Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 10. sept. 2016  – I anledning af 15-års dagen for terrorangrebene i New York den 11. september, 2001, samledes en stor flok på henved 200 mennesker for at deltage i en konference i St. Bartholomew Kirkens forsamlingshus i midtby Manhattan, i respons til Schiller Instituttets indkaldelse til en konference med titlen, »Vi kan sikre verdensfreden ved at omfavne menneskehedens fælles mål«. Deltagerne bestod af medlemmer af det diplomatiske samfund, aktivister fra Lyndon LaRouches Manhattan-projekt, tilhængere fra hele landet – nogle havde rejst mere en 1000 miles for at være til stede – og mange andre.

Velkomsttalen blev holdt af Schiller Instituttets Dennis Speed, der også var mødeleder ved den stærke, tre en halv time lange begivenhed, der opfordrede til at gribe dette historiske vendepunkt og skabe en presserende nødvendig, fundamental ændring i USA’s udenrigspolitik.

Hovedtalen leveredes af Schiller Instituttets stifter, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, i en 20 minutter lang videofremlæggelse, der var optaget på forhånd.

Herefter fulgte Jeffrey Steinberg fra EIR, der opfordrede deltagerne til at applaudere vores bevægelses succes med at organisere tilsyneladende mirakler, som vedtagelsen i går af JASTA-lovforslaget og frigivelsen af de 28 sider i juli måned, og til at mobilisere som bare fanden for at frembringe flere sådanne mirakler, inklusive vedtagelsen af Glass-Steagall.

Tidligere amerikanske justitsminister Ramsey Clark blev dernæst introduceret, til stor applaus, der markerede de forsamledes varme følelser og respekt for ham. Han talte om spørgsmålet om fred og hvordan man skabte den, og refererede til den store chance, som den amerikansk-russiske aftale om en våbenhvile i Syrien, der var blevet annonceret mindre end 24 timer tidligere, tilbød.

Dernæst gav senator Richard Black fra Virginia en dybdegående præsentation af »Baggrunden for krigen i Syrien« og viste fotos fra sit seneste besøg i Syrien, for at sprænge de mange myter og løgne, der er blevet brugt til at promovere krigen i dette land og i dette område.

Efter Black fulgte den Arabiske Republik Syriens permanente repræsentant til FN, ambassadør Bashar al-Ja’afari, der gav et historisk foredrag om fremkomsten af wahhabismen i det 18. århundrede, og han afslørede meget lidenskabeligt mange af de særlige løgne og operationer, inklusive dem, som massemedierne stod for, og som er blevet kørt mod Syrien frem til i dag.

Mødet sluttede med et videobudskab fra kongresmedlem Walter Jones (R-NC), der har spillet en central rolle i frigivelsen af de 28 sider og vedtagelsen af JASTA, så vel som også sponsoreringen af Glass/Steagall-lovforslaget. Jones takkede LaRouche-bevægelsen for dens lederskabsrolle i afsløringen af sandheden for det amerikanske folk. Han lovede, at, når Kongressen igen træder sammen senere i september, vil der komme et fornyet fremstød for tilbundsgående høringer, for at få hele sandheden bag de 28 sider frem.     

Verden har gennemgået en dramatisk ændring i løbet af de seneste par uger. Der har især været flere store, internationale konferencer, der repræsenterer en konsolidering af et nyt paradigme og en ny anskuelse blandt verdens nationer. Disse konferencer var det Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok, Rusland; G20-mødet, der sluttede i Hangzhou, Kina; og dernæst de Sydøstasiatiske Nationers (ASEAN) møde med Kina, der fandt sted i Laos.

Under alle disse konferencer, under alle disse tre møder, har spørgsmålet drejet sig om at skabe en særlig synsmåde mht. økonomisk udvikling og samarbejde, og ikke om at respondere til kriser, ikke det Sydkinesiske Hav; det har været et langsigtet syn på, hvad fremtiden bliver.

Engelsk udskrift:

LaRouchePAC Friday Webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche:

A New Paradigm is Animating the World

Jason Ross hosts a discussion with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, a participant in the T20 meeting leading into the G20 summit, and Diane Sare, founding director of the Schiller Institute Chorus, on the changes sweeping the world, and how to inspire the US to join, rather than oppose, this new paradigm.

TRANSCRIPT

JASON ROSS: Hello! This is Thursday, Sept. 8th, 2016. You're watching our weekly LaRouche PAC webcast. This week we're recording the show a day early, because of some events coming up this weekend, which we'll be discussing a little bit later on. I'm Jason Ross, I'm the host today, and I'm going to be joined on the show today by two guests — by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, joining us from Germany; and by Diane Sare, joining us from the LaRouche Manhattan Project in the New York area.

Over the past few weeks, the world has changed dramatically. In particular, there have been several major international conferences that represent a solidification of a new paradigm and a new outlook among nations in the world. These conferences have been the Eastern Economic Form in Vladivostok, Russia; the G20 meeting, which concluded in Hangzhou, China; and then the Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting with China, which has been taking place in Laos.

In all three of these conferences, in all three of these meetings, the issue on the table has been creating a specific outlook for economic development and cooperation, not responding to crises, not the South China Sea; it's been a long-term outlook on what will the future be. I'd like to read a few quotes from presentations made at these conferences.

At the B20 meeting, the meeting of business leaders in advance of the G20 meeting in China, President Xi Jinping stated that "People are the foundation of the economy. We have to be oriented to the needs of the people, and raise their living standards and the quality of their lives. We will lift over 57 million people out of poverty, and poverty will be alleviated in all poor counties by 2020. This is a solemn promise to the Chinese people. We have lifted over 70% of the Chinese population out of poverty. We will make the pie bigger and we will continue the global fight against poverty."

At the G20 conference, which included a very beautiful opening ceremony, featuring the work of Beethoven and Schiller with theOde to Joy set to music, and quite a spectacle, the leaders there came to a conclusion in their final communiqué from the conference, which included, "We can no longer rely on fiscal and monetary policy alone to deal with the crisis. We envision an all-dimensional, multi-tiered, wide-ranging approach to innovation, which is driven by innovation in science and technology, and goes beyond it, to cover development-philosophy, institutional mechanisms, and business models, so that the benefits of innovation will be shared by all."

Meanwhile, at the G20 conference, the most Obama had to say to anybody, was some blubbering about "human rights," and discussion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which has absolutely no chance of possibly being passed through the Congress; it's dead.

At the ASEAN meeting, Obama saw what he thought was an opportunity to put on the agenda and make an issue of the South China Sea arbitration ruling that went against China; he wanted to put that on the agenda, make that an issue, and instead, that was not part of the discussion at all.

What was instead discussed was economic cooperation, the Maritime Silk Road, the Chinese One Belt, One Road project. And, as a matter of fact, on the Philippines in particular, which had launched the arbitration case against China regarding the South China Sea, the new President of the Philippines, [rodrigo] Duterte, when he was asked about Obama's plans to lecture him on violations of human rights in the Philippines' war on drugs, President Duterte said "I am a President of a sovereign state, and we have long ceased to be a colony. I do not have any master except the Filipino people; nobody but nobody. You must be respectful. Do not just throw questions. Putang ina," which which translates to "son of a whore") "I will swear at you in that forum," he said to Obama. "I do not want to pick a quarrel with Obama, but I don't kneel down to anybody, except the Filipino people."

In all of this Obama has absolutely been the odd man out. He has nothing to offer the world. Forbes magazine has recognized this in its coverage, for example, where it states that while Obama is talking about human rights and the TPP that will never occur, China has been "quickly building its regional credentials with a heavy focus on the economy of Southeast Asia…. China's Belt and Road initiative connecting Asia to Europe economically would let Beijing and parts of Southeast Asia build a major transportation network plus industrial co-operation projects. Beijing also happens to manage the China-ASEAN Investment Cooperation Fund, which bankrolls growth-linked infrastructure, energy and natural resources projects in Southeast Asia."

I think the contrast between Obama, who has nothing, with what China and Russia, and the BRICS nations — very specifically China and Russia, in particular — have been offering the world, strategically and economically, the contrast couldn't be clearer. With the participation of the G77 leader as well in these conferences, the world as a whole is adopting these as policies.

Let's bring on Helga Zepp-LaRouche now. Helga was a participant in the T20 meeting, which was a meeting with think tanks, a "Think20" meeting held in China in preparation for the G20 heads of state summit which just occurred. Helga, let me ask you about this. In your view, how has the world changed over the past couple of weeks, with these events?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think it is a change of world-historical dimensions. Because what has occurred between the Vladivostok Eastern Economic Forum, the G20, and then the ASEAN conference, is a tremendous change, in terms of where is the power center of the world. Let me just go through very quickly what the significance each of these of these different conferences was.

In Vladivostok, you had the integration of the Eurasian Economic Union with the Silk Road/Belt and Road initiative of China. That is very important because also Prime Minister Abe of Japan and President Park of South Korea participated, and there were agreements of long-term investments in development of the Far East of Russia, of Siberia, of huge energy investments, and integration of all of these economies of Asia.

This was followed by the G20 Summit, which I think was really an absolute breakthrough. First of all, China had put an enormous amount of effort into the preparation, by convening many, many pre-conferences, starting already a year ago, on many, many levels: ministers, think-tanks, institutions, and organizations. The intention of China was to transform the G20 from a mechanism which only responds to crises like 2008 — the financial crash of Lehman Brothers — into an organization which would form an alliance of countries to form a global governance mechanism which is problem-solving. Xi Jinping said repeatedly he wants to transform the G20 from a "talk shop," into a group of nations which acttogether. Looking at it, this was accomplished in many ways.

The Western media are hysterically and desperately trying to belittle this outcome of the conference, by saying "there were all these issues," but the only people who raised these so-called "issues," like the South China Sea conflict, and the issue of the Arbitration Court in The Hague,, and all other divisive issues, was really the West.

What happened is that the overwhelming number of nations are moving to adopt the Chinese model of economy. They are very right to do so, because China has proven an economic miracle of such dimensions, Xi Jinping said, to transform a country of 1.4 billion people has never been undertaken in history, and the fact that China could uplift 700 million people out of poverty into a very decent living standard, is also unprecedented. One of the outcomes of the summit was the adoption of a plan to eliminate poverty all over China by 2020, that is, only four years from now.

China succeeded to put the Chinese economic model as the attractive model for everybody to join, in a "win-win" perspective, on the agenda. Many countries must say, "Yeah, we can have the same economic development like China; that is much more favorable, than to join the United States or NATO or the Europeans in confrontation of a geopolitical nature."

The success of this summit is really unbelievable. It has changed the situation in the world, I think for the good; because the unipolar world, for sure, does not exist any more. As a matter of fact, as you mentioned, Forbes magazine and Time magazine had quite hysterical articles saying that Obama's "Asia pivot" policy has completely failed; this was the last opportunity to woo the countries of the region, but this completely failed, and the "Asia pivot" of Obama is completely dead; it failed.

The G77, the Non-Aligned Movement, the ASEAN countries — they are all are now moving in a completely different direction, and especially the fact that South Korea and Japan participated, with Russia and China in this Vladivostok conference, proves that these countries who are obviously allied with the United States, but do not want confrontation against Russia and China any more.

So this is extremely important. And it means primarily that those countries of the world which are not of the old regime of the World Bank, the IMF — the so-called "Washington Consensus," the so-called Bretton Woods institutions — they had no voice, and they now have a voice.

I think it is really very important that China explicitly adopted developing nations and emerging economies. First of all, they invited all of them — or a very large representation of them — to participate in the G20. China expressed the absolute commitment that every fruit of technological innovation would be shared with these countries, in order not to hold up their development. Now, this is a beautiful idea, which the first time was expressed by the German thinker Nikolaus of Cusa in the 15th Century, who already then had said that science and technology are so important for the development of mankind, that every time there is a new invention, it should be put in an international pool — to use modern words to say it — and that every country should have, then, access to it, not to be slowed down in their development.

It's an incredible change, because it means that, for the first time, an idea which was expressed by my husband Lyndon LaRouche in 1975, when he proposed a plan to develop the Third World, and he called it the International Development Bank [idb]. This was the idea which he presented both in Bonn, Germany at the time, and in Milan. He at that time wanted to have a $400 billion technology transfer per year to the developing sector from the advanced countries, in order to build up infrastructure, to build up industrialization and agriculture in the Third World.

He gave a very concrete form to a demand of the Non-Aligned Movement, which in 1976 at the Non-Aligned Movement in Colombo, Sri Lanka, had adopted a resolution demanding a just New World Economic Order. That Non-Aligned Movement resolution 90% of the words were those of the IDB. But you know what happened at that time was, all the leaders of the countries who had taken the initiative to fight for this — like Mrs. Gandhi from India, Mrs. Bandaranaike from Sri Lanka, Bhutto from Pakistan — all these leaders were either killed or destabilized; and this whole effort had a tremendous setback and it did not function.

Now as you probably know, and some of our viewers may know, we have been fighting in the LaRouche Movement ever since that time — it's now 40 years we have been fighting for the realization of the IDB or an IDB-like plan for the Third World; but the World Bank and the IMF, for all these years have done the exact opposite. The IMF conditionalities would completely deny any kind of development by having conditions which would force developing countries to pay debt instead of investing in infrastructure. They created the debt trap even, to make it impossible for countries to develop. So, the miserable condition of Africa, and many other countries in Asia and the Middle East and some countries in South America, is the result of the conscious policy to suppress development.

Now, after the Asia crisis [in 1997-98] the Asian countries obviously realized that they had to do something to protect themselves against speculation of George Soros at the time, so a process of creating new institutions developed. One was the Chiang Mai Initiative; but then recently — about three years ago — China took the leadership together with other BRICS countries, to create a completely alternative set of banking institutions. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB); the New Development Bank of the BRICS; the New Silk Road Fund; the Maritime Silk Road Fund; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Bank. So, you have now a completely alternate system of banking which is not casino; but only gives credit for investment in real infrastructure in the real economy.

So, what is happening now? I think people have to appreciate that, that what happened at the G20 meeting is the victory of a struggle of 40 years at least; to make it possible for human beings in Africa, in the so-called developing sector, to have a chance for the future. Such a powerful coalition has now emerged — the strategic alliance between China and Russia; Putin was the guest of honor at this G20 meeting — so the world really has changed. It's very important to say that these articles in Forbes magazine and Time magazine really don't get it. It's not anti-American; it's not anti-European. Xi Jinping and the other leaders have expressed many times that they want the United States and Europe to join in a "win-win" perspective.

So what is on the table now with the G20 meeting is for the first time a strategic initiative which is not geopolitical; because it offers a level of reason to cooperate internationally for the common aims of mankind. I think this is a tremendous historical breakthrough, which we really must make sure that the American people find out about what it is, and not be misled by mediocre journalists, who just can't think differently than geopolitics. It's like somebody who is evil, cannot imagine when he talks to a really good person, that the other person is not also evil. So what you read in the Western media is just the projection of the degenerate thinking of the media; but it's not what happened at this summit. So, let's make sure people really understand the historic significance of this change.

ROSS: Great! I think what you went through in terms of the history of your involvement, of your husband Lyndon LaRouche's involvement, of the LaRouche Movement's involvement over the past four decades in creating the victory for the policy that's being announced at these conferences, really goes to show the power of an idea. That over cynicism or over what seemed to be the structures and control of things, a good idea and successful and intense and ongoing organizing for it, really can make things happen.

I was going to ask if you wanted to say more about the history of the LaRouche Movement's involvement in this; or also if you have anything to say about how we're going to get the U.S. to join in this development instead of being opposed to it?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, I would like to make a short comment on the ASEAN conference, because that was in the footsteps, or following the G20 meeting; and that dispute is now settled. Because the ASEAN countries together with China, all agreed that all the disputes will be solved through peaceful negotiation and dialogue; they will work out a Code of Conduct until the middle of next year to this effect, and jointly fight threats to security like terrorism and other threats. They will act on the basis of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS; and that means all these efforts to hype up the conflict between the Philippines and China with The Hague Arbitration Court has not succeeded. This was an effort to cause disunity, but this ASEAN conference said, "No, we want to have joint economic development. We will revive the regional economic development organization."

So, it shows that the foreign policy of China — not only at the G20 — was changing the agenda completely; but also in terms of regional conflict, that if you have a "win-win" perspective where you take into account the interests of the other, you can find solutions.

So then what is left for Obama, some papers were writing, was the implementation of the TPP; but as you already mentioned, both the House and the Senate and the two Presidential candidates all have said the TPP is out. The Speakers of the two Houses have said it will not get on the agenda this year; which means not during the time of Obama. So, the TPP is dead; the TTIP — it's the European version of the same thing — is also dead. So, I think the world really has changed; unipolar demands and the idea that you can decide rules on behalf of one country is no longer in existence. We have entered a completely new era of respect for the sovereignty of the other country, and an alliance of essentially republics for a greater good.

This is obviously a really important development. Not only does it mean that the United States has the chance to go back to the foreign policy of John Quincy Adams — because that is exactly what he had outlined for the United States to do; but it also means that the kind of system of perfectly sovereign nation-states working together for a joint development — which we have pushed, especially naturally Mr. LaRouche has pushed, for over 50 years — this is now becoming a reality.

So, I think that we can be very happy about that, because the LaRouche Movement for the last 40 years, but especially the last 25 years, convened literally hundreds of conferences around the world; in every major U.S. and European city, in Rio de Janeiro, in São Paolo, Brasilia, Mexico, Beijing, New Delhi, Moscow. Many even in Australia, in Egypt, in other African countries; we had seminars, conferences. I think we have now a renaissance movement and a world movement for development.

Since you mentioned the beautiful gala concert which preceded the G20, this was, in a certain sense, similar to what we are doing with the dialogue of Classical culture; because it started with a very beautiful series of Chinese folk songs, then it had scenes of the ballet of Swan Lake — danced in a lake — so the dancers would make sort of little fountains by each step, because they would step into the water. It gave it an unbelievable effect. And naturally, the fact that they chose the Ode to Joy, the beautiful poem by Schiller composed by Beethoven; where the text at one point says, "All men become brethren." "Alles Menschen werden Brüder", which is the poetical expression of the "win-win" perspective; that there is a higher goal of mankind. And that they choose that to be the high point of the gala, really shows that they have understood something very fundamental. They said, "Text written by Friedrich Schiller" so naturally many people would have thought about the Schiller Institute; and we have used the Ode to Joy many times to express the same idea.

So, I think that we can be really proud; because we did not do everything, but we had a very good part in producing this beautiful result.

ROSS: Wonderful! I'd like to return to get more thoughts from you, but I'd like to bring in Diane Sare at this point to discuss one of the opportunities for changing the United States. Which is that this weekend, this Sunday, is the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks from 2001. Diane — who is the founder and managing director of the Schiller Institute New York City Community Chorus, as well as a member of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee — has been very engaged in a process that Mr. LaRouche has called a "Living Memorial" for 9/11; which is a series of concerts that are taking place this weekend.

I'd like to ask Diane about that, and first mention something about the context; which is that over the past month we've had the release of the 28 pages. The 28 classified pages of the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11; and we've got scheduled for a vote in Congress tomorrow the JASTA bill — the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act — which would make it possible for the family members, for victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia directly in U.S. courts for having aided in the commission of an attack on U.S. soil. This has the potential to really transform 9/11 from an opportunity for those pushing a policy of conflict and war, to really get justice on this, by redefining American strategic policy.

Let me ask you, Diane, you've been very involved in this, of course. Could you talk to us about the conception of a Living Memorial? What's happening this weekend? How are we putting that into practice?

DIANE SARE: I'll situate it in a question you asked earlier of Helga. The question is, how can the U.S. join this New Paradigm? What is holding us back? One very important aspect is not simply the idea of a unipolar world; but a unipolar world which is based on fantasy, and lies, and delusion. Which we have seen in particular — I wouldn't say it began with the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 — but after that, what did you have, since the truth was not told? You referenced the 28 pages being released, and the potential for JASTA to be passed this week. What happened? We had an attack which was , and instead we invaded Iraq. Then, we invaded Libya. Now, we have an insane President Obama who wants to overthrow Assad.

The actions of the United States on behalf of this British-Saudi Empire have explicitly created an increase in terror attacks around the world; an increase in war; an increase in the death rate. I was reading this morning that as many as 400,000 people in the New York metropolitan area have been affected by the attack on the World Trade Center, because of all of the toxic debris that was blowing through the air. You have over 1,100 people who have contracted rare forms of terminal cancer; and we run into them all the time here in New Jersey, people who were first responders, who were security, who were police who worked in the area.

So, you've had a great injustice; and because the injustice has been allowed to continue, the crime has only grown in magnitude. The number of people who have died as a result of this has been expanding. … what potential to remedy that situation; to bring justice, which would in a sense, clear the conscience of the American people to make us morally capable and morally fit to join with the rest of the world in this New Paradigm?

What Mr. LaRouche said explicitly when the question came up at one of the Saturday town hall meetings, on the idea of what can we do for these people who died on September 11? He said, a Living Memorial. So when I think of a Living Memorial, I think of Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg and his words that: the dead have already consecrated this ground; but it is up to us, the living, to make sure that they have not died in vain. Therefore, what we are seeking to do here, by doing something which is a completely beautiful and noble thing, is to enable the American people to address this; and to insist that our nation become something different than what it was. It is not a coincidence that this is occurring at the same time that we have these extraordinary breakthroughs.

ROSS: You could say more. I know that over the weekend we've got the Schiller Institute chorus is going to be participating in a series of concerts of the Mozart Requiem, of spirituals and other pieces, on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. Could you tell us how the participation in these kinds of events shows a potential to change people? What kind of responses have you been getting from musicians, from politicians, from others involved in these events? What significance does this show you it having already?

SARE: Well, I think perhaps the most exciting thing that's occurred, is the growth of the chorus; because the people who participate in the chorus are the ones who in a sense will be the most transformed by these events. We began the chorus almost two years ago, in December of 2014, in the wake of the choking death of an African-American man who was strangled by the police in Staten Island, and the grand jury determined that there was no wrongdoing on the part of the police. There was a great deal of anger which was threatening to rip apart the city. And we said why not do something beautiful, dedicated to the sanctity of human life or the question of the brotherhood of man? Let's not let ourselves be divided; let's not have fits of rage. And the police officers who also have been put in a bind, because they're trying to protect our cities, our poorest populations which have been destroyed and made insane by the drug epidemic which is funded and run out of Wall Street.

So, what occurred is, we had about 100 people show up to sing; one of whom suggested that we form a community chorus, which I did. We went from week upon week where we had 3 people, 5 people, 12 people; finally a core of about 40. I can say at the performance of the Mozart Requiem that we will be doing in Manhattan on Saturday, there will be about 160 people in this chorus. They are themselves telling others that they're profoundly affected. We know that members of the Fire Department in Brooklyn — the brigade where every single one of them was killed on September 11th — they hold a special Mass every year. This year, our chorus is going to be involved in singing the Mozart Requiem as part of the Mass; and members of the Fire Department there were very moved that someone had thought to do something on this level to honor those people who made the ultimate sacrifice in the aftermath of that.

So, it's opening up and inspiring many people. Instead of just saying, "We're going to swallow this, we're going to take it. We're not going to talk about this. We're going to act like nothing happened, and we're going to presume we can never get justice." There's a sense now that "No, we don't have to go along with this any more. We canget justice." I would just say that my point earlier, that in this way, the United States could be transformed to make it possible that we would no longer act as a cat's paw for the British Empire; but be capable of joining with China and Russia. And I'll further say that the beauty of this potential development has absolutely nothing to do with the stupid elections and the idiotic candidates that we have; but is from a much higher standpoint.

ROSS: Good. Diane, did you have anything else you'd like to say on that topic? I'd like to ask Helga a question. Do you have anything else, Diane?

SARE: Go ahead; that's fine.

ROSS: OK. Well, I wanted to ask Helga, let's paint for our viewers an idea of a future, if we could. With the U.S. dropping this zero-sum game, geopolitical approach, with the U.S. and Europe adopting the proposals that you're putting forward, what could the world be like in 5 or 10 years? Is this an endless, perpetual fight? Or what does victory look like? What could the world be like?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think things can change very quickly if the United States and Europe would adopt the Glass-Steagall banking separation law; which is, as you know, in bills in Congress in the Senate, and I was quite happily reacting when I saw that Black Lives Matter is now demanding from Hillary Clinton that she should adopt Glass-Steagall. Because you can only fight racism if you fight the injustice caused by Wall Street; I thought this was an irony. So, if the United States and Europe — which is bankrupt; let me just spend one sentence on that.

China has growth rates anywhere from 6.7%, they want to have now 7% again; India had even 8% growth rates. Other Asian countries are going in the same direction. And what is the growth rate in Europe? The new statistics of the Eurozone just came out — 0.3%; and in France, Italy, and Finland — 0%. Then naturally, all the parameters are really alarmist; the headlines today are Draghi, the head of the European Central Bank, has no more options. He's running out of options because of negative interest rates, quantitative easing, helicopter money; all of these are signs of a dying system. And then naturally, you have Deutsche Bank, which is having all the parameters like Lehman Brothers in 2008; the credit default swap costs are now exactly like for Lehman Brothers just before it blew up. If that happens, you could have the next 2008 crisis this September or October.

So, the fight for Glass-Steagall is super-urgent; and naturally, as Lyndon LaRouche has stressed very emphatically with his Four Laws, this is not enough. Then you need to have a credit system, and you need to issue credit for real investment.

Now, if these changes can be done quickly — this year — even before the U.S. election occurs, then there is no reason why the world cannot enter a completely New Paradigm; stop geopolitical confrontation. The danger of war is not yet eliminated; I don't want to make a false security when it's not there. But at least with the new alliance between Russia, Turkey, Iran, the Syria question can be solved. With the 28 pages and the JASTA bill, maybe the Saudi support for terrorism can also be brought to an end. Then, even the German Economic Development Minister from the CSU — the Christian Social Union — made a speech yesterday in the Parliament, demanding a Marshall Plan for Africa. He said, this present global system is a failure; it has created forms of early capitalism in many parts of the world. This cannot continue. In the next 30 years, 2 billion babies will be born alone in Africa; they need many jobs, many teachers, real investment. He demanded that the WTO [World Trade Organization] be transformed from a free trade into a fair trade mechanism. So, this is a conservative politician from Germany of the Merkel government; and he's the only one who so far has the courage and the vision to say these things. But that's actually true.

With the new alliance I described earlier in the context of the G20, now Japan is starting to invest massively in Africa; and this was welcomed by China. China said we are not in Africa for competitive reasons, but the need for development is so big, we are happy if India and Japan are all investing; and naturally, Europe should invest. The United States should have to overcome the poverty and build up the Middle East; rebuild the war-torn region — Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Libya, all of Africa. If all of these countries would be developed with the extension of the New Silk Road program and all countries would work together, poverty could be eliminated in a very short period of time; maybe in two years.

Gerd Müller, the Development Minister, pointed out that 80% of Africans still do not have access to electricity. Now that could be very, very quickly changed; we have developed in our program of the World Land-Bridge, a comprehensive development plan for Africa. Infrastructure, bridges, ports, fast train systems, roads, the development of agriculture and industry, the creation of large amounts of freshwater to fight the desert through peaceful nuclear energy, desalination of ocean water, the ionization of moisture in the atmosphere. In a few years, Africa and those parts of the world which are still in poverty could look like beautiful gardens, forests, agriculture, new cities. People studying to become scientists, to become musicians, to become artists.

The human potential for creativity has just been scratched on. So far, we have only outstanding geniuses like once a century. You had Plato, Cusa, Kepler, Leibniz, Beethoven, Einstein, a couple of more people I am not naming here; and these were relatively rare phenomena. If we go in the road now on the horizon, and every child on this planet can have access to universal education, because there is enough to eat, there is enough housing so that the child can study and is not distracted by poverty or by Pokémon Go, or some other idiotic thing. But the child can learn Classical music, bel cantosinging, learn geography, learn astronomy, learn the history of the Universe, the history of mankind, universal culture. Love other cultures by knowing the beauty of Chinese painting, of Indian drama, of poetry from Persia.

Once you know these cultures, you cannot help but say this is actually enrichment; all racism would go, all xenophobia would go. The world community would just be working together for the common aims of mankind.

Developing breakthroughs like thermonuclear fusion power in the short term; space colonization in the short and medium term; and discover new breakthroughs we have not even an inkling of to ask the right question. We are not an Earth-bound system; by no means. The ecologists are always talking about finding solutions within Earth-bound systems; this is complete nonsense. Mankind is a species which naturally can develop the planet with infrastructure and open up landlocked areas on Earth; but the continuation of this infrastructure will be in close space. The Moon being the first target; and other objects, asteroids will be studied. Eventually, we will have the means to take longer space flights to Mars and other bodies in space. We will become a human species where the beautiful idea of Vladimir Vernadsky that the noosphere will take over the biosphere more and more; what he meant by that is that human discoveries, human scientific and technological innovation, will be what will rule and dominates the world more and more.

From that standpoint, the fact that China decided to put the innovation in the center of their efforts, is really the right step in the right direction. I can see, and I hope to see this in my lifetime, that the relations among nations will completely change; that you no longer are looking full of mistrust and xenophobia against everything which is foreign, but that people will become much more educated. There will be much more patriots and citizens of the world; world citizens, which must not be a contradiction with what was said by Friedrich Schiller 200 years ago. And that we will basically give up all those stupid habits which prevent our creative potential from unfolding. People will have intelligent discussions; they will have loving relations among themselves by furthering the interest of the other.

So, I think we are at the verge of becoming adult; I think right now the human race behaves like little uneducated, spoiled two-year-olds who kick against the knee of your colleague, and they scream and say, "This is my toy!" That's about the mental level of geopolitics.

I think that is not worthy of man; I think man is meant to be a creative species, fully loving each other. Therefore, the Ode to Joythat was played at the gala evening in Hangzhou is really the vision of the future.

ROSS: Wonderful! I just want to add one thing on that, which is that you had mentioned how China had put technology as a major factor in their outlook on things. And when that's coming from China, it really means something. China is the nation that has gone and had a landing for the first time in decades. It's China that in two years, plans to have the first-ever landing on the far side of the Moon. And it's China which in that process, is offering for international use, the use of a communications relay satellite that they'll have with the Moon; that they plan to make available to other nations who want to do work there.

That, their fusion program; it really shows the potential on the highest level of economy. Your husband has pointed out for decades that infrastructure provides a platform for meeting the productive needs of society. As you said, children being able to have enough food to be able to concentrate on education; on learning about the great cultures of the world, of their past cultures, to be able to contribute to it in the future. We're not citizens of the world; we can be citizens of the Solar System, and we've really got a very broad potential outlook for ourselves. On that highest level, it's driving mankind as a species forward; which we can do through collaboration on science. That really lets us collaborate on the highest possible level.

Let me ask, are there any final words from either of you? Do you have any concluding remarks?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah, I would like people to — I'm aware of the fact that what I'm saying is not the mainstream opinion about China, about all these countries. I would ask the audience to not just dismiss, if you disagree with what I said, but please take the effort to look into it yourself. Look at the speeches of Xi Jinping and the other leaders. Look at what China is doing. Study Confucius, and you will find out that there is indeed a completely different philosophy; and that philosophy is much, much closer to what the United States was when it was founded, than most people would imagine. Both in terms of economics, but also in terms that the government should be there for the common good; this is an idea which almost has been lost in the last decades.

I think people should just not dismiss it. Once you are convinced that what I have said is true, help us to get the United States onboard. The United States needs a Silk Road. China has a plan to have 50,000 km of fast train system by 2020; and we have developed an extension of the Silk Road for the United States, also having a huge system of fast trains connecting the East and the West Coasts, the North and the South. Build a couple of new cities in places in the United States which make sense. And there is no reason why the United States cannot be part of this. It's not anti-American; America should become part of it, and you should help to do this.

ROSS: Wonderful. Well, thank you both very much for joining us. Thank you to our viewers for joining us. If you're in the New York area, definitely become involved in this process over the weekend. You can find out more at the Schiller Institute New York City Chorus website. Stay tuned to LaRouche PAC; subscribe so you don't miss our shows, and we'll see you next time.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Den 28. juli 2016, v/næstformand Michelle Rasmussen.

»Jeg inviterer dig til at lære Schiller Instituttet at kende og til at kontakte os.

Verden er i en dyb krise, en civilisationskrise. Det er en brydningstid. Det kan blive meget værre, med et fuldt finanssammenbrud, måske sat i gang af de italienske banker, som er i krise, eller sågar af Deutsche Bank, som står øverst på listen over de store, systemiske krisebanker, og som teknisk set faktisk er bankerot.

Det kan også være krig med Rusland og Kina, ført af dem, som gerne vil forhindre, at disse nationer fører an i skabelsen af en alternativ økonomisk politik.

Vi oplever efterdønningerne efter Brexit-afstemningen i Storbritannien, og det har rystet hele EU. Men det giver os nogle muligheder. En ting, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche og Lyndon LaRouche har krævet, er en redningsplan for Deutsche Bank, men på betingelse af, at Deutsche Bank vender tilbage til den ånd, der var, da Alfred Herrhausen var chef i 1989, hvor han havde en produktionsbaseret politik for banken, og hvor han kom ud med et krav for gældssanering for de fattigste lande og for udvikling af Østeuropa. Dengang var Berlinmuren endnu ikke faldet.

Vi kan takke ja til samarbejde i stedet for krig med Rusland og Kina, om at bygge en Ny Silkevej hele vejen fra Asien til Europa. Vi kan udvide det til at blive en Verdenslandbro, en bro over land, gennem Sydvestasien og hele vejen ned til Afrika. Vi kan følge den tråd, der for nylig er kommet frem, med Saudi-Arabiens rolle bag angrebene den 11. september 2001, og følge denne tråd helt til det nuværende Britiske Imperiums fraktions rolle bag terrorisme; og så kan vi takke ja til samarbejde med Rusland om at bekæmpe terrorisme.«

Præcisering: Chefen for Deutsch Bank,  Alfred Herhausen, blev dræbt af terrorister den 30. november 1989. Berlinmuren faldt den 9. november 1989. Hvis han, som var en ledende rådgiver til den tyske kansler Helmut Kohl, havde levet, ville verden have set anderledes ud.

Denne video blev lavet i forbindelse med omdeling af Schiller Instituttets materiale i jyske og fynske byer.

Kontakter i Jylland:

Kolding: Preben Samsøe, 4146 4714

Aarhus: Hans Schultz, 4841 4096; 6016 4096

Randers: Poul Gundersen, 2082 0350

Her er nogle vigtige links:

NYHEDSORIENTERING JULI 2016: Sidste chance for at stoppe europæisk bankkrak og krig

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Menneskehedens skønne fremtid – hvis vi undgår dinosaurernes skæbne.

Hovedtale på Schiller Instituttets internationale konference i Berlin, 25. – 26. juni, 2016

Baggrundsmateriale:

Lyndon LaRouches 3-punktsprogram for genopbygning af realøkonomien:

1. Hvorfor en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling ville løse finanskrisen og ødelægge Wall Street

2. Hvordan man skaber ikke-inflationære kreditter gennem et nationalt kreditsystem

3. Infrastrukturprojekter og fusionsøkonomi

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

15. juli 2016 – Obamaregeringen ventede til de allersidste timer af Kongressens samling, før den går på seks ugers ferie, med at frigive det let redigerede, 28 sider lange kapitel af den oprindelige rapport fra 2002 over den Fælles Kongresundersøgelse af begivenhederne den 11. september, 2001. På trods af denne timing var frigivelsen en enorm sejr, der nu anbringer hele det Anglo-Saudiske Imperium i direkte skudlinje pga. dets nu dokumenterede rolle i den værste terrorgrusomhed, begået på amerikansk jord. Desuden gør en omhyggelig gennemlæsning af de delvist redigerede 28 sider det ganske klart, at kongresmedlem Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) havde fuldstændig ret, da han sidste år sagde, at de 28 sider tvinger os til fuldstændigt at gentænke alt, hvad der er sket i løbet af de seneste 15 år.

Graden af bevis for det saudiske monarkis involvering i angrebene 11. september går langt ud over det, der hidtil har været offentligt kendt. Snesevis af saudiske regeringsfolk og medlemmer af den kongelige familie var intimt involveret med al-Qaeda, og mange havde direkte forbindelse til selve flykaprerne. Amerikanske tjenester havde beviser for et dybtgående saudisk sponsorskab af al-Qaeda i årevis før angrebene den 11. september, men ethvert forsøg på at slå ned på dette forhold blev undertrykt, og detektiver blev fyret eller forflyttet, hvis de stillede for mange af de rigtige spørgsmål.

Det, der nu er et presserende behov for, er en undersøgelse, fra toppen og ned, der begynder med den anglo-saudiske hånd bag 11. september, men som går langt videre end til disse begivenheder for 15 år siden og undersøger alle de efterfølgende terrorgrusomheder og terrorbegivenheder, såsom invasionerne ind i Irak og Libyen, den igangværende indsats for at fremtvinge et regimeskifte i Assads Syrien, samt meget mere endnu.

Lyndon LaRouche understregede i dag, at vi må bevare dette momentum for en ny undersøgelse, der udforsker dybderne i det anglo-saudiske kompleks. Intet mindre vil være i stand til at rykke terrorpesten op ved rode.

Udgivelsen af de 28 sider, der kommer blot få dage efter udgivelsen af Chilcot-kommissionens rapport i Britannien, udgør et dødbringende, et-to-stød mod hjertet af Det britiske Imperium og dets saudiske partnere. 

Efter udgivelsen af den 28 sider, overbragte kongresmedlem Walter Jones, der anførte i kampen i Kongressen, sin tak og sine lykønskninger til LaRouche-bevægelsen for vores afgørende rolle i at fremtvinge en frigivelse af dokumenterne. Han afgav løfte om at gå videre til næste niveau af undersøgelse og ikke stoppe, før den fulde sandhed er offentliggjort, for åbent tæppe.  

Foto: Walter B. Jones (født 1943) er kongresmedlem i USA's Repræsentanternes Hus for North Carolina 3rd kongresdistrikt. Han er medlem af det Republikanske Parti.

15. juni, 2016 – Ifølge AntiMedia (theantimedia.org), var FBI-angivere involveret i 243 af de 508 terrorsager, som FBI har åbnet siden d. 11. september, 2001. Af disse FBI-angivere, hvoraf næsten alle var muslimer, og mange var diagnosticeret mentalt syge, var mange i desperat pengenød og derfor modtagelige for FBI-bestikkelse til at gå med i angivelige terrorhandlinger, som egentlig var ’stingoperationer’ (komplicerede, overlagte intriger for at narre ’forbrydere’ til at gå i fælden, -red.). I nyhedsartiklen sættes der fokus på sagen om ’De fire fra Newburgh’, og den er delvis baseret på en undersøgelse fra 2014, udført af ’Koalitionen til beskyttelse af civile rettigheder’, med titlen: ”At opfinde terrorister: ’Lawfare’ ved brug af forebyggende retsforfølgelse.” (’lawfare’ er asymmetrisk krigsførelse ved brug af hjemlig eller international lov, -red.)

En af de fire sagsøgte i sagen, James Cromitie, var en tidligere stofmisbruger, der gentagne gange havde afslået tilbud om penge fra FBI’s hemmelige agenter for at deltage i en hemmelig terrorplan. En anden sagsøgt, Laguerre Payan, var diagnosticeret med skizofreni, og en tredje, David Williams, var i desperat pengenød, fordi hans bror behøvede en livreddende levertransplantation.

En anden sag, der involverer Rezawan Ferdaus, var et endnu mere åbenlyst tilfælde, hvor FBI udså sig en mentalt syg person. Ferdaus led af en alvorlig depression i en sådan grad, at han ikke havde kontrol over sin blærefunktion, men han blev af FBI presset til at gå med i en hemmelig plan om at angribe Capitol-bygningen (kongresbygningen i Washington D.C., -red.)

I endnu et andet tilfælde, der nævnes i dagens historie fra AntiMedia.org, meldte en far fra Boston til FBI, at hans søn lavede opslag på Facebook i ISIS’ favør, og FBI trådte til og skaffede drengen våben, hvorefter de arresterede ham. Et andet vigtigt tilfælde var sagen med Sam Osmakac. Osmakac fik våben af FBI, blev styret af en FBI-angiver, forsynet med en bilbombe af FBI og ligeledes med penge til at betale sine rejseomkostninger til det sted, hvor han så sluttelig blev arresteret. En psykiatrisk undersøgelse beordret af retten afslørede, at han led af en skizo-affektiv psykose. Hans FBI-sagsbehandler kaldte ham ”et retarderet fjols”. Tidligere assisterende direktør hos FBI, Thomas Fuentes, beskrev dette som FBI’s ”Hold Frygten i Live”-politik, med det formål at sikre fortsat forøgelse af budgetterne. I virkeligheden er det langt værre end blot budget-motivering, som FBI’s rolle i mørklægningen af d. 11. september klarest illustrerer.

Den samme profil, hvor FBI skaber terrorisme, hvor den ikke eksisterer, ved hjælp af ’stingoperationer’, fremgik af en længere artikel i New York Times d. 7. juni, 2016, under overskriften ”FBI optrapper brugen af stingoperationer i ISIS-sager.” Journalist Eric Lichtblau fra Times rapporterede, at to tredjedele af FBI’s anklager i terrorsager er baseret på ’sting’, en betydelig stigning over de seneste år. Historien i Times nævnte sagen om ’De fire fra Newburgh’ og citerede dommer Colleen McMahon, der i retten erklærede, at ”Jeg mener uden skygge af tvivl, at der ikke ville have været nogen forbrydelse her, hvis regeringen ikke havde iværksat, planlagt og bragt den til fuldførelse.” En tidligere New York Times-artikel fra d. 28. april, 2012, med overskriften ”Hemmelige terrorplaner udklækket af FBI”, udgjorde en lignende sag, hvor FBI’s overlagte fælder skabte terrorisme, der ellers aldrig ville have materialiseret sig.

En anden FBI-stingoperation, der af Glenn Greenwald blev rapporteret i onlineavisen The Intercept, blev spydigt beskrevet som ”endnu en FBI-sejr over de mentalt syge.”

Foto: ’The Newburgh 4’: Fra venstre: James Cromitie, David Williams, Laguerre Payen og Onta Williams. (Foto: J.B. Nicholas, Christopher Sadowski Splash News/Newscom)

Af Tom Gillesberg: Goldman Sachs fik sin kæmpebonus. Vil et britisk nej til EU lede til euroens kollaps, kaos i EU og udløse et internationalt finanskrak værre end i 2008? NATO er i gang med den største militæropbygning langs Ruslands grænse siden 2. verdenskrig. Kan vi forhindre en fortsat konfrontationspolitik, der vil føre til atomkrig? Putin åbner den asiatiske flanke, og Obamas plan for asiatisk NATO vendt imod Kina fejler. Terrorangrebet i Orlando viser, hvorfor de hemmelighedsstemplede 28- sider om terrorangrebet den 11. september 2001 må frigives. De netværk, der blev etableret og finansieret af Storbritannien og Saudi-Arabien gennem den såkaldte al-Yamama våbenhandelsaftale, og som blev beskyttet af FBI, stod ikke blot bag udåden i 2001, men står stadig bag blodige terroranslag. De er også kilden til Islamisk Stat og andre terrororganisationers store fremgang, for lande som Saudi-Arabien, Qatar og Tyrkiet har støttet dem i deres forsøg på at tage magten i Irak og Syrien. Læs mere på www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=13111. 

Dette er en redigeret udgave af et foredrag af Schiller Instituttets formand Tom Gillesberg den 9. juni 2016. Se foredraget og den medfølgende diskussion på www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=13061.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Uddrag fra LaRouchePAC fredags-webcast, den 29 april 2016

Senator Bob Graham fortsætter med at være meget kontant i sine beskyldninger omkring hvem der er ansvarlig for at dække over, det som han før har kaldt det "aggressive bedrag" af det amerikanske folk omkring spørgsmålet om, hvad der virkelig skete den 11 september 2001. I dette interview opfordrede Senator Graham ikke kun til frigivelsen af de 28 sider. Han opfordrede også til frigivelse af de titusinder af andre dokumentsider, der er blevet tilbageholdt fra det amerikanske folk og Kongressens efterforskere, og kaldte for en genåbning af 9/11 undersøgelsen. I dette interview gjorde Senator Graham som han har gjort før, men på en meget kontant og meget ærlig måde. Han placerede ansvaret lige uden for døren af FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), som han beskyldte, i utvetydige vendinger, for at lyve til Kongressen og engagere sig i dette "aggressive bedrag" af det amerikanske folk.

Lad mig indledningsvis læse nogle uddrag fra Senator Graham's interview. Senator Graham sagde:
”Grunden til at de 28 sider er så vigtige, er at de var konklusionen på Kongressens undersøgelse af hvordan 11te september operationen var finansieret. Hvem betalte for det? Og mens jeg ikke kan diskutere detaljerne i dette kapitel, peger det kraftigt på Saudi-Arabien.

"Hvad vi officielt ved er, at der var agenter for den saudiske regering, som støttede mindst to af de flykaprere der endte med at bo i San Diego. De blev hjulpet med økonomisk støtte, med anonymitet, med et sted at bo, med flylektioner og med beskyttelse. I et tilfælde, i over et år.

FBI har udleveret 80.000 sider [ærligt talt blev de tvunget til at udlevere MO*] til en føderal domstol, gennem en Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) sag, der involverer en undersøgelse der fandt sted i Sarasota, Florida af forholdet mellem Mohammed Atta, lederen af de 19 flykaprere og to af hans håndlangere og en fremtrædende Saudisk familie, som havde boet i Sarasota i seks år. De tog afsted to uger før 9/11 under betingelser, som blev beskrevet som presserende for at vende tilbage til Saudi-Arabien, hvilket skaber den logiske slutning, at de blev varskoet og besluttede at de ville være bedre stillede andetsteds end i Sarasota, når 9/11 indtraf."

Intervieweren spurgte da Senator Graham følgende. Hun sagde, "Tror du, at de på hinanden følgende administrationer har beskyttet den saudiske kongefamilie imod amerikanske statsborgeres interesser?”

Senator Graham svarede, "Ja. Og jeg tror, det har været mere end en tilsløring. Jeg tror, det har været det, jeg kalder aggressivt bedrag. Der er tilfælde, hvor FBI offentligt har publiceret udsagn, som jeg ved fra personlig erfaring var usande. De erklærede at de i forbindelse med Sarasota sagen havde afsluttet undersøgelsen, og at undersøgelsen havde fastslået at der ikke var nogen forbindelse mellem flykaprerne og den fremtrædende Saudiske familie, og at de havde overleveret alle disse oplysninger til både Kongressens undersøgelse og 9/11 Citizens Commissions. Jeg ved det som en kendsgerning, at ingen af disse tre udsagn er sande."

Så sagde intervieweren til ham: "Lad mig få dette på det rette, Sir. Du påstår at FBI bevidst løj om dette spørgsmål, og at der har været en tilsløring.".

Senator Graham afbrød hende, og sagde: ".. det er mere end en tilsløring. FBI misinformerede om hvad der er i deres egne registreringer i forhold til situationen i Sarasota"

Han blev spurgt: "Hvad tror du der skal gøres?"

Senator Graham svarede:. "Jeg tror, vi er nødt til at have en generel genåbning af efterforskningen af 9/11. Både Kongressens og 9/11 Kommissionens undersøgelse foregik under stramme tidsrammer, hvilket udelukkede den fuldstændige undersøgelse, der nødvendigvis må gøres, når 9/11 sagen er genåbnet."

Hr. LaRouche sagde, efter at have lyttet til dette interview, at dette er meget klart og tydeligt. Dette kan der ikke gøres indsigelser imod. Alt, hvad senator Graham sagde, var helt rigtigt.

Han sagde: "Retfærdighed skal endelig ske fyldest overfor de amerikanske borgere. Det kan ikke længere udskydes. Ingen kan sige, "Lad os bare udsætte dette, lad os udsætte dette, lad os udsætte det endnu en uge. Det skal ske nu.” Den sande historie er blevet tilsløret alt for længe”, sagde Hr. LaRouche, og han fortsatte:" Sen. Grahams udsagn om dette er klare og tydelige. Hans identifikation af FBI's aggressive bedrag er lige i øjet, og kan ikke diskuteres. Husk, at FBI juridisk er underlagt justitsministeriet, som er medlem af den udøvende magt, hvilket placerer hele denne operation lige på Obamas dørtrin. Den udøvende magt kan ikke handle uden præsidentens direkte ordrer.

Ethvert forsøg på varigt at fortsætte som nu," sagde Hr. LaRouche, "er en krænkelse af de amerikanske borgeres forfatningsmæssige rettigheder, og det i interessen af det der beviseligt er en fjendtlig fremmed magt, helt op til det punkt af hvad man kan sige nærmer sig forræderi. Faren er 3. verdenskrig, hvilket ville betyde ødelæggelse af ikke kun USA, men hele verden. Der går ikke en dag uden at der forekommer en provokation, et eller andet sted i verden af Obama mod både Rusland og Kina, der hver vil kunne tænde lunten til 3. verdenskrig. Vi kan ikke vente, vi kan ikke udsætte det. Vi kan ikke sige, 'Åh, bare et par uger mere, blot et par måneder mere.' 3. verdenskrig er på vores dørtrin, og 3. verdenskrig ville betyde ødelæggelsen af menneskeheden.

"Våbenhvilen i Syrien nærmer sig opløsningspunktet. Saudi-Arabien og Tyrkiets rolle i dette er klar og udgør en meget indlysende pointe, at det strategiske momentum, der er nødvendigt gennem de-klassificeringen af de 28 sider, ville forhindre denne krig. Dette viser dig blot et eksempel – et meget umiddelbart eksempel – men det er blot ét eksempel på den strategiske nødvendighed af at frigive de 28 sider og blotlægge saudierne og deres partnere i det britiske monarki for hvad de er og hvad de gjorde i tilfældet med 9/11 forbrydelsen"

* MO: Modus Operandi – måde at agere på

Et uddrag:
Ogden: I løbet af en tidligere diskussion med Lyndon LaRouche snakkede vi også om dagens institutionelle spørgsmål, som lyder: »Hr. LaRouche, vær venlig at fremlægge dine anbefalinger om, hvordan man opbygger de institutioner og strukturer, der skal til, for at gennemføre en global indsats mod terrorisme, i et samarbejde mellem USA, Kina, Rusland og Europa. Hvilken form for organisering og politik kan du anbefale, og hvilken rolle tror du FN kan spille i en sådan indsats?«

Steinberg: Efter vores diskussion med Hr. LaRouche og Fru Zepp-LaRouche, som fandt sted for nogle få timer siden, vil jeg svare, at det første der må gøres, er at fremlægge en præcis redegørelse for, hvor den globale terrorisme har sin oprindelse. Og det har den i London – Londonistan – og i lande, der i stigende grad er blevet simple håndlangere for det Britiske Imperium og dets politik. Saudi-Arabien er en sådan håndlanger. Det har landet været i hundrede af år. Men i særdeleshed siden al-Yamamah aftalen fra 1985 har der været en britisk-saudisk organisation, der har ophobet store pengesummer, øremærket til at understøtte terrororganisationer som al-Qaeda og aflæggeren ISIS. Prøv engang at se på Sydamerika og Mexico, ødelagt af narko-terrorisme, og bemærk så, hvordan London har været centrum for den internationale narkohandel og de terrororganisationer, der er sprunget frem deraf. Hvis man ikke starter med at sige sandheden omkring terrorismens natur, omkring dens oprindelsessted; hvis man ikke våger at angribe det britiske og det saudiske monarki, så kan der ikke opstå et solidt grundlag for den form for samarbejde, der er nødvendig.

Det er klart at de fire ledende nationer, USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien alle er konfronteret med denne Angelsaudiske terrortrussel. Og for så vidt som disse nationer ikke samarbejder omkring udformningen af en entydig handlingsplan, der involverer nedlæggelsen af de britiske oversøiske finanscentre, der stiller finanserne til rådighed for terrororganisationerne, er der intet grundlag for sejr. Hvis disse lande går sammen – for hvilke FN's sikkerhedsråd ville udgøre den perfekte platform – kan der føres en succesfuld krig mod den form for terrorisme, der udfolder sig globalt i dag. Og det er en afgørende del af den krig, der allerede er undervejs.

Og så er der selvfølgelig det mere langsigtede spørgsmål omkring, hvordan man skaber en tilstand hvor mennesker ikke har noget incitament til at gå med i den slags terrororganisationer. Det spørgsmål ligger implicit i Kinas politiske projekt kaldet »Ét bælte, én vej«: Udviklingen af Asien gennem denne »Win-Win«-politik. Visse desperate politiske ledere i Europa – sågar i Tyskland – lufter ideen om en »Marshallplan«, der skal genopbygge Syrien og Irak. Det vil give flygtningene en mission, så de vil tage tilbage og hjælpe med at opbygge deres lande med en masse opbakning udefra. Og det er en del af den slags passende og holdbare antiterrorstrategi, der skal til for at skabe en langtidsholdbar løsning. Allerede tilbage i 1970'erne fremlagde Lyndon LaRouche en plan for at skabe fred og udvikling i Mellemøsten. Udgangspunktet var at en økonomisk udvikling af regionen var den mest effektive antiterrorstrategi. Ligeledes sagde LaRouche i kølvandet på Oslo-aftalen i 1993, at man blev nødt til med det samme at køre bulldozer og arbejdsmaskinerne i position og begynde at genopbygge Gazastriben og Vestbredden og skabe et velstående område, hvor mennesker har en fremtid at leve for og se frem til.

Men nu har vi i stedet Saudi-Arabiens tyranni. Hen over de seneste dage har vi set, hvordan Tyrkiets præsident Erdogan forsøger at etablere et brutalt diktatur i sit land og hvordan han afpresser Europa med truslen om at oversvømme Europa med endnu en omgang af flygtninge på flugt fra Syrien, Irak, Libyen og Afghanistan. Så der findes en holdbar og effektiv politik, men kun, hvis man tager tingene fra toppen og tager udgangspunkt i sandheden om, hvor terrorismen kommer fra. Således og kun således kan vi danne den rette form for sammenslutning af nationer, der samarbejder om et fælles mål. Og terrorismen kan overvindes, det er der ingen tvivl om, men ikke hvis udgangspunktet for processen er et svindelnummer.

Ogden: På den front så vi hvordan CIA-direktør, John Brennan, i TV-udsendelsen »Meet the Press« sidste søndag (1. maj) udtalte, at de 28 sider ikke vil blive offentliggjort af Obama-administrationen. Det viser med al tydelighed at USA ikke er klar til en alliance med Rusland, Kina og Indien, FN og Europa omkring en effektiv krig mod terror, men stadig bukker og skraber for den saudiske kongefamilie, som stod bag 11. september.

Putins afgørende intervention i Palmyra, foruden hvilken byen stadig ville være under ISIS' belejring, skaber en stærk kontrast og viser vejen for at overvinde terrorisme. Så måske kan du forklare, hvad dette viser om, hvor Obama-administrationens sande alliancer ligger.

Steinberg: Det er meget ligetil. Det Brennan sagde på nationalt TV i »Meet the Press« i søndags var præcist, hvad vi regnede med, at han ville sige. Og alt dette var forårsaget af den vedholdende mobilisering for at få offentliggjort de 28 sider, som LaRouches politiske aksionskomité (LaRouchePAC) har været hovedansvarlig for. Denne mobilisering har tvunget Obama-administrationen til at bekende kulør og sige at den på ingen måde har tænkt sig at bryde med den Angel-saudiske alliance. Så længe Obama er præsiden og Brennan er CIA-direktør vil der være en beskyttelsesmur mod enhver form for afsløring af det Britiske Imperiums og Saudi-Arabiens rolle i terrorangrebet d. 11. september. Og naturligvis har FBI's topledelse været dybt involveret i at mørklægge denne sag. Hvis nogen troede at FBI på en eller anden vis havde skiftet identitet siden de mørke dage under J. Edgar Hoover, får de sig noget af en overraskelse. Den eneste forskel er, at teknologierne og ressourcerne, der er tilgængelige i dag, er langt mere vidtrækkende. Og det var daværende FBI-chef Robert Mueller, der personligt satte en stopper for, at de 28 sider blev offentliggjort.

Og så udtalte pressesekretæren for det Hvide Hus, Josh Earnest, tirsdag – han har ellers under pres fra de pårørende til ofrene for 11. september flere gange udtalt, at en i det mindste delvis offentliggørelse af de 28 sider ville finde sted indenfor de næste måneder – at han bakkede fuldt op omkring Brennans udlægning af sagen i »Meet the Press« udsendelsen og at der ikke ville blive nogen offentliggørelse. Og han løj så det drev, idet han gentog Brennans løgn om, at de 28 sider indeholder ubegrundede foreløbige ledetråde. Og det på trods af, at der er snesevis af saudiarabiske embedsmænd og politiske figurer, der er dybt involveret i at samarbejde med flykaprerne før angrebet d. 11. september.

Så USA befinder sig på sin vis i sandhedens time. Hvis I, det amerikanske folk, ikke kan gennemtvinge denne sag, hvis ikke vi kan få offentliggjort de 28 sider, så er det muligvis et tegn på at denne nation ikke længere har den moralske integritet, der skal til, for at overleve. Tilbage i 70'erne, da Vietnamkrigen viste sig som et monster, der åd USA op indefra, havde Senator Mike Gravel modet til at offentliggøre de såkaldte »Pentagon Papers« (Pentagons hemmelige dokumentation af USA's Vietnam-politik – red.) ved at læse dem højt fra talerstolen i senatet, og det ændrede historien. Og det er den slags øjeblikke vi lige nu befinder os i. Vi har brug for at nogen udviser samme mod i dag, som Mike Gravel gjorde dengang. For hvis mørklægningen af den Angel-saudiske hånd bag 11. september bliver tilladt at fortsætte meget længere, vil denne nation have opgivet det, der retfærdiggør nationens eksistens.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video:
2. del:

Lyd:

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Obama-administrationens beslutning søndag om at kritisere Kongressens rapport om 11. september og dens 28 siders sektion om Saudi Arabiens medvirken i anslagene, kan få en omgående boomerang-effekt mod Obama selv. Spørgsmålet om meddelagtighed i uhyrlige terrorforbrydelser er involveret; og ligeså er spørgsmålet om at forhindre Obamas britiske/saudiske krigspolitik i at udløse global termonuklear krig.

Obama har – ligesom hans forgænger George W. Bush – holdt disse 28 sider hemmelige i otte år mere, og arrogant ignoreret og modsat sig et ønske fra ofrene og de overlevende fra 11. september, om at få dem frigivet.
CIA direktør John Brennans fremtræden i ”Møde med Pressen” søndag, hvor han hævdede at bevismaterialet i de 28 sider er usandt, og modsatte sig at frigive dem, optrapper Obamas forræderiske dækken over Saudi Arabiens forbrydelser d. 11. september.
I næsten en måned, efter tidligere senator Bob Graham i programmet ”60 minutter” påviste hvor isoleret det Hvide Hus er i at lægge skjul på bevismaterialet – idet man bruger FBI til at intimidere dem, der indsamler og undersøger det – har der været en større debat i de politiske institutioner og medier overalt i USA.
Men spørgsmålet er blevet virkeligt varmt i New York City, hvor Lyndon LaRouches “Manhattan Projekt” har mobiliseret en by, hvis befolkning stadig ønsker retfærdighed ved at få sandheden om 11.september offentliggjort.
Frigivelse af de 28 sider og andet skjult dokumentarisk bevismateriale om 11. september kunne tillige i en bredere forstand slippe retfærdigheden løs. Det kunne betyde retsforfølgelse af Obama og Bush for forsætlig undertrykkelse af beviserne for, hvem der virkeligt myrdede 3000 amerikanere, og skræmte millioner af andre til at indvillige i katastrofale krige og vidtstrakte nye FBI beføjelser.
Da CIA direktør Brennan i søndags sagde “Nej”, burde de forskellige balloner, som det Hvide Hus har sendt op vedrørende review af de 28 sider med henblik på ”snarlig” frigivelse, være punkteret. Sandheden vil ikke komme ud på denne måde, med retfærdighed til følge. Obama må fjernes fra embedet, ved en rigsretssag, med henblik på yderligere retsforfølgelse ved domstolene for forræderi. Det er hvad LaRouches ”Manhatten Projekt” mobiliserer for, og på den måde kan der sættes en stopper for hemmeligholdelsen af de 28 sider af Kongressens undersøgelse, sammen med Saudiernes straffrihed for deres forbrydelser.
Men det giver os også chancen for retfærdighed i en endnu bredere forstand: Forbrydelserne inkluderer (fortsat) at starte krige for at erstatte stabile regeringer med kaos, og (fortsat) – til denne dag – at støtte islamistiske jihadgrupper. Særligt siden attentatet på den Libyske leder Gadaffi i 2011 har det stået klart for os, at målet i sidste instans for disse krige er Rusland og Kina.
Ultimativt har planlæggerne været den britiske imperialistiske finansmagt, der søger at destruere Kina/Indien/Rusland–alternativet til dets kollaps. Obama og Saudierne har udført arbejdet.
Obama har optrappet provokationenerne til krig med Rusland, Kina eller begge, en krig, der kun kan være termonuklear og total. At tvinge ham ud nu standser kursen mod krigskonfrontation, der kun kan ende med destruktion af civilisationerne.
Deltag i mobiliseringen for retfærdigheden.

Mens verdens medier fokuserer opmærksomheden på Saudi Arabiens hånd bag angrebene d. 11. september – og al efterfølgende jihad-terror jorden rundt – og præsident Barack Obamas dække over disse forbrydelser, skal de egentlige ophavsmænd til dette massedrabs-program ikke findes i Riyadh eller det Hvide Hus, men i London. Det er aldeles passende og korrekt, at den britiske agent, og nøglefigur i at dække over 11. september Barack Obama, styrer direkte fra Riyadh til London senere i denne uge for, endnu engang, at hylde den britiske Dronning.

Saudi-Arabien har altid været den britiske Krones ejendom, tilbage til Lawrence af Arabiens tid, og den oprindelige generation af Huset Saud og Wahhabi-gejstligheden. Faktisk daterer britisk kontrol over de Persiske Golfemirater sig tilbage til det britiske Østindiske Kompagnis velmagtsdage i det attende og nittende århundrede. Men dette britiskkontrollerede partnerskab med de saudiske kongelige blev sat på langt mere formel og aktiv fod i 1985, da Prins Bandar bin-Sultan, en selverklæret britisk agent, sluttede Al-Yamamah handlen med Margaret Thatcher, og derved etablerede olie-for-våben tuskhandels-systemet, under hvilket hundreder af milliarder af dollars blev afsondret til britiske offshore finansielle fristeder – til finansiering af terrorisme, kup og snigmord jorden over.

Det er denne del af 11. september, der indtil nu har manglet fra den, nu på høje tid, offentlige opstand over hemmeligholdelsen af de 28 sider fra den originale fælles Kongresundersøgelse af 11. september. Hvor fik den saudiske USA-ambassadør prins ”Bandar Bush” pengene fra til at finansiere de to ledende 11. september flykaprere i San Diego? Fra Al Yamamah kontoen i Bank of England, der gik til hans personlige bankkonto i Riggs National Bank i Washington. Det var hans del af Al Yamamah-rovet, minimum $2 milliarder.

Uden beskyttelse fra Londonistan ville der ikke være et Saudisk kongedømme, ingen infrastruktur til jihad-terrorisme, ingen global stof-epidemi og ingen trussel om global udryddelseskrig.

Helt tilbage fra før de faktiske 11. september angreb, som Lyndon LaRouche overværede på live-TV mens han gav et interview til den populære radiovært fra Utah Jack Stockwell, advarede LaRouche om en truende Rigsdagsbrand, iscenesat under Bush-Cheney administrationen for at drive USA hen imod en diktaturstat. I december 2000 havde Executive Intelligence Review formelt begæret, at det amerikanske State Department satte Storbritannien på listen over statssponsorer af terrorisme. Dokumentet angav detaljeret snesevis af formelle klager fra regeringer rundt om i verden imod Londons husly til, og finansiering af, terrorister og voldelige separatister.

Der var rigeligt med lejlighed til at stoppe masse-blodsudgydelserne inklusiv 11. september ved at tage fat på menneskehedens virkelige fjende – det britiske Imperium. Undladelsen af at gøre dette i den nylige fortid har bragt os i det graverende øjeblik af krise, hvor et desperate og bankerot britisk Imperium er parat til at sprænge verden i luften, hellere end at afstå dets magt. Nu er øjeblikket inde til at slå den saudiske terrormaskine, sammen med det britiske Imperium, der i virkeligheden kører showet, ud. Bryd dækket over 11. september, og tag Obama ned sammen med anglo-saudierne. Det er muligvis menneskehedens sidste og bedste chance for overlevelse.

I takt med at presset fortsat vokser på Obama for at frigive de 28 sider om d. 11. september, inklusiv at tidligere senator Bob Graham i denne uge har skrevet en ledende artikel, hvori han undsiger det "aggressive bedrag", som to på hinanden følgende administrationer har forøvet mod det amerikanske folk, begynder vi i aften kl. 8 pm. (eastern time) vores webudsendelse med en særlig video-erklæring fra Lyndon LaRouche personligt. Han hævder en afgørende britisk skyld i komplottet, hvorefter Jeffrey Steinberg indtager podiet for i detaljer at udlægge sine eksklusive undersøgelser i disse britisk-saudiske forbindelser. Jeff Steinberg diskuterer også implikationerne af det nyligt frigivne 47-siders dokument forfattet af undersøgerne i 11. september Kommissionen, i hvilken de forslog en efterforskning af den rolle, som agenturer indenfor den amerikanske regering spillede i at dække over den saudiske rolle i angrebene, men som de blev blokeret i at foretage.

Engelsk udskrift.

As the pressure continues to increase on Obama to release the 28 pages on 9/11, including former Senator Bob Graham authoring an editorial this week in which he denounces the "aggressive deception" which two consecutive administrations have perpetrated against the American people, we begin our webcast tonight at 8 pm eastern witha special video statement from Lyndon LaRouche personally in which he asserts the British culpability in the plot, after which Jeffrey Steinberg takes the podium to lay out in detail his exclusive research into these British-Saudi connections. Jeff Steinberg also discusses the implications of a newly released 47-page document authored by researchers on the 9/11 Commission in which they proposed to investigate the role that agencies within the US government played in covering up for the Saudi role in the attacks, but were blocked from doing so.

'JASTA' Act Passed in 2012, and Obama Signed It — Against Iran

TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, my name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome all of you to our weekly broadcast here from larouchepac.com. You're watching the Friday evening webcast for April 22nd, 2016. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg, from Executive Intelligence Review. And the two of us had a meeting with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, and I think that the presentation that Jeff gives tonight will be a very significant presentation, elaborating on some remarks that Mr. LaRouche had to say just yesterday on the question of the story behind and beyondthe 28 pages.

Now, as those of you who are watching this broadcast tonight probably know, we are living in a truly momentous period of history. Over the last two weeks, since the "60 Minutes" episode which elaborated the story of the so-called "28 pages," the redacted chapter of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry report into 9/11, that has been classified by both the Bush and the Obama administrations; since that broadcast, there has been an unrelenting stream of media coverage of this story, in almost all of the major national press in the United States, and also internationally, in Europe and elsewhere. There has also been a relentless attack, directly, on Obama, by name, for his refusal to declassify these 28 pages, despite the promises that he has given to the 9/11 families; and also for his open and explicit opposition to the lawsuit that families have waged against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as the bill that they have introduced into the United States Senate, the Justice Against State Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), which would allow those victims to sue the state-sponsors of the 9/11 attacks.

Now, as you know, on the LaRouche PAC website, we have been covering this story for years, very closely. We've been following the efforts of Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC), Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-MA), and Congressman Thomas Massie (R-KY) in the House of Representatives, who have introduced a bill, now over two years ago, House Resolution 14 (H.R.14), which was previously House Resolution 428, calling on Obama to declassify the 28 pages; and they've worked very closely with former Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL). Bob Graham was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time of the 9/11 attacks, and was co-chairman of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Inquiry report.

Bob Graham has been very vocal, for years, in calling for the 28 pages to be released. I had the pleasure of interviewing him at an event in Florida in November of 2014, and at that time, he was very clear that if the 28 pages had not been classified and suppressed, you would not be seeing the threat of terrorism that we're facing today from al-Qaeda and from ISIS, both of which have received direct funding from individuals connected with the Saudi regime.

Bob Graham wrote a very clear and very blunt op-ed that was published in the Florida newspaper TCPalm, which was titled, "28 Pages: How Our Government Has Used Deceit To Withhold Truth From the American People." This op-ed was published on Wednesday, to be timed directly in coincidence with President Obama's landing in Riyadh, to hold a joint bilateral summit with King Salman of Saudi Arabia. In this op-ed, Senator Graham is perhaps more explicit than he has ever been. He said, "This was not just a cover-up." The suppression of the 28 pages and other evidence linking the Saudis to 9/11 was the result of what he calls "an aggressive deception." He says, "Your government has purposely used deceit to withhold the truth." The reason for this deceit, he says, "is to protect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia from its complicity in the murder of 2,977 Americans. On April 15, the New York Timesreported: 'Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.'" That is obviously a blackmail threat against the United States, and that's what they said publicly; one can only wonder what the Saudis were threatening behind closed doors.

What Senator Graham goes on to say in this op-ed is: "If that is not sufficient to get your blood boiling, read on: [the New York Timeswrites] 'The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill's passage.'"

Now, Senator Graham elaborates that there have been multiple forms of what he calls this "aggressive deceit"; not only the suppression of the 28 pages. He said the 28 pages would disclose the sources of funding for the attack on 9/11; this has been under review for declassification for three years, which was three times the amount of time that it took to research, author and publish, the original Congressional Inquiry report which was 838 pages long! He said, secondly, "The 28 pages are the most iconic, but not the only, evidence to be withheld from the report of the congressional inquiry. The report is pocked by hundreds of specific redactions."

And then he says, thirdly, "Investigations at locales where the hijackers lived and plotted prior to the attacks also have been classified. One of those involves Mohamed Atta, the leader of the hijackers, and two of his henchmen who are alleged to have collaborated with a prominent Saudi family who lived in Sarasota for six years before abruptly departing for Saudi Arabia two weeks before 9/11."

Senator Graham says, "The FBI publicly described its Sarasota investigation as complete, and said it found no connection between the hijackers and the family. Later, responding to a Freedom of Information lawsuit, the FBI released an investigative report that said the family had 'many connections' to individuals tied to the terrorist attacks. The FBI for two years has aggressively resisted releasing that report," Graham says. [emphasis added] And this is part of a much bigger story, that goes beyond just the 28 pages per se.

Now, Senator Graham concludes that op-ed by saying there are three reasons why the 28 pages must be released: One is justice for the families; two is national security, and he said: The fact that Saudis, and their "blatant attempts to avoid liability as co-conspirators in the crime of 9/11, and the U.S. government's acquiescence by refusing to release information (and opposition to reforming laws that would hold collaborators in murder to account) has been a clear signal to the Kingdom that it is immune from U.S. sanctions. With that impunity," Senator Graham says, "it continues to finance terrorists and fund mosques and schools used to indoctrinate the next generation of terrorists in intolerance and jihad."

And then finally, he said, this is an issue of democracy. "The American government is founded on the consent of the governed. To give that consent, the people must know what the government is doing in its name. Distrust in government is reflected in the speeches of today's presidential candidates" he said. "The public's sometimes angry response is fueled by a sense of betrayal and deceit."

Now, Mr. LaRouche was asked a question from our institutional source this week, this is our regular institutional question, and it's very brief, but it's obviously directly on this subject-matter. The question reads as follows: "Mr. LaRouche, there has been an overwhelming enthusiasm to release the 28 pages lately. What is your advice to the Obama administration, in regards to the 28 pages?"

Now, we produced a short video which includes the audio of Mr. LaRouche's remarks on this subject. We're going to play that video for you now; it's about five minutes in length, and then immediately after that video, I'm going to ask Jeff Steinberg to come to the podium to elaborate some of the points that Mr. LaRouche asserts in this statement.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: [via audio file] I was watching those two planes which were carrying the victims, and carried them to death. I was an eyewitness to the press. We knew that they were being carried, as victims, inside the planes, in the two planes in succession, and obviously the passengers all died.

But that operation, on that occasion, which I witnessed from beginning to end in my first contact with it, defines the actual issue which has to be addressed.

Now of course, I also knew what the background was. The way this thing was set into motion was with the Bush family. Now, the Bush family was actually a key part, of setting this thing into motion; they may not have intended to do that, because they're too stupid to know what they're doing. See, the Bush family was involved in its own little warfare operation, so there was a spillover from the Bush administration as such, into this particular operation. The whole operation was twofold: One, was British-Saudi operation. Now the person who was directing the thing from inside the United States, had been trained by the British system. Bandar was a key figure operating inside the United States. Bandar was directly overseeing the launching of this operation.

And what they were doing, was they were shipping petroleum as a real money-making operation, just with the oil trade, by the British, shared with the Saudis; and this thing was done for harmful purposes in many ways, and was a key part of control of what the United States was doing in petroleum; because the thing was a fraud — a fraud committed by Her Majesty. Her Majesty was guilty: period. Queen Elizabeth was the author of this operation. She was the only person who was qualified to authorize this operation.

The attack on Manhattan was done under the cover of the British system. And the Saudis were a subordinate aspect of the British system as a whole. Her Majesty was the author, of this monster. And the Saudis were simply stooges. The Saudis have been stooges from the beginning of the 20th century. That's the essential story. Everything has to be focused on that: The fact that is was thedeliberate mass murder of American citizens. And not only that, but adirect attack on the United States!

The key thing is that the British and the Saudis are the same thing, since that time. And all these facts are really known, on the record. The Saudis are guilty and the British are guilty, because the Saudis and the British are part of the same agency. What the Saudis do, what the British do, won't be the same thing. The fact is that the Saudi Kingdom is not a real government — it's an empire; it's an imperial institution. It has no formal responsibility to anything except the Kingdom of the Saudis, and the British! They are the same thing!

OGDEN: Now, as you can see displayed on the screen, we have a short advertisement for a much longer feature documentary that was published, actually several years back by LaRouche PAC Television, which was called "Beyond the 28 Pages: 9/11 Ten Years Later,".

Jeffrey Steinberg was interviewed as part of that production, and obviously has been very intimately familiar with many of the facts that are presented in that documentary and which were alluded to by Mr. LaRouche in the statement that you just heard. So I'm going to invite Jeff Steinberg to come to the podium to elaborate this, in a little bit more detail.

JEFFREY STEINBERG:  Thank you, Matt.  Well I think it's important to recognize that the fundamental point that Mr. LaRouche just made in answering the institutional question for this week, is that the story of 9/11 is incomplete if we simply stop with the now obvious, transparently evident role that high-ranking figures within the Saudi royal family and within the Saudi government played in the 9/11 attacks. Both before the attacks, as the attacks were happening, and in the cover-up that followed. What's crucial to understand is that the Saudis do nothing without full support and approval coming from the highest levels of the British monarchy; all the way up to the Queen herself, and to the Royal Consort, Prince Philip.  The fact of the matter is that, going back centuries, back to the time of the heyday of the British East India Company, the entire Persian Gulf region was a British colony, a British Protectorate. For centuries, every one of the so-called nations — really tribal collections — along the Persian Gulf, whether it was Bahrain, or the UAE, or Qatar, or Oman, or Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait; all of those countries existed in name only. All of them had treaty agreements where their foreign and defense policy was run out of London. It was a vital feature for the functioning of the British East India Company to have a way station en route to India and on to China. So, at the beginning of the 20th Century, when people like Lawrence of Arabia forged the establishment of the House of Saud as a marriage between a tribal family and the Wahabi fundamentalist clergy of that area; it's always been a British game, it's always been tightly under the thumb of the British.  And that carries through even more so in the present modern period.

Mr. LaRouche mentioned Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who for years was the Saudi ambassador here in the United States; before that, he was the Saudi military attaché in Washington. And he was widely referred to as "Prince Bandar Bush", because of his close relationship with the Bush family — starting with father George HW Bush, and continuing even more so under George W Bush — was notoriously close. But above all else, Prince Bandar was a British agent. He was trained at British military schools; his official, authorized biography was written by one of his school chums from British military school. And in 1985, Bandar negotiated what came to be a critical feature of the Anglo-Saudi arrangement — the Al-Yamamah deal; this was ostensibly a barter arrangement in which the Saudis paid in oil for British military equipment — fighter planes, radar systems, training, supplies, all of that.

And in carefully investigating that program, what we discovered was that the amount of oil that the Saudis delivered to the British in payment for about $40 billion of military hardware, was orders of magnitude greater.  The oil for the Saudis was cheap; it was under $5 a barrel to pull it out of the ground and load it onto a supertanker. But once British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell took control over that oil, they sold it on the spot market at phenomenal mark-ups. From 1985 until the scandal first broke in 2007, more than $100 billion in excess funds were accrued after paying for the British military equipment and after generous bribes to many British and Saudi officials. Hundreds of billions of dollars were sequestered in offshore bank accounts; and those funds represented the biggest slush fund in the world for carrying out destabilizations of governments, terrorist activities, and assassinations. Prince Bandar, not being the brightest guy on the planet, openly boasted about this special relationship, and said that while Al-Yamamah was a traditional barter arrangement — oil for weapons — it was in fact something much more. It was a reflection of the marriage of the British and Saudi monarchies; and the fact that these monarchies could operate outside of any parliamentary or Congressional scrutiny; and could carry out black operations anywhere in the world that they chose to do it.

Now, officially, Prince Bandar received a $2 billion commission for arranging the Al-Yamamah deal; and those funds have been traced.  They went from accounts of the Bank of England, accounts from the British Ministry of Defense that oversaw the Al-Yamamah arrangement; and they went from there into the bank accounts in Riggs National Bank in Washington DC, the private accounts of Prince Bandar bin Sultan.  Among the documentation contained in the 28 pages that Presidents Bush and Obama have kept from the American people, is evidence, paper trails of funds that were sent directly from Bandar's and his wife's personal bank account into the hands of two Saudi intelligence agents who were the handlers of the original two 9/11 hijackers who arrived in the United States at the beginning of the year 2000.

So, the British hand in 9/11 is unmistakable. If those 28 pages were to be opened up, it would not only confirm that the British and the Saudi royal families were together engaged in setting up and financing the 9/11 attacks; but would open up an array of other questions about follow-on terrorist operations that have occurred on a global scale. All told, hundreds of billions of dollars laundered offshore —probably in places like Panama, as well as the Cayman Islands, the Isles of Jersey off the coast of England — have gone into countless operations like the 9/11 attacks themselves.

So, while many people are quite clear on why it is that President George W Bush would order the suppression of the 28 pages, because of his notorious close relationship with Prince Bandar and the Saudis; many people scratch their heads and say, "Well, why would President Obama — particularly after he promised the families that he would declassify the 28 pages; why would President Obama continue with the cover-up?" It's not for Obama a matter of the Saudis; for Obama it goes to the next higher level in this whole story, which is namely, the British. Obama, from the beginning of his political career, has been sponsored by the British. It's not surprising that this week President Obama made a trip to Saudi Arabia; he was there Wednesday and Thursday. He met with King Salman of Saudi Arabia; and on Thursday, he met with all of the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. From there, he has now flown on to London, where he will be holding a private audience with the Queen. Obama has been a slavish loyalist of the British Empire, of the British monarchy, since the moment he came into office as President. So, Obama's hand in the cover-up, the shameless continuing cover-up of what happened on 9/11, is all about protecting the British side of this story. Were those 28 pages to be opened up, the minute that one began looking at the role of Prince Bandar, it would become absolutely obvious that there is a major British side to this story.

Now of course, when you talk about the British monarchy, if you roll the clock back just a few years before the September 11, 2001 attacks; remember that there was an intensive investigation over a number of years into the fact that the British monarchy was unquestionably behind the murder of Princess Diana. It was a revenge killing because she represented forces that were completely disgusted with the way that the House of Windsor, Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, Prince Charles operated. So, you have a British monarchy that has blood on its hands going back a very long time; and most recently with the top-down ordered assassination of Princess Diana. It should come as no surprise that that same British apparatus is up to its eyeballs on global terrorism.

Now in point of fact, in late 2000, Executive Intelligence Review filed a formal request with the US State Department that they consider placing Great Britain on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. People may remember at that time, there was a wave of terrorism going on around the globe. In 1997, you had the Egyptian Islamic Jihad group carry out an attack against a group of Japanese tourists at Luxor; and the Egyptian government at that time, provided detailed evidence that the terror plot had been organized, financed, and controlled by Egyptian terrorist networks that were living in Britain under the protection of the British monarchy.

Several years later, the Russian government filed a series of formal diplomatic demarches because they had evidence that the British government was facilitating the recruitment of Chechen terrorists who would be allowed to travel to Afghanistan from Britain to be trained by al-Qaeda and then safely routed into Chechnya to become part of the separatist terrorist networks that were fighting against the Russian government. There was detailed evidence that was included in that EIR profile; and unfortunately needless to say, the State Department sat on it, did nothing; and so, we had 2001. And we had many subsequent terrorist events that followed from that.

So, the bottom line here, is that now that there is intensive momentum demanding the declassification of those 28 pages, what is really required is a complete, de novo, top-down investigation into the 9/11 actions; and into all of the subsequent terrorist actions that have followed and have been the work of the same Anglo-Saudi apparatus. Once those 28 pages are made public, once the American people — led by the families of those 2,997 people killed by 9/11 — have the chance to thoroughly read through and digest the content of those pages; then the whole can of worms, the whole British-Saudi empire structure has to be brought down. Has to be subject to the kind of rigorous criminal prosecution that is warranted; and that means as well, that both President Bush and President Obama have to be brought to criminal task for their role in both facilitating and covering this up.

As Mr. LaRouche said in his brief comments to colleagues yesterday, that you just saw in that 5-minute video, he was on the scene; he was giving a live interview to Utah radio broadcaster Jack Stockwell. He had the TV on in his study; and he saw in real-time, the planes crashing into the two World Trade Center towers. He was one of the few people — perhaps the only person outside of those who committed the crime — on Earth who understood the full strategic implications of it the moment that the attack occurred. LaRouche had warned at the beginning of 2001, once he saw the character of the Bush/Cheney administration, that this was the kind of regime that would look for the first opportunity to carry out a Reichstag fire in order to go for dictatorship. And he understood that it was the Anglo-Saudi apparatus that represented the capability for carrying out just such a heinous crime with those particular intentions. He made very clear in that real-time interview with Jack Stockwell, that the entire blame was going to immediately be placed on al-Qaeda; but he said to the extent that al-Qaeda had anything to do with it, it's a bit part. It's a minor element of something much bigger that goes much higher; and goes up to the British-Saudi apparatus that we've been discussing here.

So, members of Congress who have read those 28 pages — and by now, there's well over 100 members who have done that; they've all come away with the same conclusion. That these documents must be made public; and furthermore, that they completely alter how you understand the history of the last several decades. So, take that as just a glimmer of an indication of what the implications are. Regardless of what's contained in the 28 pages per se, it's the implications of the findings in those 28 pages; and the can of worms that's opened up that leads all the way up to the British monarchy.  And you realize that the fight to get these 28 pages released to the public is a fight for the very survival of mankind going forward from this day. The British Empire today is bankrupt; they're desperate. They're not just desperate to cover up the 28 pages and the whole 9/11 story and the Al-Yamamah story; they're desperate because they're on the edge of losing their power. And they will, if the opportunity presents itself, create the conditions using these kinds of capabilities, to start a world war. So, the stakes are enormous; and the answer is very straightforward. Release the 28 pages; and on the basis of that, re-open from the top down a complete and thorough investigation. Starting with the British and Saudi monarchies and working down from there. We owe it to the families that suffered through 9/11; we owe it to the American people; and we owe it to mankind.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. One thing I would just mention in relation with some of what Jeff just went through in detail, is that some of these connections are not unknown to people who are familiar with this investigation. In fact, Senator Bob Graham himself, while denied from including this in his nonfiction book, Intelligence Matters; in his fiction book — which he said himself he had to publish, because it was the only way he could get the truth in written form. In his fiction book, his novel Keys to the Kingdom, Senator Bob Graham includes a lot of references to exactly the kinds of things that Jeff just went through. The role of BAE; the Al-Yamamah deal; the offshore tax havens; the Cayman Islands; the fact that Tony Blair intervened to shut down the investigation into the connection between the British BAE Systems and the Saudis. So, in fact, these are the lines of inquiry that anybody who is serious — and the people who are familiar with this case — wish would be pursued; because they know exactly how big this can of worms really is.

Now, the 28 pages may not have been declassified yet; however, one very important document that was declassified recently — and has only now begun to receive media attention, starting with an exclusive report and analysis by Brian McGlinchey, who is the editor of the very important website 28pages.org. This is a document which was a 47-page draft document which was written by two researchers who were working on the 9/11 Commission; this was the independent blue-ribbon panel their own extensive report into 9/11. But these two researchers, who are named Dana Lesemann and Michael Jacobson, had both been formerly employed by the Congressional Joint Inquiry Committee. And in this 47-page document, they lay out what was going to be their own working plans for their follow-up research on the spcific lines of research which they had been engaged in during their role in the Congressional investigation. One of the items which they cite in this document — and Jeff will elaborate this more — is the fact that an alleged al-Qaeda operative, a person named Ghassan al-Sharbi who had trained for flight lessons in Arizona prior to 9/11, and who was captured in Pakistan subsequently; was discovered to have buried a cache of documents near to his person at the location where he was hiding, which included al-Sharbi's US pilot certificate which was inside of an envelope from the Saudi embassy in Washington DC.

Senator Bob Graham, who was not informed of this fact during the time that this investigation was going on, but later learned about it after this declassification; said in response, "That's very interesting.  That's a very intriguing and close connection to the Saudi embassy."  The second item which is of extraordinary interest in this 47-page research document, are the two questions which these two researchers intended to pursue.  The first question was:  How aggressively has the US government investigated possible ties between the Saudi government and/or royal family and the September 11 attacks?  And number two:  To what extent have the US government's efforts to investigate possible between the Saudi government and/or royal family and the September 11 attacks been affected by political, economic, or other considerations?

Now, what's very telling is that when Dana Lesemann attempted to go back and access the 28 pages which she herself was instrumental in researching and writing, first she was denied and blocked access to them; and then when she circumvented those denials, she was fired.  She was dismissed from the 9/11 Commission investigation.  So, I think that just demonstrates in a very illustrative way just one example of what Bob Graham described as the "aggressive deception" that has been undertaken in this case; that's what he said in the op-ed which I cited at the beginning of this broadcast tonight.  He said, "Your government has purposely used deceit to withhold the truth."  And that is not the only case.

One thing I would like to Jeff to just elaborate a little bit more on, is the entire story of the Sarasota cell, and the very significant work that investigative journalist Dan Christianson has done of theFlorida Bulldog, in tracking down 80,000 pages of FBI documents that linked Mohammed Atta and other members of the Sarasota cell to people connected with the Saudi royal family and the Saudi government. Documents which the FBI withheld from Bob Graham at the time of the Congressional investigation; did not tell him existed. They impeded that investigation and stonewalled on, until an FOIA lawsuit forced them to at least hand them over to a judge. And the review of those documents still has not been completed.

So, I would like to ask Jeff to come to the podium and elaborate a little bit more on the further implications of this "aggressive deception" — not just a cover-up — that has been committed by the US government in this regard.

STEINBERG: The 28 pages are a critical piece of this story, because that was the final product; it was the work product after a year of investigation by the Joint Congressional Inquiry. And that 28-page chapter that took up the question of foreign support and funding for the 9/11 hijackers, represented the most solid and corroborated evidence that the investigators were able to compile in the face of massive obstruction. It's not just simply that President Bush, when he reviewed the final 800-page report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry, simply ordered the suppression of the 28-page chapter. Every step along the way, during both the period of the investigation by the Joint Congressional Commission and the later 9/11 Commission, was impeded top down from the White House; and particularly from the highest levels of the FBI. This is not mere speculation. In the recent period — just over the course of the last year — many of the documents that were work-products of the Joint Committee and the 9/11 Commission which were classified, have now been reviewed and declassified.

For those of you who don't know some of the inner workings of Washington, there is a board which is located at the National Archive, called the Interagency Security Clearance Appeals Panel — referred to as ISCAP. And they are the final authority; they're kind of a Supreme Court with respect to questions about what documents should be declassified. And they've been in the process of reviewing and declassifying some of the important staff documents of the two investigative bodies. Last July, they declassified about 29 documents that were work-products from the 9/11 Commission; and one in particular written by Dana Lesemann and Jacobson, is very revealing. It was a work-product document; it was classified for the last decades as being "Secret", but what they laid out was their plans for pursuing the investigation over the period of the next several months. What's very clear is that they had many, many more leads on many more officials of the Saudi government — in southern California, in Washington, in Saudi Arabia — who were deeply implicated with the 9/11 hijackers. One section of Document 17, this 47-page paper that was declassified last July, is headlined "A Brief Overview of Possible Saudi Government Connections to the September 11 Attacks"; and it goes through the names of 18 Saudi officials who were in southern California, in Washington, and back in Saudi Arabia, who had direct contact and facilitated the efforts of the hijackers.

Now, the FBI was a continuous obstacle from the top down. During the "60 Minutes" broadcast several weeks ago, Commission Member John Lehman said that the order to block the publication of the 28 pages came directly from Robert Muller, who was the director of the FBI at the time. Now, it happens, and again it's repeated throughout this 47-page working document from the 9/11 Commission staff, that the two 9/11 hijackers, al-Hazmi and al-Midhar, who were living in the San Diego area; for the better part of a year were living in the home of a man who was an FBI informant, who was being paid $3000 a month by the FBI to keep tabs on possible radicals inside the Muslim community — particularly the Saudi-Muslim community in the southern California area. The staff from the 9/11 Commission and earlier the staff from the Joint Congressional Inquiry, repeatedly asked to interview the informant; they were blocked at every turn. The informant was put in the Federal Witness Protection Program under a change of identity; the FBI Special Agents who were the handlers of this informant, were also blocked from being interviewed by the Committee. So, in other words, one branch of the Executive Branch of the Federal government was working overtime to prevent the investigation from going forward.

Now, going all the way back to the days of J Edgar Hoover, it was notorious that the FBI was completely in bed with the British. During World War II, it was an open collaboration between the FBI and the British Special Operations Executive, with their headquarters at Rockefeller Center in New York City. But this relationship continued. Wall Street is an important intermediary between the FBI and the British. And so, the FBI role in the cover-up, both in San Diego and in other parts of the country, is absolutely stunning; and is something that in and of itself must be thoroughly investigated and exposed.

In the case of Sarasota, the FBI conducted an exhaustive investigation into a wealthy Saudi family that were intimately tied through business with the Saudi royals, who were in regular contact with Mohammed Atta and two other of the 9/11 hijackers. They lived in a gated community in the Sarasota, Florida area. Mohammed Atta and the others would frequently visit that home; and two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, that family on very short notice, picked up and left the country. First flew back to London; and from London back on to Saudi Arabia. The FBI compiled 86,000 pages of documentation following up those leads; because the connections between this leading Saudi family and the 9/11 hijackers was unmistakable. Those documents were withheld from the Joint Congressional Inquiry, despite the fact that the FBI was subpoenaed all over the country to turn over any records relevant to the investigation into 9/11.

So, you've got — as Senator Graham said — "willful deception" at the highest levels of government. Now, we know about San Diego; we know about Sarasota. We know also that Herndon and Falls Church, Virginia was another sort of center of activity of some of the hijackers and some of the leading Saudi clerics who were part of the overall structure of support for those 9/11 terrorists. Paterson, New Jersey was another center of this. Senator Graham has said at press conferences on Capitol Hill, that we've barely scratched the surface; because the government — to protect the British and protect the Saudis — have put up a wall of deception. They've blocked lines of inquiry; they've concealed documents; they've committed fraud and perjury. All because the power of the British and the power of the British/Saudi alliance is so dominant over politics in Washington that the FBI, in effect, is sworn to defend that relationship; even if it means that the American people are denied justice.

So, once again in conclusion, there is much more to this story than merely the events of September 11, 2001; as horrific and as dramatic as they were. The 9/11 Families deserve nothing less than the full and complete truth; no matter where it leads. But the problem runs much deeper. If we don't purge this Anglo-Saudi problem, if we don't get to some of the questions that were posed by the 9/11 Commission staffers; such as "Did the FBI intentionally withhold from the Joint Inquiry, information about the informant's relationship with the hijackers; and subsequently attempt to obstruct the Joint Inquiry's investigation of the matter? If the FBI did withhold information and obstruct the Joint Inquiry's investigation, were the FBI's actions indicative of a larger pattern of an FBI non-compliance with Congressional oversight; and what should be done about it?"

So, this is a can of worms that must be opened; and must be systematically investigated. Because our very future may depend on getting to the bottom of this.

OGDEN: And we are truly seeing a very momentous shift around this while Obama is in Riyadh and then flying directly to London. This has become the subject of almost all of the media coverage in the United States. And it's an extraordinary opportunity to pull this thread to unravel this empire. However, this is just yet one of many threads that can and must be pulled. There are other threads: What came out two years ago in the Senator Levin report on HSBC. This has a major aspect of it; and of course, this is becoming relevant again in the Panama Papers. And Helga LaRouche thought it was very significant that Jacques Attali, a prominent French economist, wrote an article this week saying, don't call them the Panama Papers; call them the London Papers. Because what this is really all about is the entire system of British offshore tax havens and Crown Protectorates that create the safe haven for this dark underworld of narco-terrorism, drug money laundering, and terrorism financing. And you can be guaranteed that if you follow the money, some of those threads lead directly back to these offshore tax havens.

So, as we're seeing right now, a lot of the work that has been done over years if not decades by the LaRouche Movement, by Executive Intelligence Review, by associates of Jeff Steinberg. And by Mr. LaRouche going back to his book, Dope, Inc. and also the very important film that he put out at the end of the 1990s, "Storm Over Asia", which described exactly how these irregular warfare operations are run to destabilize countries. And then the appearance he had on the Jack Stockwell show on the day that September 11 was occurring; that is featured in this "9/11 Ten Years Later" feature documentary that we showed little excerpts from, during the statement that you heard from Mr. LaRouche earlier this evening.

So, if you have a chance and you haven't watched it, or you haven't watched it lately; we would encourage you to go back and view that documentary. It's available on larouchepac.com/28pages; it's also available on our youTube channel. And I think you can be ready for much, much more that will be coming from LaRouche PAC TV on this subject and the broader implications of it. So, please stay tuned to larouchepac.com; please subscribe to our YouTube channel if you haven't already. Please explore all the content that we have published on this subject in the past; and please share it as widely as you can with your friends and your associates.

So, I'd like to thank Jeff Steinberg for joining us here this evening; and I would like to thank you for watching our broadcast. Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Thank you and good night.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Søndag aftens ’60 Minutter’ – eksposé af den saudiske rolle i de originale 11. september angreb og Bush- og Obama-administrationernes dække over de 28 sider, har forårsaget total panik i det Hvide Hus, i Riyadh og i London. Med krav fra både tidligere formand for Repræsentanternes Hus Nancy Pelosi og senator Kristen Gillebrand (D-NY) om, at Obama omgående af-klassificerer de 28 sider, har presset på Obama og det anglo-saudiske apparatur, som han og Bush har beskyttet i de sidste 15 år, nået en tærskel.
Obamas medskyld i at dække over det saudiske monarkis forbrydelser mere end overstiger målet for omgående rigsretssag og afsættelse. ’60 Minutter’–udsendelsen har været parat til at gå i luften i månedsvis, og det faktum, at showet blev sendt ti dage før Obamas planlagte besøg i Saudi Arabien for at mødes med GCC ledere, er en indikation af, at voksende magtfaktorer har erkendt, hvad Lyndon LaRouche erklærede så tidligt som i april 2009: At Obama er et redskab for det britiske monarki og deres saudiske slagtere, og at selve USA’s overlevelse er i fare for hver dag han forbliver i embedet.
’60 Minutter’-dokumentaren inddrog et antal veletablerede nationale sikkerheds-veteraner fra forhenværende flådesekretær John Lehman til tidligere CIA direktør Porter Goss og forhenværende senator Bob Graham, der alle forlangte en øjeblikkelig frigivelse af de 28 sider. Medlem af kongressens fælles undersøgelsesudvalg Tim Roemer pegede på tidligere FBI direktør Robert Mueller, som en af nøglefigurerne bag tilsløringen af den saudiske rolle.
’60 Minutter’-afsløringen gik I luften blot en uge efter frigivelsen af ’Panama-papirerne, ‘ der afslørede det virkeligt beskidte ømme punkt i det britiske imperium: ‘offshore’ penge-centrene, der hvidvasker narko- og andre former for sorte penge samt styrer skatteunddragelse og anden kriminalitet. Som Lyndon LaRouche har gjort det klart igennem årtier, er det britiske imperium et kriminelt oligarki opsat på befolkningsmord. Nu findes der 11 millioner sider med beviser imod det London-centrerede kriminelle og morderiske imperium.
Dette ‘et-to stød’ til hjertet af oligarkiet kommer endvidere på et tidspunkt, hvor briterne er desperate for at starte en verdenskrig imod Rusland og Kina, som en respons på det faktum, at deres system er håbløst og uigenkaldeligt bankerot. Obama er deres ynkelige instrument i denne stræben efter krig, og hans fjernelse fra embedet er på nuværende tidspunkt den eneste ægte løsningsmodel for at undgå krig.

Kampen om de 28 sider er nu nået til et punkt, hvor den kan bringe Obama og hele det rådne anglo-saudiske system til fald. Det er på tide!

Kampagnen for frigivelse af de 28 siger får nu også prominent dækning i Europa, som for eksempel på det velkendte franske sikkerhed- og forsvars website Dedefensa.org, der er baseret i Belgien. Dets omfattende dækning begynder med en rapport om ”60 minutter” exposéen: ”I søndags steg det politiske og folkelige pres for en af-klassificering af de famøse 28 sider fra den oprindelige amerikanske regeringsrapport om 11. september skarpt. Det skete med udsendelsen af et TV-program, for første gang med et stort nationalt publikum – ’60 Minutter’ med CS’s Steven Kroft som vært, et program, der helt og holdent var helliget spørgsmålet om 11. september. Det er en vigtig sejr for en offentligt lanceret bevægelse, udenfor politiske netværk……”

Link til udsendelsen på dansk TV:

https://www.dr.dk/tv/se/60-minutes/60-minutes-2016-04-06?app_mode=true&platform=ios&personalization=true&?queryhash=!%2F00%3A00%3A00

Link til “60 minutter” programmet på DR TV

D. 11. april, 2016 – En tværpolitisk række af ledende medlemmer fra de to større undersøgelser af angrebene d. 11. september optrådte i det amerikanske Tv-program ”60 minutter” søndag aften, og opfordrede til frigivelse af hemmelige dokumenter, der viser Saudi Arabiens medvirken i angrebene. Programmet blev udsendt umiddelbart før Barack Obamas sidste præsidentbesøg i Saudi Arabien i næste uge, og samtidig med en presseerklæring fra Kongressens demokratiske leder Nancy Pelosi med opfordring til frigivelse af de hemmelige ”28” sider af Kongressens undersøgelse af 11. september.

Dagsordenen for Obamas “kronings-“visit til hans krigsallierede er nu uden tvivl blevet ”vanskeliggjort.” Det saudiske wahabit-monarkis kongelige ambassade i Washington, der er svækket og ikke så affærdigende som ved tidligere eksponeringer af 11. september, tog øjeblikkeligt afstand fra udsendelsen, der blev betegnet som ”en sammenskrivning af myter og fejlagtige anklager, der allerede er blevet grundigt adresseret, ikke alene af den saudiske regering, men også af 11. september Kommissionen, og de amerikanske domstole.”

I årene siden Obama første gang lovede familierne til ofrene for 11. september at han ville af-klassificere de 28 sider, har han og saudierne gået hånd i hånd i så meget katastrofalt og folkemorderisk krigsførelse – og gør det stadig –, at en afsløring af saudisk ansvar for angrebene d. 11. september ville være en dynamit-anklage, der tillige ville ramme London. Segmentet i ”60 minutter” begyndte med præcist at fastslå, at der er ”dyb mistillid” mellem de krigsallierede, hvoraf en del er opstået på grund af den åbenlyse saudiske støtte til sunni-jihadistgrupper og terrorist-ideologier verden over.

Og til sidst må retfærdigheden dog ske fyldest for ofrene for 11. september. Medlem af Repræsentanternes Hus Nancy Peloci udtalte, at ”Som tidligere højtplaceret demokrat i Husets Efterretningskommité, der undersøgte angrebene d. 11. september, er jeg enig med tidligere senator Bob Graham i, at disse dokumenter skulle af-klassificeres og gøres offentlige.” Graham sagde på CBS-udsendelse, at flykaprerne nødvendigvis må have haft opbakning indenfor USA, og da han blev spurgt, ”Tror De, at der var støtte fra Saudi Arabien?” svarede han, ”i betydelig grad,” og indikerede, at han medregnede den saudiske regering. Medlemmerne af 11. september Kommissionen, pensioneret admiral John Lehman, forhenværende senator Bob Kerrey og U.S. repræsentant Tim Roemer bekræftede alle, at de fleste medlemmer af begge undersøgelser – inklusiv deres ledere – ønsker de 28 sider af-klassificeret af Obama. Og det gør familierne og EIR ikke mindre.

Mest bemærkelsesværdig var Kerrey’s bemærkning. Den saudiske regering har i 14 år påberåbt sig en enkelt sætning i 11. september Kommisionsrapporten om, ”at den ikke fandt bevis for, at ledende saudiske officials stod bag angrebene.” Til trods for den ekstreme og overlagte tvetydighed i ordet ”ledende”, har saudierne offentligt, og ved amerikanske domstole, hævdet, at Kommissionen fritog dem for skyld. Kerrey sagde ligeud til værten på ”60 minutter” Steve Kroft, ”Nej, vi fritog ikke saudierne for skyld”.

Link til “60 minutter” programmet på DR TV

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video:

Lyd:

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

EIR’s spørgsmål om Silkevejen kommer 25 min. 32 sec. inde i optagelsen; og financiering af terrorisme 50 min. 35 sec.

video playlist (i 3 del):

Hvis kansler Merkels og præsident Hollandes pludselige mission til Moskva, og deres fem timer lange møde med præsident Putin, er mislykkedes i denne weekend – hvilket ikke er sikkert, men et sandsynligt resultat – vil det være mislykket på randen af generel krig, var stort set, hvad Hollande bagefter sagde.

Disse europæiske ledere brød bestemt med Obama over oprustningen af Kievregimet for at bekrige Rusland. Men de forbliver fortsat fastlåst i de britiske bankierers katastrofale sammenbryg af euroen og eurozonen, med deres traktater om verdensfascisme og regler for økonomisk ødelæggelse. Og dette er det, der sluttelig var drivkraften bag konfrontationen med krig mod Rusland, og mod BRIKS.

Bed Rusland om at acceptere Hitlers egne nazister, der dominerer i Kiev, og 30.000 NATO-tropper opstillet langs Ruslands grænser i et halvt dusin lande? Som Lyndon LaRouche insisterede fredag for at tydeliggøre de virkelige omstændigheder,

»Fjern Nulands nazister! Ellers har I ikke en chance for at undgå krig.«

Helga Zepp-LaRouche kritiserede kraftigt Merkel i en strategisk vurdering den 6. februar: Samtidig med, at de køler Londons og Obamas krigspolitik af, kræver hun og finansminister Schäuble streng overholdelse fra Grækenlands side af euroens og ECB’s »principper og traktater«, som er det ødelæggende problem for hele Den europæiske Union, og sandsynligvis vil bryde den. Helga minder de europæiske læsere om, at hun i februar 2008 advarede om, at Lissabon-traktaten ville være en ny Versaillestraktat og, ligesom den første, ville indeholde kimene til krig og fascisme.

Euroen var Londons finansimperialisters fængsel for Europa – Margaret Thatchers og George H.W. Bush’ »Britisk vesteuropæiske Kompagni« – og det er London, der nu er ude på at bekrige BRIKS for disses frækhed med at vokse økonomisk og produktionsmæssigt. Londons marionet, Obama, har tydeligvis skubbet de europæiske »allierede« fra sig og skræmt dem på dette farlige tidspunkt, men de forbliver fortsat slaver af Londons økonomiske fængsel.

Den nye, græske regering vil imidlertid ikke gå med til at fortsætte deres nations selvdestruktion, og de har nu flertallet af grækernes udtrykkelige støtte, samt også støtte i den voksende bevægelse for anti-nedskæringspolitik i andre lande. Premierminister Tsipras vil formelt meddele sin politik i parlamentet i dag. Selvom det flyver med trusler fra EU, fortsætter Grækenland med at satse på genforhandling af gælden og investering i Grækenlands realøkonomi.

Vi har den løsning, der vil virke og kan lade sig gøre for, som LaRouche siger, at aflive den døde gæld og derivatboblen, knuse Wall Streets og Londons magt og erstatte det med nye, produktive kreditinstitutioner, der kan tilkobles de BRIKS-allierede landes institutioner.

Og vi har det unikt magtfulde våben imod terrorisme og krig, som vi har skabt, nemlig kampen om de »28 sider«, der afslører saudiernes og briternes »Londonistan«-ansvar for terrorismen. Der rapporteres og debatteres nu om denne kamp for af afklassificere disse dokumenter over hele verden, hele tiden. LaRouche understregede i fredags, at dette ikke er nok: Obama må bankes med dette for at fremtvinge den faktiske frigivelse af de hemmeligstemplede dokumenter. Han dækker over briternes og saudiernes krigs- og terrorforbrydelser, og han er medskyldig i dem. Han må besejres på dette grundlag og tvinges til at gå.

Læs også: EIR Efterretningsrapport: Den anglo-saudiske baggrund for den aktuelle, internationale terrorisme. Af Jeffrey Steinberg, 19. jan. 2015

Titelbillede: John Singer Sargents godt seks meter lange »Gassed« fra 1919. Det forestiller en deling soldater, døde eller blindede af kemisk krigsførelse. Til dato et af historiens fysisk største og mest trøstesløse malerier.

Billede i teksten: Pieter Brueghel den Ældre, 1568: Den blinde, der fører de blinde. Snart trimler de alle hjælpeløse ud over grøftekanten …