering af ATACMS- og Storm Shadow-missiler for et par dage siden. Igen beskriver Gilbert Doctorow i et langt interview med Nima Alkhorshid, hvordan han tror, at det sandsynlige angrebsmål er, fordi Putin for et stykke tid siden sagde, at de ville ramme de kommandocentre, hvor beslutningerne om at affyre disse missiler bliver truffet. Han udelukkede Storbritannien, fordi de har atomvåben, og dette ville naturligvis straks optrappes til en atomkrig. Han mener, at Rumænien, som har den amerikanske base for mange af disse udstationeringer, Aegis-systemerne, heller ikke er særlig sandsynligt i betragtning af, at der nu er en relativt russiskvenlig regering på plads. Så han efterlader Polen som den mest sandsynlige mulighed. Dette er bare en hypotese, men jeg gentager den, så folk får en fornemmelse af, hvor tæt vi er på en optrapning, som kan komme helt ud af kontrol. Det kunne også være et angreb på kommandocentralerne i Kiev.

Så det er dybest set, hvor vi er. Vi er på randen af atomkrig, og befolkningen i Vesten er for størstedelens vedkommende absolut ikke klar over det. Der er nogle få eksperter, der taler om det, og nogle mennesker i fredsbevægelsen er begyndt at blive ret skræmte over faren. Men de vestlige medier og de fleste vestlige politikere – især de transatlantiske høge – leger med ilden; og de leger med den mulige udslettelse af civilisationen ved at ignorere disse klare tegn fra russisk side, som for dem helt sikkert betyder, at den røde linje er overskredet. Jeg tror, det gør det endnu mere påtrængende, at vi går over til et helt andet paradigme. Vi har indkaldt til en international Schiller-konference den 7. og 8. december. Det vil være et forsøg på at lægge et alternativ på bordet. Som vi sagde helt fra begyndelsen, er vi nødt til at overbevise de europæiske nationer og tilmed USA om at stoppe konfrontationen med det nye økonomiske system, der er ved at opstå i BRIKS; som er den Globale Majoritet. Hvis vi ikke tager springet fra konfrontation til samarbejde, står vi over for en afgrund af udslettelse af den menneskelige civilisation.

Vi har besluttet og diskuteret det allerede på det sidste IPC-møde: Hvor er de emner af fælles interesse, hvor vi kan forsøge at bygge broer, så vi kan se, at verdens problemer er af en sådan art, at de absolut kræver vores internationale samarbejde. Et af mange, ganske vist, men et meget påtrængende sådant problem er migrantspørgsmålet. Trump har gjort det klart, også gennem udnævnelsen af sit nye kabinet, at han har til hensigt at bygge en mur mellem Mexico og USA for at afværge migranterne fra Latinamerika og Mellemamerika. Det fungerer måske til en vis grad ved at holde migranterne ude og deportere de fleste af de illegale, men det løser slet ikke migranternes lidelser og situation. Det efterlader dem med en helt ufattelig krænkelse af deres menneskerettigheder. Det samme gælder de mennesker, der forsøger at komme fra Afrika og Sydvestasien til Europa, hvor EU kun har fundet et absolut modbydeligt svar, nemlig at opbygge Frontex, den paramilitære kystvagt, for at skubbe disse migranter tilbage og gøre det til et så forfærdeligt eksempel, at det forhåbentlig vil afskrække mange flere fra at komme. Og at lave aftaler med landene omkring Middelhavet om at opbygge flygtningelejre, som pave Frans med rette har kaldt koncentrationslejre, fordi de er omgivet af pigtråd, og folk kan generelt ikke forlade dem, når de først er i dem.

Vi har foreslået en radikalt anderledes tilgang til at sige, at Afrika har 600 millioner mennesker, som endnu ikke har elektricitet. Så hvorfor slår vi ikke vores kræfter sammen? Europæiske nationer og BRIKS-landene og USA, og gå i gang med et crash-program for at elektrificere Afrika, og samtidig starte opførelsen af visse banebrydende projekter som Inga-dæmningen i Republikken Congo og Transaqua-projektet, som ville levere elektricitet til industrialiseringen af 12 eller flere lande i hjertet af Afrika. Det ville virkelig skabe et incitament for de mennesker, som nu risikerer deres liv i forsøget på at komme til Europa og drukner i Middelhavet, til at blive hjemme og få et perspektiv til at opbygge deres egne lande og overvinde fattigdommen og underudviklingen ved at blive mellemindkomstlande på kort sigt. Og på samme måde kan man opbygge infrastruktur i Latinamerika, hvilket nu er muligt på grund af Chancay-havnen, den første dybvandshavn i Latinamerika, som skal forbindes med den bi-oceaniske jernbane. Det kan blive drivkraften for et helt nyt infrastrukturprogram for hele kontinentet. Det ville give flygtningene et incitament til at blive hjemme og opbygge deres lande i stedet.

Vi planlægger i mellemtiden at gengive en meget stærk pamflet i et crash-program, som vi snart vil høre noget om fra Dennis. Vi planlægger at bruge den – og jeg appellerer til alle jer, der deltager i denne IPC-konference. Download denne pjece og organiser jer, som I aldrig har gjort før, for at nå ud til folk, der er optaget af flygtningespørgsmål – kirker, alle slags sociale organisationer – for dette er vejen til fred. Denne form for samarbejde om at løse migrantspørgsmålet er blot en af de mange måder, hvorpå vi kan opbygge et nyt paradigme og opbygge en ny sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur, som skal have en tilgang, der rent faktisk adresserer alle de påtrængende problemer som sult, fattigdom og sundhedskriser. Alle disse ting ville være så lette at overvinde, hvis vi kunne få samarbejde mellem verdens nationer og virkelig bevæge os ind i det, jeg kalder menneskehedens voksenalder; hvor krig som middel til konfliktløsning er overvundet for evigt. For i en tid med atomvåben burde det være klart for enhver rationel person, at ideen om at løse problemer ved hjælp af krig – som har den medfølgende fare for at bruge atomvåben og dermed udrydde alt liv på planeten – bør udelukkes, hvis vi overhovedet har nogen fornemmelse af overlevelse.

Så jeg tror, det er det umiddelbare perspektiv, der ligger foran os. Jeg tror, vi er nødt til at give folk det perspektiv, at der er en udvej; for lige nu ser man, at folk virkelig er ved at blive bange. Folk flipper ud. I Tyskland er der for eksempel noget, der hedder Operation Plan Deutschland, hvor alle niveauer i samfundet skal forberede sig på den kommende krig med Rusland. Industrien opfordres til at forberede sig; jernbanen forstærkes kun i retning fra vest mod øst, så store mængder tropper kan transporteres til østfronten. Det er fuldstændig sindssygt! Den nye EU-kommission med von der Leyen har nu opgivet spørgsmålet om klimaforandringer, som var hendes mærkesag i hendes første embedsperiode. Nu har hun tænkt sig at militarisere EU fuldstændigt. Det er en tabersag, og det vil føre til Europas undergang, hvis det ikke stoppes. Folk i Tyskland får at vide, at de skal gøre deres kældre og garager klar til krigstid – som om det ville hjælpe i tilfælde af atomkrig. Det er fuldstændig vanvittigt, men det har den effekt, at det skræmmer folk til døde og gør dem ekstremt kulturpessimistiske.

Så da Scott Ritter opfordrede til verdensomspændende demonstrationer den 7. december, blev det opfanget af RT Germany, og der vil være demonstrationer nogle steder. Vi bør naturligvis diskutere, hvad der kan gøres i denne henseende for at forstærke det, i tillæg til og absolut i forbindelse med vores ekstremt vigtige Schiller Institut-konference i weekenden. Vi vil have talere på meget højt niveau, især fra det Globale Syd. Så jeg tror, det var mit første overordnede overblik. Jeg synes virkelig, vi skal prøve at få et brud, for vi er i livsfare.

Kommentarer under diskussionen:
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg tror, det er i tråd med, hvad vi har set fra mange af de østeuropæiske lande – Ungarn, Slovakiet, Serbien og nu Rumænien. Det er tydeligvis et meget omstridt område. Georgien har lige opgivet at forhandle med EU om et potentielt medlemskab, hvilket er blevet besvaret med demonstrationer i form af en farverevolution. Så du kan se, at alle disse lande – og det, Alexandra beskriver i Rumænien – er i tråd med det faktum, at de alle er mere eller mindre nabolande til Ukraine. De er ikke blinde for, at tidevandet er vendt; at den nuværende situation i Ukraine er ved at blive en komplet kødhakker. Hver dag denne krig vedvarende er på bekostning af det ukrainske folk, som ofres uden nogen god grund. Jeg tror, at hvis man sidder i Rumænien og ser på det, så vil man være med i enhver udvidet krig, eftersom der er en amerikansk base i Rumænien. Så jeg tror, at det, vi ser lige nu, er, at befolkningen i mange af disse lande klart siger, at de ikke ønsker at være en del af det. Det ville være min første indskydelse.

DENNIS SPEED: Ray, har du noget, du vil tilføje?

RAY MCGOVERN: Jeg vil bare gerne understrege, hvad Helga lige sagde. Mirakler sker; mirakler kan senere blive forhindret af kræfter, der vil fjerne denne meget populære politiker. Men lad os sige, at Rumænien spiller den traditionelle rolle med at være anderledes; de var tilmed anderledes, da de var en del af Warszawapagten.

Mit spørgsmål til Helga og andre ville være: Er der udsigt til, at det kan smitte? Med andre ord: Rumænien holder op med at levere til eller fungere som forsyningsdepot for Ukraine; holder op med at sende våben dertil. Måske tilmed beder USA om at fjerne sin offensive base der; sin base, der skulle være en base for antiballistiske missiler, men det kan ikke fastslås, at den er netop det. Den kunne skjule offensive missiler. Jeg tror, at alt dette ville være dynamit i Tyskland. Hvad tror du, Helga? Tror du, at den slags kan være smitsomt?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg tror absolut ja, for der er en kløft mellem befolkningen og de officielle myndigheder. Hvis man lytter til, hvad regeringen og mainstream-medierne siger, og hvad befolkningen tror på, og hvordan de taler sammen, er det som to helt forskellige universer. Så jeg vil sige, at selv om det ikke er garanteret, så tror jeg, at der er et potentiale for, at Europa, EU, kan bryde sammen. Jeg tror, at NATO kan bryde sammen. Jeg tror, det var en bekymring, som tilmed blev udtrykt af nogle af de NATO-embedsmænd, som tydeligvis holder øje med dette med falkeøjne. Så jeg tror, at svaret er et klart ja.

Lidt senere
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg tror, at dobbeltmoral er årets eufemisme for det, der sker. Hvis man begynder at studere, hvad Putin udsender, hvad den faktiske effekt er af de russiske nye våbensystemer, så er de klart overlegne i forhold til NATO. Og samtidig har du NATO-generaler og folk fra vestlige tænketanke, der siger, at »NATO er så overlegen«. Jeg tror, at disse mennesker er fuldstændig desperate. Faktum er, at det vestlige system er ved at kollapse, og jeg tror, at det kollapser med en hastighed, der er betagende. Tag Tyskland som det mest grelle eksempel. Tyskland plejede at være nummer tre i verdensøkonomien; i BNP-tallene er det måske stadig tilfældet, men i virkeligheden er landet i frit fald. Industrien kollapser med en sådan hastighed, at Tyskland snart vil være et afindustrialiseret eller tidligere industrialiseret land. Intet fungerer længere. Togene er forsinkede, infrastrukturen kollapser. Der er en enorm kulturel krise. USA er i en forfærdelig tilstand. Hvis du ser på broerne, hullerne i motorvejene, den nedslidte kultur, den forfærdelige populærmusik. Alt er et symptom på et enormt kollaps.

Og hvad er virkeligheden for BRIKS-landene? Indonesien vil snart overhale Tyskland som verdens tredjestørste økonomi. Kina bevæger sig fremad med en hastighed, som er uden fortilfælde. Lige nu har de en økonomisk zone i det såkaldte Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, som ligger i det sydlige Kina; hele regionen mellem Hong Kong og Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Zhuhai. Det er en region med omkring 100 millioner mennesker, og det er motoren i verdensøkonomien. Det er, hvad den »produktive trekant Paris-Berlin-Wien« var for mere end 30 år siden. Den region i Europa er ved at kollapse, og Greater Bay Area i Kina er motoren i Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, men også i verdensøkonomien. Kina har mere end 40.000 km højhastighedstog. USA har nul, intet, nul, nada. Jeg kunne blive ved og ved.

Jeg tror, at det, der motiverer denne dobbeltmoral, er desperation. Det er fuldstændig desperation, og flere og flere mennesker vågner op og ser det. Jeg tror, at krigsfaren kommer fra det faktum, at de vestlige eliter – og det er det, jeg virkelig prøver at forstå, hvordan det tilmed er muligt – de vestlige eliter viser sig ikke i stand til overhovedet at reflektere over, at deres politik slår fejl. At alt, hvad der sker i det Globale Syd, er et enormt tilbageslag mod den politik, der kommer fra Vesten – sanktioner, ensidige foranstaltninger af enhver art, indførelse af uretfærdige handelspolitikker, brug af dollaren som våben. Nu går disse lande i gang med at skabe deres egne finansielle mekanismer. Det er en reaktion på det, der kommer fra Vesten. Men de vestlige eliter er ude af stand tilmed måske at tænke, at de har gjort noget forkert. Nej, de bliver ved med at holde fast i det, uanset hvad. Det er for mig det mest utrolige. Hvis man indser, at man har begået en fejl eller en række fejl, så erkender man det på et tidspunkt og siger: »Vent lidt. Måske skulle jeg ændre min adfærd.« I en vis forstand er disse mennesker tydeligvis i den grad gift med deres privilegier, at de løber den største risiko i stedet for at reflektere over, hvad de burde rette op på.

Jeg tror, det er derfor, vi er nødt til at gå på gaden. Det er derfor, folk skal demonstrere; det er derfor, folk skal aktivere sig selv. Og især derfor skal vi sørge for, at det Globale Syds stemme bliver hørt tydeligere; for I har den største revolution i gang, jeg kan komme i tanke om. Større end det, der skete, da Sovjetunionen gik i opløsning, fordi vi har det Globale Syd, som er den Globale Majoritet, som nu udgør 85 % af befolkningen. De bevæger sig i en helt anden retning. Og jeg tror, at etablissementets manglende reaktion bare er et rent hysteri over denne kendsgerning.

Slutbemærkning:
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Som svar til Doubashis [ph] (jeg forstod ikke helt navnet), så tror jeg, at der er et betydeligt antal såkaldte eliter, som har planer om at gå i en bunker. Det ved jeg med sikkerhed, for allerede for mange år siden havde vi en slags privat diskussion i Frankfurt med nogle bankfolk og diplomater og så videre. Da Lyn, som stadig var med os på det tidspunkt, gav sit perspektiv på, hvor det hele ville ende, sagde flere af dem: »Åh, jeg har mit hus i Australien, som har en dyb kælder flere etager nede i jorden.« Andre sagde: »Jeg har min billet til Chile eller Argentina«, eller hvad ved jeg. Så jeg tror helt sikkert, at der foregår sådan noget. At de nu fortæller tyskerne, at de skal gøre deres kældre og garager klar til atomkrig, tror jeg naturligvis ikke vil gå så godt, for alle ved, at det er en joke. Det svarer til at lægge landkortet over hovedet i tilfælde af, at der kommer en atombombe; hvilket er, hvad vi lærte i skolen, at vi skulle gøre.

Men jeg tror alligevel, at fænomenet er der. Da jeg boede i Virginia, var der en meget velhavende familie, som boede i nærheden i en anden by – Middleburg, faktisk – og de havde en privat lufthavn til små jetfly, og de rejste til et sted i Mexico, og de landede aldrig på jorden, de landede altid på taget af disse huse. Så jeg tror, der er en betydelig illusion om, at nogle af disse mennesker har midlerne til at overleve dette. Det er min erfaring, som jeg ikke har fra bøger, men fra levende mennesker, der taler.

Når det er sagt, så tror jeg, at vi er nødt til at mobilisere millioner af mennesker til at gå på gaden. Det går jeg absolut ind for; det er nødvendigt. Hvis du husker, var det de fredelige demonstrationer i 1989, der gjorde en ende på regimet der [i Østtyskland]. I mellemtiden fortryder folk det, fordi de mener, at de fik det værre bagefter; at de blev koloniseret af Vesttyskland, men det er en anden sag. Gadens magt er helt sikkert et meget vigtigt redskab.

Men når det er sagt, så tror jeg, at den proces med Schiller Instituttets konferencer, som vi har haft, og som vi meget kraftfuldt vil fortsætte i næste weekend, er det sted, hvor der præsenteres begrebslige løsninger. Det er vigtigt at demonstrere og protestere mod noget, men det er langtfra nok. Man er nødt til at komme med løsninger som det, Dennis begyndte at tale om med planen om at industrialisere Afrika og Latinamerika for at løse migrantspørgsmålet. Men man er også nødt til at samle de netværk af mennesker, der rent faktisk repræsenterer dette nye paradigme. Det kan jeg love: Vi har denne gang et ekstraordinært antal talere, der repræsenterer det Globale Syd, men også lande fra USA, Europa og andre steder. Men I vil blive overrasket over kaliberen af de mennesker, der har valgt Schiller Instituttet som det forum, hvor sådanne ideer kan samles.

Så jeg tror, at begge ting har deres plads, og jeg vil bare opfordre til, at vi mangedobler hinandens indsats. At de mennesker, der arbejder på demonstrationen af Scott Ritter, alle deltager i konferencen, og at vi mobiliserer til demonstrationen. For hvis du ser på tidspunktet, så er vores konference på den amerikanske østkyst kl. 9-12 og derefter kl. 13-16. Vi var nødt til at vælge det tidspunkt, så vi har de mennesker i Europa, for hvem det vil vare til kl. 22, som er omtrent den tålmodighed, folk har om aftenen til at deltage. Og så starter Scott Ritter-arrangementet kl. 17.00 (ET). Så der er ingen konflikt. Og jeg synes, du skal have energi til at deltage hele dagen, og du vil komme ud af det her som en meget stærkere person; og du vil have gjort noget for at opretholde menneskehedens fortsatte eksistens. Så det er umagen værd at være stærk den dag, døgnet rundt.

Den 24. nov. 2022 (EIRNS) – Da det kortlægger den tilgang, der er nødvendig for at løse den samlede krise, som den samlede menneskehed nu er stillet over for, og derfor er i centrum for LaRouche-bevægelsens aktiviteter på alle fronter internationalt, samt kræver den bredest mulige undersøgelse og overvejelse, gengiver vi nedenfor det afsluttende afsnit af Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale til Schiller Instituttets konference den 22. nov.: “Stop faren for atomkrig nu; tredje seminar for politiske og sociale ledere i verden”, som blev afholdt af Schiller Instituttet den 22. november.

Det nye paradigme, som vil være karakteristisk for den nye epoke, og som den nye globale sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur skal rettes mod, skal derfor fjerne begrebet oligarkisme for altid og videreføre organiseringen af den politiske orden på en sådan måde, at menneskehedens sande karakter som den skabende art kan realiseres.

Derfor foreslår jeg, at følgende principper skal drøftes og, hvis der opnås enighed, realiseres. Disse ideer er tænkt som stof til eftertanke og som en dialog mellem alle mennesker, der er interesseret i at finde et grundlag for en verdensorden, der garanterer menneskeartens varige eksistens.

Første: Den nye internationale sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur skal være et partnerskab mellem fuldstændig suveræne nationalstater, som er baseret på de fem principper for fredelig sameksistens og FN-pagten.

Andet: Den absolutte prioritet skal være at afhjælpe fattigdommen i alle nationer på planeten, hvilket er fuldt ud muligt, hvis de eksisterende teknologier anvendes til gavn for det fælles bedste.

Tredje: Den forventede levetid for alle levende mennesker skal forlænges til det fulde potentiale ved at skabe moderne sundhedssystemer i alle lande på planeten. Dette er også den eneste måde, hvorpå de nuværende og fremtidige potentielle pandemier kan overvindes eller forhindres.

Fjerde: Da menneskeheden er den eneste kreative art, der hidtil har været kendt i universet, og da menneskelig kreativitet er den eneste kilde til rigdom gennem den potentielt ubegrænsede opdagelse af nye universelle principper, skal et af hovedmålene i den nye internationale sikkerheds- og udviklingsarkitektur være at sikre adgang til universel uddannelse for alle nulevende børn og voksne mennesker. Menneskets sande natur består i at blive en smuk sjæl, som Friedrich Schiller omtaler det, og den eneste person, der kan indfri denne betingelse, er geniet.

Femte: Det internationale finanssystem må omorganiseres, så det kan tilvejebringe produktive kreditter til opfyldelse af disse mål. Et referencepunkt kan være det oprindelige Bretton Woods-system, som Franklin D. Roosevelt havde tænkt sig, men som aldrig blev gennemført på grund af hans alt for tidlige død, og de Fire Love som foreslået af Lyndon LaRouche. Det primære mål med et sådant nyt kreditsystem skal være at øge levestandarden betydeligt, især for nationerne i det Globale Syd og for de fattige i det Globale Nord.

Sjette: Den nye økonomiske orden skal fokusere på at skabe betingelserne for moderne industrier og landbrug, begyndende med infrastrukturudvikling af alle kontinenter, der på sigt skal forbindes med tunneller og broer for at blive til en verdenslandbro.

Syvende: Den nye globale sikkerhedsarkitektur skal afskaffe begrebet geopolitik ved at afskaffe opdelingen af verden i blokke. Der må tages hensyn til alle suveræne nationers sikkerhedshensyn. Atomvåben og andre masseødelæggelsesvåben skal straks forbydes. Gennem internationalt samarbejde skal der udvikles metoder til at gøre atomvåben teknologisk forældede, sådan som det oprindeligt var hensigten med det forslag, der blev kendt som SDI, som LaRouche foreslog, og som præsident Reagan tilbød Sovjetunionen.

Ottende: Tidligere kunne en civilisation i et hjørne af verden gå til grunde, og resten af verden ville først opdage det flere år senere på grund af afstanden og den tid, der var nødvendig for at rejse. Nu sidder menneskeheden for første gang i samme båd på grund af atomvåben, pandemier og andre globale virkninger. Derfor kan en løsning på den eksistentielle trussel mod menneskeheden ikke opnås ved hjælp af sekundære eller delvise ordninger, men løsningen skal opnås på niveauet af den højere Ene, som er mere magtfuld end de mange. Det kræver tænkning i retning af {Coincidentia Oppositorum}, Modsætningernes Sammenfald, af Nikolaj af Cusa.

Niende: For at overvinde de konflikter, der opstår som følge af indbyrdes stridende opfattelser, som er den måde, imperier har bevaret kontrollen over de underordnede, må den økonomiske, sociale og politiske orden bringes i sammenhæng med lovmæssigheden i det fysiske univers. I europæisk filosofi blev dette diskuteret som væren i karakter med naturloven, i indisk filosofi som kosmologi, og i andre kulturer kan man finde tilsvarende begreber. Moderne videnskaber som rumvidenskab, biofysik og termonuklear fusionsvidenskab vil løbende øge menneskehedens viden om denne lovmæssighed. En lignende sammenhæng finder man i de store værker af klassisk kunst i forskellige kulturer.

Tiende: Den bærende antagelse for det nye paradigme er, at mennesket grundlæggende er godt og i stand til uendeligt at perfektionere sit sinds kreativitet og sin sjæls skønhed, og at det er den mest avancerede geologiske kraft i universet, hvilket beviser, at sindets lovmæssighed og det fysiske univers er i overensstemmelse og sammenhæng, og at alt ondt er resultatet af manglende udvikling og derfor kan overvindes.

En ny økonomisk verdensorden er ved at opstå, som omfatter langt størstedelen af landene i det Globale Syd. De europæiske nationer og USA skal ikke bekæmpe denne indsats, men ved at gå sammen med udviklingslandene samarbejde om at præge den næste epoke i menneskehedens udvikling, så den bliver en renæssance af de højeste og mest ædle udtryk for kreativitet!

Lad os derfor skabe en international bevægelse af verdensborgere, som i fællesskab arbejder for at forme den næste fase i menneskehedens udvikling, den nye epoke! Verdensborgere fra alle lande, foren jer!

København – Dansk Institut for Internationale Studier (DIIS), den førende tænketank med tilknytning til udenrigsministeriet, afholdt et fysisk seminar såvel som et online-seminar om “NATO’s nye strategiske koncept i praksis”. NATO’s nye strategiske koncept blev vedtaget på NATO-topmødet i Madrid i juni på baggrund af krigen i Ukraine. Der var fire akademiske forsvarseksperter som indlægsholdere.

Nogle af hovedpunkterne: Det sidste strategiske koncept var fra 2010, hvor Rusland blev betegnet som en strategisk partner, og hvor Kina ikke blev nævnt. Denne gang må NATO være forberedt på en tofrontskrig imod Rusland og Kina. Forsvar og afspænding er ændret til forsvar og afskrækkelse. NATO skal bejle diplomatisk til det Globale Syd, som ikke er indforstået med det vestlige verdensbillede.  

Schiller Instituttets organisator fik mulighed for at stille et af de tre spørgsmål: Den vigtigste strategiske trussel er atomkrig. Formanden for Schiller Instituttet har sammenlignet det med to atomtog, der kører mod hinanden. Hvad skal der til for skridt for skridt at undgå den optrapning, som vi har set fortsætte, og som kan medføre en atomkrig? Hvad skal der til for at overgå til forhandlinger for at stoppe krigen i Ukraine? Derefter annoncerede hun konferencen “Stop atomkrig” den 22. november.  

Prof. Jamie Shea, formand for “Centre for War Studies” ved Syddansk Universitet og med 40 års erfaring fra NATO’s internationale stab, svarede: “Jeg er helt enig. Jeg mener, at dette udgør en reel bekymring.” Han henviste til Jake Sullivan, der ringede til sine russiske modparter, og at der er signaler bag kulisserne, som vi ikke er bekendt med. Vesten har en strategi, hvis Rusland bruger et atomvåben. NATO har også gennemført atomøvelser. Han nævnte, at Rusland kunne bruge en beskidt bombe ved at bombe et atomkraftværk.

Prof. WSR Olivier Schmitt fra samme universitet svarede, at en hindring af en atomar optrapning er noget andet end at standse krigen i Ukraine. Med hensyn til det første, er det et problem, at den tekniske ekspertise vedrørende afskrækkelse er blevet undermineret. Folk forstår ikke signalering af atomvåben, men vi har været der før og bør genoplive ekspertisen vedrørende afskrækkelse. Hvad angår det andet punkt, vil kampene ikke stoppe, så længe begge parter ser sandsynlige veje til sejr. Putin forventer, at de vestlige lande holder op med at støtte Ukraine, og Ukraine ser sin militære kapacitet stige.

Organisatoren havde talrige drøftelser med talere og deltagere før og efter seminaret, og samtlige deltagere fik en invitation til konferencen den 22. november. Et par af deltagerne, herunder en militæranalytiker, udtalte, da de blev konfronteret med, at NATO er ansvarlig for krigen i Ukraine: “Der skal to til at danse tango”. En svensk professor var bekymret for, hvad Sveriges NATO-medlemskab kunne medføre. Der blev oprettet kontakter.

Når Mette Frederiksen i sin rolle som statsminister inden for få dage har afholdt hele to pressekonferencer, hvor hun flankeret af udenrigsministeren og forsvarsministeren har talt i forherligende toner om kampen for frihed og suverænitet, så er det nok et tegn på, at det er netop de erklærede principper, som hun i en studehandel er blevet pålagt at ofre for fortsat opbakning til hendes fremadrettede personlige karriere. Da Anders Fogh Rasmussen brugte sin platform som dansk statsminister til at støtte Storbritanniens og USA’s ulovlige krig imod Irak, der blev legitimeret med løgnen om at Irak havde masseødelæggelsesvåben, endte det som bekendt med, at han blev belønnet med posten som generalsekretær for Nato og en international rolle som arrangør af konferencer til støtte for den britisk-amerikanske kampagne for at nedbryde suveræniteten hos de lande, der formaster sig til ikke blindt at følge de diktater, der kommer fra London og Washington.

Hvad har Mette Fredriksen gang i? At give USA ret til at udstationere militærpersonel og udstyr på dansk jord under amerikansk suverænitet afskaffer Danmarks nationale suverænitet og vil i stedet afsløre Danmark som en ren amerikansk vasalstat. Selv i de mørkeste stunder under den kolde krig, da Danmark var truet af sovjetiske planer om en besættelse af Danmark, var det noget, som danskere med respekt for både nationen og sig selv ikke ville tillade. Det ville have reduceret Danmark fra en nation til blot at være kanonføde i supermagternes stedfortræderkrig (Afghanistan er et skoleeksempel på, hvordan den slags typisk ender).

Forslaget til en ny forsvarsalliance mellem Danmark og USA har som sin grundantagelse, at vi skal forberede os på krig med Rusland, noget som bliver underbygget af mediernes svulstige krigspropaganda. Men siden den kolde krigs afslutning har Rusland på intet tidspunkt truet Danmark eller andre dele af Nato, men har tværtimod passivt set til, mens stadig flere dele af det tidligere Sovjetunionen og dets interessesfære blev indlemmet i Nato. Da turen så kom til Ukraine, sagde Rusland fra, og kræver nu aftaler, der kan garantere Ruslands fremtidige sikkerhed. Det burde være en kærkommen anledning til at diskutere en inkluderende sikkerhedsarkitektur for Europa, som det faktisk blev lovet Rusland, da de satte Østtyskland og de andre tidligere Warszawapagt-lande fri i lighed med de andre sovjetrepublikker. En sikkerhedsarkitektur, hvor både øst og vest kan føle sig hjemme. I stedet ser vi en mobilisering for sanktioner og krig, hvor Danmark nu skal spille en udvidet rolle, på bekostning af danske interesser.

Hvordan kan det forsvares, at Mette Frederiksen overhovedet overvejer at sige ja til et for Danmark så ufordelagtigt og potentielt ødelæggende forslag i dag? Blot fordi en ven kræver at få lov til at dele seng med din ægtefælle eller dit barn, så behøver man jo ikke takke ja. Det er tydeligt, at Mette Frederiksen har lavet en aftale med djævelen, som i dette tilfælde er den britisk-amerikanske finansielle magtelite, der kontrollerer den vestlige efterretnings- og sikkerhedspolitik. I betragtning af den berettigede foragt, som Mette Frederiksen med flere udviste for Helle Thorning-Schmidt og andre, der helt åbenlyst var villige til at ofre sine vælgeres og nationens interesser for at være en del af magten, så vil nemesis ramme dobbelt hårdt, hvis Mette Frederiksen fortsætter med dette skoleeksempel på hybris.

Om Mette Frederiksen har fået et tilbud hun ikke kunne afslå, eller hvad hun forventer at få som tak for denne ofring af danske interesser og suverænitet, ved jeg ikke. Givet er det, at det på ingen måde er i dansk interesse at indgå en sådan aftale. Det vil ikke forbedre den danske sikkerhed men kraftigt forværre den. Danmark vil flytte sig selv ind i kategorien af strategiske mål for atommagten Rusland. Danmark udstiller sig samtidigt som et land, der ikke længere frit kan handle og interagere med det voksende antal lande, der i lighed med den nylige Beijing-erklæring fra Rusland og Kina ikke længere vil acceptere en særlig vestlig ret til at bestemme de internationale spilleregler, men som mener, at vi skal have en multipolær inkluderende verdensorden, hvor alle nationer bliver respekteret og kan samarbejde uden først at skulle spørge om lov i London eller Washington.

At Mette Frederiksen foreslår dette samtidigt med at chefen for Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, Lars Findsen, er varetægtsfængslet under anklage for højforræderi og uden mulighed for at kommunikere med offentligheden, bør få mere end et enkelt øjenbryn til at løfte sig og få flere end blot mig til at spørge, hvad pokker der egentlig foregår? Vi må råbe vagt i gevær og få Folketingets medlemmer til at gøre op med den slappe følgagtighed, de plejer at udvise over for magtens arrogance, specielt blandt ”de gamle” partier, og sammen med modige patrioter i de danske institutioner få stoppet denne ødelæggelse af dansk suverænitet og danske interesser inden det er for sent.

Schiller Instituttet i Danmark tog initiativet til at lave video for at forklare, hvem vi er på en kort og spændende måde. Schiller Institut medlemmer i Frankrig, Tyskland og Canada hjalp til. 

 

Del gerne videoen så bredt som muligt

 

De seneste år har været vidne til en optrapning af alvorlige og turbulente kriser.

Økonomisk kaos, flygtningekriser, COVID-19-pandemien, samt væbnede konflikter.

Der er snak om ’Den store Nulstilling’ (The Great Reset), ”alting-boblen”, katastrofale storme og sågar atomkrig.

Men, heldigvis, er der håb for vores fælles fremtid.

Schiller Instituttet er en international, politisk organisation og tænketank, etableret i 1984 af den tyske politiske leder og Friedrich Schiller-ekspert, Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Den amerikanske økonom, statsmand og filosof, Lyndon LaRouche, har inspireret os med sin idé om fred gennem økonomisk udvikling.

Vi går lidenskabeligt ind for skabelsen af en ny, retfærdig, økonomisk verdensorden, gennem at uddanne og involvere borgere i de påtrængende, internationale problemer og at bidrage med løsninger.

Ved hjælp af vores lange erfaring i international politik har Schiller Instituttet organiseret hundredvis af internationale konferencer, for at forene de intellektuelle og moralske kræfter fra hele verden, fra det højeste akademiske, kulturelle og politiske niveau til bekymrede borgere, samt ungdommen på gaden og på universiteterne.

Vi er engageret i at skabe global opmærksomhed om Lyndon LaRouches Fire økonomiske Love, herunder:

• En global Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling
• Nationalbank-kreditskabelse til produktive investeringer
• Samt programmer for rumfart og fusionsenergi.

Schiller Instituttet kæmper for etableringen af et Nyt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem og for at udvide Den nye Silkevej til Verdenslandbroen – et nyt niveau af forbundenhed.

Kina har gjort brug af mange af disse idéer til at løfte 800 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom, og andre nationer kan gøre det samme.

Vi arbejder hårdt på at harmonisere USA’s og Europas relationer med Rusland og Kina for at undgå krig, og opfordrer til et topmøde mellem stormagterne, herunder USA, Rusland og Kina.

Vores vision for en ny, retfærdig, økonomisk verdensorden kan opnås gennem et samarbejde om økonomisk og infrastrukturel udvikling, samt opbygningen af moderne sundhedssystemer, i hvert land, inklusiv i Afrika, Asien og Sydamerika.

Schiller Instituttet bestræber sig på at skabe intet mindre end en kulturel renæssance og et afgørende politisk skifte til et nyt paradigme – grundlaget for en fredelig fremtid.

Vi opfordrer dig derfor til seriøst at reflektere over dette.

Lyt til dit moralske kompas.

Slut dig til vores mission for ”menneskehedens fælles mål”, for at forbedre vores verden og vores univers.

Sammen kan vi skabe en bedre fremtid!
 

Bliv en del af Schiller Instituttet i dag!

 

Den 3. september (EIRNS) – Kinas præsident sendte i går Ruslands præsident en besked i anledning af fejringen af 75-året for afslutningen af 2. verdenskrig, som markerede
nederlaget for fascismens svøbe, hvori han lovede ”resolut at beskytte sejren under 2. verdenskrig” mod dem, der i dag ville rulle den tilbage. Præsident Xi Jinping opfordrede
også hele det internationale samfund til at slutte sig til Kina og Rusland for at fremme “opbygningen af et samfund med en fælles fremtid for menneskeheden for at give
fremtidige generationer mulighed for at nyde en verden med varig fred, universel sikkerhed og fælles velstand”.

Disse prisværdige mål for hele menneskeheden – fred, sikkerhed, velstand – er en ret præcis gentagelse af FDRs mindeværdige fire friheder, der blev bekendtgjort i 1941, og
som han også krævede indført overalt i verden.

Men hvordan kan dette gøres, når verden befinder sig ved et minut før midnat? Når rækken af amerikanske og NATOs militære provokationer mod Kina og Rusland kunne
tippe over til faktisk krigsførelse i løbet af et øjeblik? Når den britiske marionetdukke, Mike Pompeo, i teatralsk raseri, forsøger at gennemføre en fuld økonomisk afkobling mellem
USA og Kina og afviklingen af Bælte- og Vejinitiativet? Når COVID-pandemien fortsætter sin dødbringende march over planeten? Når præsident Donald Trump, og rent faktisk det
amerikanske forfatningsmæssige system, forbliver i sigtekornet af et britisk kup?

”Vi må begynde ud fra en klar opfattelse af det niveau, hvorfra der er en vej ud af dette,” sagde grundlægger af Schiller Instituttet, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, den 1. september“, og
det er niveauet for Lyndon LaRouches løsninger, som han udviklede i løbet af det sidste halve århundrede”. Denne fremgangsmåde vil lede drøftelserne i weekendens konference
i Schiller Instituttet. Zepp-LaRouche sagde, at med dens fremtrædende talere fra hele verden er konferencen “lige nu en yderst vigtig platform til at ændre verdens dagsorden fra
ekstrem konfrontation, forhåbentlig, at få tilstrækkelig mange til at forstå, at hvis dette fortsætter er vi på vej mod krig, og at vi er nødt til at erstatte den slags tilgang med dialog,
samtale og samarbejde, der fører til gennemførelsen af Lyndon LaRouches politik”.

Vi, de undertegnede, støtter Schiller Instituttets grundlægger Helga Zepp-LaRouches opfordring til global sundhedsmæssig og økonomisk infrastruktur til at imødegå coronavirus-pandemien og den underudvikling (både økonomisk og videnskabelig), der gjorde os sårbare over for den.

 Coronavirus-pandemien, der fejer henover kloden – og de økonomiske virkninger af de sundhedsforanstaltninger der er truffet for at knuse den – afslører den utilgivelige mangel på udvikling af den menneskelige art og kræver en global tilgang for at behandle – ikke alene det coronavirus, der i øjeblikket truer os – men også den underudvikling der efterlader os modtagelige for, at pandemien kræver frygtelig mange ofre.

 Når sundhedssystemer selv i udviklede regioner, såsom Norditalien, er blevet udfordret ud over dets kapacitet, hvad er da udsigterne for mindre udviklede nationer, der har en enorm mangel på sundhedsinfrastruktur og mangler sikker adgang til rent vand, sanitet og nærende mad? Hvordan kan en person, der er afhængig af den daglige indkomst for at forsørge familien, forblive hjemme i flere uger? Hvordan kan folk uden rent vand praktisere god håndhygiejne? Hvis der ikke er intensiv-senge til rådighed, kan læger så redde livet for et offer med svære Covid-19-symptomer?

 Alt imens de akutte lidelser fra coronavirus kræver vores opmærksomhed, hvad med de 800.000 børn under 5 år der dør af diarrésygdomme hvert år? Hvordan kan sundheden for de hundreder af millioner af mennesker, der i øjeblikket er ramt af fødevareusikkerhed, sikres?

 

Vi kræver en global sundhedsinfrastruktur i den bredeste forstand.

Verden har brug for flere hospitaler, nye intensiv-sengepladser, yderligere ventilatorer, mange flere uddannede læger, øget produktionskapacitet for PPE og testudstyr i en størrelsesorden langt over den, der eksisterede i starten af dette udbrud. Men der er også brug for meget mere. Fattigdom, underernæring, manglende adgang til forbedret vand og sanitet – dette er også sundhedsspørgsmål. Vores fælles værdighed som medlemmer af den menneskelige race ansporer os til at samarbejde om at fjerne fattigdom gennem udvikling. Hele verden må beskyttes mod sygdomme, der truer os alle.

 Barrierer for samarbejdet mellem USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien må overvindes for at sikre, at verden aldrig igen terroriseres af en sådan trussel.

 For at muliggøre alt dette kræves et nyt Bretton Woods – internationale aftaler om økonomisk udvikling efter Franklin Roosevelts model og livssyn ved afslutningen af 2. verdenskrig, som videreudviklet af Lyndon LaRouches studier og forslag.

Underskriv gerne erklæringen begge steder: 

I Danmark: via www.skrivunder.net

Internationalt: via Schiller Instituttets internationale hjemmeside

 

Lørdag den 4. april 2020. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, Jacques Cheminade, LaRouche-bevægelsens leder i Frankrig og fhv. præsidentkandidat samt Hussein Askary, Schiller Instituttets koordinator for Sydvestasien, talte om USA i forbindelse med LaRouche-bevægelsens mobilisering for at vedtage Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske politik globalt, for at tackle den udprægede mangel på udvikling rundt om i verden. Der er ingen ‘nationale’ løsninger på COVID-19 eller finansielle kriser som sådan, alene globale løsninger.

 HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Goddag. Jeg synes det bliver meget tydeligt nu, at vi befinder os midt i, eller i begyndelsen af, hvad der ser ud til at blive den værste krise i menneskets historie. Det står allerede klart, at sundhedssystemerne i Europa – i Italien og Spanien – i USA ikke slår til. Der er ikke nok medicinske forsyninger, ansigtsmasker, respiratorer, læger, sygeplejersker, intensiv-enheder. Det står også meget klart, at denne pandemi – pandemi betyder, at det er en verdensomspændende epidemi – spreder sig meget hurtigt til udviklingslandene. Man kan være sikker på, at hvis den rammer lande som Haiti, eller de 55 afrikanske nationer eller store befolkede nationer i Asien, vil situationen blive endnu værre. Det er meget tydeligt, at de ikke har tilstrækkelige medicinsk forsyninger; de har ikke engang et sundhedssystem. De har ikke rent vand. Idéen om at isolere sig selv og vaske sine hænder betyder intet, for sådan noget findes ikke for mindst halvdelen af befolkningen. Og det betyder, at denne ting er ved at komme helt ud af kontrol.

Så formålet med denne konference og dette møde i aften er at starte en kampagne for at sætte ét enkelt spørgsmål på dagsordenen. Det er, at vi er nødt til at reagere på dette som en enig menneskehed, og at vi må droppe alle andre dagsordener. Vi er nødt til at opbygge et verdenssundhedssystem; vi er naturligvis nødt til at geare op for at forsvare folket i USA, i de europæiske lande. Men i betragtning af det faktum at det er en pandemi, vil dette ikke være tilstrækkeligt. Denne virus vil mutere; den vil vende tilbage, og den vil vende tilbage i bølger, og i stigende grad ødelægge vores reelle produktion. Det vil have en alvorlig indvirkning på fødevareproduktionen. OECD (Organisationen for Økonomisk Samarbejde og Udvikling) har allerede fremsat erklæringer om, at de forventer, at den økonomiske effekt vil være en reduktion af den industrielle produktion i OECD-landene på 30%; man vil få millioner af arbejdsløse. Derfor er vi nødt til at have et komplet skifte i dagsordenen for udelukkende at producere for en effekt; nemlig at opbygge et sundhedssystem i hvert eneste land i verden med den samme energi, den samme lidenskab, de samme midler.

Præsident Trump har indført undtagelsesloven ‘National Defense Production Act’. Guvernør Cuomo har opfordret til en hidtil uset mobilisering af alt sundhedspersonale – læger, sygeplejersker, omskoling, uddannelse af unge. Dette er skridt i den rigtige retning, men det skal ledsages af en opbygning af den industrielle produktion for at producere alle de nødvendige midler til at bekæmpe denne pandemi. Det betyder hospitaler i hvert land; det betyder beskyttelsesdragter, ansigtsmasker, respiratorer. Hele industrien skal indrettes med dette for øje, indtil vi har besejret denne pandemi.

Der er ingen måde, hvorpå centralbankernes likviditetspumpe vil kunne fortsætte igennem denne mobilisering. Der er mennesker der siger, at dette kommer fuldstændig uventet, at dette er et komplet chok. Altså, vi kan bevise, at dette ikke er tilfældet. Lyndon LaRouche advarede siden 1971 om, at dette ville ske, da han advarede om konsekvenserne af, at Nixon forlod Bretton Woods-systemet. Siden 1973 og 1974 advarede han i særdeleshed om, hvad den økonomiske effekt af de betingelser som IMF og Verdensbankens politik pålagde udviklingssektoren ville være. Og han advarede om, at pandemier ville blive resultatet. Hele hans livsværk var at advare om den kendsgerning, at monetarisme – denne anden dødbringende virus som Dennis talte om – ville resultere i pandemier. Man kan ikke sænke levestandarden på hele kontinenter over længere tid uden at fremme lavere livsformer i biosfæren til at tage over; nemlig vira.

Ideen er at starte en mobilisering på verdensplan, en mobilisering som fuldstændig vil ændre paradigmet. Vi har opfordret til et topmøde med de vigtigste lande i verden – USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien – at de må holde et topmøde for at ændre systemet; at blive enige om at få en ny verdensøkonomisk orden, der skaber mulighed for, at ethvert land på denne planet kan overleve. Der er bevægelser i denne retning. Netop i dag talte præsident Trump i telefon med Macron, den franske premierminister, og de blev enige om at fremskynde et lignende forslag fremsat af præsident Putin i begyndelsen af januar, hvor de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s Sikkerhedsråd straks skal indkalde et hastemøde og enes om øget samarbejde mellem FN’s nationer om at gå i denne retning.

Schiller Instituttet indkalder til en international internetkonference den 25. og 26. april. Længe før omfanget af pandemien stod klart, var målet med Schiller Instituttets konference at formulere et program, der kan hjælpe med at forme diskussionen for topmødet mellem disse stormagter. Vi er nødt til at have en drastisk aksiomatisk ændring. Der er allerede mange diskussioner, som er nyttige og skal understøttes; såsom ophævelse af alle sanktioner for at give alle lande mulighed for at bekæmpe pandemien. At holde en øjeblikkelig våbenhvile; at stoppe for alle militære handlinger, men der er brug for mere. Der er brug for en massiv mobilisering med opbakning fra mange mennesker og mange organisationer, for fuldstændig at ændre dagsordenen.

Der findes en vellykket model for, hvordan coronavirus blev besejret, i det mindste midlertidigt; det var hvad Kina gjorde i Wuhan og Hubei-provinsen. Det vil sige, at man må have total testning; man bliver nødt til at have identifikation af de mennesker, der tester positivt, man må isolere dem og sætte dem i karantæne. På den måde kan infektionskæden brydes, og virusset kan besejres. Problemet er, at det har vist sig, at det ikke er muligt at gentage denne model i den transatlantiske verden, simpelthen fordi testudstyr ikke er tilgængelige, fremstillingsvirksomhederne var ikke klar endnu. De vestlige regeringer bortødslede den varslingstid, som de fik gennem den kinesiske intervention.

Men det må der nu sættes fart i, ved hjælp af den form for mobilisering som jeg talte om. Den apokalyptiske dimension af hvad vi står over for vil stå meget klar inden for kort tid. Al forvirringen, alle de falske nyheder om, at coronavirus kun ville være som en slem influenza, al denne misinformation vil fortone sig. Der vil være en åbenhed over for at diskutere et helt nyt paradigme.                     

Der er også behov for at gøre det meget klart, at bagmændenes ideer, de folk og kræfter der er ansvarlige for, at vi endte i denne situation i første omgang, ikke må sejre. I dag er der for eksempel en artikel af Henry Kissinger i Wall Street Journal med overskriften “Coronavirus vil for evigt ændre verdensordenen”. Vi skal huske, at Kissinger måske ved, at timen er ved at være inde, hvor den gamle verdensorden uopretteligt og for evigt forsvinder. Men vi må ikke glemme, at det var Kissingers politik med NSSM 200 (National Security Study Memorandum 200 er et amerikansk dokument om befolkningsreduktion, red.) der blev aftalt i 1974, og som var en stor del af denne morderiske malthusianske affolkningspolitik mod udviklingslandene.

Dette memorandum, som først blev offentliggjort i begyndelsen af 1990’erne, sagde, at befolkningen i visse udviklingslande må reduceres og kontrolleres, fordi der er store ressourcer, som alle er i USA’s strategiske interesse. En anden af ‘gerningsmændene’ var den onde politik fra Romklubben, der begyndte at sprede denne idé om, at der er grænser for vækst, og at man er nødt til at gå over til en økonomi med nulvækst. En løgn som straks blev tilbagevist af Lyndon LaRouche, der skrev en meget vigtig bog med titlen ‘There Are No Limits to Growth’ (Der er ingen grænser for Vækst). Det var også John D. Rockefeller III’s politik, der på FN’s befolkningskonference i Bukarest samme år – 1974 – begyndte at tale om overbefolkning, befolkningseksplosion og andre sådanne malthusianske ideer.

Disse mennesker er mordere. Hvis I ønsker at se beviser, så se på hvad Jeremy Warner skrev den 3. marts i Daily Telegraph, hvor han sagde, at der er en fordel forbundet med coronavirus. Det er, at den frasorterer de ældre. Det er klart, at Warner er på linje med prins Philip, der på en offentlig konference om religion sagde, at han ønsker at blive reinkarneret som en dødbringende virus, så han bedre kan hjælpe med at reducere verdensbefolkningen. Eller lyt til hvad Sir David King, den ledende videnskabelige rådgiver for både Blair- og Brown-regeringerne, der åbent sagde, at de ældre må ofres af hensyn til økonomien. Disse malthusianeres synspunkter må bringes for en ny Nürnberg-domstol, fordi det helt klart gælder for dem, at de vidste eller burde have vidst, hvilke konsekvenser deres politik ville have for Den tredje Verden.

Selv den tyske hærs tænketank, Det Tyske Institut for Forsvar og Strategiske Studier, har netop fremsat et krav om en tilbundsgående undersøgelse af, hvordan verden så blindt kunne gå ind i katastrofen. En sådan undersøgelse er allerede foretaget. Den har vi foretaget igennem de sidste 50 år. Lyndon LaRouche advarede igennem et halvt århundrede om, at nøjagtigt dette ville ske. Også i det tyske parlament var der, i 2012, i forbindelse med SARS-pandemien, et scenarie på den såkaldte modi-SARS – hvilket betyder modificeret SARS – der sagde, at en mulig pandemi kunne nå frem til Europa, USA og Asien. Mærkeligt nok udelod de Afrika, så hvis man taler om pandemien og man udelader Afrika, er det meget underligt. Men det blev også ignoreret.

Hvad der er brug for nu, er en hidtil uset – og jeg mener virkelig hidtil uset – mobilisering. Jeg opfordrer jer alle til at deltage i at opbygge en alliance af mennesker, der vil deltage i Schiller Instituttets konference den 25. og 26. april. Og jeg vil have jer til at nå ud til mange organisationer og mennesker i Nordamerika, Europa, men også Latinamerika, Asien, Afrika. At nå ud til FN-organisationer, til ngo’er, til Verdenssundhedsorganisationer med det ene formål: At vi er nødt til at geare op for at opbygge et Silkevejs-sundhedssystem i alle lande. Vi må opnå en damptromleeffekt af mennesker, der straks kræver hospitaler, ICU-enheder, men også mad. Fordi der allerede er fare for, at denne pandemi ledsages af en fødevaremangel på grund af sammenbrud af dele af fødevareproduktionen, fra de berørte mennesker, osv.

Men hvis vi samtidigt ønsker at opbygge et nyt sundhedssystem på verdensplan, er det meget tydeligt, at det ikke kan gøres med den nuværende kasinoøkonomi. Så er der brug for Lyndon LaRouches fire love. Det vil være nødvendigt med en global Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling for at finansiere et sundhedssystem i alle lande. Vi har brug for en nationalbank i hvert land, og disse nationalbanker skal være tilsluttet et Nyt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem. Resultatet af dette må også være et helt andet sæt af værdier. Absolut ikke den liberale orden og ‘Oplysningstidens’ værdier, som Kissinger beder om, men hvad vi i stedet har brug for er en tilbagevenden til humanistiske værdier, til ideen om menneskeheden som én menneskehed. At vi sætter de fælles interesser for menneskeslægten foran de nationale interesser, og at vi kommer ud af dette med et helt nyt paradigme for kærlighed til menneskeheden og et nyt system for internationale relationer, der sætter samarbejde over konfrontation. Hvis vi alle er forenede i denne ånd, tror jeg, at vi kan forvandle denne forfærdelige krise til en chance for hele menneskeheden ved at ændre paradigmet til at blive virkelig menneskeligt, som en menneskelig art.

 

Den 20. februar 2020,  Neue Solidarität

Af Alexander Hartmann

Medens disse linjer skrives, samles deltagerne i den 56. sikkerhedskonference i München (MSC). Over 500 højtplacerede internationale beslutningstagere ventes at deltage i konferencen, der finder sted mellem den 14. og 16. februar, deriblandt over 35 stats-og regeringschefer såvel som omkring 100 udenrigs- og forsvarsministre. De Forenede Stater repræsenteres af deres nykonservative udenrigsminister Mike Pompeo.

Ikke for første gang vil diskussionen blive præget af en voksende følelse af fortvivlelse hos de vestlige eliter over deres tiltagende uformåenhed til at påtvinge resten af verden deres vilje. Wolfgang Ishinger, der har ledet møderne siden 2008, offentliggjorde den 10. februar i Berlin Münchenmødets sikkerhedsberetning og kundgjorde, at dette års mødetema ville hedde “Westlessness” (“Vestløshed”). Hvad han mener med det, beskriver han således: “Der optræder for tiden et dobbelt fænomen, nemlig for det første, at Vesten er mindre vestligt, og for det andet, at verden som helhed er mindre vestlig. Hvad betyder det for de tyske, europæiske og globale forhold, især for vor sikkerhedspolitik?” Ischinnger sagde, at der eksisterer  “en vidt udbredt følelse af ubehag og uro over den tiltagende usikkerhed angående Vestens grundlægende betydning. Mange sikkerhedspolitiske udfordringer synes at forekomme uadskilleligt forbundne med det, som nogle betegner som det vestlige projekts nedgang.”

Desuden, fortsatte han, “synes vi at have mistet en fælles forståelse af, hvad det overhovedet vil sige at være en del af Vesten. Selvom dette måske er den vigtigste strategiske udfordring for de transatlantiske partnere, virker det usikkert, om Vesten kan udvikle en fælles strategi for en ny æras stormagtskonflikter.”

Når Ischinger klager over, at vi “har mistet en fælles forståelse af, hvad det overhovedet vil sige at være en del af Vesten”, så tænker han øjensynligt først og fremmest på holdningen hos den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump. Trump vandt præsidentvalget i 2016 med et løfte om at bryde med doktrinen om de evige krige og at oprette gode forbindelser til Rusland og Kina. Siden da har de vestlige eliter forsøgt alt for at forhindre ham i at holde dette løfte og få ham afsat fra embedet; men med det mislykkede forsøg på at få ham afsat, har Trumps chancer for at beholde embedet også efter det næste præsidentvalg, tiltaget betydeligt.

Dette er fra de vestlige eliters synspunkt næsten den “størst tænkelige ulykke”: Hvis USA forlader sin afvisende holdning over for Rusland og Kina, så mangler de vestlige eliter den politibetjent, der skal gennemtvinge deres krav over for de genstridige nationer. Det britiske overhus offentliggjorde for godt et år siden en rapport, i følge hvilken den britiske politiks vigtigste prioritet måtte være at forhindre en ny præsidentperiode for Trump, fordi skaderne for det britisk-amerikanske “særlige forhold” ellers ville blive uoprettelige. Og en del af strategien for at forhindre et genvalg af Trump er at ophede krisecentre som Irak og Syrien i et forsøg på at få draget Trump ind i en krig og derved foranledige ham til at bryde sine valgløfter.

Tidligere udenrigsministre advarer om fare for atomkrig
Rent faktisk er det netop den geopolitiske holdning, hvormed de i München forsamlede repræsentanter for de “vestlige” eliter prøver at påtvinge resten af verden deres “liberale internationale orden”, selv den største trussel mod den globale sikkerhed. Den 10. februar udsendte “Aspen Ministers Forum”, en forening af tidligere udenrigsministre fra hele verden, en erklæring, hvor de forlangte en forlængelse på 5 år af den nye START-nedrustningsaftale og advarede om, at faren for en atomkrig er stor, hvis denne og tilsvarende forholdsregler ikke gennemføres.

“I dag befinder verden sig i tilbagegang”, står der i erklæringen. “De geopolitiske spændinger tiltager, og mange stormagter fremhæver atter atomvåbnenes betydning i deres militærstrategier.” De tidligere udenrigsministre konstaterer “en øget oprustningskappestrid mellem De forenede Stater og Rusland, en øget risiko for militære uheld og en forringelse af de forhandlede aftaler om reducering af våbnene og ikke-spredning af atomvåben. Alle disse ting bidrager til en hurtigt aftagende kernevåbensikkerhed og en øget mulighed for anvendelse af atomvåben, enten bevidst eller som følge af en utilsigtet eskalation.”

De henviser til den nyeste skarpe konfrontation mellem USA og Iran, der har vist, “hvor hurtigt manglen på retningslinjer kan bringe os til kanten af en krig. Som følge af en udhuling af de internationale aftaler og de diplomatiske kanaler, nærmede vi os muligheden for en ulykke… Farerne for en fejlberegning er for store til, at statslederne kunne gribe til tvetydig kommunikation, trusler og militære aktioner.” De kræver derfor “et genoplivet internationalt samarbejde, der hviler på den offentlige forståelse af farerne og mulighederne for risikonedsættelse.”

Hovedophavsmændene til erklæringen er den tidligere amerikanske udenrigsminister Madeleine K. Allbright og den russiske udenrigsminister Igor Ivanov. Blandt de 23 øvrige underskrivere er Alexander Downer, Anne Moussa, Joschka Fischer, Malcolm Rifkind og Javier Solana.

Rusland agiterer for et topmøde mellem de fem stormagter
Netop af samme grund har grundlæggeren og forkvinden for Schiller Instituttet længe anbefalet et nyt paradigme for internationale relationer, der ikke længere grunder sig på konkurrencetænkning mellem stormagterne, men på et samarbejde i menneskehedens fælles interesse. Efter mordet på den iranske general Soleimani den 3. januar opfordrede hun til en hastekonference mellem præsidenterne Trump, Putin og Xi for at arbejde for en bilæggelse af konflikterne. Helt tilsvarende har Ruslands præsident Putin den 15. januar foreslået et topmøde mellem stats- og regeringscheferne for de 5 faste medlemmer af FN’s sikkerhedsråd, og ud fra højtstående russiske diplomaters udtalelser fremgår det, at Rusland tager dette forslag meget alvorligt.

Således har udenrigsminister Lavrov den 7. februar i en tale i anledning af et særfrimærke til minde om 75-årsdagen for Jaltakonferencen mellem USA, Sovjetunionen og Storbritannien hentydet til Putins forslag. Angående betydningen af Jalta-konferencen bemærkede Lavrov: “Konferencen, som bragte førerne af koalitionen mod Hitler sammen, fandt sted i en atmosfære af gensidig forståelse og samarbejde. Førerne af de tre stormagter havde vilje nok til at vokse ud over deres egne ambitioner og stridigheder og udarbejde konstruktive forslag med henblik på en snarlig afslutning af krigen og opbygningen af en efterfølgende international sikkerhedsarkitektur. Jeg føler mig overbevist om, at det er rigtigt at kaste et blik tilbage på de fælles interesser i historien, når verden i dag står over for talrige udfordringer og trusler”, understregede Lavrov.

Under en audiens i anledning af det russiske diplomatis dag den 10. februar talte Ruslands ambassadør i De forenede Stater, Anatolij Antonov, om styrkelsen af forholdet til USA. Han understregede: “Vort land har aldrig unddraget sig ansvaret for sikring af fred og stabilitet… Vi værner om principperne for ikke-indblanding i indre anliggender.” Og han erklærede også: “Vi vil gå vort stykke af vejen til enhver stat, der forsøger at opbygge et forhold til Rusland på grundlag af gensidig respekt og interesseudligning. Vi er overbeviste om, at forbedringen af det russisk-amerikanske samarbejde ikke blot svarer til begge landes interesser, men også vil få en produktiv indvirkning på verdens gang som helhed.”

Angående præsident Putins opfordring til et topmøde mellem de fem faste medlemmer af FN’s sikkerhedsråd sagde Antonov: “Hvad det angår regner vi med hjælp fra vore partnere til at virkeliggøre initiativerne… Kina og Frankrig har reageret positivt på indbydelsen, men Rusland har endnu ikke modtaget noget svar fra De forenede Stater og Storbritannien.”

Også FN-sekretariatet anser sådant et topmøde for en god ide. “Vi vil hilse ethvert møde mellem sikkerhedsrådets faste medlemmer velkommen, da det forhåbentligt vil kunne føre til et øget samarbejde mellem disse fem lande i sikkerhedsrådet”, udtalte FN’s generalsekretær Stéphane Dujarric den 13. februar. Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt den russiske side havde anmodet FN’s generalsekretær om at arrangere et sådant møde under FN’s generalforsamling i september, besvarede Dujarric ikke.

Da den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin allerede har tilkendegivet, at han vil tale på generalforsamlingen i september, og da Kina og Frankrig har tilkendegivet deres understøttelse af initiativet, behøver præsident Trump blot at tage flyveren til New York. Og hvis det er sandsynligt, at et møde finder sted mellem disse fire præsidenter, vil Boris Johnson formodentligt heller ikke blive væk.

Der eksisterer altså en reel mulighed for, at “Vestens” geopolitiske konfrontationsholdning kan afløses af et nyt mønster for globalt samarbejde. Disse udsigter kan ligge til grund for Ischingers pessimistiske ytringer. Rent faktisk bør de dog give anledning til optimisme, da det er en langt større trussel mod sikkerheden i verden, hvis tilhængerne af den gamle orden gennemfører deres hensigter.

 

 

Hvad sker der og hvor skal vi hen herfra? Hussein Askary, EIR’s Sydvestasien ekspert giver en opdatering om den nuværende dynamik og dennes historie. Han præsenterer også løsninger der måske kunne resultere i, at freden bryder ud her og trækker verden tilbage fra afgrundens rand.

Den 23. september (EIRNS) – Ved en ekstraordinær indsats, herunder den hastige indsamling af midler til udgivelse, udgives EIR-rapporten “CO2 reduktion er en massemordspolitik — Skabt af London og Wall Street”, tids nok til at gøre det muligt for Lyndon LaRouche’s bevægelse at besejre de globale bankers kurs mod diktatur. Læs, udskriv og cirkulér denne rapport.

I New York i søndags, lige før FNs ”klimatopmøde”, kom verdens mægtigste bankfolk ud for at bekendtgøre City of London og Wall Street -finansieringsselskabers ejerskabet af bevægelsen “vedvarende grøn energi”, der angiveligt er en reaktion på en “klimatisk nødsituation”. Disse 130 banker erklærede, at “principperne for ansvarlig bankvirksomhed” nu var principperne i Paris klimaaftale – drastisk reduktion og planlagt eliminering af fossil brændstofproduktion og industri over hele verden, håndhævet af den finansielle sektors tilbagetrækning af investeringer. Disse globale banker, ledet af Bank of Englands guvernør Mark Carneys Green Finance Initiative, har planlagt dette siden Parisaftalen i 2015.

Hvad skyldes så alle børnenes klimakorstoge? De psykedeliske Extinction Rebellions, fredagens lukninger af skoler, Greenpeace-sabotører, Greta Thunbergs hadprædikener mod forældre og sågar babyer? De vil forsøge at gennemtvinge den fysiske lukning af industri og støtte den massive beskatning af befolkninger, for at fremtvinge en tilbagevenden til “grønne” energiteknologier. Det, disse banker håber kan være deres nye aftale, er det nye grønne økonomiske molboarbejde, der kan skaffe endnu en runde med kæmpe skatteyderbetalte profitter.

Wall Street, London og Frankfurts banker står over for endnu en enorm gældsbyrde, der denne gang er centreret i selskabsgæld, men endnu værre end i 2008. De tror, at anti-industri, anti-befolkning og “øko”-fascisme er deres udvej.

Lyndon LaRouche gennemskuede disse operationer, som ingen andre har eller kan, startende for 50 år siden, da han gik til modangreb på Romklubbens falske “Grænser for Vækst” og ødelagde det med sin bog fra 1983, “Der er ingen grænser for vækst”. Selvfølgelig, de få nationalistiske ledere som præsident Donald Trump og premierminister Narendra Modi, der mødte hinanden i denne weekend, er modstandere af disse antiindustrielle bankers diktatur. Det samme gælder for Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putin og Kinas præsident Xi Jinping. Men LaRouche viede sit liv til at afsløre britisk “økologisme” som racehygiejnisk og bekæmpe det med programmer for langsigtet videnskabelig og teknologisk fremskridt, ført an af rumforskning og fusionskraftudvikling.

Den nye 64-siders EIR-rapport er et våben, der repræsenterer LaRouche’s metode. ”Brug det til det yderste”, som Schiller Instituttets præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, sagde i dag, og besejr disse banker. Bryd dem op ved at genindføre Glass-Steagall bankopdelingen for at beskytte industrien og de nationale befolkninger mod økonomisk sammenbrud.

LaRouche forudsagde, at lederne af disse fire magter, enestående, kunne besejre det Britiske Imperium, hvis de samarbejder i rummet, i plasmateknologier, for højteknologisk udvikling af alle nationer. Hvis de skal gøre det, skal LaRouche posthumt renses for FBIs falske retsforfølgning ved at “befri” hans økonomiske politik og hans ideer.

Det disse ledere har brug for, er at rense LaRouche i 2020 og være på Månen i 2024!

Link til rapporten (på engelsk):

https://larouchepub.com/special_report/2019/2019-eir-special-report-co2-redux-is-murder.pdf

De artikler, der følger efter denne introduktion, er blot en overfladisk ridse i overfladen af det mest ødelæggende fysiske økonomiske sammenbrud, USA nogensinde har oplevet. Når man læser følgende rapporter – og der er vigtige områder som energiforsyning, vandforsyning, uddannelse og sundhedspleje, som ikke engang berøres her – kunne man først tro, at man læser en rapport om en anden planet midt i en mørk tidsalder. Men når du læser denne rapport, så spørg dig selv: Oplever du ikke præcis de resultater, der er dokumenteret nedenfor?

Du kan så begynde at overveje hele hysteriet i de amerikanske medier om det forfærdelige “autoritære regime” i Kina, hvor 800.000.000 mennesker, i virkeligheden, er blevet løftet ud af fattigdom, der er blevet bygget hundreder af skinnende nye byer, tog bliver udviklet som kører 600 km i timen, og millioner af børn spiller violin og klaver, og du kunne se på dig selv, og de forhold du har tolereret, i et nyt perspektiv. I 2017 blev det fastslået, at der stadig var omkring 30 millioner fattige i Kina, der hovedsagelig boede i landdistrikter og vanskeligt tilgængelige områder. Et målrettet program blev gennemført, og Kina er på rette spor for fuldstændigt at eliminere fattigdommen inden for sine egne grænser inden 2020. Overvej hvor langt Kina er nået i de sidste 50 år.

Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, har ofte talt om den økonomiske elendighed, hun oplevede i Kina, da hun rejste der som en ung journalist midt i “Kulturrevolutionen” i 1971, men i dag er forholdene fuldstændig forandrede. Betragt nu USA i samme tidsrum. Siden 1971 er forholdene i USA gået i den stik modsatte retning: Den forventede levetid i USA er faldende i den længste periode siden Første Verdenskrig; stofrelaterede overdoser og selvmord har overgået bilulykker som dødsårsag; tidligere udryddede sygdomme er i stigning; hjemløshed, skjult og åbenlyst, breder sig voldsomt; broer, tunneller og anden vital infrastruktur kollapser; Metro-systemerne er faldefærdige og farlige; mange af vores kommunale vandsystemer er over 100 år gamle; tørke og oversvømmelse er hvad der er tilbage af vores landbrugssektor; og energiforbruget pr. indbygger falder – alt sammen tegn på et døende samfund.

Den forfærdelige økonomiske opløsning af USA ville aldrig være sket, hvis det amerikanske folk havde tilsluttet sig Lyndon LaRouches ideer. Da USA kæmpede med 1960’ernes paradigmeskifte, så voldsomt bebudet af mordet på Præsident Kennedy, advarede Lyndon LaRouche sine medborgere, at medmindre man stoppede og vendte denne udvikling, ville dette skifte føre til opløsningen af nationen. I årtier siden, har han advaret igen og igen om, at afindustrialiseringen (“liberaliseringen”) af økonomien og ledsagende modkultur med rock-sex-stoffer i 60’erne lagde vejen til et økonomisk sammenbrud, og til ødelæggelsen af det kognitive potentiale i befolkningen. Da Nixon trak stikket på Bretton Woods-Systemet i 1971, og ændrede det internationale monetære system til flydende valutakurser, meddelte LaRouche profetisk, at denne ændring af politikken – givet til USA af det britiske imperium – enten ville føre til en ny fascisme, eller ville fremtvinge oprettelsen af en ny økonomisk verdensorden.

Næsten 50 år – et halvt århundrede – senere er LaRouches advarsler blevet bekræftet, som borgerne kan iagttage overalt. Det imperiale geopolitiske system, der førte menneskeheden ind i to verdenskrige og har forårsaget mange gange mere massedød gennem dets økonomiske imperialisme end Hitlers regime, kollapser nu under vægten af dets egen selvdestruktion. Derfor står især befolkningen i USA over for en presserende beslutning. Vi må se problemets omfang i øjnene for at mønstre modet til at kræve en løsning. Efter de studier, som beskriver de forskellige fysiske sektorers sammenbrud i den amerikanske økonomi, følger en opfordring til handling, der ledsager en artikel skrevet af LaRouche, hvori han fastsætter “fire love” for at redde USA. Han siger, at disse love er “ikke et valg”, men ”en umiddelbar nødvendighed”. Vi tror, at du vil være enig i den vurdering, når du er færdig med at læse denne rapport.

Rapporten kan læses her: (https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2019/2019_20-29/2019-27/eirv46n27-20190712.pdf)

 

 

 

To systemer foreligger for verden. Det ene, det transatlantiske, City of London/Wall Street-finansimperium, har befundet sig i en tilstand af »frit fald« siden krakket i 2007-2008, et finanskrak, som Lyndon LaRouche forudsagde i et webcast, 25. juli, 2007:

»Det, der er optegnet som aktieværdier og markedsværdier internationalt på finansmarkederne, er vrøvl! Dette er rent fiktive trosobjekter. Der er intet sandt i det; falskneriet er enormt. Der er ingen mulighed for et ikkekollaps af det nuværende finanssystem – ingen! Det er færdigt, nu! Det nuværende finanssystem kan ikke forsætte med at eksistere under nogen omstændigheder, under noget præsidentskab, under noget lederskab eller noget lederskab af nationer. Udelukkende kun en fundamental og pludselig ændring af det globale, monetære finanssystem vil forhindre et generelt, kædereaktionslignende kollaps. I hvilket tempo, ved vi ikke, men det vil fortsætte, og det vil være ustoppeligt! Og jo længere, det står på, før det stopper, desto værre bliver tingene.« 

Hvordan kunne LaRouche forudsige dette?

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

Introduction based on the original scientific discovery made by Lyndon LaRouche during the years 1948–52, refuting the concept of entropy advocated by Norbert Wiener and developing a concept of physical economy based on a study of Heraclitus, Plato, Riemann and Georg Cantor, which he later supplemented through a study of Nicolaus of Cusa. This study led LaRouche to oppose all monetarist theories associated with the British East India Company system of Free trade, globalization and post-industrial society and to embrace the physical economic approach of Gottfried Leibniz (Society and Economy) that later became the American System of Economics of Alexander Hamilton, from his more advanced scientific basis. This class will be given by Will Wertz.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

… I denne appel opfordrede Helga Zepp-LaRouche til at anvende denne model, Singapore-modellen, til situationen i Europa, hvor hele den såkaldte alliance, den europæiske alliance, den Europæiske Union, nu opløses i splittelse og kaos over det, der lokalt set synes at være en fuldstændig uløselig og umedgørlig flygtningekrise. I stedet anbefaler Helga LaRouche, at EU omgående afholder et topmøde mellem de ledende europæiske lande, afrikanske ledere og den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping for at indlede en proces for samarbejdende, økonomisk udvikling i Afrika for at løse problemerne med fattigdom og krig, som er roden til masseimmigrationen ind i Europa af afrikanere, der søger at flygte fra denne situation. Denne løsning ville omgående møde troværdighed hos afrikanerne takket være den gode vilje, der nu eksisterer over for Kina på det afrikanske kontinent, pga. de økonomiske udviklingsprojekter, som Kina allerede har igangsat dér i form af det forlængede Bælte & Vej Initiativ.

Lad os nu se på USA. Nøjagtig den samme model kan anvendes på spørgsmålet om migration her i Amerika på den nordlige og sydlige halvkugle. I stedet for at forsøge at adressere symptomerne, kan vi, hvis vi i stedet bruger Singapore-modellen til at adressere roden til denne krise, løse den. Den kan ikke løses på sine egne vilkår, men den kan løses, hvis man introducerer en ny dimension i denne geometri. Hele områder af Mellem- og Sydamerika er blevet ødelagt af disse kapløb-mod-bunden-politikker for billig arbejdskraft, frihandel, udplyndring fra Wall Street-gribbefondes side, og udbredt vold og en tilstand, hvor man ikke kan regere, pga. narkokartellerne og narkobanderne, som disse tilstande afføder, og hvor mange af dem hvidvasker deres narkopenge gennem disse selvsamme Wall Street-banker. Dette er den sump, der må dræneres gennem den omgående genindførsel af Glass-Steagall, som ville lukke disse kriminelle foretagender med pengehvidvask og lyssky penge ned. I stedet må man vedtage Lyndon LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love for at øge arbejdskraftens produktivitet her i USA og bringe USA ind i dette Nye Paradigme for økonomisk udvikling. Men det ville også udgøre en bro til at bringe hele Bælte & Vej Initiativet ind i de amerikanske lande som helhed. Den Nye Silkevej kunne forlænges gennem et Beringstræde-tunnelprojekt, der forbinder Eurasien med Nordamerika. Hele dette højhastigheds-jernbanenet og andet, kan dernæst forlænges mod syd ind i Mellem- og Sydamerika. Dette bør være emnet for et omgående topmøde mellem præsidenterne Trump og Xi Jinping, sammen med andre statsoverhoveder og ledere af de suveræne nationer i Mellem- og Sydamerika. Dette ville udgøre midlerne til at løse den gærende handelskrig mellem USA og Kina ved at fjerne den såkaldte handelsubalance gennem tredjeparts-udviklingsprojekter, som ville være til fordel for begge nationers økonomier. Igen en win-win-løsning. Denne handelskrig er meget farlig. Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede i dag, at dette er noget, der ikke blot er protektionisme; dette skal på ingen måde fortolkes som en god politik. Dette er faktisk meget farligt i det nuværende strategiske og økonomiske miljø. 

Her følger engelsk udskrift af hele webcastet:

 

THE SINGAPORE MODEL MUST BE APPLIED GLOBALLY

LaRouche PAC International Webcast for Friday, June 22, 2018

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon! It’s June 22, 2018. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our Friday evening
broadcast from larouchepac.com.
As you can see, the title of our show today is “The
Singapore Model Must Be Applied Globally”. As our viewers know,
and as we discussed extensively on Monday, Helga Zepp-LaRouche
has issued a statement for wide circulation in which she praises
the breakthrough which occurred in Singapore in the summit
between President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un, as you can see
depicted in this picture here [Fig. 1]. She said, “You have to
realize that this is an enormous breakthrough. You saw
yesterday’s adversaries becoming tomorrow’s friends,” as Donald
Trump said many times during his trip to Singapore. This was done
through shared and mutually beneficial win-win agreements. This
is both between the United States and North Korea; but also take
note, this is between the Republic of Korea — South Korea — and
North Korea, otherwise known as the DPRK. What Helga
Zepp-LaRouche did in this statement is that she called for this
model to be applied to other adversarial situations in order to
unlock similar win-win solutions. Crises which, if you looked at
them just in the small, in the regional setting, would seem
intractable and insoluble; but as soon as you bring in a new
dimension, as was done in the case of the Korean Peninsula, those
crises can be unlocked and new solutions are available on the
table. That new dimension is emphatically the One Belt, One Road
initiative; the New Paradigm that China has championed.
Development truly is the new name for peace.
What Helga Zepp-LaRouche did in this statement is that she
called to apply this model, the Singapore model, to the situation
in Europe in which the entire so-called alliance, the European
alliance, the European Union, is disintegrating into disunity and
chaos over what seems like in the small to be a completely
insoluble and intractable refugee crisis. Instead, Helga LaRouche
recommended that the EU immediately host a summit between the
leading European countries, African leaders, and Chinese
President Xi Jinping, in order to initiate a process of
collaborative economic development in Africa in order to resolve
the problems of poverty and warfare which are the root causes of
the mass migration into Europe of Africans seeking to escape this
situation. Now this solution would be instantly credible among
the African nations, due to the good will which now exists
towards China on the African continent because of the economic
development projects which China has already undertaken there in
the form of the extended Belt and Road Initiative.
Now, let’s take a look at the United States. That exact same
model can be applied to the migration issue here in the Americas
in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Instead of attempting
to address the symptoms, if we instead use the Singapore model to
address the root cause of this crisis, we can resolve it. It
cannot be resolved within its own terms, but it can be resolved
if you introduce a new dimension to this geometry. Whole portions
of Central and South America have been destroyed by
race-to-the-bottom cheap labor policies, free trade, looting by
Wall Street vulture funds; and emphatically widespread violence
and ungovernability because of drug cartels and the drug gangs
that they spawn, many of whom launder their drug money through
these very same Wall Street banks. This is the swamp which must
be drained through an immediate reinstitution of Glass-Steagall,
which would shut down these criminal enterprises of money
laundering and dark money. Instead, adopting Lyndon LaRouche’s
Four Economic Laws to increase the productivity of labor here in
the United States, and bring the United States into this New
Paradigm of economic development. But also, it would serve as a
bridge to bring the entire Belt and Road Initiative into the
Americas as a whole. The New Silk Road could be extended through
a Bering Strait tunnel project connecting Eurasia to North
America. That entire high-speed rail network and otherwise, can
then be extended southward into Central and South America. This
should be the subject of an immediate summit between President
Trump and President Xi Jinping, along with other heads of state
and leaders of the sovereign nations of Central and South
America. This would be the means to resolve the brewing trade war
between the United States and China, by eliminating the so-called
trade imbalance through third-party development projects which
would benefit the economies of both nations. Again, a win-win
solution. This trade war is very dangerous. Helga Zepp-LaRouche
emphasized today that this is something which is not mere
protectionism; this is not in any way to be construed as a good
policy. In fact, this is very dangerous in the current strategic
and economic environment.
But if you take a look at this application of the Singapore
model, bring China in on it. The United States and China in
collaboration can help develop these countries of Central
America, South America, and the Caribbean. China has immense
credibility in South America right now as well, just like in
Africa. Indeed, we’re seeing numerous Latin American nations
already in the process of officially aligning themselves with
China on the Belt and Road Initiative. For example, you can see
in this picture here [Fig. 2], Bolivian President Eva Morales
travelled to Beijing this week to meet personally with President
Xi Jinping. They signed several commitments for trade and
economic development collaboration, including a commitment for
collaboration on the Belt and Road. Morales elevated the status
of the bilateral relationship between China and Bolivia to the
level of “strategic association”; which he had also just done
during a trip which he had just concluded immediately preceding
his trip to China, during a state trip to Russia. During which,
he and President Putin also had elevated their relations to the
status of a strategic association; which Morales also indicating
his interest in allying Bolivia with the Eurasian Economic Union
as well.
Now in China during this trip, President Morales signed a
document which committed Bolivia to collaborating with China to
jointly build the Belt and Road Initiative, saying that this will
mean economic development and peace throughout the continent and
expressing that it is his hope that by working together with
China to build the Belt and Road, this would also contribute to
expanding cooperation between China and Ibero-America in general.
Which sentiment President Xi seconded, saying that the Belt and
Road offers a new platform by which China’s relations with
Ibero-America as a whole can be strengthened. So, this is very
significant. This is just one example of these nations of Central
and South America realigning themselves away from this failing
trans-Atlantic system and towards this new emerging Eurasian
system with both China and also with Russia.
At the same time President Morales was in China, also there
was a delegation from the Dominican Republic who were also
discussing economic development projects in the Dominican
Republic; specifically ports, highways, sanitation projects,
urban development. But also discussing broader development and
trade cooperation between China and the Caribbean generally. Were
this collaboration to be generalized across the entire region,
and also if the United States were to come onboard as a full
participant in this development vision, this — and only this —
would address the root cause of the current migration crisis
which we are observing. Ending the poverty and ending this cycle
of violence which is driving millions of people to flee their
homelands. At present, 200 million out of the current 650 million
people who live in Ibero-America as a whole and the Caribbean,
200 million live in poverty; which could all be changed through
this sort of vision. Remember, China’s vision is to eliminate
poverty in China in a few short years. Why could this commitment
not also be extended to other regions of the world that are in
desperate need of that kind of vision? Again, the New Paradigm of
the New Silk Road spirit is the key here to unlock this seemingly
intractable crisis now plaguing the Western Hemisphere; just as
in the case of the Middle East, of Africa as we discussed
previously, and as we observed in the up-to-this-point successful
solution which has now been committed to in North Korea.
Thus, the Singapore model should be applied to the entire
world. This breakthrough, what we just observed in North Korea,
represents an entirely new era of possibility. And indeed, as
President Trump said, the past does not define the future;
everything now has changed. But we need to seize this
opportunity. As we’ve discussed, this vision — what we just
discussed with the case of Europe, China, and Africa, and also
this case of the United States, China, and South America — this
vision is by no means impossible. In the wake of his success in
North Korea, President Trump now seems committed to continue to
kick over the British geopolitical chessboard, and usher in an
entirely new paradigm of relations among nations. The premier
example of this, of course, is his upcoming summit with Russian
President Vladimir Putin; which by all indications seems to be in
the process of being planned for some time during the month of
July — possibly coinciding with President Trump’s trip to Europe
for the NATO heads of state meeting. This prospect has sent the
entire British geopolitical establishment into absolute hysteria.
Take for example, this article [Fig. 3] which just appeared in
the Times of London under the title, “Trump and Putin Plan
Talks during Europe Trip”. You can see here the subtitle is,
“Alarm in Whitehall ahead of NATO Summit.” This is what the
article has to say:
“Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are preparing to meet
during the US president’s visit to Europe next month in a move
that is causing alarm in Whitehall.
“The prospect is adding to fears over Mr. Trump’s commitment
to NATO and the effect on his trip to Britain….
“The prospect of a meeting between Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin
appalls British officials. ‘It’s unclear if this meeting is after
or before NATO and the UK visit. Obviously after would be better
for us,’ a Whitehall official said. ‘It adds another dynamic to
an already colorful week.’…
“A senior western diplomatic source said that a Trump-Putin
meeting before the NATO summit would cause ‘dismay and alarm’,
adding: ‘It would be a highly negative thing to do.’
“NATO is due to discuss an escalation of measures to deter
Russian aggression. ‘Everyone is perturbed by what is going on
and is fearing for the future of the alliance,’ a Whitehall
source said.”
So you can see, absolute hysterics on the part of the
British geopolitical establishment. They fear what President
Trump could commit to with President Putin, and that indeed, the
end is nigh for this entire NATO, anti-Russia, British
geopolitical regime in Europe and the United States. Now what
we’re seeing is a mortal threat to British geopolitics. We’re
seeing in many instances a new era beginning to emerge. None of
these cases should be taken in isolation; but in fact, we should
see that the entire global strategic geometry is in fact in the
process of a rapid change and a complete realignment of nations
is in the process. This is really the fear that the geopolitical
establishment has had since the very beginning of President
Trump’s Presidency; that he could be a loose cannon. He won’t be
an Obama or a Bush, who were just following their orders.
Instead, he will assert the sovereignty of the United States and
he’ll pursue an entirely new alignment among the great powers.
That’s what we’re seeing: Collaboration among the United States,
Russia, and China. This has been the key in the breakthrough in
Korea, and it remains the key to unlocking the other outstanding
problems that are facing the world.
In the immediate aftermath of the breakthrough in Singapore,
South Korean President Moon Jae-in also made a three-day state
visit to Russia, to discuss the outcome of the summit and to
discuss the path forward; including how North Korea, South Korea,
and Russia will have a future relationship. This trip included a
bilateral meeting between himself and Russian President Vladimir
Putin. During this trip, Moon addressed the State Duma, making
him the very first South Korean head of state to have ever done
so. He urged a trilateral alliance between South Korea, North
Korea, and Russia; and he urged Russia to “join a northeast Asian
economic community” amid an historic paradigm shift on the Korean
Peninsula. So, this article [Fig. 4] that you’re now seeing on
the screen, titled “Moon Promotes Trilateral Ties in Russia”,
reported extensively on this trip. This is what this article had
to say:
“President Moon Jae-in urged Russia to join a Northeast
Asian economic community amid ‘a historic paradigm shift on the
Korean Peninsula’ in a speech to the Russian legislature, the
first by a South Korean leader, in Moscow on Thursday.
” ‘When a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula is
established, economic cooperation between North and South Korea
will become regularized and expand to trilateral cooperation
involving Russia,’ Moon said before the State Duma, the Russian
legislature’s lower house.
“On Thursday, Moon kicked off a three-day state visit to
Russia, the first by a South Korean president since Kim
Dae-jung’s trip in 1999.
“In his speech to the Duma, Moon mentioned his first summit
with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in April and the result of
that meeting, the Panmunjom Declaration. He also touched on the
subsequent North-U.S. summit, the first ever between the leaders
of both countries, earlier this month.
“South Korea and Russia are already researching and
discussing trilateral cooperation in rail, gas and electricity,
Moon said, adding that cooperation in these areas can create ‘a
strong foundation for a Northeast Asia joint economic community.’
” ‘A stable peace regime between South and North Korea will
enable the advancement of a multilateral peace and security
cooperation regime in Northeast Asia,’ Moon said.
“The president called for expanding technological
cooperation with Russia, which is leading in basic science.
Combined with Korea’s strength in information technology, the two
countries can ‘jointly lead the way toward a new era of the
fourth industrial revolution.’
“He also emphasized the development of Russia’s Far East
region. At the Eastern Economic Forum last year, Moon proposed
building ‘nine bridges’ between South Korea and Russia in gas,
rail, electricity, shipbuilding, job creation, the Northern Sea
Route, seaports, agriculture and fishing.
“Moon also shared his so-called New Northern Policy aimed at
creating an economic region that connects Korea to the Russian
Far East, Northeast Asia and eventually Europe.
” ‘The Korean people desire peace and co-prosperity not only
on the Korean Peninsula but all of Northeast Asia,’ Moon said.”
That article also notes that Moon will be attending the
South Korea versus Mexico World Cup game during his visit to
Russia. But here you can see a second article [Fig. 5] which was
published in the {Korea Herald}, which also reports on the trip;
including some extensive quotes from President Moon’s speech. So,
let me just share this quote, which I think really makes clear
what his vision is:
“There is a grand historic transition underway on the Korean
Peninsula. Now the two Koreas step toward the era of peace and
cooperation, leaving behind the times of war and confrontation.
Once a peace regime is established on the Korean Peninsula that
is when an era of South-North economic cooperation will take off
in earnest. I believe it must be a three-way cooperation that
includes Russia. In the case of railways, when those of South and
North Korea are connected, and the cross-border railways are
linked with Russia’s Trans-Siberian Railway, direct shipment of
goods from South Korea to Europe will be possible. This will be a
great economic gain to North Korea as well as South Korea. And of
course, it will be a great help to Russia, too. Also, in the case
of Russian gas, Russia’s natural gas can be supplied to North
Korea through a gas pipeline, and to South Korea and to Japan
through a sea underwater pipeline.”
So, this is a beautiful vision of what the future of this
region can be, and you can see he also included the role of Japan
in this. But this kind of connectivity, connecting South Korea
through North Korea and then via the Trans-Siberian Railway all
the way to Europe; this is the vision which has been what the
LaRouche movement has promoted for decades, as the Eurasian
Land-Bridge or this New Silk Road. Specifically this vision to be
able to travel from the very tip of South Korea all the way to
the coast of Europe on the Atlantic. This kind of vision is now a
possibility, a very strong possibility because of the peace that
was established on the Korean Peninsula through the efforts of
President Moon, Chairman Kim, President Trump, and also the role
that Russia and China both played in that process. So you can see
that this is win-win economic development as the pathway towards
peace.
At the same time that President Moon was in Russia, his
counterpart, Chairman Kim Jong-un of North Korea was in China;
really, literally at exactly the same time. This was Kim
Jong-un’s third trip to China in just the past few months, and he
met directly with President Xi Jinping once again. The {Global
Times} has an article [Fig. 6] which is titled “Kim’s China
Visits Cement Friendly Ties”. This article published in the
{Global Times} reports extensively on Kim Jong-un’s trip to China
this past week. Here’s what this article had to say:
“Kim’s visit might also foreshadow Pyongyang’s shift to
economic revival as North Korea has the need to learn from
China’s experience on establishing special economic zones and
reform and opening up. A group from the Workers’ Party of Korea
visited China on May 16 to observe the country’s economy,
agriculture and technology. It shows that North Korea is trying
to learn the experiences of economic development from other
countries. With its current system, it is very much possible that
North Korea learns from China and Singapore…. There is no doubt
that North Korea will take economic development as its central
task in the future….
“The crux of the regional integration in Northeast Asia is
the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue and its peace regime. With
China promoting the Belt and Road Initiative, North Korea could
be an important country connecting Europe in the west and Japan
in the east. Kim’s visit not only shows North Korea’s friendly
relations with China, but also reflects the urgent need to
consolidate the hard-earned achievements on the peninsula after
the Kim-Trump summit…. [P]eace and stability on the peninsula
will promote North Korea’s economy and help regional integration
in Northeast Asia and even in the Asia-Pacific.”
So once again, you can see this emphasis on regional
integration. {Xinhua}, another Chinese newspaper, in its report
of this meeting between Chairman Kim and President Xi Jinping,
listed two of the sites which Chairman Kim visited in the Beijing
area during this trip there. Both of them are critical to North
Korea’s development. One was a Beijing rail traffic control
center; and the other was a national agricultural technology
innovation park under the Chinese Academy of Agricultural
Sciences. So, this is the future of North Korea looks like,
emulating what China has been able to accomplish in its great
economic miracle, and integrating into this entire region and
ultimately into the entire extended Belt and Road Initiative
globally. So once again, this is an example of economic
development as the path to peace.
Now, Helga LaRouche addressed this extensively during her
webcast yesterday, and she emphasized, as we said at the
beginning of this broadcast today, that what has occurred at the
Singapore summit has unlocked the possibility of similar
strategic miracles that could take place elsewhere globally. And
that this Singapore model is exactly what should be applied both
in the case of what we’re talking about with Europe and Africa,
but also as you’ll see her elaborate more extensively here, in
the case of China, the United States, and Central and South
America. So, let me play that clip from Helga LaRouche’s
broadcast for you now.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

: It is sort of obvious, that if
President Trump and President Kim Jong-Un are able to complete
transform a very dangerous situation around North Korea within a
few months, into the total opposite, from the danger of being the
trigger point of World War III, to the absolutely hopeful
perspective that North Korea can be integrated into the Belt and
Road Initiative, with the support of the United States, China and
also Russia; by basically promising security guarantees, lifting
eventually the sanctions, denuclearize completely, integrating
North Korea with the Belt and Road Initiative making it a
prosperous country, these were really groundbreaking
developments. And as President Trump had said in his press
conference, “the past does not determine the future.”
That is obviously the proof that you can turn the worst
situation around if you have an inspiration, a vision, and the
political will to do so….
I think that the meeting between Putin and Trump is
obviously the next important item on the strategic agenda. And I
think the fact that you have now active preparations for it, the
meeting could possibly take place in July, and possibly in
Vienna, is also the result of the fact that the Russiagate has
fallen apart. And as the Inspector General Horowitz said in the
Senate hearing, that this was only on the email scandal around
Hillary Clinton, that there was absolute, unprecedented bias on
the part of all of these people [involved in the Clinton
investigation] and that Trump was completely justified in firing
FBI Director Comey. So I think this has somehow freed Trump to
move forward on this front.
But let me raise another issue, because there are obviously
very bad escalations around this trade war. And tariffs which
have been imposed — I mean Trump altogether raised the
possibility of putting tariffs on $450 billion in imports from
China, and there are now countermeasures going into effect.
Tomorrow the EU will put in countermeasures. Already, such
countries as Turkey, Canada and Mexico are also putting up
tariffs, and there is a big danger of an escalating trade war.
All the media, from Russia, China, — the Chinese were very
indignant, saying this is completely counterproductive; this is a
lose-lose policy. There are many people who voted for Trump —
farmers and industrialists, who are now hit by the effects of
these tariffs and are in danger of going bankrupt. This is no
good.
And what we have proposed, and what I have proposed with the
Singapore approach, would be obviously a solution to this
problem. Because if the United States and China would engage in
joint ventures to develop Central America, Latin America, South
America, the trade volume could be increased so significantly, in
a multilateral way, that the trade imbalance could be overcome by
{increasing} the trade. I would like to get this message out, in
particular, to the voters of Trump who are affected by these
policies, the farmers, people who have cross-investments in part
in China, in part in the United States, who are in danger of
going bankrupt, and that a lot of jobs are in danger as well. I
would like to ask them to pick up this proposal, the Singapore
solution proposal and get it to Trump. Because I think there are
some ideologues in the Trump camp who are also anti-China and who
are extreme neo-liberal free-traders and they are giving him
advice which is really potentially turning his base away from
him.
So Trump could continue to have his excellent relations with
Xi Jinping, add to that an excellent relation to Putin; and then,
go in the direction what he has proven he can do already in
Singapore with North Korea, he could do the same approach —
naturally, the predicates are different, but the approach would
be the same: that you turn a bad policy, a lose-lose policy into
the opposite, and you go on a win-win cooperation. And the world
is urgently in need of such a policy change. I think it can be
done! The fact, that the Singapore summit took place, is the proof
that you can completely change a policy when it is leading
nowhere.
The West right now is really faced with this decision in
general, to either change policy, or collapse! And that is what
is at stake. So I would appeal to the Trump supporters to pick up
on this proposal and help us to turn this around.

OGDEN: So, this is a call to action from Helga LaRouche. As
she said, history can indeed be changed, but you need the
political will to do so. It’s our responsibility to do so, to
generate that political will. This is going to be done through an
educated leadership within the United States’ citizenry. To
conclude, what I’d like to do is to notify you, if you don’t
already know, that an 8-week class series on Lyndon LaRouche’s
method and economics will be beginning starting this weekend,
tomorrow, Saturday. This class series is an essential ingredient
if you intend to develop the kind of leadership which is
necessary to become a leading citizen in this nation right now,
and to understand the dynamics which are happening globally. As
you can see here, this class series, which is on Lyndon
LaRouche’s economic method, is what you need to know for the
future of mankind. The article which was published in this week’s
edition of {Executive Intelligence Review}, which sort of
previews this class series, has an extensive description by those
who will be leading the class series about the contents of this.
You can see here on the screen the article which was published on
this subject, and the text of the description of this upcoming
class series reads as follows:
“Starting June 22, LPAC will offer an eight-part class
series on the science of physical economy. Completely untaught in
American universities today — despite the work of 19th century
American economists Mathew and Henry Carey, Friedrich List, E.
Peshine Smith and many others — physical economy is the only
competent basis upon which a prosperous future for the United
States, or any other country, could be established. Originally
created by German scientist Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716), and
advanced by Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton among
others, it was Lyndon LaRouche who achieved breakthroughs in
physical economy in the 1950s that allowed him to accurately
forecast, in nine different instances, crises in the financial
system and the economy, all of which could have been averted. As
a result of his documented success, today LaRouche’s ideas are
widely studied in China, Russia, and other countries.
“Shouldn’t these ideas be studied in the policy circles of
the United States?
“During and after his successful campaign for President,
Donald Trump called for implementing the American System of
economics, but he has done little so far to demonstrate a
scientific understanding of what that means in practice. Does he
have such an understanding? It is unclear. And yet a more
important question is, do you know what the American System of
economics is? Would you like to know all about real economics,
not money? Are you ready to fight to gain that knowledge?…
“In an eight-week course in LaRouche’s economics, you will
be challenged to question all of the accepted, but nonetheless
false, axiomatic assumptions which have wreaked economic havoc on
this nation and much of the rest of the world, increasingly since
World War II, and which continue to be an obstacle to the
creation of a New Paradigm of Global Peace based on Economic
Development. More importantly, you will learn the anti-entropic
scientific principles which underlie mankind’s limitless future.
Most importantly, by challenging and having the courage to change
your own axioms, you will be challenged to make the creation of
that New Paradigm the mission of your life.”
So, as you can see here, this is the screen, this is the
site at LaRouche PAC, the address is discover.LaRouchePAC.com.
You can sign up for this class series; you have to register for
it, and be a participant in this class series. Again, this begins
just this weekend. We are looking forward to the outcome of this
class series and to increasing the number of qualified,
intellectual leaders of this country, as we continue to watch the
world rapidly change.
Thank you very much for joining us here today, and please
stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Sikke en ekstraordinær uge! Som I ser her af vores grafik, så er titlen på aftenens udsendelse, “Det Nye Paradigme begynder: Fortiden definerer ikke fremtiden!” Og dette er selvfølgelig et fotografi fra det absolut ekstraordinære topmøde i Singapore mellem USA’s præsident Donald Trump og Nordkoreas leder Kim Jong-un. Dette møde, der gav langt mere positive resultater, end nogen kunne have forudset før den 12. juni, indvarsler begyndelsen til et Nyt Paradigme, afslutningen af geopolitik og fremkomsten af en ny filosofi for win-win-relationer mellem nationer og fred gennem økonomisk udvikling.

 

Engelsk udskrift:   

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast, June 15, 2018

 

RSBA NEW PARADIGM BEGINS:

THE PAST DOES NOT DEFINE THE FUTURE!

 

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon.  It’s June 15, 2018.  My

name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re tuning in for our Friday

evening strategic webcast from larouchepac.com.

All I can say is, what an extraordinary week!  As you can

see here in our graphic, the title of our show today is “A New

Paradigm Begins!  The Past Does Not Define the Future.”  And this

is, of course, a photograph of the absolutely unprecedented

historic Singapore summit between President Trump of the United

States of America, and Chairman Kim Jong-un of North Korea, of

the DPRK.  This meeting, which rendered results which were far

more positive than anybody had expected going into this June 12th

summit, this meeting heralds the possibility of the beginning of

a New Paradigm; the end of geopolitics; and the emergence of a

new philosophy of win-win relations between nations, and peace

through economic development.  As President Trump himself said

repeatedly during his trip to Singapore throughout this summit,

“The past does not define the future.  Past conflicts do not have

to be tomorrow’s wars.  Adversaries can, indeed, become friends.”

We see that philosophy being put into practice with the events

that we all watched unfold in the Singapore summit between

President Trump and Kim Jong-un.

Now, this was not the only extraordinary event which

occurred this week.  At the very timely moment, over the course

of this past weekend, the week began with a conference which was

held in New York City under the title “Dona Nobis Pacem” — grant

us peace — through economic development.  This conference was

sponsored by the Schiller Institute.  This theme — grant us

peace through economic development — was exactly the theme that

we saw unfold in practice on the world stage over the course of

this week.  This conference was keynoted by Helga Zepp-LaRouche,

the founder and President of the Schiller Institute; but she was

joined on the first panel by Dmitry Polyanskiy, the First Deputy

Permanent Representative to the United Nations from the Russian

Federation, as well as — via video — Dr Xu Wenhong, who is the

Deputy Secretary General of Belt and Road Studies at the Chinese

Academy of Social Sciences.  They were also joined on the podium

by LaRouche PAC’s Jason Ross.  The second panel in this very

timely conference was opened by Dennis Speed, who spoke about the

LaRouche method; but then he was joined by James George Jatras,

former US diplomat and former advisor to Republican Senate

leadership.  He spoke on the urgency of an upcoming Trump-Putin

summit.  Then, Virginia State Senator Richard Black reported on

the strategic importance of victory, peace, and development in

Syria.

Now what I would like to do, just to give you a flavor of

how prescient and timely this conference over the course of last

weekend was, is play for you a short clip of the opening keynote

remarks from Helga Zepp-LaRouche.  So, here’s what Helga has to

say:

 

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  , I’m actually very optimistic

about the situation.  I think there is the absolute possibility

that we will, in the very near term, see the emergence of a

completely New Paradigm of civilization.  Because already now the

majority of nations are all gathering around the idea that there

is the one humanity which is of a higher order than national

interests and even geopolitical confrontation.  Never before has

the contradiction and the openness of the fight between the New

Paradigm and the old paradigm been more obvious than right

now….

Now, the important changes which are taking place are best

illustrated or imaged with the two parallel conferences and

summits which are taking place this weekend.  One, the G-7 taking

place in Canada; and the other one, the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation

Organization] taking place in Qingdao in China.  The one, the

G-7, most of the countries, or at least some of the countries

want to defend the status quo of the neo-liberal, geopolitical

old paradigm; and the other summit, the Shanghai Cooperation

Organization, is typical for those nations which are trying to

establish a new order — a win-win cooperation of all nations on

this planet.  On the G-7 meeting, where Trump came late and he’s

leaving early, and he refused to meet the Prime Minister of Great

Britain, Theresa May — which I think is a good thing; to go as

quickly on to Singapore to have this summit with Kim Jong-un.  He

brought it to the point when he said that the combination of

people meeting at this G-7 meeting was really not the one which

should come together; but that Russia was missing, and it should

be the G-8 again.  He said this may not be politically not

correct to say it, but after all, we have a world to run.  I

think that that is exactly the spirit….

[T]he entire model of the world order as it developed after

the collapse of the Soviet Union, the idea to establish a

unipolar world to which all countries must submit, and those who

do not want to do that get regime change through color revolution

or even humanitarian intervention wars.  As it happened in Iraq,

in Libya, as it was attempted in Syria, and as it is ongoing in

the Ukraine.  Part of that world order was the idea to have an

encirclement of Russia and China, and in those two countries also

have ultimately regime change to get rid of President Putin and

to get rid of the Communist leadership of China; as unlikely a

proposition as this may be….

You have a new model of win-win cooperation, of acting in

the interest of the other, of respect of the sovereignty of the

other country, of non-interference, of respect for the different

social system of the other country, and of the idea to be united

for a higher purpose of all mankind.  Now that policy, which is

the result of China’s New Silk Road policy, which has now been on

the table for almost five years, which has developed the most

incredible dynamic ever.  It is the largest infrastructure

project in history, and it is already clear this will define the

new rules of the world….

This is actually the vision of my husband, Lyndon LaRouche,

who already in 2007 demanded that the three countries — Russia,

China, and India — absolutely must work together to counter the

evil influence of the British Empire as it existed at that time.

In 2009, at the Rhodes Forum of the Dialogue of Civilization,

demanded that the only way the world would get out of its present

condition would be a four-power agreement among the United

States, Russia, China, and India.

 

OGDEN:  So, that was a very short clip from Helga

Zepp-LaRouche’s keynote at this Schiller Institute conference in

New York City over the course of last weekend.  As you heard her

say, never before has the contrast between the old and the New

Paradigm been more clear for all the world to see.  She cited the

fact that, at the exact same time, there were two parallel

conferences that were occurring on the world stage.  We had the

counterpoint between these two conferences demonstrating the

counterpoint between these two paradigms.  You had the parallel

meetings of the G-7 in Canada on the one hand, and the SCO — the

Shanghai Cooperation Organization — in China on the other hand.

On the one hand, you had the practically irrelevant G-7 meeting;

I think this picture here [Fig. 1] sums it up.  You can see

President Trump leaving this summit; walking away.  He did indeed

go, but he showed up late, and he left early.  He didn’t even

stay the entire time because he had much more important business

to attend to in Singapore at this historic summit between himself

and Kim Jong-un.  He went on what he called a “mission of peace”.

How has this summit come about?  It wasn’t through this

dinosaur of the G-7.  It was brought about through a great powers

cooperation among the United States, China, Russia, South Korea,

Japan, and of course, Chairman Kim of North Korea.  So you can

see that this is the emergence of a Eurasian world; this is the

emergence of what you heard Helga Zepp-LaRouche refer to very

briefly there as Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas of the four powers

alliance shaping world history as we watch this play out.

Now the G-7 meeting itself was dominated by petty

geopolitics and squabbling between the representatives of the

nations of the bankrupt trans-Atlantic system.  There was no

unity among these nations.  They even discussed kicking the

United States out and turning themselves into the G-6; becoming

even more irrelevant.  But it’s doubtful that the G-7 as an

institution retains any clout or relevance at all.  This was

demonstrated by President Trump himself, who kicked over the

entire chessboard of this structure of so-called trans-Atlantic

elites.  And as Helga Zepp-LaRouche reported there in that clip

that we played, President Trump said that Russia should be

brought back into the grouping, should be allowed to rejoin, and

turn the G-7 back into what it had been as the G-8.  This is what

President Trump had to say during the course of the meeting of

the G-7 about the subject.  He said, “Having Russia back in the

G-8 would be good for the world.  Good for Russia, good for the

United States.  I think that it would be good for all of the

countries of the current G-7.  I think having Russia back in

would be a positive thing.  We’re looking for peace in the world,

we’re not looking to play games.  I would rather see Russia in

the G-8 as opposed to the G-7.  I would say that the G-8 is a

more meaningful group than the G-7, absolutely.”  So, that’s what

Trump said.

Now, you can see on the screen [Fig. 2] a tweet that was

sent out by the Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, who just

came to power in Italy; Italy also being a member of the G-7.

Prime Minister Conte came out and agreed with President Trump.

This is what his tweet had to say, translated into English.  “I

agree with President Donald Trump.  Russia should go back to the

G-8.  It is in everyone’s interest.”  So, there you have at least

two of the seven members of the G-7 — the United States and

Italy — calling for Russia to be re-admitted.  Of course, Prime

Minister Conte is the new leader of the government in Italy; and

this is a very important developing story which we have talked

about previously on this show.  But the majority of the ministers

in the new Italian government of Prime Minister Conte are in

support of Glass-Steagall.  They have signed an open letter to

President Trump about a year ago, which was circulated by

Movisol, the {Movimento Internazionale per i Diritti Civili —

Solidarietà} in Italy.  This is the LaRouche movement’s sister

organization in Italy.  But this is the majority of those

ministers who have called for a reinstitution of Glass-Steagall,

so this is a very fluid, developing situation; and very positive.

Now, President Putin, fresh off of a highly significant

meeting with President Xi Jinping in China, was asked about Trump

and Prime Minister Conte calling for Russia to be allowed back

into the G-7, turning it back into the G-8.  He responded to this

with his typical sense of humor by inviting the G-7 member

nations to come have their next meeting in Russia, in Moscow.  He

also pointed out, however, that another meeting which was

occurring at the exact same time as the irrelevant G-7; this was

the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which was

far more significant in terms of economic power, and also in

terms of overall population.  In fact, in the aftermath of this

SCO summit, where you can see the photograph [Fig. 3] of the

nations that are involved, which includes Russia, China, India,

and a number of other Eurasian countries, in the aftermath of

this summit, the Chinese Foreign Minister pointed out that the

SCO represents 3.1 billion people on this planet.  That’s over

one-third and close to one-half of the world’s population.  He

said it already now represents a completely new system of

international relations, which is built on mutual trust, built on

cooperation, built on friendship, and on common aims.  He said

this is a new model that leaves behind and transcends the old

geopolitical order.

At this SCO summit itself, President Xi Jinping, who again I

said had just had a very significant meeting with President Putin

of Russia, President Xi made a very profound speech which sort of

kicked off the entire event.  He began this speech by citing the

universal idea of Confucius; stating that Confucianism is an

integral part of Chinese civilization.  And it believes that “a

just cause should be pursued for the common good.”  And he said

that this what the SCO is built on, this philosophy of harmony,

unity, and a shared interest, a shared community for all nations.

So, this is what President Xi Jinping went on to say:  “The

Shanghai spirit, a creative vision transcending outdated concepts

such as a clash of civilizations, Cold War, and zero-sum

mentality, has opened a new page in the history of international

relations; and gained increasing endorsement of the international

community.  The pursuit of cooperation for mutual benefit

represents a surging trend.  While we keep hearing such rhetoric

as the clash of civilizations or the superiority of one

civilization over another, it is the diversity of civilizations

that sustains human progress.  Indeed, mutual learning between

different cultures is a shared aspiration of all peoples.  We

should reject the Cold War mentality and confrontation between

blocs, and oppose the practice of seeking absolute security of

oneself at the expense of others, so as to achieve security of

all.  We should champion equality, mutual learning, dialogue, and

an inclusiveness between civilizations.  It is important that we

overcome cultural misunderstanding, clash, and supremacy through

exchanges, mutual learning and co-existence.”

So, that’s a beautiful summary of this New Paradigm, this

end of geopolitics, the end of zero-sum mentality, the end of

Cold War blocs, and the pursuit of hegemony.  Instead, I think a

declaration of exactly what this win-win cooperation means in the

eyes of President Xi Jinping.  So, the contrast could not be more

clear.  This contrast between the outdated geopolitics of the

G-7, and this New Paradigm of win-win which is represented there

at the SCO summit; but is also represented much more broadly in

these alliances in Eurasia and the idea of the One Belt, One Road

initiative.

But let me just come back to this exemplary case of the

developments in North Korea.  Here on the screen you can see the

historic handshake between President Trump and Chairman Kim

Jong-un.  So, let me just play for you a short, one-minute video

which was produced by the White House right after President Trump

returned from his trip to Singapore.  They put together this

video so you can see the highlights of this encounter between

these two leaders — President Trump of the United States of

America, and Chairman Kim of North Korea.  Here’s this short,

overview video; very exciting.

So, these images are absolutely

extraordinary.  Really, ask yourself: six months ago, did you

expect to see those kinds of video images actually happening in

real life?  This is an extraordinary summit and an extraordinary

moment in civilization.  In fact, if President Trump is able to

achieve peace with North Korea and build a relationship with the

leader of this country; in fact, they have actually announced

that at a certain point, Kim Jong-un will be invited for a state

visit to the United States, visiting the White House.  And

President Trump himself said that he would go to Pyongyang; he

would visit North Korea.  So, if President Trump is able to

achieve this peace and this new relationship, it will be the

greatest accomplishment of his Presidency so far.  In fact,

reports are in that two Norwegian parliamentarians have nominated

President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.

During her webcast yesterday, Helga Zepp-LaRouche actually

began her discussion of this situation by citing that fact.  I

would like to play for you her first opening statements from that

webcast yesterday.  You can see the context in which she places

these extraordinary events in Singapore.

 

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  I’m actually quite pleased to

tell you, and you may know it already or not, that two Norwegian

parliamentarians have proposed to award Nobel Peace Prize for

President Trump.  Now, I find this very appropriate, in contrast

to the Nobel Peace Prize being given to Obama for absolutely

nothing, just the contrary.  But I think this development of

North Korea and the United States finding a way to completely

transform an old adversary relationship into one of cooperation

and a bright future, I think this is really a fantastic

development.  And I know that all the mainstream media of the

West are having apoplectic attacks over this, but if you look at

it, I think it is absolutely promising.

First of all, the facts you all know:  They agreed on the

complete denuclearization of North Korea, in return for the

prospect of making North Korea a prosperous and wealthy country.

Now, I find it very interesting that the White House,

between Trump and the National Security Council produced a

four-minute video, where the two options for North Korea were

portrayed:  One is the old status and war, or to have a complete

modernization of the country, with modern railway — they even

showed the Chinese maglev running, and people prosperous and

productive.  I think this was very good, because this video is

exactly what will happen, and it goes very far beyond a similar

video which was produced by South Korea in the past.  Trump

showed it to Kim Jong-un in the meetings, and then he also showed

it before giving his press conference.

I watched his entire press conference, and I must say, I

would advise all of you, our viewers, to do likewise. Because you

hear so much about Trump being this and that, and the way he

conducted himself in this lengthy press conference, fencing off

the most typical, old-fashioned thinking, questions from mainly

American journalists, he did not let himself be provoked — you

know, journalists try to ask him, “What will you do, what is your

punishment if North Korea does not comply?” but he wouldn’t go

into this trap; but he just said that he was very confident that

this process was on a good way.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0BWMd1R7wE]

And very important was that he also announced that the

United States would stop what he called the “war games,” the

U.S.-South Korea military maneuvers, and obviously, this is

psychologically very important for the North Koreans, because if

you have these war games on your doorstep all the time, this

creates a permanent psychological terror.

People who have to still form their judgment about how to

look at this, they should just consider that the South Korean

people were absolutely enthusiastic.  They were happy in the

streets.  President Moon, who watched the live stream coming from

the conference from Singapore, applauded several times.  And

given the fact that the German unification which took place now

almost 29 years ago, people in Germany may remember the absolute

jubilance and happiness of families hugging each other, who

haven’t been together for very many years; friends falling into

each other’s arms, and kissing each other.  And it was a joy!

That the German unification did not produce only happiness

afterwards had to do with the larger geo-strategic environment:

You know, like Bush, and Thatcher and Mitterrand they all were

extremely hostile to the process of German unification, and

therefore the East German states were practically economically

dismantled, pretty much.  And the environment in North Korea is

obviously completely different.

So I would like to just say that I’m very optimistic that

this process will succeed, for the very simple reason that this

is taking place in a completely different strategic context,

namely of the Belt and Road Initiative, the integration of the

Belt and Road Initiative with the Eurasian Economic Union, and

these kinds of economic development plans, which also Russia

spoke about and China said they would contribute, and also

together with the United States take over security guarantees for

North Korea, these economic plans take place in the context of

the intention to develop the Far East of Russia, to integrate it

with all of Asia, which was discussed at the Eastern Economic

Forum in Vladivostok last September, and it was also discussed in

the inter-Korean dialogue in April between the two Presidents of

the two Koreas.

So I think the perspective that North Korea, soon, will be

integrated into the Eurasian transport system, the two railways

connecting to the Trans-Siberian Railway, to the Chinese railway

system, and that you will have a complete transformation of this

part of the world.  And I think Trump is absolutely right:  He

said the past does not determine the future.  Real change is

possible.  And I think this is a very good development, and all

the nay-sayers they should just go home and think.

 

OGDEN:  As you just heard Helga Zepp-LaRouche say, the

possibility of peace and these extremely positive developments

that we’re seeing in North Korea, is possible only because of the

emergence of this New Silk Road spirit.  The connectivity between

South Korea, North Korea, China, and Russia through these

high-speed rail corridors and these other economic development

projects, this was the basis on which President Trump could

travel to Singapore, sit down with Kim Jong-un, and say look, the

future is brighter than what has come before.  If we put away the

story of conflict and if we end this legacy of generation upon

generation of warfare, and the threat of thermonuclear war, and

embrace instead this new era of economic development; then the

future of the North Korean people will be bright, and the future

of the entire world will be bright.  So, it’s this context of the

New Silk Road; this is the difference between what’s occurring

now with North and South Korea versus what occurred back in 1989,

1990 with West and East Germany.  You didn’t have that context at

that point, although it was at that moment that the World

Land-Bridge or this New Silk Road idea was born, and the seed of

what we now see culminating was planted.  This was Lyndon and

Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s idea first of the development of the

Productive Triangle; bringing together Eastern and Western Europe

for the rapid economic development of the East, the former Soviet

bloc.  That was quickly expanded to bring in the entirety of

Eurasia with this New Silk Road idea.  That is what we now see

playing out and giving the context and the possibility for these

positive developments in North Korea.

As Helga Zepp-LaRouche cited in that video clip, President

Trump played a short video, which I think sums up this vision.

It was like a trailer.  It was put together by a team, and it was

posted on the White House Facebook page.  He played this for

Chairman Kim in their meeting.  They sat down and watched this

video together, and I think it illustrates the contrast between

what has occurred up to now with the status quo, and what would

be possible if you believe in this idea that the past does not

necessarily have to define the future.  So, I would like to play

for you what President Trump played for Chairman Kim Jong-un at

the beginning of their summit in Singapore.  So, here’s that

video.

 

NARRATOR

:  Seven billion people inhabit planet

Earth.  Of those alive today, only a small number will leave a

lasting impact, and only the very few will make decisions or take

actions that renew their homeland and change the course of

history.

History may appear to repeat itself for generations, cycles

that never seem to end. There have been times of relative peace,

and times of great tension.  While this cycle repeats, the light

of prosperity and innovation has burned bright for most of the

world.

History is always evolving.  And there comes a time when

only a few are called upon to make a difference. But the question

is:  What difference will the few make? The past doesn’t have to

be the future.  Out of the darkness can come the light, and the

light of hope can burn bright.

What if?

A people that share a common and rich heritage can find a

common future?  Their story is well known, but what will be their

sequel?

Destiny Pictures presents: A story of opportunity, a new

story, a new beginning.  One of peace.  Two men, two leaders, one

destiny.

A story about a special moment in time when a man is

presented with one chance that may never be repeated.  What will

he choose?  To show vision and leadership?

Or, not?

There can only be two results.  One of moving back — or one

of moving forward.

A new world can begin today.  One of friendship, respect,

and good will.  Be part of that world, where the doors of

opportunity are ready to be opened:  Investment from around the

world, where you can have medical breakthroughs and abundance of

resources, innovative technology, and new discoveries.

What if?

Can history be changed?  Will the world embrace this change?

And when could this moment in history begin?

It comes down to a choice, on this day, in this time, at

this moment.  The world will be watching, listening,

anticipating, hoping.  Will this leader choose to advance his

country and be part of a new world?  Be the hero of his people?

Will he shake the hand of peace and enjoy prosperity like he has

never seen?

A great life?  Or, more isolation?  Which path will be

chosen?

Featuring President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un,

in a meeting to remake history, to shine in the sun — one

moment, one choice.

What if?

The future remains to be written.

 

OGDEN:  So this is a very inspirational video.  As it said

right there at the end, “The future remains to be written.”  It

asks the question, can history be changed?  What choice are we

going to make?  What pathway will we follow?  Very importantly,

it says, the past does not define the future.  You could see

those shots of the Chinese maglev train; this is very well in the

future of the Korean Peninsula.  You could also see that

beautiful shot of the Korean Peninsula at night.  Currently,

South Korea, below the line of demarcation, is very developed

with lights and modern cities.  North Korea is very

under-developed.  But then all of a sudden, you could see the

vision of the future with the North Korea portion lit up just the

same as South Korea, China, and Russia.  So, this is an

extraordinary image or vision, and you can see what’s in the

minds of President Trump and others at the White House going into

this summit.

Immediately after President Trump signed these agreements

with Chairman Kim Jong-un, he held a press availability.  Helga

Zepp-LaRouche mentioned this, and encouraged that people actually

watch this press conference in full.  But in the beginning of

this press conference, he played that entire video that you just

saw for the representatives of the press corps who were in the

room, in order to set the tone of what this press conference

would be about.  He played that before he took the stage, and

then he immediately came on stage and reported on what he had

just accomplished in his meetings with Chairman Kim Jong-un.  I’m

not going to play the entirety of this hour-long press conference

for you, but I’m going to play for you just a couple of key

excerpts from President Trump’s opening remarks.

 

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP

:  Well, thank you very much,

everybody.  We appreciate it.  We’re getting ready to go back.

We had a tremendous 24 hours.  We’ve had a tremendous three

months, actually, because this has been going on for quite a

while.  That was a tape that we gave to Chairman Kim and his

people, his representatives.  And it captures a lot.  It captures

what could be done.  And that’s a great — a great place.  It has

the potential to be an incredible place.  Between South Korea —

if you think about it — and China, it’s got tremendous

potential.  And I think he understands that and he wants to do

what’s right.

It’s my honor today to address the people of the world,

following this very historic summit with Chairman Kim Jong Un of

North Korea.  We spent very intensive hours together, and I think

most of you have gotten the signed document, or you will very

shortly.  It’s very comprehensive.  It’s going to happen.

I stand before you as an emissary of the American people to

deliver a message of hope and vision, and a message of peace….

I also want to thank President Moon of South Korea.  He’s

working hard.  In fact, I’ll be speaking to him right after we’re

finished.  Prime Minister Abe of Japan — a friend of mine —

just left our country, and he wants what’s right for Japan and

for the world.  He’s a good man.  And a very special person,

President Xi of China, who has really closed up that border —

maybe a little bit less so over the last couple of months, but

that’s okay.  But he really has.  And he’s a terrific person and

a friend of mine, and really a great leader of his people.  I

want to thank them for their efforts to help us get to this very

historic day.

Most importantly, I want to thank Chairman Kim for taking

the first bold step toward a bright new future for his people.

Our unprecedented meeting — the first between an American

President and a leader of North Korea — proves that real change

is indeed possible.

My meeting with Chairman Kim was honest, direct, and

productive.  We got to know each other well in a very confined

period of time, under very strong, strong circumstance.  We’re

prepared to start a new history and we’re ready to write a new

chapter between our nations.

Nearly 70 years ago — think of that; 70 years ago — an

extremely bloody conflict ravaged the Korean Peninsula.

Countless people died in the conflict, including tens of

thousands of brave Americans.  Yet, while the armistice was

agreed to, the war never ended.  To this day, never ended.  But

now we can all have hope that it will soon end.  And it will.  It

will soon end.

The past does not have to define the future.  Yesterday’s

conflict does not have to be tomorrow’s war.  And as history has

proven over and over again, adversaries can indeed become

friends.  We can honor the sacrifice of our forefathers by

replacing the horrors of battle with the blessings of peace.  And

that’s what we’re doing and that’s what we have done.

There is no limit to what North Korea can achieve when it

gives up its nuclear weapons and embraces commerce and engagement

with the rest of the world — that really wants to engage.

Chairman Kim has before him an opportunity like no other: to be

remembered as the leader who ushered in a glorious new era of

security and prosperity for his people.

Chairman Kim and I just signed a joint statement in which he

reaffirmed his “unwavering commitment to complete

denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”  We also agreed to

vigorous negotiations to implement the agreement as soon as

possible.  And he wants to do that.  This isn’t the past.  This

isn’t another administration that never got it started and

therefore never got it done.

Chairman Kim has told me that North Korea is already

destroying a major missile engine testing site.  That’s not in

your signed document; we agreed to that after the agreement was

signed.  That’s a big thing — for the missiles that they were

testing, the site is going to be destroyed very soon.

Today is the beginning of an arduous process.  Our eyes are

wide open, but peace is always worth the effort, especially in

this case.  This should have been done years ago.  This should

have been resolved a long time ago, but we’re resolving it now.

Chairman Kim has the chance to seize an incredible future

for his people.  Anyone can make war, but only the most

courageous can make peace.

The current state of affairs cannot endure forever.  The

people of Korea — North and South — are profoundly talented,

industrious, and gifted.  These are truly gifted people.  They

share the same heritage, language, customs, culture, and destiny.

But to realize their amazing destiny, to reunite their national

family, the menace of nuclear weapons will now be removed.

In the meantime, the sanctions will remain in effect.  We

dream of a future where all Koreans can live together in harmony,

where families are reunited and hopes are reborn, and where the

light of peace chases away the darkness of war.  This bright

future is within — and this is what’s happening.  It is right

there.  It’s within our reach.  It’s going to be there.  It’s

going to happen.  People thought this could never take place.  It

is now taking place.  It’s a very great day.  It’s a very great

moment in the history of the world.

And Chairman Kim is on his way back to North Korea.  And I

know for a fact, as soon as he arrives, he’s going to start a

process that’s going to make a lot of people very happy and very

safe….

[I]f I can save millions of lives by coming here, sitting

down, and establishing a relationship with someone who’s a very

powerful man, who’s got firm control of a country, and that

country has very powerful nuclear weapons, it’s my honor to do

it.

 

OGDEN:  So once again, this is just absolutely incredible.

This is an unprecedented moment in history.  As President Trump

said right there, people thought that this could never happen,

people thought that this was impossible.  But now, the impossible

has become real.  This is now in fact happening.  I think in a

very profound statement, he said, “Anyone can make war, but only

the most courageous can make peace.”  So, let me return one more

time to one of the portions of those remarks, and let me just

read this back to you once again.  This is what President Trump

just said, you heard him say this:  “The past does not have to

define the future.  Yesterday’s conflict does not have to be

tomorrow’s war.  And as history has proven over and over again,

adversaries can indeed become friends.  We can honor the

sacrifice of our forefathers by replacing the horrors of battle

with the blessings of peace.”

So, I think that’s an extraordinary and beautiful expression

of what this New Paradigm among nations can be.  This is

actually, if you think about it, the spirit of the Treaty of

Westphalia; this Thirty Years’ War, which was generation upon

generation of endless war among the people of Europe.  It was

just never-ending, and no one could see the end of it.  This was

brought to an end by the Treaty of Westphalia, which said forgive

and forget, and honor the past by creating a new future based on

the spirit of mutual benefit between these nations.  This is,

again, what is necessary today; a new Treaty of Westphalia.

Lyndon LaRouche elaborated that in his historic book, {Earth’s

Next Fifty Years; The Coming Eurasian World”, which was published

over a decade ago, where he called for a new Treaty of

Westphalia.  This expression of a very important understanding of

how in fact history is made; that history can be changed, and

that the past does not have to define the future.  This is the

kind of leadership which President Trump is bringing to the stage

right now.  But this is the kind of leadership which is necessary

to save civilization and to put the entire world on a new path.

As Helga Zepp-LaRouche has said, a path towards win-win

relationships and a future of common destiny of all mankind.

This has been an absolutely incredible week, and I think

we’ve witnessed history unfold.  It’s very important to recognize

that the ideas of the LaRouche movement are right there in the

middle of what we’re watching unfold.  That’s why I began with

this conference which was held up in New York City; Peace Through

Economic Development.  If you go back and you look at the entire

context of what has now become possible because of this idea

which has become actuality, of the New Silk Road and this spirit

of win-win cooperation, this Four Powers agreement among great

powers on this planet; these are the ideas that have, indeed,

shaped history and our responsibility could not be greater than

at this crucial turning point in civilization right now.

So, thank you very much for tuning in, and I’m sure we’re

going to see a lot more occurring over the coming days and weeks.

So, please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

 

 

I historiens løb kan man, om end det er sjældent, undertiden se en meget stærk kraft, som man kunne kalde poetisk retfærdighed, være virksom. I denne uge har vi set, at begivenhederne har udviklet sig på en måde, som meget vel kunne nå op på niveauet for poetisk retfærdighed.

Engelsk udskrift:

SPYGATE: WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND.
THE ERINYES ARE AT WORK!

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon.  It’s May 25, 2018.  My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly Friday
evening broadcast from larouchepac.com.
Sometimes in the course of history, if even rarely, one can
see at work a very powerful force of what could be called poetic
justice.  This week, we’ve seen a turn of events which very well
could be seen as rising to the level of poetic justice.  As the
title of our webcast here today reads, “Spygate: What Goes
Around, Comes Around.  The Erinyes Are at Work!”  Now revelations
have come out that the FBI and other Obama-era intelligence and
law enforcement had colluded with British intelligence to embed
an informant — or a spy as President Trump has characterized it
— inside the Donald Trump for President campaign in 2016.  When
news of this dramatic story first broke last Friday, a week ago
today, President Trump issued the following tweet: “Wow! Word
seems coming out that the Obama FBI spied on the Trump campaign
with an embedded informant, Andrew McCarthy says.  There’s
probably no doubt that they had at least one confidential
informant in the campaign.  If so, this is bigger than
Watergate.”  Then President Trump followed that up with another
tweet the following day, saying “Reports are that there was
indeed at least one FBI representative implanted for political
purposes into my campaign for President.  It took place very
early on and long before the phony Russia hoax became a hot fake
news story.  If true, all time biggest political scandal.”  Now,
in fact, it is now coming out that these reports are, indeed,
true; and that this very well could be, as President Trump
characterized it, one of the biggest political scandals in recent
history, and yes, indeed, even bigger than Watergate.
Earlier this week, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in reviewing this
swiftly developing story, had the following remarks to say.  She
said: “If you look at how this thing has turned, it started as
one thing — Russia-gate — and now, it has become Spygate.  I
think the Erinyes are already at work.”  Now this, of course, is
a reference to the ancient Greek mythological figures also known
as the Furies; famously depicted in the poem by the poet
Friedrich Schiller — “The Cranes of Ibykus” — as the force of
nemesis.  The almost supernatural enforcers of a higher order of
justice.  In his letters, Friedrich Schiller discussed the
figures of the Erinyes, and he described them in this way:
“There is not in the Greek mythology a more terrible, and at the
same time more hideous picture, than the Furies, or the Erinyes;
quitting the infernal regions to throw themselves in the pursuit
of a criminal.  They are shown to us brandishing torches in their
hands, and chasing their prey without peace or truce, from
country to country until at last, the anger of justice being
appeased, they engulf themselves in the abyss of the infernal
regions.”  So Schiller invoked this idea of the Erinyes, this
force of nemesis, this force of poetic justice which is serving a
higher order of justice.  When justice among men is not served,
this higher order of justice intervenes, if you will.  In his
poetry, as in the case of “The Cranes of Ibykus”, Schiller
invoked this mythological figure in order to be the vehicle for
this idea of a higher order of justice.  He did so in a different
way in his play “William Tell”, in which he evoked the American
revolutionary idea of natural law and the inalienable rights of
man; which he said in that play are “as indestructible as the
stars themselves.”
Now, this was the idea which built the American republic.
This is in the blood of the American people.  I think as the
truth of what has occurred in the course of this scandal, that
President Trump has correctly identified as potentially “bigger
than Watergate”; as the truth of this comes out — including the
role of the British, who of course we declared our independence
from during that American Revolution.  This will get into the
blood of the American people, and will get under their skin in a
way where you will see the awakening of this kind of justified
fury, and a call that we must take our Constitution and our
republic back.
In her webcast yesterday, Thursday this week, Helga
Zepp-LaRouche exactly what we’re seeing now.  She brought up this
series of tweets that President Trump has issued and has
continued to issue in the days following, and indeed, said that
this is a scandal which is beyond the magnitude that we’ve seen
in recent years.  She predicted that if this continues in the
direction that it has, we will indeed see the mask falling away,
and the exposure of exactly what kind of criminality has occurred
in the course of this entire Russia-gate hoax.  So, let me play
for you a clip from what Helga LaRouche had to say in her webcast
yesterday.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Yes.  As a matter of fact, if
you look at the recent tweets by President Trump, they are quite
to the point, namely that he said the “Russiagate” turned into
“Spygate,” that there was absolutely no proof of a collusion with
Russia, but that all the people involved in the coup, basically,
that they created a spider web of collusion between the heads of
the intelligence agencies of the Obama administration with
British intelligence, and that there was ongoing effort, even
before any investigation officially started, by British
intelligence figures to connect with all kinds of persons in the
Trump election team, to try to somehow involve them in some kind
of a connection with some Russians.  And all of this is coming
out now.
So there was long before the Trump election victory, or even
the nomination, the clear effort by British intelligence to lay
leads, to create paper trails to manufacture and orchestrate the
situation, whereby the so-called “collusion” with Russia was
supposed to be hung on the Trump campaign, and Trump himself.
And this is all now coming out.
This is now subject to public discussions.  For example, on
Monday, President Trump met with several intelligence heads — I
think it was [FBI head] Wray and Rosenstein from the Department
of Justice in the White House.  And today, as a follow-up of
that, Chief of Staff John Kelly is meeting with the CIA, the FBI,
the Department of Justice, together with congressmen — for
example, Congressman Nunes, Senator Grassley — and they’re now
having access to all the documents, including the memorandum of
Mueller, the memo defining the scope of Mueller’s investigation.
This will all now be made available to the investigative
committees in the Congress.  And obviously, this is all criminal
violations of law and the Constitution, so this is big!
I think Trump may absolutely be right when he says that this
may become the biggest scandal in the history of America. And
what is now clear, is that there was a task force involving an
institutional group of people, who orchestrated all of this, in
an election campaign, and Trump said, what was done against
Bernie Sanders also was done on a much larger scale against him.
When all of this comes out, I think the world will really be
a different place; and I think if President Trump is freed of
this spider web, I think you will see, he will be in a much
better position to carry through with his intentions than you
have seen it so far.

OGDEN:  Now, as Helga mentioned, there have been a number of
meetings over the course of this week with the heads of these
agencies and leaders on these Congressional committees.  This was
initiated by President Trump on Sunday, when he issued a tweet
which read as follows: “I hereby demand, and will do so tomorrow
on Monday, that the Department of Justice look into whether or
not the FBI, DOJ infiltrated or surveilled the Trump campaign for
political purposes.  If any such demands or requests were made by
people within the Obama administration.”  Now, this was
immediately responded to by Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan,
who himself very well may be implicated in this investigation.
So, he issued his own tweet, hysterically demanding that the
Congressional leadership shut down any investigation.  This is
what he said: “Senator McConnell and Senator[sic] Ryan:  If Mr.
Trump continues along this disastrous path, you will bear major
responsibility for the harm done to our democracy.  You do a
great disservice to our nation and Republican Party if you
continue to enable Mr. Trump’s self-serving actions.”  Trump
responded by tweeting a statement by Dan Bongino, who is a former
Secret Service agent and leading political commentator.  This is
what President Trump responded to John Brennan with: “John
Brennan is panicking.  He has disgraced himself.  He has
disgraced the country.  He has disgraced the entire intelligence
community.  He is the one man who is largely responsible for the
destruction of America’s faith in the intelligence community and
in some people at the top of the FBI.  Brennan started this
entire debacle about President Trump.  We know that Brennan had
detailed knowledge of the phony dossier.  He knows about the
dossier, he denies knowledge of the dossier.  He briefs the Gang
of Eight on the Hill about the dossier, which they then use to
start an investigation against Trump.  It is that simple.  This
guy is the genesis of this whole debacle.  This was a political
hit job, this was not an intelligence investigation.  Brennan has
disgraced himself.  He’s worried about staying out of jail.”
So clearly, these are very high stakes.  If you have this
image of the Erinyes, as Friedrich Schiller evoked this in the
famous poem “The Cranes of Ibykus”, the criminals who had
committed a crime, but there were no witnesses except for a flock
of cranes flying overhead, arrived at a festival.  The Furies, or
the Erinyes, came out and started their dance, their eerie dance.
At a certain point in this atmosphere of tension, the very same
cranes who had been the sole witnesses of this crime, fly
overhead; and the criminals themselves are induced to expose
themselves by pointing at the sky and saying to each other
loudly, “See!  See!  It is the cranes of Ibykus!”  That is the
evidence which then brings them to trial; so they implicated
themselves.  The hysteria that we’re seeing from these John
Brennans and others is rising to that poetic level of justice.
So, not only does it potentially go all the way to Brennan,
the very same day, less than an hour later, President Trump
issued the following tweet: “The Wall Street Journal asks ‘Where
in the world was Barack Obama?’ A very good question.”  The next
day, on Tuesday, Trump escalated even further.  He tweeted the
following: “If the person placed very early into my campaign
wasn’t a spy put there by the previous administration for
political purposes, how come such a seemingly massive amount of
money was paid for services rendered?  Many times higher than
normal.  Follow the money,” he said.  “The spy was there early in
the campaign, and yet never reported collusion with Russia
because there was no collusion.  He was only there to spy for
political reasons and help crooked Hillary win.  Just like they
did to Bernie Sanders, who got duped.”  Then on Wednesday, yet
another tweet:  “Look at how things have turned around on the
criminal deep state.  They go after phony collusion with Russia,
a made-up scam, and end up getting caught in a major spy scandal
the likes of which this country may never have seen before.  What
goes around, comes around.”  Then he said, “Spygate could be one
of the biggest political scandals in history.”  Then next, very
simply he tweeted “Witch hunt.”  Finally, yesterday, President
Trump said, “Clapper has now admitted that there was spying in my
campaign.  Large dollars were paid to the spy, far beyond normal.
Starting to look like one of the biggest political scandals in US
history.  Spygate.  A terrible thing.”
So, I think if you look at what Trump said here, “What goes
around, comes around.”  He said, “Look at how things have turned
around on the criminal deep state.  They go after phony collusion
with Russia,… and end up getting caught in a major spy scandal
the likes of which this country may never have seen before.”
This is, indeed, the force of poetic justice.  I think President
Trump’s expression “What goes around, comes around,” could be
taken as a very colloquial version of the expression of this
Erinyes principle, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche has identified it.
Just this morning, not to be outdone, President Trump issued
two more tweets on this subject.  He said, “The Democrats are now
alluding to the concept that having an informant placed in an
opposing party’s campaign is different than having a spy, as
illegal as that may be.  But what about an informant who got paid
a fortune, and who sets up way earlier than the Russia hoax?  Can
anyone even imagine having spies placed in a competing campaign
by the people and party in absolute power for the sole purpose of
political advantage and gain?  And to think that the party in
question, even with the expenditure of far more money, lost.”  I
think this gets right at the root of how huge this scandal
potentially can turn out to be.  And it’s clear that this is a
total showdown, and President Trump is not pulling any punches at
this point.
What’s also becoming ever more clear, is the role that
British intelligence has played in this entire process.  As we’ve
documented over and over again, all roads lead to London in this
story, if you follow every single one of these threads.  We’ve
seen that time and time again.  We’ve reviewed the role on Monday
of Stephan Halper, the alleged informant, or one of the alleged
informants who was placed inside the Trump campaign, and his
connections to MI6 and to Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head
of MI6.  All of which overlaps completely with Christopher
Steele, the other so-called “ex-“British spy who fabricated the
entire “dodgy dossier”.  A number of members of Congress are
pursuing these leads in numerous ways.  Senator Grassley
continues to subpoena information about the role of Christopher
Steele.  The same thing is being done by Congressman Nunes and
others.  Then one in particular, is the actions that Senator Rand
Paul has taken over the last week and a half.  On May15th, in the
context of the hearings around the nomination of Gina Haspel to
be the new head of the CIA, Rand Paul wrote a letter to
then-nominee for the CIA Director, Gina Haspell, asking the
following questions:
“Dear Acting Director Gina Haspel,
“I write to ask you for clarification of some of the
practices of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), particularly
in relation to surveillance during the 2016 Presidential
election.  Please answer each question for each of the following
candidates: Donald Trump; Hillary Clinton; Bernie Sanders; John
Kasich; Ted Cruz; Marco Rubio; Jeb Bush; and Rand Paul.
“1.  Under what circumstances does the CIA trail, monitor,
or otherwise collect information on the communications and
movements of US Presidential candidates both domestically and
while they are travelling outside of the United States?…
“3.  Have you or anyone else at CIA ever cooperated with any
foreign intelligence service to surveil, monitor, or collect
information on candidate Trump during his travels outside the
United States in the preceding five years?  Specifically, was
candidate Trump ever under any surveillance or of interest to the
CIA during his previous visits in Europe?
“4.  Did the CIA or any other US government agency conduct
surveillance on, or engage in the collection of communications or
information about then-candidate Trump during his November 2016
visit to Great Britain?”
Now, Senator Paul knows the answer to those questions, as
numerous news reports have reported, indeed that was the case.
Here’s just an example.  This is an article that was in the
{Guardian} newspaper.  The title is “British Spies Were First to
Spot Trump Team’s Links with Russia”; subtitle “GCHQ is said to
have alerted US agencies after becoming aware of contacts in
2015.”  That’s just one of numerous news articles which report
that there are, indeed, multiple links between British
intelligence and the CIA in monitoring candidate Donald Trump.
This was the supposed information that Brennan used to put
together an inter-agency task force that you heard Helga mention
in that webcast clip, to launch a counter intelligence
investigation into Trump.  So-called counter intelligence.  What
Trump has identified as indeed actually just a political hit job.
However, when Senator Paul questioned Gina Haspel on this
question, she categorically denied it.  Rand Paul said in an
interview on Fox immediately after this interaction between
himself and Gina Haspel, “I’m still concerned about the reports
that Trump was surveilled.  She did deny that the CIA had
anything to do with British intelligence, and in the end she
actually said to me, and this is supposed to come in writing, she
says that there was no communication between British intelligence
and John Brennan giving them information about the Trump
campaign.  If that’s true, that contradicts a lot of news reports
that are out there.  I hope it’s true, and I hope she’ll actually
put it in writing.  But today she denied to me that there was
ever a meeting between British intelligence and John Brennan
where information about surveillance of the Trump campaign was
transferred.”  Then here’s a tweet quoting Rand Paul in his
interview on Fox:  “Gina Haspel is categorically denying that the
CIA got information from the British intelligence.  If what I’m
saying today is not her opinion, she needs to speak today and she
needs to say did British intelligence give information to John
Brennan.”  This is in the context of Senator Rand Paul also
pointing out the fact that Gina Haspel, in addition to the very
dark and murky history that she’s had in running black sites and
enhanced interrogation centers, and in defending that kind of
practice in the past, it also is very notable that Gina Haspel
was station chief for the CIA in London overlapping much of the
time that this entire Russia-gate story was developing.  So, the
trail remains very hot.
What I would like to do is just emphasize that all of this
has got to be seen in the context of the ongoing drive to
continue and protect at all costs the regime of geopolitics.
This is exactly what Obama was serving during his administration;
this is exactly what Hillary Clinton was attempting to become the
continuation of.  This is what the stay-behinds in these agencies
and also emphatically inside certain interests in British
intelligence are trying to maintain.  Which is this divide and
conquer regime in which there can be no peaceful dialogue or
collaboration between the great powers — the United States and
Russia, and also incidentally between the United States and
China.  This has been the over-arching geopolitical strategy
which is to drive a wedge between these powers in order to
maintain the power of British imperial interests.  This is
exactly what President Trump made very clear that he was out to
dismantle.  He was going to pursue peaceful dialogue and
collaboration between the United States and Russia, and
subsequently between the United States and China.  This remains
of critical importance, and the touch-and-go situation on the
Korean Peninsula is just an example of how crucial it is that
this process of collaboration and cooperation between the United
States, China, and Russia on cooling off these hot zones, these
conflict zones around the world which are threatening to explode
and be used as the ignition points for World War III.  It is {so}
crucial that this great powers relationship be allowed to
continue.
In her webcast, which we played a clip of earlier in this
broadcast, Helga Zepp-LaRouche also emphasized again the
importance of clearing the air of this entire Russia-gate fraud
and getting it out of the way in order to create the conditions
where this crucial collaboration around resolving some of the
common challenges that are facing mankind, can occur between
these great powers.  As she has repeatedly over the past several
weeks, she emphasized the urgency of summoning a very urgent
summit between President Trump and President Putin.  This was put
on the table weeks ago, but it has been sidelined and it’s
unclear when this face-to-face meeting will be able to take
place.  A petition precisely to that effect has now begun to
circulate on the whitehouse.gov website, where these “We the
People” petitions are placed.  100,000 signatures are required
within 30 days, and then the White House has to officially
respond.  So, here’s the title of the petition: “President Donald
Trump Should Hold Early Summit with Russian President Vladimir
Putin.”  The text reads as follows:
“Ronald Reagan famously said: ‘A nuclear war cannot be won
and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations
possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be
used.’ Unfortunately, today a new Cold War between the US and
Russia again poses an existential threat to the people of both
nations and to the whole world. Therefore, we urge President
Trump to follow in the steps of Ronald Reagan and to start a
direct dialogue with President Putin in search of solid and
verified security arrangements. As President Trump said
repeatedly ‘only haters and fools’ do not understand that good
US-Russia relations are also good for America. By all indications
President Putin feels the same way for his country. A summit
should be arranged as soon as possible.”
So again, that petition is available on this We the People
website at the White House
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/president-donald-
trump-should-hold-early-summit-russian-president-vladimir-putin]
and it’s circulating very widely and is picking up signatures as
we speak.
Now what I’d like to do is just play one more clip from
Helga LaRouche’s webcast yesterday where she addressed this
petition directly and put it in its necessary global strategic
context.  So, here’s Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Yes:  there is actually a
petition on the website of the White House.  This was initiated
by the President of the American University in Moscow, Professor
Edward Lozansky, and Jim Jatras, and they call for an early
summit between President Trump and President Putin, by making
essentially the same point that we have been making for the last
several months, that, given the fact that President Trump is
still so much up against neo-cons in the Republican Party, he’s
really done a remarkable job under the circumstances, where you
have the entire intelligence apparatus not only of what they call
the “deep state,” which is really an incorrect characterization,
because the role of British intelligence {is} absolutely crucial
to understand what makes this Empire tick.
So, in order to cut through that, and given the fact that
the entire Russiagate operation was aimed to prevent a good
relationship between Russia and the United States, which Trump
all the time said would be a “good thing and not a bad thing,”
and he tries to do it; so the way to cut through this whole thing
would be to have this summit, which they talked about — Trump
and Putin on the telephone a couple of weeks ago, and do this as
quickly as possible.
So there is this petition, and I would call all of you who
are listening, or watching, to sign this petition that such an
early summit would take place.  Because I think it is an
absolutely important initiative, and if this petition has more
than 100,000 by June 30, then the White House will have to
respond to it, and will respond.
Otherwise, naturally, there are many, many things, and I
would again invite you, join us, join the Schiller Institute.
Make sure this webcast becomes more known and is being spread,
because we are in an urgent need for a political discourse: Where
should mankind go?  And how can we organize the world so that
it’s safe and beautiful for everybody to live in?

OGDEN:  Now let me just come back one more time to the
LaRouche PAC 2018 Campaign to Win the Future.  You can find more
information about this on https://action.larouchepac.com.  But of
course, this campaign has three facets.  One of them is to end
this Russia-gate coup against President Trump.  This is of
crucial importance, and as we can see, this is continuing to
develop and is in the process of very swiftly so that the
accusers have now become the accused.  This of course is in the
context of Pledge #2, which is that the United States should join
the New Paradigm which is already sweeping much of the globe.
This would entail joining, embracing the One Belt, One Road
policy that China’s President Xi Jinping has been championing all
around the world.  This great infrastructure and connectivity
development program.  This has emphatically already been joined
by Russia.  So, there you have Russia and China.  We also see
overtures between China and India recently.  So, these three
great powers are part of this emerging New Paradigm on the
planet.  That’s exactly what the United States has to join;
that’s the main reason why we have to end this entire Russia-gate
nonsense.  And third, and absolutely not least, is to immediately
implement Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws.  This is to
impose Glass-Steagall; we see the threat of an impending
financial meltdown which is escalating every single day in the
trans-Atlantic region.  We need preemptive Glass-Steagall in
order to erect a firewall between legitimate commercial banking
interests and this speculative global casino.  Number two, we
need to return to Alexander Hamilton’s national banking model
where you can use trillions of dollars in directed Federal credit
into great projects.  Which you would clearly — and this is the
third aspect of it — know with scientific certainty would
increase the productive powers of labor, the living standards,
and the productivity per square kilometer of the territory of the
United States and its people.  Then, last but not least, the
spear point of this entire thing is a science driver program in
order to immediately catapult the United States into the future.
Leapfrogging into technologies such as controlled nuclear fusion
power, and an expanded manned and unmanned exploration of nearby
space and deep space.
Now, some updates that we’ll have for you on the Monday show
go to some very dramatic developments in this regard that are
occurring in Europe.  We know that the newly-elected government
which has now been formed by the joint cooperation between the
Lega Nord party in Italy and the 5-Star movement party in Italy.
These two parties, which are so-called populist parties, have now
come together to create a government and to put in a prime
minister, but emphatically a finance minister who by all
indications, agrees with the facets that are in both of these
parties’ platforms.  Which are, one, to have a separation of
banking between investment and commercial banking; this would be
a Glass-Steagall type of model; and this is actually very
interestingly in violation of the EU constitution or the EU
agreement, which says that the only banking model which is
allowed by European Union nations is the so-called universal
banking model.  The one-stop shop where you have investment,
commercial, and insurance operations all conglomerated together.
Then the other aspect which was in both of these party
platforms is the idea of some sort of national credit bank in
Italy to be used to issue national investments into rebuilding
the infrastructure and other industrial capabilities inside
Italy.  So, this is a very interesting and developing situation,
and there’s a real showdown which is developing within Europe
around this matter.  That’s something that we’ll have many more
updates on for you on Monday.
But, taking it back to the United States, we should just
remember that President Trump himself, during the campaign,
advocated exactly those two ideas.  Number one, Glass-Steagall;
and number two, trillions in investment in infrastructure.  He
even invoked by name Alexander Hamilton and the American System.
So, that continues to be on the table, and it’s our job to
escalate the fight for Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws and the
entirety of that 2018 Campaign to Win the Future.  So, again,
visit https://action.larouchepac.com; you can become an active
volunteer in whatever means that implies for you.  Whether that
means participating directly in lobbying Congress, lobbying your
state legislator, collecting signatures, calling your local radio
station, being active on social media, getting out on the
streets, organizing house meetings, and so forth and so on.
Becoming part of a network of literature distribution.  All of
these aspects are of crucial significance as we put together this
national base campaign around the LaRouche PAC program.
So, we implore you; get active, and get active soon, because
this situation is developing very rapidly.  And it’s very clear
that, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche has said, we can be optimistic
because we can see that ideas truly can move history, and the
world is in great need of our ideas.
Thank you very much, and please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.

Som I ser, så er titlen på aftenens udsendelse, “Den Nye Silkevej – Den presserende nødvendige modgift mod global krig”. Dette er noget, Helga Zepp-LaRouche har understreget i løbet af de seneste par uger; at den eneste nøgle til krisen, som vi nu ser, konfronterer os over hele planeten, er omgående at gennemføre den Nye Silkevej. Initiativet for ét Bælte, én Vej, som Kina har indledt, og som indkapsler “win-win”-paradigmet, som er modgiften mod  geopolitikker, der kun kan føre til krig. 

Engelsk udskrift: 

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast,  May 18, 2018

THE NEW SILK ROAD: THE URGENT ANTIDOTE TO GLOBAL WAR

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon!  It’s May 18, 2018.  My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our Friday evening
strategic overview from larouchepac.com.  As you can see, the
title of our show here today is “The New Silk Road: The Urgent
Antidote to Global War”.  This is something which Helga
Zepp-LaRouche has been emphasizing over the last several weeks.
That the only key to the crises that we now see facing us across
the planet is by immediately applying the New Silk Road.  The One
Belt, One Road initiative which China has started and which
encapsulates the “win-win” paradigm which is the antidote to
geopolitics, which can only lead to war.
Now, while there are many very positive developments afoot,
in this regard, emphatically the situation on the Korean
Peninsula; we are by no means in safe waters.  We are less than a
month away from the scheduled President Trump/Kim Jong-un summit,
which will be held in Singapore.  But a month is a very long
time, and all sorts of mischief can occur between now and then.
We saw a vivid example just this week, which demonstrates that
even within President Trump’s inner circle, there are individuals
who are still seeking to derail his efforts towards peace.  John
Bolton, one of the leading war-mongers inside this
administration, went on the Sunday talk shows this past weekend,
and said the very last thing that Kim Jong-un would want to hear
if you were Kim Jong-un.  He said that the model to be used in
North Korea for denuclearization is the Libyan model.
Now, we know that in the early 2000s, Libyan leader Muammar
Qaddafi voluntarily negotiated an end to his country’s covert
nuclear weapons program, and other weapons of mass destruction
programs in a bid to “come in from the cold” as they say, and
join the international community of nations.  Well, what did that
get him?  It got him a Western-backed insurgency which overthrew
his government and eventually cost him his life in a very brutal
murder that occurred outside of Sirte.  That is exactly what Kim
Jong-un is afraid of, and his regime has made very clear that
they have viewed their weapons program as the guard, the defense
against that kind of regime-change treatment.  It was only
through promises that there would be no regime change that the
situation has even advanced to this point.
President Trump did come out and contradict John Bolton in a
discussion with reporters yesterday, after a meeting between
himself and NATO Secretary Stoltenburg.  Trump said the Libya
model is not what he has in mind for North Korea; although he did
turn around and use the opportunity to threaten Kim Jong-un again
if he doesn’t make a deal.  Threaten him with Qaddafi treatment
in no less words.  But, this is what he said, and we can read
into it what we will.  What President Trump had to say to
reporters is the following:  “Well, the Libyan model isn’t a
model that we have at all, when we’re thinking of North Korea.
In Libya, we decimated that country.  That country was decimated!
There was no deal to keep Qaddafi.  The Libyan model that was
mentioned was a much different deal.  This would be with Kim
Jong-un something where he’d be there; he’d be in his country.
He’d be running his country.  His country would be very rich; his
people are tremendously industrious.  If you look at South Korea,
this would be really a South Korean model in terms of their
industry, in terms of what they do.  They’re hard-working,
incredible people.
“But the Libyan model was a much different model.  We
decimated that country!  We went in and decimated him, and we did
the same thing with Iraq.  But the model, if you look at that
model with Qaddafi, that was a total decimation.  We went in
there to beat him.  Now, that model would take place, if we don’t
make a deal, most likely.  But if we make a deal, I think Kim
Jong-un is going to be very, very happy.  I believe, I really
believe he’s going to be very happy.”  So, that was President
Trump in remarks to reporters yesterday.
Now the framework for creating prosperity on the Korean
Peninsula as Trump said, “harnessing the industriousness of the
people of North Korea,” and producing something equivalent to the
model of what we’ve seen in terms of the tremendous economic
success in South Korea with their industry.  The framework for
such an economic miracle in South Korea was actually, in effect,
an application of some aspects of the American System of
Alexander Hamilton, translated through the works of Friedrich
List and others.  That’s been discussed elsewhere on this
program, but the framework for applying that sort of economic
miracle to North Korea would be the new economic map for the
Korean Peninsula.  What you see here [Fig. 1] is exactly what
Moon Jae-in gave to Kim Jong-un on a thumb drive during their
recent meeting in the Demilitarized Zone.  As you can see, this
model, this economic map for the Korean Peninsula would really be
connecting the entire Korean Peninsula into the New Silk Road.
It’s this sort of H-shaped configuration where you can see North
Korea connected on the left side to China; and then on the other
side into Russia, connecting North Korea into mainland China in
terms of rail development and also other trade routes.  But also
connecting North Korea into the trans-Siberian railroad in
Russia.  You would see internal development across the Korean
Peninsula, developing the interior of the Korean Peninsula.  Then
you would see connected down, across the 38th parallel there,
into South Korea, on the one hand connected to the Maritime Silk
Road with the ports coming off the southern tip of South Korea.
Then on the other hand, bringing Japan into the entire mix, which
even be an incentive for Japan to develop the long-discussed
Japan-Korea tunnel or bridge.
So, this kind of configuration is an idea of bringing the
entirety of the Korean Peninsula into this New Silk Road.  It
would connect both Russia and China into this region, and it
would act as a bridge.  North Korea would have the opportunity to
act as a crucial bridge connecting South Korea and Japan into the
rest of Eurasia, and acting as a crucial hub for the New Silk
Road.  This is something that the LaRouche movement has discussed
for decades, and it’s something that has been on the table and
now is proving to be the key to actually bringing Kim Jong-un to
the negotiating table and providing the basis for a durable and
sustainable peace in that region.
This is emphatically the model that we need in the so-called
Middle East, Southwest Asia.  These nations where you seem to
have intractable conflict; where there is no solution in terms of
the situation on the ground.  You need to have something which
comes in in a global context and creates this kind of
connectivity in this region, where all the parties have a common
interest in embracing this sort of peace through economic
development.  This would be bringing the New Silk Road into the
Middle East.
Now what we’re seeing in this area of the world is a renewed
danger of war, which is set to explode.  Not just a regional war,
not just a war between different powers in that region, but one
which would very quickly threaten to become a global war.
Dragging parties across the world into this sort of war, exactly
in the way that it was described in the lead-up to World War I;
where all of the alliances would force parties to sort of
sleepwalk into such a global war.  The atrocities that were
committed on Monday, during the protests that occurred in Gaza,
where dozens of people were killed, and almost 2000 people were
wounded; these atrocities have caused widespread outrage across
the world, including here in the United States, notably.  A
statement was released by 13 US Senators — all of whom are
Democrats, including Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth
Warren, Senator Diane Feinstein, Senator Ed Markey, and numerous
others — calling for urgent action in addressing the crisis in
the Gaza Strip.  Both the humanitarian crisis, but also the
urgent lack of economic development.  Here’s an image [Fig. 2] of
the letter which they sent to Secretary [of State] Pompeo.  You
can see in this open letter what they say is the following:
“Dear Secretary Pompeo,
“We write to urge the administration to do more to alleviate
the ongoing humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.  The
territory’s lack of power, clean water, adequate medical care,
and other necessities not only exacerbates the hardships faced by
Gaza’s population, but redounds to the benefit of extremist
groups who use this depravation and despair to incite violence
against Israel.  The United States should also encourage the
easing of restrictions on the movement of people, goods, and
equipment in and out of the territory, especially for materials
and supplies related to critical infrastructure such as water
projects, and health essentials such as medicines and hospital
supplies.  Multiple parties should also be engaged to insure
greater electricity flow into Gaza to meet the territory’s
desperate need for energy.
“The United States should also put its weight behind
proposals to build Gaza’s economy through bold initiatives, such
as the proposed Gaza sea port.  The new port facility could boost
Gaza’s economy by vastly improving the territory’s access to
goods and markets worldwide.  The political and security
challenges in Gaza are formidable, but support for the basic
human rights of its people must not be conditioned on progress on
those fronts.  For the sake of Israelis and Palestinians alike,
the United States must act urgently to help relieve the
humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.”
So, while that statement may be limited in its particulars,
I think it’s very significant that this appeal includes a demand
for economic development as a pathway to alleviating the
humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.  But also, to creating the
basis for real peace; a peace which would benefit the Israelis
and the Palestinians alike.
As Helga LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche have repeatedly
emphasized, nothing can be done locally to secure peace in this
region.  But rather, this region must be understood in a global
context; both in a negative sense as a playground geopolitics in
a new Great Game where geopolitical interests have sought to
divide this region and to keep it at war against itself; but also
from a positive standpoint, where you understand that peace is
only possible through collaboration of the great powers.  A great
powers alliance between the United States, Russia — which plays
a very large role in this region with its allies — and also
China.  China which has the New Silk Road as the key, which would
be the key to developing this region.  If these three great
powers would be able to collaborate to bring the New Silk Road to
this region, it could be transformed from a crucible for war to a
new crossroads of civilization.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche addressed this in detail in her
international webcast this week.  I would like to play just an
excerpt from one of her statements during that webcast, where you
can see that she goes right at the core of the issue.  That the
only way you’re going to resolve this crisis in Southwest Asia,
is by bringing the New Silk Road Spirit to bear and using the
pathway of peace through economic development.  So, here’s what
Helga Zepp-LaRouche had to say.  [Technical difficulties playing
video.]  We apologize for that technical error.  The gist of what
Helga LaRouche got at in this statement, was that you have an
atrocity which was committed, but by no means is this to seen as
limited to the parties in this region.  What you have to
understand is that there is a long history in which this region
has been at war.  There have been several potentials for peace
agreements.  Most significantly was Lyndon LaRouche’s proposal
going back to the 1970s, but very crucially revived in the 1990s
as we reviewed during our show here on Monday afternoon.  This
was the idea of an Oasis Plan for Peace, where you would have all
the parties in this region would be guaranteed their own
security, but also would be guaranteed the benefits of the
economic development which this Oasis Plan would provide.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, during this clip, which unfortunately
we’re not able to play for you, brought up the way that Mr.
LaRouche has always posed the crisis in this region.  That you
have to not have a myopic view of this region, but you have to
zoom out and see this region in the big picture in terms of the
historic crossroads of civilization and the cradle of
civilization going back thousands and thousands of years; but
also currently as this sort of playground for a new Great Game,
where you have British imperial interests and others carving up
the region and playing one ethnic group against another in order
to ensure that this region does not become a positive cradle for
the dialogue between these civilizations and a crossroads between
Europe, Asia, and Africa.  Lyndon LaRouche delivered a speech at
Connecticut State University, which is a state school in
Connecticut, in May of 2009, which he titled “Only Dismantling
the Empire Can Stop the War Today”.  Here, you can see, this is
the cover [Fig. 3] of the {Executive Intelligence Review}
magazine which contained the text of that speech.  But let me
just read you a few excerpts of what Lyndon LaRouche had to say,
and I think you’ll see that he gets directly at this question of
placing this region in a global context.  So, Mr. LaRouche said
the following:

“I shall suggest it is an error to talk a Middle East
policyâ¦. Instead of talking about a conflict in the so-called
Middle East, we should talk about the Middle East as conflict
that is largely globalâ¦. Because the conflict is not determined
by the Israelis or Arabs.  It’s determined by international
forces which look at this region.  How?  As a crossover point
between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, the relationship
of Europe to Asia, the relationship of Europe to East Africa, and
so forth.
“Therefore, what you’re seeing is thatâ¦.
“We get so involved in the issues of the Middle East that we
can never solve them.  The way we’re playing it, we’ll never
solve themâ¦.
“There is a solution, a solution in principle.  And the
solution is, end this blasted imperialist system!…
“But don’t believe that’s there’s some solution for the
Israeli-Arab conflict per se.  There is no solution in that, per
se.  That’s why I said at the beginning here: Don’t look at the
history of the Middle East; look at the Middle East in history.
There, you find the solution.
“Because it’s being played!  The whole region.  It’s being
played like a puppetâ¦.
“So now we’re in a situation where we have to change our
monetary system.  We could reorganize our monetary system and the
world monetary system.  We can cooperate with Russia, with China,
India, and other countriesâ¦.
“So, how do you do this?  Well, we have a system.  We call
it the American System, defined by Hamilton.  We can shift the
world economy from being a monetary economy to being a credit
system, as specified by Alexander Hamiltonâ¦.   “We go to a
credit system: We can organize credit agreements like treaty
agreements with Russia, China, India, and other countriesâ¦.
“We have to move, therefore, from thinking about conflict
among nations and regions, to the alternative to conflict.  By
finding that which unites us through our common purpose as
independent nations rather than seeking resolution of a conflict
we are now enjoying among ourselves.  That’s the only chance we
have.  And when you look at the possibilities for this region,
like Southwest Asia, the only chance will come {not} from inside
Southwest Asia.  We will do, and must do, what we can, for that
area, to try to stop the bloodshed, the agony, to prevent the
war.  But we will not succeed until we change the history, change
the world in which this region is contained.
“And that’s my mission.  Thank you.”

Now, that speech was delivered in 2009, well before Xi
Jinping announced the New Silk Road, the One Belt, One Road
Initiative.  But looking at this idea of changing the world
within which this region is situated, that is the attitude that
Lyndon LaRouche has always had.  That you needed to create a new
international system, a system which he discussed there in credit
terms, monetary terms.  A Hamiltonian credit system, where you
can have credit for infrastructure development, credit agreements
among sovereign nations.  He also discussed it in terms of a
revived treaty of Westphalia; where you don’t try to resolve
conflicts between countries in terms of the conflicts per se.
But you resolve these conflicts by saying what do our nations, as
sovereign nations, have in common, and what can we do to benefit
the other.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche took this question up again in her
webcast this week, and the following clip I believe should
function.  And you’ll hear Helga Zepp-LaRouche discuss the
specific projects which are necessary to connect this region of
Southwest Asia into the movement for great project development
which is now sweeping the globe in the form of the One Belt, One
Road Initiative.  So, here’s what Helga LaRouche had to say:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Now, what you need, is, if you
have a very complex situation like that  — and obviously, the
many things which have happened, the terrorisms, many wars —
emotions are hurt, people have an incredible accumulated rage:
You need something big, and the only way how you could get it, is
if you had all the neighbors, Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt,
the United States, and hopefully European nations all agreeing
that the only way how this can be solved, is, you have to have
the extension of the New Silk Road into the region and develop
every country as part of one, integrated, industrial
infrastructure development program.
There are already the beginnings of that.  When President Xi
Jinping was  three years ago in Iran, he agreed already with
President Rouhani at the time, that the New Silk Road would be
extended into Iran.  You had the Afghanistan President demanding
that the New Silk Road should be applied in Afghanistan.  And at
the recent Wuhan meeting of President Xi Jinping and India’s
Prime Minister Modi, they agreed that China and India would
cooperate in bringing the Silk Road into Afghanistan, by
building, as a first step, a large train connection between
Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Iran, China, and that way
start to connect Afghanistan to the Silk Road.
That same approach must be taken for Iraq, for Syria, for
the situation in Yemen, and naturally Egypt will have to play a
very important role as a bridge between Asia and Africa.  I think
Egypt is absolutely thinking in this direction, already.  And
however, naturally, these are gigantic projects and they cannot
be done by any one country alone; even if China has a special
envoy for Syria, they have said they want to play a leading role
in the reconstruction of Syria.  You have the earlier commitment
of Russia to supply energy, of Iran to help in the industrial
development.  But that needs to be presented as a comprehensive
proposal.
And I’m sure that there are people in Israel, as well, who
will not agree with the present course of Netanyahu — who, by
the way, faces his own problems and may look into not such a
bright future for his own political career.  But there are people
in Israel who agree, that you need to come out of this terrible
paradigm of the present configuration.  And if there would be an
agreement, between Trump, Xi Jinping, Putin, and Modi, and then
other leaders joining with them, to go in this direction, even
this very difficult situation of Southwest Asia could be
approached and a solution could be found.  But it does require an
extraordinary intervention.

OGDEN:  So that kind of extraordinary intervention as Helga
LaRouche just described there, must come in the form of bringing
the Silk Road to bear in this region.  On Monday, we featured an
extensive clip from a LaRouche PAC video which was produced two
years ago, which was called “Operation Phoenix”, which discussed
how to rebuild Syria, but in a broader context, how to bring this
entire region of Southwest Asia into the New Silk Road.  If we
look at this map [Fig. 4] on the screen here, just as we saw the
map of the new economic map of the Korean Peninsula, where you
could see North Korea being connected into China, Russia, the New
Silk Road, and being used as a crucial bridge, a hub in that New
Silk Road route; now we can see the same thing here in Southwest
Asia.  As you can see outline, is coming in from Eurasia, a route
of the New Silk Road which could originate in South Korea and
come up through North Korea and plug into three of the main
channels of the New Silk Road across Eurasia.  But this one would
come in and would arrive in Tehran in Iran.  You see that there
would be extensions going both south and north.  South to the
Gulf region, and then north up to the northern route going up to
the Caucuses and ultimately towards Russia, Scandinavia, and the
Arctic.  But then coming out of Tehran to the east, you would
have two different routes.  One would be the route which continue
on through Turkey and then across the straits into Europe.  But
then the other one would go southeast into Iraq, connecting into
Baghdad; where you would have a connection along the Tigris and
Euphrates Rivers down to the Persian Gulf in the southwest.  But
then proceeding upwards through the devastated regions of Syria
which have been liberated, and then to Aleppo, across to the
Mediterranean Sea at Latakia; and then a route proceeding
southward towards the Red Sea — the famous Med-Red connection —
and then into Egypt and then further into the rest of Africa.
So, with this image in mind, you can see that this region
would be a crucial crossroads of civilization and is the crucial
connection between these three great continents — Europe, Asia,
and Africa.  This is the reason that this region has been
subjected to endless wars in this kind of geopolitical Great
Game, in order to interrupt the potential for this sort of
development.  But this development perspective is the only means
by which you can resolve these conflicts.  Not in the terms of
the conflicts themselves per se, but in terms of creating a new
zone of mutually beneficial cooperation among all the parties
involved.  That kind of economic development can take place if
you have the sort of great powers arrangement among the four
powers — Russia, China, India, and the United States.
This is the core of what we continue to campaign for here in
the United States.  We must defeat this coup against President
Trump.  We are now one year into what President Trump has
characterized as the Mueller witch hunt.  Nothing has been found
so far in terms of collusion.  This attempted to coup to
undermine President Trump is not aimed at Trump personally; it is
rather aimed at Trump’s inclinations towards just such a great
powers relationship.  The second pledge in this Campaign to Win
the Future is that the United States should emphatically,
wholeheartedly endorse and join China’s One Belt, One Road
Initiative.  This is for both the benefit of the planet, this One
Belt, One Road Initiative as we discuss here, is the key towards
unlocking these conflicts around the globe; but it’s also to the
benefit of the United States itself.  Extending this kind of
great projects development perspective into the United States,
with a Hamiltonian principle — what Lyndon LaRouche discusses in
the Four Economic Laws; this is the agenda of LaRouche PAC here
in the United States.
As you can see on the back cover of this pamphlet [Fig. 5],
this is the map of the World Land-Bridge.  One of the crucial
aspects of this map is a new Marshall Plan for a New Silk Road to
rebuild the Middle East.  So, this has to continue to be kept
first and foremost in view, when we’re looking at how to resolve
this crisis and how to prevent just such a regional crisis from
exploding into a global war.  As you can see here, LaRouche PAC’s
“2018 Campaign to Secure the Future” is available on the LaRouche
PAC website if you visit action.larouchepac.com.  We encourage
you to become involved; to volunteer; and to help us circulate
this pamphlet as widely as we can.
Thank you very much for joining us here on larouchepac.com.
The world is moving very quickly, and we encourage you to stay
tuned and to visit larouchepac.com regularly.  Thank you for
tuning in, and please stay tuned.

Engelsk udskrift:

Korea Breakthroughs Are Proof of Principle!
The New Silk Road Is The Path to Peace.

LaRouche PAC International Webcast

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon.  It’s May 11, 2018.  My name
is Matthew Ogden and you’re joining us for our weekly strategic
broadcast from larouchepac.com.
As you can see on the screen here, the title of our show is
“Korea Breakthroughs Are Proof of Principle; New Silk Road Is the
Path to Peace”.  As many of our viewers might remember, in her
New Year’s address on January 1st of this year, Helga
Zepp-LaRouche declared that 2018 must be the year that
geopolitics is overcome; and that a New Paradigm of win-win
relations and win-win cooperation is fully embraced.
In a discussion this afternoon, Helga Zepp-LaRouche called
attention to those remarks that she delivered on New Year’s Day;
and stated that we’re seeing real breakthroughs on this front
globally.  We’re seeing the forging of a new relationship between
China and India with the meetings that have occurred between
President Modi and President Xi Jinping, as we’ve reported
previously.  We’re seeing a realignment underway between China
and Japan, which has been one of the leading geopolitical
rivalries in the Asia-Pacific region.  And of course, we’re
seeing the historic breakthroughs now occurring in Korea, which
clearly China has also played a major role in advancing and in
securing.
All of these developments should show us that the
possibility for achieving the challenge that Helga Zepp-LaRouche
posed in that New Year’s message, is very real; and is very real
within this year — 2018.  No matter how incredulous you may have
been when she first delivered those remarks, look at how far
we’ve come.  If we continue to keep our eye on the big picture
strategically, and to understand what is at stake, we’ll be able
to keep a laser focus on the strategy which she laid out in those
remarks.  Remember, we have two paradigms that are now acting on
this planet which cannot continue to coexist.  Under the old
paradigm of geopolitics in which major powers compete with one
another for dominance and hegemony, war is the inevitable
consequence, as we’ve experienced time and time again.  Not only
in the 20th Century, but really going all the way back to ancient
Greece; that is the so-called Thucydides trap.  But under the New
Paradigm, we recognize that in the age of thermonuclear weapons,
war is no longer a viable option if we wish mankind to survive.
Rather, we must embrace the idea of a community of common
destiny, as President Xi Jinping of China has characterized it;
in which sovereign nations, with mutual respect, cooperate with
each other under the framework of win-win relations and common
benefit in confronting and overcoming the common challenges of
mankind.  That latter New Paradigm is now proving itself, with
the great potential that we see for a breakthrough on the Korean
Peninsula serving as an excellent case in point.  As you’ll see,
the Silk Road, the One Belt, One Road Initiative, is proving to
be the key which is unlocking all of these breakthroughs that
we’re now watching develop in front of our eyes.
Now, I’m sure that many Americans have been following this
news, obviously; including the dramatic developments over just
the past several days with Secretary Pompeo’s secret trip to meet
with Kim Jong-un.  That’s what’s depicted in this picture [Fig.
1] that we have on the screen here.  He negotiated the release of
the final American hostages who were being held by North Korea.
You probably saw the images the previous week, as we have here on
the screen [Fig. 2] of the historic summit between President Kim
Jong-un and President Moon Jae-in of South Korea, which took
place in the Demilitarized Zone.  However, what many Americans
might not be knowledgeable of, is the content of these meetings.
You saw the photographs, but what was discussed?  And how did
this possibility for peace on the Korean Peninsula be advanced as
far as it has been?  The key moment in that meeting between
President Moon and President Kim Jong-un took place when
President Moon of South Korea handed Kim Jong-un a thumb drive.
This thumb drive contained detailed plans for new rail routes,
new power development projects, and other infrastructure projects
for North Korea.  What President Moon called a “new economic map
for the Korean Peninsula.”  So, here’s how that plan was
described in an article that was published on the website
citylab.com under the title “A Genius Plan to Modernize North
Korea’s Trains”.  As you can see here [Fig. 3], the subtitle was
“In Korean Peace Talks, all eyes are on Denuclearization.  But a
plan to link the nations’ railways could be far more
transformative.”  The article discusses in detail what is
contained in this new economic map for the Korean Peninsula.  It
says:
“At the center of Moon’s New Economic Map of the Korean
Peninsula is a railway modernization plan that’s much more than
an infrastructure project. It’s a key piece in the geopolitical
puzzle to connect North Korea to the world — and entice the
regime to keep its promises. When it comes to the Korean
Peninsula, North Korea’s denuclearization always gets top
billing. But the agreement to re-link the railways between the
two countries has the potential to be even more transformative
than the promise of a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
“As a first step, the rail project outlined in the
Panmunjom Declaration would connect the railway from Seoul to
Pyongyang, passing through Kaeseong in the North. Ultimately, it
would end in Shinuiju, North Korea, linking up at the border with
Dandong, China. But the ultimate plan drawn up by the South
Korean government is much more ambitious. It envisions an
additional high-speed line from Seoul to Shinuiju via Pyongyang,
along with the modernization of six other railways traversing
North Korea. Currently the rails there are so decrepit that
trains can only average 50 kilometers an hour, and the rails
would break under heavy loads. Retrofitting would allow speeds of
100 kilometers an hour and enable heavier loads.
“Most significantly, the plan would connect North Korea to
China and Russia, allowing North Korea to ultimately become a
crucial connector between East Asia and Europe. The
Shinuiju-Dandong crossing is the hub of North Korea’s commerce
with China; adding a high-speed train line would go a long way
toward facilitating even more trade, in which South Korea could
also participate. The renovated Manpo Line, connecting to Jian,
China, would open another logistical connection between North
Korea and China in addition to Dandong-Shinuiju. The improved
Pyongra Line would connect to Russias Trans-Siberian Railroad,
allowing overland freight transport from South Korea all the way
to Europe, while giving Russia a piece of the action for North
Korea’s economic development.
“Taken together, these new connections raise the stakes that
China and Russia have in North Korea — and that would
incentivize them to ensure that North Korea remains stable and
keeps the trains running. North Korea would share in these
benefits, as its cities on these trade routes likely develop
along the way. The Pyongra Line, for example, would connect South
Koreas two largest cities (Seoul and Busan) to North Koreas third
largest city (Chongjin) and its industrial zone with the highest
GDP per capita (Rajin).
“A version of the inter-Korean railway plan has existed for
a while; the two Koreas even had a test run for the rail link in
May 2007, having two trains cross the demilitarized zone on two
spots.
“[T]here are reasons to be cautiously optimistic this time
around. For starters, both South and North Korea specifically
want this project. Its also consistent with what their
neighboring countries want as well. China is raring to begin the
One Belt One Road Initiative, a massive infrastructure project
that would enhance the physical connection between Europe and
Asia. The inter-Korean railway could serve as the eastern
extension, creating the overland connection between South Korea
and the prosperous Chinese cities across the Yellow Sea from the
Korean Peninsula, including Beijing and Shanghai.
“A stable inter-Korean railway may also motivate Japan to
finally begin working on the Korea-Japan undersea tunnel, a
project that had been under discussion since the 1980s. If built,
it would be the longest undersea tunnel in the world, more than
four times the length of the Channel Tunnel between France and
the United Kingdom.  According to the South Korean government,
the inter-Korean railway plan caught the attention of both the
Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Asian Development
Bank — respectively led by China and Japan, with many other
member nations — indicating international support for the
inter-Korean railway plan. As wild as it sounds, we may see
within our lifetime a Trans-Eurasian train ride from Tokyo to
London — with a pit stop in Pyongyang for its delicious cold
noodles.”
That’s by S. Nathan Park, who is an attorney at Georgetown
University here in the Washington DC area.
But that vision, including the delicious cold North Korean
noodles — I’ve never had them, but I’d be interested — that
vision of a rail connection all the way from the tip of South
Korea all the way to Western Europe; that {is} the vision of the
Eurasian Land-Bridge or the New Silk Road as it’s been
characterized going all the way back to the time it was first
proposed by the LaRouche Movement and Helga Zepp-LaRouche in the
early 1980s as a way of connecting the entire Eurasian continent.
Then the tunnel between Japan and South Korea would be an added
element of that connectivity.  So that was what contained in the
thumb drive that Kim Jong-un received from Moon Jae-in.  That is
what a new economic map for the Korean Peninsula entails.  That
article was published last Friday; a week ago.
But what I’d like you to do, is to compare that development
program with all the rail routes and otherwise what was described
in that article, compare that — what was put appropriately into
the context of connecting North and South Korea to China’s Belt
and Road Initiative.  Take what was just described there, and
compare it to the contents of this video which you’re about to
see some excerpts from.  This video, which was produced by
LaRouche PAC, titled “Peace Through Development: The Path to a
Unified Korea.”  This video was published on May 11, 2016 —
exactly two years ago today.  So, listen to the excerpts of this
video that you’re about to see, which again, was published two
years ago today — May 11, 2016.  Compare it to what is being now
proposed in this New Economic Map for the Korean Peninsula as
it’s being called by the President of South Korea, which is the
key to unlocking the potential for peace on the Korean Peninsula.
So, here’s that video:

NARRATOR:  The need for a policy of peace through
development and win-win cooperation is evident across the globe,
but it is particularly stark in certain parts of the world.  The
Koreas are a case in point.  The situation in this area
represents both tremendous potential and imminent danger.  The
71-year division of the Koreas has resulted in a present-day
serious war danger, with an isolated North Korea suffering from
retarded economic growth, engaging in a series of suspected
nuclear weapons and missiles tests; believing nuclear weapons
were the only means of avoiding the fate of Iraq and Libya, who
submitted to Western demands to end their nuclear weapons
programs, and were promptly bombed, their leaders killed, and the
nations left in ruins.
Is there a potential for cooperation there?  Is there a
pathway forward to the unification of Korea which could rather
serve as an example for the rest of the world, showing that we
can achieve peace through development?  As recently as a couple
of years ago, significant steps were being made in a positive,
and they remain a basis for hope.  Around this time, there was
intense deliberation around the first-ever cooperative
Russia-North Korea-South Korea industrial project.  The Rason
Special Economic Zone, centered around the North Korean port of
Rajin.  The development of this port, situated near the mouth of
the Tumen River (itself the boundary of Russia, China, and North
Korea), involved the participation of the major South Korean
steel producer Pasco, the state rail company Korail, and the
shipping company Hyundai Marine; bringing Russian coal through an
upgraded North Korean port to the South Korean steel factory.
Two main transport corridors would feed into the port region from
China, Russia, and Mongolia, connect to the trans-Siberian
railroad at Chita[ph] with the most crucial connections extending
through Korea.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  What we need to have is a mass
movement for development.

NARRATOR:  It is high past time for a New Paradigm.  To move
forward with a peace through development outlook and to shun the
policies of those who would prefer war.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Because China has embarked in the
policy of the New Silk Road, the Maritime Silk Road, the One
Belt, One Road policy, a huge infrastructure project to connect
all the countries of Eurasia through infrastructure development
and high technology investments.

NARRATOR:  China’s stated foreign policy of win-win
cooperation, an active program of creating a New Silk Road
development corridor, is a path forward which both North and
South Korea can contribute to, and benefit from.

PRESIDENT XI JINPING [translated]:  China is firmly
committed to the path of peaceful development.  It is committed
to growing friendship and cooperative relations with all
countries in the world.

NARRATOR:  The historic identity of Korea has its roots in
the Silk Road.  The former capital, Gyeongju, being a major port
city on the ancient Silk Road.  Just this past August, the
inaugural conference of the Silk Road network of universities was
held there.  At the conference, Schiller Institute founder Helga
Zepp-LaRouche spoke of precisely the need for peace through
development and win-win cooperation; while Mike Billington of
{EIR} reiterated the need to move forward with projects like the
Rason port development project, elaborated in more depth in the
recent report, “The Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge”.  It
can be jumping-off point for the bonanza which has been spoken of
in achieving a peaceful unification of North and South.
In addition to this keystone port development project, which
can serve as an economic boon to all countries on the Tumen
River, crucial rail links should be completed which can allow for
the fulfillment of the vision of a Eurasian Land-Bridge extending
from Pusan to Rotterdam.  Rail originating in South Korea can
connect directly to the Chinese New Silk Road Belt through
rebuilding connection across the border.  And connections in the
North can also be directly fed into the trans-Siberian railroad;
integrating roughly 75 million Koreans into a framework of great
economic potential.
South Korea has begun to pave the way for the future of
energy — thermonuclear fusion — with their Kaestar
superconducting tokomak device in Daejong.  With this frontier
potential and an expanded skilled labor force, Korea could
demonstrate in an even more dramatic way the possibilities for
development when the false debate over limited resources is done
away with.  In fact, Korea could help to show mankind what his
future could look like.  Korea can be a mirror to the world of
what a true human culture can look like.  This culture has long
placed great value on the performance of beautiful Classical
music [music in background].  This is not only the performance of
pieces of the great European composers, but Korea has made its
own contribution to a world Classical culture through a genre of
Korean art songs.  A particularly beautiful one — “Longing for
Kum-kang Mountain”.  Rather than being an example of how quickly
the world could devolve into all-out war, a tragedy which our
human species cannot and should not enable, a peace through
development approach leading to the unification of Korea, could
serve as an example to the world of how quickly our human species
can turn on a dime, rejecting the foolish ways of the past, to
usher in a New Paradigm of cooperation and economic development.

OGDEN:  So, again, that was some excerpts from a video which
was published exactly two years ago today, on May 11, 2016, under
the title “Peace Through Development: The Path to a Unified
Korea.”  The link to the full video is available in the
description below.
But indeed, the concluding words of that video, which was
published two years ago, have now proven to be very prescient
indeed.  “[A] peace through development approach leading to the
unification of Korea, could serve as an example to the world of
how quickly our human species can turn on a dime, rejecting the
foolish ways of the past, to usher in a New Paradigm of
cooperation and economic development.”  Those were the words that
concluded that video.  And that’s exactly what we’re seeing
happening today.  The example has been set on the Korean
Peninsula.  It now serves as a model for what could happen around
the world, and how quickly things can change.  But think about
it, two years ago, while we still had President Barack Obama as
President of the United States, and the threat of nuclear war was
hanging over our heads like a Sword of Damocles.  Two years ago,
did anyone imagine that in two years’ time we would be
experiencing the kind of extraordinary breakthroughs that we’re
now watching development between those two Presidents?  The
Presidents of North and South Korea.  Did anybody imagine that in
two years’ time, you could be seeing the cessation of hostilities
on the Korean Peninsula?  The freeing of all the hostages?  The
beginnings of talks to denuclearize the entire peninsula?  And
these warm gestures of friendship between these two Presidents;
moving in the direction of some form of unification of the
economic capabilities of that peninsula?  This new economic map
for the Korean Peninsula?  Did anybody imagine two years ago that
that’s what we would be seeing at this point in time?
Honestly, I produced that video; and even I, at that time,
was somewhat incredulous as to how fast this could actually come
into being.  If someone had asked me at that time, “Do you really
think that this stalemate, which has been in a state of frozen
conflict for twice the amount of time that you have been alive —
over 70 years.  Do you honestly believe that two years from now,
we’ll be watching the Presidents of these two countries shaking
hands and entering into these historic partnerships?”  If
somebody had travelled back in time at that point from the
present, and shown me this tweet from President Donald Trump, I
would have told them that “No, c’mon, you’re pulling my leg!”;
including the fact that Donald Trump would be President of the
United States.  I also would have thought that was a joke.  But
in all seriousness, who would have thought that we’d be reading a
tweet [Fig. 4] like this:  “Donald J Trump. The highly
anticipated meeting between Kim Jong-un and myself will take
place in Singapore on June 12. We will both try to make it a
very, very special moment for world peace.”  But that tweet
really happened, and this meeting is really set.  A few short
hours after greeting the three remaining US hostages who had been
freed from North Korea at Andrews Air Force Base, once the plane
carrying them and Secretary Mike Pompeo touched down on US soil,
President Trump issued that tweet.  That meeting is set to go
forward; a very historic moment.  A meeting between the President
of North Korea and the President of the United States.
But the lesson for all of us should be, we are living in
truly historic times, and the possibility for real, dramatic,
positive change in the direction of world peace, to use President
Trump’s own words, the potential for change in that direction is
very real.  As the video which we just watched made clear, as
well as the article which I cited in the beginning of this
broadcast, the reason that that possibility exists, the key to
unlocking this entire puzzle, is because of China’s New Silk Road
— the Belt and Road Initiative.  When President Xi Jinping
announced the Belt and Road Initiative in 2013, literally
everything changed.  This created the basis for rejecting
geopolitics and the legacy of conflict and war which has made
these types of breakthroughs as we’re now witnessing on the
Korean Peninsula impossible up to that point.  And President Xi
Jinping’s announcement of this One Belt, One Road initiative
created the framework instead for this kind of win-win
cooperation and economic development between countries.  As
President Xi Jinping has called it, “win-win cooperation, a
common destiny for mankind”; which provides not only the
incentives for ending conflict, negating a state of war, but also
creates the basis for a real and durable peace.  That basis, as a
positive form of peace, not just a negation of a state of war, is
this kind of potential for mutually beneficial progress for all
nations involved.  The point is, ideas can truly change the
course of history.  The vision which was contained in that video,
which was produced by LaRouche PAC two years ago, including the
excerpts which were included from a speech that Helga
Zepp-LaRouche gave in which she called for a mass movement of
economic development; that vision is now becoming real.  These
development projects, which are now serving as the vehicle for
peace in Korea, are projects which the LaRouche movement has been
championing for decades.  If you look at this process which is
underway in Korea, together with all of the other development
projects which are now moving forward elsewhere — such as the
Transaqua program in Africa to refill Lake Chad; the Kra Canal
project in Thailand; and countless other projects.  The list goes
on and on.  All of these projects which have been promoted by the
LaRouche movement for decades, all in the context of the idea of
a New Silk Road as the pathway to peace, these are now moving
forward because of that history-changing initiative which
President Xi Jinping took in 2013, when he launched the One Belt,
One Road initiative.
The critical point is that this breakthrough in Korea was
made possible only means of the cooperation which took place
between China, the United States, and Russia; this great powers
cooperation.  As Kim Jong-un’s second visit to China in less than
two months which occurred this week proves, President Xi Jinping
is playing {the} key role in guiding this peace process forward;
as President Trump himself has recognized and has repeatedly
called public attention to.  In tweets, speeches, public
statements, and in press conferences, he has given President Xi
Jinping the credit.
But as we celebrate the anniversary again this week of
Victory in Europe Day, or Victory Day as it’s called, it was
celebrated May 8 in Europe, and May 9 in Russia.  This is the
legacy of the Allies of World War II; the Allies under Franklin
Roosevelt’s guidance, which defeated Hitler and defeated fascism.
But [who], in Franklin Roosevelt’s vision, would go forward to
form a peacetime coalition of great powers which would bring
development to the entire world.  That vision was derailed at the
time that Franklin Roosevelt died and Truman and Churchill
instead guided the world into a Cold War which lasted for the
remainder of the 20th Century.  But now, finally, we have the
opportunity to revive that vision and the breakthrough on the
Korean Peninsula should herald the beginning of a New Paradigm of
this kind of great powers’ relationship which can unlock these
challenges which the world has faced for generations.
So, Helga Zepp-LaRouche addressed this during her webcast
yesterday.  She emphasized that this breakthrough is due to the
tireless effort and vision which has been put forward over
decades for these kinds of development projects which the
LaRouche movement has been involved in intimately for connecting
the Korean Peninsula into this more broad New Silk Road, Eurasian
Land-Bridge idea.  So, listen to what Helga Zepp-LaRouche had to
say yesterday:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  when Kim Jong-un and Moon
Jae-in met, President Moon gave his North Korean counterpart a
thumb drive, and on that, there was a whole development plan for
North Korea.  And this involves three economic corridors; railway
lines connecting all the way from South Korea through North Korea
to China, and to the Trans-Siberian Railway.  And there is now a
big discussion, in Moscow in particular, about the Tumen River
project. This is fantastic, because this is an economic
development plan which involves Russia, China and North Korea,
and it would make this region, which is now very little
developed, into one of the big transport hubs for all of Asia.
If this program goes ahead well, and the fact that Pompeo
was just again in North Korea, preparing the summit between Trump
and Kim, means, as of now, it’s still on a very good track —
that if these development projects would be implemented, you
could have a complete economic miracle between the two Koreas,
and this would really make the way for a peaceful unification,
and integration into the Belt and Road Initiative, and transform
this area of the world from a crisis spot, into one of the most
prosperous regions.
Now, for me, this development shows that if there is a good
will on the side of the political leaders, you can take any
crisis — {any} crisis —  and solve it exactly the way this was
solved, through back-channel discussions involving Russia, China,
and the United States.  And you know, it is an example that with
good will, you can turn the worst crisis into its opposite and
make it a hopeful perspective.  So, one would really hope that
this lesson is being learned, and that same method is being
applied to the Middle East right now, using the fact that the New
Silk Road is already the most dynamic development on the planet,
that all the people can be brought to see the benefit of
cooperating and joining into this development.

OGDEN:  So again, the Korea breakthroughs are a model.  This
is a proof of principle, and this is a lesson that has to be
learned and applied across the world, as Helga LaRouche said;
including, emphatically, in the Middle East.  So, while these
extremely positive developments are taking place in Asia, not
only the developments on the Korean Peninsula, but also as we
mentioned, the realignment of China and Japan, the opening up of
new relations between China and India.  While all of these very
positive developments in the direction of this New Paradigm are
taking place, on the other hand, a very dangerous situation is
developing on the other side of the world in the Middle East.
Specifically in Syria and Iran, as well as in Yemen.  The strikes
that have been launched just over the past few days by Israel
into Syria, are clearly intended to inflame this region and to
inflame a conflict with Iran; and are part of an array of other
provocations.  If you put this together with President Trump’s
announcement that he is abandoning the Iran nuclear deal, we have
a very dangerous situation developing in that region.  Helga
Zepp-LaRouche warned that she is quite worried that this
decision, under the influence of certain advisors in the Trump
administration, to abandon the Iran nuclear deal, could have a
negative impact on the Korea process.  She said later in that
same webcast that the solution in Iran, the solution in Syria,
the solution in the entirety of the Middle East, is to apply the
Silk Road model in exactly the same way that it’s being applied
in the Korean Peninsula.  Emphatically with the kind of great
powers cooperation between Russia, China, and the United States
that we’ve seen taking place in Korea.  So, listen to what Helga
Zepp-LaRouche had to say further in that webcast from yesterday:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  [A]ny peace plan, or any
security architecture has to take into account the security
interests of all participating countries.
Obviously, given the condition of the entire Middle East,
after the destructive wars in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, it
is very clear that the only thing which will really solve the
problems of this region would be what I have said many times
before:  You need the extension of the New Silk Road into the
entire region, from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, from the
Caucasus to the Persian Gulf, and have a development plan for all
of these countries as an integrated one.  And this could only
work if Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt, the United States, and
hopefully European countries, are all agreeing that this region
must be economically built up. And the only way you can have
peace in a region, and really get rid of terrorism, is if you
have a perspective for the hope for the future.
So I would really hope that if President Trump says he has
an alternative plan, a more comprehensive plan, that it should
absolutely include joint ventures of the United States, Russia,
China, India in the development of this region.  A beginning was
made between President Xi Jinping and India’s Prime Minister Modi
when they met in Wuhan a week ago, where India and China said
they would start joint development projects in Afghanistan,
building a railroad from Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan,
Iran, China, and that would be the beginning of many other
projects to follow.  You need a comprehensive development plan
for it to work. And so, I would really hope that President Trump
would think in that direction, because I think that’s the only
way it could be stabilized.
And I can only say, there must be a complete change in the
attitude, because geopolitics is the stuff of which two world
wars were made, and due to the fact that we have today May 9, we
should really make a solemn commitment, “Never Again!”  We cannot
have world wars again!  And this kind of destabilization has the
potential of spinning out of control:  If there would be a
military conflict between Israel and Iran, which is not to be
excluded at this point, it could spin out of control and lead to
the extinction of civilization, so this is not stuff to be played
with.

OGDEN:  So again, as Helga LaRouche declared on January 1st
of this year, 2018 must be the year that we end geopolitics.
We’re seeing a lot of very positive indications in that
direction, but we’re also seeing the danger that the reaction
against that is leading to a desperation which would be the
impetus towards re-igniting these conflict zones and using them
to start a world war-type of situation.  So, we have to have a
very clear and urgent sense of necessity when we look at what
Helga Zepp-LaRouche called for in her New Year’s address January
1st of this year.
We should be encouraged by the breakthroughs that are taking
place.  We should apply these lessons, and we should recognize
that the Silk Road — this vision of a new common destiny for
mankind and peace through economic development — this has been
the key which has allowed us to unlock this seemingly intractable
situation on the Korean Peninsula.  It could be applied
elsewhere.  President Trump clearly understands that to a certain
extent; praising the role that President Xi Jinping has played
and working very closely together with President Xi in the
situation in Korea.  But this must be extended to his view of the
entire world, and understanding that this great powers
relationship is necessary to solve these conflicts worldwide.
So, this is the reason why we’ve now reprinted an updated
form of this mass circulation pamphlet which LaRouche PAC is now
circulating.  This is “LaRouche’s Four Laws: The LaRouche 2018
Campaign to Win the Future; A New Paradigm for Mankind”.
Obviously, the three pledges which comprise the LaRouche PAC 2018
campaign program are:
1. Stop this kind of Russia-gate coup attempt to undermine
the Trump Presidency. [Which is not personally against Trump, but
this is a strategy to undermine the possibility for the great
powers relationship that Trump is inclined towards between the
United States and Russia, targetted specifically; but also
between the United States and China.]
2. President Trump must reciprocate China’s offer to join
the New Silk Road; and that the United States must fully come
onboard with the Belt and Road Initiative on this idea of
securing the common aims of mankind.
3. The United States must fully adopt Lyndon LaRouche’s Four
Laws for Economic Recovery, which are the pathway towards the
United States fully embracing this New Paradigm of great project
development which is now beginning to sweep the globe [and must
be applied not just in these regions around the world, but also
must be brought right here to the United States for the economic
development vision which Lyndon LaRouche has championed here in
the United States for decades].
This would a return to the American System of Alexander
Hamilton with the kind of national bank credit creation
capabilities that our Federal government was endowed with under
our Constitution, and the use of that to have a crash program for
the development of fusion power.  It would be done in conjunction
with Korea, as was mentioned in that video.  And also the
aggressive re-assertion of an expanded manned exploration of
space.
So, that’s what’s contained in this LaRouche PAC 2018
Campaign to Win the Future.  As I said, it’s now been printed;
it’s in circulation.  You can get your hands either on a print
copy, or it’s accessible at the link that’s in the description to
this video — lpac.co/yt2018.  We encourage you; get your hands
on that copy.  Visit the action center, and become an active
volunteer with the LaRouche PAC 2018 Campaign to Win the Future.
There are a lot of positive developments which should give
you optimism.  That ideas truly can change the course of history.
But you should also feel a real sense of urgency that this is
truly a race against time to secure the New Paradigm for the
benefit of the entire globe.
Thank you very much for joining us today.  Please stay tuned
to larouchepac.com, as I’m sure dramatic developments are yet to
come.

 

 

Vært Matthew Ogden: Som I ser her på skærmen, er titlen på aftenens udsendelse »Storbritanniens forbrydelser er afsløret!«. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche forudsagde for et par uger siden, så er, med hele litaniet af svindelnumre, der nu er afsløret som totale løgne, fra det ubekræftede og slibrige Christopher Steele-dossier, som er så centralt for Russiagate-operationen her i USA, til den angivelige Skripal-forgiftning i England og frem til Assads såkaldte angreb på sit eget syriske folk med »kemiske våben«, briterne kommet i front og centrum. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, »briterne er gået for vidt, og maskerne vil snart falde«. Det var, hvad hun forudsagde. Hun forudsagde, at bagslaget fra disse operationer ville være så stort, at Det britiske Imperiums perfiditet snart ville stå afsløret, for hele verden at beskue.

Vi er nu her i dag, og vi har nu nået dette punkt. Husk, at, på præcis den samme aften for Donald Trumps ukloge beslutning om at foretage luftangrebene, de missilangreb, han lancerede mod de syriske militære installationer, skrev det Russiske Udenrigsministerium kæmpe avisoverskrifter. Dette var for en uge siden sidste fredag. De hævdede offentligt, at de var i besiddelse af beviser, som viste, at det angivelige angreb med kemiske våben mod den syriske civilbefolkning fandt sted under falsk flag; at det var iscenesat og styret af britisk efterretning via deres frontorganisation, kendt som de Hvide Hjelme. Her ser vi hovedoverskriften i New York Post: »Rusland hævder, Storbritannien iscenesatte kemisk angreb i Syrien«. De gik virkelig i detaljer og hævdede, at britisk efterretning havde beordret – lagt pres på – de Hvide Hjelme til at iscenesætte disse videos og bruge dem som provokation for, som det lød, »at få Donald Trump til at gå i musefælden og gå ind i en krig i Syrien«.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

Then, a week prior to that, the Russian Foreign Ministry had
issued a statement calling into question whether British
intelligence had actually been responsible for orchestrating the
nerve agent attack on the Skripals — the father and his daughter
— as a provocation to attempt to start a war with Russia.
Here’s what Sergey Lavrov had to say.  He said, “There are other
explanations besides those that were put forward by our Western
colleagues, who declare that it can only be the Russians who are
responsible.”  He said, “Experts say that it would be highly
advantageous to the British security services as well, who are
well known for their capacity to act with a ‘license to kill’.
It could also be advantageous to the British government, who
clearly find themselves in a difficult situation, having failed
to fulfill their promises to voters over Brexit.  In the times of
the Cold War, there were some rules.  But now, Britain and the
United States have dropped all propriety.”  Then the Russian
Foreign Ministry put out a statement demanding that the burden of
proof lay on the British, not the Russians, to prove that they,
in fact, were not responsible for poisoning the Skripals.  What
the Russian Foreign Minister said is that they demanded that
London prove that British secret intelligence agents weren’t
responsible for poisoning the Skripals.  Here’s the text of a
statement [Fig. 2] that was put out by the Russian Foreign
Ministry.  They said:
“An analysis of all the circumstances, leads us to think of
the possible involvement in the Skripal poisoning by the British
intelligence services.  If convincing evidence to the contrary is
not presented to the Russian side, we will consider that we are
dealing with an attempt on the lives of our citizens as a result
of a massive political provocation.”
So, that was March 28th.  It’s clear.  The Russians are not
pulling any punches when it comes to calling out the British and
identifying the methods that British intelligence is notorious
for using to stage provocations; what they called “massive
political provocations” intended to pull the world into a World
War.  And it has to be understood as such; there is nothing short
of that as the intended goal.  As Theresa May herself declared,
her ambition is to re-establish the British as what she called “a
global Britain”; to re-establish the global power of the British
Empire.
It’s clear that the Russians have made a decision at the
very highest levels of their government, to openly go after the
British Empire by name.  It doesn’t seem that they intend to
retreat from that strategy.
A major development occurred yesterday afternoon, where, in
an extensive press briefing, the spokeswoman for the Russian
Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, waged a full frontal attack on
the British Empire by name, and its record of genocide, coups
d’état around the world, and targeted political assassinations.
She presented a 17-page dossier that went through a litany of
British crimes and British killing.  It was a no-holds barred
presentation.  Now, because you’re guaranteed not to see coverage
of this presentation on your local cable news network, or in the
Washington Post or the New York Times, we’re going to share
with you an extensive selection from this press briefing.  Not
everything, because we definitely would not have time.  But I
just want to give you a taste of what Foreign Ministry
spokeswoman Maria Zakharova when through in this press briefing.
Under the subhead “Political Crimes Committed by the UK”,
this is what she had to say:
“And now I am asking everyone to fasten their belts. During
a briefing on the OPCW report held for the international
diplomatic community on April 13, UK Ambassador to Russia Laurie
Bristow said that ‘the Russian state has a record in
state-sponsored assassinations including in the UK.’ It is not
the first Russophobic statement made by a UK official, or, for
that matter, not the first UK statement that is an offense to
law, standards of decency or any morals. But it’s not the main
point. Let’s put aside morals and the law and talk about something
different. Maybe the UK Ambassador does not know his own country’s
history, role and involvement in processes that took place in
other countries over the past centuries. I don’t think Mr. Bristow
is to blame for absence of law in the UK. He probably just doesn’t
know his country’s history. I think now is the time to fill this
cognitive vacuum and tell the world something about Britain’s
history and its international activities and their consequences.
Let us talk about state contracts, assassinations and Britain’s
reputation.
“Let’s start with modern history. It is not a common subject,
but Britain was one of the most ruthless metropolises in terms of
the repressive actions it took in its colonies and dependent
territories. On November 22, 2017, British journalist and writer
Afua Hirsch wrote in the Guardian that ‘from the Norman
conquest of Ireland in the 12th century, the English began
imagining themselves as the new Romans, persuading themselves
they were as duty-bound to civilize “backward” tribes as they
were destined to exploit their resources, land and labour.’
“This accepted view of Britain’s history completely
overshadows some inconvenient facts. If the motive is what
matters most of all, nobody wants to know the details. But today
we will be speaking about details. The establishment of
concentration camps in the Boer War that later inspired the Nazis
death camps, the cultural annihilation of kingdoms and palaces
from Ashanti to Beijing, British army massacres in Ireland and
the devastation of Bengal, the industrial-scale exploitation of
natural resources and the slave trade. These are only the most
glaring facts.
“The impact of colonial rule in India was extremely
devastating. In 1930, American historian Will Durant published a
book about the history and life in India, The Case for India.
His study of India brought him to the following conclusion: ‘The
more I read the more I was filled with astonishment and
indignation at the apparently conscious and deliberate bleeding
of India by England throughout a hundred and fifty years. I began
to feel that I had come upon the greatest crime in all history.’
“Britain has left fault lines across the globe, which is
most acutely felt in the South Asian subcontinent, where a single
nation was forcibly split into two in 1947. Today each of these
parts is overcoming the consequences of the British colonial
‘legacy’ on its own. Member of Parliament, former UN
Under-Secretary General Shashi Tharoor, an astute statesman who
once ran for UN Secretary-General and deservedly enjoys respect
the world over has repeatedly stated that the British authorities
suffer from ‘historical amnesia’ as regards their imperial
atrocities. One has to agree.  Speaking at Oxford on July 22,
2015, he said: ‘India’s share of the world economy when Britain
arrived on its shores was 23%. By the time the British left it
was down to below 4%. Why? Simply, because India had been governed
for the benefit of Britain. Britain’s rise for 200 years was
financed by its depredations in India.’  According to Dr.
Tharoor, in fact, Britain’s industrial revolution was actually
premised upon the de-industrialization of India. Britain
repeatedly provoked famine in India, which killed between 15
million and 29 million people. The best known famine was that in
Bengal in 1943, when four million Indians died. You could think
this to be just journalistic speculations. But no. Addressing the
Speakers Research Initiative on July 24, 2015, Indian Prime
Minister Narendra Modi stressed that the discourse by Dr. Shashi
Tharoor met the aspirations of his country’s citizens. I am saying
this to you, Mr. Bristow.
“In his book Inglorious Empire released in 2017, Dr.
Tharoor cited the atrocities of the British Empire, stating that
the former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, should be
regarded as one of the cruelest dictators of the 20th century.
This is what Churchill said in a conversation with Secretary of
State for India and Burma Leopold Amery: ‘I hate Indians. They
are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was
their own fault for breeding like rabbits.’ This is not what we
are saying, nor are these our inventions. It’s a fact.
“The Russian artist Vasily Vereshchagin has a famous
picture, ‘The Devils Wind.’ This is not a symbolic comparison.
The canvas shows a type of execution invented by the British to
crush the 19th Century Sepoy Mutiny in India (1884) … A victim was tied
to a gun with his back to the muzzle and blown to pieces by a
gunshot. This was one of the most barbaric punishments in the
history of civilizations; aimed not so much at physical
extermination, but intimidation. Even without it, the British had
so many infernal instruments of torture and execution that this
option doesn’t seem so original and, honestly, was rather costly
for the Brits. But from the religious and caste point of view,
this method of putting to death is absolutely unacceptable for
Indians. Their bodies were blown to pieces and the dead were
buried together regardless of caste, which is radically at
variance with the Indian tradition.
“Yet another episode of the same kind occurred in Amritsar,
Punjab, on April 13, 1919, when 50 British troops under
Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer fired their rifles without
warning at pilgrims celebrating Baishakhi, the Punjabi harvest
and New Year festival, at the centrally located Jallianwala Bagh
public garden. The gathering was mostly made up of women and
children. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that
these British subjects were acting on direct orders of the
British authorities. According to the British government, 379
people were killed and over 1,000 wounded. The Indian National
Congress said 1,000 people were killed and 1,500 wounded.
Regrettably, millions of Indians were to fall victim to the acts
committed by the British authorities, including mass executions
by a firing squad, during at least several decades after these
sad events.
“Africa has also suffered its share of British abuses. Some
13 million Africans have been removed from the continent as
slaves. The number of Africans who died in that period is three
or four times larger than the number of those who were removed
from the continent. In other words, the overall number of victims
runs into tens of millions of people. It is notable that English
philosopher John Locke, who advanced the theory of civil society
and whose works influenced those who wrote the US Constitution,
was a major investor in Britain’s slave trade. It is a fact.
“The number of Africans who died in that period is three or
four times larger than the number of those who were removed from
the continent. In other words, the overall number of victims runs
into tens of millions of people. It is notable that English
philosopher John Locke, who advanced the theory of civil society
and whose works influenced those who wrote the US Constitution,
was a major investor in Britain’s slave trade. It is a fact.
“The British were among the first to invent concentration
camps for civilians in the Boer War of 1899-1902. These camps
were created for the civilians who were suspected of sympathizing
with the rebels or who could help them. The British torched their
farms and fields and slaughtered their cattle. Women and children
were separated from men. All this happened long before World War
II. The men were taken to outlying regions or Britain’s other
colonies, such as India or Ceylon.
“When the world learned about this horrible invention of
British military commander, Lord Kitchener, the British
government published an official statement saying that the camps
had been created to keep the peaceful population of the Boer
Republics safe from harm’s way, and the camps were renamed
‘refugee camps.’ This is remindful of the story of the White
Helmets: take militants, extremists and terrorists, put white
helmets on them with ‘Peace’ written on these helmets, and then
use them to stage provocations and present mobile phone footage
of their crimes as evidence of the plight of the civilians who
must be saved. Centuries have passed, yet nothing has changed.
Overall, 200,000 people or half of the white Boer population was
herded into the British camps, where about 30,000 of them died
from disease and hunger.
“Historians believe that Britain is the world’s leader when
it comes to genocide, given the millions of innocent civilians
that have been killed in British colonies.
“According to different estimates, between 90% and 95% of
aborigines were exterminated during the colonization of
Australia. Indigenous Australians were not only killed but also
used for experiments. The British deliberately infected them with
various diseases, primarily pox.
“Remembering the notorious Opium Wars would not come amiss.
London was poisoning Chinese people with drugs for decades.
Britain organized a supply of opium to China making fabulous
profits. The operation also pursued the military-strategic aim of
demoralizing the Chinese army and people, and depriving them of
the will to resist. In a bid to save his country, the Chinese
Emperor in 1839 launched a massive operation to confiscate and
destroy opium stocks in Canton. London retaliated by unleashing
the Opium Wars. China was defeated and had to sign a crippling
peace with Britain.
“|’As long as China remains a nation of opium-smokers there
is not the least reason to fear that she will become a military
power of any importance, as the habit saps the energies and
vitality of the nation.’ This was how Richard Hurst, the British
Consul in China, ended his speech to the Royal Opium Commission
in 1895.   It was not until 1905 that the Chinese authorities
managed to adopt and start implementing a program to gradually
ban opium.
“One more interesting fact: According to the British
national archives declassified in 2014, the British authorities
made wide use of chemical weapons to put down the Arab rebellion
in Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) in the spring of 1920. Winston
Churchill as Britain’s Secretary of State for War supported ‘the
use of gas against uncivilized tribes.’ According to archives,
Churchill ordered the use of thousands of mustard gas shells
against the rebels. The anti-British rebellion in Iraq claimed
between 6,000 and 10,000 lives, according to various sources, a
negligible number from London’s point of view compared to other
regions.
“Now let’s move on to espionage operations and pinpoint
sabotage and subversive acts. From time immemorial,
representatives of Great Britain have been avid fans of various
kinds of covert operations and targeted subversive acts against
specific individuals as a way to secure political benefits for
Great Britain. This predisposition is richly represented in their
art, things like the James Bond gold collection. This may sound
ridiculous unless you know that the author of the series, Ian
Fleming, had searched through the archives, so Agent 007 in fact
has real prototypes. This anthology of crime, artfully described
by writer and part-time naval intelligence officer Fleming is a
light version for those who are not interested in historiography
“Indeed, the Bondiana is a very symptomatic example of the
British government’s love of such things. Fleming died in 1964,
but what he described lives and thrives. New James Bond episodes
are regularly released, as everyone is used to the superhero.
Times change, the actors and sets change, but the idea remains
unchanged — a British agent, in the service of the Kingdom, gets
nothing less than license to kill. Once again I repeat, this is
not a fictional invention, but a result of work with archival
materials. What we see in the Bondiana is actually taking place
under the cover of MI5 and MI6.
“Thanks to the films, people have a basic understanding of
the license to kill concept — a term denoting the permission
granted by the official government or a state agency to a secret
agent who serves this authority to independently make a decision
on the necessity and expediency of murder to achieve a certain
goal. Once the mission is completed, the agent always returns to
the base.
“It is a pity that in normal life, things are not so
beautiful and dignified.
“And now getting back to reality. The following historical
episodes are not fiction; they are facts. Some of them are
proven, whereas others are highly likely hypotheses put forward
by historians.
“Scotland Yard historians also maintained the British
authorities’ complicity in the murder of Grigory Rasputin.
” [T]here are similar versions regarding the murder of
Russian Emperor Paul I
“Historians also write about the so-called Lockhart
Conspiracy organized in 1918 by the heads of the diplomatic
missions of Britain, France and the USA to Soviet Russia in order
to overthrow the Bolsheviks.
“In 2013, information was made public indicating that the
MI6 intelligence service was the mastermind of the assassination
of Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected prime
minister of Congo.
“As time went by, official London and its diplomatic
missions continued to actively meddle in the domestic affairs of
other states and to influence their political regimes. Suffice it
to recall 20th Century events when British secret services ‘took
part’ in staging a coup d’état in Iran in 1953.
“British diplomats working in Moscow are probably listening
and recording all this. They will have to send their report to
London today. I have done my best, and this statement is 17 pages
long. I have one question: Are you proud of your history? Then
you need to make a choice: either you advocate human rights,
international law and democracy, or you are proud of what you did
in the past and continue to do today.
“In August 1953, the CIA and the British Secret Intelligence
Service staged their joint Operation Ajax to overthrow the
government of Mossadegh.
“Although we were members of the Anti-Hitler Coalition, the
UKs behavior during World War II can also hardly be called
equivocal, due to a number of factors. Some historical episodes
give rise to major questions about the essence of the UKs
policies on the international scene. This includes, for example,
Rudolf Hess mysterious flight to the UK on the eve of the German
invasion of the Soviet Union. The history of every country has
some unpleasant facts, for which future generations will have to
pay the price and assume moral responsibility. But the British
secret services have classified all the documents on this case
for 100 years, and this deadline is being extended.
“Another example of subversive operations can be found in
Kim Philby’s book My Silent War, which contains some interesting
evidence. In April 1951, London hosted a meeting of
representatives of the British and US intelligence services
regarding both countries use of Ukrainian nationalist
organizations. Again, everything ties up.  By that time, the
secret services had supported Stepan Bandera’s Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) for many years and used them to
recruit agents and obtain intelligence on the USSR. Cooperation
between OUN and the Intelligence Service grew steadily. In 1949
and 1950, several OUN saboteur squads were para-dropped to
Ukraine. In the early hours of May 15, 1951, British secret
services para-dropped three reconnaissance-saboteur squads.
Everyone knows about the atrocities committed by Banderas
supporters, including mass executions of civilians, hundreds of
thousands of men and women, old people and children, Russians,
Ukrainians, Belarusians, Jews, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and
Yugoslavs, the Volhynia massacre, the murder of Polish
professors, the Katyn tragedy, punitive operations in Slovakia,
Warsaw, and Prague.
“The British authorities actively recruited professional
criminals during their subversive operations. Remember, they told
us that Russia is a criminal state with which there should be no
cooperation? But the British authorities cooperate nicely with
criminals. We are not even talking about White Helmets and people
recruited into this organization who are supported all the same.
Lets talk about ‘mundane’ things. In 1973, Her Majesty’s
Government officially admitted that Kenneth Littlejohn and his
brother Keith had robbed banks in the Republic of Ireland for
over 12 months in order to discredit the Official Irish
Republican Army (IRA). This amounts to classic tactics. Kenneth
Littlejohn claims that he was instructed to kill Sean Mac
Stíofáin, the former chief of staff of the IRA.
“And here is another example: Howard Marx, an Oxford
graduate who became a drug dealer, was recruited for the purpose
of obtaining information about the IRAs weapons supply chain. In
return, the authorities promised not to prosecute him for
drug-related crimes. These are isolated examples.
“By the way, the British government is known to have created
comfortable conditions in the UK for criminals from other
countries. According to the UK Home Offices information for a
period between 2005 and 2012, there were over 700 war crime
perpetrators living in Britain.
“The British authorities also like to use prohibited methods
for treating prisoners, especially when they need to get
information from them. And, of course, nobody has called off the
license to kill.
“We also remember how Qaddafi was removed and that London
applauded the execution of the head of a sovereign state.
“God knows in how many other such cases the UK government is
involved.
“In conclusion, I will provide the ‘deadly list’ of the
prominent and talented people who died a strange death in the UK
in the early 21st Century.”
And among many others, she includes the following case:
“July 2003: a UK authority on biological warfare, David
Kelly, was found dead in Oxfordshire. The inquiry concluded that
he had committed suicide. I would like to remind you that David
Kelly criticized the Tony Blair government and claimed that the
invasion of Iraq in 2003 was based on falsified data. A decade
later, the UK government admitted that the data was indeed
falsified.”
So, in the immortal words of Hans Christian Andersen: “The
Emperor, indeed, has no clothes.”  The crimes of Britain stand
exposed, and, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, they have completely
over-extended themselves.  Now, it is up to us to just rip the
mask away, and let the truth stand on its own.  I guarantee you,
just as the American people have never forgiven Tony Blair and
George W Bush for dragging us into war in Iraq on the basis of
damned British lies and a British intelligence hoax, future
civilization will never forgive us for allowing ourselves to be
duped again; this time into starting World War III on the basis
of these same British lies.  It’s time for all of us to, once and
for all, reject the agenda of the failed British Empire, and to
instead embrace the vision of a New Paradigm of great powers’
relationship for the planet, built as Franklin Roosevelt
intended, following the defeat of Hitler in World War II; that
this partnership would be built on the pillars of a relationship
of the United States, Russia, and China.  That this partnership,
this alliance of great powers, would have the power to end the
reign of the British Empire once and for all, by bringing peace
through economic development, and great projects such as the New
Silk Road to the entire planet.
This is the subject of this pamphlet [holds up Four Laws
pamphlet]; this has been in circulation now for almost a year.
This is “America’s Future on the New Silk Road”.  It goes
extensively into the physical economic principles which could be
applied to bring about this kind of great projects, international
development perspective and finally end the legacy of British
colonialism, enforced backwardness, and genocide. This pamphlet
is now going into a second updated printing.  It is incumbent
upon all of us to use this window of opportunity to go into a
mobilization like we never have before.  It’s clear that there is
still a war waging for the soul of this Presidency in the United
States.  Indications are very clear that President Trump himself
is very reluctant to abandon his inclination towards just such a
great powers relationship; a relationship between the United
States and Russia, and the United States and China, to create a
new strategic economic order for the planet.  Despite the
ill-advised attacks under the influence of war-mongers and
neo-cons and British intelligence fellow travelers inside his own
administration, since then he has made it very clear — despite
Nikki Haley’s declaration that there will be another round of
sanctions on Russia.  Trump has contradicted that, and despite
Nikki Haley’s declaration that no, in fact, we will not be
withdrawing our troops from Syria; Trump has contradicted that,
and accused Nikki Haley of being “confused”.
There is a war waging for the soul of this Presidency, and
the stakes could never be higher.  It is our role here in the
United States to make very clear what the positive vision of the
future can be, now that these British lies stand exposed.
What I would like, is to conclude with a clip from a webcast
which Helga Zepp-LaRouche broadcast yesterday, where she
documents exactly this exposure of British crimes, British
hoaxes, and British lies.  She says that now is the time to act
to usher in a New Paradigm for civilization.  So, here’s Helga
Zepp-LaRouche:

  HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, there is right now, in
certain European political layers, a big debate:  Has the “deep
state” in the United States won already, or is there still some
options that Trump could stick to his announced policies?
Well, obviously the “deep state” is, or what people call the
“deep state,” which is this what President Eisenhower already
pointed to as the “military industrial complex” combined with the
intelligence services belonging to the British Empire faction —
obviously, they’re still very strong.
But on the other side, I think they have never been so
exposed, and at a time when ordinary people have the feeling that
everything is falling apart, — the trust in government is
collapsing, pensions are not seen as secure, there is fear of a
new financial crisis much worse than 2008 — people have a sense
that there really is no institution, I mean, in the West, people
have the sense there is no place they can turn to in terms of
trust.  And in such a moment, when people realize who are the
war-mongers, and that they’re pushing war against Russia using
lies, I think this can completely backfire and once these lies
are being dismantled and ostracized; and the people pushing the
lies are being ostracized, I think there can be a real return to
an international relation among nations, not only reviving the UN
Charter, reviving international law.  But also, I think sometimes
you need a shock like this present experience, to move to a New
Paradigm of international relations.  And I think that is
absolutely something on the horizon.
I mean, you see a dynamic where more and more countries are
not going along any more.  The East European countries, the
Central European countries, the Balkans, the South European
countries, Switzerland, Austria — they all want to have a
different kind of relation, and the more countries have that kind
of determination, and the more countries which are not yet there,
like Germany, France, Great Britain, the more people mobilize and
speak out to stick to the truth — you know, there are many
people in motion right now, there are many appeals being
circulated among people who say “we have to return to reason”; we
have to have to have a good relationship with Russia and China.
Without these two countries, no problem on this planet can be
solved.
And the more people start to engage in such a discourse and
get active; I’m in one sense a Leibnizian, believing that a great
evil always generates the potential for an even greater good,
because that’s the laws of the universe.  I think the universe is
made in such a way that there is this tremendous ability to
improve, to become better; to have higher forms of existence.
And it does require the individual action — it’s not a
dialectical materialism, or historical materialism, which goes by
itself. But there is such a thing as the combination of
objective conditions and subjective intervention. And the
objective conditions do exist.  They exist in the form of a New
Paradigm promoted by all the countries participating in the Belt
and Road Initiative; and if you add to that the subjective
factor, which is the courage of the world-historical individual
acting on the basis of his or her knowledge, I think there is all
the chances that we can move humanity into a more safe historical
period.
So therefore, I can only appeal to you:  Join us.  That’s
the best thing you can do.

  OGDEN:  So, as Helga LaRouche said, with these British
crimes now exposed for the world to see, now is the time to move
decisively into a New Paradigm for civilization.  So, with that
call to action, we conclude tonight’s broadcast.  Please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com; the world is changing rapidly, and we
have a lot of work to do.  Thank you very much.    

… den store leder, som Martin, stiger til et højere niveau. De tænker på deres liv, som evangeliet fremlægger det, som en talent (mønt); livet er en talent, man har fået givet. Man fødes, og man dør. Det er ens talent; hvad man har i denne tidsperiode. Spørgsmålet er, man vil under alle omstændigheder give den ud; hvordan vil man give den ud? Hvad vil man bruge den til at sikre, i al evighed? Hvad vil man gøre, som en mission, som vil gøre én fortjent til den plads, man ønsker at have i evigheden?

Martin havde en klar fornemmelse af dette. Denne ’bjergtopstale’ for mig, slog mig ligesom en klar forståelse af, hvad han sagde, hvad han sagde til andre.[1]

Livet er en talent. Det er ikke, hvad man ’får ud af’ livet. Det er, hvad man lægger ind i det, der tæller. Martin havde dette.

»Vi har, mener jeg, to problemer, som bør være grundlag for at reflektere over Martins liv i dag. 1) Vi har en national krise. Jeg vil ikke lægge fingrene imellem eller tale ud fra det politiske partiapparat (Demokraterne); men kendsgerningerne skal frem: Denne nationaløkonomi er ved at kollapse. Situationen, med hensyn til USA’s grundlæggende økonomiske infrastruktur i dag, er relativt set værre end i 1933, hvor Roosevelt i marts måned kom ind i Det Hvide Hus. Det vil sige, hvis man undersøger infrastruktur, energi osv., livsbetingelserne for vort folk og i hele verden – lad være med at se på de store byer, hvor de går rundt med en facade og siger, alt går godt; men se på lokalsamfundene; Detroit, f.eks., har nu halvdelen af det indbyggertal, byen plejede at have. En industriby er forsvundet. Se på Birmingham, man ser det samme rapporteret; det var aldrig rigt, men deres oplevelse af tab, tab, tab; det er situationen i USA. Og der er en ligegyldighed over for USA’s problemer. Mindst 48 af de 50 stater er bankerot, håbløst bankerot; dvs., at staterne umuligt kan øge skatteindtægterne uden at sænke økonomien yderligere, for at imødekomme regeringens essentielle forpligtelser. Det er karakteristisk for mindst 48 stater, og det bliver værre. Hvis man ser på leveomkostningerne, stigningen i leveomkostningerne i forhold til det, der officielt rapporteres, se på priserne for mad hos købmanden hen over de seneste 6 måneder i USA. Se på det faktum, at den amerikanske dollar, som for ikke så længe siden kunne købe en euro for 83 cents; i dag koster det 1 dollar 26-28 cents at købe en euro. Den amerikanske dollar er ved at kollapse i værdi; det, der stiger, er den pengemængde, der associeres til hasardspil, og den mest omfangsrige form for hasardspil finder sted på Wall Street. Pengene går, for rent spekulative formål, til at drive separate hasardspilsindsatser på sidelinjen i økonomien i vejret, for at drive værdien at aktiepriserne op for visse selskaber; og så snart et eller andet selskab bliver rigt, kommer lederne af selskaberne i fængsel, ligesom i Enron; for vi er gået fra ’stålindustrien’ til ’stjæle-industrien’! Det er arten af nationaløkonomien.

Vi er i vanskeligheder. Vi er i vanskeligheder på global skala. Siden januar 2002, da den nuværende præsident holdt en uheldig tale, i sin ’State of the Union’-tale. Holdningen over for USA er faldet hastigt, til det laveste niveau, jeg nogensinde har set; fra nationer i hele verden. I hele Eurasien; i de amerikanske lande, er USA nu foragtet, hvor det i det mindste var respekteret, eller endda elsket, før. Vi er i vanskeligheder. Og se på verden. Verden konfronteres med en stor krise; USA konfronteres med en stor krise, med den måde, det behandler verden på. De største befolkningskoncentrationer i verden, i Kina, f.eks., 1,3 mia. eller mere; Indien, Pakistan, Bangladesh og landene i Sydøstasien; dette er den største befolkningskoncentration på planeten. Det er en fremvoksende del af verden; spørgsmålet er, hvad er USA’s relation til disse asiatiske folkeslag, der i det store og hele repræsenterer forskellige kulturelle baggrunde i forhold til USA og Vesteuropa. Hvordan skal vi finde fred i en urolig verden; hvordan skal vi finde forsoning i en verden i vanskeligheder med lande, der har vendt sig mod os pga. Cheneys og et par andres krigspolitikker?

Vi står altså over for en situation. Lad os gå lidt tilbage til det tidspunkt, hvor Bill Clintons blev indsat som præsident. Tænk nu over noget, nogle af jer ved noget om; tænk på den sorte vælgerskares status, den lovgivende, sorte forsamling … i 1993, da Bill Clinton kom ind i Det Hvide Hus. Gå nu igennem listen over navnene; hvor er disse mennesker, og deres erstatninger, i dag? Der har været en udvælgelse af de politiske præstationer i hele landet af de sorte vælgerkredse/folkevalgte. Det er dette problem, jeg konstant konfronteres med, og fra 1996 blev det værre, accelererede brutalt.

Så vi konfronteres altså ikke med et nyt problem i dag, men med det samme problem, principielt, som Martin med succes konfronterede, og jeg vil fremføre, at, i arven efter Martin Luther King og hans liv, er der noget, vi kan lære i dag, som bringer ham tilbage i live, som om han stod her i dag, i live. Der er noget særligt ved hans liv, hans udvikling, som vi i dag bør indfange, ikke alene med hensyn til at adressere vor nations problemer, som er ved at blive forfærdelige, men problemerne med vore relationer med verden som helhed. Hvordan skal vi agere over for disse kulturer, der er forskellige fra vore egne? Med asiatiske kulturer, der er forskellige fra vore egne; med muslimske kulturer, der er over 1 mia. muslimer i hele verden; med Kinas kultur, der er forskellig fra vores; med kulturen i Sydøstasien, der er forskellig fra vores? De er alle mennesker, der har alle de samme krav og behov, men de er forskellige kulturer, de tænker anderledes, de responderer til andre (kan ikke høres) end vi gør. Men vi må have fredeligt samarbejde med disse mennesker, for at løse globale problemer. Så begynder man at tænke over en person som Martin, og jeg vil indikere, i denne sammenhæng, hvad Martins betydning er i dag.

Vi havde ingen erstatning for Martin. Første lektie. Martin var en enestående person; han var ikke en talentfuld person, der tilfældigvis snublede over lederskab og let kunne erstattes af andre ledere, der havde lært jobbet og kunne tage over bagefter. Han havde ingen efterfølger; der var ingen, som befandt sig i en position til at efterfølge ham. Mange ønskede det; de havde det ikke.

Hvad var det, Martin havde? Hvad var essensen af Martin, der gjorde ham til noget specielt?

Lad os sammenligne tre tilfælde for forstå dette. Et tilfælde, Martin selv. Det andet er tilfældet med Frankrigs berømte heltinde Jeanne d’Arc, og jeg er godt bekendt med den faktiske historie af Jeanne d’Arcs tilfælde, som på en måde er sammenligneligt, på en særlig måde, med Martins tilfælde. Og så også med et fiktivt tilfælde, som peger på det problem, vi står overfor, tilfældet med Shakespeares Hamlet; især Hamlets monolog i 3. akt.

Hvad handlede det om? Martin var en sand Guds mand, på en måde, som meget få mennesker kan virkeliggøre i deres livstid. Det var ikke alene det, at han var en Guds mand, men at han voksede op til fuldstændigt at forstå, hvad det ville sige. Hans billede var selvfølgelig Kristus og Kristi korsfæstelsespassion. Det var hans kilde til styrke. Han levede det. Han havde besteget bjergets top, på et tidspunkt, hvor han vidste, hans liv var truet af magtfulde kræfter internt i USA. Og han sagde, ’jeg vil ikke vige tilbage fra denne mission, om de så dræber mig’; præcis som Kristus sagde, og jeg er sikker på, Martin tænkte på dette, på dette tidspunkt. Kristi korsfæstelsespassion er det billede, der er essensen af kristendom. Det er et billede i f.eks. Tyskland og andre steder, hvor Bachs Mattæus-passion opføres, en ca. to timer lang forestilling. Og i disse to timer genlever publikum, menigheden, sangerne, musikerne på en kraftfuld måde Kristi korsfæstelsespassion. Dette har altid været vigtigt, at genleve dette; at indfange essensen af, hvad Kristus betyder for alle kristne, og Martin viste dette.

Forskellen er det følgende; og jeg vil vende tilbage til Jeanne d’Arc; de fleste mennesker er tilbøjelige til at tro, jo, jeg vil gerne i himmelen, eller noget i den retning. Eller også er de ikke, de er ligeglade. Men de leder efter svar inden for rammerne af deres dødelige liv. De tænker på kødets tilfredsstillelse, den sikkerhed, de vil nyde godt af, mellem grænserne for fødsel og død; hvorimod den store leder, som Martin, stiger til et højere niveau. De tænker på deres liv, som evangeliet fremlægger det, som en talent (mønt); livet er en talent, man har fået givet. Man fødes, og man dør. Det er ens talent; hvad man har i denne tidsperiode. Spørgsmålet er, man vil under alle omstændigheder give den ud; hvordan vil man give den ud? Hvad vil man bruge den til at sikre, i al evighed? Hvad vil man gøre, som en mission, som vil gøre én fortjent til den plads, man ønsker at have i evigheden?

Martin havde en klar fornemmelse af dette. Denne ’bjergtopstale’ for mig, slog mig ligesom en klar forståelse af, hvad han sagde, hvad han sagde til andre.[1]

Livet er en talent. Det er ikke, hvad man ’får ud af’ livet. Det er, hvad man lægger ind i det, der tæller. Martin havde dette. Der er derfor, han var en leder, og jeg har kendt de andre ledere, der var med ham i denne periode. De havde ikke helt den samme gnist. De accepterede måske ideen, de troede måske på den, men det greb dem ikke på samme måde, som det greb Martin. Og det greb ham mere og mere, er jeg sikker på, i takt med, at han påtog sig større og større ansvar; som en leder føler man dette, man ser sit folk, man ser, hvad man må håndtere, man ser lidelserne, man ser farerne, og man må finde i sig selv styrken til ikke at vige tilbage, ikke gå på kompromis.

Lad os tage tilfældet Jeanne d’Arc, til sammenligning. Dette er den sande historie; hun var en så signifikant person i det 15. århundrede, historien blev grundigt dokumenteret dengang og er blevet krydstjekket osv. Hun var en person i hele kristendommen; hun er en hovedperson i Frankrigs historie. Her er hun så, en ung kvinde (17), der kom fra bondestanden, og som havde forhåbninger om, at Frankrig måtte befries fra de normanniske ridderes forfærdelige besættelse; at Frankrig måtte blive en sand nation, og at det måtte løftes ud af sin tilstand og blive en nation for at tage sig af disse problemer; at Gud ønskede, dette skulle ske. Så, gennem flere hændelser, henvendte hun sig til en prins, som var den nominelle arving til Frankrigs trone, og hun sagde til denne prins – jeg har glemt, der var diverse akkreditiver – ’Gud ønsker, at du skal blive konge’. Og han så på hende og sagde, ’Hvad ønsker du af mig?’ Hun svarede, ’jeg ønsker ingenting af dig; Gud ønsker, at du skal være konge’. Og, på grund af hendes kraftfulde personlighed og hendes mission, gav kongen hende kommando over nogle soldater til en meget alvorlig kamp på det tidspunkt, idet han formodede, hun ville blive dræbt som leder af disse soldater, og det ville løse problemet. Men hun blev ikke dræbt, hun vandt slaget, som hun personligt anførte. Og Frankrig blev mobiliseret til sin uafhængighed; ideen var dets uafhængighed i det store og hele som et resultat. Så kom tidspunktet, hvor kongen blev kronet, prinsen blev kronet til konge: men så forrådte kongen hende, til Frankrigs fjender, til briterne, normannerne. Og hun blev retsforfulgt af inkvisitionen, som var en rædselsfuld ting, den værste form for uretfærdighed man kan forestille sig. Og under retssagen blev hun tilbudt lokkemad; hvis du trækker dig lidt, vil vi ikke brænde dig levende på bålet. Hun sagde nej; hun veg tilbage; måske skulle jeg gå på kompromis, hun havde præster, der forsøgte at få hende til at gå på kompromis. Hun sagde, ’jeg vil ikke gå på kompromis. Jeg kan ikke forråde min mission’. Hun havde besteget bjergets top; jeg vil ikke forråde min mission; jeg vil fastholde min kurs. Så de tog hende og bandt hende til en pæl; de stablede brændet op om pælen; de satte ild til bålet, mens hun var i live og kogte hende ihjel. Så åbnede de brændestakken for at se, om hun var i live eller ej og fandt, at hun var død, og så fortsatte de processen og genantændte bålet og brændte hende til aske (hun var da 19, -red.)

Men ud af dette skete der to ting: Frankrig blev genoplivet og fik sin uafhængighed og fik senere den første, moderne nationalstat, under Louis 11 af Frankrig.

Betydningen af dette for os i dag, er, at pga. denne sejr, pga. det, der skete med Louis 11 af Frankrig, fik vi den første europæiske stat, i hvilken hele regeringen var ansvarlig for hele folkets almene vel. Det almene vel betyder præcis det, det betyder i 1. korintherbrev, kap. 13, hvor Paulus skriver om agápe, undertiden kaldet kærlighed eller godgørenhed. Det er denne egenskab; det er ikke loven, det er ikke lovbogen, der tæller; det er ens kærlighed til menneskeheden, der tæller; at man altid må leve for ens kærlighed til menneskeheden. Og derfor er en regering ikke legitim, undtagen som en regering, der officielt er forpligtet over for ikke alene det almene velfærd for hele folket, men også over for forbedringen af livsbetingelserne for deres efterkommere. Og for første gang i Frankrig, i denne stat, [fik man] princippet om forfatningsmæssig lov; at en regering ikke kan behandle nogle blandt befolkningen som menneskeligt kvæg. Det er ikke lovligt, det er ikke en nation, hvis den behandler nogle blandt sin befolkning som menneskeligt kvæg. Man skal tænke på hele befolkningens almene velfærd; det må være indfanget i forpligtelse over for hele folket, og over for deres efterkommere. For vi er alle dødelige, og for at vække i os selv de passioner, mens vi er i live, som vil tilskynde os til at gøre det gode, må vi have en følelse af, at forbruget af vort liv, brugen af vor talent, vil betyde noget for de kommende generationer. De bedste mennesker ser efter ting, ligesom Moses, som vil finde sted, når han ikke længere selv er der til at nyde dem! Denne fornemmelse for udødelighed er det, som de bedste forældre opofrer for deres børn; det er det, som lokalsamfund opofrer for uddannelse til deres børn, for deres børns muligheder. Man gennemgår pinen ved lidelser og mangel, men man har en følelse af, at man er på vej fremad, at ens liv vil betyde noget, at man kan dø med et smil på læben; man har overvundet døden, man har brugt sin talent vist, hvorfor livet vil betyde noget bedre for de kommende generationer. Det var princippet. Det princip inspirerede den mand, der blev kong Henrik 7 af England, til at gøre det samme imod den onde kong Richard 3, og til at etablere England på det tidspunkt som den anden, moderne nationalstat. Det var på en måde, hvad Martin gjorde. Samme form for proces.

Men lad os nu tage den anden side af sagen. Lad os tage tilfældet Hamlet. Hamlet siger, vi har muligheden for at kæmpe og befri os selv fra forfærdelige tilstande, men, men – hvad sker der, når vi dør? Hvad sker der efter døden? Det er frygten for, hvad der sker efter døden, som gør folk til krystere. Og det er vores problem i USA i dag. Det er problemet med vores lederskab i det Demokratiske Parti; det er problemet med det Republikanske Parti, for det er ikke alle i det Republikanske Parti, der er dårlige, nogle af dem er meget gode, og jeg har til hensigt at inkorporere nogle af dem i min regering; jeg er ikke særlig partisk, når det drejer sig om regeringen. Jeg er partisk med hensyn til at få den etableret.

Det er pointen. Problemet her er det følgende: Tror vi rent faktisk på, at mennesket er forskelligt fra dyrene? Tror I på, at, i skolerne i dag, i aviserne i dag; tror I på, at amerikanere tror på, på nogen som helst signifikant måde, at mennesket er forskelligt fra dyret? Det er ikke det, vi underviser; se på vores standardpensum. Mange af jer ved noget om uddannelse. Vores uddannelsespolitik er en national forbrydelse. Man lærer ingenting; man lærer at bestå en prøve. Man spørger sig selv, om de, der udarbejder prøven, ved, hvad de taler om. Man har prøver at bestå i forskellige steder i landet, ikke for at teste, hvad man har gjort ved eleverne med hensyn til, hvad de ved; undertiden kommer eleverne og siger, ’jeg ved ingenting, i mine skoleår lærte jeg ingenting’. Sådan, som man underviser nu. Det, man tester, er elevernes lydighedstræning i dette skoledistrikt eller den del af landet, målt ud fra underlødighed. Distrikterne konkurrerer om penge! Og præstationerne, som skoleelevernes hundetræning, bliver en standard for, hvor mange penge, og hvor mange udmærkelser, dette distrikt vil modtage det følgende år. Vi er ikke længere interesseret … Vi tror som nation ikke længere på at udvikle mennesker! Vi er, ligesom det gamle Rom, blevet et samfund for ’brød og cirkus’; få din krumme, og lad dig underholde! Og underholdningen bliver mere og mere ond, som det skrider frem. F.eks., arbejder folk i dag; er deres mentalitet, at de skal arbejde? Tror de på arbejde, tror de på, at samfundet giver dem mulighed for at arbejde? Nej, det gør det ikke. Det giver dem mulighed for at få fat i nogle penge. Hvad er den største vækstindustri i USA? Hasardspil! Hvad er Wall Street? Hasardspil. Hvad er Enron? Hasardspil. Hvad er disse fyre, der kommer i fængsel i New York? Hasardspillere. Mentaliteten i landet er, at, hvis du sidder i held og vinder i lotteriet og vinder på væddeløbsbanen, så går det fremad for dig. Til trods for, at ens industri er ved at kollapse, ens landbrug er væk, byrådet ikke længere har råd til at sørge for centrale behov; vi er blevet et hasardspilssamfund. Vi er afhængige af hvad? Masseunderholdning. Hvilken form for masseunderholdning? Er dette noget, man i realteten bør skamme sig over?

Vi anser ikke længere mennesker for at være mennesker. Vi forstår ikke længere, hvad menneskeligt er.

Jeg startede en ungdomsbevægelse for henved 4 år siden, der fokuserer på unge mennesker, 18-25 årige, dvs. aldersgruppen for universitetsstuderende. Som I ved, når folk bliver omkring 18 til 25 år, under normale betingelser, er de gået videre end til at tænke på sig selv som unge mennesker, halvt voksne, halvt børn, og til at blive voksne mennesker. De har den voksnes selvtillid, den voksnes impulser osv. De er klar til at påtage sig ansvar i samfundet. I et velordnet samfund, ville alle have adgang til en kvalitetsuniversitetsuddannelse, for at udvikle den enkeltes talenter for at finde ud af, hvad deres mission i livet skal være, hvilken form for karriere, de skal satse på, og man giver dem muligheden for at gennemarbejde dette, finde ud af dette, finde ud af, hvem, de virkelig er som voksen, og at vælge deres fremtidige profession i livet på denne basis. Det, jeg understreger med denne træning, er, forstå forskellen mellem menneske og dyr.

Jeg bliver lidt teknisk omkring dette, for det er et vigtigt punkt. Hvad er forskellen mellem menneske og dyr? Kan man bevise, at mennesket ikke blot er et dyr? Og hvordan kan man bevise det? Hvis mennesket var en abe, f.eks., ville det menneskelige befolkningstal på denne planet aldrig have oversteget et par millioner individer. Så lad være med at gøre mennesket til en abekat (et fjols). Vi har nu over 6 mia. mennesker, vi skal sørge for, på denne planet, og tallet vokser. Pointen er, at mennesket har været i stand til at opdage, hvad intet dyr kan gøre, at opdage universelle, fysiske principper i universet, og at anvende disse opdagede principper til at frembringe forbedringer i samfundet, som øger menneskets magt over naturen; præcis, som man kan læse i Skabelsesberetningen i 1. Mosebog: mand og kvinde skabt i Skaberens billede, efter hans lignelse; og ansvarlige for denne funktion. Det er, hvad vi er. Når vi underviser i fysisk videnskab; når vi underviser i klassisk kunst og den slags ting, når vi underviser i historie ud fra dette standpunkt, formidler vi i realiteten en fornemmelse af deres menneskelighed. De er i stand til at genopføre fortidens store principper, det være sig inden for kunst eller inden for fysisk videnskab. Når de kender dette, kender de forskellen på sig selv og dyret; de bryster sig af dette og siger, vi er menneskelige. Og de kan se på hinanden med kærlighed, en form for kærlighed, der kommer til udtryk inden for uddannelse med den rigtige form for undervisning, hvor eleverne er delagtige i processen med at kæmpe sig igennem handlingen for sig selv at opdage et princip, der præsenteres for dem som en udfordring og et paradoks. Det vil sige, en kærlig relation, en klasse med typisk 15-25 universitets- eller skoleelever, hvor eleverne gives ansvaret for, gives en udfordring med at kæmpe sig igennem det for sig selv, og den gode lærer forsøger at fremkalde denne form for respons blandt eleverne; finde to til tre i klassen, der kan starte diskussionen og få hele klassen involveret i diskussionen, så det, der kommer ud af det, ikke er udenadslære fra en lærebog, men at det, der kommer ud af det, er en proces, hvor man i en social oplevelse opdager betydningen af et princip, som om de selv havde gjort den oprindelige opdagelse. Dette gøres, ikke ved at undervise den enkelte elev, selv om det nogen gange virker, men ved at få eleverne til at interagere i diskussionsprocessen. Det er derfor, man helst skal have en klassestørrelse på mellem 15-25 elever. Ikke for mange, som kan udelukke muligheden for, at alle kan deltage. Og ikke for få, så man ikke får stimulering til at starte diskussionen. Det er denne sociale proces med en relation mellem mennesker, der elsker hinanden i en højere forstand, fordi de har været fælles om processen med at opdage et princip. Eller … noget om historie; men de var fælles om det, og ideen om at være fælles om menneskelig viden, som menneskelig viden, er den essentielle kærlighedshandling. Man elsker menneskeheden og er tilfreds med menneskeheden, når man har arbejdet sammen for at gøre en opdagelse sammen. Og man indser, man kan regne med dem til denne form for metode – har man et problem med dem? Gå tilbage til metoden. Tal med dem på samme måde, som man gør i klasseværelset. Og man kæmper sammen igennem det, disse unge mennesker kæmper til kl.3-4 om morgenen. Når jeg holder foredrag for disse fyre, er de over mig i henved fire timer. Jeg holder en præsentation på en times tid, de er over mig konstant. Men det er smukt, det er vidunderligt. Jeg tror, at alle, der har arbejdet med undervisning, ved, hvad jeg taler om. Det er smukt; det er vidunderligt.

Så problemet er dette: Vi har en befolkning, vi har en verden, der har en mangel på mennesker, der rent faktisk fuldt ud forstår forskellen mellem menneske og dyr; at mennesket, som det defineres i Skabelsesberetningen i 1. Mosebog, er et væsen, der er skabt i universets Skabers billede. Det er os. Fordi vi overfører disse ideer, fordi vi overfører dette arbejde, som intet dyr kan, elsker vi hinanden; vi elsker de mennesker, der var før os; vi elsker dem, der kommer efter. Vi kerer os om dem, på en meget selvisk måde, for, idet vi bruger vores talent her i livet, vores skønhedssans beror på, hvad der kommer ud af vores liv, i de kommende generationer. Vi elsker børn af denne grund. Der er børn; vi elsker børnebørn endnu mere end børnene, undertiden, fordi vore børn var i stand til at producere disse børn, det er fantastisk! Man elsker dem især, for dem, der bliver bedsteforældre, de elsker specielt disse børnebørn af denne grund.

Men denne form for kærlighed mangler generelt i befolkningen, hos ledere.

Martin havde selvfølgelig dette. Martin var ét af de sjældne mennesker, på hans tid, som havde en dybtgående følelse af, hvad det vil sige at være et menneske; som havde en dybtgående forståelse af læren fra Kristi passion på korset. Han var i stand til at bringe dette ind i politik – han kom ikke ind i det som politik som sådan – han var en naturlig leder. En naturlig leder er ikke én, der kommer ud af den politiske proces som sådan, men ud af folket. Martin opnåede aldrig et politisk hverv. Og alligevel var han sandsynligvis en lige så betydningsfuld person i USA som nogen moderne præsident var. Det opnåede han. Hans myndighed som en leder kom fra folket. Han kæmpede mod folket og med folket for at befri dem. Han var en leder i ordets sande betydning. Hans indflydelse som en politisk kraft i nationen og i verden kom fra hans forhold til folket.

Og det er vores situation i dag, og grunden til, at jeg er så glad for denne lejlighed til at være sammen med jer, for I typificerer dem, der kæmper med vanskeligheder, i dette land og uden for dette land, for den såkaldte ’glemte mand’; som Franklin Roosevelt, der i 1933 blev indkaldt til at være præsident. 80 % af befolkningen i USA i særdeleshed, og mange i hele verden, er den glemte mand og kvinde. Der er ikke rigtig nogen, der kerer sig om dem. Tag eksemplet med historien om sundhedssektoren; tag eksemplet med alle mulige ting. Den eneste måde, hvorpå man kan forny en nation, som Martin ydede et stort bidrag til en fornyelse af USA, er, at man må gå til den glemte mand og kvinde; især til de ubemidlede, og hvis man kan udtrykke en kærlig holdning over for problemet med de ubemidlede, dem, der befinder sig på den laveste side i livet, så er man i stand til at repræsentere det princip, på hvilket moderne regeringsførelse bør baseres; det samme princip, som Jeanne d’Arc på sin vis muliggjorde gennem sit bidrag til Frankrig som den første, moderne nationalstat, der var helliget det almene velfærd. His man vil være en ægte politiker, må man være forpligtet over for det almene velfærd. Man må være forpligtet over for menneskeheden, og for at være forpligtet over for menneskeheden, må man se på det menneske, der befinder sig i de værste omstændigheder, generelt, og løfte dem op. Så har man virkelig bevist, at man kerer sig om det almene velfærd. Hvis man ikke går til disse mennesker, er man ikke med det almene velfærd. Hvis man ikke har sine rødder i kampen for det almene velfærd, er man ikke i stand til at lede vores nation, som er en nation, der forfatningsmæssigt er forpligtet over for det almene velfærd. Martin havde dette. Alle de store ledere i historien er som regel kommet fra denne form for baggrund; de fødtes ikke til at være ledere, de blev ikke valgt som ledere; nogle blev valgt i løbet af livet, men de startede ikke med at etablere deres lederskab ved at blive valgt. De etablerede deres lederskab ved at finde deres rødder i kampen for menneskehedens velfærd. De blev repræsentanter for en eller anden gruppe, der kæmpede for deres rettigheder, eller de blev fortalere for denne gruppe, der kæmpede for sine rettigheder. Og de kom frem til en lederposition, fordi de havde en indbygget, moralsk karakter, i billedet af Kristi passion og korsfæstelse. Og jo mere, de kommer ind i det, og jo farligere, det bliver, i takt med, at de vinder mere indflydelse – livet bliver farligere i takt med, at man vinder mere indflydelse – så indser de, at de sætter deres liv på spil, og de må spørge sig selv: hvad er det, jeg vil risikere mit liv for; hvad er det for en sag, jeg ikke vil forråde, selv, hvis prisen er, at det koster mig mit liv? Og han kastes direkte tilbage til Kristi korsfæstelse og passion. Og dér er vi i dag. Martin havde dette; og problemet med USA og bevægelsen i dag, er, at bevægelsen er blevet, skal vi sige, for ’civiliseret’ med hensyn til at bøje af for at komme ud af det med det politiske establishment, og hvor den tenderer mod at tro på, at vejen til succes er at bøje af for at komme ud af det med dem. Man fortaber passionen, som bør motivere den sande, politiske leder. Og passionen er denne helligelse; man har en talent, man har en fornemmelse af, hvad ens liv betyder, man har en fornemmelse af forpligtelse, af en mission i livet, for at opløfte nationen ved at løfte en bestemt del af befolkningen, eller hele befolkningen. Og man vil ikke gøre noget som helst for at forråde dette. Det giver én kraft. Det giver én kraft til at være et menneske, der er skabt i den levende Skabers billede. Man tapper ind i det. Martin tappede ind i det. Han var en Guds mand, ikke kun af Gud, men en Guds mand. Han var en mand, som, i løbet af livet, af skæbnen fik givet missionen at være en Guds mand. Og han havde styrken til at gøre det. Han havde styrken til at gå i Kristi fodspor; til at gennemleve Gethsemane; til at gennemgå korsfæstelsen. Han havde denne styrke. Som Jeanne havde på sin måde.

Og det er den lektie, jeg mener, må undervises, må blive forstået, hvis vi skal redde denne nation. Vi må tappe ind i denne kraft. Og som jeg siger, blandt alle de billeder af nylige, politiske ledere i USA, er Martin, både som en national leder og som en global leder, hvilket han også var med hensyn til sin indflydelse, det bedste eksempel på den form for personlighed, vi må have og må udvikle for at komme ud at det forfærdelige, frygtindgydende rod, der i dag truer os.

Mange tak.«       

[1] Hør hele Martin Luther Kings sidste tale, ’I have been to the mountain top’, her https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixfwGLxRJU8