Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 22. januar, 2017 – Fra Tysklands udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier lyder et klagende, men sandt råb, i en kronik i dag i Bild am Sonntag: »Der er meget, der står på spil i dag – med valget af Donald Trump er den gamle, 20. århundredes verden endegyldigt forbi.«

Og fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, som i Kina bliver kaldt »Silkevejsladyen« på grund af, at hun i 30 har været forkæmper for projekter og institutioner i Verdenslandbroen, lyder det: »Steinmeier ved imidlertid ikke, hvad den nye orden er, men det gør vi. Han erkender, at en ny æra er indvarslet. Men formålet med denne nye æra er, kan vi etablere en ny orden for menneskedens almene vel?«

Uanset, hvor ofte præsident Donald Trump gentager, »Amerika først«, så er og bliver valget af ham et internationalt fænomen, som drejer sig om en igangværende, global bølge af mange forestående valg, hvor Wall Street/City of Londons orden, med »globalisering, afindustrialisering og imperiekrige«, bliver smidt på porten.

NATO er forældet, og det samme er Den europæiske Union; det samme gælder Obamas »vi fastsætter reglerne« og afsættelse af regimer, »vi« ikke kan lide, gennem krig.

Præsident Trump har erkendt, at Putins Rusland er ansvarlig for den mulige afslutning af 15 års uafbrudt krig i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, og for et nyt sikkerhedskoncept, i fællesskab med Xi Jinpings Kina, som kan knække nakken på international terrorisme.

Han må komme til at erkende, at Xi er ansvarlig for at tilbyde »et fællesskab for en fælles skæbne« gennem Den Nye Silkevejs infrastruktur; gennem at anføre forskning og udvikling; og gennem at anføre udforskning af Månen.

Vil den amerikanske befolkning, der har stemt for en afvisning af det gamle paradigme med »globalisering og afindustrialisering«, få den nye administration og Kongressen til at gøre det, der er nødvendigt, for at gå med i de nye fremstød for og drivkraft bag vækst og videnskabeligt fremskridt?

Prøverne er allerede i gang. Kampen for at genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven kræver, at Trump formås til at handle, og at han adskilles fra sin udpegede finansminister, der offentligt er imod Glass-Steagall. En national, tværpolitisk appel er i gang – og er på denne webside.

Der er allerede lovforslag til diskussion og introduktion i Kongressen, for en »national infrastrukturbank«, men det må blive af en helt anden størrelsesorden, langt dristigere, og må omfatte fremskudte grænser såsom udvikling af fusion, udforskning af rummet og kontinentale højhastigheds-jernbaner. Og det må være en national kreditinstitution, der er forbundet med denne nye ordens internationale udviklingsbanker, for virkeligt store projekter, der spænder over lande og kontinenter.

I et heldigt øjeblik talte Trump om »ikke at dominere, men lede gennem et lysende eksempel«. Det findes allerede, for ham at gå med i. 

Vi har et par emner, vi vil fremlægge her i dag, men vi lægger ud med en umiddelbar gennemgang fra både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche af de begivenheder, der fandt sted i dag, og vore marchordrer for de kommende par dage. Det er i dag naturligvis indsættelsesdag. Vi er nu officielt kommet til slutningen af 16 år med Bush/Obama-æraen. Vi står på tærsklen til noget nyt; vi har et nyt, officielt præsidentskab. Hvad dette nye præsidentskab vil blive, står endnu uklart; det er stadig udefineret, og det er Lyndon og Helga LaRouches vurdering, at vores job ikke har ændret sig. Det er stadig vores opgave at lægge Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love på bordet. Vi er, og må fortsætte med at være, dette lands intellektuelle lederskab, og det er vores ansvar nu at indvarsle et nyt, internationalt paradigme, som USA i høj grad må blive en del af – det, vi kan kalde for det »Nye Paradigme for Udvikling«.

Matthew Ogden: God aften; det er i dag 20. januar, 2017; indvielsesdag. Dette er vores special-webcast på indvielsesdagen fra LaRouchepac.com. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg to kolleger – Benjamin Deniston her i studiet; og, via video, Michael Steger, som er med os i dag fra Houston, Texas, hvor han har tilbragt nogen tid sammen med Kesha Rogers.

Vi har et par emner, vi vil fremlægge her i dag, men vi lægger ud med en umiddelbar gennemgang fra både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche af de begivenheder, der fandt sted i dag, og vore marchordrer for de kommende par dage. Det er i dag naturligvis indsættelsesdag. Vi er nu officielt kommet til slutningen af 16 år med Bush/Obama-æraen. Vi står på tærsklen til noget nyt; vi har et nyt, officielt præsidentskab. Hvad dette nye præsidentskab vil blive, står endnu uklart; det er stadig udefineret, og det er Lyndon og Helga LaRouches vurdering, at vores job ikke har ændret sig. Det er stadig vores opgave at lægge Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love på bordet. Vi er, og må fortsætte med at være, dette lands intellektuelle lederskab, og det er vores ansvar nu at indvarsle et nyt, internationalt paradigme, som USA i høj grad må blive en del af – det, vi kan kalde for det »Nye Paradigme for Udvikling«.

Dette er nogle af de emner, vi vil diskutere i dybden senere i programmet, med vægt på to, store projekter, der er eksempler på, og paradigmatiske for, dette Nye Paradigme for Udvikling: Kra-kanalprojektet i Thailand og Transaqua-projektet i Afrika – to projekter, som hr. og fr. LaRouche i årtiernes løb har været meget involveret i, og som blot eksemplificerer den form for store projekter for menneskelig udvikling, som må forfølges i de kommende måneder og uger, både internationalt, men også store projekter af den art, som vi må gennemføre herhjemme i USA.

Lad mig begynde med en næsten ordret gennemgang af nogle kommentarer, som både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche kom med umiddelbart efter præsident Donald Trumps indsættelsestale her i eftermiddag, og vi vil så diskutere dette lidt mere i detaljer, før vi går videre med en gennemgang af disse store, internationale udviklingsprojekter.

LaRouche sagde omgående, at det er meget uklart, mht. principper, hvad præsident Donald Trump har i sinde ud fra det, han fremlagde i sin indsættelsestale i dag. Lyndon LaRouche sagde, »De er meget forvirret på overfladen, og vi må vente og se, hvad der ligger under denne overflade. På baggrund af det, der blev fremlagt i denne tale, er der ingen klarhed over principper i det.«

Helga LaRouche sagde: »Det vigtigste på hjemmefronten er, hvordan Donald Trump vil honorere de løfter, han har afgivet. Hvilke handlinger vil han faktisk tage?« spurgte hun. Med hensyn til den internationale front, var Helga LaRouches vurdering, »Trump burde vide, at det ikke fungerer sådan; blot at sige ’Amerika først’. Spørgsmålet er: Hvordan finder man fælles interesser, som er fælles for mange nationer, og ikke kun ’Amerika først’? Hvad er de fælles mål for mange nationer, og hvordan handler man for at forfølge disse mål?«

Dernæst sagde Lyndon LaRouche: »Problemet er, at princippet endnu ikke er klart. Det kunne gå i retning af et forenende princip; men, ud fra det, der blev fremlagt, står det endnu ikke klart, at det nødvendigvis vil blive det, eller præcis, hvad dette princip vil være.« Helga LaRouche gentog, »Generelt set var talen en meget blandet pose. Der er bestemt løfter om, at dette kunne gå i den rigtige retning, men vi må se konkrete planer for handling. Vi, LaRouche-bevægelsen, LaRouche Political Action Committee, må forstærke vores mobilisering for Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love. Det er godt, at Obama er ude. Vi vil få en frisk vind, en frisk brise, men der er brug for langt mere klarhed.«

Sluttelig sagde Lyndon LaRouche: »Vi vil ikke gå for meget ind på deres argumenter. Lad dem selv forklare deres egne argumenter.« Helga LaRouche sagde: »Vi behøver ikke nødvendigvis støtte ethvert aspekt af, hvad præsident Trump siger. Vi behøver heller ikke være overdrevent kritiske, men vi bør fokusere på vore egne principper og vore egne mål.«

Først og fremmest: Hvad er disse mål?

Nummer 1 – og det er stadig dagsordenen – må Glass-Steagall omgående genindføres som landets lov. I løbet af de seneste 24 timer har vi atter set et udbrud, i vid udstrækning pga. den mobilisering, som I, dette webcasts seere, og medlemmer af LaRouche-bevægelsen i USA har været engageret i; Glass-Steagall er nu tilbage i forreste front, tilbage på dagsordenen. Dette sås tydeligst af de spørgsmål, der blev stillet under høringen for godkendelsen af den udpegede finansminister, Steven Mnuchin, og som rejstes af senator Maria Cantwell. Hun har, som folk ved, længe været en støtte af en tilbagevenden til Glass-Steagall, i mange år. Hendes første, og eneste spørgsmål til Steven Mnuchin, var, »Støtter De Glass-Steagall?«

Steven Mnuchins svar – og dette er Helga LaRouches analyse – var, »ægte sofisteri«. »Lyndon LaRouche har været meget klar omkring, at dét, vi har brug for, er den originale Glass-Steagall, uden ændringer. Så kommer denne Mnuchin-fyr og taler om en modificeret Glass-Steagall og blander det med Volcker-reglen«, sagde hun. »Dette er ægte sofisteri. Det er virkelig godt, at Maria Cantwell har meldt klart ud om dette spørgsmål, og nu må vi lægge meget pres på hende og andre, inklusive på præsident Donald Trump, for at få den ægte Glass-Steagall vedtaget. Som Maria Cantwell sagde, så kræver det en klar, skarp linje mellem investeringsbankaktivitet og kommerciel bankaktivitet sådan, som Glass-Steagall oprindeligt blev udarbejdet af Franklin Roosevelt.«

Men Glass-Steagall er blot det første skridt til det fulde program for de Fire Love; og jeg mener, vi vil diskutere dette, ikke nødvendigvis stykke for stykke, men som en generel gennemgang, det princip, der forener Lyndon LaRouches program. Og vi må, som Helga LaRouches analyse siger, tænke på det som blot Dag Ét af de første 100 dage.

Hvad vi omgående må få at se, fra dette øjeblik, er en omgående forbedring i de amerikansk-russiske relationer. Det er der allerede positive indikationer på. Der er en invitation til præsident Donald Trump til at deltage, eller sende en delegation til at deltage, i Astana Fredsforhandlingerne i Kasakhstan; fredsforhandlingerne om Syrien. Det kunne ikke være mere presserende, end det er nu, med nyhederne her til morgen om, at ISIS på tragisk vis nu har ødelagt de storslåede, romerske ruiner i Palmyra, det smukke amfiteater og de andre ruiner. Så det er presserende vigtigt.

Men samtidig må der blive et seriøst partnerskab mellem USA og Kina. Den store mulighed for dette – i kølvandet på præsident Xi Jinpings tale om en fremtid for en fælles og almen skæbne, som var temaet i hans tale for Davos Økonomiske Verdensforum under sit nylige besøg i Schweiz – er en konference, der kommer til maj i Kina, om Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, og som mange statsoverhoveder vil deltage i. En eksplicit invitation er blevet overgivet til Donald Trump personligt for hans personlige deltagelse i denne konference.

Det, der står klart, er, at vi befinder os midt i en global proces for dramatisk og radikal forandring. Der kommer et betydningsfuldt skifte i dynamikken, som allerede finder sted, men som vil fortsætte med at udkrystallisere sig i de kommende måneder. De franske valg er i horisonten. Ifølge nogle beregninger er 75 % af vælgerne nu for at reducere sanktionerne mod Rusland. Dernæst er der de tyske valg, der kommer lidt senere efter de franske. I løbet af disse måneder kunne vi få at se en meget anderledes verden komme til syne. Det står klart, at det ikke længere er »business as usual«. Bush/Obama-æraen er forbi, og vi står nu på tærsklen til noget helt nyt.

Jeg vil gerne invitere Michael [Steger] og Ben [Deniston] til at sige lidt mere om dette, før vi går over til disse projekter, men, lad mig blot sige, om denne nye æra, som Helga LaRouche refererer til som nødvendigheden af at definere fælles interesser blandt mange nationer, og dernæst at samarbejde om at opnå disse interesser, eller, som præsident Xi Jinping udtrykker det, en fremtid for en fælles skæbne.

To store projekter, som jeg nævnte det, og som eksemplificerer mulighederne for at engagere sig på et sådant niveau og indvarsle dette Nye Paradigme for Udvikling, er Kra-kanalen i Thailand, der nu er meget konkret tilbage på dagsordenen – jeg kommer med flere detaljer senere – og Transaqua-projektet i Afrika. Det, vi ser, er, at den Nye Silkevej, Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, går støt fremad og nu bærer frugt efter årtiers arbejde fra LaRouche-bevægelsens side internationalt. Senere i aftenens udsendelse vil vi vise et kort klip af en video, vi har lavet, og som belyser Kra-kanalens historie, og som i de kommende dage vil blive ledsaget af et interview med en af hovedarrangørerne af dette projekt, Pakdee Tanapura. Og så får vi en slags generel præsentation af dette Transaqua-projekt i Afrika.

Men dette er store projekter, der blot eksemplificerer det, der, kan man sige, må blive det »nye normale« i dette Nye Paradigme for Udvikling, og for det, som USA som en presserende sag må deltage i.   

Engelsk udskrift af hele webcastet:

LET'S MAKE THIS DAY ONE — INAUGURATION DAY —
OF A NEW ERA FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR MANKIND AS A WHOLE!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast, January 20, 2017

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It's January 20th, 2017. Today
is Inauguration Day, and this is our Inauguration Day Special
Webcast from Larouchepac.com. I'm pleased to be joined today by
two of my colleagues — Benjamin Deniston, here in the studio;
and, via video, Michael Steger, who is joining us today from
Houston, Texas, where he's been spending some time with Kesha
Rogers.
        We have a few items that we're going to present to you
today, but we're going to begin with an immediate overview from
both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche of the events that occurred today,
and our marching orders for the days to come. Obviously, today is
Inauguration Day. We've come now, officially, to the end of 16
years of the Bush/Obama era. We're on the verge of something new;
we have a new Presidency, officially. What that new Presidency
will be, is unclear; it is very much still undefined, and Lyndon
and Helga LaRouche's assessment is, our job has not changed. We
still have the task of putting Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws on the
table. We are, and must continue to be, the intellectual
leadership in this country, and we are having the responsibility
now of ushering in a new international paradigm of which the
United States must very much indeed be a part — what we can call
the "New Development Paradigm."
        That will be some of what we will discuss in substance later
in this broadcast with an emphasis on two major projects which
are exemplary and paradigmatic of that New Development Paradigm:
the Kra Canal Project in Thailand, and the Transaqua Project in
Africa — two projects with which the LaRouches have been very
much involved over decades and which are merely exemplary of the
kinds of great projects for {human} development that must be
pursued in the coming months, in the coming weeks, both
internationally, but also great projects of that type which we
must carry out here at home in the United States.
        Let me begin with an almost verbatim overview of some
comments that both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche had, immediately
following President Donald Trump's inaugural speech this
afternoon, and then we will discuss that in a little bit more
detail before we get to the overview of these great international
development projects.
        What Mr. LaRouche said, right off the bat, is that it's very
unclear, in terms of principle, what President Donald Trump has
in mind, just based on what he presented in his inaugural speech
today. Lyndon LaRouche said, "It's very confused on the surface,
and we will have to wait and see what is underneath that surface.
On the basis of what was presented in that speech, there is no
clarity of principle there."
        Helga LaRouche said, "The most important thing on the
domestic front is how Donald Trump will deliver on the promises
that he's made. What are the actions that he will actually take?"
she asked. Regarding the international front, Helga LaRouche's
assessment was, "Trump should know it doesn't work that way;
merely saying 'America First.' The issue is: how do you find
{common} interests, shared among {many} nations, not just
'America First'? What are the common objectives of multiple
nations, and how do you act in pursuit of those objectives?"
        Lyndon LaRouche then said, "The problem is that the
principle is not clear yet. It could go in the direction of a
unifying principle; but from what was presented, it's not yet
clear that it necessarily will, or exactly what that principle
will be." Helga LaRouche's reiterating remarks were: "Overall,
the address was a very mixed bag. There are certainly promises
that this could go in the right direction, but we need to see
concrete plans of action. We, the LaRouche Movement, the LaRouche
Political Action Committee, must increase our mobilization on
Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws program. It is good," she said, "that
Obama is out. We will get a fresh wind, a fresh breeze, but a lot
more clarity is still needed."
        And then, finally, Lyndon LaRouche said, "We don't want to
get too close to their arguments. Let them clarify their own
arguments." And Helga LaRouche said, "We don't necessarily need
to support every aspect of what President Trump says. We also
don't need to be overly critical either, but we should be
focusing on our own principles and our own objectives."
        Now, first and foremost, what are those objectives?
        No. 1 — and the agenda still stands — Glass-Steagall must
be immediately reinstated as the law of the land. We saw, over
the last 24 hours, an eruption again, largely due to the
mobilization that you, the viewers of this webcast and members of
the LaRouche Movement in the United States have been engaged in;
Glass-Steagall is now back in the forefront, back on the agenda.
This could be seen most clearly by questions that were raised
during the confirmation hearing of Treasury designate-Secretary,
Steven Mnuchin, that were raised by Senator Maria Cantwell. Maria
Cantwell, as people know, has been a long-standing supporter of a
return to Glass-Steagall for many years now. Her very first
question and her {only} question of Steven Mnuchin was, "Do you
support Glass-Steagall?"

Steven Mnuchin's answer — and this is Helga LaRouche's analysis
— was "real sophistry." "Lyndon LaRouche has been very clear
that what we need is the {original Glass-Steagall, without
modification}. And here comes this Mnuchin guy, going on about a
{modified} Glass-Steagall, mixing it in with the Volcker Rule,"
she said. "This is real sophistry. It is very good that Maria
Cantwell has now put herself on the spot on this issue, and now
{we} have to put real pressure on her and on others, including on
President Donald Trump, to get the real Glass-Steagall in place.
As Maria Cantwell said, that requires a clear bright line between
investment banking and commercial banking in the way that
Glass-Steagall was originally designed by Franklin Roosevelt."
        But Glass-Steagall is merely the first step in the full Four
Laws program; and I think we're going to discuss that, not
necessarily piecemeal, but in terms of the broad overview, the
principle which unifies Lyndon LaRouche's program. And the way to
think about that is what Helga LaRouche's analysis was, that this
is merely Day One out of what must be the First 100 Days.
        What we have to see, immediately, from this moment on, is an
immediate improvement in U.S.-Russian relations. There are
already positive indications of that. You have the official
invitation of now-President Donald Trump to attend, or to send a
delegation to attend, the Astana Peace Talks in Astana,
Kazakhstan; the peace talks for Syria. This could not be more
urgent than it is right now, with the news that we received this
morning, that ISIS has, tragically, now destroyed the grand Roman
ruins of Palmyra, the beautiful amphitheater, and the other ruins
there. So, this is of urgent importance.
        But, simultaneously, there must be a serious partnership
between the United States and China. The grand opportunity for
that, following President Xi Jinping's keynote speech on the
future of shared and common destiny — that was his theme at the
Davos World Economic Forum during his recent trip to Switzerland.
[http://america.cgtn.com/2017/01/17/full-text-of-xi-jinping-
keynote-at-the-world-economic-forum] The most immediate
opportunity is a conference that's coming up in May, in China, on
the subject of the Belt and Road Initiative, which many head of
state will be attending. There has been an explicit invitation
extended, for Donald Trump, himself, to attend this conference.
        What is clear, is that we are in the midst of a global
process of dramatic and radical change. There will be a major
shift of dynamic which is already ongoing, but which will
continue to crystallize in the coming months. The French
elections are on the horizon. According to some calculations, 75%
of the electorate are now in favor of rolling back the sanctions
against Russia. Then you have the German elections coming later
after that. Over the course of these months, we could see a very
different world emerging. What is very clear is that this is no
longer "business as usual." The Bush/Obama era is over, and now
we're on the verge of something completely new.
        Now, I would like to invite Michael and Ben to say a little
bit more about this, before we get into these projects, but let
me just say, this new era, what Helga LaRouche is referring to as
the necessity of defining common interests among multiple
nations, and then working together to achieve those interests,
or, as President Xi Jinping put it, a future of shared destiny.
        Two great projects, as I mentioned, which exemplify the
opportunities to engage on that kind of level and to usher in
this New Development Paradigm, are the Kra Canal in Thailand,
which is now back on the agenda in a very real way — and I'll
get into some of the details on that later — and the Transaqua
Project in Africa. What we see is that the New Silk Road, the
Belt and Road Initiative, is steadily moving forward, and it's
coming to fruition after decades of work by the LaRouche Movement
internationally. Later in this show, we will be playing a brief
clip of a video that we made highlighting the history of the Kra
Canal, which also will be accompanied in the coming days by an
interview with one of the key organizers of that project, Pakdee
Tanapura. And then we will have sort of an overview presentation
of this Transaqua Project in Africa.
        But what these are, are great projects which are merely
exemplary of what must become, you could say, the "new normal" in
this New Development Paradigm, and what the United States must
{urgently} become a participant in.
        Let me leave it at that. We can have a little bit more
discussion and then get into some of the bulk of those projects.

MICHAEL STEGER: Well, I think everyone's fairly happy watching
this broadcast, given the fact that especially the last eight
years under Obama were a kind of psychological terror. There's
definitely a relief. The one thing that's clear, is that it's a
moment of action. Perhaps President Trump understands that. As,
Matt, you indicated, as Lyn said, himself, we have to see what
this actually means. But we, the LaRouche PAC and the LaRouche
Association internationally know very well what this means. It's
largely determined by the actions that both Russia and China have
taken over the last three years around the New Silk Road
initiative and a real collaboration, as Vladimir Putin himself
called for in the 2015 United Nations General Assembly — an
anti-Nazi coalition, like you saw in World War II — has to be
brought together, a collaboration of nations.
        And what that means — I think President Putin understands
this — and I think it's very important that the American people
grasp this. The eradication of this kind of terrorism, is the
elimination of the British Empire, in the essence of a
construction orientation; that you're actually building up the
civilizations again, you're building up the populations. You're
taking the areas of Southwest Asia, North Africa; the project of
the Transaqua is in a key area to begin to develop many parts of
Africa that are right now threatened by this terrorist scourge.
The same is true from India through Pakistan, the Kra Canal. The
areas of Myanmar and Thailand and into Malaysia are also
threatened. The Philippines.
        So these questions of development are really the means by
which an international coalition eradicates the terrorism;
eradicates the drug trade; and begins to collaborate on mankind's
true destiny, which is really much greater than simply solving
some of these basic problems.
        I'll say that for now. I think Ben might have more to say.

        BEN DENISTON: That's exactly the issue. Maybe we can get it
to it a little bit more, but you look at the United States, you
look at the issue of Mexico and our relation to Mexico, for
example, which has been a big subject of discussion. But what
hasn't been put on the table, is, again, the kind of campaign and
the programs that the LaRouche Movement has led up for major
development projects. Mr. LaRouche, again, has a very rich and
high-level history of relations with top Mexican officials,
including one-time President José López Portillo of Mexico,
with whom he had a direct personal relationship around this idea
of common development.
        This can be directly taken to one of the key issues we'll
get into — the issue of water development, as we'll discuss in
the case of Africa; but that can serve as a model for the kind of
projects that we could bring back to the United States. What
Michael is saying here is critical: development is the key;
development is the future; development is what's needed to
actually {solve} these problems, not just address immediate
crises, not just deal with catastrophes as they occur. But
actually how do you move the world in many of these regions that
have been plunged into years if not decades of horrific
activities led by the Saudis, Obama, Bush — all of these
factions? How do you actually bring that into some real solutions
and resolutions that will create a long-term substantial change?
        I think what Mrs. LaRouche said was very right on, in terms
of her response to the inauguration speech; is that it's a new
world.  We can no longer be thinking about individual nations
alone; that's just part of the natural state that mankind is at,
at this point.  Mankind has developed to the point where we're a
global force; the level of development and growth needed is
something that goes beyond individual national boundaries.  You
have to do it with respect to nations and their interests and
their boundaries and their cultures; but it's also undeniable
that we're at a point where we have to think as a global species
— and really, an interplanetary species.
        That's the basis for the future of mankind now.  Where do
you define these common areas of mutual benefit, mutual interest
that nations can participate in; which creates a net higher
amount of wealth and growth for all participants involved?
There's a principle!  Mr. LaRouche was raising the issue of
where's the principle; that's an actual scientific principle
rooted in the scientific nature of mankind as a creative species,
and rooted in the very historical view of the point of human
development that we're currently at.  That is a principle; that
is something which you can continue to come to as the defining
point for policy and what's needed now.

        OGDEN:  Absolutely!  There is obviously a sense of dramatic
change which is sweeping the country; and I think that President
Trump addressed what is a reality.  That there is a desperation
among the American people; and that is obviously what rendered
this election.  The forgotten men, the forgotten women who feel a
desperation and a despair as they look at these old abandoned
factories, as he said, standing like tombstones scattered across
the territory of this country.  People who feel like they have no
voice; and the sense that they now have the opportunity to
participate once again in the policies of the United States.  But
participating in the policies of this country means a necessity
for a deeply held education and profound understanding of
principle, not just policies but a principle around which those
actions can be taken.  The sentiment of saying we're going to
look at ourselves as standing on the threshold of a new
millennium and unlocking the mysteries of space; and using
American labor to build infrastructure across the United States,
and roads and railroads and tunnels and bridges, is a positive
one.  But the understanding of where mankind is at in our history
as a species right now, and what are the true scientific
challenges that are facing us that require our creativity [in
order] to be solved.  That is where the real questions lie in
terms of clarity of principle.  And great leaders of the United
States always had an understanding of what the principles were
that mankind as a whole must resolve; the principled questions
which are there to be solved.
        So, we're going to take a look at these two case studies
which we're selecting because of, first of all, their magnitude
in terms of the importance of their role in this interconnection
of a World Land-Bridge or a new land-based and maritime Silk
Road, as it's being called with the initiative from Xi Jinping;
but also because of the role that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have
played in these two projects over a number of decades, and the
fact that their progress at this point does actually represent a
milestone in terms of the coming to fruition of a campaign of
inaugurating this new era of development for mankind.
        So, we're going to start with a short excerpt from a video
that LaRouche PAC made a number of years ago on the Kra Canal;
the Thailand canal which has a long history going back over a
century in terms of people looking at the different possible
routes of cutting a canal through the isthmus of Thailand.  But
it's also something that Mr. Lyndon LaRouche personally was
involved in, in the 1980s.  There are a lot of new developments
and hopeful developments around this, including a new book that
just was published called {Kra Canal: The Strategic History of
Thailand}, which Pakdee Tanapura, who is an associate of the
LaRouche Movement in Thailand and who was one of the prime
organizers in the 1980s, is a contributor to this book; but also
a number of generals and admirals and other high-ranking and
leading figures inside Thailand.  This book is now being printed
in 10,000 copies and is being circulated among some of the
leading government institutions.  With the passage of the
previous king and the new king coming to power in Thailand, there
is a strong openness; not to mention that there is a strategic
shift now underway in Asia as a whole.  The abandonment of the
Obama Asia Pivot, the crumbling of the TPP; there's a strong
potential in terms of the possibility of this project moving
forward.
        So, I'll have a little bit more to say about this after we
play this clip; but again, this project — taken together with
the other project we're going to talk about today — are merely
exemplary of the type of new era of development that we must
inaugurate today.

VIDEO voice [begins mid-sentence]:  century, the concept of the
preferred location for the canal route generally shifted towards
southern Thailand, as compared to the earliest proposed routes.
        We can compare the dimensions of a proposed Kra Canal with
other well-known canals.  The width of the Kra isthmus at its
narrowest point is around 27 miles.  Compare this to the width of
the Panama Canal — about 48 miles.  The length of the various
Kra Canal proposals range from between 30 and 60 miles.  The Suez
Canal, for comparison, has a length of 119 miles.  The height of
the interior mountain chain where the Kra Canal would be
constructed is about 246 feet.  Compare this to the height of the
Gaillard Cut of the Panama Canal, which is slightly lower at 210
feet.
        The Straits of Malacca are not sufficiently deep for many
large ships to pass through; the straits are 620 miles long, but
very narrow — less than 1.6 miles at the narrowest, and only 82
feet deep at the shallowest point.  Currently, large ships are
required to travel much further south to the Lombok Straits near
Java; which have a depth of 820 feet.

        OGDEN:  This is the beginning of the clip that we're going
to play for you.  We're going to explore a little bit more of the
advantages of cutting this Kra Canal through the Thailand
isthmus.  What Mr. LaRouche has emphasized, is that you're
linking together two very crucial oceans in the world — the
Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean; this is a key connection in
terms of this new Maritime Silk Road, and will completely
transform the potential relationships between the countries in
the Asia-Pacific region as a whole.  So, we'll continue playing
this clip for you right now.

        VIDEO voice:  Clearly, a Kra Canal poses a more reasonable
option than travelling so much further south for larger ships; or
for any ship taking the 620-mile detour through the congested and
pirate-infested Straits of Malacca.
        The 600-plus-mile Malacca Straits are by far the most
heavily travelled of the world's canals, with more than twice the
traffic of the Suez and Panama Canals combined.  By a recent
estimate, one-fifth of world trade goes through the Malacca
Straits; congestion or obstruction of the straits would
dramatically increase the cost of trade.  The maximum capacity of
the Singapore-Malacca Straits being 200,000 ships annually.  A
more recent assessment estimates that the traffic of the straits
has been increasing at an annual rate of 20%.
        In 1973, Tams Engineering had conducted a study of choices
of Kra Canal routes, and suggested that route 5-A was the most
suitable for the construction of a Kra Canal.  At either end of
the canal would be located industrial zones estimated to span
collectively about 100,000 acres.  A decade later, in 1983-84,
the Fusion Energy Foundation and {Executive Intelligence Review},
together with the Thai Ministry of Communication, held two
successful conferences on the Kra Canal project.  FEF updated the
earlier feasibility study done by Tams, and developed further on
the project's economic and industrial benefits.  The Fall 1984
conference entitled "Industrialization of Thailand and the Kra
Canal" took place in Bangkok, Thailand.  The conference brought
together businessmen, engineers, and government officials from
all of the ASEAN countries, to hash out the feasibility of
building the canal.
        PAKDEE TANAPURA:  The idea of building the canal, of course,
was picked up again in 1983 when Lyndon LaRouche travelled to
Thailand and organized an international conference on the Kra
Canal.  The participation was very good; we had representatives
from India, representatives from Indonesia, representatives from
Malaysia, representatives from Japan.  In 1983, we didn't have a
representative from China, but the Chinese are very observant
about what we were doing.  We had participation of the Ministry
of Transport and Communications of Thailand, the Minister, Mr.
Samatzu Tamaraif [ph] himself came to deliver a speech at the
conference along with Lyndon LaRouche.  Also, we had the
participation of the GIF, the Global Infrastructure Fund group;
from Japan, we had Dr. Yamamoto from the GIF group, as well as
participation from Japan; a very prominent figure, Mr. Nakajima
of the Mitsubishi Research Institute — a very prominent figure
from the Mitsubishi Group.  We had Mr. Saito also from the
Toshiba Group, and we had lots of participation from [inaud;
28:55].  So, that was back in 1983.
        VIDEO voice:  The four panels covered all aspects, including
a presentation by EIR/FEF researchers on the use of PNEs — or
peaceful nuclear explosions — as the fastest, most efficient and
cost effective method of construction.

        OGDEN:  So, the full video that that was just an excerpt
from, is available on YouTube — "The Kra Canal; The Development
of Southeast Asia"; and the link to that video is available in
the description of this YouTube video.  But as you heard Mr.
Pakdee Tanapura mention, Lyndon LaRouche was a keynote speaker at
both the 1983 conference and the 1984 conference that were
organized there in Bangkok, Thailand with very high-level
representation from almost every Asian country and from the Thai
government itself.
        What Lyndon LaRouche said in a recent interview, and he
continues to emphasize, is the absolute critical nature of the
Kra Canal.  But he delivered an interview in 2014 to the {Fortune
Times} of Singapore, on the Kra Canal project.  I'm just going to
read a short excerpt of what Mr. LaRouche said, which will
clarify, I think, why this is such a key project in the overall
global development perspective that we're talking about.  Mr.
LaRouche said the following:
        "Divide the maritime region of East and South Asia into
three principal categories: China — a giant; India — a giant;
and the maritime connection throughout Southeast Asia's maritime
regions.  Add the impact of such a triadic maritime and related
connection to the physical economic relations to the Americas to
the east, and the Middle East's underbelly and Africa.  Then, the
potency of a Kra Canal development appears not only as an
eminently feasible feature, but as a strategic, political,
economic force for the planet."  He went on to say, "The sheer
volume of maritime trade between the two great nations of Asia —
China and India — and their connections through the South Asia
maritime regions make the canal probably the most potentially
beneficial and also efficient project for the entire region of
the Pacific and Indian Oceans regions; and the co-development of
the major regions of planet Earth as a whole."
        Then, later, the following year, in 2015, some comments in
an informal discussion, but here's quote from those comments:
"With the completion of the Kra Canal, on top of the Suez Canal
expansion which is ongoing in Egypt, there will be no longer a
separation between the Atlantic and Pacific economies.  China and
India will greatly benefit from those two canal projects, along
with the smaller nations along the Southeast Asian Rim.  This
must be pushed, hard.  This will end the British geo-political
games in the Eurasian region; it will change the economic
character of the entire world."
        So, I think that's the key here.  What we're looking at;
{this} is what Helga LaRouche was referring to when you identify
a vision of common destiny or principles which are shared for the
mutual benefit of many nations, of an entire region, or
potentially even, the entire globe; and then work together to
achieve those benefits.  That's the era of development; that's
the new era of development which we have to inaugurate here.  And
I think that's exemplary — as Mr. LaRouche was just saying — of
these kinds of global visions of how we can bring mankind to the
next platform in terms of our development of the planet for the
mutual benefit of all nations.
        So, let's take that as one project; and then, shift over to
Africa and look at what is now progressing around this really
unprecedented project in terms of water transfer in terms of the
magnitude and the potential benefits for that continent also.

DENISTON:  Regular viewers of our website might have seen this,
but it was just this past December that there was a new
Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Lake Chad Basin
Commission, the Nigerian government, and also a major company out
of China, called China Power.  This is now a new, formal, serious
step towards a feasibility study, a detailed engineering study of
what it would take to actualize this Transaqua project, as it has
been called in its earlier designs.  As it now stands, as the
designs stand and even a slightly smaller version which was cited
in this new Memorandum of Understanding would be the single
largest water transfer project ever created on the planet Earth;
being brought right into Central Africa to address some of major
needs of that region.  This has been on the table for decades —
we'll get into that in a second — but what stands out now,
again?  We're in a new global paradigm, and what appears to be
the key change that's now bringing this out of design and
discussion and general acknowledgement of it being important; but
into actual realization?  Again, we have China's role.  China
Power is the company that led the construction of the Three
Gorges Dam in China.
        So again, we're seeing China playing a key role in bringing
these much-needed, much-discussed mega-projects of development
into fruition.  While it might not technically be included as
part of the whole New Silk Road or what they are now calling the
Belt and Road initiative; it is intimately part of that entire
perspective, that entire program.  This design to bring water
from the Congo River Basin, not necessarily the end of the Congo
River where all the tributaries become the Congo River itself,
but many of the upper tributaries that are at higher elevations
further inland; to bring a fraction — 5%, 8% of this water flow
— divert it to the north and to the west into Lake Chad to begin
refilling Lake Chad.  This was designed in the early 1980s by
certain Italian engineers; in particular, Dr. Marcello Vichi, who
has worked with the Bonifica Engineering Consulting Firm, who has
been very happy to collaborate with the Schiller Institute and
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche in the past and recently in his
promotion of this project.
        But again, this would be an incredibly amazing contribution
to this entire region.  Just compare it to the level of
discussion you still get in the West around poverty in Africa;
you still just get disgusting discussions of how we need to
provide them with gravity-powered light bulbs because they don't
have electricity, so you can create a mechanism to provide light
by a certain gravity-powered mechanism.  And that's some kind of
amazing contribution to the people of Africa who need
electricity.  That's just such a disgusting low level of thought
from this whole anti-development, Green perspective.  And you
look what China is saying:  Let's bring the most modern, the most
advanced, the largest water infrastructure project ever built on
the planet Earth; and let's engage Africa in building it there.
Just to clarify, despite some of the lies that are put out, this
would not be China coming in and building the entire project with
their own people and their own labor force.  That's often stated,
but it's not the case, and it's being demonstrated that it's not
the case.  Just look at what's already happened and what's
ongoing with the rail projects that China is working with various
African nations in developing.  New standard rail lines in Kenya,
for example; just look at the figures on that.  About 3000
Chinese are employed on that project there; 30,000 Kenyans are
employed, and Kenyans are being trained to run these rail systems
in addition to the skill sets being developed to construct these
things.  It's similar with other rail lines in other African
nations.  So, just to clarify that, this is not China coming in
and employing their own people and exploiting these African
nations.  This is coming in with this "win-win" perspective of an
investment; engaging with the populations there and developing
the region for the benefit of all parties involved.
        Just to emphasize, we have a first slide here [Fig. 1] just
to show a couple of examples; but this is a project and a general
idea that Mr. LaRouche and his associates have been advocating
for decades.  Prior to the design of the Transaqua itself, which
is the name given by this Italian engineer who did a more
detailed initial engineering study for this project, the general
idea was recognized as feasible and made sense if you just look
at the region — which we'll look at in a second — you can see
where there's an abundance of water; you can see where there
might regions where you can transfer it.  It was recognized,
going back to Mr. LaRouche's famous 1975 International
Development Bank, that these kinds of investments into
large-scale water transfer is exactly typical of the kinds of
projects we need for Africa, for example; for nations in Africa.
Similar ideas were featured in the Fusion Energy Foundation
report, "The Industrialization of Africa", just to cite another
example.  This has been often discussed and developed and
proposed in various other publications by {Executive Intelligence
Review}, by LaRouche PAC, by the Schiller Institute.
        But it's probably also worth just highlighting that in March
2016, {Executive Intelligence Review} held a seminar in
Frankfurt, Germany to discuss the development perspective needed
to solve the refugee crisis in northern Africa and stretching
into the Middle East; which has been something that Mrs. LaRouche
has campaigned on for well over year now.  That the solution to
this refugee crisis is to reverse the destruction that's been
caused by Bush's wars, Obama's wars in that region, the support
of terrorism through support of Saudi Arabia and more directly.
But do the complete opposite and engage in large-scale
development of this region to ensure that there's a future for
people; especially for the younger generation.  That's the only
way you're going to fundamentally get rid of terrorism; the exact
opposite of Obama's drone strike policy, where every wedding
party he drones, he creates ten times more future terrorists —
because their lives have been destroyed — than he killed with
his drone strikes.  So, this was a very high-level seminar on
that topic; and one of major projects that was featured, was this
Transaqua project.  It featured two of the leading engineers;
again this Dr. Marcello Vichi — and one of his associates who's
also involved and is an expert on the project — as well as a
representative of the Lake Chad Basin Commission.  This is the
level of promotion and discussion that our organization
{Executive Intelligence Review}, Mrs. LaRouche, also our friend
over in France, Jacques Cheminade who's currently running a
campaign for the Presidency in France, has been a major supporter
of this project.  So, we have a very close history with this
entire thing.  Now again, with China actually taking the lead,
this is becoming a reality.
        Just to put that in a little bit of context, I want to
briefly look at this map; because it's well known that water is a
major issue for many parts of the world.  And it's expected to
become a growing issue for many regions as water use increases,
population grows; and under the assumption that we're not going
to have the level of water infrastructure that we need.  If you
just look at this map, put out by a United Nations report on
global water issues, you can see in the lighter blues, you see
regions where there is water scarcity due to the physical
availability of water; and that's probably not a surprise in the
regions you see.  In the west and southwestern United States, we
see physical water scarcity.  But you see much of Africa is not
light blue, it's dark blue, which indicates economic water
scarcity; meaning the water is there, but the infrastructure
hasn't been developed to utilize the water supplies that are
there.  So, I think that's an immediate reference point that's
worth making.  You have major water supplies available throughout
the African continent; what's been lacking is the ability to
facilitate the kind of projects needed to develop and take
advantage of those.
        Here [Fig. 2] is just a global depiction of river run-off
globally for all the major coastal watersheds combined that run
into different oceans and basins.  Here, you can see where I'm
indicating, the Congo Basin has a very large and significant
water flow out into the South Atlantic Ocean there.  So, it's a
major — maybe not the largest — but a major region of water
flow that's available; the vast majority of which is not being
used for any economic purposes.  The Congo River itself, if
people don't know, is the second largest river on the planet in
terms of discharge into the ocean.  It's kind of hard to compete
with the Amazon itself, but the Congo is the second globally
largest river; running at 1300 cubic kilometers per year of
outflow.  For a comparative reference for Americans, the
Mississippi is 500 [cubic km].  So this is over 2.5 times the
size of the Mississippi River.  The Nile River, another major
river in Africa, that obviously supports a very large population
and development, is more in the range of 80-90 cubic km per year.
So, we're talking about an order of magnitude plus larger than
the Nile River.

Here [Fig. 3] we have a quick breakdown of the different water
basins in Africa.  This graphic is actually labelled in German,
so my German-speaking friends can read this just fine. But the
entire Congo River Basin, as I'm indicating here, so you can get
a sense of the size; all funneling down into the Congo River out
into the Atlantic again.  Then, just bordering it to the north
and to the west, is the Lake Chad Basin.  So this entire region,
all water deposited in here filters into Lake Chad itself.
Currently, this basin and the water in this basin, the water in
the Lake Chad system supports somewhere in the range of 30-40
million people.  Over the past 40-45 years, Lake Chad — in terms
of total surface area — is now only one-tenth of its former
size.  So, if you compare 1972 to today, it's one-tenth of the
size it was then.  There have also been issues of rainfall
decreasing in the past 20 years or so on the order of 15% to 20%.
        So, none of these figures are new or a surprise; this has
been known since our organization has been campaigning for the
development of this project.  But it is a very real and
developing crisis in the region, and it can be alleviated. Here's
a depiction [Fig. 4] of the actual change in the size of the
lake; it's rather dramatic.  The total outlying area here is the
1972 level; it had a low record in 1987, and it's recovered just
a little bit.  But it's still a tenth of its original, expected
size.
        So this rather brilliant, beautiful proposal is to create a
canal — again, that would not connect all the way down to the
headwaters of the Congo River itself; but it would feed off many
of the tributaries up in the highland regions and collect the
water through a series of dams and reservoirs and canals in that
region in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in the Central
African Republic.  You can see here an indication of the Congo
River Basin as a whole, and the catchment region, and this is the
canal that would be developed.  Once it captures the water in
that region, it could then be funneled into canals and existing
rivers crossing the Congo River divide into the Lake Chad Basin,
and then funneled directly into Lake Chad.  What is being
proposed here is something in the range of 50-100 cubic
kilometers per year for the diversion.  The original designs by
the Italian leaders who originally did the engineering studies on
this project, were looking at 100 cubic kilometers per year.
Again, that's something on the order of 8% of the total water
flow of the basin.
        It's also worth noting that this would also provide flood
control for the Congo Basin itself; so you could alleviate some
of the periodic flooding which itself can be very problematic
with the lack of infrastructure in the region.
        So, the original designs are looking on the order of 100
cubic kilometers a year; this new Memorandum of Understanding
threw out the figure of half of that — 50 cubic kilometers per
year.  Both of which are massive figures.  You're talking about
on the order of a Nile River of flow, created by man, refilling
Lake Chad over some number of years.  Again, just to help to get
a sense of some of these figures and what they mean, if you take
all of the western water projects in the United States:  the
Central Valley Project; the Franklin Roosevelt projects of the
'30s; the Pat Brown projects of the '60s; the projects to divert
from the Colorado River into various regions.  You combine all of
that, and you look at what is the total functional capacity of
all these projects; you're talking about a maximum of 20 cubic
kilometers per year.  So, this is already 2.5 if not 5 times
larger than all of California's water projects combined.
        You take China's beautiful brand new South Water North
project; they've completed two of the three routes for that
project; the so-called eastern route, and the so-called central
route.  Those combined are going to be transferring about 30
cubic kilometers a year.  When the western route is added on,
that'll be closer to 45.  But again, even the lower estimate of
the Lake Chad Transaqua diversion project is 50 — is larger than
the South Water North project in its entirety; and it could be
even twice that if the full extent is developed.
        Hydropower will be developed along this region to provide
much-needed electricity; and obviously the water will be used not
just for refilling the lake, but an entire development of this
region.  If the full design is developed in its entirety, you can
have a navigable canal that will be part of that; along with
which, you can have inland ports, new industrial development, all
kinds of economic activity along the canal itself.  The level of
land irrigation for farming that's being discussed — even with
the current proposal of 50 cubic km per year — is equivalent to
the entire California Central Valley.
        If you know what the California Central Valley means for
food production for the United States, this should tell you
something.  You're going to have a California Central Valley
potential of food production right in the central heart of
Africa.  So this is an amazing project that will not just benefit
the immediate nations touching the project; it will have
spreading effects throughout [Africa], and is typical of the type
of principle of development that is needed in this current
period.  You look for these large-scale actions that can benefit
all the partners involved.  China is making an investment;
they're going to benefit from the project by being able to
participate in its construction, but also getting new markets to
work with as these African nations are able to grow and develop.
All these African nations are going to get power, water, skilled
training to construct and operate these projects, the related
industry that can go along with these development corridors.
        This is exemplary of the type of programs that are needed
today.  I think it deserves a very high level of support and
praise for the potential of this thing becoming a reality. Again,
it should serve as a reference point for the level of discussion
needed for the United States.  Much could be said — we've
already taken up a fair amount of time with this, but the United
States' relation to Mexico; you have the entire NAWAPA design in
principle of managing the entire — and then potentials to add in
southern contributions from Mexico itself.  So, you have similar
ideas of joint development that can not only alleviate current
drought conditions that are ravaging California, the southwest
United States, and much of northern Mexico; you can actually
create a qualitatively higher level of ability to support
completely new levels of agriculture development.  You turn
entire territories that are now uninhabitable into potentially
some of the best land that you're going to want to get your hands
on.
        It's this future-oriented level of development on this
scale, rooted in these types of principles, that I think is only
reference point and the only standard that we should really be
holding ourselves to at this point.  So, you take, this is
exemplary; what we just discussed with the Kra Canal.  These are
just a few keystone projects that really signify a new era for
mankind, and define the level of discussion that we need to rise
to in the United States.

OGDEN:  So again, this is the paradigm which we wish to
inaugurate today.  This is something that the United States must
be a part of, when we talk about a vision of common destiny for
mankind; which was the way that Xi Jinping put it in his speech
at Davos.  When we talk about the mutual benefit among nations,
it's defining these sorts of principles of the future and
scientific challenges that can be overcome; and doing that
together among nations, which is the paradigm of the 21st
Century.  We cannot retreat from that.
        I think it's very clear, as President Trump said in his
inaugural address, the time for empty talk is over; now is the
hour of action.  True!  But the question is, what form will that
action take?  And according to what principle will that action be
conceived?  We go back to the Four Laws document of Lyndon
LaRouche.  The principle is very clear in that document; this is
not just a policy paper.  This is document which is formed around
the principle that makes mankind different from animals; that we
can master nature and improve it for the benefit of all mankind.
Increasing the productive powers of the labor force through new
technologies and new principles that are discovered; that's the
core principle of Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws document.  But I think
that's what defines this hour of action which must be taken.
        I'd like to put up on the screen right now the link to our
petition — which we are still circulating — this is
lpac.co/trumpsotu.  Again, this is a petition demanding that
Trump act on his words promising Glass-Steagall, which he said in
his campaign; and it must be a strict Glass-Steagall as LaRouche
has defined it.  This is between now and the State of the Union
address.  So again, if you haven't signed that petition, this is
still the active, leading campaign from LaRouche PAC here in the
United States.
        But let me let Michael say a little bit — if you wish to.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  I think what Ben indicated is that what are
possible today are platform-like projects; and that's sort of the
question for this new administration.  Are we going to take
actions which don't simply address the problems which we
currently face?  But as President Trump said, are we going to
move into the future?  That's not characterized by some linear
notions of time; that requires a physical leap in mankind's sense
of productivity and mankind himself as a species.  The kind of
projects that need to be taken up in the United States, being
here in Houston with Kesha Rogers, we had a chance to meet with
about 25 former rocket scientists from NASA.  Leading figures,
some of whom worked their entire careers in the manned space
program.  They are ready to move forward; they see the potential,
but I think what defines the Apollo-like project today is to
conquer the fusion energy program.  That's something mankind has
yet to do; we've clearly got a capability internationally with
robotics, and combined with the manned space program to begin to
really advance our abilities of exploration on the Moon and Mars.
        But the real question for mankind on Earth, and for mankind
throughout the Solar System, is going to be this fusion platform.
That's the kind of clear and distinct action that, if this
administration takes, we will certainly move into the future in
an un paralleled way.

        OGDEN:  We do see some references in this inaugural speech.
As President Trump said, we're standing on the verge of a new
millennium; and it's one in which we can unlock the mysteries of
space, free Earth from the miseries of disease, and harness the
energies, industries, and technologies of tomorrow.  Fusion power
as my example of what that could be.  But, it's not enough to say
those words; there has to be a clear pathway to achieve that, and
the clear intention from the leadership of the United States to
make that happen.  But it requires an entirely new paradigm of
thinking among the American people and among the nations of the
planet generally.
        We must maintain a sense of common destiny, a shared future
of common benefit; and I think if we take this as an Inauguration
Day, but in a much broader sense of the word.  Not just the
inauguration of a new President in the United States; but
potentially the inauguration of a new era of development for the
planet.  One which is already in motion; that paradigm is already
underway, but it's waiting for the United States to become an
active and willing participant in that new economic and strategic
paradigm.
        So, let me go back to the remarks that Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche made earlier today which I cited in the beginning. Helga
LaRouche was very clear; we must be focussed on our own
principles and our own objectives, and proceed as we have been
proceeding.  We are very clear in terms of the fact that yes, the
Bush and Obama era is over; a fresh breeze could be blowing
through.  A lot can change; this could potentially be the end of
business as usual, but more clarity is still needed.  And that
clarity can only come from the leadership exemplified by the
LaRouche Movement, defined and informed by clear scientific
principle.
        So, let's take these two great projects that we discussed
here today — the Kra Canal and the Transaqua project in Africa
— as paradigmatic of what the new era of development can be.
Let's make the decision that this is not just Day One of the
First 100 Days of new Presidency of the United States.  It's not
just Day One of a new administration, but let's make this Day
One, Inauguration Day, of a new era for development for mankind
as a whole.
        Thank you very much for joining us here today.  Please be
sure to watch the video of the Kra Canal project in full; the
link is available in the description.  And watch out for an
interview with Pakdee Tanapura that will be coming very soon. And
also hopefully, we will have more elaboration of the great and
optimistic vision that Ben laid out in terms of this potential to
develop the African continent as a whole.
        Thank you very much for joining us here today, and please
stay tuned.  We're in for, I think, a wild ride; and we have a
lot of work to do.  Sign up to our email list if you haven't yet;
subscribe to the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel; and stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.           

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 19. januar, 2017 – De næste dage vil se mange revolutionære udviklinger, kvalitativt nye udviklinger, der ikke ligner noget som helst andet, som tidligere er set i menneskehedens historie. Men én ting ved vi, som allerede er uundgåelig og ubestridelig. Deres system er færdigt. Det er forbi, og kommer aldrig tilbage. Jo, de kan lave ballade, som de netop gør. De kan lave et blodigt rod, hvis de får lov – men de vil aldrig være i stand til at bringe dette system tilbage fra graven. Gud ske tak og lov, at vi er færdige med det, for altid.

Så snart, vi kendte resultatet af præsidentvalget, sagde Lyndon LaRouche, at det ikke var USA, der havde afvist Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama og alt, hvad de stod for – det var hele verden, der havde afvist dem. Det var et globalt fænomen. Uanset, hvad Angela Merkel måtte mene, så havde verden fået nok af deres myrderi og udplyndring – af Det britiske Imperiums uforskammethed og hybris igennem tre århundreder. Verden havde besluttet at lade dem tilbage i mudderet, og gå videre. Videre til det næste stadium i menneskehedens evolution, som allerede er begyndt.

Det næste stadie i evolutionen er et helt, indbyrdes forbundet kompleks – moralsk, fysisk, psykologisk og videnskabeligt – alle disse aspekter tæt sammenvævet, som det altid har været i Lyndon LaRouches tankegang. Ét ord for dette nye stadium af vor arts evolution er det »Nye Paradigme«. Det Nye Paradigme, hvor, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche så mindeværdigt har sagt det, »vi bliver virkeligt menneskelige«. Dets nye »platform« for økonomisk udvikling inkluderer Verdenslandbroen, som hr. og fr. LaRouche for første gang lancerede som en idé for omkring tredive år siden, og som nu er i færd med at blive virkeliggjort under lederskab af Kina og Putins Rusland.

Med seneste nyt-udviklinger, der vælter frem for hver dag, der går, er projektet for Kra-kanalen igennem Thailand, som Lyndon LaRouche har kæmpet for siden 1980’erne, pludselig kommet tilbage på toppen af dagsordenen. Det forestående nummer af EIR, dateret den 27. januar, vil citere ham fra et interview i Singapore-avisen Fortune Times fra 2014, om Kra-kanalen:

»Opdel Øst- og Sydasiens maritime område i tre hovedkategorier: Kina, en gigant; Indien, en gigant; og så den maritime forbindelse, i hele Sydøstasiens maritime områder. Tilføj indvirkningen af sådanne tre-i-én maritime og relaterede forbindelser, til de fysisk-økonomske relationer til de amerikanske kontinenter mod øst, og til Mellemøstens underside og Afrika. Så kommer udviklingen af Kra-kanalens potens til syne som ikke alene et eminent muligt træk, men som en strategisk, politisk-økonomisk kraft for hele planeten.«

LaRouche bemærkede også, at den primære opposition til Kra-kanalen internt i Asien er Singapore, og at hovedkilden til modstand fra Singapore er helt igennem globale, britisk-imperiale, militærstrategiske interesser. Men, tilføjede han:

»Den blotte volumen af maritim handel mellem Asiens to store nationer [Kina og Indien], samt deres forbindelser gennem Sydasiens maritime områder, gør Kanalen til sandsynligvis at være det potentielt set mest fordelagtige, og også mest effektive, projekt for hele Stillehavsområdet og Det indiske Oceans område, samt for den samtidige udvikling af de store områder af planeten som helhed.«

Kina og Japan har lagt projektet for Kra-kanalen[1], der er en hovedforbindelse i den Maritime Silkevej, frem på bordet igen. Samtidig, som en del af Silkevejen for Afrika, har Kina engageret sig i Transaqua-projektet, det største infrastrukturprojekt, Afrika nogensinde har overvejet, som det rapporteres i EIR-magasinet fra 6. januar. Som Cladio Celani her skrev, så handler denne idé om »en vandvej, der vil være i stand til at genopfylde Tchad-søen og samtidig skabe en gigantinfrastruktur for transport, energi og landbrug i Centralafrika. Byggeriet af et sådant infrastrukturprojekt ville tilbyde jobs til millioner af afrikanere og lægge fundamentet for fremtidig udvikling.«[2]

Vidtrækkende, som det er, så er Verdenslandbroen blot en del af dette Nye Paradigme. Til dette hører også den nye, »økonomiske platform«, som udgøres udviklingen af det umiddelbare rum (dvs., Solsystemet). Det er fuldt ud opnåeligt, at, i den umiddelbare fremtid, vil nationer gå sammen om et rumprogram, hvis amerikanske komponent alene vil blive langt større end Kennedys Måneprogram. Og vi kan og må have et succesfuldt, internationalt program for at producere stort set gratis energi til menneskeheden, på basis af kernefusion. Disse programmers nødvendige grundlag er et statsligt banksystem og en statslig kreditpolitik, der er målrettet herpå, og som må begynde med en genoplivelse af Franklin Roosevelts beskyttelse gennem Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven.

Lyndon LaRouches »Fire Nye Love« (til USA’s, og verdens, omgående redning) er således den ene, enkeltsående forudsætning for USA’s tilslutning til det Nye Paradigme.

Hele det overordnede design har ligeledes integrerede moralske og kulturelle dimensioner. Snarere end blot et forsøg på at beskrive dem, kan vi henvise læserne til Lyndon LaRouches »Manhattan-projekt«, som er disse dimensioners førende organisation i nutidens verden. Manhattan-projektets fejring af Martin Luther King sidste weekend legemliggør dette på den meste intense måde.

Der er ingen garanti for succes – meget langt fra. Kreativ, fri vilje – din skabende, frie vilje – kræves, hvis menneskeheden skal bevæge sig opad til dette næste trin, der vinker forude.

Vi slutter med Krafft Ehrickes ord fra 1966, som vi tidligere har citeret her i lederartiklen:

»Fødselstimen, det være sig for et nyt liv eller en ny æra, er sandhedens time, hvor vi udfordres af smerte, tvivl og frygt, og intensiteten af deres angreb forårsager de kompenserende kræfter af styrke, tillid og mod at rejse sig til sjældne toppunkter af intensitet og kraft. Verden synes at bryde sønder under smerten fra denne nådesløse konfrontation af det gamle og det nye.«

Vi kan vinde dette her.

Foto: USA's præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt, der i 1933 satte Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven i kraft, som indledte USA's udtræden af 'Den store Depression' og en udvikling, der ved slutningen af hans præsidentskab, ved hans død i 1945, havde gjort USA til den største fysisk-økonomiske magt, verden havde set.   

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 18. januar, 2017 – Med blot to dage tilbage under den morderiske, degenererede Obama-administration, og med nyvalgte præsident Trump, der lover at gøre en ende på »regimeskifte« og genoprette relationerne med Rusland, har den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov og præsident Vladimir Putin taget fløjlshandskerne af med hensyn til den trussel mod menneskeheden, som Obama og hans controllers repræsenterer.

På en årlig pressekonference tirsdag begyndte Lavrov med en erklæring om det internationale samfunds svigt med hensyn til at forenes imod terrorisme. Det er et »systemisk problem«, sagde han, »sammensat af grundlæggende uoverensstemmelser mellem på den ene side den objektive orientering hen imod dannelsen af en polycentrisk verden, og på den anden side, handlingerne fra dem, der forsøger at holde fast ved det forældede koncept om unipolaritet. Jeg refererer til dominansen af, ikke engang så meget én stat, som af en gruppe af stater med deres egne værdisystemer«.

Og hvad er det for værdier, spørger han, som Vesten konstant kræver, at Rusland og verden må vedtage?

»Det er sandsynligvis ikke de værdier, som bedstefædrene til nutidens europæere proklamerede«, sagde Lavrov, »men noget nyt og moderniseret, frit slag, ville jeg sige. Disse værdier kunne man kalde post-kristne. De er radikalt og fundamentalt i strid med de værdier, der er nedarvet fra generation til generation i århundreder i vort land, og som vi ønsker at værdsætte og videregive til vore børn og børnebørn. Når vi og mange andre, under udenrigspolitiske kampe, konfronteres med et krav om at acceptere disse nye, post-kristne, vestlige værdier, inklusive eftergivenhed og en universalitet i en liberal tilgang til den enkelte persons liv, mener jeg, at det er uanstændigt på et menneskeligt niveau. Men, som professionelle diplomater, er det en kolossal fejltagelse og en totalt uacceptabel overvurdering af jeres egen indflydelse på internationale relationer.«

Lyndon LaRouche responderede på disse udtalelser med fuld enighed. »Dette er ligesom Første Verdenskrig«, sagde han. »Værdierne af det 19. århundredes Amerika blev ødelagt i Første Verdenskrig«, en krig, skabt af briterne med det formål at ødelægge amerikansk samarbejde med Europa, især Tyskland, omkring international nations-opbygning. Den optimisme, der karakteriserede Alexander Hamiltons, John Quincy Adams’ og Abraham Lincolns Amerika, druknede i pessimismens og geopolitikkens blod.

Putin advarede ligeledes om, at det »messianske« hysteri i Vesten er gået så vidt, at de nu forsøger at gennemtvinge en ’farvet revolution’ mod den nyvalgte præsident i deres eget land, en præsident, der har brudt med det kontrollerede miljø.

»Man har det indtryk«, sagde Putin tirsdag, »at, efter en testkørsel i Kiev, er de nu parat til at organisere et ’Maidan’ i Washington, for at forhindre Trump i at indtage embedet.«

Hertil bemærkede LaRouche, at det var truslen om at blive myrdet, der tvang den valgte præsident i Ukraine, Viktor Janukovitj, til at flygte, konfronteret med de amerikanskstøttede, neonazistiske bøller på Maidan. I dag er truslen om mord, for at stoppe Trump, en meget virkelig fare. I hele Amerikas historie har det kun været de præsidenter, der trodsede briterne og Wall Street, som blev ofre for politiske mord. I dag er Londons rolle i at orkestrere en »farvet revolution« imod Trump åbenlyst afsløret. Trump selv, i et interview med Londonavisen Times mandag, gjorde nar ad MI6-agent Christopher Steele for dennes vilde fabrikationer om Trump, der skulle være kontrolleret af Moskva, og som blev taget op og faldbudt af den amerikanske presse. Trump sluttede ved at sige til Times-reporteren: »Hvis denne fyr er en britisk fyr, så har I en masse problemer.«

I sit interview sagde Lavrov, at »vore relationer med Kina er de bedste nogensinde i vore to landes historie« og påpegede Putins besøg i Kina i juni 2016. I denne uge er den kinesiske præsident, Xi Jinping, hvis Silkevejsprogrammer er i færd med at transformere verden, i Schweiz, hvor han i sin hovedtale til Davos Forum sagde, at den finansielle krise var forårsaget af »finanskapitalen, der udtog overdrevne profitter, og af, at den finansielle lovgivning ikke havde håndteret dette«. Dette er præcis LaRouchePAC’s budskab til Kongressen – hold Donald Trump fast på sit valgkampløfte om at vedtage Glass-Steagall, omgående, for at underkaste det bankerotte, finansielle system lovmæssig konkursbehandling, før det bryder sammen og trækker den vestlige verden ind i depression, og krig.

Det Nye Paradigme er inden for rækkevidde, hvis det lidende folk i USA og Europa kan række ud efter stjernerne og, som Wilhelm Tell i Schillers drama, sige til verden: »Nej, der er en grænse for tyranens magt.« Den revolutionære gæringsproces, som frembringer Brexit, Trumps valgsejr og flere valg i Europa imod EU-diktaturet og de vanvittige, anti-russiske politikker, frembyder det rette momentum for en sand, international renæssance, der udløser menneskehedens kreative evne til at skabe en fremtid, der er mennesket værdigt.

Foto: Den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov holder sin årlige pressekonference med en gennemgang af året 2016. (Kan ses med engelsk speak her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLl8t4XehXI) 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 16. januar, 2017 – Nyvalgte præsident Trumps seneste og mest substantielle interview gør det ganske klart, hvad det nye paradigme for verden er, i den umiddelbare fremtid. Trump prioriterer en aftale om reduktion af atomvåben og sandsynlige reduktion af sanktioner mod Vladimir Putins Rusland. Han erklærer, at NATO er »forældet«, og at dets europæiske medlemmer hverken støtter dets militær eller bekæmper jihadistisk terrorisme. Han forudsagde, at Den europæiske Union sandsynligvis vil opløses, og at dette vil være en god ting.

Til trods for de hysteriske udbrud, som dette interview med Londonavisen Times og det tyske Bild Zeitung har frembragt fra den europæiske elite og Obamas ambassadører dér, så ser Donald Trump ganske enkelt den nye virkelighed – det nye paradigme – og indikerer, at han muligvis vil være med til at skabe den.

Putins Rusland er ansvarlig for muligheden af at afslutte 15 års uafbrudte krige i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, og for et nyt sikkerhedskoncept, som han deler med Xi Jinpings Kina, og som kan brække ryggen af international terrorisme. I morgen vil Xi holde hovedtalen på Davos Verdensøkonomiske Forum. Han er ansvarlig for at være drivkraft bag en meget stor andel af den økonomiske og produktive vækst i verden, og for at tilbyde »et fællesskab af en fælles bestemmelse« gennem den Nye Silkevejsinfrastruktur, gennem at lede forskning og udvikling af fusion, og gennem at lede udforskning af Månen.

Et USA, der er blevet af med Nobels Krigspris-præsident Obama, tilbydes at tilslutte sig dette nye paradigmes institutioner og handlinger.

Frygt for og had til denne udsigt er kilden bag den intense kampagne for anti-russisk, anti-Trump propaganda i USA, der dirigeres fra britisk efterretning, men rækker dybt ind i en »få Trump ned med nakken-specialenhed« i efterretningstjenester under Obama. Denne kampagne er forgæves og destruktiv, og amerikanske »progressive« bør ikke lade sig forlede til at tilslutte sig den.

Som EIR’s stiftende redaktør Lyndon LaRouche udtrykte det, »Som Trump i øjeblikket går frem, vil der komme en stor forandring internationalt. Det er ikke kun Trump. Det er de andre elementer i systemet, der kommer sammen for at bringe en kraft i spil, som vil dominere planeten.«

Vil den amerikanske befolkning, der har stemt for at afvise det gamle paradigme med »globalisering, afindustrialisering«, få den nye administration og Kongressen til at gøre det, der er nødvendigt for at tilslutte sig den nye drivkraft for vækst og videnskabeligt fremskridt?

En bevægelse fra en national, upartisk appel er i gang – og er på denne webside – som kræver, at Trump, der lovede »det 21. århundredes Glass/Steagall-lov« under sin valgkamp, foreslår dette for Kongressen i sin første tale til dem. At gøre en ende på Wall Street-kasinoets forgiftning af den amerikanske økonomi er et første skridt. Men så findes der ingen statslig kreditinstitution efter Hamilton-princippet, til at genskabe Amerikas forældede, økonomiske infrastruktur – selv, når Kinas statsmidler, som det her rapporteres, netop søger at få en sådan institution, som gør det muligt for dem at investere i en ny, amerikansk infrastruktur. Obama sagde til vælgerne, at han anså revolutionen med fusionskraft/plasmateknologi for totalt unødvendig, og privatiserede NASA’s store udforskningsprogrammer, med en forværrende virkning.

Tiden er nu inde til, at amerikanerne handler for deres fremtid, ikke deres frygt.       

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 15. januar, 2017 – I dag ankom den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping i Schweiz, til både et statsbesøg i denne nation, og for at holde hovedtalen i Davos Økonomiske Verdensforum den 17. jan. Der ligger en særlig ironi i Xis meget ventede tale for denne organisation: Davos er måske det emblematiske, internationale forum for den døende imperieorden, der hastigt er i færd med at blive erstattet af det Nye Paradigme, under Xis og den russiske præsident Vladimir Putins lederskab.

En artikel i Xinhua i dag gav forskud på nogle af de centrale temaer, som Xi forventes at adressere, mht. indholdet af denne nye orden »Et fællesskab af en fælles bestemmelse, et fælles hjem for menneskeheden. Siden Xi for første gang fremlagde dette koncept i slutningen af 2012, har det formet Kinas tilgang til global styrelse«, skrev Xinhua. Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, konceptet med win-win-samarbejde og et »nyt sikkerhedskoncept« for at skabe universel sikkerhed, er alle en del af Xis politik. Xinhua citerede Tanq Qifang, en forsker ved Kinas Institut for Internationale Studier, der forklarer: »Konceptet med et fællesskab for en fælles bestemmelse transcenderer alle former for forskelligheder i menneskelige samfund og har de størst mulige fordele for alle som sit mål.«

Med alt at tabe er Det britiske Imperium intet mindre end apoplektiske over den amerikanske, nyvalgte præsident Donald Trumps udtalelser om, at han har til hensigt at normalisere relationerne med både Kina og Rusland, som han atter gjorde det klart i et interview med Wall Street Journal den 13. jan. Briterne afslører sig selv voldsomt, i deres forsøg på at invalidere Trump og torpedere enhver forsoning med Rusland i særdeleshed. Som Londonavisen Guardian indrømmede, så »frygter briterne, at en mere intens relation mellem USA og Rusland under Trump kan risikere at efterlade Storbritannien ude i kulden«.

I dag kommenterede Lyndon Larouche, at »som han [Trump] i øjeblikket går frem, vil der komme en stor international forandring. Det er ikke Trump alene. Det er de andre elementer i systemet, der kommer sammen for at bringe en kraft i spil, som vil dominere planeten. Ikke, fordi de bruger knytnæver, men fordi de bruger hjerner. Jeg har altid foretrukket hjerner frem for knytnæver«, bemærkede han.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche forklarede, at det, som briterne »forsøger imod Trump, er en ’farvet revolution’. Trump udsættes for tiden for en kampagne med løgne og »falske nyheder«, i lighed med det, briterne i årtier hemmeligt har orkestreret imod Lyndon LaRouche, som deres dødelige fjende. Der er ét enkelt slag, der kan leveres for at gøre en ende på denne farvede revolution, erklærede Zepp-LaRouche: Indiker, at det, man gjorde mod Lyndon LaRouche, var den største uretfærdighed, for hvilken USA har betalt en høj pris i årtier, og implementer omgående LaRouches Fire Love, begyndende med en tilbagevenden til FDR’s Glass-Steagall.

Hun fortsatte: Det er, fordi i hele verden, på højeste regeringsniveau, som vi har fået direkte og indirekte at vide, »Lyndon LaRouche anses for at være den eneste amerikaner, de kan stole på – simpelt hen fordi, han har bevist, at han er en verdensborger såvel som en amerikansk patriot. Han har altid befundet sig på dette niveau, som Xi Jinping nu taler om«, med et fællesskab af en fælles bestemmelse for hele menneskeheden, erklærede Zepp-LaRouche.

Foto: Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping med frue ankommer til Schweiz, til både statsbesøg og deltagelse i Davos Økonomiske Verdensforum.    

Stockholm EIR/Schiller Institute Seminar Wednesday, January 11, 2017
[The video is available on the Schiller YouTube channel at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdl0Hxg_Ubc

      Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm

        HUSSEIN ASKARY:  Thank you very much everybody for attending the seminar, "Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm." Your Excellencies, and ladies and gentlemen, we are very, very pleased that we have a special guest. It's all clear that the interest for this theme is very big, and this is a very special; there are many expectations on the new administration and new policy, but there are also many challenges around the world.  And we have the honor of having Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and chairwoman of the International Schiller Institute, who has not only followed at very close range, followed developments internationally, both strategic, economic and cultural, but she herself and her association were actually contributing to what we call this new paradigm in international politics.  But this new paradigm in international politics of course, we will hear from Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
        We will have Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche's presentation and then I will make a short presentation and then we'll have a break…. [applause]

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Good day, ladies and gentlemen.  We are in indeed in very, very fascinating times.  And I think there is much reason to be hopeful.  I know that for the last 16 years, most people in the United States and Europe thought there is no great future.  But I think that there is [annulation? 2.29] of
strategic realignments which have shaped up over the last three years, but especially in the last year, where one can actually see the potential for a completely new kind of relation among nations is on the horizon and that we may actually have the chance to bring a peaceful world.
        Now, obviously, in the system of globalization as we have known it, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, that system is completely unhinged and this is cause for a lot of freaked out reactions by those people who were the beneficiaries
of that system of globalization, but I will hopefully be able to develop that this is a temporary phenomenon, and it will be replaced by some more optimistic developments.

What we see right now is a completely new paradigm emerging, a system which is based on the development of all, a "win-win" potential to cooperate among nations and obviously the idea for what was the axiomatic basis of the globalization system since '91 to insist on a unipolar world, is failing, or has failed already.  And with that, a system which tried to maintain this unipolar world with the policy of regime change, of color revolution, or humanitarian intervention, or so-called humanitarian intervention to defend democracy and human rights, which obviously has led the world to a terrible condition, but this is now coming to an end.
        So obviously, the statement by Francis Fukuyama at the end of the Soviet Union that this was the "end of history" and that there would be now only democracy, was really pretty sure; because you have a complete backlash right now, which takes
different forms in different in different parts of the world against this system of globalization, and in the Asian countries it takes the form of more and more countries joining with the New Silk Road perspective offered by China, the offer to work
together in a "win-win" cooperation with the Belt and Road Initiative which is now already involving more than 100 nations and international organizations; and is already engaged in the largest infrastructure project in the history of mankind.
        This new paradigm economic system, already involves 4.4 billion people;  it is already in terms of spending, in terms of buying power in today's dollars, 12 times as big as the Marshall Plan was after the Second World War, and is open for every
country to join, including Sweden, including the United States, including every other country on the planet.  And I will talk about that in a little while.
        And in the trans-Atlantic sector you have a different kind of anti-globalization revolt, which is still ongoing, it's not yet settled how this will turn out.  It started in a visible form with the vote of the British population in June last year with the Brexit, which was the first real upset; everybody was totally unexpecting it, except a few insiders.  This anti-globalization revolt was obviously continued with the election of President Donald Trump in the United States; it was continued with the "no" to the Italian referendum organized by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, to change the Constitution.  And it’s coming to all of these developments, Brexit, Trump, no to the referendum in Italy, is that is caused by a fundamental feeling of injustice of ever
larger parts of the population which were victims of that system, which increasingly made the rich richer, made more billionaires richer, but destroying successively the middle range of society, and making the poor poorer.  It is my deepest conviction that
that revolt will continue until the causes of this injustice are removed, and it will continue, it will hold the measuring rod to President Trump, if he will fulfill his election promises; and if he would not do that I believe the same people would turn against Trump as they turned against Hillary.
        So that means that the future of the European Union and the euro is very doubtful.  We have elections coming in this year in France in April.  This election as of now is completely up in the air.  There is no firm prediction possible.  You have a very tumultuous situation in Italy, where a coup was just attempted by Beppe Grillo and Verhofstadt [in the European Parliament] which failed, trying to get the Five Star Party into the Liberal Group [ALDE] in the European Parliament, which was rejected by the Liberal Group so it didn't function. Then you will have elections in Holland, and in September in Germany which, you know, the star of Mrs. Merkel is also no longer as shiny as it may have been a while ago.
        So we are looking into dramatic changes.
       

Now, let me start with the Trump election. Now, I have in my whole political life, which is now becoming quite long, several decades — I have never in my whole political life, seen such hysteria on the side of the neo-cons, on the side of the
mainstream politicians, on the side of the liberal media, as concerning Trump.  Now, admittedly, Trump does not fulfill the behavior code of Baron von Kligel, who was a German in the 18^th century who developed the code for good diplomatic behavior. But what was caused Trump, is that he simply promised end the political paradigm which was the basis of eight years of George W. Bush and eight years of Barack Obama, which was a direct continuation of the Bush-Cheney policy.
        And it was a good thing, because it was very clear that if Hillary Clinton would have won the election in the United States, that all the policies she was pursuing, including an no-fly zone over Syria, and an extremely bellicose policy towards Russia and China, would have meant that we would have been on the direct course to World War III.  If you have any doubts about that I'm perfectly happy to answer questions about that, in the question & answer period.
        So the fact that Hillary did not win the election was extremely important for the maintenance of world peace.  And I think that of all the promises that Trump made so far, the fact that he said, and by the appointment of these different cabinet members, if they all get through the nomination process in the Senate, that he will normalize the relationship between the United States and Russia, is, in my view the most important step.  Because if the relationship between the United States and Russia is decent, and is based on trust and cooperation, I think there is a basis to solve all other problems in the world.  And if that relationship would be in an adversary condition, world peace is in extreme danger.
        So from my standpoint, there is reason to believe that this will happen.  The Russian reaction has been very moderately, but optimistic that this may happen. If you look at the appointments, you have several cabinet members and other people in other high posts who are also for improving the relationship with Russia, such as Tillerson who is supposed to become Secretary of State; General Flynn, who is a conservative military man but also for normalization with Russia, and many others, so I think this is a good sign.
        Now, if you look at the reaction of the neo-con/neo-liberal faction on both sides of the Atlantic to this election of Trump, you can only describe it as completely hysterical.  The Washington Post today has an article "How To Remove Trump from
Office," calling him a liar, just every derogative you can possibly imagine, just an all-in-one unbelievable; the reaction in Germany was — von der Leyen, the Defense Minister, in the morning after the election said she was "deeply shocked," this was "terrible," this was a catastrophe, and it keeps going like that.  So they have not recovered.
        And then naturally, you have the reports by the different U.S. intelligence services, Clapper, Brennan, Comey from the FBI, they all put out the fact that that it was Russian hacking of the emails of the DNC and Podesta which would have stolen the election, because they would have shifted the view of the Americans to vote for Trump.
        Now, I think this is ridiculous.  Not only have many cyber experts, also in Europe but also in the United States, already said that all the signs are that it was not a hacking but an insider leak giving this information out, is more and more likely, and there's absolutely zero proof that it was Russian hacking.  Naturally, what is being covered up with this story is that was the "hacking" about?  It was "hacking" of emails that proved that Hillary Clinton manipulated the election against Bernie Sanders!   That is not being talked about any more; but if there was any thought, I would say, look there, and there are many people who recognize, for example, a very important French intelligence person with the name of Eric Denécé who is a top-level think tanker in France who said: Well, it is quite clear why they put out this story, because the neo-cons had to expect the great cleanup and many of them would lose their positions, and this is why they basically all agreed on this story and changed the narrative.
        The real narrative is that it was the injustice of the neoliberal system of globalization which simply violated the interests of the majority of the people, especially in the "rust belt."   Hillary Clinton in the election campaign was so arrogant that she didn't even go to Ohio or some of the other states which are formerly industrialized.  Where, you have to see that the United States, contrary to what mostly is reported in the Western media in Europe, the United States is in a state of economic collapse.  They have for the first time, a shrinking life-expectancy; there is one indicator which shows if a society is doing good or bad, and that is if the life-expectancy increases or shrinks.  In the United States it's shrinking for the first time for both men and women. In the period of 16 years of Bush-Cheney and Obama, which you can take as one package, the suicide rate has quadrupled in all age brackets; the reasons being alcoholism, drug addiction, hopelessness, depression
because of unemployment.  There are about 94 million Americans who are of working age who are not even counted in the statistics, because they have given up all hope of ever finding a job again.   If you have recently travelled in the United States, the United States is really in a terrible condition; the infrastructure is in a horrible condition, and people are just not happy.
        So the vote, therefore, the narrative, that was the reason why Hillary was voted out because she was being perceived as the direct continuation of these 16 years, and so the attempt to change that narrative by saying it was "Russian hacking" is pretty obvious.
        Now, however, we have now I think ten days or nine days left, until the new President comes in.  And this is not a period of relaxation, because again, in an unprecedented way, the old team of Obama is trying to create conditions for the incoming President Trump to force him to continue on the pathway of Obama. For example, just a couple of days ago, they started a deployment of a U.S. and NATO troops to be deployed at the Russian border in the Baltics, in Poland, and Romania, through the German city of Bremerhaven, where 6,000 troops landed  with heavy military equipment; for example, the U.S. Abrams tanks, Paladin artillery, Bradley fighting vehicles, 2,800 pieces of military hardware, 50 Black Hawk helicopters, involving 1,800 personnel; 400 troops to be attached to the 24 Apache helicopters.
        Now, obviously, the deployment of this is supposed to be a provocation against Russia and it's supposed to make it very difficult for Trump to start to improve relations.
        A second area where you can see this effort to pin Trump down is the question of the THAAD missiles in Korea, where basically now North Korea has claimed to be able to be able to launch their ICBM anywhere, any time; and according to Chinese experts, the United States is entirely to blame why North Korea is behaving this way.
        South Korea with the outgoing President Park Geun-hye, who may be impeached soon, actually in days or weeks, she agreed to have a special brigade of 1,000-2,000 task force which is supposed to eliminate the Pyongyang command under conditions of war, including Kim Jong-un; and obviously this is aggravating the situation because given the history of such things, one is not sure when is the moment of such action.
        Thirdly you can see it with the deployment of the U.S. aircraft carrier group USS Carl Vinson to the Asia, in the vicinity of China.  This aircraft carrier is of the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered, and it will arrive exactly on 20th of January, the day Trump is will take office.  Global Times, the official Chinese newspaper, said that this deployment is set to disrupt potential talks between China and other countries in the region; naturally, also it's supposed to put a sour note on the U.S.-China relations.
        There are other efforts to change and determine the narrative in the post-Obama period.  Ash Carter, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, just gave a press conference where he said that it was only the United States which was fighting ISIS in Syria.  Now, that takes some nerve to say that, because everybody in the whole world knows that without President Putin's decision to militarily intervene in Syria starting in September 2015, and with the tremendous support of the Russian Aerospace Forces for the fighting of the Syrian troops, this military situation in Syria would have never developed.  And it was to the contrary, the very dubious behavior of the United States supporting various kinds of terrorist groups which prolonged this process and slowed it down.
        But also in the attempt to pin down the narrative, of course, John Kerry, who a week or so ago, gave a speech saying that it was the British Parliament which would have prevented the U.S. military intervention in Syria.  Now — I mean, all of these
people must think that the whole world has a very short memory, because I remember very vividly that it was Gen. Michael Flynn, in his capacity as head of the DIA, [Defense Intelligence Agency], who had put out a public statement that it was the
intention of the Obama administration to build up a caliphate in the region, in order to have regime-change against Assad, and he was then fired by [DNI] Clapper.  And it is of a certain irony that just on Friday, when Trump met with Clapper, Brennan and
Comey, in the Trump Tower where these three gentlemen wanted to impress Trump with their story about the Russian hacking; the other person who was with Trump was General Flynn, who is now in the driver's seat [to be National Security Advisor]. So anyway, you can expect the truth not be suppressed forever.  And as a matter of fact, it was in the moment shortly before the U.S. military intervention in 2013, the U.S. military action was prepared to occur Sunday evening; we had gotten that from
well-informed circles in Washington, and then in the very last minute the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey went to Obama and said, "You should not a start a war where you don't know how it ends.  And if you don't ask the
Congress you will be impeached, or you run the risk of being impeached."  And only because of that Obama went to ask the U.S., Congress, the U.S. Congress voted no, and the U.S. military intervention was prevented.
        So this was quite different.  And you know this attempt to fix the narrative will not be successful.
        Now, I cannot tell you what this Trump administration is going to be. I think I mentioned the one point, I'm pretty confident about: I think we will see probably only by February or even into March who will be actually in his cabinet, who will get approved by the Senate. But there are other interesting elements, for example: Trump had promised in the election campaign to invest $1 trillion into the renewal of the
infrastructure in the United States. That is very good, as I said, because the United States urgently needs repair.  It will, however, only function if at the same time, another promise by Trump, namely, what he promised in October in North Carolina,
that he would implement the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, will also be carried out, because the trans-Atlantic financial system remains on the verge of bankruptcy.  You could have a repetition of the 2008 financial crash at any moment; and only if you have a Glass-Steagall law in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt,
what Roosevelt did in 1933 by separation of the banks, by getting rid of the criminal element of the banking system, and then replacing it by a credit policy in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, can you remedy this situation.  Otherwise, you cannot
finance $1 trillion in infrastructure.
        But one step in a positive direction is the fact that for example the former deputy foreign minister of China, and chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs committee of the National People's Congress, Mme. Fu Ying, made a speech in New York, about
six weeks ago, where she said that indeed the Trump infrastructure program can be a bridge to the New Silk Road program of China.  And that is quite the case:  Just yesterday, Trump met with Jack Ma who is the chief executive of Alibaba, a
Chinese e-commerce firm, and Jack Ma said that he can help Trump to create 1 million jobs in the United States by initiating a platform for U.S. small businessmen to sell to Chinese consumers over the next five years, and vice versa, how the Chinese can invest in the United States. Trump afterwards said this was a great meeting, we will do great things together; and Jack Ma said that Trump was a very smart man and they got along very well.
        So this is very good, because the Schiller Institute already in 2015 published a report for the United States to join the New Silk Road, which is a whole approach how you have to have a fast train system for the United States; as you know, China built as of the end of 2014, 20.000 km high-speed train systems.  China wants to have to 50,000 km by 2020, connecting every major city in China with a fast train system.  And the United States has none.
        So the United States urgently needs a fast train system connecting the East Coast, the West Coast and the Midwest.  Build some new science cities in the South, get rid of the drought in the Southwest, California and the other states.  So there are
many, many things which urgently need to be done.
        OK.  Now, let me make a few remarks about the Schiller Institute, given the fact that many of you may not know much about us. And I want to underline the fact that we are not commentators on this whole question, but that we are responsible for many of the ideas which are now coming into effect.
        The Schiller Institute was created by me in 1984, and it was, at that time we had the still the intermediate-range missile crisis, which brought the world to the verge of World War III; if you remember, the Pershing 2, the SS20, where there was a very
short warning time, in permanent alert; and the relationship between Europe and the United States was really in a terrible condition.
        So I created the Schiller Institute with the idea that you needed an institute, a think tank to put the relations among nations on a completely different basis.  One of the most important aspects of the work was to work towards the establishment of a just, new world economic order, in the tradition of the Non-Aligned Movement.  And there, my husband, already in 1975, had proposed to replace the IMF with an
International Development Bank, which would organize large credits for technology transfer from the industrialized countries to the developing sector, to overcome the underdevelopment.
        That proposal went into the Colombo Resolution of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1976 in Sri Lanka.  So we had the idea that that policy had to come back on the agenda, that we had to create economic development in the southern hemisphere, so that every human being on this planet could have dignified potential their lives, develop all the potentialities embedded in them.
        But from the beginning, we said that such a new world economic order can only function if it's combined with a Classical Renaissance, that we have to reject the popular culture as it is associated with modern globalization, because it is
depraved and degenerate.  And that we had to go back to the revival, a Renaissance of the best traditions of every culture and have a dialogue among them.  For example, in Germany, obviously you would emphasize the German Classical culture of
Schiller, Beethoven, the whole Classical music; in China, you would emphasize Confucius; in India you would emphasize the Vedic writings, Tagore, and so forth.   So you would go and revive in every country simply what they have contributed to universal history and make that known.
        Now, the present policy, of a "win-win cooperation", is exactly an echo of what we had proposed since '84, and to replace geopolitics with an approach of the common aims of mankind.  In 1984, my husband, Mr. LaRouche, also uniquely predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union.  He said if the Soviet Union would stick to their then-existing policies of the Ogarkov Plan, that they would collapse in five years.  Now, there was nobody else who said the Soviet Union would collapse; it was completely unthinkable, but we observed the economic problems and on Oct. 12, 1988, my husband and I made a press conference in Berlin, in the Bristol Kempinski Hotel, where we said Germany will soon be unified — also nobody believed that at the time — and Germany should adopt the development of Poland as a model for the transformation of the Comecon with high technology.
        Now, in '89 therefore, when the Berlin Wall came down, we were the only ones who were not surprised.  As a matter of fact, we immediately published a report, how the unified Germany should develop Poland, and we called this program, the "Productive Triangle Paris-Berlin-Vienna," which is an area the size of Japan; it had the highest concentration of industry and the idea was to develop development corridors from that Productive Triangle to Poland, Warsaw, to Kiev, to the Balkans, and transform the Comecon that way.  It was before the D.D.R. collapsed; and here if that had been picked up, maybe the Soviet Union and the Comecon would not have collapsed.
        Anyway:  Because you had Bush, Thatcher and Mitterrand, they did not like this at all, so in '91, when the Soviet Union collapsed, we immediate proposed to prolong this program of the Productive Triangle into the Eurasian Land-Bridge: The idea that
you would connect the population and industrial centers of Europe with those of Asia, through development corridors.  The Iron Curtain was no longer there, so it was the natural thing to have infrastructure corridors to develop the landlocked areas of
Eurasia.
        Now we proposed at the time to all the countries of Eurasia, and the only country which responded positively was China.  So in 1996, they organized a very big conference in Beijing, called "The Development of the Regions along the Eurasian Land-Bridge," and I was one of the speakers there.  And China at that point
declared the development of the Eurasian Land-Bridge to be the long-term perspective of China until the year 2010.
        As you know, then came '97 the Asia crisis; '98 the Russian GKO crisis, so this whole development became interrupted.  But it basically did not stop us from making conferences about this proposal on five continents, all the U.S. cities, all the
European cities; even in Latin America, São Paolo, Rio, New Delhi, even some African countries, Australia.  We kept organizing for this idea that the natural next phase of the evolution of mankind would be the infrastructure connections of the entire planet.
        Obviously, what happened in '99 also was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in the United States, which gave way to the unregulated speculation, leading to the present bubble.
        Now, in September 2013, when Xi Jinping in Kazakhstan announced the New Silk Road, we simply took all the different studies we had made in these 24 years, and published them, and we called it: "The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge." This is a comprehensive proposal which has the yellow line there in the middle between China and Central Asia; this was the initial One Belt, One Road proposal by China, and we added simply — they had the Maritime Silk Road — but we had a whole infrastructure program for Africa, for the South of Europe, the Balkans, many corridors, including a Bering Strait Tunnel connecting the Eurasian infrastructure with the American system, with highways and high-speed trains all the way to Chile and Argentina.  And eventually, when all of this is built, you can go
by maglev train from the southern tip of South America to the Cape of Good Hope in Africa.
        We published this proposal; and the actual book you can find at the book table, including an early report about this, from 1997.  The first report we published in German, in '91.  This is not just about connection of infrastructure, but it has all the
scientific conceptions of Mr. LaRouche's notion of physical economy.
        Mr. LaRouche is probably the only economist in the West who deserves that name, because all the other neo-liberal economists have been so wrong in their predictions that they should probably take another job.  Mr. LaRouche has given up his own scientific method and in this report you find there such extremely important
conceptions as the connection between energy flux density in the production process and the relative potential population density, which can be maintained with that energy flux density; and there are other such important conceptions.
        So this report was immediately published in China; the Chinese translated it into Chinese.  We presented it in China in 2015.  It was recommended by all the people who presented to all Chinese scholars, as the standard text on the Silk Road; and it
has been sent to all major faculties and universities in China.
        It was also published in Arabic, as you will hear about from Hussein Askary.  And it is now coming out shortly in Korean, in German, and we have requests in other languages to come out also.
        So, while we were publishing these reports, the New Silk Road promoted by China which has a few different names – first they called it One Belt, One Road; now they call it the Belt and Road Initiative; I always call it the "New Marshall Plan Silk
Road," so that people get an idea.  In any case, this policy of China has taken on a breathtaking dynamic. (Next slide)
        In the meantime, many of these proposals are in different phases of realization.  It has the Maritime Silk Road which is the outer line. In the meantime, China is building six economic corridors — as I said, it involves 70 nations, and over 30 international large organization, 4.4 billion people, and trillions in investments.  And as I said, already now it's 12 times bigger than the Marshall Plan was.
        (Next slide).   This is the original One Belt, One Road, connecting China and Central and West Asia through an economic corridor.  In June 2015, China and the five Central Asian governments agreed to build that and additional routes are being
planned to go into Afghanistan.  One is already going into Iran; when President Xi was in Iran last year, he promised,  — or they both promised that they would extend this New Silk Road beyond Iran into Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey.
        (Next)  This is the new Eurasian Land-Bridge which connects China with Western Europe and it has shortened already the transport time for cargo, to two to three weeks from China — different cities, Chengdu, Chongqing, Yiwu, Duisburg, Lyon, Rotterdam, Hamburg, from five weeks via ocean.  Already by mid-2016, there were over 2,000 rail shipments from China to Europe, and it is picking up speed.  All the cities in Europe that are termini, such as Madrid, Lyon, Duisburg, they're all
happy; they realize that they have tremendous benefits from it.
        (Next.  No, the next one, the China-Mongolia) This is China-Mongolia-Russia corridor.  In June 2016, the three presidents signed a trilateral economic partnership, at the 11^th Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting; and this corridor alone involves 32 projects.
        (Next)  This is the China-Pakistan economic corridor, which is creating 700,000 new jobs in Pakistan.  It will produce 10,400 MW power capacity and the investment of 46 billion by the Chinese in this corridor equals all the foreign investment since 1970 in Pakistan.
        (Next) This is the China-Myanmar-Bangladesh corridor.  This creating for the first time an express highway between India and China, and it goes through Bangladesh and Myanmar.  This corridor will be 1.65 million km long; it will encompass 440 million people.
        (Next). The China-Indochina Peninsula corridor.  This will be a highway/rail and high-speed transport system connecting the ten largest cities of the region.
        (Next)  Africa — Djibouti-Ethiopia. [showing picture of refugees instead] Leave this picture please; this is very important.  Because as we know Europe has been in large part destabilized by the refugee crisis, and there is a very big incentive, one would think, for Europeans to help develop Africa.
But so far, it is not coming from Europe, it's coming from China, India and Japan.
        So, the Djibouti-Ethiopia railway just opened yesterday, so this is extremely good news.  It opened yesterday, from Djibouti to Addis Abeba, 750 km and it was built by China; it employed about 20,000 Ethiopians and 5,000 Djiboutian, and it will be connected to the standard gauge railway in Kenya, which again, created 30,000 jobs. And this will obviously, among other things, transform the port of Mombasa and it will take cargo and passengers to the Ugandan border in one-tenth of the time it
takes by road.   A professor from the University of ‘Nairobi School of Diplomacy’, Prof. Gerishon Ikiara, said, and I agreed, that this whole program will "radically transform African participation in global trade in the next two decades and will
catalyze the industrial transformation of Africa."
        Now, there is another extremely important project (next), which is the Transaqua project.  Here you see the cover story of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Lake Chad Basin Commission and the Chinese engineering firm PowerChina.  Now PowerChina is the company which built the Three Gorges Dam and several other large projects so they really know what they're doing; and they agreed with this contract to do a feasibility study about the Transaqua project.
        This is the largest infrastructure project ever entertained in Africa.  It was developed in the late '70s by an Italian firm Bonifica, and there, in particular, Dr. Marcello Vichi.  Mr. LaRouche has promoted this project since he got news of it,
because it was a perfect way of solving many problems at the same time.  As you know, Lake Chad is shrinking; it is presently only about less than 10% of its original size, and it affects the life of the entire people, 40 million people, in the Chad Basin.  And naturally, it is already having drought effects and so forth.
        The concept is simply to transfer the water from the Congo River, using the unused discharge of the Congo River water going into the ocean.  Now, the Congo River is the second largest river in the world and it discharges 41,000 cubic meters/second into the ocean — unused.  And the idea is to take only 3-4% of that
water and bring it into Lake Chad. There was a big campaign trying to convince the people in the different states along the Congo River, that it's stealing their water, and so forth, but that was really an effort by the Greenies and it has no substance to it whatsoever.
        First of all, the idea is not to take the water from the Congo River, but from the west bank tributaries at an altitude that allows to bring water per gravity until the C.A.R./Chad watershed, which is an elevation of 500 meters, and then pour it
into the Chari River which is a tributary of Lake Chad.  So this way you would create a 2,400 km long waterway which would bring eventually 100 billion cubic meters of water per year into Lake Chad and also create navigable infrastructure.
        Obviously, the Republic of Congo would be also a big beneficiary because it would give them access to a navigable waterway, electricity production, regulation of rivers and so forth.
        PowerChina is now financing a feasibility study for a first phase of the project which would involve building a series of dams in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic.  It would also potentially
generate 15-25 billion kilowatt-hours of hydroelectricity through the mass movement of water by gravity; it would potentially create a series of irrigated areas for crops, livestock, of an area of 50-70,000 sq km in the Sahel zone in Chad, in the northeast of Nigeria, in the north of Cameroon, and in Niger.  It would also make possible an expanded economic zone basically creating a new economic platform for agriculture, industry, transportation, electricity for 12 Africa nations.
        So PowerChina has put up $1.8 million for the first phase of the feasibility study and if the construction starts, this is a big project so it's not expected to be finished overnight, but it will take generations:  But it will create livelihoods for 40 million people in the basin.  And this is just one project, but there are many others.  For example, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is just on a five-nation tour through Africa [Jan. 7-12] and was already in Madagascar, in Tanzania, is going to Zambia,
Nigeria, Republic of Congo, and he's inviting all Africa nations to join the Belt and Road Initiative.
        (Next)  This is the expanded program of railways, nuclear power, just transforming the entire African continent. (Next)  These are development plans for Latin America.  The blue lines you see there, these are the longstanding, proposed
high-speed railway routes in Latin America, which the Schiller Institute has proposed.  In 1982, when Mr. LaRouche was working with President José López Portillo of Mexico on these projects, he called it "Operation Juárez," to refer back to the best traditions of Mexican-American cooperation.  And these are all projects which are obvious.  If you look at the map of Africa or Latin America, you don't see that kind of infrastructure! If you see some railway, you see it as a small line from a mine to the port to exploit the raw materials, but you don't have infrastructure.  And we had this idea, which Alexander von Humboldt, by the way, proposed in 19th century, so it's not that revolutionary; it's sort of obvious.
        The red lines are the various Chinese proposals since the BRICS summit in Brazil in July 2014.  The solid red line is the northern route of the Brail-Peru transcontinental rail line. This was already agreed upon between the governments of Brazil and China a year ago; but then they had the coup in Brazil, Dilma Rousseff was impeached, so this came to a halt; also the new government in Peru is very reluctant.  But there's a big movement:  I just addressed a conference of economists in the Amazon region two months ago, and there's a whole movement, also associated with Fujimori party, who absolutely won the fight for that rail line because it is the step to the future.
        There are three additional lines, one line would be including Bolivia into this rail line, and three additional lines through Argentina and Chile; China also wants to build three tunnels between Chile and Argentina to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic.
        (Next) This is the Nicaragua Canal which is in the early stages of completion, also built by China.  This will increase the speed of global shipping between Belem and Shanghai and cut the current route across the Atlantic and around Africa by 10% of the time.
        So I can only mention the most important projects. There are many, many others.  For example, China and Ecuador are building a science city in Ecuador where President Correa at the recent state visit of President Xi Jinping said that the collaboration between Ecuador and China will mean that Ecuador soon will be on
the same level as all industrialized countries.  They have the idea to overcome poverty forever.  The science city is going to have the most advanced fields of science.
        Bolivia – Bolivia, which used to be a coca producing country, is now cooperating on space projects with China, with Russia, with India.  So there is a completely new mood!  I talked with many Africans — there was a big conference in Hamburg just a
couple of months ago, where the Africans said, there is a completely new mood in Africa, there is a new paradigm:  China, Japan, India are all investing, and the Europeans, if they don't shape up, they will become marginal and irrelevant. So there is a completely new optimism caused by this dynamic.
        Now, just on a diplomatic level, this process of integration is going absolutely rapidly, especially since September last year, when you had on Sept. 2-3, the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok where the integration of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Belt and Road Initiative was on the table. The Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe participated in that conference, and Japan is now massively investing in the Far East of Russia, in terms of energy cooperation.  Putin was just in Japan, as a state visit; Abe will go on a state visit to Russia this year.  They're talking about settling the conflict concerning the Northern islands, the Kuril Islands.  They're talk about a peace treaty between Russia and Japan, and obviously there is a complete
strategic realignment going on.  President Duterte changed the role of the Philippines from being the aircraft carrier for the United States in the South China Sea, to now, collaborate with China on economic cooperation, and also with Russia.  The same by
the way, goes for Turkey, which is now shifting and working with Russia, Iran and Syria, to bring peace to the region.
        So there is a complete strategic realignment going on, which the Western media and Western politicians have just not got it yet.  But this is very, very interesting.
        So, then this continued from Vladivostok, immediately afterwards on Sept. 4-5, the G20 Summit in Hangzhou, where China took real leadership in saying the future recovery of the world economy must be based on innovation and he made very clear that this innovation must be shared with the developing countries, not to hold up or hinder their development.
        So, it's a completely new paradigm, and I'll say something about that in a second.
        Then you continue to the ASEAN meeting in Laos, the BRICS meeting in Goa, India in October, the APEC meeting in Lima in November, and it is involving all of these organizations and spreading very fast.
        Why is Europe not joining this?  Look, Europe is in bad shape.  The EU is collapsing, the people in Italy hate by now the ECB, they hate Merkel, they have Schäuble, they hold Merkel responsible for the suffering of the population in Italy which is now reaching dimensions like Greece; Greece was destroyed — one-third of the Greek economy was destroyed by the austerity policy of the Troika. And you know, there's nothing left of the idea of unity in Europe.  There are borders being built, Schengen is dead; look at the Eastern European countries, they're simply
not — the Eastern European and Central European countries are reorienting towards China!  The 16+1 this is the Central and East European Countries, they have extensive infrastructure cooperation with China. China is building up the port in Piraeus port in Greece; they're building a fast railway between Budapest and Belgrade, and many other projects.
        But the problem with Europe is that at least the European EU bureaucracy and some governments, like the German one, they are still on the old paradigm, the geopolitical paradigm of globalization, of neoliberal policies, and they don't understand that what China has proposed and what is now the basis of a very close and determined strategic partnership between Russia and China they have put on the agenda a different model: To overcome geopolitics by a "win-win" strategy.
Now, most people at least in Europe and in the United States have a very hard time to think that.  They cannot imagine that governments are for the common good, because we have not experienced that for such a long time.  The common idea of all the think tanks, or most think tanks, is "China must have ulterior motives"; "China is just trying to replace the Anglo-American imperialism, with a Chinese imperialism." But that is not true!  I mean, I'm not naïve:  I have studied this extensively.  I was in China for the first time in 1971, in the middle of the Cultural Revolution.  I have seen China, how it was then, I travelled to Beijing, Tientsin, Qingdao, Shanghai, and to
the countryside, and so I know what enormous transformation China has made in this period.
        I went back to China in '96, after 25 years; already then it was breathtaking.  But if you look, the Chinese economic model which has transformed 700 million people from extreme poverty to a decent living standard; and China is now committed to develop the interior region as part of their building of the New Silk Road, to eliminate poverty from China totally by the year 2020, and there are only 4 % left in poverty right now.
        Now, China is offering their Chinese economic model to all participating countries in this New Silk Road conception and it is in the interest of Sweden. It would be in the interest of Germany because Germany is still, despite the Green insanity which has deformed many brains, is still a productive country.
The German ‘Mittelstand’ is still producing, I think, the third largest number of patents in the world.  It is their natural interest to find cooperation not only in a bilateral cooperation, but in investments in third countries.  It would be in the best interest of Germany — if Germany is freaked out about the refugees, which really has meant a complete destabilization of the country, why is Germany not cooperating, with Russia, with China, India, Iran, in the reconstruction of the Middle East?  I think, now that the Syrian government has started to rebuild Aleppo, at least building the hospitals, the schools, the Schiller Institute had proposed already in 2012 a comprehensive proposal for the development of the entire Middle East, from
Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, from the Caucasus to the Gulf States, and it would be in the absolute self-interest because — sure you have to destroy ISIS and the terrorists with military means. But then you have to create conditions where young people in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, have a reason to become doctors, scientists, teachers, so that they have a future, that that way you drive out terrorism forever!
        And if all the big neighbors would cooperate:  Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, you could change this region in no time!  And you will hear about that soon from Hussein.
        The same for Africa. The only minister in Germany who is reasonable is the Development Minister Gerd Müller, because he travels all the time to Africa and he says there will be the need for many millions of jobs for the young people of Africa in the next years; if we don't have them to create these jobs, many, many millions of people will flee from hunger and war and epidemics.
        So would it not be in the self-interest that all the European nations join hands with the Chinese Silk Road initiative, and help to reconstruct and build up the economies of southwest Asia and Africa?  I think that that mission would also
really help to overcome the disunity of Europe, because you will not solve that problem by looking at your navel; but you will solve that problem by a joint mission for the greater good of mankind.
        So, I think that this is all possible.  It can happen this year, it can start this year, because China has committed itself to have two big summits this year — one summit will involve all the heads of state of the Belt and Road Initiative, and it can be the year of consolidation of the new paradigm.
        Now there are a couple of elements which are also important for this new paradigm, because we are not just talking about infrastructure, and overcoming poverty.  The next phase of the evolution of man is not just to bring infrastructure to all continents on this planet, but to continue that infrastructure into close space around us. This is the first time formulated in this way by the great German-American space scientist and rocket scientist Krafft Ehricke, who was the designer of the Saturn V of the Apollo project.  He had this beautiful vision that if you look at the evolution over a longer period of time, life developed from the oceans with the help of photosynthesis; then you had the development of ever higher species, species with a higher metabolism, higher energy-flux density in their metabolism.
        Eventually man arrived.  Man first settled at the oceans and the rivers; then with the help of infrastructure, man developed the interior regions of the continents; and we are now with the World Land-Bridge picture — go back to the first image — this
will be, when it is built, the completion of that phase of the evolution of mankind, by simply bringing infrastructure into all landlocked areas of the world, and you will have — with the help of new methods to create water, with modern technologies,
create new, fresh water.  For example, if you have peaceful nuclear energy you can desalinate huge amounts of ocean water; through the ionization of moisture in the atmosphere you can create new waters to solve the problem of desertification.  Right
now all the deserts are increasing; with these new technologies you can reverse that, make the deserts green, and just make this planet livable for all human beings!
        But this is not the end:  Mankind is not an Earth-bound species.  Mankind is the only species which is capable of creative discovery, and the collaboration of all nations for space exploration and space research is the next phase of our evolution. Now China has a very ambitious space program.  They already landed the Yutu rover in 2014.  Next year, they will go to the far side of the Moon, and eventually bring back helium-3 from the far side of the Moon, which will be an important fuel for
fusion power economy on Earth.  Right now, we are very close to making breakthroughs on fusion power. The Chinese EAST program [Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak] has reached, I think, 50 million degrees for plasma for several seconds.  And just a couple of days ago, the stellarator in Greifswald, Germany, reached 100 million degrees for — I've forgotten how many seconds.  But it means that in a few years, we can have fusion power!  And that will create energy security, raw materials security, on Earth.
        So we're looking at a completely new phase of civilization, and the far side of the Moon is very important because will not have the disturbances of cosmic radiation, as you have on the Earth-facing side of the Moon; the Sun and the Earth — this far side is shielded from a lot of this radiation so it will be possible to put up much better telescopes, you will be able to look into Solar System, into the Galaxy, into other galaxies much, much farther than so far.
        And I don't know if any one of you have seen these pictures from the Hubble telescope:  If you have not done that, please, go home or next weekend, take the time to look at these pictures from the Hubble telescope.  I saw them, and I was completely excited, because now we know that there are — at least – 2 trillion galaxies!  Now, I have a good imagination, but I cannot imagine that.  It's just too big.  And when you see these pictures which have already been taken, you have galaxies which look like the Milky Way; then you have totally different nebulas;
you have all formations.  And not one galaxy is like the other. Just imagine how big the Universe is?
        And we know very, very little!  But man is the only species which can know!  No donkey will ever know about the great galaxies or — no dog will ever be able to breed rabbits to have better breakfast.  They all like better breakfast, but they don't know how to do it.  Man is capable of overcoming every limitation, and the mind of man is a physical force in the Universe.  We're not outside of the Universe, but what our mind invents or discovers, is part of the Universe.  And that is a
very exciting thing.
        And there is lots to be found out about what is the origin and essence of life.  What governs the laws of the Universe? What is the role of the mind in the Universe?  I mean, these are all extremely exciting questions, and they all prove that man is not an Earth-bound species.  So there is no need to be a Greenie, because we can bring man's knowledge applied to expand our role in the Universe.  Even the ESA is now talking about a "Village on the Moon."
        Krafft Ehricke at the time had said, that building an industrial center on the Moon as a stepping stone for further travel of space will be important. And you now see the shaping up of new economic platforms. The first platform, Mr. LaRouche has
developed this notion of an economic platform to signify a period of economic development which is governed by certain laws, like for example, the development of the steam engine created a new platform; the development of railway created a new platform; fission is creating a new platform. And that platform is always governed by the most advanced technologies of that time. And you can already see that this infrastructure development of close-by space, the first platform is simply that man is able to reach the orbit! That's not self-evident. If you would have told man in the Middle Ages that you will get on a spaceship and go into orbit, he would have said you're crazy!
        Now we can already see we have manned space travel and we can now connect to where the Apollo project stopped after the assassination of Kennedy, 40 years ago; but now China, India, Russia, they all continue that process. India has also been
extremely ambitious space project.
        And so, the first economic platform will be simply to leave the planet Earth and to go into orbit; the second economic platform of space research will be to have an industrial base on the Moon and to eventually start to produce raw materials from
space. Because you will, as this continues, not always transport materials from the Earth for your space travel, but once you have fusion as a propulsion fuel where the speed will become much larger, you will be able to take materials from asteroids, from other planets, for your production and your requirements in space. And then longer space travel between planets as the third platform, which is already visible.
        Now, I could — this is very exciting, and once you start to think about it, it shows that mankind is really capable of magnificent achievements, and that we should really overcome geopolitics. Geopolitics is like a little, nasty two-year-old
boy who is not yet educated and who knows nothing better than to kick his brother in the knee. Now that's about the level of geopolitics.
        What Xi Jinping always talks about is that we have to form a "community of destiny for the common future of mankind," and that is exactly what the Schiller institute set out in '84, when we said we have to fight for the common aims of mankind. And these common aims of mankind must come first, and no nation should be allowed to have a national interest or the interest of a group of nations, if it violates this higher common aims of mankind. And the areas of working together, a crash program for fusion, space cooperation, and breakthroughs in fundamental science.
        All of this however must be combined with a Classical Renaissance, a dialogue of cultures on the highest level, and we have already very successfully at Schiller Institute conferences, practiced that, where we had European Classical music, Bach,
Beethoven, Verdi, Schubert, Schumann; Chinese Classical music, Indian poetry. You have this coming Saturday in New York, a beautiful event on style of civilizations, of cultures, where we will have a Chinese professor talking about literati painting.
You know, in Chinese painting, you have poetry, calligraphy and painting, in one. And for Westerners, it's a complete revelation, because this does not exist in European painting. People get completely excited because they discover that there
are beautiful things to discover in other cultures! And once you study and know these other cultures, xenophobia and racism disappears! Because you realize that it's beautiful that there are many cultures, because there are universal principles to be
discovered in music, one musician will immediately understand another musician because it's a universal language. Scientists speak a universal language; they understand each other.
        And so the future of civilization will be a dialogue between Plato, Schiller, Confucius, Tagore, and many other great poets, scientists of the past. So, if you give every child access to these things, which is also in reach, I can see that we will have
a new era, a new civilization of mankind. And I would invite all of you to not just look at it, but be part of it.  [applause]

12. jan., 2017 – Sublimt er det eneste, passende ord til at beskrive Helga Zepp-LaRouches intense og smukke præsentation og den atmosfære, hun skabte hos tilhørerne, med 60 deltagere (lokalet var helt fyldt) på Schiller Instituttets/EIR’s seminar, der blev afholdt i Stockholm den 11. januar, med titlen, »Donald Trump og det Nye Internationale Paradigme«. Helga Zepp-LaRouches optræden var ikke annonceret på forhånd, og hun skabte en stor succes for hele anledningen med arrangementet. Hendes tale bevægede tilhørerne til at adressere den grundlæggende, epistemologiske – erkendelsesteoretiske – dybere mening med Den Nye Silkevej, og meningen med menneskehedens udvikling i universet. Denne dybere mening rørte endda de tilstedeværende diplomater. En ambassadør fra et betydningsfuldt, asiatisk land indledte under diskussionsperioden en diskussion om netop nødvendigheden af at adressere disse bredere kulturelle og menneskelige implikationer.

Alt i alt var sytten diplomater til stede, heriblandt syv ambassadører! (Dette har intet fortilfælde i LaRouche-bevægelsens historie i Sverige.) Fire europæiske lande var repræsenteret, ni lande fra Asien og fire lande fra Afrika. En kinesisk reporter kom til sit andet seminar, talte med Helga og tog billeder. Blandt de øvrige deltagere var kontakter fra forskellige svenske sammenslutninger, der arbejder for venskab med Rusland, Ukraine, Syrien, Yemen, Somalia, området omkring Det baltiske Hav (Østersøen) og en anden gruppe, der arbejder for at forlade EU, så vel som også tre kontakter fra erhvervslivet og mangeårige aktivister i den svenske LaRouche-bevægelse.

Formanden for Schiller Instituttet i Sverige, Hussein Askary, præsiderede seminaret og bød deltagerne velkommen. Dernæst holdt Helga Zepp-LaRouche hovedtalen, der havde en håbefuld vision for verden. Hun gav en vurdering af de aftrædende neokonservatives og etablerede mediers igangværende kamp for at afvise berettigelsen af valget af Donald Trump. Hun påpegede den brede reaktion på den af de neoliberale anstiftede katastrofe, som værende det reelle grundlag for valget af Trump, så vel som også andre lignende reaktioner i hele verden, og sagde, at det er dér, man skal lede efter grunden til, at Trump blev valgt, og ikke i nogen computerhacking. Eftersom tilhørerne for det meste bestod af nye folk, fremlagde hun Schiller Instituttets historie, der samtidig er historien om politikken med Den Nye Silkevej. Hun beskrev processen med, at økonomien udvikler sig fra en platform til en anden og påpegede den kinesiske politik for at satse på den næste, økonomiske platform gennem en Månebaseret industriel udvikling, for menneskehedens videre udvikling som en art, der ikke er bundet til planeten Jord. Kinesernes motivering for deres globale politik kom frem under diskussionsperioden, i sammenhæng med Afrika. Helga understregede her, på basis af sin baggrund med mangeårige studier af Kinas historie og konfuciansk tankegang, at hendes konklusion er, at Kina virkelig forfølger en »win-win«-politik baseret på det konfucianske begreb om at tilstræbe visdom og harmoni. Hun understregede nødvendigheden af en klassisk renæssance for, at det Nye Paradigme kan blive en succes, og at dette ikke er et punkt, vi kan overlade til Donald Trump.

Efter Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale gav Hussein Askary en kort gennemgang af perspektivet for Sydvestasien og Afrika. Dernæst holdt man en pause, hvor man nød kaffe og wienerbrød, der var doneret af en kontakt. Mange af deltagerne brugte lejligheden til at få taget deres foto sammen med Helga, og til at samtale med hende. To ambassadører, én fra Sydøstasien og én fra Sydvestasien, opsøgte Helga for at give udtryk for deres dybeste påskønnelse af hendes præsentation og skønheden i hendes tankegang.

Denne begivenhed var et sandt gennembrud for vores organisering i Sverige, med en kvalitet og intensitet, der vil bevæge vores politiske arbejde i dette land ind i nye dimensioner. 

Uddrag af Helga Zepp LaRouches tale ved Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar i Stockholm, 11. januar, 2017

Lad mig begynde med valget af Trump. Jeg har aldrig, i hele mit politiske liv, der er temmelig langt, flere årtier – jeg har aldrig i hele mit politiske liv set et sådant hysteri på vegne af de neokonservative, på vegne af etablissementets politikere, på vegne af de liberale medier, som med hensyn til Trump. Det skal indrømmes, at Trump ikke opfylder Baron von Knigges regler for god opførsel – han var en tysker, der i det 18. århundrede udviklede reglerne for god, diplomatisk opførsel. Men årsagen til [fremkomsten af] Trump er, at han simpelt hen lovede en afslutning af det politiske paradigme, der lå til grund for otte år med George W. Bush og otte år med Barack Obama, og som var en direkte fortsættelse af Bush-Cheney-politikken.

Og det var en god ting, for det var helt tydeligt, hvis Hillary Clinton havde vundet valget i USA, at alle de politikker, hun forfulgte, inklusive en flyveforbudszone over Syrien og en ekstremt krigerisk politik over for Rusland og Kina, ville have betydet, at vi ville have været på en direkte kurs til Tredje Verdenskrig. Hvis I har nogen tvivl om dette spørgsmål, vil jeg med glæde besvare jeres spørgsmål under spørgsmål & svar perioden.

Så den kendsgerning, at Hillary ikke vandt valget, var ekstremt vigtigt for bevarelse af verdensfreden. Jeg mener, at, af alle de løfter, Trump hidtil har afgivet, så er den kendsgerning, at han sagde – og gennem udnævnelsen af disse forskellige medlemmer af kabinettet, hvis de alle sammen kommer igennem nomineringsprocessen i Senatet – at han vil normalisere relationerne mellem USA og Rusland, efter min mening det vigtigste skridt. For, hvis relationen mellem USA og Rusland er ordentlig og baseret på tillid og samarbejde, så mener jeg, der er et grundlag for at løse alle andre problemer i verden. Hvis denne relation er som modstandere, så er verdensfreden i ekstrem fare.

Så efter min mening er der grund til at tro på, at dette vil ske. Den russiske reaktion har været meget moderat, men optimistisk omkring, at dette kan ske. Ser man på udnævnelserne, så er der flere kabinet-medlemmer og andre personer på andre høje poster, der også går ind for at forbedre relationen med Rusland, såsom Tillerson, der angiveligt skal være udenrigsminister; general Flynn, der er en konservativ militærmand, men også går ind for normalisering med Rusland, og mange andre, så jeg mener, det er et godt tegn.

Hvis man ser på reaktionen fra den neokonservatives/neoliberales side på begge sider af Atlanten, på dette valg af Trump, så kan det kun beskrives som fuldstændig hysterisk. Washington Post har en artikel i dag, »Hvordan man fjerner Trump fra embedet«, og kalder ham en løgner, og enhver nedsættende ting, man kan forestille sig, fuldstændig utroligt; reaktionen i Tyskland var – [forsvarsminister Ursula] von der Leyen sagde morgenen efter valget, at hun var »dybt chokeret«, dette var »forfærdeligt«, dette var en katastrofe, og sådan bliver det ved. Så de er endnu ikke kommet sig.

Og så er der naturligvis rapporterne fra de forskellige amerikanske efterretningstjenester, Clapper, Brennan, Comey fra FBI, og de offentliggjorde alle sammen den kendsgerning, at det var russisk hacking af e-mails fra DNC og Podesta, der skulle have stjålet valget, fordi de angiveligt skulle have ændret amerikanernes mening til at stemme på Trump.

Jeg mener, at dette er latterligt. Ikke alene har mange cyber-eksperter i Europa, og også i USA, allerede sagt, at alle tegnene tyder på, at der ikke var nogen hacking, men at et insider-læk, der røbede denne information, er mere sandsynligt, og der findes absolut ingen beviser på, at det skulle være russisk hacking. Det, der selvfølgelig bliver mørklagt med denne historie, er, hvad handlede »hackingen« om? Det var »hacking« af e-mails, der beviste, at Hillary Clinton manipulerede valget imod Bernie Sanders! Det taler man ikke længere om; men hvis der var nogen tænkning, ville jeg sige, hør her – og der er mange mennesker, der indser, f.eks. en meget betydningsfuld fransk efterretningsmand, Eric Danécé, der er en tænketank-person på højeste niveau i Frankrig, og som sagde: Det er helt klart, hvorfor de udgav denne historie, for de neokonservative måtte forvente den store udrensning, og mange af dem ville miste deres position, og det er grunden til, at de alle blev enige om denne historie og ændrede narrativen.

Den virkelige narrativ er, at det var det neoliberale globaliseringssystems uretfærdighed, der simpelt hen krænkede flertallet af befolkningens interesser, især i »rustbæltet«. I valgkampen var Hillary Clinton så arrogant, at hun ikke engang tog til Ohio eller nogle af de andre stater, der tidligere var industrialiserede. Man må indse, at dér – at USA, i modsætning til, hvad man for det meste rapporterer i de vestlige medier i Europa, befinder sig i en tilstand af økonomisk kollaps. De har for første gang [nogensinde] en faldende forventet levealder; der er én indikator, der viser, om det går et samfund godt eller skidt, og det er, at den forventede levealder stiger eller falder. I USA falder den for både mænd og kvinder. I den 16 år lange periode med Bush-Cheney og Obama, som man kan tage som en samlet pakke, er selvmordsraten firdoblet i alle aldersgrupper; årsagerne er alkoholisme, narkoafhængighed, håbløshed, depression pga. arbejdsløshed. Der er omkring 94 mio. amerikanere i den arbejdsdygtige alder, der ikke engang er talt med i statistikken, fordi de har opgivet ethvert håb om nogensinde igen at finde et job. Hvis man for nylig har rejst i USA, så er USA virkelig i en forfærdelig forfatning; infrastrukturen er i en forfærdelig tilstand, og folk er simpelt hen ikke glade.

Så valget, og narrativen var derfor årsagen til, at Hillary blev stemt ude, fordi hun blev opfattet som den direkte fortsættelse af disse 16 år, og forsøget på at ændre denne narrativ ved at sige, at det var »russisk hacking«, er temmelig åbenlys.

Men nu er der 10 eller 9 dage tilbage, til den nye præsident indsættes. Og det er ikke en periode for afslapning, for igen, Obamas gamle team forsøger på en måde, der ikke har fortilfælde, at skabe omstændigheder for den tiltrædende præsident Trump for at tvinge ham til at fortsætte Obamas kurs. For kun et par dage siden begyndte de f.eks. en deployering af amerikanske tropper og NATO-tropper, der skal deployeres ved den russiske grænse i De baltiske Lande, i Polen og Rumænien, via den tyske by Bremerhaven, hvor 6.000 tropper landede med tungt militærudstyr; f.eks. amerikanske Abrams tanks, Paladin artilleri, Bradley kampvogne, 2.800 stk. militært isenkram, 50 Black Hawk helikoptere, som involverer 1.800 stk. personel; 400 tropper, der skal tilknyttes de 24 Apache-helikoptere.

Denne deployering skal selvfølgelig være en provokation mod Rusland, og det er meningen, at det skal gøre det meget vanskeligt for Trump at begynde at forbedre relationerne.

Et andet område, hvor man kan se dette forsøg på at tvinge Trump, er med spørgsmålet om THAAD-missilerne i Korea, hvor Nordkorea nu har hævdet, at de kan lancere deres ICBM’er overalt, til enhver tid; og iflg. kinesiske eksperter er USA alene ansvarlig for, at Nordkorea opfører sig på denne måde.

Sydkorea med den fratrædende præsident Park Geun-hye, der muligvis snart bliver afsat ved en rigsretssag, måske inden for få dage eller uger; hun gik med til at få en specialbrigade med en 1.000-2.000 mand stor specialenhed, der i tilfælde af krig angiveligt skal eliminere Pyongyang-kommandoen, inkl. Kim Jong-un; og dette forværrer situationen, for i betragtning af sådanne tings historie, kan man ikke vide, hvornår øjeblikket til sådanne handlinger kommer.

For det tredje ses det af deployeringen af det amerikanske hangarskib USS Carl Vinson til Asien, i nærheden af Kina. Dette hangarskib er et atomdrevet skib af Nimitz-klassen, og det vil ankomme præcis den 20. januar, den dag, Trump overtager embedet. Global Times, den officielle kinesiske avis, sagde, at denne deployering har til hensigt at ødelægge potentielle forhandlinger med Kina og andre lande i området; det skal selvfølgelig også slå en sur tone an i de amerikansk-kinesiske relationer.

Der er andre bestræbelser på at ændre og bestemme narrativen i perioden efter Obama. Ash Carter, USA’s forsvarsminister, har netop holdt en pressekonference, hvor han sagde, at det kun var USA, der bekæmpede ISIS i Syrien. Der skal en solid portion frækhed til at sige dette, for alle i hele verden ved, at, uden præsident Putins beslutning om at intervenere militært i Syrien, med start i september 2015, og med enorm støtte fra russiske luftstyrker til de syriske troppers kamp, ville denne militære situation i Syrien aldrig have udviklet sig. Og det var tværtimod USA’s meget tvivlsomme opførsel, hvor de støttede diverse terroristgrupper, der forlængede denne proces og forsinkede den.

Men også som et forsøg på at tvinge narrativen var selvfølgelig John Kerry, der for en uge eller så siden holdt en tale, hvor han sagde, at det var det Britiske Parlament, der skulle have forhindret den amerikanske militærintervention i Syrien. Alle disse mennesker må tro, at hele verden har en meget kort hukommelse, for jeg husker ganske tydeligt, at det var general Michael Flynn, der i sin egenskab af leder af DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] offentligt udtalte, at det var Obama-administrationens plan at opbygge et kalifat i området med det formål at få et regimeskifte imod Assad, og han blev dernæst fyret af [DNI] Clapper. Og der ligger en vis ironi i det faktum, at her sidste fredag mødtes Trump med Clapper, Brennan og Comey i Trump Tower, hvor disse tre herrer ville imponere Trump med deres historie om den russiske hacking; den anden person, der var sammen med Trump, var general Flynn, der nu sidder i førersædet [til at blive national sikkerhedsrådgiver]. Så man kan forvente, at sandheden ikke bliver undertrykt i al evighed. Det var faktisk kort før den amerikanske militære intervention i 2013, den amerikanske militære aktion var planlagt til at skulle finde sted om søndagen; det havde vi fra velunderrettede kilder i Washington, og i sidste øjeblik tog formanden for generalstabscheferne, general Martin Dempsey, hen til Obama og sagde, »De bør ikke starte en krig, når De ikke ved, hvordan den vil ende. Og hvis De ikke spørger Kongressen, bliver De stillet for, eller risikerer at blive stillet for en rigsret.« Kun pga. dette spurgte Obama den amerikanske Kongres, og Kongressen stemte nej, og den amerikanske intervention blev forhindret.

Så det forholdt sig altså helt anderledes. Og dette forsøg på at fikse narrativen vil ikke lykkes.

Jeg kan ikke sige, hvordan denne Trump-administration vil blive. Jeg nævnte vist det ene punkt, jeg er sikker på: Jeg tror, vi sandsynligvis først i februar eller endda hen i marts får at se, hvem, der faktisk vil være i hans regering, hvem, der vil blive godkendt af Senatet. Men der er andre interessante elementer: Trump havde f.eks. i sin valgkampagne lovet at investere $1 billion i fornyelse af infrastrukturen i USA. Det er virkelig godt, som jeg sagde, for USA har et presserende behov for at blive udbedret. Det vil imidlertid kun virke, hvis et andet af Trumps løfter, som han lovede i oktober i North Carolina, om, at han ville indføre det 21. århundredes Glass/Steagall-lov, bliver ført ud i livet, for det transatlantiske finanssystem er stadig på randen af bankerot. Vi kunne få en gentagelse af det finansielle sammenbrud i 2007-08, hvad øjeblik, det skal være; og kun, hvis vi får en Glass/Steagall-lov i Franklin D. Roosevelts tradition, det, som Roosevelt gjorde i 1933 ved at opdele bankerne, ved at fjerne det kriminelle element i banksystemet, og dernæst erstatte det med en [statslig] kreditpolitik i Alexander Hamiltons tradition, kan man råde bod på denne situation. I modsat fald kan man ikke finansiere $1 billion til infrastruktur.         

Helgas tale kan ses her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdl0Hxg_Ubc   

Engelsk udskrift af hele talen kan læses her:

Vores udsendelse i aften falder i tre dele. De tre dele er naturligvis indbyrdes forbundne, men første del er et klip fra et interview, som vores ven og kollega Jason Ross lavede med Ray McGovern, en CIA-veteran, der har været analytiker i 30 år, og som nu er medstifter af Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Udsendelsens anden del er et klip fra en præsentation af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der var et gennembrud i Stockholm, Sverige, i går (11. jan.), for et publikum, der bl.a. bestod af et bredt udsnit af det internationale diplomatiske samfund.

Og det tredje indslag i aften forfølger vores igangværende understregning af en intensivering af forståelsen af Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske opdagelser; og det vil omfatte en gennemgang ved Rachel Brown af en artikel, som hr. LaRouche offentliggjorde for nogen tid siden, med titlen, »In Defense of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton« (http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2017/2017_01-09/2017-02/pdf/32-42_4402.pdf) , som hun komplementerer med en gennemgang af noget af materialet fra hr. LaRouches opgradering og fordybelse af ideen om, ikke infrastruktur (i sig selv), men om økonomiske platforme. Disse tre dele vil udgøre vores udsendelse for i aften.

For at indlede vores første del, kan vi referere til et indslag på LaRouchePAC’s webside i dag. Titlen er, »The Foreign Power Corrupting US Politics Is Britain, Not Russia« (indholdet er dækket i Tom Gillesbergs indledning til Nyhedsorientering januar, læs: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=17270)¸og det handler direkte om de efterretninger, som vi vil få klarhed over i aften. At de, som virkelig intervenerer i amerikansk politik, ikke er de russiske efterretningstjenester, men snarere direkte er britisk efterretningstjeneste. Det 35 sider lange – hvad man vel må kalde et falsk dossier – om Trumps angivelige forbindelser med Rusland, og som blev citeret af CNN tidligere på ugen i en nyhedshistorie; og som dernæst blev offentliggjort eller lækket af Buzzfeed. Det afsløres nu, at dette blev forfattet af en fremtrædende, angiveligt pensioneret MI-6-efterretningsmand ved navn Christopher Steele; han blev først hyret af operatører fra det Republikanske Parti, der var modstandere af Trump i primærvalgene, og som dernæst blev hyret af Hillary Clintons kampagne for at udføre politisk kontra-research om Donald Trump. Det skulle bruges, ikke som en efterretningsfil, men til at tilsværte Trump under valget. Så dette er slet ikke en efterretningsrapport, som den blev præsenteret for at være af visse amerikanske medier, der lækkede den; men den var snarere blot en politisk misinformationsfil, der, som vi ser, kommer direkte fra britiske efterretningsoperatører. Nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump brugte igen her til morgen twitter til at udfordre dette. Han sagde: »Det viser sig nu, at de falske anklager imod mig blev sammensat af mine politiske modstandere og en mislykket spion, der er bange for at blive sagsøgt. Totalt fabrikerede fakta fra foragtelige politiske operatører, både Demokrater og Republikanere. Falske nyheder. Rusland siger, at der intet findes; det er sandsynligvis udgivet af ’efterretningstjenester’, vel vidende, at der intet bevis findes, og aldrig vil findes.«

Det, der står klart, er, at efterretningssamfundet har erklæret krig mod USA’s nyvalgte præsident, der vil blive indsat om under en uge fra i dag. Dette er en situation uden fortilfælde; og briternes rolle er klar, som det ses af denne mand, Christopher Steele. Som jeg sagde, så, på trods af den narrativ, at det skulle være russerne, der kører en eller anden enorm indflydelses-kampagne for at forsøge at intervenere i og influere de amerikanske valg, så begynder det at se ud som om, at den virkelig misdæder her, var briterne.

Med denne indledning vil jeg nu gerne vise et klip fra interviewet med Ray McGovern. Som sagt har han 30 år som CIA-veterananalytiker bag sig; han var i sin tid ekspert i Rusland eller Sovjetunionen, da han var dér. Han var ansvarlig for at udarbejde nationale efterretningsestimater, og en daglig brief til præsidenten. Efter sin tid i CIA blev han medstifter af en organisation ved navn Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, der nu har omkring 50 medlemmer, pensionerede efterretningseksperter, der for nylig udstedte en erklæring, der satte seriøse spørgsmålstegn ved den narrativ, der blev offentliggjort om russisk indflydelse og russisk hacking. Hele interviewet vil være tilgængeligt fra søndag (15. jan.), på LaRouchePAC websiden og LaRouchePAC YouTube kanalen; og vi har udlagt andre uddrag af dette interview hen over de seneste par dage. Det uddrag, vi bringer her, er begyndelsen af interviewet, der blev udført af Jason Ross, med hr. Ray McGovern.  

Jason Ross: Det er den 10. januar, 2017; jeg er Jason Ross fra LaRouchePAC. Vi er meget glade for i dag at have Ray McGovern med os i studiet, en veteran, der har været i CIA i årtier, og som i 2003 var medstifter af Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Mange tak for at være med os i dag, Ray.

Ray McGovern: I er meget velkomne. Jeg er glad for at være her.

Ross: Lad os springe direkte til ét af de store spørgsmål, vi hører så meget om i medierne i øjeblikket – spørgsmålet om den angivelige russiske hacking af de amerikanske valg. Jeres gruppe, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, udstedte en pressemeddelelse den 12. december, der sagde, at alle beviser pegede på en læk snarere end et hack. Siden da er to rapporter kommet frem; en fra DHS (Department of Homeland Security) og en, der hovedsagligt er forfattet af ODNI, Director of National Intelligence, og som siger, at her er beviset. Vi ved, Rusland gjorde det. Det var tvivlsomt, hvor brugbar denne rapport var. Og for et par dage siden var du så medforfatter af en kronik i Baltimore Sun sammen med William Binney, hvor du gentog dit standpunkt; at alle beviser peger på, at dette er en læk snarere end et hack, og under alle omstændigheder er der ikke blevet fremlagt nogen beviser for, at det skulle være et hack. Hvorfor har du dette standpunkt?

McGovern: Først må jeg sige noget om Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Vi oprettede vores organisation, da vi så, at vore kolleger – de kolleger, vi havde arbejdet sammen med – havde ladet sig forlede til at skabe, til at fabrikere efterretninger med det overlagte formål at franarre vore valgte repræsentanter deres forfatningsmæssige, særlige rettigheder til at erklære eller på anden vis bemyndige krig. Det var før Irak; og det kan ikke blive værre.

Bush, Cheney og de andre sagde alle sammen, »Åh, det var en frygtelig fejltagelse.« Det var ikke nogen fejltagelse; det var slet og ret bedrag. Da vi så dette finde sted, dannede vi en lille gruppe – vi var fem til at begynde med – og vi begyndte at gå offentligt. Vi udgav tre memoranda før krigen, hvor vi advarede præsidenten. Vores første memorandum blev udgivet samme dag, som Colin Powell (udenrigsminister 2001 – 2005) holdt sin tale – den 5. februar, 2003 – og vi gav ham et C- for indhold. Og vi advarede præsidenten (George W. Bush), »Efterretningerne bliver manipuleret, og de bør virkelig udvide kredsen af Deres rådgivere«, sagde vi mod slutningen, »til at omfatte andre end dem, der tydeligvis er opsat på at få en krig, for hvilken vi ikke kan se, der skulle være nogen tvingende grund, og de utilsigtede konsekvenserne af hvilken sandsynligvis vil blive katastrofale.« Den kendsgerning, at vi havde ret, fryder os ikke; der var et par andre personer, der sagde det samme, men der var ingen, der kom igennem til de etablerede medier.

Hvis vi spoler lidt frem, så ser vi, at de daværende NSA-folk ikke alene var rystede over, hvor mange penge, der blev smidt ind i programmer, som de vidste, aldrig ville virke; men de var også oprørte over et billigere program, som de selv havde udarbejdet – som blot kostede $330 mio. at indføre. Det andet program, som general Hayden støttede, kostede $3 mia. med et ’b’; så der var ingen sammenligning. Bortset fra, at det ene ikke fungerede; det gjorde dette her. Grunde til, at jeg nævner dette, er, at dette havde masser af beviser for, hvad der ville ske under 11. september; det lå i det. De gik tilbage og så efter; de lukkede dette hovedprogram ned, og da Tom Drake, som stadig var ansat der, gik ind og så efter, så fandt han masser af beviser, der ville have – hvis det var blevet omdelt – forhindret 11. september. Så man var dobbelt oprørt, og Bill Binney havde været teknisk direktør i NSA før han trådte af kort tid efter 11. september. Han tilsluttede sig så os, som så mange andre vidunderlige folk har gjort; og da dette kom på nettet online, dette her med den russiske hacking, så var det mest naturlige for mig at sige, »Hej, Bill. Vi har brug for et memo fra dig; vi har brug for, at du laver et udkast. For du designede de fleste af disse systemer, og du ved, hvad Ed Snowden har afsløret. Disse billeder? De ser virkelig interessante ud for os, men vi har brug for nogen, der kan gennemgå dem for os.« Så sagde han, »Helt i orden«. Så gav han os et udkast, og det, vi typisk gør, er, at vi cirkulerer det blandt de fem, seks eller syv personer, der har særlig interesse i det, eller særlig erfaring; og mellem os fandt vi ud af det rigtige. Vi var én af de første, der kom ud af starthullerne og sagde, »Jo, dette er en spand (lort)! Hvorfor? Af tekniske grunde.« Der var masser af andre grunde, men nogle folk – til deres ære, mener jeg – de er teknisk orienteret, og de vil vide, »Er dette muligt? Kunne russerne have gjort dette?« Svaret er, »Ja, men NSA ville have vidst besked med det.«

Det er chokerende, Jason, det er chokerende. Men NSA sporer alle e-mails på denne planet. Hvis disse går til udlandet, så har de samarbejdende tjenester og regeringer. Ikke blot seks, men de har 13 af dem. Hvis de går igennem USA, så får de dem; hvis de kommer udefra, får de dem alle. Og de kan spore dem; de har disse her små sporingsmekanismer forskellige steder i netværket. Så de ved, hvor hver eneste e-mail kommer fra, og hvor den ender.

Føj hertil den jernovervågning de har af den ecuadorianske ambassade i London, hvor Julian Assange er; og jeg er sikker på, at de overvåger hans kolleger også, uanset, hvor de er. Lad os nu sige, de russiske hack, og de fik det frem til Julian, og til en af hans medarbejdere. »OK, russere er virkelig dårlige mennesker«, siger folk; »Vis os meddelelserne.« »Åh, det kan vi ikke; vi har ikke meddelelserne. Men vi kigger på det.« De fik så præsidenten til, før han tog på ferie på Hawaii, at pålægge sanktioner, baseret på disse flygtige beviser, som de ikke kan vise os. Disse memoer – min første reaktion var at le ad dem, men det er meget sørgeligt at se, hvad efterretningssamfundet er blevet til; meget, meget sørgeligt. For dette er et vigtigt spørgsmål.

Hvad gjorde præsidenten så? Han slog ned på sanktioner; han smed 35 diplomater ud. Alt sammen ud fra hvis udsagn? John Brennans. Hvordan fik så New York Times al denne information? John Brennan. Det ved vi, fordi Wall Street Journal blev lidt sur over det, og de siger, »Ja, det er John Brennan, der taler med de andre fyre; han taler ikke med Wall Street Journal.« Hvad har vi så? Vi har en præsident, der tager en chance på lemfældigt grundlag og forårsager en endnu større fare, mere aggressiv kritik, flere spændinger i vore relationer med Rusland. På baggrund af hvad? Lad mig sige det sådan; jeg vil måske sige det sådan: Jeg sad og så på nogle YouTube-klip; og jeg faldt over et af Christiane Amanpour, der sendte fra London. Hun er i færd med at interviewe Lukyanov, en af de russiske guruer. Hun siger, »Hr. Lukyanov [imiterer Amanpours stemme] De siger, at der absolut ingen beviser er, ingen, siger De. Jamen, når der ikke findes beviser, hvorfor har USA’s præsident så smidt sanktioner på Rusland?«

Ross: Den er god.

McGovern: Jeg husker, at jeg fik stillet det samme spørgsmål omkring masseødelæggelsesvåben. [Imiterer igen Amanpours stemme] »Hr. McGovern, hvis De siger, at der ikke findes beviser for masseødelæggelsesvåben, hvorfor startede Bush og Cheney så en krig mod Irak?« Tja, svaret er det samme, det samme! Det er virkelig et dårligt flashback, for det, de må gøre, er at komme frem med beviserne. Det er min stærke opfattelse, at det vil de ikke gøre; ikke pga. kilder og metoder, men fordi, der ikke findes nogen.

(Engelsk udskrift af hele webcastet):                       

The Crucial Point Is that Our Common Interest As Mankind Is Man's Progress

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast January 13, 2017

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening; it's January 13, 2017.  My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our regular
Friday evening webcast from larouchepac.com.  I'm joined in the
studio today by Megan Beets from the LaRouche PAC Science Team;
and via video by two members of our LaRouche PAC Policy Committee
— Michael Steger, joining us from San Francisco, California; and
Rachel Brown, joining us from Boston, Massachusetts.
        We have a three-part show for you today.  The three segments
will obviously be interrelated, but they will feature first a
clip from a feature interview that our friend and colleague Jason
Ross did with Ray McGovern, a veteran CIA professional analyst
for 30 years, and now the co-founder of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity.  We have a second segment which
features a clip from a breakthrough presentation that Helga
Zepp-LaRouche made in Stockholm, Sweden just yesterday to an
audience comprised of a large cross section of the international
diplomatic community.  And then a third segment tonight which
pursues our ongoing emphasis on deepening the understanding of
Lyndon LaRouche's economic discoveries; and that will include a
review by Rachel Brown of a paper that Mr. LaRouche published a
while ago, called "In Defense of Treasury Secretary Alexander
Hamilton", complemented by a review of some of the material from
the last few years of Mr. LaRouche's upgrading and deepening of
the idea of not infrastructure, but economic platforms.  So, that
will be our three part show from this evening.
        To begin our first part, I think that we can refer to an
item that's posted on the LaRouche PAC website today.  The title
of that is, "The Foreign Power Corrupting US Politics Is Britain,
Not Russia"; and this goes directly to the intelligence that
we're getting clarity on today.  That the ones who are in fact
interfering in US politics, are not the Russian intelligence
services, but rather, directly, British intelligence.  The
35-page — I guess you could call it dodgy dossier — on Trump's
supposed connections with Russia that was cited by CNN earlier
this week in a news story; and then published or leaked by
Buzzfeed.  This is now being exposed as being authored by a
prominent supposedly-retired MI-6 officer, a man named
Christopher Steele; who was hired first by Republican Party
operatives who were opposing Donald Trump in the primaries, and
then was rehired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to do political
opposition research on Donald Trump.  To be used not as an
intelligence brief, but to politically smear Trump in the
election.  So again, this is not an intelligence report at all,
as it was represented by certain US media outlets that leaked it;
but rather merely a political disinformation brief, coming
directly from, as we see, British intelligence operatives.
President-elect Donald Trump took to twitter again this morning
to call this out.  He said, "It now turns out that the phony
allegations against me were put together by my political
opponents and a failed spy afraid of being sued.  Totally made-up
facts by sleaze-bag political operatives, both Democrats and
Republicans.  Fake news.  Russia says nothing exists; probably
released by 'intelligence', even knowing there is no proof and
never will be."
        What is clear is that the intelligence community has
declared war on the President-elect of the United States, who is
due to be inaugurated in less than one week from the present
moment.  This is an unprecedented situation; and the role of the
British in this is clear, as can be seen by the role of this
character Christopher Steele.  As I said, despite the narrative
that the Russians were running some huge influence campaign to
try to interfere and influence the American election, it's
beginning to look like the real culprit here was the British.
        With that said as a matter of introduction, I'd like to play
a clip of this interview that we did with Ray McGovern.  As I
said, he's a 30-year veteran analyst with the CIA; he was a
Russia or Soviet Union specialist at the time he was there.  He's
responsible for preparing national intelligence estimates and the
Presidential daily brief.  Now, since his time at the CIA, he has
become the co-founder of an organization called the Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which now has about 50
members, retired intelligence specialists who recently put out a
statement seriously calling into question the narrative being put
out about Russian influence and Russian hacking.  The full
interview will be available beginning on Sunday on the LaRouche
PAC website and the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel; and we have
released other excerpts of this interview over the past few days.
This excerpt you're about to see is the very beginning of the
interview, which was conducted by Jason Ross, with Mr. Ray
McGovern.

        JASON ROSS:  Hi!  Thanks for joining us.  It's January 10,
2017; I'm Jason Ross here at LaRouche PAC.  We are very happy to
have in the studio today Ray McGovern, multi-decade veteran of
the CIA and the co-founder in 2003 of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity.  Thanks very much for coming today,
Ray.

        RAY McGOVERN:  You're most welcome; I'm glad to be with you.

        ROSS:  So, let's jump right into one of the big issues that
we're hearing about so much in the media today — the issue of
purported Russian hacking of the US elections.  Now your group,
the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity released a
press statement on December 12th, saying that all evidence
pointed towards a leak rather than a hack.  Since then, two
reports have come out; one from the DHS and one primarily
authored by the ODNI, the Director of National Intelligence,
saying here's the proof.  We know Russia did it.  The report was
of questionable usefulness. Then just a few days ago, you
co-authored an op-ed in the {Baltimore Sun} with William Binney,
where you restated your position; that all evidence points toward
this being leak rather than a hack, and in any case, evidence of
a hack is not been presented.  Why do you take that position?

        McGOVERN:  Well, I need to tell you something about Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity first.  We established
ourselves when we saw that our colleagues — the colleagues with
whom we had worked — had let themselves be suborned into
creating, into fabricating intelligence for the express purpose
of deceiving our elected representatives out of their
Constitutional prerogatives to declare or otherwise authorize
war.  That was before Iraq; and that's as bad as it gets.
        Bush, Cheney, and the others all said, "Oh, it was a
terrible mistake."  It was not a mistake; it was out and out
fraud.  When we saw that happening, we formed a little group —
there were five of us in the beginning — and we started
publishing.  We published three memoranda before the war, warning
the President.  Our first one was on the day of Colin Powell's
speech — the 5th of February, 2003 — and we gave him a C- for
content.  And we warned the President, "The intelligence is being
manipulated and you really should widen the circle of your
advisors," we said at the end, "beyond those who are clearly bent
on a war for which we see no compelling reason, and from which,
we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be
catastrophic."  We take no delight in the fact that we happened
to be right on that; there were a couple of other people saying
that, but nobody got into the mainstream media.
        So, if you fast forward now, you see that the NSA people who
were in place at the time, not only were appalled at how much
money was being thrown at programs that they knew would never
work; but were outraged when they found out that a cheaper
program that they devised themselves — which only cost $330
million to emplace.  The other one that General Hayden went for,
cost $3 billion with a "b"; so no comparison.  Except that one
didn't work; this one did.  The reason I mention that, is this
had plenty of evidence what was going to happen in 9/11; it was
in there.  They went back and they looked; they closed that main
program down, and when Tom Drake, who was still employed there,
went in and looked, he found plenty of evidence that would have
— had it been shared — prevented 9/11.  So, double outrage
here, and Bill Binney had been the technical director at NSA
before he left shortly after 9/11.  So, he joined us, like so
many other wonderful people have; and when this went viral, this
business about Russian hacking, it was the most natural thing for
me to do to say, "Hey, Bill.  We need a memo from you; we need
you to do a draft.  Because you know, you designed most of these
systems, and you know what Ed Snowden has revealed.  Those
slides?  They look really interesting to us, but we need somebody
to take us through them."  So, he said, "Sure."  So, he gave us a
draft, and what we typically do is, we circulate it around the
five or six or seven people who have special interests in that,
or special experience; and we got it right together.  We were one
of the first ones off the block saying "Yeah, this is a crock!
Why?  For technical reasons."  There were plenty of other
reasons, but some people — and I think it's to their credit —
they're technically oriented, and they want to know, "Is this
possible?  Could the Russians have done this?"  Well, the answer
is "Yes, but NSA would know about it."
        Now, it boggles the mind, Jason, it boggles the mind.  But
NSA traces {all emails on this planet}.  If they go abroad, they
have cooperating agencies and cooperating governments.  Not only
six, they have about 13 of them.  If they go through the United
States, they get them; if they come from outside, they get them
all.  And they can trace them; they have these little trace
mechanisms at various points in the network.  So, they know where
each and every email originates and where it ends up.
        Now, add to that the ironclad coverage they have of the
Ecuadoran embassy in London, where Julian Assange is; and I'm
sure that they monitor his colleagues as well wherever they
happen to be.  So, let's say the Russians hack, and they got it
to Julian, they got it to one of his associates.  "Well, OK,
Russians are really bad people," people say; "Show us the
messages."  "Oh, we can't; we don't have the messages.  But we'll
look at it."  Now, they got the President, before he went on
vacation to Hawaii, to impose sanctions based on this elusive
evidence that they can't show us.  These memos — my first
reaction was to laugh at them, but this a very sad thing to see
what the intelligence community has become; very, very sad.
Because this is an important issue.
        So, what did the President do?  He slapped on sanctions;
threw out 35 diplomats.  All on whose say-so?  John Brennan's.
Now, how did the {New York Times} get all this information?  John
Brennan.  We know that because the {Wall Street Journal} was a
little ticked off about it, and they said, "Yeah, it's Brennan
that's talking to these other guys; he's not talking to the {Wall
Street Journal}."  So, what do we have here?  We have the
President going out on a limb, causing even more danger, more
flak, more tensions in our relationship with Russia.  On the
basis of what?  Well, let me just say this; maybe I'll put it
this way:  I was looking at some YouTube clips; and I happened
upon one of Christiane Amanpour, broadcasting from London.  She's
interviewing Lukyanov, one of the Russian gurus.  She says, "Mr.
Lukyanov, [imitating Amanpour’s voice] you say there's {zero}
evidence, you say {zero}.  Well, if there's zero evidence, why is
it that the President of the United States has slapped sanctions
on Russia?"
        ROSS:  That's good.

        McGOVERN:  I remember being asked that question about
weapons of mass destruction.  [Again imitating Amanpour’s voice]
"Mr. McGovern, if you say there's no evidence of weapons of mass
destruction, why did Bush and Cheney start a war on Iraq?"  Well,
same answer; same answer!  It's a really bad flashback, because
what they need to do, is come up with the evidence.  My strong
view is that they're not going to do that; not because of sources
and methods, but because there isn't any.

        OGDEN:  Well, as I said, that's part of a much longer
interview, and part of it has already been posted on YouTube
under the title "Sources and Methods Versus National Interests";
and you can expect the full interview to be posted and available
coming Sunday, the day after tomorrow.
        But I would like to just use that to invite the other
members of the broadcast here today to just open up a bit of a
discussion on this subject.
        MICHAEL STEGER: In all of this discussion, apparently some
people are not pulling back over so-called "Trump's ties to
Russia." What this whole situation now makes clear, is that the
entire attack on the Trump campaign and the President-elect's
policy towards Russia, has been the target explicitly of British
Intelligence the entire time. The report that was released, this
35-page dodgy dossier, starts in June once Trump consolidates the
nomination, essentially, for the Republican Party, and doesn't
stop until mid-December of this just past year. And so, it's
clear that British Intelligence were the ones pushing this the
entire time. It's clear that Christopher Steele was close friends
with now-head of MI-6, Alex Younger. The British media are
panicking. A former Secretary General of the NATO, a British
Lord, came out and said this is a total panic. We could be
sleepwalking into a complete catastrophe.
        It's clear the British had an explicit intent to manipulate
the U.S. elections, to fabricate false intelligence on a major
candidate, to drum up a conspiracy — so-called "hacking" by the
Russians to disrupt U.S. foreign policy and U.S. interests —
against the welfare of the American people. To those who know
history, and know Mr. LaRouche's role in the last 40-50 years of
American politics, this role of British Intelligence, includes
people who represented British outlooks, like Henry Kissinger, a
public advocate of British foreign policy against the American
outlook; the British hand, not just in an attempt to destroy and
manipulate the Presidential election and alter U.S. foreign
policy changes, but the direct role of the British in support of
the terrorists in Syria, via Saudi Arabia, and other nations; the
direct role of the British, such as David Cameron, who just
high-tailed it out of Downing Street and the British Parliament,
because he was directly exposed in a fraudulent-led campaign
against Libya; the false intelligence of Tony Blair on the Iraq
war, which Ray McGovern was just referring to.
        Besides that, you've got then the international drug trade,
which we documented beginning in the 1970s, with {Dope, Inc.},
and the international drug trade run by Her Majesty, Queen
Elizabeth.  Who, by the way, could be on her death-bed; and that
wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
        You've got an international drug trade, and international
war program, international terrorism, and, of course, the
Wall-Street/London nexus of international finance, which has run
this absolute cult of financial policy for decades, for
centuries, in essence. This is the same institution which was
responsible for the assassination of Alexander Hamilton, Abraham
Lincoln, William McKinley, the attempted assassination of FDR,
the backing of Hitler.  By the way, I think the Russian Embassy
in London made it clear that it was the Brits, such as the
Cliveden set, who were responsible for backing Hitler. That
they're coming out now and targeting the potential policy changes
in the United States, one towards Russia, potentially towards
China — to end the threat of nuclear world war.
        They're also attempting to disrupt what could be a very
important — as I think we'll see from Helga Zepp LaRouche's clip
— relationship between the U.S., China, and Russia, on an
economic policy; and, as we know it to be very important that
we'll get to later as well, a fundamental change in U.S.
financial policy. This British nexus is targeting the Trump
campaign and targeting this entire change in U.S. policy. This is
British imperial tactics. This is what they do; they are at the
source of it. If there's going to be a Congressional
investigation of any foreign nations' or foreign agents'
involvement to manipulate U.S. democracy, I think first and
foremost, it has to be the United Kingdom.

        RACHEL BRINKLEY: The fact that on page 15 of these 35 pages,
it attacks LaRouche by name, saying that there were Trump
factions travelling to meet with Putin factions, as part of this
alliance in the summer of 2016. They cite LaRouche directly in
this report has having representatives that went to Russia as
part of this discussion; which did not happen. As this was
authored by the British, this is just the British Empire freaked
out about LaRouche's policies taking over, and the potential of a
United States/Russia/China alliance, especially the Russia/U.S.
cooperation.
        I think it is notable that if you have the United States,
Russia, and China working together, there's no problem on the
planet that can't be solved. That's an unstoppable alliance. I
think the British are desperate, and that's what we're seeing.

        OGDEN: That's exactly what Helga LaRouche presented at this
conference that happened in Stockholm, Sweden just yesterday.
This was an extraordinary conference, and I'm going to play a
clip of her opening speech to you right now. This was a
standing-room-only capacity audience that included 17 diplomats,
a cross-section of the entire planet, including seven
ambassadors. She delivers her analysis of what we've really seen
behind this showdown, as we've been discussing, of the British
and American intelligence establishment vs. the incoming
President-elect. She highlights, towards the end of these
excerpted remarks — and again, this is only an excerpt, in bits
and pieces — the whole speech contains a lot more substance in
terms of what you just said, Rachel.
        The motivation behind ending this confrontational policy
towards Russia and towards China, is that if Russia, China, and
the United States were to join, in a grand alliance, around what
is now a concrete policy initiative coming out of China — the
One Belt, One Road, or New Silk Road project — to bring
development to the interior of not only Eurasia, but also Africa
and the North and South America landmass, and were to reorganize
our relations around what's now being called the "win-win"
paradigm among nations — then everything is possible. She
explores a lot of these questions in the {full} speech, which
will be available in video form in just a few hours.
        In what you're about to hear, she touches on what must be
done, both strategically and economically, to shape the policy of
this incoming new Presidency. I apologize for the quality of the
audio. It was not the best audio recording, but again, in just a
few hours, we will have the full video that will be available.
This is just a taste:

        HELGA ZEPP LAROUCHE (Audio excerpt): … Let me start with
the Trump election. Now, I have in my whole political life, which
is now becoming quite long, several decades  —  I have never in
my whole political life, seen such hysteria on the side of the
neo-cons, on the side of the mainstream politicians, on the side
of the liberal media, as concerning Trump…. But what was caused
Trump, is that he simply promised end the political paradigm
which was the basis of eight years of George W. Bush and eight
years of Barack Obama, which was a direct continuation of the
Bush-Cheney policy.
        And it was a good thing, because it was very clear that if
Hillary Clinton would have won the election in the United States,
that all the policies she was pursuing, including an no-fly zone
over Syria, and an extremely bellicose policy towards Russia and
China, would have meant that we would have been on the direct
course to World War III.
        The fact that Hillary did not win the election was
{extremely} important for the maintenance of world peace. And I
think that of all the promises that Trump made so far, the fact
that he said … that he will normalize the relationship between
the United States and Russia, is, in my view {the most important
step}. Because if the relationship between the United States and
Russia is decent, and is based on trust and cooperation, I think
there is a basis to solve all other problems in the world. And if
that relationship would be in an adversary condition, world peace
is in extreme danger.
        So from my standpoint, there is reason to believe that this
will happen. The Russian reaction has been very moderate, but
optimistic that this may happen. If you look at the appointments,
you have several cabinet members and other people in other high
posts who are also for improving the relationship with Russia,
such as Tillerson who is supposed to become Secretary of State;
General Flynn, who is a conservative military man but also for
normalization with Russia, and many others, so I think this is a
good sign.
        Now, if you look at the reaction of the neo-con/neo-liberal
faction on both sides of the Atlantic to this election of Trump,
you can only describe it as {completely} hysterical. The
{Washington Post} today has an article "How to Remove Trump from
Office," calling him a liar, just every derogative you can
possibly imagine, just on and on unbelievable….
        And then naturally, you have the reports by the different
U.S. intelligence services, Clapper, Brennan, Comey from the FBI.
They all put out the fact that that it was Russian hacking of the
emails of the DNC and Podesta which would have stolen the
election, because they would have shifted the view of the
Americans to vote for Trump.
        Now, I think this is ridiculous. Not only have many cyber
experts, in Europe but also in the United States, already said
that all the signs are that it was not a hacking but an insider
leak giving this information out, which is more and more likely,
and there's absolutely {zero} proof that it was Russian hacking.
Naturally, what is being covered up with this story is what was
the "hacking" about? It was "hacking" of emails that proved that
Hillary Clinton manipulated the election against Bernie Sanders!
That is not being talked about any more….
        The real narrative is that it was the injustice of the
neoliberal system of globalization which has violated the
interests of the majority of the people, especially in the "rust
belt." Hillary Clinton in the election campaign was so arrogant
that she didn't even go to Ohio or some of the other states which
were formerly industrialized. You have to see that the United
States, contrary to what mostly is reported in the Western media
in Europe, is in a state of economic collapse….
        [T]here is one indicator which shows if a society is doing
good or bad, and that is if the life-expectancy increases or
shrinks. In the United States it's shrinking for the first time
for both men and women. In the period of 16 years of Bush-Cheney
and Obama, which you can take as one package, the suicide rate
has quadrupled in all age brackets; the reasons being alcoholism,
drug addiction, hopelessness, depression because of unemployment.
There are about 94 million Americans who are of working age who
are not even counted in the statistics, because they have given
up all hope of ever finding a job again. If you have recently
travelled in the United States, the United States is really in a
terrible condition; the infrastructure is in a horrible
condition, and people are just not happy.
        So the vote, therefore, the narrative, was that the reason
why Hillary was voted out because she was being perceived as the
direct continuation of these 16 years, and so the attempt to
change that narrative by saying it was "Russian hacking" is
pretty obvious….
        I cannot tell you what this Trump administration is going to
be. I think I mentioned the one point, I'm pretty confident
about…. But there are other interesting elements, for example:
Trump had promised in the election campaign to invest $1 trillion
into the renewal of the infrastructure in the United States. That
is very good, as I said, because the United States urgently needs
repair. It will, however, only function if at the same time,
another promise by Trump, namely, what he promised in October in
North Carolina, that he would implement the 21st Century
Glass-Steagall Act, will also be carried out, because the
trans-Atlantic financial system remains on the verge of
bankruptcy. You could have a repetition of the 2008 financial
crash at any moment; and {only} if you have a Glass-Steagall law
in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, what Roosevelt did in
1933 by separation of the banks, by getting rid of the criminal
element of the banking system, and then replacing it by a credit
policy in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, can you remedy
this situation. Otherwise, you cannot finance $1 trillion in
infrastructure….

        OGDEN:  Now, Helga continues from there to give a very
inspiring overview of the development projects from the last
three years that have been sparked by the initiative from China
on the One Belt, One Road or the New Silk Road initiative.  But
she also gives an incredible history of the founding of the
Schiller Institute and the role and she and Lyndon LaRouche have
played over the last 30-40 years in the fight for a new, just,
international economic and strategic order.  A fight which is now
coming to a certain point of culmination at least
internationally; but the urgency of winning this fight here in
the United States is something that she continued to emphasize,
and it's exactly what she ended with there in that excerpt.
        Right now, we must have the most urgent mobilization; there
are no excuses for delay from {any} elected representative for an
immediate restoration of Glass-Steagall.  We have now launched
and are in the midst of a national mobilization; we've talked
about this on previous broadcasts.  But as you can see on the
screen right now, we're circulating a petition which is
collecting signatures; it needs to more rapidly accrue
signatures.  But it's accessible at lpac.co/trumpsotu; and again,
this is a petition which originated from some citizen-activists
in Ohio, who are associated with the "Our Revolution" movement,
people who had been associated with the Bernie Sanders campaign
during the primaries.  But who have now taken it upon themselves
to rally behind the initiative that LaRouche PAC has led; that we
must have Glass-Steagall, and we must hold Trump to his word,
when he called for a 21st Century Glass-Steagall at that speech
in Charlotte, North Carolina.  As I said, this has bipartisan
support, and there are no excuses for delay.  The only way this
is going to happen, is if citizens across the United States
decide to participate in this LaRouche PAC campaign and sign your
name onto this petition: lpac.co/trumpsotu — State of the Union.
        Now, we did have a day of action in Washington this week.
The Congress is now officially back in session; they've been
sworn in and business is underway.  There was participation from
many states up and down the East Coast in person.
Representatives coming in from Virginia, from Maryland, from
Pennsylvania, from Connecticut, from New Jersey, from New York.
But there was also a lot of other participation from across the
country in terms of pressure being put on representatives to meet
with members of the LaRouche PAC.  There was a unique
representative from the Manhattan Project, Mr. John Sigerson,
who's the director of the Schiller Institute Chorus in New York
City; who's been participating in some of the recent choral
activities there, including the memorial at the Bayonne, New
Jersey 9/11 Teardrop Memorial, where members of the Schiller
Institute Chorus were joined by the PDNY Honor Guard and the
Honor Guard from Bayonne, New Jersey to honor the tragic loss of
the Alexandrov Choral Ensemble from Russia.  This is just one
example of the kind of power that the music program from the
Manhattan Project, from New York City, has been able to play to
shape the political dialogue in the United States and also across
countries.  In this case, the potential for a far-improved
relationship between the United States and Russia.  So again,
this was a day of action in Washington, DC, but the mobilization
has to continue.  We are in a countdown; it's now a 7-day
countdown until the inauguration.  Then shortly after that, we
will have the State of the Union; and again, this petition is to
insist that Trump put a premium on highlighting the necessity for
a return to the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act during that State
of the Union.  This has to be one of the number one agenda items
of the first 100 days.
        But, let's discuss a little bit more broadly what Helga
LaRouche brought up at the end of that discussion; that
Glass-Steagall is only the first step, and there's a much more
far-reaching and profound approach to a revolution in the
economic policy of the United States that's necessary and which
has been framed by Mr. LaRouche.

        STEGER:  Well Matt, I think it's important to start with how
Mr. LaRouche initially responded immediately after the Trump
election.  His response was that this was global; and I think
that really does capture this.  The political process that is
shaping the United States in contradiction to this British
intelligence operation to destroy the United States, is really a
global phenomenon; and I'll get to that in a second.  But what
Mrs. LaRouche then touched on in her speech is something that
most Americans are experiencing, but because of that British
intelligence operation, because of this mass-lie campaign that
the American people have been living under; the official lie, in
essence, Orwellian policy that even the Russian Foreign Ministry
now refers to, that Americans have been living in since 9/11.
This has kept them from identifying what is now physically
identified; that the actual quality of life is collapsing at such
rates that life expectancy is now beginning to collapse.
        We have officially, you might say, entered into a Dark Age;
a mini-Dark Age has begun in the United States.  Now, this can be
reversed.  But the level of drug addiction has more than tripled
under Obama's Presidency; the level of opiate addiction, the
abuse of drugs like marijuana has skyrocketed under an
Obama-supported legalization campaign.  Which is of course,
backed by the same drug cartels which are providing the financial
backing to the banking institutions.  This was Obama's program.
You've seen a massive level of homicides and crime and murder
rates escalating in severely impoverished areas, including
Obama's so-called "own neighborhood" of the South Side of
Chicago.  This level of breakdown has never been seen in the
history of the United States; and it is only characteristic of
societies which are beginning to utterly break down.  Long-term
survival is not even a question; what's at immediate risk for an
increasing majority of Americans is short-term survival.  That's
what you see when you have decreasing life expectancy rates,
increasing numbers of people are dying faster and faster; largely
from things like alcohol addiction, drug addiction, diseases
related to despair, suicide and so on.
        That's where Glass-Steagall comes in; and this is what
really has to be captured.  And why it's not simply
Glass-Steagall, but the full Four Laws.  I think Megan and Rachel
can say more, because we're currently working on a project to
make this clear.  But the role of fusion and the space program
really captivate the fourth law in what direction our country has
to take to reawaken a sense of optimism, a sense of development
within the American culture.  To break out, not just of disrepair
— breaking down of bridges, bad roads — we all know the bad
roads and highways, especially on the East Coast.  But that's not
what we have to emerge from.  Building better roads isn't
escaping from the clutches of a Dark Age; something greater has
to capture the real spirit of human identity and creativity.
        Now, this is why it's so important to identify this global
phenomenon; because the steps of the Four Laws:  Glass-Steagall
immediately; shut down this Wall Street banking cartel and
basically a drug operation.  The second is the public credit of a
national banking system, which Paul Gallagher elaborated last
night; we could say more on.  To consolidate, aggregate the US
debt that exists, as well as other financial resources towards
the most important projects of development for the country; the
most advanced levels of infrastructure, or the broader physical
platform of industry and production.  And of course most
importantly, the fusion and space program.
        This phenomenon globally is just somewhat breathtaking; and
Mrs. LaRouche touches on it directly.  The Transaqua project in
Africa is something that we've been promoting for decades; this
is something which begins to take the sub-Saharan area of Africa
from the great lakes near the eastern part of Africa towards West
Africa and Nigeria, up into the southern border of the Sahara
Desert.  It begins to look at how we use major infrastructure
projects of water transportation, the refilling of Lake Chad, and
the development of this central African area.  There's also a
major rail line, which is not initiated — it's been inaugurated;
it's now running from Ethiopia to the coastline of Djibouti.
This rail line is one of the key continental rail passages that
the Schiller Institute and {EIR} have been fighting for, for
decades; to begin to integrate the full potential of Africa's
people and its resources and its industrial capacities into an
integrated economic breakthrough.  A real shift in the
productivity and lifestyle and scientific potential of Africa.
Those things are now unfolding; these are coming from largely
Chinese investments, Chinese engineering companies are directly
onboard.
        The same is true from another project, and I think it's
worth just highlighting, because we have gotten reports recently
that it's practically shovel-ready.  This is Kra Canal.  All this
contention over the South China Sea that everyone's heard about;
and the Americans remain, I'm sure, still somewhat confused.
What's the big deal about a couple of islands in the South China
Sea?  As the President of the Philippines said, we're not going
to eliminate humanity over a couple of fishing spots in the South
China Sea.  The real question is the Kra Canal; this is something
explicitly that the British Empire has prevented by diktat, to
shut down.  Matt, you and others have been involved in video
production specifically on this project and the role of the
British to shut this down over centuries to eliminate this
project.  The Chinese have said that they are ready to begin the
development of the Kra Canal.  The Thai government, with a new
king, seems favorable; the military, the prime minister seem
favorable.  The question of Japan's collaboration is something
that goes back to the 1980s; with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche directly
involved in this project.  The people we worked with then, in
Thailand, are again promoting and advocating for its initial
construction today.
        So, these projects are transformative.  We've gone through
more on that; I'm not going to give the layout of these projects.
But there are major development orientations taking place that
are gripping mankind.  There was an offer today, apparently, in
the {Hindu Times} in India from a Chinese journalist, which said
"Will Donald Trump Participate in the Silk Road Conference in
China?"  I think that really is the potential which we've got
today.
        So, the Glass-Steagall fight, this question of the United
States deciding that we're going to build our nation again, we're
going to shut down this Wall Street racket and take on this kind
of potential; that's really what has to be ignited.  And there's
no reason Donald Trump should not take that up at the
inauguration and the State of the Union.

        BRINKLEY:  Right!  And on this question of the murder policy
of Obama, there's an attempt now to cover it up and make him the
cute President and Joe Biden getting an award.  No, this is
flat-out murder, and if this mass movement across the world is
properly educated, it won't be stopped.
        So, there was discussion recently around infrastructure, as
Helga brought up, from Trump.  It's still not to the level of
LaRouche's conception of infrastructure.  For example, here's
what Speaker Paul Ryan said about infrastructure:  "In the spring
budget, we believe we will be able to address the infrastructure
issue."  The chairman of the Republican study committee, Mark
Walker, says "I don't know that we've settled on $1 trillion.  If
it's $1 trillion in infrastructure, that is something we'd have
to say, 'There's a portion of this that we're not comfortable
with and come back to the table.'|"  And then Sam Graves, the
head of the Transportation Subcommittee, says "We just simply
can't afford it," adding that "It can't all be done through
public-private partnerships as the President-elect is talking
about."
        They're still looking at this as an issue.  LaRouche
developed this concept.  Helga LaRouche made the point that 2017
should be the year of the rejuvenation or flourishing of
LaRouche's ideas.  He wrote a paper in 2010 called, "What Your
Accountant Never Understood; the Secret Economy".  He goes
through a universal history of the greater concept of
infrastructure.  He starts with the question of transoceanic
travel; navigation across the oceans.  He says, "For example,
look back to the approximately hundred-centuries of the Earth's
last great glaciation.  While some part of the human population
had remained mired in the habits of life of some fixed,
relatively narrow regions free of glaciation, great transoceanic
maritime cultures were also developed.  The requirement of a
stellar mapping for navigation for the existence of maritime
cultures, gave us the stellar notion of the efficient existence
of a functional form of an ontologically-actual universe; as
echoed by such great residual artifacts as the Great Pyramid of
Giza, and by the physical science of spherics.  Now, into this
so-called Platonic long cycle, into the Pythagorean predecessors
of Plato."
        So, you have the concept of how to travel on an ocean.  How
do you navigate?  By the stars.  How do you map the stars?  On a
flat plane?  No, you find you have to use a spherical map; so the
beginning of this spherical foundation of a physical science of
the Universe was discovered.  This was applied to navigate the
oceans.  He says from there it goes on to the idea of inland
travel, not just oceanic, but inland via internal waterways.  He
says this you saw developed with Charlemagne first.  He says,
"Charlemagne's reforms served as a precedent for the development
and role of the great internal system of rivers and canals, which
provided the crucial steps toward modern European economy, and
the application of the same reform within our United States.
Those inland waterways prepared the leap toward the revolutionary
US trans-continental railway systems.  First, inside the United
States; and in turn, the trans-continental rail systems of
Eurasia."  So, this was John Quincy Adams uniting the country
with waterways and with the rail systems.  He was the first to
fully unite the United States as a single territory.  This was
followed by Bismarck in Germany and Mendeleyev in Russia.  That
was the next advancement.
        Then he says, "Now, the prospect of the combined effect of
magnetic levitation mass transport systems and rail, which will
connect the principal continents of the world, would render most
ocean transport of freight technologically obsolete; because the
modern successor of ordinary internal rail transport will have
rendered much of ocean freight technologically, and therefore
economically, obsolete."  We are starting to see the beginnings
of this with things like the North-South transport corridor from
India to Iran to Russia; which cuts off the maritime route by
making it 40% shorter.  There are also new rail lines developing
between China and Europe.  The first train of which, for example,
just went from Beijing to London, starting January 1, 2017; the
first time ever in history.  There are 39 various routes now
between China and Europe; inland rail following the route of the
old Silk Road, but with modern rail.  As LaRouche says, if you
have high-speed magnetic levitation rail, that would be even a
further advancement.
        Next, he says, "Changes such as those, illustrate a general
principle which will be expressed in certain nearby Solar System
locations.  Now, we're going to go to the next step, such as our
Moon and Mars, when they will have come to be considered later,
as within the bounds of our presently still-young, new century's
plausible instances of work and habitation.  Typical problems to
be overcome for the purpose of human transport and dwelling in
nearby solar space, and later beyond, must look to such future
developments already foreseeable for later in the present
century.  We should then recognize that the development of basic
economic infrastructure had always been a needed creation of what
is required as a habitable development of a synthetic, rather
than a presumably natural, environment for the enhancement or
even the possibility of human life and practice at some time in
the existence of our human species."
        So, he's bring up, one, this long-term conception; he says
later, three generations — 75 years — should be our orientation
for space.  We have the questions of habitation and transport as
fundamental challenges; and this is the idea of the next phase.
But in general, also this last question of synthetic versus
natural; that these various new modes of habitation and travel
were based off of new discoveries that created a whole new
platform of existence, of habitation, of travel, where mankind
could reach through these advances.  And those were all creations
of the human mind in the likeness of the Creator.  Infrastructure
is not just making a bridge or something to get from here to
there; it's the question of a new advancement, of a new principle
that is applied throughout your entire society.  So, it's not an
add-on to your economic policy as Paul Ryan was saying.  "We'll
get to that; we'll figure out how to fit it in the budget."  It's
the beginning of your notion of economy.

        MEGAN BEETS:  Yeah Rachel, I think what you just put forward
here from Mr. LaRouche's overview and what you were just saying,
it's a way of thinking that most Americans have forgotten about.
People have lost touch with the kind of big thinking about long
sweeps of human history, and I think that that way of thinking —
the idea that we can consider 50-100-year cycles of human
progress in general — flies in the face of the biggest British
Empire lie which has dominated for some time.  The idea that
human growth is bad; human progress is bad; population growth
destroys the Earth and it's bad.  We have to hold back
technological progress; we have to go backwards.  Instead of
towards nuclear power, we have to go backwards towards solar
power, wind power; and reduce our impact and our presence on the
Earth.  That lie is exactly what's being threatened with both the
rise of the New Paradigm being led from Eurasia and the
potentiality of Mr. LaRouche's ideas; which are really the most
advanced version of the American System ideas of Hamilton,
Franklin Roosevelt, and Lincoln, of putting the creative power
and really the responsibility of the creative human mind to
change nature.  To alter nature to better support human life;
alter the biosphere to higher levels of productivity, as we do by
improving agriculture, for example.
        I just think that what you're bringing up here really is the
crucial point; that our common interest as mankind is man's
progress.  That right now dictates that we can't accept anything
lower than a long-term dedication to the highest forms of
technological advance and growth; which is nuclear fusion power
and its companion, a space program.  The colonization of the Moon
and eventual colonization of Mars.  That would really be a
beautiful renaissance expression of the American people working
with the rest of the world towards the uplifting of humanity
toward our real, true potential.

        OGDEN:  Well, as I said,  we are going to continue the
discussion of the substance — this was, I think, crucial Rachel;
because it's exactly what you're saying.  This insight into the
real meaning of something which has become banalized —
infrastructure; that's the key to all of economic science.  If
humanity is going to make the shift into the next phase of our
global existence as a species, it's only going to be possible if
we have a flourishing of this kind of philosophical understanding
of the science behind real, true economics.  It's a critical
ingredient of the ability of humanity to move forward.  So, I
think we're going to continue this; and there are a lot of
interrelated works that Mr. LaRouche authored over the last
several years which explore this concept of the real meaning of
infrastructure, the idea of the economic platform, and the role
that Hamiltonian credit should play in facilitating all of that.
        So, that said, that's the crucial insight and understanding
that you need to fight with us right now for the necessary policy
revolution here in the United States.  This all revolves around
the initiation of Lyndon LaRouche's Four Economic Laws.  Michael
went through them, but it's Glass-Steagall, number one.  We need
to return to Hamiltonian national banking, number two.  We need
an initiation as Franklin Roosevelt did it, of Federal credit
using that Hamiltonian national banking system to raise the
productive powers of labor of the workforce as a whole.  And this
all has to be driven by a dedication to the breakthroughs in
science; most especially right fusion and space exploration.
        So, there are two things that you need to do before this
program ends tonight.  Number one, you need to immediately sign
the petition that's being circulated by LaRouche PAC.  Again, the
address is: lpac.co/trumpsotu — all one word — trumpsotu for
State of the Union.  If you've already signed this, then it's a
great opportunity for you to spread it to your entire network and
help us reach the goal.  We've set the goal of 10,000 signatures
on this petition.  We are increasing the number of signatures,
but it has to increase at a much more rapid rate.  It's a perfect
opportunity to help us increase the outreach of the LaRouche
Political Action Committee.  Then, number two; immediately
subscribe, if you haven't already, to the LaRouche PAC daily
email list.  For two reasons: 1. in the 7-day countdown between
now and the inauguration, you need to have the daily marching
orders and the daily updates.  This is a very fast moving
situation, as you can see from the intelligence situation that we
presented at the beginning of this show.  Then after that, in the
critical first days of the new Presidency, as things change very
rapidly, you need to have the insight that only LaRouche PAC can
uniquely provide you.  And then, another reason is, as we develop
more crucial and unique, exclusive content like what you got a
taste of here today, especially this interview with Ray McGovern,
the veteran CIA intelligence analyst and the co-founder of
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, you will receive a
notice in your email inbox and this is material that you can't
afford to miss.  You really need to know as soon as we publish it
and as soon as we make it available.  So again, you can look for
the full interview that Jason Ross did with Ray McGovern to be
posted on the LaRouche PAC website and our YouTube channel on
Sunday, the day after tomorrow.  And you can also look forward to
the full speech that Helga Zepp-LaRouche delivered at this very
important, breakthrough diplomatic seminar in Stockholm, Sweden.
        So, thank you very much for tuning in tonight.  I think this
was a successful broadcast, and I'd like to thank Megan, Rachel,
and Michael for joining me in the discussion.  Please stay tuned
to larouchepac.com and good night.
 

Hvad vi skal gøre – nu!

I USA, i lighed med Danmark og andre lande, er der nogle helt afgørende ting, der må gennemføres, som Lyndon LaRouche har fremført som fire nødvendige love, der må implementeres omgående.

1) Der skal indføres en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, men under den overskrift er der mange andre ting, der må ske. Man må gå igennem bankernes og finansverdenens aktiviteter i lighed med det, man gjorde i USA, da Roosevelt blev indsat som præsident, så man får renset op og får adskilt tingene i legitime finansielle aktiviteter, der er vigtige for realøkonomien, og så spekulation, som skal helt ud af de normale banker. Man vil så få nogle mindre almindelige banker, som man kan hjælpe, hvis de får problemer, mens alle de andre spekulative aktiviteter ikke får lov til at belaste staten og skatteyderne, når de får problemer pga. fejlslagne spekulationer. Derefter skal der

2) skabes kredit til investeringer. Staten må gå ind og regulere det ovenfra og i den udstrækning, det er nødvendigt, med statslige kreditter sikre, at der bliver foretaget de nødvendige investeringer i samfundet og dets produktive aktiviteter. Det skal bl.a. udmønte sig i

3) store infrastrukturprojekter, der kan opgradere hele økonomien. Man kan bare skele til de enorme investeringer, Kina har foretaget siden 2008, hvor Kina har brugt over 1000 mia. dollars om året på infrastruktur og i dag har verdens største og bedste netværk af højhastighedstog. Programmet for Den Nye Silkevej er da også centreret om opbygning af grundlæggende infrastruktur, ikke blot i Kina, men i stadig større dele af verden. Når det gælder Danmark, har vi et forældet jernbanenet, der skal fornyes i form af et nationalt magnettognet eller højhastighedstognet i forbindelse med bygningen af en Kattegatbro. Vi skal så hurtigt som muligt have bygget den faste forbindelse over Femern Bælt og en Helsingør/Helsingborg-forbindelse. Der er masser af motorveje og andre projekter, der bare venter på at blive bygget. Der er så meget, der skal bygges, at vi kommer til at planlægge, hvordan vi kan få nok kvalificeret arbejdskraft og byggekapacitet for at kunne få alle de mange projekter realiseret. Alle disse projekter er nødvendige som en del af at løfte den danske økonomi op på et højere produktivitetsniveau, og samtidig skal vi have langt mere gang i forskning og udvikling.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 12. januar, 2017 – Ingen mennesker i USA kan undgå at mærke den anstrengte atmosfære af forventning, der gennemtrænger disse første dage af året 2017. På den ene eller anden måde er Bush/Obama-tyranniets seneste seksten, blodige års vante sandheder ved at være forbi; vi står alle ansigt til ansigt med det ukendte. Omkring denne udvikling, og sættende betingelserne for den, er en fuldstændig ny, revolutionær situation på hele det internationale plan, som det store flertal af amerikanere ikke har den fjerneste idé om.

Samtidig er nogle af vore lavereplacerede lakajer for Det britiske Imperium, i takt med, at dagen for indsættelse af den nye præsident nærmer sig (20. januar), hvide i ansigtet af frygt. Vil de miste nogle af deres privilegier? Hvad vil der ske med dem? De synes at være ved at gå fra forstanden med deres skrigeri om stadig mere vilde fupnumre imod den nyvalgte præsident. I stedet for denne galskab skulle de hellere se til, at de »fortryder, angrer og gør godt igen«, som patrioten Andrew J. Bacevich skrev 9. jan. i en artikel.

I mellemtiden håber det, af de store nyhedsmedier ignorerede, og derfor ukendte af dem, der læser disse, store flertal af amerikanere, der har måttet bide i græsset i seksten år og længere, at de omsider kommer på en bedre kost.

Men vi står alle, uden undtagelse, og stirrer ind i ansigtet på det ukendte og uforudsete – det uventede. Og de, der først lander på deres fødder igen, parat til at handle, så det skaber resultat, vil starte ud med en stor fordel. Vi må være disse første. Det bliver ganske bestemt ikke de ynkelige lakajer i pressen, eller bureaukraterne uden samvittighed, og som i øjeblikket (men ikke ret meget længere) står i spidsen for »efterretningstjenesterne«.

Og derfor er der ingen, der ved, hvad de skal gøre. Hvordan kan vi undgå et overhængende kollaps af finanssystemet? Hvordan kan vi få en reel, økonomisk genrejsning? Hvordan passer vi ind i det globale system? Hvor er menneskeheden på vej hen? Kun de af os, der har kæmpet for at gøre Lyndon LaRouches opdagelser til vore egne, kender blot de første skridt til besvarelse af disse presserende spørgsmål.

Det er af disse grunde, at alle lige pludselig lytter til os. De kræver at forstå LaRouches Fire Love – for hvem ellers har svaret? Uden afgørende input fra Lyndon LaRouche, vil vi ikke blive i stand til at komme ud af dette rod. Og læren af gårsdagens LaRouchePAC-mission til Capitol Hill går endnu videre end til en ny modtagelighed for genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, og især for LaRouches Fire Love, efter Hamiltons principper. Den går videre end det, til at omfatte det enorme indtryk, som dér blev skabt, af Schiller Instituttets musikdirektør John Sigerson, med sin briefing om højtideligheden den 7. jan. ved Tåremindesmærket i Bayonne, New Jersey, hvor Schiller Instituttets New York Borgerkor deltog. Dette repræsenterede sjælen i Manhattan-projektet, et af Lyndon LaRouches seneste store bidrag til at redde USA, og menneskeslægten.

Og I har endnu ikke set det halve af det!

Den britiske efterretningstjenestes rolle i at køre den svigagtige kampagne for at male Donald Trump som en farlig agent til Rusland og Vladimir Putin, der angiveligt er i gang med at undergrave amerikansk frihed og demokrati, er gået det bekendte »ét skridt for vidt«. Husker I hærens chefrådgiver Joseph Welch i McCarthys høringer om USA’s hær i 1954 (senator Joseph McCarthy indledte undersøgelser af angivelig kommunistisk aktivitet i hæren), mod slutningen af Truman/McCarthys antikommunistiske heksejagter? Da McCarthy angreb en ung jurist i Welch’s advokatfirma for at være kommunist, fordi han havde været i Advokaternes Laug, svarede Welch: Nu er De gået for vidt. Har De trods alt ingen anstændighed i livet? Har De ingen anstændighed tilbage?« Denne ordveksling gjorde det grundlæggende set af med denne del af den beskidte, britiske operation for at sønderrive arven efter Franklin Roosevelt i Amerika – selv om andre britiske operationer fortsatte i andre former frem til i dag.

I går konfronterede Donald Trump vor tids »Joseph McCarthy’er« i det amerikanske pressekorps, og i det amerikanske efterretningssamfund, samtidig med, at det afsløredes, at denne beskidte operation lige fra begyndelsen er blevet styret af den britiske efterretningstjeneste. Et 35 sider langt dokument, som websiden BuzzFeed har offentliggjort, og som CNN dernæst har fremmet, aftenen før Trumps pressekonference, og 10 dage før hans indsættelse, er fuldt af hysteriske påstande, der med lethed kan bevises at være fabrikerede løgne. Ikke alene siger disse påstande, at Trump arbejdede hånd i hånd med Putin for at hacke Demokraternes Nationalkomite og John Podestas (Hillary Clintons kampagneleder) e-mails, og dernæst spredte de hackede e-mails via Wikileaks, men de påstår også, at Trump blev afpresset af Putin med videoer af Trump, der boltrer sig med prostituerede i Rusland, og endda urinerer på en hotelseng, som Barack Obama havde sovet i.

I sin pressekonference naglede Trump den forræderiske kendsgerning i denne operation. Hvis denne platte rapport var blevet offentliggjort af efterretningstjenesterne, sagde han, »ville det være en enorm plet på deres generalieblad, hvis de rent faktisk gjorde det … Jeg synes, det var en skændsel … en skændsel, at efterretningstjenesterne tillod sådanne informationer, der viste sig at være så forkerte og falske, at komme frem. Jeg synes, det er en skændsel, og jeg siger, at det er noget, nazi-Tyskland ville have gjort, og også gjorde. Jeg synes, det er en skændsel, at information, der var forkert og falsk og aldrig fandt sted, blev offentliggjort.« Da CNN krævede retten til at respondere til Trumps fordømmelse af deres deltagelse i fupnummeret, afskar Trump dem med: »Ikke jer. Jeres organisation er forfærdelig.«

Men Trump identificerede imidlertid ikke ophavsmændene til løgnene – de britiske efterretningstjenester. Materialet er så tydeligt falsk, at New York Times, der har været i centrum for kampagnen for at miskreditere Trump som et russisk aktiv, erkendte, at »Topefterretningsfolks beslutning om at give præsidenten, den nyvalgte præsident og den såkaldte Ottebande – Republikanske og Demokratiske ledere i Kongressen og efterretningsudvalgene – materiale, som de vidste ikke var bekræftet og var ærekrænkende, var ekstremt usædvanlig. Den tidligere britiske efterretningsofficer, der indsamlede materialet om hr. Trump, anses for at være en kompetent og pålidelig operatør med udstrakte erfaringer i Rusland, sagde amerikanske regeringsfolk. Men han videreformidlede det, han hørte fra russiske informanter og andre, og det, de fortalte ham, er endnu ikke blevet undersøgt af den amerikanske efterretningstjeneste.«

Faktisk rapporterede New York Times den 6. jan., at den officielle rapport, der i sidste uge blev offentliggjort af amerikanske efterretningstjenester, og som anklagede Putin for at undergrave det amerikanske valg, også kom fra britisk efterretningstjeneste, der »advarede om, at Moskva havde hacket sig ind i Demokraternes Nationalkomites computerservere, og havde givet deres amerikanske modparter besked«.

Men dette er præcis, hvad Lyndon LaRouche i mange, mange år har rapporteret, med hensyn til amerikansk efterretningstjenestes underdanighed over for Det britiske Imperium; især under Bush og Obama. Det var til syvende og sidst briterne, der trak USA ind i krig med Irak, baseret på Tony Blairs »udmajede« efterretningsrapporter om Saddam Husseins ikkeeksisterende masseødelæggelsesvåben; ind i en krig mod Libyen, baseret på britisk efterretningstjenestes løgne om Gaddafi og de al-Qaeda-tilknyttede, libyske »frihedskæmpere«; og de igangværende krige mod Syrien og Yemen, baseret på løgne fra de samme, britisk-saudiske netværk, der støtter terrorister i hele Sydvestasien, med det formål at gennemtvinge »regimeskift« mod sekulære regeringer.

I går sagde Trump, at, »hvis Putin synes om Trump, ved I så hvad? Det kaldes en fordel, ikke en ulempe«, og beskrev den presserende nødvendighed i at samaarbejde om at nedkæmpe terrorisme. Det samme er tilfældet med venskab med Kina og Xi Jinpings Nye Silkevejsinitiativer i hele verden, og som Trump ligeledes må tilslutte sig, som kernen i USA’s udenrigspolitik.

I går var et team på flere end 20 medlemmer af LaRouche Politiske Aktionskomite på Capitol Hill, hvor de mobiliserede Kongressen til omgående at vedtage Glass-Steagall og i særdeleshed krævede, at både Demokrater og Republikanere holdt Trump fast på sit løfte under kampagnen om at implementere Glass-Steagall og omdirigere statskredit til at genopbygge den industrielle og landbrugsmæssige infrastruktur, samt genoprette nationens forfølgelse af en opnåelse af fusionskraft, udforskning af rummet og de fremskudte grænseområder for menneskelig viden. Intet mindre end dette kan sætte verden tilbage på en kurs, der er i overensstemmelse med menneskelig værdighed.

Foto: Et luftfoto af Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Regeringens Kommunikationshovedkvarter, i Cheltenham, Gloustershire. GCHQ er en af tre efterretningstjenester i Storbritannien, med fokus på kommunikations-efterretninger, tilsvarende det amerikanske NSA. [GCHQ/Open Government License] 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 10. januar, 2016 – I denne uge udsætter LaRouchePAC og deres samarbejdspartnere Kongressen for laserhede – sammen med international slagkraft fra New York City – for at fremtvinge et skift i USA’s politik til fordel for et nyt paradigme for udvikling for menneskeheden, og for at fremtvinge en afslutning af forfølgelsen af krig og tyranni. Om 10 dage vil USA få en ny præsident, men dette er ikke tider, hvor man blot ’venter og ser’, hvad der sker efter indsættelsen. Det er bydende nødvendigt at skabe et nyt, politisk miljø, til omgående ikrafttræden.

Den lovgivende magt i USA – Kongressens medlemmer – tvinges til at ’se kendsgerningerne i øjnene’: at der findes en vej ud af Bush- og Obamaårenes dødbringende morads, og at de – kongresmedlemmerne – må handle omgående. Personlige møder – både arrangeret på forhånd og impromptu – med LPAC-delegationer fra fem østkyststater er dagens orden på Capitol her midt i ugen, hvor LaRouches »Fire Love«, der begynder med genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall og relaterede dokumenter for politik, omdeles.

Disse aktiviteter finder sted samtidigt på nationalt plan og på lokalt niveau, der indvirker på Washington. Medlem af LaRouchePAC Komite for Politisk Strategi, Kesha Rogers, leder en delegation i Austin, Texas, hvis delstatskongres åbnede i dag. I går aftes, på de Nationale Landmænds konvent i staten Indiana, åbnede fremlæggelsen af LaRouches nødvendige hastepolitik præsentationerne. I staten Virginia blev der i dag fremstillet en ny resolution (House Joint Res. 642) i General Assembly (delstatskongressen), der erklærer, »at USA’s Nationale Kongres opfordres til at vedtage lovgivning, der genindfører den adskillelse af kommerciel bankvirksomhed og investeringsvirksomhed, som var i kraft under Glass/Steagall-loven …«.

Lyndon LaRouche understregede efter en briefing om begivenhederne, at man skulle fortsætte med at lægge pres på de lovgivende forsamlinger. »Få jobbet i hus. I har kendsgerningerne. Fremstil fakta for at støtte argumentet.«

Den stærkt fokuserede intervention med LaRouches politik står i dramatisk kontrast til den hvirvel af løgne og fordærvelse, der ellers præsenteres, især i medierne, og hvis formål er at køre aktiverede borgere ud på et sidespor og demoralisere dem. »Anklag Rusland for hacking«-kampagnen kører stadig på fulde omdrejninger fra Det hvide Hus og demente klakører i Kongressen. I dag var der en høring i Senatskomiteen for Efterretningsanliggender om rapporten fra 6. jan. fra Obamas efterretningschefer, der aflagde forklaring for komiteen. Direktør for den Nationale Efterretningstjeneste James Clapper gentog her, at ingen kilder vil blive offentliggjort, kun konklusionen af disse kilder, som er, at ’Rusland gjorde det’ og at ’Putin beordrede det’.

Dernæst finder der en protestaktion sted, som er en total blindgyde. Søndag, den 15. jan, vil for eksempel organisationen associeret til Bernie Sanders/Hillary Clinton promovere offentlige møder i 30 byer i hele landet under banneret, »Vores første krav, red sundhedssektoren«. Sanders optrådte på et borgermøde, der blev landsdækkende transmitteret live på CNN i går aftes, hvor han kom med det kortfattede budskab om at bekæmpe »milliardærer« og »de store selskabers grådighed«. Begivenheden fandt sted på et college i Washington, D.C., i totalt kontrollerede omgivelser, der ikke tillod hverken adgang eller diskussion. Ikke ét eneste ord kom over Sanders’ læber om hverken Wall Streets bankerot eller nødvendigheden af Glass-Steagall.

For Obamas vedkommende, så er det meningen, at han i dag, 10. jan., skal holde sin Store Løgn-afskedstale fra Chicago. På Det Hvide Hus’ webside i sidste uge udtalte han, at han vil »fejre«, hvordan USA er blevet »forandret til det bedre i løbet af disse seneste otte år …« I mellemtiden fortsætter hans administration med sine farlige provokationer. I går sortlistede Obamas Finansministerium yderligere fem russiske personer (under Magnitsky-loven).

Over alt dette hæver sig den kraft, der ligger i sandhed og skønhed, som det ses i det udtryk for dybt venskab mellem Rusland og USA, der demonstreres i ceremonierne og korfremførelserne ved ceremonien den 7. jan., hvor der blev nedlagt en krans ved Tåredråbemindesmærket i Bayonne, New Jersey. Se: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS79QMGQ_Do&feature=youtube

Den 11. januar vil Schiller Instituttets musikdirektør John Sigerson lede en delegation på Capitol Hill for at mødes med kongresmedlemmer og styrke deres forståelse af musikkens kraft, og den kraft, der ligger i at handle på baggrund af lovmæssige principper.      

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 8. januar, 2017 – Én dag efter den nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump mødtes med direktør for den Nationale Efterretningstjeneste James Clapper, chef for CIA John Brennan og chef for NSA Michael Rogers, der intenderede at overbevise ham om, at Rusland, og Putin personligt, er ude på at ødelægge det amerikanske, demokratiske system, udstedte nyvalgte præsident Trump en erklæring, der sandfærdigt identificerede Amerika og den amerikanske befolkning og frembød et konkret skridt hen imod løsningen:

»At have gode relationer med Rusland er en god ting, ikke en dårlig ting. Kun ’dumme’ mennesker, eller tåber, ville tænke, at det er dårligt! Vi har problemer nok i verden uden endnu ét. Når jeg bliver præsident, vil Rusland have meget mere respekt for os, end de nu har, og begge lande vil, måske, arbejde sammen for at løse nogle af de mange store og presserende problemer og spørgsmål i VERDEN.«

Denne sandhed kom til udtryk gennem LaRouches Schiller Institut i lørdags, i en smuk demonstration af det sande venskab mellem det amerikanske og russiske folk, som kan og må genetableres omgående. En mindebegivenhed blev afholdt ved Tåredråbemindesmærket i Bayonne, New Jersey – det mindesmærke, som blev skænket af den russiske regering for at ære de mennesker, der blev dræbt i terrorangrebene mod USA. (se: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Struggle_Against_World_Terrorism)

Ved begivenheden fremførte Schiller Instituttets Kor både Ruslands nationalhymne (på russisk) og USA’s nationalhymne (på engelsk), og der var også indlæg af New Yorks Politikorps’ Ceremonienhed; af den Russiske Føderations første, permanente vicerepræsentant til FN; forkvinde for 11/9-Familier Forenede for Juridisk Retfærdighed mod Terror; Bayonne Brandmandskorps; og Schiller Instituttet. Begivenheden fandt sted for at ære dem, der mistede livet i det russiske Tu-154 flystyrt juledag, og især de 64 medlemmer af Alexandrov Ensemblet (kendt som Den røde Armés Kor), som omkom på vej til Syrien for at dele deres musik og dedikation til kultur med det syriske folk. Se en 24 minutters video af begivenheden på https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fchk5m8HJe0&feature=youtu.be

Dræbermaskinen under Obama bruger også sine sidste dage i embedet til at underminere Trumps forpligtende engagement til at afslutte de kriminelle »regimeskiftkrige«, der har forvandlet de seneste 16 år under Bush og Obama til en æra med ondskab og blodsudgydelser uden fortilfælde i amerikansk historie, samtidig med et forsøg på at styre den nye administration gennem militære konfrontationer med både Rusland og Kina. Samtidig med, at Obama deployerede et enormt antal tanks, helikoptere og andet militærudstyr til den russiske grænse i Europa i løbet af weekenden, har han også deployeret atomhangarskibsgruppen U.S.S. Carl Vinson til Stillehavet, der er timet til at ankomme til asiatiske farvande i nærheden af Kina samme dag, som Trumps indsættelse finder sted. I Sydkorea har Obama fået autorisation fra præsident Park Geun-hyes regering – som selv konfronteres med en rigsretssag, der kunne gøre en ende på dens administration i løbet af få dage – der giver USA tilladelse til at etablere et 1000 til 2000 mand stort »drabsteam«, der har »opgaven at eliminere Pyongyangs krigskommando, inklusive Kim Jong-un, og paralysere dens funktioner«, ifølge Sydkoreas største nyhedstjeneste, Yonhap. En sådan provokation må både afsløres og afsluttes omgående.

Verden har kun to muligheder – økonomisk kollaps og verdenskrig under den imperiale sammenhæng, der udgøres af London/Wall Street, og som kontrollerede både Bush og Obama, eller også et revolutionært skifte, der reflekterer Amerikas historiske rødder i Alexander Hamiltons principper, og som gør det muligt for USA at tilslutte sig Rusland og Kina og deres fælles bestræbelse på at knuse terrorisme og samtidig opbygge moderne nationalstater gennem udviklingen med den Nye Silkevej, som Kina har lanceret.

LaRouche-organisationen er helt fokuseret på den presserende opgave, der konfronterer den nye Kongres og den nye præsident: implementer Glass-Steagall nu og knus således Wall Streets hasardspilsboble og genopliv Amerikas forpligtende engagement til videnskabens fremskudte grænser, og hæv således den produktive og kulturelle platform for alle amerikanere. En appel, der nu omdeles af LaRouchePAC, kræver, at Donald Trump lever op til sit kampagneløfte om at implementere Glass-Steagall og kræver, at han annoncerer dette i sin indsættelsestale og i sin Tale til Unionen (se http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=17198 ).

Vi befinder os i et af historiens enestående øjeblikke, hvor denne transformation er mulig, og nødvendig, for den menneskelige art som helhed.

»Underskriverne af dette brev føler stærkt, at det er nødvendigt at beskytte vores økonomi fra endnu et unødvendigt markedssammenbrud og en recession som den, vi oplevede i december, 2007. Med Deres indtræden i embedet er omstændighederne for et kollaps alt for lig dem, der eksisterede i 2007: stigende værdi af værdipapirer, sammen med en manglende adskillelse af bankvirksomhed, der er beskyttet af FDIC, og så højrisiko-investeringsaktivitet.

»Dette brev blev oprindeligt omdelt af en gruppe ved navn, ’Vores revolution i det nordvestlige Ohio, med et forpligtende engagement til at forene hele nationen. De har udstedt en opfordring til alle grupper – for eksempel, Tea Party, Republikanere, Demokrater, fagforeninger og erhvervslivet – til at komme sammen omkring det nødvendige, første skridt, som er vedtagelsen af Glass/Steagall-loven. Da deres indsats er i overensstemmelse med LaRouchePAC’s mål, cirkulerer vi det, som en del af en national mobilisering for en omgående vedtagelse af Glass/Steagall-loven i Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og underskrevet og sat i kraft af præsident Trump.

På dette grundlag anmoder vi alle borgere om at samles omkring dette økonomiske program, som den eneste, reelle måde, hvorpå både den alvorlige, økonomiske og finansielle krise, efter årtiers ødelæggende politik, kan adresseres, såvel som også muligheden for storslået udvikling – som vi nu ser det i hele Asien og videre, med Kinas initiativ for den Nye Silkevej.«

Dernæst anmoder brevet:

»Underskriv denne appel; omdel den til jeres venner, familie og netværk. Hvert underskrevet eksemplar vil blive personligt overbragt til jeres kongresmedlem og senatorer. Som præsident Franklin Roosevelt erklærede i sin første indsættelsestale: ’Denne nation kræver handling, og handling nu.’«

Teksten til dette åbne brev er som det følgende. Det bærer titlen,

»Åbent brev til Donald Trump og til alle medlemmerne af Kongressen«; dato januar 2017.

»Underskriverne af dette brev føler stærkt, at det er nødvendigt at beskytte vores økonomi fra endnu et unødvendigt markedssammenbrud og en recession som den, vi oplevede i december, 2007. Med Deres indtræden i embedet er omstændighederne for et kollaps alt for lig dem, der eksisterede i 2007: stigende værdi af værdipapirer, sammen med en manglende adskillelse af bankvirksomhed, der er beskyttet af FDIC, og så højrisiko-investeringsaktivitet.

Vi bifalder [præsident Trumps] kampagneudtalelse i Charlotte, North Carolina, 26. okt., 2016, hvor han støttede et krav om ’En Glass/Steagall-version for det 21. århundrede’, og om en genindførelse af en moderne Glass/Steagall-lov. Vi har tillid til, at De forstår, at en stabilisering af erhvervsklimaet og en sikring af de værdier, der er adskilt fra Wall Streets spekulation, er af afgørende betydning for velstand under Deres administration.

For at slå tonen for drøftelser i Kongressen i 2017 an, anmoder vi om, at [præsident Trump] gentager [sin] støtte til Glass/Steagall-loven i sin Tale til Unionen.

De kan være forvisset om, at, med denne handling, vil De finde fælles fodslag med både Republikanere og Demokrater; siden begge partiers politiske programerklæringer indeholder støtte til en banklovgivning, der adskiller forsikrede konti fra Wall Street spekulation, i de respektive partiers politiske programmer.

Vi takker Dem for Deres respons til krav fra borgere, folk fra erhvervslivet, bankierer og kongresmedlemmer, på vores vej frem. [Med en opfordring til, at Glass/Steagall-loven vedtages i både USA’s Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og at loven underskrives og sættes i kraft af den tiltrædende præsident, Donald Trump, underskriver de følgende personer:]«

(Foto: Donald Trump ved et kampagnemøde i Newtown, Bucks County, PA, fredag, 21. okt., 2016.)

Vi befinder os i en nedtællingsperiode; vi er i de sidste to uger, før overgangen til det nye præsidentskab. Om præcis to uger fra i dag er det indsættelsesdag, den 20. januar, og vi vil have en ny præsident i dette land. Som I ved, hvis I var med i går på Fireside Chat på LaRouchePAC’s hjemmeside, og hvis I har fået vore daglige og ugentlige e-mailopdateringer, så er vi engageret i en stor mobilisering. Det er vores ansvar, og jeres ansvar, at skabe dagsordenen for dette tiltrædende præsidentskab. Det må være vores holdning, at 2017 er året for den Nye Silkevej, året for det Nye Paradigme internationalt, året for en genoplivelse af Alexanders Hamiltons ideer, og for Lyndon LaRouches ideer. I USA betyder det, at Glass-Steagall omgående må vedtages; må sættes på dagsordenen; må underskrives og sættes i kraft som lov af den nye præsident. Dette vil ikke ske af sig selv; der er intet internt momentum, der vil gøre det muligt for dette at ske, mens vi læner os tilbage og kigger på. Som det hele tiden har været tilfældet, så vil dette kun ske på baggrund af en ekstraordinær mobilisering fra aktivisters side, i hele USA. Et meget vigtigt initiativ er blevet taget af en gruppe aktivister fra det nordlige Ohio; og LaRouchePAC vil udgive et åbent brev eller en pamflet, som skal forstærke og opmuntre mobiliseringen omkring dette initiativ.

Jeg vil indlede vores udsendelse med at læse LaRouchePAC’s introduktion i denne pamflet, og derefter oplæse lidt af teksten i dette åbne brev. Det lyder som følger:

»Dette brev blev oprindeligt omdelt af en gruppe ved navn, ’Vores revolution i det nordvestlige Ohio, med et forpligtende engagement til at forene hele nationen. De har udstedt en opfordring til alle grupper – for eksempel, Tea Party, Republikanere, Demokrater, fagforeninger og erhvervslivet – til at komme sammen omkring det nødvendige, første skridt, som er vedtagelsen af Glass/Steagall-loven. Da deres indsats er i overensstemmelse med LaRouchePAC’s mål, cirkulerer vi det, som en del af en national mobilisering for en omgående vedtagelse af Glass/Steagall-loven i Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og underskrevet og sat i kraft af præsident Trump.

På dette grundlag anmoder vi alle borgere om at samles omkring dette økonomiske program, som den eneste, reelle måde, hvorpå både den alvorlige, økonomiske og finansielle krise, efter årtiers ødelæggende politik, kan adresseres, såvel som også muligheden for storslået udvikling – som vi nu ser det i hele Asien og videre, med Kinas initiativ for den Nye Silkevej.«

Dernæst anmoder brevet:

»Underskriv denne appel; omdel den til jeres venner, familie og netværk. Hvert underskrevet eksemplar vil blive personligt overbragt til jeres kongresmedlem og senatorer. Som præsident Franklin Roosevelt erklærede i sin første indsættelsestale: ’Denne nation kræver handling, og handling nu.’«

Teksten til dette åbne brev er som det følgende. Jeg læser det i sin helhed, fordi vi støtter dette initiativ. Det bærer titlen, »Åbent brev til Donald Trump og til alle medlemmerne af Kongressen«; dato januar 2017.

»Underskriverne af dette brev føler stærkt, at det er nødvendigt at beskytte vores økonomi fra endnu et unødvendigt markedssammenbrud og en recession som den, vi oplevede i december, 2007. Med Deres indtræden i embedet er omstændighederne for et kollaps alt for lig dem, der eksisterede i 2007: stigende værdi af værdipapirer, sammen med en manglende adskillelse af bankvirksomhed, der er beskyttet af FDIC, og så højrisiko-investeringsaktivitet.

Vi bifalder [præsident Trumps] kampagneudtalelse i Charlotte, North Carolina, 26. okt., 2016, hvor han støttede et krav om ’En Glass/Steagall-version for det 21. århundrede’, og om en genindførelse af en moderne Glass/Steagall-lov. Vi har tillid til, at De forstår, at en stabilisering af erhvervsklimaet og en sikring af de værdier, der er adskilt fra Wall Streets spekulation, er af afgørende betydning for velstand under Deres administration.

For at slå tonen for drøftelser i Kongressen i 2017 an, anmoder vi om, at [præsident Trump] gentager [sin] støtte til Glass/Steagall-loven i sin Tale til Unionen.

De kan være forvisset om, at, med denne handling, vil De finde fælles fodslag med både Republikanere og Demokrater; siden begge partiers politiske programerklæringer indeholder støtte til en banklovgivning, der adskiller forsikrede konti fra Wall Street spekulation, i de respektive partiers politiske programmer.

Vi takker Dem for Deres respons til krav fra borgere, folk fra erhvervslivet, bankierer og kongresmedlemmer, på vores vej frem. [Med en opfordring til, at Glass/Steagall-loven vedtages i både USA’s Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og at loven underskrives og sættes i kraft af den tiltrædende præsident, Donald Trump, underskriver de følgende personer:]«

Så igen, dette er en appel, der cirkuleres af en gruppe aktivister; mange af dem var oprindeligt tilknyttet Bernie Sanders kampagne i det nordlige Ohio. Men det er en tværpolitisk gruppe ved navn »Vores revolution« med hjemsted i det nordlige Ohio, og som nævnt i pamflettens indledende afsnit, så er LaRouchePAC enige i dette initiativ; og dette er ét aspekt af vores nationale mobilisering for at tvinge Glass-Steagall på dagsordenen i de 14 dage, der er til indsættelsen af den nye præsident. Dette må selvfølgelig ske i sammenhæng med den fulde vedtagelse af programmet for LaRouches Fire Love; dette adresseredes af en resolution, der blev vedtaget af staten Illinois’ delstatskongres i juni sidste år, 2016, med titlen, »Appel til Kongressen om at vedtage Loven om Amerikas Økonomiske Genrejsning«, og som nævner de fire elementer i LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love – Glass-Steagall; statslig bankvirksomhed efter Hamiltons princip; statslige kreditter til forøgelse af den produktive arbejdsstyrke i USA; og en tilbagevenden til et forceret rumprogram, med videnskab som drivkraft, og et forceret program for opnåelse af fusionsteknologi, og så fremdeles.

Så jeg siger det ligeud, at vi har 14 dage; vi befinder os i en nedtælling. Obama-administrationen er for afgående, og den nye administration tiltræder. Som vi ser på mange fronter, så befinder USA sig virkelig i et opgør netop nu om, hvad det nye præsidentskab vil blive; intet er afgjort. Vi ved dog, at der er hysteri mange steder, som de ses af de deciderede angreb på den tiltrædende præsident fra førende medlemmer af efterretningssamfundet; virkelig et uhørt niveau af angreb, giftigheder fra James Clapper og andre i deres beretninger for kongressen. Jeg tror ikke, vi har set dette tidligere i historien; og det står klart, at hysteriet opstår omkring den kendsgerning, at der er udsigt til et dramatisk skift i vores udenrigspolitik. [Dette skift] defineres mest af den kendsgerning, at den tiltrædende præsident har erklæret, at vi ikke vil indtage en holdning med krigskonfrontation med Rusland; hvilket har været de sidste otte års politik med Obama, hvis ikke mere. Så der er et stort potentiale mht. USA’s forhold til et paradigmeskift, til en dynamik, der er under forandring, på verdensscenen; men meget er fortsat uafgjort. Det er vores ansvar at tvinge Glass-Steagall/Hamilton-programmet på dagsordenen i løbet af de næste 14 dage.

For at kunne gennemføre dette, har vi brug for et langt dybere niveau af forståelse hos den amerikanske befolkning som helhed, og især hos de ledende borgeraktivister i dette land, en forståelse af, hvor Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske politik kommer fra, og hvad den større dybsindighed bag denne politik er. Vi erklærer hermed, at år 2017 vil blive et år, hvor disse ideers større dybsindighed bliver udviklet og forstået; meget lig den måde, hvorpå vi i løbet af de seneste måneder har haft en aktivering omkring en forståelse af Alexander Hamiltons ideer, med en tilbagevenden til hans politik, hans originale rapporter [til Kongressen] om statsbankvirksomhed, om producenter og så videre. Det er denne form for fordybelse og undersøgelse af den fysiske økonomis grundlæggende principper, der vil gøre dette initiativ succesfuldt og gøre det muligt for os at hæve niveauet mht. vores involvering i skabelsen af dette Nye Paradigme på verdensscenen.

Det vil Ben [Deniston] uddybe lidt nærmere; men dette er i realiteten en appel om handling og om mobilisering for at komme godt i gang med dette i det nye år.

(Her følger udskrift af hele webcastet på engelsk):

 MAKE 2017 THE YEAR OF LAROUCHE'S IDEAS! CHANGE YOUR CONCEPT OF WHAT IS POSSIBLE!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast, January 6, 2017

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it's January 6, 2017. Happy
New Year! This is our first Friday evening webcast of the new year from larouchepac.com.

My name is Matthew Ogden, and joining
me in the studio is Ben Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science
Team; and two members of our Policy Committee joining us over
video. Kesha is joining us from Houston, Texas; and Rachel is
joining us from Boston, Massachusetts.
        We are in a countdown period; this is the final two weeks of
the Presidential transition.  Exactly two weeks from today is
Inauguration Day, January 20th, and we will have a new President
in this country.  As you know, on the LaRouche PAC website, if
you were on the activist call last night, the Fireside Chat, if
you've been receiving our daily and weekly email updates; we are
engaged in a major mobilization.  It is our responsibility, and
it is your responsibility, to shape the agenda of this incoming
Presidency.  We have to have the attitude that 2017 is the year
of the New Silk Road, the year of the New Paradigm
internationally, the year of the revival of Alexander Hamilton,
and the year of the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche.  What that means
immediately in the United States is that Glass-Steagall must
immediately be adopted; must be put on the agenda; must be signed
into law by the new President.  This is not going to happen on
its own; there is no internal momentum which is going to allow
this to happen while we sit back and watch.  Just as has been the
case all along, this is only going to happen from an
extraordinary mobilization by activists from all across the
United States.  A very important initiative has been taken by a
group of activists in northern Ohio; and LaRouche PAC is issuing
an open letter or leaflet which is meant to amplify and encourage
the mobilization around this initiative.
        I'm going to begin our broadcast by just reading the
LaRouche PAC introduction, and then some of the text of this open
letter.  This reads as follows:
        "This letter was originally distributed by a group entitled
'Our Revolution' in northwest Ohio, with a commitment to unify
the whole nation.  They have issued a call to all groups — for
example, the Tea Party, Republicans, Democrats, labor, and
business — to rally around the necessary first step of passing
Glass-Steagall legislation.  As their effort is consistent with
the aims of LaRouche PAC, we are circulating this as part of a
national mobilization for the immediate passage of Glass-Steagall
legislation by the House and the Senate; to be signed into law by
President Trump.
        "On this page, we are asking every citizen to rally around
this economic program as the only effective way to address both
the dire economic and financial crisis after decades of
destructive policies, as well as the potential for great
development — as we now see throughout Asia and beyond, with
China's New Silk Road initiative."
        So it asks, "Sign this petition; share it with your friends,
family, and networks.  Each signed copy will be hand-delivered to
your Congressman and Senators.  As President Franklin Roosevelt
stated in his first inaugural address, 'This nation asks for
action, and action now.'"
        Now the text of this open letter is as follows.  I'm going
to read it in full, because we're encouraging this initiative.
It is entitled "Open Letter to Donald Trump and to All Members of
Congress"; dateline January 2017.
        "We the undersigned strongly feel the need for protecting
our economy from another unnecessary market crash and recession
like the one experienced in December of 2007.  As you take
office, the conditions for a collapse are too similar to those of
2007: rising asset values together with a lack of separation
between FDIC insured banking and risk-investment brokering.

        "We applaud [President Trump’s] campaign statement in
Charlotte, North Carolina, October 26, 2016, endorsing a call for
'A 21st Century version of Glass-Steagall,' and reintroducing a
modern day Glass-Steagall Act.  We trust that you understand that
stabilizing the business climate and securing the assets as
separate from Wall Street speculation is a key to prosperity
during your administration.

        "To set the tone of discourse in Congress 2017, we ask that
[President Trump] restate [his] support for a Glass-Steagall Act
during [the] State of the Union address.

        "Be assured in doing so, you will find common ground with
both the Republicans and the Democrats; since both party
platforms have the support of banking legislation that separates
insured accounts from Wall Street speculation in their respective
platforms.

        "Thank you for responding to the call from citizens,
businesspersons, bankers and legislators as we move forward. [In
urging that Glass-Steagall legislation be passed in both the
House and the Senate of the U.S. Congress, and signed into law by
incoming President Donald Trump, we are the undersigned:]"

        So again, this is a petition which is being circulated by a
group of activists; many of whom were originally associated with
the Bernie Sanders campaign in northern Ohio. But it's a
non-partisan group called "Our Revolution" based in northern
Ohio, and as we said in the introductory paragraph, LaRouche PAC
finds common cause with this initiative; and this is one aspect
of our national mobilization to force Glass-Steagall onto the
agenda in the 14 days between now and the inauguration of the new
Presidency.  Of course, this also has to go along with the full
enactment of the LaRouche Four Laws program; this was addressed
by a resolution which was adopted by the Illinois state
legislature in June of last year, 2016, which was called "Call
Upon Congress to Enact the American Recovery Act" and this cites
the four elements of LaRouche's Four Economic Laws — Glass
Steagall; national banking in a Hamiltonian form; Federal credit
to increase the productive labor force in the United States; and
a return to a crash science driver program for space, fusion
technology, and so forth.
        So again, I'll just say right off the bat, we have 14 days;
we are in a countdown.  The Obama administration will be exiting
and the new administration will be coming in.  As we can see on
many fronts, the United States is really in a showdown right now
for what the new Presidency will be; nothing is defined.  We {do}
know that there is hysteria in many quarters, as can be seen by
the outright attacks on the incoming President by the leading
members of the intelligence community; really an unprecedented
level of attack, vitriol from James Clapper and others in
Congressional testimony.  I think this has not been seen before
in history; and it's clear that the hysteria is coming around the
fact that there is a dramatic change in our foreign policy on the
horizon.  Defined mostly by the fact that the incoming President
has declared that we will not be in a war-confrontation posture
with Russia; which has been the policy of the last eight years of
the Obama administration if not before.  So, there's a lot of
potential in terms of the relationship of the United States to a
changing paradigm, to a changing dynamic on the world stage; but
a lot remains undefined.  It's our responsibility to force the
Glass-Steagall Hamiltonian program onto the agenda in the next 14
days.
        Now in order to do that, we are going to require a much
deeper level of comprehension among the American population as a
whole, and especially among the leading citizen-activists of this
country, of where Lyndon LaRouche's economic policies come from
and what the deeper profundity is behind this policy.  We are
declaring that 2017 is going to be a year in which the deeper
profundity of these ideas is developed and understood; much in
the way that we had an activation around understanding the ideas
of Alexander Hamilton in the last few months with a return to his
policies, his original reports on national banking, on
manufactures, and so forth.  It's this kind of delving deep and
researching the essential principles of physical economics which
is going to make this initiative successful and allow us to raise
the bar in terms of our involvement in creating this New Paradigm
on the world stage.
        So, I think Ben might have a little more to say on that
subject; but we're really approaching this as sort of a call to
action and a mobilization to get the new year off to this kind of
start.

        BENJAMIN DENISTON:  The key point is that Mr. LaRouche has
defined the scientific standard for a recovery of the United
States; that's true, but more fundamentally, for the future of
mankind.  His work in defining a more rigorous science — he
definitely drew upon the work of Hamilton and followers of
Hamilton — but he made a completely revolutionary discovery in
terms of what is the actual hard, physical science underlying
human progress, underlying economics.  One area that we're doing
some work on, this is kind of a critical convergence point in the
fight around understanding these issues, is what people call
infrastructure.  It's become a kind of hot, popular word;
everyone just says it.  Republicans say it, Democrats say it;
it's become kind of a buzz word as some people have said.  It's
as American as apple pie at this point; everyone talks about how
great infrastructure is.  I think Schwarzenegger even struggled
to pronounce it once or twice in California.  But do people know
what it actually means?  That's a fight that Mr. LaRouche has
waged in the recent years, that people don't understand what the
real significance of full-scale, integrated infrastructure
systems is.  You're not going to define what's needed in terms of
the next level of infrastructure if you're not operating from the
standpoint of an insight into the role this actually plays in
revolutionary economic progress.  You can have a lot of
discussions about how we need to rebuild this, this is decaying,
our water systems — the American Society of Civil Engineers I
think it is, puts out this report card, and you can just run
through it on the infrastructure systems and it's just
horrendous.  The water leakage, the transportation systems being
run down, the power systems, the locks and dams that are ready to
bust.  But the issue is not just repairing all of those things;
the issue is infrastructure mediates a process by which mankind
is able to initiate completely unique and revolutionary
self-transformations in mankind's very nature of his relationship
to the natural world, so-called.  Mr. LaRouche pioneered key
metrics of this with his work on potential relative population
density, for example; and actually examining how we can quantify
and understand the fundamental nature of human economic progress.
One starting point might be if you just take the standpoint of
ecology; ecology is a general idea of studying a species'
relation to an environment.  If you apply that to species, you're
able to define certain characteristics of what that species is;
not just by its color, or size, or mass, but by how it relates to
the natural world — to the biosphere around it.  That as much
defines that species as its other characteristics.
        So, it's a general study for life that has validity.  But
what happens when you apply that to mankind?  You don't get any
fixed metric; mankind is not defined by any particular ecological
relationship to the environment.  What you see that distinguishes
mankind is something fascinating; that mankind actually changes
those metrics.  Mankind's very nature is the fact that he can
fundamentally change his relationship with the natural world
through his own actions and the actions of society.  You can
measure this in terms of what Mr. LaRouche defined as the metric
of potential relative population density.  If you take any animal
species, you can have some idea of a carrying capacity, a maximum
potential population that could be sustained for that species in
an environment in the biosphere as a whole, for example.  You can
apply similar studies for mankind, and you can define — maybe in
broad strokes — certain boundary conditions for the number of
people the planet can sustain.  But those change; and that's the
most fascinating thing.  Mankind changes those characteristics.
Today, we have 7-8 billion people on the planet; hopefully
increasing now that we have some order in the world moving in a
better direction.  You go back to society 1000 years ago, you
could not have supported that level of population in the
conditions of human society back at that time.  Today, you can;
and if we win, tomorrow we'll be able to support a whole lot
more.
        What drives that? This concept is critical right now,
because especially in the West in the United States, people have
really gone full on board with this zero-growth idea. The very
fundamental concept of completely revolutionizing our society as
a whole to support an order-of-magnitude higher population,
completely revolutionary technological development — that should
be natural; that's not in most people's minds today.
        But that's infrastructure! That's what infrastructure is.
Infrastructure is an expression of defining how mankind creates a
system by which he relates to the natural world. I think some of
Mr. LaRouche's work on this is really worth digging into a lot
more. He took his understanding of potential relative population
density to some degree to a new level with this concept of the
physical-economic platform, as a proper understanding of what
"infrastructure" really is. He laid out this amazing insight into
the arc of human development as expressed in a motion between
successive physical-economic platforms. He said go back as far as
we have records of civilized humanity, to what is sometimes
called "pre-history," and certain insights into very ancient
intercontinental ocean maritime civilization that was very
sophisticated. It could travel the world much earlier than most
modern academics admit.
        The very nature of that society was defined by mankind's
relation to the ocean systems and to the coastal regions. That
kind of defined a certain boundary condition for the potential
relative population density, the state of the society globally at
that time. And then you had a complete revolution with the
beginning development of inland water systems. That became a
means by which — and the technologies associated with being able
to do that, and the energy-flux densities associated with being
able to do that — that defined a means by which an entire region
of the planet, of the natural world, which was just not
accessible to human development, became accessible to human
development. People could go to these places; you could walk
inland, but you couldn't support a city there. You couldn't
support society there, you couldn't support a growing population
there; it wasn't part of the domain of the influence of mankind.
With the development of these inland waterway systems — and Mr.
LaRouche points to the work of Charlemagne in particular as
really pioneering this — this was a revolution in mankind's
ecology (if you want to call it that), in his ability to interact
with the natural world in a completely new way.
        But it didn't end there! Then you had the development of
rail systems. Now you're not just limited to certain rivers and
man-made canal systems and waterways. Now you can bring, with
rail — and again, the associated leaps in physical-chemistry,
materials sciences, energy-flux density obviously with moving
into new fuel sources: steam engines and these sorts of things —
now you open up the inland territories in a completely new way,
in a way that was never …

        OGDEN: Rail corridors are almost like artificial rivers —
places where you didn't have the means of navigation, but now all
of a sudden you have this rail corridor which allows you to open
up areas that are not even accessible through water.

        DENISTON: Yeah, absolutely! Once again, you have a complete
transformation in what territories, what areas are accessible to
real human development. Mr. LaRouche said the next step is really
high-speed rail systems; magnetic levitation, other advanced
high-speed rail; also inter-continental connections. You're
integrating the whole world in a very high-speed transportation
system; which is being pursued now by what China's leading, with
the New Silk Road program. We could spend hours going through all
the spin-offs of that that are really taking us closer and closer
to this full World Land-Bridge proposal. But that is really the
pursuit — the development of this next platform that Mr.
LaRouche had defined. The next one, really beyond that, is space,
and we should be looking to that.
        But the thing is, people have to understand infrastructure
is not something you measure just by the payback you get from it
itself. It's not a cost you have to pay for by the direct
immediate service. It pays you! It pays society. It's what
supports the ability, for again, these kind of revolutionary
changes. These issues are usually banalized by discussions, just
by using the term "infrastructure." Take transportation systems.
When mankind goes through revolutionary changes in his
transportation systems, people reduce it to "just getting
somewhere quicker." You're literally changing the physical
space-time relationship of mankind; individuals, but also
productive processes. A day means something completely different
in the context of an integrated high-speed rail system, maglev
system, than it did in the prior platform. What does "one day"
mean? It means now you can have access to a much greater
territory, various types of productions, various specialized
regions that were not accessible in that same timeframe, or maybe
for the same processes. Now they become accessible to you.
        You're talking about revolutionary leaps in the very
fundamental character of mankind's interaction with the natural
world. That has to be the standard. We're not going to have a
recovery by rebuilding what we had before. We need to fix things
that need to be fixed; but it needs to be done in the process of
creating this next higher stage that's going to support, again, a
completely new level of existence. We have a critical role in
elevating the discussion to that level. Because you take
transportation, you take water management — another key issue —
it's pretty obvious and simple. Mankind takes desert regions and
then they become flourishing, green bastions of life. The
greenies out there don't like water projects, they don't like
green; they don't want to actually have increased plant growth.
It's insane. If you look at the kind of water management systems
we can be developing, you take entire territories that are just
devoid, pretty much, of life; and we could make them into very
productive, accessible regions. You combine that with a real
driver for fusion power, nuclear power, a full nuclear economy;
and you're defining a future of mankind which can have the same
relation to how we view society presently, as we might look back
to the 1850s or something.
        That's how we should be thinking! That also defines the
space program on a completely new level. Space doesn't always
have to be this super-expensive niche area that only a few things
can be done in, but it's left to this exciting side-part of
society. It's going to become an integrated part of human
activity more and more, if we pursue these natural qualities of
human progress.

        OGDEN: What you said in the beginning about these platforms
of infrastructure being measured, not by the money that it
returns, or the tax revenue, or something, but by, literally, the
metric of how have you changed your carrying capacity, how have
you changed your potential relative population density for a
given area.
        You can think about that in the negative. If you didn't have
that sort of transportation infrastructure to bring the food to
the cities, if you didn't have the sanitation infrastructure, if
you didn't have the water management, if you didn't have the
electricity infrastructure; think about how quickly your
population your population level would collapse. Think about how
quickly you would lose the current carrying capacity of a given
land area; and how you would move backwards in what you were able
to support in terms of population density.
        That is the metric for any given platform, and how you
quantify one platform to the next. It needs to be seen as that
sort of metric of potential relative population density. The
other thing to think about is the fact that over the last 40-50
years, we've had access to technologies which really should have
revolutionized our economy, but for one reason or another, have
not. We have yet to reach full saturation, in terms of nuclear
power. We have yet to reach full saturation, in terms of
high-speed rail — rail for that matter — but high-speed rail.
We have yet to fully exploit even what our capabilities were, in
terms of space exploration. Coming up in two years, in July 2019,
we're going to be observing the 50th anniversary of man landing
on the Moon, and we haven't even been back to the Moon for 45
years; let alone have we gone where we should have gone, as was
envisaged at the time that Kennedy created the mission to put a
man on the Moon. We have yet to exploit and yet to follow
through, even on the level of technology that we had {then}, let
alone using that as the diving board to leap off and to get to
the next platform of what we should have achieved.

        KESHA ROGERS: What you're talking about, what we're speaking
about, is not just inter-continental development; we're talking
about inter-galactic development. I think it's important to go
back to, again, making 2017 the year of Lyndon LaRouche's ideas,
which have completely shaped and transformed the planet, to this
very point. I think it's important that we really draw out the
conception that what Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws and the
foundation of his work behind those Four Laws, really do, is to
take away the power of the oligarchy and of this British imperial
system which has been involved in the destruction of nations and
of bringing down the potential for real scientific progress of
mankind to flourish. LaRouche's Four Laws takes away the power of
the oligarchy to push through their policy of population
reduction.
        The idea that Mr. LaRouche has founded his science of
physical-economy on, is, in essence, to take the idea from
Genesis 1:28. That is, the prerogative of mankind to multiply and
subdue and replenish the Earth. This is what the oligarchy has a
problem with; this is what the British imperial system doesn't
want to see happen. I think that what Mr. LaRouche has continued
to define — even before the question of infrastructure came out
— he really coined and developed this conception of a true
science of physical-economy, which is the basis of what was
established and what was really at the center of the human
creative mind of Alexander Hamilton's works — the definitions
that were defined in Hamilton's understanding of a national
banking policy and a credit policy.
        But even with that, it's not as understood as what Mr.
LaRouche has been able to take up, as you just said, Ben, in the
beginning. How is it that society has been able to get to a point
where we have over 7 billion people on the planet? Without the
breakthroughs in technological and scientific leaps of making new
discoveries and bringing new principles into the domain of the
organization of society, we would not have ever gone from a
coal-burning society. We would not have ever developed the
capability where right now, despite the fact that the British
oligarchy and their puppets like Obama want to hold mankind back
from the development and the complete breakthroughs which are
necessary in fusion technologies, in advancing mankind into
taking up a new leap in fusion development; we are now on the
verge of doing that, because of what has been set forth in the
potential for international cooperation and relations.
        So, I think we're saying we are now in an urgent
mobilization to put on the table the immediate economic solutions
that the newly-elected President Donald Trump must take up.
First of all, there has to be a crash educational on getting the
American people and getting the leadership of this nation —
Congressional leaders and others — to understand that economics
is not what you were taught in your 101 classes in college, of
macro- and micro-economics and following the charts of the Wall
Street market status of where the markets were taking you.  The
question of economics is on this question of the power of the
individual human mind to make new discoveries that are going to
increase and actually develop new capabilities for replenishing,
multiplying, and creating a more fruitful society.  I think
that's what has been missing, now that the buzz-words that are
thrown around as you said — "infrastructure" — they don't have
a real human foundation to go with them.  How are you going to
build infrastructure if you don't have a productive labor force?
This is what Mr. LaRouche has laid out in some of the
fundamentals and the foundations of his educationals in
economics.  The power of labor and the science of physical
economy start with the fact that at the core of economics is the
human mind, and are human beings.  The productive capabilities of
human beings which have been destroyed.  That's going to be the
challenge to President-elect Trump; and what he really has a
challenge of doing right now, which is something which has not
been done in a very long time.  Not really since the foundation
of our nation under Alexander Hamilton.  What Hamilton, what
Franklin Delano Roosevelt had to create, was really a new
economic system; that's what we're challenging and educating on.
This is not just about passing a piece of legislation and
separating the banking system by putting forth Glass-Steagall.
LaRouche has laid out the metrics to create a new economic system
that is going to be a system based on the development of the U.S.
potential for increasing our productivity and productive powers
of labor in collaboration with international relations which are
absolutely fundamental right now.  It's not going to happen, as
has been pointed out in many cases already, without very concrete
and prominent cooperation with leading nations such as Russia and
China.  We can come back to some of that, but I just wanted to
make those points at present.

        RACHEL BRINKLEY:  Listening to this discussion and
participating in it, it's just very fresh and optimistic compared
to what you hear everywhere else in the media.  I think it's just
there for 2017 — we're entering a new year — to take it upon
ourselves, for every person viewing this webcast to take it upon
themselves to really live these ideas and grow by it.  To see
your life not just as trying to pay the bills and survive in a
British mode of existence in our current culture; but to realize
that this is the way the Universe operates.  I think it's just
very fresh and exciting; people should not just view it as
something that they watch and support; but really figure out how
you can do more yourself as a person to make this happen.  It's
not just going to come from Trump.  We support what he's done in
the positive, and he deserves all support of the population at
this time; but we also have to look at this from LaRouche's work,
as has been discussed.  And as Helga LaRouche has really
emphasized, this has to really be the year of LaRouche's ideas.
We need to recognize that we're in a cycle of history which is a
larger arc of history, which is created by ideas which actually
had no physical existence — had no color, had no weight — but
are having an effect.
        Just for the sake of this idea of the Year of LaRouche, I'll
just read a short section from his paper from 2006 called "Saving
the U.S. Economy".  He says:  "The most common failure of
economists and others today is their inclination to view economic
and cultural cycles incompetently from the standpoint of
Cartesian or Cartesian-like mechanistic statistical projections.
That method is easily recognized as the common failure of
generally-accepted economic forecasting today.  However, a still
deeper problem presents itself.  Actual cycles in history are
never determined in the way which mechanical, statistical methods
tend to imply.  Actual cycles of importance are, as I have said,
dynamical rather than mechanistic; and may be compared on that
account with the notion of astronomical cycles as Johannes Kepler
first, uniquely, introduced those conceptions into modern
physical science in his {Mysterium Cosmographicum} and {The New
Astronomy}.  The proper term for astronomical-like cycles in
history is again, Riemannian.  The notion of a Riemannian rather
than a statistical conception of forecasting of economy is of
crucial importance for those among us engaged in providing a
genuine physical economic recovery from those quicksands of
misery which the alleged reforms of the 1971 to 2006" — or you
could say now, 2016 — "interval have dumped upon especially the
lower eighty percentile of our income brackets today."  Then he
adds:  "Hey, Congress!  Tell us; tell the lower eighty percentile
of our citizens what have you done to the U.S. Constitutional
General Welfare principle's superior role in the making of our
law?  Without a fair comprehension of the issues associated with
that distinction, no competent legislation could be crafted for
the presently onrushing crisis."
        So, I think it's true; we have to look to LaRouche's history
and ideas for this period.  Just on that, we were in Congress
this week, discussing Glass-Steagall; and the current Congress
does not view Glass-Steagall as a priority.  Many Congressmen are
exactly what LaRouche refers to here — still thinking in
statistical modes or basically looking at economy the same way a
Wall Street banker does.  They say they're against Wall Street,
or trying to rein it in, but they're doing the exact same thing,
in effect.  There's no change.  It is going to be up to us and
the population to demand this idea of a resurgence of the U.S.
Constitutional principle of the General Welfare.  The only way
that can be done, is with Glass-Steagall.
        This system is absolutely ready to go.  There are two
components of that.  One is the level of bankruptcy, of the
derivative debt and the leverage ratio; and the second is the
interconnection of the system, of U.S. banks to European banks,
and different sectors of the economy all tied in together also.
Insurance with hedge funds, with banks, with commercial banks;
it's all interconnected.  The system can't be saved in its
current form; it has to be Glass-Steagall joined with the rest of
LaRouche's Four Laws.  So, that's the urgent call to put this
legislation on Trump's desk; it's what we have to do.

        DENISTON:  Absolutely.  The point is, we have to make clear
with people that this is what Glass-Steagall opens up.  Just
clean out the system; cut out the speculation; and use money and
credit in the financial system for what its intended purpose is
— to facilitate this kind of process.  Some of the difficulty
comes when people compartmentalize these laws as distinct things.
But money doesn't mean anything outside of the context of the
physical economy.  The Four Laws are really one entity and I
think making that point, if people want a recovery, if they want
living wages, if they want their infrastructure rebuilt, if they
want water that's not going to kill them and make them sick; you
need Glass-Steagall so you have a system that can facilitate the
kind of long-term investment and growth that will enable these
things to happen.  I think breaking this totally ridiculous idea
of market economics and the way people think about these things
today, shattering that with this real physical conception is
critical.
        Just to come back to the global picture also, the world is
moving in this direction; you have a potential now.  That's
what's so exciting about this period, the potential.  A lot is
not decided, a lot is unclear; but we have an opening that hasn't
existed for — you could say the past 16 years, you could say
back to Truman coming in and completely overthrowing the Franklin
Roosevelt vision and orientation for the post-war world.  All of
that is now up in the air; and you have now the openness where
serious people in power are honestly thinking, "What do we do to
move mankind forward?"  Instead of people like Prince Phillip,
who are saying "What can I do to kill as many people today before
I go out for lunch?"  This is the time when you need to have this
full outreach orientation and make these ideas the dominant
conception in the American population today.
        So, I think what's been referenced in terms of this call to
action is really critical.  Everyone watching this should be
taking to heart the responsibility we all have right now at this
current historical moment to make this a reality.  This is not
something that comes and goes frequently, these kinds of
opportunities.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, and I just want to reiterate that.  The
responsibility lies on the citizens of the United States that
decide to take that responsibility on.  Nobody should be under
any impression that somehow everything is just going to fall into
place, or that even this administration is necessarily positive
on its own merits.  Everything that has been created as an
opening has been forced as such by years and years of activism
among people in the United States and a shifting global dynamic;
something that the LaRouches have been right in the middle of.
It's true that Trump has definitely overturned a bunch of chess
boards and has made a lot of enemies among the neo-cons and the
anti-Russia crowd and so forth.  But on economics, it is our
responsibility to set the agenda.  It's very unclear what that
policy is going to be.  The only thing that is clear is that
there is a core group of people among the activist-citizens in
the United States who have made a decision to say, "We are going
to hold him to Glass-Steagall; and we are going to force the
agenda around this policy."  That's why we are highlighting this
initiative that's been taken by the group of activists out of
Ohio and others who are now coming in on that.
        But people do have to have a sense of a broader sweep of
history.  What is it that makes a President great?  In the
history of the United States, especially, you can actually go
back to every great President and associate with them a
seriousness about moving mankind to the next level of economic
achievement.  What Hamilton did for the Washington
administration, creating the ability to have the United States
become a manufacturing country; a lot of that was done through
inland navigation, canals.  Water power was a major aspect of
what we were able to accomplish in the first few decades of our
existence as a country.  John Quincy Adams built more of those
canals, but also initiated the age of the railroad in the United
States.  And of course, Abraham Lincoln took that to its logical
next step through the construction of the Transcontinental
Railroad in the midst of the Civil War; but he understood this
was the next economic platform for the United States.  Franklin
Roosevelt — I mean, this was the age of mass power generation.
At that time, it was hydroelectric power; look at the Grand
Cooley Dam, look at the TVA.  But also, Franklin Roosevelt
understood that electrification was not just something for the
urban areas; even though it was not something that you were not
going to get a monetary return from immediately, Roosevelt
understood that you needed electrification for the whole country.
The Rural Electrification Administration used the power of the
Federal government to extend that financing, to extend that
credit, to do something that was not immediately profitable in
monetary terms, but was necessary to move the country to the next
level economically.  Then, of course, that was the time of the
exploration of the harnessing of the power of the atom with the
Manhattan Project.  Then, John F Kennedy, in his very short time
in office, became the champion of the space program, which was
the next step.  What is it that makes a Presidency great?  It's
moving the country and the world to that next platform in terms
of economic achievement; and that's what Lyndon LaRouche has been
defining for 30 years.  The breakthrough in fusion, the
breakthrough in space exploration, and technologies that we don't
even know exist yet.  But forcing the mind of man to push the
envelope in terms what we know and what we are able to imagine.

        DENISTON:  Sounds like a fun year to me.

        ROGERS:  Yes, and I think that what you just laid out, Matt,
has to be seen with all of these breakthroughs and continued
developments, is that the impact that it had on increasing the
level of productivity not just of the United States, but of the
entire world economy.  What Franklin Roosevelt did with his
programs around the TVA, the rural electrification, wasn't just a
project for a certain southern part of the United States.  People
came from all over the world to be inspired and to come to
understand the science and the metrics that went into this
development and the understanding of the policies of Franklin
Roosevelt.  Today, the question still remains; what are going to
be the unique contributions of the United States working in
collaboration and cooperation with other nations to increase the
productivity of the world economy?  We are in a global system,
where the question right now is really to find an increase in a
new paradigm which is going to effect the common aims of all
mankind.  The best expression of that is some of the beautiful
expressions that we're getting back from the space program.
Those in cooperation with participating in the International
Space Station from all over the world right now, and the
continued idea is that the nature of man goes beyond any kind of
war, conflict, or borders.  The identity of the increasing of the
productivity of society is really the basis for all human
progress.  I think that continues to be the point right now.  We
have a unique shift that's happening globally, which honestly is
freaking the oligarchy and the empire out.  They don't know what
to do about the fact that they have lost all control; that's what
you're dealing with right now.
        As we were discussing before the show a little bit, this is
not necessarily about attacks on President-elect Trump himself;
this is not Trump vs. those forces who want to go against him —
such as the intelligence community and so forth — because they
don't like the way he's talking to them.  It goes a little bit
deeper than that, because you now have the emergence of a new
system coming into being right now, of cooperation that the
British Empire and financial oligarchy and Wall Street interests
have been trying to keep separated and keep tabs on for a long
time.  They've lost control and they've lost power.  As we
continue to say, with 60-plus nations joining with the New Silk
Road and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, this is what
we're talking about bringing the United States into; and
Glass-Steagall will be the first step in bringing the United
States into this global alliance and international cooperation
that breaks the back of the financial oligarchy and destroys this
Wall Street control.  That is what people have to look forward to
— their role in the galactic system of the Universe in creating
something more profound.

        OGDEN:  Helga LaRouche, when we were speaking with her
earlier, cited the fact that President Xi Jinping of China always
talks about this in terms of a future of shared destiny among
mankind as a whole.  This is the same thing that Dr. Edward
Teller talked about in the 1980s, and Mr. LaRouche has cited, as
the common aims of mankind.  This is how you have to think about
international cooperation; nations have their own self-interests,
but it's in the interest of all mankind to achieve this future of
shared destiny, or these common aims of mankind.  That doesn't
mean that there aren't differences between nations, and that
there aren't different policies; but the higher principle which
unites the contradictions through which you can resolve these
conflicts or contradictions among peoples is through this idea of
a vision for the future.  This has to be what defines our
relationship with China; this has to be what defines our
relationship with Russia.  Some of the more sober people have
begun to realize that the only way we can defeat terrorism — as
can be seen in Syria — is through collaboration with Russia.
        But there are other positive programs that have to be
pursued; and you can see a lot of potential right underneath the
surface.  Last week we talked about how the memorial to the
Alexandrov Russian choir, many of whom died in the tragic plane
crash on their way to Syria, the Schiller Institute went to the
Russian consulate in New York City and sang a memorial for these
individuals.  This has become an overnight sensation on the
internet, on YouTube; this video already has over half a million
views.  This is the kind of relationship among peoples that we
have to pursue.  On that subject, there will be another memorial
by the Schiller Institute Chorus in New York City, who will be
visiting the 9/11 Teardrop Memorial in Bayonne, New Jersey; which
is right across the Hudson River, looking at downtown Manhattan.
This memorial to the victims of 9/11 was contributed by the
Russian people to the people of the United States.  This is being
highly anticipated; the press release has been circulated widely.
The Committee for East-West Accord has posted the announcement of
this on their website.  The very beginning of this press release
is as follows, and we're going to be watching this tomorrow.
        "Christmas Remembrance of the Alexandrov Ensemble of the
Victims of 9/11.  On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 10AM, the
Schiller Institute New York City Chorus will be singing the
'Star-Spangled Banner' and the Russian national anthem at a
wreath-laying ceremony at the Teardrop 9/11 Memorial in Bayonne,
New Jersey.  The chorus will be joined by: the NYPD Ceremonial
Unit Color Guard, as well as FDNY representatives; Ms. Terry
Strada, the chairman of the 9/11 Families United for Justice
Against Terror, and others will make brief remarks."
        I think this is just one of many initiatives that can guide
us into this New Paradigm as we begin the new year.  We have to
realize that a lot has changed; this is not business as usual.  A
lot of the ideas of what was possible and what was pragmatic
under the former rules of the game, and so forth, have got to be
changed.  Members of Congress who might have supported
Glass-Steagall in the past, but said, "Oh, there's too much
opposition; the Republicans won't let it pass"; or "The Wall
Street bankers are too powerful."  All of those parameters have
changed now; and it's up to us to tell people, "This is a changed
world; this is not business as usual.  You have to renew your
commitment to what you think what must be done, and you have to
change your concept of what is possible."
        So, I think with that said, I'll go back and cite that
petition we presented earlier in the show.  This is obviously the
initiative over the next few days.  We have 14 days until the
inauguration; the countdown of this transition to a new
Presidency.  The only thing that is assured is what you decide to
do; the mobilization that you engage in, and the responsibility
that you take over the coming days, in order to set the agenda
for the future of the United States.
        Thank you for tuning in today.  Please sign up to the
LaRouche PAC email list if you haven't already.  Over the next
two weeks, you will receive daily emails which will be essential
in terms of marching orders in this mobilization.  And subscribe
to the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel if you haven't already.
Thank you for joining us, and thank you to Ben, Kesha, and
Rachel.  Happy New Year to you.  Please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 5. januar, 2017 – For at få et indtryk af LaRouche Manhattan Project’s stormende fremskridt, se pressemeddelelsen på New York Schiller Instituttets forestående begivenhed denne lørdag, 7. januar. Manhattan Projektets voksende, nationale magt, tilsammen med de nye, globale betingelser, som Putin og Kina, og valget af Donald Trump, har skabt, vil gøre det muligt for os at intensivere og udvide en mobilisering for vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall som vejen frem mod LaRouches Fire Love i deres helhed, og for at bringe USA ind i samarbejde med andre nationer som Rusland og Kina.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche er i gang med at lancere initiativer for en intensiv mobilisering for Glass-Steagall og de Fire Love, med langt mere vidtrækkende overskrifter, som vil begynde at give genlyd i de forestående timer og dage.

New Yorks senator Chuck Schumer, der er leder af et Senatsmindretal, angreb den 3. jan. den nyvalgte præsident for at være »virkelig dum« for at modsige chefer for USA’s efterretningstjenester. »Jeg siger jer, hvis man går op imod efterretningssamfundet, så har de utallige måder, hvorpå de kan angribe jer«, sagde senatoren på Rachel Maddox showet. »Så, selv for en praktisk, angiveligt benhård forretningsmand, er det virkelig dumt af ham at gøre dette.« Schumer, sagde, at han forstår, at efterretningsfolk er »oprørte over den måde, Trump har behandlet dem på og omtalt dem«.

Lyndon LaRouche sagde, at efterretningssamfundet er blevet korrumperet; at vi må dumpe al denne korruption, og at Schumers kritik af Trump ikke var værd at støtte.

De bemærkninger fra Trumps side, der i den grad har oprørt efterretningscheferne, var et tweet i tirsdags, der lød: »Briefingen om ’efterretningerne’ om den såkaldte ’russiske hacking’ blev udsat til fredag, måske fordi der var brug for mere tid til at opbygge en sag. Meget mærkeligt!« Men han havde ikke alene ret, for direktør for den Nationale Efterretningstjeneste, James Clapper, samt de andre, har stadig brug for mere tid; det blev klart i dag, at de ikke vil blive i stand til at få deres sag op at stå før i næste uge – og de ved stadig ikke, hvilken dag i næste uge.

I mellemtiden rapporterede Wall Street Journal den 4. jan. fra kilder, der er bekendte med Trumps planer, at han ville omstrukturere og nedskære direktøren for den Nationale Efterretningstjenestes kontor, som nu ledes af Clapper, og som han (Trump) mener, er oppustet og politiseret. (Bare se på Clapper …) Han vil omstrukturere CIA og nedskære personalet på Virginia-hovedkvarteret og få folk ud i poster i marken. »Trump-teamets synspunkt er, at efterretningsverdenen er blevet fuldstændig politiseret. De skal på slankekur.« Trumps tiltrædende nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver, general Michael Flynn, som blev fyret af Obama som chef for Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste, er i centrum for den planlagte reorganisering.

Clapper blev tilsagt til at aflægge forklaring om »den russiske hacking af valget« for Lindsay Grahams og John McCains Senatskomite for de Bevæbnede Styrker i dag, men han sagde, at, før hans memo var klart, var han ikke indstillet på at sige mere, end han allerede havde sagt. Når dette memo er til rådighed på en ikke nærmere angivet dag i næste uge, sagde Clapper, at han vil aflægge forklaring om det for fire komiteer i Huset og Senatet, dernæst for hele Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, og sluttelig offentliggøre en ikke-klassificeret version for hele landet.

De memoer, som Obama hidtil har fået fremstillet om den angivelige russiske hacking, har været temmelig latterlige – professionelle IT-sikkerhedsfolk fra alle politiske tendenser har kaldt dem et sjusket job. Den seneste version, der blev offentliggjort den 29. dec. af Homeland Security og FBI, har denne advarsel skrevet øverst. ANSVARSFRASKRIVELSE: Denne rapport udgives ’som den er’ udelukkende til informationsspørgsmål. Afdelingen for Homeland Security giver ingen garantier af nogen som helst art mht. de informationer, der er indeholdt i rapporten.« Efterretningsveteranerne William Binney og Ray McGovern afslører Clapper som en serieløgner i en kronik i Baltimore Sun i dag. Den 12. marts, 2013, aflagde han falsk vidnesbyrd til Kongressen mht. rækkevidden af NSA’s indsamling af data om amerikanere, som han indrømmede fire måneder senere efter Edward Snowdens afsløringer. Clapper havde tidligere hjulpet Donald Rumsfeld med at opretholde løgnen om de angivelige masseødelæggelsesvåben i Irak.

Ingen af disse anklager mod Rusland vil holde vand – og således rejser den afsluttende del af et radioshow den 3. jan. med prof. emeritus fra New Yorks Universitet, Stephen F. Cohen, spørgsmålet, om »Obama kunne gribe til endnu mere radikale skridt i løbet af sine sidste dage i embedet … « Dette anså Lyndon LaRouche for en relevant og signifikant advarsel.

LaRouche tilrådede også, at den nyvalgte præsident spiller en ledende rolle mht. Glass-Steagall. Giv Trump større juridisk spillerum. Hav en velvillig indstilling til den tiltrædende præsident. Erkend, at han har et vanskeligt job som udgangspunkt, og at vi derfor må give ham en vis opmuntring. Åbn sagen i sin helhed på denne måde, og gå ikke ind i enkelte punkter.      

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Lyd: 

4. januar, 2017 – Både i USA og hele verden bliver Obama latterliggjort og fordømt for sit massemyrderi, sine krigsforbrydelser, sine løgne og sine hektiske (men mislykkede) bestræbelser på at fremkalde »fabrikeret hysteri« vendt mod Rusland. Stort set ingen, udover de løgnagtige massemedier og de mest hæmningsløse neokonservative omkring Obama og Hillary Clinton, tror et ord af det.

Tirsdag aften blev et interview med WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange sendt på Fox News, hvor Assange igen fremhævede, at de omtalte e-mails fra den Demokratiske Nationalkomite og Hillary Clintons kampagneleder John Podesta ikke kom fra Rusland, som Obama og hans »efterretningsteam« har hævdet, og heller ikke fra nogen statslig aktør. Assange tilføjede, at WikiLeaks, i de ti år, det har eksisteret, aldrig har afsløret sine kilder, og heller ikke vil gøre det nu, men også, at det aldrig har taget fejl, eller blot er blevet beskyldt for at tage fejl. Som mange efterretningseksperter har vist, så findes der intet bevis, eller blot troværdigt bevismateriale, for, at Rusland havde noget som helst at gøre med at skaffe og lække disse e-mails.

Men, sandheden bekymrer ikke den døende race af aktiver for Det britiske Imperium. CIA-chef John Brennan, der er mest kendt for sine ugentlige møder med Obama for at kortlægge ugens liste over dronedrab, optrådte tirsdag på PBS for at himle op om, at de informationer, der viser, at Rusland havde grebet ind i valget, var absolut sande, men at han endnu ikke kunne afsløre denne information. Forespurgt om CIA’s »stensikre« bevis (som daværende CIA-direktør George Tenet dengang sagde) for, at Saddam Hussein havde masseødelæggelsesvåben, svarede Brennan, at det var noget, der fandt sted »for flere lysår siden«, og at CIA nu kun fortæller sandheden.

I Tyrkiet udstedte den tyrkiske premierminister Yilderim en erklæring, der sagde, at, selv om Obama hævder, at han bekæmper terrorisme, så har han i realiteten »sendt våben til terroristorganisationer … Det er kun Tyrkiet, der bekæmper Daesh (ISIS).

USA og andre gør ingenting … Det, vi forventer af den nye administration, er, at den sætter en stopper for denne skændsel.« Tyrkiske ledere stiller alvorlige spørgsmålstegn ved, at USA’s luftvåben fortsat skal have lov at bruge Incirlik Flyvebasen, eftersom de nægter at hjælpe tyrkiske og russiske styrker med at bekæmpe Daesch (ISIS) i Syrien.

Men, at sprænge Obamas krigsplaner vil i det lange løb ikke betyde stort, hvis disintegrationen af hele det vestlige finanssystem ikke standses og vendes omkring, hvilket kun er muligt gennem den omgående genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. Den nye Kongres åbnede i denne uge, med flere ledende Demokrater, der udtrykte, at de har i sinde at arbejde sammen med Trump omkring spørgsmål af gensidig interesse, og de nævnte især store investeringer i infrastruktur og en revision af den katastrofale frihandelsaftale NAFTA. Dette er nyttige og vigtige forholdsregler, men uden Glass-Steagall, der lukker de ulovlige spillebuler, centreret omkring Wall Street, vil intet andet kunne lade sig gøre i takt med, at den fremstormende implosion af det transatlantiske finansimperium vil feje alle andre bestræbelser på at genrejse økonomien væk. Kun gennem Glass-Steagall kan vi sætte scenen for et kreditsystem i Hamiltons tradition, og som kan dirigere kredit til genopbygning og til fremskridt i forskning på videnskabens fremskudte grænser.

Aktivister fra LaRouchePAC var tirsdag til stede på Capitol Hill, hvor de mødtes med mange nye og tilbagevendende senatorer og medlemmer af Repræsentanternes Hus. De fik at vide, at Glass/Steagall-lovforslagene fra sidste Kongresforsamling vil blive genintroduceret i den nye Kongres inden for få dage.

Men Demokraterne har hidtil forsømt at gribe til handlinger, der ville få Trump til at gøre det, han sagde, han ville gøre, under valgkampagnen – nemlig at støtte Glass-Steagall. Ved omgående at gennemtvinge spørgsmålet – før vi rammes af et nyt finanssammenbrud – kan, og må, et tværpolitisk flertal genoprette fornuft i nationen og genoplive regering af folket, ved folket og for folket – og ikke af Wall Street, ved Wall Street og for Wall Street. Det var netop en sådan erkendelse af denne degradering af nationens borgere på vegne af Wall Street, der forårsagede det solide nederlag for Obama/Hillary-kampagnen i 2016.

En koalition af Demokrater fra det nordøstlige Ohio, der har afholdt møder med repræsentanter for LaRouchePAC, har udstedt en stærk erklæring til nyvalgte præsident Trump om at inkludere et krav om Glass-Steagall i sin Tale til Nationen.

Onsdag, den 11. januar, bliver en LaRouchePAC »Aktionsdag« på Capitol Hill for at levere det nødvendige »opløftende« spark bagi til de tøvende og/eller feje kongresmedlemmer om at handle nu.                     

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 3. januar, 2017 – USA’s 115. Kongres tages i dag i ed i en tid, hvor den sandhed bliver mere og mere åbenlys for ethvert blot nogenlunde menneskeligt væsen, at der må komme et skifte i USA’s politik, bort fra økonomisk kollaps, krig og løgne. Hold af LaRouchePAC-aktivister var på stedet for at modtage kongresmedlemmerne med detaljerne for denne bydende nødvendige proces i form af en handleplan – genindfør Glass/Steagall-loven og sæt USA på en kurs for produktivitet gennem et nyt kreditsystem, og forny det forpligtende engagement over for videnskab og økonomisk udvikling.

Ydermere er sandhedens lys i færd med at brænde huller i Obama-administrationens aktuelle, store favoritløgn, nemlig, at det dæmoniske Rusland er i færd med at ’hacke’ Amerika i stumper og stykker. For det første måtte Washington Post i dag bide i det sure æble og trække sin påstand tilbage, som avisen fremkom med i sidste uge, om, at Rusland havde hacket et elektricitetsselskab i New England, med mulige blackouts til følge. WP’s forsideartikel i dag lyder, »El-selskab i Vermont har tilsyneladende ikke været udsat for russisk hacking«. WP havde urigtigt rapporteret, at selve værket var blevet hacket; at den skadelige software (malware) kunne forbindes til Rusland; og at der var fare for et blackout på værket – Burlington Electric. Intet af dette var sandt.

Man bør huske på, at dette er den samme Washington Post, der, sammen med New York Times, oprindeligt fremkom med den påstand, at Rusland hackede den Demokratiske Nationalkomites computere og opsnappede e-mails fra John Podesta, Hillary Clintons kampagneleder, og med disse e-mails, der senere blev offentliggjort af WikiLeaks og således på ulovlig vis greb ind i valgresultatet (til Trumps fordel).

I denne sammenhæng udtalte WikiLeaks’ grundlægger og redaktør, Julian Assange, sig offentligt imod denne påstand og sagde, at han er 1000 % sikker på, at Rusland ikke leverede hackede e-mails til WikiLeaks. »Vi kan sige, og har sagt, gentagne gange i løbet af de seneste to måneder, at vores kilde ikke er den russiske regering, og ikke er et nationalt parti.« Dette, og mere, sagde Assange i et eksklusivt interview i sidste uge med Sean Hannity fra Fox News, der vil blive udsendt i sin fulde udstrækning (første del) kl. 22 den 3. januar. Dette er første gang nogensinde, at Assange giver et interview til en Tv-kanal, og hans foreløbige kommentarer får allerede stor opmærksomhed internationalt og skaber ravage for Obama-flokken, inklusive for det Republikanske Partis russofober.

Disse afsløringer understreger den pointe, Lyndon LaRouche for nylig kom med, om Obama-præsidentskabets sidste dage: »Husk, hvem, der står bag Obama.« Han refererer til det døende, britiske City of London/Wall Street slæng. Men, tilføjer han, i takt med, at deres system udånder – og så længe der ikke gennemtvinges et skift i politikken for at udslukke det – så er de farlige og i stand til at udføre grusomheder.

I Sydvestasien skal man se hen til dette netværk i forbindelse med de ansvarlige for massenedskydningen i Istanbul nytårsaften. De tyrkiske myndigheders og samarbejdende, asiatiske regeringers efterforskning er stadig i gang og holdes hemmelig, men LaRouche bemærkede: Led efter de britisk-tjetjenske netværks hånd i denne grusomme handling. Ud over visse empiriske ’signatur-fakta’, der er knyttet til hændelsen, er der den grelle realitet med en sådan handlings onde formål – at forsøge at sabotere det igangværende tyrkisk-russisk-iranske samarbejde om en syrisk våbenhvile, forhandlinger i Kasakhstan i næste uge og en politisk løsning. Den tyrkiske vicepremierminister, Numann Kurtulmus, bekræftede imidlertid i dag, at Tyrkiets forpligtelse forbliver resolut.

Samme dag som massenedskydningsforbrydelsen fandt sted i Sydvestasien – hjemstedet for Det gamle, britiske Imperiums »Store Spil«, med alle dets årtier med blodsudgydelser – holdt den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping i Østasien sin årlige nytårstale, hvor han specifikt udtalte den sandhed, at menneskeheden kan handle på en måde, hvor der er fred i verden. Efter en gennemgang af Kinas præstationer i 2016, især inden for rumforskning, Bælt-og-Vej og præstationen med at løfte 10 millioner borgere ud af fattigdom, sluttede Xi:

»Det kinesiske folk har altid troet på, at verden er et fællesskab. Vi kinesere aspirerer ikke kun til et godt liv for os selv, men vi håber også, at mennesker i andre dele af verden har et anstændigt liv. I øjeblikket plages mennesker i visse lande og områder stadig af krige og uroligheder; mange lider under sygdomme og katastrofer. Vi håber inderligt, at det internationale samfund vil gøre en fælles indsats, arbejde i den overbevisning, at menneskeheden har en fælles skæbne som et fællesskab og bygge vores planet op til at være et mere fredeligt og fremgangsrigt sted at leve.«

Foto: LaRouchePAC-aktivister foran Capitol uddeler materiale under banner for 'Genindfør Glass-Steagall'. Foto fra 2014.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 2. januar, 2017 – Da præsident Herbert Hoover havde tabt valget til Franklin D. Roosevelt i 1932, brugte han hele overgangsperioden til at forsøge at tvinge FDR til offentligt at støtte hans, Hoovers, mislykkede politik; og da FDR ikke ville det, tog en rasende Hoover til indsættelsesceremonien, hvor han nægtede at tale, eller bare se på den nyvalgte præsident. Hoover bar på et bittert nag imod FDR’s nye paradigme – New Deal – frem til 1950’erne, hvor han spillede en rolle i fremvæksten af »McCarthy-giften«.

Alle Barack Obamas handlinger udgør nu et forsøg på at tvinge nyvalgte præsident Trump til at følge hans, Obamas, mislykkede politik; og til at angribe og bagvaske Rusland og dets præsident Putin.

Obama har i enhver forstand svigtet nationen – dens arbejdsstyrke, beskæftigelse, produktivitet, husstandsindkomst, narkoafhængighed, hjemløshed, stigende dødsrate og faldende gennemsnitslevealder, katastrofale krige. Han tyer nu til angivelige »uigenkaldelige eksekutive ordrer« og til deciderede misinformationskampagner fra regeringen, for at forsøge at tvinge Trump ind i – mindst – en ny kold krig. Dette kommer fra en præsident, der ikke kunne klare præsident Putin, og heller ikke Kinas præsident Xi Jinping.

Trump vil stadig ikke gå med, som hans bemærkninger i Florida nytårsaften indikerer. Men, hvilken politik, han vil føre, er stadig ikke klart.

Det, som er klart, er det nye paradigme med økonomisk og videnskabeligt fremskridt, og med potentialet for fred, der er blevet skabt i løbet af 2016 af Xis Kina, Putins Rusland og deres allierede blandt eurasiske og afrikanske nationer, og med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche, der fortsat spiller en katalyserende rolle. Og lige så klar er »sangens kraft« i dette nye paradigme, der må have det bedste af alle nationers kulturhistorie, deres »klassik«, som kan gives til de andre. Dette demonstreredes af den over Internettet, især af russiske speakere, med lynets hast spredte kondolencehilsen fra Helga LaRouche i anledning af tabet af Alexandrov Ensemblet i et flystyrt. (Det er overflødigt at nævne, at Barack Obama ikke kommenterede den tragiske død af hvert eneste medlem af Ruslands nationale kor.)

Det nye paradigme dikterer også ganske klart, hvad Trump og den tiltrædende Kongres omgående må gøre: Genindfør Glass/Steagall-loven og skab en statslig kreditinstitution til at hælde investeringer ind i rumforskning, gennembrud i kernefusion og ny infrastruktur med høj produktivitet.

Vi hører, at Obama har til hensigt at »sige farvel og takke nationen« den 10. januar i en tale i Chicago. Han bør holde den tale en uge før, og gå.

Vi befinder os i nedtællingen til afslutningen af Obama-administrationen og begyndelsen af den tiltrædende Trump-administration. Om præcis tre uger finder indsættelsesceremonien for den tiltrædende administration sted. Der er stadig meget, der er uafklaret og usikkert; men verdenssituationen ændrer sig meget hurtigt. Som hr. LaRouche advarede om for mindre end 48 timer siden, så må vi stadig holde øje med Obama; så længe, han beklæder embedet, kan han lave en forfærdelig masse ulykker. Blot i dag forsøgte han, fra sin ferie på Hawaii, at optrappe og fremprovokere en konflikt med Rusland. Han meddelte, at 35 russere vil blive erklæret persona non grata og ville blive udvist af USA under anklage om angivelig spionage; og at der ikke alene ville blive pålagt Rusland flere sanktioner som gengældelse for den såkaldte »russiske hacking«, men at to russiske ejendomsområder, der angiveligt bliver brugt til spionage – et område på Marylands østkyst og et på Long Island, steder, hvor russiske diplomater til USA og Washington D.C. kan bringe deres familier til en hårdt tiltrængt ferie og afslapning – han meddelte, at føderale styrker ville rykke ind og lukke disse områder ned. Jeg er sikker på, at Obama regnede med, at dette ville provokere hans ærke-Nemesis Vladimir Putin til at gøre gengældelse, men Obama blev sørgeligt skuffet. Til trods for, at Sergei Lavrov, Ruslands udenrigsminister, sagde, at de var i deres gode ret til at gøre gengæld, øje for øje, og udvise 35 såkaldte amerikanske diplomater af Rusland som persona non grata og lukke amerikanske feriesteder i Moskva og omegn ned; men i stedet foretog Putin, på klassisk Putin-vis, et judo-træk og gjorde ingenting. Et træk fra Putin side, som generelt erkendes som at udmanøvrere Obama – f.eks. i overskriften i Daily Beast, »Putin udmanøvrerer Obama i spionkrig; Moskva griner ad Obama-administrationens sanktioner og udvisninger som de sidste handlinger af svaghed«. Putin afslørede Obama for det, han er, en ’lam and’; og han nægtede at respondere. I en erklæring offentliggjort på Kremls webside i dag sagde Putin følgende: »Alt imens vi forbeholder os ret til at tage forholdsregler til gengældelse, så vil vi ikke degradere os selv til et niveau af ’køkkendiplomati’. I vore fremtidige skridt på vej imod en genoprettelse af de russisk-amerikanske relationer, vil vi gå frem fra den politik, som Donald Trumps administration forfølger.«

Så dette er en perfekt afslutning og diplomatisk sejr for Putin; og det er på linje med et tweet, der blev udsendt af det Russiske Udenrigsministerium, og som var et billede af en gul and med ordet »lam« skrevet over billedet. Obama og hans hold, selv om de kan skabe en masse ulykker i de resterende tre uger, anses ikke for at være særlig magtfulde mere, af Putin og andre i verden.

Samtidig kan russerne hævde en sand diplomatisk sejr i Syrien. Oven i befrielsen af Aleppo og genoprettelsen af regeringskontrol over en stor del af landet imod ISIS og andre oprørsstyrker, så forhandlede russerne en våbenhvile igennem sammen med Tyrkiet; men uden USA. Foreløbig holder denne våbenhvile. Dette er en meget håbefuld situation og demonstrerer endnu engang, at Obama definitivt har mistet lederskabsrollen i verden¸ og Rusland er en formidabel strategisk leder på verdensscenen, mens denne administration træder tilbage og den nye administration går om bord.

Samtidig har vi en nedsmeltning af det finansielle system; Monte dei Paschi banksituationen kører fortsat videre. Vi har en eksponering til derivater fra hver eneste bank på hele planeten. Enhver af disse – Deutsche Bank, Monte dei Paschi – hvad som helst kunne udløse en nedsmeltning af hele finanssystemet. Hr. LaRouches Fire Love er fortsat de afgørende og særdeles presserende forholdsregler, der må tages i USA. Som jeg sagde, så er intet afgjort, men der er meget, der er muligt. Som I har set i vore diverse udsendelser de seneste dage – Fireside Chat i går, en LPAC e-mail, der blev udsendt i dag, hovedoverskrifter på larouchepac.com hjemmesiden – så er vi engageret i en absolut presserende og afgørende mobilisering for at tvinge Glass-Steagall på dagsordenen, endnu før den tiltrædende administration indsættes. Dette må være det absolutte top-lovforslag, der lægges på den nye præsidents skrivebord til underskrift. Kongressen kan handle på det, når de træder sammen i næste uge; i modsætning til [senator] McCains meddelelse om, at han vil have høringer om russisk hacking, eller sådan noget. Dette er den afgørende forholdsregel; og vi vil have aktivister, der kommer til Washington, D.C. Vi har allerede afleveret marchordrerne; og vi vil diskutere dette yderligere i aftenens udsendelse.

Men dette er fortsat blot det første skridt i Lyndon LaRouches Fire Hastelove til at redde USA, nu. Det bedste eksempel, vi stadig har, den bedste præcedens, er Franklin Roosevelts første 100 dage; hvad FDR var i stand til at opnå i sine første 100 dage i embedet. Kongressen trådte sammen; han vedtog omgående Bankloven af 1933, erklærede banklukkedag, reorganiserede hele det bankerotte finanssystem og satte Amerika i arbejde igen. Kongressen holdt ikke pause før nøjagtig 100 dage senere; og 100 milepæle i lovgivning blev debatteret, vedtaget og sendt over til Det Hvide Hus til Franklin Roosevelts underskrift, hvilket ændrede historien. Dette er fortsat præcedensen; det er fortsat modellen, og indholdet af disse første 100 dage bør være Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love til USA’s redning.

Jeg giver nu ordet til Jason [Ross], for der er nogle specifikke måder, hvorpå vi kan gå i gang med disse presserende forholdsregler.  

WE NEED GLASS STEAGALL SITTING ON TRUMPS DESK
AWAITING HIS SIGNATURE WHEN HE TAKES OFFICE!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast, Dec. 30, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon!  It's December 30, 2016.  My
name is Matthew Ogden and you're watching our final Friday
evening broadcast for 2016 for this year on larouchepac.com.  I'm
joined in the studio today by Jason Ross from the LaRouche PAC
Science Team; and via video by two members of our Policy
Committee — Bill Roberts from Detroit, Michigan (Hi, Bill); and
Michael Steger from San Francisco, California.
Now, obviously we are in a countdown to the end of the Obama
administration and the beginning of the incoming Trump
administration.  Exactly three weeks from today is the
inauguration of the incoming administration.  There are still
many things that are undetermined and up in the air; but the
world situation is moving very fast.  As Mr. LaRouche warned less
than 48 hours ago, you still have to keep your eye on Obama; as
long as he remains in office, he can cause an awful of mischief.
And we saw that just yesterday, in an announcement that came from
Obama while he was vacationing in Hawaii; he attempted to
escalate and provoke a conflict with Russia.   He announced that
35 Russian nationals would be declared {persona non grata} and
would be expelled from the United States under supposed spying
charges; and he announced that not only would there be more
sanctions imposed against Russia in retaliation for the so-called
"Russian hacking", but also two Russian estates that are
supposedly being used for espionage purposes — one on the
Eastern Shore of Maryland and one on Long Island, places where
Russian diplomats to the United Nations and to Washington DC can
bring their families for much-needed vacation and rest and
relaxation — he announced that Federal forces would be moving in
to close down those estates.  Now, I'm sure that Obama expected
that this was going to provoke his arch-nemesis Vladimir Putin
into retaliatory measures, but Obama was severely disappointed.
Despite the fact that Sergey Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of
Russia, said that they would be fully justified in retaliating
tit-for-tat and expelling 35 so-called US diplomats from Russia
as {persona non grata} and closing down US vacation homes in
Moscow and the Moscow suburbs; Putin instead, in classic Putin
fashion, judoed Barack Obama and did nothing.  Vladimir Putin, in
a move which is being universally recognized as outfoxing Obama
— for example, in a headline in the {Daily Beast} "Putin
Outfoxes Obama in Spy War ⦠Moscow Laughs Off the Obama
Administration's Sanctions and Expulsions as Feeble Last
Gestures".  Putin called out Obama for what he is, a lame duck;
and he refused to respond.  In a statement that was put out on
the Kremlin website today, Putin said the following:
"While we reserve the right to take reciprocal measures, we
are not going to downgrade ourselves to the level of
irresponsible 'kitchen' diplomacy.  In our future steps on our
way towards the restoration of Russian-United States relations,
we will proceed from the policy pursued by the administration of
Donald Trump."
So, this is a perfect ending and diplomatic victory for
Putin; and I think this goes along with a tweet that was sent out
by the Russian Foreign Ministry, which is a big picture of a
yellow duck with the word "lame" written over top of it.  Obama
and his crew, although they are in the position to cause an awful
amount of mischief in the remaining three weeks, are not being
recognized as all that powerful anymore by Putin and others
around the world.
Now, at the same time, there is a true diplomatic victory
that the Russians can claim in Syria.  On top of the liberation
of Aleppo and really restoring government control over a vast
part of the country against the ISIS and other rebel forces,
yesterday the Russians brokered a ceasefire with Turkey; but
without the United States.  This ceasefire has, up to this point,
been holding.  This is a very hopeful situation, and yet again,
demonstrates that Obama has definitely lost the leadership role
in the world; and Russia is a very formidable strategic leader on
the world stage as this administration exits and as the new
administration comes on board.
At the same time, you've got a meltdown of the financial
system; the Monte dei Paschi banking situation continues to
unravel.  We have the exposure of derivatives from every single
bank in the entire planet.  Any one of these — Deutsche Bank,
Monte dei Paschi Bank — anything could be the trigger to blow
out the entire financial system.  Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws remain
the essential and most urgent measures that need to be taken in
the United States.  As I said, nothing is determined, but there
is a lot that is possible.  As you've seen on various channels of
our communications over the last few days — the Fireside Chat
yesterday, an LPAC email that went out today, headlines on the
larouchepac.com website — we are engaged in an absolutely urgent
and critical mobilization to force Glass-Steagall onto the agenda
even before the inauguration of the incoming administration.
This should be the number one bill that is delivered to the new
President's desk for his signature.  It could be acted on by
Congress as they come into session next week; as opposed to
McCain's announcement that he's going to have hearings on Russian
hacking, or something like that.  This is the critical measure;
and we will have activists that will be coming into Washington,
DC.  We've already delivered the marching orders; and we can
discuss that more on the broadcast today.
But of course, that remains just the first step in Lyndon
LaRouche's Four Urgent Laws to Save the United States Now.  The
best example that we still have, the best precedent, is the first
100 days of Franklin Roosevelt; what FDR was able to accomplish
in his first 100 days in office.  The Congress came into session;
he immediately passed the Emergency Banking Act, declared a bank
holiday, reorganized the entire bankrupt financial system, put
Americans back to work.  Congress did not leave session until
exactly 100 days later; and 10 landmark pieces of legislation
were debated, passed, and sent over to the White House for
Franklin Roosevelt's signature, which changed the course of
history.  So of course, that remains the precedent; that remains
the model, and the contents of that first 100 days should be
Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws to Save the United States.
So, with that said, I'd like to hand it over to Jason,
because there are some very specific examples of means by which
we can undertake those urgent measures.

JASON ROSS:  Let's also put it in the context of the world.  The
US desperately needs an economic recovery, a change in direction.
Think about the world as a whole; there's so much to be done.
Two and a half billion people on the planet don't have access to
continuous electricity; 800 million don't have access to fresh
water; 1.5 billion people don't have access to basic sanitation;
and over 1 billion people don't have access to telephone
capabilities.  There's much work to be done, and the United
States is definitely for a large shift.
President-elect Donald Trump has said that he's got big
plans to make America great again; that he wants to spend $1
trillion on infrastructure in the United States over the coming
period.  There's a lot that we could learn from China on this.
China, over just the past decade, has built the largest
high-speed rail network in the world.  In one decade, it went
from basically nothing, to now being the world's leader.  That
network is slated to double its size in the next 1.5 decades to a
level of 40-50,000 kms; about 30,000 miles of high-speed rail.
They're working, through their Belt and Road initiative, with 65
other nations in the region and beyond on cooperative projects;
on rail, energy, transportation, logistics, water, information,
training, expertise, education, a whole slew of projects for
economic cooperation and development that itself will entail
beyond China's borders tens of thousands more kilometers of
high-speed rail.  So, how are they financing this?  How are they
doing it?  China's been spending $1 trillion a year for the past
decade; so the idea of spending $1 trillion in the US to get
everything up to some great standard is far too low.
The other aspect is, how is this going to be financed and
how is it going to be built?  How is a $1 trillion going to be
brought to bear for the US economy?  Let me read the concluding
paragraph of an op-ed that was published in the {People's Daily}
online of China; an op-ed by Curtis Stone.  He wrote:
"Trump wants to spend $1 trillion on infrastructure upgrades
in America to rebuild the nation and put people back to work. The
problem is how to pay for it and how to do it. China knows how to
fund and carry out serious infrastructure building, and
deep-pocketed Chinese investors want to invest billions more in
America. One way for Trump to realize his plan would be to use
Chinese funds and technology. This would help return some of
Americaâs investment in China back to America for the benefit of
America, and strengthen the bilateral relationship. Trumpâs plan
to rebuild America is bold, but it remains to be seen if he will
be bold enough to do what is best for America."
So, on that, let's think about how China can be involved
here.  The need for financing in the US is very great; there is
not a lot of credit available in the way that people think.  The
very low interest rates that currently exist, as Paul Gallagher
has explained well in the "Economics Frequently Asked Questions"
section on our website, we can't just sell a bunch of bonds at
low interest rates; the rates will go up.  Where is that money
going to come from?  Private investors?  What's the return?  What
this really requires is a totally different way of thinking about
economics.  So, let's look at the LaRouche approach — very
briefly — to economics.  In his policy document for the US,
called "Four New Laws to Save the USA Now", LaRouche gave four
very primary steps.  First, Glass-Steagall, to end the connection
to the outrageously decrepit and collapsing financial system that
we have; it's almost totally divorced from the physical aspect of
economy.
Second, that we need a national banking approach.  Now, what
does that mean?  Let's think of some examples in US history as to
how a national approach to economy has occurred.  If you look at
what Alexander Hamilton did in the early days of the new United
States, he turned the huge liabilities, the huge debts of that
new US and the state governments into something very valuable by
turning that debt into what became the basis for the First
National Bank of the United States; using that debt to become the
basis for a huge amount in loans that were necessary to build the
roads and then later the canals in the United States.  To take a
more recent example, Matt had mentioned Franklin Roosevelt as the
best precedent that we have in the United States of late.  Look
at what Roosevelt did with the Tennessee Valley Authority, for
example.  This is a project that dramatically improved the
economy in the southeast part of the US; in the Tennessee Valley
area that it serviced.  The increased productivity in that region
itself more than paid for the cost of the investment of the
project.  This was the type of project where it doesn't really
matter whether the money that's spent on building it is paid back
directly; and that's something that private investors would
demand.  "Can we build a toll road that we'll be able to get
money back from?  Can we upgrade an airport terminal which
charges passenger fees for passing through it, and then we'll pay
back the investment in that terminal at the airport?"
Well, what about the large projects that shape the economy
as a whole; that provide a platform for economic activity?
That's the sort of thing where you look at the nation as a unique
economic actor that's able to finance investments whose payback
isn't direct in the way that a private investment would be; but
comes back in the sense of "Did we improve the productivity of
the nation as a whole in a way that makes the project
worthwhile?"  That's what we saw with the creation of the
railroads in the United States, for example.  This was something
that wouldn't have happened without the government support that
it got to build the Transcontinental Railroad.  The payback was
that we had a connected economy; we had a whole country.  We had
definitely the improvements that made it worthwhile have done
that.
So, if you think about that today, to get away from
project-by-project — does it pay for itself? Is it worth it? —
and to think about how do we institute in the U.S. a higher
platform of technology in our infrastructure: are we building a
high-speed rail network? Are we building power generation of the
highest energy-flux density? Or are we building solar panels? Are
we investing in fusion technology, to make that breakthrough in
our knowledge of the atom and nuclear processes that will
transform our relationship to materials, to energy, in a way that
will be far more profound than the development of the steam
engine?  These are the kinds of things: the space program — what
are the {drivers} of our human identity as a species that goes
beyond and that develops? And I think maybe to start a discussion
on it, here on the program — I don't have everything to say
about it — but this also raises the issue of the culture in the
population. In other words, what expressions, culturally, do we
have of what it is to be a person; of what it is to live in a
society; of our relations among each other? What is the kind of
culture that's commensurate with going to space, with developing
fusion, with developing our economy, with becoming better human
beings, and how do we bring that culture into being? I think that
that's a very major question. It's not one that addressed quite
as directly as, say, national banking or financing of a national
high-speed rail network, but is just as important. I think that's
something to take up here.

BILL ROBERTS: Yeah, I would say this, what you've just touched
on, Jason, is the real question of sovereignty of nations to
participate in the development of mankind, to free themselves
from the diktats of this dying trans-Atlantic financial system.
That really is sort of the crux of the entire shift that we're
experiencing right now.
Just to mention a few things on this: Yesterday, in an
interview that Bashar al-Assad did with the Italian newspaper,
{Il Giornale}, he identified that the issue in the Syrian war,
was that Syria wanted to make a sovereign decision on the
development of both oil pipelines, but also railroad lines
running east-to-west through Syria; rather than Syria simply
being sort of a passing-through point of oil pipelines from
Qatar, north-to-south. Of course the east-to-west route — for
those of you who are familiar with our plan, the Phoenix Project
for Aleppo and the Integration of Syria, the proposals that the
Schiller Institute has made for the integration of Syria into the
New Silk Road; this is designed to make Syria an energy hub, an
industrial hub, and sort of restore Syria's ancient tradition as
an important step along the New Silk Road.
This is the implication of Vladimir Putin's intervention
into Syria to crush the terrorists in that area. This was the
same question with respect to Japan's recent decision to resume
its historical role as a country that is not going to be part of
an offshore, trans-Atlantic financial system, but it going to be
a "machine" for the development of the interior of Asia. Japan
had made this decision against the interests of what's
historically been the attempt by the United States to try to
prevent Japan from negotiating a peace treaty with Russia over
the remaining islands in dispute from World War II. So, Japan
made this decision as a sovereign nation, and was really prompted
to do so by Vladimir Putin, who made the issue directly that
Japan had to make a sovereign, independent decision.
I would say in the United States, the question of the Trump
Presidency and the United States Government being able to address
the horrid conditions of the American population, and uplift,
both culturally and in terms of the physical standards of life,
depends upon the immediate reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.
Number one, because if Glass-Steagall is not reinstated before
the crash that is looking very likely to happen soon in the
European banking system, hits, there will be more bail-outs; and
this will further increase the death-rates of Americans. But also
number two, as both Matt and Jason were just discussing, the
United States has to make a serious commitment to providing
massive financing, and mobilizing our workforce, to build
entirely new platforms of infrastructure. That's not going to be
possible without a credit system; and that will not be possible
without the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. That may require, as
this recent {People's Daily} article points out, in certain cases
that may mean that China will come in and build certain aspects.
They may be better suited to build high-speed rail systems, for
example. We've seen the problems [inaud; 22:09]. We've seen the
problems with [California Governor] Jerry Brown's program on the
West Coast with high-speed rail. Perhaps we should just set up a
Chinese initiative for doing this.
Our sovereignty today, ironically, does not mean
isolationism. I don't know that Donald Trump thinks that it does;
I don't think he does. But in many cases, what the New Paradigm
has meant is that certain countries have made breakthroughs in
certain areas. Certainly we have in the United States. We should
look at {all} the potentials that exist for cooperation: the
space program, medicine, certain aspects within the machine-tool
sector that we still have — in the same way that this was
considered by Kennedy when he placed the science centers, the
space program centers, in the more-backwards, southern part of
the United States. Or when FDR placed the Oak Ridge facilities,
the "secret city" that developed the Manhattan Project outside of
Knoxville, Tennessee. Or like the Russians are doing, currently,
in their plans to have Rosatom invest in building a new science
city for the development of nuclear science, in one of the
poorest cities in South America, La Paz, [Bolivia] which has
basically been the center of a drug-production economy. These are
some of the things that we're going to continue to be filling
out; but these are the issues behind the immediate necessity of
Glass-Steagall, that every American has to know the ABCs of.

MICHAEL STEGER: Yeah, that's great! There are just a couple
of things I'd like to touch on. One is the Putin situation,
because as Bill just indicated, the whole situation
internationally seems to have been greatly shaped by Vladimir
Putin. If anyone were to watch some of the news alerts, the {New
York Times} and the entire political establishment of the United
States was taken off guard, significantly. As Matt indicated,
Obama had clearly expected his nemesis, Putin, to have the
strong-man response. The {New York Times}, at 6:00 Eastern Time,
sent out a message indicating they [the Russians] are going to go
for a "massive retaliation. Thirty-five people evicted." This was
blasted out on the internet airwaves. Within just two hours, the
{New York Times} had to report a "head-spinning turn of events,"
in terms of the fact that not only did Putin not retaliate, as
Matt indicated, but I believe he invited all of the U.S.
diplomatic corps to the Kremlin to celebrate the New Year and
Christmas!
The way Putin has shaped this process — and we were
reflecting on this here this morning — that it was just a little
over a year ago, the end of September 2015, that Russia formally
entered into the Syrian conflict on the side of Assad against the
terrorists. It was just November of last year, just a little over
a year ago, when a Turkish fighter jet shot down a Russian
fighter jet. It was then last Christmas — in that entire holiday
period — when we on the verge of what could have been a
break-out of nuclear war. The tensions were incredibly high. The
rhetoric was incredibly high. And what we had in the White House,
Obama, is now on full display in its psychotic kind of pettiness.
So the way that Putin has shaped this process — and it's
worth situating the recent events — that not only did we have
this display of psychosis by Obama. There was also the
assassination of Russia's Ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov.
This came just a few days after Obama had made an illicit threat
against Russia, which Mr. LaRouche had captured very
specifically. This meant that Obama was looking to kill, and kill
people of significance. And then you had the assassination of
Ambassador Karlov by someone tied to what looks to be some kind
of Western intelligence-coordinated network. And then, it's not
yet clear what happened, there's much speculation, but
regardless, there's the unfortunate loss of the Alexandrov
Ensemble (the Red Army Chorus).
As we speak, we're in Manhattan at the Russian Consulate,
singing Russian patriotic songs, as well as American songs. I'd
like to read a section of a leaflet that Helga Zepp LaRouche
wrote on this occasion for our chorus outside the Russian
Consulate. This is just a small taste of it, which will be
released in its entirety today, following that event. She says:
"Let me therefore share with you the idea that in addition
to rebuilding the Alexandrov Ensemble, which they intend to do,
thousands of Alexandrov choruses be established, in schools all
over Russia, to honor the heroic contribution of Russia in the
liberation of Syria, and at the same time, broaden the uplifting
effect of choral singing to the young generation."
I think that proposal stands out as the quality of idea and
initiatives that can now be taken; that there is unfolding a new
paradigm. There's a paradigm of win-win, or almost as Putin
displayed today, of turn the other cheek. We're not going to go
tit-for-tat. We're not going to descend into kitchen-level
politics. We're going to rise to a higher level, of a discussion
of mankind and the collaboration towards world peace and global
development. Nothing better expresses that than what's developed
in Syria, and the collaboration of Russia, Turkey, and Iran to
consolidate that. This really has been the work of Putin, and
this last year has really been shaped by Vladimir Putin more so
than anyone else.
Now, the question is: how do we respond to this in the
United States? That's the onus upon us today. As Matt indicated,
the financial crisis around Monte dei Paschi and the other major
trans-Atlantic banks, are clearly at a point of breakdown. I
would ask people just to reflect upon, look at the electoral
maps. Some of this has been done by various studies after the
election, where they saw the kind of vote turnout for Trump
happened the greatest in areas that had been hit the hardest by
the drug epidemic, the suicides, the unemployment levels.
If you look at the demographic condition of the country
today, it is defined by the insanity of our financial and
economic system. The financial bubble that has been run,
perpetually, really going back even since the early '90s, and we
saw it then regained after the dot.com blow-out with the housing
bubble. Then the blow-out of the housing bubble only accelerated
even further towards what is an entirely just fictitious
financial derivative scheme, with almost {no} benefits, even
monetarily or financially, to the population of the United
States.
What you see is limited pockets, small specific areas.  The
New York City area; the Washington, DC area, major Dulles airport
area; San Francisco and the Bay area; certain key pockets where
the financial bubble that Obama has pumped up and has called his
"Obama recovery".  This was the dominant area where you saw the
votes come in against Trump and for this Obama program.  But more
importantly, you saw the reaction, the rebellion against Obama
and this Bush-Obama legacy, came from a majority — 80% to 90% of
the land area of the country, and a good majority of the
population; whether they voted for Bernie Sanders or they voted
for Donald Trump, they voted against this Obama-Bush tyranny.  A
majority of the American people have been left out and forgotten;
they have become the forgotten men and women of the country, as
Franklin Roosevelt characterized them in the Great Depression.
It is the question of, how do you bring together the entire
country?  Because we're looking for an economic development that
is based on physical reality, not on some fictitious financial
numbers; you can't forecast an economy based on the financial
numbers that are presented today — they're all lies.  Let alone
Obama's recovery, but even notions of financial success; it's all
lies.  The physical reality is, the United States is crumbling;
it's in horrible disrepair.  It's not just our infrastructure, or
our manufacturing capabilities; it's our cultural level of our
society, it's the educational orientation.  It's the sense of
optimism; it's the productive skill set and sense of integrity
and confidence in the ability to produce something of
significance that has been crushed and taken away from our
population.
So, Mr. LaRouche — as Jason indicated — presented Four
Laws; and those four laws really start with the fourth law, which
is an immediate commitment towards the restoration of a space
program which has been laid out in detail by Kesha Rogers, and
the fusion program.  The initial first step on these four laws to
initiate this kind of science-driver program is Glass-Steagall;
because Glass-Steagall ends this financial cult, this financial
bubble.  And it integrates that part of the country which has
been forgotten into the conception of our economy and of our
society.  And we're going to take the entire nation and take it
upwards.  There's no longer going to be fly-over areas of the
country; there's no longer going to be these provinces on the
outskirts of our economy.  We're going to look at the entire
productivity of our nation; and most importantly, the
productivity of our people.  The greatest sham of Obama's
recovery is the fact that you have 100 million people not in the
workforce; not involved or engaged in any kind of economic
activity.  Many of them are on painkillers, and out of work or on
disabled lists.  We've got to bring this entire part of the
country into the economy immediately; in the areas which increase
the productivity per capita of the nation as a whole.
So, we've got to move on Glass-Steagall.  As Matt said, it
should be on Trump's desk the day he comes into office on January
20th.  Congress comes back into session next Tuesday; they're
sworn in.  That's mostly a reception day.  There will be some
activities Wednesday and Thursday, and then they'll be in session
again the following week.  We have reports from this morning that
Obama has the gall to go to Capitol Hill next Wednesday to meet
with Senate and House Democrats.  This, of course, is the party
he's crushed and destroyed.  I'm sure he will browbeat or worse,
the Democratic members of Congress.  So, we will definitely have
a presence in Washington, DC; we will have {Hamiltonian} issues
distributed throughout New York City and throughout Washington.
We are definitely asking people to participate in a full-scale
mobilization.  That doesn't mean just Congress; Congress will be
available for meetings not this coming week, but likely the next
week.  The bigger question is to get to Democratic clubs, state
legislators, union leaders, other activists, other writers, other
people who have advocated and promoted Glass-Steagall.  We should
set the country on fire around this notion that Glass-Steagall is
not something to support; it's not something showing that you are
on the right side of things.  Glass-Steagall must be passed; it
must be passed quickly, because we have a lot more work to do in
2017 than to simply deal with the insanity of this financial
crisis.
We're asking people to mobilize as much as possible; and
have in mind how much work we have to do to rebuild the country's
infrastructure, its manufacturing, and most importantly, rebuild
the minds of the coming generations — which is really the most
important work any of us can participate in doing.  So, that's
the mobilization LaRouche PAC has set forth.  The email went out
today, and we're asking everyone to participate.

OGDEN:  Well Michael, what you're describing is the kind of
policy revolution that Franklin Roosevelt ushered in, in his
first few days as President in 1933.  Of course, he was
inaugurated in March; the inaugurations back then used to happen
in March, not January.  But it's that first 100 days, as we've
said, that remains the kind of model; and unfortunately, there
are very few people in the United States for whom that historical
accomplishment of Franklin Roosevelt remains something from their
living memory.  It's our job to educate and remind people of what
Franklin Roosevelt was able to accomplish.  Now, I don't think
any of us are assuming that this is something that's going to
happen by itself; this is why we are mobilizing.  This is why we
are saying, in the countdown to this inauguration, it's our job
to set the agenda.  And at the same time that we're doing that
domestically, you really do have the winds of history are blowing
in from around the world.  There's a shifting global dynamic
which is forcing a change in the United States, as Jason
referenced with that article in {People's Daily}; the role that
China can play with the One Belt, One Road policy in transforming
the economic potential of the entire planet and the strategic
changes that are coming out of Russia.  But with that said, it is
always very useful to go back and review what Franklin Roosevelt
did in his entire administration; it's almost something you could
not discuss in abbreviated form — from the beginning of his
first term into his fourth term, with the victory in World War
II.  But if you just take those first 100 days and quickly review
what he was able to accomplish, that's the kind of urgent
revolution in policy that is needed right now in the United
States around these four LaRouche economic laws.
So, let me just very quickly list what Roosevelt was able to
accomplish.  Of course, this was not unilateral actions from the
White House by any means.  This was done by a willing and
cooperative Congress, who recognized the urgency and the
emergency of reversing the economic despair and disintegration
that the entire nation was experiencing.  But, as I said, from
the very first day of his administration, he passed the Emergency
Banking Act; which reorganized all of the banks across the entire
country, declared a banking holiday, audited these banks, and
allowed them to open under completely new standards.  He passed
the Government Economy Act — slightly less important — but it
eliminated certain waste that was in government; he also passed
the Volstead Act, which temporarily suspended the rules of
Prohibition — that was popular.  He passed the Farm Credit Act,
which was very important; this refinanced farm mortgages across
the country.  Farmers who were unable to keep their farms open
because they couldn't pay their mortgages and their farms were
being foreclosed; this was a very big story in Iowa and the
heartland states.  In fact, there were vigilantes who were
standing up to sheriffs, saying "We will not let you foreclose on
our farms."  This resolved that situation, and also provided
operating funds for farms across the country at very low interest
rates; to keep the food on the plates of the American people.  He
established the Homeowners' Loan Corporation; this provided
relief for struggling homeowners across the country, and in fact,
actually directly assumed one-sixth of all the mortgages in the
country from homeowners who were struggling to pay their
mortgages.
He provided within the first 100 days a half-billion dollars
in 1933 dollars in unemployment relief; which was administered by
Harry Hopkins.  That was greatly expanded in the following months
after the first 100 days.  Here's a very important one which
we've been discussing a lot lately:  He established the CCC, the
Civilian Conservation Corps, which provided training and
employment for unskilled youth from across the entire country to
build public works projects and conservation projects.  Over six
years, this ultimately employed {3 million} young people in the
United States.  As Jason mentioned earlier, within the first 100
days, he established the Tennessee Valley Authority — the TVA;
this was passed through law and shovels were hitting the dirt
within five weeks.  This transformed one of the most backward
parts of the entire United States in Tennessee and Kentucky and
the neighboring states.
To address what had caused the Great Depression in the first
place, FDR passed the Truth in Securities Act — an important
element; and then, of course, as we've been discussing, passed
the Glass-Steagall Act.  This required banks to immediately
divest within a certain amount of time, all of their securities
operations; and established the FDIC, which created the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation protections for the average
American depositing their savings in commercial banks.  Then he
created the National Industrial Recovery Act, which — among many
other things — guaranteed collective bargaining for unions,
greatly increased the union membership across the United States,
and made available $3.3 billion in 1933 dollars; that's $50
billion dollars in today's dollars in public works financing.
That's the first 100 days; and Congress did not leave
session.  Congress did not go home from the day that Franklin
Roosevelt was inaugurated until the day they left, exactly 100
days later.  That's the kind of policy revolution that has to
happen in the United States; and it will only function if it's
carried out according to the principles underlying LaRouche's
Four Economic Laws.

STEGER:  That's great, Matt.  I think it's important to
indicate and let people know that LaRouche PAC also has two other
initiatives.  One is a new pamphlet coming out, which will
highlight this kind of economic program based on Lyn's Four Laws.
It looks at how is it possible in the most effective way to
increase the productivity of the American people and that we as a
nation build our own recovery.  We build ourselves out of this
economic rot that we have been plunged into.
The other initiative, which maybe Jason can say more on, is
going to be an educational initiative to the American people a
sense — especially members within the Trump administration — of
how real economics is.  Because Lyndon LaRouche has been the
leading economic thinker for the last 50 years on the planet, let
alone the United States.  He has forecast some of the most
significant events in the course of that 50 years; and he is the
leading figure from the standpoint of real physical economics and
scientific advancement.  I know Jason is part of that, so maybe
he can say more on that as well.

ROSS:  Sure.  Economics is a pretty funny subject because
it's one that so many people get so wrong.  One that specifically
so many experts get so wrong.  If you look at the Society of
Professional Economic Forecasters and you look at how good their
forecasts have been over the last 50 years, they're not getting
any better.  You'd say that's a science that really isn't
improving, is it — economic forecasting.  It's because it's not
treated as a science.  There is so much ideology and there's so
much just plain old stupidity about looking at measures that are
based on money, rather than a physical understanding of what
makes economy possible.  So, we're going to be preparing and
presenting a series, a number of pedagogical discussions; some
tools to help think about how an economy really functions,
drawing on Lyndon LaRouche's decades of experience as an economic
writer and forecaster — as a remarkably accurate one.  We will
have these things available, like some of the concepts that he
brings up frequently; like what is energy flux density in an
economy.  I know that I made a video on that recently, and
there's much more to say than could fit in a short summary video
that touched on it only briefly.  Or, other concepts, like
capital intensity, and the concept of an economic platform, which
is not something to get into detail right now on.  But a
reconceptualization of what many people think of as just
infrastructure and public works, and how to think about that as a
mediating a relationship of a society and the physical world
around them and within that society itself; in the way that
Vladimir Vernadsky, for example, looks at the human species in
terms of what is the power of cognition?  How does that transform
the relationship of the human species to the planet and to the
biosphere in a way that is unlike any purely biological species?
What is the physical power of cognition?  How can we measure that
as geologists, as biologists, as economists?  So, definitely more
coming on that.

OGDEN:  The central theme in Mr. LaRouche's Four Economic
Laws document is the necessity to increase productivity — per
capita and in terms of the productivity of the labor force.  As
we've discussed, going back to Alexander Hamilton, this is really
the root of economic science.  In the "Report on Manufactures",
Hamilton's theme is how do manufactures and technology and
industry increase what would otherwise just be the raw labor
force of the population.  It has a multiplier effect.
One thing going back to Mr. LaRouche's Four New Economic
Laws document, one point that he makes is that this is not just
an option — as we've said before; but this is an absolute
necessity.  Not just because of the urgency of the collapse, but
also because of the nature of our nation.  Alexander Hamilton was
the founding economic genius of the country, founding father of
our system of economics; but he was also one of the central
authors of the United States Constitution.  He made a very
explicit point of putting the clause in there which is the
General Welfare Clause; which not only gives permission to the
United States Federal Government to act in the general welfare of
the United States — this was used as the reason behind the
constitutionality of the National Bank — but it also mandates
that this is part of the responsibility of the Federal
government.  This is what gives it legitimacy; that it {must} act
in the interest of the general welfare of the American people.
And {all} of the American people, not just sections; not just the
coasts or the big cities, but all of the American people.  This
is a point that Mr. LaRouche makes in one very short sentence in
that Four Economic Laws.  He says: "The ceaseless increase of the
physical productivity of employment, accompanied by its benefits
for the General Welfare, are a principle of Federal law which
must be a paramount standard of achievement of the nation and of
the individual."  So, the word "law" is in the title of this
document; and Mr. LaRouche is asserting that this increase in
productivity is included under the idea of the General Welfare,
and is a central principle of what we should understand as
Federal law under our Constitutional republic.
It was recently stated in a similar way in the white paper
that was put out by the Chinese government; where they declared
that development is an inalienable human right.  The same way
that we talk about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as
being inalienable rights, the Chinese, who have lifted 750
million people out of poverty in their country, were declaring
that development itself is an inalienable human right.  I think
this is an important understanding of what the responsibility of
government itself needs to be; and this central principle of
economic science — understanding what it means to, and how one
proceeds to increase the physical productivity of one's labor
force for the benefit of the General Welfare as a whole.

STEGER:  I think that captures the New Paradigm.

OGDEN:  OK, wonderful.  I do want to say that I really
appreciate Bill being on, and I think increasingly we need to
return to some of the questions that Mr. LaRouche was directly
involved in, in Detroit and Michigan and Ohio and some of these
Midwest areas.  What you brought up, Michael, about there are no
fly-over states; we should no longer have the word "Rust Belt" in
our vocabulary.  The question is, how are we going to take the
skills that are inherent in these machinists and former
machinists and skilled workers in that region — who are now in a
state of real despair and increasing mortality — and put them to
work again for the development of the country.  So, you can say
something about that now, but Bill, I think we should also
revisit that maybe in some of our future shows; and have that be
part of our countdown to the new Presidency.

ROBERTS:  Yeah, sure.  It's a real challenge.  This is the
subject of what Marcy Kaptur took up in a recent op-ed, when she
said the Democratic Party has to do some "soul-searching" is the
way that she put it.  But really, it's not soul-searching; we've
got to define what the commitment is going to be to the American
population and all of the American population.  It's a real
challenge; I think much more so than what Franklin Roosevelt had
to face.  Part of it is what we didn't get into so much today —
the deep cultural degeneration process that has left young people
without very much of a sense of character or identity.  You
mentioned the CCC program of the past; [that] had to be tailored
to address — and Franklin Roosevelt himself was very personally
involved in crafting that program, which he saw as being
absolutely critical if the nation was going to have a future.
So, I agree; this is going to have to be something we put a lot
of thought and effort into how to make that shift upward in
productivity that is so required today immediately, but also for
the future, for the long-term.

OGDEN:  Great.  Well, thank you very much.  Thanks, Bill;
thank you, Michael; thank you, Jason.  I would recommend reading
the op-ed that Jason referenced at the beginning of the program;
this was in {People's Daily}.  I know when we spoke with Lyndon
and Helga LaRouche earlier today, Helga put a major premium on
that op-ed.  We, of course, encourage you to participate as fully
as you can in this mobilization to immediately not build support
for Glass-Steagall, but immediately make Glass-Steagall law.  So,
as Michael said, the marching orders are available; we sent out
an email to the entire LaRouche PAC email list today.  If you're
not yet a subscriber to that email list, you need to sign up
immediately.  We're going to have marching orders such as that as
we count down the next 21 days, the three weeks until the new
administration; and we're not going to stop there.  So, please
subscribe to the email list and please subscribe to our YouTube
channel as well.
Thank you all for watching today, and Happy New Year to you!
I think we all can look forward to a 2017 full of a lot of
potential; and it's our job to realize that potential.  Thank you
and good night.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 27. december, 2016 – I denne uge udgav Kina sin rapport, »Kinas aktiviteter i rummet i 2016«, med en gennemgang af rumprogrammets præstationer igennem de seneste år, og med en fremlæggelse af planer for den kommende periode, med det formål, lyder rapporten, at tjene »menneskehedens utrættelige forfølgelse af en fredelig udforskning og anvendelse af det ydre rum. Kina står ved en ny, historisk startlinje og er fast besluttet på at fremskynde udviklingen af sin industri og aktivt udøve international udveksling og internationalt samarbejde omkring rummet således, at resultater fra aktiviteter i rummet vil tjene og forbedre menneskehedens trivsel i bredere omfang … «

I skarp modsætning hertil befinder USA og det transatlantiske område sig i et økonomisk sammenbrud, der udgør en stor fare for hele menneskeheden, og de fortsætter desuden med at forfølge den selv samme politik, der var årsag til dette sammenbrud.

Nærmere bestemt, så finder der i øjeblikket et opgør sted mellem Den europæiske Centralbank (ECB) og Italien over Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS), som truer med at bryde ud i kaos. I denne uge kom det frem, at ECB har beordret MPS til at fremskaffe – genkapitalisere – 8,8 mia. euro, og ikke de tidligere 5 mia., som den italienske regering har arbejdet på at fremskaffe. Befolkningen er rasende.

Den eneste fornuftige respons til alt dette er at dumpe det døde system ved at indlede en Glass-Steagall reorganisering og etablere et ordentligt banksystem. Udsted kreditter til prioriterede, produktive aktiviteter og promover den økonomiske virkning, med videnskab som drivkraft, af at fremme arbejde omkring rummet og omkring gennembrud inden for fusion. Dette fremlægges i Lyndon LaRouches forslag fra 2014 med de »Fire Love«, som vi vil præsentere i den kommende, nye brochure fra LaRouchePAC til masseomdeling – en opdateret version af brochuren »USA går med i den Nye Silkevej; en Hamilton-vision for en økonomisk renæssance« (2015).

Dette program må sættes øverst på dagsordenen i USA, og ligeledes i Europa og andre steder, og det må ske omgående. Det er desuden ligeledes presserende nødvendigt at formidle videnskaben bag de ’Fire Love’. Se tilbage og studer LaRouches gennembrud inden for metodologi i årtiernes løb. For eksempel, hans koncept med potentiel relativ befolkningstæthed; hans koncept med energigennemstrømningstæthed; hans koncept med den ’produktive platform’ – og ikke blot infrastruktur.

I dag bemærkede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at det, man ser i den netop publicerede kinesiske rapport om rum-infrastruktur, faktisk er, at man har taget halvdelen af Lyndon LaRouches forslag for en økonomisk platform og projiceret det ud i rummet. Det er meget rigt og håbefuldt.

Den 3. januar vil den nye, 115. Kongres træde sammen i Washington, D.C. De skal mærke presset for at handle. Den 6. januar vil alle kongresmedlemmer være til stede for at gennemføre protokollen med at optælle valgmandskollegiets stemmer og officielt erklære valget af Donald Trump, hvis kampagne red ind på en bølge af befolkningens afsky for den nuværende politik med økonomisk destruktion og krig. Vi må nu sætte dagsordenen for, hvad der må gøres for at gøre en ende på denne befolknings trængsler, fortvivlelse og vrede.

Lyndon LaRouche talte om denne bydende og presserende nødvendighed: »Læg pres på kongresmedlemmerne for at få tingene til at ske.« Han sagde, »Vi må opbygge mennesker, der blev ødelagt af det, som Bush-familien og Obama gjorde. Det er spørgsmålet.« Han talte om Franklin D. Roosevelt og sagde, »Se på, hvordan FDR var foregangsmand for nye fordele for USA’s befolkning« og bemærkede, at FDR og hans politik dernæst blev knust. Men, »vi har en latent mulighed. Vi kan få det tilbage«. Ideen er, at »vi må genopdrage. Brug redskaber til at gøre folk kreative … Se, hvad FDR opnåede. Det må gøres klart.«      

Den 12. december 2016 var Helga Zepp-LaRouche – Lyndon LaRouches hustru, Schiller Instituttets grundlægger og en international nøgleperson i kampen for et nyt globalt udviklingsparadigme – særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar på Frederiksberg med titlen: »Donald Trump og det Nye Internationale Paradigme«. Blandt deltagerne var diplomater, aktivister og repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.

Arrangementet blev indledt med fremførelsen af en kendt traditionel kinesisk sang, Kāngdìng Qínggē (Kangding Kærlighedssang), af Feride Istogu Gillesberg (sopran) og Michelle Rasmussen (klaver). Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, som på smukkeste og mest optimistiske vis førte publikken igennem en tour-de-force af den nuværende politiske situation med såvel befolkningens afvisning af det nuværende paradigme gennem Brexit, Hillary Clintons valgnederlag til Donald Trump og det italienske ”Nej”, som et forsøg på at skabe kaos (og krig) inden Donald Trumps indsættelse den 20. januar. Dertil kom en fremstilling af det nye globale paradigme, som allerede er ved at overtage verden, illustreret ved Kinas politik for Den Nye Silkevej – som den kommende amerikanske administration skal finde sin plads i – og den videre udvikling, der er nødvendig, hvis menneskeheden skal finde sin sande identitet. Hele talen og den efterfølgende diskussion kan ses, høres og læses på: www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=16773.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

København, 12. december, 2016 – I dag var Helga Zepp-LaRouche særlig gæstetaler ved et Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar i København, med titlen, »Donald Trump og det Nye, Internationale Paradigme«. Otte diplomater fra seks lande deltog, inklusive to ambassadører. Nationer fra Vesteuropa, Sydvestasien, Vest- og Østasien var repræsenteret, samt fra Afrika. Desuden deltog henved 30 af Schiller Instituttets medlemmer og kontakter, såvel som også et par repræsentanter for diverse danske og internationale organisationer.

Arrangementet indledtes af en forestilling, hvor Feride Istogu Gillesberg og Michelle Rasmussen fremførte en kinesisk kærlighedssang. Dernæst introducerede formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ved at beskrive den historiske rolle, hun har spillet i skabelsen af politikken med Den Nye Silkevej.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche indledte sin meget inspirerende og dybtgående tale med den revolution imod globalisering, som Brexit, Trumps valgsejr og Nej-resultatet i den italienske folkeafstemning udgør. Hun kom med en vurdering af potentialet i nogle af Trumps hidtidige erklæringer og udnævnelser og gik dernæst videre med en detaljeret diskussion af de to, modstridende paradigmer, der eksisterer i verden i dag. Dernæst opløftede Helga tilhørerne med Krafft Ehrickes og Nicolaus Cusanus’ skønne ideer. Hun konkluderede med en appel til de tilstedeværende om ikke at handle som tilskuere på historiens scene, men derimod, sammen med os, at gå med i kampen for det nye paradigme.

Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale, der varer omkring 1 time og 20 minutter, kan høres ovenover eller her:

https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/helga-zepp-larouche-in-copenhagen-donald-trump-and-the-new-international-paradigm-1

En dansk oversættelse af talen kommer på torsdag. 

Herefter fulgte en intens, timelang diskussion, hvor der kom spørgsmål fra alle de forskellige grupper, der var repræsenteret. Helga afsluttede mødet med at udfordre tilhørerne til at beslutte, hvad de ønsker at bruge deres liv til; hvilket mærke, som vil være til gavn for hele menneskeheden langt ud i fremtiden, ønsker de at sætte? Et udskrift af Helgas svar vil ligeledes snarest blive udlagt her på hjemmesiden.

Helgas tale og efterfølgende diskussion havde en dybtgående virkning på alle de tilstedeværende. 

Diskussionen findes kun som engelsk udskrift (se nedenfor).

—–

English: Introductory article

Helga Zepp-LaRouche Keynotes Copenhagen Seminar on `Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm'

COPENHAGEN, Dec. 12, 2016 (EIRNS) — Today, Helga Zepp-LaRouche was the special guest speaker at a Schiller Institute/{EIR} seminar in Copenhagen entitled, "Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm." Eight diplomats from six countries attended, including two ambassadors. There were nations from Western Europe, Southwest Asia, Western and Eastern Asia, and Africa. In addition, there were around 30 Schiller Institute members and contacts, as well as a few representatives of various Danish and international institutions.

The event was opened by the presentation of a Chinese love song performed by Feride Istogu Gillesberg and Michelle Rasmussen. Afterwards, Tom Gillesberg, the chairman of The Schiller Institute in Denmark, introduced Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche, describing her historical role in bringing about the New Silk Road policy.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche's very inspiring, in-depth speech began with the revolution against globalization represented by the Brexit, the Trump election, and the Italian No vote. She gave an evaluation of the potential represented by some of the statements and appointments Trump has made so far, and then proceeded with a detailed discussion of the two conflicting paradigms in the world today. Zepp-LaRouche then uplifted the audience with the beautiful ideas of space scientist Krafft Ehricke and Renaissance philosopher Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa. She concluded with an appeal to those present not to act as spectators on the stage of history, but engage in the battle for the new paradigm with us.

Her speech, about 80 minutes long, may be heard above, or at: https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/helga-zepp-larouche-in-copenhagen -donald-trump-and-the-new-international-paradigm-1

Afterwards, there was an intensive hour-long discussion, with questions from all of the different groups represented. Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche ended by challenging the audience to decide what they want to do with their lives, what mark they will make to benefit all humanity, far into the future.  

Zepp-LaRouche's speech and discussion had a profound effect on all present. 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Discussion:

(There is no video or audio of the discussion period, only this transcript.)

Helga Zepp-LaRouche in Copenhagen December 12, 2016
Discussion
(To facilitate free discussion, the questioners are not identified, and the questions are summarized. The answers are complete.)
Question: Can we be optimistic about Trump’s presidency, because he is skeptical about climate change, is for trade war with China and Mexico, opposes the free trade deals, and has called for tearing up the nuclear deal with Iran.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I said earlier that the potentialities for change are there, but it depends, to a very large extent, upon us – what we do. When Trump got elected, my first response was, this is what I call the ‘dog pull-tail, let-go feeling.’ What I mean by that is that when you pull the tail of a dog, which you should never do, naturally, and you let go, the pain stops. When you pull, there is pain, and when you stop pulling, the pain goes away.
So, in a certain sense, the election of Trump was the tail let-go feeling, because we were on an immediate course toward WWIII, and that was really the primary point, because if Hillary Clinton would have been elected — unfortunately, Hillary Clinton, when she was in the Obama administration, transformed from being a relatively OK person, she was never great, but in 2008, she was relatively decent, compared to what she became, because she capitulated to Obama, and when she made this terrible statement, for example, in Libya, about the murder of Gadaffi, “We came, we saw, and he died.” This is barbarism.
Her behavior in the Ben Ghazi case. There were so many things where she became worse than Obama, almost. So the immediate thing was that that big danger, that she would have continued the policies of Bush and Obama, in the confrontation with Russia and China, that that was stopped is, already, for the survival of civilization, the most important step.
Now, on these other points. Naturally, there is climate change. There is no question about it. But the question is, what is the cause of it? And the Schiller Institute had several conferences where we invited extremely important scientists who presented, beyond a doubt, that if you look at the last 500 million years in the history of the Earth, you have a continuous cycle of ice ages, of warming periods, of small ice ages, and the man-made component of climate change is absolutely negligible. It’s a big fraud, for example, it’s a big business. To sell CO2 omission quotas, is like selling indulgences in the Middle Ages.
Obviously, there are climate changes, and some countries which have low coasts are very much affected, but then you have to adapt to these climate changes with modern technology, and you cannot solve the problem by going to electric cars, or going to decarbonization of the world economy. This is a big fraud, and I am not saying that Trump is saying this for all the right reasons, but the idea to impose measures implied with the “great transformation” Schellnhuber is talking about – I mean these people do not want development.
We have been on this case for the last — as a matter of fact, we, the LaRouche movement, had a conception about the development of the world really starting at the end of the sixties.
I joined Mr. LaRouche because I went to China, Africa, other Asian countries, and I saw the horrible, horrible underdevelopment. So I came back from this trip, and I said, ‘I have to become political, because I want to change this.’ I could give you a long, long story of the many observations, because I went with a cargo ship, and when you go to these countries with a cargo ship, you get a quite different idea than if you go on a 5-star cruise, and hotels. You see how the poverty affects people in their real lives. And I came back, and I looked at all the political movements, and I saw that LaRouche was the only one who said, ‘We have to have Third World development. We have to have technology transfer. We have to alleviate this poverty.’
And we had a positive conception already in the seventies, and therefore, when the Club of Rome appeared, we immediately said, ‘This is a fraud.’ Because the Club of Rome said, ‘There are limits to growth. We have reached equilibrium. Until the year 1972, you could develop, but now, we have reached equilibrium, and we have to have sustainable development. We have to have appropriate technology.’ These notions did not exist before, because before, you had the idea of a UN Development Decade, where each decade, you would overcome the underdevelopment by qualitative jumps. And when we recognized this propaganda by the Club of Rome, we immediately said, ‘This is a complete fraud,’ and the people who wrote the book “Limits to Growth,” Meadows and Forrester …
Q: A followup about the Paris climate summit.
A: I would like to give you written documentation afterwards of the studies that were made by these geologists, which are, without question, the explanation of climate change is not man-made. The anthropogenic aspect of it is so miniscule. Climate change has to do with the position of the solar system in the galaxy, which goes in cycles around a certain axis, and you can see that over 500 million years, the data confirms that you have these wide changes. Greenland is called Greenland, because it was green. There used to be vineyards. You had ice ages which completely covered the Earth, and the reason why I went into this longer history, is to show how the environmentalist movement was created with the attempt to keep development down, and climate change is just another expression of the same effort.
If you look at which firms which are investing in solar parks, in wind parks, who is controlling the CO2 emission trade, you have all the top hedge funds in London and Wall St. I can give you a lot of documentation about it, which does not mean that climate change is not real, because you have the rise of the oceans, and you have climate change, you have extreme weather, but that has been happening for hundreds of millions of years.
And, on the other points you raised, obviously, from our standpoint, the cancellation of NAFTA, is a good thing, because NAFTA did not allow development for Mexico. As a matter of fact, NAFTA is the incarnation of the cheap labor production model of free trade. What you need is – especially countries which are not developed, you need protective tariffs for their own good. They have to develop a domestic market first. The booklet which I emphasized, which you should please read, “Against the Stream,” is one of many, but it is very condensed, and a very good book.
The question is, ‘What is the source of wealth?’ Is the source of wealth cheap labor, to buy cheap raw materials, produce cheaply, and sell expensive? Is that the cause of wealth? No.
The only cause of wealth is the increase in the creativity of labor power. And a good government is, therefore, investing the maximum amount into education, into sponsoring the creativity of youth, of labor, and the more people in the labor force, by percentage, are engineers, scientists, the more productive the economy becomes.
And the free trade system, of which NAFTA is just one example, did exactly the opposite. China, which was part of this in the beginning — the reason why China today has so many environmental problems, like smog, like a large amount of groundwater being contaminated, is the result of the fact that China, in the beginning of its industrialization, accepted being a cheap labor production place for the U.S. and for Europe. When I was in China, even in 1971, I visited some factories which were horrible. They were absolutely horrible. The working conditions were terrible, the labor force, which produced electrical devices for radios, it was horrible. They worked for 18 hours. No health system. It was just terrible. And that is how China developed in the first phase.
But then China, with Deng Xiaoping, started to recognize that that is the wrong way. So China is now on a completely different track. They are putting the maximum emphasis on science and technology, the increase of excellence. Last year, they produced 1 million scientists. That’s double of what the U.S. produced. Obviously China is a larger country, but still. What will finally be decisive is the number of people who are creative. And that is why China, right now, has the best education system, because they have understood that the source of wealth is not raw materials. Is not trade conditions. It is the creativity of their own people. And that it a good thing. If we go to a system where we have a certain amount of protectionism, to protect the development of the domestic market, it is a good thing.
There is no danger of cutting [countries off from one another], because all of these infrastructure projects are connectivity. The world will be more connected than ever before. But this whole myth of free trade is really a very bad thing. It has been coined by the people who profit from it. That’s why the world is in the condition it is right now, where the rich become richer, and the poor become poorer. The middle class is being destroyed all over the world. And I would really like to communicate with you so that we can deepen this dialogue.
On the Iran thing, I don’t think he will break it, but that is my hope. I don’t know.
So, I’m not saying he’s a – as I said, Baron von Knigge would get a heart attack when he hears Trump’s speeches, but the world was in such a grip of evil, satanic evil, that it is a good thing that there is a break, and the unfortunate thing, is that Europe is still in this grip.
You can see it. Von der Leyen, the German Defense Secretary, had the funniest reaction. The day after the election of Trump, she said ‘I am deeply shocked,’ about this election result, because nobody thought this would happen. Now, this same lady is now parading in Saudi Arabia with Crown Prince Bin Salman Al Saud, and she isn’t shocked. So, I don’t know what’s wrong with her. I think that that would be a good place to be shocked, or not even go there.
So, I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the Europeans who react this way to the defeat of Hillary, are obeying another power in their head, and that power I call The British Empire, which is still in place, and it dominates Europe, and that is why they feel – I was asking myself, how come all of these politicians are so arrogant towards the new president of the U.S.? Because they were the boot-lickers of Washington until yesterday, and they would immediately do everything Washington would say and do, so I asked myself, ‘Where is this sudden self-assertedness coming from?’ And the only explanation I came up with, was to say, they must have an idea that there is another power which is more powerful than Trump, otherwise, they wouldn’t have this sudden arrogance.
And it is the British, because you will see tomorrow, because tomorrow, there will be a federal press conference in Berlin, where a number of people will present their contribution to the German chairmanship of the G-20, which will take place in July in Hamburg. This will be Joachim Schellnhuber, the head of the WBGU (German Advisory Council on Global Change), this is the scientific advisory organization advising the German government. He put out this paper about ‘the great transformation,’ which we wrote about. You can look in the archive. He is the head of the idea of a decarbonization of the world economy.
Now, if you decarbonize the world economy, without having fusion, that would be one thing, to have fusion power in place. Then you can talk about getting rid of fossil fuels, but without having fusion, and being against nuclear energy, fission, it means that you will reduce the world’s population to 1 billion or less, because there is a direct correlation between the energy-flux-density, and the number of people you can maintain. Schellnhuber said that the carrying capacity of the Earth is maximum 1 billion people. He didn’t say that he wants to do with the 6 billion who are already there. If he would be consequent, he should hop away from this planet.
And they will announce a sinister plan, to try to use the fact that many countries have environmental problems, to sneak in their anti-development programs. People should not be naïve, because not everybody thinks that population growth is a good thing. There are many people who think that each human being is a parasite, destroying nature. That is the image of man which many people have. The greenies, for example.
We look at it in a different way. We think that the more people you have, the greater longevity you can have, division of labor, and a modern scientific society needs many people with a long life span. Because if you are in the Third World, and you die, and you have an average life expectancy of 40 years, or less, you cannot have scientists, because the production of a scientist takes 30-35 years, and if people then die right away, then you can’t have a modern society.
So the more creative people you have, the better. Each human being is an incredible addition, because we are creative.
Tom Gillesberg: Schellnhuber, for his services, was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE), and for him, he personally has said, that the highpoint of his existence was that the British Queen, personally, gave him the Order of the British Empire, for his efforts to reduce the possibility for mankind’s survival, you could say, so it is connected with what you said.
Q: This is the best speech I have ever heard in my life.
Is this a second American Revolution, and will the Federal Reserve, which is privately owned, be closed down, and will money be created for the benefit of all people, and not just the private Fed?
A: I don’t know, because, as I said, there are so many unknowns about Trump, and what he will do, and how it will play out. All I can say is, if Trump does not fulfill his promises, the same people who caused his election, will topple him. Because I don’t think that this process, which is now underway, where ordinary people have just had it — If you think about the declaration of Independence, it has this formulation that you will not bring down a government system for light reasons, but, if for a long time, the common good is being violated, I don’t know the exact text, then, people have the right and duty to replace this government with a rightful one, and that idea I call natural law.
It’s the same idea that Friedrich Schiller had in Wilhelm Tell. This is a play he wrote, which takes place in Switzerland. There, the Hapsburg oligarch is also trampling on the rights of the Swiss people, then they unite with the Rütli Oath. There is this beautiful formulation which says, ‘When the rights of people are trampled upon, they have the right to reach out to the stars, and take from the stars those rights which are eternally embedded in these stars. (I am not saying it as beautifully as Schiller does.)
If you compare these two texts, the Declaration of Independence, and the Rütli Oath from Schiller’s play, they are almost identical, and it’s very clear that Schiller was inspired by the American Revolution when he wrote that play, because in his plays, there are many ideas which resonate with the American Revolution, and he actually wanted to immigrate, at one point, to America.
So I think that if Trump turns out to be another fraudster, which we don’t know yet, I think that this process of revolt will continue, because I only mentioned some elements.
I could mention that there are many countries now in realignment. for example, the Philippines, Duterte. This was supposed to be the playground for the conflict with China in the South China Sea. Now Duterte sent his Defense Secretary, Lorenzana, to Russia and China, to buy weapon systems from Russia and China, and to establish a friendship with China, and he said, ‘The Philippines is no longer the colony of the U.S.’
Then you have Japan, which was the junior partner of the U.S. in the Pacific. Abe went to Sochi, meeting with Putin. In three days from now, Putin will go to Japan to have a state visit. They are talking about a peace treaty between Russia and Japan.
All of these are new alignments. There is a shift in the strategic situation, and I don’t think that that shift can be reversed.
Q: About Russia hacking the U.S. election. Why doesn’t the U.S. have anti-hacking measures? Can you explain that?
A: I cannot explain that, for the same reason that I cannot explain why the NSA is surveilling everyone, all their phones, their communications, worldwide. They can observe all of these things, but they don’t know about terrorism. They don’t know about drug trafficking. They don’t know about money laundering. Either their system is not so good, or they are looking in the wrong direction. I can’t answer your question.
Q: Will the result of the Brexit be positive for Europe, to enable continental Europe to become stronger, and to improve cooperation with the eastern parts of Europe?
A: I think that the EU is not functioning, and I think it is not just the Brexit. The “No” in Italy is a reflection of the same dynamic. Now you have Gentiloni, the new prime minister, and they will probably go for new elections. Right now, in the polls, you have the 5 Star Party leading. If they win, and form the new government, they have already said that they would leave the EU, and leave the Euro, and, in a certain sense, it is not functioning.
The reason I was against the introduction of the Euro from the beginning, was because we said that it cannot function. You cannot have a European currency union in something which is not an optimal economic space. You cannot put advanced industry together with an agrarian country, with completely different tax laws, pension laws, and you don’t want a political union, because Europe is not a people. You don’t have a European people. I don’t know what the Danes are saying. I don’t know what is in the Danish newspapers. The people of Slovenia have no inkling of what is happening in Alsace-Lorraine, and so forth, and so on. You don’t have a European people. Esperanto doesn’t function. You have 28 nations, 28 histories, 28 cultures.
That doesn’t mean that you can’t work together. I think that the idea of Charles de Gaulle to work together as an alliance between perfectly sovereign fatherlands, that is a correct idea. And all these fatherlands can adopt a joint mission, like to develop Africa, or other things.
I just think that this European Union is not going to stay forever.
Q: (followup) Will it be easier for Germany and France to promote this development, as the leading countries?
A: Everybody says that Germany is the biggest beneficiary of globalization, the EU, and the Euro, but that’s not really true, because, if you look at it more closely, then you can say that since the introduction of the Euro, the domestic market of Germany has completely stagnated. And the number of people who became poorer has increased.
Q: (followup) What about regarding the dialogue with Russia.
A: Oh yes, that would be much easier.
I do not think that this EU bureaucracy is capable of reform, because by their self-understanding, they are the local pro-consuls of this empire, and I think that it would be much better if Germany, France, and other countries have individual relations. And I don’t think that – this whole idea that you need a European Empire to compete with Russia and China and other emerging countries – The EU, by definition, is an empire. They have said it themselves. Robert Cooper, who has some kind of advisory function [currently serving as EU Special Advisor with regard to Myanmar], he said that the EU is the fastest expanding empire in history. It’s a bad idea.
And the Russians for – I noticed this since the beginning of the year 2000, that the Russians did not make a difference anymore between the EU and NATO. They said that it’s the same thing. And it is the same thing.
Q: You said that the One Belt, One Road was stripped of commercial interests from the Chinese side, as opposed to the IMF, World Bank. On what basis do you say that it is less interest-driven than the Bretton Woods institutions?
A: Well, because, the question is not that I’m saying that China is perfect. I’m not saying that. But when you look at anything, you have to look at the vector of development, is it going upward, or is it going downward? And from that standpoint, I had the advantage that I was in China in 1971, which was in the middle of the Cultural Revolution. This was so different than China today.
The Cultural Revolution was horrible for the people. The Red Guards would take people out of their homes, put them in jail, send them to the countryside, and people were distraught.
And now, people in China are happy. If you talk to students, or to young people, they are optimistic. They say, ‘Oh. I will do this in the future. I have these plans.’ I talked to a group of students in Lanzhou two years ago, and they said, ‘We will go to Africa. We will develop Africa.’ I have never heard a German student say this. Yeah, when I was a student, but that’s a long time ago.
I think that it is very worthwhile to read the speeches of Xi Jinping. There is a book, “The Governance of China,” but that only has about 60 speeches, and there are many, many more. For example, you should read the speeches he gave when he went to France, to Germany, and to India.
For example, when he went to India, he made a speech which was really incredible, because he said that he loved Indian culture from his early youth, and then he gave so many examples of the high points of Indian culture, the Gupta period, the Upanishads, the Vedic writings, Rabindranath Tagore, many predicates which prove that he really knows what he is talking about. He is not just one of these politicians who have a PR advisor about how to make nice bubbles in your speeches, but you could really see that he means it. And the same for Germany. He came to Germany and he emphasized Schubert and Heine, things which I also appreciate about Germany, and he did the same thing in France.
And I don’t think that the Chinese leadership would agree with me when I say this, but I think that they are less communist than Confucians. They probably would not admit that, because they are officially the Communist Party, and that’s OK, but, I come from Trier, and Trier is the birthplace of Karl Marx, so I have studied Karl Marx, and I think that they are still socialist, or communist, or whatever, but they always said that they are communist with Chinese characteristics, and these Chinese characteristics are Confucianism.
And the Confucian idea of man is lifelong learning, lifelong perfection, that everyone should be a Jinzi, a wise man, a noble man, and Confucius said, if the government is bad, then the Jinzi, these wise people, should replace the government. Also the idea that you have to have an harmonious development, starting with the family, continuing in the nation, and then, larger, among the nations.
China is the only country that has not made wars of aggression, colonial wars, in its 5,000 years of history. It was invaded many times, the Opium War, and things like that, but China is not an aggressive nation, at all.
And if you look at what they are doing in practice, the IMF and the World Bank have prevented Third World development, and China is going from one country to the next, building science cities, helping with space cooperation, bringing in developing countries in the most advanced areas of science, in order to not prevent their development. I think this is a completely different approach.
I think that the Chinese have come up with a new model of government, which I have not seen in any place in Europe, the U.S. ever, and it’s a model which is overcoming geopolitics, which is, if you say, ‘I have a win-win for cooperation. Everybody can join.’ Then, if everyone joins, then you have overcome geopolitics.
And geopolitics is the one thing that caused two world wars, and in the age of thermonuclear weapons, we cannot have geopolitics anymore. So I think that these are very important differences.
Sure, China has its own interests. Win-win means that China also has an interest. China has advantages, but, for example, if you ask people from Africa, ‘Would you rather have deals where China gets raw materials for long periods of time, but they build infrastructure for Africans.’ They like that much better than Europeans who come and say, ‘Oh, you should obey democracy,’ and do nothing.
Q: Statement about Chinese infrastructure projects in Morocco. Both are winners, as opposed to projects 20 years ago run by other countries. The Chinese there have learned Arabic. The projects have greatly reduced the travel time. They have a different perspective than the French, and Europeans had.    
Tom Gillesberg: Do you have final remarks?
A: I would just say that people should not just believe, or not believe, what I am saying, but take an active attitude to try to find out what the truth is, for themselves. Because the world is not helped by replacing one ideology by another. The only way you can be certain, is that you become a truth-seeking person yourself. Because the whole question about what went wrong, is that people forgot what it is to be an honest truth-seeking person, taking the truth not as something you reach finally, but something you always improve.
Schiller had this beautiful writing about universal history, where he said that the philosophical mind is the first one to take his own system apart, to put it together more perfectly again.
I think that that quality – and, also, we had two days ago in Berlin, a very important event, which was also about the dialogue of cultures, and every – we had a very important presentation, which you can soon see on our webpage, where we had a double bass player who spoke about the importance of Wilhelm Furtwängler as a conductor, and he gave some musical examples, and he compared the performances of Furtwängler with some modern conductors, and the difference is so unbelievable. The music of Furtwängler is transparent. It is beautiful. It is absolutely overwhelmingly uplifting, and many of the other conductors are just playing along, with no respect for what the composition is.
And he really described, with many quotes from Furtwängler, that what is needed is this inner quality of truthfulness. That you don’t fake it, because if you’re not truthful – for example, you cannot recite poetry, if you’re not truthful. You cannot sing beautifully, if you’re not truthful. Sure, you can sing brilliantly, you can do all kinds of tricks, and it impresses people, but to really produce art, you have to be truthful. You have to try to understand the poetical idea, the musical idea. You have to step back with your ego behind what the composer or the poet wrote. And that’s what is wrong with modern theater. In Regietheater, they just say, ‘I don’t care what Schiller wrote, or what Shakespeare wrote. I just make my modern interpretation. I put Harley Davidson’s into Shakespeare, and it doesn’t matter.’ And that is not art.
And I think the question is, ‘What do you do with your life?’ That is really the question. Are you becoming a creative person, devoted to that with your life, you contribute to enable mankind to move on a little step further, and become better.
Or, are you just eating three tons of caviar, and have 3,000 Porsches. And then, when you die, they write on your gravestone, ‘He/she ate three mons of caviar, and had 3,000 Porsches,’ and that was it.
No, you should try to be an honest person, trying to make human society better with what you do. And, once you do that, you become happy. Then you are free. This inner freedom, is what you should try to find. And that is the only way that we will win that battle. It’s not Trump. It is, can we get enough people to be innerly free.
And then we win.
End of discussion