Trumps Glass-Steagall kom fra bankfolk, der er forpligtet over for realøkonomi

6. nov., 2016 – Donald Trumps krav om, at »tiden er kommet til en Glass/Steagall-lov for det 21. århundrede«, som han erklærede i sin tale i Charlotte den 26. okt., har dybere rødder i den side af det amerikanske banksystem, der er forpligtet over for forøget produktion gennem lån til varefremstilling, landbrug og infrastruktur. Dette omfatter tusinder af sparekasser i lokalsamfundene, der er imod Wall Streets kasinoøkonomi.

Disse kræfter kom sammen i Huntington Konventionscenter i Cleveland, Ohio, den 11. juli 2016, for at indsætte Glass-Steagall i Republikanernes partiprogram, forud for Republikanernes Nationale Konvent den 18. – 21. juli. Klummeskriveren John Gizzi afslørede i en artikel i Newsmax den 12. juli, med overskriften, »Hvorfor er Bernie Sanders’ favoritlovgivning i GOP[1]-partiprogram?«, »Under en samling i Huntington Konvent Center i Cleveland [den 11. juli], vedtog GOP Programkomiteens Underkomite for Reform af Regeringen at i partiets program inkludere en genindførelse af Glass-Steagalls milepæls-lovgivning, der separerer risikabel handel og investering fra traditionelle bankaktiviteter, såsom udlån til erhvervslivet og finansiering til forbrug, efter loven blev vedtaget i 1933.«

Gizzi understregede, »Med hensyn til … hvordan Glass-Steagall fandt vej til det Republikanske partiprogram, så talte jeg med drivkraften bag dette i GOP. John Lynch, medlem af programkomiteen fra Illinois og tidl. præsident for First Midwest Bank i Chicago, mindede om, at ’Glass-Steagall altid har været den mur, der holdt almindelige bankaktiviteter (dvs., indskudskonti, lån til forbrugere, kreditkort og øvrige tjenesteydelser til borgerne, -red.), bort fra aktiviteter med stor risiko. Bill Clinton nedbrød denne mur, da han underskrev lovens ophævelse i 1999’.« Gizzi fortsatte med at citere Lynch med, at ophævelsen af Glass-Steagall »eksponerede almindelig bankaktivitet til højere risici i takt med, at visse personer søgte at tjene så mange penge som muligt«.

Lynch havde flere årtiers erfaring som ansat og dernæst i overordnede funktioner i regionale banker i Midtvesten. Han forfremmedes til at blive præsident for Midwest Bank i Illinois, der nu er en lokal bank med aktiver for $11 mia., med afdelinger i Illinois, Indiana og Iowa.

I sin biografi på Linkedin nævner Lynch, en stærk tilhænger af Trump, blandt sine udgivelser, »2016 GOP-programmet for Genindførelse af Tillæg til Glass/Steagall-loven af 1933«, som han med sine egne ord definerer som:

»Med det formål at forhindre endnu et sammenbrud af USA’s banksystem og en stor recession eller depression, foreslår jeg at genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven af 1933, der blev vedtaget som respons til 5.000 bankers konkurs og den Store Depression, og som forbød kommercielle banker at være engageret i højrisiko-investeringsbankaktivitet, forsikring og anden ikke-bankforretning. Loven blev ophævet under præsident Clinton i 1999 på anmodning fra Citibank og førte sluttelig til finanskollapset i 2008 og en recession, så vel som også til en bailout (statslig bankredning), betalt af skatteborgerne … Uærlige Hillary ville ganske afgjort stemme imod mit forslag, fordi hun ’ejes’ af storbankerne på Wall Street.«

Inden for en uge, den 20. juli, havde et ophidset American Banker Magazine en forsidehistorie, »Er Trump de lokale sparekassers kandidat?«

LaRouche-bevægelsens mangeårige, urokkelige kamp for genindførelsen af Roosevelts Glass-Steagall har skabt kraften og sammenhængen for, at Lynch og andre offentligt kan fremsætte dette forslag. Dette går langt videre end til Trump, som grundlaget for at vedtage LaRouches Fire Love til at igangsætte, og på revolutionerende vis transformere, USA’s og verdens økonomi.

Foto: Roosevelt, 1933.

[1] GOP = Grand Old Party; Det Republikanske Parti.

Hun er et falsum!
Dø for Hillarys Wall Street,
eller vind med LaRouche

4. november, 2016 – Hillarys præsidentkampagne er et intetsigende falsum. Hun satsede sin kampagne på Obamas sataniske arv, først og fremmest ved sin direkte afvisning af Glass-Steagall, især efter, at hun blev udfordret af LaRouche-aktivist Daniel Burke under en tale om sin økonomiske politik ved New School i New York City i juli måned, 2015, hvor hun var for fej til blot så meget som at tale om spørgsmålet.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Vi må genoplive et sandt USA.
Der har aldrig været et større øjeblik til at udvikle LaRouches ideer.
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 4. nov., 2016; Leder

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

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

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

Lad os begynde diskussion herfra.

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

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

International Webcast, Nov. 4, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obamas og Hillarys krigspolitik kan overvindes

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 3. november, 2016 – En revolution finder sted i verden i dag. Den startede i Asien, hvor den allerede er langt fremme, med Kina, Rusland, Indien og i stigende grad også Japan, der samarbejder for at skabe en udviklingsproces for verden som helhed, baseret på videnskab, innovative teknologier, udstrakte, regionale infrastrukturprojekter, store spring fremad i udforskning af rummet og reel udvikling af de forarmede nationer i Afrika, Latinamerika og Asien. Som man vil se af nedenstående rapport, så har denne dag, ligesom stort set hver eneste dag af dette nye paradigme, set et utroligt niveau af nye samarbejdsprojekter, lanceret af disse eurasiske nationer, mellem hinanden indbyrdes, og som rækker ud til udviklingssektoren gennem fælles udviklingsprojekter.

Virkningen af denne revolution er nu endelig i færd med at nå ind i USA, efter betydningsfulde gennembrud i Europa gennem de Nye Silkevejsprojekter, der kommer fra Kina og når ind i både Øst- og Vesteuropa. Dette skifte, der nu finder sted i USA, kan spores direkte tilbage til Lyndon LaRouches arbejde.

I takt med, at præsidentvalgkampagnen udviklede sig i løbet af det forgangne år, begyndte alt, Obama rørte ved, at smuldre. Obamacare afsløredes som den katastrofe, LaRouche havde forudsagt, den ville være. Modtageren af Nobels Fredspris er blevet afsløret som en massedræber, der har allieret sig med terroriststyrker i hele Sydvestasien for at vælte suveræne regeringer. Det er nu blevet afsløret, at præsidenten, der skulle rydde op i det Wall Street-rod, som George Bush efterlod, har nægtet at sagsøge så meget som én eneste bankier, selv med det faktum, at de forbrydelser, som er begået af Wells Fargo, med HSBC’s narkopengehvidvask og med en tilbagevenden af en spekulativ derivatboble i JP Morgan Chase og alle de andre, for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-banker, står klart og tydeligt i offentlighedens lys. Den præsident, der aflagde løfte om at bringe Håb og Forandring, har skabt den største epidemi af opiater og narkotika i nationens historie, i en ungdomsgeneration, der har mistet ethvert håb om en fremtid og vælger narkotika eller selvmord, eller begge dele.

Og Hillary Clinton valgte en kampagne på dette fundament og tilføjede den kendsgerning, at hun er ivrig efter at starte en militær konfrontation med Rusland, som, åbenlyst for alle undtagen de blinde, vil være det samme som at haste hen imod global, atomar udslettelse.

Men, tingene har ændret sig i løbet af de seneste uger. Mange mennesker har stillet spørgsmålstegn ved LaRouches afvisning af at vælge side i dette valg, men i stedet har insisteret på, at hans tilhængere arbejder på at introducere en seriøs politik i en kampagne, der næsten udelukkende har været et afskyeligt, pornografisk slagsmål om at forsøge at rive tøjet af hinanden! Denne seriøse politik måtte begynde med Glass-Steagall, insisterede han, for at lukke Wall Streets kasinoøkonomi ned og genindføre en kreditpolitik i nationen, efter Hamiltons principper. Dette betyder at kanalisere statslig kredit gennem en genindført Nationalbank for USA, der skal erstatte det bankerotte Federal Reserve-system (centralbanksystem), med det formål at finansiere en transformation af nationen med videnskab som drivkraft, og som er centreret omkring en genoplivning af NASA’s rumprogram, udvikling af fusionskraft og et vidtstrakt program for hård og blød infrastruktur – det, LaRouche kalder sine Fire Love.

Donald Trump har krævet en vedtagelse af det 21. århundredes Glass/Steagall-lov og fordømt Hillarys (og Obamas) sleskhed over for Wall Street. Han er gået længere end til at foreslå samarbejde med Rusland for at knuse ISIS, hvilket er bemærkelsesværdigt, men utilstrækkeligt, og til at advare om, at, et valg af Hillary vil betyde en atomkrig.

Begge disse spørgsmål identificeres internationalt med Lyndon LaRouche. Hans indsats for at introducere virkelighed i kampagnen har haft en virkning, der kan og må forhindre krig og påbegynde reformen af de kollapsende, transatlantiske økonomier.

I dag talte LaRouche om dette nye potentiale, men advarede om, at tiden ikke er til at »lade vore stemmer trækkes nedad« og falde for at følge en kandidat, men til at optrappe kampen for et revolutionært, politisk skifte i USA, og til at være klar til at handle den 9. november, uanset hvem, der vinder valget, for at gennemføre Glass-Steagall og de Fire Love.

På et tidspunkt som det nu foreliggende, hvor verden, i den umiddelbart forestående periode, vil ændre sig dramatisk, til det bedre eller til det værre, er der ingen plads til pessimisme eller pragmatisme, og ingen grund til at give frygten lov til at afskrække os. Det nye paradigme breder sig i hele verden. Ved at genindføre vore grundlæggende principper, kan Amerika også gøre en ende på den britiske, »unipolære imperieverden«, hvis mentalitet har grebet vores nation, og gå med i at opbygge en verden af suveræne nationer, der arbejder sammen for menneskehedens fælles mål.

Foto: USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) i det Filippinske Hav, oktober 2016. (Foto: U.S. Pacific Fleet Flickr)

Se også f.eks.:

»Tysklands potentielle rolle i udviklingen af Verdenslandbroen« af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

»Potentialet for Frankrig og hele Europa i opbygningen af Verdenslandbroen«, af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

A Renaissance in World Infrastructure: A Presentation to Engineers on the World Land-Bridge, video og engelsk udskrift.

LaRouchePAC’s massive effekt: Kandidater kræver Glass-Steagall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glass-Steagall umiddelbart efter valgdagen; Obama kan overvindes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLERENDE MATERIALE:

LaRouchePAC’s massive effekt: Kandidater kræver Glass-Steagall

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

Lyndon LaRouche: At tolerere Obama og Hillary bringer blodsudgydelse og krig

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 1. november, 2016 – Data fra opinionsundersøgelser viser, at vælgere i de afgørende svingstater i overvældende grad støtter Glass-Steagall og andre metoder til at bryde de store Wall Street-banker op. Ifølge en opinionsundersøgelse, foretaget af Lake Research Partners, ønsker 70 % af vælgerne i Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri og Ohio en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall nu. Opinionsundersøgelsen konkluderede, »Den offentlige frustration over Wall Streets hensynsløshed og grådighed er stor og går på tværs af det politiske spektrum. Uanset, hvem, der vinder dette valg, så bør han/hun højt prioritere at gøre dette oprør til en reel forandring.«

Tirsdag tog Lyndon LaRouche dette argument til dets logiske konklusion: Alt dette had er i realiteten rettet mod præsident Obama, hvis katastrofale politik har bragt os helt frem til denne eksistentielle krise. Hillary Clinton er en forlængelse og en fortsættelse af denne Obama-politik; beskyttelse af Wall Street; passivitet i forhold til en landsomspændende epidemi af ulovlige medikamenter (narkotiske stoffer); en fortsættelse i det uendelige af udenlandske krige, der koster skattebetalerne billioner af dollars; den totale ødelæggelse af det amerikanske sundhedssystem under Obamacare; en dæmonisering af Rusland, der driver os hen imod en atomar Tredje Verdenskrig.

Et oprigtigt valg den 8. nov. vil vise dette had til Obama og til alt, han har gjort mod USA på vegne af sine britiske herrer. Britiske interesser har styret Obama fra den første dag, han gik ind i politik. Hillary Clinton ødelagde sig selv gennem sin kapitulation til Obama, og det er grunden til, at hun er forhadt. Ethvert forsøg på at skjule dette på valgdagen, vil føre til blodsudgydelse.

Dette er dødelig alvor. Vi konfronteres ikke alene med udsigten til national blodsudgydelse, men også med den reelle mulighed for krig. Vi befinder os allerede på randen af Tredje Verdenskrig pga. Obamas politik med at provokere Rusland, en politik, som Hillary Clinton har udviklet til en endnu mere obskøn yderlighed.

Foto: Præsident Obama rådslår med udenrigsminister Clinton under NATO-topmødet i Strasbourg, Frankrig, i april 2009. (Foto: Pete Souza)

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

Den 1. november, 2016, lavede EIR-Danmark det følgende interview (lydfil 2) med Steingrímur J. Sigfússon, medlem af det islandske Althingi – parlament – for Den Venstresocialistiske Grønne Gruppe, som han har stiftet og er formand for; han er desuden tidligere finansminister og nuværende formand for Nordisk Råds Venstresocialistiske Grønne Gruppe. Interviewet fandt sted efter, at Nordisk Råd, der holder en samling i København, holdt en pressekonference med præsidenten og vicepræsidenten og alle gruppelederne. EIR stillede det første spørgsmål under pressekonferencen (lydfil 1), der blev besvaret af folketingsmedlem Henrik Dam Kristensen (S), som er formand for samlingen.

Spørgsmål og svar ved pressekonferencen med Nordisk Råds præsident Henrik Dam Kristensen, vicepræsidenten og partigruppeformænd (inkl. Steingrímur J. Sigfússon, formanden for Venstre-Grøn gruppen):

EIR-interview med Steingrímur J. Sigfússon lige efter pressekonferencen:

RADIO SCHILLER den 31. oktober 2016:
Valget i USA: Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling og faren for 3. verdenskrig
er nu blevet hovedtemaer

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Trumps vending mod Glass-Steagall
åbner feltet for LaRouches Fire Love

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 30. oktober, 2016 – I sidste uge fremførte kandidat Donald Trump et direkte krav om gennemførelse af det 21. Århundredes Glass/Steagall-lov samtidig med, at han udstedte en ligefrem advarsel om, at Hillary Clintons sindssyge dæmonisering af Vladimir Putin og hendes krav om militær konfrontation med Rusland og Syrien allerede har bragt verden til randen af atomkrig. Hvad så siden Trumps motivation er, så har dette placeret de spørgsmål, som med Lyndon LaRouche er blevet internationalt fastlagt, i centrum for den amerikanske, politiske krise.

I dag responderede LaRouche til dette skift under en diskussion med sine medarbejdere, ni dage før det amerikanske præsidentvalg:

»Trump er kommet ud med Glass-Steagall. Han fremlagde argumentet. Desuden hader han Hillary Clinton og foragter Barack Obama. Trump har et enormt ego, og det betyder, at han ønsker at gøre noget stort og vigtigt. Men alt dette betyder, at der er noget, vi potentielt kan arbejde med. Dette betyder, at det vigtigste er det, som vi må sige den til kommende administration om det, der må gøres. Det faktum, at Trump støtter Glass-Steagall, er nu en fastslået kendsgerning, og dette er et sted at begynde, men kun et sted at begynde. Vi forstår, hvad der må gøres, overordnet set, for at vedtage en politik i Hamiltons tradition for at redde USA. Det er, hvad der virkelig tæller. Og dette budskab giver genlyd.«

Situationen i USA er fuld af dæmonisering og frygt i takt med, at amerikanske familiers levestandard i hastigt tempo kollapser, og i takt med, at borgerne ikke ser noget håb i valget.

LaRouche bemærkede:

»Situationen her er så rådden, at det giver anledning til stor bekymring. Den typiske, amerikanske borger har ingen stolthed eller tro på sig selv. Der findes ingen pragmatiske løsninger. Der findes intet i USA, med undtagelse af det, vi stiller krav om som presserende løsninger, og som begynder med Glass-Steagall, men dernæst fortsætter med en omgående lancering af massive kapitalinvesteringer af statslig kredit til infrastruktur og andre projekter, for at styrke økonomiens produktivitet som helhed. Dette betyder en genoplivelse af et statsligt, nationalt banksystem efter Hamiltons principper. Sådan skal det være.«

»Der er en reel fare for afslutningen af civilisationen. Der findes ingen andre muligheder end afgørende handlinger, af den art, som jeg har forklaret i mine Fire Økonomiske Hovedlove. Det er den virkelige proces.«

Disse Fire Hovedlove begynder med Glass-Steagall, sammen med en tilbagevenden til et Nationalt Banksystem i Hamiltons tradition, som middel til at udstede kredit til realøkonomien, der som sin spydspids og drivkraft har videnskab, med udvikling af fusionskraft og en genrejsning af NASA og rumforskning og rumfart.

»Vi er på vej ind i noget, vi aldrig før har set – lige nu«,

sagde LaRouche.

»Der findes ingen vilje inden for det transatlantiske område til at handle for at løse nogen af disse problemer. Det er i Eurasien, at vi finder den reelle indsats. Det er dér, de store initiativer finder sted. Putin gør vigtige ting, men han er også bevidst om sin egen positions svaghed, og han medregner dette i sine beslutninger og handlinger.«

Det er presserende nødvendigt at dumpe Obama, men tiden er knap. Vi må omgående, nu, såvel som også dagen efter valget, handle på det skift, som Trumps initiativ har skabt, uanset udfaldet af valget – at gennemføre Glass-Steagall og det fulde LaRouche-program for at genindføre en politik efter Hamiltons principper.

Alexander Hamiltons vision & LaRouches Fire Love
– afgørende redskaber til at redde USA.
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 28. oktober, 2016

»Jeg tror, vi kan sige, at vi befinder os ved et meget dramatisk vendepunkt i verdenshistorien, og ved et meget dramatisk vendepunkt for vores nation. I løbet af de seneste uger, som I har kunnet følge på LaRouchePAC’s webside, har vi mobiliseret en national mobilisering for at sætte hr. Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske program på dagsordenen, under betegnelsen ’De Fire Hovedlove; de Fire Nye Love til USA’s økonomiske genrejsning’, og disse love er baseret på Alexander Hamiltons fundamentale principper og hans arbejde med at etablere en videnskab om økonomi, der opbyggede USA. Vi har lanceret en kampagneside for mobilisering, og jeg vil direkte fremhæve, at det er vores dagsorden at bringe det amerikanske folk ind i denne mobilisering for at gøre jeres forståelse af, hvad det er for økonomiske principper, som Hamilton skabte, dybere; og hvad det er, som hr. LaRouche har inkorporeret i disse Fire Love.«

Engelsk udskrift:

Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast October 28, 2016

ALEXANDER HAMILTON'S VISION & LAROUCHE'S FOUR LAWS —
ESSENTIAL TOOLS TO SAVE THE UNITED STATES

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it's October 28, 2016. My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us here for our Friday
evening webcast from larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio
tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence
Review}, and we have via video, Kesha Rogers, a member of the
LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, former candidate for the United
States Congress and United States Senate, joining us from
Houston, Texas.
I think it can be said that we are at a very dramatic
turning point in world history and a very dramatic turning point
for our nation. Over the last several weeks, as you've been
following the LaRouche PAC website, we have mobilized a national
mobilization to put on the agenda Mr. Lyndon LaRouche's economic
program; this is under the name of "The Four Cardinal Laws; the
Four New Laws for the Economic Recovery of the United States",
and it's grounded in the fundamental principles of Alexander
Hamilton and his work establishing a science of economics which
built the United States. We have launched a mobilization page,
and I'll say right up front that our agenda is to bring the
American people into this mobilization to deepen your
understanding of what the economic principles are that Hamilton
created; and what Mr. LaRouche has embodied in these Four Laws.
This is not something which is only important for the
national stage; but this is shaping a paradigm shift which is
currently ongoing on the international stage. We saw two weeks
ago the dramatic shift, the realignment of the Philippines with
President Duterte's trip to China; saying that he is realigning
his country with the ideological flow of the Eurasian allied
countries that are now creating a new economic paradigm. And we
saw this expressed very clearly in a speech that Russian
President Vladimir Putin gave at the 2016 annual Valdai
international discussion club proceedings. We'll get into some
of the details of that, but Putin's emphases are very clear, and
I think they include some of the subjects that we will be
discussing here tonight. Number one, the danger of the
NATO/Obama posture which has now brought us perilously close to
the outbreak of World War III; a war that nobody is seeking on
the Russian side, as Putin made very clear. And also, the urgent
necessity of an entirely new economic paradigm to bridge the gap
between a small number of very wealthy Wall Street speculators
and a very large number of poverty-stricken, not only people, but
also nations; and to bring technological progress to all, and to
have that be the paradigm for relations among nations.
So, we'll get into those subjects, but I think first and
foremost, the issue of Glass-Steagall; the necessity of shutting
down what is now clearly the bankrupt Wall Street regime, and
what has to necessarily follow after that. The Hamiltonian Four
Laws that Mr. LaRouche has specified, I think is now very clearly
on the agenda. So, I'm going to ask Jeff to just start with a
quick briefing of some of the matters that we've discussed with
Mr. LaRouche over the last 24 hours, and then we can proceed with
a discussion of the implications of these developments.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. I think that there are
four or five things that I would really highlight in terms of
significant new developments just in the time since last Friday's
broadcast. Number one, as Matt indicated, President Putin
delivered a very powerful speech at the closing session of the
Valdai conference that took place this week in Sochi, Russia.
There were representatives there from all over the world,
including at least a number of people there from China. I think
what President Putin did was not so much break new ground, but
make very clear that Russia and he himself are fully committed to
moving ahead with the collaboration with China, with the other
BRICS countries on bringing about a new paradigm of relations
among nation-states; based on a policy of clear war avoidance
built around cooperative economic investments in great projects
— including major advances in science, including the advancement
of man's mastery over space. So, Putin in a certain sense,
reinforced what we saw at the G20 meeting in Hangzhou in China;
what we saw at the BRICS heads of state summit meeting more
recently in Goa, India. So, Russia is all-in on that, and he
made the point very clearly, that the collapse of the Western
financial system is the principal factor driving the world
towards an extraordinarily dangerous situation, where you could
have an outbreak of world war — even thermonuclear world war —
as the result of provocative actions born of desperation. I
think that whole picture is one element of what's really changed
in this last week.
Now, I spent the last 48 hours — Wednesday and Thursday of
this week — attending an annual conference in Washington, DC of
the National Council on US-Arab Relations. There were about 1000
people there, and it was widely attended by the diplomatic
community, particularly the Arab diplomatic community; by the US
business sector that deals with the Gulf States. At the very
closing of the conference, Thursday evening, there was a
concluding keynote presentation by General David Petraeus —
formerly the head of the Central Command, formerly the Director
of the CIA. He made a very bold set of proposals that
unfortunately dovetailed very precisely with the kinds of things
that have been coming out of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton
campaign throughout this Presidential election. What General
Petraeus called for was both the creation of safe zones inside
Syrian sovereign territory, the creation of a no-fly zone over a
large portion of Syrian territory, and he called for the United
States to use both sea-based and air-based cruise missiles to
knock out the Syrian air force. Now, he very cavalierly said of
course this brings on the danger of a war with Russia; but he
brushed that aside, saying, Vladimir Putin responds to power, and
responds to serious threats to use power. Therefore, in the face
of these kinds of actions, Putin will back down.
Now, we're talking about American and Russian air assets
engaging in a very limited theater of action, where we've so far
avoided a major incident that could have led to general war
because of a deconfliction agreement that fortunately still
remains in force between the US-led coalition on the one side,
and Russia on the other. But what's being proposed here is a
complete overturning of that policy. We know that this is
exactly what Hillary Clinton is calling for in her own
Presidential campaign speeches. There have been recent studies
presented on behalf of the Clinton campaign by the Center for a
New American Security and the Center for American Progress, that
go almost as extremist as General Petraeus' statements.
Basically, the war danger cannot in the least underestimated; and
the fact is that President Putin — in his Valdai speech — was
very clear about that danger.
Now, on the larger issue of the immediacy of the blow-out of
the financial system of the trans-Atlantic region, everybody is
really on the edge of their chairs over the fact that the US
Department of Justice and Deutsche Bank are still parrying around
back and forth and have not reached a decision yet on a proposed
14 billion euro fine for Deutsche Bank's criminal activity during
the mortgage-backed securities crisis leading into the 2008
blow-out. Deutsche Bank is on the edge of collapse; it's widely
acknowledged. The major German financial press, led by
{Handelsblatt}, writes about this virtually every day. We know
that the Italian banking system is also on the verge of a
blow-out with 360 billion euro in non-performing debt on the
books of the larger Italian banks. So, it is absolutely true
that we're on the precipice of a potential financial blow-out far
worse than Lehman Brothers in 2008.
It's in that context, that I think it's very important to
take note of the fact that earlier this week, Donald Trump
delivered a speech in Charlotte, North Carolina, in which he
explicitly called for the implementation of a 21st Century
Glass-Steagall. He also warned that if Hillary Clinton is
elected President, the chances grow enormously that we will be
facing World War III at some point very soon; and he cited the
Syria events that I've already talked about as a kind of a key
element of that situation. Many people are scratching their
heads and saying, where did this from in terms of Trump suddenly
coming out for Glass-Steagall? It's only 12 days before the
Presidential election that this speech came out.
I had the opportunity to someone who's been involved in
Washington politics as a kind of insider for a very long time;
and his view was that he was expecting something like this to
come out of the Trump campaign, out of Donald Trump. It could
have been more effective if it had happened in September, but
whether he's being opportunistic or whether he genuinely means
it, the fact is that the Glass-Steagall issue has now been
basically re-infused into the Presidential elections at a
critical kind of countdown moment before November 8th. And
there's really no downside to that. Whatever the outcome of the
election, Glass-Steagall is an essential policy issue that must
be implemented immediately. It's the first step of Mr.
LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws for how to carry out an economic
recovery; and Mr. LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws on based
explicitly on the four key reports to Congress by Alexander
Hamilton when he was Secretary of the Treasury. So, we're
reaching back for policies that have a long-time proven track
record of success. Donald Trump didn't just simply blurt out
"Let's have Glass-Steagall." By accounts of people who closely
watched that speech down in Charlotte, this was the most
thoroughly composed and well organized speech of his entire
Presidential campaign. The next morning, in a TV interview with
Fox, Wilbur Ross, who is one of a group of "billionaires" who are
key economic policy advisors to Trump, basically reinforced the
point that Trump had made the day before in Charlotte. This is a
bit of an exchange between Fox News' Maria Bartolino and Wilbur
Ross:
BARTOLINO: Donald Trump yesterday called for a 21st Century
version of the 1933 Glass-Steagall law that requires the
separation of commercial and investment banking. Talk to us
about this, because we all know what Dodd-Frank has done to the
financial services sector; and lending has become tougher.
That's become one of the issues for this economy. Tell me about
the 21st Century version of Glass-Steagall.

Ross was absolutely clear and familiar with what Trump was
referring to the night before. He said:
ROSS: Well, the banks. It isn't so much that they're too
big; it's that they're too complex. Too complex and too
complicated internally. Think about how much the big banks —
you have to know every geography in the world; you have to know
every kind of obscure kind of product in the derivatives market.
That's an awful big menu for anybody to absorb. We think it
might be better for the banks to stick to lending, and instead of
making more restrictions on lending, make it easier for them to
make loans. Think about it. When you were suing banks every day
for the loans that they've made the day before, it's not the way
to encourage them to make new loans. They're making banks
gun-shy.

And she asks, "Are you saying there should be more
separation?"

ROSS: I think the more important thing is sensible
regulation rather than just regulation for the sake of
regulation. When you think about it, with all these fines over
sub-prime lending, can you name a single person who was ever
dispossessed from a house that didn't actually have a mortgage,
wasn't delinquent on it and deserved to be foreclosed? There
isn't one case where that's been proven, so it's punitive
regulation, it's punitive law enforcement rather than anything
very sensible.

This was clearly not just simply a stab in the dark. We
don't know whether this is a serious commitment to the policy.
But we do know that there is mass popular support for
Glass-Steagall. That's why it wound up in the platforms of both
the Democratic and Republican Parties. We know there was a fight
inside the Hillary Clinton campaign, in which a number of her key
advisors urged her to also come out and support Glass-Steagall,
which she refused to do. The Bernie Sanders supporters, the
Elizabeth Warren supporters, those who are mainstay voters for
the Democratic Party, are as adamant about the need for
Glass-Steagall as some on the Republican side.
So, the issue is that this now squarely on the table. It's
the final ten days before the Presidential elections, and so
therefore, now is the moment for this issue to be driven home,
forcefully, and for Congress to take this up as their first order
of business when the return after the November 8th elections,
regardless of the outcome. The mandate is there. It's now a
fundamental issue in the Presidential debate in these closing
days. Again, whether Trump is serious about this, or this was a
political stunt, nevertheless, the issue has been injected very
substantially into the final moments of this Presidential
campaign, and there's no downside to that having happened.

OGDEN: Mr. LaRouche's ideas are very powerful, and they
stand on their own. Mr. LaRouche has not responded to the change
of the time. He has been very, very clear for years, on the
{urgent} necessity of Glass-Steagall, and has forecast that we
would in fact reach this point again. Deutsche Bank is blowing
out. It's worse than Lehman 2008. The fact that Glass-Steagall
was not reinstated, as Mr. LaRouche called for, immediately
following the 2008 crash, is what has brought us to this point.
Kesha was involved in a high-profile Senate campaign, several
high-profile House campaigns. Other members of the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee also ran for federal office four, six years ago,
on a Glass-Steagall platform, and made that the definitive
national issue. To the extent that there's been any serious
discussion in this Presidential campaign, it has been around the
question of Glass-Steagall. This was brought up in the Democratic
debates by two candidates — Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders also
brought it up; Hillary Clinton said, "No!"
This is now the {defining} question. And as you said, Jeff,
what this shows is that there is {overwhelming} popular support:
both Party platforms. Now you have a situation in which the
reinstatement of Glass-Steagall is virtually hegemonic. It would
be tragic were the Congress not to take the immediate action to
reinstate this — do not wait for the inauguration — immediately
after returning to Washington. Glass-Steagall has got to be
reinstated, because if we wait, and Deutsche Bank or one of these
other banks blows out, I guarantee you, we are in a far worse
situation that we were, even in the Crash of 2008.
So I think the defining question is there. The necessity for
the depth of the Hamiltonian principles — which Mr. LaRouche has
made very clear — stand on their own. It's not a question of has
somebody validated Lyndon LaRouche; the question is Lyndon
LaRouche's ideas stand on their own, and have been the defining
questions, and have now reached the point where it's undeniably
hegemonic, and the point of no return is coming very soon, unless
these ideas are acted on.

STEINBERG: Let me throw something else in on this. I think
there's an important lesson to be learned from the
just-concluded, successful fight over the summer into September,
around first, the release of the 28 pages from the original Joint
Congressional Inquiry into 9/11; and then what followed after
that, with the overwhelming House and Senate override of
President Obama's veto of the JASTA Bill, the Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism Act. As was the case for some time with
JASTA, the issue is that once it was going to come to a vote,
there was no question that there was overwhelming support for it.
There was a political mobilization. LaRouche PAC led that fight,
along with the families and survivors of 9/11, and others as
well, to make sure it was actually brought to a vote. The same is
true of Glass-Steagall right now. There's got to be a groundswell
of pressure on the leadership of the House and Senate, to bring
it to a vote.
I have no doubt whatsoever that given all of the factors
that we've been discussing, that if a vote were allowed to be
taken, say on November 14-15, whatever it is the day that the
House and Senate return to Washington for the beginning of the
"lame duck" session, that should be on the table. It should be
brought to the full floor of the Senate and the House. The bills
exist in both Houses. The language is compatible. This could be
done in a very short period of time. If you look at the way that
the JASTA vote proceeded just before the recess, the whole thing
took place in the course of {one day}. There was a morning vote
and debate in the House. It went immediately to the Senate in the
afternoon; because the leadership recognized that the American
people {demanded} that this happen. There was a mobilization.
There was a sense of timing. And there is no reason in the world
that the same thing can't happen before the middle of next month
with respect to Glass-Steagall.
As Matt just said, and as Thomas Hoenig, [vice chairman of
the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation] has been arguing for
years, Glass-Steagall has to be put in place {before} the
blow-out, because once you get that blow-out, Congress will be
stampeded by Wall Street and London into another bail-out, and
you're going to be off to the races. It's going to be a disaster.
This is something where the will of the American people has
to be heard. That's the context in which we're looking at the
fact that Trump chose at the last moment to inject Glass-Steagall
into his campaign rhetoric for the final countdown days before
the election.

KESHA ROGERS: Yes. I think it's important to understand that
LaRouche "drew the line in the sand" a long time ago. He set the
standard of the Glass-Steagall representing the first step to
bringing down Wall Street, this financial speculation, and the
continued protection and defense of Wall Street, of this British
imperial system of the City of London, meant the death of the
nation and society as a whole, because we're seeing what this is
doing to impact the United States through the continued economic
collapse that's devastating the entire nation, the rate of
increase in poverty. This has all been a product of Wall Street's
total destruction of our nation.
And so, this fight for Glass-Steagall — LaRouche has led it
in the highest terms possible, because it represents a saving of
the American people. It's the identity of what has to shape the
future for this nation. I think it's really important that, as
we've continued to have discussions with Mr. LaRouche — the
Policy Committee and others — he defined very clearly that the
issue at hand is, what is going to be necessary and the standard
set for creating a standard by which credit is defined. And this
is what he has gone back to, with implementing the Hamiltonian
standard for the United States and for the world with his Four
Laws. Representing the context by which we can instill in the
American people a standard of economic value which is not based
on money, not based on the idea that you can just pump money into
small infrastructure projects here and there. But he made very
clear that you have to have an international program based on the
principle of a credit policy as Alexander Hamilton understood —
and this is why he has been very emphatic; that the American
people have to read, master and understand the works of Hamilton
today as never before. This is what Franklin Roosevelt
understood. People are adopting and taking up the policy for
restoring Glass-Steagall which LaRouche has made a household
name. Franklin Roosevelt really understood the enemy. He
understood that this house of cards of Wall Street was crumbling,
it had to be brought down; just as LaRouche understands today.
Many people who've put their name on the docket for
Glass-Steagall have been called by Wall Street "Public Enemy
Number One," and so forth.
How do we really look at this, from the standpoint of what
we're dealing with a population that has lost a sense — and Mr.
LaRouche really captured this today, very profoundly — of their
own mind; the ability of their own mind to actually know how to
fight this enemy and know how to create the future which they so
desperately desire and need? What you really see right now is
that they're being given an opportunity to participate in
something very profound and unique. If we look at what's being
presented by LaRouche's policies being adopted throughout the
world right now, the standard that's been set in China. The
standard for the future that's been set in Russia to defy and to
deny this policy of thermonuclear war and destruction. Of going
after the future and the youth of the nation, that the
international standard that's being set right now for a program
based on these Hamiltonian principles, can {clearly} be seen by
what China is doing and actually representing for a total
revolution, total renaissance for generations to come, in the
standards they're setting with their space program.
Because when Mr. LaRouche said you have to have an
international program that defines an economic standard of value,
of credit, in this nation and across the planet, that's the first
thing to look at. The fact that China just launched a new
initiative, a total breakthrough putting them front and center
stage in the development of their space program; when Obama has
continued to kill the space program with the egregious budget
cuts, with the turning over our space program to the private
sector in the United States. The policy to continue to bail out
Wall Street financial speculation instead of actually giving a
national mission, as Kennedy understood was absolutely important,
is something that can no longer be tolerated.
The inspiration is the crucial key at hand right now. People
have lost faith and confidence and inspiration in this nation, in
the system of this nation, because it has become a system of
gambling, of debt, and it has gone away from the principles which
were defined by our US Constitution. So when you look at the
inspiration you're seeing from China, with the just launching of
their spacecraft with two tyconauts from China, the Shenzhou-11
to dock with the Tiangong-2 space lab, what we have now seen
China do is to actually create an international process of
collaboration and development. Just as they've offered for the
United States to cooperate, in a win-win strategy for the Silk
Road, which nations around the world are taking up. This is
defining a new standard of value and wealth.
Now, what's the standard in the United States? Jeff can say
more on this, because he just did a presentation that I would
encourage people to look at on the website. It's death. The drug
overdoses. If you don't have a policy of inspiration for your
youth and for the nation, what are people going to turn to? What
is going to be the standard and value and the understanding of
the creativity, the creative potential of their own minds? I'll
just say, before I got on this discussion, I was speaking to a
lady 40 years old; she has a 23-year old son who she's paying
thousands of dollars to get him off of drug overdoses from
prescription medicines and pills. Three of his friends who she
knows very closely just died within the last year of drug
overdoses from heroin. First starting with painkillers, then
finding this heroin, just as you said, Jeff. Because people have
been denied a future that they can have a sense of their truly
human identity; that they have a purpose and reason to live.
Wall Street can and must be brought down, because the fight that
was won with JASTA was just the beginning. If we don't finish
off this policy of the British Empire and the Saudis funding of
terrorism and funding of drug epidemics in the United States
coming from Afghanistan, the drug trafficking, everything we've
been seeing as the destruction of this nation, then we won't have
a nation. We're seeing that very rapidly take place; this dark
age has to be stopped.
I think a lot of people are understanding that LaRouche is
giving them an opportunity for life and for determining and
fighting for a future.

OGDEN: Yeah, I do want Jeff to say more about that
interview, that short statement that he posted on the website.
Let me just underscore what you just said; I think it's
extraordinarily important. People lack the confidence in their
own mind; they lack the confidence in their own ability to
positively imagine and create and define a future. What comes in
the void of that? It's anger, it's fear, it's demoralization.
Our job is to give people their dignity back. We have to give
them the confidence in themselves as meaningful human beings. I
think that was very clearly demonstrated with what we
accomplished — the Schiller Institute along with the Foundation
for the Revival of Classical Culture — with this extraordinary
series of concerts over the weekend of the 15th anniversary of
September 11th in New York City. This was a presentation of
Mozart's {Requiem} and four African-American spirituals at four
different venues across New York City and New Jersey. The
confidence and the dignity that gave to people, including people
who were engaged as you said, Jeff, in the fight, the victorious
fight to declassify the 28 pages and to pass the JASTA bill and
override the White House's veto, I think speaks directly to that
point.
Coincidentally, there's one very short passage in this
speech that Putin gave at the Valdai discussion which says almost
exactly what you just said, Kesha. He said, "It is very clear
that there is a lack of strategy and a lack of ideas for the
future. This creates a climate of uncertainty that has a direct
impact on the public mood. Sociological studies conducted around
the world show that people in different countries and on
different continents tend to see the future as murky and bleak.
This is sad. The future does not entice them, but rather,
frightens them."
So, our job is to create a potential for a future which
entices the creative dignity of people and allows them to escape
this — as you eloquently said — dark age of drug overdoses,
death, and depression.

STEINBERG: I think it's important to also take note of the
fact that just in the past two weeks, millions of American
households have received word that their Obamacare health
insurance premiums are going up by 20%, 30%, 50%, in some cases I
know of directly, 70-80%. The administration was facing a
torrent of news coverage admitting that Obamacare was finished.
Insurance companies are pulling out of the pools, and Obama came
out with this completely vacuous, lying statement claiming he'll
create some kind of a federal pool so that people can get
reasonably-priced health insurance. The fact of the matter is,
at the very outset of this whole business, Obama shut the door on
expanding Medicare for all; shut the door on any other
formulation of a single-payer plan. The cutbacks in the amount
of money being spent on health care has meant that by Hill-Burton
standards — in other words, the physical requirements; how many
hospital beds, how many doctors, how many nurses, what kinds of
specialty care have to be made available — the physical
infrastructure of health care has collapsed under Obama, as
people are finding their rates skyrocketing through the ceiling.
Obama personally came out with another lie to cover for the
reality of what he created; namely claiming that the premium
increases for most people will be covered by increases in
taxpayer subsidies. But what he failed to say was that the only
people who qualify for those subsidies are people who are living
at or below one and a half times the poverty rate. So, anybody
in the middle class, anybody even barely above that 1.5 times the
poverty rate is out of luck; and they're being confronted with a
choice — health care vs. housing; health care vs. food; in many,
many cases health care vs. whether you can get your kids a
college education. So, you've got that phenomenon that's staring
the American people in the face; it's the collapse and
disintegration of Obamacare, which is what Lyndon LaRouche warned
about and forecast all the way back in 2009 when this thing was
first started.
Then you've got the second phenomenon. Remember that
President Obama, during his initial campaign for office back in
2008, basically distanced himself from the Bush-Cheney Iraq war,
but took full ownership of the Afghanistan war; which he called a
war of necessity as opposed to a war of choice. Well, we're now
eight more years into it, and the United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime last week came out with a report that Afghanistan —
under US and NATO occupation — has produced a bumper crop of
opium; up 43% to 4800 tons of pure opium produced this year. We
know the consequences of that; cheap heroin is flooding onto the
streets of the United States in every community, not just
inner-city ghetto areas, but middle-class suburbs, rural areas.
There is not a county in the United States that is not
experiencing an opioid epidemic; and that's not our words, those
are the words of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention —
"epidemic".
You've had a major increase every year under Obama of deaths
by opioid overdoses. It goes hand-in-glove with the shutdown of
the health system, the flooding of the country with illegal
drugs, the refusal of the Obama administration, number one, to
crack down on HSBC — the British Opium War bank that was caught
by the United States Senate as the number one drug-money
launderer for the Latin American drug cartels. Nothing was done;
a slap on the wrist. They've even violated the deferred
prosecution agreement, but we hear nothing about the
consequences. Secondly, the big pharmaceutical companies and the
major drug distribution companies are flooding the black market
with oxycontin and other opioids. This is also being done under
the watchful eye of the Department of Justice that has refused to
prosecute big Pharma and these big drug distribution companies
for the same argument that they make why they won't prosecute and
criminally jail major bankers; they're too big to jail. The
too-big-to-fail banks, the giant pharmaceutical companies that
are pumping out these opioids; they are above the law, at least
under the policies of the Obama administration.
So, you've got a track record of death, destruction, and
despair emanating from the policies of the White House for the
past eight years. Now we are at a crisis point, a social and
economic crisis, a crisis of the morale of the population; yet
there are clear and obvious solutions to all of these problems.
It doesn't take brain surgery to figure out that Glass-Steagall
and the other core principles put forward by Mr. LaRouche, which
are a revised version of the core ideas on which this economy of
this great nation was built in the first place, under the
leadership of Alexander Hamilton. So, these things {can} be
done. One of the biggest obstacles is the fact that the collapse
of the health care system, the mass opioid addiction that's been
basically allowed to occur as an Opium War against the American
population, has reached the point where it's created a morale
crisis. And that's got to be reversed.
Matt just referenced the impact of the concerts
commemorating the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that took
place in the greater New York City area the weekend of September
11th. Those kinds of things can be replicated everywhere. We
can turn the situation around very quickly. We can end the
scourge of Wall Street and the City of London; we can end these
wars. You've got with Russia, with China, with India, with the
other countries in Asia — Japan, Southeast Asia; they're all
coming together around a new economic paradigm that's built on
cooperation among nations for great projects across a vast area.
The United States desperately needs to get in on this; and
President Xi Jinping's standing invitation, delivered to
President Bush face-to-face, still stands. The United States
should join in and become part of this World Land-Bridge process;
and if you do that, then the folly of these continuing wars and
this confrontation with Putin and Russia become very obvious.
It's completely ludicrous. We can move on and participate in
this alternative paradigm which is right there; it's not a
theoretical, it's not something in abstraction. It's going on
every day of the week across all of Eurasia down into Africa.
China is building a trans-continental railroad across South
America. The plans for that railroad were in place in the 1870s,
when American rail engineers who worked on the transcontinental
railroad in the United States, went down to Peru, and went down
to Brazil, and were working on those projects. The time is long
overdue for the United States to get on board on something that
we, as a nation, forged as key concepts back during a better
period in our history.

ROGERS: And what you're dealing with is a cultural
transformation. I just wanted to add that this is not something
that is up to people "Oh, this is a problem I'm having in my
family. The drug overdose or something that I have to deal
with." You have people who have health care premiums that are
going up to $1500-2000 per month, and then they're spending
thousands of dollars to get their kids and loved ones off of
these drugs, and you have no help from society because the
society is completely degenerating. It's only going to be
through a cultural transformation based on the beauty that was
exemplified and continues to be exemplified by what we're
representing with these {Requiem} concerts in New York; with a
commitment towards a revival of truly Classical culture. One
person I was talking to, who was going through such a crisis, was
saying it would just be so beautiful and so important if you can
come into my area to sing; because these people desperately need
beauty. It's not going to just take each individual; but as
Putin recognized, you have to have a total transformation of the
culture. I was just thinking at the very end, that Matt you
brought up a few quotes earlier of this speech, and I don't want
to read long quotes; but I think this captures what we were just
discussing very well. At the very end of Putin's speech at
Valdai in Sochi, he said: "In short, we should build the
foundation for the future world today by investing in all
priority areas of human development. And of course, it is
necessary to continue a broad-based discussion of our common
future, so that all sensible and promising initiatives are
heard."
This is absolutely what has to be the standard of the United
States right now; shaping that future that must be brought into
existence.

OGDEN: Yeah, I would recommend people read some more
extensive excerpts of this speech; it's very all-encompassing.
But at the same place where he said what you just cited, he
called for a Marshall Plan to rebuild the war-torn areas —
especially in the Middle East and North Africa; but a Marshall
Plan type of approach. He called for a New International
Economic Order, which would make the fruit of economic growth and
technological progress accessible to all. He celebrated the
joining together of the Eurasian Economic Union with the New Silk
Road, the One Belt, One Road policy of China, to create an
integrated Eurasian space where these kinds of massive
development projects can take place, as Jeff just cited. He said
that the major question, the principle, has got to be how do you
develop human potential? He said, "An important task of ours is
to develop human potential. Only a world with ample
opportunities for all, with highly-skilled workers, with access
to knowledge, and a great variety of ways to realize their
potential, can be considered truly free. Only a world where
people from different countries do not struggle to survive, but
lead full lives, can be stable."
I would recommend going back and reading some of the
excerpts from Alexander Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures",
because he makes exactly the same point. He says it's only a
world where the diverse talents of the various of your society
can be developed to their fullest potential through the
application of technology, and the availability of this on the
widest possible scale, that you can create the future potential
for the creative labor, not just the manual labor, but the
creative labor of your labor force, of your workforce, of your
citizenry, which increases the potential population density of
your nation; increases the productive powers of that labor force,
and improves the quality of the lives of all. And only a society
like that can be defined as truly free. In Hamilton's time, it
was the fight against slavery; it was the fight against the
manual, bestial labor of the African slaves imported to the
southern states of the United States. In our time, it's the
fight for a Hamiltonian policy in the present period; and I think
we just keep coming back to the point. This is the Four New Laws
of LaRouche; this is the principle of Alexander Hamilton. It is
happening on the international stage, as Jeff said. The One
Belt, One Road policy from China; this new economic paradigm;
these are taking place every single day.
The defining question is: Will the United States join that
New Paradigm?

STEINBERG: It's ironic that one of the cornerstones, in
light of what's going on in the real guttural side of this
Presidential campaign, one of the cornerstones of Hamilton's
concept in the "Report on Manufactures" was immigration; mass
immigration. His policy was, bring 'em in; we'll educate them;
we'll make productive American citizens out of them, no matter
where they come from. That idea that there's always a shortage
of precious creative labor. I think it's another point very much
worth reflecting on; rather than thinking about walls and things
like that. He just said, we've got to bring more people in here;
because we've got productive work for them to do to build a
nation.

OGDEN: Right; apropos. I just want to read the one section
from the Putin speech where he says this specifically. He says,
"We cannot achieve global stability unless we guarantee global
economic progress. It is essential to provide conditions for
'creative labor' and economic growth at a pace that would put an
end to the division of the world into permanent winners and
permanent losers."
On that note, I want to just announce to people that
{Executive Intelligence Review} is putting out a republication of
the four economic reports of Hamilton. These will be available
in book form, hopefully coming up the beginning next week. It's
titled, {Alexander Hamilton's Vision}, and it's a republication
of these four central economic reports; the "Report on Public
Credit", the "Report on Manufactures", the "Report on National
Banking", and Hamilton's argument "On the Constitutionality of
the National Bank". As an appendix to that book, we also include
the full text of Mr. LaRouche's new economic laws. That is also
the headline of a special double edition of the {Hamiltonian}
which came out at the beginning of this week — "The Four New
Laws to Save the USA Now!" This is edition 10 of the
{Hamiltonian}, and included in this is also an elaboration of
some of the principles of the "Report on Manufactures", which I
wrote up; "The LaRouche-Hamilton Science of Physical Economy",
and there's also an article on the background of Alexander
Hamilton's fight against slavery and his establishment of a new
political order for the United States through the founding of
this science of economics. There's also a very entertaining
cartoon which was drawn by a member of the LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee, Dave Christie, called "Obamandias" based on
"Ozymandias" which was a famous sonnet by Percy Bysshe Shelley.
So that's available on the LaRouche PAC website.
So, I think we have definitely defined the fact that we are
at a turning point in the history of this country and the history
of the world. This is certainly not business as usual; and the
hegemony of the principles that Mr. LaRouche has put on the table
as the urgent steps to create an economic recovery for this
country now, has certainly been demonstrated very clearly. It's
our job to continue to draw people towards the mobilization page
on the LaRouche PAC Action Center; this is
actioncenter.larouchepac.com/four laws. You can sign up directly
on that website; you will receive an email, you will become part
of our national network of activists. You can participate in the
weekly activists calls that we hold every Thursday night — our
Fireside Chats. You can submit reports of activities that you've
engaged in. You can have all of the background material
available there — Hamilton's four economic reports are linked on
that page — and you can become part of this movement which is
clearly defining world history.
So, thank you very much, and I'd like to thank both Jeff and
Kesha for joining us here today. Please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com. Thank you and good night.

Tyske banker, nu førende i handel med derivater, bør vende tilbage til deres rødder

18. oktober, 2016 – En rapport over den globale handel med derivater, med titlen, »Det er her, de tyske banker er de førende i verden – desværre«, viser, at det er presserende nødvendigt at vende tilbage til Glass-Steagall og LaRouches Fire økonomiske Love.

En grafisk fremstilling af de bankejede derivater, der handles i hele verden, viser de fem topnationer inden for derivathandel:

Tyskland: $881 mia.

U.K.: $713 mia.

Schweiz: $478 mia.

USA: $380 mia.

Frankrig: $174 mia.

www.themotleyfool.com

De fleste af de tyske derivater handles i London, ikke i Frankfurt.

De tyske forfattere skrev: »Tyske banker har en lang tradition for at støtte realøkonomien. Mange store industriselskaber har gode relationer med de vigtigste banker og kan håbe på bevillinger af kapital til deres vækstplaner. Dette var længe den tyske finanssektors styrke.

De ønskede imidlertid at efterligne de store investeringsbanker i New York og London, med resultater, som, i den umiddelbart forestående fremtid, atter vil berøre os.«

http://www.wallstreet-online.de/nachtricht/9004332-deutsche-banken-weltmarktfuehrer

RADIO SCHILLER den 18. oktober 2016:
LaRouche stiller op som “skriv-ind”-kandidat i USA’s præsidentvalg:
Vedtag hans Fire Økonomiske Love

Med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen

N.B. den 25. oktober: Det blev meddelt i går, at vi ikke kører en kampagne for at få amerikanerne til at skrive LaRouches navn ind, når de vælger præsident, men at vi vil intensivere vores kampagne for at få LaRouches fire økonomiske lov vedtaget.

Kulturnat:
Schiller Instituttet indtager Folketinget:
Glass-Steagall, eller kaos!

En delegation på syv Schiller Institut-aktivister indtog Folketinget i forbindelse med Kulturnat 2016. Vores mission var at kræve, at folketingsmedlemmerne:

fremsætter lovforslag om Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, og Lyndon LaRouches tre andre økonomiske love, og
stopper konfrontationspolitikken imod Rusland og Kina, som kan føre til krig.

Vi delte os op i to hold og begyndte at finde folketingsmedlemmer i hver deres partiværelse. Da natten var omme, havde vi talt med ca. 25 medlemmer fra alle partier, inkl. fire partiledere samt et par ministre.

Lad det være sagt med det samme – der var ingen, der lovede at fremsætte et lovforslag om bankopdeling.

Men vi advarede dem om, at de må handle nu. Det transatlantiske finanssystem befinder sig i en kritisk tilstand i forbindelse med Deutsche Bank, de italienske banker, de britiske og amerikanske banker, og selve Danske Bank har lige meddelt, at de afskediger mange tusinde medarbejdere. Det er langt være end i 2007 – 2008, og vi har løsninger. Lyndon LaRouche og Schiller Instituttet har et 4-punktsprogram for en økonomisk genopbygning, med at:

afskrive de nuværende finansbobler gennem en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling;
skifte over til et nyt kreditsystem, som ville kunne finansiere …
infrastruktur- og andre investeringer, der kunne øge hele økonomiens produktivitet (energigennemstrømningstæthed), og
satse på videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt

Angående krigsfaren, så fortalte vi nogle politikere, at selve den tyske regerings rådgiver for Ruslandsanliggender nu advarer om, at det kan komme til direkte krig mellem USA og Rusland. Og et par gange prøvede vi at give dem et andet syn på konflikten i Syrien.

Der var et par medlemmer, som ikke var interesseret i at tale med os.(fn1) Men der var faktisk medlemmer, som lyttede intenst, diskuterede med os og lovede at læse vores materiale, nogle, der sagde, at vi burde kontakte deres finansordfører angående Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, samt et par stykker, som gerne ville mødes med os. Men de har ikke forstået, hvor kritisk situationen er, ellers ville de handle nu.

Vi kan kun håbe, at danske folketingsmedlemmer, gennem at modtage vores publikationer, gennem vores foretræder for Folketinget og gennem personlige samtaler, har fået et kendskab til Schiller Instituttets løsninger, når de, forhåbentlig, beslutter at handle.

(fn1) To af vore folk blev rent faktisk smidt ud af Folketinget, efter, at én af dem et par gange forsøgte at stille et medlem et spørgsmål, som fik ham til at flippe ud, og nogen tilkaldte en sikkerhedsvagt. Et andet delegationsmedlem blev smidt ud ved samme lejlighed, da han kunne identificeres som Schiller Institut-medlem, fordi han havde en Schiller Institut T-shirt på!

Nøglen til sejr er at overvinde jeres frygt

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 17. oktober, 2016 – På netop samme tidspunkt, som BRIKS-landenes statsledere mødtes i Goa, Indien, for at planlægge samarbejdet om et nyt paradigme for statsligt samarbejde om store projekter, udsendte præsident Obama vicepræsident Joe Biden for at levere en direkte trussel mod Rusland. Søndag morgen lovede Biden på NBC TV, at USA ville gennemføre et hemmeligt cyberangreb mod Rusland, hvor Obama valgte tid og sted. Russiske regeringsfolk, herunder præsidentens talsmand Peskov, har fordømt disse trusler i de skarpeste vendinger og kalder det den mest direkte trussel om krig siden Cubakrisen i 1962.

Disse trusler kommer fra en præsident Obama, der allerede har utallige menneskers blod på hænderne, gennem sine tirsdags-»dræbermøder« og den uophørlige drone-krigsførelse, som udføres på mange kontinenter – alt sammen uden nogen forfatningsmæssigt lovlig godkendelse fra Kongressen. Nu er USA åbenlyst engageret i koalitionens krigsførelse mod Yemen, på vegne af saudierne, hvor de udfører artilleribeskydning imod Yemen fra amerikanske flådeskibe i Golfen, netop, som verden viger tilbage fra de åbenlyse saudiske krigsforbrydelser, hvor de går efter civile i bombe-razziaer i Yemens hovedstad Sanaá.
Og det er denne Obama-administration, der beskylder Rusland for krigsforbrydelser i kampen for at fravriste al-Qaeda dets kontrol over dele af den syriske by Aleppo – og som igen truer Moskva med sanktioner. Udenrigsminister John Kerry var i London i søndags, efter to dages møder i Lausanne, Schweiz, om krigen i Syrien, hvor han mødtes med den russiske udenrigsminister Sergej Lavrov og udenrigsministre fra Saudi-Arabien, Tyrkiet, Qatar, Forenede Arabiske Emirater, Iran, Irak og Jordan. Han og den britiske udenrigsminister Boris Johnson kom ud fra deres møde i London med løfter om at indføre nye sanktioner mod Rusland – medmindre de stopper deres angreb på al-Qaeda.

Obama viderefører den tyranniske arv, der er forbundet med to tidligere Bush-præsidenter, inklusive den George H.W. Bush, som fik Lyndon LaRouches fængsling banket igennem i en hast i det, som den tidligere amerikanske justitsminister (1967-69) Ramsey Clark har kaldt det største tilfælde nogensinde af politisk motiveret anklage på baggrund af falske beviser. Politikkerne under de to Bush-administrationer, og som er blevet endnu værre under Obama, har drevet USA ud i bankerot, udslettet den smule, der var tilbage af det amerikanske sundhedssystem, og kastet millioner af husstande på fattigdommens og den kroniske arbejdsløsheds skrotplads. 93,5 millioner amerikanere i den arbejdsdygtige alder er ikke engang talt med i arbejdsstyrken! Netop i denne måned har 1,8 millioner amerikanske husstande modtaget standardbreve med posten, der informerede dem om, at deres Obamacare-præmier stiger med 50-70 %, alt imens deres dækning er blevet beskåret. Selv tidligere præsident Bill Clinton var fornuftig nok til offentligt at kalde dette »det mest sindssyge, han nogensinde har set«.
Obama og hans britiske herrer og saudiske partnere er i virkeligheden dem, der er bankerot. Det er deres transatlantiske finanssystem, der er færdigt. Som Lyndon LaRouche bemærkede søndag under samtaler med kolleger, så er den britiske økonomi totalt nedbrudt. De er desperate for at lange ud efter og fremsætte trusler imod Rusland og Kina i håb om, at deres løgne vil få fremdrift. De er bankerot, men farlige.
Kendsgerningen er, at der findes klare løsninger, begyndende med afsættelsen af Obama og den omgående genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. Hele den globale derivatboble, der beløber sig til mere end en billiard dollars, må annulleres. Når disse indledende skridt er gennemført, kan en økonomisk genrejsning omgående lanceres ved at benytte Hamiltons metoder, som det for nylig er blevet præciseret i Lyndon LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love.

Det første skridt i alt dette er, at førende borgere opgiver deres frygt og tager lederskabet i at bringe Dræberen Obama til fald og igangsætte den økonomiske genrejsning, begyndende med Glass-Steagall. De seneste sejre, hvor Obama er blevet tvunget til at frigive de 28 sider, der fordømmer det saudiske monarki som ophavsmændene til angrebene d. 11. september, samt Kongressens vedtagelse af JASTA-loven, illustrerer den magt, der kan udløses gennem en koncentration af patriotiske kræfter. Det faktum, at Obamas veto af JASTA blev underkendt med et overvældende, tværpolitisk flertal i begge Kongressen huse, er en kraftfuld påmindelse om, at det store flertal af amerikanerne hader Obama og alt, hvad han har gjort og står for. Saudierne forsøger at skjule det knusende nederlag, som de og Obama led i kampen om JASTA, ved at spendere $100 millioner på lobbyvirksomhed, i forsøg på at fjerne den skete skade. De er dømt til at mislykkes.
Det, der nu er afgørende, er, at det samme niveau af mobilisering af førende borgere, der var aktive i JASTA-sejren, opretholdes og rettes mod Obama og gennemførelsen af Glass-Steagall og andre foranstaltninger.
Et afgørende træk for JASTA-sejren var Schiller Instituttets kors fire opførelser af Mozarts Rekviem i New York City-området på 15-års dagen for angrebene den 11. september. Det indsprøjtede en vital dimension af kulturel optimisme gennem forestillingernes skønhed – på et tidspunkt, hvor den desperate britiske fjende forsøger at begrave enhver kilde til optimisme gennem det pornografiske show, der kaldes præsidentvalgkampen 2016.
Uanset udfaldet på valgdagen, vil nationen og verden som helhed stadig være konfronteret med disintegrationen af hele det britiskkørte, transatlantiske finanssystem og truslen om krig og kaos. Løsningerne for at forhindre dette kollaps er forhånden, og det er førsteprioritet på dagsordenen. Det er kilden til styrke for at overvinde vore medborgeres frygt og opnå en hårdt tilkæmpet sejr. Det kan gøres.

Foto: Den indiske premierminister, Shri Narendra Modi (midten) i BRIKS-ledernes familiefotografi ved BRIKS-topmødet i Goa, Indien, 16. oktober, 2016. [brics2016.gov.in]

»Bankierer, der skulle have været
sendt i fængsel, er atter i færd
med at ødelægge økonomien«
EIR-interview med den japanske
økonom Daisuke Kotegawa.
Dansk udskrift

Kotegawa var ansvarlig for den gradvise afvikling af mange af de japanske banker under den asiatiske krise i 1997 og diskuterer her forskellen mellem den måde, hvorpå Japan adresserede de bedrageriske bankpraksisser, der førte til bankernes krise, versus, hvordan Vesten har gennemført en bailout (statslig redning) af de kriminelle, der var ansvarlige for krakket i 2007-08.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Stands krakket gennem LaRouches økonomiske program efter Hamiltons principper.
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 14. oktober, 2016.

Hr. LaRouche har leveret den klare recept, såvel som løsningen. Vi begyndte at forklare dette sidste fredag med vores særlige webcast med Paul Gallagher (dansk: Glass-Steagall: Det presserende første skridt); men vi er gået videre med at forklare dette spørgsmål. De Fire Økonomiske Love efter Hamilton, som Lyndon LaRouche udarbejdede for næsten to år siden, og som begyndte med genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall, men som omfatter en recept, der er en meget præcis og videnskabeligt funderet fremgangsmåde for, hvordan man totalt skal reorganisere og genoplive ikke alene USA’s økonomi, men også skabe et helt nyt, økonomisk paradigme for det transatlantiske system, i harmoni med det, der allerede stråler ud fra Eurasien. I sammenhæng hermed har hr. LaRouche prioriteret de fire, økonomiske rapporter, som blev skrevet og forelagt Kongressen af vores første finansminister, Alexander Hamilton, i 1790’erne ved selve den amerikanske republiks fødsel. Disse fire rapporter er: »Rapporten om statslig kredit«; »Rapporten om statslig bankvirksomhed«; »Argumentet for forfatningsgrundlaget for Nationalbanken«; og »Rapporten om varefremstilling«. https://larouchepac.com/20161013/alexander-hamiltons-four-economic-papers

Engelsk udskrift:

Friday LaRouche PAC Webcast October 14, 2016

HAMILTON'S FOUR REPORTS AND LAROUCHE'S FOUR LAWS —
BASIC NECESSITIES FOR MANKIND'S CONTINUED EXISTENCE

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it is October 14, 2016. My
name is Matthew Ogden and you're watching our weekly Friday
evening webcast here from larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the
studio today by Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science
Team; and we're joined via video by Kesha Rogers from Houston,
Texas; and Michael Steger from San Francisco, California. Both
of whom are leading members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.
Now, I just want to begin our broadcast here today by
re-emphasizing exactly what Mr. LaRouche has been emphasizing
every single time we've spoken to him this week. That it cannot
be said enough that the American people scored a major victory
against Obama with the defeat of his treasonous veto of the JASTA
bill and the overwhelming veto override that was delivered as the
final act of the United States Congress before they left for
their districts. This only demonstrates what the American people
are capable of when they overcome whatever fear, whatever
intimidation has come from this Barack Obama administration; and
we can see that it's been a force for seven and a half years to
try to intimidate the American people out of taking their country
back and acting in their own self-interest. But Obama's decision
to ally with the British-Saudi treason terror faction and to veto
this JASTA bill, demonstrated who he was; it demonstrated his
true colors. And the American people drew a line in the sand and
said, "Enough is enough! No more of this."
You can look at what has happened in the weeks following
that event. We are now directly involved through missiles and
bombing in the war in Yemen; this is the decision by Barack Obama
to become involved in yet another unnecessary foreign war. We
are siding with the genocide and war crimes of the Saudi regime
there in Yemen. The lies and the propaganda that are coming out
of the Obama White House against Russia, and the actions that
Russia is taking in alliance with the Syrian government in
attempting to defeat ISIS and the terrorists in Aleppo are
unprecedented; along with the completely unfounded propaganda and
lies about so-called Russian cyber warfare and hacking and all
the rest.
You can see the utter denial of the fact that we are right
on the verge of a complete blow-out of the entire trans-Atlantic
financial system. All you have to do is read the headlines of
the major financial press to see that even {they} are admitting
that Deutsche Bank is more leveraged than even Lehman Brothers
was at the time of its collapse; and that Deutsche Bank could, in
fact, be the next Lehman.
So, all of these three items combined should show you, as we
emphasized earlier this week on the Policy Committee show on
Monday, that you would have to be completely out of your mind not
to see how close we are to the combined threat of a complete
blow-out of the financial system and the very real threat of the
eruption of a nuclear war. Even Mikhail Gorbachov is saying we
are closer to a Third World War than we have ever been before.
This is the remaining months in office that Obama has.
What Mr. LaRouche has delivered as the prescription, as the
solution, is very clear. We began to elaborate this last Friday
during our special webcast with Paul Gallagher; but we've
continued to elaborate this question. The four Hamiltonian
economic laws, drafted by Lyndon LaRouche almost two years ago,
which begin with the re-institution of Glass-Steagall, but
contain a prescription which is a very precise and scientifically
grounded approach to exactly how to completely reorganize and
revive not only the United States economy, but to create an
entirely new economic paradigm for the trans-Atlantic system in
accord with what's already emerging out of Eurasia. In
conjunction with this, Mr. LaRouche has put a premium on the four
economic reports that were written and submitted to Congress by
our first Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, in the 1790s at
the very birth of the United States republic. These are: the
"Report on Public Credit"; the "Report on National Banking"; the
"Argument for the Constitutionality of the National Bank"; and
the "Report on Manufactures".
So, as a key component of our show today, Ben and I in
conjunction with Kesha and Michael are going to elaborate a
little more on what is the contents, what is the substance of
those reports from Alexander Hamilton; and then, how do they
translate today in the four economic laws of Lyndon LaRouche,
with a major emphasis on how a breakthrough in terms of man's
exploration of space and everything that that entails in terms of
the great economic leap and scientific revolution for mankind, is
the application of the Hamiltonian principle for today.
But before we get to some of that more detailed discussion,
I think we should just revisit a couple of the urgent points in
terms of the current mobilization. The channeling of the spirit
of the JASTA victory into the mobilization for the re-institution
of Glass-Steagall and the proceeding toward the entirety of the
four LaRouche economic laws.

BEN DENISTON: Plenty can be said, but I would just
emphasize — you said it already, but I think given the state of
our nation today; and I hate to mention the elections, but this
is really a form of psychological warfare. This is not an
election; this is a Jerry Springer episode, this is insane. But,
as Matthew cited, look at what we did with JASTA. That did not
require either of these candidates to do anything on that; that
was an action demonstrating the institutions of the United
States, the republican system of the United States. The
integration between the work that we've been leading and the work
the 9/11 victims' families have been leading on the ground,
working with various institutions, various regions of the country
as a totality came together and slammed Obama, slammed the
British, slammed these degenerate Saudis on this issue; in spite
of the insanity leading the Presidential election process. So,
that's the spirit we need to take right now to the current
Glass-Steagall fight. This financial system is collapsing; as
was said, you can see that in any major press at this point.
There is no solution left in the monetarist framework the way
these guys are playing it. Bail in; bail out; QE; they've been
playing these games for years now, and they're reaching the end.
This can't keep going; we need a reorganization of the system.
If we're not going to have a Presidential candidate who's going
to take the lead on that, that doesn't matter; we need to make it
happen. We're not going to wait 'til after the election; we're
not going to wait for one of these ridiculous fools to take the
lead on this. We're going to make it happen. That's what we did
with JASTA; that happened.
So, people who are cynical out there — we did it! That
happened. It can happen again, and it needs to happen again.
Glass-Steagall is going to completely cut off Wall Street; this
is going to be a massive revolution in the United States, a
massive shift of power in the United States away from the
interests of Wall Street and international finance back to the
sovereignty of the United States. It is the necessary
indispensable first step for opening up this full recovery
program. But I think people need to have the urgency of getting
this through now. Again, don't let your friends, your
associates, the people you're talking to, fall into this cynical
pessimism; which is really being pushed at this point, with the
Jerry Springer show — aka these debates. These things can
change; we can get these laws through. There's already huge
momentum around the country on Glass-Steagall; there's growing
recognition of LaRouche's Four Laws as the necessary next steps.
So, I think the message to take away at this critical time is go
out and move! This is the time to make this happen.

MICHAEL STEGER: Yeah, I think that's right. I think it's
important to take a look at a couple of things in the context of
this Hamilton question. Because it was about two years ago that
Mr. LaRouche launched the Manhattan Project with the key focus of
Alexander Hamilton at the foundation of that, as well as a
commitment towards a Classical renaissance. And what we saw in
the process of these last two years, was the mobilization of a
key part of the American population — the New York City area;
because of the questions of Glass-Steagall and of Wall Street
implicitly, and the question of 9/11. There was a mobilization
of that population around an optimistic vision of the country,
both through Hamilton's policies, really the foundation of
Hamilton setting forth the most advanced conception of human
economy as a scientific practice that has been conceived yet.
Mr. LaRouche said this himself, that what he took as the Four
Laws was essentially a patenting of what Hamilton had set forth
in these documents. Both the power of the Federal government,
and the means and mechanisms by which you can develop and foster
a perpetual growth of the human species. But I think it's also
important — because I think this is something that too many
Americans overlook, either voluntarily, but more so
involuntarily, because of the black-out in the media; that in
June of 2014, we saw consolidated what Xi Jinping had put out as
an international policy at the end of 2013, which was the New
Silk Road perspective. In June 2014, that was consolidated by
the BRICS; and largely what we've seen, given the attempts to
undercut Brazil and South Africa, but we've seen an increasing
level of coordination and collaboration between Russia, China,
and India, that has fundamentally shifted world history. We are
talking about a fundamentally new economic system; one that looks
at the very policy Mr. LaRouche laid out beginning in the 1970s.
At the core of that, is the question of an International
Development Bank; or what the BRICS have entitled the New
Development Bank. Or as a LaRouche-Hamiltonian conception of a
new international credit system; that is there.
Now, not only is that economic perspective there; it is
recruiting nations like Japan, the Philippines, Australia,
Canada. Many nations joined the Asia Infrastructure Investment
Bank; nations like Egypt, and Iran. But there is also a very
clear strategic component; we see this specifically in Syria. We
see what Russia has done to confront Obama's war agenda. Then
the coordination between Russia and China, India, and increasing
numbers of other nations throughout Eurasia. This is a unique
opportunity for the American people to create a new Presidency
that looks to realign with Russia, China, and these major
nations. All of the propaganda against Putin, all the attacks,
the lies, the mass of lies against Putin coming out of the Obama
operation right now in the Presidential election is a mass
cover-up of what really exists for the American people; which is
a chance to go back to a LaRouche-Hamilton perspective in
economic policy in the United States with very key collaborators
internationally. That really is shaping the intervention we made
around JASTA, both the Manhattan Project and this Russia-China
intervention. The BRICS is larger, but those nations most
specifically. We really have a unique opportunity to shut down
this London-Wall Street financial system, which for 50-60 years
and longer, essentially, but since the end of World War II has
been a mass genocide program in Africa, in South America. Forced
sterilizations; imposed famines; scientific frauds like global
warming, the ozone layer, or human overpopulation; all of these
things have been concocted as ways of undermining and destroying
the human economic growth potential.
And we now see a potential today to change that. An
intervention by the American people like we saw with JASTA,
around this LaRouche-Hamilton perspective is absolutely key. But
I think this global perspective is essential to that, to
understanding why we can be so optimistic today.

OGDEN: Yeah, I think that if you go and look at what was
presented last week, Paul Gallagher presented a clear picture in
terms of the proximity of the complete breakdown of this
financial system; and the causes for that, the reason for that.
The insanity of 0% interest rate QE bail-in, bail-out regime that
has reigned since 2008; but really since the repeal of
Glass-Steagall in 1999. The fact that what would be a productive
economy has been completely drowned and suffocated by a shark
tank — as he characterized it — of this just robbery, looting,
criminal practices and complete insanity as it reigns in terms of
economics. The fact that Mr. LaRouche is on the scene, and has
for 50 years what has now been adopted in part by several major
nations on this planet — I think most clearly evidenced by the
policies of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank and the New
Silk Road projects coming out of China. We have the ability to
bring Alexander Hamilton's principles to bear on this current
situation. The vacuum of leadership in the face of this total
meltdown of the financial system gives us a great opportunity for
optimism. In fact, through reasoned leadership of the type that
was exerted in the midst of this fight for JASTA, but which was
really a fight against the entire imperial apparatus that has
dominated this country since 9/11; you can in fact create a
policy revolution of a type which has not been seen for a long
time, especially since John F Kennedy with his commitment to the
space program. But really not since Franklin Roosevelt in the
full extent of that kind of economic approach.
I think we should revisit these four economic principles of
Mr. LaRouche before getting a little bit more deeply into the
content of the Hamilton economic reports. We begin with [No.1]
the principle of Glass-Steagall, re-instituted exactly as
Franklin Roosevelt did it. It proceeds directly from there, that
through a restored actual commercial banking system in which you
have the Treasury of the United States restored to its original
intended role, as Alexander Hamilton created it; the power of the
Presidency, as Abraham Lincoln demonstrated very clearly through
his use of the Greenbacks and also his national banking bills of
1863 and 1864, can reorganize this banking system, from the top
down, to restore it to its original intent; that it should be
used for the productive investments of productive enterprise in
the United States and the improvement of productive enterprise.
But that's not enough! What you have to have from that
standpoint, is [No. 2] a scientifically-grounded and principled
understanding of how credit, through the mechanisms that were
provided by Alexander Hamilton, must be directed to {increase}
the productive powers of your labor force. [No. 3] What are the
specific projects? What are the specific investments? What are
the specific cutting-edge discoveries that must be pursued that
in a scientifically provable and knowable way that will increase
the productive powers of your labor force, both individually and
as a whole? And that has to be defined from an understanding, as
Mr. LaRouche has uniquely developed it, of the principle of
energy-flux density, not a one-to-one labor power, as manual
labor per individual member of your society, but the application
of technology and ever-higher forms of technology, to create the
increases of productive powers of labor, upon which progress in
your society depends.
And then, No. 4, what are the specific future-oriented
drivers that express the unique character of man? What makes man
different from a beast? How is mankind, as Vernadsky would define
it, a unique and distinct species, distinct from all other forms
of animal and other kinds of life? And, what is our imperative,
as that sort of species? I think it is no better expressed than
in the space program, as it was conceived and elaborated, as
Kesha has emphasized, by Krafft Ehricke, who Mr. LaRouche
directly mentions in that "Four Economic Laws" paper of two years
ago.
So, that was elaborated on the webcast last week. We've got,
I think, a little bit more specificity for especially that third
economic law, but I think between what Ben and I have, and then
the discussion with Kesha and Michael, you can see the resonance
between what Mr. LaRouche is addressing in these four economic
laws, and what Alexander Hamilton originally laid out in the
content of those four economic reports that he drafted to
Congress in the 1790s.

BEN DENISTON: You had some quotes from those reports that
you want to read?

OGDEN: Sure, we can start with that.

DENISTON: Okay.

OGDEN: Let me bring up on the screen the first slide from
these Hamilton reports. [Slide 1] I'm going to focus mainly on
the "Report on Manufactures." This was written in December 1791,
but, as I mentioned earlier, this is merely one out of four, and
in the "Report on Manufactures," actually, Hamilton refers
repeatedly to his other three reports, "On the National Bank,"
"The Defense of the Constitutionality of the National Bank," and
"On the Public Debt," or, "On the Public Credit."
I think the "Report on Manufactures" is a very important and
useful place to start, because it really is nothing less than the
study of the science of how the human mind, through its
application by means of technology, can in fact increase the
potential population density of any given economy or any given
nation. This is the way that Mr. LaRouche came at this, but in
fact it's very much demonstrated and laid out, explored, in an
exploratory way, in this "Report on Manufactures."
Quickly, the context of the "Report on Manufactures" — you
could really call it Hamilton's "Defense of Manufactures," in the
context of what was becoming a prevailing but fraudulent
argument, coming from circles such as Thomas Jefferson circles
and others. That the United States, as a new nation, should
merely be an agrarian economy, an agrarian economy in one form or
another — landlords and peasants — or just an infinite
extension of agricultural lands westward, and just depend on the
product of the soil as the driver of the economy. Hamilton said,
this is false, this is a fraud, this must be addressed, and he
wrote the "Report on Manufactures" to address this.
What Hamilton elaborates is that in fact an economy which is
dependent merely on agriculture will be able to support far less
people at a far lower standard of living and a far lower density
of population, than an economy which also includes manufacturers,
science, technology, and the application of that, through
technology. A kind of argument generally used, said that anybody
who was not farming and was doing something else, like
manufacturing, would be producing less food, and so we would have
fewer people; we would be able to support fewer people. Hamilton
destroys this argument, saying in fact that it's the other way
around: the more division of labor that you have, if two people
are just doing agriculture, they can only support themselves. If
instead one of them is engaged in agriculture and one in
manufacturing, not only can they support the two of them, but
they can support themselves and others.
Let me go back to that first slide, with that quote.
Hamilton says, the purpose of this report is "to evince that the
establishment and diffusion of manufacturers have the effect of
rendering the total mass of useful and productive labor in a
community greater than it would otherwise be." So, you can see,
he's very clear in what the purpose of this study is.
Next slide. [Slide 2] He says "It may be inferred that
manufacturing establishments not only occasion a positive
augmentation of the produce and revenue of the society, but that
they may contribute essentially to rendering them greater than
they could possibly be without such establishments." So, without
the use of manufacturing, the ability of the economy would be
lesser than it would be with manufacturing establishments.
He says there are seven reasons for this. I'm not going to
elaborate all seven, but you can see on the screen on the next
slide [Slide 3] the seven reasons he has listed: "(1) The
division of labor." I touched on that briefly. "(2) An extension
of the use of machinery." We'll elaborate on that a little bit
more. "(3) Additional employment to classes of the community not
ordinarily engaged in the business." "(4) The promoting of
emigration from foreign countries." That's an apropos point. "(5)
The furnishing greater scope for the diversity of talents and
dispositions which discriminate men from each other." We'll touch
on that a little bit more. That's an important one. "(6) The
affording a more ample and various field for enterprise." And
"(7) The creating in some instances a new, and securing in all, a
more certain and steady demand for the surplus produce of the
soil." This one is actually often overlooked, but Hamilton says
this is the most important one, and I think it will be
appropriate for what Ben's going to get into.
Let me elaborate just a couple of these ones. We're going to
take a look at No. 2: "An extension of the use of machinery."
Here's what Hamilton says about that. This is the next slide.
[Slide 4] Alexander Hamilton says, "The employment of machinery
forms an item of great importance in the general mass of national
industry. 'Tis an artificial force brought in aid of the natural
force of man; and, to all the purposes of labor, is an increase
of hands; an accession of strength,{unencumbered, too, by the
expense of maintaining the laborer}. He's saying you have an
increase of hands, almost artificial labor, and you don't need to
feed that labor.
Next slide. [Slide 5] [Hamilton continues,] "May it not
therefore be fairly inferred, that those occupations, which give
greatest scope to the use of this auxiliary, contribute most to
the general stock of industrious effort, and, in consequence, to
the general produce of industry?" So, that's the use of machinery
in manufacturing.
Let's take a look at the next slide. [Slide 6] This is where
he elaborates the point [No. 5] "As to the furnishing greater
scope for the diversity of talents and dispositions, which
discriminate men from each other." He says, "It is a just
observation, that minds of the strongest and most active powers
for their proper objects fall below mediocrity and labor without
effect, if confined to uncongenial pursuits. And it is thence to
be inferred, that the results of human exertion may be immensely
increased by diversifying its objects. When all the different
kinds of industry obtain in a community, each individual can find
his proper element, and can call into activity the whole vigor of
his nature. And the community is benefitted by the services of
its respective members, in the manner, in which each can serve it
with most effect."
Next slide please. [Slide 7] He continues, "If there be
anything in a remark often to be met with — namely that there
is, in the genius of the people of this country, a peculiar
aptitude for mechanic improvements, it would operate as a
forcible reason for giving opportunities to the exercise of that
species of talent, by the propagation of manufactures."
OK; next slide. [Slide 8] In this one, he's elaborating his
point [No. 6] about "affording a more ample and various field for
enterprise." This is quoted, but I think it's very important. He
says, "To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind,
by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least
considerable of the expedients, by which the wealth of a nation
may be promoted."
Next slide. [Slide 9] He continues, "Even things in
themselves not positively advantageous, sometimes become so, by
their tendency to provoke exertion. Every new scene, which is
opened to the busy nature of man to rouse and exert itself, is
the addition of a new energy to the general stock of the effort."
Next slide. [Slide 10] He continues, "The spirit of
enterprise, useful and prolific as it is, must necessarily be
contracted or expanded in proportion to the simplicity or variety
of the occupations and productions, which are to be found in a
society. It must be less in a nation of mere cultivators, than in
a nation of cultivators and merchants, less in a nation of
cultivators and merchants, than in a nation of cultivators,
artificers and merchants.
Next slide. [Slide 11] I want to put special emphasis on
this one, because I think it opens up the point that Mr. LaRouche
was exploring in his Four Laws paper about physical chemistry.
Alexander Hamilton says under this one [Point No. 7], the heading
of "As to the creating, in some instances, a new, and securing in
all a more certain and steady demand for the surplus produce of
the soil." Hamilton says, "This is among the most important of
the circumstances which have been indicated. It is a principal
mean, by which the establishment of manufacturers contributes to
an augmentation of the produce or revenue of a country, and has
an immediate and direct relation to the prosperity of
agriculture."
Next slide. [Slide 12] "It is a principal mean by which the
establishment of manufactures contributes to an augmentation of
the produce or revenue of a country."
Next slide [Slide 13] After elaborating a little bit why
it's advantageous to have a domestic market rather than just
depending on foreign markets for your produce and products, he
says:
"It merits particularly observation that the multiplication
of manufacturies not only furnishes a domestic market for these
articles which have been accustomed to be produced in abundance
in a country; but it likewise creates a demand for such as were
either unknown or produced in considerable quantities. The
bowels as well as the surface of the Earth are ransacked for
articles which were before neglected. Animals, plants, and
minerals acquire a utility and value which were before
unexplored."
Then, jumping forward quite a bit, I just wanted to go to
Hamilton's conclusion of the entire paper, after discussing
public credit and national banking. [Slide 14] He says:
"In countries where there is a great private wealth, much
may be affected by the voluntary contributions of patriotic
individuals. But in a community situated like that of the United
States, the public purse must supply the deficiency of private
resource. In what can it be so useful as in promoting,
prompting, and improving the efforts of industry?"
So, just before Ben picks it up, I just want to emphasize
that what Alexander Hamilton is exploring, is the science of how
the human mind can increase the productive powers of labor and
through that, by means of the application of technology and
principles that were hitherto unexplored or undiscovered, can
increase the potential population density of a nation or an
economy. I think this seventh point, which he puts the most
premium on, is the role that manufactures can play in spurring
the discovery of resources that we didn't even know were
resources before. What had been previously considered just rocks
or otherwise, become the most valuable resources — minerals,
fuels, coal, oil, uranium; the most valuable resources for your
economy. I think Alexander Hamilton would be particularly
excited if he knew about the potential of the Moon to be mined
for a resource that I'm sure they did not have any conception of
in 1791 — helium-3 — as a source of fuel for nuclear fusion,
for example. So, I just wanted to give a little bit of actual
content of Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures; and maybe
we can use that to contextualize a little bit of what Ben's going
to present here.

DENISTON: People should know, we are making these — in
their totality — available on the LaRouche PAC website. This is
admittedly some pretty heavy material for some of our viewers,
but this is really what's needed right now. I would just
emphasize looking where we are in the United States right now,
and again, a lot of people know Glass-Steagall needs to happen; a
number of people have a sense of having some sovereign control
over our money supply. But what Hamilton understood and what
LaRouche understands, is what is the science of growth. You can
have sovereign control of your money, you can cut off destructive
speculation like Wall Street; you can throw that in the trash.
But how do you create growth? How do you actually create a more
productive economy in totality? That is what Hamilton
understood; that a true credit system can facilitate these
increases in the productive power of labor. That's what the
American people need to understand right now; that's what we have
a chance of joining internationally with what's going on around
the world. But it's going to require that the United States
return to our understanding of these core principles. I wanted
to just take a second and pull a little bit out of what Mr.
LaRouche defined as his Third Law in his policy document; and
just go through a couple of historical examples to put a little
bit more of a picture on this relation of the actual
understanding of the productive powers of labor and the critical
role that Mr. LaRouche has defined in his work furthering
Hamilton's own understanding to a new degree. Mr. LaRouche's
work on what he defines as "energy flux density".
But if we can go back to the slides, I have the full quote
of Mr. LaRouche's Third Law up there. [Slide 15] Again, the
policy document as a whole is available on our website. I just
wanted to read this and then go through a couple examples.
Again, the First Law being Glass-Steagall; the Second Law being a
national banking system, as Hamilton had defined. And then he
presents a Third Law with this national banking system:
"The purpose of the use of a Federal credit system, is to
generate high-productivity trends in improvement of employment
with the accompanying intention to increase the physical economic
productivity and the standard of living of the persons and the
households of the United States. The creation of credit for the
now urgently needed increase of the relative quality and quantity
of productive employment must be ensured this time once more, as
was done successfully under President Franklin Roosevelt or by
like standards of Federal practice used to create a general
economic recovery of the nation, per capita. And for rates of
net increases in productivity and by reliance on the essential
human principle which distinguishes the human personality from
the systemic characteristics of lower forms of life; the net rate
of energy flux density of effective practice. This means
intrinsically a thoroughly scientific, rather than a merely
mathematical one; and by the related increase of energy flux
density per capita and for the human population when considered
as each and all as a whole. 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 the
individual."
I think really, again, illustrates Mr. LaRouche's work
furthering this scientific understanding of economy really rooted
in the work of Hamilton and those who continued this American
System tradition; but applying a new scientific understanding to
it. If we go to the next slide [Slide 16], I wanted to highlight
a study that was done under Mr. LaRouche's direction back in the
'80s. Mr. LaRouche has a long history of trying to educate the
American people and institutions about real economics. I thought
this was just one example, but I think it may be a helpful,
specific case study to try and put some depth to the idea of the
productive powers of labor and the relation of energy flux
density to the productive powers of labor.
So, what do we mean by that? This is one expression of
that; this is a measurement of the productivity of iron
throughout the history of the United States up to 1975. Iron
being by weight the most-used element by mankind as a whole.
Obviously, it's the main component of steel, so this is a major
part of any modern economy, is iron production. This is a rather
fascinating study, where Mr. LaRouche said, don't just look at
tons produced; don't just look at people employed. Look at the
relation between productivity — how productive is your average
laborer producing iron — and energy flux density; what's the
actual energy density per time used in the actual manufacturing
process of blast furnaces? If you examine this historically, you
get this very fascinating and clear demonstration of what Mr.
LaRouche is talking about in terms of energy flux density and
productivity. You see a consistent increase in the tons produced
per average iron worker per year in this case is the actual
number being used; measured against the energy flux density of
the production process. The energy per area, per time; so the
concentration and density of energy used in the blast furnaces to
produce this iron. And you see a dramatic, many-fold increase in
how productive each individual worker is as a direct function and
relation of the increasing energy flux density of the productive
process.
More interesting, you see this kind of comes in successive
waves; and each of these waves is associated with — you'll get a
rise for a certain period, and then the productivity increase
will tend to level off. Then, you'll get a new technological
revolution; you'll move to a higher energy density fuel, for
example. Moving into better forms of coal was one example of
this; types of coal that have more energy per mass, per weight.
Or moving to coke — a derivative of coal that can operate at
higher temperatures and enable higher production rates. Or
moving to higher technologies in the more recent period of
injection of pure oxygen into the process to create even more
heat and a more intense productive process. There are various
technologies associated with each of those steps; you have
increases in technology, increases in the energy density of the
fuel producing the process. You can kind of measure that
together as expressed in energy flux density; and you can see
that to really understand progress — but also these qualitative
shifts in progress; these leaps that occur, these are the kind of
metrics we want to look at.
When you talk about this idea of — it's not a question of
the number of people you have employed; it's a question of what's
the capability of your labor force to produce the goods needed at
higher rates or efficiency, etc. So, I think it's just one
useful case study to give some concept of the relationship
between the productive powers of labor and energy flux density.
It doesn't show it in this graphic, but as I think many of our
viewers wouldn't be surprised, these metrics have gone down
significantly since 1975; since we really settled into a
post-industrial economy which has led us to this collapse process
— the abandonment of this real industrial, forward-oriented
economic policy.
If we go to the next graphic [Slide 17], it's just another
illustration of the same thing from the same study; but it's also
just interesting to note that with each of these successive
leaps, you also get higher rates of productivity per amount of
energy. So, this is literally the productive output of iron per
amount of energy put in. This idea that energy as a scalar value
in and of itself means something is not true. The amount of
energy you're using does not necessarily tell you what your
economy can do, how productive you can be; but it's an issue of
energy flux density. Higher energy flux densities, the same
amount of energy measured in just scalar, quantitative terms
becomes much more productive; because you're employing it with
higher technologies and at higher energy flux densities.
This is just one example. Similar studies can be done in
various sectors of the economy; but this is the type of process
that enables the productive section of your economy to continue
to — as Mr. LaRouche said in the concluding section of this
Third Law: "[T]o continue this process of ever increasing the
productivity and ability of your labor force to produce more
goods, higher quality goods, that are needed to support society."
Those are the metrics that we need to understand that the credit
must facilitate and go to.
I just wanted to highlight one other illustration of this
energy flux density issue, but on a national scale. If we return
to the slide [Slide 18], you can also see this in terms of the
economy as a whole. This is a study that we developed in the
Basement Team looking at the history of the United States;
looking at what you could consider one metric for the energy flux
density of the nation as a whole. Now, we're looking at the use
of power per capita; not just what any one individual uses, but
everything that goes into all forms of transportation,
manufacturing, agriculture. You take the net energy investment
in totality across the entire nation, average it per capita.
Then here we have it divided by power sources. You can clearly
see the history of the growth of the United States very clearly
expressed in the increasing energy flux density of the nation.
You clearly see the Great Depression illustrated by a significant
drop in the energy flux density — measured in per capita terms
— of the nation. You see a dramatic rise in Franklin
Roosevelt's mobilization coming out of the New Deal programs into
the World War II mobilization; you clearly see that reflected in
this graphic. What's the next dramatic rate of increase? Well,
it's certainly associated with Kennedy's space program, starting
there in the early '60s you see a dramatic leap in rate of
increase of energy flux density of the nation as a whole.
Then what do you see since then? This leveling off and
collapse, which is directly associated with the collapse we're
seeing now today in the United States; expressed in these
physical metrics. You see that what should have been an
explosion of nuclear fission power was suppressed to just that
tiny, red segment there. If you could see it — you might not be
able to at all — there's a little green tiny layer on the very
top there which is wind, solar, geothermal all combined. So, if
you think you're going to support the US economy on Green
technologies, you're living in a fantasy. All of the massive
subsidies and investment and propping up these things has barely
done anything to contribute to our actual net energy flux density
for our country as a whole.
This is where we are today; this is one expression of the
collapse. This is the process we have to reverse. Maybe just to
illustrate one last example, I think it's really worth comparing
this with the next graphic [Slide 19]; which was the forecast by
the Kennedy administration in the '60s. It was forecast that
this process would increase; and the next major component would
be the rapid expansion of nuclear fission power. You'd get this
interesting process of these waves of fuel sources being used and
then surpassed as society moves to the next level. The gray on
the far right, if you haven't read it yet, that's mostly
wood-powered; in very early times, wood was the main energy
source. That was superseded by coal, as you can see in the
brown. That began to fall off as other fossil fuels — namely,
gasoline, diesel, and natural gas — became a major component of
the economy. As you can see, under a healthy orientation, it was
understood in the early '60s by the Kennedy administration, that
that should then fall off, and we should see a rapid expansion of
nuclear fission power as the next wave. So, this is what a
healthy growth process would have looked like. This is the kind
of process we need to return to; and as Mr. LaRouche says,
increasing the energy flux density of the nation, of the
productive powers of labor, of the labor force, these are the
kinds of metrics we need to be looking at. Today, that means
fusion power. It's not illustrated in the graphic here, but if
we're going to overcome those 30-40 years of stagnation, if we're
going to overcome the dramatic collapse in the productive
capabilities of our labor force; we can't just continue what was
done before. As you've seen in all these historical examples, we
need to go to the new leaps in technology, the new leaps in
energy flux density, to drive the greatest increase in the
productive capabilities of the labor force.
Then you have a system that will work; then the Four Laws
will work. Now, a national bank will work; now, Glass-Steagall
will work, because it will facilitate this physical growth
process. As we've talked about, this means fusion power, this
means the space program. It's no accident that in those graphics
we were looking at, the period of the space program is very
clearly expressed in both of those; driving the increase in the
productive powers of labor, even in industries not seemingly
related to the space program. But you see that driver program
reflected in this iron production, for example; you see it
reflected in the totality of the national energy flux density.
Which brings us to Mr. LaRouche's Fourth Law; a fusion drive
program. As he's increasingly emphasized, that is truly
integrated with a real space program. So that has to be the
front end of a recovery program. That'll come with all kinds of
things: rebuilding our infrastructure; rebuilding the national
transportation system; power systems; all kinds of soft
infrastructure. But it has to be understood as unified around
this increase of your productive capabilities; that's how an
economy works.
That's what Hamilton understood, as Matthew showed us.
Smash the idea that we should be just agrarian, or should we be
manufacturing? If you take people away from the other — a
complete lack of understanding of the synergistic relation of
actual human revolutions in technology; revolutions in the very
nature of mankind's relation to the environment more generally,
which are driven by real creative discoveries, creative thought,
real unique human growth. This is the message, the unifying
conception that the American people need to understand and rally
around, if we're going to get out of the mess we're in now. It's
not going to come from any form of monetarist jiggering of the
system; it has to be rooted in a real understanding of the true
science of human growth, of human progress.
I know that might be a lot to throw at our viewers today,
but this is the historical challenge that we're facing. We have
it in our history; we have it in Hamilton; we have in Lincoln; we
have it in Franklin Roosevelt. We have it in a more developed
form than even them, with Mr. LaRouche's work. But it's on us to
bring this to bear now as the revolution needed in the United
States.

ROGERS: Before we close out, let me just add one principle
from the standpoint that the underlying principle at the
foundation and at the core of Hamilton's four Reports and
LaRouche's Four Laws gets right at the heart of formation of our
US republic and the formation of Union as Hamilton saw it. It is
what is defined directly in the US Constitution, but more
directly in the Preamble to the Constitution; the idea that
Hamilton was instrumental in developing. This conception that
"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the General Welfare, and
secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of
America." What's at the core of that is the principle of the
General Welfare; which is directly under attack right now by the
actions of Obama. That is explicitly shown in the attacks on not
only the General Welfare of the nation, but attacks on this very
principle of the increase of the productive powers of your
society, and on the creative and productive powers of the human
mind. You can see this most explicitly in the insane recent
announcement by President Obama advocating the United States go
to Mars under the direction, should we say, and direct support of
private industry. But in a recent conference President Obama was
in — the White House Frontiers conference — the key person he
was there with was a man by the name of Atul Gawande. This is a
person who's been promoting the idea that the population doesn't
need health care, we need to cut healthcare; we need to kill off
more people. That's what's at the core of the attack on the
General Welfare of our nation, is this idea of population
reduction — killing off of the population.
When you look at what it was that was understood by
Alexander Hamilton on this question of advancing the productive
powers of labor, that was most directly expressed over a century
later after the death of Alexander Hamilton, with the birth of a
great pioneer by the name of Krafft Ehricke. Krafft Ehricke's
understanding of the increase in the formation of a more perfect
union and the productive powers of labor, came with the
understanding that it was not until mankind left the confines of
one small planet — Earth — and actually went out into the far
reaches of our Solar System and developed the Solar System. He
called explicitly for developing the Solar System through the
increase in the productivity of society, the increase of
manufactures, and the increase of everything that Ben just went
through very thoroughly in his remarks.
I think what we get back to again, which was very clearly
understood by Alexander Hamilton, as Mr. LaRouche in the
foundation of his policies on physical economy, and by Krafft
Ehricke, is at the heart of this is the conception of, and the
principle of, the human mind. The human mind in the power of
reason. What I wanted to do is just read a quick quote from
Krafft Ehricke on this conception of the reasoning of the human
mind at the foundation of this very principle of what increases
the productive powers of labor in our society — or throughout
our universe.
He says: "We are cosmic creatures by substance; by the
energy on which we operate, and by the restless mind that
increasingly metabolizes information from the infinitesimal to
the infinite. And on the infrastructure of knowledge, pursues
its moral and social aspirations for a larger and better world
against many odds. Through intelligences like ourselves, the
universe — and we in it — move into a focus of
self-recognition. Metal ore is turned into formation-processing
computers, satellites, and deep space probes; and atoms are fused
as in stars. I cannot imagine a more foreboding, apocalyptic
vision of the future than a mankind endowed with cosmic powers,
but condemned to solitary confinement on one small planet."
He goes on to take the principle which Alexander Hamilton
had defined in his four Reports, in his Report on Manufacturing,
and applies that to the development of space; particularly to the
development of our sister body, the Moon. He says that the
manufacturing and the development of the process which would
organize the increase of society, the formation of a more perfect
union, off of the planet, would actually start with the
development of the Moon. And he says: "Lunar industry should be
viewed as an organism that over time evolves to progressively
more complex capabilities and generates sufficiently strong
foundations for expansion. Lunar industry must be broad-based
and diverse if it is to last. The need for economic feasibility
and early returns will require a skillful interplay between
market, consumer-oriented products and services, and
infrastructural investments such as transportation, energy, and
surface-space installations that expand food production and
diversity in industrial productivity."
So, I think what is essential to understand is that
Hamilton's conception was not something that was confined to one
period in time, one period of history. It wasn't confined to one
planet. It was actually organized — as was later understood by
Krafft Ehricke — to the idea that man cannot be confined to one
planet. If we are going to truly form a more perfect union, we
have to get off the Earth and develop the entirety of the Solar
System and universe we live in. And only the human mind can do
that.

OGDEN: Well said. I think Hamilton would concur with that
one. We can only encourage to do your own reading of these four
Hamilton Reports; and as Ben said at the beginning of the show,
we did make those four available on the LaRouche PAC website.
There's a big picture of Hamilton; you can click on it. It's got
links to the four separate reports by Hamilton; each one is a
nicely formatted pdf. You can print them out and read them on
your own. I would also just emphasize that
larouchepac.com/fourlaws is the place where you can find
LaRouche's paper from close to two years ago, as you can see on
the screen. This contains the four principles of LaRouche. Put
those two together, and I think if you can do the work, we can
create the educated citizenry that's necessary to put these
policies into practice.
So, the urgency of the mobilization for Glass-Steagall
absolutely persists; we are right on the cusp of a complete
meltdown of this financial system. The Glass-Steagall
mobilization is one which must be generating the kind of activity
that we had during the JASTA mobilization. That victory rendered
the Obama regime impotent. Don't fall for the bluster and the
intimidation; don't give in to the fear that the Obama
administration is attempting to project right now. We had a
revolution in this country with the override of the JASTA veto;
and it's a completely new situation. If we maintain that kind of
sense of victory and urgency, we can continue to make some very
incredible breakthroughs.
I'd like to thank Ben; thank you, Kesha; thank you, Michael.
Please stay tuned. Obviously, we're going to just elaborate
these discussions much more in the days to come. Thank you very
much, and good night.

»En ny finansarkitektur og en renæssance
af klassisk kultur er presserende nødvendigt«
Med udskrift af Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale til konferencen:
»BRIKS topmødet: Alternativer for en Verden i Krise«

13. oktober, 2016 – Helga Zepp-LaRouche holdt følgende hovedtale, »En ny finansarkitektur og en renæssance af klassisk kultur er presserende nødvendigt« ved en videokonference den 13. oktober med titlen: »BRIKS-topmødet: Alternativer for en Verden i Krise«, som blev afholdt med samtidige møder i Guatemala City, Mexico City og Lima, Peru. Møderne i disse tre byer var forbundet live via Google Hangouts on Air, og en paneldiskussion fulgte efter fr. Zepp-LaRouches bemærkninger, med dr. Mario Roberto Morales (professor ved San Carlos Universitetet, Guatemala), dr. Horacio Sanchez Barcenas (vicepræsident for den Nationale Sammenslutning af Økonomer, Mexico) og Luis Vasquez Medina (EIR, Peru). Begivenheden blev sponsoreret af Centret for Latinamerikanske Studier ved fakultetet for politisk videnskab ved San Carlos Universitetet, Schiller Instituttet og Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).

Det følgende er det engelske udskrift (i udkast, er ikke redigeret) som forlæg til oversættelse:

Helga Zepp-LaRouche Message to Ibero-America Events
Thursday, Oct. 6, 2016

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Good day. Thank you so much for
inviting me to address your conference. The world is in a very,
very dangerous situation. Everybody who watches the strategic
development every day can see how the confrontation between the
United States and Russia is increasing. Just a few days ago, the
official coordinator for the cooperation with Russia of the
German government said in the 2nd channel of German TV, that a
direct military confrontation between the United States and
Russia can no longer be excluded. Now, it's not that this is
something new, but the fact that a representative … What he referred to was the complete breakdown of
negotiations between Russia and the United States over the Syria
crisis. And there is the immediate danger of an escalation if
the policies of such people as General Petraeus or Sen. John
McCain would be implemented.
And I think everybody knows that if it would come to war
between Russia and the United States, it would be a global war,
and it would lead to the annihilation of all of mankind in all
likelihood.
Now, there is a second danger to civilization which could
also lead in the end to a nuclear war, and that is that we are
about to face a total collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial
system, much, much worse than 2008. The IMF has named Deutsche
Bank as {the} bank with the most risk in the whole global
financial system, and depending on what will be the outcome of
both the IMF/World Bank annual meeting in Washington right now,
where the CEO of Deutsche Bank, John Cryan, went to, but also at
the same time to negotiate with the Department of Justice to
reduce the fine of $14 billion which the DOJ had fined Deutsche
Bank for criminal manipulations before the secondary mortgage
crisis in 2007-2008, from $14 billion to only $5 billion, because
$14 billion would mean de facto the insolvency of Deutsche Bank.
Now, the German daily {Die Welt} said what Cryan is doing is
a "chicken game," that Deutsche Bank has $42 trillion worth in
outstanding derivatives, and that is enough if Deutsche Bank goes
bankrupt, to bring down the entire financial system, and
according to the old wisdom, if you have enough debt you can
impose the conditions how this debt will be renegotiated; but
{Die Welt} basically said, this is a chicken game which nobody
would survive.
Now, Deutsche Bank is maybe the worst case, but by far not
the only one. Deutsche Bank, as I said, has $42 trillion in
outstanding derivatives, that is about 12 times the entire GDP of
the German economy per year, and it's still about 3 to 4 times
the GDP of the entire European Union. Therefore, it is obvious
that if Deutsche Bank collapses, neither the bail-in law which is
by now law in the entire European Union, nor bail-out would be
sufficient to solve the problem. And if you look at the
engagement of these derivatives with the banks which are
counterparty to Deutsche Bank, it involves the entire
too-big-to-fail banking system of the trans-Atlantic system, and
if Deutsche Bank goes without state intervention, and that is
obviously not the solution either, it could be like the
super-nova, basically evaporating in a very brief time.
A similar situation is true for the Italian banks, for the
British banks after the Brexit, and one should not overlook that
all of these banks have large fines to pay for crimes. Deutsche
Bank had to pay because they manipulated and cheated the
customers in the real estate market in the United States. Wells
Fargo just had a hearing in the U.S. Congress because they set up
2 million fraudulent, fictitious bank accounts to steal. Then
you have HongShang banking corporation, which is openly
laundering the entire drug money of the Mexican drug mafia. They
all were involved in the LIBOR manipulation, which caused the
three-digit billion losses for the customers.
We are for sure heading towards an October crisis. This is
not going to be a crisis after the U.S. election: This is now.
And all the means of the central banks, quantitative easing they
have been doing since 2008; negative interest rates, which kills
the savings of the population; and now they're talking about
"helicopter money" which is really the last straw. All of these
tools do not function any more.
There is a remedy, and that is, you have to implement
immediately the Glass-Steagall banking separation law, exactly
what Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1933. Lyndon LaRouche has
enlarged that conception to say, we need Glass-Steagall, that is,
you have to write off the speculative part of the banks; but then
you have a lack of liquidity and therefore, you have to have a
credit system in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, which
issues new, large credits for productive investments. But you
also have to increase the productivity of the economy, you have
to have a science driver, and the best for that is international
space cooperation and vanguard technologies which go along with
that.
We also need what Roosevelt did at the time, a Pecora
Commission. Pecora was the New York State attorney, who
investigated the CEOs of the Wall Street banks under oath at the
time, to then send many of them to jail. And as a leading banker
contact told us, if you don't do that, you cannot reinstate the
confidence in the banks, because people have lost completely
confidence in the system which is obviously more criminal than
not.
There is good reason that this can be done. Because in the
United States both parties, the Republicans and the Democrats,
have the Glass-Steagall Act in their platforms and despite the
fact that Hillary Clinton is not for Glass-Steagall, it is
important that in times of crisis such provisions are there. And
there is a renewed optimism that you can mobilize the Congress,
even if normally people have little hope that the Congress will
do something useful, they just did by voting up the JASTA bill
overriding the veto of President Obama in respect of the ability
of the families of the victims of September 11th, to sue the
Saudi government. This is a tremendous victory, because what was
victorious in this situation was a sense for justice: That it was
completely unjust that the victims of the September 11th
terrorist attack would not have the ability, and the families in
particular would not have the ability, to bring the criminals
responsible for that terrorist act to court. And that has now
occurred, and there is a tremendous sense that you can move, once
people are united for a good plan, and once they act together.
Now, there is an equal yearning for justice concerning the
banking system. The banking system which has provided
unbelievable profits for a few, where bankers which provably are
criminal can get away with bonuses of hundreds of millions of
dollars, while the people they are looting, more and more of them
become completely impoverished.
The other important aspect about this is that the
alternative financial system is already in place. Since 2013,
when President Xi Jinping announced the New Silk Road, there has
been an unbelievable development, in the tradition of the ancient
Silk Road of 2,000 years during the Han Dynasty, which at that
time was an immense exchange, not only of goods, but of culture,
of ideas, and most importantly of technologies, of the ability
how to produce silk, how to make porcelain, and other such
vanguard technologies of that time; the idea is now that the same
kind of exchange has been occurring since three years among the
nations of the New Silk Road, but with modern technologies.
This is the largest infrastructure plan in all of human
history: It's about twelve times larger than the Marshall Plan
was which was helping to reconstruct Europe after the Second
World War, in terms of actual buying power. It right now
encompasses $1.4 trillion; it already involves 43% of the world
economy, and 4.4 {billion} people, 70 countries, are cooperating
around it. It is the only long-term development strategy under
the leadership of China right now. As a matter of fact, it's the
only strategic plan to overcome this present geopolitical
confrontation I mentioned in the beginning, because it is based
on the idea of a "win-win cooperation" of all countries on this
planet.
Very important, in respect to the financial crisis, these
countries have started to set up an alternative financial system.
They have started the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
(AIIB), where immediately about 70 countries wanted to be
founding members, despite enormous pressure from the United
States not to do so. Even close allies of the United States,
like Great Britain, Japan, South Korea, Germany, France, and
Canada, they all wanted to be founding members of this new bank,
which has a starting capital of $100 billion, which can be
expanded, and will be. They also have created the New
Development Bank, that is the bank of the BRICS countries; the
New Silk Road Fund of $40 billion; the Maritime Silk Road Fund;
the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has created a new bank; and
they have created something called the Contingency Reserve
Arrangement which began as a pool of $100 billion, helping the
BRICS countries and other developing countries to fend off
manipulative speculative attacks like those of George Soros and
other speculators.
It is very important that this idea of the New Silk Road is
expanding with an unbelievable speed, and many countries, not
only in Asia, but also in for example, Eastern and Central Europe
are picking up on it. There is now a cooperation between China
and Greece, Serbia, Hungary, Czech Republic and even Poland, all
working on high-speed trains on infrastructure cooperation. And
the idea is to extend this kind of a New Silk Road into the
Middle East and into Africa, to address the very, very dramatic
situation there, to reconstruct the Middle East after the war,
and to develop Africa, so that also the refugee crisis, which is
one of the largest humanitarian crises in the world ever, to
create conditions where Africa and Southwest Asia are being
industrialized so that people do not want to leave their home,
but rather, help to build up their nations.
All of this is not just business. The Silk Road is by no
means only infrastructure in the narrow sense, connecting A to B
through trains and ships, but it is also not just a replacement
of American imperialism by Chinese imperialism, which is what
some media are trying to insinuate. The New Silk Road, put on
the agenda by China, is truly a completely different model of
cooperation among states: It is based on dialogue, partnership
and cooperation; and China does not want to be a new hegemon, but
wants to have cooperation with all countries based on a "win-win"
mutual benefit, where each country has their own advantage.
China has said many times, as a matter of fact, Xi Jinping
has used the formulation that what is needed is a "community of
shared destiny." Now, this is what the Schiller Institute has
promoted for 25 years when we proposed the Eurasian Land-Bridge
when the Soviet Union collapsed, and expanded it in the 25 years
since, that the Silk Road must become the World Land-Bridge, we
always have said that we need a completely new paradigm based on
"win-win cooperation"; and that is exactly what is now pushed by
China.
Now people always have suspicions, "what is the real aim of
China?" But I have come to the absolute conclusion, that China
{means} exactly what they're saying, that the world must not be
run on the basis of a zero-sum game, but on the idea of a harmony
of all nations.
Now, 2016 is the 2,567th birthday of Confucius and you have
right now a total revival of Confucian philosophy, in all of
China, in all schools, universities, cities, and there is right
now a two-and-a-half-thousand-year-old history of Confucian
tradition in China, with the very short except of the ten years
of the Cultural Revolution. And that has shaped the Chinese mind
to a very large extent, the Confucian idea that the world should
be organized in a harmonious way, by allowing the harmonious
development of all nations, of all families, of all individuals;
and that a country cannot do well, if its neighbors are not doing
well. The idea of Confucius that politics must be based on love,
now that is associated with the idea that politics has only one
aim, and that is the happiness of people, an idea which used to
belong the American Declaration of Independence, and an idea
which is also very, very known in the history of European
humanism.
Confucius also taught that people have to have a lifelong
learning, and that they should perfect themselves without limit,
and that the highest ideal of man is the {chun tzu}, the wise man
who is basically perfecting himself in the highest degree. And
out of this comes the idea that the sage king is morally much
more attractive than the hegemon. This is the same idea as
Plato's "philosopher king," that only the wisest and most moral
people should rule.
Now, while the hegemon rules by forcing the underlings into
submission, the wise king and the wise leadership is elevating
the people through inspiration. At the recent G20 meeting in
Hangzhou, which occurred for the first time under the leadership
of China, they have made a wonderful proposal to put the whole
world economy on the basis of innovation and to share whatever
scientific and technological breakthroughs are being made,
immediately, with all other nations, but especially the
developing nations, so that their development is not being held
up.
Since then, they have announced scientific and technological
cooperation among the countries along the New Silk Road; they
opened up science and technology parks, huge exchange of
scientists and youth, in order to spread these ideas in the
quickest possible way. All of these policies are a reflection of
the Confucian philosophy.
If you study it more closely, you will realize there is a
tremendous affinity between Confucian thinking and European
humanism. They are much closer and much more related than most
people are aware. While in China, a Confucian Renaissance is
fully underway, it is the West which is in urgent need of such a
cultural renaissance.
The Western world has plunged into a terrible moral
degeneracy and decadence: If you look at the drug addiction, for
example, well the case of Mexico, for example, is famous: The
drug lords have taken over much of the country. But in the
United States the drug addiction is the most important cause for
the rising suicide rate which has quadrupled since 2001, since
Bush came into office, suicides in all age groups. If you look
at the violence in the United States, but also in other Western
parts, you have the police violence, you have the school
shootings, you have pornography, you have the total brutalization
of behavior, which almost is a breakdown of civilized relations
among people. I don't want to go into this more deeply, because
you all know it.
So we need urgently, if you want to save humanity, we need a
Renaissance of Classical culture. We have to go back to an image
of man which emphasizes that, which separates man from all other
living species and that is the creativity of the mind of the
human being. The problem with popular culture is that it
{de}-emphasizes this creativity. Pop music, for example, if
young people go to discos, it almost always goes along with drug
consumption, with something which destroys the creative faculties
of the mind.
We need a Classical culture which emphasizes the beauty of
the best traditions of Greece, for example, Greek architecture,
Greek historical dramas, Greek philosophy, but also the beauty of
Dante, of Petrarca, of the Italian Renaissance; in the Spanish
culture, of the Andalusian renaissance, of Cervantes, of Goya; in
Germany, the Schiller, Beethoven, and many other great thinkers.
Now, why is Classical culture so absolutely important?
Rather than being a soap opera, where you add irrational emotions
one after the other, without rhythm or rhyme, you have in
Classical culture either a poetical or a musical idea, and then,
according to very strict principles of composition, you develop
that idea until it is exhausted, in a thorough-compositional way;
and then you come to a conclusion on a higher level of reason.
And when you train your mind in this way, in Classical thinking,
you become more creative. And it also leads to an education of
the emotions. Because if you only rely on your senses, you are
just reacting. That is why Friedrich Schiller demanded the
aesthetical education of man: Namely, through Classical art, the
aesthetical education teaches man to feel more noble and to
education your emotions up to the level of reason, so that you
can blindly follow your impulses because they will never tell you
anything different than what reason commands. This is why we have
to reintroduce beauty into art, and the great German poet
Friedrich Schiller said "Art which is not beautiful should not be
called art."
In the Greek Classical period, you had the ideal of the
identity of the beautiful, the truthful, and the good. And you
cannot be truthful if you are not trying to develop the idea of
beauty, and you cannot develop the good without being truthful.
So there is an inner connection between these because they
address the same faculty in the human mind.
The future of mankind very clearly will be in space. If you
look at the evolution of man, or even of life as it developed
through photosynthesis from the oceans to land, from lower to
higher species, and eventually the creative mankind, man settled
at the rivers and oceans first; then through infrastructure
development, opened up the landlocked areas of continents. And
now with the New Silk Road we are completing that phase of the
evolution, where man through infrastructure, develops the
landlocked areas of all continents. And the natural extension of
that infrastructure development will be the opening up near
space, probably first a colony on the Moon, and that will be the
launching pad for future space operations as our energy sources
become more dense, and we will be able to even understand much
better what is the position of our planet in the Solar System, in
the Galaxy, and we will develop a much deeper understanding about
the laws of the universe and the relationship of creative
mentation to that Universe, because our mind is obviously not
outside of the universe, but it's part of the universe, and it is
the most developed part.
A lot more studies have to made about that connection
between the mind and the universe at large, and the better we
understand that connection, the more rational we will become as a
human species. The great German space scientist Krafft Ehricke
developed the beautiful notion of the "extraterrestrial
imperative," saying that man only becomes truly adult when we try
to understand and conquer space more deeply, because man will
only become fully rational when we do that. And Krafft Ehricke,
who was a close friend of ours, said at the end of his life, that
the importance of great Classical art was absolutely crucial,
because if science is developed that does not yet say whether
it's applied for something good, or for something bad; it is
always man who applies that science which makes the difference.
And therefore, the aesthetical and moral education to beauty and
to the good is what will make the longevity of the human species
possible.
Now, this is why we are saying, so emphatically, that the
economic development of the New Silk Road must be combined with a
Classical Renaissance of Classical culture, and that we must
bring forward the best traditions of each culture, of Chinese
poetry and philosophy, of Chinese painting, of Indian philosophy,
of African wonderful philosophical contributions from the time of
Timbuktu; of other great cultures, which each, at one point had a
high phase in their culture, like the Arab Renaissance of the
Abbasid Dynasty at which point the Arab culture was the most
developed.
What we have to do, is we have to make the best phases of
these periods known, and then have a dialogue between these
cultures and then out of that will generate love for the other
culture; and we will indeed reach a new paradigm of civilization.
If we make that cultural universal heritage known to all
children, in the universal education, I think the future will be
that such geniuses as Bach, Schiller, Einstein, will not be such
an exception. There will never be a second Einstein, but we will
have many, many geniuses because we will provide children with a
much, much better opportunity to unfold all the potentials which
are embedded in them.
Now, I think we are not only on the verge of a potential
global war, but with the New Silk Road we are also at the edge of
entering a completely new paradigm of civilization, what I like
to call the "adulthood of mankind," and not any more behaving
like stupid two-year-old little boys kicking each other in the
knee.
So we are really at an important historical moment, and I
would ask all of you to join in a Renaissance movement, because
I'm absolutely optimistic that if all good people on the planet
are working together to this aim, we can do it.

Glass-Steagall:
Det presserende første skridt.
Af EIR’s økonomiredaktør
Paul Gallagher

Krakket har været i gang siden 1. januar, 2016. Det var den dato, da alle regler i Europa blev ændret således, at banker ikke kunne få en bailout (statslig bankredning). De skulle angiveligt reddes gennem en bail-in (ekspropriering af visse typer af bankindskud); det er blevet til at betyde, at indskyderne og obligationsindehaverne ville få eksproprieret deres penge for at skabe ny kapital til insolvente banker. Det har vist sig at være en total ’non-starter’, komplet ubrugeligt; det fungerer ikke. Det blev afvist af Italien, og er grundlæggende set blevet opgivet og smidt i skraldespanden. Men de står ikke desto mindre over for, at der ikke er mulighed for bailout; især Deutsche Bank står på det seneste over for, at der ikke er nogen mulighed for bailout.

Da dette først skete, og oliepriserne faldt til omkring $30-40 fra næsten 3,5 gange så meget, og alle de andre råvarepriser kollapsede, har dette, samt truslen om, at de ikke kunne få bailout, betydet, at ikke alene Deutsche Bank, men dusinvis af storbanker i de europæiske lande, i Det forenede Kongerige (U.K.), siden da har stået på kanten af afgrunden, med udsigt ned i dybet. De ventede simpelt hen på at se, hvor udløseren af faktisk tab af al likviditet i dette baksystem ville finde sted; om det ville blive i det tyske banksystem, i U.K.’s nationaliserede banker – som er i en meget dårlig forfatning.

Det er, hvor hele dette banksystem har stået siden 1. januar; enormt overgearet. Otte år; 7,5 år med kvantitativ lempelse, der har givet dem mulighed for at blive enormt overgearet; Deutsche Bank har en gearing-rate på 37:1 iflg. en rapport, der netop er udgivet af FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; USA’s Statslige Indskudsgarantifond). Det er værre end Lehman Brothers’ gearing-rate, da den gik konkurs; ikke meget værre, men værre.

Samtidigt har de ligget og marineret i otte år i et miljø med 0 % ’s rentesatser; hvilket betyder, at de ikke er profitable. De kan ikke på én og samme gang være forsigtigt kloge og solide, kommercielle banker, og så også være profitable. Så hvad har de gjort? De har generelt tilsidesat deres aktiviteter med at modtage indskud og udstede lån – deres kommercielle bank er fuldstændig gået over til den hajtank, der indeholder diverse former for spekulationer; med salg af kunstfærdige og komplekse instrumenter, som ingen forstår – inklusive dem, der sælger dem. De solgte dem til deres afdelingskunder, de solgte dem til kommuner og byer, de solgte dem til organisationer; og de forsøgte grundlæggende set at plyndre indskuddene i deres kommercielle bankenheder og bruge dem til deres spekulative operationer, fordi de ikke kan tjene penge ved kommerciel bankaktivitet, eftersom de har ligget marineret i 0 % ’s rentesatser i otte år, med udsigten til, generelt, en ubegrænset fremtid med mere af samme slags. Så når man frem til krakket.

Det, der diskuteres omkring IMF-mødet, og jeg tror, vi kommer til dette, for vi har venner, som er dér; ud over dem af os, der udgiver The Hamiltonian, har vi andre venner omkring disse møder. Det, som diskuteres dér, er muligheden og frygten for et reelt likviditetskrak, som kunne blive udløst, hvad øjeblik, det skal være. Det, som ikke diskuteres dér, er de kriminelle handlinger, som disse banker begår som et resultat af deres spekulative kultur, og som et resultat af den tilstand, de befinder sig i, efter at have ligget i lage i disse 8 år. De forbrydelser, som de nu er i færd med at begå, fordrer absolut, både som et spørgsmål om juridisk retfærdighed og som et spørgsmål om fornuftig, sund bankpraksis, at bankerne omgående opdeles.

Vi behøver ikke se længere end til Wells Fargo, der skulle forestille at være den næststørste bank i USA, et mønster på ikke-spekulativ, kommerciel bankvirksomhed. Se på, hvad de har bedrevet. Deres bankenheder for investering og værdipapirhandel har i bogstavelig forstand stjålet pengene fra deres indskydere i en skala af hundreder af tusinder (af indskydere), for at tjene gebyrer og profitter på kunstfærdige instrumenter (læs: makværk). Det er kriminelt. Vi husker nok Detroit og alle de andre byer i hele verden – i hvert fald i hele Europa og USA – som man solgte disse meget komplekse derivater og rente-swaps til. Hver gang, de ønskede at udstede en obligation og låne nogle penge til kommunen eller byen eller offentlige transportselskaber, hvad det nu var, solgte man disse produkter til dem. Det er stort set det samme som at sige, at de ikke anede, hvad det var, de fik; præcis ligesom indskyderne i Wells Fargo, som ikke var klar over, hvad det var for noget, man havde solgt til dem. Så uklar var forståelsen hos kommunens/byens finansdirektører, og hos finansdirektører for selskaberne for offentlige tjenesteydelser, af disse derivater, som bankerne fik dem til at købe, simpelt hen for at gøre lånet til en obligation med variabel rentesats, at man lige så godt kunne sige, at de solgte dem disse derivater uden, at finansdirektørerne overhovedet vidste, at de fik dem, indtil de opdagede, at de tabte millioner og atter millioner af dollars hvert år. Og forbløffende nok, i hvert eneste tilfælde i hver eneste by/kommune i hele verden, var den samme satsning gået galt på nøjagtig samme måde; og det løb op i – i nogle tilfælde med storbyer – i hundreder af millioner af dollars for bøder, gebyrer og tab, som de ikke kunne komme ud af. Denne kriminelle aktivitet kan kun afsluttes på én måde. Det er ved at sætte Glass/Steagall-loven i kraft igen. Hvis nogen prøver at fortælle dig, at, ved at tilføje endnu en specifik, lille regel til de andre tusinder, der findes i Dodd/Frank-loven, osv., at, så vil denne kriminelle aktivitet stoppe, så lægger de røgslør ud – de bedrager dig. Der findes kun én måde at standse det på. Uden Glass/Steagall-loven i en omtrentlig periode på de seneste 20 år, er hver eneste storbank blevet meget større, og er blevet til en båd, hvis midte er fuld af indskydere med et stort antal – i visse tilfælde hundreder af tusinder af hajer, som udgøres af de spekulative afdelinger af dette enorme holdingselskab – alle disse hajer, der svømmer rundt omkring båden, der er fuld af indskydere, og som forsøger på den ene eller anden måde at få noget blod, få en arm eller et ben, få en hel krop, for at få blod ud af båden.

Den eneste måde, hvorpå man kan vende selv en sådan enkelt, enorm bank omkring og sige, give os en bank tilbage, der kan udøve kommerciel bankvirksomhed; som kan tage imod indsættelser/indskud og udstede lån og faktisk investere i industri og fremskridt; giv os det tilbage. Der findes kun én måde at gøre det på; og det er, at man tager sin harpunkanon og dræber disse hajer. Og måden at gøre dét på er at vedtage Glass/Steagall-loven; sæt den i kraft igen. Man rejser således, grundlæggende set, et sådant hegn op omkring indskuddene, at hajerne absolut ikke kan få nogen adgang, og man vi så se, at disse spekulative bankenheder – mange af dem – hurtigt vil gå bankerot. Det var meget velkomment i går at høre et forslag fra et parlamentsmedlem i Hamborg i Tyskland om, at man netop skulle gøre dét med Deutsche Bank. Hvis man kan gøre det med Deutsche Bank, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche foreslog for et par måneder siden, så kan man gøre det med alle storbanker i verden. Hvis man rent faktisk kan få en rigtig bank tilbage, en kommerciel bank, en udlånsbank, ud af den monstrøsitet, det roderi, som er Deutsche Bank i dag – i processen med en bankerot; så er den eneste måde at gøre det på lig med det forslag, som dette parlamentsmedlem kom med. Det samme forslag, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche fremsatte for to måneder siden, kendt som Herrhausen-forslaget for Deutsche Bank. Dette parlamentsmedlem sagde, opdel og, på en lovmæssig måde, kør ned og fjern alle disse giftige, spekulative bankenheder. Så kan den kommercielle bank genkapitaliseres, endda af regeringen, på en sådan måde, at den nu begynder seriøst at investere i økonomien.

Så det er altså, hvad man ikke diskuterer; det er de kriminelle handlinger, og hvordan man skal standse dem. Det er et langt mere fundamentalt spørgsmål end spørgsmålet om, hvilke af disse banker, der først går ned og udløser den generelle eksplosion af afviklinger. Vi må få Kongressen til at vende tilbage (til Washington). Hvad foretager de sig, når de forlader Washington i to måneder, efter at have sagt, at, nu vil de stramme skruen over for Wall Street i en række høringer om Wells Fargos kriminelle handlinger; for dernæst at forlade byen i to måneder. Holde pause for et totalt ubetydeligt valg, der ikke har noget valg at byde på, når de i stedet burde stramme skruen over for Wall Street; når de burde lovgive! Det er, hvad vi diskuterer her; den mobilisering, der nu er i gang, for at få dem til at komme tilbage til Washington og genindføre Glass-Steagall nu, og så fortsætter vi derfra.

Ovenstående er et uddrag af LaRouchePAC’s webcast, 7. oktober, 2016. Hele webcastet, med engelsk udskrift, kan ses her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=15135

Lyndon LaRouche:
’Hold op med at være bange;
Gå derud og vind!’

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 13. oktober, 2016 – Der er gode grunde til ærlig frygt i øjeblikket. I verden som helhed er der en fare for atomkrig pga. fejlberegninger, hvis det da ikke skyldes faktisk anstiftelse på vegne af London/Saudi-Arabien/Hvide Hus-aksen; der er lidelser og konflikter; og der er de moralsk fordærvede, amerikanske valg. Men ånden af mod til at overvinde ondskab og fare blev demonstreret i USA den 28. september, da Kongressen med et overvældende flertal underkendte Obamas veto af JASTA-loven, om spørgsmålet om at stille Saudi-Arabien til ansvar for massemord, der blev begået på amerikanske jord og mod amerikanske borgere. Kongressen blev, af den moralske kraft, der kom fra befolkningen, vores mobilisering og lederskabet af familierne til ofrene for 11. september-angrebene, tilskyndet til at gøre det rigtige.

Vi har nu atter et presserende behov for denne samme ånd. Det, der kræves, er at tvinge Kongressen til at træde sammen og genindføre Glass-Steagall for at bryde med finanskollapset og krigspolitikken. Der er intet andet – det være sig en ny regel, et sagsanlæg, endnu en høring, en fordømmelse, en appel, en undersøgelse, osv. – der vil virke.

Se på USA netop nu, hvor livsbetingelserne er ved at kollapse – med en produktion, der lukker ned, et landbrug i krise og en smuldrende infrastrukturbasis, der ikke engang kan klare forudsigelige, årstidsbaserede storme. Sundhedssystemet befinder sig i et katastrofalt kollaps, der plyndrer dyrebare husstandsindkomster og dømmer mange til døden som følge af sygdomme, der kan helbredes, men som ikke længere vil blive behandlet under det bankerotte Obamacare-system.

For Obama og hans controllers er dette en succes. I sit seneste skriveri hævder Obama, »Ud fra næsten enhver målestok er dette land bedre, og verden er bedre, end det/den var for 50, 30 eller endda 8 år siden.« (Artiklen er »Barack Obama: Now is the Greatest Time to be Alive« (Nu er den bedste tid at være i live i), i november-udgaven af wired.com, hvor Obama er gæsteredaktør for innovationens fremskudte grænser). Han er ikke kun en løgner; han er en dræber. Inden for hele kategorier af amerikanere stiger dødsraten som følge af narko, økonomisk krak, ubehandlede sygdomme, sindssyge, sårbarhed over for katastrofer, terrorisme og fortvivlelse. Og i et par tilfælde er amerikanske borgere blevet dræbt gennem Obamas »tirsdags-dræbermøder«, der sanktionerer mord uden om retsvæsenet.

I dag er Obama i Pittsburgh, hvor han deler podie med en førende fortaler, Atul Gawande, for fjernelse af »overdrevne« sundhedsydelser i Amerika – hvilket vil sige, at slå folk ihjel. Anledningen er Det Hvide Hus’ Konference om de Fremskudte Grænser den 13. oktober, og det nominelle tema er innovative teknologier. Gawande promoverer på nationalt plan en dokumentar, »Being Mortal« (Om at være dødelig), om tidlig død. Hans seneste artikel fordømmer »epidemien af for meget sundhedsydelse« i USA. Med andre ord, Hitlers sundhedspolitik ved navn T-4 (Tiergarten Strasse 4, Berlin), gående ud på at fjerne »overskydende« mennesker. Dette er, hvad arten af Obamas Lov om et Budgetrigtigt Sundhedssystem – skabt i London – lige fra begyndelsen har været.

Andre på stabslisten for dette Hvide Hus-arrangement omfatter Anousheh Ansari, den private rumastronaut, der skal opreklamere galskaben med »Mars-rejser«, så Obama, der går efter at nakke NASA, kan skryde om at støtte fotos af rummet.

Lyndon LaRouche talte, da han blev briefet om dette og billedet af verden i dag, om ikke at bukke under for frygt. For det første, »Når man har med en dødsensfarlig fjende at gøre, så bukker man ikke under for frygt. Man koncentrerer sig om at fjerne ham!« Tag initiativ til handlinger, der vil gøre præcis dette. Han sagde, »Hold op med at være bange; gå derud og vind.« Vi kan være med til at styrke de sociale processer for, at folk ikke giver efter for frygt – i betragtning af, hvad vi netop har præsteret med JASTA. LaRouche forklarede, at folk prøver på at overleve under frygtelige betingelser, med inflation i leveomkostningerne – for sundhedsydelser og basale livsfornødenheder. Nogle mennesker, der tidligere var optimistiske, er nu tilbøjelige til at give efter og opgive. Men, »vi må ikke give efter«.

Summa summarum sagde LaRouche: »Der er en vis form for frygt, som er en god frygt.« Det er, når man siger: »Vi vil ikke finde os i mere af dette.«

NYHEDSORIENTERING OKTOBER 2016:
GLASS-STEAGALL — ELLER KAOS!

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Følgende er et åbent brev fra Schiller Instituttets formand Tom Gillesberg til det danske folk:

Kære medborger,
I stedet for neoliberale nedskæringer på vore fælles investeringer i Danmark og dets ungdoms åndelige og intellektuelle udvikling, bør vi tilslutte os den Nye Silkevejspolitik fra Asien og satse på udvikling, baseret på videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt.
Mange studsede, da jeg og andre fra Schiller Instituttet stillede op til valg i efteråret 2007 på sloganet »Efter finanskrakket – Magnettog over Kattegat«. Vi fik ret, og »finanseksperterne« tog fejl. Der kom et finanskrak, der truede med at vælte hele det internationale finanssystem.
Nu kan jeg med klar stemme meddele, at vi om kort tid vil se en endnu større nedsmeltning af finansinstitutioner i hele verden, …

POLITISK ORIENTERING den 11. oktober 2016:
Det er 5 minutter over midnat:
Glass/Steagall – eller kaos!
(Se også 2. del)

2. del:

Deutsche Bank er meget større end Lehman Brothers var;
Glass-Steagall »bydende nødvendigt«

11. oktober 2016 – Således lyder en spalte i investing.com den 11. okt. »For at forhindre yderligere sager à la Deutsche Bank er det bydende nødvendigt at vende tilbage til Glass/Steagall-lovregulering … Kort tid efter, at denne lov blev ophævet, begyndte TBTF-bankerne at dukke op. Med en genoplivet Glass-Steagall og de største banker opdelt i 10 mindre banker, ville konkurrence igen vende tilbage til banksektoren på en måde, der ikke truer med at kollapse systemet.«

Glass-Steagall, samt at sende de kriminelle
bankierer i fængsel, er forudsætningen for
at bryde bankernes kontrol over regeringen
– Daisuke Kotegawa

10. oktober, 2016 – Daisuke Kotegawa, den japanske økonom, der i vid udstrækning var ansvarlig for at løse den japanske bankkrise i slutningen af 1990’erne, og Japans adm. direktør for IMF 2007-10, sagde i et interview med EIR lørdag, at, hvis de vestlige nationer skal overleve deres finanssystems aktuelle sammenbrud, må de opdele bankerne i overensstemmelse med Glass-Steagall og arrestere de bankierer, der er ansvarlige for at køre finanssystemet bankerot.

Japan sendte flere dusin bankierer i fængsel på tidspunktet for deres krise, alt imens USA ikke arresterede nogen efter Lehman-chokket i 2008, understregede hr. Kotegawa. Han sagde, at fængslingen af bankiererne var nødvendig for at vinde befolkningens tillid til, at omkostningerne i forbindelse med omstruktureringen af bankerne ikke ville føre til den samme krise i fremtiden, og for at genoprette tilliden til banksystemet.

Og så brød arrestationerne bankernes magt over regeringen, især parlamentet. Alt imens Kotegawa ikke gik i detaljer, så stod det klart, at han var på det rene med, at det faktum, at USA og Europa ikke enten har gennemført en bankopdeling, eller arresteret de ansvarlige kriminelle, har resulteret i gentagelsen af boble-udviklingen og Wall Street-bankernes og City of London-bankernes næsten totale kontrol over regeringerne.

Produktive selskaber, sagde han, kan ikke gå bankerot over en nat, eftersom de har et produktivt grundlag til at håndtere finansielle problemer over tid. Sådan forholder det sig ikke med banker. Hvis en bank eller et banksystem mister tillid, kan hele strukturen kollapse over en nat, understregede Kotegawa. Det er, hvad der er ved at ske med Deutsche Bank.

Han gentog sit tidligere forslag til at håndtere Deutsche Bank: fuld eller delvis nationalisering; omgående bankopdeling mellem de kommercielle banksektorer og investeringsbanksektorerne; samt arrestation af de ansvarlige bankierer. Samtidig må, sagde han, alle de vestlige nationers autoriteter i fællesskab, og i hemmelighed, fastlægge en bestemt dato for afgørelse af betalingen af Deutsche Banks gigantiske udestående derivater. Modparterne i disse derivatkontrakter – hvilket omfatter hver eneste storbank i USA og Europa – må være rede til, sagde han, at påføre deres banker den samme Glass/Steagall-opdeling, eller også vil de blive trukket ned at kollapset i Deutsche Banks investeringsbankdel.

Kotegawa tilføjede, at den udviklede sektors rolle på dette punkt vil være at adressere det enorme svælg i udviklingssektoren, mellem den faktiske levestandard og så denne sektors befolkningers forhåbninger. Enhver løsning på den vestlige bankkrise afhænger af en reel efterspørgsel på produkter – ikke trykning af penge – og som vil komme fra et forpligtende engagement over for den reelle udvikling af verden som helhed. Han bemærkede, at rent historisk var nøgleinnovationerne i produktion centreret i USA, Tyskland og Japan, og disse tre nationer må genoprette denne dedikation til innovation og produktion.

Forbryderen Obama kræver igen:
’Nej’ til Glass/Steagall-loven

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 10. oktober, 2016 – Samme dag, som Barack Obamas saudiske allierede, med anvendelse af hans præcisionsvåben, var i færd med at bombe 1.000 yemenitiske civile under en begravelse den 8. oktober, hvor de dræbte 200 eller flere mennesker, skrev han en lang lovprisning af sig selv i The Economist, hvor han endnu engang erklærede: Store banker er gode, og jeg vil ikke tillade, at de brydes op.

The Economist er den ugentlige udgivelse, der er talerør for City of London, for hvis banker (og for Wall Streets banker) Obama har været en agent siden sit første G20-møde dér i april 2009. Dengang forsvarede Obama AIG og Goldman Sachs, et alia, mod kravet om at stille deres topledere for retten, og han fortalte amerikanerne, at »noget af det, de gjorde, var umoralsk, men ikke ulovligt«. Storbankerne er blevet fundet skyldige i dusinvis af åbenlyst illegale handlinger siden da! Men ingen højplaceret leder er sendt i fængsel, takket være Obamas forsvar for deres magt over Kongressen og loven.

Obama gør krav på et eftermæle for »økonomisk genrejsning«, når narkoafhængighed og selvmord har nået hidtil usete niveauer i Amerika, og dødsraterne i store dele af befolkningen i deres bedste arbejdsår stiger. Han påberåber sig »økonomisk genrejsning«, når han i årevis har ødelagt vores arbejdsstyrkes produktivitetsvækst, elimineret NASA’s bemandede rumforskning og lukket udvikling af fusionskraft og fusionsteknologi ned.

Obama gør krav på Fredsprisen, når han har kastet amerikanske militærstyrker ind i flere krige end nogen anden præsident i historien og dræbt tusinder af ukendte personer gennem dronekrigsførelse.

Han og hans diplomater raser imod den russiske præsident Putins succesrige interventioner imod al-Qaedas og ISIS’ terroriststyrker i Syrien; de taler om at fremprovokere krig med Rusland. I mellemtiden har Obama selv insisteret på at bevæbne og hjælpe Saudi-Arabiens uprovokerede invasion af og nær-folkemordsangreb mod det yemenitiske folk.

Dette er en præsident, der netop er blevet påført et nederlag af Kongressen og det amerikanske folk på spørgsmålet om saudisk-britisk støtte til terrorisme. Han blev tvunget til at ophæve hemmeligstemplingen af de »28 sider« om saudiernes rolle i angrebene den 11. september (2001); Kongressen underkendte en masse hans forsøg på at nedlægge veto mod Loven om Retsforfølgelse af Sponsorer af Terrorisme (JASTA).

Obama er endnu ikke ude, men det burde han være. En så kriminel præsident burde ikke kunne beordre det amerikanske folk: »Bryd ikke Wall Street-bankerne op«.

Kun en dåre ville ikke kunne få øje på, hvor nær vi er på en finansiel nedsmeltning, og til krig med Rusland eller Kina. Det, som USA gør nu, er afgørende for at redde menneskeheden.

Glass-Steagall må vedtages i USA, og kopieres i Europas storbanker, der hører hjemme på en statsanstalt. I modsat fald er kreditudstedelse til produktiv beskæftigelse, en genoplivet økonomisk vækst og voksende produktivitet ikke mulig.

Tiden er nu inde for at levere endnu et vigtigt nederlag for Obama.

Foto: Som Det britiske Imperiums loyale tjener vil Obama gøre alt, hvad der står i hans magt, for at blokere for Glass-Steagall. [flickr/thejointstaff]

Trumps Glass-Steagall kom fra bankfolk, der er forpligtet over for realøkonomi

Hun er et falsum! Dø for Hillarys Wall Street, eller vind med LaRouche

Vi må genoplive et sandt USA. Der har aldrig været et større øjeblik til at udvikle LaRouches ideer. LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 4. nov., 2016; Leder

Obamas og Hillarys krigspolitik kan overvindes

LaRouchePAC’s massive effekt: Kandidater kræver Glass-Steagall

Glass-Steagall umiddelbart efter valgdagen; Obama kan overvindes

SUPPLERENDE MATERIALE:

Lyndon LaRouche: At tolerere Obama og Hillary bringer blodsudgydelse og krig

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

RADIO SCHILLER den 31. oktober 2016: Valget i USA: Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling og faren for 3. verdenskrig er nu blevet hovedtemaer

Trumps vending mod Glass-Steagall åbner feltet for LaRouches Fire Love

Alexander Hamiltons vision & LaRouches Fire Love – afgørende redskaber til at redde USA. LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 28. oktober, 2016

Tyske banker, nu førende i handel med derivater, bør vende tilbage til deres rødder

RADIO SCHILLER den 18. oktober 2016: LaRouche stiller op som “skriv-ind”-kandidat i USA’s præsidentvalg: Vedtag hans Fire Økonomiske Love

Kulturnat: Schiller Instituttet indtager Folketinget: Glass-Steagall, eller kaos!

Nøglen til sejr er at overvinde jeres frygt

»Bankierer, der skulle have været sendt i fængsel, er atter i færd med at ødelægge økonomien« EIR-interview med den japanske økonom Daisuke Kotegawa. Dansk udskrift

Stands krakket gennem LaRouches økonomiske program efter Hamiltons principper. LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 14. oktober, 2016.

»En ny finansarkitektur og en renæssance af klassisk kultur er presserende nødvendigt« Med udskrift af Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale til konferencen: »BRIKS topmødet: Alternativer for en Verden i Krise«

Glass-Steagall: Det presserende første skridt. Af EIR’s økonomiredaktør Paul Gallagher

Lyndon LaRouche: ’Hold op med at være bange; Gå derud og vind!’

NYHEDSORIENTERING OKTOBER 2016: GLASS-STEAGALL — ELLER KAOS!

POLITISK ORIENTERING den 11. oktober 2016: Det er 5 minutter over midnat: Glass/Steagall – eller kaos! (Se også 2. del)

2. del:

Deutsche Bank er meget større end Lehman Brothers var; Glass-Steagall »bydende nødvendigt«

Glass-Steagall, samt at sende de kriminelle bankierer i fængsel, er forudsætningen for at bryde bankernes kontrol over regeringen – Daisuke Kotegawa

Forbryderen Obama kræver igen: ’Nej’ til Glass/Steagall-loven

Hun er et falsum!
Dø for Hillarys Wall Street,
eller vind med LaRouche

Vi må genoplive et sandt USA.
Der har aldrig været et større øjeblik til at udvikle LaRouches ideer.
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 4. nov., 2016; Leder

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

RADIO SCHILLER den 31. oktober 2016:
Valget i USA: Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling og faren for 3. verdenskrig
er nu blevet hovedtemaer

Trumps vending mod Glass-Steagall
åbner feltet for LaRouches Fire Love

Alexander Hamiltons vision & LaRouches Fire Love
– afgørende redskaber til at redde USA.
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 28. oktober, 2016

RADIO SCHILLER den 18. oktober 2016:
LaRouche stiller op som “skriv-ind”-kandidat i USA’s præsidentvalg:
Vedtag hans Fire Økonomiske Love

Kulturnat:
Schiller Instituttet indtager Folketinget:
Glass-Steagall, eller kaos!

»Bankierer, der skulle have været
sendt i fængsel, er atter i færd
med at ødelægge økonomien«
EIR-interview med den japanske
økonom Daisuke Kotegawa.
Dansk udskrift

Stands krakket gennem LaRouches økonomiske program efter Hamiltons principper.
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 14. oktober, 2016.

»En ny finansarkitektur og en renæssance
af klassisk kultur er presserende nødvendigt«
Med udskrift af Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale til konferencen:
»BRIKS topmødet: Alternativer for en Verden i Krise«

Glass-Steagall:
Det presserende første skridt.
Af EIR’s økonomiredaktør
Paul Gallagher

Lyndon LaRouche:
’Hold op med at være bange;
Gå derud og vind!’

NYHEDSORIENTERING OKTOBER 2016:
GLASS-STEAGALL — ELLER KAOS!

POLITISK ORIENTERING den 11. oktober 2016:
Det er 5 minutter over midnat:
Glass/Steagall – eller kaos!
(Se også 2. del)

Deutsche Bank er meget større end Lehman Brothers var;
Glass-Steagall »bydende nødvendigt«

Glass-Steagall, samt at sende de kriminelle
bankierer i fængsel, er forudsætningen for
at bryde bankernes kontrol over regeringen
– Daisuke Kotegawa

Forbryderen Obama kræver igen:
’Nej’ til Glass/Steagall-loven