1

Leder, 23. december 2015:
Dump Wall Street til jul

Den hastighed, hvormed finanskrakket nu accelererer, kræver handling nu – før jul. Med mindre Wall Street dumpes i de nærmest forestående dage, er der ingen garanti for, at USA stadig står til Nytår. Junk-obligationer og kommercielle investeringsobligationer til 15 billioner dollars er blevet indløst blot i løbet af den seneste uge. For det meste dækker selskaber deres tab ind i forventning om en endnu større nedsmeltning på et tidspunkt i den allernærmeste fremtid.

Dette er dødsens alvorligt. En ukontrolleret nedsmeltning af det transatlantiske finanssystem, som kunne ske om timer eller dage, ville skabe den form for massekaos, der er den klassiske, britiske opskrift for den værste form for fascistiske diktatur, som altid, uundgåeligt, fører til generel krig. Fra og med den 1. januar træder i Europa de regler for bail-in i kraft, som blev presset igennem af EU-kommissionen. Banker i Italien og Portugal har allerede plyndret indehavere af aktier og obligationer i fallerede banker, og næste skridt er den fulde Cypern-model for plyndring af kontohavernes penge. Pariser-avisen Le Parisien gav i dag sine læsere en forsmag på bail-in under overskriften, »Hvad hvis din bank gik nedenom og hjem?«

Nærmere ved USA står Puerto Rico til at gå i betalingsstandsning den 1. januar over et forfaldent afdrag på 1,4 mia. dollar på en total gæld på 72 mia. dollar, og den amerikanske Kongres valgte bevidst at ignorere denne krise ved at nægte at vedtage en lov, der godkendte en beskyttelse mod bankerot, som tilbydes alle amerikanske stater og kommuner. Formand for Repræsentanternes Hus Paul Ryan og Nancy Pelosi har meddelt, at de »lover« at komme frem til denne lov pr. 31. marts, men det er en syg vittighed, for krisen for Puerto Rico og hele det transatlantiske område venter ikke til marts måned. Den kommer nu.

Lyndon LaRouche advarede i dag om, at, med mindre der før jul foreligger en komplet plan for den totale fjernelse af Wall Street og en lancering af et program for økonomisk genrejsning, med Franklin Roosevelts politik som model, så står det amerikanske folk over for den umiddelbare udsigt til et totalt, samfundsmæssigt sammenbrud. En strategisk plan fra øverst til nederst, der følger de retningslinjer, som Lyndon LaRouche har fastlagt i løbet af de seneste dage, må omgående være på plads.

Kongressen har demonstreret sin fejhed, senest ved at vedtage en katastrofal lov om bevillinger, der trodser virkeligheden omkring det umiddelbart forestående krak. Kongressen må trodses og latterliggøres for sin inkompetence. Enten lukker man Obama og Wall Street ned nu, eller også er der ingen chance. Politikken må være den at sænke Wall Street og sænke dem, som Obama og flertallet af Kongressen, der har fulgt Wall Streets linje.

LaRouche understregede også, at den saudiske sygdom med promovering af wahhabi-terrorisme må udslettes. Obamaregeringen har systematisk mørklagt de bjerge af beviser for, at saudierne står bag væksten af al-Qaeda, Islamisk Stat, Taliban og Boko Haram. Saudierne har, sammen med deres britiske sponsorer, udløst et narko-terrorist-jihadistisk angreb imod hver eneste større nation på planeten, og topembedsfolk i Obamaregeringen, fra Susan Rice til CIA-direktør John Brennan og dir. for den nationale Efterretningstjeneste, general James Clapper, har præsideret over en ondsindet mørklægning af disse forbrydelser og har udsøgt og forfulgt enhver ærlig efterretningsembedsmand, der sagde sandheden og trodsede Obamas ondsindede fantasier. De er fuldt ud medskyldige i opkomsten af ISIS og angrebene i Paris og San Bernardino og bør retsforfølges efter USA’s kriminal-lovgivning og international lov.

Beviserne for disse forbrydelser er ved at gennembryde den mur, der skulle inddæmme dem. Tiden er nu inde til, at de 28 (hemmeligstemplede) sider fra den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september 2001, fra 2002, frigives fuldt ud til offentligheden. Disse sider vil, ifølge amerikanske regeringsfolk (eks. kongresmedlemmer i særlige komiteer), som har læst dem, bevise, at al-Qaeda var de britiske og saudiske monarkiers skabelse, og at dette var kendt af top-regeringsfolk i den amerikanske regering, inklusive præsidenterne George W. Bush og Barack Obama, som er fuldt ud medskyldige.

Politikken må være den, fuldstændigt at ødelægge fjenden. Slå til på deres mest sårbare, dødelige flanker, med begyndelse i den kendsgerning, at Wall Street er død, er allerede død. Vi befinder os på randen af en stor dårskab, og vores nations og menneskehedens overlevelse står på spil i de umiddelbart forestående timer og dage.




Leder, 21. december 2015:
Fjern City of London, eller sammenbruddet vil være uden for kontrol

Under diskussioner med sine kolleger søndag aften opsummerede Lyndon LaRouche den globale, strategiske krise i præcise vendinger: Londons og Det britiske Imperiums magt må omgående elimineres, eller også vil hele det transatlantiske område, med start i USA, hastigt styrtdykke ud i et ukontrollerbart kaos. Forholdsregler til kontrol må indføres, og dette betyder, at Det britiske Imperiums magt, der kontrollerer Obama, må fjernes.

Problemet er, at ledende personer i regeringsinstitutionerne i Washington, med start i den amerikanske Kongres, der allerede burde være trådt i aktion imod Obama, ikke har handlet. Obama leder stadig sine tirsdagsmøder for (drone-)drab, på trods af den kendsgerning, at hans tilstand er under hastig degeneration, i accelererende tempo. Det britiske monarki er fortsat den institution, der regerer over det transatlantiske område.

LaRouche bemærkede, at Rusland er anderledes, og Kina er også anderledes. Det er nationer, der samarbejder, og ser hen til en udvidelse af deres samarbejde. Men der er alvorlige problemer, med at skaffe tilstrækkeligt med vand og mad til en begyndelse. Rusland og Kina er i dag de eneste, virkelige magter, der potentielt set handler imod Det britiske Imperiums stadigt eksisterende magt, og imod deres redskab, præsident Obama.

I realiteten, erklærede LaRouche, så har kræfterne bag 11. september (2001) magten over USA. Der har været et utilstrækkeligt angreb imod det anglo-saudiske apparat, der stod bag 11. september. Som følge heraf har de kræfter, der repræsenteres af Bush og Obama, fået fribillet til at handle. Hvis arven efter det britiske monarki og dets Bush- og Obama-operationer kan knuses, kan USA og store dele af den øvrige verden reddes.

LaRouche understregede, at centrum for kampen imod det britiske tyranni, der repræsenteres af Bush og Obama, skal findes på Manhattan og nærmeste omgivelser. Denne pointe blev tydelig i denne weekend gennem to koncerter, der blev afholdt af Schiller Instituttet, der præsenterede Händels Messias i Brooklyn og Manhattan. Alt i alt blev de to forestillinger besøgt af flere end 1.000 mennesker, med kun ståpladser til begge forestillinger. Den strøm af støtte til forestillingerne og til ideen om forbindelsen mellem klassisk kultur, videnskab og den politiske kamp for en genoplivning af Det amerikanske System, illustrerer den kendsgerning, at der i den amerikanske befolkning er en kerne, centreret omkring Manhattan og dele af det nordlige Californien især, der kan redde nationen. Disse områders førende borgeres særlige egenskaber kan spredes i hele landet, men kun med fokus på ånden og aktiveringen fra Manhattan.

Nedsmeltningen af hele systemet er i fuld gang. Det globale blodbad kan udelukkende standses af et gennembrud i USA, med start i fjernelsen af Wall Street og genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall. Dette må ske inden krakket finder sted, og det kunne ske, hvornår det skal være, fra nu af og fremefter. Dette er ikke et ’hype’ eller et slogan. Den 1. januar 2016 træder reglerne for bail-out i kraft i Europa. Samme dag vil Puerto Rico gå i betalingsstandsning med de første 1,4 mia. dollar i gæld til gribbefondene.

Enten får man Glass-Steagall vedtaget nu, eller også vil følgen blive kaos i hele det transatlantiske område, og under disse omstændigheder er det næsten sikkert, at kræfterne i Det britiske Imperium vil satse på krig med Rusland og Kina.

Concert Händels Messiah




Leder, 20. december 2015:
Lyndon LaRouche: Luk Wall Street nu,
ligesom Franklin Roosevelt gjorde

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Erstat britisk monetarisme med Franklin Roosevelts kreditsystem

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

LaRouches Fire Hovedlove

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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




Leder, 19. december 2015:
Lyndon LaRouche: En ny politik for USA, Nu!

Og det eneste, der er at gøre, er at gennemføre Franklin Roosevelts politik; man må sige: »Vedtag Franklin Roosevelts politik nu, imod Wall Street.« Det er den eneste måde, hvorpå problemet kan løses. I modsat fald står vi med noget, der vil accelerere, og der er intet, man kan gøre for at stoppe det. Det, man må gøre, er at fremstille den kendsgerning, at der ikke er nogen løsning, med mindre Wall Street omgående lukkes ned. Det er faktisk, hvad Franklin Roosevelt gjorde. Han lukkede Wall Street ned, hvilket gjorde en ende på den inflation, der var i gang på det tidspunkt, før valget. Og den eneste måde at gøre det på er ved at lukke det ned!

Med andre ord, så er det uden for diskussion, man må lukke det ned. Og man må ganske enkelt annullere alle såkaldte aktiver (’værdipapirer’), der ikke er skikket til denne rolle. Man siger simpelt hen: »I får ingen penge overhovedet. I får ingen som helst kompensation. I er ekskluderet; I eksisterer ikke mere.«

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Leder, 17. december 2015: USA:
Finanskrakket accelererer; Franklin Roosevelt
ville have lukket Wall Street, i en fart!

»Gode nyheder! Wall Street er færdig. Lad os nu genopbygge landet.«

Sådan lyder det fra LaRouchePAC-møder på Manhattan og i store byer over hele USA, med denne erklæring: »Finanskrakket er i gang: Kun en revolution i politikken kan afvende katastrofen«

Det såkaldte »junkgældskollaps« i det amerikanske finanssystem bringer budskabet om et generelt finanskrak, der kan komme over os ved månedens slutning.

EIR’s stiftende redaktør Lyndon LaRouche udstedte erklæringen om en national mobilisering, fordi han havde advaret om dette krak – der er meget mere end et »junkbondkollaps« – og krævede, at præsident Franklin Roosevelts politik omgående blev implementeret for at standse det.

Larouche sagde i går, at det eneste, der er sikkert omkring dette krak, er, at det »accelererer i en accelererende rate, og er ude af kontrol; den kontrolfaktor, der kan standse det, er at gennemføre præsident Franklin Roosevelts politik imod Wall Street og for national, økonomisk genrejsning«.

FDR indtog sit embede og standsede bogstavelig talt et krak, med en ’banklukkeferie’ og Glass/Steagall-loven for at lukke Wall Streets spekulation ned; dernæst udstedte han statslig kredit til produktiv beskæftigelse og fornyet produktivitet.

Som LaRouche understregede, så er dette krak allerede dødbringende. I Italien, hvor fire banker netop er gået bankerot, blev bankkundernes opsparing eksproprieret af storbankernes »bail-in«-politik, og mindst én bankkunde har begået selvmord. I Canada, hvor »energisektorens junkbond-krak« hidtil har været mere intensivt end i USA, er der massearbejdsløshed og selvmordsbølger blandt produktive arbejdere i Alberta og Sasketchawan på den anden side af grænsen – en advarsel til USA.

Wall Street, og City of Londons spekulative finansverden, må lukkes ned. Hvis vi giver dette krak lov til yderligere at accelerere, vil folk dø. Som LaRouche sagde, man må beskytte folk fra at dø – ikke flere selvmord!

Det eneste alternativ til accelererende kaos er atter at sætte FDR’s politik i arbejde. Begynd med Glass-Steagall, for at gøre en ende på Wall Street. LaRouche advarer: Dette skal gøres omgående!

At genindføre Glass-Steagall vil lukke Wall Streets spekulation ned på en reguleret måde, hvis det sker med det samme. Dernæst kan en Nationalbank, i traditionen efter Alexander Hamilton, tage sig af statslig kredit, likviditet, rentesatser, alle de økonomiske faktorer, som Federal Reserve har rodet grundigt rundt med. Politikken er produktiv kredit, beskæftigelse og produktivitet pr. person.

Men Obama? Han har fremkaldt dette kollaps ved at blokere for genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall og ved at gennemføre »britisk politik«: en politik for en anti-teknologisk, anti-industriel »klimaforandring«.

Som det så ofte blev sagt om Herbert Hoover, så er Obama et dumt sv… Han må fjernes fra embedet som en væsentlig del af løsningen på denne økonomiske og finansielle krise.

 




Leder, 16. december 2015:
Wall Streets kollaps er uafvendeligt –
Kun Franklin Roosevelts politik, med
Glass-Steagall og statslig kredit til
realøkonomisk investering, kan forhindre
et kollaps ned i Helvede

En fjerde New York-hedgefond lukkede i dag for udtræk, som følge af, at hele junk- og højrente-obligationsmarkedet er i færd med at nedsmelte. I takt med, at de raketstore spekulative lån i olie, gas og mineraler løber ind i kollapsende priser under en sløv økonomi, er flere »markedseksperter« (gribbeinvestorer) såsom Wilbur Ross og Carl Icahn kommet med erklæringer, hvor de siger, at de ser en trussel om, at kollapset i junkkredit kan sprede sig til det langt større kreditmarked for kreditvurderings-selskaber – hvilket muligvis kunne få hele det vestlige finanssystem til at krakke.

Under alle omstændigheder står systemet ikke til at redde. Lyndon LaRouche sagde i dag, at alle pengene på Wall Street er nominelle, spekulative værdipapirer, der ikke er en rød øre værd og må afskrives på samme måde, som Franklin Roosevelt gjorde det, da han tiltrådte sit embede i 1933.  FDR kunne dernæst sætte folk i arbejde og atter give en befolkning, der nær var blevet drevet ud i døden, sin værdighed tilbage. Men situationen i dag er langt værre. LaRouche påpegede de tusinder, måske millioner, af midaldrende, aktive mennesker, der er drevet ud af arbejdsstyrken, og som kommer ud i stofmisbrug, hvilket er, hvad der ligger bag den seneste tids voldsomme stigning i selvmord. Han påpegede den italienske borger, hvis livsopsparing blev stjålet under en bank »bail-in« (dvs. ekspropriering af kundernes indeståender) i sidste uge – »et signal om, at gribbene er gået for vidt».

Obama står i vejen for den eneste løsning på katastrofen, som er en gennemførelse af Glass-Steagall og en lukning af »for store til at lade gå ned«-bankerne og den efterfølgende opbygning af et nyt system. Det, der mangler, er lederskab – der kan fjerne Obama, gennemføre Glass-Steagall og skabe en genrejsning af USA’s og verdens økonomi gennem store infrastrukturprojekter sammen med BRIKS og Kinas programmer under den Nye Silkevej. »Det kræver ikke et stort antal mennesker«, sagde LaRouche i dag, »men et antal store mennesker«.

Hvis den rablende fascist Donald Trump og Obama-marionetten Hillary Clinton blev fjernet som kandidater, så kunne de anstændige kandidater og andre fra både det demokratiske og republikanske parti komme sammen for at udføre jobbet, nu, før finanssystemet imploderer, og før Obama kan begynde sin krig med Rusland og Kina.

I dag meddelte (udenrigsminister) John Kerry, efter et møde med Sergei Lavrov og Vladimir Putin i Moskva, at USA ikke længere stillede krav om, at Assad skulle afsættes, før en koalition imod terroristerne kan lanceres og en overgangsproces til en ny regering initieres i Syrien. Som Putin gentagne gange har sagt, så er det kun det syriske folk, der kan beslutte, hvem, der skal regere Syrien, på trods af Obamas kriminelle regimeskift-galskab. John Kerry har nu brudt med denne Obama-politik – men, så længe, Obama forbliver ved magten, så længe eskalerer faren for krig ganske enkelt, alt imens finanssystemets krak kommer stadig nærmere – måske i de næste par dage.




RADIO SCHILLER den 14. december 2015:
Vil finanssystemet overleve en mulig rentestigning

Med formand Tom Gillesberg




LaRouchePAC Fredags-webcast 11. december 2015:
LaRouche: Vi må gå tilbage til Franklin Roosevelts intention
med sin reform, ved at lukke Wall Street ned i USA, Europa
osv., og opbygge et nyt, økonomisk system.

LaRouche: Dvs., at der fra begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede og frem til i dag har været en fortsat degeneration mht. de økonomiske tendenser over længere tid i USA og Europa. Vi må derfor lukke alt dette ned, ikke alene Wall Street i USA, men i Canada, Storbritannien og mange dele af Europa: Luk det ned! Og gå tilbage til Franklin Roosevelts intention med sin reform, ved at lukke Wall Street ned og opbygge et nyt, økonomisk system.

Engelsk udskrift.

TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it’s December 11, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden and you’re watching our weekly Friday night broadcast here from larouchepac.com. Tonight I’m joined in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review and by Jason Ross from  the LaRouche PAC scientific team, and the three of us did have a chance to have a sit-down conversation with both Mr. and Mrs. Helga LaRouche earlier today.

Now, that discussion was largely a development on a very important policy statement that Mr. LaRouche made last night, and for those of you who had the opportunity to participate in the Fireside Chat discussion last night, you had a chance to hear Mr. LaRouche’s remarks live. But what I would like to do during this initial stage of the broadcast here tonight, is to go through in fairly substantial detail what Mr. LaRouche’s remarks were last night, as sort of a statement of policy right up front here, to begin tonight’s broadcast: In order to put these remarks on the record, and to underscore what Mr. LaRouche’s marching orders are for the present moment.

Now Mr. LaRouche said that we are clearly seeing a current tendency of a handful of decent senior people in both the Republican Party and in the Democratic Party, who are beginning to distinguish themselves as potential sources of qualified leadership, and these are persons who could, under the correct leadership, be brought together into a sort of unified organization to create a functional government in this nation. On the Republican side, you see the huge backlash against the outrageous and frankly fascist statements that were made earlier this week by Donald Trump, and as Mr. LaRouche said last night, disliking Trump is curiously a virtue among Republicans. And he emphasized that Trump is very dangerous, and absolutely must be dumped.

And then on the Democratic side, you have those who are now increasingly allying themselves openly against what both Obama and Hillary represent. So Mr. LaRouche said that if we can take these elements from both of the political parties, and, granted, these are persons who might not agree with each other on everything, but if we can find common ground when it comes to at least the core fundamental principles which are required to save this nation, and if we can unite those elements around these core fundamental principles, then we can create a team which will be qualified to confront the urgent crisis that is now facing the United States.

And let me just read a little bit of what Mr. LaRouche said in his own words, to underscore this:

“That is urgent.  That is not a choice, that is an urgent command.  Because we’re on the edge, of possibly going into a horrible situation.  It’s building up fast and we’ve got to take charge.  The people of the United States have to take charge on the basis, of the right people from the Democratic side and the right people, from the Republican side.  That is what we must stick to, right now.

Now this doesn’t mean,” Mr. LaRouche said, that you’re going to have a perfect organization. “It does mean that we can bring together these two major elements of our nation. But, that is still not good enough. On top of this, we’ve got to shut down Wall Street. We’ve got to shut it down right away. You can’t leave it. You’ve got to get rid of it. Get rid of Wall Street, period. Because everything you do to try to defend any part of Wall Street, means that you’re killing Americans. And I’m sure you don’t want to do that.

“Now, among Republicans and Democrats who are sane, and human, unlike the other type, the different type, this will work.”

Then, Mr. LaRouche continued: “What we have to do, is make a fundamental change, from everything that most people in this nation have learned.  That is, beginning with the 20th Century policy, and up to the present time, there has been a continuous degeneration, in terms of long-term trends of the United States and European economy.  Therefore, we must shut down everything that is like, not only the Wall Street system in the United States, but in Canada, in Britain, and in many parts of Europe: Shut it down!  And go back to what Franklin Roosevelt had intended, for his reform, by closing down Wall Street and building up a new system of economy.

“But no more of any of this thing.  No deals!  No deals for Donald Trump.  No deals for Hillary Clinton.  No deals for any people of those categories.”

We’re going to get two teams together, Mr. LaRouche said. The Democrats and Republicans and some other people who are fit to serve, and we’re going to get what Franklin Roosevelt aimed to do, when he did it in the 1930s.  That’s our policy.  There’s a certain element of shambles in this whole thing when we do it, I mean, decent Republicans and decent Democrats don’t always agree; they don’t even have the same agenda.  But we have to take that part of the policy, build the organization around that, get some degree of unity among those two elements I’ve indicated, and do the best we can to build up from there.

Now later in the discussion on the Fireside chat last night, Mr. LaRouche responded to a question and he emphasized that what he laid out in the initial phase of that discussion, is something that absolutely can be done. He said, because there are people in our nation who are senior, and very important people in terms of their political and economic functions in the United States — and Mr. LaRouche mentioned that he’s in both direct and indirect dialogue with persons of that caliber. And Mr. LaRouche said that what he’s observed over the recent period, is that there’s been a phenomenon of a sort of division among this group of people, because they haven’t been able to figure out the formula for unity, unity among those people who are prepared to make a reasonable agreement in order to save the United States as a viable organization, but he said that what his obligation is, is to concentrate on what that element, what that recipe for unity is.

And this is how he said it has to be done:

“Once we decide, that a significant number, among the Republican members of the organization, and the Democratic Party part, minus Wall Street and minus what Hillary’s trying to do, and under those conditions, you will find that we have a possibility of a very sudden turnabout, where doubtful people are no longer going to be doubtful.  Because if we can bring together that kind of unity, around those kinds of considerations, we are able to pull the United States population together around this issue.

“A lot of people will still disagree, but we have a hard core, of both Republicans and Democrats and the thinking that goes with that, and that is the best thing we can possibly do at this time.  It’s from that point of view, if we start that, then a lot of other development can be obtained.”

So, at the conclusion of last night’s discussion, what Mr. LaRouche said was the following:

“The time has come, to take Democrats and Republicans who fit the sanity test, and get them into motion. Because if we can get an agreement within a significant part of the totality of our own Presidency, and spill that same spirit, into other countries which we deal with, I think we can make a good headway quickly, and it’s one which is very much needed….

“Therefore, instead of worrying about blaming people who are making mistakes — without question, making terrible mistakes — you’ve got to take the people, who as a group, will build a force which will spread its influence throughout other parts of the United States.

“Because if you just sit and say, ‘We’ve got a terrible situation out there, it ain’t going to work.  It’s not working.’ You’re just asking for the worst kind of effect.  You have to get in there, form organization, focus on your issues,  and get people together on those issues.  Without that,  everything you will say will become a waste of time!  And we don’t want that.

“We want our citizens, to recognize that what I’m talking about, as some Republicans, a significant number of Republicans, and that’s a late reform; and some other members of the House, are thinking a little more seriously now.

“What you’ve got to do is focus on encouraging, those forces, to become unified forces, with a unified conception of what has to be done!  Without that we’re dead.  So just complaining and denouncing people will not work.  It just makes things worse.  You’ve got to get people on the issues that mean something to them!  Real issues!

“I need to get Republicans, who are decent, but who are not necessarily very accurate right now; we’ve got to bring them into the fold.  We’ve got to do the same thing in other parts of the nation.  We’ve got to bring the people together.  We’re not going to get them all there at once, in one big swoop.  But we can organize very rapidly; there are intelligent people, members of the Congress many of them; members of the House of Representatives; other kinds of people like that; and we have a force.

“Our job now is to bring those willing people, who are willing to do that, and bring them together and enlarge the growth of their movement.”

So, that was Mr. LaRouche’s very clear statement of policy last night, and I wanted to go through it in detail, because it’s very important that it go on record, and that it be underscored in terms of what Mr. LaRouche’s outlook is at the current time.

Now, earlier today, as I mentioned, when we had a chance to meet with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, the discussion developed from there, based off of what Mr. LaRouche had to say last night. And the discussion developed in the context of the following question which I’m about to read, and which I’m going to ask Jeff to elaborate a little bit of what Mr. LaRouche’s answer was. This our institutional question for the week, and it reads as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche, the European Union’s Executive on Thursday stepped up pressure on the Bloc’s governments to enforce migration rules, launching a legal case against Hungary’s stringent asylum law, and advancing steps against Italy, Greece, and others for failing to implement EU legislation. In your view, how should the European Union manage the refugee crisis, emanating from multiple conflicts in countries such as Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan?”

So, I’ll ask Jeff to come to the podium at this point.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. The response by Mr. LaRouche was very immediate, very rapid, and very clear. He said, the problem emanates from the European Union itself, and the only viable solution for Europe is to break up the European Union itself. It’s become a factor chaos in all of Europe, and the basic policies of the European Union are creating the conditions for effectively the sealing-off of the borders of the entire European territory from desperate people, fleeing the wars in places like Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, which have been creations of the policies coming from the United States and from Europe over the course of the last 15 years — really, the problems go back even earlier. In effect, the Afghan operation began in 1979, when Jimmy Carter was still President of the United States, and Zbigniew Brzezinski was the National Security Adviser, taking his cue from a high-level British intelligence figure named Dr. Bernard Lewis.

That was the beginning of the promotion of the terrorist apparatus, that at the time was known as the Afghan mujahideen. They were called freedom fighters. A number of years later, they were known as al-Qaeda, and more recently, they’ve morphed into other even more virulent forms, such as the Islamic State.

So, the policies that have come out of the trans-Atlantic region, including policies emanating from the European Union, have been catastrophic, and they’ve brought the entire trans-Atlantic system to a point of absolute breakdown.

Now, at the same time that we’ve seen this policy of building a wall around the European region, and of creating the conditions for widespread deaths of desperate refugees trying to get into Europe, to escape the ravages of the war in Libya, for example, which came about because Britain, France, and the United States, Cameron, Sarkozy, and Obama — with a very strong endorsement from Hillary Clinton, unfortunately — overthrew and assassinated Libyan leader Qaddafi, and opened the floodgates for a jihadist stronghold on the Mediterranean shores of the Maghreb region of Africa.

Weapons flowed out of that area, into Syria, fueling the rise of the Islamic State. So Europe, particularly Britain and France, with the full complicity of the Obama Administration in the United States, created that refugee crisis in Northern Africa. Similarly, the United States and Britain created the catastrophes in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and it’s been the regime change policy of Washington and London to overthrow the Assad government in Syria, that’s led to the rise of the Islamic State, and created yet another major refugee flow into Europe.

So the European Union’s policy of shutting out those desperate people, is basically a condemnation of those people to mass death.

Now, internally within Europe itself, over the past week, we’ve seen four major banks in Italy go bankrupt, and under the policies adopted by the European Union and the European Central Bank, those banks have looted their depositors’ funding in a massive bail-in operation, which has meant the impoverishment of scores of citizens, hundreds, thousands of citizens of Italy, who thought their money was protected under the guideline rules of the European Union, only to find that the Cyprus model of bail-in has looted their accounts. There’s now an ongoing criminal investigation in Italy, because one of the depositors who had his entire life savings looted, committed suicide, and there’s an appropriate investigation now underway, as to the fact that the policies of the European Union, the European Commission, and the ECB, acted upon by the leading management of those banks, was a direct cause for a death.

So, you’re talking about a capital offense having been carried out.

This is the legacy of the European Union. And what Mr. LaRouche said, is that the theft of funds in Italy, along with the sealing-off of the European borders, is a worse form of fascism than we’ve seen since the end of World War II. And the same exact trend is in existence in the United States, under the top-down direction of Wall Street. He said, when you take people’s lives away, this is an act of mass murder, and this is an act of a policy of outright fascism. Wall Street, London fascism.

We’ve seen similar things going on in Greece. And therefore, the starting point for any kind of solution, for Europe in particular, is that you’ve got to destroy the European Union. Whatever benefit some people may have argued in the past, may have been associated with the EU, are now vastly overshadowed by the damage and negative factors. Bail-in as a policy is unforgivable. We already have bail-in in Europe. We already have bail-in in the United States — it’s yet to be acted upon, but it’s there, imbedded in Dodd-Frank, in Article 2 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Anyone involved in these policies deserves to be immediately pushed into jail, immediately. These are mass kill policies. These same mass kill policies are playing out in Paris at the COP-21 forum, and an outright mass genocidalist, Hans Joachim Schellnhüber, one of the leading advisors to the Pope on this issue of global warming, is calling for the Pope to step in and make a “religious intervention” to salvage the COP-21 conference, because leading nations in the developing sector are saying, “This is flat out a policy of genocide; we will not go along with it.” Malaysia, India, in particular, have taken the lead on this issue.

Now, the policies that we’re discussing, in the case of the European Union, are being carried out with the same ferocity here in the United States. And what we’re seeing, in terms of the reaction against the [Dec. 2 mass killing] incident that took place in San Bernardino, California, the overall blanket condemnation of Islam, the stoking up of this hatred ,on the part of Donald Trump, among others, is a further indication of the degeneration of the entire political situation.

Now, as Matt said earlier, quoting Mr. LaRouche from his Fireside Chat on Thursday night, there are clearly people of good will in both political parties, who’ve got to, basically, forge a non-partisan political alliance. We’ve got to clean out the garbage, and we’ve got to create the condition where the Presidential election in 2016 represents a return to core principles upon which this nation was founded. Many people are familiar with the first President of the United States, George Washington’s Farewell Address, from the standpoint of his warnings against foreign entanglements. But, in that same Farewell Address, George Washington warned against the tyranny of political parties, the tyranny of factionalism and sectionalism, and those warnings ring more true today, than perhaps at any point in recent memory.

Now, you’ve got some serious members of Congress, both the House and the Senate, and it’s not surprising that the areas where there is already common collaboration, are areas that are the most relevant to the issues that Mr. LaRouche put on the table, namely, wiping out Wall Street, and wiping out the power of the British Empire system, which still dominates the trans-Atlantic region. You’ve got a large and growing numbers of members of both the House and the Senate, who are supporting the idea of the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, which would be an efficient means of bankrupting Wall Street, in one fell swoop.

Many of those same members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, are also demanding the release of the 28 pages from the original 2002 Joint Congressional Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks, the September 11, 2011 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Remember, that those 28 pages catalog the role of the Saudi royal family, the role of Saudi intelligence, the role of the Saudi Ambassador at that time to the United States, Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, in financing the hijackers who carried out the greatest terrorist atrocity on U.S. soil in recorded history.

So, there are movements that strike at the heart of the problems that are facing this nation and are facing the world — that combination of people, many of them in Congress, others in the military and intelligence domain, former leading military figures, like [ret. Lieut.-]Gen. Michael Flynn, who we’ve talked about repeatedly in recent weeks on this broadcast. Michael Flynn was in Moscow this week, speaking at the 10th Anniversary Conference of RT, along with a number of other prominent American critics of the Anglo-American policy.

And Gen. Flynn correctly emphasized that to destroy ISIS, to defeat the Islamic State decisively, there must be cooperation between the United States and Russia. Others, leading retired military and intelligence figures, have come out publicly and said there must be a joint, unified, military command, conducted by the United States and Russia. Russia is an invited power that’s been asked in to Syria to help the Syrian government to fight the Islamic State. The United States has been, similarly, invited into Iraq, to do the same thing, until our invitation runs out. If there were a joint effort, the United States launching a pincer attack from the Iraq side, Russia launching a pincer attack with Syrian military forces from the Syrian side, you could crush the Islamic State. You could decisively defeat it.

So, there are people who are thinking strategically. We’ve got to take all of those elements, and create the kind of team that can coalesce around a viable American Presidency. And that both can and must happen, in the immediate period ahead. Trump, Hillary Clinton — these are not viable figures. They’ve demonstrated that repeatedly in the recent period. President Obama is not a viable figure. I had meetings, just in the past week, where a number of leading figures were expressing grave concern that the United States will not survive, if Obama remains in office for the next 13 months. There are people now who are openly discussing the idea of invoking the 25th Amendment. We talked about this last week.

Many people were shocked to see President Obama’s psychological meltdown on three recent occasions: first, you had the joint press conference with French President [François] Holland, following the Paris attacks of November 13th, where Holland was clearly in a frame of mind of marshalling for war, and President Obama was disassociated, disconnected, and thoroughly emotionally blocked, on the greatest challenge facing the trans-Atlantic region, in memory. Then in Paris, at the CO-P21 conference, where the [series of coordinated terrorist attacks] that took place on Nov. 13th in Paris, were trumping the issues that were nominally on the table, around “global warming.” Obama’s [Nov. 16th] press conference in Paris was shocking, in terms of the level of disassociation from reality. And so people became openly alarmed. And then, again, last Sunday evening, when the President dragged a podium and a teleprompter into the Oval Office, to deliver what was supposed to be a rallying cry for a war against the Islamic State, after the attacks in San Bernardino. And, once again, it was a disconnected, disassociated, policy statement that had nothing in it of any content.

People are talking about the need for the 25th Amendment. It’s been out in the media. Behind the scenes in Congress, it’s being discussed intensively, to the point that President Obama dispatched [Senior Advisor to the President] Valerie Jarret to Capitol Hill this week, to basically tell Democrats that the Republicans are getting ready for impeachment, and that the Democrats better be prepared to rally behind Obama. This is absolute nonsense, but indicates a further level of paranoia, emanating from the inner circle at the White House.

So, this Presidency has to be ended, using Constitutional means. And, frankly, at this point, the 25th Amendment is far more viable as a means to do it. Either members of Cabinet, or leaders of the Congress, can take action to convene a review, and immediately suspend the Obama Presidency, and move on from there. This is both necessary and vital for avoiding the kind of war danger which continues to emanate from this White House; even as military figures like General Flynn, like former Defense Secretary Bill Perry, echo warnings that we are closer to a thermonuclear war of annihilation than we were even at the height of the Cold War.

So these are real issues.  You can’t tolerate the continuation of this existing system; whether it’s in the European Union case or it’s in the case of the Obama Presidency. We need the kind of change that is only going to come about from this sort of rallying of a nonpartisan grouping of leading figures who don’t think of themselves any longer as Democrats or Republicans; but as responsible leaders of a republic facing its gravest crisis in recent history.  If we can do that, if we can marshal those forces, with the proper mobilization of you, the citizens of this country, we can get through this crisis and turn things around.  But anything short of that, leaves us dangerously on the edge of destruction.

OGDEN:  Thank you Jeff.  What I read from Mr. LaRouche earlier was sort of a thesis along which lines we were going to follow through on the course of the remainder of this broadcast. And I want to call your attention to one short part of those remarks that I did read, but I want to underscore as sort of an introduction to the next segment of what you’re about to see. One thing that Mr. LaRouche said last night is the following: “What we have to do is make a fundamental change from everything that most people in this nation have learned.  That is, beginning with the 20th Century policy and up to the present time, there has been a continuous degeneration in terms of long-term trends of economy and culture.”

Now, last week, at the concluding of the webcast, as an introduction to Benjamin Deniston’s segment, I referenced another very important statement that Mr. LaRouche delivered at the conclusion of his previous Fireside Chat; the one of last Thursday, on the topic of how history actually works in terms of mankind’s obligation to willfully generate his own future.  In order to set up what Jason Ross is going to present to us in the remainder of this broadcast tonight, I would actually like to read that statement in full; what Mr. LaRouche had to say on this subject last week.  What Mr. LaRouche said was the following:

“There is no such thing as an evolutionary process of development of human culture.  There are effects which occur at certain times, but then suddenly, the whole culture collapses; vanishes.  Then, somebody else arrives and stimulates something new, and gives mankind another chance at progress.  And our job is to understand this question of progress; and progress is not an evolutionary process.  It’s always a revolutionary process; it is never evolutionary.  And everybody who is sitting around waiting for a revolutionary process is just kidding themselves. A revolution of that type has to be an act of genius, which comes as if from nowhere; but that’s the way mankind succeeds.  And I’m looking for people who will do that kind of work, and become the geniuses who cause the future to be reborn again.”

So, let me ask Jason to speak on that subject.

JASON ROSS:  All right; thanks.  One key figure who LaRouche has pointed to for understanding this notion of breaks, of jumps, of revolutions in human self-conception and in the history of our species, is Filippo Brunelleschi.  Who, along with Cusa and Kepler, was one of the three real founders of modern science. I’m going to read another quote from LaRouche; this is from the show this Monday.  LaRouche had said, “Most of human history is breaks; breaks in human history, and evil periods and broken periods came into existence in the history.  And so then, what Brunelleschi did was, he brought in a concept of science which is unique in terms of what is known today.  Most people who were educated in this have no comprehension whatsoever of what Brunelleschi did.  It’s all available there for people if they were to study it enough; and it was brilliant, it was absolutely unique.  And so, I would say, the problem is that in our location itself, and in other locations, the lack of understanding of the work of Brunelleschi is the reason for the source of stupidity shown by even many of our own members on this.  And therefore, it’s extremely important that we realize that we are facing a great challenge threatening us.  And the Obama administration is an example of the great danger to the existence of the human species.  And this kind of thing, which is expressed by the work of Brunelleschi, is actually the solution; the key to the solution to understand actually how things were intended to work.”  What I’d like to do tonight is help give some background to the point that Mr. LaRouche is making by going through some of what Brunelleschi did in his life, and then come to some conclusions from that about intent and about shaping history today.

So, Brunelleschi himself — he lived from 1377 to 1446 — what he’s most known for is the construction of this magnificent dome [Fig. 1].  What you see here is the dome of the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiori in Florence.  You can just see from this picture, this is far larger; it dominates the entire city.  It’s an incredible accomplishment.  And you might be able to make out, standing on top of the red dome at the base of the white lantern as it’s called which tops it, there are people there, standing at a railing which may not even be visible as more than a pixel to you.  It gives some sense of how tall this structure is.  At the top of that gold ball on the top, which Da Vinci helped create, it rises higher than the US Capitol.  This is an enormous building; and it was built over the period of the 1300s and 1400s.

So, to give a little bit of background about the other things that Brunelleschi did as a very frankly, universal genius, I want to step through some other things in his life.  These aren’t in chronological order, but I want to give a sense of what he did, to then come back to the dome.  Among his accomplishments was the purported first construction of a spring-based watch, so you could actually have a clock that was based on springs, as opposed to weights, as they were made at the time.  I’m not really entirely certain that that was done.  He did work on perspective; he had created a sort of a “trick” painting that incorporated a mirror; so that if you stood in the right place, you would have an effect where the mirror would become part of the painting.  To show his work in sculpting — if we see the next image — he was officially apprenticed as a goldsmith, which is the same occupation that Donatello, his friend the great sculptor, took up.  Verrocchio, who was Da Vinci’s mentor, Da Vinci himself; these were goldsmiths.  Here you see one of his first projects, which was on the right [Fig. 2] a panel he submitted for a competition to design a set of doors for the Baptistry in Florence there.  He didn’t win; this was one of his first tries at getting a commission, but this is from him early in life.  You get a sense of what kind of skill he had.

The next image [Fig. 3], we see a painting in Santa Maria Novella in Florence by a colleague of Brunelleschi’s; this is by Masaccio, and it’s painting of the Trinity.  You may not notice, but there’s a dove there as the Holy Spirit in between the Father in the back and Christ in the front.  This is the first painting that really used perspective, so that on the flat wall of the church, you had a space that was created there; where the boundary, the type of the medium was broken.  And something flat turned into something solid.  Leon Battista Alberti, later the writer of a very famous book on painting, credited Brunelleschi with the invention of perspective.  And this is the work of one of his colleagues.

We see in the next image [Fig. 4], on the left we see an image of a crucifix, Christ on the cross that was made by Donatello.  Brunelleschi saw it, and he said that he didn’t really think Donatello had done a good enough job; he thought that Christ looked a little too “meaty” — that wasn’t the word he used.  But Donatello said all right; well, you take a shot at it, knowing that this wasn’t exactly Brunelleschi’s foremost skill as a sculptor.  But Brunelleschi created the image you see on the right [Fig. 5], and in Donatello’s eyes, it was superior.

The next image, we see a building that he had designed [Fig. 6]; this is a very nice looking building.  It’s got what’s called a loggia on the front; a sort of porch, the sort of thing you would see on the front of the house of a wealthy Roman from the height of the Roman Empire, or in Venice.  This is a building for orphans, this is the Ospedale degli Innocenti; and da Vinci brought that humanist approach to the beauty of the individual in constructing this building for orphans, where a decision could have been made to do this on the cheap.  Let’s throw up something that looks like it might have come out of East Germany in more recent times; but no, this is what he created.

The next image [Fig. 7], we see the interior of a church, Santo Spirito, which was designed by Brunelleschi; and although it’s difficult to get a sense of space when you see still images, these are buildings which give you a sense of goodness and beauty walking through them.  They’re beautiful buildings.  One more beautiful building we see here in the next image [Fig. 8], is the exterior — unfortunately this is the outside of the Pazzi Chapel that LaRouche has made frequent reference to.  Inside the chapel, which was designed by Brunelleschi, there is a really astonishing quality of sound; reverberation, echo, but not simply echo.  As LaRouche has put it, if you sing to it, it sings back to you. And I’d like to read some words from the Italian soprano Antonella Banaudi, who spoke about this chapel in a conference of the Schiller Institute in Berlin in 2012.  Banaudi said, “I recently went to the Pazzi Chapel in Florence; the Florence of Brunelleschi and Ficino.  In its naked proportion and simplicity, in the balance of light and colors, it gave a beautiful resonance to the sound of my voice.  A demonstration that it is the proportion, the idea translated into construction, that resonates inside of us.  The emotion I felt in hearing a response from the stone that almost supported me in singing; as if the stone were alive and expressing itself through cosmic vibration, made me feel part of a whole that unites stone and man in a harmony that is the reason for the existence for everything.  It is the same harmony that we seek and experience when singing together, playing together, participating in a sort of rite or celebration that is beyond religion and is profoundly moral and human.” Pretty good endorsement for a singing space.

So now, let’s come back to the dome; I’d like to talk about its background and creation.  The first stone was laid for its construction back in 1296, and construction was continuing through the 1300s; at a time when  Florence saw a great period of growth.  In 1367, there was a referendum on how to build the cathedral.  I know I’ve got local things that come up on the ballot, like school bonds, or things like that.  Imagine having this to vote on.  There was a referendum for two designs for the cathedral, which at that time was certainly nowhere near complete.  And the referendum was to vote between the structure you see here, which is obviously the one that won the referendum. The alternative approach was one that had a different idea of building.  You see on the cathedral here, the windows are very small; this is not a bright cathedral on the inside.  It’s very spacious, it’s enormous; but there’s not a lot of natural light coming in through those huge stained glass windows that you might associate with the beginning of the cathedral movement in Europe. Those cathedrals with the huge windows, given that they had a lot of glass and not a lot of stone to hold the building up, had those arches on the outside — the flying buttresses to hold it in.  But the vote on this referendum, which Brunelleschi’s father voted in, and he voted for this design which eventually won; was to forego the windows for a more beautiful design of the building as a whole.  And it laid out some requirements for the dome.

At the time, no one knew how to build the dome, but its general height was proposed; the height of that ring above the height of the rest of the cathedral to the dome was set.  So, this occurred in 1367.  To give a couple of numbers, the cathedral is 140 feet tall; the timbre, that extra ring before the dome starts, is another 30 feet tall; and then the dome itself goes to 300 feet with another 70 or so for the lantern and the ball and cross on top of it.

Brunelleschi was born ten years after this referendum in 1377.  He lived a few blocks from the cathedral; he would have — you couldn’t have missed this obviously, if you lived in Florence anywhere.  But living only a few blocks from it, he saw this every day; he saw the construction taking place.  This is the kind of thing that would cause a  young person to have an incredible sense of wonder.  So, as he became a more accomplished sculptor, artist, architect, goldsmith, he entered later in his life, in 1418, another competition.  And this was the competition to become the contractor, so to speak, to build the dome.

Now, there’s a lot of difficulty in terms of how you would build the dome; and it raised a very important question of construction.  So in the next image [Fig. 9], you see a typical sort of Roman dome; you can barely even see that there’s anything going on there.  This is the Pantheon; and you can see there’s a bit of a pimple or something sticking out of the top of it.  That dome is about as wide as the one in Florence, but you can barely see it; it’s in the shape of a sphere.  It’s 23 feet thick at the base, where the dome starts to come out of the rest of the building; that’s how thick they had to make it to hold itself up, and the way it was built — Let’s see the next image [Fig. 10] for a similar example of construction.  If you thing about the images — maybe you’ve seen Roman aqueducts with the semi-circular arches along the way — the way that they’re built, this is the Pont du Gare in today’s France.  The way that these arches were built was that you built a scaffolding underneath while you built the circular arch; and once the whole arch was done, and you put the keystone on top, then it would support itself.  The two parts that are trying to lean inward on the two sides could lean against each other and hold themselves up.  So, here you can see this type of construction being applied to an arch today in the next image [Fig. 11].  This is in Morocco.  You can see there’s scaffolding.

Now, the dome is very large.  It would have been impossible to build scaffolding under the dome.  It began at the height of 170 feet; there are no trees that tall.  This is beyond the height of trees.  So, if you’re trying to put up a bunch of posts to go underneath this thing to hold up the dome as you’re building it, you’re not going to get enough wood.  It would have taken 1000 trees anyway, even if you could have big enough ones; it was basically impossible.  So, what Brunelleschi had done in this competition is, he said it’s not an issue.  I’ll build this dome without scaffolding.  I’ll build this dome without centering, he said.

So, people asked him, “How are you going to do this?”  He actually responded with a joke.  I don’t know if it’s a true story about him, but a story about an egg, where he said, here’s the challenge; how do you make an egg stand up on its base.  And Brunelleschi took the cooked egg and just cracked it down, flattening the bottom, and said, “There you go; see?  The egg stands up just fine.”  And they said, “Well, if we knew that, we could have put the egg up.”  And he said, “Exactly.  I know how to build this dome, and you don’t.  So, you’re not going to understand it, but I can do it.  I’m your man.”

In the construction, he developed a  number of new techniques.  So, I’m going to talk about the overall shape of the dome; and Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized the importance of the catenary principle in this.  The catenary is just a word that means chain; it just means chain-ish.  So, the catenary, the shape of a hanging chain, it’s a shape that’s not coming from geometry, it’s not in Euclid; you can’t make it with a compass and a straight edge, the kinds of things you do in geometry class.  It’s a physical shape that’s made by a physical thing — a chain; it’s something real and physical.  It has a different kind of curvature in every spot of it; and LaRouche sees in Brunelleschi’s use of this principle in the construction of the dome, that Brunelleschi rejected the idea of linearity in the small.  That in the infinitesimal, there’s always an activeness to it; it’s not flat, it’s not linear.

In building this dome, let’s take a look at some of the technologies Brunelleschi developed.  In addition to being a sculptor and a goldsmith, he was also a very good contractor. The next image [Fig. 12], you see a crane that he had developed. If you’re lifting a bunch of material up to the top of this dome, you don’t want to be carrying it up all those steps.  If you imagine you’re carrying every brick up these steps, that would be a very grueling and tiring way to build this.  So what he did was, he repurposed, he developed a new way to use a winch system to lift material.  Before him, they used cables to lift things up, but they would use people, because people could turn around more easily than animals.  So before Brunelleschi, they used basically a giant hamster wheel with people in it, a treadmill. And people would run in it, and that would twist the cranks and lift the bucket up; and when it came time to bring it down, they’d run the other way.  The difficulty of using animals — this is a picture of a horse by da Vinci [Fig. 13], but oxen were used is, you can’t make them go backwards; they don’t like to turn around.  So, here you see a transmission. Brunelleschi built this with two sets of pegs on the vertical axis to connect to the horizontal one, where you’d change the height of it, and you could make it go forward or in reverse without making the animals change direction.  So, what a guy.

In the next image [Fig. 14], you see an interior schematic of the dome itself, where here we see another chain.  Four stone chains, a wooden chain which you can see inside the cathedral today, and a metal chain which is believed to exist.  Sort of like the hoops around a barrel to hold it in, Brunelleschi built in these chains to help hold in the dome.  This let him build it very thin, and actually surprising light.  Unlike the dome of the Pantheon, which was 23 feet thick at its base, the inner dome that Brunelleschi built was only 7 feet thick; and the outer dome — the one that you see on the outside of the building — is only 2 feet thick at its base, which is pretty astonishing.

So another aspect we see in the next image [Fig. 15] is the brickwork which Brunelleschi used.  Rather than flat layers of brick, where the bricks would basically fall off or cave in, Brunelleschi didn’t know how sheer lines; and with this space that you see here, this is the space between the inner and outer dome that you walk through to get up to the top.  This was a new technique that required 4 million bricks; these were custom shaped bricks; all different sizes.  He made these bricks very well; he’d season them for two years before he’d bake them.  This was a major, major undertaking.

So, the dome is under construction; it takes over a decade and a half.  The Pope himself comes to announce that it’s complete.  The Council of Florence, which I think people who are familiar with Mr. LaRouche’s work will have heard of; this important council to pull for unanimity and to resolve religious differences, was held here in Florence with this cathedral. Which I’m sure had an amazing impact on the participants.  If you’re trying to think through what’s the relationship of God and man; and you’re in this incredible, astonishing, unbelievable construction, I think that’ll have an effect on what you believe man’s identity to be, for sure.

So, shortly after that, Brunelleschi died.  The white lantern on the top made of marble — and this terrified people living in the area, because that’s tons and tons and tons of marble.  They were amazed that the dome was up at all; when it came time to bring even more weight up on top, to add the marble on those ribs, to add the marble for the lantern, people thought it was going to crack, it was going to break.  Obviously, it didn’t; it’s still here.  In 1461 it was completed, and as I mentioned, da Vinci was part of the crew that helped build that golden ball that you see at the very top there.  So, this takes us from Brunelleschi into da Vinci.

That other image you saw of the light on the ground, in 1475, Toscanelli put a plate inside the lantern to have a nice spotlight come down from the Sun.  Since this was the tallest structure around — the top of the lantern is 370 feet up — this is a very good solar observatory.  So, you’re able to get a very good sense of how the Sun is moving to correct the length of the year, you have a sense of the timing of the seasons.  And this is the kind of thinking that went into Toscanelli’s collaboration with Columbus, and providing him with maps, and the whole voyage to the New World.

So, that’s some about Brunelleschi; let’s talk about the implications for today, briefly.  In his approach, Brunelleschi — if you think about in the way that LaRouche like to talk about science vs. mathematics today, for example, if you compare the physical structure built by Brunelleschi to the geometry of the Pantheon, which was just a hemisphere, circle shape, those other arches in the Roman aqueduct.  They served their purpose, but they’re very much a shape that’s conceived and then you figure out how to bring it into being.  Brunelleschi started with the physical space he was working with, and went from geometry into physics; in a way like what real physics is, as compared to Euclid.  In the same way that Kepler, taking the insights from Brunelleschi’s work, taking the insights from Cusa’s work, approached astronomy; from the standpoint not of shapes but of the physical causes that brought about the motions of the planets.  Of gravitation, of the need for harmony; this was Kepler’s approach.  It was the approach of Leibniz, who, unlike the math and geometry based ideas of motion in physics that came from Descartes; Leibniz said, “No, forget it.  We can’t understand the physical world by how it appears to us,” by geometry and by shape.  There’s something more there; there’s something physical that’s distinct from the perceptual or from extension and shape and geometry.  Leibniz discovered what we would today understand as the force of motion; what he called vies viva, what today people would call kinetic energy.

You think about what Riemann did, where he in his Habilitation dissertation of 1854 said what Gauss knew but didn’t really way, when he said, “Look; we have been using ideas of mathematics and geometry to shape our thinking, but we don’t even know if it’s based on something that’s true.”  Are the idea of geometry that we base everything else on, are they true?  Is space flat?  How would we answer that question?  And what did Riemann say?  He said, in that tradition of Brunelleschi, get out of geometry; look to physics.  In the small, things are happening; it’s something physical, but it’s not a shape you can just imagine.

So, with these kinds of jumps that we saw, with Brunelleschi’s character as a person, he had certain achievements.  But what he did was, he made new things happen; that was his personality.  He did new things; they don’t happen on their own, he made the leaps.  So, think about the kinds of leaps we need to make today.  Some of the leaps, like leaping over the crap; throwing out Obama, dumping Trump.  And then there are the leaps upward, besides leaping over the pits; the leaps upward, things like developing fusion power.  We don’t know how the nucleus works; there’s so much unknown about it.  What’s occurring with low-energy nuclear reactions; will that be a viable source of power?  Maybe.  Will it be an insight into what’s actually going on in the nucleus?  Yes.  What will it mean to have a fusion power basis for our economy?  How will that change our relationship to materials, to resources, to water, when we can produce all we want and not worry about shortages of materials anymore?

What do we have to learn about the galaxy, where the limits of Newtonian gravity are making themselves very apparent with the inventions of dark matter and dark energy to try to keep the old law in place while accounting for new things that don’t fit them? What are we actually going to learn?  What are we going to learn about water?  About the ability to control water cycles here on Earth?  What’s role of the galaxy, of the Sun, in changing how the atmosphere responds to the formation of clouds, to climate over time, to water?  How does our Sun’s relationship to the galaxy we are in impact life here on Earth over evolutionary time, over climatic time, over long periods and shorter periods in terms of weather effects?

These are all incredible jumps that need to be made; that will not come from the past, but will come from what we’ll look back on and say, “Oh, that was that necessary step.”  And that’s the real basis in economy; the intention to have a leap, the intention to make a jump.  The desire to go to a future that hasn’t existed before.  This is what Alexander Hamilton’s outlook was in setting up our initial credit system, and his goal for an industrial, scientific, and technologically advancing United States; as opposed to the agrarian dream of Thomas Jefferson.

Here’s one of Hamilton’s mottoes.  He said, “As a general marches at the head of his troops, so ought wise politicians — if I dare use the expression — they should march at the head of affairs, insomuch that they ought not to await the event to know what measures to take, but the measures which they have taken ought to produce the event.”  We can produce a recovery; we can have direction in our economy.  We can have missions the way that Kennedy with the space program; the way Lincoln did with building the transcontinental railroad and other programs even during the Civil War.  With the initiatives that Franklin Roosevelt took to create a real recovery and separate the economy from the Wall Street-connected finance that Hoover was tied to.

So, nothing happens on its own.  As LaRouche has been saying, you don’t get evolutionary development over time in that sense in human history; it’s revolutionary.  Things don’t just happen; you make them happen.  You go out and you do them.  You throw Obama out, you create a credit system; they don’t just happen on their own.

And I’d like to end what I was going to say with another quote from Mr. LaRouche, from our discussion with the Policy Committee on Monday.  LaRouche said, “With the personality of human beings, you can’t say that you located it in the person as such; the living person who dies.  That is not the way to define the problem; you have to find the connection which creates the leap into progress, as opposed to a continuity.  You don’t  know what the process is until you live it, and find out what the mystery is.  It’s sort of, when you go to Kepler, you get a leap; when you go to the galactic system, you get a leap.  You get all kinds of leaps in the Solar System and through the whole thing itself; and it’s the understanding that this is the mind of man which is creating mankind, and not the other way around.”

OGDEN:  Well, thank you very much, Jason.  And I think that gives us a very good idea of exactly what Mr. LaRouche was saying; that history is not something that you allow to act on you and just react against.  But, history is something which must be understood in terms of the future being something that we must generate.  So, I think what Mr. LaRouche has prompted to think about, that that generation of the future can only come through an act of genius, which comes apparently out of nowhere, as Brunelleschi’s did.  And as Mr. LaRouche said, “I’m looking for people who will do that kind of work, and become the geniuses who cause the future to be reborn again.”

So, with that said, I would to bring a conclusion to tonight’s webcast.  Thank you very much to Jason and to Jeff for joining us here tonight; and thank you to all of you.  And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.

 




USA og Rusland må samarbejde –
Kun et nyt paradigme kan forhindre fascisme!
Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Men hverken menneskehedens udslettelse i et termonukleart Armageddon eller ofringen af menneskeliv til fordel for finansoligarkiet er uundgåelig. At forhindre dette kræver først og fremmest, at man overvinder partianskuelser eller geopolitiske anskuelser og i stedet erstatter dem med et upartisk samarbejde på alle niveauer, for menneskehedens fælles interesser. Ikke overraskende viser EU, der siden Maastrichttraktaten har udviklet sig til et monstrum, i lyset af flygtningekrisen og det forestående finanskrak, sig ikke alene at være en mislykket model, men EU er yderligere nu ved at gennemføre en åbenlyst fascistisk politik. Det seneste fremstød i denne retning er Bruxelles meddelelse om, at den under alle omstændigheder allerede afskyelige EU-grænsekontrol-organisation Frontex skal erstattes af en ny organisation, der kontrolleres fra Bruxelles, og som deporterer flygtninge med egne grænsevagter, opererer i ikke-EU-medlemsstater og kan sætte sig ud over indvendinger fra medlemsstater. Dermed ville det i flygtningespørgsmålet komme til den største overførsel af suverænitet til Bruxelles, siden euroens indførelse.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Diskussion med Lyndon LaRouche, 3. december 2015:
Brunelleschi-princippet:
Fremskridt er altid en revolutionær proces,
og en revolution af en sådan art
må være en genial handling

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Leder, 11. december 2015:
USA: Tro ikke på de offentlige løgne!

Den fordærvede offentlige mening og de ditto offentlige medier påstår, at Obamas fjernelse er umulig. Ja, de går endda så vidt som til at påstå, at det ikke engang bliver diskuteret. Men takket være først og fremmest, og mest af alt, den hovedrolle som katalysator, der spilles af Lyndon LaRouches »Manhattan-projekt« – er ingen af disse påstande sande. Ja, faktisk finder der en aktiv diskussion sted om behovet for at fjerne Obama på højeste regeringsplan. Ikke flere løgne; det kan gøres, og det må gøres, og vi må sørge for, at det bliver gjort, og gjort hurtigt.

Undertiden har en aktion, der angiveligt synes at være lokaliseret til et enkelt sted, såsom »Manhattan-projektet«, en universel virkning; tænk f.eks. på Brunelleschis kuppel i Firenze (katedralen Santa Maria della Fiore).

En del af det, som disse fordærvede medier og den offentlige mening forholder dig, er, at der nu foreligger et aktuelt lovforslag i Kongressen, der opregner 11 overtrædelser, der kunne udløse en rigsretssagsprocedure imod enhver præsident, der begik en hvilken som helst af disse overtrædelser. Den mest prominente af disse overtrædelser er lige netop disse »store forbrydelser og forseelser«, for hvilke Lyndon LaRouche har rejst tiltale mod Barack Obama i sine ugentlige dialoger med Manhattan-projektet.

Kongresmedlem Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) introducerede »H. Res. 198« den 13. april i år. Den er behagligt kortfattet. Efter nogle indledende »alt imens’er«, siger dens operative afsnit ganske enkelt det følgende:

»Repræsentanternes Hus erklærer, at de følgende præsidentielle handlinger skal udgøre ’store forbrydelser og forseelser’ inden for rammerne af artikel II, sektion 4, der skal udløse Husets vedtagelse af en artikel eller artikler for en rigsretssag (’impeachment’), der skal sendes til Senatet til efterprøvelse –

»(1) at indlede krig uden udtrykkelig bemyndigelse fra Kongressen

»(2) at, i USA eller i udlandet, dræbe amerikanske borgere, der ikke er engageret i aktive fjendtligheder imod USA, uden korrekt retssag (med mindre drabet var nødvendigt for at forhindre umiddelbar, alvorlig fysisk skade mod tredjeparter);

»(3) at forsømme udøvelsen af tilsyn med underordnede, der har gjort sig skyldig i kroniske forfatningsmæssige overgreb;

»(4) at bruge anviste midler i modstrid med betingelser fastsat for deres anvendelse;

»(5) med overlæg at lyve for Kongressen for at opnå bemyndigelse til krig;

»(6) at forsømme omsorgen for, at love samvittighedsfuldt udøves, derigennem, at erklæringer eller en systematisk politik for ikke-håndhævelse underskrives;

»(7) at indsætte eksekutive aftaler i stedet for traktater

»(8) med overlæg at lyve under ed for en føderal dommer eller undersøgelsesjury (grand jury)

»(9) at misbruge føderale (statslige) organisationer til fremme af en partisk politisk dagsorden;

»(10) at nægte at overholde en Kongresstævning om (udlevering af) dokumenter eller vidneaflæggelser, der er udstedt til et legitimt juridisk formål; og

«(11) at udstede eksekutive ordrer eller præsidentielle memoranda, der krænker eller omgår Kongressens forfatningsmæssige magtbeføjelser.«

Bemærk, at kongresmedlem Yohos lovforslag vil træde i kraft, så snart det er vedtaget af et flertal i Repræsentanternes Hus. Der behøves ingen handling fra Senatets side. Kongresmedlem Yoho har to medsponsorer: republikanerne Jeff Duncan fra South Carolina og Tom McClintock fra Californien. Republikaneren Justin Amash fra Michigan var en medsponsor, men trak sig tilbage den 9. juni. Vi kender endnu ikke hans begrundelser for tilbagetrækningen, men de involverer sandsynligvis intensiteten i kampen – i en kamp, som nogle ønsker, vi skal tro, slet ikke finder sted.

Hele den aktuelle fokusering på det umiddelbare behov for at fjerne Obama har ført til, at nogle personer igen undersøger bestemmelserne i Sektion 4 i det 25. tillæg til Den amerikanske Forfatning, der foreskriver, hvordan man fjerner en præsident, »der ikke er i stand til at udøve sit embedes magtbeføjelser og pligter«, men som forsømmer at gå af på eget initiativ – og således har brug for et lille skub, kunne man sige.

Den sædvanlige fremlæggelse af Sektion 4 – det, der rent faktisk har været vores sædvanlig fremlæggelse af Sektion 4 – siger, at vicepræsidenten og et flertal af regeringsmedlemmer skal vedtage at erklære præsidentens mentale defekt (i det aktuelle tilfælde). Men det er rent faktisk ikke, hvad den siger. Dette er blot et af alternativerne. Det andet alternativ er, at Kongreshusene (dvs. Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet) ved lov etablerer en anden »institution«, der ville få virkning af en særlig kommission til at undersøge og vedtage præsidentens evne til at fortsætte i embedet.

Det er potentielt set en temmelig stor forskel.

Lyndon LaRouche tilføjede her til aften, at der må være et tværpartisk initiativ for at dumpe (Donald) Trump. Netop nu har demokrater og republikanere mulighed for at sænke Trump på en regulær, upartisk basis. Hvis de kommer frem og siger det sammen, så omdefinerer det arten af præsidentkampagnen for 2016. Selv januar måned vil være for sent. Det bør ske nu, en upartisk organisering imod Trump, og denne samme kombination må også tage initiativ til handling for at dumpe Obama.

 




Leder, 10. december 2015:
USA: Et spørgsmål om overlevelse – for hele verden. Fjern Obama!

Spørgsmålet om Frankrigs overlevelse efter det andet terrormassemord i Paris på et år blev udtrykt, da den franske præsident Hollande omgående og tvingende nødvendigt gik i aktion for at fremtvinge en alliance mellem Rusland, Frankrig og USA for at knuse ISIS og al-Qaeda.

Spørgsmålet om Ruslands overlevelse efter Tyrkiets bombning af det russiske fly over Syrien blev udtrykt, da præsident Putin holdt sin magtfulde tale til parlamentet i militærets hal, og påkaldte Ruslands 15 år lange kamp for at bekæmpe terror i Rusland, og nu, international terror, og indkaldte hver eneste russiske borger til at se sig selv som en »soldat« i denne krig.

Spørgsmålet om Amerikas overlevelse nu har intet at gøre med valggøglet efter terrorangrebet i San Bernardino. Spørgsmålet handler om den præsident Obama, der insisterer på at angribe og konfrontere Rusland og Kina som fjender, og som skjuler og benægter beviser for, at Saudi Arabien, Tyrkiet, Qatar og London støtter radikal jihadisme. Den præsident, der beordrede den amerikanske »åbning« til det Muslimske Broderskab siden 2011; som, siden afsættelsen og mordet på Gaddafi, har ført en bevidst kurs mod et endeligt opgør med Rusland og Kina, og i hvilket selvmorderisk opgør han tror, at de vil kapitulere til regimeskift, hvor som helst, han måtte ønske det.

Stiftende redaktør for Executive Intelligence Review Lyndon LaRouche har krævet, at Obama fjernes fra embedet, siden 2009, hvor han, med det samme, Obama indtog Det Hvide Hus, identificerede hans fatale »Nero-kompleks«.

LaRouche fremlagde det i dag: »Putin udøver en kvalitet af lederskab, der er de fleste amerikanske præsidenter i vores historie overlegent – men Obama! Obama begik et bevidst bedrageri, to gange på nationalt TV, hvor han dækkede over terroroperationen i Californien. Han støttede denne operation ved at forsøge at skjule dens karakter, og dernæst skjule dens sponsorer. Obama er en faktor for terrorisme og krig, en potentiel atomkrig.«

Obama driver nu nationen og planeten hen mod en atomar konfrontation, som den menneskelige civilisation ikke kan overleve. Atomvåbeneksperter kan se det og kommer med offentlige advarsler. Mindst ét kongresmedlem kan se det; kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard fra Hawaii udfordrede forsvarsminister Carter med denne Obamas trussel om atomkrig i Husets Komite for de Bevæbnede Styrker. Præsident Putin og det kinesiske lederskab ser det helt bestemt og træffer enhver foranstaltning til at forberede sig, så vel som til at undgå krig.

Onsdag ringede en af LaRouchePAC’s samarbejdspartnere i Midtvesten til sit kongresmedlem, briefede ham og sagde til ham, at Obama måtte fjernes ved hjælp af det 25. forfatningstillæg, omgående. Kongresmedlemmet sagde, at han ikke havde hørt nogen diskussion om dette. Vælgeren svarede magtfuldt, »Så kan du begynde diskussionen!« Det gjorde kongresmedlemmet, usandsynligt nok, og ringede tilbage til sin vælger to gange til for at rapportere, hvordan de andre i Kongressen havde reageret.

Det er blot én borger. Gang det op. Ændr hvad du tænker mht. din mulighed for at være med til at gøre, hvad der i virkeligheden er ret og nødvendigt.




Leder, 7. december 2015:
USA: En sand præsidentiel erklæring om terrorisme fra Lyndon LaRouche

»Det, vi har her, er et problem, der umiddelbart kan spores til det terrorregime, der ramte Paris og andre dele af Frankrig for nylig. Vi har nu i USA, i mindre skala, den samme type operation med en arabisk gruppe for panik, og som begår massemord. De massemord, der styres af Tyrkiet og andre netop nu, er en del af den samme ting, som nu dræber amerikanere i USA på samme basis. Og grunden til, at dette finder sted, er Barack Obama, der har magt til at håndtere dette problem, men ikke gør det. Man kan derfor ikke klage over disse ting, hvis man ikke handler med de midler, der er til rådighed, for at korrigere problemet.«

»Der sker det, at politiets styrker har nogen indsigt i dette her, men den form for indsigt, der behøves, bliver ikke leveret! USA’s præsident er ansvarlig for at håndtere dette, for denne bølge af terror, der smittede fra Frankrig, som kom fra Saudi Arabien oprindeligt, derfra, rammer nu USA, og enten ved USA’s præsidentskab det, eller også er det så dumt, at det ikke ved det.«

»Nogen bør gøre noget ved det. Det her vil blive værre. Men hvis man ikke sørger for at blive dette særlige tilfælde af terror kvit – for dette er kun en del af en plan for at skabe massiv uro, på denne måde, internt i USA, så vel som andre steder.«

»Så derfor gør Obama ikke sit job! Obama handler ikke for at redde amerikanske borgeres liv. Og det er den eneste måde at få ram på det her. Lad være med at kommentere det: Korriger det.«

»Vi er kommet til et tidspunkt, hvor vi ikke simplet hen kan løse et problem ad gangen. Vi må erkende, at hele planeten, under Det britiske Imperiums indflydelse, som sådan; det var Det britiske Imperium, der organiserede de generelle krige i forrige århundrede; [den amerikanske] borgerkrigen var et produkt af dette samme problem.«

»Problemet er således, at vi simpelt hen må rense op i dette rod.«

Senere i diskussionen gentog LaRouche:

»Denne præsident må fjernes fra embedet, fordi han terroriserer hele USA’s befolkning, og han er derfor ikke skikket til at være USA’s præsident.«

LaRouches lederskab overlapper den voksende afsky i landet mod Obamas løgne, og hans afsindige fremstød mod en atomar konfrontation med Rusland og Kina – som på det seneste bruger Erdogans regering i Tyrkiet til at lancere den ene provokation efter den anden imod Rusland. Den 4. dec. var Melon-Scaifes Pittsburgh Tribune Review den seneste avis, der tog spalteskriver Charles Hurts artikel i Washington Times op, hvor denne rejser spørgsmålet om det nødvendige i at aktivere det 25. forfatningstillæg imod en præsident Obama, de er ansvarlig for, at ISIS nu »kommer til Amerika«. Andre medier, såsom Boston Herald, er oprørte over Obamas håndtering af San Bernadino-skyderiet og skriver: »Vold på arbejdspladsen? Virkelig?«

Men det er kun få mennesker i USA, der endnu forstår dybden af de forandringer, der kræves for at løse disse problemer – såsom den presserende forlængelse af Verdenslandbroen ud i hvert eneste hjørne af planeten, inklusive i det krigshærgede Mellemøsten. De har heller ikke overvejet den menneskelige kreativitets enestående egenskaber, der ligger uden for de dagligdags vaner med »praktisk tankegang«, og som er nødvendige for at få denne revolutionerende transformation til at ske.

Her kommer LaRouches Manhattan-projekt ind, som netop tager dette afgørende spørgsmål op. Som LaRouche erklærede i sin ’Samtale omkring Pejsen’:

»Sådan noget som en evolutionær proces inden for udvikling af menneskelig kultur eksisterer ikke. Der er virkninger, der finder sted på bestemte tider. Men så kollapser hele kulturen pludselig, den forsvinder, den bliver slagtet. Senere kommer der så en anden person og stimulerer til noget nyt, og giver således menneskeheden en ny chance for at gøre fremskridt.«

»Det er vores opgave at forstå dette spørgsmål om fremskridt, og fremskridt er ikke en evolutionær proces. Det er altid en revolutionær proces, det er aldrig evolutionært! Og alle, der bare sidder og venter på en revolutionær proces, narrer sig selv. En sådan form for revolution må være en genial handling, der ligesom kommer ud af intetheden. Og jeg leder efter folk, der vil gøre den slags arbejde og blive til de genier, der vil forårsage, at fremtiden bliver genfødt.«

 

 

 

 




Leder, 3. december 2015:
Obama deployerer for krig,
mens det 25. forfatningstillæg påkaldes

Præsident Obama fortsætter sin mobilisering for krig med Rusland. NATO planlægger at sender kampfly og antiluftforsvars-missiler til Tyrkiet – med Rusland som eneste mål for sådanne offensive våben – med USA’s forsvarsminister Ash Carter, der tirsdag meddelte deployeringen af 200 amerikanske jag-og-dræb specialstyrker til Irak for at finde og dræbe ISIS-ledere i både Irak og Syrien. Ikke »rådgivere« og »uddannelsesofficerer«, men dræberteams. Selv Irak reagerede imod den gale dræber, med premierminister al-Abdi, der til pressen sagde, at Irak har brug for uddannelse, våben og rådgivning fra det internationale samfund, »ikke udenlandske kamptropper på jorden, der kæmper på irakisk jord«. Han tilføjede, at en sådan deployering »ikke kan ske uden [regeringens] godkendelse, fuld koordinering og fuld respekt for Iraks suverænitet«.

Flere amerikanske aviser havde i dag udgivet opfordringer til at tage det 25. forfatningstillæg i anvendelse som nødvendigt middel til at fjerne Obama fra embedet med den begrundelse, at han ikke længere er mentalt skikket til at udføre sine pligter. Lyndon LaRouche har gentagne gange krævet, at dette forfatningstillæg omgående blev taget i anvendelse, før det lykkes Obama at lancere en menneskelig udslettelseskrig.

Obamas optræden på Klimaforandringskonferencen i Paris var så usammenhængende, at selv en af hans faste tilhængere, reporter Richard Cohen fra Washington Post, skrev en spalte med overskriften, »Obama, en præsident, der mistede sin stemme« og sagde, at »hans veltalenhed var blevet erstattet af arrigskab, og han har mistet evnen til at overtale« og at »hans problem er, at han ofte ikke har noget at sige«.

Journalisten Mark Whittington fra examiner.com responderede imidlertid: »Har Barack Obama mistet sin stemme, eller har han mistet forstanden?« Han fortsatte: »I mangel af en rigsretssag kan vicepræsident Biden måske sammenkalde regeringen, påkalde det 25. forfatningstillæg og erklære præsident Obama mentalt uegnet til at sidde rest af sin embedsperiode ud.«

LaRouche bemærkede i dag, at det var Vladimir Putin, der satte denne dynamik i gang med sin tale til FN’s Generalforsamling[1] i september, da han roligt, men bestemt, fremlagde Obamaregeringens kriminelle handlinger, hvor de rev FN’s Charter i stykker, lancerede ulovlige krige, gennemtvang regimeskift og udførte dronedrab i hele verden. Det internationale publikum var frastødt af sandheden om Obamas handlinger, og siden da har Obama selv været ude om det.

Frygten for Obama er det eneste, der holder det amerikanske folk, så vel som ledere i hele verden, tilbage fra at sige sandheden og kræve, at han fjernes, og at USA og Europa i stedet går sammen med Rusland, Kina og BRIKS-nationerne om at opbygge verden gennem processen med den Nye Silkevej, som det eneste middel til at standse Bush-Obama-politikken med overlagte, evindelige krige. Som Franklin Roosevelt sagde, stedt over for truslen om fascisme: »Vi har intet at frygte, ud over selve frygten«.[2]

[1] Præsident Putins fulde tale i FN, video, engelsk voice over. 

[2] FDR’s første indsættelsestale, dansk. 




Leder, 2. december 2015:
Hvad er rådet til den kriseramte verden i dag?
Lær af Brunelleschi!

Rådet til den kriseramte verden i dag? ’Lær af Brunelleschi!’ Det var det råd, som Lyndon LaRouche gav i går, da han udlagde Brunelleschis opdagelser, der på ingen måde var en fortsættelse af den tidligere erfaring og tankegang, men var kreative gennembrud af Brunelleschi, både mht. princip og anvendelse. Historien markeres af »opdagelsesperioder«, adskilt af perioder med degeneration, sagde LaRouche. Forstå dette, for at forstå, hvor dødbringende det nuværende øjeblik er, og søg at opnå den intellektuelle og karaktermæssige kvalitet, der kræves for at standse »dårlig historie under skabelse«, og for at skabe fremtiden. Historien er ikke noget, der ’sker for én’; man skaber den.

Lige nu kræver fremtiden, at Obama kommer væk. Der er ingen fremtid, hvis han bliver. Den trussel, der kommer fra ham, kan ikke formildes gennem reform, forhandling eller ønsketænkning.

I går konfronterede et kongresmedlem, Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), Obamas to top-forsvarsregeringsfolk med sandheden om Obamas politik i Syrien, der truer med altomfattende atomkrig. I en omfattende høring i Husets Komite for de Bevæbnede Styrker begyndte Gabbard sine kommentarer til forsvarsminister Ash Carter og formand for Generalstabscheferne Joseph Dunford således: »Eftersom vores politik med at vælte Assads syriske regering grundlæggende set har bragt os til en frontal konflikt med Rusland, har jeg nogle vigtige spørgsmål at stille om dette emne.

»Hvor mange atomsprænghoveder har Rusland rettet mod USA, og hvor mange har USA, rettet mod Rusland?« Forsvarsminister Carter undveg og svarede, at han ville tilsende hende svaret på skrift. Gabbard fortsatte: »Godt. Og det ville være korrekt at sige, at begge vore lande har evnen til at affyre disse atomvåben inden for få minutter?« Carter svarede, »Det er det«: dernæst fortsatte Gabbard med sine spørgsmål, der trak detaljerne om Syrien skarpt frem, med Obamas anti-russiske politik, der nu udgør en umiddelbar, potentiel fare for et atomholocaust.

Samtidig med, at Gabbard konfronterede Kongressen med Obamas vanvid, begyndte NATO sit todages ministermøde i Bruxelles, hvor dets London/Obama-dagsorden er at inkludere en forpligtelse til at sende mere luftforsvarsstøtte til Tyrkiet. Det kommer oven i de amerikanske F-15 fly, der allerede afpatruljerer den tyrkisk-syriske grænse. Som Gabbard sagde til Obamas regeringsfolk under høringen i går: i betragtning af, at ISIS »ikke har nogen luftvåbensaktiver, kan jeg blot antage, at disse fly har russiske fly som deres mål … « (fremhævet af red.)

Det ligger ikke i den nuværende, degraderede ’amerikanske personlighed’ let at fatte faren og finde modet til at handle. Men det er vores udfordring. Skab fremtiden!

 

Forslag til fordybelse: Redaktionen anbefaler:

»Skab en Ny Renæssance«, hovedtale af Helga Zepp-LaRouche ved Schiller Instituttets konference i Paris, juni 2015 

»Ny renæssance eller Tredje Verdenskrig? Valget der dit!«, hovedtale af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, april 2014, 

 

 




Diskussion med Lyndon LaRouche
25. november 2015:
»Obama har organiseret en krigshandling
og har således sat USA, såvel som resten
af menneskeheden, i fare.

Uddrag af Lyndon LaRouches diskussion med aktivister i hele USA den 25. november. LaRouche: Godt, først og fremmest er det, som man skal bekymre sig om, det, som vi har brug for, Glass-Steagall. Og Glass-Steagall, hvis den bliver gennemført på rette vis nu, vil betyde, at vi automatisk – i hele USA i hvert fald, ville vi lukke alt det, der er baseret på investeringsbankpraksis, der ikke følger Glass-Steagall-standarden, fuldstændigt ned. Sagt på en anden måde: Vi ville gå tilbage til den form for system, som Franklin Roosevelt repræsenterede i løbet af sin præsidentperiode, især i løbet af 1930’erne.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Leder, 1. december 2015:
Fjern den faktor, der fører til atomkrig – Obama

Nødvendigheden af at fjerne Barack Obama fra præsidentmyndigheden for at forhindre en ellers forestående atomar konfrontation mellem USA og Rusland og Kina blev på dramatisk vis tydeliggjort af begivenheder og advarsler i dag.

Efter Obamas (og NATO’s) aggressive, offentlige støtte til Tyrkiets provokerende krigshandling imod Rusland, var Obamas møde med Putin i dag på konferencen i Paris en eskalering. Ifølge rapporteringer fra både Det Hvide Hus og Kreml om mødet, gentog Obama, at han insisterede på, at den syriske præsident Assad »skal gå« som en forudsætning for noget som helst samarbejde imod terrorbander i Syrien; at Rusland må slutte sig til den »amerikanskledede koalition« og må ophøre med at bombe i områder, der er bastioner for al-Nusra og andre jihadist-grupper, der bevæbnes af Saudi Arabien, Tyrkiet og USA og Storbritannien. Obama ignorerer de vurderinger og rapporter, der kommer fra militær-til-militær-efterretninger, for i stedet at fortsætte sin optrapning af konfrontationen med Vladimir Putin.

En russisk, strategisk analytiker advarer i Sputnik i dag om, at den tyrkiske provokation, bakket op af NATO og Obama, skubber verden frem mod en konfrontation som den i 1962 med Cubakrisen – denne gang uden en John F. Kennedy til at løse situationen, men tværtimod med hans modsætning, den arrogante dronedræber, Obama.

Og en kinesisk seniorekspert i eurasiske anliggender med hjemsted i Hongkong kom med en endnu mere dramatisk advarsel: Hvis Obama fortsætter med at udføre provokationer i det Sydkinesiske Hav, kunne Kina meget vel respondere »asymmetrisk«, med atomkrig.

Stiftende redaktør for Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) Lyndon LaRouche insisterer på, at der ikke er anden udvej en hurtigt at fjerne Obama fra embedet og sagde i dag: »Putin havde ret i sin vurdering af sin position vis-a-vis Obama. Der bliver ingen kursændring eller tilbagetog fra Putins side; og han forstår fuldt ud, at intet samarbejde med Obama er muligt. Putin eksperimenterer ikke. Han er fast besluttet og anskuer konfrontationen fra et globalt standpunkt. Det er Obamas Hvide Hus, der laver alvorlige fejl, men alt, hvad det gør, er med fuldt overlæg.«

Dette var LaRouches udtrykkelige pointe om den kinesiske professor Zhang Baohuis advarsel om en amerikansk-kinesisk krig udløst af Obamas provokationer. Denne analyse af situationen er »fuldstændig korrekt«, bemærkede Larouche, for nær én ting – atomkonfrontationen er ikke »utilsigtet« eller »en fejl« fra Obamas side.

»Obama VED, hvad han gør«, sagde LaRouche. »Han er en dræber, og britisk kontrolleret.«

Obama truer med atomkrig og tror arrogant på et russisk eller kinesisk »tilbagetog«, der ikke eksisterer.

»Men han kan miste grebet om situationen, hvis han konfronteres af personer og kræfter, der rykker ud for at få ham fjernet fra embedet. Det er missionen – hvis vi kan gøre det i tide.«

 

Supplerende materiale:

Hongkong-professor: Obama truer Kina med atomkrig

30. november 2015 – Zhang Baohui, en professor i statskundskab og direktør for Centret for Studier af det Asiatiske Stillehavsområde ved Lingnan Universitet i Hongkong, og som i omfattende mål har skrevet om Kinas atomkapaciteter, udstedte en kraftig advarsel til Obama om, at denne fremprovokerer en konflikt, der hurtigt kunne blive til en atomkrig.

I en artikel i RSIS Commentary South China Sea Series Nov. 12, skriver Zhang, at, da Obama sendte et amerikansk krigsskib inden for 12-milegrænsen omkring Kinas nyligt konstruerede øer i det Sydkinesiske Hav den 27. okt., »tog Kina denne gang ikke skridt til konkret handling for at konfrontere det amerikanske krigsskib, men sådanne fremtidige operationer kunne alvorligt destabilisere situationen i det Sydkinesiske Hav og endda freden og stabiliteten i hele regionen. De kunne igangsætte en utilsigtet optrapning og forcere de to lande hen imod en militær konflikt. Tankegangen er ganske indlysende.

»Yderligere handlinger fra den amerikanske flådes side vil trænge det kinesiske lederskab op i en krig og tvinge det til at respondere på opfattede provokationer mod landets nationale interesser og magtanseelse. Til syvende og sidst udgør det Sydkinesiske Hav en væsentlig del af Kinas geostrategiske interesser … Desuden kunne Kina føle, at det var nødvendigt at stå fast for at afskrække en fremtidig optrapning af de amerikanske udfordringer over for landets interesser og anseelse.«

Zhang citerer både viceadmiral Yi Xiaoguang, der er vicestabschef i Folkets Befrielseshær (PLA), og som sagde, at Kina »vil tage alle nødvendige midler i anvendelse for at forsvare sin suverænitet«, hvis USA udfører lignende handlinger, og også general Fan Changlong, vicepræsident for Kinas kommunistiske partis (CCP) Centrale Militærkommission, der til kommandør for USA’s Stillehavskommando (PACOM), admiral Harry Harris, sagde, at alle fremtidige aktioner fra den amerikanske flådes side kunne udløse utilsigtede optrapninger, der skader begge landes interesser.

Kineserne har sidenhen udvidet sine militærøvelser i regionen og offentliggjort fotos af søbaserede strategiske missiler, der bæres på deres atomubåde, og som »har til hensigt at afskrække USA«, siger Zhang.

Under kapiteltitlen »Defekt amerikansk opfattelse« advarer Zhang: »Diverse kinesisk retorik og forholdsregler indikerer, at Kina kunne ty til mere konkrete og magtfulde forholdsregler for at konfrontere den amerikanske flåde. I så tilfælde vil en konfrontation mellem de to flåder blive uundgåelig. Hvad der er endnu værre, så kunne konfrontationen udløse en optrapning mod militære konflikter.

Det amerikanske militær synes imidlertid at være intetanende om dette scenario … Det er i høj grad sandsynligt, at amerikanske beslutningstagere antager, at Kina ville indtage en politik for ikke-handling, når konfronteret med indtrængende amerikanske flådefartøjer. Denne amerikanske forventning er defekt, eftersom Kina er en atomstormagt. Når de trænges op i en krog, kan stater med atomvåben true med en asymmetrisk optrapning for at afskrække en modstander fra at skade deres nøgleinteresser. Militærparaden i Beijing den 3. september afslørede, at Kinas nye generation af taktiske missiler, såsom DF-26, kan armeres med atomsprænghoveder. Nylig information indikerer også, at Kinas luftlancerede langtrækkende krydsermissiler ligeledes kan armeres med taktiske atomsprænghoveder. Faktisk kunne de seneste fotos af JL-2 søbaserede atommissiler, der affyres fra havet, være et gedulgt atomsignal, som Kina sender for at afskrække USA.«

Zhang bemærker, at, alt imens det Sydkinesiske Hav tydeligvis er en del af Kinas kerneinteresser, så gælder dette ikke for USA. »Når en krisesituation eskalerer og begynder at involvere potentielle atomare scenarier«, skriver han, »står USA over for det barske valg, at de enten er de første til at trække sig tilbage, eller også står over for at kæmpe mod et atombevæbnet Kina. Ingen af disse muligheder er attraktiv, og begge kræver høje omkostninger, enten for anseelse eller i menneskeliv, for USA.«

»Det vil derfor være uklogt af USA at udfordre Kina. Ved at undervurdere Beijings faste forsæt om at forsvare sine interesser, omdømme og evne til at afskrække, kunne denne plan igangsætte en eskalerende spiral, der sluttelig ville skade amerikanske interesser.«

Han konkluderer, at begge sider må overveje ’worst case scenarios’ – de værst tænkelige scenarier.[1] »Det er bydende nødvendigt, at både Kina og USA overvejer, hvordan deres handlinger kunne medføre utilsigtede konsekvenser, isæt en utilsigtet optrapning mod en militær konflikt … Der er ingen, især ikke lande i regionen, der ønsker dette scenarie.«

Lyndon LaRouche bemærkede, at denne analyse er »fuldstændig korrekt«, bortset fra, at en sådan konsekvens ikke ville være »utilsigtet« fra Obamas side; det er hans plan at tvinge Kina og Rusland til et tilbagetog, eller også gå i krig.

[1] Se video fra LaRouchePAC: »Ingen overlevende«, danske undertekster.

En mørk, grusom, men helt igennem sandfærdig afbildning af truslen om en termonuklear krig og konsekvenserne, og Obamas deployering af hovedparten af USA’s termonukleare kapacitet i flere områder, som truer både Rusland og Kina.

 

Advarsel om en Ny Cubakrise

30. november 2015 – »Tyrkiet baner vejen for en Ny Cubakrise«, lyder den barske, advarende titel på en artikel i Sputnik den 29. nov., skrevet af den politiske analytiker Pyotr Iskenderov fra Ruslands Strategiske Kulturstiftelse, med undertitlen, »Invitation til ballade: Trækker Erdogan Europa ind i en Ny ’Cubakrise’?«

Iskenderovs advarsel påpeger først det, der skete den 24. nov.: »Tyrkiets uhørte provokation kunne meget vel føre til en konfrontation, der minder os om den Kolde Krigs mørkeste dage«; uhørt, fordi intet russisk militærfly er blevet skudt ned af et NATO-medlemsland i Alliancens historie. Artiklen advarer også imod den umiddelbare fremtid og Obamas rolle i opbakningen til Tyrkiet. »Tyrkiet besluttede at nedskyde det russiske bombefly, fordi præsident Recep Tayyip Erdogan føler sig overbevist om, at NATO og især USA vil bakke ham op, uanset, hvad der sker. Ønsket om at udnytte modsigelserne mellem stormagter har altid været et redskab i det (Neo)-ottomanske Imperiums politik.«

Der er nogen, der bringer en diskussion på bane om, hvorvidt Tyrkiet skal spærre Bosporusstrædet for russiske skibe, der supplerer Ruslands styrker, som bekæmper terrorister i Syrien. Dette ville imidlertid ikke blive tolereret af Rusland; og Erdogans stilling over for sin egen kommando kunne vise sig temmelig svag.

En webside, der sporer skibsruter, atmarinetraffic.com, rapporterede mandag, at fartøjer under russisk flag nu forsinkes af Tyrkiet, når de søger at passere gennem Bosporus. Det Kiev-baserede Center for Transportstrategier rapporterede dette offentligt: »Søndag sejlede russiske fartøjer i zig-zag-kurs og i buede linjer, mens de i timevis ventede på tilladelse til at krydse strædet. Fartøjer fra andre lande blev ikke opholdt.«

 

 




RADIO SCHILLER den 30. november 2015:
COP21-klimakonferencen: udvikling, ikke befolkningsreduktion //
advarsler om atomkrig

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.
Inkluderer også: Høring om atomkraft (thorium) i Folketinget / Stem NEJ: bevar retsforbeholdet!




Leder, 29. november 2015:
»Spær Obama inde bag lås og slå for at
afværge den umiddelbare fare for atomkrig«

STOP 3. VERDENSKRIG: 

Følgende erklæring blev udlagt på LaRouchePAC websiden her til aften, den 28. nov.:

Lyndon LaRouche gentog i dag sin tidligere advarsel, der nu er endnu mere overhængende nødvendig, om, at den amerikanske præsident Barack Obama er fast besluttet på at følge en kurs mod atomkrig og omgående må fjernes fra embedet. Advarslen kommer som respons på optrapningen af Obamas igangværende politik for en atomar konfrontation med Rusland, som det eksemplificeres af nedskydningen af et russisk militærfly over Syrien af medlem af NATO og USA’s allierede, Tyrkiet. Tyrkiets handling kunne kun være forekommet med Obamas velsignelse. LaRouches advarsler understreges af amerikanske sikkerhedseksperters vurderinger. Alligevel er der en tåbelig tilbageholdenhed med hensyn til at kræve det eneste middel, der kan trække verden tilbage fra truslen om atomkrig – at fjerne Obama fra kontrollen over USA’s atomstyrker ved at stille ham for en rigsret, eller ved at aktivere det 25. tillæg til den amerikanske Forfatning.

Den seneste advarsel om en mulig umiddelbart overhængende atomkrig er netop blevet publiceret i Politico Magazine af en tidligere atommissil-affyringsofficer, Bruce G. Blair, med titlen »Kunne spændinger mellem USA og Rusland eskalere atomart?«. Blair påpeger Obamaregeringens politik med affyr-på-varsel (launch on warning) og den korte responstid til at træffe beslutningen om at lancere atomstyrker. Han erklærer, at dette sætter verden på en hårs bredde fra atomkrig, der er farligere end under den Kolde Krig.

Blair advarer:

»Det er især sandt, eftersom offentligheden ikke gør sig klart, hvor lidt tid, der er, for vore ledere til at træffe afgørelsen om at bruge atomvåben, selv i dag – og om noget, så gør atmosfæren det til en endnu mere hårfin udløsermekanisme med truslen om cyberkrig. En affyringsordre er på længde med et tweet. Missilmandskabet transmitterer dernæst en kort strøm af computersignaler, der omgående antænder raketmotorerne til mange hundrede landbaserede missiler. For USA’s vedkommende tager dette 1 minut. Som forhenværende atommissil-affyringsofficer har jeg personligt trænet dette hundreder af gange. Vi blev kaldt for Minutmænd. Amerikansk ubådsmandskab bruger lidt længere tid; de kan affyre deres missiler efter 12 minutter.«

»I betragtning af den 11- til 30-minutters flyvetid for angrebsmissiler (11 for ubåde, der lurer ud for modpartens kyster, og 30 for raketter, der flyver over polerne til den anden siden af planeten), er beslutningstagningen for atomanvendelse, under ’launch on warning’ – altså processen fra varsling til beslutning om handling – ekstremt forceret, følelsesmæssigt højspændt og proforma, drevet frem af checklister. Jeg beskriver det som den mekanisk rutinemæssige iværksættelse af et forberedt manuskript. Under nogle scenarier modtager præsidenten, efter en blot 3 minutter lang vurdering af de første varslingsdata, en 30 sekunder lang briefing om sine atomare responsmuligheder og disses konsekvenser. Han har dernæst nogle få minutter – maksimalt 12, mere sandsynligt 3 til 6 – til at vælge en af dem.«

I denne sammenhæng kan Obamas deployering af amerikanske og allierede styrker imod Rusland kun ses som en eskalering imod en konflikt med atomvåben. For eksempel nævner Blair deployeringen af amerikanske Aegis-krigsskibe til Sortehavet, armeret med krydsermissiler, der kunne angribe Moskva på få minutter. Eller deployeringen af amerikanske strategiske bombefly, der flyver mod Rusland. Dette tvinger så igen Rusland ind i en optrappende respons.

Blair spørger:

»Forstår amerikanske ledere, at russerne har grund til at frygte, at en trussel om halshugning (dvs. lamme en regering ved at fjerne dens ledelse, -red.) er ved at vokse frem, og at denne trussel meget vel kunne være den underliggende drivkraft, der hæver indsatsen for Rusland til et niveau med en eksistentiel trussel, der påbyder forberedelse til at anvende atomvåben? Det tvivler jeg på, at de gør.«

Den skræmmende konklusion, som Blair ikke drager, er imidlertid, at USA’s præsident Barack Obama forstår dette og har til hensigt at skabe en eksistentiel krise for Rusland, og således bringe verden ud på randen af atomkrig. Siden begyndelsen af Barack Obamas præsidentskab har LaRouche advaret om, at Obama er en narcissistisk dræber. Alt, hvad Obama sidenhen har gjort, har bevist, at LaRouche havde ret. Man behøver blot se på Obamas indtræden i rollen som global bøddel, der præsiderer over de regulære tirsdagsmøder, hvor han personligt træffer beslutning om de amerikanske droneangrebs dræberlister. Eller hans konfronterende adfærd mod Rusland i kølvandet på den tyrkiske nedskydning af det russiske militærfly.

Der er ikke tid eller plads til en lang debat om dette spørgsmål. Obamas atomkrigsprovokationer udgør en trussel mod den menneskelige arts eksistens. Han må fjernes nu. Et enkelt medlem af Kongressen kan retmæssigt indlede en rigsretsprocedure. Ansvarlige regeringsfolk i præsidentskabet kan retmæssigt indlede det 25. forfatningstillæg med den begrundelse, at en præsident, der har til hensigt at fremprovokere atomkrig, ikke længere er skikket til embedet.

Det amerikanske folk må nu agte på LaRouches advarsel. Fjern Obama Nu!

 

Supplerende materiale:

Putin og Hollande mødes i Moskva – Aftale om koordinering – Går efter oliesmugling m.m. – Obama på sidelinjen; afsløret

 

 




International LaRouchePAC Fredags-webcast
den 27. november 2015:
LaRouche: »Med mindre, og indtil, Obama smides ud,
står verden på en knivsæg til atomkrig.
Strategisk analyse med Jeff Steinberg m. fl.

Lyndon LaRouche har hele vejen utvetydigt sagt, at med mindre, og indtil, Obama smides ud, står verden på en knivsæg til atomkrig. Spøgelset af denne fare sås skarpt i tirsdags med Tyrkiets nedskydning af et russisk fly, der var engageret i bombetogt nær den tyrkisk-syriske grænse. LaRouche kom omgående med en offentlig erklæring, der sagde, »Obama har organiseret en krigshandling, og således sat USA, såvel som resten af menneskeheden, i fare«. Han sagde, at det »var et overlagt forsøg fra Obamas side på at fremtvinge generel krig«. Engelsk udskrift.

MEGAN BEETS: Good evening. It’s November 27, 2015. My name
is Megan Beets, and I’d like to welcome all of you to our regular
Friday evening broadcast here at LaRouche PAC. I’m joined in the
studio tonight by Jason Ross and I’m also joined, via video, by
Jeffrey Steinberg.
Now in discussions earlier this week, Mr. LaRouche made it
very, very clear that the key issue facing all of us, is whether
the people of the United States, in particular, both the people
in positions of leadership, such as the Congress, but also the
population in general, have the guts to stop compromising with
Obama, to tell the truth, and to throw him out. Now, what we’ve
seen shaping up over the past weeks is a very dramatically and a
very rapidly shifting world strategic situation, including
ongoing Russian military intervention into Syria; also including
the recent wave of terrorist attacks, such as the bombing of the
Russian plane over Egypt, and of course, the terrorist attacks
which occurred just two weeks ago in Paris, which was followed by
a shift in dynamic among world leaders, away from the failed
Obama policy, and toward a broader collaboration with the
Russians to defeat ISIS.
However, throughout all of this, Mr. LaRouche has been
unequivocal that unless, and until you get Obama out of the U.S.
presidency, the world stands on a razor’s edge of thermonuclear
war.
Now the spectre of that danger arose sharply this Tuesday,
with the Turkish shooting down of a Russian plane which was
involved in operations near the Turkish-Syria border. And Mr.
LaRouche immediately issued a statement, a public statement,
which said that “Obama has organized an act of war, and thus
endangered the United States, as well as all humanity.” He said
that it “was a deliberate attempt by Obama to force general
warfare.”
Now, this act by Turkey and by Obama, and the aftermath, has
catalyzed a very significant change in the world global dynamic,
which we’re seeing manifest, for example, in Europe, among other
places. This shift is also the subject of tonight’s institutional
question, which makes reference to the ongoing talks in Vienna,
which are aimed at resolving the situation in Syria. The question
reads as follows:
“Mr. LaRouche, please give us your view of how Russia and
Turkey can move once again to collaborate to save Syria under the
Vienna process?” So now I’m going to turn it over to Jeff to give
Mr. LaRouche’s response to that question, as well as an
elaboration of the general strategic picture.
JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thank you, Megan. Can you hear me there?
Well I think that the starting point must be to tell the truth as
we know it about the events of last Tuesday. It was immediately
understood by leading political and military circles in the
United States, in Europe, and most emphatically in Russia, that
the action that was undertaken by the Turkish in shooting down
that Russian SU-24 over a border area on the Turkey-Syria border
right along the Mediterranean coast, that this was something that
1) was order top down in Turkey from President Erdogan, and 2)
Erdogan would never have undertaken such an action if he did not
have advance approval from Obama and the British.
So, for the Russians, this represented a major act of war,
and I can tell you that within the U.S. governing institutions,
there was a deep and profound split that reflected immediately in
actions that were diametrically opposite. Secretary of State John
Kerry, leading circles within the Pentagon all the way up to the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, immediately activated channels with
Russia, knowing full well that there was a very real prospect
that Russia would retaliate immediately after this unwarranted
military provocation. And so, you have one element of the U.S.
command that is not under British control, that moved immediately
to at least temporarily forestall a situation that was
potentially moments away from a general war between NATO and
Russia. And as we’ve been saying, as Mr. LaRouche has been
warning since virtually the beginning of the Obama presidency,
any such war between NATO and Russia would very rapidly devolve
into a thermonuclear war, in which the overwhelming majority of
humankind would likely not survive.
So you had actions. There was red phone line communications
activated immediately, between those elements in the U.S. Command
that were not on the British line, and top Russian officials. And
the first objective was simply to secure a commitment that the
situation would not immediately go to a hot war. In other words,
this was the most dangerous situation since, and probably more
so, than even the Cuban Missile crisis. Because in the Cuban
missile crisis, there was no shoot down of an American or a
Soviet ship or a plane.
On the other hand, President Obama, who was closer to
Erdogan than virtually any foreign leader, perhaps with the sole
exception of David Cameron in Britain, immediately got on the
phone with Erdogan and then issued public statements certifying
that, in his mind, Turkey acted perfectly within their sovereign
rights to shoot down a plane flying over its territory.
Now, never mind the fact that there are serious questions
and disputes of whether that plane, that Russian plane, actually
ever even entered Turkish airspace. The fact is that, if it
passed through Turkish air space at all, number one, there was
never any intent–and nobody in Turkey even claimed there was any
intent on the part of the Russians–to carry out any kind of
military action or provocation against Turkey. And secondly, even
after the first 24 hours following the shoot-down, the Turks were
even acknowledging that that plane, if it ever in fact crossed
into Turkish territory, was there only for a matter of brief
seconds, and no longer.
Now that also tells you that to shoot down that plane, was a
premeditated, pre-determined decision. There was not enough time
for the Turkish air force to consult up the chain of command all
the way to President Erdogan, and to then get response orders
back, and to fire at the Russian plane — all within a matter of
a timeframe that at most has been characterized as 17 seconds.
So, again, it was a premeditated act of war; and Erdogan on his
own never would have undertaken that. It was done in conjunction
with both Obama and the British; and therefore, the
responsibility lies there.
Now, let’s again visit what the immediate context was of
this incident. It occurred last Tuesday at a point that French
President Hollande was in Washington to attempt to organize
President Obama to join a trilateral military alliance of France,
Russia, and the United States, to wipe out the threat of ISIS and
Nusra, and all allied organizations inside Syria and inside Iraq
primarily. And so, the events that took place just as Obama and
Hollande were sitting down, hijacked the agenda of that
discussion. All you have to do is read the transcript, or even
better, watch the video of the press conference that took place
later that same day between Obama and Hollande; and you’ll see
towards the end, Obama launching into a typical Obama tirade
against Putin and against Russia. Obama was lying pathologically
in saying that the United States is leading a coalition of over
60 countries, and that Russia, when it comes to fighting against
the Islamic State is “the outlier”; and it went on from there.
So, statements soon after that, again from the White House, fully
endorsed and adopted the Turkish line on what happened.
So, here you’ve got a situation where an act of war, an act
of military aggression took place, carried out by Turkey — a
NATO member — and was done with the full at least tacit backing
of the President of the United States, with the full support of
the British. How close do you have to get to provoking
thermonuclear war before enough people in Congress and in the
American population wake up and recognize that Lyndon LaRouche
has been right for years in warning about the menace that
President Obama represents if he’s allowed to continue to remain
in office? We’re down to the final 14 or so months of his
Presidency, but you can see the kind of developments that can
occur on literally a moment’s notice. And so, there is no option
any longer other than removing the President from office by
Constitutional means immediately. That means that the leading
members of Congress and at least leading elements within the
American population have got to finally wake up to strategic
reality.
Now, to put an added punctuation mark on the situation,
let’s not forget that there was another major series of
provocations directed against Russia over the same recent
timeframe of the last week. You had the Right Sector, the
neo-Nazi apparatus in Ukraine, that is openly backed and promoted
by the Obama administration principally through Victoria Nuland,
the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs, who carried out a bombing campaign against the power
grid of Crimea; and has effectively shut off almost all power to
the entire Crimean peninsula. When Russian repair units attempted
to get to the sites to re-establish the power links, they were
fired on by Right Sector militias; and to make matters even
worse, at the end of last week, it was announced by Nuland’s pet
prime minister, Yatsenyuk, that henceforth all Russian flights
over Ukrainian airspace were cancelled. Now, that’s tantamount to
a threat of yet a second country, a major ally of the US and the
British, threatening to carry out unprovoked strikes against
Russian aircraft flying over Ukrainian airspace.
So, you’ve got a clear pattern here. You have — as Megan
indicated — a phase shift with the series of ISIS terrorist
attacks over the last several weeks, that began with the bombing
of the Russian Metro Jet over the Sinai; followed with a series
of suicide bombings on the southern portions of Beirut in
Lebanon, targetting the Shi’ite area of that city. And then the
Paris attacks. The world was energized to finally launch an
all-out serious campaign against the Islamic State. Russia
escalated the bombing campaign against the Islamic State and
knocked out an estimated 1000 of the tanker trucks that have been
smuggling oil from the ISIS-controlled areas of northern Syria
into Turkey, where they’ve been sold on the black market; and
these funds have been fueling the operations of the Islamic
State.
At the G-20 summit meeting that ironically took place in
Turkey just days before the Turkish air force shot down the
Russian SU-24, President Putin made very clear that Russia has
aerial photographs showing lengthy caravans of these oil tanker
trucks crossing the border into Turkey from northern Syria; and
furthermore, he said he has the names of financial agents in 40
countries, including a number of the G-20 member countries, that
are involved in financing the Islamic State through black market
cooperation. So, the case is unambiguous. If you wanted to
attribute narrow motives, you could say that Erdogan was furious
at the Russians for bombing these Turkish smuggling trucks, since
we know that the funds generated on the Turkish side from this
black market activity largely go into the coffers of the ruling
AKP Party. We know that the son of President Erdogan is himself
one of the major people involved in this black market operation.
But in a very real sense, that’s a much too narrow
understanding of what happened here. It eliminates the crucial
question, which is that Obama and the British were behind this,
and it was an attempt on a much grander scale to not just simply
sabotage the Vienna initiatives; but it was an attempt to trigger
a potential world war. And for that crime alone, despite the fact
that there is a long list of Constitutional violations and other
crimes committed by this President, for that reason alone he must
be immediately removed from office. And therefore, every person
listening to this broadcast, all of your friends, all of your
neighbors, all of your political associates, your co-workers, are
going to have to do some serious soul searching; because we came
inches away from world war last Tuesday morning, with the Turkish
actions. And it was only a matter of intervention, but
particularly restraint on the part of Russian President Putin and
the Russian military that averted that. There is still clearly an
option, and lessons to be learned from this provocation, that
could and must lead to reaching an agreement in Vienna to end the
five-year war and tragedy in Syria. But that must start with the
kind of blunt truth which we have been discussing here over the
last few minutes; and it cannot go forward so long as President
Obama remains in office. So, there are urgent issues that must be
taken up by the Congress and by the American people, if we are
going to avert a war; because I can assure you, if those critical
actions are not taken in the immediate days ahead, then the
chances that there will be {another} incident; {another}
provocation, whether by Ukraine, whether by Erdogan and the
Turks, whether by ISIS, and if actions aren’t taken to solve the
problem at its roots, we will be staring at the prospect of world
war in the immediate days, perhaps hours ahead.

BEETS: Okay, thank you very much, Jeff. Now, upcoming this
Monday, November 30th, we have the beginning of a two-week long
genocidal COP21 depopulation climate conference, which is
occurring in Paris, and despite the actual danger to humanity
which Jeff just outlined in detail, and especially in the wake of
the terrorist attacks in Paris just two weeks ago, this
absolutely insane conference is going ahead as scheduled, to be
attended by approximately 140 heads of state, along with
thousands of other government, NGO, and other officials, notably
Britain’s Prince Charles, the dysfunctional and inbred son of
Queen Elizabeth and her walking-dead husband, Prince Philip, will
be one of the keynote speakers.
Now, as we addressed in this webcast last week, if anyone
involved had any morality, we would completely change the nature
of the conference, to address the actual dangers and threats to
humanity, such as the refugee crisis, the conditions of poverty
around the world, and the lack of development that are actually
threatening billions of people. So what I’d like to do now, is
ask Jason to come to the podium to address this upcoming
conference in the context of what Jeff just presented.

JASON ROSS: This is almost like the worst joke you could
imagine, holding this conference in Paris. This conference which,
starting in a few days — we’ve been opposing this, and we’ve got
a leaflet, a resolution that we’ve been getting out on this,
called, “We Say No to the Paris COP21 CO2 Reduction Scheme.” I
want to read the bookmarks of this, the bookends. It opens, “The
conditions for life of billions of people depend upon rejecting
the agenda being presented at the 2015 climate change conference
to be held in Paris this December. The COP21 Paris initiative to
adopt a legally-binding agreement to reduce CO2 emissions must be
rejected on two grounds: the scientific reality, that mankind’s
activity, is {not} going to cause catastrophic climate change,
and the very real lethal consequences of the CO2 reduction
programs being demanded.” It ends, that “Energy-intensive
scientific, technological, and economic growth is essential to
human existence. This can be measured by transitions to higher
levels of energy-flux density per-capita and per-area. Such
progress, growth, and development, is the universal right of man,
and CO2 emissions are presently a vital part of that process for
the overwhelming majority of the world’s population. The adoption
of a legally-binding CO2 reduction scheme at the COP21 conference
in Paris will condemn billions of people to a lower quality of
life, with higher death-rates, greater poverty, and no ability to
exercise their inherent human right to participate in the
creation of a better condition for society as a whole. This is
deeply immoral. For these reasons, the CO2 reduction scheme of
the COP21 conference in Paris must be rejected.”
So on the grounds of the fakery of the science, and the
very, very real human costs of trying to meet the CO2 reduction
goals, this can’t go forward. However, obviously the push is
there, the conference is going ahead despite the state of
emergency currently in France, the terrorized population of
Paris, changes in some of the agenda, but it’s going ahead, and
as a matter of fact, this conference is getting a kick-start over
the weekend — today and the rest of the weekend — the
Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting is taking place in
Malta. So this is where all the members of the former British
Empire, now called the British Commonwealth, get together to —
as in this case — hear speeches from the Queen and others about
why they need to reduce CO2.
Prince Charles — who has been basically waiting for his
mother to die for a half century to get a job — he said that the
terrorism that we’re seeing, the conflicts that we’re seeing, are
not because of conflict, not because of ISIS, not because of the
Brits and Saudi Arabia helping ISIS, instead, Prince Charles
said, “In fact, there is very good evidence indeed that one of
the major reasons for this horror in Syria was a drought that
lasted for about 5 or 6 years, which meant that huge numbers of
people in the end had to leave the land.” This is the guy that
they’re asking to give the keynote address at the COP21
conference — a man whose understanding of Syria seems to be that
all of the conflict is because of a drought which was caused by
climate change. It’s insane, and it’s knowingly evil on his part.
So, what should be done instead, is re-purposing the
conference would be a good thing, you know, recycling what’s
going to be done there. As Megan said, of course, addressing the
refugee crisis, which is all over Europe at present, and beyond
— that’s worth discussing. Really, what’s worth discussing is a
solution to this whole problem, which would be excellent if the
Congress were to release the 28 pages, put them in the record, as
Senator Gravel did with the Pentagon Papers, to be able to attack
the cause of this conflict at its source, which as Jeff went
through, as LaRouche has been stressing, is Obama, who by his
nature as a killer personality, has qualified himself to be
inserted into his role as President. That that is the cause of
the conflicts. Releasing the 28 pages, discussing how to actually
shut down terrorism in the region, working {with} Russia on this
— you know, Russia is serious about this — you know, that would
be worth discussing.
And really, what would it mean to develop the world into the
Silk Road? You know, EIR released, about a year ago now, “The New
Silk Road Becomes the World Landbridge.” It’s a 300 and — almost
400 page report. It goes through in incredible detail, with maps
and everything, what it would mean for China’s One Belt One Road
project, its New Silk Road project, to continue its extension
into a worldwide paradigm of development. What would those
projects look like? And this is a policy that the LaRouches have
been promoting for decades, and Helga LaRouche in her visits to
China is acknowledged as “the Silk Road Lady,” for her role in
bringing this outlook into the current fruition that it’s
finding. So what would it mean for the U.S. to join the Silk
Road? What would it mean for us to get our act together?
Well, we’ve been working on a report on this, in terms of
what a U.S. recovery would look like, and there’s a lot of
aspects to this. I mean, if you think about the kinds of projects
that have, many, been on the books, and the kinds of projects
that will drive us into the future, you recognize that it would
not be very difficult to create millions of jobs in a very short
period of time — meaningful, productive jobs — that lay the
groundwork for a durable new, more productive economy for the
future. Doing that will require eliminating Wall Street, getting
Glass-Steagall re-implemented, having those provisions back in
place, shutting down Wall Street which we do not need. Gambling
is not an essential part of economy. The productive process,
science, creativity, the development of human beings and
infrastructure — that is essential. Gambling is not.
So with Wall Street out of the way, with federal financing,
with federal credit made available, some of the projects are
things that we’ve discussed quite a bit. Take, for example, the
Bering Strait. Crossing the Bering Strait with a tunnel or a
bridge, as engineers decide, would be a very key role, a very key
project, to put the U.S. on the Silk Road, literally, making it
possible to get from the West Coast of the U.S., into Eurasia,
much more quickly than by sending a ship across the ocean, with
the added benefit that rail, or transportation corridors on land
overall, allow for the ability to develop regions along the
way. Something that a ship crossing the ocean doesn’t do. Ships
don’t create wealth, or the potential to create it, as they cross
the waters. Land connections do.
So the Bering Strait tunnel — that would be a key project.
Overall, transportation has a tremendous way to go in the U.S.
You know, China, which is a nation very similar in size to the
United States, currently has 11,000 miles of high-speed rail,
with plans to have 30,000 by 2020, and they’ll do it — they do
what they say. In contrast, we have under 500 miles of high-speed
rail, and that’s being very generous in counting the Acela
service as high-speed. What we should have is 42,000 miles of
electrified, decent rail in the United States, bringing down the
costs of transportation, and of production throughout the nation,
making it more possible to move intermediate goods from place to
place, to move people, to move products in a way that will have a
tremendous savings in time, and in energy costs.
Currently over half of rail-freight in the U.S. is coal. You
know, in a nuclear economy we obviously wouldn’t need so much
coal, but it also goes to show how little else is being done with
the system as it is, and maybe some idea of what it could be like
in the future.
Along with the development of the basics which we naturally
think of — things like transportation, rail, repairing roadways,
power plants, water systems, which I’ll get into in a moment —
the other aspect is cities. Now, India has committed itself to
building scores of new cities across the country. Russia has
created science cities. The United States — imagine the
potential, not to keep adding more and more sprawl to the
outsides of our current cities, but developing legitimately new
cities, actual cities, planned in a sensible way, with part of a
transportation backbone underlying it, with infrastructure that’s
needed, canals and aqueducts as necessary, water, power, that
sort of thing. But then also where the cities and where life is
oriented around the most key of economic processes — the
creation of wealth by improving the productive powers of labor,
by the cultural role that can be played by a city.
So in addition to the ability to move goods and people
easily, the density you find in a real city, where different
members of the household can do their various things that anyone
having an hour and a half commute can’t, you also have the other
role of the city itself as a social institution.
So, in a very interesting article that LaRouche wrote some
decades ago, in a program for the development of Africa, he
discusses the central role of the city, and the presence of a
research and educational complex, a pedagogical museum where
people, kids, their parents, etc. would be able to step
themselves through how discoveries had been made in the past in a
hands-on way, doing experiments, themselves witnessing and
understanding very directly how humanity has gotten where it is,
making it possible to have workers able to master new
technologies, and scientists able to reflect on what science has
done in the past, to create the new discoveries needed in the
future.
This sort of educational center of the city will be more
than a museum retailing the past; it will be more than looking
backwards. LaRouche wrote that to give vitality and direction to
the process, the educational zone of a new city must be engaged
in some aspect of scientific research which is itself of world
importance. He says that “a modern nation has achieved true
sovereignty in spirit, only if it achieves excellence in some
important aspect of advancement of human knowledge generally. A
people which can point to several institutions of its own nation,
and can identify several important contributions to human
knowledge associated with such institutions, is a people which
knows that its children are capable of equalling in importance to
humanity, the children of any other nation. To teach science is
to teach the principles of discovery.”
So, with cities, with this as an included basis, cities of
finite size ( no more than one or two million people), with the
development made potential by rail, by water, by developing
fusion power on a crash basis, and implementing the
already-discovered abilities which have been improved on building
nuclear fission plants, we’ll be able to dramatically increase
the power, electrical power, available in the nation; to power
transportation; to power manufacturing. And to do all of this,
we’re also going to need revival of machine tools themselves.
Now, machine tools — now not everyone’s actually seen one
of these in person. These are things like lathes, like mills,
shapers — these are the devices that make everything that’s
required, that create metal, that shape metal to do machining. To
the extent that you are able to innovate in this area, as has
been done with new technologies over the decades — like electric
discharge machining around the time of the Apollo program, or
electron-beam welding; or the more recent developments of laser
and plasma cutting, and the ability for these computer-controlled
machine tools to create things that would have taken ten times
longer in earlier eras: to the extent that this technology
improves, and to the extent that purchases are made, and as part
of an industrialization, the capital stock is increasingly of
newer, and more productive machine tools, the entire economy sees
the benefits from them, by making easier, reducing the cost, of
all other production.
So, this machine tool principle is, in the small, an image
of what it means to take discoveries and then implement them into
an economy, for new thought, new engineering, or scientific idea,
to become manifest in the economy. And this is a field that needs
motion on. As I said earlier, power; fusion research, which has
been starved of funding deliberately for decades, preventing the
kind of breakthroughs that would make power, as has been said,
too cheap to meter — or even if not that cheap, remarkably
abundant power able to bring the next generation of production
technologies into play. To transform our relationship with raw
materials, and with reshaping those materials. Things like the
plasma torch.
So, in this kind of economy, we can then re-approach such
subjects as water. California is in what’s called a water crisis,
despite being right next to the Pacific Ocean. Why do we not have
the power and the plants in place to be able to desalinate? To at
least provide for much of the needs in California? Why have we
not done more research on how weather actually functions?
You know, one of the ironies of the global warming
alarmists, hysterics, whatever you want to call them, is that
this supposedly scientific outlook is actually stifling science.
Hypotheses about what’s causing climate change over time,
hypotheses about how cosmic radiation coming from our Galaxy, or
even beyond, plays a role in creating the cloud condensation
nuclei to form clouds, to effect precipitation, to change the
albedo, the reflectants of the Earth, and therefore its
temperature — that’s real science that’s being held back by the
global warming mafia, who reject this kind of approach because it
doesn’t come to the conclusion that they want: namely, that
human-made CO2 is {the} determining factor in global climate.
It’s just not true.
So, as was said in that resolution I read at the beginning,
and as is covered in this other EIR special report, “Global
Warming Scare is Population Reduction, Not Science,” the science
is clear. We are not causing catastrophic warming of the planet.
Mankind is not a virus destroying the Earth. What is destroying
the planet is oligarchism; the outlook that human beings are a
disease, the anti-growth and enforced poverty promoted by the
City of London, by Wall Street, by that system which has to be
removed. In its place, as far as an actual concept of humanity,
let me read another quote from LaRouche here. He says, “Every
infant born in any part of the world has the potential for
development of his or her mental powers to the level sufficient
for adult competence in use of modern technology.” And this also
means real technology, not iPhones. “That child can achieve at
least an approximation for practice of the highest levels of
productive powers of labor in the world generally today. It is
that potential development which is the only source of wealth.”
Let’s remember that; the source of wealth, the increasing of the
productive powers of labor, as Hamilton put it, lies in that
ability for human beings creatively to develop new understandings
about nature, and thereby reform the economy in an entire way.
That’s real economic science, and with that approach, the
programs that are needed, the development projects which we can
implement, the jobs that will create; this can all follow from an
outlook of what economics truly is, and breaking free from the
false ideas about it which have been promoted by Wall Street and
which have affected, unfortunately, a very great number of our
fellow citizens.

BEETS: Thanks, Jason. Two days ago, on Wednesday of this
week, we celebrated the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s
publication of his paper on general relativity. Now, LaRouche has
reiterated many times in the recent period that Einstein was the
only true scientist in the 20th Century; someone who held out
against the corruption in thinking that was ushered in 1900 by
Bertrand Russell. And someone who was attacked and isolated for
his commitment to the paradigm of thinking which represents the
actual human mind; the paradigm which was responsible for all of
human progress up to this point. So, what I’d like to do is ask
Jason to come back to the podium and ask him this question: Given
the task ahead of us today to rebuild society, rebuild
civilization, and to create a new paradigm for mankind, I’d like
to ask Jason to give us a sense of the importance of Einstein’s
work and his commitment.

ROSS: Sure. I think what Einstein accomplished represents a
key concept under which science can be understood; that of
metaphor. LaRouche has repeatedly stressed the importance of
metaphor as the key to science; meaning the development of
language in such a way that you express a new scientific truth in
a way that could not even have been stated in the preceding
language. It’s not something mathematical; it’s not a formula or
an expression. Discoveries in their true form can’t be. After the
fact, you might be able to write them down; but what makes them a
discovery is an overthrowing of the past, the development of a
new basis for thinking incompatible with what came before. That’s
the kernel of what a discovery is. None of these thoughts are
really eternal; what is, is that process of developing new ones.
Which is the incredible error in science education today, based
upon understanding how to apply the fruits of discovery to
specific problems; but not going through how they were developed.
So, 100 years ago, 1915, Einstein successfully expanded his
special theory of relativity, which he had developed in 1905,
into a more general form; making it the general theory of
relativity. So, I do want to say a bit about what Einstein did; I
think it would be wrong not to; and then get into what it would
mean for us today, what’s the relevance. Einstein’s not just
someone to idolize, or say, “Wow, he was a real genius.” Figure
out what he did.
So, going back ten years earlier to 1905 — 110 years ago —
Einstein, in his what’s now called special theory of relativity,
changed the basis on which scientific thought was based. At that
time, the prevailing view was of a Newtonian outlook to space and
time. Isaac Newton had said that space and time were independent
of things within them; space is space, within it, things exist
and take place, or occur in different relations to each other.
According to Newton, time flows on its own, without reference to
the things in it; they take place over time, but time is an
independent existence.
Well, Einstein tore that apart in 1905; in some ways with
rather simple thoughts. For example, he demonstrated that the
concept of simultaneity does not exist; that depending on who it
is that you ask, and their motion with respect to two events that
are occurring, that observer might say yes they occurred at the
same time. Meaning the light from those two events reaching them,
to make a determination which one occurred first, or second, or
whether they occurred simultaneously, depending on the motion of
an observer, they might appear to occur at the same time or not.
He gave the example of someone on a train witnessing two
lightning bolts, versus someone on the ground witnessing two
lightning bolts.  To someone on the ground, two lightning bolts
occurring at equal distances in either direction, the light will
come and reach the person at the same time. To someone on a
train, who is at the middle of that platform right when the bolts
occur, at the same time according to the person on the platform,
because of the train’s motion, they’re going to see this bolt
before the other one. Who’s right? What does it really mean to
say “at the same time”? Because all the laws of nature work the
same, whether you’re standing still supposedly, or you’re in
constant motion, there’s no way to say who’s right; what the
right time should be. And the idea of having a universality of
simultaneity, to say “at this moment in the universe” disappears,
and it becomes relative to the observer.
What does that mean? It means that time itself no longer
exists as a basis for thought in the way that it had before.
There’s still time, but it’s no longer an untouchable permanence;
the same thing is the case for space. Where space and time are
skewed, and distances have to take place or be considered in
space-time, rather than in only one or the other. So, by then, by
1905 in his special theory of relativity, Einstein had replaced
the concepts of space and time as a basis for physics with
something physical; light’s motion. In this way, he was
implementing the revolutions in physics that Riemann said would
take place; that our understanding of geometry would take place
not by looking at geometry, but by an understanding of those
binding forces of nature which give rise to what is then
observed. A bent space; a curved space; a skewed space.
With his general theory of relativity in 1915, Einstein went
beyond frames of reference which are either at rest with respect
to each other or in uniform motion; and he considered
acceleration. He considered the fact that there is a relativistic
equivalence between somebody in a room where they feel the floor
pushing up against their feet, or their feet pushing down against
the floor, that without reference to what’s outside that room,
they might be sitting on the Earth, or they might be out in
space, where the top of the building is attached to a rope which
is being pulled at an accelerating rate, constantly pulling the
building up against their feet. No experiment, nothing you could
do inside the room, would be able to distinguish the one from the
other. From this equivalence then, Einstein derived his general
theory of relativity, by which not only motion, but gravitation
changes the shape of space and time.
This was a very, and still is, a very wild shocking idea.
Space and time were considered to be such fundamental things that
the possibility of them even being curved was rejected out of
hand by people like Immanuel Kant, Isaac Newton, Bertrand
Russell.
So, what Einstein was able to do, though, is demonstrate
that he was right. Two quick examples. One was the orbit of
Mercury. Every orbit, every planet, has a place that’s farthest
from the Sun, and one where it’s closest to the Sun. You draw the
line through them. That line for the orbit doesn’t stay
stationary. It actually moves over time. For Mercury that line
moves a degree and a half every century. And based on
calculations and gravity, as it was understood, people were able
to explain almost all of that change. There remained a very, very
small — about .01 degree per century — change in Mercury’s
orbit that no one had explained, but which Einstein was able to
explain with his theory.
Also his prediction about how light would bend going around
large objects, was borne out in the experiments around the
eclipse of 1919, in which photographs taken of stars near the
eclipsed Sun — since the Sun was covered, you could actually see
stars near the Sun, which you can’t ordinarily do in the daytime,
because you can’t see anything — and comparing those same stars
when the Sun was not in the sky near them, showed again that
Einstein was right; that the path of light coming from the stars
towards us was deformed, was shaped, by the presence of the Sun
in the way.
So, these are the things that people are most familiar with
about Einstein, things that are indisputably advances that he
made. But there’s more to him than that. I think that the great
importance that LaRouche attributes to him in what Megan was
bringing up about calling him the only scientist we had here in
the Twentieth Century, the only one who stuck to science, lies
elsewhere as well.
The other great work that Einstein had done was on the
quantum. So in 1905, in addition to Special Relativity, he also
wrote a paper to explain the photo-electric effect, and it was
actually this that got him his Nobel Prize later. This expanded
the theories of Planck in showing how light itself must come in
pieces: that it’s not purely a wave phenomenon; that there’s
something particle-like about it. Experiments, however, required
light to also have wave-like properties, making it impossible to
in a simple way decide on this question. Is light a particle, or
is light a wave? This is one of the difficulties of quantum
physics.
What Einstein held out against was the interpretation by
scientists in his day, led by Bohr, mainly, Neils Bohr the Dane,
to say that science had reached a limit; that to ask why was
really no longer admissible, and that in the quantum world,
physics, instead of saying what nature is, is limited to
describing how nature appears. Against that Einstein — Einstein
would not accept that. Einstein never accepted the idea that we
had reached an end to the ability to know things, and that
quantum theory as it was known at that time, was final, complete.
Something that’s never been true of, really, any theory in
history.
This is seen now with the ongoing difficulties around
completing quantum theory, and also the anomalies in the fields
of life and the potential for a higher understanding of these
quantum processes in the fields of cognition. It’s also seen in
his own work, with the theory of gravitation; with the
difficulties — I hope you’ve been watching the series of
presentations our colleague Ben Deniston has been doing on the
Galaxy on this website every other Wednesday — it’s also seen in
the difficulty in understanding the speed of rotation of
galaxies. The basis for hypotheses that people make about dark
matter now. A lot of what this can indicate is that we have
simply reached the limits to the applicability of our physical
theories, and need to go beyond them.
That’s not done mathematically by positing ways to keep our
old laws, to explain the new phenomena, but it can require going
beyond it.
So, we don’t have answers to these questions. We shouldn’t
fool ourselves into thinking that we do already have the answers
to these questions. And the importance of Einstein for us today,
is that of a successful discoverer who overthrew what had been
thought, developed a higher theory to explain things, and was
guided by an understanding of the role of the human mind in
developing new, successful concepts about nature. With that as a
basis for how we relate to other human beings, with that as a
basis for social relations, we can forge a much higher level of
cooperation on this planet, and develop a culture that’s really
suitable for human beings that participate in it.
MEGAN BEETS: Thank you very much, Jason. With that, I’m
going to bring our broadcast to a close. I would like to thank
Jason for joining me, and Jeff for joining us via video, and I’d
like to thank all of you for watching tonight. Please stay tuned
to larouchepac.com. Good night.

  

 




Leder, 27. november 2015:
I har meget lidt tid til at ændre jeres tankegang

… LaRouche refererede herefter til et møde tirsdag aften, hvor han havde insisteret på, at Obama omgående må ydmyges og degraderes i en grad, hvor han ikke længere vil være i stand til at gennemtvinge de sidste, tilbageværende, korte skridt mod en atomkrig, og heller ikke vil være i stand til at forhindre, at han brat tvinges fra embedet. Dette er et spørgsmål om liv eller død for menneskeheden – ikke uger ud i fremtiden, men lige nu, på Thanksgiving Day, og fredag morgen.

Under en telefonkonference onsdag morgen, den 25. nov., med sin Politiske Komite sagde Lyndon LaRouche: »Jeg mener ikke, vi befinder os i en god tid. Vi er i en desorganiseret tid, en tid med nederlag. Vi er ikke særligt effektive lige nu. Vores organisation som helhed lykkes ikke, med hensyn til vores præstationer; dette må vi rette op på.«

LaRouche refererede herefter til et møde tirsdag aften, hvor han havde insisteret på, at Obama omgående må ydmyges og degraderes i en grad, hvor han ikke længere vil være i stand til at gennemtvinge de sidste, tilbageværende, korte skridt mod en atomkrig, og heller ikke vil være i stand til at forhindre, at han brat tvinges fra embedet. Dette er et spørgsmål om liv eller død for menneskeheden – ikke uger ud i fremtiden, men lige nu, på Thanksgiving Day[1], og fredag morgen.

For alle, der stadig er i tvivl, så blev det offentligt indrømmet denne tirsdag morgen, at de fleste af jer ikke har denne tankegang, og derfor ikke præsterer denne adfærd.

Under sin haste-diskussion med aktivister i hele USA, (den såkaldte ’Fireside Chat’) om aftenen den 25. kom det sidste spørgsmål fra en texaner, som sagde, at en rigsretssag mod Obama var udelukket, eftersom dette kræver to tredjedele af Senatet, og aldrig før er sket. Obama burde smides ud i et militærkup efter krav fra befolkningen, ligesom den egyptiske diktator Morsi, fortsatte spørgeren, men dette er ikke muligt, eftersom Obama har fyret alle de gode generaler. Hvordan kan vi få det amerikanske folk til at rejse sig en masse og kræve Obamas afsættelse, spurgte han?

LaRouche svarede, at der ikke er noget systemisk princip, der forhindrer dette. Folk må mobiliseres til at uddanne sig selv på den rette måde. De værdier, man har lært dem at tilpasse sig til, har fordærvet dem. Det er ikke kun et spørgsmål om at fjerne skidtet fra folks hoveder: de må bringes til at forstå de sygdomme, som de har inficeret deres egne hjerner med. Det vil virke.

Hvis man ønsker at kontrollere samfundet, korrumperer (fordærver) man samfundet; man inducerer folk til at tro på noget, der ikke er sandt; hvorimod sandfærdig viden ikke er alment praktiseret. Dette skyldes, at vore regeringssystemer så ofte er korrupte.

Man må få folk til at se på sig selv og sige, »Hvad gør jeg forkert?« De kan forstå dette, men de må begynde et studie af sig selv og gennemgå, hvad det er, de burde tænke på, med de rette ideer. Dette kan gøres, men den eneste måde, det kan gøres på, er ved, at folk inspicerer sig selv meget grundigt. At de genovervejer, hvad det er, de har vedtaget som deres mening. Under visse omstændigheder er dette sket med held. Det har vi nu igen brug for.

 

[1] I USA en overvejende sekulariseret helligdag den fjerde torsdag i november, der er blevet fejret lige siden de første europæere kom til Den nye Verden; oprindeligt en taksigelse for årets høst.




POLITISK ORIENTERING
den 26. november 2015:
Det er Obamas ansvar, at Tyrkiet
skød et russisk fly ned over Syrien

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video:

Lyd:




Leder, 26. november 2015:
Dump Obama, eller se en atomar udslettelseskrig i øjnene

Den britiske agent Barack Obama stod bag den tyrkiske nedskydning af det russiske Su-24 fly over syrisk luftrum tirsdag, den 24. november, og den russiske regering har gjort det klart, at det er fuldt ud klar over Obamas medskyldighed. I en telefonsamtale med den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry onsdag påpegede den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov, at, under bestemmelserne i forståelsesmemorandaet om dekonfliktion, som USA og Rusland for nyligt underskrev, tog USA ansvaret for alle de såkaldte koalitionspartneres handlinger. Mere præcist, så påpegede Lavrov, at angrebet på det russiske fly blev udført af et amerikansk fremstillet F-16, og der foreligger en bindende forståelse, der går ud på, at offensive operationer med anvendelse af amerikansk fremstillede fly skal cleares forud.

I det umiddelbare kølvand på nedskydningen af den russiske jet var det vigtigt for præsident Obama at telefonere til den tyrkiske præsident Erdogan for at forsikre ham om, at USA fuldt ud støttede hans »suveræne« handlinger. I sin afskyelige pressekonference sammen med den franske præsident Hollande tirsdag aften kastede Obama sig i sit storhedsvanvid ud i et angreb på Putin og Rusland og kaldte dem »afvigerne« og »tilbød« Rusland en sidste chance for at slutte sig til den amerikansk ledede »koalition«, der udfører den rigtige bekæmpelse af ISIS.

Obama gjorde det, han gør bedst – han løj, patologisk, på vegne af sine britiske herrer. I umindelige tider har den britiske krones strategi været den at fremprovokere krig mellem USA og Rusland og bære ved til bålet for en permanent befolkningskrig internt i den muslimske verden, mellem sunni og shia, ved at anvende deres (briternes) saudiske juniorpartnere som hovedprovokatører. Nu er Tyrkiet, under det korrupte Erdogan-regime, blevet bragt ind i blandingen for at oppiske betingelserne for en verdenskrig. Obama har været hovedaktivet for denne britiske krigsstrategi, lige siden han tiltrådte embedet, og indledte sin første embedsperiode med et besøg hos Dronning Elizabeth og Prins Philip i London, tre måneder efter sin indsættelse.

Et voksende antal politiske analytikere har tilsluttet sig Lyndon LaRouches afsløring af Obamas medskyldighed i tirsdagens tyrkiske handlinger. John Helmer i Moskva, Justin Raimondo, Daniel McAdams fra Ron Paul Institute og Pepe Escobar har inden for de seneste 24 timer alle offentligt udtalt, at Erdogan aldrig ville have lanceret et angreb mod det russiske fly uden forudgående godkendelse fra Obama.

I respons til det tyrkiske angreb har præsident Putin annonceret flere omgående militære modforholdsregler, inklusive deployeringen af de mest avancerede S-400 luftforsvarssystemer til den russiske luftbase i den syriske provins Latakia, udstationeringen af et overflade-til-luft (SAM) missilskib ud for Syriens kyst, samt en opgradering af ledsagefly, der kan afværge angreb, til alle fremtidige russiske bombetogter imod ISIS og mål i Syrien. Den russiske regering har gjort det klart, at de har beviser, inkl. varmesporet fra det nedskudte Su-24-fly, på, at flyet aldrig var inde over tyrkisk luftrum. En unavngiven amerikansk regeringsperson sagde til Reuters og andre nyhedsbureauer, at det russiske fly blev skudt ned over syrisk luftrum efter en meget kort passage gennem tyrkisk luftrum, der ikke kunne have varet mere end nogle få sekunder. Angrebet var planlagt på forhånd, med fuldt overlæg, og havde til hensigt at smadre klimaet efter angrebene i Paris, hvor en potentiel afgørelse af den fem år lange krig i Syrien og en koncentreret kampagne for at nedkæmpe ISIS og Nusra var ved at komme op at stå.

Putin vil svare tilbage med et flankeangreb, på linje med sin deployering af russiske styrker i Syrien, der fundamentalt ændrede konfliktens kurs, i september måned.

Skulle der herske nogen tvivl om, at dette er et globalt, britisk/Obama-ledet krigsfremstød mod Rusland, så se blot på Ukraine, hvor Sektor Højre har bombet elektricitetsledninger til Krim, og hvor Victoria Nulands (USA’s viceudenrigsminister for eurasiske og europæiske anliggender, -red.) kæledægge, ’Jats’ Jatsenjuk, netop har meddelt, at han har forbudt russiske fly enhver adgang til det ukrainske luftrum. Det svarer til en trussel om at nedskyde et russisk fly, hvornår det skal være.

Briternes største sårbarhed i dette fremstød for krig er Barack Obama. Han har begået forbrydelser imod menneskeheden, og så mange kriminelle handlinger, der berettiger til, at han stilles for en rigsret, at han udelukkende kun stadig er i embedet takket være fejheden og opportunismen hos de fleste af Kongressens medlemmer og det amerikanske folk, der tolererer hans eksistens, med deres eget liv som indsats.

 

Dokumentation:

Ruslands udenrigsminister Lavrov: Godkendte USA på forhånd Tyrkiets handling?

25. november 2015 – Den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry kondolerede på USA’s vegne over for den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov over telefon i dag, iflg. en erklæring udgivet af USA’s Udenrigsministerium. Forud for telefonopringningen sagde Lavrov til reportere i Moskva, at Rusland ved, at USA altid af sine koalitionspartnere i Syrien kræver, at brug af amerikanske kampfly koordineres med USA. Han påpegede således, iflg. TASS, den mulighed, at de tyrkiske myndigheder havde diskuteret deres beslutning om at beordre deres krigsfly i luften til at nedskyde det russiske fly med USA.

»Nogle medlemmer af koalitionen, inklusive dem, der leverer deres kampfly til angreb mod Irak og Syrien, har betroet os, at de involverede fly var af amerikansk fabrikat, og amerikanerne kræver normalt en tilladelse fra USA til sådanne operationer«, sagde Lavrov. »Så vidt jeg forstår, blev vores fly skudt ned af et amerikansk fremstillet F-16-fly. Vi ved endnu ikke, om USA’s krav gælder for Tyrkiet, og hvis det gør, ville jeg gerne vide, om Tyrkiet har spurgt USA om lov til at sende sine fly af sted på en kampmission og nedskyde et fly, selv om dette sandsynligvis er identificeret, over syrisk territorium.«

Lavrov mindede Kerry om, at, under bestemmelserne i Forståelsesmemorandaet (MOU) om dekonfliktion tager USA direkte ansvaret for de såkaldte koalitionspartneres handlinger, og det omfatter Tyrkiet. Lavrov bemærkede ligeledes, at Tyrkiet og Rusland, uafhængigt af MOU’et, etablerede en ’hot line’ telefonforbindelse, men at der ikke var nogen indsats fra nogen tyrkisk regeringsperson for at bruge denne linje til at afværge nedskydningen.

Lavrov talte også med sin tyrkiske modpart, Ahmet Cavusoglu, tidligere på dagen. Lavrov sagde, at Rusland ikke har nogen planer om at gå i krig med Tyrkiet, men at de planlagte russiske, diplomatiske besøg til Tyrkiet, og vice versa, heller ikke vil blive gennemført. Lavrov sagde, at hans tyrkiske modpart gav udtryk for beklagelse over Sukhoi-24M-hændelsen, men forsøgte samtidig at fremlægge undskyldninger for de handlinger, som det tyrkiske luftvåben begik.

»Hvad bør Tyrkiet gøre for at normalisere situationen?«, spurgte Lavrov. »Vi må nødvendigvis drage den konklusion, at angreb som det i går til syvende og sidst er absolut uacceptable. Jeg har hørt kondolencer fra [den tyrkiske udenrigs]minister Cavusoglu, men alle de andre erklæringer havde til hensigt at retfærdiggøre den tyrkiske holdning.«

Lavrov bemærkede også, at angrebet på Ruslands Su-24M-fly ligner en planlagt provokation. »Vi betvivler alvorligt, at det var uagtsomt; det ligner en planlagt provokation«, sagde Lavrov og tilføjede, at nogle russiske partnere kalder nedskydningen for »et åbenlyst bagholdsangreb«.

 

»Ville Tyrkiet handle uden USA’s tilladelse?« spørger politiske kommentatorer McAdams og Escobar; Andre advarer om atomkrig

25. november 2015 – »Et spørgsmål lyder, ville [den tyrkiske præsident] Erdogan gøre dette uden USA’s tilladelse, uden USA’s støtte?«, sagde Daniel McAdams, adm. dir. for Ron Paul Instituttet for Fred og Fremgang i et interview i dag med Sputnik International. McAdams, en mangeårig støtte til Ron Paul i Kongressen, anklagede Tyrkiet for kriminel aktivitet med at hjælpe ISIS: »Dette er meget alvorligt«, sagde han, » … Tyrkiet har gjort det muligt for sig selv at blive til et super-arnested for ISIS og andre jihadister, der kan bevæge sig frem og tilbage fra Syrien til Tyrkiet … hvis man vil have kriminel aktivitet, er Tyrkiet mindst en medskyldig i forbrydelsen.«

McAdams inkluderede Obama i forbrydelsen: »Netop i denne uge overvejede USA at invitere al-Qaedas affilierede Ahrar ash-Sham til også at deltage i drøftelserne [om Syrien]. Så, 14 år efter, at al-Qaeda angreb USA den 11. september, taler USA om at bringe en organisation, der er tilknyttet al-Qaeda, ind, som en moderat opposition til Syrien.«

Obamas rolle rejses også af Pepe Escobar: »Lad os gå lige ind til benet. Den idé, at Tyrkiets nedskydning af et russisk Su-24-fly af et ’made-in-USA’ F-16 blev gennemført uden enten grønt lys eller i det mindste en på forhånd arrangeret ’støtte’ fra Washington«, er næsten umuligt at tro på. Dernæst fremlægger Escobar en synopsis over Tyrkiets beskidte rolle under ’Sultan Erdogan’ med at hjælpe ISIS og smugling af olie, stjålet af ISIS, fra Syrien og Irak. Han dokumenterer også, at »Bilal Erdogan, sultanens søn, er en betydelig spekulant« inden for denne handel, og som Putin, bemærker han, afslørede under G20-topmødet i Antalya, Tyrkiet, i sidste uge.

Der er også alvorlige advarsler om faren for en atomkrig. Den republikanske præsidentkandidat Rand Paul sagde i går, iflg. The Hill: »Nedskydningen af et russisk kampfly illustrerer præcist, hvorfor vi må have en åben linje« til Rusland. Han knuste også andre kandidaters krav om en flyveforbudszone og sagde, »nedskydning af de andre landes kampfly vil blive resultatet, og en krig mellem atomare stormagter en mulighed«. Redaktøren af antiwar.com, Justin Raimondo, siger, at »amerikanerne vil have en ny Cubansk missilkrise … Er I parate til Tredje Verdenskrig?«

 

 




Global krigsførelse ved Det britiske Imperiums terrorister

24. november 2015 – Lyndon LaRouches advarsel om, at der »bliver ingen fred, før det britiske monarki er afsat, og den britiske marionet og foragtelige person Obama fjernes fra embedet«, understreges af mønstret med global terrorisme og andre provokationer, som de har udløst, ud over Tyrkiets nedskydning af det russiske Su-24 kampfly.

* Ukraine: Krim-provokationen er i gang, med Victoria Nulands nazister, der afskærer al tilførsel af strøm til Krim og sprænger transmissionstårne i luften, som omdrejningspunkt. Russiske myndigheder er overbevist om, at de kan håndtere nødsituationen med de 35 % af strøm i Krim, der produceres af lokale generatorer, indtil Rusland kan færdiggøre konstruktionen af undervandsforbindelsen fra Rusland under Kerch-strædet inden årets udgang. I mellemtiden er den ny fase af det amerikanske militære uddannelsesprogram for Ukraine begyndt, med USA’s uddannelse af fem bataljoner af aktive, tjenestegørende tropper og en bataljon styrker til specialoperationer.

* Belgien: Landet er forsat i højeste alarmberedskab, med Bruxelles, der har lukket alt ned. Regeringen har arresteret 21 mistænkte personer, men løsladt de 17, og de indrømmer, at de ikke har nogen ledetråd til, hvad der er det næste, der vil ske, bortset fra, at de stadig forventer flere angreb på forskellige lokaliteter.

* ISIS: Storbritannien har udgivet sin årlige sikkerhedsrapport, der hævder, at ISIS forsøger at få fat i atomvåben og kemiske våben.

* Egypten: En selvmordsbombe eksploderede i det egyptiske Sinai og dræbte mindst tre personer og sårede et dusin andre.

* Grækenland: En bombe eksploderede sent i går aftes i nærheden af parlamentet på Syntagma-pladsen. Ingen kom til skade.

* USA’s udenrigsministerium har udstedt en rejseadvarsel, der vil være i kraft til 24. februar, uden et specifikt sted eller hændelse i tankerne, men som blot bemærker, at IS, Boko Haram og andre grupper »fortsat planlægger terrorangreb i mange regioner«.

 

Foto: Krim henligger i mørke, mens Krims myndigheder desperat kæmper for at genoprette vital strømforsyning til f.eks. hospitaler, ved hjælp af de 35 % strøm, der produceres af lokale generatorer. 




Leder, 25. november 2015:
Obama har organiseret en krigshandling
– Ekstraordinær diskussion med Lyndon Larouche torsdag
– Ekstraordinær live diskussion med Tom Gillesberg torsdag aften – Vær med

Lyndon LaRouche responderede i dag til den tyrkiske nedskydning af et russisk kampfly ved at erklære, at »Obama har organiseret en krigshandling og har således sat USA, såvel som resten af menneskeheden, i fare.

Kvalificerede amerikanske personer har, i det umiddelbare kølvand af Tyrkiets handling, understreget, at Tyrkiets præsident Erdogan aldrig ville have udført denne aktion, hvis han ikke på forhånd vidste, at han havde stiltiende støtte fra Obama. De samme kilder observerede, at Obama i weekenden var rasende over, at den franske regering, under et enormt folkeligt pres, har taget skridt til en reel alliance med Rusland for at knuse ISIS. I skarp kontrast til denne fornuftige, franske respons til angrebene i Paris den 13. november har Obama gentaget sine krav om, at afsættelsen af den syriske præsident Bashar al-Assad må finde sted omgående, og må gå forud for aktionerne imod Islamisk Stat.

LaRouche krævede Obamas omgående fjernelse fra embedet. »Der kan ikke være nogen undskyldninger for Obama, hvis menneskeheden skal overleve. Vejen bort fra Tredje Verdenskrig er, at retskafne amerikanere fordømmer præsidenten ved enhver given lejlighed.«

 

Gå ind på https://larouchepac.com/ og hør Lyndon LaRouche i en ekstraordinær diskussion, fremkaldt af denne nødssituation, med aktivister i hele USA

onsdag, kl. 21 Eastern time (kl. 03.00 torsdag dansk tid)

OBS! Benyt chancen for at diskutere live med Tom Gillesberg torsdag aften, se opslag om konferencelinje her på hjemmesiden