Vi befinder os på tærsklen til jul; og vi mente, at det var meget vigtigt at få en diskussion i aftenens show, for vi har en ekstremt intens og vigtig politisk situation i øjeblikket. Vi håber, I alle har en fornemmelse af, hvor vigtige de umiddelbart forestående timer og dage er, og at I ikke er for optaget af julehøjtidelighedens festligheder.

På trods af de massive, falske nyheder, der i øvrigt kendes som de etablerede medier; på trods af de ting, vi dér hører, så er der i øjeblikket et betydningsfuld historisk og strategisk skifte i gang på globalt plan.

For blot at sætte fokus på ét element i dette, så er man i stor stil flippet ud over det faktum, at et lækket overgangsmemo fra Pentagon, fra den tiltrædende Trump-administration, udtrykkeligt ikke opregner Rusland som en eksistentiel trussel mod USA. Alene dette er en lille, men betydningsfuld indikation på den type overgang, vi ser. Der er mange spørgsmålstegn omkring Trump-administrationen, men det, der ganske klart er fremgået, er, at han har til hensigt at tage hele denne geopolitiske trussel om Tredje Verdenskrig af bordet. Dette er endnu en indikation på, at han ikke er indstillet på at spille hele dette Obama-Hillary Clinton, geopolitiske spil, der går helt tilbage til George Bush-administrationen, gående ud på at forsøge at true, underminere og ødelægge Rusland og Kina i forsøg på at opretholde en eller anden form for anglo-amerikansk globalt herredømme. Dette skræmmer livet af Obama og folkene bag ham i USA, i Europa, i London og lignende steder. Det skaber på den ene side en åbenlys, klar mulighed; men også en temmelig spændt og farlig situation. For blot et par dage siden advarede hr. Larouche udtrykkeligt om, at i denne periode, selv, når det ser ud, som om vi er tæt på Trumps indsættelse, så befinder vi os stadig væk i en meget farlig overgangsperiode; og Obama sidder dér som en dræber, en morder, der har begået mord i hele verden, ødelagt nationer i hele verden, dræbt amerikanere, fuldstændigt revet forfatningsmæssige forholdsregler i stykker, og sådanne ting. Dér sidder, han, stadig i embedet, stadig ved magten. Og blot umiddelbart herefter så vi, næsten efter bogen, en bølge af handlinger af en terroristisk art over hele planeten. Der var terrorhandlingen i Tyskland, der stadig er årsag til udbredt hysteri dér, med ubesvarede spørgsmål mht., hvad det var, der rent faktisk fandt sted. Og selvfølgelig, mordet på den russiske ambassadør i Tyrkiet, som var en direkte trussel mod hele den operation, der med held køres af Putin, for at bringe stabilitet og en reel bekæmpelse af reel terrorisme i dette område, i sammenhæng med en række andre terrortrusler og forsøg på aktioner i hele verden. Det er næsten efter bogen, at denne kaos-operation så bryder ud.

Men i aften vil vi diskutere noget, der er mere gavnligt. Mike [Billington] vil gå mere i dybden med, hvor verden i realiteten er på vej hen, og kunne være på vej hen; under forudsætning af, at vi kan grundfæste dette strategiske skifte; samt, hvorfor planetens nye direktion, under lederskab af Putin, Kina og allierede kræfter, virkelig er i færd med at omstøde dette historiske paradigme, der frem til i dag har knust verden i årtier.

EVERY GENERATION SHOULD BE FOCUSSED ON A COMPLETE REVOLUTION IN THE VERY NATURE OF MANKIND!

LaRouche PAC Webcast, Dec. 23, 2016

   BENJAMIN DENISTON:  Hi!  Welcome to the LaRouche PAC Weekly
Report for December 23, 2016.  My name is Benjamin Deniston; I'll
be hosting the discussion today.  We're happy to be joined by
Mike Billington of {Executive Intelligence Review} here in the
studio; and over Google Hang-outs, we have Diane Sare, leader of
the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee joining us from the New
Jersey-New York area.
   So today we have, I think, a rather exciting and important
discussion.  We're here on the eve of Christmas Eve; and we
thought it was very important to do a show today and have a
discussion, because this is an extremely intense and important
political situation right now.  We hope all of you have a sense
of the importance of the situation in the immediate hours and
days right now; and are not too swept up in the festivities of
the holidays.  Despite the massive fake news operation, otherwise
known as the mainstream media, despite what you're hearing from
that, there is a major historical and strategic shift underway
right now globally.
   I think just to highlight one element of this, there's been
a major freak-out around a leaked Pentagon transition memo from
the incoming Trump administration, which explicitly does not list
Russia as an existential threat to the United States.  This alone
is one more small but important indication of the type of
transition we're seeing.  There's a lot of questions around the
Trump administration, but what's been absolutely clear
consistently is that he is looking to take this entire
geopolitical threat of World War III off the table.  This is just
another indication showing that he is not willing to play this
Obama-Hillary Clinton going back to the George Bush
administration, geopolitical game of trying to threaten,
undermine, and destroy Russia and China to try and maintain some
kind of Anglo-American global hegemony.  This is completely
terrifying Obama and the people behind him in the United States,
in Europe, in London and related places. This is creating on the
one side obviously a clear opportunity; but also a rather tense
and dangerous situation.  It was just a few days ago that Mr.
LaRouche emphatically warned that in this period, even if it
seems like we're close to the inauguration of Trump, we still
have a very dangerous transition time; and you have Obama sitting
there as a killer, as a murderer, who has committed acts of
murder around the world, destroyed nations around the world,
killed Americans, completely ripped up Constitutional measures
and those grounds.  And he is sitting there, still in office,
still in power; and it was only in the immediate hours and days
after that that you had almost by the book, a wave of
terrorist-type activity launched all over the planet.  You had
this terrorist event in Germany, which is still creating major
hysteria over there, and there are still major questions about
what actually happened with that operation.  You obviously had
the assassination of this Russian ambassador in Turkey, which was
a direct threat to the entire operation that's been run
successfully by Putin to bring stability and an actual fight
against real terrorism in that region in connection with a series
of other terrorist threats and attempted actions around the
world.  It's almost a by the book response of this chaos
operation blowing up.
   But what we're going to discuss more today is going to be
very useful.  Mike is going to put some depth in where the world
is actually going and could be going; assuming we can solidify
this strategic shift; and why the new directionality of the
planet under the leadership of Putin, China, and allied forces is
really threatening to overturn this historical paradigm that's
crushed the world for many decades at this point.  I want to hand
it over to Mike; and we're going to get into the discussion.

   MICHAEL BILLINGTON:  OK, thanks Ben.  I'm certainly glad to
be here.  It is an incredible moment in history; it reminds me of
the opening of Dickens' {A Tale of Two Cities}, where he says,
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times …"  He
meant it, and it's true; we are in a revolutionary period,
there's no question about that.  This is sweeping the globe; it's
already largely taken over Asia, and the Brexit and the Italian
vote, the Trump vote, and so forth, indicate that people have
finally reached the limit to the power of tyranny over their
economy, over perpetual warfare.  But a revolution doesn't
necessarily have a positive outcome, and that's actually what
Dickens was talking about.  The French Revolution came soon after
the historic and wonderful American Revolution based on a new
conception of man; based upon science and technology and a new
financial system under Hamilton's ideas to defeat the power of
the British Empire which lay in their global financial empire.
But the French Revolution was taken over actually by the British;
but turned into chaos.  It's what Schiller said was "a great
moment [in history] has found a little people."  So, instead of a
great republic, you ended with the guillotine; you ended up with
Robespierre saying the revolution has no need for science, and
ultimately this led to the emergence of the first fascist —
Napoleon.
   So, we cannot be complacent; we have a tremendous victory in
the defeat of Obama and his clone, Hillary, and their British
operation.  But we certainly cannot sit back and cross our
fingers and hope that Trump is going to do the right thing.  It's
going to be up to us.  We should reflect on how the American
Revolution succeeded.  It succeeded because it was focussed on a
tremendous sense of history and philosophical thought; the
Founding Fathers put together the {Federalist Papers}, the
writings of Alexander Hamilton, which we've recently published.
If you read these, these are not easy; yet this was the basis on
which the so-called common men and women studied and came to the
conclusion that in fact this small group of leaders were leading
them in the right direction, and had created a future.  It was
based on poetry.  In fact, Schiller was known as the Poet of
Freedom and was treasured for 100 years after the American
Revolution as the poet of the American Revolution; despite being
German and writing in German.  But this was known to the American
people.  The music; the great {Messiah} by Handel was composed in
1741 — it was known.  Our Schiller Institute just performed a
phenomenal version of this great work — the {Messiah} — at the
Co-Cathedral of St. Joseph in Brooklyn last week in an extremely
moving ceremony.  These are the kinds of ceremonies that took
place at that time; that lifted people to a higher sense of their
humanity, of the dignity of man, and of creating a future.
   So, which of these two paths are we going to be taking
today?  Well, it's obvious which way Obama was going; we've made
that very clear.  His intention was war; not only the perpetual
wars in the Middle East, but leading to a war with Russia, a war
with China.  These are not completely resolved, but as Ben said,
we're a long way away from that horror, which was facing us had
we not defeated that in this final election.  But the result of
these 16 years of Bush and Obama can be seen in what's happened
to our own country; not just the Hell that's been taken to the
Middle East and other parts of the world.  We now have a decline
in life expectancy for the first time in our nation's history.
We have a drug epidemic in which 1 out of 15 Americans are
addicted to heroin or its substitutes; 1 out of 15 Americans.
This is not a problem; this is a disaster, a collapse of
civilization which is not only tolerated and supported openly by
our President, who promotes legalizing drugs and who is doing
everything in his power to stop the emergence of a war on drugs
in the Philippines, which I'll come back to.
   So, on the other hand, we see that Russia, under Putin's
direction, has intervened to stop this series of regime-change
operations.  What's happened in the tremendous victory in Aleppo
against terrorism, is that Putin has demonstrated that if you
work hand-in-hand with sovereign nations, with their leaders, you
can defeat terrorism.  And he basically exposed the fact that
Obama — like Bush — was on the side of the terrorists; under
the guise of fighting terrorism, was openly working with the
Saudis and the British, who were arming and creating these
terrorist movements to overthrow regimes who refused to follow
their dictates — the so-called "regime-change" movement.  That's
been probably crushed; this is not completely solved, but what's
happened in Aleppo not only stops the disintegration of Syria,
but it should — if properly pursued — mean the end of the
regime-change criminality of both Bush and Obama once and for
all.
   I'm going to read to you — today happened to be the day
that Putin gave his annual end of year press conference.  I think
just reading one section of part of that, and paraphrasing a few
others is important.  It's important for people to watch Putin;
it's done with an English voice-over.  It's useful to watch to
see why it is that the oligarchy is so terrified of this man.
I'm just going to read you — actually it was a question that
came from a man named Yevgeny Primakov.  It turns out that he is,
indeed, the grandson of the great Yevgeny Primakov who died
recently; but who was the original architect of the idea of
China, Russia, and India collaborating to form a new core of
nations that could appeal to America to join them.  Which is, of
course, what has to happen, as a basis of reversing the imperial
decline of the human race; and which led to the BRICS, it led to
the New Silk Road.  So, his grandson asked a question which said,
"Mr. Putin, Barack Obama, who is still your official colleague,
said that 37% of the Republicans sympathize with you.  And
hearing this, Ronald Reagan would have rolled over in his grave."
So, he says, "Our western colleagues often tell us that you have
the power to manipulate the world, to designate Presidents and to
interfere in elections here and there.  How does it feel to be
the most powerful person on Earth?  Thank you."  So, with that
humorous, but very insightful question, Putin said the following:
   "The current US Administration and leaders of the Democratic
Party are trying to blame all their failures on outside
factors¦…
   "We know that not only did the Democratic Party lose the
presidential election, but also the Senate, where the Republicans
have the majority, and Congress, where the Republicans are also
in control. Did we, or I also do that?…
   "It seems to me there is a gap between the eliteâs vision of
what is good and bad and that of what in earlier times we would
have called the broad popular masses¦… [A] substantial part of
the American people share similar views with us on the worldâs
organization, what we ought to be doing, and the common threats
and challenges we are facing. It is good that there are people
who sympathize with our views on traditional values because this
forms a good foundation on which to build relations between two
such powerful countries as Russia and the United States, build
them on the basis of our peoplesâ mutual sympathy.
   "¦… I'm not so sure who might be turning in their grave
right now. It seems to me that Reagan would be happy to see his
partyâs people winning everywhere, and would welcome the victory
of the newly elected President so adept at catching the public
mood, and who took precisely this direction and pressed onwards
to the very end, even when no one except us believed he could
win.
   "The outstanding Democrats in American history would
probably be turning in their graves though. Roosevelt certainly
would be because he was an exceptional statesman in American and
world history, who knew how to unite the nation even during the
Great Depressionâs bleakest years, in the late 1930s, and during
World War II. Todayâs administration, however, is very clearly
dividing the nation. The call for the electors not to vote for
either candidate, in this case, not to vote for the
President-elect, was quite simply a step towards dividing the
nation. Two electors did decide not to vote for Trump, and four
for Clinton, and here too they lost. They are losing on all
fronts and looking for scapegoats on whom to lay the blame. I
think that this is an affront to their own dignity. It is
important to know how to lose gracefully."
   Helga LaRouche commented when I read this to her, that this
is a call not only to the Democrats in America, but to the
oligarchs throughout the world who are acting as if this
revolutionary change is not taking place; as if they still have
the power to dictate policies, and who are hysterical about what
is happening in America.  Putin concludes this way; he says:
   "But my real hope is for us to build business-like and
constructive relations with the new President and with the future
Democratic Party leaders as well, because this is in the
interests of both countries and peoples."
   So, this is leadership; what we so sorely miss here in the
United States.  There's much more; more will be made available in
the {EIR}.
   Now let me turn to Asia. Asia today should — in fact China
in particular, but not just China — be seen as the model which
America must follow if we are to pull ourselves out of the morass
that we're in today. We've discussed this in this program and in
our publications many times: the entire Silk Road development,
the development of corridors. I want to put some maps up, and
just very quickly review some of the incredible development
projects that are going on, virtually every single day.
   This [Fig. 1] is a map published just in the last few days
by something called MERICS [the Mercator Institute for China
Studies]. They have a competent article on the whole Silk Road
process. They've marked in this red graphic where some of the
corridors are; they're not all there. Of course you have the
original corridor, which was the Trans-Siberian Railroad; which
was developed with consultation and advice from Henry Carey and
the American System, who worked with the Russians to replicate
what had been done in the United States with the Transcontinental
Railroad, not just to be from one end to the other, but to
develop the entire region in between.

   DENISTON: It's the black-gray dashed line of the existing
rail lines.

   BILLINGTON: Yeah, this one here, where I'm running that
thing. Now, you see the lower one that goes through China,
through Xinjiang Province, into Kazakhstan. This is the New Silk
Road, which was developed following the 1990s, with the fall of
the Soviet Union. Helga Zepp LaRouche helped organize in Beijing
a conference in 1996 on what the Chinese call the New Eurasian
Land-Bridge. Helga called it the New Silk Road even then.
   This led to the building of this rail which is now
functioning. It has several branches, both in China, and, on the
far side, in Europe, as well as branches down into central Asia.
It's being upgraded. It's not connected, it doesn't have the same
grade, most of it is not high-speed. So this is a
work-in-process.
   Now look at what's happened just in the last couple years.
This red line down here, is what's called the Pakistan Corridor.
This is a connection by rail, from China, down through Pakistan,
into Baluchistan (the southern part of Pakistan), and to the
Gwadar Port, which is being transformed into a major hub for oil
from the Middle East, for trade with India. Hopefully, if the
India/Pakistan relationship can be resolved.  Then — not on this
map — right around here in southern Iran, is the development of
the Chabahar Port, from which there are rail connections up
through Iran to Teheran, and then into Azerbaijan, and into
Russia.  Another north/south route; so, you have several
north/south routes.
   Over here, you see this red line that goes from Kunming in
southern China, through Thailand, Myanmar, and into India. This
is the old Burma Road that was built during the Second World War.
Mr. Lyndon LaRouche had a hand in building the Burma Road (or
worked along that Road). That's now being reconstructed. It will
eventually be a rail connection. And you see that this pipeline
— the black line here — is an offshoot from China all the way
down to the coast of Myanmar, where they are now taking in
shipments from Middle East oil and piping it up into China.
   Over here, this corridor. You already have rail connections
from Kunming down to the Laos border, and now the Chinese are
building a high-speed rail through Laos, down to the Thai border.
Just in the last few months, they've concluded their plans to
build a high-speed rail from the Laos border down to Bangkok. At
this point, there's only an old railroad from Bangkok down to
Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia — down here. But that will eventually
be done; and in the meantime, probably the Chinese, maybe the
Japanese, are building a high-speed rail from Kuala Lumpur to
Singapore. So, eventually, you'll have all the way from Kunming
down to Singapore.
   In Indonesia, the Chinese are building a railroad from the
capital of Jakarta to Bandung. Many of you have heard of Bandung
from the famous Bandung Conference in 1955, which was the first
meeting of Asian and African leaders who had formerly been
colonized, meeting without their colonial masters — the
so-called Asia-Africa Conference that was organized by Sukarno
and Nehru and Chou En-Lai (from China), and others. So that's in
the process; other developments there.
   If you look at this part of the Africa map [Fig. 2], these
are some railroads that have already been constructed. Go to the
next map of the two Africa maps. Okay. This [Fig. 3] is
from{EIR}'s report "The New Silk Road Becomes the World
Land-Bridge". This shows, on this side, the existing rail
structures as of a few years ago. You see that basically there's
no way to get from one capital to another. You can only get the
raw materials from the mine out to the port, where it was shipped
off to Europe and America. That's all the colonial powers cared
about in developing Africa.
   What you see here, is a general map of the kind of
commitment that the Chinese have made to {connect every capital
of Africa} with high-speed rail, several cross-continental
railroads. The Chinese need raw materials, just like the
Europeans did, but they're paying for it; they're {building
nations}. They're building nations that have industry,
agriculture, water, power, education, using a model which we used
to call the American System, but which we've deserted in our
country.
   The same in South America. You can go to the next map [Fig.
4] here. This is also from our report. It's not quite accurate
for what is in the process now, actually, because the Chinese are
talking about building {two} trans-oceanic railroads: one that
goes from Peru directly into Brazil and to the coast; one that
goes south of that through Bolivia. The Bolivians, of course,
want that railroad to go through Bolivia.
   So, again, transforming the world in a way which, of course,
the U.S. long ago ceased to do; becoming more of a British-style
colonial power which looted the raw materials, imposing huge
amounts of debt, and then using that debt as a weapon to keep the
countries in a state of backwardness.
   Now, I'm going to look at two other aspects of Asia: the
Philippines and Japan — where huge transformations are taking
place. Most of you have seen — either in our material or just in
the daily news — about Rodrigo Duterte, the new [Philippine]
President who took office in June of this year, who has {totally
transformed} the Philippines, with massive, massive support from
the population, estimated at more than 80%. Why? It's because he
took on the reality that the country had been destroyed. The
history of the Philippines, in brief, was that in the 1970s and
'80s, they were viewed by the rest of Asia — including Korea, by
the way — as {the} model for development, under Ferdinand
Marcos. They had built the first nuclear power plant. They had
made the country self-sufficient in rice, by direct support for
infrastructure for agriculture. They had built 11 major
industrial infrastructure projects. They had built rail and road
infrastructure. Imelda Marcos, whom most of you know only because
she supposedly was wildly extravagant and had millions of pairs
of shoes. Well, the reason she had the shoes was because {she
built a shoe industry in the Philippines}. She brought in Italian
shoemakers; she shipped in cattle from Australia, for the
leather; she created a shoe industry. And those who produced the
shoes in the Philippines were so grateful that they gave her the
first pair of any new shoe they developed. That's the reality,
contrary to the "fake news" that we received back in the 1980s,
when the neo-cons, under George Schultz and Henry Kissinger and
others decided to overthrow Marcos, to make a horrible example of
him; that they would not allow Third World countries to have
nuclear power, to be self-sufficient.
   The result is, that what was once the greatest rising power
in Southeast Asia, has become the basket case of that region. And
this is what Duterte is acknowledging. He's saying, "We've been
destroyed by the so-called big-brother, who looks down at the
little brown brothers in the Philippines." And he said, "We're
not going to tolerate it anymore. We're going to crush the drugs
that have been brought into our country and are destroying our
children. And we're going to reject the U.S. domination of our
economy, where all they want is our raw materials, and to use our
bright young people who graduate from college who have no jobs as
engineers or scientists or teachers, or nurses or doctors, even,
but who can only work all night long in call-centers, answering
calls from the master back in the United States who has a problem
with his computer or his banking code." This is how the country
was destroyed.
   So, he's turned to China; he's turned to Russia. His Defense
Minister, Delfin Lorenzana, has gone to Russia; he's going to
China. They're going to build that country. They're going to end
this drug epidemic. And for that, he's being told he's going to
be taken to the International Criminal Court for extra-judicial
murders, for human rights violations, by the fact that drug
dealers who fight back are being killed.  Well, this is rather
hypocritical, I would say. If you count the tens of thousands,
hundreds of thousands of people that Obama has killed through
extra-judicial murder — no court, no due process, no proof. Just
the king decides: "This is my list of people to kill this week";
he and John Brennan, Director of the CIA. This is rather
hypocritical. What's really behind it? {The British don't want to
stop drugs}. The banking institutions in London and New York are
{drug dependent}, meaning they're drug-money dependent, in
addition to the fact that many of the bankers are high on cocaine
and heroin. They're drug dependent in the sense that the biggest
business in the world is propping up these bankrupt Western banks
who do nothing but speculate. This is the reality of this.
   And of course, the main thing is that they don't want to see
this war on drugs brought home. One out of 15 Americans addicted
to heroin; this is mind-boggling! And they know that the American
people, if they're given a sense, like we did with our War on
Drugs policy under LaRouche's direction back in the '80s and
'90s; that this could capture the American people.
   Lastly, let me mention Japan. The British-American strategy
for containing China and Russia in the Asian side, has always
been South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia. And
Singapore is in there someplace. Many of you know Korea's in
total upheaval. The President who started off wanting to work
with Russia and China, and was somehow completely taken over by
Obama, turned against the collaboration with Eurasia; agreed to
bring in these U.S. THAAD missiles, supposedly to protect them
from North Korea. But these are missiles that go up into the high
altitude. North Korea is 30 miles away from Seoul. You don't need
this for Korea! You need them for China and Russia, for war. They
were in the process of turning the Philippines into a massive
U.S. military base, under an agreement with the former
puppet-President.
   In the Korea case, the President is now being impeached.
She'll probably be out in April or so. The Opposition wants to
stop that THAAD deployment. The Philippines we know; we've just
discussed it. Just in the last week, Duterte repeated that he's
probably going to absolutely cancel the strategic agreements with
the United States. "We don't need foreign soldiers in our
country," he said. "We're not going to have a war with China."
   Now, Japan. Lyndon LaRouche has always said that there are
two Japans. There's the Japan that came out of feudalism with the
Meiji Restoration, which was highly influenced by the American
System.  Key people who brought in the work of Henry Carey,
Friedrich List, which gave rise to this great industrial
explosion in Japan; which turned them into the leading nation of
Asia at that time, that superseded the 5000-year old culture and
tradition in China in terms of its strength.  But there was also
the Japan of the British Empire; the British came at the same
time, and basically said, "Look, Japan, you're an island nation
like we are.  You need to get raw materials, you don't have them
in your own country.  The only way you're going to get them is by
having a mighty military and colonizing; taking over countries
and taking their raw materials like we have — the great British
Empire."  Without going through all the details, as you know,
this eventually won out in the sense that Japan adopted a
militarist policy and unleashed the horror of the Second World
War, which started long before Pearl Harbor.  It started with the
invasion of China and the looting of China; but then led to the
destruction of China and other countries and ultimately to the
destruction of Japan.
   So, President Shinzo Abe represents both of these things.
He has had his problems with China; he has wanted to remilitarize
to get out from under the Constitution in Japan, which basically
forbade them to fight war — a Constitution worked out after
World War II with General MacArthur's collaboration.  And he
wants to be what he calls a "normal nation".  But, he also
recognizes that he's gotten nothing from the collapsing Western
financial system; and he sees the future of Japan in the real
development of Russia and China, of Asia; and not by taking it
over this time, but by collaboration through the New Paradigm,
through the New Silk Road.  Through the collaboration especially
with Russia.  His grandfather, who was a prime minister, and his
father, who was a politician, were committed to developing good
relations with Russia; and he is now on course.
   So, what's happened this year?  It's an extraordinary
transformation taking place.  It began with his visit with Putin
in Sochi in May; at which point he laid out an eight-point
program for the development of the Russian Far East using
Japanese technology and resources and financing.  Also, in May,
there was a meeting of the G-7 in Japan.  Russia wasn't there,
because they threw Russia out of the G-8; it became the G-7
again.  So, he didn't meet Putin there; but at that event, Abe
basically said to the other G-6 leaders — including Obama —
that we were on the brink of a horrible financial breakdown
crisis — worse than 2008.  This was absolutely rejected.  Obama
said "No, we're in a recovery; it might be too slow, but it's
going well."  He didn't say this, but because there's lots of
money being printed to keep the speculation going in the banks;
there's lots of drugs flowing everywhere, things are going fine.
   So, Abe was crushed on that; the final communiqué didn't
mention what Abe had said, but everybody knew.  Then, in
September, he went to Vladivostok for a conference organized by
Putin on the development of the Far East; and they went further
ahead with these development projects.  And then, finally this
month, Putin came to Japan; and he went to Yamaguchi, Abe's
hometown; he then went to Tokyo.  He visited the karate teacher
that had Putin one of the great black belts.  But at that, they
knew they would not be able to overcome the still-festering
problem of the territorial issues of the so-called Northern
Territories, or the Kurile Islands.  At the very end of the
Second World War, the Russians had come in to help with the war
in Japan; had taken the Kuriles, which had been back and forth
throughout history.  These are basically four islands north of
Japan.  Both sides claim sovereignty; the Japanese want them
back.  But, what they agreed to was that they would go with a
policy that had first been put forward in 1956 to divide the
islands two and two, which had been stopped by the US.  The
Dulles brothers came in and said, "Don't you dare; you must
demand all of these islands back from the Russians, or else we
won't turn Okinawa back to you."  So, the Japanese backed away
from that deal, and after that, the Russians said, "OK, that's
it.  You're not going to get any of them back."  So, now Putin
has said, "OK, we can start joint development of these four
islands.  Joint development.  And over time, we can go back to
the 1956 agreement and come to a settlement; meaning that we'll
be able to finally have a peace settlement to World War II by
probably 2018."
   But in the meantime, huge development projects.  They made
agreements for $2.5 billion of infrastructure projects throughout
the Russian Far East; ports, rail, agriculture, nuclear,
pharmaceuticals, education, cultural exchanges, $1 billion joint
fund which can be leveraged into more, and this framework for
peace.  So, just as Putin has largely unified the entire Middle
East — he's even now talking to Bibi Netanyahu and the Saudis;
because he's in charge.  Obama and the British game is largely
defeated.  So, they're basically creating a common policy of
common interests of all these nations.  And in the same way in
Asia; the China Silk Road process, the new financial institutions
are bringing all of these nations together.  There are still a
few problems, but it's a new world; it's a new world which the
United States can and must join.  It's the only option.
   And again, I'll repeat that while Obama's Pivot to Asia is
dead, the TPP is dead, the regime-change policies are largely
dead; but don't just sit back and say, "Yahoo! Trump's going to
do it for us!"  Because that is not the case.  This is going to
be done by us; we created the environment in America and around
the world which made it possible for these revolutionary changes
to take place.  It's the power of ideas that moves history; it's
Lyndon LaRouche and Helga LaRouche and this institution who
fought for these ideas before they became popular.  In other
words, we fought to bring these ideas into circulation; which
made it possible for the emergence of people who recognized the
truth of those ideas and have begun to take them up.  This is
doubly true now; we're at a moment which is going to go one way
or the other.  It's going to depend on you and me; on making sure
that we take this fight now at a crucial moment — what Schiller
called a great moment — and make sure that {we} define a future
that uplifts people to a level of the dignity of their true
humanity through activating the creative powers that they have by
the right of being human beings created in the image of God.
   This is our task, and this is where we stand today; and it's
a great time to be celebrating Christmas, but you should be
thinking about George Washington leading the fight across the
river on Christmas Eve.  That's the way we have to approach the
fight that we have on our hands today.  A good fight; one that
gives us reason to be happy, but which is deadly serious.  Thank
you.

   DENISTON:  I think that was excellent, Mike; and I liked
your concluding point.  We're seeing a lot of horrific, awful
things being removed; but I think Helga Zepp-LaRouche's focus on
this being the potential transition to a new historical paradigm
centered around a new positive conception about the truly
creative nature of mankind, is our mission, is our unique task
today.  As our viewers know, Mr. LaRouche defined New York City
as a critical point of intervention on that level; to really
revive that true American spirit and true American insight and
understanding into this historical unifying mission for mankind
that we're talking about.  So, I know Diane was part of our
discussions with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche earlier today, and she was
raising some of the critical aspects that we have to focus on in
terms of getting the American people to realize that you're not
just passive observers in this process.  Like you were saying,
we're not just going to sit back and root for who we think might
do this or that.  We have a critical leadership role — including
our audience, everyone involved with us — to actually take this
fight to this higher level.  So, I think that Diane has some
remarks on that; I know she would like to contribute here.

DIANE SARE:  Mrs. LaRouche said something this morning that I
think is very important, which is that in a period where
everything is stable, then the subjective factor is not as
crucial.  That is, if everybody gets all worked up over a
particular celebrity's drug addiction problem, or various fads,
various emotional things that people get tangled up in; but when
you have a moment like this, which on the one hand, I'm really
glad that Mike just went through what he did, because I think
most Americans have absolutely no idea of this incredible picture
of what's happening in the world.  And also, should reflect a
little bit on where these countries are coming from; what did
China look like 45 years ago, for example, compared to how they
look now?  You'd get a sense that there is no reason, except a
subjective reason of the mindset of the American people, why our
nation cannot similarly be self-transformed to a completely
different domain, a completely different culture.
   I'll say here this past weekend, we had another musical
intervention.  The Schiller Institute chorus, which I helped to
organize and direct, sponsored by the Foundation for the Revival
of Classical Culture in a performance, a unity concert in
Brooklyn of African-American spirituals, the Bach {Wachet Auf}
cantata, and Handel's {Messiah}.  But what was so striking about
this particular performance is, my sense was that the musicians
were completely engaged.  In other words, it wasn't like a stuffy
thing that you go to at Lincoln Center, where everyone is going
through the motions; and of course, the tuning is way too high
anyway, so their voices are strained and they need all kinds of
electronic adjustments and things like this.  But the thing
really was from the heart; and there's clearly a potential where
Americans have a sense, they want something substantive.  Who
actually doesn't want their life to have had a purpose?
   What we have right now, is a moment of extraordinary
opportunity; it is also dangerous, because as you said, Ben, at
the beginning, Obama issued these threats, this intent to kill as
LaRouche put it, a week ago today at his crazy press conference
and interview on NPR.  Saying, with no evidence whatsoever that
Russia had any involvement in hacking, that we will retaliate at
a time and place of our choosing.  Those are murderous words, and
therefore, we're not at a moment of stability; and it requires
from us, as Schiller would say, a certain sublime quality of
thinking where we look down on the world as if from above, and
consider what are the common aims of mankind and what mankind can
do together.  And the potential that we have, given that the
defeat of Hillary Clinton was really a defeat of Bush and Obama;
it was a defeat of a 16-year legacy of evil.  It doesn't
guarantee — as Mike said — that what comes in under Trump is
going to be good; that is for us to determine.  It just indicates
that there is a tremendous potential for this, as we see with the
communication between President-elect Trump and Vladimir Putin;
that's very promising.  There are other aspects of a potential
with China that are very promising, and then there are some
appointments that are not so promising.
   It is definitely a moment for each of us to consider our
responsibility to future generations; because we have a moment,
hopefully a revolutionary moment where we have not found a little
people, but a people who will grow into the situation and will
take the actions that LaRouche has outlined.  Specifically, the
Four Laws; beginning emphatically with Glass-Steagall, but not
ending with Glass-Steagall.  The fourth law is not an end, but is
really a beginning; which is the development of mankind on the
imperative of exploring the Universe, of mastering thermonuclear
fusion and getting ourselves out of this Solar System.  I think
that's the challenge: To objectively address where we are; to not
get flustered by every piece of crap that gets put in the
mainstream press, which is a bunch of propaganda designed to make
everyone hysterical; and to really fight for the direction that
is required.

   DENISTON:  Another thing that does lie in that issue of the
creative development of mankind, and I was also struck in some
recent discussions with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche.  Helga was
making the point that what we're seeing now is really the
realization of this World Land-Bridge perspective that she and
Lyn had fought so hard for.  We were discussing how this really
should be seen from the standpoint of Mr. LaRouche's unique
insights into the fundamental nature of human creative progress
and human creative revolutions.  And in a sense, what we're
seeing — what Mike just presented — what's being led by China,
the potential for that to expand globally with the United States
jumping on board, really is a certain potential culmination of a
certain platform of development for the entire planet.  What that
sets the base for, is the next leap for the expansion into space
and the creative development of nearby space first; as Krafft
Ehricke had been one of the leading visionaries for as a basis
for the expansion further into the Solar System.  I think this
idea of continually defining the next levels of creative leaps,
creative developments is absolutely critical; because it's not
that we are completing some process of some steady state level of
development, but it's the fact that mankind is always
participating in creative revolutions.  Every generation should
be focussed on a complete revolution in the very nature of
mankind.  The very understanding of mankind's existence is
continually being reshaped, recreated on higher and higher
levels.  That's the positive principle of this New Paradigm.

BILLINGTON:  What Diane referred to that Helga said this morning
about certain moments in history in which the subjective becomes
crucial, is a reflection of what Percy Shelley said in his "In
Defense of Poetry" which we've quoted often.  He develops the
concept of great revolutionary moments in history, at which he
says, in his describing why the poet is the legislator of history
in moments of great crisis like this.  But he describes how in
such moments, the common person who normally doesn't have to
think about profound ideas, is suddenly capable of understanding
very profound concepts about man and nature — both about society
and about scientific reality of the Universe.  That's clearly
where we stand; where we've reached a point at which there's
nothing holding back any human being.  Perhaps he's been drugged;
perhaps he's been degraded; perhaps he's been left unemployed,
driven out of the workforce.  But nonetheless, it's a moment in
history in which everybody can, in fact, bring themselves up to
those creative capacities that they were blessed with by being a
human being.  To activate that now, in learning huge amounts of
things in a very short period of time, is possible and necessary.

   DENISTON:  I think that definitely defines our mission for
the next coming year — 2017.  This can be the year of the shift
of the United States under the leadership of what we're doing.
   So, I think we gave people a very good overview of where the
world stands today, and what the challenge is before us.  So,
unless Diane you want to have any additional ending comments, I
think we're coming to the conclusion of our discussion today.

   SARE:  I would just like to encourage people over this
holiday period, as we're about to enter a new year, which could
be a very different year, to protect your mind and not engage in
degraded cultural activities.  But take advantage of the LaRouche
PAC website, which has phenomenal educational material.  You can
choose to study the Four Laws of Mr. LaRouche; read the papers of
Alexander Hamilton; watch the video on Operation Phoenix — the
reconstruction of Syria.  There's just an abundance of material
here that, if you set your mind to it, to determine that between
now and the beginning of next year, to be a more ennobled human
being, and more able to articulate these profound ideas and
organize your friends and neighbors; then we'll be off to a very
good start.

   DENISTON:  With that, I think we have our mission defined
before us.  We thank you for joining us, and we will be back next
week for the next Friday webcast; and we'll be sure to be
delivering some material for you between now and then.  So, thank
you for joining us.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 20. december, 2016 – En dyster rapport, der pludselig er publiceret af NBC News, gør gældende, at afgående præsident Barack Obama brugte den »røde telefon« i begyndelsen af oktober, for direkte at true med et militærangreb mod Rusland pga. angivelig e-mail »hacking« og forsøg på at indvirke på det amerikanske valg. Obamas efterfølgende erklæring den 15. dec., hvor han forbeholder sig ret til at »angribe på et tidspunkt og et sted efter vores valg«, er blevet efterfulgt at mordet på en diplomat, der var afgørende for Ruslands indsats for, sammen med Tyrkiet, at afslutte den syriske borgerkrig. En Obama på ferie har forholdt sig tavs som graven mht. mordet på den russiske ambassadør i Ankara. Dette er både det mest åbenlyse af Obamas mange forsøg i årenes løb på at true både Rusland og Kina; og det farligste. Der var et kupforsøg i Tyrkiet i juli, i hvilket mindst nære pårørende og tidligere kolleger til denne drabsmand var involveret. Både Rusland og Tyrkiet skønner, at også NATO var involveret.

Drabsmandens hensigt var at skabe en splittelse mellem Rusland og Tyrkiet omkring deres rammeaftale om Syrien. Det slog fejl.

De førende transatlantiske nationer og deres Golfstat-allierede – der alle konfronteres med økonomisk stagnation og trussel om endnu et finansielt sammenbrud – tager i grotesk grad fejl af Kina, Indien, Rusland og det nye, økonomiske paradigme med hastigt økonomisk og videnskabeligt fremskridt omkring dem.

En pompøs jordansk prins, der nu er FN’s højkommissær for menneskerettigheder (den aktuelle menneskerettighedskommission præsideres af Saudi-Arabien!) har krævet, at den filippinske præsident Rodrigo Duterte stilles for retten for mord, pga. af sin krig mod narkotika.

Det er Obama, hvis drab kræver denne handling. I årevis har Obama udvalgt mange tusinde mennesker, der skulle dræbes af droner, så mange som 200 mennesker i et enkelt angreb, som det skete i Somalia i august. Hans invasion af Libyen, hans bevæbning af Saudi-Arabien til krig mod Yemen, hans bevæbning af jihadister og sluttelig terrorister i Syrien, har kostet titusinder af mennesker livet – inklusive et statsoverhoved og en amerikansk ambassadør.

Obamas egen politik for narkotiske stoffer i USA er – i det mindste gennem manglende handling og gennem legalisering – blevet forfærdelig dødbringende, med en dødsrate pga. overdosis, der er tredoblet til over 50.000 dødsfald om året i løbet af nogle få år under hans præsidentskab.

Hans handlinger nu, hvor han truer Rusland og Kina direkte, varsler om massedrab.

»Obama«, som Lyndon LaRouche udtrykte det den 15. dec., da præsidenten truede med at »handle«, og igen i dag, »har været en dræber som præsident. Hillary Clinton gik med på det, det er et faktum. Det er også briterne. Og det er NATO. De vil slå så mange som muligt ihjel for at få deres vilje. Og for at stoppe dem, som præsident Putin siger, må man få dem til at betale.«

Og dette myrderi er alt sammen for at standse et nyt, økonomisk paradigme, der indledningsvis blev kendt som »BRIKS-politikken«, der søger at spænde over kontinenterne med nye korridorer for transport, elektricitet, kommunikation, nye byer; for at vende tilbage til videnskabens fremskudte grænser inden for rumforskning og fusionsteknologi, som vi har opgivet.

Den nye administration må dirigeres til ikke at true med at ødelægge, men derimod tilslutte sig dette nye paradigme. Dette vil kræve en international indsats, og en mobilisering af det amerikanske folk.

Foto; En Obama på ferie hr hidtil forholdt sig tavs som graven mht. mordet på den russiske ambassadør i Ankara.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 13. december, 2016 – Friedrich Schiller talte om dem, der søger sandheden gennem skønhed. Percy Shelley talte om de revolutionære tidspunkter i historien, hvor almindelige mennesker bliver i stand til at forstå dybe sandheder om menneske og natur.

Vi befinder os ved et sådant tidspunkt. Terrorismen jages på flugt; kineserne og russerne bygger storslåede projekter i hele verden, og Vestens befolkninger, den ene efter den anden, demonstrerer ved valgstederne, at de ikke længere vil tolerere det økonomiske forfald, de evindelige krige for at fremkalde »regimeskifte«, og heller ikke det døende Imperiums trussel om krig med Rusland og Kina.

Alligevel forsøger det miskrediterede og kasserede lederskab af det gamle paradigme, idet de lader som om, at de stadig har deres mistede magt, at fremprovokere en verdenskrig. Graden af rent hysteri er i sandhed forbløffende. Hvis man skulle tro Obama, eller Angela Merkel, eller det britiske lederskab, så er nedkæmpelsen af al-Qaeda i Aleppo et katastrofalt folkemord; præsidentvalget i USA blev frastjålet Obamas klon Hillary Clinton af Vladimir Putin; Putin gør nu klar til at stjæle det tyske valg, og den globale opvarmning vil ødelægge verden, med mindre vi sætter en stoppe for, at mennesket gør fremskridt.

Dette er latterligt, men det er ikke noget at grine ad. Husk, at EIR i juni måned rapporterede, at NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg til pressen sagde, »Et alvorligt cyber-angreb kan klassificeres som en sag for Alliancen. Så kan og må NATO reagere. Hvordan vil afhænge af, hvor alvorligt angrebet er« – dvs., at NATO kunne respondere til et hacker-angreb med konventionelle våben, eller atomvåben, under NATO’s artikel V.

Når man hører disse neokonservative imperieherrers svanesang, så bør man huske på Joseph Goebbels’ »store løgn«: »Hvis man fortæller en løgn, der er stor nok, og bliver ved med at gentage den, vil folk sluttelig tro på den. Løgnen kan kun opretholdes så længe, som Staten kan skærme befolkningen fra de politiske, økonomiske og/eller militære konsekvenser af løgnen.«

Vi har en million gange fået at vide, at man »ved«, at russerne hackede Vestens computere for at underminere vestligt »demokrati« og få Donald Trump valgt. Trump gør absolut ret i at spørge, hvordan nogen kan tro på sådan noget nonsens, efter at de selv samme, korrupte elementer i efterretningssamfundet forsikrede os om, at Saddam Hussein havde masseødelæggelsesvåben, og de dernæst udløste det Helvede af folkemord, der har fundet sted i de seneste tretten år i Mellemøsten; og de forsikrede ligeledes den amerikanske Kongres om, at National Security Agency, NSA, ikke udførte nogen masseovervågning af USA’s borgere sådan, som James Clapper gjorde det før Edward Snowdens afsløringer – den selvsamme James Clapper, som Obama nu har beordret til at »undersøge« russernes »omstyrtelse« af den amerikanske valgproces.

Der er ingen tvivl om, at et voksende antal mennesker i hele den vestlige verden – både blandt politiske ledere og almindelige borgere – er ved at erkende det gamle paradigmes ondskab og, konfronteret med ondskab, vælger at gøre det gode. Verden gennemgår en fornyelse gennem processen med den Nye Silkevej, som Kina har lanceret, med samarbejdet med den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, ASEAN, BRIKS, SCO – med over 100 nationer i hele Eurasien, Afrika og Mellem- og Sydamerika, der alle ønsker at skabe en fremtid for deres nationer, og for verden som helhed. Amerika og EU er ikke udelukket fra denne proces – de er med fuldt overlæg i færd med selv at isolere sig og nægter således deres egne befolkninger retten til at tage del i dette revolutionære, nye paradigme for udvikling af vor planet, og vort univers.

Find de mennesker, der ønsker at gøre det gode, sagde Lyndon LaRouche sine medarbejdere i dag. Det bliver i stigende grad lettere at skelne mellem dem, der ønsker at bevare det døende Imperiums magt, om det så fører til Helvede, og så dem, der ønsker at være med til at skabe en værdig, kreativ og fremgangsrig fremtid for hele menneskeheden.

(Note: Ordlyden i titlen stammer fra indledningen til Charles Dickens’ roman, To Byer (A Tale of Two Cities): ’Det var den bedste tid, det var den værste tid; det var visdommens tid, og det var tåbelighedens tid; det var troens epoke, det var vantroens epoke; det var Lysets tid, det var Mørkets tid; det var håbets forår, det var fortvivlelsens vinter; alt lå foran os, og intet lå foran os; vi var alle direkte på vej til Himlen, og vi var alle direkte på den modsatte vej – kort sagt, det var en tid, der var så lig den nuværende periode, at nogle af dennes mest højtråbende autoriteter insisterede på, at den, på godt og ondt, kun skulle modtages med en superlativ sammenligning.’)   

Titelbillede: Statue af Friedrich Schiller og Johann Wolfgang Goethe i Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, CA.​

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 30. november, 2016 – I denne uge kom delegationer fra Manhattan og flere stater i det østlige USA til Washington, D.C., for personligt at inddrage kongresmedlemmer i nødvendigheden af at tage skridt til at genindføre Glass-Steagall og gennemføre LaRouches »Fire Love«, for at håndtere den aktuelle, strategiske krise. Dette politiske initiativ – sammen med pres på kongressen over hele landet – kommer på et tidspunkt med nonstop mediefiksering på nyvalgte præsident Donald Trumps seneste og eventuelle udnævnelser til regeringsposter. ’Hvem er de?… Hvor dårlige er de?’, osv. Mediernes spærreild, og selv selve udnævnelserne, tjener til at forvirre og demobilisere enhver, der lytter.

Det er vigtigt at modstå alle sådanne, »bottom-up« karakteriseringer, der fremhæver lokale interesser, af det, der foregår. Der er intet lokalt her: »Trump«-valgoverraskelser finder sted i hele verden, og flere vil finde sted i de kommende uger. Vælgere over hele verden afviser nu hele »globaliseringsæraen« til fordel for et nyt paradigme, der fortsat er under udformning. EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, understregede dagen efter præsidentvalgene, at valget af Trump ikke var en »lokal« begivenhed. Afvisningen af Hillary Clinton gik længere end til et spørgsmål om selve personen; den var en del af et globalt, dynamisk skifte. LaRouche manede i dag til forsigtighed: »Det er farligt at gøre det muligt for dette [forvirringen som følge af lokalt fokus] at opstå. Man må frigøre sig fra det. Det ødelægger ens evne til at tænke og løse problemer.«

Undgå derfor vrede over enkeltpersoner; tænk på det mulige.

Dette er virkeligheden. Der er en dynamik i gang på internationalt plan, for et nyt paradigme for hele menneskeheden, og som er legemliggjort i den eurasiske Nye Silkevej. Præsident Vladimir Putin og præsident Xi Jinping leverer et stærkt lederskab for vejen frem, en vej, som i årtier er blevet fremlagt af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche.

I dag holdt Putin en tale i Moskva fra dette udsigtspunkt. Han talte om den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, »der sammenkobles med Kinas projekt for det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte, som vil gøre det muligt for os at bygge et eurasisk partnerskab«. Han talte i anledning af det andet, årlige »Primakov Readings International Forum« i Moskva, for at mindes eftermælet af Jevgenij Primakovs lederskab. Putin sagde: »Hr. Primakov var ligeledes af den mening, at det ville være meget vanskeligt at håndtere nutidens store udfordringer på tilfredsstillende vis uden et seriøst partnerskab mellem Rusland og USA. Ulykkeligvis er de russisk-amerikanske relationer blevet meget forværret i løbet af de seneste år, men dette er ikke vores skyld. Nu, hvor valgkampen er ovre i USA, og en ny præsident snart vil indtage Det Hvide Hus, håber vi, at dette vil skabe en mulighed for at forbedre disse relationer, der er så vigtige, ikke alene for vore to folkeslag, men også for at sikre international stabilitet og sikkerhed … «

Ideen om nye relationer runger over hele Latinamerika, efter Xis seks dages rundrejse i forbindelse med APEC-topmødet tidligere på måneden. Den mexicanske seniordiplomat Sergio Ley har krævet, at Mexico nu »diversificerer« sine relationer inden for udenrigshandel og ikke længere har 80 % af sin handel, der finder sted med USA. Han sagde, at der nu finder »en ekstraordinær dialog på højeste niveau« sted mellem Mexico og Kina.

I opposition til dette aktive, nye paradigme for internationale, gensidigt gavnlige relationer, kommer de sidste, fortvivlede bestræbelser fra geopolitikkens afdankede repræsentanter, på at forårsage mere skade og død. Især Frankrig, Storbritannien og Obama-administrationen mobiliserer imod Rusland over Syrien. I dag meddelte Frankrig, at det vil være vært for et møde den 10. december, som vil omfatte ledere fra UK, USA, Tyskland, Italien, Saudi-Arabien og andre, om, hvordan man skal modsætte sig »den totale krigs tankegang«, som de hævder, Rusland og Syrien forfølger.

Virkeligheden er den, at den syriske regering i Aleppo med held driver terroristerne tilbage; og Rusland er i færd med at mobilisere støtte og nødhjælpsforsyninger – inklusive felthospitaler – til de tusinder af mennesker, der nu er befriet og nødlidende.

Foto: Udsigt over Capitol fra toppen af Washington-monumentet.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 22. november, 2016 – Den følgende erklæring fra den republikanske senator Richard H. Black, Virginias Senat, kom som respons til en advarsel fra kongresmedlem Ted Lieu (D-CA) om, at USA’s støtte til og samarbejde med Saudi-Arabien i den kriminelle krig mod Yemen udsatte amerikansk militærpersonale for en risiko for at blive retsforfulgt for krigsforbrydelser. Senator Black er tidligere chef for Afdeling for Kriminallov ved Pentagons militære strafferet.

»Jeg er enig i kongresmedlem Lieus juridiske analyse. Jeg mener imidlertid, at denne sags mere praktiske aspekt er den juridiske afsløring af vore mest højtplacerede embedsfolk, der styrede vore militærfolks handlinger. Ifølge den præcedens, der blev sat af den Amerikanske Krigsforbryderdomstol i sagen mod den japanske general [Tomoyuki] Yamashita efter Anden Verdenskrig, kan den øverstkommanderende retsforfølges for generelle, kriminelle handlinger, begået af den øverstkommanderendes underordnede. Dette gælder for handlinger, som han kendte til, eller burde have kendt til.

Amerika har i vid udstrækning ladet hånt om internationale normer for opførsel i sine aggressionskrige imod Serbien, Irak, Libyen, Syrien og nu Yemen. Visse handlinger fremstår som forbrydeler iht. international sædvanelov – såsom vores afvisning af at acceptere oberst Gaddafis overgivelse, da han tilbød at forlade Libyen. USA, Storbritannien og Frankrig skal have ført rådslagning, før de besluttede at ignorere hans tilbud om at abdicere, og fremmede i stedet mordet på ham.

Ved at lade hånt om fastlagte normer for opførsel i krigstid har USA i alvorlig grad undermineret sin moralske autoritet og formindsket sin magt over hele planeten. Alt imens jeg er tilhænger af et robust forsvar, så opnår vi intet ved at udkæmpe krige for at fremme globalisering – især ikke, når sådanne krige krænker Lov om Krig på Land.«

Præsident Donald Trump indikerer i stigende grad, at han er enig. Hans udnævnelse af general Michael Flynn (pens.) er en sådan indikation – general Flynn advarede som bekendt, da han var chef for Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, Obama om, at hans tvivlsomme eventyr i Syrien, og også i Libyen, støttede etableringen af et »kalifat«, bestående af de mest ekstreme, saudiskstøttede, islamiske terrorister. General Flynn latterliggjorde også Obamas massive program for dronemord, der er så frydefuldt for dræber-præsidenten, som rent militært værende værre end unyttigt, idet hvert eneste drab »blot gjorde dem til martyrer og blot skabte en ny årsag til at bekæmpe os endnu hårdere«. Ligesom Trump er general Flynn fortaler for at arbejde sammen med Rusland for at forsvare den syriske stat og verden imod terrorister.

Mandag mødtes Trump også med kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), med indikationer om, at hun kommer i betragtning som USA’s ambassadør til FN. Gabbard, der er veteran fra Irakkrigen, har været en offentlig kritiker af Obamas evindelige krige og hans fiasko i bekæmpelse af terrorisme, til fordel for »regimeskift« imod sekulære regeringer. Sæt dette i modsætning til Obamas FN-ambassadør Samantha Power, der har tilsluttet sig de brølende dinosaurer ved i dag i FN at levere en tirade om, at hun ville »stille for retten« de syriske øverstbefalende, der har anført kontraterror-operationerne i deres land.

Verden befinder sig i en revolutionerende overgangsperiode. De europæiske ledere, der fulgte Obama og briternes diktater om at gennemføre sanktioner mod Rusland og forberede til krig, falder som fluer. Valget af François Fillon, en pro-russisk kandidat, i det franske Republikanske Partis primærvalg i denne uge, følger i kølvandet på valget af pro-russiske præsidenter i Bulgarien og Moldova i sidste uge. Samtidig hænger de europæiske banker, med Deutsche Bank og Royal Bank of Scotland i spidsen, i en tynd tråd og kunne bringe hele det vestlige banksystem til fald, hvad dag, det skal være – med mindre USA’s Kongres kommer til fornuft og gennemfører Glass-Steagall nu, uden at vente til den nye, amerikanske regering tiltræder i januar.

Endnu mere afgørende er kampen for at genoprette kreativ tænkning i de vestlige nationer, efter årtiers intellektuel gift fra Hollywoods og rock-narko-sex-modkulturens vold og perversion. For tre år siden, på 50-års dagen for mordet på John F. Kennedy, præsenterede Schiller Instituttet, stiftet af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche, en mindekoncert for JFK med en opførelse af Mozarts Rekviem-messe i D-mol i Washington-området, som efterfulgtes af en gentagelse af koncerten i Holy Cross katedralen i Boston, hvor, 50 år tidligere, Richard Cardinal Cushing holdt en mindehøjtidelighed for JFK med en højtidelig pavemesse, missa solemnis rekviem, hvor det samme, intense udtryk for klassisk skønhed var blevet præsenteret og fulgt på fjernsyn i hele verden. Det er netop skønhedens identifikation med sandhed, der er gået tabt i Vesten, og som må genoprettes for at bringe verden sammen for fred gennem fælles og samarbejdende udvikling.

Foto: Præsident Obama og førstedame Michelle Obama i Saudi-Arabien, 27. januar, 2015.

12. nov., 2016 – Den 9. november gav Francis Boyle, professor i international jura ved Illinois College Universitet i Urbana, et interview via Skype til Pravda Tv, hvor han ringede med alarmklokken mht., at Obama kunne være »eksistentielt farlig« fra nu og frem til indsættelsesdagen i januar 2017. I en privat e-mail efter interviewet advarede professor Boyle om, at Obama kunne starte en krig, ligesom George Bush Sr. gjorde det med Somalia lige efter, han havde tabt valget til Bill Clinton i 1992.

At gå frem med en kampagne for en rigsretssag nu, i Kongressens overgangsperiode (den såkaldte ’lame duck’ periode), forklarede Boyle i interviewet, ville være »et skud for boven« for Obama; en advarsel om, at »vi ikke vil have krig med Rusland« over Ukraine eller Syrien. Han understregede, at det, Obama gjorde i sidste uge, hvor han satte 300.000 tropper i alarmberedskab, er en del af Obamas fremstød for krig.

NATO-ordren »kom fra Det Hvide Hus«, sagde Boyle til Pravda Tv.

Efter at give udtryk for sit håb om, at Donald Trumps udtalelser imod NATO ville føre til at opløse spændingerne med Rusland, hvilket ville fordre et direkte møde med Putin, sluttede Boyle:

»Lad mig sige endnu en ting. Obama er stadig ved magten fra nu og frem til januar, og han kunne beslutte at fortsætte med at optrappe en krise med Rusland. Så, af denne grund, starter vi en kampagne her for at fremstille et lovforslag om en rigsretssag i USA’s Kongres, når denne atter træder sammen den 14. nov., for at forsøge at få Obama ud, før han starter en krig med Rusland. Vi kan ikke bare sidde med hænderne i skødet her i Amerika … Obama har al denne magt, og han har stadig alle disse anti-russiske rådgivere, der er fortalere for krig.

Vi i fredsbevægelsen mobiliserer imod Obama … vi vil ikke have krig med Rusland … Men Obama må stoppes før tiltrædelsesdagen.«  

Foto: Den amerikanske professor i international jura, Francis Boyle.     

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 13. november, 2016 – At åbne for forhandling og potentielt samarbejde mellem den russiske præsident Putin, den nu valgte, tiltrædende amerikanske præsident Trump og Kinas præsident Xi er nu sine qua non for at bringe verden væk fra randen af verdenskrig og således gøre en økonomisk genrejsning mulig, især i USA og Europa.

Ingen – hverken Trump eller nogen anden nation eller betydningsfulde part – bør forhandle med Barack Obama. Obama er færdig; hans TPP og TTIP »handelsaftaler« er færdige; hans »Assad skal væk«-promovering af jihadister for at overtage Syrien er færdig; hans bestræbelse med »omdrejningspunkt Asien« for at besejre Kina er færdig. Og det samme er hans lange forsvar af Wall Street imod det amerikanske folks vrede.

På paradoksal vis er, på trods af meget hysteri blandt fremtrædende liberale, håbet om, at Wall Street kan brydes op og dets magt over amerikansk politisk liv brydes, nu stærkere, end det har været i mange år. At genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven er dette håbs første instrument og mål, men potentialet er at genoprette hele den tabte, amerikanske produktivitet, tabte produktive beskæftigelse og levestandard, ødelagte økonomiske infrastruktur; det tabte håb om en fremtid.

Dette er den mobilisering, som er i gang i LaRouchePAC for november-december, for Lyndon LaRouches »Fire Love« for at redde USA’s økonomi og dets folk.

Men, konfrontations- og krigsprovokationerne under hele Barack Obamas præsidentskab, imod Rusland og Kina, må afvises på en meget synlig måde, for at dette håb kan fremmes. Ruslands Putin har allerede fremlagt specifikke forslag og tilbud om samarbejde. Mange europæiske kræfter, der har været i opposition mod sanktionerne og krigsoprustningen over for Rusland, efterlyser direkte »topmøde«-drøftelser mellem Putin og Donald Trump.

Og Kina udgør det eneste håb for Trump-administrationens evne til at virkeliggøre sine storstilede planer om at bygge ny, økonomisk infrastruktur. Uden samarbejde med Kina vil USA hverken have kreditten eller de fysisk-økonomiske midler til at bygge dette højhastigheds-jernbanenet, disse nye elektricitetsnetværk, havne, lufthavne osv.

Offentlige begivenheder demonstrerer nu, at ikke kun de amerikanske vælgere, men også betydningsfulde grupperinger og ledere i selve det Demokratiske Parti har dumpet Barack Obama og hans administrations politik for »Wall Street og krig«, og, sammen med Obama, også har dumpet Hillary Clinton, der i givet fald ville være blevet hans, og hans politiks, efterfølger. Senator Bernie Sanders’ erklæring i dag, »Hvis hr. Trump har modet til at gå op imod Wall Street, vil vi arbejde sammen med ham, spørgsmål for spørgsmål«, er et udfald fra progressive Demokraters plan om at overtage partiet efter liget af Obamas politik.

Vi ved ikke, hvad Trumps team vil gøre. Vi ved, hvad amerikanske borgere må gøre for at sætte Kongressen til at arbejde. Wall Street må betale for sin årtier lange økonomiske ødelæggelse. Wall Street må brydes op, og dets finanskasinoer lukkes ned – Glass-Steagall. Der må skabes ny kredit til produktiv beskæftigelse og produktivitet.

USA må tilslutte sig de eurasiske magters Nye Silkevej, hvis vi skal genrejse os økonomisk. Bestræbelserne på at fremprovokere krig med disse magter – Obamas »eftermæle« – må bringes til ophør.

Foto: Lyndon Larouche understregede søndag, at Putin vil respondere favorabelt til en fornuftig tilnærmelse fra USA. (foto: kremlin.ru)

12. nov., 2016 – I kommentarer offentliggjort i Sputnik den 10. nov., udtrykte den tidligere tyske, CDU-statssekretær i Forsvarsministeriet, Willy Wimmer, lettelse over, at Hillary Clintons valgnederlag standsede (i det mindste midlertidigt) fremstødet mod Tredje Verdenskrig. Wimmer sagde, »Jeg blev så lettet som aldrig før, for jeg havde en følelse her til morgen, at denne afgørelse reddede os fra en stor krig.« Han fortsatte, »Jeg er overbevist om, at den nye, amerikanske præsident, ulig hans modstander, er rede til et fornuftigt, praktisk muligt og pålideligt samarbejde med andre lande i verden – og det giver mig håb.«

Han var stærkt kritisk over for de tyske regeringsledere. »Jeg mener, at præsidenten for Forbundsrepublikken, dens kansler og frem for alt dens udenrigsminister ikke har taget det tyske folks interesser i betragtning. Ved [at komme med] ensidig støtte til én kandidat og partiske, krænkende kommentarer om den anden, har de skadet det tyske folk meget. Dette er en uacceptabel indblanding i et andet lands interne anliggender, og, efter valgkampens afslutning, kan det give bagslag over for deres eget folk«, påpegede han. Han angreb præsident Joachim Gauck for det, han kaldte »utålelig« retorik. »Jeg mener, det ville være en god ting, hvis han snart trådte tilbage.«

»Siden tiden med Anden Verdenskrig ved vi, hvem de såkaldte ’quislinger’ er – det er dem, der altid følger en leder, selv, når han ikke er fra deres eget land. Det er åbenlyst, at disse folk er udbredt i Tyskland – i den politiske sfære, i medierne og andetsteds.«

Wimmer sagde også, at NATO er blevet en trussel mod verden, siden det gik fra at være en forsvarsalliance til at blive »angrebsmaskinen«. »Hvis den nye amerikanske præsident indser dette, ville jeg føle mig bedre tilpas, end jeg gør i dag, når jeg tænker på NATO.«

Sahra Wagenknecht, leder af partiet Die Linke, kom med en lignende kommentar og sagde: »De politikere, der nu står med triste ansigter, og som er i chok over, hvad der er sket [i USA], forstår ikke rigtig noget. Den amerikanske offentlighed stemte først og fremmest på forandring snarere, end de specifikt stemte på Donald Trump.« Ikke så optimistisk som Wimmer advarede hun om, at det står hen i det uvisse, om han vil eller kan ændre politikken. 

10. nov., 2016 – I London har skræmmekampagnen om valget af Donald Trump, og hvad det måtte betyde for NATO, nået irrationelle højder. Fire pensionerede, højtplacerede flådeofficerer advarer om, at, hvis Trump tager USA ud af NATO og/eller NATO-medlemmer ikke øger deres forsvarsbudget, vil Rusland invadere Østeuropa. Sir Michael Graydon, tidligere chef for Royal Air Force, sagde: »Hvis USA forlader NATO, ville det være absolut katastrofalt og præcis, hvad Vladimir Putin kunne tænke sig.« I dette tilfælde ville NATO ikke have tilstrækkelig troværdighed til at forsvare de baltiske stater. Den tidligere hærchef, general Lord Dannatt, advarede: »Vi har hørt Donald Trump true med alt muligt, og vi bør tage denne trussel alvorligt … Hvis USA vender NATO ryggen, ophører NATO med at eksistere, nærmest pr. definition, og så ville vi blive nødt til at opfinde noget andet. I sammenhæng med Brexit er det latterligt.« General Richard Shirref, tidligere NATO-vicekommandør, lod sig ikke vælte af pinden. »Vi må håbe, at den retorik, vi hørte under kampagnen, hurtigt vil blive erstattet af en meget nøgtern og seriøs udtalelse om, at, hvis der er tale om, at et NATO-medlem angribes, så vil Trump uden tøven eller tvetydighed komme til landets forsvar«, sagde han. »Alt andet ville være virkeligt dårlige nyheder for NATO.«    

10. nov., 2016 – Præsidentvalget den 8. nov. var en afvisning af præsident Obamas krigspolitik, men Obamas krigspolitik er stadig aktiv. Flere end 600 skibscontainere med militær ammunition ankom i denne uge til havnen Nordenham, Tyskland, som en del af »den fortsatte indsats for at skabe tryghed hos NATO-allierede i Europa og styrke afskrækkelsen af potentiel, russisk aggression«, rapporterer Military.com. »Det her handler om afskrækkelse«, sagde den amerikanske hærs øverstbefalende i Europa, generalløjtnant Ben Hodges. »Vi har måske 1.000 tanks her, men, hvis vi ikke har ammunition til dem, ville de ikke have nogen afskrækkende effekt. Det er endnu et eksempel på USA’s forpligtelser over for sikkerhed og stabilitet i Europa.« Ladningen ankommer forud for deployeringen i januar måned af den 3. Panserbrigades Kampteam og af den 4. Infanteridivision med base i Fort Carson, Colorado, som en del af Obamas krigsoprustning imod Rusland.

Foto: En container med ammunition losses fra det amerikanske flådeskib Lance Cpl. Roy M. Wheat den 29. okt., 2016, i Nordenham, Tyskland. (Photo: U.S. Army) 

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video 2. del:

Lyd:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9. nov., 2016 – Med kommentarer om Trumps valgsejr i det amerikanske præsidentvalg 2016 den 8. nov., sagde den russiske økonom og rådgiver til præsident Putin, Sergej Glazjev, til TASS i dag, at resultaterne af valget viser, at »det amerikanske folk ønsker ikke krig; for første gang i verdenshistorien er der en mulighed for at gå over til en ny, global, økonomisk orden, uden at føre en verdenskrig«.

»At etablere et nyt forhold i relationerne [mellem Rusland og USA] vil med sikkerhed finde sted, fordi den afgående administrations udenrigspolitik var baseret på en aggressiv fremgangsmåde over for Rusland med det formål at bevare Washingtons magtoverlegenhed. Vi kan sige, at denne fremgangsmåde er mislykkedes«, sagde Glazjev. »Afspænding mellem USA og Rusland er nødvendig i denne henseende«, sagde han, iflg. TASS.

Glazjev påpegede ligeledes, at han er overbevist om, at Trump »vil ophæve sanktioner mod Rusland, der ligeledes er skadelige for amerikansk erhvervsliv. Resultatet bliver, at handelsvolumen og finansielle og økonomiske relationer mellem Rusland og USA, så vel som i Vesten generelt, vil blive genoprettet.«

Samme synspunkt blev udtrykt af en førende ekspert fra Ruslands Nationale Fond for Energisikkerhed, Igor Yushkov, der til TASS sagde, at »der kan komme et positivt element i samarbejdet mellem USA og Rusland«. »Det er helt tænkeligt, at Trump vil lette sanktionerne eller annullere dem totalt, i det mindste vedr. olie- og gassektoren. Han (Trump) ses som en person, der promoverer de amerikanske olieproducenters interesser, inkl. ExxonMobil«, tilføjede Yushkov.

Foto: Den russiske økonom og rådgiver til præsident Putin, Sergej Glazjev.       

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 7. november, 2016 – Med blot få timer tilbage før præsidentvalget i USA, har Time Magazine med forsiden på sin aktuelle udgave indfanget stemningen i landet omkring valgprocessen: Den viser Hillary og Trump, der holder et skilt med ordene, »Enden er nær«.

14. november, 2016, forsiden af Time Magazine.

Men tingene står ikke lige i dette valg. Næsten alle forsøger at finde ud af, hvem af de to, der er det mindste onde, og med pressen, der konstant kværner om den »totalt splittede nation«. Men, Lyndon LaRouche har i løbet af de seneste uger gjort det klart, at nationen i realiteten ikke er splittet – der er næsten enstemmighed mht. hadet til Wall Street; med kravet om Glass-Steagall for at knuse de for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned spekulative monstrøsiteter på Wall Street; med had til de evindelige krige, vi har udkæmpet under Bush og Obama; med had til den åbenlyse planlægning af en atomar konfrontation med Rusland og Kina; med had pga. disintegrationen af USA’s produktive økonomi og nationens infrastruktur; med had pga. narkoepidemien, der har flået familier i stykker og ødelagt millioner af amerikaneres liv, med en Obama, der prædiker legalisering af narkotiske stoffer; og, frem for alt, had til Obama. Det, der mangler, er en positiv vision af, hvad Amerika kan være, for sig selv, og for verden.

Det er dette svælg i folks vision, som det program, LaRouche har præsenteret, hans Fire Love, er skabt for at udfylde, for at genoprette optimisme i en demoraliseret nation. Og der er tegn i hele nationen på, at dette koncept er ved at vække det amerikanske folk til denne store opgave, på et stort tidspunkt i historien. Flertallet af det amerikanske folk ønsker Glass-Steagall; industrilederne ønsker adgang til kredit, for at producere og skabe jobs; nationens videnskabelige ledere er rede til at genoprette amerikansk lederskab i rummet, i udvikling af fusionskraft, og til at oplære en ny generation af videnskabsfolk. Dette er den inspiration, som nationen har brug for, for at hæve sig op over det degenererede, politiske lederskab og den degenererede kultur, der er kommet over landet, og til at genindføre politikker i Hamiltons tradition, og som skabte denne storslåede nation. Vi kan, og må, genoprette denne rolle i dag. Med i sandhed store ledere, der nu leder Rusland og Kina, som allerede er i færd med at opbygge resten af verden gennem win-win-samarbejde inden for videnskab og udvikling, må USA simpelt hen tilslutte sig dette nye paradigme og fremme det, snarere end at true med at sprænge det i luften.

Enhver bestræbelse på at opnå dette revolutionære skift i Amerika må begynde med at bekæmpe Barack Obama og hans klon (eller noget, der er værre), Hillary Clinton. Netop i dag har NATO-chef Jens Stoltenberg annonceret, at 300.000 tropper i Europa skal placeres på »alarmberedskab« for at forberede til krig med Rusland, samtidig med, at Hillary fortsætter med at skrige op om, at Rusland og KGB truer den vestlige verden, og at de er skyld i hendes potentielle tab i præsidentkapløbet. Selv den Grønne præsidentkandidat, Jill Stein, der er modstander af Trump i stort set alle spørgsmål, er enig med ham i, at Hillarys annoncerede planer om flyveforbudszoner i Syrien, »er det samme som en krigserklæring mod Rusland« og advarede borgere om, at, »i dette valg afgør vi ikke alene, hvilken slags verden, vi skal have, men også, om vi vil have en verden eller ej, i fremtiden«. Dette er selvfølgelig den samme advarsel, som Lyndon LaRouche har fremført, siden Londons og Wall Streets systemiske og eskalerende overtagelse af regeringspolitikken, i kølvandet på mordet på John Kennedy.

Der bliver ingen pause, ingen »hvedebrødsdage« for hvem så siden bliver valgt denne tirsdag. I dag understregede LaRouche, at »vi har kurs mod en stor krise – en meget stor krise«. Befolkningen er i oprør over nationens kollaps og vil kræve reelle løsninger omgående. En afslutning af Obamas kriminelle krigsførelse, en indførelse af Glass-Steagall, kan ikke vente på en ny regering i januar. Befolkningen er klar til at handle, og må handle, omgående.

Foto: Præsident Barack Obama og udenrigsminister Hillary Clinton ved ambassadør Chris Stevens’ bisættelse, 14. september, 2012.

3. nov., 2016 – FN’s Første Komite, der behandler nedrustning og international sikkerhed, vedtog 27. okt., med stemmerne 123 til 38 og 16, der afstod fra at stemme, en resolution, der påbyder indledningen af forhandlinger, der har til formål at føre til et »juridisk bindende instrument til at forbyde atomvåben, og som fører til en total fjernelse af disse«. Af de ni atomnationer stemte selvfølgelig alle ’nej’ med undtagelse af Kina, der afstod fra at stemme, og Nordkorea, der stemte ’ja’. Alt imens dette initiativ grundlæggende set er meningsløst i forhold til politisk beslutningstagning, så demonstrerer det en voksende frygt for atomkrig.

Joe Cirincione, adm. dir. for Ploughshares Fund, rapporterede i Huffington Post efter afstemningen, at Obama-administrationens opposition mod resolutionen havde været »voldsom«. De havde lobbiet alle nationer, og især deres allierede, for at de skulle stemme nej.

»Hvordan kan en stat, der er beroende på atomvåben for sin sikkerhed, på nogen måde gå med i forhandlinger, der har til formål at stigmatisere og fjerne dem?« argumenterede ambassadør Robert Wood, USA’s særlige repræsentant til FN’s nedrustningskonference i Genève.

I en rapport, udgivet i Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists den 2. nov., sporer Cirincione amerikanske præsidenters skift i standpunkt, væk fra fjernelsen af atomvåben (i det mindste gennem reduktioner i atomvåben) til George W. Bush, der ændrede fokus væk fra selve våbnene og til, hvem, der har dem.

»Han søgte fjernelsen af regimer snarere en våben«, skriver Cirincione. »Han mente, at USA kunne afgøre, hvilke lande var ansvarlige nok til at have atomvåben, og hvilke ikke var. Amerikansk magt, og ikke multilaterale traktater, ville håndhæve denne dom.«

Resolutionen kræver to forhandlingsrunder om traktaten for et globalt forbud, den første i marts måned, 2017, og den anden i juli og juli, 2017. Den samlede FN’s Generalforsamling forventes at stemme om resolutionen i december måned i år.

Foto: Fredsmindeparken i Hiroshima, beliggende i centrum af Hiroshima, Japan. Så mange som 140.000 mennesker blev direkte ofre for atombomben. Hvert år, den 6. august, afholdes en ceremoni i parken for at mindes ofrene.    

Men det andet område må komme fra en bevidst beslutning om, at verden behøver et nyt paradigme; at, hvis vi forbliver inden for rammerne af det nuværende paradigmes aksiomer, med geopolitik og globalisering, så mener jeg ikke, at vi kan løse det. Det, vi må gøre, er at skabe en renæssance, en kulturel renæssance, der udgår fra den idé, at mennesket ikke er et dyr, og at, selv om mange mennesker i øjeblikket opfører sig på en dyrisk måde, så er mennesket den eneste skabning, eller den eneste art, der er i stand til at overvinde enhver begrænsning af sit eget intellekt og af teknologiske vanskeligheder. Hvad som helst, menneskeheden ønsker at takle, kan den gøre.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 5. november, 2016 – Mellem oktober og begyndelsen af november er der opstået et stort paradoks i USA. På den ene side hører vi om millioner af amerikanere, der føler afsky, og endda fortvivlelse, over præsidentkampagnen og kandidaterne. Men samtidig er der en mærkbar forudanelse i nationen om, at den tid ikke er langt væk, hvor Amerika vil blive i stand til at vende sin opmærksomhed på, og sætte alle sine bestræbelser ind på, det »menneskelige, personlige og sociale livs positivt bekræftende mål og behov« – uden at se sig tilbage til Obama/Bush-årenes sorg og skam.

Man havde sandsynligvis aldrig forventet dette, og man kan måske ikke forklare det, men det er uomtvisteligt til stede, når man først har opfattet det. Det skyldes ikke kandidaterne eller kampagnerne – meget langt fra. Årsagen skal findes i selve den menneskelige ånd; årsagen er den »guddommelige gnist«, der findes i mennesket, og som taler gennem det håb, som så mange af vore borgere pludselig opdager, at de er fælles om – tilsyneladende på trods af alt det andet.

Percy Shelly forstod alt dette, da han skrev »Til forsvar for poesien« og andre værker. Det samme gjorde den tyske »Frihedens skjald«, Friedrich Schiller.

Er dette uventede håbets kildevæld i overensstemmelse med virkeligheden? Er muligheden virkelig til stede for en genfødsel af noget, der er endnu bedre end John Kennedys Amerika, der førte verden opad til udforskning af det grænseløse rum, og samtidig førte den mod overvindelse af fattigdom, underudvikling og krig på Jorden? Svaret må blive, ja: dette håb har gyldighed; det bedrager dig ikke. Hvorfor dette er sandt, er et dybtgående spørgsmål – men svaret kan hurtigt opsummeres ved at bemærke, at lovene for det menneskelige, skabende intellekt, dvs., lovene, som skabes af vores fornuft, er lig lovene for universet.

Der findes ingen garantier; og det vil kræve en enorm, koordineret moralsk og intellektuel indsats, der kan sammenlignes med total krig, men muligheden er til stede, på dette sene tidspunkt, for at redde vores nation.

En vigtig del af omstændighederne for forandringen af vore borgeres mentalitet har været det i sandhed heroiske lederskab, som Ruslands præsident Putin har udvist (uanset, hvad Hillary Clinton måtte sige), og som Kinas lederskab har udvist. De har ført deres nationer op af mudderet og imod stjernerne i vores levetid. Rusland var et forlist vrag efter de såkaldte »reformer« i 1990’erne; se, hvor landet nu er. Kina har løftet 800 mio. af sine borgere ud af fattigdom. Men de kommanderer ikke rundt med andre eller aspirerer til eneherredømme; i stedet tilstræber de samarbejde, på basis af ligeværdighed. Kinas internationale forslag om den Nye Silkevej er en international udviklingsplan, tolv gange så stor som Marshallplanen, og i hvilken der deltager 70 nationer, og med flere, som fremover vil deltage. Og, uden Putins rolle, ville der ikke være noget håb om at undertrykke den terrorisme, som Barack Obama har næret i Mellemøsten, med hjælp fra Hillary Clinton.

Et kritisk element i skabelsen af den nuværende bølge af håb blandt amerikanere, og som vil være nødvendigt for dens succes, er Lyndon LaRouches to år gamle »Manhattan-projekt«. Gennem Manhattan har LaRouche inspireret nøglenetværk i hele nationen, på vegne af de oprindelige principper, på hvilke Manhattans Alexander Hamilton skabte vor nation, og som nu kommer til fornyet udtryk i LaRouches »Fire Love«. Kort beskrevet, så omfatter disse love en genindførelse af Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov; skabelsen af en ny De forenede Staters Bank; en politik for statskredit, der er helliget en forøgelse af arbejdskraftens produktivitet; samt et forceret program for at opnå kontrolleret fusionskraft, med genoplivningen af NASA og USA’s rumprogram, som Barack Obama har dræbt.

Til trods for, at ingen så meget som har påpeget, at denne nye, nationale stemning eksisterer, så responderede kandidat Donald Trump ikke desto mindre til den, på sin egen måde, i slutningen af oktober, da han offentligt støttede Glass-Steagall og krævede en genoplivning af NASA og dets forpligtende engagement for udforskning af rummet. Han påpegede også, at en præsident Hillary Clinton ville lancere Tredje Verdenskrig imod Rusland, som Lyndon LaRouche længe har vist.

Vi påpeger dette pga. dets klare relevans; men man må aldrig tro, at det, at trække i håndtaget til fordel for én kandidat, vil redde vor nation på dette fremskredne tidspunkt; det vil det ikke. Dette uforklarlige håb, som du, sammen med så mange andre, pludselig har følt, er en indre hvisken, der ansporer dig til at gøre det, du må gøre; der kommer måske ikke en ny chance.

Foto: Statue af Alexander Hamilton (1755/57 – 1804), USA’s første finansminister, foran U.S. Treasury (USA’s Finansministerium).

Matthew Ogden: Jeg tror, vi helt bestemt kan sige, at vi befinder os i en meget farlig, men afgørende periode i vores historie lige nu; både nationalt og internationalt. Tiden efter valget, der finder sted næste tirsdag, vil fordre et meget fattet, klart og sobert lederskab, som kun LaRouchePAC kan yde. Jeg tror, at vi nu ser den rolle, vi har kunnet skabe; og faktum er, at, umiddelbart efter valget, må vi have en hastedebat i USA’s Kongres med en omgående vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall, som det første hasteskridt. Det afgørende, første skridt i et helt økonomisk genrejsningsprogram, som må indføres i USA; og der må gribes til afgørende handling for at forhindre præsident Obama i at lancere Tredje Verdenskrig i de sidste uger af hans embedstid.

Tidligere sagde Diane [Sare] – jeg citerer kort og lader hende selv sige lidt mere; men, under en diskussion med hr. og fr. LaRouche kom et meget vigtigt punkt frem. Der er en masse såkaldt »analyse« og propaganda derude i nyhedsmedierne og andetsteds, der siger, at det amerikanske folk er mere splittet end nogensinde tidligere som nation, osv., osv. Men sandheden er, at det amerikanske folk faktisk er mere forenet end nogensinde før, omkring disse to afgørende hovedspørgsmål: den omgående vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall og nedlukning af Wall Street; og forhindring af atomkrig, at forhindre, at Obama starter Tredje Verdenskrig. Dette skyldes naturligvis ikke mindst LaRouchePAC’s vedvarende indsats i løbet af de seneste år; men hovedsagligt koncentreret i de seneste måneder med det, vi har kunnet katalysere fra vores base i New York City, i Manhattan.

Lad mig blot nævne to ting, som jeg mener, demonstrerer denne pointe meget klart. Der var en ny opinionsundersøgelse, der blev offentliggjort i begyndelsen af ugen, og som sagde, at, i nøgle-kampstaterne, må-vinde-staterne – Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina og Florida, og et par andre stater – sagde 70 % af de sandsynlige vælgere, der blev spurgt, at Glass-Steagall, med navns nævnelse, var en nødvendighed. De var tilhængere af Glass-Steagall. 68 % sagde, at de var tilhængere af at bryde Wall Street-bankerne op. Dernæst sagde en anden opinionsundersøgelse, der blev offentliggjort tidligere på ugen – foretaget af Marylands Universitet – at 2/3 af amerikanerne, inklusive 65 % af Demokraterne, ønsker mere samarbejde mellem USA og Rusland; især mht. at løse krisen i Syrien. Det taler netop om den pointe, som du, Diane, fastslog. Men hvad der fortsat er klart, er, at det afgørende program fortsat er LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love; baseret direkte på de principper, som Alexander Hamilton brugte til at opbygge USA. Vi kan inspireres og modellere det, vi må gøre i dette land i løbet af de kommende uger og måneder, ud fra det, der finder sted med et nyt paradigme, der foregår i hele verden i andre lande, inklusive i Kina. Vi har eksempler, som Jason Ross vil gennemgå; meget solide, konkrete eksempler på, hvad man har gjort i Egypten for at bygge den nye Suezkanal, og i andre lande. Det vil Jason Ross fremlægge lidt om senere i udsendelsen; baseret på en præsentation for det Amerikanske Selskab af Civilingeniørers afdeling i New York City for et par uger siden.s

Lad os begynde diskussion herfra.

Engelsk udskrift af hele webcastet, er dagens leder fra LaRouchePAC:

WE’VE GOT TO REVIVE A TRUE UNITED STATES.
THERE'S NEVER BEEN A GREATER MOMENT
TO DEVELOP LAROUCHE'S IDEAS.

International Webcast, Nov. 4, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening; it's November 4, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden; and you're joining us for our weekly
Friday evening broadcast here from larouchepac.com.  I'm joined
in the studio tonight by Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC Science
Team; and via video, by two members of the LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee: Diane Sare, joining us from New York City; and Michael
Steger, joining us from San Francisco, California.
        Now, I think it can be said very definitively that we are in
an extremely dangerous but decisive period in our history right
now; both nationally and internationally.  The aftermath of this
election coming up next Tuesday is going to require very calm,
clear, and sober leadership which only LaRouche PAC can provide.
I think what we're seeing right now is the role that we've been
able to leverage; and the fact is, that immediately following
this election, an emergency debate will have to take place inside
the United States Congress with a vote scheduled promptly on
Glass-Steagall as the emergency first step.  The critical first
step in an entire recovery program that must be instituted in the
United States; and decisive action must be taken to prevent
President Obama from launching World War III in the remaining
weeks that he has in office.
        Now, Diane said earlier — which I just want to cite and let
her say a little bit more on; but during a discussion we had with
Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche, a very important point [came up].  There's
a lot of so-called "analysis" and propaganda out there in the
news media and elsewhere, saying that the American people are
more divided than they've ever been as a nation, etc., etc.  But
in truth, in fact, the American people are more united than
perhaps they've ever been around these two key critical issues:
the immediate passage of Glass-Steagall, shutting down Wall
Street; and preventing thermonuclear war, preventing Obama from
starting World War III.  This is obviously due in no small part
to the consistent efforts of LaRouche PAC over the recent number
of years; but focussed mainly over the recent number of months
with what we've been able to catalyze from our base in New York
City, in Manhattan.
        Let me just cite two quick things that I think demonstrate
this point very clearly.  There was a new poll that came out at
the beginning of this week that said that in the key battleground
states, the must-win states — Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina,
Florida, a couple of other states — 70% of the likely voters
polled said that Glass-Steagall by name was a necessity.  They
were in support of Glass-Steagall.  68% said that they were in
support of breaking up the Wall Street banks.  Then another poll
that came out earlier this week — this one done by the
University of Maryland — said that 2/3 of Americans, including
65% of Democrats, want more cooperation between the United States
and Russia; particularly having to do with resolving the crisis
in Syria.  So, I think that speaks exactly to the point that
Diane, you were making.  But what remains clear, is the critical
program remains LaRouche's Four Economic Laws; based directly on
the principles that Alexander Hamilton used to build the United
States.  We can be inspired and model what we have to do in this
country over the coming weeks and months off of what is happening
with a new paradigm happening around the world in other
countries, including China.  We have examples that Jason Ross is
going to go through; very solid, concrete examples of what's been
done in Egypt to build the new Suez Canal, and others.  So, Jason
will present some of that a little bit later in the show; based
off of a presentation that he made to the American Society of
Civil Engineers chapter in New York City a couple of weeks back.
        But let me just leave it at that; and I think we can start
the discussion from there.

        DIANE SARE:  Well, I was — as often I am — was inspired by
the local morning news; which both the local New Jersey paper I
get and the {New York Times} had these articles as Matt said
about how divided the population was.  The truth of the matter
is, the population is not divided.  People are divided over which
candidate they hate more; and people have enormous hatred for
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.  In that regard, I just have to
say that Hillary Clinton — who is the continuation of the
Bush/Obama legacy and is a total stooge of the British Empire,
George Soros, and everything that represents — and is putting us
on a trajectory for war with Russia; she absolutely has to be
stopped.  And Obama absolutely has to be thrown out of the White
House; and if that could have happened yesterday, that would have
been excellent.  And we do have the Congress coming in the week
after the election.  But it's not as if the American people don't
realize that their standard of living has completely collapsed,
particularly in the last 15 years.  There is enormous rage at
Wall Street; where I think there was another poll where something
over 90% or 94% said that Wall Street bankers should be put in
jail.  So, the American people are very unified that they think
that the people who actually destroyed the US economy, which is
not — as we're so often told by the Wall Street bankers and
billionaires, just as in the time preceding Franklin Roosevelt —
that the people who caused the depression were all those
unemployed working class people.  The people who caused this are
the people who run these financial institutions — like the CEO
of Wells Fargo, like George Soros; like the people who were
behind the assassination of Herrhausen and then took over
Deutsche Bank and turned it into a disaster.  These people are
responsible for this, and they should be punished in a way that
would begin to restore confidence to people that there was
justice.
        It is also the case that the majority of Americans are tired
of war.  We have been in perpetual war frankly since the
reunification of Germany — which was the intent; but
particularly since September 11th.  I think people can reflect on
what happened with the override of Obama's veto on JASTA; the
vote against Obama was 97-1.  I would say that's a pretty
strongly unified Senate against the Saudi role in terrorism and
the cover-up.  Whatever occurs on Tuesday and Wednesday, the
potential following that is going to be extraordinary for us to
pull the nation together and demand that the policy — starting
with LaRouche's Four Laws — which is Glass-Steagall and
emphatically a system of national banking and credit that allows
us to fund the things that are on the most advanced scientific
levels.  That is, our nation can pull itself together and do
this; and it is not going to be a period where people just doze
off, because as I said, everyone hates both of the candidates so
intensely that no one will feel safe giving them a grace period
to see what they do.
        So, I think everyone who is watching this, should mobilize;
inform yourself of the program, study the material on the
larouchepac.com site, and presume that 90% or more of your
neighbors on what has to be done to save the nation, and that
that's the direction in which we can move.

MICHAEL STEGER:  I think there's been a number of cases where
people have gone out to the American people and found out what's
actually out there.  This is an undeniable characteristic.  70%
to 80% of the American people agree fundamentally on that; and
they also agree that our political establishment — the people
who have been run by Wall Street, by this war policy — are
bankrupt.  There is no trust or commitment towards their ability
to lead the country; that's why you saw such an upsurge in
support for populist candidates like Sanders or Trump.  And
that's why this Hamilton conception — and it stands out more and
more as we get deeper and deeper into this kind of crisis, and
closer and closer to where a decision has to be made to address
it — what Mr. LaRouche did on the question of Hamilton.  Because
Hamilton really captures this as an essence of the unification of
the American people around a conception.  Hamilton's politics,
Hamilton's economic policy recognized the very clear necessity of
every person in the country.  Hamilton, as any real economist
would, recognized that we had a deficiency of people; we need
more immigration, we needed more diversity.  We needed different
people from different backgrounds.  That's how an actual nation
thrives and functions; there's that commitment.
        I think probably the best example we have today on the
planet is what you saw from Vladimir Putin's leadership.  Because
Putin came in, he was dedicated to the Russian people; there were
a lot of factions, a lot of anger, a lot of resentment towards
what had happened in Russia.  And Putin's commitment — as was
Hamilton's, as is Lyn's and is our organization's — is a
commitment to the entire development of the entire nation and all
of its people.  That's what we have to have; you're not going to
find — no candidate right now is going to be perfect.  That's
pretty clear I think to every American.  But is there a devotion,
a deeper one?  What we've referenced in people like Joan of Arc;
or what you saw in examples of Abraham Lincoln?  Lincoln captured
that same Hamilton almost to a deep, profound spiritual
commitment to the people of the United States; all of them.
There was "malice towards none".  That we're going to take the
entire population of our country and develop it in a very rapid
capability.  Any executive, any Presidency that comes in today —
and one must — that adopts these programs; the Glass-Steagall,
the basic Hamilton Four Laws that Lyn has put forward; our
collaboration with Russia on the terrorism question, with China
on the economic question will easily gain the favor and support
of 70% to 80% if not more of the American people.
        I think the one thing that stands out — because we raised
this question to Mr. LaRouche over a year ago in discussion.
What he raised I think is worth raising here, and I think we can
discuss it more.  Why do the American people then think there is
this separation?  How can they be easily deceived into thinking
this separation exists?  It's because of the attack on the human
mind going back to the early 20th Century.  They took the human
mind and said, actually there's two different kinds of human
minds.  Some people have a left mind and some people have a right
mind; some people have a math mind, some people have a poetry
mind.  They attacked the actual characteristic of human identity;
that underlying, unifying creative characteristic that makes us
human.  They separated it out into styles and to niches and
categories.  Once you have that, you then have all of a sudden,
people identifying in different factions or categories of society
based on the way they think their mind works versus the way
somebody else's mind works.  That's where you get the scientific
flaw; that's the fraud.  That was the fraud of Bertrand Russell;
that was the power of the creative genius of Hamilton, or of
Einstein, or of Lyn to recognize the human mind is a universal
characteristic.  That's the basis of economics; that's the basis
of a nation or a political process.  That really is the basis of
real leadership; why Percy Shelley says the poets are the true
legislators of the world, because they identify that human
characteristic in human identity.  I think is what is really
critical; that quality of leadership today with this kind of
crisis.

        OGDEN:  One thing I think, "with malice toward none" and
with charity towards all; the sense of the development of the
entire nation was a devotion that Abraham Lincoln possessed.  But
the key word is development.  When you look at the situation at
this point in the United States, after 15 years of a Bush-Cheney
and Obama policy, you have mass despair, desperation, anger,
rage.  Why did we reach the point now where we've got an election
which is unprecedented in history?  Where you have drug
addictions and drug overdoses that are unequalled in recent
memory?  Where you have no productive work for people to be
engaged in?  Now the working class is somehow defined as people
who are greeters at Walmart, or work at temporary jobs at Target?
This is not a working class; this is not a skilled labor force;
this is not a population that has a sense that their lives have
consequence, or meaning.  I think if you look at the situation in
other countries where you've had real leadership in the recent
years — at the same time that we've been suffering under the
lack of leadership of the Obama administration — you've had
other nations who have had leaders who have been devoted to the
development of their nations.  And they took populations that
were similarly desperate, demoralized, enraged; take a look at
Egypt, for example — and have given them a sense of mission and
purpose.  The accomplishments in Egypt, the accomplishments in
China; lifting 700 million people out of poverty.  The kind of
radiation of optimism that has come from nations such as that,
through this New Silk Road paradigm and otherwise; this is
something which the American people are desperate for access to.
Perhaps they don't realize that that's the key, that's what they
are seeking. But I'm sure that the expression of despair,
demoralization, anger, and rage — the only antidote for that is
a commitment to the development of the nation, much in the way
that Abraham Lincoln in his way, applied the principles of
Alexander Hamilton and understood that that's how you bridge the
seemingly irreparable fault lines within a people.  And that's
how you bring people together again, with a sense of commitment
to building the future.
        With that said, it would be critical for us to get a sense
of exactly, in detail, what are the particular ways in which that
kind of program could happen, with the commitment from the top,
within days, weeks, and months of a completely new paradigm and
new Presidency in the United States.

JASON ROSS: I've put together a few aids to thinking about this.
In particular, thinking about what the implementation of
LaRouche's Four Laws look like. In discussing that, I also want
to think about this in terms of Hamilton. I'm very happy to say,
that Hamilton's four great economic writings, along with the Four
Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, will be available on Amazon {very soon}.
It's been submitted. It should only be a few more days. I'll be
reading some quotes from this.
        Let's take a look at what an economic recovery would look
like, using LaRouche's Four Laws. Let me read what LaRouche said
the remedy to the current situation is. LaRouche writes,
        "The only location for the immediately necessary action
which could prevent such an immediate genocide throughout the
trans-Atlantic sector of the planet, requires the U.S.
government's now immediate decision to institute four specific
cardinal measures — measures which must be fully consistent with
the specific intent of the original U.S. Federal Constitution, as
had been specified by U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton
while in office. (1) Immediate reenactment of the Glass-Steagall
Law, instituted by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, without
modification as to principle of action. (2) A return to a system
of top-down, thoroughly defined national banking." Skipping
ahead: "(3) The purpose of the use of a federal credit system, is
to generate high productivity trends in improvements in
employment, with the accompanying intention to increase the
physical economic productivity and standard of living of the
persons and households of the United States." And "(4)", LaRouche
writes, "Adopt a fusion-driver 'crash program.' The essential
distinction of man from all lower forms of life, is that it
presents the means for the perfection of the specifically
affirmative aims and needs of the human individual and social
life."
        Let's take a look through some of these Four Laws. The first
step is Glass-Steagall, which I'll just say a little bit about.
This is something we've discussed frequently [laughs] and to
great effect, I think, in our programs and on our website.
        Take a look here. [Fig. 1] This is what percent of supposed
U.S. income, what percent of the value added in our GDP, comes
from manufacturing — you see that there in blue–vs. "f.i.r.e.,"
which stands for finance, insurance, and real estate. For over 30
years now, the world of finance itself has {supposedly},
according to official thinking, contributed as much to U.S.
productivity and economy, as has manufacturing. Flipping houses
— that kind of thing — is now as productive as manufacturing
steel, or building things. It's crazy!
        Over this period, [Fig. 2] — this is Lyndon LaRouche's
Triple Curve, a pedagogical device that he had used to describe
the increase in monetary and financial aggregates, at the same
time that the {physical} economic output of the economy was
collapsing–something that we've been in a situation of for
decades now.
        What we need to do, then, is make it {possible} to be able
to finance a recovery. Alexander Hamilton, in his reports on
public credit and the national bank and on its constitutionality,
describes the importance of banking. Banks can provide an
essential function for the economy. They're not optional. They
provide an essential useful function. Now, they're tied up, in a
way, where the potential of the banking sector is impossible
right now, because they're involved in all sorts of speculation
and gambling. By implementing Glass-Steagall, we make it possible
for the banking sector to be able to play that useful role, while
jailing and shutting down all of the people behind the caused
collapse that's been created and the looting that's been taking
place via Wall Street.
        We've got a lot of very good recent editions to our website.
The Economics Frequently Asked Questions page at
larouchepac.com/econ-facts. This addresses some of these
questions that come up that {you} may have heard when talking to
people about these things. [For example:] "If Glass-Steagall were
still law, it wouldn't have stopped the crash of 2007-8." Are you
sick of hearing that? Well, you can now just send people the
explanations here. You don't really need to waste your time with
it. It's very clear.
        So, Glass-Steagall's the first step. Step 2 that Mr.
LaRouche describes is national banking. This is definitely a more
complex concept. I direct people, again, to the works of
Alexander Hamilton on this, to get a sense from the beginning, of
what it meant to have a national bank, or the role that banking
could play in the nation. I'd point to the success of this
approach under the administrations of Hamilton, of John Quincy
Adams, of Lincoln, and of Franklin Roosevelt, who, in various
ways, created the effect, if not in deed, national banking,
through a facility for the promotion of credit and directing it
in an economy.
        One of the most horrific ideas that people have about how
economics works, is that you shouldn't try to direct anything;
that government should always stay out; that the "invisible hand"
does everything in the best possible way. This is something that
Hamilton addresses very directly, countering the arguments of
Adam Smith's {Wealth of Nations}, for example, in these reports.
        Once we decide that we're going to have a national
orientation, and actually choose a direction to go, the question
then is, how do we direct this credit in the direction of
programs that are going to increase the energy-flux density? How
then do we understand "energy-flux density?" This is an economics
concept that Mr. LaRouche has employed over the years in his
understanding of economy.
        We have to think about what is the basis of the
transformation of the human species, over time, in a way that's
uncharacteristic of any other form of life. This chart of
Population Growth Over the Historical Time Period [Fig. 3] is of
{human} population growth. It couldn't have been the growth of
any animal species acting on its own. Animal species don't
transform their relationship to nature. They can't discover
principles. They might use a tool, like a stick, to do something,
or a rock. They don't use principles as tools.
        The beginning of this, the real starting point for this for
us historically, certainly in Europe, or extended European
civilization, is Prometheus, the Greek story of Prometheus, who
really created humanity. Before Prometheus, who, as the story
goes, took fire from heaven and gave it to mankind, human beings
were animals. Prometheus describes that when he saw mankind, we
were just animals. We had eyes to see (but we didn't understand);
we had ears, but we didn't understand anything. We lived like
swarming ants. What did Prometheus do? He brought fire, he
brought astronomy, he brought navigation, he brought beasts of
burden, he brought sailing, he brought agriculture, he brought
the calendar, he brought poetry, he brought written language,
mathematics, science, knowledge, fire. What defines us as a
species, as in this original story of the creation of the
specifically human species, is this power of fire.
        We now consider the different kinds of fire that have been
developed over historical time. Take a look at this [Fig. 4].
This is the Use of Different Forms of Energy over the History of
the United States. Two trends we can see here: (1) the Energy
Used per Person has, overall, increased — although not at a
uniform rate. It's not increasing now. The other thing that we
can notice, is that (2) the Type of Fuel Used has changed, over
time. Wood has very niche applications at present, as a fuel.
Wood is used for furniture, not for burning. Coal replaced the
use of wood, saving forests, making it possible to not have to
cut down all sorts of trees to make metals by making charcoal out
of the wood. Oil and natural gas supplanted the use of coal.
Nuclear fission — which never reached its full potential — in
this projection, from the era of the Kennedy administration, was
expected to become a primary, dominant form of power for the
United States, and, indeed, as seen in the world.
        What this shows us, is, yeah, using {more} energy. The other
thing is the {type} of energy. What can you do with that energy?
Think about what you can do with oil and natural gas that you
can't do with coal or wood. You can't run a car with wood. You
can't run a car with coal. You can run a car on oil. You can't
run a train on wood! You can run a train on coal. What can we do
with nuclear power that we can't do with lower forms? Think about
how with coal we can use wood for furniture instead of for
burning. Oil: that's what we make plastic out of. Oil is a useful
substance. It's a wonderful material. It's a great source of
carbon, which, by its chemical nature, is able to form {enormous}
molecules. Here it is, sitting in the ground, ready to be used to
make all sorts of products, and we're burning it! It's, you know,
it's stupid!
        With the potential that we've got, of shifting to a real
nuclear economy, of developing fusion, we would be reaching
another stage of energy-flux density. What's the power, the
throughput power of your energy source? And, what qualitative
improvements does it bring? What new things does it allow you to
do?
        You can't have economic development without power, without
energy. Here's a chart [Fig. 5] of Electricity Use per Capita vs.
GDP per Capita. I know GDP per Capita is not the best measure,
but it's very clear what you see with these things. If you say,
which parts of the world seen here are relatively wealthy and
have higher living standards and life expectancies? Well, it's
the places where you see the most light. The places where it's
dark, that's not because people are people are fond of astronomy
in that region and keep their lights off at night so that they
can see the stars better. It's because there's not development.
        Infrastructure itself really serves as the mediator, the
great mediator, of higher forms of energy-flux density into the
economy as a whole — the mediator of bringing new technologies
into achieving a maximal expression in the economy by partaking
in almost all of the processes that go on in an economy.
        We now consider the fourth of Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws,
which is the call for a crash program on nuclear fusion. This
[Fig. 6] is a chart that was created back in 1976, which frequent
viewers of this website no doubt have seen several times. What
this chart showed was, based on how much money was devoted to
achieving the fusion breakthrough, at what year it was
anticipated that the great breakthrough for a commercial fusion
reactor would take place. In '76 it was considered that if a
maximum possible effort were put into this — something on the
scale of the Manhattan Project, or the Apollo Project to go to
the Moon — if we took that approach with fusion, it was
anticipated that we would have had it over 25 years ago! Even at
a moderate level of funding, we should have had it a decade ago,
according to this projection, which isn't necessarily exactly
right. Actual funding for fusion has been {below the level} that
was anticipated in the '70s to {never achieve fusion}.In other
words, there has been a decision not to reach the next level of
Promethean fire; not to make that breakthrough on fusion.
        Why would that happen?  Who would hold back the development
of fusion power?  Is it the oil industry trying to make money
selling more oil?  No; that is way too simplistic.  It is the
brutish outlook of the British Empire, of Zeus earlier — Zeus,
the character from the Prometheus story.  Zeus, the tyrannical
god who created his own power in part by holding back others.  By
preventing mankind from making this step, this is one of the
greatest crimes that has ever been committed; the deliberate
underfunding of fusion and the campaign to prevent its
development.
        I don't want to go on forever; let me just show a few
projects that the US ought to participate in with a sane outlook.
There's a different paradigm going on in the world right now,
with the BRICS highly representing this; it represents the
decades of work by LaRouche and the LaRouche Movement.
Organizing for this World Land-Bridge proposal; something that's
been promoted for decades now.  This proposal, the power of this
idea to change the world, is absolutely being realized at
present.  This concept that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have been
organizing for, is now Chinese policy; the One Belt, One Road
program that is now bringing together over 70 nations
[representing] the majority of the world's population.  The
greatest potential for economic growth in the world; this is a
policy that is taking place.
        Instead, the United States under Obama — who should be
thrown out of office yesterday, as Diane said, if not last week,
last month, last year; those would all be even better — is
holding these things back.  What would it look like if we joined?
One thing would be the Bering Strait crossing; a proposal that
was first discussed over a century ago.  Really bringing the
United States, via land, into coordination and connection with
Eurasia and Africa, with the rest of the world in a very serious
way; a new way and a more efficient way than sea-borne shipping.
Within the United States, we've got [Fig. ??] to test your
geography here, this is the US on the left; and on the right that
is China.  Similar nations.  Look at all that high-speed rail in
China that you see in blue, and probably some of the red; since
this map was made, they've probably completed it, they're
building it so rapidly.  The United States doesn't have a
high-speed rail network; we barely have a rail network.  Instead,
we use the less-efficient form of road transportation for freight
and for people stuck in traffic jams.  What would it mean to
build a network that makes the United States more efficient, more
productive?  How many jobs would be involved in building new
cities, in building the kinds of power plants that would be
required?  What kind of power could we have over our physical
economy with the really full development of control over the
water cycle?  It is within our means to create desalination right
now in California to provide for coastal water needs if we wanted
to do that.  It's within our ability to serious and in-depth
research on atmospheric ionization and other technologies to
control the water cycle.  It's within our ability to transfer
water that has already fallen on land; but we need to insure that
there's actually enough to make that a possibility.
        So, let me read a couple of quotes from Alexander Hamilton
here, in terms of where an understanding of an increase in energy
flux density, of where economic growth comes from.  It doesn't
come from money; it comes from the human mind.  Here's Treasury
Secretary Hamilton.  He's describing in the beginning of his
"Report on Manufactures" whether it makes sense to have a
manufacturing economy, as opposed to a purely agricultural one;
which today seems like a stupid argument to even have, but it was
something that Thomas Jefferson didn't get, for example.  Because
he wanted to keep the American economy from developing; he didn't
have that same outlook of human beings — clearly — that
Alexander Hamilton did.
        So, Hamilton writes that "the work of artificers as opposed
to cultivators", that is, manufacturing as opposed to farming,
"is susceptible of a greater improvement in a proportionately
greater degree of improvement of its productive powers; whether
by the accession of skill, or from the application of ingenious
machinery" — labor saving.  How does the development of a new
technology transform the potential of a production in an economy?
This is a quote Matt had used: Hamilton writes — on page 148
when you get the book — "It merits particular observation that
the multiplication of manufactories not only furnishes a market
for those articles which have been accustomed to be produced in
abundance in a country, but it likewise creates a demand for such
as were either unknown or produced in inconsiderable quantities.
The bowels as well as the surface of the Earth are ransacked for
articles which were before neglected. Animals, plants, and
minerals acquire a utility and value which were before
unexplored.  Iron ore wasn't iron ore before the Iron Age; it was
a rock.  Malachite wasn't copper ore before the Bronze Age; it
was just a green rock that Egyptians used for mascara."  You
transform the value of the things around you; the mind transforms
what those things are.  That rock was transformed into ore by the
human mind.  We change the universe through our discoveries; we
transform our relationship to it, we change what it is, what it
can participate in.
        Hamilton understood that the purpose of the United States
was nothing less than the promotion of the General Welfare.  This
quote is a bit long to read, but it's on page 187; and it's where
he describes that there shouldn't be a limitation — except what
comes up in the Constitution — that the promotion of the General
Welfare he says "the term General Welfare, doubtless intended to
signify more than was expressed or imported in those parts of the
Constitution and Congress' powers which preceded it.  This phrase
is as comprehensive as any that could have been used, because it
was not fit that the Constitutional authority of the Union to
appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within
narrower limits than the General Welfare."  The real point to
take is that it's a different economic outlook.  What China is
doing is great, but it's not up to the level of what it should
be.  The concept embodied in the One Belt, One Road project is
positive; it's very good.  But what really needs to be brought to
this is the explicit understanding of its basis in the human
identity.  The human ability to make discoveries that transform
our relationship to Nature; that's the key to economics.  We see
its effects in various studies we might do about how building a
road transforms the amount of agricultural production in an area;
or how bringing in a stable power supply allows factories not to
have to turn off every three hours when the power goes out —
what transformations that has.  But the real key is to give a
mission to people by participating in the ability to bring that
to a yet higher level of understanding, of living standards, and
of participation in that process.  That's the key thing; create a
society where people are able to participate knowingly in that
increase.

OGDEN:  As Jason said, the four economic reports that Hamilton
wrote were the founding documents of the American republic in a
very real sense; and he was conscious of that.  He said, we can
have political independence, but without economic independence we
are nothing; we won't survive as a country.  And there are
scientific principles which need to be understood and applied.
But just as those were the founding documents at that point, we
now have a founding document of a new era in the economy of the
United States in this LaRouche Four Economic Laws.  It's a
distillation and an elaboration of the principles that Alexander
Hamilton understood, for the 21st Century, for today.  A
commitment to the fusion program, a commitment to space
exploration on a massive scale.  The same way that Franklin
Roosevelt had the New Deal, the same way John F Kennedy had the
new frontiers, we have a new paradigm.  And it's a vision of the
future which, if fully committed to, will absolutely within the
lifetimes of the people who are living today, transform what the
human species is capable of.  And it's that sense of the
opportunity of an evolution of the entire human species to an
entirely new level of capability; that's what we experienced in
the aftermath of Hamilton's breakthrough, the aftermath of the
American Revolution.  It's an opportunity in perhaps a larger and
more comprehensive form today, where you have the opportunity for
a collaboration among nations that is unprecedented in the
history of mankind.
        So, if you hold up against that, the kind of criminality of
Wall Street; the kind of rabid war-mongering and saber-rattling,
the threat of World War III and thermonuclear war; I think the
gut feeling of the American people around Glass-Steagall, around
stopping World War III, this is something which — as Diane said
— has the potential to unify the population in a way perhaps
we've never seen before or in a long time.  But it has to be
developed to a level which contains the type of depth that you
just witnessed with the presentation that Jason just gave.

        SARE:  I just want to add — I know we're getting close to
the end of our time, but Mr. LaRouche has said on numerous
occasions that the American people need to assemble themselves;
that they have lost confidence in their own ability to reason
through the crisis and to act in their own interest.  But I think
what we've seen in this presentation is what LaRouche has been
putting forward frankly for years; and the material that is on
our website allows us to have the program and the conception.
Particularly the conception of what it means to be human; which
is what the United States is based on, according to Alexander
Hamilton and our Constitution.  That is something around which
the American people can mobilize; just as when the Berlin Wall
came down, the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1989.  You had an
economic system that completely collapsed, and people turned to
Beethoven and Schiller.  Well, we are seeing such a moment now in
the trans-Atlantic system; and we have here Alexander Hamilton
and Lyndon LaRouche.  I am confident, although we cannot count on
anything 100%, that the population of the United States can be
mobilized on this level, and not something lower; and that that
potential will become very apparent in the next few days.

        STEGER:  I think it's just worth stating — China just
accomplished another major advancement in their space program.
They launched the Long March 5 rocket; this is a 25-ton payload
rocket.  Japan is now going to be working with Russia it looks
like, based on the discussion that Putin and Prime Minister Abe
will be having in December, of Japan making an even larger
investment into the new Cosmodrome, the new space city up in the
Far East of Russia near the Pacific.  These nations are dedicated
to this kind of advancement; and it only condemns further what
Obama has done these last eight years.  The first initial steps
of this Presidency were to tear down the very space program that
these nations have now recreated in their own way on an advanced
scale.  An Apollo project-like scale of development is what you
see now in China with their space program.  How dare Obama do
this?  How dare Hillary Clinton think that she can win a
Presidency while chaining herself to this insane legacy?  The
drone killings; the murders; the wars; the bail-outs; the
shutdown of the space program as the first act of the Presidency;
the failure of Obamacare?  Bill Clinton had the intelligence to
recognize this Obamacare was the most insane policy anybody ever
adopted; and as soon as he said that, I guess he was thrown into
the broom closet, because you haven't seen him since.  Then you
see Obama and Hillary marching hand-in-hand; it really is insane.
Obama should be condemned in every possible way.  And if Hillary
is going to tie herself to this legacy — blaming the KGB on
email leaks from her server?  Blaming the KGB and Putin because
she has not operated in a way of the dignity of the US Presidency
to lead the American people at a time of crisis?  To bomb
countries like Libya?  To support the overthrow of Assad and the
possible conflict with Russia?
        You have to remind Americans — and I think what Jason's
presentation did so well — what the Four Laws indicate; what a
real Presidency looks like.  What is the true United States?  For
30 years, FBI and British factors and our own government, like
the Bush family, went after Lyndon LaRouche and our organization.
We've lost a sense of what the real United States is; the world
has.  And during that period of time, the world has gone nearly
crazy; barreling towards world war and nuclear destruction.
We've got to revive a true United States.  We need it in the
United States, and so does the world.  There's never been a
greater moment to develop that around Lyn's ideas.

        OGDEN:  Good!  I think that's a perfect conclusion.  So, as
Jason said, {The Vision of Alexander Hamilton} book will be
available within the coming days.  It's something to absolutely
purchase and find access to; we'll make that clear.  And if you
haven't yet, please sign up for the daily emails from
larouchepac.com; these are the critical strategic updates that
are coming into your inbox on a daily basis.  We make sure that
you have that at your fingertips.  Things are going to change
very rapidly over the coming days; and you need to be connected.
So, please sign up for the daily LaRouche PAC email list.
        Thank you very much for joining us here today; and please
stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.

Tirsdag, 1. nov., 2016 – I et interview med Sputnik gennemgår lederen af det Russiske Sikkerhedsråd Nikolai Patrushev det, som Moskva betragter som betydelige trusler mod Ruslands sikkerhed og fremlægger en »vision for global sikkerhed« i fem trin.

»Den er enkel i sin essens og inkluderer, at international lov har forrang, at en fredelig løsning på konflikter  inden for den eksisterende ramme af internationale organisationer, anført af De forenede Nationer, har forrang, at underhåndsaftaler og ensidige handlinger og blokpolitik er uantageligt, og at indblanding i suveræne staters interne anliggender er uacceptabelt«, siger Patrushev.

Sputnik introducerer Patrushev med at sige, at det er, som at høre præsident Vladimir Putin tale: »I betragtning af Sikkerhedsrådets status som et rådgivende organ, der rapporterer til præsidenten, er Patrushevs ord grundlæggende set Kremls politik for sikkerhedsspørgsmål.«

Moskva betragter som betydelige trusler, i denne rækkefølge: NATO’s oprustning, terrorisme og spændinger på Koreahalvøen, siger Patrushev.

Han understreger, at Sikkerhedsrådet er en del af en proces inden for en række institutioner, der omfatter Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen og BRIKS:

»Vores hovedformål er at sikre Ruslands interesser – at skabe betingelserne for vedvarende økonomisk og samfundsmæssig udvikling, og at styrke suverænitet og forfatningsmæssig orden.«

Dernæst siger han det følgende om USA:

»Vi er parat til at samarbejde med vore amerikanske partnere på basis af ligeværdighed og gensidig respekt for hinandens interesser. I øjeblikket rangerer Rusland som én af hovedtruslerne mod USA’s nationale sikkerhed. Vi kan kun blive overrasket over den form for kriterier, som Washington tænker i, når de sætter lighedstegn mellem Rusland og Daesh [ISIS] og Ebola i sin nationale sikkerhedsstrategi.« Patrushev bemærkede, »det er desværre næppe muligt at etablere en fuld og omfattende dialog om et bredt udvalg af spørgsmål, når sådanne følelser er fremherskende i amerikanske politikeres tanker, og når disse stereotyper projiceres over på almindelige borgere gennem medierne.«

Han understreger, at amerikanske missilforsvarssystemer på Ruslands grænser kan lancere krydsermissiler, hvis rækkevidde omfatter mange faciliteter i Ruslands strategiske atominfrastruktur.

»USA benægter selvfølgelig denne kapacitet, men kommer ikke med nogen reelle argumenter.«

Når man læser dokumenterne fra det nylige NATO-møde i Warszawa, skulle man tro, at intet er forandret siden den Kolde Krig, siger Patrushev. Ikke desto mindre, så

»fortsætter Rusland med at bruge Rusland/NATO-dialogplatformen, og med at arbejde på bilaterale aftaler om forebyggelse af hændelser på havene og i luften«. Som den evige optimist understregede Patrushev, at han mente, at, med en fælles indsats fra verdenssamfundet, vil det sluttelig blive muligt at bygge en effektiv arkitektur med fælles og udelelig sikkerhed, i hvilken militære og politiske blokke vil blive en ubrugelig anakronisme.«

Det er bemærkelsesværdigt, at Patrushev siger, at indtrykket er, at de russisk-amerikanske forhandlinger om Syrien

»af Washington [blot] blev brugt til at trække tiden ud og give de militante kæmpere mulighed for at omgruppere sig. I dag ser vi resultatet: flere og flere grupper på syrisk territorium, der havde arbejdet med USA, er gået sammen med Nusra.«   

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 2. november, 2016 – Som Lyndon LaRouche bemærkede tirsdag, så vil et oprigtigt valg vise, at amerikanerne afviser Barack Obama og enhver fortsættelse af hans »eftermæle«. De hader dette eftermæle, som er evindelige og kostbare krige, Wall Streets straffrihed, økonomisk stagnation og afindustrialisering og ligegyldighed over den hærgende afhængighed af opiater og heroin, med dens følgesvend, fortvivlelsen. Der er en følelse i den amerikanske befolkning, at, med dette mareridt af et valg bag sig, kan og må de skabe store forandringer. Larouche sagde i dag, at, selv om disse forandringer endnu ikke er afgjort, så er meget mere nu muligt.

Blandt millioner af opvakte og intelligente borgere er der nu en underdønning til fordel for at bryde Wall Streets kasino, ved at genvedtage Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov – for juridisk retfærd, og for muligheden for at investere kredit i økonomien, for en produktiv, økonomisk genrejsning.

Dette fremgår af opinionsundersøgelser af det Demokratiske Partis vælgere; af Donald Trumps løfte om at genindføre Glass-Steagall, i en tale den 27. okt.; af partierne valgplatforme; af kandidater i kapløb til Kongressen, og som forpligter sig til at genindføre Glass-Steagall og kredit til infrastruktur, i Hamiltons tradition.

Obama har åbenlyst til hensigt at bruge den ’handlingslammede’ (’lame duck’) periode, der begynder den 9. november, til at forsøge at tvinge sin sidste fornærmelse igennem Kongressen – en Wall Street-»handelsaftale«, der er blevet afvist af vælgerskaren og kandidaterne generelt. Det er Trans-Pacific Partnerskab, TPP, der tilsigter at være hans våben til at isolere og provokere Kina til krig.

Men, han kan overvindes, hvis amerikanerne i stedet insisterer på, at Kongressen vedtager Glass-Steagall umiddelbart efter valget. Det vil forhindre Obama i at fjerne endnu flere produktive, amerikanske jobs; men det vil gøre mere end det. Det vil åbne døren til det, EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, kalder »fire hovedlove til at redde USA« – begyndende med Glass-Steagall og en nationalbank til produktive projekter med ny infrastruktur, efter Hamiltons principper.

Obamas lydighed over for Wall Street, og så hans konstante krige og dronedrab, hans dødsens farlige provokationer imod Rusland og Kina, er to sider af samme sag. Hillary Clinton fortsætter dem. De er lige så klart fejlslagne politikker, både økonomisk og strategisk – flere og flere asiatiske lande og nogle lande i Europa lægger kursen for deres økonomiske planer om, til at samarbejde med Kina og Rusland – som USA også burde gøre!

Og, lige så klart afviser det amerikanske folk disse politikker. Med Glass-Steagall kender millioner af amerikanere begyndelsen på det, de ønsker i stedet, nemlig udløseren for en tilbagevenden til fremskridt.

Lad os til Obamas eftermæle føje, at han var den præsident, der ikke kunne beskytte Wall Street mod Glass-Steagall.  

SUPPLERENDE MATERIALE:

LaRouchePAC’s massive effekt: Kandidater kræver Glass-Steagall

2. november, 2016 – Amerikanerne kræver en genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-loven for at lukke Wall Streets kasinobankvirksomhed ned, i takt med, at de udtrykker stærk opposition til præsident Barack Obamas og Hillary Clintons krig-og-Wall Street-politik

* I en tale i Charlotte, NC, den 27. okt., krævede Donald Trump Glass-Steagall: »Clinton-politikken bragte os den finansielle recession – gennem at ophæve Glass-Steagall [1999], fremme subprime-lånene og blokere for reformer af Fannie og Freddie. Tiden er inde til det 21. århundredes Glass-Steagall og, som en del heraf, en prioritering af hjælp til, at afroamerikanske virksomheder kan få den kredit, de behøver … Lige ret, og lige retfærdighed, for alle betyder de samme regler for Wall Street. Obama-administrationen stillede aldrig Wall Street til regnskab.«

* En opinionsundersøgelse, hvori deltog 1000 Demokratiske vælgere i staterne Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida og Missouri, og hvor spørgsmålet lød, »hvad bør der gøres mht. Wall Street-bankerne«, viste, at 70 % sagde, »genindfør Glass/Steagall-loven«. Opinionsundersøgelsen blev rapporteret den 1. november.

* Den 1. nov. opslog kandidaten til Kongressen i Ohios 4. Kongres-valgkreds, Janet Garrett, på sin hjemmeside et krav: »Vi må vedtage Glass-Steagall og lancere en Ny National Infrastrukturbank«.  Garrett sagde, »Hvis jeg bliver valgt, har jeg til hensigt at ’lægge kraftigt og omgående ud med’ et angreb på det nuværende, økonomiske rod. Jeg vil anråbe ånden fra Franklin Roosevelts Første Hundrede Dage og vil indstille til, at USA’s Kongres tager to, omgående skridt, som jeg selv vil deltage i:

»For det første: Vi må i Kongressen vedtage to lovforslag om at genindføre Glass-Steagall, HR 381 og S. 1709. Jeg vil omgående være medstiller af HR 381 … For det andet: Jeg vil, straks, jeg indtræder i embedet, fremstille lovforslag til skabelse af en ny Nationalbank for Infrastruktur, med de tidligere sådanne succesrige institutioner som model.«

* Ligeledes 1. nov. udstedte den Demokratiske kandidat til Kongressen for West Virginias 1. Kongres-valgkreds, Michael Manypenny, følgende erklæring: »Jeg indstiller til, at Kongressen vedtager Glass-Steagall, samt en National Infrastrukturbank med $1 billion.« Han sagde, »under Franklin Roosevelt blev nationen totalt genopbygget under New Deal og den efterfølgende krigsoprustning. Utallige broer, veje og offentlige bygninger blev i West Virginia … bygget med finansiering fra FDR’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation (svarer til en kreditanstalt for genopbygning, -red.) … Ligesom dengang i 1930’erne, vil en generel politik for en massiv forøgelse af infrastrukturudvikling skabe mange tusinde jobs til arbejdere i mit distrikt og i hele nationen. Én positiv effekt vil blive at gøre en ende på epidemien af selvmord og misbrug af opiater, som resultat af fortvivlelse, fremkaldt af stagnationen.«

Dette er de massive virkninger, i en forandret, politisk situation, af LaRouchePAC’s mobilisering for Lyndon LaRouches »fire hovedlove for at redde nationen«.

København, 1. nov. 2016 – Følgende ordveksling fandt sted ved en pressekonference med de otte nordiske og baltiske statsministre, i sammenhæng med, at Nordisk Råd træder sammen i København, den 1. nov., 2016. En video vil blive udlagt på dette indlæg snarest.

EIR: Jeg vil gerne spørge om relationerne med Rusland, som er meget vigtige for de nordiske og baltiske lande. Den amerikanske professor Stephen Cohen ved New York Universitet i New York har kaldt situationen for potentielt værre end Cubakrisen (1962), og nogle af årsagerne hertil er, at der er nogle i Vesten, der afviser at tillade en multipolær verden. Hvordan kan de nordiske og baltiske lande deeskalere konflikten, der, hvis det ikke stoppes, kunne føre til verdenskrig, og ville tættere, økonomiske relationer være en del af denne deeskalering?

Norges statsminister Erna Solberg (partiet Høyre): Resumé, parafrase:

Det er vigtigt, at lande ikke overtræder international lov. Rusland garanterede Ukraines grænser i 1994, men de annekterede Krim, og de har militært personel i Østukraine. Gruppen af Normandiet 4 forsøger at deeskalere. Begge parter må levere i henhold til Minskaftalen. Små landes første forsvarslinje er international lov. Det er derfor, vi må stå fast på sanktionerne og håbe, at det vil øge Ruslands ønske om at samarbejde og levere mht. Minskaftalen.

Som vi drøftede på vores møde, så er der forskel på de spændinger, man føler i de baltiske lande (Baltikum: Estland, Letland, Litauen), i forhold til de nordiske lande (Norden: Danmark, Norge Sverige, Island, Finland, samt Færøerne, Grønland og Åland). De nordiske lande har meget samarbejde med Rusland om fælles spørgsmål. Vi vil sikre, at vi har evnen til at forsvare os gennem NATO, men vi inviterer også Rusland til at være en del af vore militære aktiviteter som observatører. Nogen gange deltager de, andre gange ikke. Vi ønsker en dialog og at bevare Norden så normal som muligt, men vi kan ikke have en verden, hvor store lande blot afgør, hvad de vil gøre med deres naboer.

Den finske statsminister Juha Sipilä (Centerpartiet): 1. Vi må forblive forenet. 2. For at ophæve sanktionerne må Minskaftalerne opfyldes. 3. Midt i krisen må der være en dialog mellem os og Rusland.       

Se Også: 

Nordisk Råd: EIR-interview med Erkki Tuomioja, Finlands fhv. udenrigsminister om at nedtrappe konflikten med Rusland.

Nordisk Råds møde: Interview med islandsk parlamentsmedlem Steingrímur J. Sigfússon: for Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling; tager afstand fra konfrontationspolitikken mod Rusland

Foto: Den svenske statsminister Stefan Löfven, den finske statsminister Juha Sipilä, statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, den norske statsminister Erna Solberg og den islandske socialminister Eygló Harðardóttir, da der onsdag var familiefoto inden mødet i forbindelse med Nordisk Råds 68. session i København. [Scanpix/Nikolai Linares]   

København, 1. nov., 2016 – Erkki Tuomioja, tidligere finsk udenrigsminister og nuværende socialdemokratisk parlamentsmedlem, blev interviewet af EIR ved Nordisk Råds sammentræde i København den 1. nov., 2016. (I 2011, mens Tuomioja var udenrigsminister, havde han responderet på EIR’s spørgsmål om faren for krig med Rusland).

Følgende er et resume af de vigtigste punkter:

Der er en masse krigslignende retorik i pressen i Sverige og Finland, jo, det inkluderer Rusland, men, hvis man ikke var velinformeret og blot læser den svenske og finske presse, skulle man tro, at Rusland står for at angribe disse lande, hvad dag, det skal være, hvilket er fuldstændig latterligt. Der er kun et lille skridt fra krigsretorik, og så til krig. Det baltiske område har været et område for opvisning af militær styrke, og vi må sørge for, at det ikke bliver et område for BRUGEN af militær styrke.

De fejltagelser, som Vesten har gjort mht. til Rusland, retfærdiggør ikke, at de overtræder international lov. Vi må analysere fortiden, for, at undgå fejltagelser i fremtiden er nødvendigt, for at vi kan komme ud af denne onde cirkel med konfrontation, og for en skridt-for-skridt tilbagevenden til normale relationer.

Som respons på et spørgsmål om deployering af NATO-tropper i Baltikum, Polen, Norge, missilforsvarssystemer osv.: Disse deployeringer er forståelige ud fra historiske grunde, hvad enten de er velfunderede eller ej. Jeg tror ikke, de er bekymret over NATO-styrkerne, men de er bekymret over missilforsvaret, et globalt, strategisk spørgsmål.

Som svar på, hvordan vi kommer tilbage fra randen: Dæmp propagandaen og krigeriskheden ned på alle sider. Man behøver en meget mere realistisk fremgangsmåde, og at arbejde på et meget pragmatisk, konkret samarbejde. Til trods for denne retorik og voksende spændinger er mange sfærer ikke berørt, som Arktisk Råd, det europæiske Miljøråd (?) og den nordiske dimension. Det har ikke været i nogens interesse at introducere spændinger i dette pragmatiske samarbejde. Jeg tror ikke, vi endnu ser en tilbagevenden til en global, kold krig. For det første bliver krigen ikke global, fordi det meste af verden ikke ville gå med på nogen af siderne.

Mht. spørgsmålet om at droppe sanktionerne og øge det økonomiske samarbejde: Der må være fremskridt i Minskaftalerne, hvilket ikke udelukkende er Ruslands skyld, der er også spørgsmål på den ukrainske side, men alle positive udviklinger bør mødes med en ophævelse eller en formindskelse af sanktionerne. Krim-sanktionerne vil forblive i den nærmeste fremtid. Under andre omstændigheder kan en løsning, acceptabel for alle, findes for Krim, men tiden er ikke inde til det nu.

Mht. debatten i Finland om disse ting: Selvfølgelig er der en debat. Der er en lille minoritet, der arbejder for et NATO-medlemskab. Men vi som et oppositionsparti støtter den måde, vores præsident har håndteret situationen.       

30. okt., 2016 – Jihadisters tilfældige beskydning af det østlige Aleppo med missiler og kemiske våben er det samme som krigsforbrydelser, sagde Staffan de Mistura, FN’s særlige udsending for Syrien, som erklærede, at han var »chokeret og oprørt« over de angreb, som terrorister har lanceret i løbet af de seneste tre dage mod Aleppos civile befolkning. Selv Amnesty International har krævet et omgående ophør af beskydningen.

I løbet af de seneste tre dage har en brutal offensiv fra Jabhat-al-Nusras og dets allieredes (inklusive den såkaldte moderate opposition) side for at bryde den syriske hærs belejring af det østlige Aleppo dræbt 84 mennesker og såret henved 300, rapporterede Syriens Sana nyhedsbureau. En erklæring, som den syriske generalkommando udstedte i dag, anklagede, at terroristerne affyrede flere end 100 mortérrunder, 50 Grad-missiler og 20 gascylindre, lavet til våben, mod beboelsesområder i Aleppo, ud over at udføre snigskytte-angreb. De fleste tab, siger den, var blandt kvinder og børn. Søndag rykkede oprørere frem til nabolaget al-Hamadaniyeh, som udgør frontlinjen, i tanks og andre pansrede køretøjer, men brugte også selvmords-bilbomber til at bryde hærens forsvarslinjer. Flere borgere blev behandlet for åndedrætsbesvær og kvælning som følge af giftgas.

Mens dette skrives, har den syriske hærs styrker bremset terroristernes offensiv, hvor de nu kun delvis har kontrollen i nabolaget Dahiyet al-Assad, som de trængte ind i sidste fredag.

Den russiske udenrigsminister Sergej Lavrov advarede i dag om, at de uger, hvor Rusland og Syrien indstillede luftangrebene over Aleppo, har givet USA og dets allierede mere end tilstrækkelig tid til at tvinge den »moderate« opposition til at bryde med terroristerne. At de ikke har gjort dette, erklærede han, betyder nu, at »vore tidligere vurderinger må revideres«. Hvor Rusland tidligere sagde, at det syntes, som om USA og dets allierede ikke var i stand til, eller ikke ønskede, at adskille de moderate fra Jabhat al-Nusra, »så bør vi nu allerede sige, at de i virkeligheden ikke ønsker at gøre dette … vi håber, at selvopholdelses-instinktet vil sejre, eftersom at søge venskab med terrorister og forsøge at bruge dem til sine egne formål aldrig har ført til noget godt«. Alle militante kæmpere, der stadig er tilbage i det østlige Aleppo, advarede Lavrov, vil blive anset for at være al-Nusras medskyldige.

I en af sine periodiske, mentale lapsusser, som han lider under, når han gentager Obamas løgne, sagde udenrigsminister John Kerry til et publikum i Londons Chatham House i dag, at russerne ønskede at »sønderbombe Aleppo, hvor de hævder at ramme terrorister, hellere end at de accepterer den kendsgerning, at der er en opposition dér, der er parat til at efterleve våbenhvilen«. Er det ikke den opposition, som de Mistura anklager for krigsforbrydelser?

Foto: Staffan de Mistura.