1

POLITISK ORIENTERING den 1. november 2021:
Lad ikke klimahysteri dræbe de fattiges ret til et godt og værdigt liv.
Klik her for lydfilen.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

 




Gå ikke glip af videohittet: “Jeg er selve modellen for en moderne klimamodellør!”

27. august (EIRNS) – LaRouche-organisationen udsendte den 22. august en knaldgod musikvideo med titlen: "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Climate Modeller". I en satire over den berømte tåbelige generalmajor fra Gilbert & Sullivans komiske operette Piraterne fra Penzance (1879), satiriserer den 4,45 minutter lange LaRouche-produktion over de arrogante folkemorderiske klimaprognosemagere, der i begyndelsen siger til seerne: "Bare sig NEJ til klimaforandringer!" Den geniale tekst af Bill Ferguson, der begynder med omkvædet: "Jeg er selve modellen for en moderne klimamodellør", blev sunget af Myles Robinson, Malene Robinson (fra Danmark) ved tangenterne, samt Schiller Instituttets korsangere fra Boston.

Klik her: Crush the Green New Deal LaRouche-organisation internetside.

Afskrift:

I am the very model of a modern climate modeler,
Ecologist, empiricist, there's no one Aristotle-er,
Employing mathematics, theoretic and statistical, 
And arcane correlation computations syllogistical;
I prove that human action, agricultural, industrial, 
Will overheat with CO2 the planet, therefore must we all
Obey the Queen of England's populational reduction goals
And late at night I like to ogle Greta Thunberg videos.
And late at night he likes to ogle Greta Thunberg videos!
And late at night he likes to ogle Greta Thunberg videos!
And late at night he likes to ogle Greta Thunberg viddi-iddi-oes!

I'm getting paid to demonstrate the world is far too populous,
Especially the poorer dark complexioned countries where we must
Kill off six billion babies, adults, teenagers, and toddlers: 
I am the very model of a modern climate modeler!
To kill six billion babies, adults, teenagers and toddlers,
He is the very model of a modern climate modeler!

The climate factors cosmic and galactic I must disregard,
They contradict the green agenda, I refuse to think so hard.
Atomic power doesn't produce very much of CO2, 
But 'twill increase potentials of the population, that won't do;
'Twould mean from pole to pole more Northern, Southern, Central 'Mericans,
'Twould mean More Europeans, and more Asians and more Africans,
From poverty, disease, and hunger many people could  be saved,
And dear old Bertrand Russell would be spinning in his honored grave!
And  Bertrand Russell will be spinning in his rotten stinky grave!
And Bertrand Russell will be spinning in his rotten stinky grave!
And Bertrand Russell will be spinning in his rotten stinky-inky grave!

My opposition to the Peaceful Atom isn't brains I lack,
But geopolitics taught me that "Green is Good." and "Snow is Black."
And if your mother disagrees, I may well have to throttle her: 
I am the very model of a modern climate modeler!
And if your mother disagrees, he may well try to throttle her, 
He is the very model of a modern climate modeler!

The Green New Deal and Great Reset will stop greenhouse pollution
And to the Human Question is a Final End Solution,
But even a first strike at China and at Russia I would goad,
Protecting the environment from progress on the Belt and Road.
Alas, I fear too many people are beginning to defy
My peer-reviewed and flawless calculations proving they must die,
Perhaps they'll organize to generate eight thousand gigawatts
Instead of playing Grand Theft Auto as they fry their brains on pot.
Instead of playing Grand Theft Auto as they fry their brains on pot,
Instead of playing Grand Theft Auto as they fry their brains on pot,
Instead of playing Grand Theft Auto as they fry their precious brains on pot!

And then we’d see the living standards of the population zoom,
For radical Malthusians like me there would be no more room,
With hundreds more of happy humans in each square kilometer,
I’ll be a very unemployed and moody climate modeler.
With hundreds more of happy humans in each square kilometer,
He’ll be a very unemployed and moody climate modeler!




Videokonference: Der er ingen »klima-nødsituation«
Brug videnskab og udviklingsprincipper for at stoppe strømsvigt og død.
Se videoerne fra den 24. juli.

Se også Panel 2 her.

Resumé:

Schiller Instituttets videokonference blev afholdt, mens det grønne hysteri eskalerede med at give »klima- forandringer« og CO2-udledninger skylden for de mange alvorlige katastrofer, som inkluderer oversvømmelser i Nordeuropa, Kina og Indien, tørke og hedebølge i det vestlige Nordamerika og advarsler om strømafbrydelser i sommer over store dele af USA. De 20 talere fra otte lande fremførte, at disse nødsituationer ikke stammer fra klimaændringer, men vejrhændelser, hvis grad af skade er direkte relateret til mangel på infrastruktur. Desuden, hvis den grønne dagsorden får lov til at fortsætte, vil det Der er ingen »klima-nødsituation« Brug videnskab og udviklingsprincipper for at stoppe strømsvigt og død. Se videoerne fra den 24. juli. medføre sammenbrud og affolkning. Idéer blev udvekslet om projekter inden for vandforvaltning, udvikling af kernekraft og især folkesundhedssikkerhed. Schiller Instituttets formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, fordømte det grønne aksiom om, at menneskeheden er dårlig, forurener og ødelægger naturen. Tværtimod er menneskehedens kreative natur i overensstemmelse med universets udvikling.

Panel 1: »De økonomiske virkninger af Green MAD – gensidigt garanteret destruktion«.

Moderator: Dennis Speed (US), The Schiller Institute

Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019)

Jason Ross (US): Science Liaison, Schiller Institute
Topic: “There Is a Limit to Renewable Energy, Prologue”

Guus Berkhout, emeritus professor of geophysics, member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences , senior member of the Dutch Academy of Engineering, and president of CLINTEL Topic: “Stop Blaming Climate Change For Your Failures”

State Senator Mike Thompson (US-Kansas): Chairman, Kansas Senate Committee on Utilities
Topic: “Reverse Course on Wind and Solar — Report from the U.S. Central States”

Prof. Franco Battaglia (Italy): Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena; Member of the Initiating Committee of the Petition on Anthropogenic Global Warming of June 2019
Topic: “The IPCC Is Wrong; the Consequences Are Deadly”

Angel Cushing (US-Kansas): Goat Farmer; County Action Leader
Topic: “Stop the Green Land Grab; Protect Food Production and People”

Christian Lohmeyer (Germany): farm leader, Christian Lohmeyer is also Board Member of the Landvolk Mittelweser, Lower Saxony; video report filmed near the Weser River on July 15
Topic: “Flooding Disaster Is Not Caused by ‘Climate,’ It’s Immoral Negligence”

Prof. (Emeritus) Alwin Burgholte (Germany): GADE-Hochschule Wilhelmshaven (emeritus)
Topic: “How Future Electricity Security Is Threatened by Wind and Solar Technology and Blackouts”

Paul Driessen, author, Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death
Topic: Extreme Weather Events: Myth and Reality”

Jason Ross, “There Is a Limit to Renewable Energy: Epilogue”

————————————————————————————————————————————————

Panel 2: »Energi, verdenssundhed og krigens afslutning: Kraftens energigennemstrømningstæthed.«

Moderator: Dennis Speed (US), The Schiller Institute

Dr. Walter Faggett (U.S.): former Chief Medical Officer, Dept. of Health, Washington, D.C., Co-chairman D.C. Ward 8 Health Council
Greetings to the conference

Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Germany): Founder and President of the Schiller Institute
Keynote address

Dr. Kelvin Kemm (South Africa): nuclear physicist, former Chairman, South African Nuclear Energy Corporation
Topic: “The Necessity of Nuclear Power for Africa”

Admiral Marc Pelaez (ret.) (U.S.): (Ret.) Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy; previously Vice Pres. of Engineering and Business and Technology Development for Newport News Shipbuilding; Chief of Naval Research
Topic: “A Military Perspective”

Alberto Vizcarra (Mexico): Director, Citizens Movement for Water
Topic: “Drought: A Challenge, Not Fate”

Richard McPherson (U.S.): Retired U.S. Navy nuclear engineering officer; Navy Board of Inspection and Survey, Propulsion Examining Board; U.S. rep. on the International Atomic Energy Agency six-nation panel, following the Chernobyl accident.
Topic: “The Truth About Nuclear Power, Ending War, Beginning World Development.”

Vincenzo Romanello (Italy): PhD (Italy), Nuclear Engineer, Research Center Rez, Founder, “Atoms for Peace” Czech Republic
Topic: “Building a Nuclear Power Platform for the World”

John Shanahan, civil engineer, editor allaboutenergy.net
Topic: TBA

DISCUSSION

 

På engelsk:
Fighters for the Truth Join Schiller Conference:
There Is No ‘Climate Emergency’

by Marcia Merry Baker and Stanley Ezrol


[Print version of this article]


July 25—The Schiller Institute held a virtual international conference July 24, on the theme, “There Is No ‘Climate Emergency’—Apply Science and Economic Development To Stop Blackouts and Death,” which has quickly drawn thousands of viewers as a rallying point for the battle to defeat the Green New Deal in the United States in particular.

U.S. Energy Risk Areas – View Map

The two sessions were broadcast just as escalating green hysteria has been blaming “climate change” and CO2 emissions for the several severe disasters now hitting internationally, including flooding in North Europe, China and India, the drought and heat wave in Western North America, and warnings of electricity blackouts this summer across large parts of the United States and Europe. The presentations and discussion involved 20 speakers from eight countries, including six U.S. states in which resistance to “green” dictates is growing. The speakers demonstrated that these emergencies are not from climate change, but instead are weather events, with the degree of damage directly related to lack of infrastructure; and if the green agenda is allowed to continue, there will be mass breakdown and depopulation.


The panelists included scientists, engineers, retired military, farm leaders, a physician, a state lawmaker and others, many of whom have been leading battles within their respective sectors to debunk the green axioms, and mobilize for advanced power and infrastructure systems. Out of the conference, ideas were exchanged for even more concerted action, involving specific projects for water management, nuclear power advancement, and especially for public health security. The specifics included the Transaqua Project to refill Lake Chad in Africa, the North American Water and Power Alliance, and priorities for nuclear power including micro-nuclear, small modular nuclear reactors and more.


One lifelong nuclear technology expert summed up the day’s discussion by saying the dialogue was so powerful, it was on a par with the Davos Forum—a 50-year institution—except that the Schiller Institute event was for the good, and Davos is a bunch of billionaire elites.


Green Is MAD—Mutually Assured Destruction
The keynote was given by Schiller Institute founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and follows this report. She denounced the green axiom that humanity is bad, pollutes and ruins nature. Just the opposite, mankind’s creative nature is coherent with the development of the universe. The conference was opened by a video of a 1985 speech by Lyndon LaRouche addressing this topic, titled “Science is Good.” LaRouche said, “The good is the power of the mind to recognize this principle of reason as the lawful ordering of the universe….”


The first session, “The Economic Effects of Green MAD—Mutually Assured Destruction,” included firsthand reports from Europe and the United States on the lack of infrastructure to protect against flooding, subversion of the electric grid, and land use attacks on agriculture—all coming from the advocates of the Green New Deal agenda. Jason Ross, Schiller Institute science liaison, opened and concluded the panel, emphasizing humanity’s “relationship to the environment” as actively within our power to affect for the good.


Two of the eleven speakers on this panel were prominent European leaders of public scientific initiatives created to discredit the core lies linked to the “climate change models” used to assert that human activity is causing CO2 emissions, which are then used to assert that human activity is causing destructive climate change. Franco Battaglia, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena, in 2019 was a co-sponsor of a petition signed by many hundreds of scientists, which declared that “There Is No Climate Emergency.” Professor Augustinus “Guus” Berkhout, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics, is President of CLINTEL (Climate Intelligence, a foundation) as well as a member of the Dutch Academy of Engineering, and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences. His title was, “Stop Blaming Climate Change for Your Failures.”


Battalgia, using graphics, tore apart the global warming climate models, showing how they could not at all predict any past phenomena or trends in recorded history. Berkhout gave an illustrated history on flooding in the Netherlands, his homeland, which suffered great damage this month. In the Maas Basin, flooding was worst where, in the feeder streams and tributaries, the pumping stations, canals, and inland dikes have not been maintained. There have been worse floods in the past. He presented examples of famously successful Dutch hydraulic defenses such as the Delta Works. Berkhout ridiculed EU Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans, “who blames all misery on climate change.”


A dramatic report on flooding in Germany was provided by Christian Lohmeyer, a farm leader in Lower Saxony, who is on the board of Landvolk Mittelweser. On July 15, Lohmeyer made a three-minute video, after hearing from a fellow farm leader in the Ahrweiler district, near Bonn, of the gross inaction by authorities there, who then blamed “climate change” for what was in fact their own negligence. Lohmeyer denounced the officials and greens, who blame farmers for damaging the environment by growing food, and then turn around and do nothing while more than 100 people die. He said that 50 farmers came out on their own at 3:00 a.m. in Ahrweiler with their tractors and equipment to save lives and protect what they could, and nothing at all was done by the authorities. There was not even a contact person!


Paul Driessen, a well-known science analyst based in the United States, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, gave a review of the track record of green lies in many areas, such as falsifying the number and intensity of hurricanes. He reviewed past blizzards, twisters, and hurricanes, blasting the “con artists” who blame climate change, not lack of defense from bad weather. He ended with a warning about the consequences of making the green electricity shift to “intermittent, unreliable wind and solar.” He said, “If you do, you deserve what you get.”


A presentation on “How Future Electricity Security Is Threatened by Wind and Solar Technology and Blackouts,” was given by German specialist, Alwin Burgholte, Professor Emeritus, GADE-Hochschule Wilhelmshaven. He reviewed past outages and causes—the 2003 blackout in New York and the European-wide near crash in January 2021, for example—stressing the obvious essentials for stability. The electricity regulatory agency NERC (North American Electricity Reliability Corporation) has issued a map of areas of the United States where the likelihood of blackouts is very high from June through September 2021, because baseload power generation has become insufficient.


Reports from State Resistance
Iowa and Kansas are particularly threatened, as both states have power grids that are nearly half wind and solar. Kansas State Sen. Mike Thompson, a professional meteorologist, reported that his state has 3,100 wind turbines and plans to add another 1,000. In Kansas, 43% of the electricity comes from wind and solar; Iowa is at 49%. But during the February 2021 “polar vortex” deep freeze, wind and solar virtually disappeared as power sources, as in the Texas disaster this past winter. The potential disruption to farming and food is enormous, given that Kansas and Iowa each rank first or second nationally in wheat, corn, hogs, eggs, and soybeans. Together they are second to Texas in cattle. Thompson showed how “renewables” subsidies, plus electricity deregulation, play havoc with the electric grid in the state, and how seldom “windy” Kansas actually has strong enough wind for its big turbines to produce net power.


Minnesota farm leader Andy Olson reported on how “fragile” the electricity systems are throughout the farmbelt states. He debunked the idea that gas-fueled “peaker” plants can be counted on as backup when the wind turbines are down. Seven coal-fired plants in Minnesota have been converted to gas, but the logistics and the huge expense of getting and using the gas doesn’t work.


Angel Cushing, farm leader and activist from eastern Kansas, reported on the green assault against agricultural land use. It comes in the form of zoning, easements, federal, and green elite maneuvers, done in the name of preserving nature, with fancy code names such as “viewscape.” There is a “heritage area” campaign, which is part of the “30×30” assault, to remove 30% of U.S. land and water out of any economic use by 2030, outlined in Biden’s Executive Order 14008. This week, the federal Bureau of Land Management held a public comment session on a plan in the works for an “American Prairie Reserve,” centered in Montana, which is to be over 3 million acres, larger than the nation of Lebanon. In it, there will be permitted only bison, and no more traditional livestock grazing will be allowed.


Merkel Is the ‘Symbol of Failed Germany’
The second conference panel was a lively symposium, which effectively destroyed the notion that humanity was incapable of using our science to design a new phase of progress. Co-moderator Dennis Speed introduced the event by honoring four scientists who passed away over the last year, following careers in the science of development. They were Tom Wysmuller, a NASA scientist who organized his NASA colleagues and others to present the evidence that those who insisted human progress would wreak havoc on the Earth were knowingly lying; Dennis Avery, who published studies of development science, especially in the field of agriculture; Hal Doiron, a NASA scientist who helped develop the Lunar Landing Module and the Space Shuttle; and Freeman Dyson, an astrophysicist who promulgated the benefits of CO2 and undermined claims of its malign effects.


That introduction was followed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s keynote, a pointed illustration of the shameful role played by current presumed leaders of the “West.” She called Germany’s Chancellor of sixteen years, Angela Merkel, the “symbol for the failed Germany,” as proven by her firm decision to shut down nuclear energy production and now coal and fossil fuel production without having any replacement in place to keep Germany functioning as a modern nation.


Zepp-LaRouche especially condemned Merkel for ignoring three days of precise warnings of the floods that killed at least 170 Germans, who could have been saved if the Chancellor’s government had taken steps to move them to safety. Rather than take responsibility, Merkel blamed the floods on “climate change.” Zepp-LaRouche said, regarding Merkel and the leadership of “the West”:


If this outlook prevails, the prognosis is that Germany will vanish as an industrial nation or even as a nation altogether.… It’s so worrisome that this is the characteristic of almost the entire Western establishment. They have policy failure after policy failure and despite that, and the fact that everybody can see it, they demonstrate a complete inability to reflect on the causes.


South African nuclear physicist and engineer Dr. Kelvin Kemm, who has become known in America “outside the Beltway” through the Schiller Institute, outlined the necessity of developing nuclear energy for Africa and reported that a growing number of African nations are preparing for that. After a brief lesson in the history of climate on Earth that demolished the myth of “anthropogenic global warming,” Kemm outlined plans for the future of energy in Africa.


In addition to rejecting the failed solar panel and windmill technologies, Kemm pointed out that even hydropower would not work in Africa because it is susceptible to droughts of up to five years, during which hydropower is as useless as solar energy after sunset.
Dr. Kemm is working on developing what are called Small Modular Reactors (SMR) and micro-reactors. These power generators are mass-produced and can be transported by train or truck and installed to provide energy for limited clients such as an industrial complex or a modest-sized city. They are easier to set up and use than large-scale reactors that form part of a national power grid.


Crucial Importance of Water
Dr. Kemm concluded with an irony:
If you look back in time, whenever there were periods of global warming, they coincided with health, welfare, and prosperity; crops grew; sea routes opened up; ice melted. Passes over mountains cleared up and people could pass easily from one region to another. It’s the period of global cooling when crops failed, ice caused trade routes to be closed.


Rear Admiral Marc Pelaez (ret.), former Chief of Naval Research, and vice president of a shipbuilding firm, is currently a member of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites founded by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and former Surgeon General, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, with the mission of reconciling opposing views to solve the problems humanity is now confronting.


Admiral Pelaez addressed Zepp-LaRouche’s global reconstruction proposal that begins with constructing modern health care facilities and operations in every nation on the planet. He proposed that a first step in doing this would be to make sanitary drinking water available everywhere. He suggested that the Committee and the Schiller Institute hold a technology conference to discuss planning this project.


There is a water shortage plaguing the U.S./Mexican border regions. Alberto Vizcarra, coordinator of the Citizens Movement for Water in Mexico, presented this as the result of two situations. The first is the nature of the environment of the Great American Desert. The second is that agreements were reached between Mexico and the United States when the population straddling the Rio Grande border was 15 million. Today it is 100 million, so the requirements on both sides have changed drastically.


Vizcarra recalled that during the administration of Mexican President Adolfo López Mateos, whose tenure roughly coincided with that of President John F. Kennedy in the United States, there was discussion of a massive water project between the U.S. and Canada, which became known as the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA). At the same time, Mexico’s Northwest Hydraulic Plan (PLHINO) was under consideration. Both of these plans were promoted by the LaRouche movement in Mexico and North America. Recognizing that there is no physical or technical barrier preventing the completion of such projects, Vizcarra recommended that Mexico ally with China’s Belt and Road initiative to finally implement these projects.


Richard McPherson, also retired from the U.S. Navy, had surveyed these major water projects in Mexico. McPherson served as a nuclear engineering officer and on the Board of Inspection and Survey, Propulsion Examining Board. He also represented the U.S. on the International Atomic Energy Agency panel examining the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident. He gave a detailed history, much based on his personal experience, of the development of peaceful nuclear power. Having long confronted the factor of public opinion, McPherson said this was the factor that sabotaged President Eisenhower’s 1953 offer to provide nuclear technology to the entire world for prosperity and security. He pledged himself to overcome the fact that 800 million people have no electricity or water and two billion go to bed hungry every night.


Energy Use and Life Expectancy
Dr. Vincenzo Romanello, a nuclear engineer and founder of the Italian Atoms for Peace, presented a human history of the annual per capita energy requirements for each technological level humanity has lived through, starting with fire (1.1 million calories) and continuing through nuclear energy (35 million). He left open the requirements of the next breakthrough, nuclear fusion, and explained his belief that the complexities involved in practical controlled fusion development would take longer to resolve than many hope. In the course of the session, several participants remarked on the three maps of the world he displayed. These showed each nation color-coded for energy use level, infant mortality rate, and life expectancy. The distinction, most notably between Africa and the rest of the world, could not be overlooked.


The panel’s presentations were concluded by John Shanahan, civil engineer and editor of allaboutenergy.net. Unlike many of his collaborators in the nuclear energy industry who present nuclear energy as a solution to anthropogenic global warming, Shanahan, following nuclear power pioneer Theodore Rockwell, views nuclear energy as a solution to natural climate change and other energy challenges.


In brief remarks prior to the open discussion, Helga Zepp-LaRouche emphasized that the political problem characterized by the “Green New Deal” will destroy all industrial nations, in opposition to restoring creative growth. This enemy is the same for water, energy, the spread of pandemics, the destruction of agriculture, and the continuation of endless wars, she said.


This requires a complete change of the axioms, and in my view, it starts with the image of man. Man is the most advanced part of the Universe. The ideas generated by human creativity, discovering scientific principles of the universe—that is the most advanced part of the evolution of the universe. If there would not be a correspondence between what the human mind creates and the laws of the universe, this would not function. This is the proof that the laws of the universe and the human mind are coherent. We are not a parasite. We are not a burden on nature.


In the context of Admiral Pelaez’s proposal on water development, Zepp-LaRouche pointed out the movement’s association with the African TransAqua project proposal for decades. This is a proposal to green the Sahara by moving water from the Congo River to the dry or drying Lake Chad basin. There is now a feasibility study under way that places this high on the agenda of African development requirements.


The discussion was joined by Major Gen. Peter Clegg (ret.), a founding member of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites. “I am tremendously impressed” by the presentations so far, Clegg said, and pointed out that the problems we confront are not technological, but do include “the politicization of science.” He complained of politicians who say we must follow the science, but they are “the last person” to pay attention to that. He illustrated this by mentioning environmental hero Jimmy Carter, once “running around the White House in sweaters talking about global cooling,” who has now joined the crowd fighting global warming.


Zepp-LaRouche concluded the conference by discussing the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites. She explained that, so far, the membership were largely healthcare providers, but that it was open to scientists, engineers, and others involved in promoting human creativity.

This article appears in the July 30, 2021 issue of Executive Intelligence Review




Den malthusianske grønne finansfidus må knuses

29. december (EIRNS) — Verdens centralbankfolk, under ledelse af tidligere chef for Bank of England, Mark Carney, har aktiveret deres plan om at udføre folkedrab ved at bruge centralbankernes og de tilknyttede ”to big to fail” megabankers magt til overtage den økonomiske politik fra de folkevalgte regeringer, og afskære kredit til enhver virksomhed, der producerer det som de anser for at være et for stort ”kulstofaftryk”. Det faktum, at kulstof ikke har noget med klima at gøre, er kendt af enhver kompetent videnskabsmand i verden – i hvert fald de der baserer sig på kreativ tankevirksomhed snarere end computerfremskrivninger.

Den britiske imperialistiske plan handler ikke om klima; dette er intet andet end det seneste fabrikerede påskud for at begå folkedrab. Engang hed det eugenik – at de “laverestående racer” i Afrika og Indien simpelthen ikke forstod den “moralske nødvendighed” af at gennemføre kontrakter om at eksportere deres mad, blot fordi millioner af indere og afrikanere sultede ihjel. (Se Matthew Ogdens kommende artikel i EIR om, hvordan den påtvungne hungersnød i Indien bidrog til at overbevise Amerikas grundlæggende fædre om at gøre oprør mod det Britiske Imperium.)

Sidenhen var det “naturretten” om “den private ejendomsret” (se Fred Haights kommende artikel i EIR om John Lockes “forfatning” for sin slavekoloni, Carolina, der definerede retten til at eje folk som Guds naturlov. Dette folkemorderiske synspunkt blev holdt ude af den amerikanske forfatning, som i stedet forfægtede Leibniz’ “ret til at stræbe efter lykke”).

Nu er det så det videnskabelige bedrageri kendt som “menneskeskabte klimaforandringer” forårsaget af kulstof (CO2, red.) – kulstof, der produceres af maskiner, husdyr og mennesker. Uagtet at kulstof er føde for plantelivet – det skal elimineres, og menneskene og dyrene sammen med det. Som en ideologi er denne bevægelse i årtier blevet fordømt og modarbejdet med ægte videnskab af LaRouche-bevægelsen. Men nu er det ikke længere et ideologisk spørgsmål. Det er en malthusiansk plan for at gennemføre prins Charles’ foreslåede reduktion af den menneskelige befolkning til omkring 1 milliard mennesker – hvilket de britiske baroner og baronesser betragter som vor Jords maksimale “bæreevne”. Husk på at Bertrand Russell engang sagde: “Hvis den sorte død kunne brede sig over hele verden én gang i hver generation, kunne overlevende formere sig frit uden at fylde for meget op i verden.” Og det var Barack Obama, der fortalte de unge afrikanere på et universitet i Soweto, at de ikke må stræbe efter at have store huse, klimaanlæg og biler, for ikke at verden skulle “koge over”.

Det er indlysende for ethvert tænkende menneske, at den nuværende pandemi og den hungersnød den har forårsaget – nutidens “sorte død” – kunne have været forhindret, hvis de vestlige nationer ikke med vilje havde reduceret deres sundhedssystemer som en del af “privatiseringsprocessen” – kortsigtet fortjeneste prioriteret over menneskeliv – samtidig med at udviklingslandene nægtes adgang til fungerende sundhedsvæsener. For at løse denne krise kræves samarbejde mellem verdens førende økonomier og videnskabelige institutioner, især dem i USA, Kina og Rusland. Overvej dette i forbindelse med at forstå tankegangen bag dæmoniseringen af Rusland og Kina. Er fortalerne for den nye McCarthyisme i Storbritannien og USA uvidende om, at denne opdeling af verden i konkurrerende, geopolitiske blokke forårsager millioner af dødsfald – eller er det netop deres hensigt?

Præsident Trump blev valgt, fordi han afviste dette levn fra den Kolde Krig, og insisterede på at ”det er en god ting, ikke en dårlig ting”, at være venner med Rusland og med Kina. Han blev manipuleret til at bakke ud af dette ædle engagement af russiagate-kupmagerne og talsmændene for det militærindustrielle kompleks, der manøvrerede sig ind i hans kabinet.

Det er ikke for sent for Trump at handle. Skulle han indkalde præsidenterne Putin, Xi og sig selv til et topmøde for at behandle alle aspekter af den globale krise, kunne der brydes med det kontrollerede miljø. At benåde Julian Assange og Edward Snowden ville være et nyttigt første skridt.

LaRouche-organisationen (se www.laroucheorganization.com) blev grundlagt lige før jul for at tage fat på alle disse aspekter sammen med Schiller Instituttet (www.schillerinstitute.com) og for at samle mennesker med god vilje fra rundt om i verden, der ellers er isolerede. Dette er en civilisationskrise, ikke separate kriser for hver enkelt nation. Det kan være muligheden for at indføre et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden som helhed, hvis folk handler.




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 19. december 2019:
Rigsretssag imod Trump kan ikke få det gamle paradigme tilbage i kontrol//
Brexit + COP25-fiasko. Se også 2. og 3. del.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg.

Video:

2. del:

3. del:

Lyd:

 




NYHEDSORIENTERING SEPTEMBER 2019: Finansverden vil redde sig selv med øko-fascisme

Download (PDF, Unknown)




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 26. september 2019: Federal Reserve måtte intervenere
for at forhindre sammenbrud – 2008 på steroider på vej

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Baggrund:

På engelsk: Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Schiller Instituttets internationale formand Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 25. september
This is an unvelievable historic moment. We mush change the agenda completely




Der er ingen klima nødsituation — Europæisk deklaration

Følgende deklaration bliver præsenteret til EU ledere den 18.-19. 2019 i Oslo. Udover de 430 underskrivere på listen, har 60 andre personer skrevet under. Se listen nedenunder.

There is no climate emergency
We, the undersigned 430 independent Climate Scientists and Professionals from 15 countries, wish to convey six urgent messages to you:

1. Climate change is a fact. The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has continuously changed for as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. With the Little Ice Age (with minimum in 1700 AD), it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. This is a normal expectation with a cyclic system.

2. There is no scientific proof that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are the major cause of global warming. As such, this issue remains a scientific hypothesis.

3. There is also no scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a detrimental effect on the quality of life. On the contrary, we do know that CO2 is the basis of life on Earth (photosynthesis), and more CO2 is beneficial for nature (greening the Earth) and agriculture (increasing crop yields).

4. Climate policy is heavily based on computer models. Unfortunately, these computer models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. For example, they substantially overestimate temperature increases for multiple reasons (e.g. inability to quantify cloud impacts, over-sensitivity to greenhouse gases, , etc.).

5. There is also no scientific evidence that higher CO2 levels are intensifying natural disasters, or making them more frequent. On the other hand, studies by independent experts indicate that many supposed CO2-mitigation measures in use today (e.g. industrial wind turbines): a) have no scientific proof that they save a consequential CO2, b) have adverse human health impacts, and c) can cause devastating effects on ecosystems.

6. Energy policy must be based on scientific and economic realities. We strongly oppose any net zero” policy, as they are not only unfeasible, but extremely detrimental.

There is no climate emergency, and therefore no cause for panic or irrational responses.

When legitimate approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. Our aim should always be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times.

Our position is that science should strive for a significantly better understanding of the climate system and all the major contributors, while politics should focus on 2 minimizing potential climate damage by prioritizing adaptation strategies based on scientifically proven and economically affordable technologies.

Se underskrivere her:

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Specialrapport: “CO2-reduktion” er en massemordspolitik
designet af Wall Street og City of London

Introduktion til CO2-rapporten

Denne rapport cirkuleres af ‘Executive Intelligence Review’ i anledning af FN’s Generalforsamling 74. session, der fulgte efter et forudgående klimatopmøde indkaldt af generalsekretæren. Dette [klima-]topmøde afholdtes angiveligt for at “håndtere klimakatastrofen” og hævder, at det “vil kræve en hidtil uset indsats fra alle sektorer i samfundet.”

Denne hidtil usete indsats for at reducere CO2-udslip vil ikke kun være dyr, men også dødbringende. Nægtelse af effektiv energi til en overkommelig pris til en verden der behøver det, vil nødvendigvis føre til tab af millioner af liv og forarmelse af mange flere millioner.

Dette sker med fuldt overlæg.

Læs denne rapport for at lære den dystre historie om den moderne miljøbevægelse. Kom til at forstå hvorfor verdens stærkeste økonomiske kræfter ivrigt støtter klimahysteriet. Bliv præsenteret for data der tilbageviser antagelsen om at vi står over for en verdenskatastrofe i løbet af 12 år; og få en mere fuldstændig forståelse af kompleksiteten af Jordens klima i sammenhæng med mekanismerne i solsystemet og videre ud.

Og allermest afgørende, forstå det aktuelle øjebliks enorme potentiale.

Vi står på tærsklen til et nyt paradigme for relationer mellem nationer og folkeslag, hvor vind-vind-samarbejde, for evigt, kan erstatte de konflikter, der har været karakteristiske for rækken af imperier, som har plaget menneskeheden, i dag legemliggjort af det Britiske Imperium.

Ved at afslutte den imperialistiske idé om, at vækst og udvikling skal forhindres for at opretholde et statisk magthierarki (og et dyrisk billede af menneskeheden!), kan vi slippe den økonomiske, videnskabelige og kulturelle vækst fri, der burde karakterisere os som medlemmer af den skønneste art på planeten – som menneskelige væsner.

Dette enestående potentiale kommer til udtryk i åbningsartiklen til denne rapport, en pressemeddelelse skrevet af Schiller Instituttets grundlægger, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, til brug i de internationale aktionsdage, der holdes af LaRouche-bevægelsen og dens venner overalt – i Latinamerika, i Europa, i Afrika, i Asien og i USA.

Verdens ungdom må mobiliseres til at indse, at vanviddet omkring påståede klimaforandringer er helt i strid med menneskets sande identitet som en rumfarende art, som med rumteknologi kan løse ethvert problem og overvinde alle begrænsninger.

Executive Intelligence Review (www.larouchepub.com) udgav nedenstående specialrapport den 24. september 2019.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Krig og fred på spil i USA’s midtvejsvalg:
Schiller Instituttes ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 11. oktober 2018

Afskrift på engelsk:

Schiller Institute New Paradigm Webcast, October 11, 2018
With Helga Zepp-LaRouche

The Stakes In the U.S. Midterm Elections: War or Peace

HARLEY SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger with the
Schiller Institute.  Welcome to our webcast for today.  It’s Oct.
11, 2018:  Our webcast will feature, as always, Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, our founder and chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
We were just reviewing events prior to this webcast, and
there’s so much going on, as we come now with less than five
weeks to the midterm election in the United States, which is
going to be an extraordinarily important in determining whether
the American people are going to step up to the responsibility of
joining the New Paradigm, or whether they’re going to succumb to
the demoralization and the media control.
We’re also seeing things that the LaRouche movement is
famous for, which is economic forecasting.  And Helga, why don’t
we start with that:  We saw a very big drop in the stock market
yesterday, there’s jitters on Wall Street, anxiety around the
world.  What’s going on?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  The system is disintegrating, and it’s
just a question of time when this will happen.  I find it very
remarkable that the IMF is pronouncing the famous “D” word.
Remember that the “D” word was never to be mentioned, because the
market would supposedly follows the psychology of the markets,
and when you mention the word “Depression,” then that could bring
it on and so was the tale. But now the IMF meeting in Bali,
Indonesia has been warning that challenges are to be faced,
otherwise, the second Great Depression would be looming.
Now, I find this really remarkable, and I think what they’re
trying to somehow prepare the population that thing is really
coming down.  This stock market plunge of more than 800 points —
I think something like 820 — you had President Trump who
basically said the Federal Reserve is “crazy” with their interest
rate policy, which caused a complete reaction by [IMF Managing
Director Christine] Lagarde and so forth, but he kept repeating
it twice.  He said the situation is much too tense to continue
this.  Naturally, this is the reason why you have the reverse
carry trade from the emerging markets, which was mentioned by the
IMF as the biggest threat to the system, and the second biggest
threat or maybe on an equal level, being the indebtedness. Now,
Lagarde also mentioned the indebtedness of the governments, the
corporate firms, and also other categories, like student loans
and car loans and all of this, is 60% higher than it was in 2008.
Then, in addition to all of these things, you have the
collapse of the real economy, with for example home-building
peeked in the United States in January and has been in a free
fall and since about May this was also the case for copper and
timber — all of these have lost between 15 and 20% since the
beginning of the year.  So, these are all markers that this thing
is not continuing.
And then, you have, naturally, on top of that the growing
fight between the EU and Italian government.  You had the famous
letter, or infamous letter by the two EU Commissioners [Pierre]
Moscovici and [Valdis] Dombrovskis, to the Italian government
warning them that their intention not to stick to the EU-imposed
budget deficit of 2.4%, that this would not be allowed, which was
the trigger for a run on the Italian bond, and as a result, the
spread between the Italian and the German values have gone up to
300 points; and it is generally said if it goes up to 400 —
basically that means that the Italians have to pay 3% and more to
refinance their loans — and that could actually really all
contribute to a crisis.
On top of it, by the 15th of this month, that is in four
days, the Italian government will publish the details of their
budget.  And it is expecting that the rating agencies immediately
afterwards will put out some rating, in all likelihood
downgrading the Italian bonds, or downgrading Italy as a country,
which then basically, depending how they are formulating it, if
the outlook is basically neutral, people say this could just go
through; but if they put a negative outlook on it, then that
could lead to a big banking crisis — actually not only of Italy,
but of the entire Western financial system.
It is clear that some of these people in the European
Central Bank and EU Commission obviously think they can force the
Italian government to capitulate, that they can control the
consequences of this, but this is playing with fire:  Because you
have a highly, highly volatile financial system, and I can only
say, in 2008, the whole world was more or less unprepared for the
crash, because they were not listening to the warning this my
husband had already put out, very clearly, on July 25th, 2007  —
this was one week before the secondary mortgage crisis in the
United States exploded.  And he had said at that time, this
system is finished.  All you can see now, is how it comes down.
And people didn’t listen to it. So the crash occurred in 2008 and
they didn’t draw any conclusions out of their own mistakes, and
just kept pumping money — quantitative easing.  And basically
all these instruments of the Central Bank are now completely
exhausted and used up.
And contrary to 2008, when everybody was unprepared, those
people who are now trying to cause the Italian government to
capitulate and continue with the austerity, which the Italian
government was voted in, because they rejected that austerity.
So, if they push too hard, I think one should not forget that
both Italian government coalition parties, the Lega and the Five
Star Movement party, they have Glass-Steagall in not only their
party program, but also in the coalition treaty.
Now, obviously, the Italian government knows what they’re up
against.  They have seen speculators moving in on countries,
driving them into the ground, so they are relatively careful, and
they’re not saying anything terribly provocative.  But if
somebody from the outside pushes them into a crash, I would not
exclude the possibility, or I would actually say it’s quite
probable that they would implement Glass-Steagall as a
self-defense.
So it is quite different from 2008, and I think the only
lesson that one can draw out of all of this, is we need to
amplify our efforts to go for a New Bretton Woods system, which
we have a campaign on internationally, we have a petition; this
has been signed by many people in the meantime, and I would urge
you, our viewers, sign this petition, get it around, prepare
anybody you know — elected officials, mayors, parliamentarians,
congressmen — to prepare for Glass-Steagall, and not only that,
but the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche.  Because unless we
reorganize this entirely bankrupt financial system in an orderly
fashion, the danger is an uncontrolled collapse.
You need a New Bretton Woods system, you need
Glass-Steagall, we need to get rid of the casino economy; we have
to have credit for the financing of the real economy, and we have
to have a new credit system to basically finance investments on a
multinational level among all the countries of this world, to get
the world out of this danger of a depression.
So, if the IMF talks about the danger of a Great Depression,
people should take it to heart. Think about what happened in the
Great Depression in the ’30s  — in the United States it was
devastation, but in Europe it was even worse, because it led to
fascist movements and that to world wars.  So people should not
take these things lightly:  Get onboard with us.  Join the
Schiller Institute, join our campaign for New Bretton Woods,
because that’s the only answer one can give to this danger of a
looming crash.

SCHLANGER:  I had a chance to read through the Executive
Summary of the IMF report, and there were two omissions — they
were there in a sense, but they didn’t really acknowledge them,
— both of which your husband was out in front of for many, many
years, in dealing with the IMF.  On the one side, it’s clear that
it’s {their} policy which has failed.  The austerity regime which
the IMF is famous for, these have never led to any economic
development.  And then, secondly, the quantitative easing, the
low-interest credit for speculation, instead of Glass-Steagall —
the IMF was promoting that.  And so, the two things they
promoted, they’re now admitting are failed. Do you have any
thoughts on that, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think the possibility that the IMF would
reform itself is probably going in the probability towards zero.
I think it requires a different kind of action.  In a certain
sense, you have right now in the whole world, already, a revolt
against these failed neo-liberal policies.  This was expressed in
the Brexit; this was expressed in the election victory of
President Trump; the new Italian government is an expression of
that; also the Austrian government.  And I think that  — in a
certain sense, national sovereignty has to be reasserted, and I
don’t think these supranational institutions which were the main
reason why these policies were imposed, which had created havoc:
Look at what happened to Greece.  The Greek economy was
diminished by one-third.  The Italian economy was destroyed.  The
fact that we have now a totally different government in Italy,
which is pro-growth for the most part, which is for the
relationship with China, for the relationship with the New Silk
Road, all of this is a response to the failure of these policies.
And there are many people in Europe who are expecting that, given
the fact that the EU is basically doing exactly the same thing in
principle, namely, sticking to the neo-liberal austerity, that
you will have an earthquake in the coming European Parliament
elections [in April] which will show that these present policies
will be absolutely out.
I think this is much too long term.  I think the crisis is
upon us now, so I can only say: The only solution is for the
package I just said before:  The IMF is really a bankrupt
organization, and that was stated by my husband in 1975, when he
proposed to replace this IMF with an International Development
Bank, which would provide large-scale, low-interest credit for
development projects in the developing sector; and if that would
have been done, we would not have a migration problem, we would
have prosperous countries around the globe; but now, with the New
Silk Road, this policy is on a good way.
So I can only say, “listen to the wise words of Lyndon
LaRouche,” belatedly, but better late than never.

SCHLANGER: And that was a very popular item, “How the
International Development Bank Works,” that Lyn wrote back in
’76, I think it was.  We used it as part of his campaign — for
his first campaign for President.
Coming up on the midterm elections, there’s a lot of turmoil
that’s been unleashed.  What’s clear is that Hillary Clinton has
not learned anything from the results of November 2016.  You have
a real civil unrest that’s being built, deliberately, because the
Mueller case, the Mueller Russiagate story, is collapsing.  This
can become a very dangerous situation.  Let’s start with what
Trump said — Trump said, the Democrats have gone crazy.  I
assume you would share that assessment, Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  If calling for violence is a sign of
insanity, then I would agree with him.  And it’s funny, I was
looking at the German media, and they all portray this fight,
this very hot situation in the United States, as if it’s all just
electioneering by Trump that he would call the Democrats a “mob.”
But, it is a fact that Maxine Waters already some months ago,
called on everybody to get into the face of Trump cabinet
members, whenever you them — there were some actually violent
incidents; people were not served in restaurants; and also some
other Democrats basically called that you should be “in their
faces” of the Trump camp. And that has created a complete
hysteria, which was amplified by the Kavanaugh case, where even
Alan Dershowitz, who said that he’s a liberal Democrat, he said
that the attempt, for example, Senator Feinstein and Eric Holder,
they said that Kavanaugh should not be accepted, that this would
put into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court!  I mean
this is really incredible. Dershowitz then correctly said, forget
it, Kavanaugh is now Supreme Court Justice and he will be there
for his lifetime; this was due process, and the Democrats should
go back to being civilized and not violate all the norms and
rules.
I mean, this is incredible:  I’m not an expert on American
constitutional questions, but it seems to me if the Senate, or
some Senators, are putting into question the legitimacy of the
Supreme Court, this is heading towards a constitutional crisis,
or some kind of a state crisis if these people are not stopped.
I think they have lost all barriers, and they have lost all
sense of limit!  This is a completely hysterical situation, and I
can only say that this is very dangerous.  And we have said many
times that Trump is being attacked, essentially,  — I mean, you
can pick on tiny points here and there — but that’s not the
point: The main reason why Trump is being attacked, is because he
tried to get the relationship with Russia on a good basis.  He
had a very successful in Helsinki with Putin.  And at least, in
the initial phase, he had an excellent relationship with China
and Xi Jinping.  And that is why the geopolitical establishment
went absolutely crazy — as a matter of fact, they’re escalating
their campaign, both against Russia and against China, in
unprecedented ways.  And it is the question of war and peace, and
people should really understand that, that the Democrats have
really gone crazy on the issue of Russia and also China, and they
should not fall into this trap, because in the consequence, this
would mean World War III.

SCHLANGER:  One of the other important points, I think is
that what we’re seeing, is again, people like George Soros
funding these rent-a-mobs.  And Soros, of course, has been
involved in this for many, many years.  And I believe, Helga, you
first identified the operation against Trump after the election,
as similar to the “color revolutions” that Soros, combined with
people like John McCain, the National Endowment for Democracy,
the Clinton State Department, to run coups and regime changes,
throughout the former Soviet bloc countries.  I think we’re now
seeing that what you said about the “color revolution,” is
totally accurate, including the danger of a Maidan Square-type
chaos being unleashed.  Sen. Rand Paul said yesterday that he
fears that there could be assassinations.
Is this pretty much what you had seen two years ago, this
color revolution scenario?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah, because whenever you have George Soros
involved in such, and he financed, according to reports, $50
million to a private group which, according to these reports,
which was called into being by a “senator,” not named, but the
individual involved was formerly an aide to Senator Feinstein, so
the speculation naturally goes in this direction.  This was an
outsourcing of the whole Steele operation to a private group,
basically using $50 million so that this could go on, after
Steele was officially fired from his liaison with the FBI.
Now, this is incredible.  I think this will all come out,
and also following the James Baker testimony, which even if it
was behind closed doors, nevertheless, what came out in various
Fox TV programs and various other revelations, that it was
Michael Sussman, the lawyer of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the
lawyer for the DNC, which was the original trigger for the whole
Russiagate affair.  I find this absolutely incredible and I can
only hope that the American voters draw their conclusion out of
it, because that means that the Hillary Clinton campaign was
involved with a foreign power, namely great Britain, against her
opponent in the election campaign, and then afterwards, basically
against an elected President.  Now, I don’t find this very
“democratic,” to say the least, to use these kinds of secret
service methods, deep state methods, to work against your own
President, who has been democratically elected.
This, in my view, is the biggest scandal, and if it is all
coming out, if all the documents are being declassified, I think
it will go down in history, as the biggest scandal in American
history.  And that is what’s at stake with this midterm election.

SCHLANGER:  I think it’s very important that Baker, who was
the legal counsel to Comey and the FBI, in his testimony before a
private Congressional hearing, that he acknowledged that Sussman
gave him the Steele report, which was then incorporated into the
original FISA warrant against [Trump campaign advisor] Carter
Page.  That just makes clear that all these Democrats who have
been protesting what Representative Nunes did in his House
Intelligence Committee, that they were wrong, they were lying;
they were trying to cover up for the connection between the
British, the Clinton campaign, and the FBI.
Now, Helga, a couple of other things we need to cover before
we finish today:  One is the very significant stopover in Beijing
by Secretary of State Pompeo.  He had just come from North Korea,
where there was what appears to be quite a successful meeting
with Kim Jong-un.  But when he got to China, it was a slightly
different environment, largely because of the moves toward trade
war.  What happened when Pompeo got to Beijing?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  This was shortly after Vice President Mike
Pence had made this absolute diatribe at the Hudson Institute,
attacking China in the {worst} possible way, and this was taken
very badly by the Chinese government and Chinese media, who
really questioned, does that mean there is a shift in the Trump
Administration, in a total hostile attitude towards China?
Basically, when then Pompeo arrived in Beijing, just a few days
afterwards, he basically reiterated that it is the policy of the
United States to have a good relationship with China, to agree to
the One-China policy, and that the United States is not trying to
stop the rise of China.  And there were several Chinese media
which noted the fact that this was an extremely important
statement to come at this moment.
There was one interesting article in the {Global Times} by
the American analyst and expert, Clifford Kiracofe, who made the
point that there is a clear difference between Pence, who sort of
speaks for the deep state, and Trump, who is trying to change the
U.S. foreign policy, but is being “hamstrung” by this crew on the
side of the deep state.  And Kiracofe basically said the U.S.
establishment is unwilling to learn the lesson from what’s going
on strategically, that the world is changing and that there is a
multipolarity already now.
Now, the significance of this is not only Kiracofe saying
that, but that the {Global Times} is publishing that, which is a
paper which is very close to the Chinese government.  So I think
it’s important that the Chinese are still, despite the trade war
and the escalation coming from ridiculous — like Elizabeth
Economy, who was already on a rampage in 2014, came out with
another major piece, accusing China of all kinds of things — I
don’t need to repeat this stuff;  and I already in 2014 said that
Elizabeth Economy obviously has an “economy-class mind” if she
says these things, and obviously, she has not improved since.
But in any case, I think it is very important that Pompeo
was there to set the record straight, because obviously, the need
to find solutions to the world does require the collaboration
among the major powers of the world.  Those people who are
pushing this insane confrontation, like Hillary Clinton did in
her speech in Oxford, where she was on an absolute rant against
Russia, I mean, these people should really not be listened to, at
all.

SCHLANGER: Another group that shouldn’t be listened to, but
unfortunately is, is the IPCC, which is in the news again, with
the so-called “manmade climate change” theories they have,
demanding that carbon dioxide be eliminated from the universe.
This goes back to the campaign you waged against the
British-backed, German figure John Schellnhuber, who has been
pushing these policies.  And now it looks as though this is going
to be aimed as dagger at the heart of the German auto industry.
And it’s a good thing that Trump pulled the United States out of
the Paris climate change agreement.  But where is this heading?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  This is report which says the climate accord
from Paris was not good enough, we need not stop 2% temperature
increase, but we should stop at 1.5% by 2050.  And obviously,
this is basically what Schellnhuber put out some years ago with
the “great transformation” as he called it, the decarbonization
of the world economy, getting rid of nuclear, getting rid of
coal, oil, gas, just go to “renewable” energy sources; and there,
it is very, very clear that what my husband has developed in
terms of the cohesion and the correlation between energy
flux-density in the production process, and the potential
relative population density, which can be maintained with that
energy flux-density, means that the goal which Schellnhuber set
forth that the Earth can only carry 1 billion people, that that
is what they now want to put back on the agenda.  It’s a
desperate effort by the forces of the Empire against Trump, who
has promised to reindustrialize the United States; especially
against the New Silk Road, against the Belt and Road Initiative,
which now is the new spirit which has captured more than 100
countries already, which work with the Belt and Road Initiative
to their benefit.  And it’s an effort to really throw a monkey
wrench into this dynamic.
But I think it’s desperate, I think it’s dangerous, but I
don’t think it will work.  I don’t think that these people will
convince China, India, Latin America, Africa, the Asian nations,
even some of the European nations, to lie down and die, because
this is what that would mean.
It’s dangerous anyhow, because you can see that it’s needing
a mass hysteria on the CO2 question.  I mean, first of all, we
have long debated that the CO2 emissions is really a minimal
factor in climate change.  Climate change is taking place,
there’s no question about it, but as we have documented many
times in the past, it has to a very large extent to do with the
position of our Solar System in the Galaxy, and it is long-term
cycles from Ice Ages to warming periods, and within that, you
have still smaller fluctuations; and this is determining the
climate.
So the whole discussion of whether the CO2 emission of man
causing these climate changes is just completely absurd.  Now,
it’s very dangerous, because, as you can see, this brainwashing
of the population  — in Europe, for example, one day after the
IPCC put out this quack report, the EU Environment Ministers met
and they decided that the CO2 emission from cars should not be
30%, like they had previously argued, but it should be 35%; and
the German government, which basically initially said 30%, and
then agreed to this compromise — it’s just crazy.
Now, what will that do?  The boss of VW, the largest German
carmaker today came out and said that if this aim is being
implemented to have 35% cut in cars’ CO2 emissions, then this
will cause, alone for VW, 100,000 jobs — and that’s just one
carmaker.  Now, you can add all the other ones, and you will end
up with millions of people going unemployed and the whole
industry collapsing!  Germany, as an economy, is already on
extremely fragile ground because of the exit from nuclear energy,
and if they now are pushing to eliminate coal altogether, this
will be the death of Germany as an industrial country.
Obviously, we will make a big campaign against that.
There is a big worry, because obviously, for example, Poland
is 90% dependent on coal in terms of its electricity production.
And if they force countries to implement that, you will have a
populist explosion in the next vote, if not earlier.
So this is all completely crazy, and it should be stated
very clearly, that with the presently existing technologies, for
a very long time, the world population cannot be maintained
without coal, and there are safe and modern coal plants which are
completely environmentally friendly; and it’s completely
motivated by, not the environment, but by an anti-population
attitude.  We had put out in 2015, a report “‘Global Warming’
Scare Is Population Reduction, not Science,” and in that report,
we had the Queen of England on the cover, because obviously,
Schellnhuber, who wants to be addressed all the time as “CBE,”
Commander of the British Empire,  — we had documented in that
report that these are British policies.  And I think what we see
with this IPCC report, and anti-coal emission campaign; and in
Berlin, they now forbid diesel cars, cars which fueled by diesel
are forbidden from driving in 11 zones in Berlin! Now, the
craftsmen’s association has said that this means that 50,000 cars
of craftsmen will not be allowed to drive in the city, and
everybody who needs the services of a craftsman, who needs a new
roof, or needs a new pump, or whatever, they will not be serviced
any more.
This has nothing to do with real issues:  This is mass
psychosis, and it’s driven by the hedge funds, by Wall Street,
because the CO2 emission trade is a quackery:  We denounced that
in the past, and now, to impose a global carbon tax, which is
also what is being pushed, would mean they have again a good
weapon against national sovereignty, because once you agree that
national economies have to submit to the policing in terms of
their carbon emission, here you go again in the direction of this
globalist eco-fascism.
It’s not scientific, I think it’s the opposite:  It’s
oligarchical and it’s an effort, really aimed, in my view
primarily against the New Silk Road, but naturally also against
Trump, also against Germany, and many other countries.  So, we
should really denounce that, and we will have a whole bunch of
articles about that on this webpage; we will have a whole section
on the Schiller page, where we will have interviews and
statements.  And we invite you, if you have some scientific
contribution to make to this subject, we will publish it on this
website and have a public debate.  Because this is really
dangerous for the future of civilization.
And we have to have the opposite approach:  We have to have
an optimism about man being able to go into fusion power, to
develop completely new scientific methods for energy, safety, for
raw materials security, space travel — I think we should not get
into this scare which is really a tool of the oligarchy to try to
stop the development of the people.

SCHLANGER:  Helga, we’ve gone on a little bit longer than
usual, but I think there’s one other thing we have to bring up,
because we teased it last week, which is endorsements for
Independent Congressional candidate Kesha Rogers in Texas.  In
case, people don’t know this, in the last couple of days, we’ve
two very prominent American Republicans and conservatives —
actually, they may not even be Republicans in the party sense —
but Roger Stone, a longtime friend of Donald Trump, a
self-proclaimed “political provocateur” issued a very strong
endorsement of Kesha Rogers.  And then, Senator Richard Black, a
Virginia state senator, who’s been very involved in exposing the
coup and also exposing the deep state operations against Syria,
he issued a statement endorsing Kesha Rogers.  Helga, do you have
any thoughts on these two endorsements?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think it’s great, and I can also add that
the French former Presidential candidate Jacques Cheminade also
endorsed Kesha Rogers, saying that even though he’s not an
American, Kesha’s campaign has international significance,
because she is the flagship against everything which is going
wrong in the United States, right now.  So I think we will have
more such statements, and I really wish all of you to come out
and support Kesha Rogers, because this is a campaign of national
importance and international importance.  [Rogers is an
Independent running in the 9th CD in Texas, against incumbent
Democrat Al Green, who promotes impeaching President Trump
regardless of whether he has committed a constitutionally defined
crime or not — ed.]

SCHLANGER: OK, I think that about does it.  Until next week,
Helga, we’ll see you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  OK, till next week.




Macron taler på vegne af Imperiet
– Hører Trump efter?

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 25. april, 2018 – Hvis man troede på, at præsident Trump accepterede den franske præsident Emmanuel Macrons fantasmer for den samlede amerikanske Kongres i dag, så ville man acceptere, at Trump skulle være rede til at underkaste nationen Det britiske Imperiums kollapsende, gamle paradigme. Macron, der tydeligvis talte for Imperiet (som franskmændene plejer at gøre) opførte sig, som om Trump havde aftalt med ham, at USA skulle forblive i Syrien som en besættelsesmagt; at Trump snart ville vende USA tilbage til den fascistiske, grønne Paris-aftale om afindustrialisering af verden for at »redde planeten«[1] og at, når Trump taler om »fake news«, mener han russerne.

Pardon, Monsieur, men det britiske kupforsøg mod vores præsident er endnu ikke lykkedes; faktisk er det i store vanskeligheder, med MI6-agent Christopher Steele og hans amerikanske medskyldige i Obamas efterretningssamfund og i Obamas Udenrigsministerium, der selv står over for retsforfølgelse for kriminelle handlinger. Medlem af Repræsentanternes Hus for Californien, Devin Nunes, har, med sit formandsskab for Husets Efterretningskomites efterforskning af anklagerne bag Russiagate-fupnummeret, fastslået, at »der ikke var nogen officiel efterretning, der blev brugt til at indlede denne efterforskning«. Det var snarere alt sammen britiske løgne, der blev bragt til torvs i massemedierne som »fake news« – som Trump korrekt har fremført og gentagent fordømt.

Monsieur Macron fik, desværre, en heltemodtagelse af de korrupte medlemmer af USA’s Kongres, der stod op og applauderede og højlydt jublede, da Macron sagde, at menneskeheden var i færd med at ødelægge denne planet; at CO2 ødelagde ethvert håb for vore børnebørn; at »der er ikke nogen Planet B«, og at »vi må arbejde sammen for at gøre planeten stor igen«. Prins Philip kunne ikke have sagt det mere diabolsk.

[1] Se Introduktion til EIR’s Rapport: »Skræmmekampagne om global opvarmning er befolkningsreduktion – ikke videnskab!« Inkl. oversigt og links til de artikler, der er oversat til dansk. En forhåndsvisning som pdf er tilgængelig.

Men Trump har hidtil ikke kapituleret over for dem, der truer ham, og som forlanger, at han opgiver sine løfter til det amerikanske folk, der skaffede ham valgsejren. Trump lægger skylden for »fake news« på USA’s og UK’s pressehorer, ikke Rusland. Han hævder, at udvikling er vigtigere end klimaforandringens falske videnskab. Han insisterer på, at USA må blive venner med Rusland. Han annoncerede ligeledes tirsdag, at han sender sit økonomiske team til Kina, hvor »vi har en virkelig god mulighed for at indgå en aftale« med Xi Jinping, som er »en fantastisk fyr og én af mine venner«.

Det er præcis dette, som briterne og deres aktiver i USA, såvel som i Frankrig, er desperate for at forhindre. Der er et potentiale for, at der i USA og Europa skabes en massebevægelse imod den imperiale krigspolitik, der drives frem af britiske løgne. Folk reflekterer nu over Tony Blairs eventyr for børn om masseødelæggelsesvåben i Irak, som lancerede de seneste 15 års blodbad og ødelæggelser i hele Mellemøsten, og som atter drev skabelsen af udstrakte terroristnetværk med grobund i de befolkninger, der var mål for denne destruktion, og ligeledes var det, der drev millioner af desperate flygtninge, som således bragte kaos i Europa. En tysk, parlamentarisk komite fastslog 20. april, at det britiskanstiftede missilangreb mod Syrien var »en overtrædelse af folkeretten«, selv om den ynkelige kansler Angela Merkel kaldte det for »nødvendigt og passende«. Verden må i sandhed sige »aldrig mere« til det britiske imperie-krigsparti.

Verden må ligeledes sige »ja« til den Nye Silkevej som det eneste alternativ til diktater fra ’the lords’ fra finanscentrene i City of London og Wall Street, som ikke vil sky noget middel for at redde deres bankerotte system for storstilet spekulation og ditto svindel. De er helt villige til at løbe risikoen for en global krig for at forhindre USA i at gå sammen med Kina og 140 andre nationer, der nu ser en vej ud af nedskæringer og krig gennem det Nye Paradigme, der udtrykkes gennem Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ. Den indiske premierminister Narendra Modi rejser til Kina i denne uge med den hensigt at bringe Indien ind i et samarbejde med Kina og Rusland i det globale udviklingsalternativ. Hvis præsident Trump bringer USA ind i et fuldt og helt samarbejde i den Nye Silkevej, ville dette komplettere »firemagtsalliancen«, som Lyndon LaRouche længe har promoveret som den kraft, der er nødvendig for at gøre en ende på Det britiske Imperium.

Ved at forene Øst og Vest, kan vi for altid afskaffe imperiepolitikken med sin »del og hersk«, og menneskeracen kan gå fremefter med opbygningen af en fremtid for menneskehedens fælles mål. Der er intet valg, og dette er et dyrebart mulighedens øjeblik, vi ikke må forpasse.

Foto: Præsident Trump og præsident Macron fra Frankrig,. 24. april, 2018.  (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)




De virkelige økonomiske spørgsmål:
Præsident Trump dropper Paris-klimaaftale. (PDF)

Fremragende! Og nu, fusionskraft og den Nye Silkevej.

Trump fortjener respekt og støtte for at kæmpe imod denne klimaforandrings-afskrækkelse, for dette er ikke bare et eller andet politisk spørgsmål; denne beslutning konfronterer en koordineret, global kampagne, kørt af de højeste niveauer af det anglo-hollandske oligarki. Vi har nu muligheden for at gøre en ende på dette program i Malthus’ tradition og vende tilbage til vækst og udvikling, hvis præsident Trump følger op på det ved at tilslutte sig det nye, globale paradigme for udvikling, som anføres af Kinas politik for udvikling, under den Nye Silkevej.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Titelfoto: Rismarker i Vietnam.




FOLKEMØDET PÅ BORNHOLM:
SCHILLER INSTITUTTET DELTAGER MED FIRE
REPRÆSENTANTER I MANGE DEBATTER
OG INTERVENTIONER

Nyhedsorientering maj/juni 2017

18. juni, 2017 – Schiller Instituttets 4 mand store delegation fik skabt en del opmærksomhed ved at synge tostemmig kanons, som fik mange mennesker til at stoppe op, og vi uddelte Schiller Instituttets Nyhedsorientering, der handler om den historiske konference i Beijing, “Bælte & Vej Forum”. På vores plakat stod der, »Fremtiden ligger i Kinas Bælte & Vej«, med et billede af infrastruktur, der binder verden sammen.

 

 

Vi deltog i debatmøder, hvor vi kunne stille relevante spørgsmål. Vi uddelte over 900 eksemplarer af Nyhedsorientering og kom i samtale direkte på stedet med mere end halvdelen af de mennesker, der tog vores materiale. Vi har bl.a. talt med folk, der har været i Kina og er meget begejstret for den udvikling, der er i gang dér. Mange af de mennesker, vi talte med, kunne huske os fra før. En dame kom op til os og sagde, »Det er jo jer, der har talt om Silkevejen, før det blev til Kinas politik«. Hun var meget imponeret over, at Kina har vedtaget den Nye Silkevej, og hun tog vores materiale med stor interesse. En bornholmer stoppede op, da han kendte os fra før og i mange år havde støttet os. Han var glad over at se, at hans støtte har båret frugt.

Vores sang fik mange mennesker til at komme op til os. Mange stoppede op for at lytte, fordi, som nogle sagde, det varmede deres hjerte. Flere klappede og andre kom op til os for at rose os for at synge så dejligt.

Den første dag var det hovedsaglig sang og uddeling; de andre dage deltog vi i flere debatter og blandede os med spørgsmål.

På Folkemødets anden dag deltog Schiller Instituttets repræsentanter i et politisk møde, der fandt sted i Akademikernes Hus, organiseret af DJØF’erne. Emnet var »Verdensordenen efter Trump og Brexit«, hvor Mogens Lykketoft (S), Storbritanniens ambassadør til Danmark Dominic Schroeder og USA’s fungerende ambassadør Laura Lochman talte.
Diskussionen var meget baseret på den forandring, der er i gang omkring den kendsgerning, at Donald Trump er blevet valgt til præsident, hvilket Mogens Lykketoft ikke var så glad for. Mogens udtrykte mest sin bekymring for, at USA har trukket sig ud af Paris-klimaaftalen, og at Trump ikke vil samarbejde med Kina. Vi benyttede muligheden for at stille nogle spørgsmål.

Feride på Folkemødet 2017

Feride I. Gillesberg fik stillet første spørgsmål, hvor hun bl.a. sagde:

»For en måned siden var der ’Bælte & Vej Forummet’ i Beijing, hvor USA havde en særlig udsending, Matthew Pottinger.  Konferencen skulle konsolidere Kinas politik for Bælte & Vej, der omfatter hele verden; ikke kun Kina. Bælte & Vej er allerede nu omkring 30 gange større en Marshallplanen (for Europa efter krigen). Den amerikanske præsident er åben over for samarbejde omkring det. Det andet, vigtige spørgsmål er samarbejdet med Rusland … De amerikanske medier har kørt en kampagne for at begå karaktermord på præsidenten, lige siden han blev valgt, i bl.a. New York Times, og med et teaterstykke, ’Julius Cæsar’, der spilles i New York Central Park, og som går ud på at myrde den amerikanske præsident. Der er et billede i omløb, hvor præsidenten har fået skåret hovedet af … Scenen er sat til at myrde præsidenten. Det gamle paradigme med Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, briterne, MI6 og de britiske imperialister vil have en unipolær verden. Den nye præsident er åben over for en multipolær verden … Medierne skulle jo netop dække, at det, præsidenten vil, er en positiv, og ikke en negativ ting.«

Derefter blev der taget tre andre spørgsmål, hvor Lissie Brobjerg fra Schiller Instituttet kom til som den sidste. Hun understregede følgende i sit indlæg:
»Lyndon LaRouche siger, at kuppet mod Trump vil føre til generel krig; hvad skal vi gøre for at forhindre det, således at Trump kan opbygge USA og skabe samarbejde med Rusland og forhindre en verdenskrig og skabe fred?«.

Lissie Folkemødet 2017

Ordstyrerne prøvede at underspille de to kontroversielle kommentarer. Den fungerende britiske ambassadør sagde straks, at han ikke har tænkt sig at svare på 90 % af de ting, der blev taget op i diskussionen.
Mogens Lykketoft, der stod og sagde, han er bekymret over Trumps forhold til Kina, ignorerede totalt, hvad der blev taget op; han skiftede emnet tilbage til den gamle verden med Paris-aftalen og klimaforandring.
Vi delte på dette debatmøde vores Nyhedsorientering ud til flere deltagere, der gerne vil læse vores materiale.

 

 

 

Kort efter fik vi mulighed for at tale på »speakers corner«, der er et åbent forum til korte taler, som Bornholms Tidende organiserer, så andre holdninger end de officielle også kan komme til udtryk.
Feride I. Gillesberg fik ordet og benyttede chancen til at fortælle om den historiske konference, »Bælte & Vej Forum«, der fandt sted i Beijing.

»Vesten burde deltage i det paradigmeskifte, som »Bælte & Vej Initiativet« repræsenterer for udvikling af hele verden. Det er kampen mellem på den ene side dem, der vil have en unipolær verden og dem, der er for en multipolær verden. Obama, Hillary, MI6 og det Britiske Imperium kæmper for at bevare den gamle, unipolære verdensorden. Det er årsagen til angrebene på den amerikanske præsident, som skal stoppes. I stedet skal vi tilslutte os det nye paradigme.«
Feride sluttede talen med at synge den kinesiske sang, »Kangding Lovesong«. Flere af tilhørerne ville gerne læse Nyhedsorientering om Bælte & Vej Forum, og en mand kom senere op til os for at sige, hvor bevægende den kinesiske sang var.

Schiller Instituttet fik mulighed for at deltage i en anden debat med Rasmus Jarlov (Konservativ; formand for Folketingets Forsvarsudvalg), Nick Hækkerup (næstformand, Socialdemokratiet) og Marie Krarup (Dansk Folkeparti) om »Truslen fra Øst«. Der var 80 mennesker til stede. De to førstnævnte mente, at Ruslands Putin var en trussel, og at han havde manipuleret det amerikanske valg, hvilket sidstnævnte ikke mente. Alle mente dog, at der var brug for øget forsvar.

Lissie Brobjerg fik det første spørgsmål:

»Hej, jeg er Lissie fra Schiller Instituttet. Trump siger, at han vil samarbejde med Rusland, da han ønsker at forhindre en atomkrig, og han sagde til et NATO-møde, at han ikke betragter Rusland som sin nummer 1 fjende; skulle vi ikke hellere samarbejde med Rusland i stedet for at opspinde historier om, at de vil erobre verden? Det var jo faktisk Obama, som støttede neonazister i Ukraine og væltede regeringen«.

Dette skabte tumult, hvorefter Lissie refererede til Stepan Bandera-folkene (i Ukraine). Marie Krarup tog Lissies spørgsmål op. Bagefter uddelte vi vores Nyhedsorientering til deltagerne, der var interesseret i at læse vores materiale.

Christian Folkemøde 2017

Christian Olesen fra Schiller Instituttet talte efter debatten med Rasmus Jarlov, der under debatten havde beskrevet begivenhederne i Ukraine fra en meget propagandistisk vinkel. Christian sagde til Jarlov, at han havde et meget unuanceret syn på Ukraine, hvortil han svarede, »Det kan man altid sige, når man ikke har nogen argumenter«! Til det svarede Christian, at de søde og venlige demonstranter, Jarlov havde beskrevet, havde brændt folk levende i Odessa. Det fik Jarlov til at vende ryggen til og skynde sig væk.

 

 

 

Til en debat ved Femerns venner, hvor man diskuterede fremtidsperspektiverne for tunnelen (Femern Bælt-forbindelsen), fik Lissie Brobjerg det første spørgsmål:

»Hvad tænker I om ideen om, at Danmark går med i Kinas Nye Silkevej? De vil forbinde hele verden med store infrastrukturprojekter, højhastighedstog, tunneller og broer, og projektet er nu 30 gange større end Marshallplanen.«

Responsen fra den ene taler var, at hvis Kina havde stået for tunnellen, havde den allerede været færdig i går, men at, i Danmark har vi dog en demokratisk proces, hvilket han foretrækker. Flere mennesker kom bagefter op til Lissie for at få en Nyhedsorientering, inklusive ordstyreren og den anden taler, der glad modtog en Nyhedsorientering.

Feride diskuterer

Den tredje dag på Folkemødet begyndte med et debatmøde, der fandt sted i Enhedslistens telt over emnet, »Russerne kommer«. Talerne var lektor ved Forsvarsakademiet Peter Viggo Mortensen, forfatter Jens Jørgen Nielsen og Nikolaj Villumsen (Enhedslisten). Man diskuterede faren for krig med russerne. Jens Jørgen forsøgte at give deltagerne en idé om, hvordan russerne tænker, mens de andre analyserede Rusland baseret på, at Rusland agerer ud fra stormagtspolitiske interesser.

Feride intervenerede blandt andet ved kort at fortælle om den historiske konference, der fandt sted i Beijing, og om, at Europa ikke ’skyder sig selv i foden’. Rusland har tilsluttet sig et samarbejde med Kina omkring Bælte & Vej Initiativet, som Vesten aktivt burde være en del af. Feride tog spørgsmålet om NATO’s rolle op, om det ikke er en forældet institution, og at man skal forstå, at Rusland har set, hvad der er sket med de nationer, hvor man har lavet regimeskifte, der har efterladt lande i kaos og elendighed; og at russerne ser Vestens politik, med regimeskifte i Ukraine og udvidelsen af NATO, i denne sammenhæng.

Lissie fik nummer to spørgsmål og sagde:

»Trump har gjort det klart, at han vil samarbejde med Rusland, og der har allerede været en koordinering med russerne. Effekten har dog været, at New York Times og britiske medier skriver om en mulig afsættelse af eller mord på Trump, og flere Hollywood-skuespillere har været ude og fremvise Trump med et afskåret hoved eller er kommet med voldelige udtalelser imod ham. Ligger faren for 3. Verdenskrig ikke nærmere i faren for, at briterne/ Obama/ Hillary og FBI skal lykkes med at få ham afsat, da de ønsker krig med Rusland?«

Den sidste del af debatten handlede om, hvordan man kunne løse konflikten mellem Rusland og Vesten. Peter Viggo Mortensen indrømmede blandt andet, at politikken for regimeskifte har slået fejl, og at den Nye Silkevej er en naturlig udvikling, som lande vil gå med til. Den anden del af diskussion handlede om løsninger. Da fik Christian det sidste spørgsmål og pointerede blandt andet, at en del af løsningen ligger i, at man begynder at tale ærligt omkring, hvad Rusland er og gør, bekyndende med, at Rusland ikke invaderede Ukraine.

I en debat hos Informationen, »Will Trump Last the Entire Presidential 4 Year Period?«, talte den tidligere amerikanske ambassadør til Danmark, Rufus Gifford, om sandsynligheden for, at Trump kunne blive afsat gennem en rigsretssag (impeachment) gennem det 25. Forfatningstillæg, eller evt. selv gå af. Han mente ikke, at det var sandsynligt, omend han ønskede det. Hvis en rigsretssag skal være mulig, kunne det være pga. ’forhindring af udøvelse af retten’ (obstruction of Justice), men ellers skulle man bruge kræfterne på demokraternes mærkesager. 300 mennesker deltog, det foregik i centrum og den generelle konsensus var, at Trump er forrykt. Lissie kom op til ambassadøren bagefter og sagde, at Lyndon LaRouche havde sagt, at, hvis Comey og Co. lykkedes med et kup mod Trump, ville det føre til generel krig, og at briterne var efter Trump, fordi han vil samarbejde med Rusland, medens Obama derimod forsøgte at starte en atomkrig med Rusland. Han skyndte sig blot væk efter at han blev noget chokeret over det, Lissie sagde.

Vi intervenerede også i et andet møde med titlen »Atomkraft, ja tak! Hvor skal fremtidens energi komme fra?« i Dansk Erhvervs telt. I panelet deltog en repræsentant for Greenpeace, en repræsentant for Århus Universitet og Villumsen fra Liberal Alliance. Kun hr. Villumsen mente, at man måtte søge nye energikilder inden for nye teknologier og understregede, at vindmølle-fanatikerne var religiøse og foruden ræsonnement. Én fra publikum spurgte ind til thorium-reaktorer, hvor Villumsen havde en god respons, mens ham fra Greenpeace ævlede om, at det var dyrt og tog lang tid. Lissie stillede det sidste spørgsmål, hvor hun sagde:

»Nu har vi en situation i verden, hvor man, siden Kinas Bælte & Vej og BRIKS-projektet, er begyndt at bygge en masse atomkraftværker; i Sydafrika har man planlagt 11, Bolivia skal have et atomkraftværk, Kina planlægger at udvinde helium-3 på Månen til fusionsbrændsel, så verdens fremtid er faktisk atomkraft. Skal vi ikke hellere gå med dér, da energigennemstrømningstætheden er meget højere, og med 30 tønder olie har man, hvad der svarer til få gram fusionskraft. Desuden har Henrik Svensmark (astrofysiker) lavet forskning, som viser, at solpletter og kosmisk stråling skaber klimaforandring.«

Repræsentanten fra Greenpeace sagde blot, at ingen tager Svensmark seriøst, og at 97 % af alle klimaforskere er enige. Villumsen svarede positivt og udtrykte respekt for, at nogen tør tage diskussionen op i et sådant forum.
Bagefter delte vi ud til alle, og mange var interesserede.

Alt i alt var vores tilstedeværelse på Folkemødet på Bornholm en fantastisk mulighed for at nå ud til så mange borgere, politikere, akademikere og eksperter med vores ideer, der dækker politik og fremtidens verden med Bælte & Vej Initiativet.

– Feride I. Gillesberg; Lissie Brobjerg; Christian Olesen.

Titelfoto: Feride I. Gillesberg i diskussion med en borger på Folkemødet. På plakaten står der, »Fremtiden ligger i Kinas Bælte & Vej«.




Russiske forskere forudsiger global afkøling i flere årtier eller mere

3. juni, 2017 – Vi er netop blevet opmærksom på en artikel i Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics i februar måned, i hvilken russiske forskere afviser drivhusgasserne og den globale opvarmning, men i stedet forudsiger en global afkøling i flere årtier pga. et øget skydække. Solen befinder sig i øjeblikket i en solar mindsteudfoldelse med meget få solpletter og relativ lille magnetisk aktivitet, hvilket tillader flere kosmiske stråler at gennemtrænge vores atmosfære, som igen skaber øget skydække. Noget tilsvarende fandt sted under den »lille istid« fra ca. år 1300 og frem til begyndelsen af 1800-tallet.

I artiklen »Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the Earth’s Climate« (Kosmiske stråler, solaktivitet og forandringer i Jordens klima), skriver forfatterne Stozhkov, Y.I., Bazilevskaya, G.A., Makhmutov, V.S., Svirzhevsky, N.S.,  Svirzhevskaya, A.K., Logachev, V.I., Okhlopkov, V.P.:

»Vore resultater kunne have forbindelse til mekanismen med forandringer i ladede partikler, der øver indflydelse på Jordens klima; det omfatter først og fremmest den virkning, som ladede partikler har på den accelererede dannelse af centre for kondensering af vanddampe, og således på forøgelsen af det globale skydække. Det globale skydække har direkte forbindelse med temperaturen i luftlaget nær ved Jorden.«

(Læs artiklen her: http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/23/russian-scientists-dismiss-co2-forcing-predict-decades-of-cooling-connect-cosmic-ray-flux-to-climate/#sthash.wWesprQV.dpbs)

Titelbillede: Graf af David Archibald: læs mere her: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/29/russian-scientists-say-period-of-global-cooling-ahead-due-to-changes-in-the-sun/




Tyskland: Fremtrædende CDU’ere angriber voldsomt
Merkels klimapolitik og Parisaftalen

4. juni, 2017 – Den Berlin-baserede »Konservative Kreds«, en gruppe af interne Merkel-kritiske i den Kristelige Demokratiske Union (CDU), er kommet offentligt ud med et krav om en kovending mht. klimapolitikken. I et seks sider langt memorandum kræver CDU-afvigerne »en afslutning på klimaforskernes moralske afpresning« og »et farvel til de særlige, tyske mål for reduktion af CO²-udledning«. Memoet bestrider »den unikke rolle, der angiveligt spilles af drivhuseffekten« og »et ensidigt, negativt syn på global opvarmning«. De »muligheder, som frembyder sig (en isfri, nordlig søvej, nye muligheder for fiskeri og udvinding af råmaterialer) gennem smeltning af polarområdernes iskappe, er sandsynligvis langt større end de mulige, negative miljøeffekter«, siger ophavsmændene til memoet.

Memoet angriber i særdeleshed det såkaldte »Mellemstatslige Panel om Klimaforandring« og kalder det et »klovneshow til verdens frelse«, der udbreder beregninger, »baseret på i stigende grad aggressive politiske mål, især reduktionen af CO²-udledning«. Målet med at begrænse den globale opvarmning til 2 grader Celsius er ikke realistisk, erklærer memoet.

Den tyske fremgangsmåde med reduktion af udledning er en »aggressiv politik«, der ikke vil føre til succes, men i stedet forårsage »massive sociale forstyrrelser« gennem de politiske og økonomiske gnidninger, der skabes, advarer memoet. Den tyske politik er ikke, som det officielt proklameres af kansler Angela Merkel og hendes regering, en model for resten af verden, men en afskrækkelse; den enorme statsstøtte (som betales af skatteborgerne) til sol- og vindenergi under Loven om Bæredygtig Energi, må opgives, og man må i stedet følge en strategi med tilpasning til den globale opvarmning.

Den Konservative Kreds inkluderer flere ledende CDU-medlemmer i Forbundsdagen, inklusive Wolfgang Bosbach, Arnold Vaatz, Veronika Bellmann, Thomas Dörflinger, Stephan Mayer, Johannes Selle og Hans-Peter Uhl. De fleste af disse personer har også været kritisk over for EU og den tyske bailout-politik, især mht. spørgsmålet om Grækenland.

Foto: Berlin: Den tyske kansler Angela Merkel kritiserede skarpt præsident Trump for dennes beslutning om at trække USA ud af Paris-klimaaftalen og kalder aftalen om at begrænse udledning af drivhusgasser vital for at beskytte planeten.  Foto fra 2016.

 




Et nyt succesfuldt økonomisk system er
blevet skabt, og Amerika må ændre sig
og gå med

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 4. juni, 2017 – Paris-»klimaaftalen«, som præsident Donald Trump har trukket USA ud af, er ikke »verdensordenen«, uanset, hvor meget, medierne i USA og Europa ønsker, folk skal gøre knæfald for den. Livet uden kulstoffer er ikke vejen frem for menneskeheden eller planeten. Derimod er mennesket, der nu hastigt rykker ud i Solsystemet, vejen frem.

Den reelt succesfulde, nye verdensorden, der nu konsolideres, er et økonomisk og videnskabeligt system for samarbejde: den Nye Silkevej. Det er de accelererende investeringer og udarbejdelse af transformerende, nye infrastrukturprojekter og videnskabelige fremskridt, der knyttes sammen under Kinas initiativ, over hele Eurasien, Afrika og ligeledes planlagt for Sydamerika. »Marshallplanen gange 20«, kalder nogen det. Det er en orden, der mere og mere støttes af Rusland og andre store nationer, så vel som mange andre, fordi det reelt udløser økonomisk fremskridt, produktivitet, ny beskæftigelse, til gensidig fordel for alle deltagende nationer. Som »Silkevejsdamen«, Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche, siger, så er det i færd med at blive til Verdenslandbroen. Det er således åbent for USA at gå med i og genopbygge, men også kraftigt udvide og modernisere, sin egen økonomiske infrastruktur og industri.

Præsident Trump gør absolut det rigtige med sin plan om, at USA skal samarbejde fuldt ud med Kina og Rusland. Og med sin hensigt om, at USA atter skal blive en stor industrimagt, en stor videnskabelig og teknologisk magt, en stor rumforskningsmagt, der samarbejder med de andre rumfartsnationer.

»Dette er planer – hvad er hans resultater?«, siger kommentatorerne. Dette spørgsmål bør rettes til det amerikanske folk. Kina og andre eurasiske magter er i færd med at opbygge højhastigheds- og magnetisk levitations- (maglev)systemer, udforske Månen inklusive dens bagside, lægge planer for Mars, lægge planer for omsider at omspænde Afrika og Sydamerika med højhastighedsjernbaner og elektricitetsnetværk, bygge små, mobile, flydende kernkraftværker …

Tror amerikanere, når de håndterer spørgsmålet om infrastruktursammenbrud, økonomisk fortvivlelse og opiat-epidemier, på, at disse ting kan gøres? Det er det virkelige spørgsmål med hensyn til præsident Trumps planer, og resultater.

Det er det amerikanske folk, der må få Glass-Steagall vedtaget i Kongressen for at standse Wall Street i at kværke USA’s økonomi. Det amerikanske folk må kræve »økonomisk politik i den amerikanske tradition«; og en omgående oprettelse af en nationalbank til infrastruktur. Flere amerikanere end nogen sinde før forsøger at blive NASA-astronauter. Men, det er det amerikanske folk, der må kræve et hastigt udvidet rumforskningsprogram og nye teknologier omkring fusionskraft.

Amerika må gå med i den Nye Silkevej. Præsident Trump har en plan – glem hans foreløbige resultater – og dette er, hvad det amerikanske folk må gøre, hvis de ønsker, USA atter skal blive stort.

Foto: Præsident Trump meddeler 1. juni, at USA trækker sig ud af Paris-Klimaaftalen.




RADIO SCHILLER 6. juni, 2017:
Trump melder USA ud af Paris-aftale //
Vil han melde USA ind i russisk-kinesisk partnerskab?

v/ Tom Gillesberg.

https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/trump-melder-usa-us-af-paris-aftale-vil-han-melde-usa-ind-i-russisk-kinesisk-patnerskab




Optimisme og muligheder:
USA må gå med i den Nye Silkevej.
LaRouche PAC Internationale
Webcast, 2. juni, 2017

Matthew Ogden: Temaet for aftenens webcast er: USA må afgjort tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevej. Dette er den strategisk vigtigste ting, der kan ske; alt andet må ses som underordnet dette mål. Vi havde lejlighed til at tale med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche for et par timer siden, og vi har lidt nyheder; nogle bemærkninger fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche, som jeg gerne vil oplæse som indledning. Hun sagde, at verden hastigt bevæger sig i en meget ny og dynamisk retning. Momentum er meget klart. Tag Bælt & Vej Forum, der fandt sted for kun to uger siden, og tag dernæst Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum, der finder sted netop i disse dage; naturligvis med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin som vært. Ved denne lejlighed er den særlige gæst premierminister Modi fra Indien, og vi ser en fortsat integration mellem Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen (SCO), Bælt & Vej, den Nye Silkevej og alle disse eurasiske, økonomiske udviklings- og integrationsorganisationer.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, vi må nu optrappe vores kampagne her i USA, for, at USA kan blive fuldt ud engageret og involveret i denne nye dynamik med win-win-samarbejde og gensidigt fordelagtige udviklingsprojekter. Hun sagde, at vi må holde fokus på dette spørgsmål; ikke lade os distrahere af noget som helst andet. Verden har totalt forandret sig. Vi befinder os i en fuldstændig ny epoke, en ny æra for civilisationen.

Hun sagde, vi i nyhederne netop har set, i de sidste 24 timer, at præsident Trump har sagt nej til denne Paris-klimaaftale, og det er en god ting, sagde hun. For det (klimaaftalen) er ikke baseret på videnskab. Jo, vi ved godt, at klimaet ændrer sig, men det er ikke baseret på menneskeskabt, global opvarmning. Spørgsmålet er så, hvad er årsagen? Paris-aftalen var baseret på ideologi, sagde hun; den var baseret på ideologien om grænser for vækst, befolkningsreduktion, undertrykkelse af udvikling – især i den tredje verden.[1] Sæt som modsætning den Nye Silkevej, Bælt & Vej-initiativet, der kommer fra Kina, og som bringer hårdt tiltrængt udvikling til den tredje verden, til Afrika og andre steder; som disse områder ikke har haft adgang til i generationer. Man må se, at dette er en virkelig bølge af optimisme.

Hun sagde, hold tingene optimistisk, bliv ved at være optimistiske. Det kunstige diskussionsmiljø i USA, der er skabt af nyhedsmedierne, er ren propaganda, sagde hun. De falske nyheder er ikke kun de negative rapporter – det har vi set masser af. Men, de falske nyheder er i realiteten, at man ikke rapporterer de positive og optimistiske udviklinger, der finder sted i hele verden, og som især kommer via Bælt & Vej Forum.

Vi havde lejlighed til at få en ti minutter lang briefing fra fr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche i går, under en telefonkonference med hendes medarbejdere (i USA). Det var en virkelig vidunderlig og optimistisk refleksion tilbage over betydningen og virkningen af dette Bælt & Vej Forum, som hun havde mulighed for at deltage i personligt. Vi har fremstillet en slags video til jer her, hvor vi har brugt nogle billeder af Helgas besøg til Kina, og noget baggrundsmateriale, som I vil få at høre her, som gennemgår LaRouche-bevægelsens 40-50 år lange historie for denne nye, internationale, økonomiske orden, der nu er ved at blive til virkelighed. Her kommer denne ti minutter lange video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ekspcgnkoY

(Her følger resten af diskussionen på engelsk. Helgas briefing (videoen) er oversat til dansk, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=19877 )        

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I just wanted to make sure that
you get a first impression from me from my trip, because I think
the worst mistake we could make would be to respond to the
absolutely incredible psywar propaganda coming from the U.S.
mainstream media and the neoliberal media in Europe, like Spiegel
Online with its Chief Editor piece which was really out of this
way! It is very clear that people who are primarily relying on
such media have a completely, totally, 100% wrong idea of what
the reality is of what’s going on.  And we should really get that
out of our heads and not try to swim within the fishbowl of an
artificially created environment. Because, from my standpoint,
the world looks very, very different.
First of all, I said this already, and I reiterate it:  With
the Belt and Road Forum, the world has dramatically consolidated
the beginning of the new era, and I don’t think at all, that
short of World War III, this is going to go away, because the
majority of the world is moving in a completely liberated way.
And first of all, this was the highest level conference I ever
participated in.  There were 28 head of state, speaking one after
the other, and obviously, the speech by Xi Jinping was absolutely
outstanding, and whoever gas time to listen to it, should really
do it, because it was a very, very Confucian speech, which set
the tone for the two-day conference in a very clear way. So,
please listen to it when you have some time.
I think the way people have to understand what is going on,
you have to really think what this organization, and Lyn in
particular did for the last almost 50 years.  The first time when
Lyn in 1971 recognized what the significance of the dismantling
of the Bretton Woods system was, and then all the many, many
things we did in the last over 40 years: Lyn coming back from the
Iraq Ba’ath Party celebration in 1975, when he proposed the IDB
as an International Development Bank to foster a new world
economic order; the fact that we, for one year, campaigned with
this IDB proposal which then basically became part of the
Colombo, Sri Lanka resolution of the Non-Aligned Movement in ’76.
Then, in the end of the ’70s, when we worked with Indira Gandhi
on a 40-year development plan for India.  Already in ’76, we
published a whole book about the industrialization of Africa.  We
worked with Mexican President José López Portillo on “Operation
Juárez.”  We put out a 50-year Pacific Basic development plan.
Lyn had already in ’75 had proposed Oasis Plan.  And then
naturally when the [Berlin] Wall came down and the Soviet Union
disintegrated, we proposed the Productive Triangle and the
Eurasian Land-Bridge.
And all of these proposals!  And just think of the many,
many activities we did, conferences all over five continents, all
of this was on the level of ideas, on the level of program — but
only after Xi Jinping put the New Silk Road on the agenda in
2013, and in the four-years of breathtaking developments of the
One Belt, One Road initiative since, these ideas are becoming
realized!  And the genie is out of the bottle!
When you have now the Bi-Oceanic Railway discussion and the
tunnels and bridges connecting the Atlantic and Pacific around
Latin America, you have all these railways now being opened up in
Africa — this is unprecedented!  This was not done by the IMF or
the World Bank.  They suppressed it with the conditionalities.
But with the AIIB, the New Development Bank, the New Silk Road
Fund, the Maritime Silk Road Fund, the direct investment of the
Chinese Ex-Im Bank, the China state bank, all of these projects
are now proceeding, and they have completely changed the attitude
and the self-confidence of all participating countries.
Now, the way people in China look at President Trump is
absolutely different than what the media are trying to say.  They
are very positive about Trump, in the same way that people in
Russia think that Trump is somebody you can absolutely have a
decent relationship with, and that is reality. And forget the
media!  Forget these whores in the press who are really just
prostitutes for the British Empire.  Don’t pay any attention to
what they say, and don’t allow the people you are talking with to
do that, either.
When Trump promised $1 trillion infrastructure investments,
this was the right thing, and we put out the right program saying
the United States must join the Silk Road and that {should be our
focus}, and nothing else.  Everything else should be a subsumed
aspect of that.  This is the strategically important thing, and
the fact that the head of the China Investment Corp. Ding Xuedong
said it’s not $1 trillion but $8 trillion, is what the United
States needs, is absolutely on the mark; and you know it yourself
from the conditions of the roads and the infrastructure in all of
the United States.
So the fact that the same organization has now set up their
office in New York, advising Chinese investors how to invest in
the United States, and vice versa, how U.S. investors can invest
in China; the fact that the Chinese are invited to participate in
this infrastructure conference in June; all of this is absolutely
going in the right direction.
What happened in the Belt and Road Forum and the many
meetings I had afterwards — after all, I spent two full weeks in
Beijing, in Nanjing, in Shanghai  but it’s the fact that in the
many interviews, many quotes, and the general view is that we
were treated with the highest respect possible.  I mean, people
are fully aware of Lyn’s significance as a theoretician of
physical economy, his ideas are highly respected; and people
treated me as we should be treated, namely as people who have
devoted their entire lives to the common good of humanity.  And
this is absolutely in stark contrast to the shitty behavior that
we are normally getting from the neo-liberals in the
trans-Atlantic region.
And you should understand that what the attack on Trump is
supposed to do:  Is to make — it’s so difficult for him to focus
on the positive aspect, and there are quite some many of them,
including his working relationship with Russia and China, which
is strategically the most important. So that, basically, he has
to defend himself instead, and everybody thinks they have to
spend all the time to defend themselves.
So don’t fall for it.  The idea that we are losing is
completely off! Mankind is on the winning track and we have to
pull the American population to create the kind of ferment so
that the implementation of the infrastructure program as a first
step is on the agenda, and on everybody’s mind and nothing else.
Even if Europe is still in the grip of the EU Commission, I
mean, if Merkel wants to be the leader of the free West, —
forget it.  Macron just had a very excellent meeting with Putin,
defining a cordial relationship with Russia! This is not what
Merkel and Obama have been cooking up, when Obama addressed the
church day of the Protestant church, but Merkel is pretty
isolated.
Just look around in Europe:  Macron send Raffarin, the
former Prime Minister, to the Belt and Road Forum who gave an
excellent speech, why China and France have to work together.
Gentiloni from Italy said China and Italy will work together on
the development of Africa.  All the East Europeans, Tsipras [from
Greece], Serbia, Hungary, Czechia’s Zeman, Orban [Hungary] — all
of these people were absolutely enthusiastic on the Belt and Road
Initiative.  And now even Germany, it shows that the German
industry is actually really getting it, that their interest is to
work on joint ventures in third countries together with China. So
I think even Germany will change.
I have the strong conviction that by the end of this year,
it will look completely different, because the development
perspective is so contagious, that I think all the efforts by the
British Empire to somehow throw in a monkey wrench will not work!
So take the winning perspective, take the high ground, think
strategically:  And realize that what is happening in reality, in
many, many development projects around the world, is what this
organization has been fighting for, for almost half a century.
I just wanted to tell you that, because the worst thing we
could do, is look at it from inside the United States, from
within the box, when the whole world has moved out of the box
decisively, with the Belt and Road Forum, which is not going to
be stopped by anything.  And that is my view I wanted to
communicate.
[end video: https://larouchepac.com/20170602/silk-road-
strategy-helga-larouche-report-belt-and-road-forum
OGDEN:  As you could hear, Helga LaRouche was extremely
optimistic after spending an entire two weeks in China; and her
point could not be more clear.  The United States must join the
Silk Road; this must be our focus and nothing else.  “Everything
else should be a subsumed aspect of that,” she said; “this is the
strategically most important thing.”
Helga also had, among many media interviews, you could see
some pictures there from her interview on the “Dialogue with Yang
Rui” show, which was a very widely watched and wonderful
interview.  She had many TV interviews, many other press
interviews.  Here’s an interview that just came out; this is from
{Shanghai Daily}, and I’m going to read a few excerpts from that
interview as well.  I think is just really a nice overview.  As
you can see, the title is “Belt and Road Initiative Instills Hope
for Peace and Development Among Nations.” You can see the picture
of Helga LaRouche there.  The editor’s note begins the article;
it says,
“Helga Zepp-LaRouche visited Shanghai for the first time in
the summer of 1971. In 1977 she married American economist Lyndon
LaRouche, and the couple have since worked together on
development plans for a just new world economic order.”  That was
the overview that we saw in the video just now.  It goes on:
“Zepp-LaRouche founded the Schiller Institute in 1984, a
think tank devoted to the realization of these plans and a
renaissance and a dialogue of classical cultures.
“She is an expert in European humanist philosophy and
poetry, Confucius, and history.
“After attending the recent Belt and Road Forum in Beijing,
she visited Shanghai, where {Shanghai Daily} reporter Wan Lixin
interviewed her.”
These are going to be a few excerpts from Helga LaRouche’s
answers to the questions that were posed to her in this {Shanghai
Daily} interview.
So, Helga said: “I think the Belt and Road initiative
signifies a revolutionary move to a new epoch of civilization.
The idea of having a win-win cooperation among nations is the
first time that a concrete concept has been offered to overcome
geopolitics.
“Since geopolitics was the cause of the two world wars, I
think it is a completely new paradigm of thinking where an idea
proposed by one country has the national interest basically in
coherence with the interests of humanity as a whole. This has
never happened.
“This has instilled tremendous hope among developing nations
that they have the chance to overcome poverty and
underdevelopment. And I think this is an initiative that will
grow until all the continents are connected through
infrastructure and development.”  (That’s the idea of the World
Land-Bridge.)
“We have always made the point that for this new Silk Road
to succeed in the tradition of the old Silk Road, which was also
an exchange of ideas and cultures, not just products and
technology, you have to combine economic cooperation with
dialogue between cultures. This dialogue must be on the highest
level, so each culture has to present example of the best of
their culture, like Confucianism, Italian renaissance, the German
classical period, and present the best works of arts in music and
poetry, paintings and other forms of art.
“Our experience is that when people get into contact for the
first time with expression of such high culture from another
culture, they are surprised by its beauty. And this beauty then
opens the heart and souls of the people. And this is the best
medicine against chauvinism, xenophobia, and prejudice, and it
opens the way for the love of other cultures.
“This is in conformity with Confucian teaching that all
activity must be combined with strengthening of love for the
mankind, because without that cultural component, that new Silk
Road will not flourish.”
“I think it a great honor for me to participate in this Belt
and Road Forum, and I was deeply impressed by the speech of
President Xi Jinping. Among all participants I spoke with there
is consensus that we are actively participating in the shaping of
history. All this means that China is right now leading the world
in terms of providing the perspective for the future.
“I think this has been recognized by many countries in Latin
America, in Africa, in Asia, and even some European countries
start to recognize it is in their best interests to ally with
that initiative. So I think it has made clear that China is the
only country right now that offers a positive perspective to
overcome the strategic bottleneck of our present times.”
“Here I would like to quote from Pope Paul VI who said that
‘Development is the new name for peace.'”
“I was first in Shanghai 46 years ago in 1971, after
traveling on a cargo ship. Although it was not the best time to
be in China, it had awoken my love for China.
“I think the Chinese people are much too modest. They should
feel more confident about what they have accomplished. They have
created the biggest miracle of the world, even bigger than the
post-war German economic miracle. They should be very proud to be
Chinese.”
So again, that was from an interview in {Shanghai Daily}
called “Belt and Road Initiative Instills Hope for Peace and
Development Among Nations.”
[http://www.shanghaidaily.com/opinion/chinese-perspectives/
Belt-and-Road-initiative-instills-hope-for-peace-and-development
-among-nations/shdaily.shtml]
Obviously, this is just a wonderfully optimistic view of the
world right now.  I think it gives you a sense of what Helga
LaRouche gained as an eyewitness and participant on the ground at
the Belt and Road Forum.  It’s what Americans are not being
given; we’re not being given this kind of optimistic perspective
of what the future of mankind could be, and it’s very much within
our grasp.  The kind of pride that she said Chinese should feel
about being Chinese, this is something that Americans desperately
to access again; this pride of being American.
With that kind of overview and our very clear sense of what
our mission is, that the United States should join this New
Paradigm of win-win development, I think maybe Ben can give us a
little bit of a sense of what it’s going to take to get the
United States back on this path to development.  It’s been 50
years since the assassination of John F Kennedy and the departure
of the United States from this sense of development and progress.
This embrace of this Malthusianism, zero-growth kind of
population control ideology, which has brought us to the point of
just miserable economic suffering.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  As you mentioned in the beginning,
Trump’s announcement that the U.S. is going to pull out of this
Paris climate change agreement is a really big deal; this is
excellent.  To my knowledge, unless I’m missing something, since
this whole climate change scare got going, this is the first U.S.
President who has actually kicked back against this.  It started
really back with George H.W. Bush; Bill Clinton went along with
it.  Despite the narrative of it being a Republican versus
Democrat issue, the George W Bush administration was fully on
board; they went with all this junk.  Bio-fuels, global warming,
they pushed it fully.  Obama pushed it further.  Now, we finally
have a President who is actually kicking back against this.  This
is huge, this important; Trump definitely deserves respect and
support for fighting against this thing.  As many of our viewers
know, this is a huge global lobby that’s been pushing this thing
from the top down for decades now.
I thought it was also important that Trump highlighted the
economic effects of this.  Some people just say the science says
this, or the science says that; but there’s also the reality of
what is the effect on the people.  What’s the effect on your
citizens of going with these policies?  They say CO2 is terrible,
it’s a pollutant, etc.; therefore, we need to go with all these
wonderful, clean energy solutions.  They paint this rosy picture,
when in fact, that has devastating effects on the real-life
conditions of our population.  This whole Green energy fraud is
ridiculous.  Given that this issue is now coming up, I think it’s
worth just highlighting a couple of points on this.
If you want to talk about the reduction in CO2 emissions and
the Green energy stuff, I still think it’s worth looking at what
Germany is facing right now in terms of their energy prices.  If
you want a case study in what wind and solar and exiting nuclear
and getting rid of coal and natural gas does; in Germany, just
between 2004 and 2015, their energy prices went up 50% from $0.23
cents a kilowatt-hour in U.S. values, to $0.35 cents a
kilowatt-hour.  They were already in 2004, twice the rate we pay
in the U.S. on average.  And over that ten-year period, in the
context of a lot of this nuclear exit, CO2-reduction stuff, they
went up another 50% to now three times what Americans pay on
average for energy, just as an example of what that means for
real life conditions.  This has been driving industries to leave
Germany, so it has an effect on industry, other forms of economic
activity as well.
In 2013, just one subsidy — this major surcharge they added
to the average German’s bill to pay for wind and solar — was the
equivalent of $0.07 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour.  That alone is
60% of what we pay on average for the U.S.; just for one subsidy,
just for wind and solar.
In the context of all the propaganda that gets put out, it’s
worth emphasizing the idea that we can transition to some
wonderful world powered by wind, solar electricity is a face;
it’s a fraud.  We need to go in the other direction.  To the
degree necessary, use coal, use natural gas, whatever; but move
towards more advanced higher forms of energy like fission and
nuclear fusion — that’s really the future.  The future is
increasing energy use per capita, increasing the use of higher
qualities of energy per capita, not reduction.
I also think it’s worth in the context of the debate
re-erupting right now, people are freaking out about Trump doing
this; I think it’s worth re-examining the issue of CO2.  What
does CO2 do?  It’s now officially labelled a pollutant by the
EPA.  There are all these horror stories about extreme weather,
climate change, etc.
I just want to highlight one graphic [Fig. 1].  Tons could
be said, but I think it’s just worth it for the education of our
audience and the real facts on the issue, it’s worth just
highlighting this study, comparing literally dozens of different
computer models on the effects of CO2 increase with the reality
that’s happened just in the last couple of decades.  So, what
these people did was to take 32 different computer models, all
claiming what the effects of CO2 increase were going to do to the
global temperature.  Those are all the variety of small dotted
lines rising up in the graph there.  The thick red line there is
the average of all of these 32 different computer models.
If you take the claims being made by these models and by
these fear-mongers around the CO2, they say this is the type of
rate of temperature increase you’re going to get.  But if you
compare that to the actual observations indicated below in the
blue and green lines with the squares and the dots, you see that
none of the computer models have been accurate in reality.  Both
satellite measurements by two different types of measurements, as
well as independent {in situ} measurements with balloon systems,
have shown that the temperature over the past 15 years now on
average, has been relatively flat with little increase.  {None}
of the models showed this; none of them.
So, have this in mind when you hear these scare stories
about this much temperature rise is going to cause this much
extreme weather, etc.  They’re basing it all on these models that
have already shown to be ridiculous.
There’s another interesting aspect to the CO2 issue, which
isn’t discussed at all, which is this apparently secret thing
that many of these fear-mongering people around climate change
don’t apparently know, which is that CO2 is actually a part of
the biosphere, and it’s actually an important part of the
ecological cycle.  People talk about being “pro-green”:  It’s
actually an important contribution to green on the planet.
And there’s been some work done, and I’d like to play a few
short clips of an interview I’d done a few weeks back with a
scientist who’s led a great amount of effort on studying the
positive effects of higher CO2 levels.  This is Dr. Craig Idso,
and he has spent many years and a lot of effort doing actual
experiments with greenhouses, overviews of various studies,
overviews of satellite measurements, and actually studying the
question of what is the effect of increasing CO2 levels on plant
growth and then also on agricultural activity.  These clips speak
for themselves, but I think this is an important part of the
discussion, as being completely blacked out, which is, aside from
the scare-stories about CO2 not being grounded in reality,
there’s actually a beneficial side for increasing CO2 levels.

[start video]
DR. CRAIG IDSO:  There are three main benefits from
increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere:  The
first is that it increases plant productivity for biomass of the
plant.  On average, what we see is that for a doubling of CO2,
something that’s going to happen by the end of this century, most
are basis plants, non-woody plants like crops and things like
that, will experience anywhere from a 25% to a 55% increasing in
biomass per yield.  And that’s a phenomenal result and that’s
something that’s going to happen just because we raise the CO2
concentration and nothing else.
Second is that higher CO2 concentrations help increase the
plant’s  water use efficiency.  Again, a doubling of CO2 allows
plants to use about half as much water as they need to produce
the same amount of tissue, so another phenomenal benefit.
And then the third benefit is that higher CO2 concentrations
helps to ameliorate environmental stresses.  So if you have a
stress from hot air temperature, maybe low light, low levels of
soil fertility, those sorts of things, when you have higher CO2
concentrations they tend to reduce or lessen that stress if not
completely ameliorate it, under a doubling of CO2.
You put all those three benefits together, and what you get
is a tremendous benefit to the biosphere to the growth.  And
we’re seeing that already:  We see it in tree-ring cores, you can
look and look at how their water use efficiency has improved over
time, and we see anywhere from 35% to 40% increase already, as
the CO2 concentration has increased by about 40%.  So the
satellites have been up measuring reflectivity of vegetation,
over the entire globe ever since about the early 1980s.  And what
they find consistently, whether they’re focussing on a particular
region of the globe or the globe as a whole, you get anywhere
from about 6% to 15% increase in biomass in that period of time.
The globe as a whole, or in total, is actually in a better off
condition now than it was when those measurements began.
I did the first approximation to determine what is the net
monetary benefit on crop production globally, in the past and
then also projected into the future, and what I found was that
over the 50-year period from 1961 to 2011, it amounts to about
$3.2 trillion on the global economy, a phenomenal benefit. And
then, projecting that forward in time, as the CO2 concentration
is going to continue to rise, from about 2012 to 2050, we expect
it to be about $10 trillion to the economy.
And that’s just really scratching the surface, because you
could look at studies, for example, I’ll take rice, where there’s
a number of genotypes of rice, and scientists have looked at for
example, in one study I’m thinking of, they looked at 16
different genotypes of rice, and how those genotypes responded to
a doubling of CO2, and they received values that ranged from
about 0 all the way to a whopping 265%.  So, if governments and
scientists focussed on those specific genotypes that we received
the greatest increase in biomass per CO2 rise, and then grew
them, we could have this phenomenal increase in agriculture and
have no problem in feeding the planet in the future.
[end video]

DENISTON:  I wanted to just highlight that interview,
because that needs to get out.  These are astounding facts: You
compare on the one side, the scare stories are not adding up.  On
the other side, just review what he said, that over the past 35
years, according to global satellite measurements a 6-15%
increase in total biomass production to the planet, the entire
planet!  We’re not talking about a 10th of a percent of a half of
a percent, 6-15%, that’s huge.  And these assessments they’ve
done on the increased crop yield, which they put in monetary
terms of $3 trillion increased value production from higher crop
yields.  Again, these are not models and studies; you can take a
greenhouse, you can study tomato plants, this particular species,
what’s their yield under regular atmospheric CO2 conditions,
what’s their yield under this much increase?  And they have hard
data on this, so these are not models, this is real stuff.
And then the other irony, which is an irony for some people
is this water use efficiency:  You actually get a highly
significant boost for certain plant species in their ability to
produce more biomass with less water use, and this has rather
interesting implications for drier regions in particular, where
water becomes a limiting factor in plant growth.  And now, all of
a sudden, with higher concentrations of plant food in the
atmosphere, CO2, they can grow in regions they couldn’t grow in
before; they can be more healthy in regions they couldn’t be
healthy before.  And you just take a look at places we’ve had
water issues — California — and we have our crazy governor in
California, running around pretending he’s the world leader on
CO2, when his state is actually benefitting greatly from the fact
there’s been higher CO2 levels in the context of the recent
droughts. The ironies are just all over the place.
You’ve really got to ask yourself, why are none of these
just basic scientific facts even being added into the discussion?
All you hear is these super, extreme, incredible flimsy arguments
claiming to be science, about scare stories, and then basic, raw,
scientific data and studies and discussion — you don’t hear
about that in the media, at all.  I think people need to let that
irony sink in, on this whole climate debate issue.
And Matthew, as you said in the beginning, the real issue is
there’s an ideology behind this, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche said in
our discussion earlier today: The whole climate change issue is
not really about climate change.  That’s the latest scare story
certain people have grabbed onto and pushed from the standpoint
of a Malthusian ideology.  And tons can be said; we put out an
entire report, “Global Warming Scare Is Population Reduction, Not
Science.”  This was put out by  {Executive Intelligence Review};
if you don’t have a copy of this, you should get one.
[http://store.larouchepub.com/category-s/1840.htm]  Under Mr.
LaRouche’s direction, over decades, his organization has uniquely
put out the entire story  of the origins of this, not just
climate-change scare, but more broadly this whole
environmentalist movement as coming from this Malthusian
ideology.
And you look at the founders of the modern environmentalist
movement, if you look at who these people were, these are people
that created the entire structure that pushed globally this whole
environmentalist system.  We can just highlight some of the key
figures:  Sir Julian Huxley, a lifelong proponent of eugenics,
head of the British Eugenics Society.  After World War II, after
Hitler’s horrific war crimes, and crimes against humanity were
exposed, and the connection to eugenics there, Huxley still
promoted eugenics in his position in the UN, as the head of
UNESCO at the time.
Prince Philip, whenever he gets the chance, talks about how
terrible population growth is, and the fact that population
growth is the number one problem on the planet.  The guy whose
said if he could be reincarnated, he’d like to come back as a
deadly virus to reduce world population.  That’s his view, that’s
his belief-system.
Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands, who was actually
working with Nazi intelligence, a member of the Nazi Party.  He
even helped Nazi war criminals escape after World War II.  These
people came together and started the environmentalist movement,
going back to the immediate post-World War II period, and going
into the ’50s and ’60s when it started to take off.
This is the ideology behind this.  It’s not about the
debates you see on the media, about this claim or that claim on
supposed science of CO2.  If you really want to understand the
issue, it’s this oligarchical, Malthusian ideology that’s been
campaigning for generations against economic development, against
population growth, against the development of so-called Third
World nations.  These are people who have said we cannot allow
the world to rise to the living standards of America and the
West.  Think of Obama travelling to Africa, telling students in
Africa, if you all had air conditioning and cars the planet would
boil over, so that’s not an option.
And that’s the issue.  I think what Helga said, in response
to Trump’s pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, is, that’s
the issue.  This is an expression of the old Malthusian,
geopolitical paradigm, and what we’re seeing emerging with
everything around this Belt and Road Forum summit, everything
that you just went through, Matthew, is the future.  That’s the
future.  So Trump’s dumping this climate change thing is
completely coherent with the idea of the United States bucking
this past, geopolitical, zero sum game, Malthusian ideology, and
getting towards building the future again.
And I would say, from our work, the next steps in the energy
issue is going hard with fusion, nuclear fission as needed along
the way.  But the key is not only cheap energy, in using coal,
natural gas, etc., but what are the future energy sources that
are going to allow not only nations around the world to come up
to the same energy use that we have in the U.S. now,  but even
higher levels and including in the U.S.  How can we actually
increase the total energy-flux density of the global economy in
totality?  That’s the future.  The entire history of the
development of mankind has always been intimately connected with
and tied to these kinds of increases in energy-flux density.
That’s got to be the next step in this thing.

OGDEN:  I think that idea, the increases in energy-flux
density is the key.  It unlocks the entire mystery of this whole
discussion.  If you go back to that history that Helga
Zepp-LaRouche walked us through, about the 40, 45-year history of
the LaRouche movement’s fight for a new, international economic
order, that was paralleled by a 45-year history of a fight
against this kind of Malthusianism, the idea of “limits to
growth” and overpopulation and these kinds of things that have
become ingrained.
This was paralleled, in fact, we saw all those reports about
the great development of India, the development of the Pacific
Basin, the development of Africa, the development of Latin
America, all of these reports mapping out a blueprint for the
development of the planet; but also, there was a book that was
published, called {There Are No Limits to Growth}! And this was a
book by Mr. LaRouche [1983] and it is rooted so deeply in his
unique approach to economic science, the idea that, no, in fact,
we are not living in a closed system.  This is not a closed
economic system, this is not even a closed biological system, but
that in fact, the very fact that mankind has a voluntary,
creative capability as a species, allows mankind to move into
progressively higher and more efficient economic systems.
Because we’re not based on one sort of limited resources regime.
And we’ve seen this throughout history:  If you just take
the empirical view of human history, mankind has progressively
moved from one resource base to another resource base, through
discoveries, through new technologies, and each one of those
resource bases is defined by a higher energy-flux density, more
powerful forms of “fire,” as you could call it,  a Promethean
idea of what mankind is capable of.
You take that idea of economics, and this is really Mr.
LaRouche’s unique contribution, and you say: OK, the fact that
that debunks the entire idea of limited resources, that very fact
itself overthrows the entire idea which has been at the basis of
geopolitics for at least the last 50 years.  What was the
justification for saying, “no we have to limit the access of
these countries in the Third World to these limited resources, so
that the developed countries — the United States, Western Europe
— can have access to them?”  This was literally the basis of our
national security strategy in the 1970s and the 1980s.  But when
you say, there’s no such thing as “limited resources,” it
overthrows that entire idea of geopolitics.
And I think that really serves as the scientific basis for a
new idea of “win-win” cooperation, as counterposed to the idea of
a zero-sum game, where, if some countries win that means other
countries lose.  No.  In fact, {all} countries can win and
development is an unlimited potential.

DENISTON:  I don’t think it can be stressed enough, this is
an entire paradigm shift we’re talking about.  I think Helga’s
point about this being the end of the geopolitical perspective,
people have to realize that’s what’s on the table.  And that’s
why it’s so important she came back from China with this report.
Because we have to get Americans to understand the depth of this
revolution that’s happening right now, and the importance of the
United States jumping on board with this, immediately.  Because
this is a historic shift:  If you get the United States onboard
now with Russia and China and the nations allied with them,
that’s it.  We can have the future, we can create the future we
want with that alliance.  The British will be forced to go along
with that global alliance — they can put up as much of a fight
as they can, as we’re seeing, with this crazy propaganda campaign
in the United States, but people have to realize how vulnerable
the British Empire actually is, and that we have this perspective
before us.  Because this has happened, this is moving right now

OGDEN:  OK! Wonderful.  I think that what Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s point was, stands:  The United States must join
the New Silk Road.  This is the primary strategic focus and
everything else must be subsumed, as subsumed factor of that.
This is our focus, and nothing else.
So we need to escalate that campaign, obviously, and watch
for very dramatic and rapid developments around the globe!
Thank you very much, Ben, for joining me here in the studio
today, and thank you all for tuning.  That’s the conclusion to
our broadcast today:  Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.
We’ll make that video that we showed you earlier, of Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s remarks available as a standalone, and your task
for this weekend is to spread that around as far as you can.
Thank you very much, and good night.

[1] Se vores omfattende dossier: Stop den Grønne Kult Feature

 




Præsident Trump annoncerede torsdag, at USA forlader Paris-klimaaftale

2. juni, 2017 – Præsident Trump annoncerede torsdag (1. juni), at USA forlader Paris-klimaaftalen og sagde blandt andet, at en exit af aftalen ville gøre det muligt for USA at flytte flere mennesker ud af fattigdom ved at udnytte energiresurser. Direktør for EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Scott Pruitt sagde, at præsidenten holdt sine løfter til »de glemte mænd og kvinder, til arbejderklassen og de fattige arbejdere«. Alle implementeringer af aftalen blev omgående stoppet.




Trump har transformeret G7 fra at være
Det britiske Imperiums medhjælpende partner

27. maj, 2017 – G7’s rolle som Det britiske Imperiums stemme under de to foregående amerikanske præsidenter, blev drastisk transformeret af Donald Trump:

Om Rusland: Selv om Trump tillod, at den falske karakterisering af Ukraine-krisen (hvor Rusland får skylden), bestod, og sanktionerne fortsatte, så erklærer slutkommunikeet mht. Syrien: »Vi håber, at Astana-aftalen faktisk kan bidrage til deeskalering af volden. Hvis Rusland er rede til at bruge sin indflydelse positivt, så er vi rede til at arbejde med dem for at løse konflikten i Syrien og forfølge en politisk afgørelse.«

Om Syrien og terrorisme: »Man bør ikke spare nogen indsats for at bringe en ende på konflikten gennem en inkluderende, syriskledet, politisk proces under FN-regi for at implementere en reel, troværdig transition i overensstemmelse med FN’s Sikkerhedsråds Resolution 2254 og Genève-kommunikeet. Vi er fast besluttet på at øge vore bestræbelser for at besejre international terrorisme i Syrien, især ISIS/ISIL/Daesh og al-Qaeda. Dette krav om primært at gå efter ISIS/ISIL/Daesh og al-Qaeda gentages med hensyn til Libyen og Irak.

Med hensyn til Paris-aftalen om klimaforandringer, lyder kommunikeet: »Amerikas Forenede Stater er i færd med at gennemgå sin politik om klimaforandring og Paris-aftalen og kan således ikke gå med i en konsensus om disse spørgsmål.« Trump sagde, at han snart vil træffe sin beslutning. Stakkels tankeløse Angela Merkel sagde: »Hele diskussionen om klima var meget vanskelig, for ikke at sige meget utilfredsstillende. Der er ingen indikationer på, om USA bliver i Paris-aftalen eller ej.«

Om handel: Trump tillod kommunikeet at indeholde tekst, der gik imod alle former for protektionisme, men tweetede bagefter, at han var tilfreds med, at det inkluderede et krav om »fjernelse af alle handelsforvrængende praksisser«.

Foto: Tre ledere af G7: Canadas Justin Trudeau, Tysklands Angela Merkel, USA’s Donald Trump.




Trump kapitulerer ikke til grøn fascisme i Taormina

27. maj, 2017 – »Seks mod én«: Sådan opsummerede Italiens premierminister Paolo Gentiloni, under den afsluttende pressekonference i Taormina, karakteriseringen af G7-diskussionen om klimapolitik. Traditionelt ville hver af G7-lederne holde en pressekonference, men denne gang aflyste både Trump og Merkel deres. Trump besluttede at holde en tale for amerikanske tropper på Sigonella-flybasen, alt imens Merkel briefede en gruppe tyske journalister.

»Vi har, og ikke kun i Taormina, ikke opdaget internationale politiske udviklinger i de seneste måneder, med udgangspunkt i valget af Trump«, sagde Gentiloni frimodigt. »Amerika er vores hovedallieret; det var det, det er det stadig, og vi må acceptere det amerikanske folks valg. Vi skjuler ikke denne uoverensstemmelse med USA; tværtimod, så kom det tydeligt frem under vore diskussioner. Men at diskutere er imidlertid altid gavnligt.«

Men, sagde Gentiloni, EU ville ikke desto mindre, ikke flytte sig »1 millimeter« fra klimapolitikken, der blev vedtaget i Paris. Det drejer sig især om Klimafonden. Uden klimafonden kan beslutningerne fra Paris ikke implementeres, forklarede Gentiloni.

Gentiloni blev spurgt om sin aktivisme før G7, med møder med verdensledere som Putin og Xi Jinping.

Gentiloni sagde, han ønskede at videreformidle deres synspunkter til G7.

Nogle lokale journalister spurgte polemisk, om han vil lægge de samme kræfter i at sikre, at Syditalien får moderne infrastrukturer (højhastigheds-jernbaner), som han gjorde med Taormina-topmødet (Taormina ligger på Sicilien). Han svarede med at støtte forlængelsen af højhastigheds-jernbanen til Syditalien, men forpligtede sig ikke.

Gentiloni understregede også spørgsmålet om udvikling i Afrika og nævnte den udtørrende Tchad-sø og tilstedeværelsen af afrikanske ledere ved lørdagens samling, men nævnte ikke nogen løsning.

Foto: Præsident Trump holdt en tale for mandskabet og deres familier på den amerikanske flåde-flybase i Sigonella, Sicilien, den 27. maj, efter G7.   




EU og USA uenige om frihandel og klima

26. maj, 2017 – Efter sit møde med præsident Donald Trump i går aftes, sagde formand for Det europæiske Råd, Donald Tusk, under en kort pressebriefing, at »det er ikke hundrede procent sikkert, at vi – dvs., præsidenten og jeg – i dag kan sige, at vi har en fælles holdning, en fælles mening, om Rusland«. Ifølge alle iagttagere var dette en måde at sige, at der hersker dyb uoverensstemmelse mellem EU og Trump om det russiske spørgsmål. Bemærkninger fra Trumps økonomiske chefrådgiver, Gary Cohn, på flyet til Bruxelles, om, at USA undersøger spørgsmålet om sanktioner, alt imens, sagde han, der endnu ikke er nogen afgørende beslutning, læses som endnu en antydning af, at Trump har andre synspunkter om Putin end europæerne. Klimaforandringer og handel er endnu to punkter, hvor der ikke eksisterer nogen fælles holdning mellem EU og USA.

Med dette, og med Trumps uventede kritik af mange NATO-lande, der skylder USA en masse penge for forsvar, eftersom amerikanerne forsvarer Europa uden, at europæerne nogensinde yder en passende betaling, vidste de EU-ledere, der tog til G7-topmøde i Taormina, Italien, i dag, at de måtte forvente det vanskeligste topmøde nogensinde. Det faktum, at Trump mødtes separat med Japans Abe, umiddelbart før G7-topmødet begyndte her til middag, er ikke engang blevet rapporteret af de europæiske mainstream-medier, til trods for, at det indikerer, at Trump også har en dagsorden for Japan, som Europa synes ikke at bemærke.

Foto: Donald-krigen? Det er næppe ærbødighed, de to Donald’er viser hinanden, men de synes at være meget optaget af borddækningen …    




Trump nægter at gå med på G7-topmødets dagsorden for miljøforkæmpelse og frihandel

26. maj, 2017 – De italienske værter for dette års G7-topmøde i Taormina, Italien, har annonceret, at de forventer, slutkommunikeet, der udgives i morgen ved afslutningen af det to dage lange topmøde, vil være mindre end 10 sider langt – i sammenligning med 32 sider efter sidste topmøde. Det skyldes, at »USA ikke ville røre sig af flækken«, sagde diplomater til Reuters, så der bliver ikke meget at sige.

Præsident Trump nægter at gå med på de øvrige G7-landes krav om, at han:

  1. Fortsætter Obamas forpligtende politiske engagement over for COP21 Paris-aftalen om klimaforandring; og
  2. Fortsætter Obamas britiske politik for frihandelsliberalisme.

»Trump forventes at være fuldt ud lige så klædt på til at gå op imod sine G7-modparter«, som han gjorde det med NATO og EU tidligere på ugen, rapporterede BBC. »Trumps konfronterende holdning over for mangeårige partnere i Europa kastede en skygge over mødet«, sluttede Reuters misfornøjet. »Dette bliver utvivlsomt det mest udfordrende G7-topmøde i mange år«, udtalte EU-rådets formand Donald Tusk.

Den britiske premierminister Theresa May rejste spørgsmålet om terrorisme under fredagens diskussioner, og man forventer et særskilt kommunike om terrorisme. May meddelte, at hun kun bliver en enkelt dag i Taormina og springer over lørdagens diskussion for at vende hjem til UK.

(G7-landene er: Canada, Frankrig, Tyskland, Italien, Japan, Det forenede Kongerige og USA. Den europæiske Union er også repræsenteret i G7. Topmødet i Taormina, Sicilien, er det 43. G7-topmøde.)

Foto: Tre af G7-deltagerne: USA’s Donald Trump, Italiens Paolo Gentiloni, Frankrigs Emmanuel Macron.   




RADIO SCHILLER den 24. april 2017:
Valget i Frankrig: Jacques Cheminade var fornuftens stemme

Med formand Tom Gillesberg




I dag, 22. april, er Earth Day

De Grønne i hele Europa, USA og andre steder afholdt en »March for Videnskab«, som (desværre) baserede sig på den løgn, at alle virkelige videnskabsfolk tror på postulatet om ’klimaforandring’.

Titelfoto: Plakat fra marchen i Sydney.