Torsdag, den 1. september 2016 – I bemærkninger til Argentinas Radio 10 og avisen Pagina 12 i kølvandet på det »juridiske« kup, der blev gennemført imod den brasilianske præsident Dilma Rousseff i går, naglede tidligere argentinske præsident Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner kuppet præcist, da hun sagde, at det var »et element af en regional destabilisering, der kommer fra interne og eksterne, koncentrerede økonomiske sektorer«, der ikke kan lide Dilma Rousseff, fordi denne har bragt hele Sydamerika sammen med BRIKS ved topmødet i Fortaleza i juli 2014.

I et interview med Radio 10’s Roberto Navarro, vært for Tv-programmet Economica Politica, anklagede Cristina, at Brasilien, Argentina, Ecuador og andre nationer bliver angrebet for at have vedtaget en mere uafhængig udenrigspolitik og allieret sig med Rusland og Kina. Da intervieweren spurgte hende, om det, hun sagde, var, at USA reagerede på den udenrigspolitik, som Dilma, hun selv og andre havde vedtaget, specificerede hun, at »det møde, som Dilma holdt i Brasilien mellem Mercosur, UNASUR og BRIKS, ikke behagede … de uden for kontinentet eksisterende magter«, der stod bag kuppet mod Rousseff.

»Vi oplever i øjeblikket en regional destabilisering«, sagde hun til Pagina 12. »Supermagterne«, der er ansvarlige for kuppet, er i færd med at orkestrere en »barsk strategi imod folkelige regeringer« – en vurdering, som den amerikanske statsmand Lyndon LaRouche i dag varmt bifaldt.

Foto: Argentinas tidligere præsident, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner

31. august 2016 – På vej ud af Alvorada Præsidentpaladset, efter at det brasilianske Senat med 61 stemmer mod 20 i dag vedtog at afsætte præsident Dilma Rousseff efter en rigsretssag for forbrydelser, hun ikke har begået, gjorde hun det klart, at kampen for Brasilien ikke er forbi, men vil eskalere:

»Det progressive, inkluderende og demokratiske, nationale projekt, som jeg repræsenterer, er i færd med at blive afbrudt af magtfulde konservative og reaktionære kræfter … De vil overtage statens institutioner for at sætte disse til at tjene den mest radikale økonomiske liberalisme og sociale regression … Hør godt efter: de tror, de har slået os, men de tager fejl. Jeg ved, at vi alle vil kæmpe … Vi ville vende tilbage for at fortsætte vores rejse mod et Brasilien, hvor folket er suverænt.« Hun citerede den brasilianske antropolog Darcy Ribeiro: »Vi ville ikke gerne befinde os i deres sted, der tror sig at være sejrherrerne. Historien vil være uforsonlig over for dem.«

Over hele Sydamerika er der en voksende erkendelse af, at det er de finansielle »voldtægtsmænd«, som Lyndon LaRouche har kaldt dem, der står bag justitsmordet og kuppet i Brasilien. Den tidligere argentinske præsident Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner tweetede: »Atter er Sydamerika et laboratorium for det mest ekstreme højrefløjskup mod regeringsinstitutionen, begået mod Brasilien: en ny måde at krænke folkets suverænitet på.«  

Ecuadors og Bolivias regering trak deres ambassadører til den nu edsvorne præsident Michel Temers regering hjem.

Under debatten i Senatet fremkom senator Roberto Requiao, fra delstaten Parana, med den anklage, at de finansielle og geopolitiske »gribbe og krager«, der stod bag kuppet, har planer om at gennemtvinge en 20 år lang fastfrysning af alle udgifter og investeringer til sundhed, rent vand og kloakering, uddannelse, infrastruktur, boligbyggeri og sikkerhed for offentligheden, alt imens de udsteder garanti for betalingen af renterne på statsgælden, samt for en privatisering af den nationale fædrenearv mht. energi, mineraler, landbrug, vareproduktion og teknologi. Han advarede ophavsmændene til denne rigsretssag om, at de legede med ilden: Er I »forberedt på borgerkrig? Nej? Så grav jeres skyttegrave, for en konflikt er uundgåelig. Det brasilianske folk, der i nogle år har smagt den søde smag af socialt fremskridt, vil ikke underdanigt vende tilbage til slavekvartererne«, sagde han.

Med en tilbagetræden fra sin post aftenen før afstemningen, i protest mod dette »kup«, informerede Brasiliens vice-justitsminister Ela Wiecko magasinet Veja om, at »der er mange personer, der tænker ligesom jeg, inden for regeringsinstitutionen«.

En lille krølle blev introduceret i den snavse affære i de sidste timer af rigsretssagen, da højesteretspræsidenten, der præsiderede over retssagen, accepterede et forslag fra Dilmas PT-parti om, at man afholdt to afstemninger: den første om afsættelsen, og den anden om, hvorvidt man skulle fratage Dilma alle politiske rettigheder i otte år, som det specificeres i sådanne sager. Sidstnævnte afstemning, der også krævede 54 stemmer for at gå igennem, blev nedstemt, med 42 stemmer for og 31 imod, og tre blanke – en implicit erkendelse af, at den tidligere præsident i realiteten ikke havde begået nogen forbrydelse.   

Det afgørende spørgsmål i dette præsidentvalg er, vil det amerikanske folk tolerere kandidater, der ønsker, at USA skal være på linje med et allerede dødt system? Eller, vil vi følge en anden kurs, hvor USA kommer på linje med dette nye, fremtidsorienterede alternativ? Rent historisk betragtet har Amerika altid befundet sig på denne fremtidsorienterings side; i det mindste, med udgangspunkt i USA’s grundlæggende principper – ideerne i Hamiltons tradition er i realiteten det, der ligger til grund for denne eurasiske udvikling. Vi må vinde kampen om at transformere USA tilbage til det, som det repræsenterede rent historisk, som byen, der ligger på et bjerg.

Uddrag af LPAC fredags-webcast, 12. august 2016. Se hele webcastet, med engelsk udskrift, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=14144

Matthew Ogden: En ting, jeg gerne vil sige i sammenhæng med den foreståede FN Generalforsamling; der foregår allerede en krig imod alt det, som BRIKS repræsenterer. Hvis man tænker ét eller to år tilbage i tiden, så blev aftalen i Fortaleza, Brasilien, indgået i sammenhæng med denne krig, som [dav. præsident] Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner førte i Argentina imod gribbefondene. Disse nationer kom sammen i solidaritet med Argentina og sagde, vi vil ikke tillade, at I dræber det argentinske folk for at få pengene til gribbefondene. Siden dette tidspunkt har vi set en samling omkring Putins, Xi Jinpings og Modis lederskab i BRIKS-strukturen; dette er det nye, fremvoksende paradigme. I den mellemliggende periode har der fundet en samlet indsats sted for at bryde BRIKS op; og lige nu befinder vi os midt i et sådant angreb. Vi så, hvad der skete med Cristina Kirchner i Argentina; nu sker det samme med Dilma Rousseff i Brasilien. Netop i denne uge har et flertal i det brasilianske parlament vedtaget at indlede afhøringer af Rousseff; hvilket vil sige, en rigsretssag mod Brasiliens præsident. Der har været en vis respons mod dette kup internt i USA; og dette er faktisk emnet for det spørgsmål fra institutionelt hold, vi har fået til i aften.

Jeg ved, at hr. LaRouche havde nogle detaljerede bemærkninger om dette. Jeg læser nu spørgsmålet op, og så kan Jeff måske træde ind og sige lidt om det. Spørgsmålet lyder:

»Hr. LaRouche: Kongresmedlem John Conyers, demokrat fra Michigan; Marcy Kaptur, demokrat fra Ohio; Keith Ellison, demokrat fra Minnesota, samt flere en 30 andre fra Repræsentanternes Hus sendte i denne uge et brev til udenrigsminister John Kerry, hvor de opfordrede ham til at afholde sig fra handlinger, der kunne fortolkes som støtte til Brasiliens midlertidige regering. Og til i stedet at »udtrykke sin stærke bekymring mht. rigsretssagen og angrebet på den brasilianske præsident Dilma Rousseff«; og til at »kræve beskyttelse af det forfatningsmæssige demokrati og regering ved lov i Brasilien«. Brevet er det første brev fra kongresmedlemmer, som udtrykker bekymring over Brasiliens demokrati, i mere end to årtier. Hvilke handlinger bør USA’s regering, efter Deres mening, gribe til, for at fremme retfærdighed og beskytte demokratiske institutioner i Brasilien på nuværende tidspunkt?«

Jeffrey Steinberg: Det første, han understregede, var, at vi ikke har med en »brasiliansk situation« at gøre, på samme måde, som vi heller ikke har med en »syrisk situation« at gøre.

Vi befinder os midt i en betydningsfuld, global, strategisk omorganisering. Som du sagde, så havde man, ved BRIKS-landenes møde i Fortaleza for to år siden, lanceringen af den Nye Udviklingsbank, efterfulgt af Kinas lancering af den Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB). Der er tydeligvis et politisk initiativ centreret omkring de store, eurasiske magter, men som også omfatter Brasilien og Sydamerika, Sydafrika og Afrika, med det formål at reorganisere verden omkring en radikalt anden fremgangsmåde; en fremgangsmåde, der er orienteret mod fremtiden, centreret omkring store projekter for økonomisk udvikling, der er ægte win-win-projekter. Der er intet geopolitisk nulsumsspil. Og så har vi et dødt system, som er det britiske imperiesystem, og som i de sidste 15 år er blevet repræsenteret gennem den kendsgerning, at briterne har haft kontrollen over det amerikanske præsidentskab; først under George W. Bush, og dernæst under Barack Obama.

Så det første, USA bør gøre, er at opgive sin egen, direkte rolle i promoveringen af dette kup. Dette er ikke noget, der finder sted, fordi en flok personer internt i Brasilien har besluttet at angribe Dilma Rousseff. Der er hedgefondenes internationale apparat; der er Adam Smith Institutes netværker i Storbritannien; der er Chicago Skolens apparat her i USA; de er alle virkemidler i dette fremstød – ikke for at skade Brasilien – men for at ødelægge Brasilien, fordi det er en del af denne nye BRIKS-organisering. Jeg forsikrer jer for, at, hvis USA offentligt gik ud – hvis Kerry offentligt fremkom med en erklæring, der sagde, at USA mener, at dette er et statskup, der ikke nødvendigvis anvender skydevåben, men som anvender handlinger fra købt-og betalte, korrupte regeringspersoner for at vælte en lovligt valgt regering, der forsøger at bringe Sydamerika på linje med dette nye paradigme for udvikling, centreret omkring Eurasien; så ville det her forsvinde. De brasilianske senatorer, der har stemt for det her, er absolut skamløse; de personer, der står bag dette kup, er alle sammen selv underkastet en lovlig undersøgelse for kriminelle handlinger, for massivt økonomiske bedrageri. Hvis man undersøger det brasilianske element af skandalen omkring Panama-papirerne[1], vil man finde disse topregeringsfolk – formanden for parlamentet, præsidenten for Senatet, den aktuelle præsident (idet Dilma Rousseff er suspenderet, -red.), den aktuelle udenrigsminister; alle de personer, der har allieret sig imod Dilma, er selv en del af det mest korrupte apparat. Men de er beskyttet, fordi de er en del af det Britiske Imperium og Obamaregeringens beskyttelsesapparat; og deres mål er at forsøge at ødelægge BRIKS.

Så dette er et globalt spil; dette er ikke en brasiliansk historie. Det er ikke noget, der er snævert forbundet med begivenheder i Sydamerika, eller med korruption, eller sådan noget. Dette er en langt større, værre og farligere ting; og det er en del af det overordnede billede. Vil verden gå i retning af at forsvare et system, der allerede er dødt? Fremtrædende økonomer beskrev i denne uge Deutsche Bank som »dead bank walking« (amr. udtryk, ’dead man walking’: når den dødsdømte går den sidste, korte strækning fra sin celle til henrettelsesstedet, –red.); og det er en passende beskrivelse. Så det er et spørgsmål, om et dødt, Britisk Imperium, der i det store og hele har kontrolleret det amerikanske præsidentskab i de sidste 15 – 16 år, grundlæggende set vil bringe resten af verden til fald med sig – for det vil aldrig kunne overleve. Eller, om det skal kastes bort, besejres og erstattes af et nyt system, der allerede er godt på vej.

Det afgørende spørgsmål i dette præsidentvalg er, vil det amerikanske folk tolerere kandidater, der ønsker, at USA skal være på linje med et allerede dødt system? Eller, vil vi følge en anden kurs, hvor USA kommer på linje med dette nye, fremtidsorienterede alternativ? Rent historisk betragtet har Amerika altid befundet sig på denne fremtidsorienterings side; i det mindste, med udgangspunkt i USA’s grundlæggende principper – ideerne i Hamiltons tradition er i realiteten det, der ligger til grund for denne eurasiske udvikling. Vi må vinde kampen om at transformere USA tilbage til det, som det repræsenterede rent historisk, som byen, der ligger på et bjerg.[2]

Matthew Ogden: Jeg mener, at det er signifikant, at de kongresmedlemmer, der underskrev dette brev, overlapper kernegruppen af ledere omkring Glass-Steagall.

Steinberg: Det er rigtigt.

Ogden: En anden ting, du netop nævnte: Hvad er ’ideerne efter Hamiltons tradition’? Det, der er kernen i det sammenhængende, forenende princip i disse, hr. LaRouches Fire Nye Love, er den idé, som han udtrykker mod slutningen af dokumentet: At der ikke findes nogen målestok for økonomi inden for pengenes domæne; penge er ikke repræsentant for værdi, når vi taler om økonomi. Det er beredvilligheden til at afvise monetarisme, der gør den Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB) og den Nye Udviklingsbank – til banker af en totalt anden art. Det er ikke blot en anden version af IMF/Verdensbanksystemet. Der er en helligelse til at forøge produktiviteten hos massive mængder af planetens befolkning; milliarder af mennesker vil blive berørt af den Nye Silkevej, af disse udviklingsprojekter, der har været vedtaget i 40, 50 og 60 år. Nu bliver de faktisk bygget, takket være de investeringer, der kommer fra BRIKS-banken (Ny Udviklingsbank) og fra Kina (AIIB), osv. Men det er udtryk for en opfattelse af økonomi, som jeg mener, har været det enestående bidrag, som hr. LaRouche har ydet til verdenshistorien i løbet af de seneste 40-50 år; og som er hans enestående opfattelse af, hvad den sande målestok for økonomi virkelig er. Det er en konstant forøgelse af akkumuleringen af menneskehedens evne til at indsætte nye, fysiske principper, som mennesket har opdaget, for at forøge vores magt i og over Universet.

Jeg mener, at Albert Einsteins eksempel på to specifikke måder er meget vigtigt med hensyn til dette.

For det første, blot i form af en analogi: Albert Einsteins opfattelse af, at man ikke kan have en målestok, der kommer internt fra et system; men at der må være en målestok, der er ekstern, og som er et princip. Lige som absolut tid og absolut rum ikke eksisterede for Einstein, så er dette den form for opfattelse, for forståelse, som man må anvende på fysisk økonomi.

Og for det andet: Måske mere end nogen anden person er Albert Einstein paradigmatisk for den form for menneskelig, kreative tænkning, der gør det muligt for menneskeheden at gøre fremskridt; der, som Helen Keller så smukt beskrev, bringer os op fra jorden, som dyr, der kryber på vores bug og reagerer på omstændighederne omkring os, og til at blive Universets medskaber.

Jeg syntes, at du forklarede dette på en meget smuk måde i slutningen af din artikel i denne uges udgave af The Hamiltonian[3] (pilotudgaven), Michael [Steger]; du måtte gerne sige lidt mere om dette spørgsmål.

Michael Steger: Jeg synes, du netop har sagt det meget fint. Hvad der måske kunne være af værdi at komme tilbage til, mht. den kreative personligheds rolle, som Keisha (Rogers) talte om under mandags-showet; Einstein indså også, at det er individets enestående rolle at udforme og skabe grundlæggende set de nye love, som samfundet dernæst vedtager. At opdagelsen af disse højere principper, eller naturlig lov, dernæst gør det muligt for det samme samfund at gøre fremskridt. Vi ser i dag, at mange mennesker er på ferie; alt for mange mennesker, mener jeg, ser Olympiade. Jeg mener, at den virkelige doping-skandale er at finde internt i Det Hvide Hus. Men det, som Putin har gjort med sin diplomatiske indsats, er, at vi nu ser på den mulige løsning af den syriske krise i Aleppo. Der finder en form for proces sted, der kan løse disse ting i de kommende måneder.

Og så har man i september måned præsidenterne for Sydkorea, Japan og Kina, der vil møde Putin i Vladivostok. Så drager de sammen til G20-topmødet i Kina – hvor Putin vil være æresgæst – med de 20 største nationer; med Brasilien, Argentina, Mexico, Tyrkiet, nationer fra Afrika, fra hele Asien og Europa, der deltager. Dernæst vil mange af disse statsoverhoveder komme til New York City på samme tid som vore koncerter; men de kommer til FN’s Generalforsamling. Og så vil mange af disse statschefer fra BRIKS mødes i Indien i begyndelsen af oktober.

På dette tidspunkt, som Jeff sagde tidligere på ugen, kunne hele dette finanssystem – Deutsche Bank og de øvrige storbanker – hurtigt gå i opløsning, bryde sammen. Bankerotten kan blive en opsprætning af banksystemet, som grundlæggende set kommer i den nære fremtid. Så har vi præsidentvalget. Selv om Donald Trump er nok så meget en nar, så har han vist sig at være i stand til at slå en masse af de andre, inkompetente politikere i debatter; og jeg mener, at det bør bekymre Hillary Clinton en hel del, at hendes historie sammen med Obama er en absolut og alvorlig svaghed. En Akilleshæl pga. det nuværende klima i den politiske situation, som vi konfronteres med i dette land. Så vi befinder os altså virkelig på et bemærkelsesværdigt tidspunkt. Og så kollapset af det transatlantiske system; en konsolideret indsats, der er ved at udspille sig, i Eurasien under Putins lederskab, og så denne egenskab med kreativt geni, som du henviser til mht. Einsteins eksempel. Det er i realiteten den indflydelse, som Lyndon LaRouche har haft på planeten; og det er virkelig, hvad nu må få indflydelse på det præsidentielle system i USA. Lyn må blive en del af udformningen af den præsidentielle politik, nu. Det er vi grundlæggende set; men det må blive det amerikanske folks forpligtelse, og ikke at blive indfanget af alt muligt andet, for vi har i dag en særdeles sjælden mulighed.

[1] Panamapapirerne er 11,5 millioner lækkede dokumenter, der afslører finansiel information og advokat-klientinformation for mere end 214.488 offshore-enheder. De lækkede dokumenter blev udfærdiget af en Panama-advokatfirma og udbyder af tjenester for selskaber, Mossack Fonseca; nogle af dem går tilbage til 1970’erne. De lækkede dokumenter fortæller, hvordan rige personer og offentlige (regerings-) personer er i stand til at holde personlig, finansiel information privat. Alt imens offshore forretningsenheder ofte ikke er ulovlige, så fandt reportere, at nogle af Mossack Fonseca facadeselskaber blev brugt til ulovlige formål, inklusive bedrageri, kleptokrati, skatteunddragelse og omgåelse af internationale sanktioner.    

"I stedet for at krybe ved jorden som et dyr, svinger menneskets ånd sig op til højere regioner. Og fra dette nye udsigtspunkt ser det på det umulige med forstærket mod og drømmer om endnu mere vidunderlige initiativer."  – Helen Keller ved et besøg i Empire State Building.

Engelsk udskrift. 

"Instead of crouching close to Earth like a beast, the spirit of man soars to higher regions.  And from this new point of vantage, he looks upon the impossible with fortified courage, and dreams yet more magnificent enterprises."

Helen Keller, upon visiting the Empire State Building.

Creating the New Presdency: The Launch of the Hamiltonian
International LaRouche PAC Webcast August 12, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! My name is Matthew Ogden. You're joining us for our weekly broadcast here on Friday evening for the LaRouche PAC webcast. It's August 12th, 2016. I'm joined in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg, from Executive Intelligence Review; and via video, by Diane Sare and Michael Steger, both
members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.
        In the past week, as you heard in our discussion on Monday, here, LaRouche PAC has initiated a very significant escalation in terms of our intervention into crafting the new Presidency. This is vectored around the publication of a new LaRouche PAC publication, The Hamiltonian, which is a broadsheet which is
being distributed en masse in Manhattan, in the streets of New York City. Ten thousand copies of this have been printed and they are currently, as we speak, being distributed around New York. This is intended to be an escalation, one, right into the heart of the two nominal Presidential campaigns, both of which are headquartered in New York City; and number two, this has the express purpose of breaking open the controlled propaganda environment that the American people are being subjected to each and every day, and rather, providing a leadership voice for the sane and responsible citizens of this republic to rally around.
        As Mr. LaRouche stated a couple of weeks ago, "I am not running for President, but I am certainly intending to affect the shaping of the government of the United States in the coming period." This initiative around the publication of The
Hamiltonian is certainly intended to do just that — to affect the shaping of the government of the United States in the coming period.
        Joining us tonight we have Diane Sare and Michael Steger, both of whom authored articles in the new copy of The Hamiltonian. Diane Sare is, obviously, responsible for coordinating the distribution and deployment of this broadsheet,
and Michael Steger authored one of the main articles, which was titled "The New Presidency: It Begins with LaRouche's Four Laws." Jeffrey Steinberg authored the other of those main articles, this one called "Hillary is Obama's stooge for War and Wall Street."
        I want to ask Jeff to begin the discussion, with some of the content of what you wrote in that article, to kind of frame what we're going to discuss, and then we can have Michael and Diane join the discussion after that.

        JEFFREY STEINBERG: Well, I think it's essential to discuss the content of that article from the standpoint of another {major} development that has taken place this week, namely, a series of meetings involving Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, and now, today, Armenia. These represent major political interventions and initiatives by Russian President Putin. The most significant, clearly, was the meeting midweek in St. Petersburg between President Putin and President Erdogan of Turkey, in which Turkey has very clearly realigned itself with Russia on the issue of finally bringing an end to the five-and-a-half year Syria war.
        But, more broadly, Turkey is now positioning itself to be part of the whole Eurasian development framework which has been led by Putin and, of course, also by China's President, Xi Jinping. India's Prime Minister Modi is playing a major role in
this, and now we even see the Japanese Prime Minister Abe seeking to bring himself into this arrangement.
        The meeting that Putin had in Baku, just a day prior to his meeting with Erdogan, involved the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Iran. They resolved to rapidly accelerate the completion of the North-South Economic and Transportation Corridor, which is actually a new dimension, an added element within the overall
Chinese-initiated One Belt One Road program — what Lyndon and Helga LaRouche called for the last 20 years, the Eurasian Land-Bridge.
        The fact of the matter is, that this is the new emerging reality, that is dominating the global policy options. Anyone in their right mind will understand that the trans-Atlantic system is dead, and that this new system, which Putin has played a major
strategic role in engineering, in conjunction with China, is the future; it's the future of Eurasia, it's the future of Europe, it's really the future of the world as a whole. The big
policy issue for the United States in this Presidential election, is will the U.S. continue as it's been under Obama, and George Bush before that, to be a pawn of the British Empire — in which case the U.S. will pursue a policy of war, against Russia,
against China, and against the larger developments associated with the BRICS New Development Bank, the Chinese One Belt One Road policy, the AIIB, and all of that.
        The article that appears prominently in the first edition of The Hamiltonian warns about the fact that since the very day that she finalized her nomination by the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton has been sending out clear signals, through a
number of well-known leading policy surrogate voices, that she's aligned with the war party. That's the party of Bush, it's the party of Obama. Hillary, of course, in her position inside the Obama administration, made herself a pawn of that whole process,
as we saw in Libya, as we saw in the Benghazi cover-up, as we've seen in this horrific five-and-a-half year Syria war.
        Basically, since that time, since just a little over a week ago, you've had Leon Panetta, who was CIA Director and Defense Secretary under Obama — close, close ally, strong endorser of Hillary — coming out, basically calling for a major military
escalation to "regime change" the Assad government in Syria.
Michele Flournoy, who is widely believed to be Hillary's choice as Secretary of Defense, if she's elected, has come out with a series of reports. The institute that she [co-]founded and [serves on the Board of Directors], which is called the Center
for a New American Security, is the kind of follow-on to the PNAC, the Project for a New American Century. In fact, the same person who authored PNAC's plan for unipolar American world empire, Robert Kegan, was the principle author of the Center for a New American Security's study, drafted for either the Clinton or Trump campaigns just a few months back. It's all the same thing. It's empire, it's war, it's confrontation with Russia and China.

        OGDEN: Not to mention, Kegan's wife is Victoria Nuland.

        STEINBERG: Exactly, who is one of the people on the short list for Secretary of State, or some other very high position, if Hillary is elected.  The problem is that you can't avoid the fact that an intervention around steering the United States in a sane
policy direction, demands that you put enormous pressure on both candidates; that they're going to have to abandon the policy direction — in this case, Hillary's clear embrace of the neo-con unipolar world agenda — and change drastically. Otherwise,
before or after the November elections, we're facing an immediate, urgent, prospect of war with Russia, war with China; and that war would go thermonuclear and very quickly become a war of extinction for mankind.

OGDEN: The other aspect of the broadsheet was an article by Michael Steger. I think this goes hand-in-hand with what you were saying, Jeff; also from the standpoint of what I think we'll get into with the institutional question. The other reality, besides
the proximity of war, is the fact that we are right on the verge of a total meltdown of the trans-Atlantic financial system. The numbers are clear, with the situation of Deutsche Bank, the counter-party exposure of every single major bank in the world;
the fact that you have now unprecedented calls for the nationalization of Deutsche Bank coming from inside of Germany, which has never happened before; the initiative that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have taken around Deutsche Bank, per se; but also the entire Four Laws — Glass-Steagall, where you've seen a resurgence of mobilization around this from inside the United States, layers that had been dormant for quite a while; and then the entire rest of the LaRouche program.
        I think, as you said, Michael, this is the beginning; this is how you craft a new Presidency. Maybe you can say a little bit more about the other subject of the broadsheet.

MICHAEL STEGER: Sure! I think it's worth stating, as Jeff laid out, in terms of the international picture, that over these last 15 years since the 9/11 attacks, which I think is pertinent to the discussion here today as well — every major political institution, whether it be a political party, a branch of government, or a grass-roots organization, has largely been discredited by the inability to either stand up to the Bush and Obama regimes, or to not be bought out and compromised by them; besides what our organization has largely done.
        That creates a real political vacuum in the United States. As we've seen with both of these candidates, they're despised by a majority of their parties, and an increasing majority of the American people. And so when you look at the new Presidency, the way Lyn's laid it out — he laid this out, this paper, "The Four New Laws to Save the United States Now," this was two years ago. The perspective was clear from Lyn's vantage point, that we're at a point where there is no institution in the United States — political body, think tank — that has any clue at all of how to
deal with the current unfolding crisis. On one side, there's the immediate war danger, and the political breakdown of the European Union, NATO trans-Atlantic system. At the same time, there's the breakdown of the financial system. But they're not separate. They are the same fundamental system that is now facing a kind of moral bankruptcy, a collapse of any real value to human society.
        That doesn't mean that those nations don't. Clearly, nations like Germany, Italy, the United States have a real role to play in the overall development perspectives. But you have to see things in the context of this breakdown. What Lyn put forward, we've see it, we've seen the resurgence of Glass-Steagall. Both parties' platforms now have it. There's a clear recognition, broadly, among the American people, for what would seem an arcane banking regulation policy. But, as many people have grown to recognize, it's really the major tool to dismantle this Wall Street apparatus, this kind of criminal financial fraud that's been perpetrated, recklessly, without any real control, for the last 15 years, and really much longer.
        The question, that Lyn raised, was what is a competent government at this point, especially in the United States – a real, competent form of policy? And there has to be a commitment towards the future of mankind, long term. He said this repeatedly
in the recent period. We cannot base these steps we're going to take, on the past. We have to base our solution on the future. This is where you see what Jeff laid out — what Russia, under Putin, and China are now doing, is consolidating a very bright
future for the majority of mankind, with the collaboration of nations which have huge geo-strategic past problems, but recognize now the economic question of collaboration between China and India, India and Pakistan, Iran with other nations in
the Caucuses, with Russia.
        This kind of collaboration and integration of Eurasia is really a remarkable question. And in that, you have a driving policy led by China regarding space exploration and fusion research. China is one of the world leaders today in fusion
research capabilities, as is South Korea. You have a capability there for the United States to orient, around the Four Laws, which is (1) Glass-Steagall. The second is a National Banking system. That means you have a banking system which now has the
capability regulated by the office of the Treasury under a kind of Greenback-like Lincoln policy. The Third Law is that we define what a federal credit system is for. It's not just a federal credit system. You don't just allow the federal government now to just print credit. We define it from a physical-economic standpoint of the future, what is necessary for mankind's long-term survival. And that's where the collaboration of nations like Russia, China, and India become so essential, because these questions of space exploration and fusion power really define that. And that really is the Fourth Law, which is collaboration with these nations, around this kind of scientific advancement of mankind.
        From our perspective, and I think what should be an increasing perspective of the American people, who tend to find themselves distraught by this Presidential election, is not to cower in fear, or hide somewhere in a hole, waiting for it to all
end; but to recognize there's a political vacuum, where our leadership is essential, and that these policies are the immediate steps that any President has to take.  If not, we're
not going to regain or reconstitute a Constitutional American Presidency.  But they're actually going to secure the physical livelihood of the United States for the generations to come; and that really is the intervention that has to be made on the new
Presidency.  There will be a series of articles.  Kesha Rogers' second article was released in EIR magazine yesterday; and there will be a follow-up article next week by Dave Christie, and there will be more to come.

        OGDEN:  Well, absolutely filling that political vacuum is what The Hamiltonian is serving to do; and I think it's already having a radiating effect.  Diane, if you want to just jump in and discuss a little bit of the effect in New York.

SARE:  Well, first I'll just start by saying that Manhattan is the political center of the United States; and it's certainly the political center of these two campaigns.  Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are based in this area.  And I will also say the
population is clearly anguished.  We talked last week about Hillary's campaign, as Jeff just said, is providing cover for Obama to run his war and provocation policy.  And I think the weakness that we're filling in, which I experienced a bit on the call last night, is that Americans have been so bereft of a future, or thinking of a future, that they're not able to think strategically.  So, many people had questions about "Why is Putin working with Erdogan; isn't Erdogan horrible?  Didn't he do these horrible things?"  Well, he did do horrible things, but there is a strategic shift where it's become very clear that the interest of Turkey is tied up in the new BRICS dynamic.  That a New Paradigm has been created; and in a sense, that's what we are
creating here.
        I actually was sent something from one of our collaborators on the West Coast, which I think is really delightful in terms of an approach to how to think properly.  It's comments from Helen Keller when she got an opportunity to go up in the Empire State Building and "look" out at Manhattan.  I think everyone knows —
hopefully — that Helen Keller was both blind and deaf; but her insights into these matters are more striking and more profound. In fact, she speculates that she and her friend who was blind, had a much better view of Manhattan from the top of the Empire State Building than the people who had two good eyes.  Her description is somewhat delightful; she says that "It was a thrilling experience to be whizzed in a lift a quarter of a mile heavenward, and to see New York spread out like a marvelous
tapestry beneath us.  There was the Hudson, more like the flash of a sword blade than a noble river; the little island of Manhattan, set like a jewel in its nest of rainbow waters, stared up into my face.  And the Solar System circled about my head. Why, I thought, the Sun and the stars are suburbs of New York and I never knew it."  I think that makes her a New Yorker for sure. She said, "I have this sort of wild desire to invest in a bit of real estate on one of the planets.  All sense of depression and hard times vanished; I felt like being frivolous with the stars." Then, she talks about the construction of the Empire State Building as being poetical.  She says, "From everyone except my blind friend, I had received an impression of sordid materialism.
The piling up of one steel honeycomb upon another with no real purpose but to satisfy the American craving for the superlative in everything.  Well, I see in the Empire Building something else — passionate skill, arduous and fearless idealism.  The tallest building is a victory of imagination.  Instead of crouching close
to Earth like a beast, the spirit of man soars to higher regions. And from this new point of vantage, he looks upon the impossible with fortified courage, and dreams yet more magnificent enterprises."
        This reminds me so much of what President Kennedy about why we go to the Moon; or Krafft Ehricke's sense of the extraterrestrial imperative for mankind.  It's our job here — particularly in Manhattan, where I think people may be most
susceptible to it; because in Manhattan we are blessed with an extraordinarily diverse population from all over the world.  It's not simply that you have the headquarters of the United Nations; but if you think of what the population is in Queens and Brooklyn and New Jersey where I am and the surrounding areas, the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island had something to do with this many years ago.  You have a population which actually is in touch with the rest of the world.  So, there are people in this area that have a sense that the whole world is not going to Hell; that in some places, having a pothole that could swallow up a double-decker bus is actually considered a sign of poverty, and you're supposed to repair it and do something about it – as opposed to what people have begun to take for granted here.  So, the idea is to rekindle a spark of a certain quality of American identity which is a love of the future; a love of the potential for what mankind can contribute to the future.  Which I think Helen Keller expresses so magnificently in that piece.
        I would just say — Mike alluded to this — the question of September 11th; one person who was on the call last night said her uncle had just passed away two days ago.  He was someone who had worked there and suffered from various kinds of lung disease and finally died.  The death toll from these attacks has not ended; and it's not only people in New York who were first responders.  It's people who were killed in these wars which I think we're going to take up a bit more; these wars that were
totally unjustified, that were based on lies and cover-ups from the Bush administration through the Obama administration.  If we can address that, at this 15 years, that we end this period of injustice and of criminal wars of aggression, I think you could see a real shift.  It's as if the American people have had a heavy manhole cover on top of their brains and on top of their identities, and they haven't even allowed themselves to think of what the potential is.  In those circumstances, I think all bets are off, even in terms of this ridiculous scenario that we're calling a Presidential election.  There's nothing to say that these two mentally unstable characters going for Presidential candidates, have to be the candidates by the time we get to November.  Or, as Jeff was saying, [it] would be caused to shift by a shift in the population.  So, it's a very, very rich moment; and it's just urgent that everybody who hears what we are saying and what the LaRouche Movement is doing, who gets our literature, moves to circulate it and mobilize as many people as you can.

        OGDEN:  I think both you, Diane and Michael, stated about how you have to understand, how did we get to this point from looking at the last 15 years?  We never would have had a situation like this in terms of two Presidential candidates such as what we have, if the injustices of Obama administration had not gone on unpunished; if the crimes of the Bush and Cheney administration had not gone unpunished.  If Bush and Cheney had been impeached, I guarantee you, we would not be at the point,
where we are right now.  I think this is a question which has been re-opened in a very dramatic way, with the victory that we've won in the last month; which was the declassification of the 28 pages.  Just this week — Jeff, I know you have a little bit of insight into this — but Larry Wilkerson, who was the former chief of staff of Colin Powell, gave a series of interviews in which he said effectively, that what Cheney did was not only convincing Colin Powell to put the lies about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda into his testimony; which were obvious lies, but they were the pretext for the war against Iraq.  But also, Cheney played the central role in making the decision to keep anything having to do with the role of Saudi Arabia in funding and financing 9/11 out of the public eye.
        So, Jeff, I know you were saying yesterday, this actually opens up Cheney to criminal prosecution, if the implications of that are followed through.

        STEINBERG:  I think that there's another dimension as well to this, and I'll say something about the Cheney issue in just a moment.  Who would have imagined that President Obama would be boxed into such a corner that he would have to release the 28 pages?  I can tell you that since he lied to the 9/11 families for 7.5 years, and was very much under the sway of John Brennan who adamantly opposed the release of those 28 pages because of his own extremely close relationship with the Saudis; it's a very important object lesson that Obama was forced to do it.  It took a continuing battle; LaRouche Political Action Committee is widely known on Capitol Hill and around the country to have played a pivotal role.  Senator Bob Graham, the 9/11 Families — the leading activists — both the survivors of 9/11 and those who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks, did not give up; they persisted.  This was a fight for 15 years.  I think there's a very important lesson to be drawn in the context of what we're
discussing about a critical policy moment, when neither party has been able to produce a Presidential candidate who's worth anything.  We've got to make sure that the fight over these issues is continuously put forward, continuously escalated.
We've forced the issue of the 28 pages.  I think that the July 6th press conference by Walter Jones, Steven Lynch, and Thomas Massie along with members of the 9/11 Families and Survivors was crucial; because they came out and said what we had been urging to be said.  These 28 pages must come out; it's in the vital interest of the American people and the world that they come out. They made clear that they will be made public; and they invoked the Mike Gravel heroic action of releasing the Pentagon Papers, which altered the whole course of the Vietnam War during Nixon.
        So, I think there's a very important lesson to be drawn: Persistently leading a fight; the commitment of the American people to the kind of change that they clearly demanded in the way that the primary votes happened.  The majority of voters were
voting for a revolutionary change in policy, not for a candidate. You had Bernie Sanders voters who abandoned him the instant he endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.  Trump was always seen as a kind of a loud mouth voice for something different.  People want that change; they've got to be organized around a policy
agenda.  LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws define that better than anything else in terms of the economic crisis and how to address insolvency.
        Now you do have Colonel Wilkerson, who was with Colin Powell throughout the four years that Powell was Secretary of State; was with him in the preparation of that UN disastrous testimony leading to the vote for the Iraq War.  He has basically said that he is an eyewitness to severe crimes; fraudulent representations of vital intelligence and covering up the role of the Saudis in order to launch an illegal war against Iraq.  We see the consequences of that right now.  There are many options on the table.
        Just in terms of follow-up on the 28 pages:  You have the JASTA bill that should come up and be voted almost unanimously out of the House of Representatives, so Obama can't veto it, the very first days that Congress comes back in September.  There should be a series of public forums walking people through the
content of the 28 pages.  There are probably millions of documents that are still suppressed, that are still classified; that lead to other leads that we don't even yet imagine.  We know the British, we know the Saudis in principle were the architects
on behalf of Bush and Cheney; but there's a great deal of work to be done on that issue.  We're coming up in early September on the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks; LPAC and the Schiller Institute have a series of major events taking place in New York, including three memorial concerts — performances of Mozart's Requiem — all over the New York area around that critical weekend.  So, I think that we've got to maintain a commitment to maintaining and building and escalating on the momentum.  If there's a lesson to be learned from the 28 pages, it's that
Glass-Steagall comes next; and it comes right away.

OGDEN:  Right; absolutely.  I thought one point you made which was just remarkable in the interview yesterday that you conducted with Virginia State Senator Dick Black, you said what Cheney did after 9/11 would be as if Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor said "We're not going to attack the Japanese; we're going to blame the
Chinese for Pearl Harbor."  It was so outrageous to say the Saudis didn't do it; it was Iraq, it was Saddam Hussein.  I think, when that sinks in for the American people, you're going to see even more of a response.  The fact that this has broken open in
the last few weeks with the victory around the 28 pages; and as you said, 28 pages means the next victory comes next — Glass-Steagall.
        But one thing that's the subject of this The Hamiltonian broadsheet this week, is the petition that Diane wrote and is now being circulated en masse in Manhattan. 

Point one is complete; but points two, three, and four still have to go.  We need to
open a Chilcot Commission-type of investigation into Bush, Cheney, the entire rest of that apparatus — Obama included. What was Obama's interest in keeping these covered up for 7.5 years?  The key, I think — and it ties into the discussion from
earlier — is you need to accept the offer that was made one year ago at the United Nations General Assembly by Russian President Vladimir Putin for an alliance of the type that we had in World War II to defeat fascism.  An alliance with Russia, with China, with other interested parties in the world, to defeat what this terrorist apparatus actually represents.  So, I think as we're on the verge of the opening of this year's UN General Assembly meeting, and also the series of concerts that Jeff mentioned, this petition needs to continue to have a widespread and radiating impact.
        Diane, maybe you want to say a little bit more about that.

        SARE:  I can just say that it's being circulated by our activists here in the streets; and they're reporting getting a very intense response to it — more intense than anything that we've circulated recently.  I think it's important, when the vote on JASTA was first in the press a couple of months ago, before the release of the 28 pages, there was finally an appropriate, fearless anger, or righteous indignation of people saying, "How dare you tell us not to pursue the Saudis? That's outrageous!  We don't care if they're going to sell their Treasury bonds; we are
going to demand justice in this case."  I think it's really important that we keep that sense alive; which is what the petition will do.  I would also say, just because you mentioned the United Nations here; it happened that we got not only the release of The Hamiltonian this past week, but we received off the press the proceedings of this extraordinary Berlin conference that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche convened at the end of June.  Which had an incredible array of speakers, including Ambassador Chas
Freeman, including a woman from the Presidency of Assad in Syria, and many others; retired military from France, Germany, NATO, etc.  The thing taken as a whole, unfortunately there's not a way to put that incredible concert at the end of the program into a printed report; but nonetheless, we are also getting this out to each of the governments represented by their UN missions in this period going into the General Assembly in September.  So we are in a position to shape that discussion and to perhaps augment the kinds of things that surely are already being discussed; as we
see in the latest meeting, that Putin and Xi Jinping and others have been holding.

        OGDEN:  One thing I want to say in the context of the upcoming UN General Assembly; there is a war that is already happening against everything that the BRICS represents.  If you think back one year, two years, the Fortaleza Agreement was made
in the context really of this war that Cristina Fernando de Kirchner was leading in Argentina against the vulture funds. These nations came together in solidarity with Argentina and said we will not allow you to kill the Argentine people to get the
money for the vulture funds.  Since that time, you've had a coalescing around the leadership of Putin and Xi Jinping and Modi of the BRICS structure; this is the emerging New Paradigm.  Over the course of that time, you have had a concerted deployment to break the BRICS apart; and we're in the middle of one of those
major attacks right now.  We saw what happened to Cristina Kirchner in Argentina; now the same thing is happening to Dilma Rousseff in Brazil.  Just this week, you had the vote by the majority of the Brazilian Senate to open indictment hearings
against Rousseff; which means impeachment against the President of Brazil.  You do have the eruption of a certain response against that coup from inside the United States; and it's actually the subject of our institutional question we got for this week.
        I know Mr. LaRouche had some detailed remarks to say about
that.  I want to read this question, and then maybe Jeff, you can fill in a little bit about that.  It says: 

"Mr. LaRouche: US Representative John Conyers, Democrat from Michigan; Marcy
Kaptur, Democrat from Ohio; Keith Ellison, Democrat from Minnesota; and more than 30 other members from the House of Representatives, sent a letter this week to Secretary of State John Kerry; urging him to refrain from gestures that could be
interpreted as supportive of Brazil's interim government.  And to instead "express strong concern regarding the impeachment process a targeting of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff; and to "call for the protection of constitutional democracy and the rule of law in Brazil."  The letter is the first Congressional letter expressing
concern over Brazil's democracy in over two decades.  In your view, with the impending impeachment trial, what actions should the United States government take to promote fairness and protect democratic institutions in Brazil at this time?" 

So, I know Lyn had some things to say about this.

        STEINBERG:  The first thing he emphasized is that you're not dealing with a "Brazil situation" in the same way that you're not dealing with a "Syria situation". 

We're in the midst of a major, global, strategic re-alignment.  As you said, at the Fortaleza meeting two years ago of the BRICS countries, you had the launching of the New Development Bank; followed by the launching of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank by China.  Clearly, there is a move centered among the major Eurasian powers, but also including Brazil and South America, South Africa, and
Africa, to re-align the world around a completely different approach; an approach that's oriented towards the future, that's centered on great projects of economic development that are truly win-win projects.  There's no geopolitical, zero-sum game.  And you've got a dead system, which is the British Empire system, which has been represented for the last 15 years by the fact that the British have controlled the US Presidency; under first George W Bush, and then after that, under Barack Obama.
        So, the first thing, the United States should do, is abandon its own direct role in promoting this coup.  This is not something that occurs because a bunch of figures inside Brazil have decided to go after Dilma Rousseff.  You've got the international apparatus of hedge funds; you've got the Adam Smith Institute networks in Britain; you've got the Chicago School apparatus here in the United States; that are all instrumental in this drive — not to damage Brazil — but to destroy Brazil because it's part of this BRICS new alignment.  I guarantee that if the United States were to publicly come out — if Kerry were to make a statement and say that the United States believes that this is a coup d'état; not necessarily using guns, but using actions by bought-and-paid-for corrupt officials to overthrow a legitimately elected government that is attempting to align South America with this new paradigm of development centered around Eurasia; this thing would go away.  The votes in the Senate are
absolutely shameless; the people who are behind this coup are themselves all legitimately under criminal investigation for massive financial fraud.  If you want to look at the Brazil element of the Panama Papers scandal, then you're going to find
the top officials — the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, the current President, the current Foreign Minister; all of the people who have been aligned against Dilma, are part of the most corrupt apparatus.  But they're protected because
they're part of the British Empire and the Obama administration protected apparatus; and their objective is to try to destroy the BRICS.
        So, this is a global play; this is not a Brazil story.  It's not something that is narrowly associated with events in South America, or corruption, or anything like that.  This is a much bigger, worse, and far more dangerous thing; and it's part of the
general picture.  Is the world going to go in the direction of defending a system that's already dead?  Major economists this week described Deutsche Bank as a "dead bank walking"; and it's an apt description.  So, it's the question of whether a dead British Empire, largely controlling the US Presidency for the last 15-16 years, is going to basically bring the rest of the world down with it — because it can never survive.  Or, whether or not it's going to be cast aside and defeated and replaced by a new system that's already well underway.        

The critical question in this Presidential election is, will the American people tolerate candidates that want to align the United States with an already dead system?  Or, are we going to go in the direction of aligning the United States with this new
future-oriented alternative?  Historically, America has always been on the side of this future orientation; at least from its founding principles — the Hamiltonian ideas are really, what's underlying this Eurasian development.  So, we've got to win the fight to transform the United States back into what it historically represented as the city on the hill.

OGDEN:  I do think it's significant that the members of Congress who signed this letter, directly overlaps with the core group of the leadership around Glass-Steagall.

        STEINBERG:  That's right.

        OGDEN:  One more thing you just brought up:  What is the Hamiltonian idea?  What's at the core as the coherent unifying principle of this Four New Laws of Mr. LaRouche is the idea, that he expresses at the end of that document.  That there are no measuring rods for economics, which can be found within the domain of money; money is not a representative of value when it comes to economics.  It's the willingness to reject monetarism, which is what is making the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, the New Development Bank — these are completely different species.  This is not just a different version of the IMF/World Bank system. You have a dedication to increasing the productivity of massive amounts of the population of the planet; billions of people will be affected by the New Silk Road, by these development projects which have been on the books for 40-50-60 years.  They are now actually being built, because of the investments, that are coming from the BRICS bank and China and so forth.  But it's an understanding of economics which I think has been the unique contribution that Mr. LaRouche has given to world history over the last 40-50 years; which is his unique understanding of what the true measuring rod of economics really is.  You have the constantly increasing of the accumulation of the ability of mankind to deploy new physical principles that have been discovered by man to increase our power over the Universe.
        In two very specific ways, I think the example of Albert Einstein is very important in this sense. Number one, just in the form of an analogy: The understanding of Albert Einstein, that you cannot have a measuring rod from inside of a system; but that there needs to be a measuring rod, which is external, which is a
principle.  Just as absolute time and absolute space did not exist for Albert Einstein, this is the kind of understanding that you need to bring to physical economics. And number two: Albert Einstein, perhaps more than anybody else, is paradigmatic of the
type of human creative thinking, which allows mankind to advance itself; which, as Helen Keller so beautifully described, brings us up from the ground like beasts crawling on our bellies and reacting to the circumstances around us, to becoming co-creators of this Universe.
        So, Michael, I thought you elaborated that in a very beautiful way at the end of your item in this week's Hamiltonian; and I wouldn't mind, if you had a little bit more
to say on that subject.

        STEGER:  I think you've said it well right now.  What I think is worth maybe coming back to, given the role of the creative personality, Kesha raised this on the show on Monday. Einstein also recognized that it is the unique role of the individual to shape and create essentially the new laws by which society then agrees to.  That, the discovery of those higher principles or natural law, then allows society itself to advance. Really, what you see today, many people are on vacation; too many
people, I think, are watching the Olympics.  I think the real doping scandal is inside the White House.  But what Putin has done with this diplomatic effort, is, that we are looking at the possible resolution of the Syrian crisis in Aleppo.  There is a kind of
process taking place that can resolve these things in the coming months.
        But then you have, in the course of just September, you have the Presidents of South Korea, Japan and China meeting Putin in Vladivostok.  Then they will all be going together down to the G-20 summit in China — where Putin will be the guest of honor — with the 20 largest nations; with Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Turkey, nations from Africa, all over Asia and Europe participating.  Then you have many of those heads of state coming to New York City right around the time of our concerts; but for
the UN General Assembly.  Of course, then many of those heads of state from the BRICS will be meeting in India in early October.
        Then, at this point in time, as Jeff said earlier this week, this whole financial system – Deutsche Bank, and the rest of the larger banks – can be rapidly unfolding, unravelling.  The bankruptcy can be disembowelment of the banking system,

essentially coming up in the near period.  Then, the Presidential elections come.  As much of a buffoon as Donald Trump is, he's shown himself the ability to slay a lot of other incapable politicians in debates; and I think, Hillary Clinton should be fairly
concerned, that her record with Obama is an absolute and very severe weakness.  An Achilles heel, because of the current climate in the political situation we face in the country.  So we are really at a remarkable [point].  Then, a collapse of the
trans-Atlantic system; an unfolding, consolidated effort in Eurasia led by Putin, and this quality of creative genius, that you're referencing from Einstein.  This is really, what Lyn has brought to bear on the planet; and it's really, what must be brought to bear in the Presidential system now in the United States.  Lyn must be part of shaping Presidential policy now.  We essentially are; but that's got to be the commitment of the American people, and not getting caught up in anything else, because it's a very rare opportunity today.

        OGDEN:  Wonderful.  So, as I said at the beginning of the program, this week has really marked a significant escalation in terms of the LaRouche PAC intervention into New York City in particular and the United States in general, with the publication of The Hamiltonian Volume I, no. 1. There are still several thousand copies of the original printing, which are available and need to be distributed.  I know during the regular Saturday afternoon Manhattan dialogue, which takes place every week in downtown Manhattan, there will be copies available to you, if you are able to help distribute them, and you're able to attend that meeting.  If you've been to the meeting before, and maybe you haven't been going regularly; you should go tomorrow.  If you've never been before, please contact Diane; the contact information
for the New Jersey office is available on the LaRouche PAC website.  We really do have a limited opening or time, but a very rich potential, a very rich opportunity to completely transform the dialogue in the United States.  In very much the same way
that Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers were used to create the United States in the first place around the ratification of the US Constitution and to raise the level of intelligence of the American citizenry, the new broadsheet — The Hamiltonian —
can really be used in very much the same fashion.  I would implore everybody, who's watching this, to become involved in helping to distribute this; and make this something, which is widely available to the thinking portion of the American people.
        I'd like to thank both Diane and Michael for joining me here tonight; and thank you to Jeff.  And I'd like to thank all of you for tuning in.  Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.
 

10. august 2016 – I de tidlige timer af denne onsdag, efter 16 timers debat, hvor mange senatorer havde mere travlt med at se Olympiade på deres smartphones, end de havde med at høre efter, stemte det brasilianske Senat med 59 stemmer mod 21 for at gå frem med rigsretssagen mod præsident Dilma Rousseff, som forventes at blive afsluttet mod slutningen af august. Tronranerne skræpper allerede op om sejr, for selv om der kun kræves simpelt flertal for at indlede retssagen, så stemte flere end de to tredjedele af senatorerne, der kræves for at fjerne hende fra embedet, i går for at indlede retssagen.

I et memorandum fra 4. april 2016, »Hvordan man vinder over bankernes forsøg på et statskup mod Brasiliens Rousseff-regering«, som blev cirkuleret på portugisisk, engelsk og spansk, identificerede EIR angrebet med rigsretssagen som indledningen til en »farvet revolution« imod »B« i BRIKS, med det britiske monarkis operation mod Italien, »Mani Pulite« (Rene Hænder)[1], som forbillede.

»Dette er ikke en krig, der kan vindes internt i Brasilien. Men den kan vindes«, advarede EIR; »den kan kun besejres ved at forstå de internationale, strategiske spørgsmål, som her står på spil, og ved at besejre denne politik internationalt«, og ved at implementere LaRouches ’Fire Love’.

Denne lektie er endnu ikke lært af alle, med undtagelse af nogle få, brasilianske patrioter. Forestillingen med debatten den 9. august beviste atter engang, at en hævdelse af, at kuppet skal bekæmpes gennem interne manøvrer og imødegåelse af anklagerne punkt for punkt, er en garanti for nederlag.

Dilma anklages for fire tilfælde af overtrædelse af ’Lov om Budgetansvarlighed’ i statens regnskab; det tre mand store, uafhængige panel af ekspertvidner, som undersøgte anklagerne, havde indgivet sine konklusioner for en måned siden, som sagde, at der ikke fandtes bevis for, at præsidenten var ansvarlig for tre af anklagerne om overtrædelse, og at den fjerde »overtrædelse« slet ingen virkning havde på budgettet.

Det var lige meget. Advokaten, som fremlagde sagen om rigsretssagen i går, Miguel Reale Junior, opfordrede senatorerne til at ratificere det »vidunderlige« sagsanlæg for en rigsretssag, som senator Anastasia havde udarbejdet; han nævnte ikke, at Anastasia tre dage før selv var blevet nævnt for at have taget imod bestikkelse i Lava Jato-korruptionssagen[2] – sammen med »fungerende« præsident Temer, Temers udenrigsminister og hans stabschef. Reale argumenterede med, at: Præsident Rousseff i realiteten burde være blevet anklaget under »Lava Jato; hun fortjener ikke længere at regere Brasilien; og hun måtte nødvendigvis være ansvarlig for de påståede overtrædelser af budgetloven – de faktiske anklager, for hvilke hun stilles for en rigsret – fordi hun er en »dominerende« personlighed, hvis regering i det skjulte »brugte penge, penge og atter penge«! 

[1] En landsdækkende juridisk undersøgelse af politisk korruption i Italien i 1990’erne, som førte til den såkaldte ’Første Republiks’ afgang.

12. maj 2015 – Tørken, der berører de syv stater i Brasiliens forarmede nordøstlige og sydøstlige del, inklusive Sao Paulo, Espiritu Santo og Minas Gerias, har nået et dramatisk omfang, i en sådan grad, at militære myndigheder i Sao Paulo arrangerede en særlig konference i slutningen af april for at drøfte, hvordan de og andre officielle myndigheder eventuelt skulle respondere i tilfælde af, at vandmangel fremprovokerer socialt kaos.

Paulo Massato, direktør for det statslige vandselskab Sabesp i Sao Paulo, advarer om, at vandet kunne slippe op i byområdet så tidligt som juli måned, hvis de nødinfrastrukturprojekter, der i øjeblikket er under opførelse, ikke er klar til den tid, rapporterer El Pais den 5. maj. Vandstanden i områdets reservoirer er lavere end sidste år.

Situationen i den nordøstlige del, landets fattigste region, er svar, et resultat af en fire år lang tørke, der fortsætter – og, ligesom Californien, resultatet af årtiers forsømmelser mht. at bygge den nødvendige infrastruktur, der kunne forbedre menneskets kontrol af biosfærens vandcyklus. I begyndelsen af april i år blev 56 byer i seks stater erklæret i en tilstand af »forsyningskollaps«, og dette antal forventedes at stige til 105 på kort sigt. Den eneste kilde til vand i disse byer er tankvogne, der kører vand ind. Et foruroliget Nationalt Integrationsministerium (NIM) undersøger opførelse af brønde og reservoirer – forsyningerne til sidstnævnte måtte komme udefra – tydeligvis utilstrækkelige løsninger.

Landbruget i regionen er ødelagt, idet nedbørsmængden i regntiden i de seneste fire år ikke har været tilstrækkelig til at fylde reservoirerne eller genopbygge grundvandet, rapporterer Globo. 862 kommuner befinder sig i nødretstilstand; siden 2011 er syv millioner dyr døde, og landbrug med malkekvægbestande, som er i nedgang, har været nødt til at sælge deres dyr pga. af fodermangel. Ifølge agronom Vlaminck Saraiva er mere end 50 % af kornhøsten gået tabt i de seneste år, og det samme gælder 40 % af dyreholdet.

I Sao Paulo sammenkaldte den militære kommando i den sydøstlige del af landet, som omfatter alle militærstyrker i staten, til en konference den 28. april med »problemet med vandforsyningen til forbrug i staten Sao Paulo« som eneste punkt på dagsordenen. Ved dette arrangement, hvor akademikere og folk fra industrien også deltog, sagde direktør Massato fra Sabesp, at hvis infrastrukturarbejder nu under opførelse blev færdige, ville det kun kunne garantere vandforsyningen frem til oktober, hvor den næste regntid starter. »Så må folk opsende bønner for regnens komme«, sagde han. Han forudsagde et »rædselsscenarie«, hvor der ikke ville være adgang til mad og elektricitet, og hvor alene Hospital des Clinicas ville få brug for 300 tankvogne vand om dagen for at opfylde sit behov – et antal vogne, som staten ikke engang er i besiddelse af.

Fordi folk opsamler vand i tønder og andre større beholdere – optimale steder for udklækning af myg – er myggebestanden eksploderet i Sao Paulo og har udløst en epidemi af dengue-feber, der spredes via myg. Denne epidemi lægger et hårdt pres på de i forvejen overbebyrdede sundhedsfaciliteter.

Foto: Storbyen Sao Paulo oplever den værste tørke i 80 år.

13. apr. 2015 – Brasilien burde affolkes. Sådan lyder budskabet i en artikel den 10. april i den britiske avis The Guardian af Amy Larkin, Greenpeace-veteran igennem 30 år, som nu er næstformand for Verdensøkonomisk Forums Råd for den Globale Dagsorden for Klimaforandring, mere almindeligt kendt som Davos-forsamlingen af den internationale finanselite og politiske elite. Larkin anses for at være en ekspert i forbindelsen mellem miljøkriser og finanskriser (og deres »løsninger«).

I sin artikel, der fokuserer på, hvordan Wall Streets »kortsynede fremgangsmåde« har forsømt at indregne tørkefaktoren ordentligt i sin prisfastsættelsesmekanisme (dvs., at krisen kunne have været undgået, hvis blot prisen på vand var blevet hævet tilstrækkeligt på et tidligere tidspunkt), argumenterer Larkin fra det udgangspunkt, at »São Paulo, Brasiliens største by og industricenter, er begyndt at rationere vandet og diskuterer, hvorvidt det vil blive nødvendigt at affolke [byen] i den nærmeste fremtid.« Brasilien har i øjeblikket en befolkning på 200 mio. mennesker.

Foto: Udsigt over Jaguari-dæmningen, en del af Cantareira-reservoiret, staten Sao Paulo, Brasilien. Ca. Oktober 2014.