Engelsk udskrift: Matthew Ogden kommenterer Helga Zepp-LaRouches besøg og tale i Indien om behovet for en Marshallplan/Silkevej i Sydvestasien; Jeffrey Steinberg giver os Lyndon LaRouches meget skarpe kommentar om EU’s korrupte aftale med Tyrkiets Erdogan om mod betaling at tage syriske flygtninge tilbage, og Jason Ross fra LPAC Videnskabsteam taler om Gottfried Leibniz og nødvendigheden af kreativ nytænkning, som Kina i dag legemliggør.

WE NEED THE NEW SILK ROAD NOW FOR ALL OF MANKIND! –
International Webcast for March 11, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good afternoon. It’s March 11, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly Friday
night broadcast from LaRouche PAC.com. I am joined in the studio
today by Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC Science Team and Mr.
Jeff Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}, and the
three of us had the opportunity to have an extensive discussion
with both Mr. LaRouche and also Helga Zepp-LaRouche earlier
today.
Now, as you know, Helga Zepp-LaRouche has just recently
returned from an extraordinary trip that she took to India. This
is the first time that either one of the LaRouches has been to
India since I think at least 2003; so this was a very important
trip, and during that visit to India, Helga was a featured
speaker on one of the keynote panels at a discussion in New Delhi
called the Raisina Dialogue Forum. This was a major conference
which included international representation, former prime
ministers, former heads of state, finance ministers, elected
parliamentarians, and so forth.
Now during that speech, Helga LaRouche focused her remarks
on the necessity for a new win-win, Marshall Plan development
project for the Middle East and North Africa. She remarked that,
in the wake of Xi Jinping’s visit to Iran, to Saudi Arabia, and
to Egypt where he brought the development vision of the Chinese
New Silk Road, that now was the time to adopt what she’s been
calling for, for years: which is, a New Marshall Plan to develop
that region of the world and to create a new era of peace and
prosperity for a region of the world that has suffered so much
under perpetual war, and a total breakdown of society.
Now this is very relevant, because obviously, as a
representative of the Schiller Institute from Germany, Helga
LaRouche was speaking directly from the standpoint of the
perspective of a European, who is witnessing the unprecedented
refugee crisis of millions and millions of refugees fleeing the
Middle East and North Africa, and flooding into Europe.
Our institutional question for this week actually focusses
directly on that topic, and what I’m going to do is read the
institutional question, and then give Jeff Steinberg and
opportunity to go through, both specifically and more in general,
what both Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche’s remarks were concerning this
question, and some broader questions as well.
So the question is as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has blamed

European nations for
unilaterally shutting the Balkan route for migrants. She said
that this has put Greece in a very difficult situation, and such
decisions should be taken by the whole of the EU. Austria,
Slovenia, Croatia, and non-EU member states — Serbia and
Macedonia — have all acted to stem the migrant flow. The
European Union and Turkey — from which migrants reach Greece —
have set out a plan to ease the crisis from their perspective.
Under the proposals that have been hammered out at a summit that
occurred in Brussels on Monday, but still to be finalized, all
migrants arriving in Greece from Turkey, would be sent back. For
each Syrian returned, a Syrian in Turkey would be resettled in
the EU. European Council President Donald Tusk has said that the
plan would spell the end of ‘irregular migration to Europe.’ What
is your view on the EU’s new migrant policy?”

So, Jeff.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: To put it very mildly, Mr. LaRouche was
extremely blunt. You’ve got to start from the standpoint that
this is a rotten deal; it’s not going to work. And furthermore,
that nobody has any business making any kind of backroom deal
with President Erdogan of Turkey. Here’s somebody who has been a
principal sponsor of the jihadist terrorism, including the
Islamic State and the Nusra Front; who has robbed his country
blind; he’s one of the most notorious thieves on the planet. He’s
killed his own people. He shut down the entire opposition
newspaper, and, quite frankly, he’s carried out a 6 billion euro
extortion operation against the European Union.
So the problem, in fact the disease that we’re dealing with,
is the tendency that’s rampant in the entire trans-Atlantic
world, to make these kinds of rotten deals with people who have
no business being allowed to remain in power. You have an entire
trans-Atlantic system that was really, in effect, characterized
this week by two developments. Number One: this rotten deal with
Erdogan, which should never be allowed to happen. And number two,
by the announcement by the European Central Bank head, Mario
Draghi, that the ECB was going to replicate the insane policies
that were carried out in the United States under the Quantitative
Easing, bail-out, and Dodd-Frank bill, all of which are
universally known to have been complete and total failures. So,
Draghi announced zero interest rates, and announced that the QE
policy of the ECB would be extended up to $80 billion euro a
month, and furthermore, that the ECB would begin purchasing
absolutely worthless private sector bonds to keep what one
columnist called the “zombie banks” in business.
Now, there’s been an absolute revolt in Germany, in
particular, against this Draghi policy, because the net effect is
that, with zero interest rates, people are going to be pulling
their money out of the actual savings banks and regional
commercial banks, through which all of the lending into the real
economy takes place. And as the result of that, you’re going to
see rampant bankruptcies on top of the already advanced complete
breakdown of the European real economy. All of the European
too-big-to-fail banks are already hopelessly bankrupt.
So you’ve got these two examples of absolute policy
insanity, of attempting to operate and make compromises and
“reforms,” within a system that is already dead. As Mr. LaRouche
said, you don’t make deals with dead people; there’s nothing in
it for you. There’s no future in it. Yet that’s exactly what
we’re seeing as the dominant phenomenon throughout the
trans-Atlantic region.
Now the fact of the matter is that there are viable
solutions. In the case of the United States, you could just
simply say, the Wall Street debt is unpayable, and we’re going to
just simply cancel it, and we’re going to go back to the
traditional American, Hamiltonian credit system, and we’re going
to just simply let Wall Street sink, period. It’s already
bankrupt. The people involved in it are absolutely correct —
they should have been frog-marched off to jail a long time ago.
So, by and large, when you talk to people in the political
system at a relatively high level, you’re dealing with a system
that is absolutely paralyzed with fear, and overwhelmed by
corruption. Because you press the issue, and you’ll get
widespread admission that the system is doomed, we’re headed for
another blow-out far worse than 2008; it could happen any moment
now. It could happen Monday morning when you wake up. And
furthermore, you could cancel this rotten debt, wipe out those
cancerous aspects of the whole system, and you could go ahead to
rebuild, but based on a completely different set of premises.
Same thing with the arrangement with Turkey. There’s no
grounds whatsoever for paying 6 billion euros in extortion,
knowing that a character like Erdogan is going to come back again
and again and demand more, and will continue to threaten to
unleash massive waves of migration, while at the same time Turkey
is trying to sabotage the efforts of Lavrov and Kerry to bring an
end to this five-year monstrosity of a war that’s been going on
inside Syria.
So, if you operate within a dead system, you are doomed to
go down with it. Now there are things that are working in the
world today. Putin is functioning. Putin is carrying out very
effective flanking operations in Syria. China is functioning, and
is in fact functioning at a much higher level from the standpoint
of real economic growth. And China is willing to invest in real
physical economic growth all across Eurasia, down into Africa,
into Latin America. And furthermore, China is leading a global
science driver policy. The plans to actually land an orbiter on
the dark side of the Moon have been discussed frequently in
recent weeks on this broadcast. China is now the leading R&D
nation on the planet, and they embody the principle of human
creativity. They’re not trying to draw deductive, pragmatic,
practical conclusions from policies that have failed. You can
never derive success by trying to scrutinize and analyze
systematic failure. You need human creativity, and you see that
in China.
Increasingly, there are nations that are grouping around
these opportunities that are posed for real development, centered
around China. Russia has taken certain measures to assure that
Russia survives, and that Russia has the military and material
resources to be able to conduct the kind of flanking operations
that may very well save Syria and the Middle East, and major
parts of Africa, from the genocidal destruction that will occur
if the existing trans-Atlantic forces, led by the British Empire
and stooges that they’ve got at their disposal like President
Obama, with his Dodd-Frank madness; like Mario Draghi; like the
corrupt Erdogan.
So, anytime that there’s an offer to make a rotten deal with
a rotten SOB like Erdogan, the obvious answer should be, run in
the other direction. Don’t do it. And so, in response to the
question that’s been posed, this is a rotten deal that is doomed
to failure, but it’s typical of a much larger problem, which is
the tendency to be stuck thinking inside the deductive box when
the only avenue for survival for mankind is to think creatively,
and align with those people who’ve demonstrated that they’ve got
a viable commitment to the future.
You find that in China. You find that in many of the actions
taken by Putin in Russia, and it’s pretty scarce everywhere else.
And it’s certainly virtually nonexistent in the entire
trans-Atlantic region.

        OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. I also neglected to
mention in my remarks in the beginning that, coinciding with
Helga’s trip to India and these very important developments with
Xi Jinping’s visit to the Middle East. The Arabic version of the
EIR Special Report, “The New Silk Road Becomes the New
Land-Bridge,” which was available in English and also has been
translated into Chinese; has now been translated into Arabic. And
I think Helga LaRouche’s foreword or preface to that will put it
very appropriately; that “either this is an extraordinary
coincidence or an act of divine intervention” that this would be
available at a time like this, when this is precisely what you
need. This sort of vision for a new Marshall Plan, the World
Land-Bridge, to bring development to this part of the world which
is in such dire need of it.
Now, as Jeff summarized quite succinctly, what Mr.
LaRouche’s focus in our discussion was, is that we are on the
edge of a total implosion of the trans-Atlantic system. That you
have a community of nations which is, in its present form, dead,
because of its own behavior; it has brought this upon itself. On
the other hand, you have nations such as China and others, who
are engaged in a process of real physical economic progress. And
this was a willful choice that was made by China to invest in
exactly the types of things that would create a future potential
of growth, scientific development and otherwise. So, Mr.
LaRouche’s question was, why would you associate yourself with a
dead system, when the alternative is immediately at hand?
So, Mr. LaRouche had a much more developed idea, however, of
what it is that brings success to a nation and to the human race
in general. And he was very specific to say that real creativity
is never a replication of the past; real creativity depends on
new ideas that are new in a very real sense. That creativity is
always {ad novo}, he said; and it’s not achieved through the
reform of a bad system. But it is only achieved through the
introduction of an entirely new principle which is truly new. He
said, Einstein is a good example of this; the personality of
Brunelleschi is an ideal example of this. But the goal is never
to deduce what the solution to a crisis must be from some sort of
precedent; but rather, to ask the question, “What is it that we
actually wish to accomplish for the future of mankind?” And, with
that question in mind, therefore, what must be done? What must be
done to achieve that future? And we tend to fail to ask that
question, and we get too consumed by the details of the present;
when we should be thinking from a total global standpoint about
what we wish to achieve in the future.
Now, I think at a time like now, where it’s very clear that
the nations of Europe and the United States are imploding,
socially, economically, politically; what brought us to this
point? But also, more significantly, what must be done to save
civilization now? And we discussed, I think very appropriately,
that when a nation loses its {raison d’etre}, when a nation loses
its mission, it tends to implode and fall in upon itself. And we
can learn a lot from the mission that China has, and the
optimistic vision of the future which is shared by all of its
citizens. So, with that said, I would like to invite Jason to
come to the podium. As you know, Jason Ross has been conducting a
many-part series of presentations, classes on the LaRouche PAC
website on the unique genius of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz; this
is a series which will continue. But I would like to invite him
to the podium now.

JASON ROSS: Well, this year, 2016, is the 300th anniversary
of Leibniz’s death in 1716. Leibniz lived from 1646 to 1716. And
a number of the disputes that he was in, the discoveries that he
made, are very freshly relevant for us today. Both historically
from the standpoint of understanding where we came from, and
because there are disputes that continue to the present. Disputes
over the nature of the purpose of the nation, disputes over the
nature of the Universe, disputes over the nature of mankind.
To discuss one of those, I’d like to frame it by contrasting
the views of Gottfried Leibniz and Isaac Newton. Many people are
probably familiar, certainly if you’ve been watching this
website, with the concept of the dispute over the calculus. That
Leibniz plagiarized the calculus from Newton, as Newton and his
friends said; no. Did Newton steal the calculus from Leibniz, who
invented it first? Let’s leave that aside; that’s really not at
issue for what I want to talk about today. Let’s consider the
dispute that was represented between the British outlook of
Newton and the outlook of Leibniz in terms of the purpose for
humanity, as seen in their views of creation and of the Universe
as a whole. In the very last years of Leibniz’s life, he was
engaged in a dispute via letters with a follower of Isaac Newton,
Samuel Clarke. And in this discussion, one of the primary topics
that came up was the basis of considering God to be great. On
this, the two differed in a very fundamental way. Newton, via
Clarke, said that God’s greatness came from his power; Leibniz,
while not disputing that, said that God’s wisdom is also one of
His perfections, and that in leaving this out, you have a total
misunderstanding about God.
Now, I’m not going to make a theological point about this
today. I want to look at this in terms of the existence of the
nation-state. While Newton said that because God can do anything,
that shows how wonderful He is; and while this same outlook — a
religious outlook — was applied to man and society by John Locke
and Thomas Hobbes, who said that a powerful ruler of society
really exists for himself, and that people form a society through
a compact to not infringe upon each other, not with the idea to
have a mission together, but simply to get along as a way of
putting under control the impulses of people to steal from each
other and this sort of thing. So, on the one side, you have the
notion that the state exists, the ruler exists and is justified
in existing to maintain power; that that is the basis of
legitimacy of a ruler — holding power. It’s a somewhat circular
reason.
On the other side, you have Leibniz, who — in keeping with
his view of God being worth reverencing, respecting, loving
because of His wisdom; and having chosen in making the Universe,
to make it the best of all possible universes that could be
created. Leibniz applies that idea as well to society; saying
that the justification, the legitimacy for a ruler for a nation,
lies in how it is creating a happy society. And how it is imbuing
its people with wisdom, and developing science and economy to
create a more productive and a happier future. Happiness is an
important thing.
So, if you consider that today, and you look at — Matt had
brought up where is the {raison d’etre}; what is the
justification for the United States, for example, right now? What
is our {raison d’etre} right now under Obama? We don’t have one.
Obama’s destruction of the space program, which as a policy
better encapsulates an attack on the future than anything you can
imagine, has left us without a future in the stars; contrasted
with other nations, being led by China, with a serious,
comprehensive, really breath-taking mission of advancements that
they have been making towards reaching out into the heavens, and
the potential of developing new scientific breakthroughs in that
way.
So, as Jeff and Matt said, LaRouche, in the discussion that
we had with him today, was stressing that, in creating the
future, it is made {de novo}; it isn’t something we deduce from
the past, although we can certainly learn from the past. The
essential characteristic is making something where nothing of
that sort existed before. He had singled out Brunelleschi and
Einstein in this regard. Einstein, who made breakthroughs
scientifically that did not follow from, or result from, the
thoughts of his day; but rather, contradicted and overthrew them.
This is an example of the kind of thinking that’s necessary. In
the United States in our most recent history, the time under the
Apollo program, as launched in its strength by Kennedy to go to
the Moon and back; this was in recent times, probably the most
singly powerful example of a potential to reach that. That
program didn’t result in Einstein’s per se; it didn’t have that
kind of effect. Amazing technological developments were made. The
potentials that the space program has as a whole to make new
scientific breakthroughs, however, is absolutely tremendous.
So, consider China. China, which has brought hundreds of
millions of people out of poverty in just the past few decades.
China, which currently lends out more internationally in
investments in nations than the whole World Bank does. China,
which has played a major role along with Russia in setting up the
BRICS; the Shanghai Cooperation Organization for Peace and
Stability; the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, to address
the $5 trillion or more needs for infrastructure within that
region of the world; offering loans that are without the
conditionalities that are the hallmark of the World Bank. This
ability to put into very specific practice a concept of “win-win”
cooperation, as it was put by President Xi; these specific ways
of cooperating with neighbors, with other nations for development
projects. As for example, the railroad operating in Ethiopia at
present, allowing the transport of food to the interior of the
nation in a timely fashion; preventing the intensity of
starvation that would otherwise be likely given the agricultural
disasters they’ve faced recently.
Take a look at space and science. China’s East Tokamak, a
super-conducting tokamak, recently had a 50 million-degree plasma
held for 100 seconds; a breakthrough for them on their way
towards developing fusion. Their space program — that was the
first soft landing on the Moon in decades — the Chang’e 3 with
the Yutu rover. Planning to come out next year, Chang’e 5, a
sample return mission to the Moon; again, the first time in
decades, and they’ll be only the third nation to have done this.
And then in a few years, a space first — not only for them, but
for the world — the Chang’e 4 mission, to land on the far side
of the Moon. The first time ever; this is something new that
mankind has never done before. It opens up new windows
scientifically in terms of the potential the far side of the Moon
offers for different types of telescopes — such as radio
telescopes.  They’ll be able to show us things that no other —
it’s the most convenient place to be able to do these things. It
simply is impossible from here on Earth, or in orbit; you need a
body to place these things on.
So, I think when we think about what’s the purpose of a
nation, it can’t be a short-term survival; it certainly can’t be
dominance per se, or maintaining a place in the world. For
example, the United States; there’s an unfortunate form of
thought that the United States should be first in everything.
Well, how did the United States become such a powerful nation?
The policies that made that possible, the outlook that made that
possible, the sense coming from the American Revolution that
there’s a mission for the nation that is beyond having
sovereignty itself, per se; but lies in a mission for development
and for the pursuit of happiness — as it’s put — that’s the
concept that has to guide us today. Now, if we were to adopt this
in the United States, which we must, as we force the adoption of
this policy in our own nation, we have the potential for the US
to play a very important role among other nations internationally
in reaching these objectives. And there’s really no reason for
conflict among nations; it’s simply not necessary at this point.
There might be some specific examples, but on the whole, by
throwing out the British-led creation of conflicts, and putting
the US on a path towards cooperation, participation, and
leadership on these sorts of ventures, we can regain in terms of
history, the right to exist, or reason for existing; a mission
for the nation.
So, if we’re going to turn around our domestic conditions,
as we see frighteningly in the dramatic rise in deaths by drug
overdoses or suicides in other forms that are increasing
dramatically; if we’re going do this, we have to have a mission.
We have to have a vision for the kind of future that we’re going
to make that doesn’t exist a present. The opportunities for this
exist; there are plenty of the particular policies that are
needed. These things are known. What is necessary is a demand and
a change in direction in the United States without Obama, to
adopt this orientation as our own. And if we do that, we can look
to the future with the knowledge that there is a reason for the
existence of the nation; and there’s a purpose to be fulfilled,
and that we’re taking up that purpose in our future which lies
beyond the Earth and out in the stars.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jason. And I think we can use
that as a promotional to encourage you to tune in to all of his
classes, which are available and will continue to be available on
larouchepac.com. And I’d like to thank Jeff for joining us here
as well, today. So, that’s what we have to present to you here
today; short and sweet. And we thank you for tuning in; and we
encourage you to please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good
night.

Der er intet grundlag overhovedet for at betale 6 mia. euro i afpresserpenge, når man ved, at en karakter som Erdogan vil komme tilbage … og vil fortsætte med at true med at udløse massive flygtningestrømme samtidig med, at Tyrkiet forsøger at sabotere Lavrovs og Kerrys indsats for at bringe en afslutning på denne fem år lange monstrøsitet af en krig, der har raset i Syrien.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

9. marts 2016 – De Forenede Nationer og menneskerettighedsgrupper advarede i går om, at EU-aftalen om at tilbagesende alle ikke-regulære migranter til Tyrkiet til gengæld for politiske og finansielle belønninger til landet, kunne være ulovlig, rapporterer journalister fra Reuters, Stephanie Nebehay og Gabriela Backzynska, den 8. marts.

FN’s flygtningehøjkommissær Filippo Grandi sagde til EU-parlamentet i Strasbourg i går: »Jeg er dybt bekymret om ethvert arrangement, der involverer en almengældende tilbagevisning af nogen person fra et land til et andet uden, at man klart forklarer, hvad standarden er for beskyttelse af flygtninge under international lov.«

Grandi kom med denne udtalelse kun få timer efter, at de 28 EU-ledere havde udarbejdet en aftale med den tyrkiske premierminister Ahmet Davutoglu i Bruxelles, og som vil betale Tyrkiet flere penge (3,3 mia. dollar mere) for at holde flygtninge i Tyrkiet; som giver hurtigere rejsetilladelse uden visum til tyrkere i hele EU, og sætter skub i forhandlingerne om medlemskab af EU, der længe har været gået i stå, til den tyrkiske, ISIS-støttende præsident, Erdogan.

EU’s feje ophøjelse af Tyrkiets status blev omgående fordømt over hele verden:

Amnesty International kaldte den foreslåede massetilbagevisning af migranter til Tyrkiet for »et dødsstød mod retten til at søge asyl«.

Den velgørende nødhjælpsorganisation Læger uden Grænser sagde, »I ’realpolitikkens’ navn syntes medlemsstater parat til at træde på deres principper for at slå en skammelig handel af med Tyrkiet.«

Sputnik International erklærede i dag, at, »med politiets voldelige beslaglæggelse i denne weekend af Tyrkiets største, uafhængige aviser, Zaman og Today’s Zaman, har landet endelig overskredet stregen for at blive et fuldt udviklet diktatur … EU-ledere lefler for Tyrkiet, efter at sidstnævnte har spillet en førende rolle i destabiliseringen af Syrien og udløsningen af flygtningekrisen … Tyrkiet favner nu et fascistisk diktatur, og Washington og dets europæiske håndlangere er ramt af den samme omfavnelse.«

Foto: FN’s flygtningehøjkommissær Filippo Grandi holder sin tale under EU-parlamentets plenarforsamling i Strasbourg, Frankrig, den 8. marts 2016. (Foto: EPA)

The English and Arabic version is below the Danish.

På et tidspunkt, hvor flygtningekrisen truer med at blive til en hidtil uset humanitær krise, og som sprænger Den europæiske Unions sammenhængskraft og endda muligvis selve dens eksistens i stumper og stykker, er en vision om håb for udvikling af Sydvestasien og Afrika den eneste måde, hvorpå situationen kan vendes til det bedre. På et tidspunkt, hvor den transatlantiske verdens finanssystem står umiddelbart foran at krakke, er udviklingsperspektivet for en genopbygning af Mellemøsten og resten af Sydvestasien til at udgøre en bro mellem Asien, Europa og Afrika den eneste drivkraft for økonomisk vækst, der kan forhindre Europa og USA i at synke ned i kaos.

På dette programs virkeliggørelse beror således hele menneskehedens skæbne.

28. februar 2016 – Den arabiske version af EIR’s specialrapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«, i sin fulde udstrækning, er nu færdig og klar til udgivelse og distribuering. Den 400 sider lange rapport (med et appendiks del 6 om Sydvestasien, der omfatter EIR’s Projekt Føniks: En genopbygningsplan for Syrien) er blevet oversat af Hussein Askary (med færdigt layout af Ali Sharaf), og »Den Nye Silkvejs-lady«, alias Helga Zepp-LaRouche, har på smukkeste vis skrevet forordet, som følger:

En Fredsplan for Sydvestasien

Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Washington, D.C., 26. februar 2016

Det er muligvis et udslag af et lykkeligt sammentræf eller af Forsynets indgriben, at den arabiske oversættelse af rapporten om Verdenslandbroen udkommer netop nu, hvor udsigten til en våbenhvile i Syrien er ved at blive en realitet. Overenskomsten mellem den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry og den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov har et potentiale til at bringe den fem år lange krig, der har kostet hundreder tusinder af mennesker livet, til en afslutning. Men i betragtning af de enormt komplekse omstændigheder i regionen bør det også stå klart, at en blot og bar kontrakt om at standse kampene vil være for skrøbelig til at vare ved og overleve nye provokationer fra de samme kræfters side, der oprindeligt var ansvarlige for krigen.

Den eneste måde, hvorpå en varig fred kan garanteres, er den omgående iværksættelse af en omfattende udviklingsplan for hele Sydvestasien, med en udviklingsplan for integreret infrastruktur; en plan, der ikke alene genopbygger krigens ødelagte byer og landsbyer, men som anviser en langt mere fundamental fremgangsmåde for atter at forvandle denne region, der engang var en af den menneskelige civilisations vugger, og som på forskellige tidspunkter i historien var hjemsted for tidens mest fremskredent udviklede kulturer, til en af verdens mest avancerede. Målet må være at udløse regionens folks kreativitet og bringe deres produktivitet op på samme niveau som Europas, USA’s eller Kinas.

Dette er absolut muligt, og i særdeleshed, fordi Ruslands og Kinas samarbejde repræsenterer magtfulde naboer, der, sammen med lande i regionen, kan udvirke denne udvikling. Hvis de udviklingsprojekter, som foreslås i rapporten, i bogstavelig forstand bliver gennemført med start fra i morgen, således, at udbyttet ved fred bliver synligt for alle parter i regionen, så kan våbenhvilen i Syrien og gennemførelsen af det, man kunne kalde en Silkevejs-Marshallplan, dog uden denne betegnelses tilknytning til en kold krig, blive en agent for et nyt scenarie for hele verden.

På et tidspunkt, hvor flygtningekrisen truer med at blive til en hidtil uset humanitær krise, og som sprænger Den europæiske Unions sammenhængskraft og endda muligvis selve dens eksistens i stumper og stykker, er en vision om håb for udvikling af Sydvestasien og Afrika den eneste måde, hvorpå situationen kan vendes til det bedre. På et tidspunkt, hvor den transatlantiske verdens finanssystem står umiddelbart foran at krakke, er udviklingsperspektivet for en genopbygning af Mellemøsten og resten af Sydvestasien til at udgøre en bro mellem Asien, Europa og Afrika den eneste drivkraft for økonomisk vækst, der kan forhindre Europa og USA i at synke ned i kaos.

På dette programs virkeliggørelse beror således hele menneskehedens skæbne.

Den arabiske EIR-rapport kan bestilles (kun i papirudgave) gennem EIR News Service og alle internationale institutioner, der er associeret med LaRouche-bevægelsen, herunder Schiller Instituttet i Danmark.

The English and Arabic version pdf. of
A Peace Plan for Southwest Asia
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
EIR press release in English and Arabic on the occassion of the release of the arabic version of “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.”
(The English, Arabic, and Chinese versions of the report are available from The Schiller Institute in Denmark at: +45 53 57 00 51 or +45 35 43 00 33, or si@schillerinstitut.dk

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Jeg vil begynde direkte med at diskutere den meget dystre trussel om en international konflikt, der nu er ved at rejse sig, især fra den krudttønde, der udgøres af Syrien, Nordafrika og Mellemøsten. Det syriske område, hvor, på trods af den fælles indsats fra udenrigsminister John Kerry og den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov for at finde fælles fodslag, så truer Obamas afvisning af at give Saudi Arabien og Tyrkiet besked på at trække sig med at få det hele til at eksplodere.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Faren for en massiv, endnu større strøm af flygtninge, der kommer fra Afrika og ind i Europa, så vel som også den fortsatte krise centreret omkring Mellemøsten, betyder således, at Europa er absolut dømt til undergang, med mindre der finder et fundamentalt skifte i politikken sted. Og dette betyder, at USA og Europa indledningsvis må række hånden frem mod Rusland og Kina. 

Engelsk Udskrift.

US & EUROPE MUST REACH OUT TO RUSSIA & CHINA TO AVOID WAR

International LaRouche PAC Webcast
Friday, February 19, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s February 19, 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 we’re joined via video, from a
remote location, by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence
Review. The three of us, along with several others, had a chance
to have a discussion earlier today with both Lyndon and Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, so what you’re about to hear will be informed by
that discussion.
Now, I’m going to just start right off the bat with a
discussion of the very dire threat of an international conflict
arising, especially from the powderkeg of Syria, Northern Africa,
and the Middle East. The area of Syria, where, despite the
efforts of Secretary John Kerry to find common ground with
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Obama’s refusal to tell
Saudi Arabia and Turkey to stand down is threatening to blow this
entire thing sky high. A very accurate discussion of this was
published earlier today in a piece on Consortium News by Robert
Parry, the editor of that publication, in which he says the risk
that the multi-sided Syrian war could spark World War III,
continues, as Turkey and U.S. neo-cons seek an invasion that
could kill Russian troops, and possibly escalate the Syrian
crisis into a nuclear showdown.
What Robert Parry says in this article is that Barack Obama
took questions from reporters on Tuesday, but he did not take the
one that needed to be asked: which was whether he had forbidden
Turkey and Saudi Arabia to invade Syria, because on that question
could hinge whether the ugly Syrian civil war could spin off into
World War III and possibly a nuclear showdown.
Now, this was part of our discussion earlier today with Mr.
LaRouche and what I know Jeff will elaborate much more on, was
LaRouche’s analysis. But in short, what Mr. LaRouche had to say
is that what Putin is doing in this situation, and overall in a
strategic manner, defines the point of action, defines the point
of reference, for action. Everything else is bluff.
So, let me hand it over to Jeff, and he’ll elaborate many
more of the details, and then we’ll come back to our
institutional question for this evening, which Jeff will also
answer. So, Jeff?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thank you, Matt. Well, as we were going
through the discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier today, he
actually drew a distinction between the bluff, and what he said
much more accurately is the folly of what Turkey and Saudi Arabia
are up to. It’s folly because they are caught in their own
madness, and don’t even realize the consequences of what they’re
doing in the real world. They don’t have the capability to carry
out the kind of provocations that they are threatening, and the
danger, of course, is that that does not mean that they’re not
going to try to do it.
Putin stepped into the Syria situation at a critical moment
last September, and the entire situation has shifted radically
since that point. The Russian intention is {not} to simply
accomplish a military victory on behalf of the forces of
President Assad. They’re creating the conditions to force the
intransigents, in this case Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, some of
the other Gulf states, and always lurking in the background when
you’re dealing with Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood is
the British. So, Putin has established a clear sense of control
over the situation. Undoubtedly part of Putin’s configuration is
that Obama has been greatly weakened by the actions of Russia; on
the economic sphere, the actions of China; and there are sane
military forces in the United States who recognize the folly of
what Turkey and Saudi Arabia are doing.
This has been described by Parry, whose article you
mentioned, and by others, as the danger of a Sarajevo 1914 flash
point, along the Syria-Turkey border, but what Mr. LaRouche
emphasized today is that Putin has a very clear sense of the
military correlation in this situation, and has also a very clear
sense that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are acting on the basis of
their own irrationality. And he is luring them in to the kind of
trap that could be basically enclosed on them at any moment. It’s
a gravely dangerous situation, but you have at least one key
player, namely Russian President Putin, who knows what he’s
doing, and who is steering these events in a way that conforms to
an appropriate strategic analysis, and to an understanding of how
to basically defeat these forces that have been trying to destroy
Syria for the last five years, and in so doing, to deprive Russia
of one of its own critical access points in the Mediterranean
region.
Now, what Mr. LaRouche really emphasized, and I think that
this is the crucial point to take away from this issue, is that
the center of gravity of world affairs has dramatically shifted
to where the Asia-Eurasia region, anchored in the cooperation
between China and Russia and India, with other countries grouping
around that, is really where the strategic center of the world
economy has now been shifted. And if you look at the situation in
Europe, in particular, from one end to the other you see nothing
but bankruptcy and political failure. The United States is on the
verge of the same kind of bankruptcy. And so the only place where
you have growth and stability by any measure, and of course Asia
and Russia and Eurasia are not devoid of problems, but relative
to the state of absolute bankruptcy that we see in Europe and in
the United States, we see a disintegration of the political and
economic conditions in much of South America, as well. Of course,
Africa has been on the target list of the British and other
European colonial, imperial powers for the longest time.
But in Asia, you not only have a much more stable and
growing situation, but you have a commitment to an abandonment of
geopolitics in favor of what Chinese President Xi Jinping has
called the ”win-win” strategy. And if you look at the crisis in
Europe right now, leaving aside the fact that the entire European
financial system is bankrupt — hopelessly, irreversibly bankrupt
under the present conditions and terms of thinking that dominate
Europe — if you look at the refugee crisis, you’re beginning to
see a glimmer of sanity, driven by desperation, by certain of the
people who are responsible for creating the European fiasco in
the first place.
So, you’ve got people like Wolfgang Schäuble, the finance
minister of Germany, who was one of the monsters behind the
destruction of Europe, including the German economy itself, now
saying there must be a Marshall Plan to rebuild Syria, to rebuild
other parts of the Middle East, and only on the basis of a
Marshall Plan, which gives people a clear incentive to go back to
their homes, to rebuild their country, only under those
circumstances, and those circumstances alone, can the refugee
crisis in Europe be remotely solved. And of course, what applies
to the Middle East applies doubly for Africa, where the
U.S.-British-French overthrow of Qaddafi unleashed absolute hell
throughout the African continent.
And so the danger of a massive, even larger flow of refugees
coming out of Africa into Europe, as well as the continuing
crisis centered in the Middle East, means that Europe is
absolutely doomed unless there is a fundamental change in policy.
And for starters, that change means that the United States and
Europe must reach out to Russia and China. You had the recent
visit by President Xi Jinping of China to Saudi Arabia, to Iran,
and to Egypt, and what Xi Jinping made very clear is that China
is prepared to move towards the building of the Silk Road
infrastructure, the New Silk Road land route, the Maritime Silk
Route, which will come up through the newly expanded Suez Canal
— China will do that. In fact, just this week, the first freight
train from Eastern China arrived in Iran, and this is part of the
entire European system of not just transportation corridors, but
development corridors that have been put forward by China as the
cornerstone of their foreign policy.
So, they’re presenting a win-win alternative. And in the
case of Europe, there is no alternative. Europe is so politically
and psychologically bankrupt — the leadership of Europe is so
bankrupt that China, through this Middle East development portion
of the One Belt, One Road policy, offers the only viable basis
for this Marshall Plan idea to actually be put into practice. And
were it not for the Putin intervention, beginning last September,
we couldn’t even be contemplating the possibility of that kind of
solution to this seemingly intractable problem in the Middle
East.
Now, Mr. LaRouche emphasized in this context that Europe is
completely gone; it’s completely bankrupt, and there are
solutions, but the present leadership is unprepared to consider
that kind of level of rethinking. In the United States, we’re
very close to the edge, but the United States {can} be saved and
the solution to the problems in the United States begins with
removing President Barack Obama from off ice immediately, and
moving to wipe out the thoroughly bankrupt Wall Street system.
Because until that system is put through basically a bankruptcy
shutdown, then none of the viable and available solutions are
going to be there. But, if you were to get rid of Obama, if you
were to wipe out Wall Street,–and, for example, immediately
passage of Glass-Steagall would be one critical element for that
process to happen almost overnight — then we have a history in
the United States. We had Alexander Hamilton. We had Franklin
Roosevelt. We had glimmers of the same policy with John F.
Kennedy. You go back to a credit system, a government credit
system that kick-starts production, that trains a young
generation that’s right now completely unqualified to serve in a
real economy.
All of that means the United States coming into alignment
with what we see going on with China, with Russia, with India,
with others. In other words, the United States becomes part of a
genuine trans-Pacific collaboration, and under those
circumstances, Europe itself would have no choice but to get on
with the program.
So, what we’re seeing from Turkey, from Saudi Arabia, and as
I said, always watch for the British lurking in the background
with those two countries — you have clinical insanity and folly,
which holds the danger of war. But Mr. LaRouche again emphasized,
Putin knows this. He sees all of this, and he is on top of the
situation, and is prepared to take the appropriate and necessary
actions. And there are some people who are not completely out of
their minds on the U.S. side, within the military-intelligence
community, who understand that partnering with Russia is the only
way to solve this problem.

OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, just really on the subject that
you ended on here, the bankruptcy of Wall Street and the extended
Wall Street system, and the relationship of that to the
conditions in Europe; that brings us to our institutional
question for this evening, which reads as follows: ”Mr.
LaRouche. The heat is turning up on British Prime Minister David
Cameron, who’s trying to get the upper hand over a referendum
that could result in the UK leaving the European Union. The
potential break-up of the European Union, which is called
‘Brexit’, has elicited warnings about the impact on the UK
economy should voters say that they want out of the EU. A recent
poll showed that 42% of UK voters would opt to leave the EU;
compared to 38% who say that they would vote to stay. This week
will be the first major test as to whether Cameron’s done enough
to secure an agreement to change some terms of the UK’s
relationship with the European bloc. Cameron says that he will
campaign to stick with the EU, if a deal can be reached. This
Thursday and Friday will be the first time that all 28 EU
countries will discuss a package of proposals recently released
by the EU, aimed at addressing the UK’s economic concerns.
Cameron negotiated the proposals with the EU leaders and Donald
Tusk, President of the European Council — the EU’s main
decision-making body. What is your view of a possible ‘Brexit’?”

STEINBERG: Well, you know, you’ve got ”Brexit” that was
preceded by ”Grexit”, and probably we’re going to have a much
larger lexicon; that all comes down to the fact that people have
the sense that the European Union, particularly the European
Monetary Union, is a sinking ship. And therefore, if the ship is
sinking, or the movie theatre is on fire, you get to the exit as
fast as possible. But the reality is, that the European Union —
and within that, the European Monetary Union — are the problem.
So, therefore, unless you address the more underlying issue,
which is that Europe is financially and economically bankrupt;
then it really is almost of secondary significance whether
Britain stays in or leaves. If Britain leaves the European Union,
then that’s virtually it for the European Union. Other officials
in Europe, even including Schäuble at the Davos Conference
earlier this month, said that if the Schengen agreement, the open
borders agreement in Europe is broken, then the European Union
will cease to exist. And already in Poland, in Hungary, in other
countries on the edge of Europe but within the European Union,
they’re already building those walls. So in effect, the European
Union, as it’s presently constituted, is a dead letter; it really
doesn’t exist. And the countries of Europe, either collectively
or individually, are going to have to come to face the reality
that their banking system is thoroughly bankrupt; they’ve lost so
much productive capacity that Europe from a physical standpoint
is no longer capable of self-reliance, self-preservation. So, the
whole thing is going under; and of course, there’s a certain
irony in the British threatening to leave the European Union,
since the bankruptcy of the entire trans-Atlantic system is
largely the result of policies that were created in London, and
were then spread about Europe and the United States. You could
almost say that Europe was doomed from the moment that Margaret
Thatcher launched the Big Bang in 1985, and turned London into a
safe haven for speculative gambling operations, drug-money
laundering, anything other than investment in the real economy.
So now, we’re 30 years into that process, and Europe is
finished. So, the issues that are being negotiated between
Cameron and Tusk and the others on the European Commission, are
tiddlywinks; they’re not the real issues. Unless Europe comes up
with its own version of shutting down the City of London and Wall
Street, a genuine full-scale Glass-Steagall separation of
legitimate commercial banking activity from all of the gambling,
then Europe is completely doomed. And the only hope that they
will have is that some sane future leaders, who emerge out of
this political rubble, recognize before it’s perhaps too late
that aligning with China and Russia — which is exactly the
opposite of the policies that are being pursued in Europe right
now — is the only answer. So, I think that that’s the context in
which the question can be answered; and so the issue is merely
that Europe in its present circumstance is doomed. And whether
Britain leaves the European Union or stays in, they are part of
that system of doom that’s going to have to be changed in a much
more fundamental — I’d say ”revolutionary” — way. And the
opportunities are there; they’re presented there because Europe
is at the western end of Eurasia; and the Chinese have already
established the rail links between central China and Germany.
There are opportunities galore under the umbrella of the ”One
Belt-One Road” policy; but the first step is that the European
leaders are going to have abandon their folly. And that’s a
difficult proposition to conceive of, given who the current
European leadership is.

OGDEN: Absolutely. And, let me just elaborate a little bit
what Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche emphasized, which is that if you
just look at the refugee crisis, for example, and the absolute
breakdown of Europe to even absorb and handle this under the
current economic conditions. This has pushed people to begin to
discuss the possibility of what the LaRouche movement has been
advocating for quite a long time; which is a new Marshall Plan, a
new program of economic development for the Middle East and North
Africa. It is what was published by the Schiller Institute and
{Executive Intelligence Review} in a major book-length
publication a number of years back, called ”A New Marshall Plan
for Southern Europe and the Mediterranean”. What Helga LaRouche
emphasized is that at the point that the EU is really detonating
underneath people’s noses, there is no solution within the
current geometry.
The only solution is to go with this kind of Marshall Plan,
and to work with China and the BRICS and other countries, to
extend the Silk Road project into this region and to develop the
Middle East and North Africa in order to have an incentive for
millions and tens of millions of refugees not to leave to seek a
better condition. And Helga LaRouche’s emphasis was that this is
a very substantial example of what Xi Jinping has called the
”win-win” paradigm; the ”win-win” system. It is a win for
everybody, for Europe and the United States to work with China
and Russia to develop the Middle East and North Africa along the
Silk Road routes. This kind of cooperation between China and the
rest of the world is what China is seeking in inviting the rest
of the world to engage in; and this is the only way to solve the
crises and shift the geometry overall which is creating the
existential threat which is now being faced by Europe.
Now, this new paradigm; this is exactly what we have been
talking about for quite a while, but I think the foundation for a
new paradigm cannot be seen as merely some sort of extension of
former or present geopolitical ideas about how the world works.
This is not merely a rearrangement of political and economic and
strategic alliances between countries that would still be
dominated by the same axiomatic world view which is what has
brought us to this crisis point to begin with. Rather, there
needs to be a true renaissance; a new calibration, a
re-examination of what our view of mankind is. What our view of
man as a species is, and what mankind’s role within this galaxy
and his relationship to the entire universe; and indeed, what his
responsibility is as a uniquely creative species in this universe
must be.
So, on that subject, Jason Ross is joining us from the
LaRouche PAC Science Team, and I think we’re going to have a
somewhat exciting discussion of what are the implications of the
really profound work that Albert Einstein engaged in over a
century ago; and which is now grabbing the headlines again in the
form of this experiment that has revealed the affirmation of
Einstein’s hypothesis concerning the shape of space-time.

JASON ROSS: Thanks. As I imagine everyone has heard by now,
on September 14th of last year, a gravitational wave was detected
by the interferometer experiments that we had set up in
Washington state and in Louisiana. Over a few months, that signal
was studied to make sure that that really was what had occurred;
and a paper was submitted in January and published in February
announcing the news that a gravitational wave phenomenon
representing the merging of two black holes had been detected.
This meant that a change in space-time had been experienced in
that detector; where maybe we don’t know how the experiment
worked.
Very briefly, two tracks at right angles to each other,
allowed light to move up and down those tracks. Those tracks
reach 4 kilometers long. Due to some very clever engineering, the
effect of length was 100 times that; and by the motion of these
gravity waves — meaning a change in the shape of space due to a
varying intensity of gravity due to these two black holes
spinning around each other — the length of the two tracks varied
by an amount that was about 1/10 the diameter of a proton over a
track length of 4 kilometers. This is equivalent to the star
nearest to us getting closer and further away by the width of a
hair. It’s amazing that was actually able to be measured; that’s
an astonishingly tiny change.
And it says something about the difficulties and why it’s
been — as Matt said — it’s been a century since Einstein had
proposed the existence of these gravity waves; and now they’ve
been detected. So, the recent upgrades to these detectors here in
the US made this possible; there are other detectors around the
world. Some of them are being upgraded; new ones are being
brought on line. There is a proposal for a space-based
interferometry experiment — the Lisa experiment; which NASA had
been a part of, and has now left it to the European Space Agency,
currently scheduled to launch in 2034. Perhaps it’ll be sent
sooner than that, based on this news.
But what does all of this mean? What does it tell us about
— what are the implications? Well for one thing, this means we
really have an entirely new tool for looking at the universe that
we live in. All of our knowledge about the heavens beyond us,
comes from sight, or various forms of sight. You can’t smell a
star, you can’t taste it; you can’t hear it, you can’t fell it.
You can see it. So various forms of seeing are the way we learn
more about our surroundings. From simple observations with the
eyes here on Earth, which were all that were available to Kepler
when he determined how the planets moved; the use of telescopes
in the optical range — simple telescopes that could be seen with
the eye — into more complex telescopes, including ones that see
what we wouldn’t typically call light; radio telescopes.
Telescopes in Earth orbit, looking in other wavelengths of the
electromagnetic spectrum; infrared telescopes, ultra-violet
telescopes, x-ray telescopes. We’ve got a lot of ways of

side of the Moon, where China is going to be within just a
few years sending a lander. The potential to do long wavelength
radio telescope work from that location; this represents
something new.
But what we’ve got with this successful detection based on
the change in space-time with the LIGO [Laser Interferometer
Gravitational-Wave Observatory] experiments, this is something
totally different. This is like bringing in a new sense all
together. We’ve been seeing the universe; now we can probably
hear it would be the best analogy. It represents a vibration,
like the sound vibrations our ears are able to pick up. Only this
time, it’s incredibly faint, and it’s about space itself
vibrating; that really is what it is. So, that’s tremendously
important.
On the history of this, it’s important to keep in mind
people are very excited about this; there’s good reason to be,
it’s quite a development. But this can only indirectly be called
a scientific breakthrough; the science behind this — Einstein
proposed this in 1916. He had some more thoughts and wrote
another paper in 1918; some more discussion about it. Hypotheses
about black holes, breakthroughs in computing ability to try to
model these types of things; all of that took place. But what
could be called the fundamentally scientific change occurred 100
years ago with Einstein’s theory of relativity; with gravity
waves being one of the implications. Being able to detect them is
wonderful; it’s an amazing technological advancement. It shows
that we are capable of precision that was totally undreamed of in
Einstein’s time, certainly, or even a few decades ago. The
development that we’ve made has been tremendous.
But I think it’s fair to say this was not a scientific
breakthrough in the real sense of science. It is a new sensation;
it is a new technology. It is a whole new way of looking at
things; and that is tremendously important. I think that if we
look back at what Einstein did that made his hypothesis possible,
we can compare it to the really awful influence of Bertrand
Russell.
So, first on Einstein. We’ve got to recall that what
Einstein did in laying out his revolutionary theories was not
something that he derived; it wasn’t something that he proved. It
wasn’t something that he showed was true based on what was
already known. What Einstein said about the universe contradicted
the Newtonian view of space and time that had become dominant.
Einstein said that that simplistic view of space and time, which
went along somewhat intuitively with our senses, was in fact
untrue; and that basic concepts like simultaneity, or knowing
that two events happen at the same time, such a basic concept as
that. That there’s one time that applies everywhere; Einstein
showed that was untrue. That’s a very unintuitive thought. The
idea that space could have a shape to it; that’s a very
unintuitive thought. It’s not suggested by appearances.
But what Einstein was doing was implementing a world outlook
that goes back to Cusa — although I’m not going to talk about
him right now — but to Leibniz and to Bernhard Riemann. If we
consider the work of Leibniz, 1646-1716, the founder of physical
economy; there’s plenty to say about him, and plenty will be said
on this website. One of the specific things that he looked at was
in the world of physics, Leibniz’s demonstration that there was
no absolute space; that there was no absolute time. This was
contrary to Descartes, Newton, and others. Leibniz said there’s
no distinction between rest and motion, for example. If there’s
no absolute space, you can’t say that anything is at absolute
rest; that was a concept used by Descartes. Absolute space was a
concept used by Newton. But Leibniz was in a fight about this,
saying that space was a relation between concurrently existing
things; but it didn’t exist on its own. In a debate that he had
with a top Newtonian — Samuel Clarke — this seemingly physical
discrepancy about is space absolute or not, turned into very
directly a political one. That, both of these two — Leibniz and
Clarke — used their concept of space to make a point about God,
and implicitly also about government; about the basis of the
legitimacy of a ruler.
Clarke, the Newtonian, said that because everything could
have been created anywhere in space once God decided to do the
Creation, that showed that God made a choice without any
necessity; that it was just because God felt like doing then and
felt like doing it where he did, because he felt like doing that.
Sort of like a dog deciding to his business wherever he feels
like it. Leibniz said that if God had to do something without a
good reason, that God would be only all-powerful, but not good or
wise. And Leibniz said that that conception of God has to include
those perfections as well; goodness, wisdom, and power.
Now between the lines, what these two were also saying was a
view of government and a view of society. Implicit in this is
Leibniz’s view that the legitimacy of a ruler or of government is
not simply from having gathered power; but from using it in a
wise way to achieve good ends. That may seem a little bit far
afield, but it’s true; and this is part of the background on this
concept. That from the necessity for goodness came the
nonexistence of absolute space; that’s how Leibniz showed that.
He was right.
Bernhard Riemann, in 1854, delivered a presentation, wrote a
paper on the shape of space. And Riemann said that since the time
of Euclid up to his time, no one had ever really taken on in a
realistic way, what the basis of the shape of space is. That
Euclid said things like the sum of the angles in a triangle are
180; Riemann said that may or may not be true. On a curved space,
for example, it’s not true. The most important aspect is that
Riemann didn’t propose replacing Euclid with a similar geometry;
it’s that he said that the basis of our understanding of space
has to be the physical causes that make things occur within
space. He was right; that was Einstein’s approach. With
relativity, he said that our understanding of space can’t start
from a box; it has to start from physical principles that give
rise to the effects in space, and to the relationship of objects
in space. So light, gravitation, these became the basis of space
for Einstein; and those concepts lie outside of space. They
aren’t geometrical concepts in the way Euclid’s concepts were
geometrical. Light is a real thing; gravity is a real principle.
So, Einstein, in following on this and implementing it, and
developing his theories, developing his breakthroughs of
relativity, created something that contradicted; he made a new
hypothesis. To contrast that, let’s look at the past 100 years.
We’ve now affirmed something that Einstein had proposed 100 years
ago; but where are the new Einsteins? Where are the new theories
that contradict? Where are the new concepts that don’t follow
from what we already know, but introduce fundamentally new
principles? And more importantly, why is that not understood as
what science really is?
To say just a little bit about Bertrand Russell’s role in
all of that, LaRouche has called Russell the most evil man of the
20th Century; and we have given ample demonstrations of that.
Some of the more straightforward evidence of it is his views
about keeping the world population down; especially dark-skinned
races, who Russell particularly was upset about there being more
of. Proposing a scientific dictatorship, using murder to
eliminate people who became intelligent and opposed the ruling
class, keeping science secret from the majority of people; this
is some of the nice outlook that Russell had on things. He also,
in his own work as a ”professional” you might say, worked on
destroying the concept of science and turning it into
mathematics. He did this before and after the year 1900; this is
somewhat earlier in his life, where he wanted to throw away what
Einstein ended up doing, which was creating a new concept that
contradicted the past. And say instead, that every thought in the
future, will have to derive from thoughts in the past; that we
can replace creativity with logic.
Russell really put that into practice. Many people who are
familiar with Russell might think of him as being an anti-war
demonstrator, as being a peace-loving activist. Somebody who was
opposed to war, to conflict; especially to nuclear weapons. And,
included in that, technology itself; the concept that science is
dangerous, that perhaps science should be held back, because
these technologies allow us to exterminate ourselves. The idea
that the appropriate response to that would be to eliminate
technologies, rather than to have a productive, future-oriented
basis for relations among nations. This really sprung up in a
major way around anti-nuclear activism, of which Russell was a
major proponent.
So, I think what we can reflect on, what we can take from
the excitement around these gravitational findings, is that: 1)
it’s an opportunity to really go back and really develop and
understanding of who Einstein was. How did he think? Who was this
man, who a century ago, put forth the hypothesis that was
detected in this way only this year. Who was Riemann? How did he
actually think? We can reflect on the opportunities that we have
for the use of these kinds of instruments to provide us an
entirely new window to understanding the universe around us. Not
only are we seeing things in a different band, we’re using a
different sense all together. We’re hearing the universe; we’re
able to listen in on a completely different kind of physical
process than the electromagnetic ones that are the basis of all
astronomy otherwise. Using light, radio waves, x-rays and that
sort of thing. And I think it also demonstrates that the ability
to develop new technologies, to rise to a challenge, certainly
exists. And we saw this in the Apollo program, which similarly,
going to the Moon itself did not involve as much new science as
it did new technologies, new social organizations to implement
those technologies. Which we saw with some of the breakthroughs
of the truly amazing apparatus used to detect these gravitational
waves. But we have to have grand objectives. I mentioned the LISA
experiment; a space-based interferometry experiment, similar to
ones which did this recent detection, which NASA had been a major
player in and then pulled back on, as part of the Obama
destruction of a national mission, a natural future. NASA, as the
leading representative of that future orientation of the nation.
So, we have to have human objectives for the nation, for
ourselves. We have to, as a nation, have objectives like what
China’s doing now; as represented by China’s moves towards the
Moon from the Helium-3 standpoint. From the sheer excitement of
the population of China being asked to put forward proposals for
experiments to take up to the Moon. This is something that people
are actually thinking about as citizens of this nation. ”Wow!
What are we going to send up there?” ”What are we going to take
to the Moon for the next trip?”
We’ve got a lot of objectives that have been defined that we
have just been sitting on for decades. And if we eliminate the
source of this culturally, the frankly unscientific view of
science, this anti-human view of humanity, we can do great
things. And we can do it by removing Obama and giving this nation
a future-oriented mission again.

OGDEN: Well thank you very much, Jason. I think that’s
certainly exciting; the idea to be able to directly perceive
changes in space-time itself. So, I’d like to thank Jason for his
presentation, and I’d like to thank Jeff for joining us remotely
today. And I’d like to thank all of you for joining us; and
please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.

13. februar 2016 – I et usædvanligt forløb sagde den italienske finansminister Gian Carlo Padoan i det italienske parlament den 4. februar, at hans regering går ind for en bankopdeling, men at andre EU-medlemsstater ikke gør det samme.

Padoan svarede på et spørgsmål fra senator Laura Bottici fra M5S-partiet (5-stjernebevægelsen) om, hvorvidt ”regeringen ikke mener, det er afgørende vigtigt at gå frem så hurtigt som muligt imod en klar adskillelse mellem investeringsbanker og kommercielle banker, selv ved at komme de EU-reguleringer i forkøbet, der for indeværende diskuteres under retningslinje 43, 2014.”

Bottici forklarede, “Denne adskillelse ville rent faktisk gøre det muligt at forebygge truslen om systemisk smitte, båret af krisen mellem indbyrdes forbundne banker, inklusive på grundlag af det faktum, at større banker beviseligt ikke altid er mere effektive, men at overdreven størrelse derimod, snarere end at nedsætte risici, har lagt større byrder på kreditinstitutioner.

“Adskillelse af bankaktiviteter ville gøre det muligt at beskytte almindelige menneskers opsparinger bedre, medregnet den kendsgerning, at det ville eliminere interessekonflikter inden for kreditinstitutioner, der både indsamler opsparinger og praktiserer investeringer, og ville dertil tilskynde mere til tildeling af ressourcer til realøkonomien, til ugunst for spekulative aktiviteter, der har været med til få finansielle markeder til at svulme op. En indsats for reguleringer er i gang i EU-kommissionen, men den har imidlertid mange smuthuller, der kunne neutralisere dens sigte.”

Padoan svarede, “På det europæiske niveau, som den deputerede rejste i sit spørgsmål, diskuterer man en opdeling mellem investeringsbanker og kommercielle banker – hvilket i den ene eller anden form er blevet introduceret i andre lande uden for Eurozonen. Jeg må imidlertid sige, at en kortsigtet løsning ser ud til at være problematisk, fordi hver medlemsstat tenderer mod at forsvare nationale specificiteter, som ofte er vanskelige at forlige.

“Indenfor disse rammer går Italien ind for, at der skelnes mellem roller i banksektoren, men i modsætning til andre lande er Italien også karakteriseret ved et mindre pres, fordi vore banker ikke har en relevant investeringsdel, og også af denne grund udgør en lavere risiko sammenlignet med andre lande.”

Den italienske finansminister sagde med andre ord, at Rom-regeringen støtter et bankopdelings-regime, men at et sådant er umuligt inden for EU. Siden forskellen mellem opdeling og ikke-opdeling er lig med forskellen mellem overlevelse og selvmord, anviser Padoans udtalelse en klar kurs for handling for Italien: Ud af Eurozonen!
 

7. januar 2016 – Bail-in-reglerne vil tilsyneladende blive implementeret forskelligt i de forskellige EU-medlemslande. Små virksomheder er ekskluderet fra bail-in i den tekst, som Det europæiske Parlament har vedtaget og, f.eks., i den italienske lov for gennemførsel. Det er ikke tilfældet i Tyskland, i hvert fald ikke ifølge et brev, som Post Bank har udsendt til sine kunder. Brevet siger blandt andet, at for »virksomhedskonti gælder grænsen på 100.000 euro pr. indskyder«. Med andre ord kunne selskaber, i tilfælde af bail-in, se alle deres penge, der overstiger 100.000 euro, blive konfiskeret.

»Men en konto, hvor to eller flere personer har adgang som medlemmer af et personligt firma, selskab eller sammenslutning eller lignende, uden juridisk personlighed, vil blive slået sammen under udregningen af den øverste grænse på 100.000 euro og behandlet som indskud fra en enkelt indskyder.«

Dette tilbyder et smuthul i den EU-tekst, der siger,

»de følgende har samme prioritetsorden, der er højere end den orden, som krav fra almindelige, ubeskyttede kreditorer uden præference har:

• Den del af kvalificerede indskud fra individer og mikro-, små- eller mellemstore virksomheder, der overstiger dækningsniveauet iflg. bestemmelserne i artikel 6 af Direktivet 2014/49/EU;«

Den italienske lov har vedtaget denne formulering ordret.

Det er imidlertid kun en prioritetsorden for teoretiske godtgørelser, der er fastlagt, og ikke beløbet. Det beror alt sammen på »menneskers, ikke lovens, skøn«, som prof. Paolo Savona afslørede, i Milano Finanza (se 6. jan., http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=11036).

Foto: EU-parlamentet i Strasbourg, eller Babelstårnet, eller det skæve tårn i P-eu-sa, måske?

7. januar 2016 – Onsdag var endnu en dag med jordskred på aktie- og obligationsmarkedet, som medierne universelt har givet Kinas aktiemarked og valuta skylden for. Disse beskyldninger nåede grænsen for det absurde, da Kinas regering meddelte, midt på dagen i Europa, at den, fra og med 8. jan., ikke længere ville suspendere handel på markedet med »strømafbrydelser«, og ville lade markedsniveauet bevæge sig derhen, hvor det ville – og dette hævdedes i de amerikanske finansmedier at have standset den globale deroute på aktiemarkederne! Hvordan det skulle forestille at være gået til, blev ikke forklaret. Men i al fald, så tog derouten atter fat i løbet af den europæiske og amerikanske eftermiddag, med styrtdyk i aktierne i olie-, bank- og råvaresektorerne i spidsen.

Wall Streets, Londons og de europæiske bankers gæld, der er baseret på råvare- og ejendomsmarkedet, og som ikke kan indløses, fortsætter med at være drivkraften bag kollapset, der i realiteten er udløst af »bail-in«-reglernes ikrafttræden (1. jan. 2016), der nu er i færd med at sænke banker og deres indskydere i hele det transatlantiske område.

Financial Times havde den 7. januar en artikel, der afslørede, hvad bank-bail-in har udløst i Europa. Med den beskedne titel, »Investorer gør voldsomt indsigelse mod bank-bail-in«, rapporterer artiklen om en lidet bemærket kendsgerning. Banker i Europa (og også i USA) er nu blevet pålagt at rejse kapital for hundreder af milliarder af euro, i form af de såkaldte »bail-in-obligationer« i 2016 – obligationer, der kan eksproprieres efter dekret fra de europæiske bankopløsningsmyndigheder i Bruxelles, når banken bliver insolvent eller nærmer sig insolvens. Men Europas banker rejste kun 196 mia. euro i alt i obligationer i 2015. Det var 10 % mindre end i 2014, og beløbet er faldet hvert år, siden 2009.

Disse banker kan således ikke rejse de hundreder af milliarder i »bail-in-obligationer« i 2016. Dernæst kommer Financial Times frem til pointen med det »sorte nul« på bankernes bundlinje. Mange hundrede banker vil forsvinde.

»Davide Serra, direktør for Algebris-fonden, der investerer i bankgæld, siger: ’Hvis man er en lille, europæisk bank, bør ens renteomkostninger ved udstedelse af seniorgæld (dvs. ’foranstillet’ gæld, der har førsteprioritet mht. indfrielse ved en evt. konkurs i forhold til anden ’efterstillet’ gæld, -red.), gå voldsomt i vejret. Dette bør også udløse en konsolidering af de mindre banker, da mange af dem kunne blive udelukket af obligationsmarkedet’, advarer han.«

Faldet i udstedelsen af obligationer i 2015 er mere bemærkelsesværdigt, eftersom nationale finansmyndigheder forsøgte at få banker til at genkapitalisere og sælge »tabs-absorberende gæld« (bail-in-obligationer) i 2015, før Enhedsmyndigheden for bankopløsnings-fascisterne tog over. Men, som FT beskriver det, så konverterede banker i Italien, Grækenland og andre steder i stedet obligationsgæld til egenkapital – aktier – »med betydelig discount« eller tab for obligationsindehaverne. »Genkapitaliseringen« af de græske banker i efteråret 2015 skete næsten udelukkende på denne måde – gennem en delvis ekspropriering af indehavere af bankobligationer »med det formål at undgå at ekspropriere (bail-in) større indskydere«. Disse »større indskydere« ville have været forretningsforetagender, der ville være blevet – og i 2016 vil blive – udslettet over en kam.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 7. januar 2016: 

En omhyggelig undersøgelse af det britiske efterretningsvæsens operationer over hele planeten afslører et klart billede: Det britiske Monarki er i færd med at fremprovokere krig og kaos i hvert eneste hjørne af planeten i deres forfølgelse af den erklærede hensigt om at reducere verdens befolkning med 80 % eller mere på kort tid.

Den britiske hånd er mest synlig i den Persiske Golf, hvor Londons totalt ejede juniorpartner, det Saudiske Monarki, har anstiftet en ny, evindelig krig mellem sunni og shia, arabere og persere, der blev udløst af henrettelsen den 2. jan. af et ledende medlem af det shiamuslimske præsteskab fra den olierige, østlige provins, der har en majoritet af shia-muslimer. Talerør for MI6 Ambrose Evans-Pritchard sagde skadefro på Daily Telegraphs sider i denne uge, at henrettelsen af Nimr al-Nimr vil føre til voldelig gengældelse fra shia-demonstranter, der handler under ordre fra Irans Revolutionsgarde-korps, og vil inkludere angreb på de saudiske hovedolieledninger. Dette vil, erklærer Evans-Pritchard, føre til oliepriser på 200 dollar tønden og et globalt, økonomisk kollaps.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

15. december 2015 – En 68-årig italiensk pensionists selvmord i byen Civitavecchia, efter at han mistede hele sin opsparing gennem sin banks reduktion af gæld gennem bail-in (ekspropriering af kundernes indeståender), har rystet det italienske folk. Det har sat fokus på de brutale, nye EU-regler ved kriseramte banker, som træder i kraft i alle medlemslande den 1. januar 2016. Pensionistens bank var en af fire mindre, italienske banker, der havnede i krise og blev »rekonstrueret« af regeringen den 22. november 2015. Flere end 100.000 bankkunder mistede deres opsparing.

Italienernes ophidselse steg til kogepunktet, da det kom frem, at, mens almindelige bankkunder mistede deres livsopsparing, så fik store långivere og aktieejere forvarsel og kunne afvikle deres poster, der i visse tilfælde løb op i millioner.

Fra den 1. januar 2016 er alle EU-lande tvunget til at tilpasse sig de nye regler for bankrekonstruktion, indbefattet reduktion af bankens gæld (bail-in), for banker, der rammes af krise.

Reduktion af gæld er den bureaukratiske term for tyveri af bankkundernes midler. Men, som i filfældet med rekonstruktionen af de fire, små italienske banker, der kun delvist tog de kundeindeståender, som EU-reglementet tillader, er dette et tveægget sværd. Denne bankredningsmetode kan snarere kæntre banksystemet end hjælpe det. Det var også, hvad LaRouche-bevægelsen og mange andre sagde, da Den europæiske Centralbank (ECB) og EU-kommissionen kom med forslaget til bankrekonstruktion. Vi advarede om, at det ville give bagslag og skabe større ustabilitet, da det ville sprede panik blandt bankkunderne, der ville løbe storm på bankerne ved det mindste tegn på krise og trække deres penge ud.

I tilfældet med de fire mindre, italienske banker, Banca Etruria, Banca Marche, Carichieti (Sparekassen Chieti) og Carife (Sparekassen Ferrara), blev bankrekonstruktionen gennemført ved en regeringsbeslutning. Dette hastværk viser, at regeringen forsøgte at få det afklaret før 1. januar, for at undgå at være tvunget til at anvende EU’s nye reglement til reduktion af bankgælden. Regeringen kunne derfor gennemføre en delvis gældsreduktion. Indeståender på bankkonti blev ikke rørt, men aktier og obligationer i bankerne blev inddraget. Ca. 100.000 ejere af opprioriterede obligationer (subordinate bonds) med høj risiko, men også et højt afkast, mistede alle deres penge op til 750.000 euro. De fire banker vil blive likvideret og opdelt i fire brobanker og en ’dårlig bank’ (en ’rygsæk’ for dårlige lån). Bankredningen (bail-in) er på 3,5 mia. euro, der vil blive betalt af en bankhjælpefond, som er en indskudsgarantifond, der ejes af banksystemet.

Men denne indskudsgarantifond har ikke penge nok. Derfor skal tre storbanker, Unicredit, Intesa og UBI, stille op med penge, mod at regeringen giver de tre banker skattelettelser på i alt to mia. euro. Dette er blevet afsløret af forbrugerorganisationen Adusbef og betyder, at det er skatteborgerne og bankkunderne, der skal betale regningen.

De mennesker, der har investeret i de opprioriterede obligationer, var ikke ordentligt informeret og var ikke klar over, at deres værdipapirer var ligestillet med bankaktierne, og derfor omfattet af en gældsreduktion. Da det dernæst kom frem, at de større fisk gik fri, så vendte raseriet sig ikke alene mod bankerne, men også mod regeringen, der ledes af Matteo Renzi. Han blev endnu mere presset, da det desuden kom frem, at både hans minister Elena Maria Boschi og hans egen familie har nære bånd til ledelsen af en af de fire kriseramte banker.

Regeringen er nu blevet tvunget til at støtte oprettelsen af en parlamentarisk undersøgelse, som er velkommen, hvis den får en uvildig formand. Det, der er påkrævet, er en dristig og uræd formand som Ferdinand Pecora, New Yorker-advokaten af italiensk herkomst, der var leder af den berømte amerikanske Senatskomité i 1933, som afslørede de mægtigste banker på Wall Street og banede vejen for Franklin Roosevelts finansreformer og genopbygningsprogrammet New Deal.[1] På lignende vis skulle den italienske undersøgelse kunne afsløre, hvordan bankerne har narret deres kunder, men også, hvordan de fire kriseramte banker er blevet lavet om til kasinoer og er gået konkurs. En sådan undersøgelse bør bevirke, at der genindføres regler for god bankpraksis og indskydergaranti gennem en bankopdelingslov (Glass-Steagall). Dette spørgsmål har i mange år ligget på bordet, hvor LaRouche-bevægelsen har ført en kampagne for bankopdeling[2] og direkte og indirekte har påvirket det italienske parlament, der har to kamre, således, at der nu foreligger seks (!) forskellige indstillinger til lovforslag om at indføre en bankopdeling.

Blandt initiativtagerne til disse lovforslag har både Marco Zanni og Alessandro Di Battista fra Femstjernebevægelsen i løbet af de seneste dage udtalt sig med krav om, at bankopdelingen nu må gennemføres for at beskytte bankkunderne! Zanni, der er medlem af Europaparlamentet, sagde her den 9. december, at forslaget om at indføre »en moderne Glass/Steagall-lov med en ren og tvungen opdeling af bankerne i traditionel lånevirksomhed (kommerciel bankvirksomhed) og så spekulativ investeringsbankaktivitet« nu er nødvendig for at »undgå en ny systemkrise«.

Alessandro Di Battista, medlem af parlamentet, genlancerede spørgsmålet om en bankopdeling i et TV-interview den 10. december:

– Lad os én gang for alle, sagde han, udskille kommercielle banker fra investeringsbanker, så en medborger kan vide, at, når han sætter penge ind i en bank, så er denne bank ikke indblandet i spekulationsvirksomhed, spiller ikke på aktiemarkederne, men blot udsteder lån og bedriver normal bankvirksomhed.

Ovenstående artikel er skrevet af Ulf Sandmark, LaRouche-rörelsen i Sverige.

[1] Se 16. sep. 2015: »Wall Street er bankerot, og Obama gennemtvinger ved magt et termonukleart Armageddon. Foregrib! FDR’s Første 100 Dage« http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=8147 Artiklen indeholder mange henvisninger til andre artikler på dansk.

[2] Se: Lyndon LaRouche: Fire Nye Love til USA’s (og verdens) redning, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=1460

21. marts 2014 – I går nåede EU frem til en »endelig løsning« på eurobanksystemets bankerot efter et møde, der varede hele natten. Den tyske finansminister Wolfgang Schäuble blev involveret i forhandlingerne omkring kl. 05.30 for at underskrive aftalen. Enhedsmekanismen for Afvikling (Single Resolution Mechanism, SRM) skal formelt godkendes af EU-parlamentet og de nationale regeringer, hvilket efter planen skal ske efter EU-parlamentssamlingen i Strassbourg midt i april, den sidste samling før EU-valgene i maj måned.

The Irish Times rapporterer, at det store gennembrud kom, da de enedes om, at bail-in vil blive ligeligt gennemført – selvmord for den ene nation vil være det samme som i alle andre nationer. SRM vil have en bailout-fond på 55 milliarder euro, som bankerne angiveligt skal bidrage til over 8 år, men som i mellemtiden skal bakkes op af regeringerne, og skal bruges, sammen med bail-in (konfiskering af bankindeståender), til at gennemføre EU’s plan om at lukke et betydeligt antal af de 120 største banker, gennemføre en bailout (statslig bankredningspakke) og/eller en bail-in af den dårlige gæld, og optage disse bankerotte banker i Too Big To Fail-bankerne. Dette udtrykker en formodning om, at den kommende bankkrise vil blive relativt begrænset og en-ad-gangen, snarere end det virkelige, overhængende systemiske kollaps.

Fonden vil blive konsolideret fra nationale fonde til en fællesfond i løbet af de otte år. Ifølge det hollandske parlamentsmedlem Corienn Wortmann-Kool vil dette skabe en afviklingsproces, som behandler bankerne ens uanset størrelsen af det land, de er baseret i. »Vi ønsker, at bail-in af kreditorer og indskydere skal anvendes på samme måde over for alle banker, uanset hvilket medlemsland, disse banker befinder sig i«, sagde hun og brugte Irland som eksempel i en sammenligning med større stater som Tyskland og Frankrig.

The Irish Times rapporterer stolt: »Alt imens planen fra december ville have betydet, at en fransk eller tysk bank, f.eks., med en stor fond bag sig, ville kunne implementere en moderat bail-in, ville en irsk bank med en mindre national fond være tvunget til at gennemføre en mere dybtgående bail-in, som ville føre til højere finansielle omkostninger, sagde hun.«

Suverænitet bliver desuden bevidst undermineret: »Aftalen siger også, at EU-kommissionen, snarere end medlemslandene, vil vedtage SRM-bestyrelsens beslutninger om at afvikle banker, selv om finansministre stadig vil have ret til at intervenere i visse tilfælde. Medlemmer af EU-parlamentet har forsøgt at begrænse medlemsstaternes beføjelser til at blande sig i beslutningsprocessen, af frygt for politisk indblanding.«

Fonden vil også få ret til at optage lån, for det tilfælde, at der er nogen, der er bekymrede over den kendsgerning, at 55 milliarder euro ikke kan dække boblen, som er på 1,4 billiarder (15 nuller) dollars.

Wortmann-Kool beskrev processen som »demokratiet i funktion«.

Læs også:

Hovedartikler:

Lyndon LaRouche: »Værre end Weimar!« http://schillerinstitut.dk/drupal/node/1324

Lyndon LaRouche: »På randen af de store forandringers mulighed:

VI MÅ SØRGE FOR, AT DENNE MULIGHED BLIVER TIL VISHED«

http://schillerinstitut.dk/drupal/node/1433

Lyndon LaRouche: »Uden Glass-Steagall vil hele Europa gå bankerot«

http://schillerinstitut.dk/drupal/node/1220

Yderligere fordybelse: 

Schiller Institut-Specialrapporter:

»Dodd-Frank-loven dræber: Hvordan USA blev en del af det internationale bail-in-system«

Schiller Institut-Specialrapport, juni 2012: http://schillerinstitut.dk/drupal/node/873

»Hvordan verdensøkonomien blev ødelagt under Obama«, Schiller Institut-Specialrapport, december 2013, http://schillerinstitut.dk/drupal/node/1213

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: »De europæiske nationers Almene Uafhængighedserklæring«

http://schillerinstitut.dk/drupal/node/1350

Den følgende erklæring er skrevet for at udgøre det idémæssige grundlag for mobilisering af alle de kræfter, som i denne, for civilisationen så store krise, ønsker at genskabe Europas fremtid som et samfund, der er bygget på principper blandt suveræne republikker og på samarbejde med menneskehedens fælles interesser som mål.