Vært Matthew Ogden: Det er 13. april. Som seere af vores webside vil vide, og som LaRouchePAC-aktivister vil vide, så gik verden i mandags ind i et alarmberedskab, svarende til Rød Alarm. LaRouchePAC og LaRouche-organisationen gik ind i en generel mobilisering for at stoppe det, det ville være en katastrofal, ødelæggende og meget farlig beslutning om at lancere et angreb mod Syrien. Et angreb, der meget vel omgående kunne kaste os ud i begyndelsen til Tredje Verdenskrig. Denne mobilisering har haft en enorm effekt. LaRouchePAC gik omgående i offensiven og udgav et flyveblad, som I ser her på skærmen. Flyvebladet kan downloades via linket, I ser her.  (Dansk: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=24629)

Dette flyveblad omdeles nu overalt og er også blevet omdelt til hvert eneste kontor i Repræsentanternes Hus og USA’s Senat.

Her følger engelsk udskrift af webcastet:

Let me just read you a little bit from this leaflet.  This
is not all of it, but these are some relevant excerpts.  It
begins by saying the following:
“We, the United States, are about to launch an attack on
Syria and, possibly, the Russian troops therein, based on
perfidious British lies; based on what may turn out to be
history’s final and blackest intelligence hoax, the one that
eliminated the human race. At the same time, President Trump’s
personal lawyer’s office was raided today, April 9, 2018, based
on a referral from Special Counsel Robert Mueller. These two
outrageous events are completely related. Unless you rise up with
us right now to stop it, this country is in grave, graver peril.
The outright attempt to blackmail this President into the war he
was elected to stop has been escalated beyond anyone’s
imagination.
“In 2016, millions of Americans voted for Donald Trump
because he said he would end useless, perpetual wars on behalf of
an intellectually dead and financially bankrupt Anglo-American
system, the imperium which dates to the immediate aftermath of
World War II. Donald Trump sought better relations with China,
now emerging as the world’s most powerful economy, and Putin’s
Russia. Trump’s determination to establish decent relations with
Russia and China and that determination alone, set into motion
the hellish coup against the President, led by the British and
those many useful idiots in our elites who are in their thrall.
“That coup, whose manifesto was the fake “dirty dossier” on
Donald Trump authored by MI6’s Christopher Steele and paid for by
Hillary Clinton, was on its last legs when Britain began its
present offensive. Senators Charles Grassley and Lindsay Graham
had referred Christopher Steele to the United States Department
of Justice for criminal prosecution and patriots in Congress were
pursuing a genuine effort to identify and prosecute those
responsible for the coup against our President. Then, on March 4,
2018, a Russian who spied for Britain, Sergei Skripal, and his
daughter were allegedly poisoned in Salisbury, England. Skripal
runs in the same British espionage circles associated with
Christopher Steele. Prime Minister Teresa May immediately
pronounced to the world that Russia was behind the attack but has
never ever produced any proof for any of her bellicose
statements. President Trump was bum rushed by his traitorous
advisors, including H.R. McMaster, who throughout his military
career was a captive of Britain’s International Institute of
Strategic Affairs, into supporting Britain’s completely unfounded
claims. The message to the President from our traitors is clear,
join us in the march to war and maybe, maybe, we will let up with
the coup.
“Ultimately, Britain’s own chemical weapons experts at
Porton Downs refused to say that the agent used on the Skripals
was manufactured in Russia, despite the evidence-free claims of
Teresa May and her insane Foreign Minister, Boris Johnson”.
“Despite voicing support for Teresa May, Donald Trump still
sought to make good on his promise to the American people. He
congratulated Putin on his election and invited him to the White
House for early talks, citing the escalating and dangerous arms
race between the United States and Russia. The British and their
American friends completely lost it in response. A hammer needed
to be dropped on this President who now was even talking of
pulling American troops out of Syria and rebuilding the United
States.
“Enter a second British authored poisoning hoax, this one in
Syria. The Russians, Iranians, and Syrians not only assisted in
the defeat of ISIS, but were mopping up the last remnants of
remaining jihadis, such as Jayish Al Islam, a rebranded Salafist
Jihadi group controlled by the Saudis, and the Al Nusra front or
Al-Qaeda. The final military operations consolidating victory
were concluded in the last days in Gouta, a suburb of Damascus.
Having achieved victory, under the narrative our war mongering
media would have us believe, Assad launched a chemical weapons
attack to celebrate that victory, knowing he would bring down
holy hell upon himself from the West.
“The pictures of dying children which President Trump
reacted to so emotionally a year ago, when he launched missile
strikes on Syria, have been presented to him again. There is
every reason to believe they are fake. Russia and Syria had been
warning about just such a false flag attack involving chlorine
gas for over a month as they closed in on victory in Gouta. The
only information claiming such an attack occurred is coming from
the White Helmets, an aid organization founded by the British,
implicated as being militarily involved with Al-Qaeda, and deeply
implicated in past hoaxes concerning Assad’s alleged use of
chemical weapons.
“The White Helmets are jointly funded by British and
American intelligence components dedicated to regime change in
Syria. They have received millions upon millions of dollars for
this purpose. They are critical components of the interventionist
and regime change foreign policy Donald Trump was elected to
eradicate.
“In 2013, when Obama threatened war with Russia over
Syria, the American people intervened, raised the roof of
Congress, and stopped it. This is what is needed now. Russia sees
an unrelenting information warfare offensive coming from the
British and their dupes in the U.S.  They correctly see this as
the first steps toward war. We need to reverse this starting right
now. Call your Congressional Representative or Senator, tell them
to stop the drive to War and Shut Down Robert Mueller, Now.
“[The] Capitol Switchboard is (202)224- 3121. Raise the
roof! Call the White House and tell the President not to step in
a British trap.  [And the White House switchboard number is]
(202)456-1111.”
Now, that leaflet is available in the description of this
video.  As we’ve received reports, calls have been inundating
Congress, and we’ve received word that the White House
switchboard has also been overwhelmed with calls over the last
several days from American citizens responding to this call.  The
call, that LaRouche PAC issued to immediately go into an all-out
mobilization to stop this war.  As I mentioned, this leaflet is
being circulated around the country.  Rallies are being held in
cities around the country by members and activists with the
LaRouche Political Action Committee.  Here, I’m going to show you
a couple of pictures.  This is a picture from the streets of
Manhattan, and that graphic there — “No Strike on Syria” —
which had listed the White House phone number and the
Congressional phone number.  The next there, you see “Chemical
Weapons Hoax Is another British Lie”.  There is somebody signing
up, leaving their information to become a volunteer and an
activist with LaRouche PAC.  The next one here, you see a banner
“Fire Mueller, Not Missiles! Poison Gas, My Ass!  Stop World War
III! larouchepac.com“. Here you can see a similar banner which
was being deployed in the streets of Houston, Texas.  This one,
you can see, was accompanied by Kesha Rogers, who is an
independent candidate for US Congress there in Texas.  This one:
“Syrian Chemical Weapons Hoax!  British False-Flag for Nuclear
War!”  And then one more, here you can see Kesha Rogers herself,
“Poison Gas My Ass!  It’s All British Lies!”
This is being similarly alluded to by experts here in the
United States and abroad who are very clear that there have been
previous instances of false-flag types of attacks being staged in
Syria to try to provoke US involvement and to try to provoke
these US strikes against the Syrian government.  In fact,
spokesmen for the Russian Foreign Ministry are tracing this
directly back to the British, and are naming the British by name.
So, as we said on Monday, the mask is now falling away, and the
British have over-extended themselves and are now being
identified as the perfidious actors that they are.  Including in
an interview that Will Wertz of Executive Intelligence Review
conducted on behalf of LaRouche PAC on Wednesday of this week,
with Senator Richard Black.  Richard Black is a very vocal
Senator here in the Virginia State Senate.  This video has
already gained over 23,000 views as of just a few minutes ago,
last time I checked.  In that interview, what Senator Black does
is, he spares no words in warning that any strike on Syria with
Russian troops present on the ground, could lead directly to a
thermonuclear war which would threaten the existence of human
civilization itself.  Let me play you a clip from that video, and
I should just note that the full video is available.  The link is
available in the description below this video in YouTube
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTtAm0OHW24].
So, here’s a clip from this interview with Senator Richard
Black.

SEN. RICHARD BLACK

:  we have maneuvered ourselves to
a point, where the degree of risk I think is as high as it was
when the Archduke of Austria was assassinated, causing an
explosion into the First World War — enormous bloodshed,
suffering, destruction.  And the First World War, of course, was
sort of just a prelude and laid the groundwork for the Second
World War, and the vast destruction that took place.
Now: what makes this worse than the First World War
situation, is that while Russia — you know, we outspend Russia
11:1; our defense budget is so big, that it equals the combined
total of the next 14 largest nations in terms of defense
spending: Russia, China, Germany, Korea, France; it just goes on
and on.  We have a {gargantuan} defense budget, and so we are
more than a match for the Russians.  The Russians, while they
have a fine army, and fine military, it’s much smaller.  It just
can’t compare.
However, where we do have equality is with nuclear power.
Both sides apparently have roughly 1,500 nuclear weapons that are
set to go, like that. There are roughly 7,000 on either side,
which are capable of being used in short order.  That is enough
probably to destroys two-thirds of humanity. And certainly the
Western world as we know it, would be practically annihilated:
All of our major cities.  Right here in Virginia, Norfolk, the
biggest naval base on Earth, would simply be gone.  This Loudoun
County which has huge internet traffic would be gone.  The
Pentagon would be gone.  New York City totally gone!  It would
totally be erased from the Earth!
And we have people like John Bolton, who are sufficiently
reckless, to where, for their self-interest, they are willing to
risk the death of perhaps 2 billion people, to just simply
purging them from the face of the Earth. And it is incumbent on
the President to recognize the extraordinary danger that we face.
We have been building up to this, and many of us elected
Donald Trump on a promise that he was going to sort of normalize
our relations with Russia; he was going to stop trying to
overthrow President Assad, and work with the Syrians; he was
going to downgrade the importance of NATO, and he was going to
give up regime change.  Now, Trump has done a lot of the things
he promised to do, but he has not done one thing that he
promised to do in foreign affairs — well, you could take the
exception — he was always very hostile towards the Iranian deal
and so he was honest about that.  That’s probably the one thing
that he’s focused on most.  But you know, when Gen. Michael
Flynn was planned to be the National Security Advisor, Michael
Flynn would have been a godsend for this nation.  He knew where
the skeletons buried, he understood what was going on, and I
think he recognized the importance of drawing back from nuclear
war.
And so, we have come to a point, probably more dangerous
than any time in my lifetime — and I’m counting the time, when
as kids we used to have air raid drills, and we’d get under
desks, and they tell you, you cover your eyes, so you won’t be
blinded by the blast, and the back of your neck, so something
won’t hit you and break your neck.  And people understood nuclear
war, because we had dropped the atomic bombs on Japan, and they
understood what it could do.  Today, it’s sort of vague, it’s
very distant.
But the nuclear weapons that we have today, make the ones we
used on Japan look like firecrackers.  They’re nothing!  So we
are at a fantastically perilous juncture in our history, and
someone needs to take control of it, and say, let’s pull back
from the precipice.

OGDEN:  So, a very clear call.  Somebody needs to take
control of this situation and say, “We’re pulling back from the
precipice.”  And as Senator Richard Black said there, he sees
that we’re in a more perilous and more dangerous time than at any
point in his lifetime; including at the height of the Cold War
during the so-called “duck and cover” drills.  Now, Senator Black
immediately after delivering this interview to LaRouche PAC,
travelled to Richmond, to the State House in Virginia, and used
his privilege as a leading State Senator to stand up, claim the
floor, and deliver an extraordinary speech to the entire General
Assembly, which followed very heavily along the same lines as
what he went through in this interview that you just saw an
excerpt from.  This speech had such an impact that even the
Washington Post was compelled to give it thorough coverage.
Here’s some of the coverage that was included in the Washington
Post.  Let me just read you the beginning of their article.
They said:
“A state legislator who once flew to Damascus for a two-hour
sit-down with Bashar al-Assad took to the floor of the Virginia
Senate this week to say the Syrian president might have been
framed with a suspected chemical attack — if the attack happened
at all.
“|’It is not entirely clear that there was an attack,’ Sen.
Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun) said in a 20-minute speech on the
floor of Virginia Senate on Wednesday. ‘There was a doctor, from
the hospital â from the main hospital in Douma â who has said,
“We haven’t received any casualties. Nobody has been sent in.”|’
“The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
[the OCPW], a global watchdog, has sent inspectors to Syria to
try to confirm whether it was a chemical attack that killed
dozens in Damascus on Saturday.”
Then it went on to say, “As nearly two hours of strictly
perfunctory, procedural business wrapped up, Black asked to
address the body.
“He expressed concern that President Trump — whom Black
largely supports — will launch a military strike against Assad
‘regardless of whether there was an actual attack and without
regard to who may have staged it.’
“He went on to say the United States has been at war in the
Middle East for 17 years with no end in sight. That former Rep.
Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) had been right when he said that
without a military draft, Americans are more careless about
sending troops into battle. That national leaders who make the
call, such as former Vice President and Defense Secretary Richard
B. Cheney, never went to war themselves.”
Now, the article went on to report that, while there were
several Democrats who were quite flabbergasted that Senator Black
would have the gall and the guts to stand up and say what he said
there on the floor of the Virginia State Senate, there were
several of his colleagues who stood behind him 100%.  And knowing
his background as a military veteran with medals of valor that he
has received from going into combat, receiving wounds, and also
his history as a JAG [Judge Advocate General] and very high-level
prosecutor associated with the US Army, they know that these
words from Senator Richard Black are not words that he delivers
lightly.
Another elected official who, like Senator Black has
travelled to Syria in order to see what actually the conditions
are on the ground, and to get the truth of the matter and to get
the facts for herself, is US Representative Tulsi Gabbard,
Congresswoman from Hawaii — a Democrat.  This week, Tulsi
Gabbard, like many other members of the US Congress — Democrats
and Republicans included — went into an all-out mobilization.
Several of her colleagues have been calling on President Trump to
at least come to Congress and follow the US Constitution and the
War Powers Act.  But Tulsi Gabbard went much further, and she
issued a very strong series of tweets, which I would just like to
go through for you here.  She said:  “Our unfortunate and brutal
history of waging regime-change wars has failed.  Interventions
in Iraq and Libya caused death, destruction, and human suffering.
We have neglected our own communities.  Military action should be
the last resort, not our first.  The people of Syria want peace
more than anything in the world.  Dropping bombs on Syria will
not bring their war-torn country any closer to peace.  It will
escalate and prolong the war, resulting in more senseless death,
destruction, suffering, and refugees.”  She says, “By launching a
US military attack against Syria, terrorist groups like al-Qaeda,
ISIS, Jayish al-Islam, etc. will be reinvigorated and resurrected
in their quest to topple the government and establish a
caliphate.  This creates a greater threat to America and Hell for
the Syrian people.”  She says, “Bottom line: If our desire is for
peace and stability in Syria so that refugees can return home and
they can begin to rebuild their homes and lives, then we should
work for peace rather than expanding and escalating the war
through a US military attack against Syria. #peace for Syria.  As
a soldier, I know that the most basic requirement before taking
military action is that you must have a clear achievable
objective, and a strategy to achieve it.  You must analyze the
situation, know what the risks are, and what the cost and
consequences of your actions will be.  Our actions in Syria must
be based on strategy which is based on what our mission actually
is.  What are we trying to achieve?  The neo-cons and
neo-liberals calling on Trump to attack Syria either don’t know
what the mission is, or are pursuing a mission that is contrary
to US interests.  Actions that weaken or cripple the Syrian
military result in greater instability, more suffering of the
Syrian people, and strengthen terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and
ISIS, Army of Islam, etc. who are trying to topple the
government.  Is that our mission?  Does this help Syrian or
American people?”  Then, she concludes, “US military action in
Syria could escalate into a war with Russia and Iran.  Russia has
already stated that they will respond to any US military attack
against Syria.  Is this our mission?  How does going to war with
Russia over Syria serve the interests of the American people?”
That final tweet goes directly to the point.  Any attack on
Syria would risk wounding or killing a Russian service member or
Russian military assets which are deployed heavily in that
region.  Any attack on a Russian military asset or a Russian
soldier, would result in a direct response from Russia, which
means World War III.  So, those warnings are very clear.  Now,
Tulsi Gabbard also confronted US Defense Secretary James Mattis
during a hearing that was held in the US House of Representatives
just yesterday.  She begins by bringing up the War Powers Act and
the Constitutional right of Congress to declare war, not the
President; but then she pursued a similar line of questioning as
what she covered in that series of tweets.  You’ll hear Jim
Mattis say, “We haven’t yet actually decided whether there will
be a military strike against Syria,” although President Trump in
the beginning of the week has set himself a 24-48-hour time line
on that.  There are questions surrounding what is actually the
discussion and the push-back inside the White House, and what is
Jim Mattis’ role on this, and an acknowledgement that, at least
if a military attack were launched, what is the strategy to
follow up on that?  And then an acknowledgement that any military
attack would precipitate a much higher escalation in the
conflict, and could lead to a war with Russia.  So, you’ll see
Tulsi Gabbard say that explicitly.  So, here’s this video clip
from the Congressional hearing yesterday.

REP. TULSI GABBARD

:  Thank you, gentlemen, for your
service.  The President indicated recently his intention to
launch US military attacks against Syria.  Article I of the
Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war.
Congress has not done so against the Syrian government.  Syria
has not declared war against the US, or threatened the US.  The
launch of 59 missiles against Syria by Trump last year was
illegal and did not meet any of those criteria in the War Powers
Resolution.  The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018, which
was signed into law by President Trump, states that none of the
funds made available by this Act may be used with respect to
Syria in contravention of the War Powers Resolution; including
for the introduction of US armed military forces into hostilities
in Syria.
My question is:  Will the President uphold the Constitution,
the War Powers Resolution, and comply with the law that he
signed, by obtaining authorization from Congress before launching
US military attacks against Syria?

DEFENSE SECRETARY JAMES MATTIS:  Congresswoman, we have not
yet made any decision to launch military attacks into Syria.

GABBARD:  It is simple, however, what the Constitution
requires, so while you are correct in saying the President has
not yet made a decision, my question is:  Will he abide by the
Constitution and comply with the law?

MATTIS:  I believe that the President will carry out his
duties under the Constitution to protect the country.

GABBARD:  What would the objective of an attack on Syria be,
and how does that serve the interests of the American people?

MATTIS:  I don’t want to talk about a specific attack that
is not yet in the offing, knowing that this would be
pre-decisional.  Again, the President has not made that decision.
However, looking at the Chemical Warfare Convention, I think it’s
by far in the best interests of civilization, certainly the best
interests of America, that that Convention be obeyed by the
nations that have signed it.  What has happened in Salisbury,
England and now has happened in Syria again, shows that this is
not an idle concern.

GABBARD:  So, if the decision is made, as you have stated
publicly, you are laying out all the options on the table for the
President.  If the decision is made to launch a military attack
against Syria, Russia has already responded that they would
respond to our US strike.  As this action is considered, can you
justify for the American people how going to war with Russia over
Syria serves the interests of the American people?

MATTIS:  No, Congresswoman, I can’t answer that question.
I’m not ready to speculate that that would happen.

GABBARD:  Would you not say that it is a highly likely
occurrence, given what Russia has stated directly that they will
respond?

MATTIS:  No, Congresswoman, I would not.  There’s a lot of
ways to respond to the violation of the Chemical Weapons
Convention diplomatically, economically, militarily, that taken
in total would represent I think what we have to do in this world
if

in accordance with international norms and
international law.

OGDEN:  So, as I said, numerous members of Congress are
insisting that the War Powers Act and Article I of the
Constitution — the Constitutional privilege of the US Congress
to declare war and not the President; that this be observed.
Both Democrats and Republicans.  This is also being brought up in
the UK by Jeremy Corbyn, saying Theresa May cannot be allowed to
just launch a unilateral attack on Syria without coming to the
Parliament first.  So, there is huge push back; but I would
insist that this comes, this was catalyzed by the mobilization
that LaRouche PAC and the LaRouche organization internationally
launched at the beginning of this week.  The actions by activists
such as you who are viewing this webcast, and other people who
have been mobilizing in an all-out mobilization over the course
of this week, has had a very significant impact, and may be the
reason why we are not at war in Syria already, and have not
escalated this into some sort of an attack, a missile launch in
Syria at this point.  Now, we remain in the danger zone.  By no
means is anything decided.  We have to continue this mobilization
in a way which goes beyond even what has been done thus far this
week.
What I would like to do, just to conclude this broadcast, is
to bring you an excerpt of a webcast that Helga Zepp-LaRouche
delivered just yesterday.  Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been receiving
a lot of traction in what she’s been saying.  A webcast which was
delivered last week, which she delivered in German on a website
in Germany, has already received over 60,000 views.  This is
really catalyzing a major interest in the leadership that the
LaRouche movement is providing on this issue.  So, you’ll hear
Helga Zepp-LaRouche say here in this webcast is that we are in a
very dangerous situation that could get out of control in no
time.  This is, indeed, a British trap that President Trump is
walking right into, and we have to prevent him from walking into
this kind of British intelligence trap.  So, here’s what Helga
Zepp-LaRouche had to say:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Yeah, we are indeed in a very
dangerous situation, which could get out of control in no time.
And just to underline that point, this tweet by President Trump
which made the headlines internationally everywhere, namely,
Russia, the missiles are coming.  That turns out to be a reaction
to a fake news! The background of this story is that about a week
ago, the Russian ambassador to Lebanon, gave an interview where
he supposedly said that any attack on Syria would be answered by
a full military reaction by Russia.
Now, it turns out that that interview which appeared on
Hezbollah TV [Al Manar] and was translated into Arabic was
mistranslated, and obviously referred to an earlier remark which
General Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of Staff of the Russian
military had made, where he said, that if there is an attack on a
Russian soldier in Syria, that Russia would react.  So, it was
not that any attack on Syria would be met with a Russian
retaliation, but if the lives of Russian soldiers would be
attacked, which is a huge difference.
But obviously, that was the trigger point for Trump to send
out this tweet.  But it also shows you that in this environment
of complete orchestration of fake news, false flag attacks,
secret service manipulation of all kinds, how easy it is to stage
an incident and how things can get out of control.
We are right now not off the war danger.  It’s still unclear
what will happen.  Yesterday at the White House briefing,
apparently it was said that “all options are on the table.”
Theresa May meets with her cabinet  — supposedly according to
media reports, which are not very reliable, but it’s the only
source we have on that  — to decide if the British would
participate in a US military attack.  Now, the US warship USS
Donald Cook is 100 km from Tartus, which is the Russian military
port in Syria, and another US warship has left Norfolk, and is on
the way already since several days.
Now, since Russia has full air control over Syria, and Syria
has also extremely effective missile defense systems, if there is
a US missile attack on Syria, it could be right in a
confrontation between the two nuclear powers, the United States
and Russia.  So I can only urge you, all of you who are watching
this program, you should join our mobilization.  In every
parliament in the world where you are, get your congressman, get
your deputy to intervene and make sure the respective governments
are completely distancing themselves, that there is a public
debate and investigation.  And we must really have a total
mobilization against this war danger.

OGDEN:  So, that is a call to action from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche.  We remain in a red alert.  We need a total
mobilization against this war danger; not only here in the United
States, but across the entire planet.  The resistance to this
must be vocal, loud, clear, and it must be made clear that this
is exactly the kind of provocation which could directly lead to
World War III.  So, don’t let President Trump walk into a trap.
That’s the subject of the leaflet that we are circulating —
“Enough!  Call Congress and Your Senator and Tell Them To Shut
Down Robert Mueller and Stop the British Drive to War”.  So, we
implore you:  If you haven’t yet, do this; do it again.  Get all
of your friends and neighbors to inundate Congress with these
calls.  And to call the White House switchboard as well.  We must
continue in this all-out mobilization and respond to the call to
action that you just heard Helga Zepp-LaRouche deliver.
So, thank you very much for viewing this webcast here today.
Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Vært Matthew Ogden: God eftermiddag. Det er den 30. marts, 2018; Langfredag.

Hvis man ser på begivenhederne i verden i løbet af de seneste to uger, kunne man sige, at, på den ene hånd, er vi meget tæt på krig; at truslen om krig er alvorligt forøget. Men på den anden side kan man også sige, at muligheden for en reel, permanent, holdbar fred er meget tæt på. I realiteten er begge disse udsagn sande. Jeg mener, at denne kendsgerning viser os sandheden omkring, hvor, vi står i historiens forløb. Vi er usikkert anbragt på en knivspids og balancerer mellem to, modsatrettede paradigmer, som ikke kan sameksistere. Der er paradigmet for geopolitik og krig, og som desperat forsøger atter at gøre sig gældende på den transatlantiske scene netop nu; men så har vi også det modsatte paradigme for win-win-samarbejde og fred gennem økonomisk udvikling. Det er det Nye Paradigme, der vokser frem og fejer hen over planeten. Det er præcis dette Nye Paradigmes succes, der har sat den geopolitiske gruppering her i det transatlantiske område i alarmtilstand. Det viser os også, at det er absolut nødvendigt, at folk af god vilje, inkl. LaRouche-bevægelsen her i USA og internationalt, intervenerer for fred, og for det Nye Paradigme.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

On the one hand, you have this incredible provocation from
Mad Theresa May, or as she’s being called “Theresa Mayhem”; a
very appropriate nickname.  She’s trying to rally an
international war coalition.  She’s going from a very weak
government that was on the verge of collapse three weeks ago, to
now; she’s probably casting herself in the image of Margaret
Thatcher, or even her image of Winston Churchill.  However, while
an unprecedented number of countries have fallen into lockstep
behind the UK in expelling these Russian agents, the more
interesting thing is how many countries did not do so.  Including
nearly a dozen European countries, which include Austria, which
sees itself as a bridge between Europe and Russia; Belgium, the
seat of the EU government interesting; Bulgaria; Cypress; Greece;
Luxembourg; Malta; Portugal; Slovakia; Slovenia.  Then on top of
that, you have Japan — a major US-UK ally; but also under the
recent years under Abe’s government, an ever-increasingly close
relationship with Russia. Then, even New Zealand, which is the
most fascinating of them all.  New Zealand is a member of the
so-called Five Eyes, which is the intelligence sharing group
comprised of the United States, the UK, Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand.  There was an article in the {Guardian} saying this
was a huge surprise that New Zealand, which they characterize as
Lilliputian, would go against the diktat that came from Theresa
May in London.
So, you can see that this is a very precarious and dangerous
situation, and that continues to play out.  But on the other
hand, take a look at the extremely promising developments towards
actual peace and towards averting nuclear war which are now
occurring on the Korean peninsula.  While the geo-politicians
would have you believe that second only to Russia, China is the
biggest global threat that we have to face right now; or perhaps
even more so.  The reality is that China has played a key role
in bringing Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table.  This is closer
to a real peaceful settlement of this crisis than we’ve seen in
many years.  The crucial factor in this has been the close
personal relationship that was forged between President Xi
Jinping of China and President Donald Trump here in the United
States.  So, in an absolutely surprising development which caught
the entire intelligence community here in the United States —
for one — by surprise, Chairman Kim Jong-un made a personal trip
to China; travelling by special train to Beijing on March 25th.
He stayed in the official government guest house, and had a
series of meetings stretching over the course of three and a half
days from March 25th to March 28th, meeting with Chinese
President Xi Jinping in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People.  They
engaged in very serious talks.  According to reports, this is the
first time in his seven years as President of North Korea that
Kim travelled outside of the country.  Now, what President Xi
Jinping said, as was reported in Chinese media about this meeting
during the summit that he had with Kim Jong-un, he said, “The
basics of the traditional friendship between China and North
Korea were founded and nurtured by the elder generations of
leaders of both countries.  This is our invaluable heritage.”
Then, Kim Jong-un, who is slated to meet face-to-face with
President Trump of the United States within the coming weeks in
the next month or so, said that he is ready to conduct this
high-level dialogue with the United States.  He said, “The issue
of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula can be resolved, if
South Korea and the United States respond to our efforts with
goodwill.  It will create an atmosphere of peace and stability,
while taking progressive and synchronous measures for the
realization of peace.  It is our consistent stand to be committed
to denuclearization on the peninsula, in accordance of the will
of late President Kim Il-Sung and late General Secretary Kim
Jong-Il.
According to reports, Kim also told Xi Jinping that North
Korea is ready to make some pretty reforms to its domestic
economic policy.  He’s ready to further open up to a market
economy, along the lines of what China has done over the past
couple of decades, going back to Deng Xiao-ping; what is called
“socialism with Chinese characteristics”.  Also, the reports are
that China, coming out of this meeting, agreed to invest in and
expand North Korea’s two major ocean ports; one on the west coast
of North Korea in Nan Pao, and one on the east coast in Wonsan.
What President Trump had to say following this summit
between Kim Jong-un and President Xi Jinping, he posted on
twitter.  He said, “Received a message last night from Xi Jinping
of China that his meeting with Kim Jong-un went very well and
that Kim looks forward to his meeting with me.  In the meantime
and unfortunately, maximum sanctions and pressure must be
maintained at all costs.”  But I think this shows you very
clearly that this is a joint project between President Trump and
President Xi Jinping personally.  This is an example of the kinds
of benefits that the world can gain if major nations such as the
United States and China work together towards these common ends.
Now, let me play you a clip from Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s
international webcast from yesterday, where she addressed the
very positive outcome that is developing there on the Korean
peninsula.
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Oh, I think this is the
absolute overwhelming event, happening this past week.  Because
the Western mainstream media are again so ridiculous.  They were
saying, “oh, these two dictators meeting…” and so forth, but
this is very, very good, because obviously, both Xi Jinping and
Kim Jong-un recalled the long friendship between the two
countries, North Korea and China, and Kim Jong-un, in particular,
promised to carry on policy in the tradition of his father and
other relatives in the past.  He basically promised that he wants
to work towards the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,
provided that this offer is being met in an atmosphere of peace
and constructive attitude.  Obviously, North Korea will need
security guarantees; without that, he probably will not give up
the nuclear weapons.  But the fact that he first went to China,
and then is going to meet with President Moon Jae-in from South
Korea, at the end of April, and then, in all likelihood, with
President Trump in May, that means that one of the most dangerous
possible points for a World War III scenario could be peacefully
resolved.
And, you know, the fact that, as contacts were telling us in
South Korea, this whole thing had an economic dimension to it.
China  — according to these sources — is going to build ports
in North Korea on the east coast and the west coast, and also
obviously, the whole question of the extension of the Belt and
Road Initiative, involving South Korea, North Korea, Russia, and
China, — that is the framework within which one can get a really
stable development.
So Trump immediately made a tweet, where he said he got a
phone call from President Xi Jinping, who told him that the
meeting went very well, and that he is extremely optimistic,
looking forward; that unfortunately the sanctions [against North
Korea] have to be maintained until the problem is resolved, but
that he is absolutely looking forward towards this coming summit.
So I think this is {really} good, and it shows you that if
you have back-channels and in this case, you had everybody
involved, — Trump, Xi Jinping, Putin, but also Abe from Japan —
so this really shows that if you have this kind of diplomacy and
negotiation, there is no problem on this planet which cannot
solved by people who have a good will. And I think everybody
should be very happy about this development.
OGDEN:  So, exactly as I said, that is a testament that
there are major crises on the planet which cannot be resolved
unilaterally, but if we have this kind of great powers
relationship, these kinds of crises can be confronted, and can be
resolved.  Crises that have hung over our heads for decades.
This relationship between China and the United States through
this close personal relationship between Xi Jinping and President
Trump is already paying dividends, as you can see in the case of
this Korean peninsula here, and the possibility of not just
positive effects abroad, but very positive effects here at home
is also very real if we continue to cultivate this special great
powers relationship between China and the United States.
Now, despite all the talk of trade war, etc., there are very
interesting openings for joint Chinese-US investments and
cooperation in development projects right here in the United
States.  This, of course, is right along the lines of exactly
what LaRouche PAC has been campaigning for in terms of the United
States joining this New Paradigm, joining the New Silk Road, and
also exactly what Lyndon LaRouche has addressed in his Four
Economic Laws for drastically upgrading the productive powers of
the US labor force and lifting the United States to a much higher
platform of high-technology development.  This can be done with
this kind of US-Chinese relationship.  So, some of the very
interesting US to China, China to US relationships, some news on
that front over just the last few days.  Some US Republican
Senators — Senator Danes from Montana, Senator Grassley from
Iowa, Senator Johnson from Wisconsin, Purdue from Georgia, and
Senator Sass from Nebraska — all were in Beijing just a few days
ago this week on March 27th, where they had a meeting with
Premier Li Keqiang.  The Senators called the United States-China
relationship “one of the most important bilateral relationships
in the world.”  So, this is very interesting, especially coming
from Republicans in the US Senate who have been taking a very
anti-China line up to this point.  Of course we see contrary
voices, such as Marco Rubio, who is accusing every Chinese
student in the United States of being a secret Chinese spy.  But
this trip is interesting, and it comes from Senators who are
mainly from the so-called Farm Belt.  I think the involvement of
Senator Grassley is interesting, because of Terry Branstad’s
roots in Iowa.  Terry Branstad, former Governor of Iowa; now the
ambassador to China.
Also, we had news of the mayor of Miami-Dade County in
Florida, Mayor Carlos Jimenez, who just returned from a visit to
China, where he led a delegation of 50 elected officials and
business leaders from Florida.  He met with the mayor of
Shanghai, who stated to Mayor Jimenez, “The bilateral
relationship between China and the United States is the most
important.  It will affect the well-being of the people from both
countries and the world’s peace and prosperity as well.”  So,
interestingly, exactly the same wordings that came out of that
communiqué from the five US Senators, that the China-US
bilateral relationship is one of the most important bilateral
relationships in the world.  The mayor of Shanghai also made the
point very correctly that this is a win-win; the well-being of
the people of both countries — the United States and China —
can benefit out of this kind of bilateral relationship; but also,
the world’s peace and prosperity as well.  So, this is exactly
along the lines that Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been making and has
continued to make this week, as we will see.
Also — this is very interesting — the Governor of Alaska,
Governor Bill Walker, has announced that he will lead a trade
delegation to China in May; which interestingly, he first
proposed during his January 2018 State of the State address.
This is has been subsequently worked out, so this is another
state along the lines of what Governor Jim Justice in West
Virginia has been discussing.  Jim Justice, in his State of the
State, obviously discussed the importance of these $80 billion
Chinese investments into the state of West Virginia.  Now, you
have Governor Bill Walker from Alaska.  This does come in the
wake of Governor Walker personally hosting President Xi Jinping
last April in Anchorage when President Xi was flying back from
Florida, where he had his meeting with President Trump at
Mar-a-Lago on his way back to China; where he took a brief
opportunity to visit Governor Walker in Anchorage, Alaska.  Then
on November 8, 2017, Governor Walker was the only governor to
accompany President Trump on his delegation for the so-called
“state visit plus” to Beijing, where one of the deals that was
signed out of the $300 billion of deals and memoranda of
understanding, one of the deals that was signed was a $43 billion
China investment and purchase deal for an 800-mile Alaska gas
pipeline.  Also, there were important commitments made for
liquefied natural gas sales.  But this pipeline project which is
now being very much emphasized by Governor Walker, is being
characterized by the CEO of the Alaska Gas Line Development
Corporation — one of the parties in this memorandum of
understanding — is being characterized as having the potential
of “turbo-charging” the Alaskan economy.
So, these are states that have been on the margins and are
some of the poorer states.  West Virginia for sure, Alaska very
isolated, who are now developing these relationships with China
and are becoming gateways for the Silk Road spirit to enter into
the United States.  This is exactly what we’ve been discussing in
terms of the crucial importance of the role that China can play;
these mutual investments and joint projects that China is willing
to assist in building here in the United States.  And just the
idea of the United States joining this wave of mega-projects
which is sweeping the globe and upgrading our infrastructure from
the point that it’s now reached, which is a very sorry state of
disrepair and deterioration that has come from decades and
decades of disinvestment.
President Trump was in Ohio just yesterday, where he was
speaking to a room full of union members and building trades
workers.  The point of his trip was to address his so-called
infrastructure plan.  We know that there are many deficits when
it comes to the actual content of what Trump has proposed, but
Trump in this speech made it clear that he is still very clear in
terms of what the urgency of the problem here in the United
States is when it comes to infrastructure.  And also the image of
the United States as a nation of builders, and reclaiming the
legacy that we had over centuries that we were the premier
building nation in the world.  Our infrastructure was second to
none, and other nations were coming to the United States to try
to emulate what we had accomplished.  So, I’d like to just play a
couple of excerpts from President Trump’s address in Ohio
yesterday, and you’ll see that this infrastructure debate is
still very much on the front burner.  It desperately needs the
kind of input that the LaRouche movement is uniquely positioned
to make.
PRESIDENT TRUMP

:  We will breathe new life into your
very run-down highways, railways, and waterways.  We’ll transform
our roads and bridges from a source of endless frustration into a
source of absolutely incredible pride.  And we’re going to do it
all under budget and ahead of schedule.  You ever hear those
words in the public world?  Under budget and ahead of schedule.
We have other things.  Nearly 40% of our bridges were built
before — think of this — before the first Moon landing.  You go
to some countries, they’re building bridges all over the place;
all over you have bridges going up.  One particular country, I
won’t use it because they’re friendly to me, they weren’t
friendly to us as a nation, but now they’re friendly; they’re
building 29 bridges.  We don’t build bridges like that very much
anymore.  A little bit, every once in a while.  But our roads are
clogged, we have average drivers spend 42 hours every year stuck
in traffic, costing us at least $160 billion annually.  Our mass
transit systems are a mess; they’re dilapidated and they’re
decayed.  Nationwide, we average 300 power outages per year;
compared to just five per year in the 1980s.  A total mess.
In recent years, Americans have watched as Washington spent
trillions and trillions of dollars building up foreign countries
while allowing our own country’s infrastructure to fall into a
state of total disrepair.  We spent — and I was against it from
the beginning — they try and say “Well, maybe not ⦔  I was
against it from the beginning.  And by the way, we’re knocking
the hell out of ISIS; we’ll be coming out of Syria like very
soon.  Let the other people take care of it now.  Very soon, very
soon we’re coming out.  We’re going to have 100% of the Caliphate
as they call it, sometimes referred to as land; we’re taking it
all back, quickly, quickly.  But we’re going to be coming out of
there real soon; we’re going to get back to our country where we
belong, where we want to be.
But think of it.  We spent, as of three months ago, $7
trillion — not billion, not million — $7 trillion with a “t”;
nobody every heard of the word trillion until ten years ago.  We
spent $7 trillion in the Middle East.  We build a school, they
blow it up; we build it again, they blow it up.  We build it
again, it hasn’t been blown up yet, but it will be.  But if we
want a school in Ohio to fix the windows, you can’t get the
money.  If you want a school in Pennsylvania or Iowa to get
Federal money, you can’t get the money.  We spent $7 trillion in
the Middle East.  And you know what we have for it?  Nothing.
Stupid!  Stupid!  But we spent $7 trillion, but we barely have
money for the infrastructure.  For most of our history, American
infrastructure was the envy of the world — true.  Go back 30,
40, 50 years.  They would look at us like — now, we are like in
many places a Third World country.  It’s an embarrassment!  And
we’re the ones that had the imagination and the drive to get it
done, but we’ve got that again.  Other nations marveled as we
connected our shores with transcontinental railroads and brought
power to our cities that lit up the sky like no other place on
Earth, and build mile after mile of internet capabilities and
interstate highways to carry American products all across the
country and around the globe.  Nobody did it like us!  We dug out
the Panama Canal; think of that!  Thousands of lives were lost to
the mosquito, to the mosquito — malaria.  We dug out the Panama
Canal.  We transformed our skylines with towering works of
concrete and steel, and laid the foundation for the modern
economy.  To rebuild this nation, we must reclaim that proud
heritage — have to reclaim it.  And we’re on our way.
We must recapture the excitement of creation, the spirit of
innovation, and the spark of invention.  We’re starting!  You saw
the rocket the other day, you see what’s going on with cars.  You
see what’s going on with so much.  NASA, space agency, all of
sudden it’s back, you notice?  It was dormant for many, many
years.  Now it’s back, and they’re doing a great job.  America is
a nation like you, of builders.  It’s a nation of pioneers, a
nation that accepts no limits, no hardship, and never ever gives
up.  We don’t give up!  We don’t give up.  Anything we can dream,
you can build.  You will create the new highways, the new dams
and skyscrapers that will become lasting monuments to American
strength and continued greatness.  You will forge new American
steel into the spine of our country.  You will cement the
foundation of a glorious American future, and you will do it all
with those beautiful American hands.  Powerful hands, powerful
heart, and powerful American pride, right?  Powerful American
pride.
But you’re the ones who are truly making America great
again.  We’re going to work together.  We’re going to work with
the state of Ohio, we’re going to work with everybody.  And we’re
going to bring our country to a level of success and prominence
and pride like it has never ever seen before.  Thank you, and God
bless America.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.
OGDEN:  So you can see, the commitment truly is there.  This
is obviously what got President Trump elected in the first place.
He’s back in Ohio, back in the industrial heartland.  That
commitment to the reindustrialization of the United States, the
reclaiming of the legacy of the great manufacturing power and
returning to that image of the United States as the envy of the
world in terms of builders.  He cited the transcontinental
railroad connecting the sea to the sea, ocean to ocean,
stretching across the United States.  The Moon landing, so many
other things that the United States accomplished.  Now, in his
words, there are parts of the United States that literally have
come to resemble a Third World country.  So, the commitment is
there.
The program is exactly what LaRouche PAC has issued.  This
is the Four Laws economic program, and that’s why it’s so
indispensable that this pamphlet is circulated across the
country, and that this is studied by people in the United States
everywhere.  This should be the material which is being used by
these trade delegations that are travelling to China.  Alaska,
Miami-Dade County, West Virginia; all of these states, all of
these local government officials, all of these governors, all of
these Senators and Congressmen.  If they really want to figure
out what is the policy that the United States should be
discussing, this is the source material.  This is what they
should be studying.  You are the ones who play the critical role
in getting it into their hands and communicating the ideas that
are contained in this pamphlet.
The way that this is going to happen, and this is exactly
what Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have been addressing from the
standpoint of the New Silk Road becoming the World Land-Bridge
and the United States becoming part of this New Paradigm of
development and mega-projects.  One very interesting development,
which is really just a continuation of what has been discussed by
numerous officials coming out of China, and really was originated
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the LaRouche movement when she went to
the Belt and Road Initiative forum last Spring, along the lines
of China actually converting their US Treasury bonds that they
hold into equity in a national infrastructure bank here in the
United States and putting that money in terms of credit into
allowing the United States to capitalize such an infrastructure
fund; and to build these great projects that you heard President
Trump discussing.
So, let me just say, this week, as publicized by CGTN, which
is the China Daily global television network, an organization
called the Center for China and Globalization has reiterated the
idea that the only pathway towards stability in terms of US-China
trade relations, and evening out this so-called trade deficit,
the only pathway should be based on joint economic initiatives
and joint investments.  Instead of tit-for-tat tariff retaliation
this way and that way, the Center for China and Globalization —
according to CGTN — said that China should continue ten measures
that it should take to foster US-China trade ties.  They
recommend, in addition to adjustments that should be made in
areas such as lifting excessive limits on high technology exports
to China, and various other aspects.  The two most important
steps that they propose here are the following:  1. “Consider the
establishment of an investment fund to help the United States
upgrade its infrastructure, capitalizing on China’s advanced
technology and expertise in the field.”  2.  “Enlist the
participation of American companies in Belt and Road projects as
third party partners.”  So again, the establishment of an
investment fund where China can invest in the upgrading of US
infrastructure, and also contribute its significant expertise
that it has developed in terms of the projects that China has
built over the last 10-15 years.  Then, two, enlist American
companies in Belt and Road projects as third party partners.
So, in other words, the United States and US companies
actually join China as third party partners in some of these
development projects in other countries.  Why could the United
States not be participating as joint investors and joint partners
in some of these fantastic rail projects that China has been
building in Africa, for example?  Or some of the water projects,
or some of the power projects?  And this kind of win-win
relationship between the United States and China could then
benefit both China and the United States, but also benefit the
world.  So, in this way, China can continue to adhere to their
professed goal of long-term stable economic and trade relations
between the two nations, but also third party partners can also
benefit.
So, that’s what was proposed by this organization — the
Center for China and Globalization.  And emphatically, this is
not a new idea.  In fact, this idea comes directly from what the
LaRouche movement has been discussing in terms of America’s
future on the New Silk Road.  So, this is a very significant
opportunity, and despite the fact that everything you’re hearing
right now is trade war, tariffs, tit-for-tat, and so forth,
President Trump even in that speech in Ohio that you just heard,
praised what China has been able to accomplish in terms of these
marvels of infrastructure.  Bridge building, so forth and so on,
over the recent years.  It’s exactly that spirit, the spirit of
the New Silk Road that the United States must emulate right now.
We see some very interesting potentials around that sort of
development.  Again, as I said, these are the dividends of the
close personal relationship that President Trump and President Xi
Jinping have forged.  And it’s our job to continue to develop
things along that path.
So, let me conclude here by playing another clip from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s webcast from yesterday, where she addresses this
proposal for the United States joining the Belt and Road
Initiative as a third party partner in development projects
abroad, and also this idea of Chinese investment through an
infrastructure bank or similar investment fund in infrastructure
projects here in the United States.  So, here’s this clip from
Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Well, there is actually a very
interesting response from China, where the Prime Minister Li
Keqiang made a proposal:  He said, rather than reducing the trade
deficit by imposing tariffs, which would end up in a trade war,
and nobody would be the winner in the end, he said, the other way
to  resolve the trade deficit would be to increase the volume of
trade, and that way you could have also joint ventures between
the United States and China and third countries. And that is
obviously the approach which we have been proposing for a very
long time.
There was also an extremely productive approach being
discussed on CGTN, the China Global Television Network, where
they said that the United States and China should start a
dialogue about infrastructure, and that Chinese investors could
invest in the development of infrastructure in the United States,
through a fund.  Now, this is a proposal which we have been
pushing from way back, saying that China has these very large US
Treasury reserves, which if they just sit there, don’t do
anything good.  But if they would be invested in the
infrastructure inside the United States, through an
infrastructure bank or some other mechanism, it could help to
solve the financing problem which President Trump clearly has;
given the fact that presently what is available in terms of
funding, is very far from the $1 trillion he had mentioned during
the election campaign.  And the American Society of Civil
Engineers had said what is needed is not $1 trillion but actually
$4.5 trillion; and some experts have even said, in order to get
modern infrastructure in the United States, you need $8 trillion
in investment.
So, I think there is a situation where you could get rid of
the trade imbalance by really using the Chinese expertise in
high-speed train systems and other infrastructure. And what we
have shaping up from the Schiller Institute was this idea to do
exactly in the United States what China has been doing and will
complete by 2025, or even 2020, to connect all its major cities
through fast train systems.  Now, obviously the infrastructure in
the United States is in terrible shape and needs urgent repair,
most of it is almost 100 years old or even older.  So this would
be an approach to really resolve this on a higher level.
I think many people should discuss this, and there are
already many forces in the United States who have opened channels
with their Chinese counterparts.  The governor of West Virginia,
the mayor of Houston, Texas, the governor of Alaska. Naturally
people in Iowa are very tuned in, because the former Iowa Gov.
Terry Branstad is U.S. Ambassador in Beijing.  So there are
actually other alternatives than going into a trade war, which
nobody would really benefit from.
[T]he world has reached a point where we {have} to
overcome geopolitics.  Because if, at this point, the United
States, or the West in general, would go into the Thucydides
Trap, take the rise of China as a reason to go into war and
confrontation,  this could very easily be the end of all of
humanity, so we have to find a different way.  And China has said
many times, they do not want to surpass the United States and
replace with a unipolar world order, but they want to be in a new
alliance of sovereign countries, and have the idea of the one
humanity first.
And I think this is a new concept of foreign policy, and
people should study it and relate to it, rather than going for
the rather uninformed opinions of such people as Marco Rubio, who
is on a rampage against anything Chinese. But it really is not
going to work, because the rest of the world is very happy with
what China is doing, and I think it would be for the absolute
benefit of humanity if the United States and China could find a
way to cooperate in their mutual interest.
OGDEN:  So there, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, it would be
of the absolute benefit of the people of the United States and of
China and the benefit of all humanity, if these two countries can
find a pathway towards cooperation in their mutual interest.  In
fact, that’s the reality with all countries.  This is the point
of the idea of a great powers relationship.  Russia, China,
India, the United States; and that really is the foundation of
exactly what this idea of a new win-win paradigm of relations
between nations is.  There are problems to be overcome; there are
disagreements that will invariably occur; there are conflicts
that different nations must resolve.  But all of these can be
resolved by elevating the dialogue to a higher level, and to look
at what the common challenges are and what are the avenues of the
common benefit that all nations can work together towards this
idea of a common destiny for mankind.
So, we’re out of time right now.  As I said in the
beginning, if you looked at in one way, you would say the
possibility of war is very near at hand.  But if you look at it
in another way, you say the possibility of a New Paradigm of
peace and mutual development is also very close at hand, and is
right there for the taking.  It is all that much more necessary
that those of us who have this perspective and understand that
the big picture — events on the ground are being dictated and
are being driven by this fight; by this struggle between two
mutually opposing paradigms.  The geopolitical paradigm, that has
brought us to the threshold of this kind of war situation; but
also, this New Paradigm of economic development and
mega-projects.  And the offer, that we will assist you, not
expecting something in return, not trying to impose our will on
you; but just from the standpoint that this kind of cooperation
is in our mutual benefit.  It’s up to us and it’s up to the
elected leadership here in the United States on all levels, to
gain that perspective and to look for those avenues of mutually
beneficial cooperation and win-win relationships that can build
the bridge from now into this future in which the New Paradigm is
dominant.
So, as I said, we have the material which you need, which is
in the contents of this Four Laws pamphlet.  This is “Lyndon
LaRouche’s Four Laws; The Physical Economic Principles for the
Recovery of the United States:  America’s Future on the New Silk
Road.”  This was originally printed many months ago, but it
remains highly relevant and a very timely intervention that we
can use to educate our fellow Americans according to this
potential for the dividends of the New Paradigm of win-win
cooperation and economic development.  With that perspective in
mind, we wish you a Happy Easter, and we thank you for tuning to
larouchepac.com.  Please stay tuned, and we’ll see you on Monday.

Vært Matthew Ogden: Det er i dag den 23. marts, 2018, en meget gunstig dato: Det er nemlig 35 års dagen for en meget vigtig dato, som var 23. marts, 1983, hvor præsident Ronald Reagan annoncerede vedtagelsen af det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ  (SDI; Strategic Defense Initiative). I dag er det et meget passende tidspunkt for at bedømme den stadigt mere presserene nødvendige vedtagelse af en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur for planeten, og den samtidige nye økonomiske arkitektur, som må ledsage den.

Vi befinder os i et meget dramatisk øjeblik i verdenshistorien, og jeg mener, at, hvis vi træder et skridt tilbage og ser på det store billede, så står det klart, at verdensordenen, som vi har kendt den i de seneste 70 år, er i færd med at undergå en total transformation. Og udfaldet af de strategiske kampe, der raser netop nu, både på den nationale scene her i USA, men især på den globale scene; udfaldet af disse strategiske kampe vil afgøre menneskehedes historie i mange generationer fremover.

Med de begivenheder, der har fundet sted i løbet af de seneste tre uger, siden den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin den 1. marts annoncerede, at Rusland havde udviklet en helt ny generation af strategiske våben, baseret på avancerede fysiske [principper], og som er i stand til at gennemtrænge alle kendte forsvarssystemer, har vi set, hvor dramatisk nødvendigt det er, med det presserende i en sådan ny sikkerhedsarkitektur. Ikke én, der bygger på Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD; garanteret gensidig ødelæggelse), men derimod én, der bygger på win-win-overlevelse og økonomisk fremskridt for alle nationer på denne planet; nødvendigheden heraf bliver i stigende grad mere presserende. Jeg vil gerne fremhæve, hvad præsident Putin selv sagde i denne tale 1. marts til den føderale forsamling:

Han sagde:

» … lad os sætte os ved forhandlingsbordet og sammen udtænke et nyt og relevant system for international sikkerhed og bæredygtig udvikling for menneskelig civilisation. … Dette er et vendepunkt for hele verden og for dem, der er villige til, og i stand til, at forandre sig; de, der handler og går fremad, vil tage føringen.«

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56957

Men, snarere end klart og nøgternt at vurdere denne ændrede, strategiske virkelighed, med denne game-changing tale af Ruslands præsident, og besvare dette tilbud for at forhandle, med hans ord, »et nyt og relevant system for international sikkerhed og bæredygtig udvikling for menneskelig civilisation«, for endelig at bringe denne nihilistiske dødsspiral med stadigt mere dødbringende masseudslettelsesvåben til en afslutning; snarere end at gøre dette, har briterne og deres såkaldte »partnere« i Europa forsøgt at oppiske en generel støtte til en krigskonfrontation mod Rusland ved anvendelse af det, Labour-partiets leder, Jeremy Corbyn, meget korrekt karakteriserede som det, han kaldte »fejlbehæftet efterretning« og »uvederhæftige dossiers« af den type, som blev brugt til at retfærdiggøre invasionen af Irak. Og som Jeremy Corbyn advarede om, så bør vi ikke »affinde os med en ny Kold Krig … og en intolerance over for dissens som under McCarthy-perioden«.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche i går understregede i sin internationale webcast, så har briterne og Theresa May, i deres forsøg på at gennemtvinge en sådan krigsprovokation, overspillet deres hånd. Deres metoder og deres mål står nu afsløret for hele verden at se. På trods af Theresa Mays bestræbelser på at presse præsident Trump over i et hjørne, hvor han ikke ville vove at forsøge at tage skridt, der ville gøre det muligt for ham at honorere sin forpligtelse til at forbedre relationerne med Rusland; snarere end at lade sig blive bakket ind i et hjørne, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, så udmanøvrerede præsident Trump imidlertid hele operationen ved at tage telefonen og ringe til præsident Putin og lykønske ham med genvalget og hans næste periode som Ruslands præsident, og fortsatte med en meget sober diskussion mellem de to statsoverhoveder om nogle af de meget vigtige, fælles bestræbelser og fælles udfordringer, som disse to nationer, USA og Rusland, sammen konfronteres med; og som, hvis vi fik lov at gøre det, vi kunne arbejde sammen om at løse, såsom krisen i Syrien; såsom muligheden for et totalt gennembrud for fred på Koreahalvøen; såsom den igangværende situation i Ukraine; og meget signifikant, såsom at forhindre et nyt våbenkapløb.

Umiddelbart efter denne telefonsamtale, blev pressen, som I kan tænke jer, hysterisk, og Det Hvide Hus’ pressesekretær Sarah Sanders holdt en pressekonference i briefing-værelset i Det Hvide Hus, hvor hun ikke mindre end et halvt dusin gange understregede den absolutte betydning af at opretholde en dialog mellem USA og Rusland på lederskabsniveau, omkring fælles interesser og fælles udfordringer.

Jeg vil afspille nogle eksempler på nogle at disse gentagne udtalelser fra Sarah Sanders på denne pressebriefing i Det Hvide Hus.

Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet:

SARAH SANDERS:  We want to continue to have a dialogue with
Russia, and continue to talk about some of the shared interests
we have, whether it’s North Korea, Iran, and particularly as the
President noted today, slowing the tensions when it comes to an
arms race, something that is clearly important to both
leaders….
We want to continue to have dialogue so that we can work on
some of the issues that concern both countries, and we’re going
to continue to do that, while also continuing to be tough on a
number of things….
The President once again has maintained that it’s important
for us to have a dialogue with Russia so that we can focus on
some areas of shared interests…
These are conversations that sometimes take place, and
certainly the President finds there to be an importance in having
that dialogue with Russia so that we can talk about some of the
big problems that face the world….
We disagree with the fact that we shouldn’t have
conversations with Russia.  There are important topics that we
should be able to discuss, and that is why the President’s going
to continue to have that dialogue.
Again the focus was to talk about areas of shared interests.
We know that we need to continue a dialogue.  It’s important for
a lot of the safety and security of people across the globe.  We
would like to be able to work with them on things like North
Korea, on Iran, and also both countries shared interest in
lowering the tensions when it comes to an arms race, recognizing
that that’s not the best thing for either country, and so we want
to be able to have those conversations and that was the point of
today’s call…. [end video]

OGDEN:  So, that’s a very clear message, obviously.  Now, on
the same day, President Trump himself reiterated exactly the same
points in a couple of tweets that he posted, and I would like to
just read you those tweets.  He said:
“I called President Putin of Russia to congratulate him on
his election victory (in past, Obama called him also).  The Fake
News Media is crazed because they wanted me to excoriate him.
They are wrong!  Getting along with Russia (and others) is a good
thing, not a bad thing.”
“They can help solve problems with North Korea, Syria,
Ukraine, ISIS, Iran, and even the coming Arms Race.  Bush tried
to get along, but didn’t have the ‘smarts.’  Obama and Clinton
tried, but didn’t have the energy or chemistry (remember RESET).
PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH!” he concludes.
Now of course that final phrase is a quotation directly from
President Ronald Reagan.   And this direct reference is a very
timely one, and perhaps is not merely a coincidental one:  As I
said, today, March 23rd, is the 35th anniversary of one of the
groundbreaking moments in modern history, and it’s one which
completely reshaped the global, strategic geometry at that time,
and which remains immediately relevant all the way up to the
present day.
That moment, March 23rd, 1983 was representative of a
complete shock, a shock wave which was felt around the world.
This was the surprise announcement by President Ronald Reagan at
the conclusion of a live, national television broadcast which was
an address to the nation, nominally on national security.  But
what President Reagan did at the conclusion of that broadcast, to
the surprise of almost all of his leading advisors in the White
House even, was to announce what came to be known as the
Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI, what President Reagan
called a “vision of the future, which offers hope.”
In the speech, what President Reagan did was that he
committed the United States to a crash program, a crash
scientific program for the development of advanced technologies
which would be based on new physical principles to
(quote/unquote) “free the world from the threat of nuclear war.”
And so, in so doing, President Reagan completely overthrew the
ideology of retaliatory nuclear deterrence through the threat of
instantaneous, total nuclear response in the event of the
detection of a nuclear attack against the territory of the United
States.  This was what was so-called Mutually Assured Destruction
(MAD).
President Reagan completely rejected the very premise of
Mutually Assured Destruction and in so doing, Reagan shocked the
world, and truly did change the course of world history.  So,
right now, why don’t we wind the clock back 35 years, and listen
to what the world heard on that night, March 23rd, 1983:

My fellow Americans, thank you for sharing your time with me
tonight.
The subject I want to discuss with you, peace and national
security, is both timely and important. Timely, because I’ve
reached a decision which offers a new hope for our children in
the 21st century…
The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple
premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never
be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and
defend against aggression — to preserve freedom and peace.
Since the dawn of the atomic age, we’ve sought to reduce the
risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking
genuine arms control. “Deterrence” means simply this: making
sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States,
or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks
to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he
won’t attack. We maintain the peace through our strength;
weakness only invites aggression.
This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works.
But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one
kind of military force to deter an attack when we had far more
nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now
that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful
nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the
ground. Now, this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning
to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable — quite
the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is
based on being prepared to meet all threats.
There was a time when we depended on coastal forts and
artillery batteries, because, with the weaponry of that day, any
attack would have had to come by sea. Well, this is a different
world, and our defenses must be based on recognition and
awareness of the weaponry possessed by other nations in the
nuclear age….
Now, thus far tonight I’ve shared with you my thoughts on
the problems of national security we must face together. My
predecessors in the Oval Office have appeared before you on other
occasions to describe the threat posed by Soviet power and have
proposed steps to address that threat. But since the advent of
nuclear weapons, those steps have been increasingly directed
toward deterrence of aggression through the promise of
retaliation.
This approach to stability through offensive threat has
worked. We and our allies have succeeded in preventing nuclear
war for more than three decades. In recent months, however, my
advisors, including in particular the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have
underscored the necessity to break out of a future that relies
solely on offensive retaliation for our security.
Over the course of these discussions, I’ve become more and
more deeply convinced that the human spirit must be capable of
rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by
threatening their existence. Feeling this way, I believe we must
thoroughly examine every opportunity for reducing tensions and
for introducing greater stability into the strategic calculus on
both sides….
Wouldn’t it be better to save lives than to avenge them? Are
we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by
applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly
lasting stability? I think we are. Indeed, we must.
After careful consultation with my advisors, including the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, I believe there is a way. Let me share
with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we
embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat
with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very
strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base
and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today.
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that
their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S.
retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and
destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own
soil or that of our allies?
I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may
not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current
technology has attained a level of sophistication where it’s
reasonable for us to begin this effort….
I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations
and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with
offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive
policy, and no one wants that. But with these considerations
firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific community in our
country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great
talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us
the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and
obsolete.
Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ABM treaty
and recognizing the need for closer consultation with our allies,
I’m taking an important first step. I am directing a
comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research
and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of
eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles. This
could pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the
weapons themselves. We seek neither military superiority nor
political advantage. Our only purpose — one all people share —
is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war.
My fellow Americans, tonight we’re launching an effort which
holds the promise of changing the course of human history. There
will be risks, and results take time. But I believe we can do it.
As we cross this threshold, I ask for your prayers and your
support.
Thank you, good night, and God bless you. [end video]

OGDEN:  That was 35 years ago today.
Now, just as a side note, incidentally, President Trump is
not ignorant of this history.  In 1999, far before he ever was a
candidate for President, in a an interview with none other than
Wolf Blitzer on CNN, President Trump actually addressed what he
thought of as the necessity for the Strategic Defense Initiative,
but also the necessity for sitting down and having talks to work
out the tensions between the United States and Russia.  Here’s
just a quick quote from President Trump.  He said:
“As far as nuclear is concerned, this country, us, we need a
shield….”
Wolf Blitzer said, “A Strategic Defense Initiative?”
And Trump affirmed that, saying, “Because Russia is
unstable. We need a missile defense shield.  People used to
criticize Reagan, but now it’s very developable.  We need a
shield…. We need a change.  The ABM Treaty was 1972.  Who knew
what technology would develop?  We have to sit down with the
Russians and many others.”
So, that was just a side note.  That was Nov. 28, 1999.  But
as I think you can see, now-President Trump remains committed to
that inclination to sit down with the Russians and many others —
North Korea, for example; and to resolve these nuclear threats.
If you just go back again to that date in 1983, this was 35
years ago.  In President Reagan’s own words, he said that what he
announced that night would, indeed, change the course of world
history; and it did.  And, it took most of the world completely
by surprise.  But, it didn’t come out of nowhere, and this
history is very important for viewers to understand.
Let me just read you a portion of what Lyndon LaRouche had
to say at that time.  This is a statement that he issued the
morning following that historic speech, so this is from March 24,
1983.  What Mr. LaRouche had to say was the following:
“Only high-level officials of government, or a private
citizen as intimately knowledgeable of details of the
international political and strategic situation as I am
privileged to be, can even begin to foresee the Earth-shaking
impact the President’s television address last night will have
throughout the world…. [T]he words the President spoke last
night can never be put back into the bottle. Most of the world
will soon know, and will never forget that policy announcement.
With those words, the President has changed the course of modern
history.
“Today I am prouder to be an American than I have been since
the first manned landing on the Moon. For the first time in 20
years, a President of the United States has contributed a public
action of great leadership, to give a new basis for hope for
humanity’s future to an agonized and demoralized world. True
greatness in an American President touched President Ronald
Reagan last night; it is a moment of greatness never to be
forgotten.”
So that was Lyndon LaRouche, March 24, 1983.  Now, as
LaRouche alluded to in that statement, he was no bystander or
casual observer of the events of that night President Reagan
announced the SDI.  In fact, the grand idea behind what Reagan
announced that night, came directly from none other than Lyndon
LaRouche himself.  I would like to play for you a brief excerpt
of Mr. LaRouche, in his own words, speaking about the background
to what had shocked the world that night — March 23, 1983.  This
is taken from a video that LaRouche PAC published about ten years
ago, back in 2008, on the 25th anniversary of the SDI speech.
The video was titled “A Brief History of Lyndon LaRouche’s SDI.”
So, let’s listen to what Mr. LaRouche had to say in that video.

LYNDON LAROUCHE

:  I had been organizing the SDI
operation, including initially from 1977, long before it was
called an SDI.  I was the one who said, “We’re going to make a
project of this thing.”  So, I adopted this and stated this as my
program in 1979, when I was running as a Presidential candidate.
Then, I had this conservation with Reagan, and then as a
follow-up after he was President, we had a follow-up with various
people in the Reagan circle; including his National Security
Council.  I was working with the head of the National Security
Council on this operation, and with people from the CIA and this
and that.  I was sworn to this and sworn to that, so I was doing
the whole thing.  The SDI was my work, which they liked.  And
there was a faction, including the President, who liked it.  He
liked it because he was against, he always hated Henry Kissinger;
and he hated Henry Kissinger particularly because of the
so-called “revenge weapons.”  The idea that you build super
weapons, and if somebody throws a bomb at you, you obliterate the
planet.  That is not considered a good defense, and he was
against that.  When he saw from experts that what I was saying
was accepted experts — military and others — and this was
French intelligence, the leadership of the Gaullist faction in
France; this was the leadership of the German military; this was
the leadership of the Italian military, and all over the world.
So, I was the creator of the SDI.  Reagan liked it, he adopted
it.  I was creating the thing in direct cooperation during the
entire period, with the cooperation of the National Security
Council and the heads of the CIA.  People recognized that I was
right; I had the scientific capability and knowledge to do it,
and we were doing it.

OGDEN:  So, that’s the story in Lyndon LaRouche’s own words.
That is merely the tip of a very fascinating iceberg.  We
encourage you to watch that full video that I cited that that
excerpt was taken from.  But also, to visit the page on the
LaRouche PAC website which gives you the full background of this
story.  As you can see there, the link is larouchepac.com/sdi.
That gives you this full, historic background.  But as you heard
Mr. LaRouche say there in that video clip, this effort on his
part to craft the idea of what then became adopted by the
President of the United States in the form of the SDI, this
effort went all the way back to the mid-1970s.  Here’s an image
of a campaign pamphlet which was commissioned by Lyndon LaRouche,
titled “Sputnik of the ’70s: The Science behind the Soviets’ Beam
Weapon.”  In this pamphlet, Lyndon LaRouche called for an
international crash program to develop a space-based missile
defense system based on new physical principles.  A Manhattan
project-style mission which would provide the economic driver to
fuel global development.  The pamphlet proposed .”.. Long-range
economic and scientific collaboration with the Soviet Union,
among other nations, which would eliminate the danger of world
obliteration,” and it emphasized .”.. Tremendous revolutionary
industrial implications available to this nation and the world if
the political will of the United States forces a recommitment to
technological progress in the form of an International
Development Bank and its national concomitant Third National
Bank.”
So, as you can see, Lyndon LaRouche’s idea of this missile
defense system, was always framed around the idea of not
unilateral defense systems, but rather, a joint missile defense
and joint scientific and economic collaboration between the
United States and the Soviet Union.  To do so, would be to
unleash the revolutionary industrial and economic implications of
such technological breakthroughs as the basis for a new
international, economic order; something which he had been
involved in all the way back to at least 1971 when he first
issued the proposal for a new International Development Bank —
the so-called IDB.  So you can see in LaRouche’s idea, the kernel
of what became the SDI, always had with it a new international
security architecture, overthrowing this entire reign of terror
of Mutually Assured Destruction and revenge weapons.  But
concomitantly, a new international economic order, which would be
driven by the revolutionary, unprecedented economic boom that
would come out of the progress associated with such technological
breakthroughs around these new physical principles in the
collaboration of US and Soviet scientists to develop this joint
missile defense to make International Ballistic Missile and
nuclear war impotent and obsolete.
The history is as fascinating as it is extensive.  Here is
not the time or the place to go through every single aspect of
this history; but the full background, again as I said is
available on that webpage — larouchepac.com/sdi.  But if you
fast forward from that pamphlet “Sputnik of the ’70s” all the way
to the lead-up into the 1980 Presidential campaign in which
Lyndon LaRouche himself was a candidate for President of the
United States.  Let’s take a look at a picture here of Lyndon
LaRouche meeting face-to-face with then-candidate Ronald Reagan
at a candidates’ forum that took place in Concord, New Hampshire.
During this face-to-face meeting and in several other
opportunities to interface with the Reagan campaign team, Lyndon
LaRouche presented this idea, in principle and in detail.
Following Reagan’s victory and his election, Lyndon LaRouche and
representatives of his organization, were brought in for meetings
with first the Reagan Presidential transition team, and then with
leading members of the National Security Council and Reagan’s
intelligence community.  They discussed LaRouche’s idea for this
new strategic doctrine, and the related scientific and energy
policies that would go along with it.  So, Lyndon LaRouche
commissioned numerous reports and campaign pamphlets promoting
this idea.  As you can see here, this is from {Fusion}; this is a
special report titled “Directed Energy Beams; A Weapon for
Peace.”  Here’s the next one; this is an edition of the
{Executive Intelligence Review} magazine from November 30, 1982.
Again, before the March 23, 1983 announcement of the SDI.  This
was titled “Beam Weapons: The Science to Prevent Nuclear War.”
Here’s another one; this is a pamphlet.  “How Beam Weapon
Technologies Can Reverse the Depression.”  So, all along, this
was always an economic idea from Lyndon LaRouche’s standpoint.
As you can see, being an American at this point, in the years
preceding the 1980 Presidential election and then coming out of
Reagan’s victory, 1980, ’81, ’82, the idea of this Beam Defense
system which would be based on new physical principles, was
associated — including in the popular mind — it was associated
with Lyndon LaRouche.  And it had been associated with Lyndon
LaRouche for at least half a decade prior to Reagan’s historic,
groundbreaking speech.
The morning after Reagan’s March 23rd address, the media was
scrambling to try to find experts to interview to explain what it
was that Reagan had presented the night before.  Naturally, they
had to turn to representatives of the LaRouche organization.
Here’s a photograph of Paul Gallagher, who was at that time
Executive Director of the Fusion Energy Foundation, appearing on
CBS’ Evening News program on March 24, 1983 — the day following
Reagan’s address — to explain the science behind Reagan’s policy
that had been announced the evening before.
Immediately following Reagan’s address to the nation, Lyndon
LaRouche launched a mass educational campaign to educate the
American people as to what their President had just presented.
He published and commissioned the publication of numerous mass
circulation reports to inform the American people and also
policymakers on the details of how such a program would work.
This image here is an array of different publications that were
issued by the LaRouche movement, supporting Reagan’s announcement
of the Strategic Defense Initiative and detailing the scientific,
the economic, and the military-strategic implications of the
policy.  There you can see one pamphlet — “Support the
President’s Strategic Defense Initiative; Kill Missiles, Not
People.”
As should be very clear, Lyndon LaRouche was in a leading
position of authority following this groundbreaking announcement,
and the influence that his ideas had come to wield put him in a
position of real power inside the political structure of the
Presidency of the United States.  He used that influence to
launch and to escalate on his campaign to completely reorganize
the entire international economic and strategic architecture of
the planet.  Let’s take a look at a document that Lyndon LaRouche
released exactly one year following Reagan’s March 23, 1983
announcement of the SDI program.  This was called “The LaRouche
Doctrine:  Draft Memorandum of Agreement between the United
States and the USSR.”  This was published March 30, 1984.  Let me
read you some excerpts from what Lyndon LaRouche published under
this title “The LaRouche Doctrine.”  He begins by saying:
“The political foundation for durable peace must be: a) The
unconditional sovereignty of each and all nation-states, and b)
Cooperation among sovereign nation-states to the effect of
promoting unlimited opportunities to participate in the benefits
of technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all.
“The most crucial feature of present implementation of such
a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary,
economic, and political relations between the dominant powers and
those relatively subordinated nations often classed as
‘developing nations.’ Unless the inequities lingering in the
aftermath of modern colonialism are progressively remedied, there
can be no durable peace on this planet.
“Insofar as the United States and Soviet Union acknowledge
the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the
planet to be in the vital strategic interests of each and both,
the two powers are bound to that degree and in that way by a
common interest. This is the kernel of the political and economic
policies of practice indispensable to the fostering of durable
peace between those two powers.
.”.. [T]he general advancement of the productive powers of
labor in all sovereign states, most emphatically so-called
developing nations, requires global emphasis on: a) increasing
globally the percentiles of the labor force employed in
scientific research and related functions of research and
development … b) increasing the absolute and relative scales of
capital-goods production and also
the rate of turnover in capital-goods production; and c)
combining these two factors to accelerate technological progress
in capital-goods outputs.
“Therefore, high rates of export of such capital-goods
output to meet the needs of developing nations are indispensable
for the general development of so-called developing nations: Our
common goal, and our common interest, is promoting both the
general welfare and promoting preconditions of durable peace
between our two powers….
“By supplying increased amounts of high-technology capital
goods to developing nations, the exporting economies foster
increased rates of turnover in their own most advanced
capital-goods sectors of production….
“The importer of such advanced capital goods increases the
productive powers of labor in the economy of the importing
nation. This enables the importing nation to produce its goods at
a lower average social cost, and enables it to provide
better-quality and cheaper goods as goods of payment to the
nations exporting capital goods.
“Not only are the causes of simple humanity and general
peace served by such policies of practice; the arrangement is
equally beneficial to exporting and importing nations….
.”.. [T]he general rate of advancement of the productive
powers of labor is most efficiently promoted by no other policy
of practice.”
Then a little later in the report, he reviews the situation
of strategic tensions between the USSR and the United States.  He
says:
“Since the rupture of the wartime alliance between the two
powers, U.S. military policy toward the Soviet Union has passed
through two phases. The first, from the close of the war until a
point beyond the death of Joseph Stalin, was preparation for the
contingency of what was sometimes named ‘preventive nuclear war.’
The second, emerging over the period from the death of Stalin
into the early period of the administration of President John F.
Kennedy, was based on the doctrines of Nuclear Deterrence and
Flexible Response …
“From approximately 1963 until approximately 1977, it might
have appeared, as it appeared to many, that the doctrines of
Nuclear Deterrence and Flexible Response had succeeded in
preserving a state of restive peace, something called ‘détente,’
between the two powers. This appearance was deceptive; during the
period 1977-83, there was an accelerating deterioration in the
military relationships between the two powers….
“Beginning shortly after the inauguration of President Jimmy
Carter, the deterioration of the military situation
accelerated….
“In response to this direction of developments, the U.S.
public figure Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. proposed that both powers
develop, deploy, and agree to develop and deploy ‘strategic’
defensive, anti-ballistic-missile defense based on ‘new physical
principles.’ This proposal was issued publicly by LaRouche
beginning February 1982; he proposed to U.S.A., Western European,
and Soviet representatives that the development and deployment of
such strategic defensive systems be adopted policy, as a means
for escaping from the ‘logic’ of Nuclear Deterrence….
.”.. The true solution must be found in the domain of
politics and economics, and the further shaping of military
relations between the powers must produce military policies by
each coherent with the direction of development of the needed
political and economic solutions….
“On the part of the United States of America, the government
is committed to avoiding all colonial, imperial, or kindred
endeavors in foreign policy, and to establish, instead, a growing
community of principle among fully sovereign nation-states of
this planet. This shall become a community of principle coherent
with the policies of the articles of this draft memorandum. If
any force should endeavor to destroy that community of principle,
or any member of that community of sovereign nations, the United
States will be prepared to defend that community and its members
by means of warfare, should other means prove insufficient. With
respect to the Soviet Union, the government of the United States
offers the Soviet Union cooperation with itself in service of
these principles, and desires that the Soviet Union might enter
fully into participation within that community of principle….
“Under these conditions, provided that all nations share in
development of the frontiers of scientific research, in
laboratories, and in educational institutions, all nations will
be made capable of assimilating efficiently the technological
by-product benefits of the military expenditures on systems
derived from application of ‘new physical principles.’
“To lend force to this policy, the powers agree to establish
new institutions of cooperation between themselves and other
nations in development of these new areas of scientific
breakthrough for application to exploration of space.
“To this purpose, the powers agree to establish at the
earliest possible time institutions for cooperation in scientific
exploration of space, and to also co-sponsor treaty-agreements
protecting national and multinational programs for colonization
of the Moon and Mars.
“At some early time, the powers shall enter into
deliberations, selecting dates for initial manned colonization of
the Moon and Mars, and the establishment of international space
stations on the Moon and in the orbits of Moon and Mars, stations
to be maintained by and in the common interest and use of space
parties of all nations.
“The powers jointly agree upon the adoption of two tasks as
the common interest of mankind, as well as the specific interest
of each of the two powers: 1) The establishment of full economic
equity respecting the conditions of individual life in all
nations of this planet during a period of not more than 50 years;
2) Man’s exploration and colonization of nearby space as the
continuing common objective and interest of mankind during and
beyond the completion of the first task. The adoption of these
two working-goals as the common task and respective interest in
common of the two powers and other cooperating nations,
constitutes the central point of reference for erosion of the
potential political and economic causes of warfare between the
powers.”
That was known as the “LaRouche Doctrine,” published March
30, 1984.  As you can see, what Lyndon LaRouche outlined in that
document was the basis for exactly what we’re calling now a new
international economic and strategic architecture.  In fact, the
one requires the other.  You cannot have a new strategic
architecture without resolving what Lyndon LaRouche characterized
as the root causes behind the conflict between these nations; the
persisting inequalities between nations.  And you cannot have the
kind of cooperation needed for the common, mutual economic
development and the application of these groundbreaking new
physical principles and the technologies that are derived from
those, without the establishment of a new international economic
order.  Elsewhere in that document, Mr. LaRouche described
exactly how such an economic order must take place; with fixed
exchange rates between currencies, massive credits — both
domestically within countries for the upgrading of the
technological and infrastructure platforms within those nations
— but also, international credit treaty agreements in the form
of what he originally described in 1971 as the International
Development Bank, or the IDB.
As you can see, and I think any astute reader of that
document now, almost 35 years later, that document laid the basis
for what we now see as the so-called “win-win” new economic
paradigm.  This idea of the common benefit of all; mutual
cooperation for joint development; the upgrading of the so-called
“developing” nations, which were still suffering under the
effects of colonialism and post-colonial policy.  So, when
President Xi Jinping of China speaks about “win-win” economic
development and a new community of nations with a shared destiny,
I think that the echoes couldn’t be more clear of what Lyndon
LaRouche himself was describing at that time in the middle of the
1980s, almost 35 years ago today.  When Xi Jinping offers the
United States to join this new “win-win” system, the Belt and
Road Initiative, which is already resolving these persisting
inequalities that the world has been suffering, such as in Africa
or Central and South America.  Or, when President Putin offers to
“sit down at the negotiating table and devise together a new and
relevant system of international security and sustainable
development for human civilization,” we should reflect on what
was laid in that document.  That LaRouche Doctrine now almost 35
years ago today, in the wake of that history-changing
announcement by President Ronald Reagan, at which he called a
spade a spade.  The world could no longer survive under the
dictatorship of Mutually Assured Destruction; that reign of
terror that President Kennedy characterized as the Sword of
Damocles hanging by the slenderest of threads over every man,
woman, and child on this planet, threatening nuclear
annihilation.  What Lyndon LaRouche characterized at that moment
as the “LaRouche Doctrine” is the principle behind the new
economic and new security architecture which must be adopted on
this planet today.  Not as a recipe, not taking everything
exactly as it was said, because clearly of course, the world has
changed; and we must apply the principles that lay at the root of
exactly what Lyndon LaRouche had in mind when he proposed the
Strategic Defense Initiative and when he proposed the subsequent
LaRouche Doctrine, and apply those to evolve necessarily to fit
the specific conditions of today.
One thing that Lyndon LaRouche alluded to explicitly in that
document, was the need for joint cooperation in the colonization
and exploration of space.  In fact, that is the form that the
idea of a revived SDI has actually been taken.  The proposal for
not an SDI, but what’s now called an SDE — the Strategic Defense
of Earth — to literally re-tool the strategic nuclear weapons
with these massive payloads that have been accumulated by the
United States, Russia, also other nations — China and India and
other nations.  To re-tool those nuclear weapons and also the
delivery systems, these high-power intercontinental ballistic
missiles, and also the new technologies that Russia has just
announced.  To re-tool these technologies and have what were
offensive weapons become defensive tools against asteroids and
other threats to planet Earth which we may encounter from outer
space.  While this was proposed under that name, the SDE, by
certain individuals inside Russia about five years ago,
coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the original SDI speech.
What this originally actually came out of, had its origins in the
late 1980s and the early 1990s with the scientist Dr. Edward
Teller.  Teller was actually one of the leading scientific
advisors of President Reagan in the 1980s around the SDI
initiative, but following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Dr.
Edward Teller travelled to Russia and visited some of the leading
science cities that had been involved in developing nuclear
weapons and their delivery systems.  He met with some of the
leading former Soviet scientists, the Russian scientists, and
proposed exactly this.  He proposed the idea of the United States
and Russia saying the Cold War is over; let’s now cease this
policy of aiming our nuclear missiles one against the other, and
let’s now aim them against the common threats that mankind as a
whole faces.  Especially with the latest news of an asteroid
which poses a credible threat — what’s called a “non-zero
threat” — to the Earth in the foreseeable future, which was
just discussed in the  media over the past week, this proposal is
all the more timely and all the more relevant today.
So, what I’d like is to just play an excerpt from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s international webcast that she delivered
yesterday.  She takes up exactly this idea, so here’s an excerpt
from Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  I think that the SDI proposal,
which was absolutely not what the media made out of it, calling
it “Star Wars,” and things like that, the SDI proposal of my
husband, Lyndon LaRouche was an absolutely farsighted vision of a
New Paradigm!  And if you read the relevant papers about it,
especially the proposed draft for a dialogue among the
superpowers, which was published one year later, which you can
find in the archives or in the newer {EIR}s. This was a vision
where both superpowers would develop together, new physical
principles which would make nuclear weapons obsolete.  And I
think what Putin announced on March 1st in terms of new physical
principles applied for new weapons systems, is absolutely is in
this tradition. And Putin also asked, now they have to sit down
and we have to negotiate and put together a new security
architecture, including Russia, the United States, China, and the
Europeans.
This was all envisioned by my husband in this famous SDI
proposal, and it was a very far-reaching to dissolve the blocs,
NATO and the Warsaw Pact,  to cooperate instead among sovereign
republics, which is exactly what the New Silk Road dynamic today
represents. And it was also the idea to use a science-driver in
the economy to use the increased productivity of the real economy
for a gigantic technology transfer to the developing sector, in
order to overcome their underdevelopment and poverty.
And this is what we’re seeing today, also, in the
collaboration between China, Russia, and the countries that are
participating in the Belt and Road Initiative.
So I think, in a certain sense, part of this danger of peace
breaking out, that there is right now the very vivid tradition
and actualization of that tradition of the SDI, and I think we
should circulate this proposal by my husband again.  I think we
should enlarge it to become the SDE, the Strategic Defense of the
Earth, because it was just discovered that very soon, another big
asteroid is already taking course on the planet Earth. So we need
to move quickly to the common aims of mankind, and all countries
should cooperate and be a shared community for the one future of
humanity.
This is the New Paradigm which I think is so obvious.  I
mean, if you look at the long arc of history, we {have} to
overcome geopolitics and we have to move to a kind of cooperation
where we put all our forces together to solve those questions
which are a challenge to all of humanity — nuclear weapons,
poverty, asteroids — there are so many areas where we could
fruitfully cooperate — space exploration is one of them.  And I
think we are in a very fascinating moment in history, but we need
more active citizens.  So please contact us, work with us, and
let’s together make a better world.

OGDEN:  So, that was Helga LaRouche’s call to action, and I
think that’s a perfect concluding point for our webcast today, as
we observe this very auspicious date — March 23rd — the 35th
anniversary of President Reagan’s groundbreaking speech
announcing the Strategic Defense Initiative.  Let’s take that
kind of sense of victory and the optimism that indeed, ideas can
change the course of history, and consolidate this New Paradigm;
this new security architecture and new economic architecture for
the planet.  The opportunity is greater than it ever has been
before; but the need is ever more dire.
Thank you for joining me, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Vi befinder os nu i en situation, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche tidligere i dag beskrev som »ildevarslende«; det var det ord, hun brugte. Hun sagde, »Dette kan kun forstås som et miljø med førkrigs-propaganda«. Hun sagde, at den respons, vi har set fra Vesten, fra flere lande i Europa og inkl. her i USA, til den bizarre sag med forgiftningen i Salisbury, Storbritannien, af en russisk eksspion, der blev britisk spion, ved anvendelse af en angivelig nervegift; hun sagde, at dette nu har skabt det, der kun kan betegnes som en ekstremt farlig situation, som meget let kunne eskalere hurtigt og føre til krig. Hun sagde, »Man må stille sig selv det indlysende spørgsmål: Hvor fører alt dette hen?«

Nøglefaktoren her, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche har understreget, er timing. Denne begivenhed, og alt det, der efterfølgende har udviklet sig med den, kom direkte i hælene på: 1) præsident Putins annoncering i sin tale for den føderale forsamling den 1. marts af denne nye generation strategiske våben, der totalt har ændret den internationale, geopolitiske struktur; og 2) annonceringen fra Husets Efterretningskomite, der præsideres af kongresmedlem Devin Nunes, nogle få dage senere af, at de havde afsluttet deres efterforskning og konkluderet, at der absolut ikke fandt noget ’aftalt spil’ sted mellem Trump-kampagnen og russerne. Dette var absolut hele grundlaget for Christopher Steeles Russiagate-narrativ.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Vært Matthew Ogden: I sidste uge dækkede vi det, Helga Zepp-LaRouche karakteriserede som et »Sputnik-chok«, med den russiske præsident Putins annoncering af en helt ny generation af strategiske våben, som gør alle ballistiske missilsystemer impotente og forældede, kunne man sige, for på en noget ironisk vis at låne et udtryk fra præsident Reagan. Disse nye våbensystemer, der nu er blevet testet og bevist af det russiske militær, reflekterer et virkeligt gennembrud i fysisk videnskab; det må man ikke se bort fra. Nye anvendelser af højt avancerede principper, såsom Mach 20 hypersonisk flyvning; fremdrift ved atomkraft i miniatureformat; styret laserteknologi; plasmaer, styresystemer; listen fortsætter. De har alle fuldstændig ændret den strategiske spillebane. Som vi fastslog sidste mandag, så har Putins annoncering på meget dramatisk vis lagt den omgående nødvendige skabelse af en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur frem på bordet; en sikkerhedsarkitektur, der ikke er baseret på strategiske magtbalancer som under den Kolde Krig og gensidigt garanteret ødelæggelse (MAD-doktrinen), men én, der i stedet er baseret på gensidigt garanteret udvikling og win-win-samarbejde. Dette anerkendes på forskellig vis af ledende personer i USA og andetsteds, og dette adresseres meget, meget direkte af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, som fastslog denne pointe og krævede denne nye sikkerhedsarkitektur i sin internationale webcast i fredags. Her er, hvad Helga Zepp-LaRouche havde at sige:

»Tiden er inde til at gøre det, udenrigsminister Lavrov og præsident Putin begge har opfordret til – at sætte sig sammen ved forhandlingsbordet om en ny, global sikkerhedsarkitektur, som garanterer alles sikkerhed; USA, Rusland, Kina, Europa og naturligvis også mindre lande som de to Korea’er og mange andre lande, der stadig har mange problemer.

Øjeblikket er virkelig kommet for en komplet ændring af den strategiske organisation mellem nationer, for at satse på en global sikkerhedsarkitektur og gøre det, min mand foreslog med SDI, for sluttelig at gøre atomvåben teknologisk forældede. For, denne kurs, der kunne føre til den menneskelige arts udslettelse, må virkelig absolut forsvinde for evigt.«

Det, hun selvfølgelig refererer til, er de termonukleare våbens konstant stigende destruktive kraft, som kunne udslette ikke alene menneskeligt liv, men alt liv på Jorden, flere gange, hvis disse våben nogensinde faktisk blev brugt.

Den selv samme dag, hvor præsident Putin kom med denne annoncering i sin årlige tale til den føderale forsamling, havde han tilfældigvis et interview med Megyn Kelly på programmet.[1] Hun var tidligere hos Fox og er nu hos NBC News; og naturligvis dominerede præsident Putins overraskelsesmeddelelse hovedparten af interviewet og gav ham en chance for at uddybe netop dette punkt, nemlig de presserende nødvendige, åbne og ærlige forhandlinger mellem USA og Rusland og skabelsen af en eller anden form for ny sikkerhedsarkitektur. Hvor NBC kun udsendte en forkortet og meget redigeret version af dette interview, så blev det komplette udskrift af interviewet imidlertid offentliggjort, og det er vigtigt at høre et par uddrag af denne diskussion om dette spørgsmål, hvad præsident Putin sagde om dette spørgsmål:

Putin: »Alt det, jeg talte om i dag, skete ikke på vores initiativ; det er en respons på USA’s ballistiske missilforsvarsprogram og Washingtons ensidige opsigelse af den Antiballistiske Missiltraktat (ABM) i 2002. Hvis vi taler om våbenkapløbet, så begyndte den i det øjeblik, hvor USA trak sig ud af ABM-traktaten. Vi ønskede at forhindre dette. Vi opfordrede vore amerikanske partnere til, at vi arbejdede sammen om disse programmer. For det første bad vi dem om ikke at trække sig ud at traktaten, ikke at ødelægge den. Men USA trak sig ud. Det var ikke os, der gjorde dette, men USA. Alligevel foreslog vi igen, at vi samarbejdede, selv efter dette. Jeg sagde til min daværende kollega, ’Forestil dig, hvad der ville ske, hvis Rusland og USA slog kræfterne sammen i det afgørende område for strategisk sikkerhed. Verden ville ændre sig i lang tid fremover, og niveauet af global sikkerhed ville nå op på sit hidtil højeste.’ Vær venlig at lytte til mig og bring videre til jeres lyttere, hvad jeg nu vil sige. Vi holder diskussioner med vore amerikanske venner og partnere, folk, der i øvrigt repræsenterer regeringen, og når de påstår, at nogle russere blandede sig i de amerikanske valg, siger vi til dem – det gjorde vi for ikke så længe siden på et forholdsvist højt niveau: ’Men I blander jer konstant i vores politiske liv’. Vil I tro det, de benægter det ikke engang.

Ved du, hvad de sagde til os sidste gang? De sagde, ’Jo, vi blander os, men det har vi ret til, for vi spreder demokrati, og det gør I ikke, og derfor kan I ikke gøre det.’

Mener du, det er en civiliseret og moderne fremgangsmåde i internationale anliggender?

I går talte vi to om atomvåben, og om, at da USA og Sovjetunionen først indså, at de var på vej mod mulig gensidig ødelæggelse, så aftalte de regler for opførsel inden for sikkerhedssfæren, i betragtning af, at masseødelæggelsesvåben var tilgængelige …

Det er stadig uvist, hvad den amerikanske politik over for Rusland vil være under den nuværende administration.

Mange ting er fortsat uafklaret, eftersom det endnu ikke har været muligt for os at etablere normale kontakter.

Det står imidlertid absolut klart, at den nuværende amerikanske præsident vedtog en specifik holdning med hensyn til indenrigspolitikken og besluttede at række ud til de mennesker, der var parat til at støtte hans kampagneløfter. Dette førte til hans valgsejr, og ikke en eller anden form for udefrakommende indblanding …

Jeg mener, han er en erfaren person, en forretningsmand med stor erfaring, og han forstår, at, hvis man må gå i partnerskab med nogen, så må man behandle sin fremtidige eller nuværende partner med respekt, i modsat fald vil intet komme ud af det. Jeg mener, at dette er en rent pragmatisk fremgangsmåde … Selv om dette er hans første embedsperiode som præsident, så lærer han hurtigt, og han forstår ganske udmærket, at udveksling af beskyldninger eller fornærmelser på vores niveau er en vej, der ikke fører nogen steder hen. Det ville kun betyde at fratage vore lande deres sidste chance for en dialog, simpelt hen den sidste chance. Dette ville være yderst beklageligt … Hør her, Rusland og USA bør sætte sig ned og gennemdiskutere det for at sætte tingene på plads. Det er mit indtryk, at dette er, hvad den nuværende præsident ønsker, men han bliver forhindret i at gøre det af visse kræfter. Men vi er parat til at diskutere ethvert spørgsmål, det være sig spørgsmål relateret til missiler, cyberspace eller kontraterrorbestræbelser.

Vi er parat til dette når som helst. Men USA må også være parat til det.

Den tid vil komme, hvor den politiske elite i USA vil blive tvunget af den offentlige mening til at gå i denne retning.

Vi er parate i samme øjeblik, vore partnere er parate.«

Ogden: Jeg mener, at dette er et meget direkte tilbud om, at USA og Rusland kunne sætte sig sammen og genåbne denne form for strategiske diskussioner, som var blevet lukket ned i den følgende periode af Bush-administrationen og især, absolut taget af bordet under Obama-administrationen.

Denne annoncering fra præsident Putin har interessant nok haft en virkning med at vække nogle mennesker her i USA, inkl. folk, der tidligere havde givet sig selv lov til at blive revet med i hele dette Russiagate-hysteri à la McCarthy-tiden, og som absolut bragte os til et punkt for meget farlig konfrontation. Her kommer et eksempel: En erklæring er blevet offentliggjort af nogle ledende, Demokratiske senatorer, der kræver den omgående indledning af nye, strategiske forhandlinger med Rusland. Disse senatorer er Bernie Sanders, Jeff Merkley, Dianne Feinstein og Ed Markey, som man ser af denne pressemeddelelse, som blev udlagt på senator Markeys webside. Her kommer et uddrag af, hvad denne pressemeddelelse siger:

»Midt i en forhøjet spændingstilstand over for Rusland, opfordrede de følgende senatorer Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) og Bernie Sanders (I-VT) indtrængende udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson til at indlede en ny runde af strategiske forhandlinger med Rusland, uden tøven:

Kære udenrigsminister Tillerson:

Vi skriver for at indtrængende at opfordre Udenrigsministeriet til at sammenkalde til den næste Strategiske Dialog mellem USA og Rusland så snart som muligt. En Strategisk Dialog mellem USA og Rusland er mere presserende nødvendig i kølvandet på præsident Putins offentlige tale den 1. marts, hvor han refererede til flere nye atomvåben, som Rusland angiveligt er i færd med at udvikle, inklusive et krydsermissil og en atomundervandsdrone, og som i øjeblikket ikke er begrænset af New START-traktaten, og som ville være destabiliserende, om deployeret.

USA bør som hastesag engagere i dialog med Rusland for at undgå fejlberegninger og mindske sandsynligheden for en konflikt …

Der er ingen garanti for, at vi kan gøre fremskridt med Rusland om disse spørgsmål. Men selv på højdepunktet af spændinger under den Kolde Krig var USA og Sovjetunionen i stand til at gå ind i en i dialog om spørgsmål om strategisk stabilitet.

Ledere fra begge lande mente, som vi også bør i dag, at atomvåbens utrolige, destruktive kræfter er grund nok til at gøre enhver indsats for at mindske chancen for, at de nogensinde igen vil blive brugt.«

Ogden: Dette er selvfølgelig særdeles signifikant og er en refleksion af det faktum, at Putins annoncering er kommet som en slags alarmopkald. Andre ledende personer har genlydt af den samme alarm; prof. Stephen Cohen har sagt, at vi omgående må indlede denne form for strategiske forhandlinger med Rusland; hr. Ray McGovern har fastslået samme pointe i en artikel, der blev udgivet på ConsortiumNews. Men jeg mener, at det faktum, at disse fire, Demokratiske senatorer har udstedt dette krav, bør ses som et meget signifikant, potentielt brud i hele denne kontrollerede narrativ, som er blevet påtvunget Washington, og især det Demokratiske Parti. Og alt imens Demokraterne har givet sig selv lov at falde ind i denne form for partiske spil og er blevet overtaget i de seneste måneder af denne Obama-Hillary-krigsmagermentalitet; på trods af dette, og på trods af hele denne igangværende Russiagate-narrativ, så har præsident Trump fortsat fastholdt sin overbevisning om, at samarbejde med Rusland og med Kina, for den sags skyld, ville være ’en meget god ting, ikke en dårlig ting’, med hans ord. Der er virkelig reelle kriser, som denne planet konfronteres med lige nu, som kun kan løses gennem denne form for samarbejde mellem stormagterne, og ikke ensidigt gennem et enkelt lands handlinger. Et eksempel er antiterror-styrken, som præsident Putin har opfordret til i form af en alliance mellem USA, Rusland og andre lande for faktisk at bekæmpe international terrorisme; eller, et andet fremragende eksempel, og som nu giver gevinst, er det, præsident Trump har været i stand til at opnå gennem samarbejde med Kina og hans direkte relation til præsident Xi Jinping inden for området for at fremme muligheden for fred på Koreahalvøen i en grad, der går langt længere end vi har set i årtier.

Følg resten af Matthew Ogdens opdatering på videoen. Vi kan desværre ikke udlægge et engelsk udskrift.  

[1] Se https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mhi_AyQAyw

Vært Matthew Ogden: I sin afhandling, »Teatret som en moralsk institution«(original titel: Die Schaubühne als eine moralische Anstalt betrachtet), beskrev den tyske digter fra det 18. århundrede, Friedrich Schiller, noget ironisk klassisk teater og klassisk drama som det område, »hvor alle masker falder. Sminken fjernes. Sandheden er dommer«.

I klassisk drama, såsom i tragedierne i oldtidens Grækenland, eller Shakespeares tragedier, eller Schillers egne tragedier, f.eks.; eller i de største operaer af Giuseppe Verdi for at tage et andet eksempel, blev scenen, den klassiske scene, brugt som instrument for samfundets moralske og æstetiske opdragelse. Tragedie har evnen til at fremkalde i os erkendelsen af vore egne tåbeligheder, de fejl, der findes i os. Og vi ser reflekteret på scenen foran os, de ærefrygtindgydende konsekvenser af disse fejl, disse tåbeligheder, som, ifald de fik lov at bestå, udspilles på vores egen forestillingsevnes scener og tilbagekastes til os i det frygtelige spejl i form af en rædselsvækkende og frygtindgydende forudsigelse. I disse øjeblikke transformeres vi fra at være passive tilskuere til at blive levende medlemmer af dramaet, og vi forlader teatret med ny visdom og forhåbentlig en ny vilje til at handle for, for enhver pris, at forhindre de rædsler, vi så udspilles på denne scene, i at blive til virkelighed.

Men hvis denne moralske og æstetiske opdragelse af et samfund imidlertid slår fejl, eller mislykkes, og et samfunds tåbeligheder finder sted uden at blive rettet, så ophører tragedien med at være begrænset til scenen og flyder over i det virkelige liv, hvilket undertiden fører til ødelæggende, virkelige konsekvenser.

Vi ser nu de faktiske og ligeledes de potentielle, virkelige konsekvenser af et sygt samfunds systemiske tåbeligheder, og af en forfejlet ideologi, som nu udspilles for vore øjne. I kølvandet på de forfærdelige begivenheder i Parkland, Florida, den 14. feb., ser vi nu en generel opvågnen i vores befolkning, en erkendelse af, at der er noget i vores kultur, som er meget, meget sygt; at noget i vores samfund er råddent, og at noget har fået lov til at gå forfærdelig galt, og som har bragt os til dette punkt.

Og det er ikke slut med de forfærdelige begivenheder i Parkland. Vi har netop hørt, i dag, at der er en situation med en aktiv skytte, der fortsat er under udfoldelse på et college i Michigan. Og Parkland var på ingen måde det første skoleskyderi.

Dette er blevet identificeret af guvernør Matt Bevin fra Kentucky, som selv har måttet håndtere et af disse skoleskyderier, på Marshall County High School i januar. Han har identificeret dette som en »dødskultur«, hvor han sagde, at selve værdien af menneskelivet er blevet degraderet.

Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet:

I want to just play for you a short excerpt from some
remarks that Gov. Matt Bevin had after this school shooting that
occurred in his own state, at Marshall County High School in
Kentucky, and this was weeks before the Parkland shooting even
occurred.  Here’s what Gov. Matt Bevin had to say.

KENTUCKY GOV. MATTHEW BEVIN: Hi this is Kentucky Gov. Matt
Bevin.  I want to start a dialogue with you, I want to start a
conversation about something that is imperative, not only for
Kentucky, but frankly for America.  We have a cultural problem.
The mores of America — there will be many that will confuse that
with morality, although morality is certainly part of it — but
the mores that define who we are and what is or is not
acceptable, what we do or don’t tolerate, where we draw lines and
where we put boundaries, these things have been changing, and not
for the better.
You look at what’s happening in popular culture; this is not
a religious issue.  There’ll be the nay-sayers and the
pooh-pooh’ers who immediately think, “oh, you’re going to talk
about religion.”  I will tell you this, I’m going to talk about
morality.  Because if people don’t believe they have
responsibility to anyone other than themselves, that there is no
pecking order of authority, that there is no absolute right and
wrong, that everything is morally relative, when we live in that
time of morally gelatinous state, we have a problem.  Because
individuals, young and old alike, done assume that their actions
matter in any kind of consequential way beyond that immediate
moment, and that is a problem, and this is what’s happening to
our culture:  We are crumbling from within.  And we are seeing
this throughout our society.  We’re seeing in our classrooms,
we’re seeing it in our communities, and  — let’s be honest — it
starts in our homes.
I am challenging everybody who has anything to do with what
I’m about to say, to take this to heart and let’s start a
conversation.  Look at our popular culture.  Look at our movies,
— the violence, the disregard for the value of human life; we
are becoming increasingly desensitized, our young people are
desensitized to it.  We have a culture of death in America.  We
can pretend we don’t.  We can think that people can separate that
from fiction, from their lives, from that which they see, but if
they’re immersed in it at every turn — in television, in movies,
in music, all of it!  Listen to the lyrics of music today, it
celebrates a culture of death!  Not all of it — fair enough —
but an amazing amount of it.  And parents, I’m asking you to wake
up and be aware of what it is that your children are listening
to.
Do you young people, be mindful of what you put in, because
it becomes a part of your entire physiology, your entire mental
makeup.  It becomes a part of who you are.  You are a creation of
what you surround yourself by.
Parents and others, I’m asking you to look at what kind of
movies you go to see.  For those that produce movies, I’m asking
you, think about what you’re feeding in — I know that we live in
a day and age, where we need to shock people, more than the last
time, or they won’t pay attention, in sensationalism, in the
shock value, maybe gets people to pay attention to something,
puts eyes on something, and you can make a buck.  But at what
price?  It’s robbing us of the very fabric of our nation, and
it’s killing our young people.
Watch the television shows:  We glorify murder, we glorify
killing.  It is becoming increasingly explicit, and we are
desensitizing young people to the actual tragic reality in
permanency of death.  It’s important for us to recognize this.
Look at the video games that are played.  Yes, they may be
marked for “Mature audiences,” but I’m telling you, those of you
who make a dollar producing these movies, and those of you who
buy them and bring them into your homes, you know full well, that
many young people — and old people — are playing these games
and becoming desensitized.  When you get extra points and are
encouraged to brutally kill people, and when the blood and the
mayhem and the carnage is increasingly real, it desensitizes
people.
And if it’s a shock to us now, that suddenly we are seeing a
prevalence of, and increasing amount of this happening, not in a
video game, not on a television show, not in a movie, not in the
lyrics of a song, but in real life as young people act out that
which they are surrounded by, that which they’re immersed in,
this is a cultural problem in America!  And I’m asking the people
who produce this media, the people who produce this
entertainment; I’m asking the people who profit from it; I’m
asking for those of you who are executives in the social media
ranks — and I am a big believer in the Constitution of the
United States, and in our freedom of speech — but we have got to
start to think about the {filth}, let’s be honest, that is
feeding through so many of the mediums, covered and protected by
things that perhaps are not good for us; protected by a
Constitution that is good for us, but creating an end-result that
is not.
What are those boundaries?  I don’t know.  Should there be
any?  Should there be some content that is not given to us, and
to children, without any kind of filter or screen?  These are
conversations we need to have:  It is a cultural problem.
Our culture is crumbling from within, and the cost of it is
high.  The societal and emotional and psychological and moral
cost is becoming more than our nation can bear.
I’ve spent time with mothers and fathers who have lost
children in tragic instances.  And there is no ability, there are
no words to describe the grief of a parent, the grief of a
sibling, the grief of a friend, the grief of classmate, of a
teacher, of a community, who have lost someone that is an
immediate part of their family or their community.
Something has to be done.  Let’s start a dialogue.  How
exactly it forms, I don’t know.  But I’m calling on other
governors, I’m calling on the President of the United States, I’m
calling on our U.S. Congress; I’m calling on anyone who’s in a
position of influence, every superintendent, every CEO of every
media company that produces a video game, that is violent in its
nature, the movie producers that make the movies, the record
producers who produce the music that we listen to — all of you
— we’ve got to step up.  We’re the adults, let’s act like it!
Let’s step forward, let’s start a conversation, and let’s figure
out how to try to repair this fabric of America, that’s getting
shredded beyond recognition.
Thank you. [end video]

OGDEN:  Now, Gov. Matt Bevin did something very unique
there.  Instead of what we’ve become accustomed to, in the
aftermath of one of these horrific events, to point at one or
another scapegoat, or one or another mechanism that failed, or
one or another thing that maybe went wrong, we fail to perhaps
consider that the fault lies within ourselves, that the fault
lies within our own culture.
Now, it’s obviously unspeakable beyond words, for an event
like one of these mass shootings or school shootings to occur
even once, as we were horrified to witness.  But it is absolutely
inconceivable that we’ve allowed these shootings to occur, again,
and again, for now almost 20 years, since the first high-profile
event happened at Columbine High School, in Littleton, Colorado
in 1999,  — almost 20 years ago.  But the tragedy lies in the
fact that it didn’t just happen once, it happened over and over,
and that the society which witnesses each one of these events
might be appalled and outraged, but the underlying cause remains
unaddressed.
As the father of one of the victims in the Parkland shooting
said, in tears, during a listening session that President Trump
hosted at the White House, with family members of the victims, he
said, “My child is dead!  I will never, ever see her again.  But
why — why do we keep letting this occur?  Why does this keep
happening to so many people?”  And he vowed that he will not
sleep until something substantive has been done to prevent this
from ever happening again.
Now President Trump has responded to this, to Parkland in a
way that no previous President has, frankly.  In addition to this
listening session, which he hosted at the White House, he’s held
multiple meetings with members of Congress, with governors, with
state and local elected officials to discuss actual solutions,
emphasizing that something needs to be done.  Action is needed,
and not just posturing and not just political talk which will
make us feel as if we are doing something, he said, but we must
actually do something.  So, while many of the so-called solutions
which have been put on the table are practical, and specific,
such as hardening sites, and increasing police presence, and
improving the early warning system to prevent persons, like this
shooter, for example, from slipping through the cracks when there
were many, many warning signs stretching over years — for the
first time, in addition to these practical solutions, which are
necessary — for the first time, in addition to this, the more
systemic and underlying problems of the culture have now been put
on the table, along the lines of what Gov. Matt Bevin has raised.
I’d like to share with you, first, a short clip from a
roundtable that President Trump held state and local officials on
Feb. 22nd; this occurred at the White House, where President
Trump himself, goes right to the core of this pervasive culture
of violence, which is promulgated through popular entertainment.
Listen to what President Trump had to say:

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have to look at the internet,
because a lot of bad things are happening to young kids and young
minds, and their minds are being formed.  And we have to do
something about maybe what they’re seeing and how they’re seeing
it.  And also video games:  I’m hearing more and more people say,
the level of violence in video games is really shaping young
people’s thoughts.
And then you go the further step, and that’s the movies, you
see these movies, they’re so violent, and yet, a kid is able to
see the movie if sex isn’t involved.  But killing is involved.
And maybe they have to put a rating system for that.  And you get
into a whole, very complicated, very big deal, but the fact is
that you are having movies come out that are so violent, with the
killing and everything else, that maybe that’s another thing
we’re going to have to discuss.  And a lot of people are saying,
you have these movies today where you can go and have a child see
the movie, and yet it’s so violent and so disgusting, so we may
have to talk about that also…. [end video]

OGDEN:  Now, this came up again at a Feb. 26th roundtable
meeting which President Trump hosted with the governors from
around the country.  And first what you’ll see in this clip is a
brief mention, by President Trump in his opening remarks, of this
topic, and then you’ll see Gov. Matt Bevin himself, who was
present, and used that forum to repeat his point about the
prevailing culture of death which undermines the morality of our
population and degrades the image of man and the value of human
life.  And he challenges {every} person in a position of
authority in this country, to use that position of authority, to
address this cultural problem.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We must strive to create a culture
in our country that cherishes life and condemns violence and
embraces dignity…. Matt?

KENTUCKY GOV. MATTHEW BEVIN:  I do think it’s important for
us to start at every level, with your office, with our respective
offices as well, to seize the bully pulpits that we have to talk
about the culture in this society.  And I would challenge those
in the media who would want to mock and ridicule this, and would
want to say that anybody who advocates for this, to find some
fault in that person as a reason why that person should not be
the one advocating for a higher level of moral authority or
higher mores, to think twice, because these are your children and
grandchildren as well.  And when we mock and ridicule the very
foundational principles that this nation was built upon, where
you treat people the way you’d want to be treated, where you
respect human life, where you respect the dignity of women, and
of children, and of people who we have increasingly degraded in
our society.  This culture of death is becoming pervasive.  And
if it’s not addressed by all the imperfect people in this room,
with a sense of purpose and a sense of aspiration, I think we’re
going to see a continued trajectory that’s not good.
Many things have not changed.  There have always been guns,
and there were fewer restrictions.  There have always been guns
in homes, and fewer rules.  It isn’t to say that these rules and
these restrictions are necessarily bad, but what has changed is
what we do or don’t do as it relates to acknowledging the value
and the dignity of every human life.  And when you couple that
with the number of psychiatric drugs that are increasingly
systemic and that have very severe warnings associated with them
related to depression and suicidal thoughts, you put all these
things in a mess and no one among us is bold enough or willing to
step up and challenge the fact, that this is a problem, this is
why it goes unchallenged.
And I would call on you, Sir, as I’m calling on my
fellow-governors and myself, to seize the opportunities we have
to call America to higher action as it relates to our mores.
Thank you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you Matt.
And that’s why we’re here.  And I think  — I don’t know if
it’s going to be mentioned, but you have to also look at videos
— they’re {vicious}, you look at some of these videos; I mean, I
don’t know what this does to a young kid’s mind.  Somebody
growing up and forming, and looking at videos where people are
just being blown away left and right.  The internet movies, you
look at these movies that are out today, I see just by a
commercial, the level of craziness and viciousness in the movies
— I think we have to look at that, too.  Maybe we have to put a
ratings system on that.  They have a ratings system for other
subjects, maybe we have to do a ratings system for that.
But it has to have an impact on — it doesn’t take many
months — if it was 1% or less, that’s a lot.  That’s all it
takes.  It just takes one person to do tremendous damage.  I
think it’s something we have to look at also. [end video]

OGDEN:  So, we can see an awakening happening in this
country.  And it’s very significant, when confronted with the
real world consequences of a failure by our society, by our very
culture itself, a failure to protect our children, to protect our
young people, to protect our future; where literally, we have led
ourselves to a culture where {children kill children}, and this
is almost becoming commonplace.  Finally, people are beginning to
wake up.
But the discussion, while very good, to the extent that it
has progressed, it must, must go much further, and much deeper.
Let’s look back 20 years, and this was at the moment that
the first such high-profile, horrific school shooting happened,
which many people who were alive at that time, remember today:
Columbine.  Ironically, a lot of the kids that are now in school
today, have lived their life under the shadow of Columbine and
were not even born at the point that that shooting occurred.
But Lyndon LaRouche, in the immediate aftermath of that
horrific event, wrote a paper in which he addressed the reality
of what actually that horrific event represented. This is in the
aftermath of that, but not only should the realization of
LaRouche’s prescience for what we’re seeing today, and what we’ve
seen over the past 20 years be shocking to you, and think about
how many children, and how many other victims have died and have
suffered in the intervening period, because nothing was done, at
that time, to address what the root cause of this sickness was.
But also, you should be challenged by the depth of what he
addresses as the necessary cure to this cultural sickness that
has led to these events.
So let me read you some excerpts from this paper that Mr.
LaRouche wrote, and this was back in June 11, 1999. [“Star Wars
and Littleton,” {EIR} July 2, 1999:
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1999/eirv26n27-19990702
/index.html]

“Unless the U.S. government, and many relevant other
influentials, change their view of this problem, abandoning the
useless approach they have publicized thus far, the horror will
continue, gun laws or no gun laws. Unless relevant institutions
get down to the serious business of addressing the actual causes
for this pattern of incidents, this murderous rampage will
persist….My function, in this report, is to define the methods
which must be brought to bear, if the danger posed by this new
form of terrorism is to be brought under control…. If you are
willing to be serious, at long last, you will now turn your
attention to the scientific roots of the problem….
“…Merely ending the sale of satanic video games, such as
Doom…, will not put this horror back in the box from whence it
came. This new problem of terrorism must be attacked, by
focussing on the conditions which many readers have been
complicitly condoning. Face the fact, that it might be your
negligent tolerance which has contributed to the popularizing of
such video games and cult films, especially the spread of these
among suggestible children and adolescents.
“…What are the methods which have, similarly, turned so
many among our children and adolescents into such “zombies” as
those killers?…
“To grasp the horror posed by such cases, restate the same
problem as a national-security topic. For that purpose, the
leading subject for discussion, as posed by the Littleton and
kindred cases, is {terrorism by children}. Stating the problem in
that way, brings the sheer, satanic horror of the matter into
focus.
“The following pages … will represent a serious
intellectual challenge for many readers, but, for those who
really wish to bring an end to the spread of more horrors like
the Littleton massacre, the extra reading-time and thought this
report requires, is more than well worth every second spent….
“How does one corrupt innocent children into becoming
psychotic-like killers? The quick answer to that question, is:
{dehumanize} the image of man. The details of the way this leads
to the production of youthful ‘Nintendo’ terrorists, are a more
complicated matter. Nonetheless, it is no oversimplification to
say, that once that first step, dehumanizing the image of man, is
accomplished, the axiomatic basis has been established, to make
war, and killing, merely a childish game….
“Before you pull that trigger, tell me: ‘What is the
difference between a human being and a beast?’…
“…[T]he focus should be on the conflict between the view
of mankind as specifically human, as against the intrinsically
immoral view of the human species as ‘just another animal.’ …
“The difference between the man and the beast lies in the
quality of human cognition. This is otherwise known as those
cultivatable creative mental powers through which an individual
mind may contribute to all mankind the original discovery of a
single, validatable, universal physical principle. This is also
the method used in those Classical humanist modes of education,
in which the student’s re-enactment of some historic discovery of
a validated universal principle, is the mode of education
employed, as opposed to so-called ‘textbook’ learning. This is
also to be recognized as the principle of metaphor central to all
Classical artistic composition since the time of Classical
Greece.
“The fact that we are able to demonstrate the validity of
these discovered universal physical principles, shows that the
universe itself is predisposed, by design, to obey man’s will
when such universal principles, discovered in this way, are
applied to man’s increasing mastery over nature. {The act of
discovery of a universal physical principle, whose application
directly increases mankind’s power in and over the universe, is,
in first approximation, the only rational definition of truth,
the only proof that human reason is in accord with the Creator’s
definition of truthfulness.}….
“This faculty, of validatable cognition, is the quality of
the human individual which sets all persons apart from, and above
the beasts….
“…See a child’s face suffused with happiness, at the
moment the child senses a validatable original rediscovery of
some principle. The passion which ennobles the great performance
of any accomplished work of Classical artistic composition,
whether in poetry, the performance of great tragedy, great
Classical painting, or music, is the same joy with which the
child is illuminated by experience of a cognitive act of
discovery of some principle–whether or not the child knew that
many people had made that same discovery earlier….
“…The non-deductive process of discovery, which leads to
proof of principle through experimental validation of that
discovery as a universal principle, is the proper strict
definition of the term {Reason}. …It is that capacity for
{Reason}, so defined, which defines the unique quality of the
mentally healthy human specimen, as representing a distinct
species, apart from and above all beasts.
“This quality of the person, this divine spark of Reason
innate to the human individual, is the kernel of the proof of
Moses’ formulation, that man and woman are each made (equally) in
the image of the Creator of the universe….
“An idea, is any validatable discovery of universal
principle, which is generated within the mind of the knower, by
no different means than cognition, as I have defined cognition
above. The tragedies of Aeschylus and Sophocles, and the
dialogues of Plato, or the tragedies of Shakespeare and Schiller,
are models of artistic compositions, by means of which the artist
prompts the regeneration of his idea respecting principles of
social relations, within the mind of the audience….
“…[T]he underlying social relations among persons must be,
axiomatically, the relations among their cognitive processes. The
underlying issue of social relations, is how individuals interact
in terms of the ordering of, or, the inertness of their
respective cognitive processes….
“The progress of civilization has been shaped by a process
of humanizing the image of man, as distinct from, and higher than
the animals. Christ and his Apostles embedded this principle
within European civilization. The process of Nietzsche’s and
others’ de-civilization, is to attempt to reverse that process,
to dehumanize the image of man, to bring man’s status back … to
the status of just another lower form of life….
“…The only moral purpose of education, is to develop an
entire population up to the level of scientific and moral
knowledge necessary, not only to perpetuate society at no less
than its present level of power in the universe, but to carry the
process of development of the whole population a step upward.
“The purpose of education is to develop the cognitive
potentials of each and every person up to that standard of
quality as a citizen, to develop an individual whose life
qualifies as a permanent part of the simultaneity of eternity.
{The proper purpose of education, is to affirm the universality
of humanity, and to accomplish this through embodying the history
of the discovery of universal ideas within the cultivated
personality of the matriculated student.}
“See, from this standpoint, how things went so terribly
wrong. Think of the successive downward steps in our educational
systems and popular culture, which brought us up to the point of
decadence that phenomena like the Littleton horror are now a
typical feature of our culture in this time….
“…When we allow the natural, human nature of children and
adolescents to be crushed …, when we seek to suppress the role
of the cognitive function, when we substitute the act of merely
learning for the act of actually knowing, we produce, as was
done, increasingly, during the first post-World War II decades,
the kind of future adult who will come to haunt us, and menace
our world, when we have become old.
“What happens, when we allow those changes in national
policy, which create an economy in which the adult members of the
family household must work two or three jobs, or even more, among
them, ‘simply to make ends meet’? … What happens when we have
done to education what has been done during most of the recent
three decades? Did you ever think about that, or do you avoid
pangs of guilty pain by refusing to think about that?
“What happens, when your toleration of the past decades’
changes in U.S. economic policies, creates a situation, today,
when the family is no longer able (between many jobs to work each
week, and much commuting between besides), to provide nurture to
the children and adolescents of the family household? If your
economic situation compels you treat your children so, as if they
were stray dogs to be let into the house at feeding and sleeping
times, how are you educating them?…
“…Think! What kind of a social identity are such
unfortunate children and adolescents expressing?
“Perhaps you were building the road to the Littleton
massacre? Not everyone who expresses such a poor sense of
personal self-identity in those ways, is necessarily going to go
all the way to becoming a Littleton-style terrorist; but, such
low self-esteem is a step down in the direction which might lead
to such a horrible result in the succeeding generation of youth.
You may not have intended that outcome, but, year by year, the
parents and grandparents built the road which made reaching that
destination possible.
“That explains, in part, how the road to the Littleton
massacres was built….
“To understand the kind of mentality which fosters the
proliferation of horrors such as the Littleton massacre, look at
the way in which so many in the U.S.A. responded to the way in
which the British monarchy’s Blair government used its U.S.
puppets…. British financial oligarchy, and its debased
monarchy, have openly stated their intent to revoke the doctrine
of international law established by the 1648 Peace of Westphalia,
this time in the case of Bloody Blair’s Balkan War….
“The moral nation-state, the modern sovereign nation-state
which our U.S. republic was intended to be, never conducts wars
for pleasure, as the Littleton killers and Blair have done, or
wars for revenge….
“When we examine the role of sections of the U.S. military,
in shaping the policies and techniques carried into action by the
Littleton killers, we must take into account the fact that there
is a connection between the recently increasing tendency for
moral degeneration in our military and related institutions, and
the causes for the Littleton horror and related cases…. If such
thinking within our military, is among the well-springs of
phenomena such as Littleton, how shall we be rid of the latter,
without purging ourselves of the former?…
“The American way, is [to use] the power of victory to
establish an order which is justly beneficial, to the victor and
formerly vanquished, to rebuild, as Lincoln’s last public address
proposed to rebuild the nation as if the Civil War had never
occurred.
“Similarly: only by bringing that spirit back into our
nation now, can we wean the damaged souls among our adolescents,
of that wont for Nintendo warfare so horridly displayed at
Littleton….
“If we take into account, together, the present physical
state, and direction of the world, and also the deteriorating
mental and moral condition of populations throughout most of the
planet, as in the U.S.A. itself, we have already reached the
threshold of the worst disaster known to the recorded history of
the human species. Unless we reverse the policy-trends of the
recent several decades, especially those cultural trends inside
the U.S.A., there is little possibility of the survival of
civilization in the Americas, western Europe, or Africa much
beyond the beginning of the coming century.
“For most among you, that means that you must change, must
free yourself from, especially, those habits of thinking you have
built up during the recent quarter-century or longer. In a sense,
you must be prepared to go back to the way we used to think when
John F. Kennedy was President. Admittedly, there were lots of bad
habits loose back then; but, that is still a good point of
reference at which to begin the process of cleaning away the mass
of cultural rubble which, unless cleared away, will ensure that
our nation does not survive.
“Look at the Littleton horror as an omen, as the hands of
the clock of history, pointing to the time in which we are living
at this moment.
“You must change this nation, and perhaps yourself, too,
before this nation, soon otherwise dies. Take Littleton as that
kind of warning. It is past time that you acted to change the set
of definitions, axioms, and postulates which have been
controlling your opinions and other behavior during recent
decades.”

OGDEN:  So, that was Lyndon LaRouche on June 11, 1999,
almost 20 years ago.  And it is shocking how prescient Mr.
LaRouche’s warning were, at that time, in the aftermath of the
{first} of what has proven to be countless numbers of {horrible}
spectacles that we saw at that Littleton massacre.
Now’s the time for us to let that sink in, and not be
satisfied with just halfway, practical measures and partial
solutions, but to realize in a moment of truly self-conscious
reflection, in true Classical tragedy form, that the horror we’re
witnessing today, really is the sign of the disintegration of our
society, a potential Dark Age, as Mr. LaRouche said in that
report.  And a stirring within ourselves of the realization that
the only solution, is a clean break from those follies which have
led us down that path, and decisive action to create a
Renaissance in our understanding of what it means to be human,
our view of man, a re-humanizing of the human individual, not to
just try to negate evil, but to try to replace this reigning
culture of violence and this culture of death, with rather, a
culture of creativity, which recognizes and celebrates that
unique nature of the human species.  And cultivates that divine
spark creativity within every human individual, {every} child.
Now, as Mr. LaRouche pointed out in that report, one cannot
separate this sort of sickness in our culture, from the policies
which have been expressed by our governing leadership for the
last 50 years; especially the policy of endless war, killing,
endless warfare, which has dominated our nation, really, since
the Korean conflict, but in ever-increasing rates since the death
of John F. Kennedy. And this was very usefully pointed out, just
last week in an interview podcast by Coleen Rowley, who was a
former FBI agent, and a whistleblower, actually, in the months
leading up into 9/11. And you can see there, on the screen, that
her podcast with “WhoWhatWhy” is titled, “FBI Whistleblower:
American Culture of Violence Starts with Perpetual Wars.”
In this interview, Coleen Rowley addresses the issue that
this kind of “domestic terror,” as she calls it, as we’re seeing
with these mass shootings, in schools and otherwise, really does
have very much to do with this culture of violence which we now
have in the United States. And she pointed to the media’s role in
fostering this kind of widespread culture of violence.
She stated that while the tendency in law enforcement is to
try to treat every single one of these as the specific set of
circumstances, which led down the path to every single one of
these crimes, she said, the reality of what we are dealing with
is really something much larger.  She said: “Our culture is doing
this, it’s promoting this violent culture. And of course this is
over and above the availability and easy access to weapons.” You
put all of this together and just those added up on their own
“does explain the question. Columbine, why is this happening? Why
are we experiencing an epidemic of mass violence? Again, our news
never mentions that because … we want to compartmentalize this
and make it seem as if it’s easily, it’s not us as a culture.”
And then she pointed to some specifics.  She said, it really
is the influence of this perpetual war mentality on our society.
She indicated that there are several studies that have come out,
that veterans of these perpetual, endless wars are twice as
likely to become mass shooters; and she also pointed out that the
CIA and the Pentagon have had a sort of devil’s bargain with the
mass media and the entertainment media, movies and video games.
And she said that “The CIA and the Pentagon have been backing,
helping make about 1,800 movies,” including among them are the
famous “American Sniper” movie from 2014, “Zero Dark 30” from
2012, and numerous others. She said in those movies, the hero
will always be someone who is wronged, and then in the end, they
shoot everyone: “A mentally impaired or emotionally troubled
person is seeing themselves as that hero in those movies.”
That’s a very useful affirmation of exactly that point, that
you cannot compartmentalize, you cannot separate out all of these
different, sick, sick phenomena.  And our tendency is to try to
scapegoat one thing, as opposed to realizing that the fault,
perhaps, lies within ourselves as a culture.
But it goes even further than that, and I think as Mr.
LaRouche made clear, we have to not be satisfied with partial
remarks, and partial considerations.  In the last number of
years, more than just perpetual war and bloodshed, in an age of
thermonuclear weapons, the ultimate conclusion of a culture of
death, and this culture of perpetual war and violence, in which
human life has lost its value and weapons of greater and greater
destructive capability have become the central pillar of
international policy and relations of states with other states,
in this age of thermonuclear weapons, the ultimate conclusion of
this mentality is the extinction of the human race.
We’ve now reached a point of decision.  With the
announcement just yesterday by the Russian President, of a new
generation of weapons which have been developed by Russia which
have the power to evade all known ballistic missile defense
shields, flying at hypersonic speeds, some reaching Mach 20 —
unbelievable speeds — under the power of nuclear propulsion,
which allows them to fly almost endlessly, and can deliver, as he
said, a doomsday payload literally anywhere on the surface of the
planet at any time, truthfully, the era of belief in survivable
limited nuclear war, or preventive nuclear first strike, or this
global strike policy, which believed that you could knock out one
nation’s defenses and then launch a nuclear or conventional
attack against them, that age is now definitely over.
And this announcement has really caught the world by
surprise.
As Helga Zepp-LaRouche characterized this: If everything
which President Putin announced is in fact real, and there’s no
reason not to believe that to be the case, this is a complete
“Sputnik-type” shock.  It’s also being compared to the Soviet
development of the hydrogen bomb in the 1950s, which completely
shifted the so-called “strategic balance of power,” and took the
entire idea, at that time, of a preemptive nuclear strike against
the Soviet Union off the table.
What Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s assessment is, is that this
announcement of an entirely new weapons system, based on
“completely new physical principles,” an obvious echo of course,
of the language that was originally used in discussing the
Strategic Defense Initiative, the SDI, that this is a qualitative
leap of extreme significance, which shifts the entire
international strategic framework.
And the follies of our belief in statecraft based on
Mutually Assured Destruction, of dominance and so-called
“deterrence” of geopolitics, all of these follies have now been
exposed.  The mask has fallen away.  And humanity itself now sits
before the judgment seat.  Will we continue collectively, to
pursue an ideology of nihilism, which necessarily, in the end,
must lead to the destruction of civilization and the extinction
of the human species in its ultimate consequence, if allowed to
proceed to that point? {Or}, will we finally recognize the
horror, {which we ourselves have wrought}, and awaken to the
awful reality of the ultimate, real-life tragedy in the making,
which is now unfolding around us
President Xi Jinping of China talks about creating a
“community of common destiny.”  Now obviously, he discusses that
in a beautiful sense, a win-win relationship among nations, where
all nations are working toward the mutual benefit of others and
are working towards the “common destiny of all mankind.”  Well,
ironically, that common destiny already exists, but, in a
negative sense, with this thermonuclear Sword of Damocles hanging
over our heads, the potential for a “common destiny of humanity”
for a global annihilation, is a very, very real thing.  As Lyndon
LaRouche made the point with regards to the warning that he
delivered in that report that I read excerpts from — which he
wrote, now, almost 20 years ago — when he foresaw the horrors
which the events in Littleton presaged.  Survival under these
conditions will not come from within the theories, the axioms,
the postulates, of the prevailing system, but survival can only
be delivered through the overturning of those failed ideologies
which form its foundations, and the construction of an entirely
new outlook, based on truth, truthful principles; based on a
recognition of what it really means to be man.
The ultimate principle which must come before, and precede
everything else, not only in philosophy and education, and social
relations, but in international strategic policy, and economic
policy, is the recognition of the true nature of man, a species
which is unique from all other species in its capacity for
creativity, and the necessary ordering and subordination of
everything else, to the cultivation and promotion of that.
So how does that principle play out on the world stage?
It’s through rejecting the kind of anti-human, anti-development,
anti-progress ideology, which has prevailed in the form of
competitive strategic geopolitics, zero-sum economic
policymaking; and instead, to consciously and scientifically
decide, that the common destiny which man must pursue is not
thermonuclear extinction and Mutually Assured Destruction
warfare, but rather, mutually beneficial development and shared
creative progress: Space exploration, the Strategic Defense of
Earth from asteroids and other cosmic threats in our cosmic
environment; the development of limitless power through the
development of fusion energy  — all of these, the list goes on
and on and on.
{But this New Paradigm is already there. It’s already in
existence.}  Just look at what China is doing, with the Silk
Road, with the One Belt, One Road initiative.  Look beyond all of
the propaganda that you’re being fed, about “Chinese hegemony”
and so forth and so on.  This is where the future lies:  Mutually
beneficial progress, development, the giving of the opportunity
for the full cultivation of creative reason to every man, woman
and child on this planet.  The most beautiful example of this,
just in the recent months, has been what China has already
accomplished in the otherwise hopelessly destitute areas of
Africa.  And a beautiful report has just come out of Nigeria,
where the idea of the Transaqua program to refill Lake Chad
through massive water development and water-transfer projects,
this idea which has been on the books for 20 years or more, is
now becoming a reality.
These are the kinds of projects, these are the kinds of
visions, these are the kinds of goals which bind us together as a
common humanity, and will affirm, for our children and for
ourselves, the beauty of mankind, and the true creative nature of
this species.  This is the antidote for a culture of death and a
culture of despair which has plagued our nation and this is the
vision which will inspire us, as we work to build this shared
destiny, this common future.
It’s not only through negating what is evil, but it’s
through cultivating what is good, that man can be redeemed, and
that we can cure this sickness which has infected our culture at
its very root.
So let us allow those masks to fall away, and let us allow
the truth to sit in judgment, recognizing that that the fault
lies within ourselves, within our very cultural values and
beliefs which has led us down the road of tragedy. As the nation
has mourned alongside the victims and the family members of those
horrible events in Parkland, Florida, but has also been inspired
by the courage of those family members and those survivals who
have said, “Enough is enough:  Let’s bring an end to the
so-called status quo.  This must be allowed {never] to happen
again!  Let us commit ourselves to action now, before we reach
the point of no return, to cure this culture, and to cure this
world, of the sickness which threatens our very survival.  And to
resolve, that out of evil {must} come greater good.”
For those who were victims in Florida, for those who are
victims every day, of the diseases of depression and despair,
addiction, overdose, opioids and heroin, and for all of us who
now live under this thermonuclear Sword of Damocles which
threatens to exterminate mankind in the blink of an eye, let all
of us resolve: That we will no longer accept this culture of
death, which prevails not only in our media, and in our
entertainment, but underlies the very economic and strategic
fabric of society.  If there was {ever} a moment in which it is
clear that the necessity of a New Paradigm for civilization is
literally life or death, that moment is now.
So, let me conclude by returning to that essay by the poet
Friedrich Schiller that I cited at the outset of this show, and
read to you the closing section of this essay, which he titles
“The Theater Considered as a Moral Institution.”  What Friedrich
Schiller had to say, was:
“When grief gnaws at our heart, when melancholy poisons our
solitary hours; when we are revolted by the world and its
affairs; when a thousand troubles weigh upon our souls, and our
sensibilities are about to be snuffed out underneath our
professional burdens — then the theater takes us in, and within
its imaginary world we dream the real one away; we are given back
to ourselves; our sensibilities are reawakened; salutary emotions
agitate our slumbering nature, and set our hearts pulsating with
greater vigor.
“And then, when man at last, in all districts and regions
and classes, with all his chains of fad and fashion cast away,
and every bond of destiny rent asunder — when man becomes his
brother’s brother with a single all-embracing sympathy, resolved
once again into a single species, forgetting himself and the
world, and reapproaching his own heavenly origin, each takes joy
in others’ delights, which then, magnified in beauty and
strength, are reflected back to him from a hundred eyes, and now
his bosom has room for a single sentiment, and this is: to be
truly human.”
So let us resolve to make mankind truly human, to be our
brothers’ brother, and to usher in a culture of creativity to
replace this culture of death.
Thank you very much.  And please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.

Vært Matthew Ogden: I takt med, at Muellers anklageskrift mod 13 såkaldte russiske ’trolde’ fortsat dominerer overskrifterne hen over weekenden, er amerikanerne i stigende grad begyndt at fatte det iboende hykleri i hele denne Russiagate-narrativ. Fra tidligere CIA-direktør James Woolsey, der af Laura Ingraham på Fox News bliver spurgt, om USA nogen sinde har blandet sig i et andet lands valg – til hvilken han måtte rømme sig og hoste og sige, »Jamen, det har vi sandsynligvis, og vil sandsynligvis fortsætte med«; og til en række blogindlæg i denne uge på tidligere forsvarsefterretningsofficer Pat Langs webside, »Sic Semper Tyrannis«. Man ser her [Fig. 1] titlen på et af de seneste indlæg: »Robert Muellers Amerika – En farce pakket ind i hykleri«. Dette blev postet den 20. feb., og her er et kort uddrag af hans blogindlæg, hvor han siger:

Under overskriften »Robert Muellers Amerika – En Farce pakket ind i hykleri«, fremfører Tacitus, at anklageskriftet er »intet mindre end en køreplan for despotiske regeringer, der ville ønske at behandle enhver, der vover at udlægge afvigende materiale på internettet, som en kriminel.« I virkeligheden »er det ikke andet end en gang harsk butterdej. Det prætenderer at have et bjerg af beviser på russernes misgerninger. Men, hvis man begynder simpelt hen at stille kritiske spørgsmål om det underliggende bevis for disse misgerninger, opdager man hurtigt, at dette dokument er et stykke politisk teater snarere end en faktisk opremsning af kriminelle gerninger.«

»Der er ikke et eneste stykke solidt bevis i hele dokumentet, der underbygger« påstanden om Internet Research Agency (IRA), det russiske selskab, der angiveligt skulle have haft tilsyn med den beskidte propagandakrig mod intetanende amerikanske vælgere. »Det er blot en konstatering af en overbevisning. Det er ikke sådan, man skriver et anklageskrift, der beskylder en for kriminelle handlinger.«

»Denne sag er således meget langt fra at være en ’slam dunk’ for Mueller-teamet. Skulle det nogen sinde komme for retten, er der signifikante huller og sårbarheder i anklageskriftet, som en kompetent forsvarsadvokat kunne splitte ad. Niks. Det her handler ikke om at straffe folk, der overtræder loven. Dette er et politisk teater, der er designet til at nære memet for at promovere antirussisk hysteri.« Tacitus understreger, at enhver objektiv efterforskning af angivelig »indblanding« fra IRA kun ville kunne konkludere, at »IRA’s aktiviteter er på grænsen til irrelevante og uden indvirkning«. Ingen stor afsløring her: Rusland har gennemført efterretningsoperationer i USA i 80 år. Men USA har gennemført lignende operationer »i og imod Rusland / USSR og har været involveret i hemmelige indblandinger i valg i hele verden. Dét er det hykleriske. Vi har et hysterisk anfald over latterlige internet-narrestreger, udført af en lille gruppe russere, der var dårligt finansieret og genererede liden aktivitet samtidig med, at vi ignorerer vores egen historie, hvor vi rent faktisk har væltet andre lovligt valgte regeringer. Der har vi det. Farce og hykleri.«

Hør så dette næste indlæg, publiceret i dag, den 23. feb., med titlen »Amerika blander sig i Ukraine« [Fig. 2]. Han siger:

»Historikere vil bemærke den enorme ironi, der ligger i USA’s engagement i undergravende virksomhed og indblanding i valget i Ukraine, som overgår alt, Rusland har forsøgt.

De ideologiske spaltninger, der vokser i USA, begynder at ligne de krigsførende lejre, der karakteriserer den politiske verden i Ukraine. Splittelsen i Ukraine sætter grupper, der beskrives som »højrefløj«, og mange er ideologiske efterkommere af ægte nazister og nazi-sympatisører, op imod grupper med et stærkt tilhørsforhold til Rusland.

Hvem støtter USA’s regering og medierne? Nazisterne. Du tror, jeg laver grin!«

Han fortsætter dernæst med at fremlægge OUN’s historie [Organisationen af Ukrainske Nationalister] og Stephan banderas støtte til Hitler og fortsættelsen af denne arv med Sektor Højre i dag. Dernæst fortsætter han:

»Regn mig med blandt de mennesker, der er oprørt over det hykleri og den stupiditet, der nu kommer frem i USA.

Der foregår helt tydeligt indblanding i det det amerikanske politiske landskab. Men det er altså ikke den russiske regering. Nej. Der er fremmede og hjemlige kræfter i alliance, som er ivrige efter at portrættere Rusland som en trussel mod verdensordenen, og som må modgås med højere forsvarsudgifter og hårdere sanktioner. Det er den propaganda, der dominerer medierne i USA i disse dage. Og det er i sandhed farligt for vores nations sikkerhed og frihed.«

Det står klart, som Pat Lang pointerer her i dette blogindlæg, og ligeledes, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche pointerede i sin internationale webcast i går, at hele denne Russiagate-historie, og desuden hele Kina-hysteriet, der i stigende grad nu oppiskes; at dette forkyndes med det formål at portrættere disse lande som en dødbringende trussel mod den herskende verdensorden, og som må tilintetgøres. Som Helga LaRouche sagde i dette klip, vi nu skal se, så man se dette som intet mindre end førkrigs-propaganda. Her er, hvad Helga havde at sige:

(her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet.)

(Hele Helga Zepp-LaRouches webcast fra 22. feb. kan læses på dansk, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=23890)

Henvisninger i den engelske tekst:

Nyt Paradigme undervisningsserie, Indtegning, program: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=23703

Helga Zepp-LaRouches introduktion 10. feb. (dansk): http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=23855

Harley Schlanger, lektion 2 17. feb., video, (engelsk): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy87_gzTTTU

“The Mueller Dossier Revisited: How the British
and Obama Diddled the United States”, https://larouchepac.com/20180220/mueller-dossier-revisited-how-british-and-obama-diddled-united-states

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  This is a case which will never go
to trial, because these are people living in Russia. It’s an old
case, it was already discussed in 2014, and since there is no
extradition treaty between the United States and Russia, the
trial will never take place; and therefore Mueller does not have
to provide any evidence for any of his accusations.  So it’s a
very convenient way to keep beating the drums in an anti-Russian
hysteria and it’s a big, big “nothing-burger” as people have been
pointing out.  But it is actually a fraud against the population,
because if you keep building this kind of enemy image, such as
against Russia and China — and people should understand, this
has nothing to do with Russian hacking, or Russian collusion; as
a matter of fact, there were several people, but one of them was
a leading member of the Russian Duma who said that there are 102
very well documented  cases for the United States meddling in the
internal affairs of other countries, and it’s fairly well known
how many coups and regime-change operations. So obviously, at
minimum, you could say is that both sides are doing it, but the
United States has a very long record of having tried to intervene
in the internal affairs of other countries in multiple ways.
So, this should be understood as pre-war propaganda, and
people easily fall for things which are in the mainstream media,
and rather, they should think twice.  What Russia is doing and
what China is doing, is they are building a completely different
model of international relationships, explicitly modeled on
noninterference, and respect for the social system of the other
country.  And therefore, this propaganda is just a terribly
dangerous scenario of lies which actually is serving as a
preparation for war, and that is what people really must get
straight.

OGDEN:  So the stakes are very high, and in the same
broadcast yesterday, Helga LaRouche made the point that there are
ongoing investigations coming out of the House Intelligence
Committee under Devin Nunes, and also the Senate Intelligence
Committee under Chuck Grassley, into the role of Christopher
Steele as a central figure in this entire Russiagate narrative.
As she said, this leads directly to the role of British
intelligence.  So, here’s a second clip from yesterday’s
broadcast.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Yes, it is directly British
intelligence.  It’s not “former” MI6 agent, but it is an MI6
operation, and it involves the Foreign Office of Great Britain
itself, as we saw in a case which was launched by one of the
Russians who were accused of hacking, who took the Steele case to
court, and then the Foreign Office intervened directly to block
any revelations coming from the Steele operative of theirs.
Now, that it is an incredible story:  It means the British
have intervened, not only in the coup against the Yanukovych
government, but also in the case of the coup against President
Trump.  That whole Russiagate as some people funnily say is a big
“regurgitated nothing-burger” — there is absolutely no substance
to it.  And we should just note the fact that the continuous
investigations coming from the two Houses of Congress, under the
leadership of Nunes and Grassley, they are still pointing
absolutely to the coup-plotters who were involved with the
British in this coup.
In the recent developments, [House Intelligence Chair]
Congressman Nunes has sent out 10 or 11 other letters to
officials of the existing or former government, where they have
to answer very pointed question — when did you know first about
the Steele dossier?  Did you discuss it with anybody else? Did
Obama know it?  When did he know it?  And these individuals have
to answers these questions by March 2nd, so it’s not a long-term
investigation, but it’s something extremely hot.  And it’s not
yet decided how this coup will go:  If the Congress has the
courage to go after those Obama intelligence officials who
colluded with Great Britain, but if they do, a lot of people
could not only lose their position, but actually end up in jail,
as some judges are now already demanding.

OGDEN:  So, as Helga said, this investigation continues and
it continues to escalate.  This is the question of the role of
the British and their fellow-travellers in the American
intelligence community in actually meddling in the US electoral
process.  Chairman Devin Nunes is scheduled to appear at the CPAC
[Conservative Political Action Conference] conference today; he’s
scheduled to be the closing speaker.  We’ll see what he has to
say there, but as Helga mentioned, Nunes has continued to march
forward with Phase Two of his investigation into this entire
Christopher Steele matter.  He issued a series of questions; this
is letter that was just published yesterday which was sent to the
FBI and officials within the State Department.  The letter is
asking for questions regarding information contained in the
Steele dossier, which was funded by the DNC [Democratic National
Committee] and the Clinton campaign, and used in a FISA [Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act] application targetting Carter
Page.  He notified them, as Helga mentioned, that if their
responses are not received by March 2nd, which is a week from
today, then subpoenas will be issued.  He said, “If you do not
provide timely answers on a voluntary basis, the Committee will
initiate compulsory process.”
So, included in these questions is one which directly asks
what did Obama know and when did he know it?  So, here are a few
of the questions that are asked by Chairman Nunes [Fig. 3]:

“1. When and how did you first become aware of any of the
information contained in the Steele dossier?
“2. In what form(s) was the information in the Steele
dossier presented to you? By whom? …
“3. Who did you share this information with? When? …
“6. When did you first learn or come to believe that the
Steele dossier was funded by a Democrat-aligned entity?
“9. Was President Obama briefed on any information contained
in the dossier prior to January 5, 2017?
“10. Did you discuss the information contained in the Steele
dossier with any reporters or other representatives of the media?
If so, who and when?”

So clearly it is very significant that this investigation is
going all the way to the top, with Obama himself being
implicated.  Now recall that Chairman Grassley of the Senate
Intelligence Committee, has also been asking questions about what
Obama knew and when did he know it.  Take the example of the very
bizarre email that was sent by Susan Rice to herself on
Inauguration Day at 12:15pm on the day that President Trump was
inaugurated; literally right before she walked out of the doors
of the White House for the last time to attend this inauguration.
The email describes a January 5, 2017 Oval Office meeting between
President Obama, former FBI James Comey, former Deputy Attorney
General Sally Yates, as well as Vice President Joe Biden and Rice
herself.  The email that Susan Rice sent to herself obviously has
been publicized by Chairman Grassley, and in this letter [Fig. 4]
that you’re looking at, he published the relevant excerpt from
this email.  Again, this is Susan Rice, addressed to Susan Rice;
12:15pm, January 20, 2017.  This is what she says:
“On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on
Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President
Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim
Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office.
[She mentions that Biden and herself were also present.]
“President Obama began the conversation by stressing his
continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue
is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities
‘by the book’.  The President stressed that he is not asking
about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement
perspective.  He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs
to proceed as it normally would by the book.
“From a national security perspective, however, President
Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the
incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason
that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russiaâ¦.
“The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes
in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified
information with the incoming team.  Comey said he would.”
Now, what Senator Grassley asks in his open letter to Susan
Rice is the following:
“It strikes us as odd that, among your activities in the
final moments on the final day of the Obama administration, you
would feel the need to send yourself such an unusual email
purporting to document a conversation involving President Obama
and his interactions with the FBI regarding the Trump/Russia
investigation.  In addition, despite your claim that President
Obama repeatedly told Mr. Comey to proceed ‘by the book,’
substantial questions have arisen about whether officials at the
FBI, as well as at the Justice Department and the State
Department, actually did proceed ‘by the book.’…

“4. Did anyone instruct, request, suggest, or imply that you
should send yourself the aforementioned Inauguration Day email
memorializing President Obama’s meeting with Mr. Comey about the
Trump/Russia investigation?  If so, who and why?
“12. Did President Obama have any other meetings with Mr.
Comey, Ms. Yates, or other government officials about the FBI’s
investigation of allegations of collusion between Trump
associates and Russia?  If so, when did these occur, who
participated, and what was discussed?”

So, these questions and these investigations are beginning
to hit very close to home.  Remember, Susan Rice was also caught
and has admitted to requesting the unmasking of several
individuals associated with the Trump campaign; Americans whose
communications were collected under NSA wiretaps and
surveillance.  Susan Rice and other officials have now been
caught on repeated occasions requesting the unmasking of these
American officials; raising many questions as to what the motives
were.
Now Chairman Nunes has been appearing on several talk shows
and media interviews over the last several weeks.  Obviously,
since the publication of his memo.  But he appeared last weekend
on “The Full Measure” show with host Sharyl Atkinson.  In that
interview, he continued to keep a laser focus.  Let me just read
you a few excerpts of what Chairman Nunes had to say in that
interview.
“We have a Russian Investigation going on whether or not
there was collusion between any campaign and the Russians. That’s
coming to a close. We’ve never had any evidence of collusion
between the Trump campaign and the Russians¦. There’s nothing
there”¦.
“[I]n that investigation, we’ve unearthed things that are
very concerning. We know that there are un-maskings that occurred
and probably were leaked to the media”¦. [W] hat we found was
happening is, in the last administration, they were unmasking
hundreds, and hundreds, and hundreds of American’s names. They
were unmasking people for what I would say, for lack of a better
definition, were for political purposes”¦. [N]ames were unmasked.
And those names ended up in the newspaper.
“[I]t’s like political dirt to create a narrative and a spin
with the mainstream media”¦. [T]here were unmaskings that we
unearthed, then there are the FISA abuse that we’ve discovered.
[T]his is where the FBI and the Justice Department — because
they’re involved in this FISA Abuse, because they’re the ones who
“ go before the secret court to get the warrants, they’re all
involved, they’re all implicated in this”¦.
“It really boils down to this. You had a campaign. The
Hillary Campaign and the Democratic Party went out and paid for
dirt”¦. Then they used that dirt and funneled it into the FBI.
The FBI then used that dirt to get a warrant on a US citizen who
was part of the other campaign”¦. [T]o do that, it’s wrong.
“¦… As it relates to Department of Justice and the FBI, if
they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial. The
reason that Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we
created. DOJ and FBI are not above the law. Congress created
them, we oversee them, and we fund them. And if they’re
committing abuse for a secret court, getting warrants on American
citizens, you’re darn right that we’re going to put them on
trial.
“I think people are just starting to learn now what really
happened. Because as we peel more and more of this back, I think
more and more Americans get educated. And I think that they’re
gonna demand that changes are made.”
Remember that this entire line of investigation is exactly
what was suggested in the original LaRouche PAC special report.
Obviously, this special report on Mueller was published now over
six months ago.  But this continues to be very timely and very
relevant.  An update to that report will be forthcoming, but we
have a preview now available on the website of what will be
contained in that updated dossier.  That preview is available
under the title “The Mueller Dossier Revisited: How the British
and Obama Diddled the United States”.  There you can see a screen
shot [Fig. 5] from that updated preview.  This is obviously
available in full on the LaRouche PAC website, and we would
encourage you to read it in its fullest extent.  It’s a fairly
long update.  But what I’d like to do is just read you from the
beginning of how this report is set up, a little bit of a
retrospective on the effect that this Mueller dossier has had
over its six-month circulation; but also the context in which you
have to understand always the big strategic picture behind the
events that are now unfolding on a day-to-day basis.  So, this is
what this updated report has to say:
“On September 29, 2017, LaRouchePAC published the original
version of the dossier ‘Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal
Assassin: He Will do His Job If You Let Him”. To date, that
dossier, now being circulated nation-wide by LaRouchePAC,
represents the most thorough and the most accurate assessment as
to the character of Robert Mueller, as well as the utterly
fraudulent nature of the ongoing treasonous effort to bring down
the Trump Presidency.
“This present report is an update to that dossier, with the
emphasis on the dramatic significance of two documents which were
released in the first days of February. The first is the House
Intelligence document known as the ‘Nunes Memo’, and the second
is the — by far more substantive — un-redacted document
authored by Senators Grassley and Graham.
“We shall examine the importance of these two documents in
depth, as well as significant other developments which flow from
the impact of their release. Before doing so, however, it is of
critical importance that a matter of primary overriding concern
be re-stated here, at the beginning of this update.

“The British Origin of the Coup

“Nothing of any truth about the current assault on President
Trump can be understood, unless one addresses the question of
why all of this is occurring, along with the subsumed question
of “cui bono?” This requires transcending the world of partisan
politics and inside-the-beltway gossip, and the necessity for
examining the strategic setting and implications surrounding
the coup plot.
“Everything that is now transpiring must be viewed within
that truthful strategic context. During the eight years of the
Obama Presidency, and the prior Administration of George W. Bush,
a profound shift in U.S. strategic policy took place. Obama,
working closely with — and often under the direction of — the
British, committed the United States to enforcing a global policy
of Anglo-American hegemonism, what is sometimes referred to as a
‘uni-polar world’. This took the form of escalating provocations
against Russia, and more recently the targeting of China.
Currently, this imperial Anglo-American faction is determined to
thwart China’s gigantic Belt and Road Initiative infrastructure
development of Eurasia, Africa, Southwest Asia (the Middle East),
and nations in Central and South America. This largest
infrastructure development project in human history now involves
more than 68 countries.
“For the British, such geo-political designs are nothing
new. British strategic policy since before World War I has been
based on geopolitics. Under the theories of Lord Halford
Mackinder, completely embraced by today’s Anglo-American foreign
policy establishment, control of Eurasia dictates strategic
mastery of the world. China is now establishing vast
transportation and other infrastructure throughout Eurasia, a
region which Anglo-American policy up until now had reserved as a
primitive looting ground.
“Unable to break from imperial axioms and join China’s offer
of win-win cooperation, let alone offer a viable alternative
model which promotes the general welfare, Barack Obama and the
British adopted a strategy of geopolitical containment and
provocation, a New Cold War policy. It began with the
Anglo-American coup in Ukraine in 2014, pushing NATO right up to
Russia’s borders, and involves hostile encirclement strategies
against both Russia and China, employing color revolutions,
economic sanctions, overt economic, cyber, and information
warfare, provocative military maneuvers, development of new
nuclear and other warfare capacities, and military support of
insurgents and terrorists in states friendly and/or trading with
Russia or China, such as Iran and Syria. All of this, of course,
threatens the extinction of the human race.”
Now, the final aspect of that memo which is now available
goes through the fact that with Trump’s election, this entire
agenda was derailed.  As it says:
“In November 2016, it was the intention of Obama and the
British that Hillary Clinton would continue this dangerous
geo-political gambit. Donald Trump’s victory in that election
stopped this mad drive to war just as it was turning very hot.
“As we detailed in our original Mueller dossier,
‘Russiagate,’ — which has roiled our nation since Summer 2016,
has driven most members of Congress into a McCarthyite insanity
so severe that you can literally picture them braying at the Moon
at night, and has critically undermined Donald Trump’s Presidency
— has absolutely nothing to do with any hostile action by Russia
against the United States. Its origins are to be found in the
desperation of the British and American establishments, among
individuals and interests who are frantic to re-impose the
strategic outlook of the Obama Administration.”
I would strongly encourage you to read the entirety of this
report, which is available on the LaRouche PAC website now.  It’s
crucial, but let me just pick up on that picture, which was just
laid out in that prefatory section.  As is very apparent from
developments in the recent week and a half, these frantic
attempts to impose the re-impose the strategic outlook of the
Obama administration, which the Hillary Clinton administration
clearly would have continued full-bore; this attempt to re-impose
that track is now in full swing.  One only has to look at the
escalations that have occurred in Ukraine, the escalations which
have occurred in Syria, the calls for a response to that, and
absolutely the very heated rhetoric and hysterical speeches which
were delivered at the so-called Munich Security Conference which
just occurred this week.  We saw just raid anti-Russia,
anti-China speeches, one after another after another, attacking
the One Belt, One Road policy as an imperialistic scheme; trying
to identify a full spectrum intelligence operation that’s being
allegedly run by the Chinese against every nation in the West,
and so forth and so on.
In contrast to that, the spokesperson from China at the
Munich Security Conference, very calmly and very undefensively
laid out the picture of what the New Paradigm of win-win
relations that China is offering to the world really entails.
That was originally elaborated by Xi Jinping at his speech at the
United Nations General Assembly several years ago, but it
involves non-confrontation, non-meddling in foreign countries’
affairs, an understanding of differences in approach and
differences in political and cultural systems.  But overall, not
an attempt to impose one nation or one system’s view of the world
on other nations in a sort of unipolar or hegemonic way; but a
way to say, “Let’s take our differences and use them to our
collective advantage.  Let’s put together a system of shared,
mutual benefit under a vision of common destiny for mankind.”
Which is the way the Chinese have put it.  But this is
characterized as a win-win approach, as opposed to the Cold War
mentality of winner take all, zero-sum game type of geopolitics.
So, Helga LaRouche in her broadcast yesterday strongly
encouraged people to actually read the text of the speeches from
the Munich Security Conference, both the anti-China, anti-Russia
war-mongering speeches so you can see for yourself just how rabid
and hysterical this prewar propaganda actually is.  But also, go
and read that speech from the representative of the Chinese
Foreign Ministry, and you can see how the Chinese are responding.
This is the time where we desperately need a New Paradigm of
international relations; and it comes under the form of that
win-win relationship.  The way that you can see that playing out
on the ground, not from 300,000 feet with rhetoric; but really
look at the reality on the ground, in places such as Africa,
Central and South America, countries in Eurasia.  These countries
are already benefitting from the infrastructure, the modern
technology and the infrastructure which is being brought to those
countries by China and the One Belt, One Road initiative.  It’s
high time that the United States and other countries in Western
Europe come to the table and say what China is doing is very
good.  This is for the benefit of these countries, and instead of
trying to shut this down and beat the drums of war, we should
finally reciprocate what China is doing.  We should come to the
table with intentions of good will, and we should join together
and as a community of nations, build this future which will be
for the common benefit of all.
So, the LaRouche PAC class series, which we’ve been
promoting now for several weeks, and is already ongoing, could
not be more timely and more urgent.  This is titled, “The End of
Geopolitics; What Is the New Paradigm?”  You can register, if you
haven’t already, at discover.larouchepac.com or at the link that
you see here on the screen — http://lpac.co/np2018.  Again,
there are public classes which have been available on YouTube;
two so far.  The first inaugural speech by Helga Zepp-LaRouche,
and then the second follow-up by Harley Schlanger last Saturday;
which was “What Is Geopolitics? Part I, the History”.  That was
very informative and very in-depth.  But there are also aspects
of this class series that you cannot access unless you are a
registered participant; such as the discussion period which will
occur tomorrow, which will only be open to those who are
registered for this class series.  So, we strongly encourage you,
if you haven’t yet, to register.  Also, to encourage other people
that you know to register for this class series at that link
that’s on the screen and to become active participants in this
entire series.
The time has come.  We must take very seriously what’s at
stake here in this current unfolding battle over the soul of the
United States and the soul of the US Presidency.  The ugly nature
of this operation and this apparatus continues to come to light,
but we have to continue — as the LaRouche PAC dossier does very
well — to put it into its proper strategic context and to
understand cui bono? and what is the strategic context for this
unprecedented assault on the US democratic system and the US
Presidency that we now see ongoing.
So, thank you very much for joining me here today.  Please
stay tuned to larouchepac.com; we have a lot of work to do.

Gæst Paul Gallagher.

Vært Matthew Ogden: Titlen på vores show i dag er »Genopbyg Amerikas infrastruktur: Optrap kampagnen for LaRouche-planen«. Jeg har inviteret Paul Gallagher, økonomiredaktør for Executive Intelligence Review, på showet i dag, og vi er glade for at du tager dig tid til at komme, Paul. Vi har nu mulighed for at få en meget seriøs og nøgtern diskussion om LaRouches økonomiske program: De »Fire Love«, og lige nu er dørene vidt åbne.

Med udgivelsen af den såkaldte »Udkast til Lovgivning for Genopbygning af Amerikas Infrastruktur« – Dette er programmet fra Trumps Hvide Hus, som blev sendt over til Kongressen. Det blev udgivet mandag. Alt imens indholdet af denne rapport er, for at sige det mildt, uheldigt – det har Wall Streets fingeraftryk over det hele, alene det, at dette forslag er kommet frem; men det er rent ud sagt en total taber, der har galvaniseret diskussionen nationalt, og det er virkelig begyndt at katalysere kongresmedlemmer på begge sider midtergangen til at begynde at tænke over spørgsmålet på en meget mere seriøs måde: Hvordan finansierer man infrastruktur?  Hvis vi taler om $1,5 billion, hvor skal de komme fra?

(Her følger engelsk udskrift):

And this includes, frankly, Trump himself.  As President
Trump said in the Letter of Transmission, that was sent over as
the opening to this legislative proposal, he said: “Our nation’s
infrastructure is in an unacceptable state of disrepair, which
damages our country’s competitiveness and our citizens’ quality
of life.  For too long, lawmakers have invested in infrastructure
inefficiently, ignored critical needs, and allowed it to
deteriorate.  As a result, the United States has fallen further
and further behind other countries.  It is time to give Americans
the working, modern infrastructure they deserve…. My
administration is committed to working with the Congress to enact
a law that will enable America’s builders to construct the new,
modern, and efficient infrastructure throughout our beautiful
land.”
Now, on Tuesday, President Trump held an open, televised
roundtable with different Senators and Representatives, both
Democrats and Republicans, and this was ostensibly to discuss the
aluminum, steel industries and trade policy around that, but
during that roundtable, which was televised, the discussion of
the infrastructure program came up.  And I’d like to just play a
short clip from that roundtable; this is an exchange between
President Trump and Sen. Sherrod Brown [D] from Ohio, and then
Senator Blumenthal [D-CT] also gets in on this.  And what you
hear is that President Trump says, look, I want to have a
bipartisan plan.  Come back to me with a counterproposal.  What
we put out was an opening bid, but I really want a bipartisan
plan.  I’m ready, willing and able.
So, here’s a clip from that roundtable:

[start video]
PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I actually think that we can go bipartisan
on infrastructure, maybe even more so, than we can on DACA. …
On infrastructure which is the purpose of what we’re doing
tonight, come back with a proposal.  We put in our bid — come
back with a proposal. We have a lot of people that are great
Republicans that want something to happen.  We have to rebuild
our country.  I said yesterday, we’ve spent {$7 trillion} — when
I say “spent,” and I mean wasted — not to mention all of the
lives, most importantly and everything else — but we’ve spent $7
trillion as of about two months ago, in the Middle East — $7
trillion.  And if you want to borrow two dollars to build a road
someplace, including your state, the great state of Ohio, if you
want to build a road, if you want to build a tunnel, or a bridge,
or fix a bridge because so many of them are in bad shape, you
can’t do it.  And yet, we spent $7 trillion in the Middle East.
Explain that one. [crosstalk]

SEN. SHERROD BROWN: I’ve love a bipartisan — we have a
bipartisan proposal.  We can [crosstalk] dollars on it in
infrastructure.  We’re glad to work together on a real
infrastructure bill with real dollars, plus what you can leverage
in the communities and private sector.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Do a combination.

SENATOR BROWN:  It needs real dollars.

President Trump:  I would love to have you get back to us
quickly, ’cause we can do this quickly and we have to rebuild our
country.  We have to rebuild our roads and our bridges and our
tunnels, so the faster you get back, the faster we can move.
Focus on document this week, if you don’t mind, right?  But the
faster you get back, the faster we move.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL:  I come back to Senator Brown’s
point, I think there’s a opportunity for real bipartisanship
here, in these two areas.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I agree, and I’d like you to come back
with a suggestion on infrastructure in the plan, and I think
that’s a bipartisan plan.  I really would like to see you come
back with a counterproposal on the infrastructure.  I think we’re
going to get that done.  I really believe that’s  — we’re going
to get a lot of Democrats, we’re going to get a lot of
Republicans. We’re going to get it done.  It’s something we
should do.  We have to fix our country:  We have to fix our roads
and our tunnels and bridges and everything, so, if you can work
together on that, and I am ready, willing and able, on
infrastructure — that is such a natural for us to get done.  And
I think we could probably do it.
Thank you all very much.  [End video]

OGDEN:  So as you can see, asking them to come back with a
counterproposal, he said, this is our opening bid, but the point
is clear:  Now is the time for us to mobilize like never before,
to put the LaRouche plan on the table.  {This} is the
counterproposal.
Let me put on the screen here:  first we’ve got our Campaign
To Win the Future.  This is obviously the national statement of
intent for the elections in 2018.  LaRouche PAC is mobilizing a
national movement and galvanizing discussion around this program.
And then the content of that campaign can be seen on the next
slide, this is “The Four Laws To Save the United States:  The
Economics Principles Necessary for a Recovery — Why the United
States Must Join the New Silk Road” and this contains full
elaboration of Lyndon LaRouche’s four economic laws.
So, I know that Paul is very short on time, and I would just
like to ask you: Please address what the situation is now in
Washington.  What’s coming out of this release of this so-called
legislative proposal? And what actually has to be done?

PAUL GALLAGHER:  Thanks, Matt.  My first reaction, when the
White House plan was released — I call it the “White House
plan,” not the Trump plan, but the White House plan — when it
was released, was that closed a certain door of people in elected
offices around the country and in Washington, constantly saying
“what is the White House going to come up with?  what is the
White House going to come up with?  what are they going to give
us in the way of what they can get started towards infrastructure
investments? because we desperately need it?”   And when it
finally came out, and it was very, very, very lacking — as you
said, a Wall Street plan — that closed a certain door, and
immediately, thus, opened another one.
OK, now they have come out with that.  Now, we have to come
out with something.  It’s up to the rest of us, particularly
those in elected office, but all of us who are active in fighting
for this:  It’s up to us now to shape the alternative, because
this one just isn’t going to work.  And it’s good to see that
that definitely includes the President — that view.  He, on
another occasion, immediately after the plan was rolled out on
Monday, he said that compared to the tax legislation and the
military spending increases and so forth, that this
infrastructure plan that the White House has put out, was really
quite unimportant.  A rather surprising thing for him to say.
But it indicated, when it was followed the very next day by the
comment you just saw, “give me an alternative,” and then the very
day after that, in another meeting with members of Congress,
when, as soon as he was prompted in any way by any of them, he
came out very strongly for increasing the Federal gasoline tax by
25 cents a gallon, and applying that through the Highway Trust
Fund, to infrastructure investment — not at all something which
is part of the White House plan, so-called; and not part of the
Republican leadership’s plan at all.
But when he was asked, he went with that.  He hasn’t said
this publicly, but a number of senators and representatives who
were at that second meeting, have reported it publicly in the
same way.  It’s clear that he did say that he was for that
increase in the gas tax, and as he said, he would take the
political heat for backing it as President, if they would go
forward with it.
So you’ve had, in rapid succession,  a number of indications
that this plan, as poor as it was that came out from the White
House, is not in fact the President’s plan, and it simply closes
the door on all this waiting, and now says, where are the
alternatives?
And that is very definitely what is in the LaRouche Four
Laws, is the one alternative to this that will work.
Let me get into this in another way, unless you want to
break it up, Matt.  And if you have questions, please, interrupt.
But I wanted to read a piece that was written just two days
ago by a Chinese scholar John Gong; he’s a very prominent
professor University of International Business and Economics in
Beijing; and he’s a former executive editor of the {Journal of
Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies}.

OGDEN:  We actually have a slide with the title of that
article which was written for China Global Television Network
(CGTN), “Make America Great Again — With Chinese Money.”   And I
can read some of the quotes that people can see on the screen,
and then maybe you can address what the content is.
This is what he had to say:  “Trump is absolutely right that
Americas crippled bridges, potholed highways, and crooked
railways cannot wait any longer. America needs to be great again.
The only question is, where is the money coming from?”  And then
later in the article he said, “I have a great idea. Bank of China
and other major banks from China are now flush with dollar cash
and other dollar-denominated liquid assets, totaling over $3
trillion, mostly in the form of holdings in U.S. Treasury bills
and bonds. This money can be readily used for Chinese investors
to participate in America’s infrastructure boom. By that I mean
Chinese investors can participate in those infrastructure
projects as active equity investors, and maybe contractors or
suppliers at the same time.
“Call it the Belt and Road. Call it
America-belt-America-road. I don’t care, as long as Chinas current
account trade surplus can be somehow transformed into a capital
account stock, in the form of money invested in America as
permanent equity shareholders, and more importantly permanent
stakeholders of a stable and prosperous Sino-U.S. economic
relationship. This could be a win-win mode for both countries.”
[https://news.cgtn.com/news/79596a4d33677a6333566d54/
share_p.html]
So that’s Dr. John Gong.

GALLAGHER:  Now, that’s very important, in the way it is
formulated, in the precision of it.  He’s talking about Treasury
holdings, — he’s not the first Chinese official to do this.  In
fact, a year ago, in late January of 2017, Ding Xuedong, the
then-chairman of the Chinese Investment Corp., which is one of
their two big sovereign wealth funds, made essentially the same
proposal.  He said, we have such and such a volume of long-term
U.S. Treasury holdings, they’re not earners, their interest rates
are very low, their return is very low; we would like to trade
them for a long-term investment in a U.S. infrastructure bill, as
he put it. And he, at the time, estimated that really, the need
for investment in the United States for new infrastructure, was
{$8 trillion}, a figure which may seem impossibly large to many,
but actually isn’t.
[http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2017/170116_chinese_invest.html]
Nonetheless, Helga Zepp-LaRouche has written in articles
which have been published in the Chinese press, she’s frequently
interviewed and quoted there, — she has written exactly this
proposal in articles which have been published there.  I have
presented exactly this idea to Chinese officials in Washington.
This is part of LaRouche’s Four Laws.
But to start with, the first action implied by his four
actions that have to be taken legislatively and from an executive
standpoint, is the restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act and the
breakup of the Wall Street banks and the hiving off of all of the
casino speculative investment vehicles, special purpose vehicles
and all of that, in order to protect and use the commercial
banking system for investments.
You cannot get to real, major infrastructure renewal without
doing that, and you could see this in the meeting that you played
the clip from. There was at least one representative from
Missouri, who brought up the issue, when the discussion was about
trade, and specifically whether there might be tariffs against
aluminum imports from China, he brought up the fact that there is
a grave lack of capacity to produce sufficient aluminum for
industry in the United States, and where is that lack coming
from?  The lack of power supplies.  So that, this is an
infrastructure question, although if you ask the simple question,
“Is there an apparent sufficient amount of kilowatt-hours per
year per capita in the United States?”  Yes, there is. But is
there sufficient, reliable electrical power supply — constantly
online, reliable, electrical power supply — for an expansion of
industry?  The answer would in many cases be, “no.” And that was
what he was bringing up, in particular with respect to more
aluminum plants in the United States.  You have a grave inability
to produce enough power, particularly since the fiasco of
electricity deregulation out on the West Coast 15 years ago: That
deprived the aluminum industry and shut down a very significant
amount of it.
Now, if there’s going to be that kind of investment in
infrastructure across the country, it’s not going to be one, or
two, or three, or four, very famous big projects, like the
renovation of the whole Northeast rail corridor of Amtrak, and
the bridges and the tunnels in New York and so forth.  It’s not
going to be simply those things.  It’s going to be, at many, many
levels around the country, the production of enough clean water
supplies, the production of enough electrical power supplies; the
replacement and renovation — mostly replacement — of the river
navigation systems, locks and dams, and many of these things.
And for those, the commercial banks have to be ready to lend,
because it takes a lot of employment, a lot of contracting, a lot
of local borrowing:  The banks have to be ready to lend and if
you allow them to stay the big commercial banks, and the mid-size
regional banks — if you allow them to stay in the Wall Street
casino, that’s where they’ll stay.  If you say, “no, your
business as a commercial bank is lending,” then you have a credit
channel through the banking system through which national credit
can flow, and cooperate in this kind of thing.
So it starts with restoring bank separation under
Glass-Steagall.  We’re going to have a group of elected officials
from Italy in a couple of months come over and help us organize
in Washington on this, because they’re fighting for it in Italy
at the national and also the local level.
Then, the specific second law of LaRouche, a national credit
institution, which is able to produce large volumes of productive
credit for productive employment of the people, and for increased
productivity.  And that is where not only the White House plan,
but many other plans that have been put forward, are really
completely inadequate, where we do have to talk about several
trillions of dollars at least of investment,  and the way to do
that, is exactly the way that was reflected in that comment by
Dr. Gong: That is, there is a lot of long-term Treasury debt held
out there; three major holders of this long-term Treasury debt,
which totals $7.5-$8 trillion, are the commercial banks of the
United States, again, which hold it in their reserves and all
their excess reserves which are very large right now;  second,
Japan, which holds more than $1 trillion in primarily long-term
U.S. Treasury debt; thirdly, China, which actually holds now
somewhat more than Japan; about $1.2 trillion of the same kind of
debt.  Those are potential shareholders, equity holders,
subscribers of that Treasury debt into a new bank created by
Congress for the purpose of generating this kind of credit.
That is exactly how we have proposed and circulated and
organized that this is the way to form — without a tremendous
amount of new borrowing — to form a sufficiently large national
bank for infrastructure; essentially by swapping existing
long-term Treasury debt holdings for equity in such a new
national bank created by Congress with a guarantee from the
Treasury for the payment of the dividends on that equity.  And
with taxes — this is not free; it’s never free, — but with
taxes assigned to make sure that those dividends can be paid.
That’s where the increase in the Federal gasoline tax and
potentially the use of other what you would call infrastructure
excise taxes, like the port excise tax and the navigation tax on
the locks and dams, that’s where these would come in.  Because if
you simply go and raise the gas tax by 25 cents and spend the
money for infrastructure projects, it will not produce nearly,
nearly enough.  But if you use it in this way as leverage to
guarantee the equity in a new national bank in exactly the way
that we’re seeing reflected in that proposal, that article from
Dr. Gong, then it’ll work.  As I said, he’s not the only person,
not only among leading Chinese thinkers about this, but also from
Japan, there’s the same kind of positive view of this idea.
Potentially, there you have it — an infrastructure bank.
Then you have to go on and what are you going to use that
credit for?  It can’t be used simply to repair roads and repair
bridges.  There are entirely new areas of technological and
scientific breakthroughs which will raise productivity in the
economy to a far greater extent.  One of them that we identify is
that a crash program is necessary to develop not only
thermonuclear fusion electric energy, but the plasma technologies
of infrastructure, which will probably come from such a crash
program even before commercial nuclear fusion electricity
arrives.  We will have plasma technologies being spun off from
that crash program, which will address themselves exactly to the
production of the kinds of capacities that have died out in
deindustrialization in the United States.  But they’ll do it at a
higher level of technology.  Those kinds of investments, are one
of the Four Laws that LaRouche has called for.  Also, a big
increase in NASA’s capabilities, going back to the Apollo Project
level of effort by NASA to really go back to the Moon;
industrialize, develop the Moon, develop the raw materials there,
including for fusion energy production.  And from there, go
deeper into the Solar System and ultimately into the galaxy.
This is the kind of science driver which leads up-shifts in
productivity in industry.  And infrastructure is really the way
that these up-shifts get introduced to the economy.  For example,
in a high-speed rail system of cars using magnetic levitation and
similar technologies, this is the way it gets introduced.
So, that opening from the President is very important.
Yesterday you had comments which I think are very significant
from the two leaders of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee — the Republican chairman William
Shuster of Pennsylvania, the Democratic ranking member Peter
DeFazio — they are normally quite a bit at odds.  But in
interviews yesterday which were reported today, they were
reporting that they are already jointly working on a legislative
alternative to exactly what you saw the President asking for
there.  A legislative alternative again, with real Federal
dollars; the language which Senator Brown used — actually it was
Senator Wyden was the other Senator — real Federal dollars.  An
alternative to present which the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee is where legislation along these lines
will have to start.  So, you’re seeing that; you’re seeing the
gas tax being discussed very widely, including by those same two
leaders of that committee.  You’re already seeing an
infrastructure bank act in the House — HR547 — of
Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat from Connecticut, which has
the backing of fully half of the Democratic Caucus in the House
and is not a national infrastructure bank which would operate in
the way that we’ve described and therefore would not be as large
or as capable.  But nonetheless, it’s legislation which in my
view is quite similar to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation
which operated under Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration
and did so much to recover the country and then to lead the
mobilization for the war and through the war in the 1940s.  So
that is also something definitely within the purview of
LaRouche’s Four Laws.

OGDEN:  The idea of national banking is, I think, really the
critical idea; and it takes us obviously directly back to
Alexander Hamilton.  If you look at Hamilton’s view on
infrastructure, the idea of public infrastructure is very much an
American idea, and is a major pillar of the American System.
Hamilton’s emphasis on the necessity for the rapid upgrading of
the national infrastructure, the ports and dredging the harbors
and things like this, what was called “internal improvements.”
But this idea of public infrastructure has an American idea to
it.  In fact, it was written directly into the Constitution in
the form of the General Welfare.  There were huge fights,
including Hamilton’s defense of the Constitutionality of a
national bank against Thomas Jefferson around this idea of the
General Welfare.  I know you have to go, so maybe one more aspect
that you can address before you leave, and then I can conclude
the remaining portions of the show on my own.  But just on this
subject of the idea of the public good, the United States used to
be the world’s gold standard, in great modern infrastructure,
public infrastructure.  You can see that obviously by what
Franklin Roosevelt did during the New Deal.  Nations around the
world were banging on our door to try to imitate what we
accomplished with the Tennessee Valley Authority and so forth and
so on.  But now, the gold standard is swiftly being set by China
and what China has done in an unparalleled way.  Create this
amazing public infrastructure in a very rapid and swift manner.
Two things I think maybe could be addressed in what we need to
now learn from China or relearn in terms of what we used to be
committed to, is: 1) the policy approach that has made this
possible in China; but also, 2) the philosophy that China is
clearly committed to when it comes to this idea of the public
good, the common good, or what we call in American Constitutional
language, the General Welfare.  Maybe you can address that just
briefly before you leave, Paul.

GALLAGHER:  There was, in the 19th Century, the American
Whig and then Republican leaders were all very conscious
Hamiltonians.  They realized that they were attempting to develop
the country, and they were doing it — at least a lot of the time
— extraordinarily successfully with a commitment to the
“internal improvements” what we call infrastructure, but the
internal improvements, the national credit provision, the
protection of industry; which came from Alexander Hamilton.
But his overriding premise was actually none of those
particular policies, but rather his stating against the tide of
opinion in the 1790s when he was Treasury Secretary and the
decade before and after.  He definitely took on the tide of
opinion that the United States was going to be an agricultural
country, a country of yeoman farmers with all of their well-known
virtues and so on and so forth.  He said that the wealth of a
country is found in the inventive qualities of its people, and in
the freedom and opportunity that they have to turn their
inventive qualities into enterprise.  And he really was
responsible for the emergence of the first banks of the United
States; not only the First Bank of the United States, the first
national bank, but also the first private banks of the United
States, of which there were very few at that time.  He saw the
creation of a national bank as essentially the necessary link or
liaison between the actions of the government to assist the
economy and the actions of the private banks; that this was the
necessary way, in which they should be related.  But his principle
was that the mind of the individual and the freedom of the
individual and opportunity to make that into enterprise, that
that was what defined the ability to produce the wealth of a
country and that the wealth of a country was produced within it;
it was not gained by trading with other countries — fairly,
freely or otherwise.  It was gained primarily by producing the
wealth which the inventiveness of the people and the resources of
the country made possible.  And that was the function of
protection when it was used, but of course, Hamilton favored more
what we would call industrial subsidies than he did what we call
tariffs.  So that, right through Abraham Lincoln, was the creed
of the great leaders of the United States in the 19th Century and
considerably thereafter.  We became the greatest industrial
nation on Earth that way.
Franklin Roosevelt revived that general outlook, although he
did so without the creation of a national bank, really because of
what he was working with in Congress.  Otherwise, he might have
preferred to do that.  But he did it through such institutions as
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the TVA, which became
wonders of the world.  We have not really improved on that much
in the 70-80 years since.  But that idea, Hamilton’s ideas spread
very rapidly through Friedrich List, who spent a lot of time in
the United States and was a leading Hamiltonian in the 1820s and
1830s, and then was in the middle of the unification of Germany
for the first time in the Customs Union of Germany in the middle
of the 19th Century.  This spread through Bismarck’s policies,
who knew that he was a Hamiltonian, later in the 19th Century.
They spread through the Japanese adopting and learning a lot of
the works of Hamilton; late in the 19th Century inviting
Hamiltonian economists from the United States to come over and
advise them.  This kept being repeated in Korea again.  China has
taken this far beyond, because as you said, they’re not only
applying those policies, but they’re also as they always say
doing them with Chinese characteristics.  Particularly now with
Xi Jinping as the President of China, he has really defined and
enshrined in their Constitution the principle of what a country’s
leadership is judged for is its ability to strive for the common
welfare, the common aims of the population; what we call in the
Constitution, the General Welfare.  That has really had a very
distinctive effect on Chinese policy in the country and also on
the policy of the Belt and Road Initiative which Xi Jinping
launched, but was really already underway before he made the
formal speech three and a half years ago.  Already the
investments by big Chinese commercial banks outside China, in
these projects of energy, mining, but also a lot of
infrastructure projects.  These big investments were already
underway in 2011, 2012; then he made the announcement in 2013,
which was so very close to the policy of the World Land-Bridge
which had been promoted by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche since the
later 1980s.  And since that time, that has really been
recognized in China; they call Helga the Silk Road Lady.  This
policy of the common welfare is clearly one reflected in the way
that they’ve eliminated almost entirely down to the last few tens
of millions of people, they’ve almost entirely eradicated extreme
poverty in China.  I just heard the World Bank chairman the day
before yesterday praising that to the skies and saying it’s the
one model for the world.  He said the World Bank has been trying
to do this for so many decades, to eradicate poverty, without
making too much progress.  China has done it, and now they are
seeking to help do it in Africa and other places.  They want to
invest in the Middle East in reconstruction.  But this is really
the test that you are acting for the general good, for the common
welfare, which is what our Constitution commits us to.
So, in that sense, they’ve gone beyond, and in the process,
really developed a lot of technological breakthroughs in
infrastructure; and that’s where you find them.  That’s where
Roosevelt found them.  The projects of the 1930s, which many
people think of as just creating a lot of work for people, and
building a lot of airports and roads and bridges and things like
that; those projects — especially the hydro-electric projects
and especially the Tennessee Valley Authority — were
technological breakthroughs at the time.  They built dams,
navigation systems, hydropower systems technologically in ways
which not only hadn’t been done, but had been denied that they
could be done even right up to that time.  John F Kennedy spoke
about this later, that experts were saying that you couldn’t
build dams that were simultaneously for water management, for
navigation, and for hydropower.  The TVA did 57 such dams.  So,
they completely transformed an area of the country.  These
breakthroughs were made in all of this infrastructure building in
such a way, that the productivity of the U.S. economy leaped up in
the 1930s at the fastest rate of the last 150 years.  A close
second was the 1940s, including the war mobilization.
So that’s what China is experiencing now, as they make these
kinds of investments; and they’re doing it with a very common
welfare orientation.

OGDEN:  Wonderful!  So, thank you very much, Paul.  I’m
going to let you go before we finish the remainder of our show.
But I think you’ve made it very clear that we are uniquely
positioned to inform and ultimately shape this counterproposal
and what must ultimately become the infrastructure and general
economic policy of this Presidency.  So, I know we have a lot of
work to do.  Thank you for joining us, Paul.

GALLAGHER:  Thank you.  I’m sure you’ll talk about the
necessity to bring this up from the bottom as well; from the
local elected officials, from the state legislatures in
particular and apply it to the election campaign.  I think it’s
probably true what Chairman Shuster said, which is that work on
this legislation will be going on until the summer.  I think
that’s definitely true.  It will become a part of the election
campaign, no question.  If we can get candidates out there and
local elected officials out there who are for the Four Laws,
we’re going to shape this.  So, thanks for the opportunity and
having me on, and have a good time.

OGDEN:  Thank you, and we’ll talk to you again soon.  What
Paul said is absolutely correct.  This is the ultimate principle
or thought behind the campaign to win the future.  This is the
LaRouche PAC election mobilization in 2018.  We’ve already had a
number of state legislators endorse this campaign.  We’re really
on the ground in various places, including in West Virginia;
doing some very significant meetings with people who are involved
in the China-West Virginia deals.  We’ve also mobilized in a very
big way in the Midwest, which was key to the Trump election
victory.  We know that these former industrial states really are
the most significant in swinging these elections and creating the
constituency blocs around this idea of the LaRouche Four Economic
Laws and everything that you just heard Paul go through.  This is
the urgent necessity as we mobilize around this kind of program.
I think everything that you just heard from Paul, makes it very
clear that we are uniquely well-positioned to shape this entire
discussion.  I think the opportunity is even greater now than it
was previously.
Now, let me just go over a few things that I think will make
it very clear to you that there is an opportunity for a moment of
awakening, you could say, among people who have recognized that
everything that we’ve been committed to for the last several
decades up to this point has completely failed.  There were two
very informative or entertaining articles over the last week and
a half, which point to exactly this; indicate exactly this
opportunity for people to perhaps open their minds and begin a
more sober and serious discussion around the true principles of
economics.  One of these is an article which appeared in
Bloomberg, this was {Bloomberg Business Week} I believe.  The
title of this article was “What if China Is Exempt from the Laws
of Economics?”  This is by a fellow named Michael Schuman, but
the subtitle is “Beijing’s policymakers seem to be doing a lot of
things right — and that may upend much of basic economic
thinking, especially our faith in the power of free markets.”
So, here are a couple of excerpts from that article.  He
says:
“Over my two decades of writing about economics, I’ve
devised a list of simple maxims that I’ve found generally hold
true….
“But recently, my faith in this corpus of collected wisdom
has been badly shaken. By China.
“The more I apply my rules of economics to China, the more
they seem to go awry. China should be mired in meager growth,
even gripped by financial crisis, according to my maxims. But
obviously it’s not. In fact, much of what’s going on right now in
that country runs counter to what we know — or think we know —
about economics. Simply, if Beijing’s policymakers are right,
then a lot of basic economic thinking is wrong — especially our
certainty in the power of free markets, our ingrained bias
against state intervention, and our ideas about fostering
innovation and entrepreneurship.
“On the surface, that probably sounds ridiculous. How could
one country possibly defy the laws that have governed economies
everywhere else?…
“Yet as China marches forward, we can no longer dismiss the
possibility that it’s rewriting the rulebook. Beijing’s
policymakers are just plain ignoring what most economists would
recommend at this point in its development. And, so far, they’re
getting away with it….
“… Perhaps China really is refashioning capitalism.
“Perhaps. I, for one, am still clinging to my maxims….
“… Maybe my rules of economics will hold firm after all.
But thanks to China, I’m prepared to edit them.”
Now, it’s not that China is rewriting the rule book.  I
think that what you just heard from Paul is that it’s the West,
it’s the United States under the influence of British free market
ideology; this free-market school economics.  It’s the United
States and the West which have been playing by the wrong rulebook
for decades, if not generations.  We’ve neglected the rulebook
that we originally wrote.  It was Alexander Hamilton, it was our
first Treasury Secretary; that’s why it’s called the American
System of economics.  Other countries have applied these
principles of Hamiltonian economics and experienced the same
phenomenal growth that we experienced under the influence of
Hamiltonian policy.  That is exactly what China is experiencing
right now.  It’s leaving these economists scratching their heads,
but perhaps they merely have to open a few history books.
I think as you can tell from that Bloomberg article, it’s
beginning to dawn on people.  “Gee!  Maybe we’ve been wrong.
Maybe we’ve been duped by this British free trade, free market
ideology.  Perhaps that’s why our economies are in shambles right
now.”
Here’s another article.  This is in the {New York Times
Magazine}.  It came out earlier this week.  This one is very
interesting and goes through a lot of the history you just heard
Paul elaborate on.  This is called “The Rise of China and the
Fall of the ‘Free Trade’ Myth.”  The subhead is “China’s economic
success lays bare an uncomfortable historical truth.  No one who
preaches free trade really practices it.”  So, here’s an excerpt
from the article:
“[T]o grasp China’s economic achievement, and its
ramifications, it is imperative to ask: Why has a market economy
directed by a Communist state become the world’s second-largest?
Or, to rephrase the question: Why shouldn’t it have? Why
shouldn’t China’s rise have happened the way it did, with
state-led economic planning, industrial subsidies and little or
no regard for the rules of ‘free trade’?…
“Indeed, economic history reveals that great economic powers
have always become great because of activist states. Regardless
of the mystical properties claimed for it, the invisible hand of
self-interest depends on the visible and often heavy hand of
government. To take only one instance, British gunboats helped
impose free trade on 19th-century China — a lesson not lost on
the Chinese…. The philosophical father of economic
protectionism is, in fact, Alexander Hamilton, the founder of the
American financial system, whose pupils included the Germans, the
Japanese and, indirectly, the Chinese.”
After some history, he lays out the case of Germany, and
this one is interesting to focus on.  He says:
“… Unified in 1871, Germany was scrambling to catch up
with industrialized Britain. To do so, it borrowed from recipes
of national development proposed by Hamilton soon after the
Americans broke free of their British overlords. In his ‘Report
on the Subject of Manufactures’, submitted to Congress in 1791,
Hamilton used the potent term ‘infant’ industries to argue for
economic protectionism.
“… In his view, infant nations needed room to maneuver
before they could compete with established industrial powers. The
United States embraced many of Hamilton’s recommendations; the
beneficiaries were, first, the textile and iron industries and
then steel.
“It was Hamilton’s formula, rather than free trade, that
made the United States the world’s fastest-growing economy in the
19th century and into the 1920s. And that formula was embraced by
other nations coming late to international economic competition.
Hamilton’s most influential student was a German economist named
Friedrich List, who lived in the United States from 1825 until
the 1830s and wrote a book titled {Outlines of American Political
Economy}. On his return to Germany, List attacked the free-market
gospel preached by Britain as sheer opportunism…. Applying
List’s lessons, Germany moved with spectacular speed from an
agrarian to an industrial economy.
“… Closely following Germany’s example, Japan heavily
subsidized its first factories ….
“… South Korea, too, found solutions for its problems in
Friedrich List rather than Adam Smith. The country’s leader, Park
Chung-hee … was also deeply familiar with German theories of
protectionism. (The economist Robert Wade reported coming across
whole shelves of books by List in Seoul bookstores in the
1970s.)…
“But little did I know that Hamilton (and List) would
achieve their greatest influence in post-Mao China. ‘The rise of
China resembles that of the United States a century ago,’ the
Chinese scholar Hu Angang writes. He is not exaggerating.”
Now, that’s a very interesting article to appear at this
moment.  I’m not saying that everything the author says in his
analysis is entirely accurate, or that all of the conclusions
that he draws are necessarily correct.  But what he does make
clear is that what made America great was the policies of
Alexander Hamilton.  And what’s making China great today are
those very same Hamiltonian policies.  This realization shows you
that we have a very fertile field for the reception of our
so-called Four Laws campaign — Lyndon LaRouche’s revival of
Hamiltonian policies.  The fight which Lyndon LaRouche has led
for decades to liberate the United States from this imposed free
market, free trade hoax; this British ideology.  To return us to
the principles of Alexander Hamilton.  What he did simultaneously
abroad to educate these other nations on the policies of the
American System and Hamiltonian economic policies.  That’s where
China got this from; that’s where you can credit the great
Chinese economic miracle of the last 15 years.  Do not write out
of the equation the role that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have
played as spokesmen for this great Hamiltonian tradition, and
urgently with updates and a profound scientific depth that Lyndon
LaRouche has brought to this discussion.  But the time is now,
and the field is very fertile for the reception of this idea that
the time has come for a Hamiltonian coalition of nations.  We
must join hand-in-hand with China to do exactly that; to bring
development to all the nations on the planet using these
American, but universal, economic principles.
Now, let me just play a very short clip from a broadcast
that Helga Zepp-LaRouche had yesterday.  Because the biggest
problem that you run into — and I think this is something that
you run into as an organizer or as an activist — is that people
fail to make the necessary leap in terms of understanding these
principles because they have an axiomatic problem.  There’s a
disconnect.  The biggest problem that we have when it comes to
economics today is that money is essentially God.  Money has
achieved this status in economics where it is everything to
everyone.  It’s the Genesis of economics; it’s the root, it’s the
prime mover; it’s the measuring rod, it’s the purpose, it’s the
medium.  Money is everything.  And Helga Zepp-LaRouche addressed
exactly this pathology in her webcast yesterday.  And she called
for a public debate on this.  She said, as it begins to dawn on
people who have believed that everything that they had believed
about economics may perhaps have been wrong, we need to question
some of the most basic economic assumptions that we hold dear,
and ask ourselves the question, “What is the ultimate purpose of
an economy and what is the true source of true economic wealth?”
So, here’s Helga LaRouche:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  I think there is something
fundamentally wrong with the system of the free market, which
after all is not that free, given the fact that all central banks
did was to bail out the banks and keep money pumping for the
benefit of the speculators, so that the rich become richer, and
the poor become more poor, and the middle class is shrinking.
This article by Bloomberg which you referenced earlier, is
very interesting, because the author admits that according to his
theory, China should be collapsing, it should have meager
economic growth, but obviously the contrary is the case.  And he
says that China is doing everything which according to his theory
are terrible, like state intervention, party control, — things
like that — and China is prospering. And actually, he says,
he’s not yet ready to completely overturn his theory, but he’s
willing to make corrections.
There will be a lot more corrections, because I think we
need a public debate, what are the economic criteria for a
functioning economy?  And obviously, the works of my husband,
Lyndon LaRouche, and his development of physical economy, going
back to Leibniz, to Friedrich List, to Henry C. Carey, to Wilhelm
von Kardorff, who was the economic advisor of Bismarck and was
one of the key influences to bring about the industrial
revolution in Germany; as compared to the so-called free market
model, I think we have to have a real debate, what is the cause
of wealth?  Is it money, or is it the idea of the creativity of
the individual, which then leads to scientific and technological
discoveries, which applied in the production process leads to an
increase in productivity, which then leads to more wealth,
longevity, and all of these things.
We need a discussion about that, because the notion of what
is economy, equating that with money, has really become one of
the axiomatic assumptions of a failing system. So we need a
debate about that. [end video]

OGDEN:  So the time has come.  As I said, it’s a very
fertile field, and this is one of the most important reasons why
we’ve now launched a new LaRouche PAC class series, which gets
directly at these principles; not only of economics, but this is
what drives global policy.  What is the purpose of economy?  What
is the true identity of man?  And what should be the
collaborative between peoples and between nations, to what end?
So, I’ll take that as an opportunity before concluding, to remind
our viewers that tomorrow we will have the second class in our
2018 class series.  This class will be titled “The End of
Geopolitics, Part I:  The History of Geopolitics.”  The guest
speaker will be Harley Schlanger.  Again, you can register for
this entire class series, which is called “The End of
Geopolitics.  What Is the New Paradigm?”  The registration is now
open.  If you have not registered for this class series, I
strongly encourage you to.  The link is available on the screen
— lpac.co/np2018.  You can also visit discover.larouchepac.com
which will be the central hub of all of the material for this
class series.  Again, if you’re a registered participant, not
only do you have the opportunity to participate in the live
public forums, such as the inaugural class that was delivered
last Saturday by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, but you also have the
opportunity for an in-depth engagement around the syllabus, the
required reading materials, the homework assignments, the live
feedback from the teachers and from the leaders of the LaRouche
PAC class series, and also some discussion periods which are only
open to registered participants.  Registration has continued to
increase.  We have a large number of registered participants from
all across the United States and elsewhere around the world, too.
So, we’re putting together the educated grouping, the cadre which
will be able to lead this discussion for a new economics, a New
Paradigm.  The field is wide open.  The door is there, and all we
have to do is walk through it.  We are in a unique position to
inform this discussion today; and it is a very urgent debate
which needs to take place as Helga Zepp-LaRouche just said.
So, thank you for joining me here today.  I thank Paul for
joining me.  Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com; we have a lot
of work to do, and we’ll see you next week.

»Kreativitet, som jeg her har identificeret det, er forskellen på dig og en abekat. Der er faktisk to egenskaber ved denne forskel. For det første, så kan et medlem af den menneskelige art øge hans eller hendes arts potentielle, relative befolkningstæthed gennem sin viljemæssige anvendelse af kreativitet, som ingen form for dyr kan gøre. For det andet, så afhænger samfundets fremskridt hen over successive generationer af, at disse generationer gen-vedtager, eller atter sætter i kraft, den skabende opdagelse af denne form for universelle, fysiske principper. Sammen kan disse to udtryk for kreativitet (som jeg definerer det) fastlægge grundlaget for det, vi kunne kalde naturlig, menneskelig moral, den form for forskel, der adskiller menneskelig moral fra aberigets kultur.«

Download (PDF, Unknown)

»Det centrale træk af mit originale bidrag til Leibniz’ videnskab om fysisk økonomi, er at give en metode til at adresse den årsagsmæssige sammenhæng mellem, på den ene side, enkeltpersoners bidrag til aksiomatisk revolutionerende fremskridt i videnskabelige og analoge former for viden, og, på den anden side, de heraf følgende forøgelser af den potentielle befolkningstæthed i de korresponderende samfund. I sin anvendelse i politisk økonomi, fokuserer min metode på analyse af den centrale rolle af den følgende tretrins rækkefølge: For det første, aksiomatisk revolutionerende former for videnskabelig og analog opdagelse; for det andet, de heraf følgende fremskridt i principper for maskinredskaber og analoge ting; sluttelig, de heraf følgende fremskridt i arbejdskraftens produktive evne.«

Download (PDF, Unknown)

For at sætte scenen for aftenens diskussion, der vil handle om en ny flanke af kupforsøget mod præsident Trump, vil jeg begynde med meget positive nyheder fra Kina. Her ser vi [Fig. 1] forsiden af en historie, der blev publiceret i China Daily, med titlen, »Identifikation med Kina«. Det er en historie om Helga Zepp-LaRouche og hendes arbejde over mange årtier sammen med sin mand, Lyndon LaRouche, for udvikling, for bedre forståelse og for samarbejde med Kina. Artiklen begynder med Helgas rejse til Kina i 1971 under Kulturrevolutionen, da hun var passager om bord på et svensk fragtskib. Hun så nationer i Afrika, hun så Kina, og hun kom tilbage fra denne rejse med den absolutte overbevisning, at verden måtte ændre sig, at den måtte blive forbedret. 

Vært Jason Ross: Det er 18. august, 2017… Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Will Wertz fra Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), og remote, Diane Sare, medlem af LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.

For at sætte scenen for aftenens diskussion, der vil handle om en ny flanke af kupforsøget mod præsident Trump, vil jeg begynde med meget positive nyheder fra Kina.

Fig. 1

Her ser vi [Fig. 1] forsiden af en historie, der blev publiceret i China Daily, med titlen, »Identifikation med Kina«. Det er en historie om Helga Zepp-LaRouche og hendes arbejde over mange årtier sammen med sin mand, Lyndon LaRouche, for udvikling, for bedre forståelse og for samarbejde med Kina. Artiklen begynder med Helgas rejse til Kina i 1971 under Kulturrevolutionen, da hun var passager om bord på et svensk fragtskib. Hun så nationer i Afrika, hun så Kina, og hun kom tilbage fra denne rejse med den absolutte overbevisning, at verden måtte ændre sig, at den måtte blive forbedret.

I artiklen opstiller China Daily kontrasten mellem det potentielle samarbejde mellem Kina og USA under henholdsvis Obama-administrationen og Trump-administrationen. Artiklen siger, efter at have citeret Helga for at sige, at »Det kinesiske, økonomiske mirakel er virkelig den mest succesfulde model«, og at »i modsætning til Obama-administrationen, der var mere modvillig over for kinesiske initiativer fra Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB) og [Bælte & Vej Initiativet]; så har den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump sat infrastruktur øverst på sin dagsorden og sendt en mellemorganisatorisk delegation under lederskab af Matthew Pottinger, seniorrådgiver i det Nationale Sikkerhedsråd, til Beijing-forummet.« Helga Zepp-LaRouche refererer her til Bælte & Vej Forum i maj måned, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche også deltog i.

Jeg mener, at artiklen virkeligt beviser, hvor stor betydning, Kina tillægger Helgas rolle, og den slutter med et citat af hende. Hun siger: »Vi er meget glade. Det er én ting, at en lille organisation som vores producerer ideer; en ganske anden ting er, at verdens største land begyndte at udføre dem«, med reference til Kinas vedtagelse af Bælte & Vej Initiativet i kølvandet på Schiller Instituttets mangeårige organisering til fordel for den Nye Silkevej og Verdenslandbroen. Hun afslutter med at sige, at hun håber, Lyndon LaRouche vil kunne besøge Kina, og han helt bestemt har stor kærlighed til landet.

Så det reelle potentiale, der eksisterer for et Nye Paradigme i verden, for USA’s tilslutning til Kinas utrolige succes med at komme fri af finansspekulation, fri af Wall Street, fri af London, og for at gå i retning af udvikling i Franklin Roosevelts stil, er enormt. Det er på grund af dette potentiale, at der er en massiv indsats for at afsætte præsident Trump. Vi har været meget aktive i dette, gennem f.eks. vores reklame for Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity’s (VIPS) Memorandum; VIPS har foreløbig udarbejdet 50 memoranda om USA’s politik. Deres seneste memo om, at hele historien om Russia-gate er et svindelnummer, har virkelig haft enorm trækkraft. Det er blevet taget op af Salon, Bloomberg og især The Nation i en meget stor artikel.

Fig. 2

Dette har i de seneste uger fremkaldt angreb fra f.eks. The Hill, som vi ser her [Fig. 2]; der udgav en artikel, »Why the Latest Theory about the DNC Not Being Hacked Is Probably Wrong« (Hvorfor den seneste teori om, at DNC ikke blev hacket, sandsynligvis er forkert).

Fig. 3

Vi så et angreb komme ud i Washington Post [Fig. 3], der sagde, de ikke tror på, at The Nation, det magasin, der udgav en historie om VIPS-memoet; at The Nation er i færd med at revidere deres historie, der sår tvivl om russisk hacking af DNC. Washington Post siger, der virkelig håber, The Nation får »rigtigt fat« på denne historie.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

There has been a response that came out from two media
outlets.  One of them, Disobedient Media [Fig. 4], is the
publication that first put out the results from the Forensicator,
who had analyzed meta-data that came from files released by the
Guccifer 2.0 persona; and also from Adam Carter [Fig. 5], who
maintains a website that goes through the Guccifer 2.0 persona.
I just want to review a few highlights of what these articles
have to say, because I think it’s very important.  The VIPS
memorandum is correct; a deliberate attempt was put in place to
create false Russian footprints, false Russian evidence, to make
it appear that the DNC leaks were actually a Russian hack.  The
fact of the matter is that no actual evidence has ever been
..PAGE
presented showing that Russian actors hacked the DNC and provided
the material that Wikileaks later published, that caused such a
commotion that it forced the resignation of Debbie
Wasserman-Schultz and other top officials in the Democratic
National Committee.
The attacks on the VIPS memo focus on something about data
transfer speeds, which were used to show that the files that
Guccifer 2.0 released, had been copied to a flash drive rather
than being hacked over the internet.  That’s pretty much the only
thing that these articles have to complain about.  They say that
the speed of transfer could have been possible over the internet.
I’ll just review a very few aspects of this, which is that the
information that was processed, the analysis that came from the
Forensicator and from Adam Carter, showed that not only that the
speed was too high for many internet connections but that it very
specifically matched the typical transfer speed of a USB2.0 flash
drive.  They also showed that file manipulation occurred on the
East Coast time zone.  They showed that the files showed evidence
of being used in a FAT file system, which is only used on flash
drives — at least in the past decades; and of course the fact
that there is absolute proof that the Russian fingerprints that
were found and discovered in the documents released by Guccifer
2.0, were put there deliberately so that they could be found.
Those aspects simple are not even touched by the legacy media’s
attacks on the VIPS’ revelations.
So, this whole Russia-gate thing is falling apart.  The
attempts by the {Washington Post}, {New Yorker} magazine to cover
things up, are really a dismal failure if you read the articles.
That brings us to the topic that we’re going to be hearing from
in depth from Will Wertz; which is the latest flank in the
attempt to unseat President Trump — namely, the events and the
reactions to those events in Charlottesville.  So Will, what can
you tell us about this?

WILL WERTZ:  First of all, what I want to point out, is that what
President Trump said in his first press conference following the
Charlottesville event, that there is bigotry and violence on many
sides, is in fact true.  I think that not only applies to the
Charlottesville case per se, where you had Nazis on one side, you
had anti-fa on the other side, which is an anarchist, violent
organization; and it’s most likely that you may have had
provocateurs.  It’s hard to believe that the FBI was not involved
in some way under the guise of monitoring the situation.  But if
you stand back and look at the overall climate in the country,
it’s also the case that there is violence and bigotry on many
sides; and specifically directed at President Trump.  I want to
review some of the highlights of that, which represent an
unprecedented situation in terms of violent threats against a
President of the United States.
First of all, just as he was being inaugurated, the British
publication {The Spectator} wrote “Will Donald Trump Be
..PAGE
Assassinated?  Ousted in a Coup? Or Just Impeached?”  You had a
number of statements from the would-be Hollywood royalty,
including Madonna; who said, “I thought an awful lot about
blowing up the White House.”  Then you had CNN correspondent —
former correspondent now — Kathy Griffin, who held up a mock
decapitated head of the President of the United States.  You also
had, over the summer, Shakespeare in the Park doing a performance
of {Julius Caesar} in which Julius Caesar was portrayed as Donald
Trump and was viciously assassinated on the stage.  You had
another Hollywood actor — Johnny Depp — who joked, “When was
the last time an actor assassinated a President?  It has been a
while, and maybe it’s time.”  In July of this year, there was a
book released by a {Guardian} reporter by the name of Jonathan
Friedland.  It’s entitled {To Kill a President}.  Just within the
last 48 hours, a Missouri state senator, Maria Chappelle-Nadal,
wrote in her Facebook “I hope Trump is assassinated.”  And we
should not forget that on June 14th of this year in Alexandria,
Republican Congressman Steve Scalise was shot while practicing
with 20-25 other Republican Congressmen for a Congressional
baseball for charity.  If the police present on the scene had not
responded appropriately, you could have had a massacre of
multiple Republican Congressmen or Senators.
So, let’s be honest about the threat of violence.  This is
virtually unprecedentedly directed at a President of the United
States, and we have had Presidents who have been assassinated, as
people know.  So this is the actual reality of the situation.
Now what I want to do, is to look at this situation in
Charlottesville, which is merely the most recent escalation of an
ongoing attempted coup against the President of the United
States.  It’s modelled upon what was done in Ukraine — the
Maidan, or the various color revolutions which preceded the coup
in Ukraine.  On January 17th, just before President Trump’s
inauguration, President Putin of Russia said, “I have an
impression they practiced in Kiev, and are ready to organize a
Maidan in Washington” against President Trump.  On February 21,
2017, {Executive Intelligence Review} released a 17-page dossier,
which was entitled “Obama and Soros Color Revolutions; Nazis in
Ukraine 2014, USA 2017?”  If you look at the situation in
Ukraine, you get a direct parallel to what is being orchestrated
in the United States.  In the dossier what we disclose is that
there were more than 2000 non-governmental organizations — NGOs
— in Ukraine; funded by the US government, the United Kingdom,
the European Union, and George Soros’ Open Society.  In fact,
Victoria Nuland, the State Department representative for Ukraine,
testified on December 13, 2014 as follows:  “We have invested
over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in building democratic skills
and institutions.”
The coup that was carried out in Ukraine was carried out by
an organization called the Right Sector, and various other
organizations associated with it.  The Right Sector is an
organization which traces its origin back to Stepan Bandera and
..PAGE
his Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, or the OUN.  Which
organization collaborated with Hitler during World War II, and
carried out mass exterminations of Poles and Jews.  The Right
Sector celebrates Bandera and actually carries out marches in
Kiev and elsewhere in Ukraine celebrating him to this day.  After
World War II, Bandera, this Nazi war criminal, was recruited by
Britain’s MI-6; and his top official, Mykola Lebed, who carried
out the Ukrainian exterminations, went onto a CIA payroll as of
1948, thanks to CIA Deputy Director Allen Dulles.  The intention
was to use the OUN, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists,
to carry out uprisings against the Soviet Union in the post-World
War II period.  People will perhaps recall that Allen Dulles and
James Angleton were very much involved in the Nazi ratlines after
World War II; helping Nazi criminals to escape.  Some to South
America; others like Bandera and Lebed to London or to the United
States.
Soros himself, who helped fund the Ukrainian coup, was 14
years old when the Nazis occupied Hungary, and he has publicly
admitted that during that period, his father and he hid their
Jewish background and worked with the Nazi occupation to
confiscate the property of fellow Jews who had been sent to the
concentration camps.  He actually views this experience very
positively, with no regret whatsoever.
Now, let’s turn to Charlottesville with this in mind.  As I
said, the events in Charlottesville last Saturday, I think are
very clearly a pre-staged event with Nazis on the one side,
anti-fa or anti-fascist violent anarchists on the other side.
Remember in thinking about this what happened in Ukraine.  There
were snipers who fired on demonstrators, and this was blamed on
Yanukovych, the President of Ukraine, who says that he never gave
any such orders.  It is believed that the snipers were actually
organized by a third force, or by the Right Sector itself, or a
combination of the two; in order to carry out the coup by blaming
the violence on Yanukovych.  So that should be kept in mind.
There’s also a longstanding methodology of the British.  This was
formulated in a book called {Gang Countergang} by a British
general by the name of Kitson, who used this methodology in Kenya
as part of a counterinsurgency operation against the Mau-Mau.
Please show graphic #11 [Fig. 6].  If we look at
Charlottesville, what stands out?  It’s that all of the key
Democratic Party operatives involved in the Charlottesville event
have direct connections to George Soros, to the Obama-Clinton
State Department, and to John Podesta’s Center for American
Progress; which has become the center for the entire so-called
Resist Movement against President Trump in the United States.
The Center for American Progress was founded in 2003 by John
Podesta. At the time, George Soros promised to donate $3 million
to its foundation.  John Podesta, of course, was the campaign
manager of Hillary Clinton, and had previously been a senior
counselor to President Obama.
..PAGE
The mayor of Charlottesville, a man by the name of Michael
Signer, gave a speech on January 31, 2017 in Charlottesville in
which he said:  “I am here today to declare that Charlottesville,
the historic home of Thomas Jefferson, is the capital of the
resistance.”  So, this is January 31st; President Trump had only
been in office for about ten days.  It’s obviously several months
before the events which occurred last Saturday.  So, this is what
we’re dealing with in the city of Charlottesville; it is the
capital of the resistance to President Trump.  Mayor Signer had
previously been a senior policy advisor to John Podesta’s Center
for American Progress.  In 2008, he worked with John Podesta on
President-elect Barack Obama’s State Department transition team.
Two years later, he travelled to Panjshir province, Afghanistan
as a member of a USAID-sponsored mission to monitor Afghanistan’s
parliamentary elections.  So what you have is a mayor of
Charlottesville who works closely with John Podesta’s Center for
American Progress, which is the center of the resistance; which
is obviously a Clinton-Obama operation, which is funded by George
Soros.  He’s also someone who has experience with respect to the
State Department.
The individual who took the video of the car driven into the
counter protesters, which resulted in the death of Heather Heyer
and the injury of many others, was an individual by the name of
Brennan Gilmore.  Gilmore is a former State Department employee.
In 2011, Gilmore was deputy chief of mission in the Central
African Republic.  In 2015, he was the top aide to Tom Perriello,
a former Congressman who was appointed by Obama to be Special
Envoy to the Great Lakes Region and the Democratic Republic of
Congo.  In 2016, Tom Perriello ran for the Democratic nomination
for Governor in the state of Virginia; a race which he eventually
lost.  Brennan Gilmore was his campaign chief of staff.  In his
campaign, Perriello received a total of $500,000 from George
Soros personally.  He also received $50,000 from George Soros’
son Gregory.  Two other sons of George Soros, not to be left out,
Alexander and Jonathan, gave a total of $135,470 to Tom
Perriello.  So, Perriello received a grand total of $685,470 from
the Soros family in his campaign.  Perriello also received
$300,000 from Donald Sussman, a hedge fund manager who sits on
the board of directors of Podesta’s Center for American Progress.
Tom Perriello, like Charlottesville mayor Michael Signer, also
worked directly for Podesta’s Center for American Progress.  In
fact, from 2010 to 2014, Tom Perriello was the President and CEO
of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
We know that Brennan Gilmore was present at the scene of the
Charlottesville events, because it was his video which has
circulated very widely.  But Tom Perriello was also present, and
he indicates that with an article which he wrote the day after —
August 13 — for the publication {Slate}.  The article is
entitled “There Is Only One Side to the Story of
Charlottesville”.  Of course, this is also the point made by Joe
..PAGE
Biden, former Vice President, who tweeted at the time, “There is
only one side to Charlottesville,” in opposition to what
President Trump had said.
Perriello is a native of Charlottesville, and during his
campaign for governor, he tried to position himself as the
candidate of the anti-Trump resistance movement.
Let me just add that there were three other organizations
that were present as part of the counter demonstration, all of
which were funded by George Soros:  Progressive Change Campaign
Committee; Standing Up for Racial Justice; and Refuse Fascism.
But what you have here, in summary, is a US State Department,
George Soros-funded nest of operatives who have worked for John
Podesta’s Center for American Progress, which is the
institutional center of the resistance movement against President
Trump.  This is the operation which went into action immediately
after the events in Charlottesville, to escalate the campaign
against President Trump; which we now see spreading throughout
the country.  I would point out that this, again, as I stressed
at the beginning, these personnel — State Department, Soros —
are the same personnel that were involved in the Maidan coup
d’etat in Ukraine against President Yanukovych.  It should also
be pointed out that the only way you can remove a President in
Ukraine, according to the Constitution, is through impeachment.
He was never impeached; it was a violation of the Constitution of
Ukraine.  What happened was, an agreement was reached which was
signed on to by European countries as guarantors.  When it was
presented to the Maidan, they rejected it, and said that they
were going to storm the Presidential residence if Yanukovych
didn’t reverse his position in respect to the EU association.  He
fled the country for fear of his life.
Now we all know what happened to Allende in Chile, so is
that unreasonable for him to have fled?  And yet, there was an
unconstitutional coup and it was backed by the United States; by
Obama, by Hillary Clinton.  These are the people who back Nazis
who are attacking President Trump because he says there’s
violence on both sides; which there very clearly is.
After the incident in Charlottesville, [former] President
Obama tweeted a quote from Nelson Mandela: “No one is born hating
another person because of the color of his skin or his background
or his religion.”  According to twitter, this is the most popular
tweet that has ever been communicated on twitter in its entire
history.  I think that the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman,
Maria Zakharova, gave a very good response to this.  She quoted
from Mandela as follows:  “No country can claim to be the
policeman of the world, and no state can dictate to another what
it should do.  Those that yesterday were friends of our enemies,
have the gall today to tell me not to visit my brother Qaddafi.
They are advising us to be ungrateful and forget our friend of
the past.”  Then Zakharova addresses Obama directly:  “Mr. Obama,
a person was killed with your direct involvement who Nelson
Mandela called his brother and thanked for help in gaining
..PAGE
democracy.  True democracy; not one invented in the Oval Office.”
She might also have pointed out, as implied by President Putin’s
statement, that it was Obama who installed Nazis in power in
Ukraine; and forced a duly-elected President to flee the country
for his life.
So, I think what we have here is a very clear case of a
deliberate policy being carried out in the United States to
overthrow through a coup, through impeachment, or through
assassination as {The Spectator} said, a President of the United
States.  This has to be stopped.  We are circulating a petition
on LPAC, which I would certainly encourage everyone not only to
sign, but to circulate to others.  At this moment in history,
it’s absolutely crucial that Americans stand up and insist that
the President move on an investigation of the VIPS’ charges as
critical to undermining the entire Maidan-style color revolution
which is being attempted against the President of the United
States at this moment.  That is crucial because, as the article
in the {China Daily} indicates, Trump — as opposed to Obama —
is someone who could potentially; and he’s given indications that
he would like to do this; would potentially work with China and
Russia on the One Belt, One Road Silk Road.  At the same time,
work with President Putin in a coordinated campaign to defeat
terrorism.  We just had more terrorist attacks in Spain within
the last 24-48 hours; so this is not a fight which has been won.
Yet, it’s absolutely crucial.

ROSS:  I think that’s a very strong case you pulled together
there, Will.  This is very clear; very clear this is a coup.  In
terms of the response that this type of material is getting,
although the people in the media, or the way that the legacy
media report things, you’d think that everybody believes that
Donald Trump was put in office by the Russians, and that that’s
something thinks is a really important issue; that’s not the
response we’ve been getting when we’ve been talking to the
population more generally.  So, I’d like to bring on Diane Sare
at this point, and ask you, Diane, what can you tell us about the
opportunity to organize people around this One Belt, One Road
Initiative and get past this Trump coup operation?

DIANE SARE:  What I can report is that the American population is
not having any of this psycho Goebbels-style propaganda against
the President.  It is so over the top that it is impelling and
propelling people who were not even Trump voters or Trump
supporters to stop at our tables.  I will also say, as I told Mr.
LaRouche yesterday, that it’s very important to remember in this
context that Lyndon LaRouche has a history in the United States
as being the spokesman, the leader of something known as the
American intellectual tradition.  That is, there is no person
alive today who has a greater understanding of the work of
Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, the fight
for our republic and its roots in the work of people like
..PAGE
Nicholas of Cusa, Leibniz, and others.  Then Lyndon LaRouche.  As
people know, LaRouche has been organizing this fight to get our
republic to live up the principles in the Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence for at least the last 50-60 years;
his entire adult life since he was in the military in World War
II.  So, over these decades, LaRouche has been the founder and
editor of {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine; we had
various newspapers published — {New Solidarity}, the {New
Federalist}.  We have online news services, a Facebook page.  He
ran for President eight times.  As a result, LaRouche has
actually a very large following in the American population, who
remember his work; who remember his taking a principled stand on
their behalf when others would not.  And who paid the price for
that by undergoing a criminal witch-hunt run by exactly the same
people, down to the individuals like Robert Mueller, who are
going after Trump today.
So that combination — LaRouche’s record, his authority, his
voice; and the fact that the American people have suffered
incredible hardship over these last 16 years in particular of
Bush and Obama, and the bail-outs of Wall Street and a perpetual
war policy since 9/11 — the media simply does not carry the
weight.  So what we are getting in the New York metropolitan
area, for example yesterday, we had three teams out across the
area in Westchester County, Long Island, and New Jersey.
Combined, they signed up 32 new members to the LaRouche Political
Action Committee; which also means a financial contribution, etc.
They got probably 80-100 signatures on the petition; that we’ll
just mention.  The kind of things that are happening is that
people are coming up and identifying themselves.  In one case, a
person came up and said “I’m the chairman of the county
Democratic Party.  I don’t want my party controlled by George
Soros.  I know this Russia-gate crap is a lie.”  Republican Party
members are coming up and saying “We think the Republican Party
should get rid of the elephant, and instead have as its mascot
the Cowardly Lion from the Wizard of Oz.  Why won’t they stand up
and defend the President?”  People are really furious with both
parties.  They’re furious with the Republican Party for not
taking a stand; they’re furious with the Democratic Party for
taking a stand in the wrong direction.  And they remember Lyndon
LaRouche very well from these years of fighting.
I would say, I think it’s crucial what Will mentioned
earlier, and what Mrs. LaRouche has been insistent on; that if
President Trump were to bring the United States into
collaboration with the Belt and Road of China, which would
require the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, a national banking
system to direct credit into fusion research; things that
generate real growth or a real increase in productivity as Mr.
LaRouche outlined in his Four Laws; Trump would go down in
history as one of the great leaders of all time.  Now so far what
we’ve seen is that he has a very productive relationship with
President Vladimir Putin of Russia; they met for two hours at the
..PAGE
G-20 meeting in Hamburg.  You have a ceasefire in Syria as a
result.  ISIS is getting crushed.  You have his relationship with
Xi Jinping of China, which seems to be productive; it makes it
possible to resolve the North Korea situation without resorting
to war or military action of any kind.  And that’s the potential.
On the other hand, what you have is the death of this
trans-Atlantic system; namely the British Empire, the City of
London, the owners of George Soros — who may think that he owns
the Queen because he handles her offshore accounts, but I would
say it’s the other way around — who are desperate.  If the
United States returns to its American System tradition, which is
what Lyndon LaRouche embodies, then they lose; it’s the end of
the empire.  And it’s an era of a New Paradigm for mankind where
Americans can once again have the dream that our children and our
grandchildren will live longer, be better educated, be geniuses
like Beethoven and Einstein, be free to produce from the
potential of their God-given talents; that’s what the Founding
Fathers intended in our nation.  That’s the potential.
What we’re seeing in the streets — and this is across the
country; you have to think, this is the greater New York
metropolitan area, this is not the part of the country where
President Trump won the election.  We got a report yesterday from
the West Coast; in the San Francisco, a couple set up in front of
a post office.  While the postmaster wasn’t that thrilled, and
had them move their table a little away from the door; they were
with their signs to defend President Trump and got a very
positive response.  Yesterday morning we had organizers up on the
Upper West Side of Manhattan; for people who know what that
means, that’s a liberal Democratic area.  They were getting out
that {Hamiltonian} that Jason, you were holding up earlier with
the big headline “Russia-gate Is a Fraud!”  They said when they
put up the giant sign that said “Defend President Trump”, it got
a little bit testier; but they reported really only 1 out of 15
people getting a look on their face like they just sucked on a
lemon.  Everyone else was either non-responsive or downright
supportive; they got out 400 copies of the newspaper there in
just 2-3 hours’ time.
So, the truth of the matter is, the media has lost its
mandate.  What is published in the {New York Times}, on CNN, the
{Washington Post} is simply no longer credible.  People who took
it upon themselves to watch President Trump’s press conference
with this pack of howling hyenas, saw that he actually did a very
competent job; and therefore the population is prepared for a
fight.  But I would say that it’s very urgent that everyone here
take personal responsibility to not be a coward; to add your name
to the petition; to speak about the coup that is going on against
the President.  There is an attempt by the British to depose
through one means or another, another American President; and
what would be put in place if such a thing were to occur, would
be catastrophic for the United States and mankind.  We cannot
allow this to occur.  I think the American people don’t want it
..PAGE
to occur; this is what we’ve been seeing.  The LaRouche Political
Action Committee and Lyndon LaRouche personally, are at the
leadership of this fight.

ROSS:  I think that’s right on.  Why don’t we take a look at
some of the responses that we’ve been getting from Facebook and
from twitter from the use of this newspaper in particular; that
“Russia-gate Is a Fraud!”  Here we go; have a look at some people
on Facebook [Fig. 7].  And we’ve got some pictures that were sent
into us from twitter as well [Fig. 8].  If you’re organizing
around this, please tweet things out.  #Russia fraud;
#Russia-gate; #Russia-gate fraud; use those hashtags.  Make sure
that people are able to find this material, and make it very
public.  This is a fight that absolutely has to be won to prevent
a coup that will tie the hands of President Trump and prevent us
from being able to have the kind of future that we could have; of
development and growth and cooperation with China.  I guess you
can see a few more here [Fig. 9].
So, get out there!  Do this kind of activity.  Get people
signing up; sign this petition, share it with everybody.  When
you post your picture on twitter, on Facebook, on Instagram, make
sure you’re using the hashtag #Russia Fraud, or #Russia-gate
Fraud, or #Russia-gate, or all three of them.  And include a link
to the petition.  You can contact us for your own personal link;
you can also use the link that we have displayed on the screen
several times during this show — that’s lpac.co/yt17 — to share
that petition with others.  Do outreach.  Do it in this manner,
do it in other ways.  We need to raise this call to President
Trump to take this British apparatus on directly.  Unless it’s
defeated, it’s not just going to give up and go away; it has to
be taken on explicitly and taken down.  That’s the way that we
can insure the opportunity to have a different orientation for
our country.
So, I think that will do it for the show this week.  Very
grateful to have had Will Wertz with us in the studio again for
his very comprehensive look on the theme that Charlottesville was
a very directed operation; staged event.  Also, that we were able
to have Diane Sare with us today, joining us from the Manhattan
area.  Thank you for watching.  Please subscribe to the YouTube
channel; make sure you send out this video as well.  This is a
very comprehensive and excellent statement on the events of a
week ago.  We’ll be seeing more of you here at larouchepac.com.

21. juli, 2017 – Der er nye udviklinger i verden, som de fleste amerikanere virkelig ikke har den fjerneste anelse om, fordi de gængse medier ikke rapporterer om det. Det er, at der meget hurtigt er ved at vokse en ny geometri frem i verden, som præsident Trump relaterer positivt til. For næsten fire år siden indledte Kinas præsident Xi Jinping en politik, som han kaldte den Nye Silkevej. Det, som det rent faktisk er, er – i traditionen efter den asiatiske Silkevej – at opbygge infrastrukturen i planetens indlandsområder i Asien, i Eurasien, i Afrika, i Latinamerika. Denne politik har forandret verden til det bedre. Det er blevet en særdeles attraktiv model, fordi den tilbyder den form for udvikling, der ikke var der før. Derfor er folk i Latinamerika og Afrika meget glade, for de ser for første gang håb og muligheden for at overvinde fattigdom for altid.

Præsident Trump har etableret en meget god relation med præsident Xi Jinping. Lige siden mødet på Mar-a-Lago i Florida i april, er de to kommet virkelig godt ud af det med hinanden. Der er en meget god kemi mellem dem, og dette møde fungerer virkelig godt. Som et resultat sendte præsident Trump en repræsentation på meget højt niveau til Bælte & Vej Forum, som var et topmøde om dette nye initiativ, og som omfattede 110 nationer. USA blev repræsenteret af Matt Pottinger. I mellemtiden har de indgået mange positive aftaler – investeringsaftaler – især om eksport og import mellem USA og Kina.

Mødet mellem præsident Trump og præsident Putin fra Rusland i forbindelse med G20-topmødet i Hamborg var ligeledes meget positivt. På trods af forsøgene på at forhindre denne form for samarbejde, så indgik de en aftale om en våbenstilstand i Syrien og bragte håb om en afslutning på denne forfærdelige krig i dette land; og de-konfliktionen mellem de to militærstyrker fungerer.

På en anden front, nemlig Nordkorea, har den nye præsident Moon for Sydkorea ligeledes tilbudt direkte samarbejde mellem de to landes militær og diskussioner med Nordkorea. Dette støttes af Kina. Så med præsident Trumps nye, strategiske politik og forbedringen i relationerne mellem USA og Kina, og mellem USA og Rusland, befinder vi os potentielt i en helt ny geometri. Hvis præsidenterne for de tre mest magtfulde lande på denne planet – USA, Kina og Rusland – kan arbejde sammen om at løse problemerne i brændpunkterne, men også mere generelt etablere fuldstændig nye relationer og gå tilbage til en ny detente og afslutning af den Kolde Krig; så er dette så vigtigt for verdensfred og hele menneskehedens levebrød.

Der er dog et stort problem, en Akilleshæl. Det er, at, pga. den enorme kampagne imod Trump, Russia-gate, hele dæmoniseringen af Trump, har det endnu ikke været muligt for ham at opfylde sine valgløfter mht. økonomien. Og USA’s økonomi er virkelig i færd med at kollapse; tallene er absolut afslørende. Der er bankerotter, og vi står på randen af at få endnu et kollaps som i 2008; men denne gang langt, langt større, for alle tallene er langt værre. Infrastrukturen kollapser. I New York har man i øjeblikket »Helvedessommeren«, med brand i tog og folk i panik; dette er simpelt hen en fuldstændig uholdbar situation. Det er derfor ekstremt presserende nødvendigt, at præsident Trump bliver støttet i opfyldelsen af sine valgløfter om at investere mindst $1 billion i den amerikanske infrastruktur. Han har modtaget tilbud fra Kina, der tilbyder at investere $60 milliard i amerikaske statsobligationer, som Kina ejer, i infrastruktur i USA. Der er andre tilbud om sådanne investeringer.

Problemet er, at der netop nu foregår en stor kamp. Demokraterne, der står bag Russia-gate, vil ikke tage ansvaret for årsagerne til, at de tabte valget; men det var politikken med globalisering, der gjorde de rige rigere og flertallet af befolkningen fattigere, og så selvfølgelig disse interventionskrige, der skaber ødelæggelse over hele planeten. Og Demokraterne vil ikke tage ansvaret for dette, og de vil ikke slippe Russia-gate. Men også de neokonservative i det Republikanske Parti forsøger at forhindre Trump i at forbedre relationerne med Rusland og med Kina; og i særdeleshed i at gennemføre nye love for Wall Street.

Men, dette er den afgørende ting. Trump må opfylde sit valgløfte om at gennemføre Glass-Steagall og gå tilbage til det Amerikaske Økonomiske System, som han har nævnt i flere taler; at han ønsker at gå tilbage til Alexander Hamiltons, Henry Clays, Abraham Lincolns og Henry C. Careys politik og gennemføre Glass-Steagall. Men han kan ikke gøre det alene. Han er involveret i så mange kampe, at han har brug for jer. Jeg appellerer til jer; støt jeres præsident på dette tidspunkt i hans kamp. Vi befinder os på en enorm, historisk korsvej; vi kan rent faktisk bevæge verden ind i sikkerhed og forsøge at overvinde faren for termonuklear krig og civilisationens udslettelse, for altid. Jeg sagde for flere måneder siden, at, hvis præsident Trump lykkes med at forbedre relationerne med Rusland og Kina, kan han blive én af de største præsidenter i amerikansk historie. Det er fortsat min absolutte overbevisning; men han kan ikke gøre det alene.

Tillad mig derfor, fra udlandet, at appellere til jer som amerikanske patrioter. Hjælp præsident Trump med aktivt at opfylde sine løfter.

»Briterne har altid haft magt over os ved at få os ind i krige på steder som Asien. Det er sådan, briterne kører verden; Det britiske Imperium har magten over verden ved hjælp af krige, på samme måde, som de fik imperiemagt, ved at få Europas tåbelige nationer til at gå i krig med hinanden i den såkaldte 70-års krig. Og Europas førende nationer gik i krig mod hinanden i 70 år! Mens briterne stod på sidelinjen og opmuntrede processen og grinede. Og så, i februar af 1763, i Freden i Paris, blev Det britiske Imperium erklæret som imperiet for et privat selskab ved navn Britisk Ostindisk Kompagni (British East India Company), og dette Britisk Ostindisk Kompagni overtog, og blev til, Det forenede Kongerige (UK), og har kørt lige siden frem til dets moderne modsvar – Britisk Ostindisk Kompagni gik selvfølgelig bankerot i en senere periode, der blev indført ændringer, som under Victoria; men princippet forblev det samme: med en maritim karakteristik, det var oprindelig bygget på den maritime magt over Middelhavet og bredte sig senere til Atlanterhavet. En søfartsmagt, der havde skabt magten over brugen af penge. Magtgrundlaget var penge. Magten over penge, som en imperieform. Al europæisk imperialisme, inklusive britisk imperialisme i dag, er ikke baseret på et land-territorium, men er baseret på magten over penge. Disse penge kontrolleres i realiteten af private interesser, af personer, der danner samlinger af private interesser, og som etablerer kontrol over penge, deres skabelse og management. Og nationalstater er underordnet denne internatonale pengekontrol. Det britiske Imperium, der udvikledes ud af denne proces, er intet andet end dette. Det er ikke et imperium, der består af befolkningen i UK. Det er et imperium, der består af et internationalt konsortium for denne type af interesser, hvis brug af magt over penge bruges til at have magt over nationer.«

Offentliggjort den 20. juni, 2017.

Lyndon LaRouche at his best—the only statesman alive today who pulls no punches identifying the British Empire. Here, an excerpt from a September 2009 webcast.
——–
This video is copyrighted by EIR News Service Inc. To encourage the widest distribution possible, we encourage you to spread it, repost it, and use it. We will only enforce our copyright if the video is altered in any way other than strict translation into another language or it is placed in a context, which in our sole judgement is racist or defamatory regarding any ethnic or religious group or person.